It's not even us "parroting diversity," it's the company solely responsible for the literal State of the Meta. Willfully ignoring that the current Modern looks exactly how Wizards has told us for years they strived for it to strikes me as self-serving and ignorant. We're "parroting diversity" because we read their articles, know what they want, and are realistic, no matter our own preferences (although yes, many of us actually do favor diverse metagames, which is why Wizards clings to this goal so steadfastly in the first place: Modern was created in part to sate this player desire, as no other constructed format exists that does so).
I think we need to find out if Modern players prefer 20 viable decks at 5% each that are all forms of Aggro or 4 viable decks that are Aggro, Combo, Midrange, aaaaand Control all at 25%.
I think that is a huge question that Wizards needs to ask themselves. Now, if they have come to the conclusion that the 1st one is preferable and brings more revenue, then I think we're at a good spot for them. I just feel and I could certainly be mistaken, that many players believe Modern to be currently stale. I myself, am pretty bored with it, although I am going to try a few new decks, so hopefully it changes for me at least!
Wizards already seems to know the answer, as Modern continues to grow in popularity under their diversity-minded guidance. The fact is combo, control, and midrange decks are all playable in Modern, no matter how "good" you perceive them to be. That's why so many people play and love this format: they can win with their pet decks.
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
for real though, diversity brings with it the quality of matches you're talking about. in a narrow metagame you get a narrow range of matches on camera and when playing in a tournament. In a diverse meta, there's more (and different) interactive and interesting decks to see and play against.
you can find it interesting or not, that's completely subjective and your unassailable opinion, so i respect it. But! diversity is what we want, because that's the undeniable root of bringing all the different archetypes to the table, such as control, combo, aggro, midrange etc.
It's not even us "parroting diversity," it's the company solely responsible for the literal State of the Meta. Willfully ignoring that the current Modern looks exactly how Wizards has told us for years they strived for it to strikes me as self-serving and ignorant. We're "parroting diversity" because we read their articles, know what they want, and are realistic, no matter our own preferences (although yes, many of us actually do favor diverse metagames, which is why Wizards clings to this goal so steadfastly in the first place: Modern was created in part to sate this player desire, as no other constructed format exists that does so).
Still, the current Modern format isn't even what it's supposed to be by Wizards own Standards:
Modern should:
Be a fun way to play Magic (first, and easy to forget, but very important!)
Lots of people saying it's super unfun and miserable to play, in official big articles, in here, in reddit, in casual FNM's, or elsewhere.
Have a diverse top-tier metagame featuring over a dozen archetypes
The current best decks(Etron, Storm, Titanshift, Affinity and Grixis Shadow) may be different decks, but the strategy is the same. Besides GDS, all of those decks have a common denominator: Kill as fast as possible, before the opponent kills me, ignoring what the opponent is trying to do.
Having decks like that is a must for the format and healthy. The problem begins when the Tier 1 is being consisted mostly of those decks.
Not be dominated by fast, non-interactive decks
We are on the verge of having a format that's being dominated by uninteractive decks again(not turn 3 violators, even if we have one Turn 3, non interactive deck in our rankings- Storm). Having Infect and Twin banned and allowing such a deck to exist in Modern is pure hypocrisy, especially when the deck is super consistent with 12 great cantrips as well.
Have as small a banned list as possible that accomplishes all the previous goals
To have such a super strong and uninteractive meta, while cards like Stoneforge Mystic, Bloodbraid Elf and Splinter Twin are rotting in the Banlist with no reason at all, or with minimal reason, seems like a joke. Especially since those kind of cards could make Modern more interactive again.
So you think that adding those three cards will change the decks used to become more interactive, or do you believe those cards will enable decks that must be answered? Also, does a deck that must be answered really make things more interactive? There are cards like stony silence that don't really interact as much as change the rules of the match, thereby making it less interactive.
Modern WAS more interactive while Twin was around. It forces you to interact with it or lose. Also, it will be played in control shells. The same goes for the other two cards. Neither SFM nor BBE are going to be played on linear decks. Those decks are experiencing a problem also. Jund and Snap decks are going extinct, meaning the two main police decks of the format. That's why we have 6 linear tier 1 decks out of the 6.
My own feeling is that modern needs more than Twin, SFM, and BBE getting released into the format to solve the kinds of problems people are actually highlighting in this thread.
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!
Wizards already seems to know the answer, as Modern continues to grow in popularity under their diversity-minded guidance. The fact is combo, control, and midrange decks are all playable in Modern, no matter how "good" you perceive them to be. That's why so many people play and love this format: they can win with their pet decks.
I actually just used this website the other day to showcase to my 8th graders that correlation does not dictate causation.
If anything, we can probably conclude the growth of Modern is the result of Standard being a dumpster fire drowning in a cesspool for the past two years and sloppy players being rewarded with wins against better players because fast, linear decks are really good and relatively cheap to build. I don't know how much it actually has anything to do with anything directly related to "diversity"; especially when the best decks in that "diversity" are full of miserable and toxic decks that promote awful gameplay fueled high variance in matchups and narrow sideboards. Modern is only really "diverse" in deck names. There's really only one archetype that consistently does well: fast/aggro/linear. The rest all have random, sporadic success, usually as dictated by their matchups in any given tournament.
I think this shows that modern is in fact super healthy. I mean the deck diversity it just so nice just check out that 5 color human deck!!
I dont believe anything needs to be banned or really unbanned for that matter (though a few unbans would be nice) modern doesnt need anyone interacting with it at the moment. I will however say this, gifts storm raises a brow. Completely un-interactive decks that have you playing solitaire such as a deck like this go against what modern is, that type of stuff belongs in other formats.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern RUAffinityUR GMono Green StompyG CEldrazi TronC URWJeskai GeistWRU WRBoros BurnRW BRWMardu PyromancerWRB
Wizards already seems to know the answer, as Modern continues to grow in popularity under their diversity-minded guidance. The fact is combo, control, and midrange decks are all playable in Modern, no matter how "good" you perceive them to be. That's why so many people play and love this format: they can win with their pet decks.
I actually just used this website the other day to showcase to my 8th graders that correlation does not dictate causation.
If anything, we can probably conclude the growth of Modern is the result of Standard being a dumpster fire drowning in a cesspool for the past two years and sloppy players being rewarded with wins against better players because fast, linear decks are really good and relatively cheap to build. I don't know how much it actually has anything to do with anything directly related to "diversity"; especially when the best decks in that "diversity" are full of miserable and toxic decks that promote awful gameplay fueled high variance in matchups and narrow sideboards. Modern is only really "diverse" in deck names. There's really only one archetype that consistently does well: fast/aggro/linear. The rest all have random, sporadic success, usually as dictated by their matchups in any given tournament.
This posts starts as a potentially nuanced discussion of attendance and other more objective factors about Modern popularity. Unfortunately, it rapidly slides into extremely subjective and negative evaluations of the format without any attempt to cite evidence. Maybe those "toxic" decks and matches are more popular than you believe. Maybe not. Maybe Standard was a major factor in Modern growth. Maybe diversity was too. Maybe not on either count. There are ways to answer those questions that don't involve hyperbole, and I wish we actually saw those analyses attempted more. There is plenty of data we can still look at. Especially attendance data. If posters spent more time looking at and analyzing that data instead of engaging in highly personal, subjective arguments, I feel like we would all understand the format better.
I think this shows that modern is in fact super healthy. I mean the deck diversity it just so nice just check out that 5 color human deck!!
I dont believe anything needs to be banned or really unbanned for that matter (though a few unbans would be nice) modern doesnt need anyone interacting with it at the moment. I will however say this, gifts storm raises a brow. Completely un-interactive decks that have you playing solitaire such as a deck like this go against what modern is, that type of stuff belongs in other formats.
I agree storm is the only deck that is close to being ban-able. I think wizards is just waiting for the Pro Tour to see if the Pros actually break anything (like they did the Eldrazi)
An example I like to use is chess. If it's near the end of the game, and I (for some reason) have a knight on h8, and my opponent positions their bishop on e8 or h5, have they interacted with me? Their move directly prevents me from being able to use my knight effectively, and they've definitely changed the boardstate. Is it fair for me to then complain that they're "not interacting with me"? How seriously would you take my complaint?
The opponent's bishop is not currently threatening our Knight, but it is positioned such that if we move our Knight to either legal space, they can immediately take it, correct? In that scenario, I would say the opponent used their Bishop to essentially invalidate our Knight. As long as the Bishop is there, our Knight is as good as gone (unless we position our pieces to somehow take advantage of the Bishop taking our Knight). I'd consider that interaction. That is akin to playing a 4/5 when your opponent has just a 4/4. Your play makes their preferred play (attacking) bad. The opponent is intentionally playing in such a way that interferes with your plan.
Or, if I choose to use an opening of 1.a4, 2.a5, while my opponent advances and takes control of the center very quickly, developing their pieces, and castles their king on the kingside, should I then be right to complain that my opponent isn't interacting with my preferred opening in a fair way? Would the word "self-entitled" be adequate to describe my behavior? Would you consider me an advanced chess player?
I'm 90% sure that you are trying to call people self-entitled and not "advanced" with this one, while ridiculing the idea that people should interact "fairly" with the speaker's preferred opening, but I don't get this analogy. Isn't chess a very different game than Magic? I haven't played for a while (and definitely not competitively). Chess is like a complex board state full of creatures on both sides. If you attack wrong, the opponent will punish you. So both players need to find a good opening to attack. Combat in Magic is inherently interactive, and every chess piece is essentially removal on a body.
Or are you just using "1.a4, 2.a5" as an example of a bad play, after which the player complains that the opponent made a good play? That makes more sense, but seems a bit abstract. I know the point is to make the person complaining in the example sound bad, but I don't think "I suck at Magic; you should interact more" is an argument I've seen. At least, not when competition is concerned.
Wizards already seems to know the answer, as Modern continues to grow in popularity under their diversity-minded guidance. The fact is combo, control, and midrange decks are all playable in Modern, no matter how "good" you perceive them to be. That's why so many people play and love this format: they can win with their pet decks.
I actually just used this website the other day to showcase to my 8th graders that correlation does not dictate causation.
If anything, we can probably conclude the growth of Modern is the result of Standard being a dumpster fire drowning in a cesspool for the past two years and sloppy players being rewarded with wins against better players because fast, linear decks are really good and relatively cheap to build. I don't know how much it actually has anything to do with anything directly related to "diversity"; especially when the best decks in that "diversity" are full of miserable and toxic decks that promote awful gameplay fueled high variance in matchups and narrow sideboards. Modern is only really "diverse" in deck names. There's really only one archetype that consistently does well: fast/aggro/linear. The rest all have random, sporadic success, usually as dictated by their matchups in any given tournament.
This posts starts as a potentially nuanced discussion of attendance and other more objective factors about Modern popularity. Unfortunately, it rapidly slides into extremely subjective and negative evaluations of the format without any attempt to cite evidence. Maybe those "toxic" decks and matches are more popular than you believe. Maybe not. Maybe Standard was a major factor in Modern growth. Maybe diversity was too. Maybe not on either count. There are ways to answer those questions that don't involve hyperbole, and I wish we actually saw those analyses attempted more. There is plenty of data we can still look at. Especially attendance data. If posters spent more time looking at and analyzing that data instead of engaging in highly personal, subjective arguments, I feel like we would all understand the format better.
If people genuinely like and want the ETron/Storm/Affinity/Titanshift/GDS meta, and that truly is the pinnacle of what Wizards wants for Modern (which we will find out after the PT), then there's no reason for me to continue playing it. If nothing changes by February, there will be a lot of foil staples entering the marketplace.
"If people genuinely like and want the ETron/Storm/Affinity/Titanshift/GDS meta..."
Dude how is this something you can complain about.... You just named 5 decks... We have 5 top decks....that are ALL very beatable...thats not including any top rogue decks that will sprout and win here and there and excluding the top 8s of the recent SCG tournaments.. I mean I just dont know how you think that the "ETron/Storm/Affinity/Titanshift/GDS meta" is so bad or is even a thing.. how is that a meta?.. it doesnt make sense to me. The diversity is so high that the only issue you run into is what deck to play yourself.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern RUAffinityUR GMono Green StompyG CEldrazi TronC URWJeskai GeistWRU WRBoros BurnRW BRWMardu PyromancerWRB
@mnesci, I would agree that the bishop play negating the effectiveness of my knight would count as interactive, it's just pre-emptive interaction. I'm using that analogy to show how cards like Ensnaring Bridge, Blood Moon, Chalice of the Void, Pithing Needle, and Meddling Mage can also be pre-emptive interaction. They are effectively negating the opponent's ability to use their material to interact, just as the bishop is. If my gameplan involves moving my knight to f8, and my opponent takes advantage of this and moves their bishop to e8 or h5, then they have used material to entirely shut off my material. If my entire gameplan revolved around that knight, then my gameplan is now shut off, and I should have considered the opponent's ability to do just that. My pet deck is Lantern, and I don't think it would be the best use of my time to complain about Chalice of the Void. Instead, I design my deck to not auto-lose to it.
I agree that Magic *can* be inherently interactive in it's combat, but so is chess. Just as each player chooses the gameplan that their deck will use in Magic, both plays in chess choose their opening lines according to how well it interacts with the gamestate to increase options while simultaneously reducing the opponent's ability to interact meaningfully. Every multiplayer zero-sum game does this, including chess and Magic. When we design decks, or choose decks, we need to be aware of why the decks function as they do. How do they plan on preventing the opponent from interacting in a meaningful way?
What bothers me is when people don't fully understand this concept, but instead complain about the "lack of interaction". We see from results that there are decks that are fully capable of not just losing to some tier-0 deck, because there currently is no tier-0 deck. This means that it's up to each person to choose a deck, or design one, that optimizes their ability to prevent the opponent from interacting in a meaningful way. In my chess analogy (1.a4, 2.a5), I would not be preventing my opponent from interacting in a meaningful way. This sort of opening screams of a player being a novice, which is fine, I can understand that. I've seen that opening from many, many beginners, thinking they're going to "flank with their rooks" or some such nonsense. But for those same people to then complain that the opponent is not allowing them to interact in a meaningful way when they haven't even considered that that is the very core concept on which zero-sum games are built upon, and then expect others to respect what they see as some self-appointed authority in their opinions...at what point do we call it for what it is?
"If people genuinely like and want the ETron/Storm/Affinity/Titanshift/GDS meta..."
Dude how is this something you can complain about.... You just named 5 decks... We have 5 top decks....that are ALL very beatable...thats not including any top rogue decks that will sprout and win here and there and excluding the top 8s of the recent SCG tournaments.. I mean I just dont know how you think that the "ETron/Storm/Affinity/Titanshift/GDS meta" is so bad or is even a thing.. how is that a meta?.. it doesnt make sense to me. The diversity is so high that the only issue you run into is what deck to play yourself.
A number of people have answered that a number of times over the past several pages. The short version is these particular decks do not promote good or healthy gameplay because they create an ecosystem of extremely high variance matchups with mostly fast/linear decks, and reward the gamble of narrow hate cards rather than broad, generalized answers. If people genuinely find that "healthy" then I just fundamentally disagree with what "healthy" means for a competitive game.
I'm not really sure people will ever get what they want in Modern if they want more interaction. In a format where, in order to compete, there is a need for cards that change the fundamental rules of the game to invalidate certain strategies (Stony Silence, Chalice of the void, Leyline of Sanctity, Blood moon, Rest in peace, etc), is there even room for cards that simply "interact"? Things sort of feel like they have gone into full scale nuclear warfare when it comes to sideboard staples.
The absolutely best scenario one can hope for in modern is a diverse number of competing decks that can satisfy the majority of players playing the format, and right now it maybe at that point again. The problem I've experienced when playing a bunch of the decks in the format is that if they are linear decks, the ultimate "feel" of the game is almost identical across the different decks (before anyone asks, Xmage and the death of my crappy inkjet printer. Important life lesson: When printing proxies, go Laser Jet. )
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!
Also, diversity is overrated. Just look at chess. Great game and basically zero diversity.
By what metric? There's a crazy ton of different openings in the game, even limiting ourselves to good opening moves (i.e. no nonsense like 1.f3).
Different openings doesn't increase diversity. There are 6 different types of pieces one each side. There is literally no diversity in chess. I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear but I was implying deck diversity in magic to "deck" diversity in chess. Chess has zero diversity but highly interactive games and these games are fun (assuming you like chess)
I was never aware counterspells were in a good spot.
The point isn't that counterspells were in a good spot, instead between the popularity of Cavern of Souls and Aether vial, creature decks maybe finding a critical mass of anti-counterspell measures. Blue based control might need to find a way to negate these (Pithing Needle and Spreading Seas) or just accept that counterspells aren't in a good way.
Might be seeing blue filter more into Storm or Merfolk...
"If people genuinely like and want the ETron/Storm/Affinity/Titanshift/GDS meta..."
Dude how is this something you can complain about.... You just named 5 decks... We have 5 top decks....that are ALL very beatable...thats not including any top rogue decks that will sprout and win here and there and excluding the top 8s of the recent SCG tournaments.. I mean I just dont know how you think that the "ETron/Storm/Affinity/Titanshift/GDS meta" is so bad or is even a thing.. how is that a meta?.. it doesnt make sense to me. The diversity is so high that the only issue you run into is what deck to play yourself.
A number of people have answered that a number of times over the past several pages. The short version is these particular decks do not promote good or healthy gameplay because they create an ecosystem of extremely high variance matchups with mostly fast/linear decks, and reward the gamble of narrow hate cards rather than broad, generalized answers. If people genuinely find that "healthy" then I just fundamentally disagree with what "healthy" means for a competitive game.
I've said this before and I'll say it again: it sounds like you would prefer Legacy with much narrower diversity but much more traditionally interactive matches between a narrow band of viable deck. Incidentally, almost all of which are blue-based, which I know is your preference. Wizards has been very clear that diversity is their top priority and they literally called this Modern iteration "healthy" just last week. This Modern is definitely diverse from a T8 and Day 2 perspective (MTGO is unknown), so I don't anticipate the kind of changes you care about.
"If people genuinely like and want the ETron/Storm/Affinity/Titanshift/GDS meta..."
Dude how is this something you can complain about.... You just named 5 decks... We have 5 top decks....that are ALL very beatable...thats not including any top rogue decks that will sprout and win here and there and excluding the top 8s of the recent SCG tournaments.. I mean I just dont know how you think that the "ETron/Storm/Affinity/Titanshift/GDS meta" is so bad or is even a thing.. how is that a meta?.. it doesnt make sense to me. The diversity is so high that the only issue you run into is what deck to play yourself.
A number of people have answered that a number of times over the past several pages. The short version is these particular decks do not promote good or healthy gameplay because they create an ecosystem of extremely high variance matchups with mostly fast/linear decks, and reward the gamble of narrow hate cards rather than broad, generalized answers. If people genuinely find that "healthy" then I just fundamentally disagree with what "healthy" means for a competitive game.
I've said this before and I'll say it again: it sounds like you would prefer Legacy with much narrower diversity but much more traditionally interactive matches between a narrow band of viable deck. Incidentally, almost all of which are blue-based, which I know is your preference. Wizards has been very clear that diversity is their top priority and they literally called this Modern iteration "healthy" just last week. This Modern is definitely diverse from a T8 and Day 2 perspective (MTGO is unknown), so I don't anticipate the kind of changes you care about.
I'm curious to see what they do in February. That will solidify whatever I do moving forward in this format. As for Legacy, I could probably justify the prohibitively expensive cards needed to play if it had remotely close to the paper support that Modern has. Basically speaking, nobody plays Legacy. Local events are few and far between with <10 people, if they even get enough to fire. But yeah, I would love to play Legacy. The format looks fantastic; full of rich decision trees and lots of manipulation, interaction, and bluffing/representation. Basically the opposite of Modern, which is: vomit my hand to the battlefield and say "deal with it."
I am also looking into getting into Legacy and I am lucky enough to have a big Legacy group at my local shop.
I love dredging so I will be playing Legacy Dredge. It makes me happy that I only need one expensive card in that deck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Reanimator
Modern - Burn
EDH - Neheb the Eternal
@mnesci, I would agree that the bishop play negating the effectiveness of my knight would count as interactive, it's just pre-emptive interaction. I'm using that analogy to show how cards like Ensnaring Bridge, Blood Moon, Chalice of the Void, Pithing Needle, and Meddling Mage can also be pre-emptive interaction. They are effectively negating the opponent's ability to use their material to interact, just as the bishop is. If my gameplan involves moving my knight to f8, and my opponent takes advantage of this and moves their bishop to e8 or h5, then they have used material to entirely shut off my material. If my entire gameplan revolved around that knight, then my gameplan is now shut off, and I should have considered the opponent's ability to do just that. My pet deck is Lantern, and I don't think it would be the best use of my time to complain about Chalice of the Void. Instead, I design my deck to not auto-lose to it.
What bothers me is when people don't fully understand this concept, but instead complain about the "lack of interaction". We see from results that there are decks that are fully capable of not just losing to some tier-0 deck, because there currently is no tier-0 deck. This means that it's up to each person to choose a deck, or design one, that optimizes their ability to prevent the opponent from interacting in a meaningful way.
This is really interesting, because I agree with your classification of Ensnaring Bridge as "interaction" while simultaneously hating that card, despite being a fan of interaction. I can't argue that Bridge is interaction by this definition. I guess it is just too strong for my taste. It invalidates combat for almost all creatures. That is huge! There are far fewer ways to play around that than most Prison cards.
On your "limit meaningful interaction" point, you are right, but that isn't a complete assessment. From a competitive standpoint, you should close the game as quickly as possible, and in a way that the opponent can't stop. But Magic is designed to be fun, and is customizable. This isn't chess, where every set up is the same, so you have to play the best strategy. Wizards can tweak the power level of decks. If fast/hard to interact with decks are too good, they can power up slow decks to make it more even. That way, even if you prefer playing slow decks that strategically are at a disadvantage, you are on an even playing field.
A lot of people think linear decks racing each other is boring. You are right that they are fundamentally the best option, but due to the customizability of Magic, Wizards can level the playing field, making decks that don't limit interaction better than they should fundamentally be.
There are many many decks that are winning tournaments and making top 8s across the board. From lantern to 5-color humans to affinity and death and taxes.. i mean sure theres alot of aggro but please point me to a time when aggro hasnt been a viable or dominant stratehy.. and sure theres linear decks as that is a pretty broad archetype to be honest and i dont believe its even considered an official archetype now that i think about it.
So I want to know what you consider healthy? And when was modern healthiest in your opinion?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern RUAffinityUR GMono Green StompyG CEldrazi TronC URWJeskai GeistWRU WRBoros BurnRW BRWMardu PyromancerWRB
Im sorry bro but chess is extremely diverse.. you should read about chess strategies.. there are literally 10000 viable strategies in chess not to mention openers and the first 3 moves i mean honestly you should get into chess and you will radically change that opinion of yours.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern RUAffinityUR GMono Green StompyG CEldrazi TronC URWJeskai GeistWRU WRBoros BurnRW BRWMardu PyromancerWRB
There are many many decks that are winning tournaments and making top 8s across the board. From lantern to 5-color humans to affinity and death and taxes.. i mean sure theres alot of aggro but please point me to a time when aggro hasnt been a viable or dominant stratehy.. and sure theres linear decks as that is a pretty broad archetype to be honest and i dont believe its even considered an official archetype now that i think about it.
So I want to know what you consider healthy? And when was modern healthiest in your opinion?
I feel like I'm just engaging a troll at this point. I have repeated this so many times, I feel I could just copy and paste a previous response.
Also, being "a viable" strategy and being "a dominant" strategy are two very, very, very different things. When the meta was full of heavy interaction (like when Jund and Twin were Tier 1 staples), aggro was not dominant, but was certainly a viable strategy (and represented in multiple Tier 1 strategies: Burn/Affinity/Infect). Today, fast/aggro/linear decks are about your only real competitive option, unless you want to willingly put yourself at a gambler's disadvantage and hope for good matchups. Remember that calling users trolls is prohibited. --CavalryWolfPack
There are many many decks that are winning tournaments and making top 8s across the board. From lantern to 5-color humans to affinity and death and taxes.. i mean sure theres alot of aggro but please point me to a time when aggro hasnt been a viable or dominant stratehy.. and sure theres linear decks as that is a pretty broad archetype to be honest and i dont believe its even considered an official archetype now that i think about it.
So I want to know what you consider healthy? And when was modern healthiest in your opinion?
I feel like I'm just engaging a troll at this point. I have repeated this so many times, I feel I could just copy and paste a previous response.
Also, being "a viable" strategy and being "a dominant" strategy are two very, very, very different things. When the meta was full of heavy interaction (like when Jund and Twin were Tier 1 staples), aggro was not dominant, but was certainly a viable strategy (and represented in multiple Tier 1 strategies: Burn/Affinity/Infect). Today, fast/aggro/linear decks are about your only real competitive option, unless you want to willingly put yourself at a gambler's disadvantage and hope for good matchups.
u have to give benefit of the doubt man, i mean not everyone will read the whole thread. those who do often get frustrated by repeating arguments.
So, is it correct to say that what you're missing are the fair midrange strategies that used to have more or less even match ups? From what I gather, you'd like matches that actually last for a while and involve decision making on trades, card advantage, and value - such as snapcaster decks, GBx.
You're not wrong to say these strategies have become less popular, mostly because of e tron. But it should be noted that as more combo decks emerge to fight etron, which is already happening, midrange decks will have their day in the sun again. At this point in time midrange is represented by death's shadow, because its the only "fair" deck that can actually clock tron, and hence not be knocked out on day 1.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
It wasn't long ago (prior to Cinci) where I was talking about Cavern being a problem card. Control has to play counters to have a chance against combo decks, and having a nearly free land that invalidates a whole archetype/avenue of interaction is just mindnumbingly dumb. I was told I was wrong. That Cavern is fine, and just paraphrasing "sit down and shut up". If Death Shadow didn't exist, oh my god, this format would be a trash-bin of awfulness (even more than it all ready is). In small local FNM's and such, Modern is ok, because people play what they enjoy, but playing in larger more competitive tournaments, the format is in real trouble. There is deck diversity (which modern has a lot of) and then there is archetype diversity (which modern is extremely shallow in). To have a healthy format you need each leg of the stool to be strong. The stool has been tipped over for a while now, and this needs to change imho. At the very least some combination of Jace, BBE, SFM, DTT, GSZ, Twin, etc. should come off. WoTC also needs to ban Cavern of Souls and print a good 2 mana counter for modern. Do that, and archetype diversity will be much better.
I must be the weird one because when I sit across from my opponent I want to play a game with/against them, not play solitaire with my deck and minimally recognize my opponent by playing a lock piece/hate card. /shrug
It wasn't long ago (prior to Cinci) where I was talking about Cavern being a problem card. Control has to play counters to have a chance against combo decks, and having a nearly free land that invalidates a whole archetype/avenue of interaction is just mindnumbingly dumb. I was told I was wrong. That Cavern is fine, and just paraphrasing "sit down and shut up". If Death Shadow didn't exist, oh my god, this format would be a trash-bin of awfulness (even more than it all ready is). In small local FNM's and such, Modern is ok, because people play what they enjoy, but playing in larger more competitive tournaments, the format is in real trouble. There is deck diversity (which modern has a lot of) and then there is archetype diversity (which modern is extremely shallow in). To have a healthy format you need each leg of the stool to be strong. The stool has been tipped over for a while now, and this needs to change imho. At the very least some combination of Jace, BBE, SFM, DTT, GSZ, Twin, etc. should come off. WoTC also needs to ban Cavern of Souls and print a good 2 mana counter for modern. Do that, and archetype diversity will be much better.
I must be the weird one because when I sit across from my opponent I want to play a game with/against them, not play solitaire with my deck and minimally recognize my opponent by playing a lock piece/hate card. /shrug
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
Also how is it that burn stays at t1? What has the deck done in the last few months?
My own feeling is that modern needs more than Twin, SFM, and BBE getting released into the format to solve the kinds of problems people are actually highlighting in this thread.
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!
I actually just used this website the other day to showcase to my 8th graders that correlation does not dictate causation.
If anything, we can probably conclude the growth of Modern is the result of Standard being a dumpster fire drowning in a cesspool for the past two years and sloppy players being rewarded with wins against better players because fast, linear decks are really good and relatively cheap to build. I don't know how much it actually has anything to do with anything directly related to "diversity"; especially when the best decks in that "diversity" are full of miserable and toxic decks that promote awful gameplay fueled high variance in matchups and narrow sideboards. Modern is only really "diverse" in deck names. There's really only one archetype that consistently does well: fast/aggro/linear. The rest all have random, sporadic success, usually as dictated by their matchups in any given tournament.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
http://sales.starcitygames.com/deckdatabase/deckshow.php?event_ID=47&t[event]=28&start_date=2017-10-21&end_date=2017-10-22&city=&order_1=finish&limit=8&t_num=1&action=Show+Decks
http://sales.starcitygames.com/deckdatabase/deckshow.php?event_ID=36&t[event]=28&start_date=2017-10-21&end_date=2017-10-22&city=&order_1=finish&limit=8&t_num=1&action=Show+Decks
I think this shows that modern is in fact super healthy. I mean the deck diversity it just so nice just check out that 5 color human deck!!
I dont believe anything needs to be banned or really unbanned for that matter (though a few unbans would be nice) modern doesnt need anyone interacting with it at the moment. I will however say this, gifts storm raises a brow. Completely un-interactive decks that have you playing solitaire such as a deck like this go against what modern is, that type of stuff belongs in other formats.
RUAffinityUR
GMono Green StompyG
CEldrazi TronC
URWJeskai GeistWRU
WRBoros BurnRW
BRWMardu PyromancerWRB
This posts starts as a potentially nuanced discussion of attendance and other more objective factors about Modern popularity. Unfortunately, it rapidly slides into extremely subjective and negative evaluations of the format without any attempt to cite evidence. Maybe those "toxic" decks and matches are more popular than you believe. Maybe not. Maybe Standard was a major factor in Modern growth. Maybe diversity was too. Maybe not on either count. There are ways to answer those questions that don't involve hyperbole, and I wish we actually saw those analyses attempted more. There is plenty of data we can still look at. Especially attendance data. If posters spent more time looking at and analyzing that data instead of engaging in highly personal, subjective arguments, I feel like we would all understand the format better.
I agree storm is the only deck that is close to being ban-able. I think wizards is just waiting for the Pro Tour to see if the Pros actually break anything (like they did the Eldrazi)
The opponent's bishop is not currently threatening our Knight, but it is positioned such that if we move our Knight to either legal space, they can immediately take it, correct? In that scenario, I would say the opponent used their Bishop to essentially invalidate our Knight. As long as the Bishop is there, our Knight is as good as gone (unless we position our pieces to somehow take advantage of the Bishop taking our Knight). I'd consider that interaction. That is akin to playing a 4/5 when your opponent has just a 4/4. Your play makes their preferred play (attacking) bad. The opponent is intentionally playing in such a way that interferes with your plan.
I'm 90% sure that you are trying to call people self-entitled and not "advanced" with this one, while ridiculing the idea that people should interact "fairly" with the speaker's preferred opening, but I don't get this analogy. Isn't chess a very different game than Magic? I haven't played for a while (and definitely not competitively). Chess is like a complex board state full of creatures on both sides. If you attack wrong, the opponent will punish you. So both players need to find a good opening to attack. Combat in Magic is inherently interactive, and every chess piece is essentially removal on a body.
Or are you just using "1.a4, 2.a5" as an example of a bad play, after which the player complains that the opponent made a good play? That makes more sense, but seems a bit abstract. I know the point is to make the person complaining in the example sound bad, but I don't think "I suck at Magic; you should interact more" is an argument I've seen. At least, not when competition is concerned.
Interested in RUG (Temur) Delver in Modern? Find gameplay with live commentary at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8UcKe8jVh1e2N4CHbd3fhg
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Dude how is this something you can complain about.... You just named 5 decks... We have 5 top decks....that are ALL very beatable...thats not including any top rogue decks that will sprout and win here and there and excluding the top 8s of the recent SCG tournaments.. I mean I just dont know how you think that the "ETron/Storm/Affinity/Titanshift/GDS meta" is so bad or is even a thing.. how is that a meta?.. it doesnt make sense to me. The diversity is so high that the only issue you run into is what deck to play yourself.
RUAffinityUR
GMono Green StompyG
CEldrazi TronC
URWJeskai GeistWRU
WRBoros BurnRW
BRWMardu PyromancerWRB
I agree that Magic *can* be inherently interactive in it's combat, but so is chess. Just as each player chooses the gameplan that their deck will use in Magic, both plays in chess choose their opening lines according to how well it interacts with the gamestate to increase options while simultaneously reducing the opponent's ability to interact meaningfully. Every multiplayer zero-sum game does this, including chess and Magic. When we design decks, or choose decks, we need to be aware of why the decks function as they do. How do they plan on preventing the opponent from interacting in a meaningful way?
What bothers me is when people don't fully understand this concept, but instead complain about the "lack of interaction". We see from results that there are decks that are fully capable of not just losing to some tier-0 deck, because there currently is no tier-0 deck. This means that it's up to each person to choose a deck, or design one, that optimizes their ability to prevent the opponent from interacting in a meaningful way. In my chess analogy (1.a4, 2.a5), I would not be preventing my opponent from interacting in a meaningful way. This sort of opening screams of a player being a novice, which is fine, I can understand that. I've seen that opening from many, many beginners, thinking they're going to "flank with their rooks" or some such nonsense. But for those same people to then complain that the opponent is not allowing them to interact in a meaningful way when they haven't even considered that that is the very core concept on which zero-sum games are built upon, and then expect others to respect what they see as some self-appointed authority in their opinions...at what point do we call it for what it is?
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
The absolutely best scenario one can hope for in modern is a diverse number of competing decks that can satisfy the majority of players playing the format, and right now it maybe at that point again. The problem I've experienced when playing a bunch of the decks in the format is that if they are linear decks, the ultimate "feel" of the game is almost identical across the different decks (before anyone asks, Xmage and the death of my crappy inkjet printer. Important life lesson: When printing proxies, go Laser Jet. )
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!
Different openings doesn't increase diversity. There are 6 different types of pieces one each side. There is literally no diversity in chess. I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear but I was implying deck diversity in magic to "deck" diversity in chess. Chess has zero diversity but highly interactive games and these games are fun (assuming you like chess)
The point isn't that counterspells were in a good spot, instead between the popularity of Cavern of Souls and Aether vial, creature decks maybe finding a critical mass of anti-counterspell measures. Blue based control might need to find a way to negate these (Pithing Needle and Spreading Seas) or just accept that counterspells aren't in a good way.
Might be seeing blue filter more into Storm or Merfolk...
Thanks to Heroes of the Plane Studios for the sigpic.
Spider-Man Mafia 3 (Off-Site: NGA)
Metroid Mafia (Off-Site: Mafia Universe)
I've said this before and I'll say it again: it sounds like you would prefer Legacy with much narrower diversity but much more traditionally interactive matches between a narrow band of viable deck. Incidentally, almost all of which are blue-based, which I know is your preference. Wizards has been very clear that diversity is their top priority and they literally called this Modern iteration "healthy" just last week. This Modern is definitely diverse from a T8 and Day 2 perspective (MTGO is unknown), so I don't anticipate the kind of changes you care about.
I'm curious to see what they do in February. That will solidify whatever I do moving forward in this format. As for Legacy, I could probably justify the prohibitively expensive cards needed to play if it had remotely close to the paper support that Modern has. Basically speaking, nobody plays Legacy. Local events are few and far between with <10 people, if they even get enough to fire. But yeah, I would love to play Legacy. The format looks fantastic; full of rich decision trees and lots of manipulation, interaction, and bluffing/representation. Basically the opposite of Modern, which is: vomit my hand to the battlefield and say "deal with it."
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I am also looking into getting into Legacy and I am lucky enough to have a big Legacy group at my local shop.
I love dredging so I will be playing Legacy Dredge. It makes me happy that I only need one expensive card in that deck.
Modern - Burn
EDH - Neheb the Eternal
This is really interesting, because I agree with your classification of Ensnaring Bridge as "interaction" while simultaneously hating that card, despite being a fan of interaction. I can't argue that Bridge is interaction by this definition. I guess it is just too strong for my taste. It invalidates combat for almost all creatures. That is huge! There are far fewer ways to play around that than most Prison cards.
On your "limit meaningful interaction" point, you are right, but that isn't a complete assessment. From a competitive standpoint, you should close the game as quickly as possible, and in a way that the opponent can't stop. But Magic is designed to be fun, and is customizable. This isn't chess, where every set up is the same, so you have to play the best strategy. Wizards can tweak the power level of decks. If fast/hard to interact with decks are too good, they can power up slow decks to make it more even. That way, even if you prefer playing slow decks that strategically are at a disadvantage, you are on an even playing field.
A lot of people think linear decks racing each other is boring. You are right that they are fundamentally the best option, but due to the customizability of Magic, Wizards can level the playing field, making decks that don't limit interaction better than they should fundamentally be.
Interested in RUG (Temur) Delver in Modern? Find gameplay with live commentary at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8UcKe8jVh1e2N4CHbd3fhg
There are many many decks that are winning tournaments and making top 8s across the board. From lantern to 5-color humans to affinity and death and taxes.. i mean sure theres alot of aggro but please point me to a time when aggro hasnt been a viable or dominant stratehy.. and sure theres linear decks as that is a pretty broad archetype to be honest and i dont believe its even considered an official archetype now that i think about it.
So I want to know what you consider healthy? And when was modern healthiest in your opinion?
RUAffinityUR
GMono Green StompyG
CEldrazi TronC
URWJeskai GeistWRU
WRBoros BurnRW
BRWMardu PyromancerWRB
RUAffinityUR
GMono Green StompyG
CEldrazi TronC
URWJeskai GeistWRU
WRBoros BurnRW
BRWMardu PyromancerWRB
I feel like I'm just engaging a troll at this point. I have repeated this so many times, I feel I could just copy and paste a previous response.
Also, being "a viable" strategy and being "a dominant" strategy are two very, very, very different things. When the meta was full of heavy interaction (like when Jund and Twin were Tier 1 staples), aggro was not dominant, but was certainly a viable strategy (and represented in multiple Tier 1 strategies: Burn/Affinity/Infect). Today, fast/aggro/linear decks are about your only real competitive option, unless you want to willingly put yourself at a gambler's disadvantage and hope for good matchups.
Remember that calling users trolls is prohibited. --CavalryWolfPack
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
u have to give benefit of the doubt man, i mean not everyone will read the whole thread. those who do often get frustrated by repeating arguments.
So, is it correct to say that what you're missing are the fair midrange strategies that used to have more or less even match ups? From what I gather, you'd like matches that actually last for a while and involve decision making on trades, card advantage, and value - such as snapcaster decks, GBx.
You're not wrong to say these strategies have become less popular, mostly because of e tron. But it should be noted that as more combo decks emerge to fight etron, which is already happening, midrange decks will have their day in the sun again. At this point in time midrange is represented by death's shadow, because its the only "fair" deck that can actually clock tron, and hence not be knocked out on day 1.
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
I must be the weird one because when I sit across from my opponent I want to play a game with/against them, not play solitaire with my deck and minimally recognize my opponent by playing a lock piece/hate card. /shrug
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy