Both change the game state. People get confused when it comes to cards like Moon and Chalice, which are not uninteractive cards, but in fact "interact so efficiently with [opponents] that [they] can seem uninteractive to onlookers." On the other side of the coin, plays like turn two Reality Smasher "proact" so effectively that it's difficult for opponents to keep up with a similar level of proaction (i.e. race) or successfully interact.
I don't agree with your definitions here. Proaction means doing something proactively, or taking the initiative. You can have proactive interaction. Discard is an example, as is your examples of Blood Moon and Chalice. Reactive interaction is something that addresses a current threat, like countering a spell on the stack or killing a resolved creature.
A proactive gameplan overall is what you say, taking an approach that advances your own gameplan. A reactive gameplan is one that looks to just address whatever the opponent does. Some decks are almost purely proactive. Practically no decks are purely reactive because you have to win the game eventually, but the most reactive decks are the blue control decks. Some decks are some combination of both, able to play proactively or reactively depending on the situation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern UBR Grixis Shadow UBR UR Izzet Phoenix UR UW UW Control UW GB GB Rock GB
Commander BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
That's actually the exact misunderstanding that I'm talking about. Yes, Grishoalbrand is very interactive. The problem is that humans are, in many cases, self-centered when they come to define things. You, and those who think like you do, assume that since Grishoalbrand doesn't interact in ways that you prefer for it to interact, it therefore must not be an interactive deck.
Strictly speaking, there is next to zero actual player-to-player interaction. In every case, each player is simply interacting with the gamestate, not the opponent. Grishoalbrand is very interactive in the sense that it is attempting to interact with the gamestate to a much greater degree than the opponent can, before the opponent can.
The reason that you may not realize how interactive Grishoalbrand is is because you only define interaction as making gamestate changes that you can equally change. Some decks can interact to the same degree that Grishoalbrand can, as fast as Grishoalbrand can.
Have you considered looking at how decks interact with the gamestate, rather than only defining interaction based on a definition that centers on you and your feelings?
By your logic everything is interactive.
Play a creature? You interact with the board state
Play a land? You interact with the board state Do nothing? You interact with the board state
Do you play the game? You interact with the board state
Interaction is not defined by just playing the game though.
When you say "do nothing", are meaning that we are making no changing actions to the gamestate? If so, then no, that is not interaction, because no change has happened to the gamestate.
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?
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?
First of all, it is not nice to just comment on only one sentence of the entire post just to make an argument irrelevant to what I said.
Chess is, in my opinion, a very bad example of comparison with magic. Chess having no inherent variance in its starting positions or the tools the players are equipped with to play the game makes any comparisons very problematic. I am not going to explain this any further as I thing you do understand what the differences are, even though you are clearly purposefully avoiding them.
The whole point is that, playing the game doesn't equate interaction. In Magic, as you are well aware, the two players are never equipped with the exact same tools to play the game, something that is intended. As such when you are comparing different tools you get differences in the way these tools play the game. One of these differences is the choice of certain build to either interact with the tools of the opponent or choose to ignore the tools of the opponent and advance its own game plan.
Interaction is not related with playing cards but with the degree of interaction with your opponent's tools.
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.
I'll remember that next time some of the more prominent posters complain about "people making the same arguments over and over and over." While I understand giving benefit of the doubt, this has literally been the main conversation line in this thread for the past several days and weeks.
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.
We shall see what happens. I'm not optimistic, to say the least.
Peter Ingram actually stated in his SCG article that he thinks its safer to unban Umezawa's Jitte and unsafe to unban stoneforge (Id happily take jitte back obviously). I honestly would love to see a jitte pro tour (it encourages combat based magic with a little tech). So, for the sake of enlightenment, I ask, what is he missing here? it's slow and a do-nothing card against some decks- paraphrasing.
I think affinity would use it to busted effect, firstly (not a knock against its unbanning, but something to consider)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks I have in my bag of tricks- Needless to say, someone who wants to play will probably have a deck UB/x Faeries UR Storm XURWB Affinity G Elves UW control
Peter Ingram actually stated in his SCG article that he thinks its safer to unban Umezawa's Jitte and unsafe to unban stoneforge
good grief!
0_0
the card is played in legacy to just completely invalidate small-creature strategies and burn so it would perform a similar role here. obviously its utility wouldn't be available to every deck because it requires something to equip to, but man it would be brutal. can you imagine just killing two things after every combat step or gaining 4 life? super brutal.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: G Tron, Vannifar, Jund, Druid/Vizier combo, Humans, Eldrazi Stompy (Serum Powder), Amulet, Grishoalbrand, Breach Titan, Turns, Eternal Command, As Foretold Living End, Elves, Cheerios, RUG Scapeshift
I agreed with a bunch of Ingram's points, but saying SFM is unsafe is crazy to me. How is turn 3 batterskull/swords too strong when your opponent untaps and plays reality smasher? I'm not even sure if you'd be able to get skull down in the world of modern discard. People would just sandbag the thoughtseize/thought-knot and wait for you to fetch it up. There is so much artifact hate available in most top decks that the equipment wouldn't be much of a problem if it gets down. Even burn would just play more destructive revelry in the board to deal with it. I'm definitely bias, as I want to play me some stoneblade in modern, but like ancestral or SOTM, I think this is a case of people being overly paranoid to a card that will not have much negative impact to the format.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWR Breach, UWB Esper control
Legacy: UW RiP/Helm, UR Sneak and Show
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.
You are misunderstanding me. There is a diversity of PLAY in chess but there isn't a diversity of PIECES. Here, remember caw blade? That was one of if not the LEAST diverse format of all time. But, the diversity of PLAY (like chess) was high in caw blade mirror matches, but the diversity in pieces was very low. It's like legacy, there are lots of similar pieces in most decks and only a handful of top decks. This is low diversity. BUT the diversity of PLAY is high.
To drive my point home, look at Go. There is 1 type of piece. It has NO diversity of pieces but has a higher diversity of play than the number of particles in the universe(that's a lot).
So in conclusion DECK diversity is overrated and it is my opinion we should strive for higher PLAY diversity (like in Go, Legacy, Chess, Etc) That's not to say there should be no DECK diversity, just that focusing on that doesn't lead to PLAY diversity.
As an aside and keeping with play diversity being more important than piece diversity, I believe the current iteration of storm should not be banned. The necessary threshold to interact with them is very low and if your deck can't interact you lose on turn 3. This seems like a fitting punishment for decks that don't like to interact. I believe having this boogey man would result in more interactive decks or decks with higher play diversity.
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.
You are misunderstanding me. There is a diversity of PLAY in chess but there isn't a diversity of PIECES. Here, remember caw blade? That was one of if not the LEAST diverse format of all time. But, the diversity of PLAY (like chess) was high in caw blade mirror matches, but the diversity in pieces was very low. It's like legacy, there are lots of similar pieces in most decks and only a handful of top decks. This is low diversity. BUT the diversity of PLAY is high.
To drive my point home, look at Go. There is 1 type of piece. It has NO diversity of pieces but has a higher diversity of play than the number of particles in the universe(that's a lot).
So in conclusion DECK diversity is overrated and it is my opinion we should strive for higher PLAY diversity (like in Go, Legacy, Chess, Etc) That's not to say there should be no DECK diversity, just that focusing on that doesn't lead to PLAY diversity.
As an aside and keeping with play diversity being more important than piece diversity, I believe the current iteration of storm should not be banned. The necessary threshold to interact with them is very low and if your deck can't interact you lose on turn 3. This seems like a fitting punishment for decks that don't like to interact. I believe having this boogey man would result in more interactive decks or decks with higher play diversity.
This kind of makes it sound like you want to go back to Eldrazi Winter.
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.
You are misunderstanding me. There is a diversity of PLAY in chess but there isn't a diversity of PIECES. Here, remember caw blade? That was one of if not the LEAST diverse format of all time. But, the diversity of PLAY (like chess) was high in caw blade mirror matches, but the diversity in pieces was very low. It's like legacy, there are lots of similar pieces in most decks and only a handful of top decks. This is low diversity. BUT the diversity of PLAY is high.
To drive my point home, look at Go. There is 1 type of piece. It has NO diversity of pieces but has a higher diversity of play than the number of particles in the universe(that's a lot).
So in conclusion DECK diversity is overrated and it is my opinion we should strive for higher PLAY diversity (like in Go, Legacy, Chess, Etc) That's not to say there should be no DECK diversity, just that focusing on that doesn't lead to PLAY diversity.
As an aside and keeping with play diversity being more important than piece diversity, I believe the current iteration of storm should not be banned. The necessary threshold to interact with them is very low and if your deck can't interact you lose on turn 3. This seems like a fitting punishment for decks that don't like to interact. I believe having this boogey man would result in more interactive decks or decks with higher play diversity.
This kind of makes it sound like you want to go back to Eldrazi Winter.
I think wizards is fairly loose on what defines modern as being healthy and they probably will keep loosening that definition for PR reasons as time goes on.
Also, I'm still a believer that wizards will likely try a new format as a reset button eventually.
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!
Just read the article and quite a bit of it touched me. But Green Sun's Zenith is too good with Dryad Arbor? It's not as if I haven't heard that before. It's not that I haven't done it myself in Legacy, where I have a land that gives Green for each creature in play in the same deck. But, I'm sorry. I don't buy that doing Green Sun's Zenith into Dryad Arbor on turn 1 and having that added consistency each turn afterward is any better than what is currently going on in Modern. I can understand if consistency is the only thing that is holding back Green Sun's Zenith, but power doesn't have anything to do with it, IMO. It bodes poorly for a Preordain unban in the future as well if consistency is as disliked as it seems to be.
I think Danny West's response summed it up. "Green Sun's Zenith into Dryad Arbor is too good, opponent casts Karn on turn 3."
The most simple thing I can say about Chrome Mox staying banned is that an unbanning goes against Wizard's vision of a "turn 4 format." There's no reason to do that in a turn 4 format. I have a friend that explained this to me in a long talk a while ago about Simian Spirit Guide, a card I love so much. The card goes against a "turn 4 format," so I personally hope that as long as it doesn't become a serious offender, it will be fine. But, why add another card like that?
That out of the way, I certainly wouldn't mind playing with Chrome Mox. Even if I believe that it goes against Wizard's very own vision, I would love to try it!
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
I think wizards is fairly loose on what defines modern as being healthy and they probably will keep loosening that definition for PR reasons as time goes on.
Also, I'm still a believer that wizards will likely try a new format as a reset button eventually.
If WOTC phases out modern in favor of a newer format, say starting at original Innistrad or Zendikar, that will have serious economic implications, and I'm not sure they want to do that. Perhaps more importantly, though, WOTC kinda tried this at the start of this year when they held Frontier side events at Grand Prix for the first what, three or four months of 2017? If people were knocking down the door for Frontier, we probably would have already gotten the announcement that they were going to introduce such events.
You're talking about the same deck that scoops to at least four different cards, and can't answer two of them? It is not difficult to beat Storm, please stop acting like the sky is falling because it does fairly well.
You're talking about the same deck that scoops to at least four different cards, and can't answer two of them? It is not difficult to beat Storm, please stop acting like the sky is falling because it does fairly well.
.
Wild exaggeration here, although your sentiment is right.
I believe that UR delver, storm, and hypergenesis are the usual suspects in MBLM tournaments, but I don't think the format is popular enough for that to be definitive.
I think a major problem with a lot of communication here is that using certain words (I've noticed "diversity" and "interactivity" to be the biggest offenders" is problematic. Just saying "diversity" is kind of meaningless because it means very different things to different people.
Hyperbolic, but bear with me here:
Imagine a format similar to legacy, but every single deck plays brainstorm and force of will. Everyone is playing blue, but you've got some aggro/tempo decks (merfolk, delver, etc), you've got midrange (deathrite shaman, leovold, grixis kess, etc), you've got control (miracles, tezzerator, etc) you've got combo (storm, SnT, aluren, food chain). Maybe you've even got a manaless dredge deck playing force of wills. You've got infect, you have slivers, you have loam decks, landstill, depths stage, thopter sword, reanimator, UG 12-post, etc.
In short, you have a great number of different decks, all with unique gameplans, using a great variety of different cards. The only caveat is that all of them are playing brainstorms, and all of them are playing force of wills.
On the other hand, maybe you've got a meta like modern not too long ago: You have death's shadow zoo, death's shadow jund, dredge, infect, affinity, burn, eldrazi, traditional tron, collected company, bogles, valakut, storm, and ad nauseum. You've still got a large number of different decks, with many different cards being played. There aren't a large number of cards that are played in many different archtypes (infect + shadow may play probe, elves + counters play coco, etc). However, pretty much all of these decks are interested in doing their thing and ending games as quickly as possible. What the other person is doing is more of an afterthought.
Plenty of people think scenario 1 is "diverse", many think scenario 2 is "diverse", many both, many neither.
I think its clear that wizards leans more towards "2 is diverse, 1 is less diverse".
But I think the point is that when people ask "how can you look at a tier 1 of storm + shadow + eldrazi + affinity + valakut and think its terrible" comes down to this.
I feel like it might be interesting to ban use of words like diversity and interactivity, and force people to explain a little bit more.
You're talking about the same deck that scoops to at least four different cards, and can't answer two of them? It is not difficult to beat Storm, please stop acting like the sky is falling because it does fairly well.
I am not into banning Storm, end of. I am just merely saying that if Storm is OK as a deck, we can have Chrome Mox into the format as well as Blazing Shoal. If we cant have the latter cards, we cant have Storm as well.
Consistensy in the decisions is the issue. There is no consistency in WOTC's decisions about Modern.
That's a strange position unless you know something about Storm's pre-T4 win rate that we don't. Wizards might also be fine with a top-tier combo deck that doesn't win consistently pre-T4 even if it can in some games. Maybe they believe Mox would enable more egregious T4 rule violations. Maybe they just don't want more linear decks in the format and are fine with the current level. Maybe their internal tests show Shoal and Mox would still be busted. Lots of unknowns here. But generally, I don't see anything inconsistent about this at all, unless you have all that information above that no one else has. The burden of proof is always on the party asking for a change, not the one defending the status quo. When something is really busted in Modern, the evidence should be there to prove it.
On the subject of Blazing Shoal being unbanned, I won't think it will happen. One of the old deck lists that ran it was blazing shoal infect, which ran this, Progenitus as a card to pitch to it, and used it for an easy leathal shot with an infect creature.
Three cards for a potential turn 2 kill, and room for combo protection. No way it's coming back.
Chrome Mox on the other hand maybe safer, but it's still mana ramp. Could see decks running this as SSG number 2 or decks normally without mana ramp playing this. Maybe not as broken as the one above, but still potential. This might come off in the right conditions though.
You're talking about the same deck that scoops to at least four different cards, and can't answer two of them? It is not difficult to beat Storm, please stop acting like the sky is falling because it does fairly well.
I am not into banning Storm, end of. I am just merely saying that if Storm is OK as a deck, we can have Chrome Mox into the format as well as Blazing Shoal. If we cant have the latter cards, we cant have Storm as well.
Consistensy in the decisions is the issue. There is no consistency in WOTC's decisions about Modern.
That's a strange position unless you know something about Storm's pre-T4 win rate that we don't. Wizards might also be fine with a top-tier combo deck that doesn't win consistently pre-T4 even if it can in some games. Maybe they believe Mox would enable more egregious T4 rule violations. Maybe they just don't want more linear decks in the format and are fine with the current level. Maybe their internal tests show Shoal and Mox would still be busted. Lots of unknowns here. But generally, I don't see anything inconsistent about this at all, unless you have all that information above that no one else has. The burden of proof is always on the party asking for a change, not the one defending the status quo. When something is really busted in Modern, the evidence should be there to prove it.
I know something about Storm's consistent pre-turn 4 kills after having playtested with the deck. The deck is winning nearly(give or take, it may be more or less than this) as much as Amulet Bloom was winning. I am saying this after having played a lot of games vs it.
But! It's fine by me. I don't mind having Turn 3 decks in this format, I never did mind.
It's the consistency I have a problem with. As Shaun Mc Laren said in his article, it's a hypocrisy having the past Twin deck banned while allowing the current Storm into this same format.
My proposed solution is not to ban the format; but unban the latter.
I'm curious what your metric is for 'a lot' of games. For example, there are 3 modern tournaments at my LGS each week, I attend them all; at each event for the past two months, I encounter Storm at least twice. So for the past two months I've played against Storm around 48 times. Is that 'a lot' or is it less than that? Because from what I've seen, Storm does not consistently win before T4; even if you don't have specific answers that hose it, it is still vulnerable to hand disruption and creature hate. Well-timed use of countermagic also gives it problems.
It seems insane to me to unban Blazing Shoal. No way should it come back.
I wouldn't mind seeing GSZ, it would be really good but probably not OP.
In terms of what to ban, I'm usually not for any bans but you wouldn't have to try very hard to convince me that Tron lands and Storm should take a hit.
I think wizards is fairly loose on what defines modern as being healthy and they probably will keep loosening that definition for PR reasons as time goes on.
Also, I'm still a believer that wizards will likely try a new format as a reset button eventually.
If WOTC phases out modern in favor of a newer format, say starting at original Innistrad or Zendikar, that will have serious economic implications, and I'm not sure they want to do that. Perhaps more importantly, though, WOTC kinda tried this at the start of this year when they held Frontier side events at Grand Prix for the first what, three or four months of 2017? If people were knocking down the door for Frontier, we probably would have already gotten the announcement that they were going to introduce such events.
Frontier was a grass root movement that had a start point no one fully liked. Wizards will probably push top down. I'm also watching what they are reprinting in upcoming products and they are favoring more recent cards over older ones. The only exception has been masters products.
There is zero doubt in my mind they are going to do it. It's just when that no one knows.
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!
It seems insane to me to unban Blazing Shoal. No way should it come back.
I wouldn't mind seeing GSZ, it would be really good but probably not OP.
In terms of what to ban, I'm usually not for any bans but you wouldn't have to try very hard to convince me that Tron lands and Storm should take a hit.
As someone whose two decks are mono blue tron and storm, this makes me sad. I already lost kiln fiend combo dammit let me have a deck!
The humans list that won last weekend's scg open reminded everyone that combo loses to disruption + a clock. That means death shadow midrange and delver style decks are rough matchups, as are the humans lists. I guess I just feel like pointing out sometimes that a player runs deck A, deck A has a bad matchup to deck B, so that player's reaction is to claim a card in deck B is unfair and needs a ban. I am perhaps too optimistic, but I see spell based combo as the means for decks like delver and humans to start to do better.
The number of times storm has taken a hit in forms of bans, wouldn't be surprised if it happens again. Result wise though, I don't think it is needing a ban at the moment. Maybe it had a spike in success, but it can still be beaten.
Tron is in a much safer place with lack of top 8's lately. Plus I think ripping these from the decks that play them would kill two (Ux and Gx Tron) and the third would just restructure itself without Tron cards (Etron). Not worth it.
It seems insane to me to unban Blazing Shoal. No way should it come back.
I wouldn't mind seeing GSZ, it would be really good but probably not OP.
In terms of what to ban, I'm usually not for any bans but you wouldn't have to try very hard to convince me that Tron lands and Storm should take a hit.
There was a point when Gitaxian Probe was legal and Infect could fill their graveyard very easily that I believed Blazing Shoal to be very comparable to Become Immense in Infect. One takes a graveyard that fills up early. The other one takes 2 pieces together (need to find Dragonstorm or Progenitus AND Blazing Shoal). With Probe banned (don't take this as me agreeing with the timing of the ban), I feel that Blazing Shoal is currently better than Become Immense. There's really 2 ways to look at it. Is Blazing Shoal completely okay? Perhaps, but if not, why take the chance? Blazing Shoal is simply not a card that coincides with Wizard's turn 4 rule.
You're talking about the same deck that scoops to at least four different cards, and can't answer two of them? It is not difficult to beat Storm, please stop acting like the sky is falling because it does fairly well.
I am not into banning Storm, end of. I am just merely saying that if Storm is OK as a deck, we can have Chrome Mox into the format as well as Blazing Shoal. If we cant have the latter cards, we cant have Storm as well.
Consistensy in the decisions is the issue. There is no consistency in WOTC's decisions about Modern.
That's a strange position unless you know something about Storm's pre-T4 win rate that we don't. Wizards might also be fine with a top-tier combo deck that doesn't win consistently pre-T4 even if it can in some games. Maybe they believe Mox would enable more egregious T4 rule violations. Maybe they just don't want more linear decks in the format and are fine with the current level. Maybe their internal tests show Shoal and Mox would still be busted. Lots of unknowns here. But generally, I don't see anything inconsistent about this at all, unless you have all that information above that no one else has. The burden of proof is always on the party asking for a change, not the one defending the status quo. When something is really busted in Modern, the evidence should be there to prove it.
I know something about Storm's consistent pre-turn 4 kills after having playtested with the deck. The deck is winning nearly(give or take, it may be more or less than this) as much as Amulet Bloom was winning. I am saying this after having played a lot of games vs it.
But! It's fine by me. I don't mind having Turn 3 decks in this format, I never did mind.
It's the consistency I have a problem with. As Shaun Mc Laren said in his article, it's a hypocrisy having the past Twin deck banned while allowing the current Storm into this same format.
My proposed solution is not to ban the format; but unban the latter.
I'm curious what your metric is for 'a lot' of games. For example, there are 3 modern tournaments at my LGS each week, I attend them all; at each event for the past two months, I encounter Storm at least twice. So for the past two months I've played against Storm around 48 times. Is that 'a lot' or is it less than that? Because from what I've seen, Storm does not consistently win before T4; even if you don't have specific answers that hose it, it is still vulnerable to hand disruption and creature hate. Well-timed use of countermagic also gives it problems.
That is quite a bit. I will admit that I only play 1 Modern tournament per week the past 2 months and I rarely see Storm at a tournament (probably less than on 2 hands if that). But I also have been playing it a lot at home testing because I want to see what the buzz is about it. I also had previously played Ascension Storm for 3 months prior to Eidolon of the Great Revel being printed (Born of the Gods). While I played Bloom Titan for only 2 months, I also tested the crap out of it ever since Mathias Hunt ran it at a Grand Prix.
Here's my opinion, and that's all it is. Storm is much more consistent than Bloom Titan. However, hate hurts it much more. Although I've only played the matchup once (Storm vs. Bloom Titan) and won, I do feel that it would be in Storm's favor when goldfishing. The main problem is that Storm has a much, much tougher time with interaction. Often, killing dudes is enough to give you time to win. Sometimes, countering that key spell is good enough to win. It is simply much easier to identify how to beat Storm. Players never did know how to play against Bloom Titan and even when they had lines to win or key sideboard cards to bring in, they failed to do so. This simply is what puts Summer Bloom on the banlist while Storm is currently allowed to exist. But to be honest, all it really takes is Modern players not trying hard enough to beat Storm and something will get banned. In this format, it's often correct to cry than to try to beat a deck. I'd like to see someone refute that.
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A proactive gameplan overall is what you say, taking an approach that advances your own gameplan. A reactive gameplan is one that looks to just address whatever the opponent does. Some decks are almost purely proactive. Practically no decks are purely reactive because you have to win the game eventually, but the most reactive decks are the blue control decks. Some decks are some combination of both, able to play proactively or reactively depending on the situation.
UBR Grixis Shadow UBR
UR Izzet Phoenix UR
UW UW Control UW
GB GB Rock GB
Commander
BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG
BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
Chess is, in my opinion, a very bad example of comparison with magic. Chess having no inherent variance in its starting positions or the tools the players are equipped with to play the game makes any comparisons very problematic. I am not going to explain this any further as I thing you do understand what the differences are, even though you are clearly purposefully avoiding them.
The whole point is that, playing the game doesn't equate interaction. In Magic, as you are well aware, the two players are never equipped with the exact same tools to play the game, something that is intended. As such when you are comparing different tools you get differences in the way these tools play the game. One of these differences is the choice of certain build to either interact with the tools of the opponent or choose to ignore the tools of the opponent and advance its own game plan.
Interaction is not related with playing cards but with the degree of interaction with your opponent's tools.
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'll remember that next time some of the more prominent posters complain about "people making the same arguments over and over and over." While I understand giving benefit of the doubt, this has literally been the main conversation line in this thread for the past several days and weeks.
We shall see what happens. I'm not optimistic, to say the least.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I think affinity would use it to busted effect, firstly (not a knock against its unbanning, but something to consider)
UB/x Faeries
UR Storm
XURWB Affinity
G Elves
UW control
good grief!
0_0
the card is played in legacy to just completely invalidate small-creature strategies and burn so it would perform a similar role here. obviously its utility wouldn't be available to every deck because it requires something to equip to, but man it would be brutal. can you imagine just killing two things after every combat step or gaining 4 life? super brutal.
Legacy: UW RiP/Helm, UR Sneak and Show
You are misunderstanding me. There is a diversity of PLAY in chess but there isn't a diversity of PIECES. Here, remember caw blade? That was one of if not the LEAST diverse format of all time. But, the diversity of PLAY (like chess) was high in caw blade mirror matches, but the diversity in pieces was very low. It's like legacy, there are lots of similar pieces in most decks and only a handful of top decks. This is low diversity. BUT the diversity of PLAY is high.
To drive my point home, look at Go. There is 1 type of piece. It has NO diversity of pieces but has a higher diversity of play than the number of particles in the universe(that's a lot).
So in conclusion DECK diversity is overrated and it is my opinion we should strive for higher PLAY diversity (like in Go, Legacy, Chess, Etc) That's not to say there should be no DECK diversity, just that focusing on that doesn't lead to PLAY diversity.
As an aside and keeping with play diversity being more important than piece diversity, I believe the current iteration of storm should not be banned. The necessary threshold to interact with them is very low and if your deck can't interact you lose on turn 3. This seems like a fitting punishment for decks that don't like to interact. I believe having this boogey man would result in more interactive decks or decks with higher play diversity.
This kind of makes it sound like you want to go back to Eldrazi Winter.
Huh? How so?
Also, I'm still a believer that wizards will likely try a new format as a reset button eventually.
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 think Danny West's response summed it up. "Green Sun's Zenith into Dryad Arbor is too good, opponent casts Karn on turn 3."
The most simple thing I can say about Chrome Mox staying banned is that an unbanning goes against Wizard's vision of a "turn 4 format." There's no reason to do that in a turn 4 format. I have a friend that explained this to me in a long talk a while ago about Simian Spirit Guide, a card I love so much. The card goes against a "turn 4 format," so I personally hope that as long as it doesn't become a serious offender, it will be fine. But, why add another card like that?
That out of the way, I certainly wouldn't mind playing with Chrome Mox. Even if I believe that it goes against Wizard's very own vision, I would love to try it!
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)If WOTC phases out modern in favor of a newer format, say starting at original Innistrad or Zendikar, that will have serious economic implications, and I'm not sure they want to do that. Perhaps more importantly, though, WOTC kinda tried this at the start of this year when they held Frontier side events at Grand Prix for the first what, three or four months of 2017? If people were knocking down the door for Frontier, we probably would have already gotten the announcement that they were going to introduce such events.
RUAffinityUR
GMono Green StompyG
CEldrazi TronC
URWJeskai GeistWRU
WRBoros BurnRW
BRWMardu PyromancerWRB
RUAffinityUR
GMono Green StompyG
CEldrazi TronC
URWJeskai GeistWRU
WRBoros BurnRW
BRWMardu PyromancerWRB
Wild exaggeration here, although your sentiment is right.
I think a major problem with a lot of communication here is that using certain words (I've noticed "diversity" and "interactivity" to be the biggest offenders" is problematic. Just saying "diversity" is kind of meaningless because it means very different things to different people.
Hyperbolic, but bear with me here:
Imagine a format similar to legacy, but every single deck plays brainstorm and force of will. Everyone is playing blue, but you've got some aggro/tempo decks (merfolk, delver, etc), you've got midrange (deathrite shaman, leovold, grixis kess, etc), you've got control (miracles, tezzerator, etc) you've got combo (storm, SnT, aluren, food chain). Maybe you've even got a manaless dredge deck playing force of wills. You've got infect, you have slivers, you have loam decks, landstill, depths stage, thopter sword, reanimator, UG 12-post, etc.
In short, you have a great number of different decks, all with unique gameplans, using a great variety of different cards. The only caveat is that all of them are playing brainstorms, and all of them are playing force of wills.
On the other hand, maybe you've got a meta like modern not too long ago: You have death's shadow zoo, death's shadow jund, dredge, infect, affinity, burn, eldrazi, traditional tron, collected company, bogles, valakut, storm, and ad nauseum. You've still got a large number of different decks, with many different cards being played. There aren't a large number of cards that are played in many different archtypes (infect + shadow may play probe, elves + counters play coco, etc). However, pretty much all of these decks are interested in doing their thing and ending games as quickly as possible. What the other person is doing is more of an afterthought.
Plenty of people think scenario 1 is "diverse", many think scenario 2 is "diverse", many both, many neither.
I think its clear that wizards leans more towards "2 is diverse, 1 is less diverse".
But I think the point is that when people ask "how can you look at a tier 1 of storm + shadow + eldrazi + affinity + valakut and think its terrible" comes down to this.
I feel like it might be interesting to ban use of words like diversity and interactivity, and force people to explain a little bit more.
That's a strange position unless you know something about Storm's pre-T4 win rate that we don't. Wizards might also be fine with a top-tier combo deck that doesn't win consistently pre-T4 even if it can in some games. Maybe they believe Mox would enable more egregious T4 rule violations. Maybe they just don't want more linear decks in the format and are fine with the current level. Maybe their internal tests show Shoal and Mox would still be busted. Lots of unknowns here. But generally, I don't see anything inconsistent about this at all, unless you have all that information above that no one else has. The burden of proof is always on the party asking for a change, not the one defending the status quo. When something is really busted in Modern, the evidence should be there to prove it.
Three cards for a potential turn 2 kill, and room for combo protection. No way it's coming back.
Chrome Mox on the other hand maybe safer, but it's still mana ramp. Could see decks running this as SSG number 2 or decks normally without mana ramp playing this. Maybe not as broken as the one above, but still potential. This might come off in the right conditions though.
Thanks to Heroes of the Plane Studios for the sigpic.
Spider-Man Mafia 3 (Off-Site: NGA)
Metroid Mafia (Off-Site: Mafia Universe)
I'm curious what your metric is for 'a lot' of games. For example, there are 3 modern tournaments at my LGS each week, I attend them all; at each event for the past two months, I encounter Storm at least twice. So for the past two months I've played against Storm around 48 times. Is that 'a lot' or is it less than that? Because from what I've seen, Storm does not consistently win before T4; even if you don't have specific answers that hose it, it is still vulnerable to hand disruption and creature hate. Well-timed use of countermagic also gives it problems.
I wouldn't mind seeing GSZ, it would be really good but probably not OP.
In terms of what to ban, I'm usually not for any bans but you wouldn't have to try very hard to convince me that Tron lands and Storm should take a hit.
Frontier was a grass root movement that had a start point no one fully liked. Wizards will probably push top down. I'm also watching what they are reprinting in upcoming products and they are favoring more recent cards over older ones. The only exception has been masters products.
There is zero doubt in my mind they are going to do it. It's just when that no one knows.
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!
As someone whose two decks are mono blue tron and storm, this makes me sad. I already lost kiln fiend combo dammit let me have a deck!
The humans list that won last weekend's scg open reminded everyone that combo loses to disruption + a clock. That means death shadow midrange and delver style decks are rough matchups, as are the humans lists. I guess I just feel like pointing out sometimes that a player runs deck A, deck A has a bad matchup to deck B, so that player's reaction is to claim a card in deck B is unfair and needs a ban. I am perhaps too optimistic, but I see spell based combo as the means for decks like delver and humans to start to do better.
Tron is in a much safer place with lack of top 8's lately. Plus I think ripping these from the decks that play them would kill two (Ux and Gx Tron) and the third would just restructure itself without Tron cards (Etron). Not worth it.
Thanks to Heroes of the Plane Studios for the sigpic.
Spider-Man Mafia 3 (Off-Site: NGA)
Metroid Mafia (Off-Site: Mafia Universe)
Blazing Shoal Infect had 2 tools that were better than Serum Visions/Sleight of Hand in Ponder/Preordain.
http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/deck.asp?deck_id=909621
There was a point when Gitaxian Probe was legal and Infect could fill their graveyard very easily that I believed Blazing Shoal to be very comparable to Become Immense in Infect. One takes a graveyard that fills up early. The other one takes 2 pieces together (need to find Dragonstorm or Progenitus AND Blazing Shoal). With Probe banned (don't take this as me agreeing with the timing of the ban), I feel that Blazing Shoal is currently better than Become Immense. There's really 2 ways to look at it. Is Blazing Shoal completely okay? Perhaps, but if not, why take the chance? Blazing Shoal is simply not a card that coincides with Wizard's turn 4 rule.
That is quite a bit. I will admit that I only play 1 Modern tournament per week the past 2 months and I rarely see Storm at a tournament (probably less than on 2 hands if that). But I also have been playing it a lot at home testing because I want to see what the buzz is about it. I also had previously played Ascension Storm for 3 months prior to Eidolon of the Great Revel being printed (Born of the Gods). While I played Bloom Titan for only 2 months, I also tested the crap out of it ever since Mathias Hunt ran it at a Grand Prix.
Here's my opinion, and that's all it is. Storm is much more consistent than Bloom Titan. However, hate hurts it much more. Although I've only played the matchup once (Storm vs. Bloom Titan) and won, I do feel that it would be in Storm's favor when goldfishing. The main problem is that Storm has a much, much tougher time with interaction. Often, killing dudes is enough to give you time to win. Sometimes, countering that key spell is good enough to win. It is simply much easier to identify how to beat Storm. Players never did know how to play against Bloom Titan and even when they had lines to win or key sideboard cards to bring in, they failed to do so. This simply is what puts Summer Bloom on the banlist while Storm is currently allowed to exist. But to be honest, all it really takes is Modern players not trying hard enough to beat Storm and something will get banned. In this format, it's often correct to cry than to try to beat a deck. I'd like to see someone refute that.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)