Jund is a tier 3 deck with no indiciation of moving up, I'll take making huntmaster and Olivia obsolete for a tier 2 jund.
Honestly, no Jund player has ever been very impressed by the 4 cmc spot, it's just an obligation, they aren't consistently good. People rarely draw Collected Company and think, "ugh, this card isn't good in this matchup"
Olivia is bad against combo decks, blistering fast aggro decks and control decks
Huntmaster is bad against combo or aggro decks where you can't really afford to tap out
Kalitas was mediocre against midrange and control and flat out awful against combo
They all kind of suck, with Olivia having the most upside.
Chandra is a straight up garbage card to maindeck, it's so bad to maindeck
The only players who say BBE invalidates 4 Drops are the players who don't play the deck.
it would be similar to saying something like snapcaster invalidating all other 2 drop blue creatures.
I think that has more to do with how few viable 4-drops there are in general, at least in regards to modern. It needs to either be instant speed, win the game on the spot, or be reduced in some way a la tron to justify tapping out. I like the idea that BBE can be added and DOESN'T meet those requirements. It's just a value card with RNG attached. Good for sure, but I have serious reservations when people say it's too dangerous for the format.
I wouldn't be shocked if a pro tour team somehow found a way to break Eldrazi Tron.
I don't think they will. But if they do adapt I hope they fail, I don't want to see a piece/pieces of the deck banned due to a one time result.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing since 1994: Currently MAGS (HomeBrew),Standard & Pauper (Pioneer and Modern are degenerate trash formats)
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
I wouldn't be shocked if a pro tour team somehow found a way to break Eldrazi Tron.
I don't think they will. But if they do adapt I hope they fail, I don't want to see a piece/pieces of the deck banned due to a one time result.
That actually leads to the most important question in my mind regarding the upcoming pro tour: what kind of results would people/players need to see to justify a ban/unban after the first PT? What do you think wizards would need to see (rather than snarky "it doesn't matter they have no rhyme/reason" responses)?
I could see them banning a storm piece after one solid showing just due to the nature of storm and how much they dislike the mechanic. I have a harder time saying the same for E-tron. I'd say any non-storm deck placing three copies in the top 8 would cause concern and potentially a knee-jerk reaction, but most decks would be safe even if they placed two copies in the top 8, at least initially.
I wouldn't be shocked if a pro tour team somehow found a way to break Eldrazi Tron.
I don't think they will. But if they do adapt I hope they fail, I don't want to see a piece/pieces of the deck banned due to a one time result.
That actually leads to the most important question in my mind regarding the upcoming pro tour: what kind of results would people/players need to see to justify a ban/unban after the first PT? What do you think wizards would need to see (rather than snarky "it doesn't matter they have no rhyme/reason" responses)?
I could see them banning a storm piece after one solid showing just due to the nature of storm and how much they dislike the mechanic. I have a harder time saying the same for E-tron. I'd say any non-storm deck placing three copies in the top 8 would cause concern and potentially a knee-jerk reaction, but most decks would be safe even if they placed two copies in the top 8, at least initially.
Personally? I understand that because all events cut to a top 8 playoff that we tend to look at top 8 as if it had some grand meaning over top 16 or top 32, but when it comes to bans it seems extremely shortsighted to only look at that point. For instance, let's say storm fails to place one player in the top 8, but puts 20 into the top 32...that would be more cause for alarm than three top 8 spots. Top 8 is just more visible. I think for data collection in general, given how events will have hundreds or thousands of participants, to stop at the top 8 is an incorrect method of analysis.
I wouldn't be shocked if a pro tour team somehow found a way to break Eldrazi Tron.
I don't think they will. But if they do adapt I hope they fail, I don't want to see a piece/pieces of the deck banned due to a one time result.
That actually leads to the most important question in my mind regarding the upcoming pro tour: what kind of results would people/players need to see to justify a ban/unban after the first PT? What do you think wizards would need to see (rather than snarky "it doesn't matter they have no rhyme/reason" responses)?
I could see them banning a storm piece after one solid showing just due to the nature of storm and how much they dislike the mechanic. I have a harder time saying the same for E-tron. I'd say any non-storm deck placing three copies in the top 8 would cause concern and potentially a knee-jerk reaction, but most decks would be safe even if they placed two copies in the top 8, at least initially.
Personally? I understand that because all events cut to a top 8 playoff that we tend to look at top 8 as if it had some grand meaning over top 16 or top 32, but when it comes to bans it seems extremely shortsighted to only look at that point. For instance, let's say storm fails to place one player in the top 8, but puts 20 into the top 32...that would be more cause for alarm than three top 8 spots. Top 8 is just more visible. I think for data collection in general, given how events will have hundreds or thousands of participants, to stop at the top 8 is an incorrect method of analysis.
I 100% agree, I just think people have a tendency to over-value top 8's, WotC included, and that would go doubly so in the case of a PT. But just reverse the question. What would you need to see at the first PT to make you consider certain bans/unbans more than you already do?
I 100% agree, I just think people have a tendency to over-value top 8's, WotC included, and that would go doubly so in the case of a PT. But just reverse the question. What would you need to see at the first PT to make you consider certain bans/unbans more than you already do?
That's the thing, Wizards makes the decissions, not us. Even if it's not ideal, that's how it is. It would be foolish to give more weight to other data or just dismiss Top8s altogether, unless you want to theorycraft "better" new format rules instead of understanding the ones actually used. No wonder why people were surprised by Twin getting targeted by a ban last year.
*As for your question: I'll look into any deck that has ~19% of the GP/PT Top8s since the Probe/Troll ban.
I don't really see any benefit to the PT over an SCG open. I'm always confused when people on this thread try to claim people at one event with 500+ is so filled with "lesser skilled" players that the results cannot be used to determine a deck's validity or dominance. The PT is just one more data point to tack on to those events and GPs. Here's what I'd like to see:
significant meta share taken by one deck overall, like 25%+, or a deck with significant success over others, now the markoff for this is ultimately arbitrary, but if a similarly large percentage of X-2 decks in the modern portion went to one type, I'd be similarly concerned. I don't like using individual matches featured to determine things like turn 3 kills or overall power, because DSJund had people freaking out earlier this year when really it was just new and people weren't ready.
I think more important than the PT is the influence on the public the PT has. Let's say E-Tron does very well, regardless of whether it hits any of our personal benchmarks of ban target-worthiness. More people will start playing the deck as a result, and even a popular but not dominant deck runs the risk of creeping up that metagame share.
Jund is a tier 3 deck with no indiciation of moving up, I'll take making huntmaster and Olivia obsolete for a tier 2 jund.
That's why those people don't moan. If Twin wasn't banned, and it was garbage for some reason, no Twin player would moan. You still get to play Modern's best or close to best cards, it's just that Eldrazi are pushing Midrange decks into the oblivion(and maybe the existance of Death's Shadow or Titanshift as well).
Imagine if Liliana Of The veil was banned from Wizards back during to PT fata refoged where it had 18% metagame breakdown of day 2. Twin was sitting on 7% on day 2, and it got banned.
Twin players moan because Jund received nerfs twice, and the deck was and is still great. Their deck though, got banned to oblivion. They could ban Deceiver Exarch and let those play try Village Bell-Ringer or Bounding Krasis. They didn't. They banned them out.
Honestly, no Jund player has ever been very impressed by the 4 cmc spot, it's just an obligation, they aren't consistently good.
Olivia is bad against combo decks, blistering fast aggro decks and control decks
Huntmaster is bad against combo or aggro decks where you can't really afford to tap out
Kalitas was mediocre against midrange and control and flat out awful against combo
They all kind of suck, with Olivia having the most upside.
Chandra is a straight up garbage card to maindeck, it's so bad to maindeck
So, there are good 4 drops in the deck, it's just that every 4 drop has a significant downside. The way it's supposed to be, tbh. Most of the cards come with a significant advantage and a downside, you have to metagame right, predict the breakout deck of the weekend and adjust accordingly.
That said, Bloodbraid Elf would make Jund players just jam the card and think no more of which out of those cards should they play with. Thus, your words, because all those cards suck in a specific situation, BBE would be played 4 off, no matter what.
The only players who say BBE invalidates 4 Drops are the players who don't play the deck.
And you. Because you just presented some arguments that prove that BBE would invalidate the Bad vs combo decks Kalitas, bad in the maindeck Chandra, ban vs non creature decks Olivia, bad vs combo decks Huntmaster by being straight up better.
So, Bloodbraid Elf is making all of those cards obsolete. There will be no reason to play any of those cards in the future(and mind you, those cards are being played in Jund from times to times)
it would be similar to saying something like snapcaster invalidating all other 2 drop blue creatures.
What other 2 cmc creature cards does the blue colour pie have? Azure Mage? Sure, it's invalidating Azure Mage. If WOTC ever prints a good creature cards in the 2 cmc slot, it will be played alonside Snapcaster mage. Snap's role is not the beatdown role, it's the value/attrition role that makes the card great.
You're not understanding the issue at hand though,
the meta is too diverse, GBx flat out can't be the utility deck it used to be. The sideboard is already now about predicting the right meta
Slotting in even more, "oops, I drew the wrong half of my deck" is a really, really huge issue for this archetype now, where as collected company is going to continue to jam collected company and be proactive. Jund definitely just needs a more universal proactive threat.
It's not just Eldrazi Tron killing Jund, that matchup isn't as atrocious as you'd think. It's the combination of E-Tron, Titanshift, and the flat out better fair/midrange deck in Shadow.
When evaluating an unban, we really should ask three questions. I'm sure these are similar enough to the questions Wizards asks.
1. Does the unban increase/decrease net diversity?
2. Does the unban create a potential T4 rule violator?
3. Can we prove 1 and 2 with limited testing in small groups on tight schedules?
Incidentally, 1 and 2 are also ban criteria.
Some users, notably GK in recent posts, have accused Wizards of making up ban criteria in the past. I see where this comes from but ultimately don't belive it's true. All of their ban/unban rationale relates to 1 and 2 above, even if poorly phrased. Twin ban? It's diversity. Probe ban? T4 rule. GGT? Diversity, but framed through sideboards. Sword and AV? Attempts to increase diversity too. "No changes" in the last bunch of updates? Diversity and T4 rule not jeopardized.
Once we realize these two criteria are the guiding stars of Modern, we can evaluate any unban or ban through their lens. At least, with the caveat for unbabs that Wizards doesn't make unbans with millions of test games but rather smaller test samples and lots of discussion.
This is why a card like BBE seems very safe. It isn't a T4 rule violator, and it almost exclusively goes into Jund (for tiered decks) and maybe Temur (for untiered decks with potential). The rise of those decks would be unlikely to push anything out either, because competing midrange decks are few and far between. As those decks kind of suck right now and for most of 2017, this seems like an easy way to boost format diversity, and an easy case Wizards can make in a meeting.
I don't think it will happen, but maybe Wizards should look into restricting cards in Modern. Kind of like a purgatory between banned and playable. It could be an avenue to return some of these banned cards to the format if they were restricted to one or maybe two copies per deck. If a card like BBE would start out at restricted to 1/2 copies, then the meta can be analyzed at a later date to bump it back to banned or open it up to full legality. Just a thought, don't think it will ever happen.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing since 1994: Currently MAGS (HomeBrew),Standard & Pauper (Pioneer and Modern are degenerate trash formats)
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
I don't think it will happen, but maybe Wizards should look into restricting cards in Modern. Kind of like a purgatory between banned and playable. It could be an avenue to return some of these banned cards to the format if they were restricted to one or maybe two copies per deck. If a card like BBE would start out at restricted to 1/2 copies, then the meta can be analyzed at a later date to bump it back to banned or open it up to full legality. Just a thought, don't think it will ever happen.
This just increases variance and tournament conplexity/deck checks. It will never happen and should never happen.
When evaluating an unban, we really should ask three questions. I'm sure these are similar enough to the questions Wizards asks.
1. Does the unban increase/decrease net diversity?
2. Does the unban create a potential T4 rule violator?
3. Can we prove 1 and 2 with limited testing in small groups on tight schedules?
Incidentally, 1 and 2 are also ban criteria.
Some users, notably GK in recent posts, have accused Wizards of making up ban criteria in the past. I see where this comes from but ultimately don't belive it's true. All of their ban/unban rationale relates to 1 and 2 above, even if poorly phrased. Twin ban? It's diversity. Probe ban? T4 rule. GGT? Diversity, but framed through sideboards. Sword and AV? Attempts to increase diversity too. "No changes" in the last bunch of updates? Diversity and T4 rule not jeopardized.
Once we realize these two criteria are the guiding stars of Modern, we can evaluate any unban or ban through their lens. At least, with the caveat for unbabs that Wizards doesn't make unbans with millions of test games but rather smaller test samples and lots of discussion.
This is why a card like BBE seems very safe. It isn't a T4 rule violator, and it almost exclusively goes into Jund (for tiered decks) and maybe Temur (for untiered decks with potential). The rise of those decks would be unlikely to push anything out either, because competing midrange decks are few and far between. As those decks kind of suck right now and for most of 2017, this seems like an easy way to boost format diversity, and an easy case Wizards can make in a meeting.
I agree with you but i also have to be fair to GK. The lines WOTC draws in their criteria are VERY thin and unconvincing. As you say, they frame their reasonings behind concepts that make banning cards much more abstract and likely. That's why someone could make the arguement Collected Company should be banned, they could easily phrase that one to fall under their categories. Whenever they talk about Modern, the lines get blurrier and people freak out(in my humble opinion, they do it and they have the right to do so because recent years have seen many pillars nuked and people's trust in the format spiraled down very quick).
I just hope someday we get a Modern where the Top decks are not super linear and combo isn't the best archetype in Modern. In the end i think that's what most people want. Combo is the reason this format has so many competitive woes.
PS: @gkourou: Listen, i think you are right to care about those goals, but ulitmately, they will look at BBE and say, hey Jund sucks and Jund is a good deck for the format overrall as it promotes healthy gameplay, let's unban this toy and let them have fun, test the waters for future unbans and let them put Kalitas,Huntmaster and Olivia as SB options for metagame shifts.
I'm not sure why anyone would want cards restricted in any format aside from vintage (which is designed so you can play ANY non-anti card ever made). If a card is powerful enough that it can't be included as a 4 of, then games will often devolve into "did I draw my 1 (or 2) of busted card"? Then I win. It also causes for additional confusion in deck construction to have this new deckbuilding rule.
When evaluating an unban, we really should ask three questions. I'm sure these are similar enough to the questions Wizards asks.
1. Does the unban increase/decrease net diversity?
2. Does the unban create a potential T4 rule violator?
3. Can we prove 1 and 2 with limited testing in small groups on tight schedules?
Incidentally, 1 and 2 are also ban criteria.
Some users, notably GK in recent posts, have accused Wizards of making up ban criteria in the past. I see where this comes from but ultimately don't belive it's true. All of their ban/unban rationale relates to 1 and 2 above, even if poorly phrased. Twin ban? It's diversity. Probe ban? T4 rule. GGT? Diversity, but framed through sideboards. Sword and AV? Attempts to increase diversity too. "No changes" in the last bunch of updates? Diversity and T4 rule not jeopardized.
Once we realize these two criteria are the guiding stars of Modern, we can evaluate any unban or ban through their lens. At least, with the caveat for unbabs that Wizards doesn't make unbans with millions of test games but rather smaller test samples and lots of discussion.
This is why a card like BBE seems very safe. It isn't a T4 rule violator, and it almost exclusively goes into Jund (for tiered decks) and maybe Temur (for untiered decks with potential). The rise of those decks would be unlikely to push anything out either, because competing midrange decks are few and far between. As those decks kind of suck right now and for most of 2017, this seems like an easy way to boost format diversity, and an easy case Wizards can make in a meeting.
I agree with you but i also have to be fair to GK. The lines WOTC draws in their criteria are VERY thin and unconvincing. As you say, they frame their reasonings behind concepts that make banning cards much more abstract and likely. That's why someone could make the arguement Collected Company should be banned, they could easily phrase that one to fall under their categories. Whenever they talk about Modern, the lines get blurrier and people freak out(in my humble opinion, they do it and they have the right to do so because recent years have seen many pillars nuked and people's trust in the format spiraled down very quick).
I just hope someday we get a Modern where the Top decks are not super linear and combo isn't the best archetype in Modern. In the end i think that's what most people want. Combo is the reason this format has so many competitive woes.
PS: @gkourou: Listen, i think you are right to care about those goals, but ulitmately, they will look at BBE and say, hey Jund sucks and Jund is a good deck for the format overrall as it promotes healthy gameplay, let's unban this toy and let them have fun, test the waters for future unbans and let them put Kalitas,Huntmaster and Olivia as SB options for metagame shifts.
Except you don't know what most people want. At least Ktenshinx relies solely on information from WOTC and event results. Nobody on this website can claim to speak for 10% of modern players, let alone 51%.
Of course that was point of view, but from what i've seen from almost 7 years playing Modern, people have always complained about Modern being too SB guided, matchup-centric and fast. In my eyes, that's strictly because Combo is better than every other archetype.
I've heard other pros say it to, it's a theory, but i'm willing to bet my entire collection that if a combination of combo cards get banned, Modern would be better for the competitive scene. This is a format where Combo gets Legacy cards, and answers are not at a Legacy level, so that creates a linear enivronment once players recongnize what decks are the best.
Given some of the kinds of cards on the banned list, their stances on consistency, their praise of the current meta, and their restriction on data, it seems this is EXACTLY what Wizards wants...
I don't think it will happen, but maybe Wizards should look into restricting cards in Modern. Kind of like a purgatory between banned and playable. It could be an avenue to return some of these banned cards to the format if they were restricted to one or maybe two copies per deck. If a card like BBE would start out at restricted to 1/2 copies, then the meta can be analyzed at a later date to bump it back to banned or open it up to full legality. Just a thought, don't think it will ever happen.
This just increases variance and tournament conplexity/deck checks. It will never happen and should never happen.
Wouldn't variance be more reasonable instead of an auto-include 4 of that leads to certainty of casting every game and a deck getting a piece banned because of such? Variance is part of the game. I don't see every deck running 4 copies of every single card to minimize variance.
How would this be any different than someone sneaking in a 5th copy of a card into their decks in regards to deck checks? You know what cards are restricted and they are checked for such restrictions, easy.
I happen to agree that it more than likely will never happen. But don't be so certain about that it never should, times change, cards change, players change, rules change and the game changes. Be prepared for eventualities. I'm sure many said Magic would NEVER have a mulligan rule. Never say never.
Playing since 1994: Currently MAGS (HomeBrew),Standard & Pauper (Pioneer and Modern are degenerate trash formats)
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Of course that was point of view, but from what i've seen from almost 7 years playing Modern, people have always complained about Modern being too SB guided, matchup-centric and fast. In my eyes, that's strictly because Combo is better than every other archetype.
I've heard other pros say it to, it's a theory, but i'm willing to bet my entire collection that if a combination of combo cards get banned, Modern would be better for the competitive scene. This is a format where Combo gets Legacy cards, and answers are not at a Legacy level, so that creates a linear enivronment once players recongnize what decks are the best.
Some combo cards we don't have:
Chrome Mox
Ponder
Preordain
Lotus Petal
Seething Song
Rite of Flame
Show and Tell
Reanimate
Exhume
Entomb
Xantid Swarm
And hell I don't even play legacy, so there are probably more I'm missing. I also can only think of five answers that are not in modern and they are all blue, but then again legacy is DOMINATED by blue thanks to FOW, Mistep, Flusterstorm, Daze and Counterspell. I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm telling you that human perception makes anecdotal evidence very very unreliable. We all tend to associate with people in a situation who are thinking like ourselves. It is far more likely that you will notice and remember people agreeing with you than otherwise, and it is a proven psychological phenomena that people are more than ready to dismiss all evidence that contradicts their perception. That's why it is not a good argument to talk in terms like yours. In fact, Storm has really only been at the top for a few months. Eldrazi Tron is not combo, Grixis Shadow is not combo, Burn is not combo, Affinity is aggro/combo so I'll concede that, Hatebears is not combo.
Let's look at things another way. Some people believe modern will be bad until blue is dominant, because a format lacking in powerful counters is deemed to be "uninteractive." Aggro basically sucks in legacy, but I'm hard pressed to find a loud contingent within the legacy playerbase calling for bans, unbans, or new cards to make go-wide aggro great in legacy. That format is midrange/tempo/control/combo. Standard will generally lack combo and prison entirely. No format has everything. That's just reality. The perfect balanced meta is a pipedream.
I've mentioned before, I hate BGx midrange, and while I know its only opinion, I feel compelled to say it over and over to make the point that no, the entire modern community is not sitting around waiting for jund to be great again due to something I can only describe as a weird nostalgia for a format two years old that probably wasn't as good as people make it out to be.
1) Would it promote diversity? Yes. While some are dismissing Jund as tier 3, it is back on the rise. That said, Gruul and Naya Zoo, as well as Shamanism would want this for their decks giving them a boost. Would it be enough for those other decks to get a foothold would be the question.
2) Does it break the turn 4 rule? No. It has some strong synergy with 3 drops and down, but it doesn't close the game. That said point 3...
3) Can it be proven in small groups in a timely manner? I'm not sure you can prove either point in a short time. That said this is where they could surprise people.
Of course that was point of view, but from what i've seen from almost 7 years playing Modern, people have always complained about Modern being too SB guided, matchup-centric and fast. In my eyes, that's strictly because Combo is better than every other archetype.
I've heard other pros say it to, it's a theory, but i'm willing to bet my entire collection that if a combination of combo cards get banned, Modern would be better for the competitive scene. This is a format where Combo gets Legacy cards, and answers are not at a Legacy level, so that creates a linear enivronment once players recongnize what decks are the best.
Some combo cards we don't have:
Chrome Mox
Ponder
Preordain
Lotus Petal
Seething Song
Rite of Flame
Show and Tell
Reanimate
Exhume
Entomb
Xantid Swarm
And hell I don't even play legacy, so there are probably more I'm missing. I also can only think of five answers that are not in modern and they are all blue, but then again legacy is DOMINATED by blue thanks to FOW, Mistep, Flusterstorm, Daze and Counterspell. I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm telling you that human perception makes anecdotal evidence very very unreliable. We all tend to associate with people in a situation who are thinking like ourselves. It is far more likely that you will notice and remember people agreeing with you than otherwise, and it is a proven psychological phenomena that people are more than ready to dismiss all evidence that contradicts their perception. That's why it is not a good argument to talk in terms like yours. In fact, Storm has really only been at the top for a few months. Eldrazi Tron is not combo, Grixis Shadow is not combo, Burn is not combo, Affinity is aggro/combo so I'll concede that, Hatebears is not combo.
Let's look at things another way. Some people believe modern will be bad until blue is dominant, because a format lacking in powerful counters is deemed to be "uninteractive." Aggro basically sucks in legacy, but I'm hard pressed to find a loud contingent within the legacy playerbase calling for bans, unbans, or new cards to make go-wide aggro great in legacy. That format is midrange/tempo/control/combo. Standard will generally lack combo and prison entirely. No format has everything. That's just reality. The perfect balanced meta is a pipedream.
I've mentioned before, I hate BGx midrange, and while I know its only opinion, I feel compelled to say it over and over to make the point that no, the entire modern community is not sitting around waiting for jund to be great again due to something I can only describe as a weird nostalgia for a format two years old that probably wasn't as good as people make it out to be.
Yeah, we don't have Tinker and Yawgmoth's Will either, but that doesn't make Modern less Combo-Centric. Eldrazi Tron and Grixis Shadow are not combo, but they certainly push the boundaries of fair Magic by cheating on mana and being hyper-efficient. So what's left after trying to goldfish fast and efficiently? Playing overly-efficient cards like Death's Shadow,Chalice and TKS.
Burn is seen as a combo deck by many players, it's called Lava Spike Combo. I won't go into detail here, but it's certainly not an interactive deck.
The problem lies in that the best decks in Modern are trying to kill you as soon as possible(T3) and there are 2 exceptions, 1 which won't kill you fast, but will lock you out of the game on T2-T3 or create and advantage via cheating on mana that will be invevitable, the other(which in my eyes is the good guy) which is so efficient and pushed that make some strategies just bad at what they do(like Abzan,Jund,Jeskai,etc).
The format is GREAT diversity-wise, there are way too many viable decks, but the norm of the format is "2 Ships passing in the Night". This isn't good form a competitive standpoint. The PT will say it, but i'm convinced that Modern will look rather bad at the PT, just like most of the times it looks bad in the GPs and whatnot. What makes Modern be uninteractive? Combo.
PS: What most people cry about Modern is variance and uninteractivity. I don't recall anyone ever said they like playing past each other during hours. I respect that you might like it, but most people who play MtG don't.
Every deck is trying to be efficient, literally all the time. MTG is a game predicated on getting more out of your resources than the opponent. That's mana, your life total, loyalty counters...everything. So there's something a bit amiss about terms like "hyper efficient" used in a pejorative manner and especially "overly efficient."
I'm not the only person to say this, when people complain about interaction, they really refer to a certain kind of interaction which primarily revolves around counterspells. Fine, counters suck, there's like three worth playing in any deck. There's still discard, creature removal, mana disruption, board wipes. And again, your saying it looks bad is entirely your opinion. SCG has stated on the record that the turnout, twitch streams, and overall reaction to modern by the public being so positive is one reason they always have such a high volume of modern opens and classics. So while I don't have numbers, and you don't have numbers, I'm willing to suspect a business that relies on consumer information has some data to support the notion that modern is really only hated by a small number of people in the community. This vocal minority then claims to be a majority because they echo off eachother and never really give credence to opposing opinion.
Modern has changed, and I hope it doesn't go backwards. This format is incredibly fun to play and watch. I guess it's not such if you're trying to be an ace grinder, but the game really shouldn't kowtow to such a small group.
Given some of the kinds of cards on the banned list, their stances on consistency, their praise of the current meta, and their restriction on data, it seems this is EXACTLY what Wizards wants...
Diversity =\= variance. Diversity means you have lots of decks in a format. Variance means games just come down to the luck of the draw. I know you seem to hate the current Modern and think decks do come down to the luck of the draw, but many authors have explained why this isn't really the case.
I believe one of Modern's largest problems is player inflexibility. Players would rather complain than adapt their decks and card choices. This is why we don't see breakout decks more often and it takes a while for them to take root; players immediately doubt any new strategy. See ETron for many months. See JDS and GDS dropping their shares through natural shifts after many cried for bans. See Humans going undefeated at Cincinnati. I'd go even further to say that some Modern critics actively cheer against these decks because they want their negative format view to be validated. Wizards is partially to blame for this with the absurd number of bans, but players are responsible too.
Okay i'm going to try one last time to explain my point.
I'm not saying Modern should be all about grinding to the ground every game during hours(i don´t like it so there's no bias here), i'm saying that the NORM of a competitive format should revolve around decisions and skill, not LUCK. It's okay to have Storm vs Infect, i think that matchup it's quite interesting and has some game to it, but the norm will be 3-4 Turns of Magic where the Infect player will not care about the opponent because he knows he doesn't have many ways to disrupt him, and will probably kill him T3 or T4. Storm will try to its thing quickly too because he knows the other side packs few interaction too.
This gameplay is fine and perfectly viable, the problem starts when 10 out of 15 rounds you find yourself in this situation. Then you have to pray the dice likes you and you initial 9 cards are what the doctor ordered.
I'm NOT complaining or being salty, i like Modern and it's the only format i play, but i would like it to be less variance-driven so playing Magic actually serves some purpose.
LAST PS: If the format stays this way i'm okay with it, but they hinted at unbans, and this is basically all what this talk is about, how can Modern can improve via the banlist, and i think it could do. If WOTC actually finds it wouldn't improve, then let it be and let's keep on playing.
Diversity =\= variance. Diversity means you have lots of decks in a format. Variance means games just come down to the luck of the draw. I know you seem to hate the current Modern and think decks do come down to the luck of the draw, but many authors have explained why this isn't really the case.
I believe one of Modern's largest problems is player inflexibility. Players would rather complain than adapt their decks and card choices. This is why we don't see breakout decks more often and it takes a while for them to take root; players immediately doubt any new strategy. See ETron for many months. See JDS and GDS dropping their shares through natural shifts after many cried for bans. See Humans going undefeated at Cincinnati. I'd go even further to say that some Modern critics actively cheer against these decks because they want their negative format view to be validated. Wizards is partially to blame for this with the absurd number of bans, but players are responsible too.
I'd like to express my thanks for clearing this up for many users. This I believe is particularly true, and I would like to use the same viewpoint towards how the banned list is handled in particular. Unbanning should be the direction we head in, and I despise how conservative Wizards has been with keeping cards on the banned list, when all but one (for circumstances based on how horrible their design team is) which had to re-enter the list.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think that has more to do with how few viable 4-drops there are in general, at least in regards to modern. It needs to either be instant speed, win the game on the spot, or be reduced in some way a la tron to justify tapping out. I like the idea that BBE can be added and DOESN'T meet those requirements. It's just a value card with RNG attached. Good for sure, but I have serious reservations when people say it's too dangerous for the format.
Affinity
Death & Taxes
Mardu Nahiri
Forcing people to merge with twitch is stupid
I don't think they will. But if they do adapt I hope they fail, I don't want to see a piece/pieces of the deck banned due to a one time result.
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
That actually leads to the most important question in my mind regarding the upcoming pro tour: what kind of results would people/players need to see to justify a ban/unban after the first PT? What do you think wizards would need to see (rather than snarky "it doesn't matter they have no rhyme/reason" responses)?
I could see them banning a storm piece after one solid showing just due to the nature of storm and how much they dislike the mechanic. I have a harder time saying the same for E-tron. I'd say any non-storm deck placing three copies in the top 8 would cause concern and potentially a knee-jerk reaction, but most decks would be safe even if they placed two copies in the top 8, at least initially.
Affinity
Death & Taxes
Mardu Nahiri
Forcing people to merge with twitch is stupid
Personally? I understand that because all events cut to a top 8 playoff that we tend to look at top 8 as if it had some grand meaning over top 16 or top 32, but when it comes to bans it seems extremely shortsighted to only look at that point. For instance, let's say storm fails to place one player in the top 8, but puts 20 into the top 32...that would be more cause for alarm than three top 8 spots. Top 8 is just more visible. I think for data collection in general, given how events will have hundreds or thousands of participants, to stop at the top 8 is an incorrect method of analysis.
I 100% agree, I just think people have a tendency to over-value top 8's, WotC included, and that would go doubly so in the case of a PT. But just reverse the question. What would you need to see at the first PT to make you consider certain bans/unbans more than you already do?
Affinity
Death & Taxes
Mardu Nahiri
Forcing people to merge with twitch is stupid
*As for your question: I'll look into any deck that has ~19% of the GP/PT Top8s since the Probe/Troll ban.
Frontier: UBR Grixis Control | BRG Jund Delirium
significant meta share taken by one deck overall, like 25%+, or a deck with significant success over others, now the markoff for this is ultimately arbitrary, but if a similarly large percentage of X-2 decks in the modern portion went to one type, I'd be similarly concerned. I don't like using individual matches featured to determine things like turn 3 kills or overall power, because DSJund had people freaking out earlier this year when really it was just new and people weren't ready.
I think more important than the PT is the influence on the public the PT has. Let's say E-Tron does very well, regardless of whether it hits any of our personal benchmarks of ban target-worthiness. More people will start playing the deck as a result, and even a popular but not dominant deck runs the risk of creeping up that metagame share.
You're not understanding the issue at hand though,
the meta is too diverse, GBx flat out can't be the utility deck it used to be. The sideboard is already now about predicting the right meta
Slotting in even more, "oops, I drew the wrong half of my deck" is a really, really huge issue for this archetype now, where as collected company is going to continue to jam collected company and be proactive. Jund definitely just needs a more universal proactive threat.
It's not just Eldrazi Tron killing Jund, that matchup isn't as atrocious as you'd think. It's the combination of E-Tron, Titanshift, and the flat out better fair/midrange deck in Shadow.
1. Does the unban increase/decrease net diversity?
2. Does the unban create a potential T4 rule violator?
3. Can we prove 1 and 2 with limited testing in small groups on tight schedules?
Incidentally, 1 and 2 are also ban criteria.
Some users, notably GK in recent posts, have accused Wizards of making up ban criteria in the past. I see where this comes from but ultimately don't belive it's true. All of their ban/unban rationale relates to 1 and 2 above, even if poorly phrased. Twin ban? It's diversity. Probe ban? T4 rule. GGT? Diversity, but framed through sideboards. Sword and AV? Attempts to increase diversity too. "No changes" in the last bunch of updates? Diversity and T4 rule not jeopardized.
Once we realize these two criteria are the guiding stars of Modern, we can evaluate any unban or ban through their lens. At least, with the caveat for unbabs that Wizards doesn't make unbans with millions of test games but rather smaller test samples and lots of discussion.
This is why a card like BBE seems very safe. It isn't a T4 rule violator, and it almost exclusively goes into Jund (for tiered decks) and maybe Temur (for untiered decks with potential). The rise of those decks would be unlikely to push anything out either, because competing midrange decks are few and far between. As those decks kind of suck right now and for most of 2017, this seems like an easy way to boost format diversity, and an easy case Wizards can make in a meeting.
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
This just increases variance and tournament conplexity/deck checks. It will never happen and should never happen.
I agree with you but i also have to be fair to GK. The lines WOTC draws in their criteria are VERY thin and unconvincing. As you say, they frame their reasonings behind concepts that make banning cards much more abstract and likely. That's why someone could make the arguement Collected Company should be banned, they could easily phrase that one to fall under their categories. Whenever they talk about Modern, the lines get blurrier and people freak out(in my humble opinion, they do it and they have the right to do so because recent years have seen many pillars nuked and people's trust in the format spiraled down very quick).
I just hope someday we get a Modern where the Top decks are not super linear and combo isn't the best archetype in Modern. In the end i think that's what most people want. Combo is the reason this format has so many competitive woes.
PS: @gkourou: Listen, i think you are right to care about those goals, but ulitmately, they will look at BBE and say, hey Jund sucks and Jund is a good deck for the format overrall as it promotes healthy gameplay, let's unban this toy and let them have fun, test the waters for future unbans and let them put Kalitas,Huntmaster and Olivia as SB options for metagame shifts.
Except you don't know what most people want. At least Ktenshinx relies solely on information from WOTC and event results. Nobody on this website can claim to speak for 10% of modern players, let alone 51%.
I've heard other pros say it to, it's a theory, but i'm willing to bet my entire collection that if a combination of combo cards get banned, Modern would be better for the competitive scene. This is a format where Combo gets Legacy cards, and answers are not at a Legacy level, so that creates a linear enivronment once players recongnize what decks are the best.
Given some of the kinds of cards on the banned list, their stances on consistency, their praise of the current meta, and their restriction on data, it seems this is EXACTLY what Wizards wants...
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Wouldn't variance be more reasonable instead of an auto-include 4 of that leads to certainty of casting every game and a deck getting a piece banned because of such? Variance is part of the game. I don't see every deck running 4 copies of every single card to minimize variance.
How would this be any different than someone sneaking in a 5th copy of a card into their decks in regards to deck checks? You know what cards are restricted and they are checked for such restrictions, easy.
I happen to agree that it more than likely will never happen. But don't be so certain about that it never should, times change, cards change, players change, rules change and the game changes. Be prepared for eventualities. I'm sure many said Magic would NEVER have a mulligan rule. Never say never.
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Some combo cards we don't have:
Chrome Mox
Ponder
Preordain
Lotus Petal
Seething Song
Rite of Flame
Show and Tell
Reanimate
Exhume
Entomb
Xantid Swarm
And hell I don't even play legacy, so there are probably more I'm missing. I also can only think of five answers that are not in modern and they are all blue, but then again legacy is DOMINATED by blue thanks to FOW, Mistep, Flusterstorm, Daze and Counterspell. I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm telling you that human perception makes anecdotal evidence very very unreliable. We all tend to associate with people in a situation who are thinking like ourselves. It is far more likely that you will notice and remember people agreeing with you than otherwise, and it is a proven psychological phenomena that people are more than ready to dismiss all evidence that contradicts their perception. That's why it is not a good argument to talk in terms like yours. In fact, Storm has really only been at the top for a few months. Eldrazi Tron is not combo, Grixis Shadow is not combo, Burn is not combo, Affinity is aggro/combo so I'll concede that, Hatebears is not combo.
Let's look at things another way. Some people believe modern will be bad until blue is dominant, because a format lacking in powerful counters is deemed to be "uninteractive." Aggro basically sucks in legacy, but I'm hard pressed to find a loud contingent within the legacy playerbase calling for bans, unbans, or new cards to make go-wide aggro great in legacy. That format is midrange/tempo/control/combo. Standard will generally lack combo and prison entirely. No format has everything. That's just reality. The perfect balanced meta is a pipedream.
I've mentioned before, I hate BGx midrange, and while I know its only opinion, I feel compelled to say it over and over to make the point that no, the entire modern community is not sitting around waiting for jund to be great again due to something I can only describe as a weird nostalgia for a format two years old that probably wasn't as good as people make it out to be.
1) Would it promote diversity? Yes. While some are dismissing Jund as tier 3, it is back on the rise. That said, Gruul and Naya Zoo, as well as Shamanism would want this for their decks giving them a boost. Would it be enough for those other decks to get a foothold would be the question.
2) Does it break the turn 4 rule? No. It has some strong synergy with 3 drops and down, but it doesn't close the game. That said point 3...
3) Can it be proven in small groups in a timely manner? I'm not sure you can prove either point in a short time. That said this is where they could surprise people.
Thanks to Heroes of the Plane Studios for the sigpic.
Spider-Man Mafia 3 (Off-Site: NGA)
Metroid Mafia (Off-Site: Mafia Universe)
Yeah, we don't have Tinker and Yawgmoth's Will either, but that doesn't make Modern less Combo-Centric. Eldrazi Tron and Grixis Shadow are not combo, but they certainly push the boundaries of fair Magic by cheating on mana and being hyper-efficient. So what's left after trying to goldfish fast and efficiently? Playing overly-efficient cards like Death's Shadow,Chalice and TKS.
Burn is seen as a combo deck by many players, it's called Lava Spike Combo. I won't go into detail here, but it's certainly not an interactive deck.
The problem lies in that the best decks in Modern are trying to kill you as soon as possible(T3) and there are 2 exceptions, 1 which won't kill you fast, but will lock you out of the game on T2-T3 or create and advantage via cheating on mana that will be invevitable, the other(which in my eyes is the good guy) which is so efficient and pushed that make some strategies just bad at what they do(like Abzan,Jund,Jeskai,etc).
The format is GREAT diversity-wise, there are way too many viable decks, but the norm of the format is "2 Ships passing in the Night". This isn't good form a competitive standpoint. The PT will say it, but i'm convinced that Modern will look rather bad at the PT, just like most of the times it looks bad in the GPs and whatnot. What makes Modern be uninteractive? Combo.
PS: What most people cry about Modern is variance and uninteractivity. I don't recall anyone ever said they like playing past each other during hours. I respect that you might like it, but most people who play MtG don't.
I'm not the only person to say this, when people complain about interaction, they really refer to a certain kind of interaction which primarily revolves around counterspells. Fine, counters suck, there's like three worth playing in any deck. There's still discard, creature removal, mana disruption, board wipes. And again, your saying it looks bad is entirely your opinion. SCG has stated on the record that the turnout, twitch streams, and overall reaction to modern by the public being so positive is one reason they always have such a high volume of modern opens and classics. So while I don't have numbers, and you don't have numbers, I'm willing to suspect a business that relies on consumer information has some data to support the notion that modern is really only hated by a small number of people in the community. This vocal minority then claims to be a majority because they echo off eachother and never really give credence to opposing opinion.
Modern has changed, and I hope it doesn't go backwards. This format is incredibly fun to play and watch. I guess it's not such if you're trying to be an ace grinder, but the game really shouldn't kowtow to such a small group.
Diversity =\= variance. Diversity means you have lots of decks in a format. Variance means games just come down to the luck of the draw. I know you seem to hate the current Modern and think decks do come down to the luck of the draw, but many authors have explained why this isn't really the case.
I believe one of Modern's largest problems is player inflexibility. Players would rather complain than adapt their decks and card choices. This is why we don't see breakout decks more often and it takes a while for them to take root; players immediately doubt any new strategy. See ETron for many months. See JDS and GDS dropping their shares through natural shifts after many cried for bans. See Humans going undefeated at Cincinnati. I'd go even further to say that some Modern critics actively cheer against these decks because they want their negative format view to be validated. Wizards is partially to blame for this with the absurd number of bans, but players are responsible too.
I'm not saying Modern should be all about grinding to the ground every game during hours(i don´t like it so there's no bias here), i'm saying that the NORM of a competitive format should revolve around decisions and skill, not LUCK. It's okay to have Storm vs Infect, i think that matchup it's quite interesting and has some game to it, but the norm will be 3-4 Turns of Magic where the Infect player will not care about the opponent because he knows he doesn't have many ways to disrupt him, and will probably kill him T3 or T4. Storm will try to its thing quickly too because he knows the other side packs few interaction too.
This gameplay is fine and perfectly viable, the problem starts when 10 out of 15 rounds you find yourself in this situation. Then you have to pray the dice likes you and you initial 9 cards are what the doctor ordered.
I'm NOT complaining or being salty, i like Modern and it's the only format i play, but i would like it to be less variance-driven so playing Magic actually serves some purpose.
LAST PS: If the format stays this way i'm okay with it, but they hinted at unbans, and this is basically all what this talk is about, how can Modern can improve via the banlist, and i think it could do. If WOTC actually finds it wouldn't improve, then let it be and let's keep on playing.
I'd like to express my thanks for clearing this up for many users. This I believe is particularly true, and I would like to use the same viewpoint towards how the banned list is handled in particular. Unbanning should be the direction we head in, and I despise how conservative Wizards has been with keeping cards on the banned list, when all but one (for circumstances based on how horrible their design team is) which had to re-enter the list.