If Lantern is so easy to play, then why do most pro's writing their articles go out of their way to say it's one of the hardest decks to play in the format?
A ton of decks aren't hard to play
Affinity, Lantern, Shadow decks> Most of modern> Burn, Tron, Eldrazi Tron, Titanshift
Some decks are in that awkward hard to medium sweet spot, like Taxes, Company, Jeskai, etc.
When you break down the way you described Lantern winning then you make it sound like every deck can be that easy.
ktk: well these stats I have here are pointing to you being more incorrect than correct even though my data is also very incomplete.
me: that sounds a bit hypocritical no?
On the one hand, we have a massive dataset analyzed using recognized methods to draw a clear conclusion, simultaneously acknowledging numerous limitations to this analysis despite the clarity of that conclusion.
On the other hand, we have purely rhetorical theories with zero attempt to back them up with any data. There is so much data out there. Modern critics, for some reason, refuse to even try to analyze that data to draw a conclusion.
I think it's pretty clear which of those approaches is more compelling to most users and we'll leave it at that.
show me this massive highly accurate data? that you claim to be adequate to make such bold claims as you have these past weeks.
modern pros anecdotal experience is often adequate enough in their mind, as they have played TONS of games of modern and these feelings they have are a result of those outcomes. you cannot tell the best grixis player in the world corey burqhart, that he is just bad at grixis. no, grixis control is poorly positioned right now because it has overwhelmingly bad matchups, same as traditional jund. and if you asked him what the main reasons are for this he would certainly mention eldrazi temple and tron, are you going to tell him he is incorrect?
I already did this in numerous posts. Yet again, there is no variance/"matchup lottery" effect in SCG Opens after looking at every 2017 Modern Open and comparing them to every 2016-2017 Legacy open. If you think Legacy is the idyllic low-variance, high-skill format, then Modern has the exact same performance outcomes as Legacy and should be treated the same. Like I've said in basically every single one of those posts, it is definitely possible this effect does not extend to smaller events with fewer than 15 rounds. I don't know whether this holds up, but I do know there is ample data for people in this thread to analyze it themselves.
Note that this has nothing to do with whether Modern is too linear or not. The analysis does not speak to the nature of decks that enable players to perform well. It merely says that the best Modern players are as good and consistent at their format as the best Legacy players are at theirs. If you want to complain about linearity, let's have an informed discussion about that. But if you want to complain about matchup lottery/variance, I'm afraid your argument does not hold any water.
again, show me proof that tron decks arent heavily favored vs jund abzan and grixis. as you know i have not been able to access this forum as often as usual.
I have no idea what the matchup is anymore. I'm sure Tron is favored against those decks. But it doesn't matter. The best players in Modern win as much in Modern, and with the same frequency, as the best Legacy players do in Legacy. Good players have overcome bad matchups that different decks have to consistently perform. Whatever the matchup spectrum is for Modern decks, it isn't affecting the performance of the good players. I assume most people in this thread, and in Modern generally, only care about "matchup lottery"/variance because they think it is negatively affecting their performance. As the SCG Open analysis showed, this is not the case for consistent Modern players.
Again, we can certainly talk about whether or not Modern is too linear. That's a more open question. But if you're worried about how Modern matchups, variance, lottery, etc. is affecting your performance, stop worrying about Modern, and start worrying about what skill deficits you lack that are preventing you from achieving the same success as the consistent Modern performers.
I both understand where sheridan and others are coming from. Nate did a jeskai round table and they basically said that E Tron is pretty much a loss for them. Dredge is arguably worse for jeskai.
At the same time though, match up lottery only exists in small sample sizes. I'm sure if you take a large sample size of like over multiple months of SCG events we'd see a normalized match up percentage for the top scg grinders based on their deck.
again, show me proof that tron decks arent heavily favored vs jund abzan and grixis. as you know i have not been able to access this forum as often as usual.
The same is true for tron decks. They too have awful match-ups. The skill here is being able to choose the best deck or the best cards for sideboard.
In this meta jund and grixis control are poorly positioned so why play them if you want to win? There are plenty of other options available in each category of decks. In modern you can't stick with a single deck. You have to change at least some cards from week to week adapting to the meta. If you understand the deck you are playing is awful, change it or be prepared to lose.
I can't understand: is this the problem for people who are complaining? That they have to change?
I don't care if a deck or another has bad match-ups as long as that deck's predator has its own bad ones. That an healthy modern format. Not for me but for wizards.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks played: Modern:
0 Affinity;
URG Delver
URGW Countercats
(Here you can find some video contents about Countercats and Temur Delver decks)
Im okay with the idea of metagaming in the very broadest sense - like, kitchen finks isnt great atm because it lines up poorly vs a bunch of top decks and their threats. Or, counterspells are bad because half the top decks are running playsets of cavern and/or vial.
But when people talk like you can accurately predict your matchups for an upcoming event I question their grip on reality. When you pick jund and walk into four straight tron matchups this means you're an unskilled player because you incorrectly predicted your matchups?
When you play some tier 3 death n taxes deck and take down a tournament by running hot and hitting favourable matches you're a metagame wizard?
Its such an embedded concept that its probably hopeless to think people will ever stop pointing to "metagaming well" as an honest to god magic skill, but its so ludicrously stupid from any logical point of view I do not know how we ever got to where we are. "GDS is popular so people will bring etron but etron will then actually be popular so ill bring storm and be king of the meta except people will be ready for storm anyways so..." its the princess bride scene playing out at every event (I knew youd know I knew you knew)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern
* Esper Draw-Go
* Tezzeret Whir
* Blue Tron
Interestingly, there isn't a huge range of decks that top Modern players switch between. In Legacy, it's about 1.7 decks with about 60% of players sticking to 1 deck and the other 40% bouncing between 2.6 decks. In Modern, it's about 1.9 decks, with only 40% of players on one deck and 60% bouncing between 2.5 other decks. There's really very little difference. Here's the comparison again so you can see the numbers next to each other.
Top Moderners- Avg # of Modern decks: 1.91 Top Legacyers - Avg # of Legacy decks: 1.68
Top Moderners - Only 1 Modern deck: 40% Top Legacyers - Only 1 Legacy deck: 58%
Top Moderners - 2+ Modern decks: 60% Top Legacyers - 2+ Legacy decks: 42%
Top Moderners - Avg # of other Modern decks: 2.5 Top Legacyers - Avg # of other Legacy decks: 2.63
All data comes from SCG Opens (2017 Modern, 2016-17 Legacy). The samples are not huge (19 Legacy vs. 43 Modern), but there's no statistical difference between any of the segments when we look at their confidence intervals.
I'll agree. On a certain level, metagaming in Modern doesn't make sense.
In standard you can metagame because you know there is a high likelihood of there only being 3-5 different decks you may be playing against. In Modern that gets expanded to 30+ decks in most instances. You can't exactly metagame in this sense.
However metagaming in Modern doesn't work on the axis of preparing yourself for specific decks. Metagaming in Modern works on the axis of preparing yourself for specific strategies.
For example let's say you are playing a WB deck. You may play against Dredge, Living End, Jeskai Geist, UW Control or Storm in a tournament. Against all of these decks running Rest in Peace, Leyline of the Void, or Nihil Spellbomb help since they all use the graveyard on some axis. Instead of using specific cards to fight specific decks, you run specific cards to shore up your match ups against specific axis of play an opponent's deck can take.
Of course you can't always deal with everything, which is why I think the first fundamental rule people need to accept about Modern is the following:
When you are choosing your deck, you need to accept there is at least one deck/archetype that will be an almost unbeatable match up
An example of this is Lantern Control. For as much as I love that deck, and as much as I think it is one of the best decks in the format, Tron is as close to a 10-90 match up as there can be in the format. When I sleeve up Lantern for a tournament, I accept that if I run into 4 Tron match ups in a row, I need to be playing at peak efficiency of I will lose every single one of those matches hands down. And even if I do play my best, I may just lose those matches anyway.
Now I'm not saying that there are auto-lose match ups. But with every deck in Modern, there is at least 1 deck or archetype where whether you win honestly comes down to whether or not you made any mistakes during your games, or how lucky you or your opponent got with your draws.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks: UBG Lantern Control GBU BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
(I'm not saying that I'm not biased.) That article is so extremely biased. I'm pretty sure if you ask Brian Demars if Battle Box is the best, he'd say yes. There's just so many ways that the ratings can go in his article, depending on who's deciding the points.
Besides, I thought that people here didn't think Brian Demars had credibility. Maybe that was with my own playgroup? I always discuss what Brian Demars says because he's a Modern enthusiast, has played quite a few decks, and does a lot of articles. Last time when Storm was "doing it," he ranked Titanshift as Tier 3...and I agreed...at the time. Come to think of it, I think it was my own play group and not HERE where Brian Demars was discredited. "What has he accomplished in the past few years?" My response - infinitely more than you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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'm not saying that I'm not biased.) That article is so extremely biased. I'm pretty sure if you ask Brian Demars if Battle Box is the best, he'd say yes. There's just so many ways that the ratings can go in his article, depending on who's deciding the points.
Besides, I thought that people here didn't think Brian Demars had credibility. Maybe that was with my own playgroup? I always discuss what Brian Demars says because he's a Modern enthusiast, has played quite a few decks, and does a lot of articles. Last time when Storm was "doing it," he ranked Titanshift as Tier 3...and I agreed...at the time. Come to think of it, I think it was my own play group and not HERE where Brian Demars was discredited. "What has he accomplished in the past few years?" My response - infinitely more than you.
While there's never value in entirely disregarding any content, I think you should watch some of Demars video content. He's a medium grinder that spiked some stuff in the past, but when you analyze his gameplay it's pretty clear he has no idea what he's talking about most of the time. If I'm ranking content producers, he's very, very close to the bottom. This doesn't mean you should never read his articles or he he doesn't sometimes have good ideas, but as with everything, you should read with scrutiny.
I like DeMars, but his play and lines has left me feeling skeptical of him. Watching him play Eldrazi Tron and Shadow decks were painful, so much so I couldn't watch the whole thing because I was worried I would pick up bad habits or poor lines of play
At the end of the day, he's better than most of us and has accomplished more. I do enjoy some of his articles though.
The article can't be that far off, Standard is the worst format, and that's definitely the most correct assumption on the list.
Standard has been such a mess ever since the Khans block ended. I'm really surprised just how long standards has been bad now. I don't know how they fix it right now, the energy mechanic was just a massive mistake (but very weak in any non standard format).
Modern is the best format right now, it has everything they envisioned, multiple decks, different archetypes, open to brewers etc.
Interestingly, there isn't a huge range of decks that top Modern players switch between. In Legacy, it's about 1.7 decks with about 60% of players sticking to 1 deck and the other 40% bouncing between 2.6 decks. In Modern, it's about 1.9 decks, with only 40% of players on one deck and 60% bouncing between 2.5 other decks. There's really very little difference. Here's the comparison again so you can see the numbers next to each other.
Top Moderners- Avg # of Modern decks: 1.91 Top Legacyers - Avg # of Legacy decks: 1.68
Top Moderners - Only 1 Modern deck: 40% Top Legacyers - Only 1 Legacy deck: 58%
Top Moderners - 2+ Modern decks: 60% Top Legacyers - 2+ Legacy decks: 42%
Top Moderners - Avg # of other Modern decks: 2.5 Top Legacyers - Avg # of other Legacy decks: 2.63
All data comes from SCG Opens (2017 Modern, 2016-17 Legacy). The samples are not huge (19 Legacy vs. 43 Modern), but there's no statistical difference between any of the segments when we look at their confidence intervals.
I think the mistake that leads people to believe in a "matchup lottery" is the assumption of competence. If people goldfish optimally, and their decks don't interact, then you'd get a "matchup lottery." But most people don't goldfish perfectly, the pros simply play their own decks better than most people. At my last FNM, I won multiple "bad" matchups because my opponents weren't very good at piloting their decks and lost a "good" matchup to a tier 3 deck because the player was good.
Modern is the best format right now, it has everything they envisioned, multiple decks, different archetypes, open to brewers etc.
Modern, in terms of openness and deck choices is amazing at the moment. There are viable aggro, control, midrange and combo decks, which is great. It is (and always has been) by far my favorite format.
What bothers me a bit about the format is the amount of decks that feel "dumb" to play against, like Tron or Dredge. I want to make meaningful decisions in my games, not hope that my opponent won't be able to goldfish quickly enough or that I draw my sideboard cards. I like games that are a back-and-forth battle and have many moments where you need to stop to think for a bit before you make your next move, and there are too many decks where such situations are rare, at least for my taste.
Also, I feel like Lantern is the best deck right now. Sure, it's hard to play and interesting to play against if you can interact with it in some way - but I know how miserable it can make people feel, since I sometimes play with it myself. What bothers me about it is the "Rule-Changing" aspect of Ensnaring Bridge: "What, you play creatures? pfff. Those don't work any more! What are you even doing?". It's like playing a different game, even though people came to play magic.
Modern is the best format right now, it has everything they envisioned, multiple decks, different archetypes, open to brewers etc.
Modern, in terms of openness and deck choices is amazing at the moment. There are viable aggro, control, midrange and combo decks, which is great. It is (and always has been) by far my favorite format.
What bothers me a bit about the format is the amount of decks that feel "dumb" to play against, like Tron or Dredge. I want to make meaningful decisions in my games, not hope that my opponent won't be able to goldfish quickly enough or that I draw my sideboard cards. I like games that are a back-and-forth battle and have many moments where you need to stop to think for a bit before you make your next move, and there are too many decks where such situations are rare, at least for my taste.
Also, I feel like Lantern is the best deck right now. Sure, it's hard to play and interesting to play against if you can interact with it in some way - but I know how miserable it can make people feel, since I sometimes play with it myself. What bothers me about it is the "Rule-Changing" aspect of Ensnaring Bridge: "What, you play creatures? pfff. Those don't work any more! What are you even doing?". It's like playing a different game, even though people came to play magic.
I think the bigger problem with Lantern is the player of the deck. The faux apologies over playing a deck they know is oppressive, in the sense that it prevents the opponent from doing anything, when fully executed. Which is then met with incredulity when I make you play out the game, which inevitably results in going to time and a draw.
"What? You have the lock? Okay, prove it by milling me out and actually winning."
Sorry, but I'm not going to scoop and let you get away with not playing the game out. Going to a draw is just fine with me. You chose the deck and now you'd better play out the game, using the strategy your deck was designed to execute. I don't want to hear the stupid apologies about how your deck operates or your whining when I don't scoop to your lock. You built the deck and chose to play it, so play it.
I think lantern is a cool deck and one that I am passively building towards. When you're playing lantern though, just own that your goal is to deny the opponent the ability to "play" magic.
/Rant
In regards to the Modern meta, I agree, there are numerous viable strategies. Meaning, there are many decks that have an opportunity to win a given tournament. I personally like that. Yes, sideboarding is harder, because you have a more diverse threat pool to guard against, which in turn creates the feeling of a "matchup lottery", but that's part of the fun. Finding sideboard cards that are wide enough to deal with the diverse threats that exist in the overall meta. It means the deck tinkering is never really complete.
I think the bigger problem with Lantern is the player of the deck. The faux apologies over playing a deck they know is oppressive, in the sense that it prevents the opponent from doing anything, when fully executed. Which is then met with incredulity when I make you play out the game, which inevitably results in going to time and a draw.
"What? You have the lock? Okay, prove it by milling me out and actually winning."
Sorry, but I'm not going to scoop and let you get away with not playing the game out. Going to a draw is just fine with me. You chose the deck and now you'd better play out the game, using the strategy your deck was designed to execute. I don't want to hear the stupid apologies about how your deck operates or your whining when I don't scoop to your lock. You built the deck and chose to play it, so play it.
I think lantern is a cool deck and one that I am passively building towards. When you're playing lantern though, just own that your goal is to deny the opponent the ability to "play" magic.
/Rant
I started this comment by creating a snide, recreation of your post, only from the Lantern player's point of view. But that gets us nowhere. So instead I will ask a simple question.
Why would you refuse to concede to Lantern?
If you were playing against Burn and you were at 2 life with your opponent having an Eidolon of the Great Revel in play, would you concede if you knew you had no life gain and your only way to get rid of Eidolon was a spell that cost 3 or less?
If you were playing against GDS and you were facing a Death's Shadow that would kill you in 2 turns and you knew you had no cards left in your deck to kill it, would you concede?
When your opponent plays a Spaceshift with 8 lands in play do you make them play it out, or do you concede to save time?
If your answer if no to all of the above, then we have no problems. If you are willing to fully play out every single scenario in which your chances of winning the game are virtually or literally 0%, then sure. Make Lantern mill you out, I have no problems with you.
However if you said yes to any of the above, then I need to wonder why you have this stupid vendetta against Lantern Control. And I'm not trying to single you out, a lot of people are like this. But you're the one who made the rant post.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks: UBG Lantern Control GBU BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
lol, because it forces the Lantern player to suffer through the game as well.
As a Turns player, I know how it goes, not everyone has a taste for those kinds of decks, and yes its the only way for the locked out player to thumb their nose at the other player (without being rude) so just roll with it.
lol, because it forces the Lantern player to suffer through the game as well.
As a Turns player, I know how it goes, not everyone has a taste for those kinds of decks, and yes its the only way for the locked out player to thumb their nose at the other player (without being rude) so just roll with it.
I do roll with it. I just took issue with the fact that the rant made it seem like it was the Lantern player's fault their opponent was acting like a petulant child lol
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks: UBG Lantern Control GBU BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
I once asked a Lantern player, half jokingly, "Look, I understand that you hate yourself, and I'm fine with that, but why do you have to bring me into it?"
At FNM, I'll probably scoop against Lantern. At a tournament? Playing that out, since it only takes a single screw up for me to be able to just kill them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Well, I can saw a woman in two, but you won't wanna look in the box when I'm through.
I once asked a Lantern player, half jokingly, "Look, I understand that you hate yourself, and I'm fine with that, but why do you have to bring me into it?"
At FNM, I'll probably scoop against Lantern. At a tournament? Playing that out, since it only takes a single screw up for me to be able to just kill them.
Like sure, I understand that. I understand the idea behind trying to edge out that small percent chance that the Lantern player screws up and you win.
Hell here is one mistake I made in my early days of playing the deck that my one friend to this day still won't let me forget.
I was playing against Burn, we're on game 3 and I'm at 3 life. I have 3 Codex Shredders and a Pyxis in play as well as an Ensnaring Bridge and my opponent has an Eidolon on the battlefield. I put blinders on basically, trying to just reflex mill every burn spell I saw on the top of his deck. In the process I used my Pyxis to exile the Leyline of Sanctity on top of my deck which would have given my opponent exactly 0 ways to win the game from that point. My opponent then ended up getting a burn spell through my mill effects and beat me.
So yeah, a Lantern player CAN make a mistake that will cost them the game. And if you think it is possible for you to win the game, then by all means, lets play it out and see what happens.
HOWEVER
What I will absolutely not tolerate is the kind of behaviour I see at every Comp REL tournament I have been in. That attitude of, "I know I can't win this game, but I'd rather give the Lantern player a draw than a win." The attitude where I have to call a Judge for slow play, because even though I am only letting my opponent draw lands, he still sits and considers his hand for 45 seconds to a minute every turn. The attitude where because they have a completely stupid, and extremely childish hatred for this deck. Which they (in my opinion) only have because they can't bother, or are unable, to grasp the inner workings of it and realize how exactly it wins games. The attitude where they need to try and not only make their Lantern opponent miserable, but make them feel like they deserve to be miserable.
People say they hate big mana decks like Tron.
People say they hate uninteractive combo like Storm.
People say they hate mindless aggro like Affinity.
But none of those players have their opponents try to make them feel emotionally ashamed for their deck choices.
Rant Ended
So in conclusion:
1. If you choose to play out a game with a person playing Lantern Control, do it because you actually think there is a chance you can win.
2. When you are done the game, be gracious in defeat or victory and congratulate your opponent on a game well played, without any snide remarks on the deck that happen to be playing.
3. Try not to make your opponent feel like they need to be completely miserable because they chose to play Lantern Control.
@Skitzafreak:
Look, it's simple. I know you enjoy playing Lantern. It's just that it makes people miserable. It's not fun to play against. If you don't understand, fine. But that's how a lot of people feel.
@Skitzafreak:
Look, it's simple. I know you enjoy playing Lantern. It's just that it makes people miserable. It's not fun to play against. If you don't understand, fine. But that's how a lot of people feel.
You're missing the point. Yeah playing against lantern can be miserable, but after the game is over, don't be a jerk about it. That's all.
I make most lantern players play it out completely, especially game 1 where I keep a wrong hand in the dark and they establish an early lock.
Most players at an FNM don't play Lantern fast enough and I will absolutely make them play it out. I've only really met 1 competent Lantern player and it's because it was his first deck and all he plays.
Do I scoop against a Valakut deck when they have the win? Yup
Tron drops a Karn followed by Ugin? Yup
But those games end quickly, it takes a certain matchup to play a long game against Tron.
Now, if someone is in front of Sam Black or Elsik, yeah, you may as well scoop, they aren't going to make a dumb mistake and they play crazy fast, but most FNM players aren't fast enough with the deck to play like that
If you're going to play a deck like that, you'll play the whole thing. The fact you're outraged that people would scoop to Tron but not Lantern is silly.
I do agree with you to call a judge if someone is sitting there for 45 seconds every turn when you know they can't do much. If someone pulls that ***** on you in a Rel event, you absolutely tell them to their face you'll call a judge, you'll tilt them hard from that threat alone.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Were do you put Dredge in the list?
On the one hand, we have a massive dataset analyzed using recognized methods to draw a clear conclusion, simultaneously acknowledging numerous limitations to this analysis despite the clarity of that conclusion.
On the other hand, we have purely rhetorical theories with zero attempt to back them up with any data. There is so much data out there. Modern critics, for some reason, refuse to even try to analyze that data to draw a conclusion.
I think it's pretty clear which of those approaches is more compelling to most users and we'll leave it at that.
I already did this in numerous posts. Yet again, there is no variance/"matchup lottery" effect in SCG Opens after looking at every 2017 Modern Open and comparing them to every 2016-2017 Legacy open. If you think Legacy is the idyllic low-variance, high-skill format, then Modern has the exact same performance outcomes as Legacy and should be treated the same. Like I've said in basically every single one of those posts, it is definitely possible this effect does not extend to smaller events with fewer than 15 rounds. I don't know whether this holds up, but I do know there is ample data for people in this thread to analyze it themselves.
Note that this has nothing to do with whether Modern is too linear or not. The analysis does not speak to the nature of decks that enable players to perform well. It merely says that the best Modern players are as good and consistent at their format as the best Legacy players are at theirs. If you want to complain about linearity, let's have an informed discussion about that. But if you want to complain about matchup lottery/variance, I'm afraid your argument does not hold any water.
I have no idea what the matchup is anymore. I'm sure Tron is favored against those decks. But it doesn't matter. The best players in Modern win as much in Modern, and with the same frequency, as the best Legacy players do in Legacy. Good players have overcome bad matchups that different decks have to consistently perform. Whatever the matchup spectrum is for Modern decks, it isn't affecting the performance of the good players. I assume most people in this thread, and in Modern generally, only care about "matchup lottery"/variance because they think it is negatively affecting their performance. As the SCG Open analysis showed, this is not the case for consistent Modern players.
Again, we can certainly talk about whether or not Modern is too linear. That's a more open question. But if you're worried about how Modern matchups, variance, lottery, etc. is affecting your performance, stop worrying about Modern, and start worrying about what skill deficits you lack that are preventing you from achieving the same success as the consistent Modern performers.
At the same time though, match up lottery only exists in small sample sizes. I'm sure if you take a large sample size of like over multiple months of SCG events we'd see a normalized match up percentage for the top scg grinders based on their deck.
The same is true for tron decks. They too have awful match-ups. The skill here is being able to choose the best deck or the best cards for sideboard.
In this meta jund and grixis control are poorly positioned so why play them if you want to win? There are plenty of other options available in each category of decks. In modern you can't stick with a single deck. You have to change at least some cards from week to week adapting to the meta. If you understand the deck you are playing is awful, change it or be prepared to lose.
I can't understand: is this the problem for people who are complaining? That they have to change?
I don't care if a deck or another has bad match-ups as long as that deck's predator has its own bad ones. That an healthy modern format. Not for me but for wizards.
Modern:
But when people talk like you can accurately predict your matchups for an upcoming event I question their grip on reality. When you pick jund and walk into four straight tron matchups this means you're an unskilled player because you incorrectly predicted your matchups?
When you play some tier 3 death n taxes deck and take down a tournament by running hot and hitting favourable matches you're a metagame wizard?
Its such an embedded concept that its probably hopeless to think people will ever stop pointing to "metagaming well" as an honest to god magic skill, but its so ludicrously stupid from any logical point of view I do not know how we ever got to where we are. "GDS is popular so people will bring etron but etron will then actually be popular so ill bring storm and be king of the meta except people will be ready for storm anyways so..." its the princess bride scene playing out at every event (I knew youd know I knew you knew)
* Esper Draw-Go
* Tezzeret Whir
* Blue Tron
Top Moderners- Avg # of Modern decks: 1.91
Top Legacyers - Avg # of Legacy decks: 1.68
Top Moderners - Only 1 Modern deck: 40%
Top Legacyers - Only 1 Legacy deck: 58%
Top Moderners - 2+ Modern decks: 60%
Top Legacyers - 2+ Legacy decks: 42%
Top Moderners - Avg # of other Modern decks: 2.5
Top Legacyers - Avg # of other Legacy decks: 2.63
All data comes from SCG Opens (2017 Modern, 2016-17 Legacy). The samples are not huge (19 Legacy vs. 43 Modern), but there's no statistical difference between any of the segments when we look at their confidence intervals.
In standard you can metagame because you know there is a high likelihood of there only being 3-5 different decks you may be playing against. In Modern that gets expanded to 30+ decks in most instances. You can't exactly metagame in this sense.
However metagaming in Modern doesn't work on the axis of preparing yourself for specific decks. Metagaming in Modern works on the axis of preparing yourself for specific strategies.
For example let's say you are playing a WB deck. You may play against Dredge, Living End, Jeskai Geist, UW Control or Storm in a tournament. Against all of these decks running Rest in Peace, Leyline of the Void, or Nihil Spellbomb help since they all use the graveyard on some axis. Instead of using specific cards to fight specific decks, you run specific cards to shore up your match ups against specific axis of play an opponent's deck can take.
Of course you can't always deal with everything, which is why I think the first fundamental rule people need to accept about Modern is the following:
When you are choosing your deck, you need to accept there is at least one deck/archetype that will be an almost unbeatable match up
An example of this is Lantern Control. For as much as I love that deck, and as much as I think it is one of the best decks in the format, Tron is as close to a 10-90 match up as there can be in the format. When I sleeve up Lantern for a tournament, I accept that if I run into 4 Tron match ups in a row, I need to be playing at peak efficiency of I will lose every single one of those matches hands down. And even if I do play my best, I may just lose those matches anyway.
Now I'm not saying that there are auto-lose match ups. But with every deck in Modern, there is at least 1 deck or archetype where whether you win honestly comes down to whether or not you made any mistakes during your games, or how lucky you or your opponent got with your draws.
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
Besides, I thought that people here didn't think Brian Demars had credibility. Maybe that was with my own playgroup? I always discuss what Brian Demars says because he's a Modern enthusiast, has played quite a few decks, and does a lot of articles. Last time when Storm was "doing it," he ranked Titanshift as Tier 3...and I agreed...at the time. Come to think of it, I think it was my own play group and not HERE where Brian Demars was discredited. "What has he accomplished in the past few years?" My response - infinitely more than you.
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)While there's never value in entirely disregarding any content, I think you should watch some of Demars video content. He's a medium grinder that spiked some stuff in the past, but when you analyze his gameplay it's pretty clear he has no idea what he's talking about most of the time. If I'm ranking content producers, he's very, very close to the bottom. This doesn't mean you should never read his articles or he he doesn't sometimes have good ideas, but as with everything, you should read with scrutiny.
At the end of the day, he's better than most of us and has accomplished more. I do enjoy some of his articles though.
Standard has been such a mess ever since the Khans block ended. I'm really surprised just how long standards has been bad now. I don't know how they fix it right now, the energy mechanic was just a massive mistake (but very weak in any non standard format).
Modern is the best format right now, it has everything they envisioned, multiple decks, different archetypes, open to brewers etc.
I think the mistake that leads people to believe in a "matchup lottery" is the assumption of competence. If people goldfish optimally, and their decks don't interact, then you'd get a "matchup lottery." But most people don't goldfish perfectly, the pros simply play their own decks better than most people. At my last FNM, I won multiple "bad" matchups because my opponents weren't very good at piloting their decks and lost a "good" matchup to a tier 3 deck because the player was good.
Modern, in terms of openness and deck choices is amazing at the moment. There are viable aggro, control, midrange and combo decks, which is great. It is (and always has been) by far my favorite format.
What bothers me a bit about the format is the amount of decks that feel "dumb" to play against, like Tron or Dredge. I want to make meaningful decisions in my games, not hope that my opponent won't be able to goldfish quickly enough or that I draw my sideboard cards. I like games that are a back-and-forth battle and have many moments where you need to stop to think for a bit before you make your next move, and there are too many decks where such situations are rare, at least for my taste.
Also, I feel like Lantern is the best deck right now. Sure, it's hard to play and interesting to play against if you can interact with it in some way - but I know how miserable it can make people feel, since I sometimes play with it myself. What bothers me about it is the "Rule-Changing" aspect of Ensnaring Bridge: "What, you play creatures? pfff. Those don't work any more! What are you even doing?". It's like playing a different game, even though people came to play magic.
I think the bigger problem with Lantern is the player of the deck. The faux apologies over playing a deck they know is oppressive, in the sense that it prevents the opponent from doing anything, when fully executed. Which is then met with incredulity when I make you play out the game, which inevitably results in going to time and a draw.
"What? You have the lock? Okay, prove it by milling me out and actually winning."
Sorry, but I'm not going to scoop and let you get away with not playing the game out. Going to a draw is just fine with me. You chose the deck and now you'd better play out the game, using the strategy your deck was designed to execute. I don't want to hear the stupid apologies about how your deck operates or your whining when I don't scoop to your lock. You built the deck and chose to play it, so play it.
I think lantern is a cool deck and one that I am passively building towards. When you're playing lantern though, just own that your goal is to deny the opponent the ability to "play" magic.
/Rant
In regards to the Modern meta, I agree, there are numerous viable strategies. Meaning, there are many decks that have an opportunity to win a given tournament. I personally like that. Yes, sideboarding is harder, because you have a more diverse threat pool to guard against, which in turn creates the feeling of a "matchup lottery", but that's part of the fun. Finding sideboard cards that are wide enough to deal with the diverse threats that exist in the overall meta. It means the deck tinkering is never really complete.
I started this comment by creating a snide, recreation of your post, only from the Lantern player's point of view. But that gets us nowhere. So instead I will ask a simple question.
Why would you refuse to concede to Lantern?
If you were playing against Burn and you were at 2 life with your opponent having an Eidolon of the Great Revel in play, would you concede if you knew you had no life gain and your only way to get rid of Eidolon was a spell that cost 3 or less?
If you were playing against GDS and you were facing a Death's Shadow that would kill you in 2 turns and you knew you had no cards left in your deck to kill it, would you concede?
When your opponent plays a Spaceshift with 8 lands in play do you make them play it out, or do you concede to save time?
If your answer if no to all of the above, then we have no problems. If you are willing to fully play out every single scenario in which your chances of winning the game are virtually or literally 0%, then sure. Make Lantern mill you out, I have no problems with you.
However if you said yes to any of the above, then I need to wonder why you have this stupid vendetta against Lantern Control. And I'm not trying to single you out, a lot of people are like this. But you're the one who made the rant post.
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
As a Turns player, I know how it goes, not everyone has a taste for those kinds of decks, and yes its the only way for the locked out player to thumb their nose at the other player (without being rude) so just roll with it.
Spirits
I do roll with it. I just took issue with the fact that the rant made it seem like it was the Lantern player's fault their opponent was acting like a petulant child lol
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
At FNM, I'll probably scoop against Lantern. At a tournament? Playing that out, since it only takes a single screw up for me to be able to just kill them.
Like sure, I understand that. I understand the idea behind trying to edge out that small percent chance that the Lantern player screws up and you win.
Hell here is one mistake I made in my early days of playing the deck that my one friend to this day still won't let me forget.
I was playing against Burn, we're on game 3 and I'm at 3 life. I have 3 Codex Shredders and a Pyxis in play as well as an Ensnaring Bridge and my opponent has an Eidolon on the battlefield. I put blinders on basically, trying to just reflex mill every burn spell I saw on the top of his deck. In the process I used my Pyxis to exile the Leyline of Sanctity on top of my deck which would have given my opponent exactly 0 ways to win the game from that point. My opponent then ended up getting a burn spell through my mill effects and beat me.
So yeah, a Lantern player CAN make a mistake that will cost them the game. And if you think it is possible for you to win the game, then by all means, lets play it out and see what happens.
HOWEVER
What I will absolutely not tolerate is the kind of behaviour I see at every Comp REL tournament I have been in. That attitude of, "I know I can't win this game, but I'd rather give the Lantern player a draw than a win." The attitude where I have to call a Judge for slow play, because even though I am only letting my opponent draw lands, he still sits and considers his hand for 45 seconds to a minute every turn. The attitude where because they have a completely stupid, and extremely childish hatred for this deck. Which they (in my opinion) only have because they can't bother, or are unable, to grasp the inner workings of it and realize how exactly it wins games. The attitude where they need to try and not only make their Lantern opponent miserable, but make them feel like they deserve to be miserable.
People say they hate big mana decks like Tron.
People say they hate uninteractive combo like Storm.
People say they hate mindless aggro like Affinity.
But none of those players have their opponents try to make them feel emotionally ashamed for their deck choices.
Rant Ended
So in conclusion:
1. If you choose to play out a game with a person playing Lantern Control, do it because you actually think there is a chance you can win.
2. When you are done the game, be gracious in defeat or victory and congratulate your opponent on a game well played, without any snide remarks on the deck that happen to be playing.
3. Try not to make your opponent feel like they need to be completely miserable because they chose to play Lantern Control.
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
Look, it's simple. I know you enjoy playing Lantern. It's just that it makes people miserable. It's not fun to play against. If you don't understand, fine. But that's how a lot of people feel.
You're missing the point. Yeah playing against lantern can be miserable, but after the game is over, don't be a jerk about it. That's all.
Most players at an FNM don't play Lantern fast enough and I will absolutely make them play it out. I've only really met 1 competent Lantern player and it's because it was his first deck and all he plays.
Do I scoop against a Valakut deck when they have the win? Yup
Tron drops a Karn followed by Ugin? Yup
But those games end quickly, it takes a certain matchup to play a long game against Tron.
Now, if someone is in front of Sam Black or Elsik, yeah, you may as well scoop, they aren't going to make a dumb mistake and they play crazy fast, but most FNM players aren't fast enough with the deck to play like that
If you're going to play a deck like that, you'll play the whole thing. The fact you're outraged that people would scoop to Tron but not Lantern is silly.
I do agree with you to call a judge if someone is sitting there for 45 seconds every turn when you know they can't do much. If someone pulls that ***** on you in a Rel event, you absolutely tell them to their face you'll call a judge, you'll tilt them hard from that threat alone.