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.
There are a few differences in those scenarios from the lantern one, but, ultimately, my answer is, "yes". I want to see the game played out and for there to be finality to it, regardless of the inevitability. However, in the scenarios you provided, you're looking at a 1 - 2 turn clock. I'm unlikely to draw any answers in that time and, if I don't, big whoop, it took 30 seconds to get through those turns.
In the lantern example, you could set the lock up and there could be 40 turns left.
Also, the fundamental strategy, as noted by other subsequent posts, of Lantern is to deny the opponent the ability to do anything, while milling them to death. That's what you signed up for as the Lantern player and that's what you'll do to get the win. The other examples you provided are nothing like that. The most similar may be the Valakut example, in that it's a linear combo that doesn't really care what the other player is doing, it just needs to get to a certain board and hand state to create a winning combo / lock. Once that state is created, the game is over in 1 - 2 turns and yes, I will sill have them play it out because mistakes do happen. They may miss a trigger, they may sequence wrong, etc. etc.
Perfect example is Storm. I've had storm players start going off and where other people would have scooped, I let them go. They then screwed up their sequencing and combo, resulting in a fizzle. I then turned the game and won.
So, yes, I have players play out the win, even if a lock or combo is created because I want to see their deck fully engaged and I want to make sure they actually know how to play their deck. The deck they created and desired to play.
I play U-Tron. When I create a Mindslaver lock, I let the other player know and give them option to scoop, play through, and to ask questions/talk through the scenario. If they opt to play through, we do and I look for other ways to make the game end quicker while I engage the lock, if I can.
Lantern doesn't have that option. I have not run across a single lantern deck that, once the lock is established, that has any other win con than just milling.
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.
Agree, that there should be no animosity. I don't make them play it out and then rub their nose in it like a bad puppy that crapped on the floor. I don't comment on it, along the lines of, "I know you have the lock, but I'm not going to concede to prove a point..." I play the game out because, in some of my decks, I certainly do have a variety of answers we might run into.
At the end of the game, I always shake hands, give a smile, and comment on how much I admire the oppressiveness of the Lantern lock. My rant was more at the fact that the Lantern players I have played act all apologetic, like a bad puppy, because they know their deck is meant to be oppressive and so on and so forth. I'd rather have you own it and show me the power of your deck.
At the end of the game, I always shake hands, give a smile, and comment on how much I admire the oppressiveness of the Lantern lock. My rant was more at the fact that the Lantern players I have played act all apologetic, like a bad puppy, because they know their deck is meant to be oppressive and so on and so forth. I'd rather have you own it and show me the power of your deck.
I don't care one way or the other about Lantern, but I really dislike this idea that Lantern is somehow uniquely "oppressive," or worse (as suggested earlier), "not real Magic." One of the main points of giant, nonrotating formats is to play a diverse selection of offbeat strategies and wild interactions. THAT is Magic. In fact, that combination of cards to create something new and interesting is Magic at its core. Lantern is no more/less Magic than any other deck that accomplishes this. Players who dislike that should not play Modern. Of course, if Lantern is creating logistical issues (it isn't), then that is another issue. But no one is really making that argument in a serious way; it's just "Lantern feels mean to me!" and variants thereof.
On the one hand, he basically acknowledges it's a meaningless article with opening quotes like this: "So I'll do what everyone else does: make overly opinionated statements based on my extremely low understanding of the format!" It's good to acknowledge limitations, even in a humorous fashion, but the later conclusions are so authoritative that it's almost like Brad forgot his own disclaimer. As we have talked about before, knowing that your article is "overly opinionated" and based on an "extremely low understanding of the format" does not give it a pass to be under-researched and uninformed. In a particularly unfortunate segment, he makes a few sweeping conclusions about Modern variance based on the results of what sounds like 5 Leagues; three of which he goes 13-2 in, and two of which he goes 1-3 in. These kinds of high-school op-ed pieces have no place in Magic as a whole, let alone individual formats.
(Remember folks: Modern has the same variance as Legacy at the SCG Open level).
Thankfully, Brad mostly acknowledges that he isn't a Modern authority and is just trying to figure things out. This is at least more measured than some of the truly offensive Modern pieces, but I wish we could get past this high school op-ed writing and into some more meat. It's clear that websites are asking their authors to write about Modern because it's popular, but they are not setting a high enough bar as to what that content needs to look like. It's not about using stats/math. It's about using MORE of the extensive data and results that are already out there, including one's own playtesting.
Yeah, that article wasn't very good. It very much came off like editors wanted him to write about modern and he writes an article he didn't want to. It's hard to write about standard because the format is stale and broken, and people can only stomach so many energy deck articles.
His whole article left me not knowing what I wanted to play, and depressed me declaring that thoughtseize+Goyf+lilly is bad.
He wasn't wrong about Shadow, the deck is no longer, "oh my god, it's amazing", it's just a good deck that drove out a lot of it's free wins. The deck is definitely capable of broken hands and games but has to earn its wins now.
I don't care one way or the other about Lantern, but I really dislike this idea that Lantern is somehow uniquely "oppressive," or worse (as suggested earlier), "not real Magic." One of the main points of giant, nonrotating formats is to play a diverse selection of offbeat strategies and wild interactions. THAT is Magic. In fact, that combination of cards to create something new and interesting is Magic at its core. Lantern is no more/less Magic than any other deck that accomplishes this. Players who dislike that should not play Modern. Of course, if Lantern is creating logistical issues (it isn't), then that is another issue. But no one is really making that argument in a serious way; it's just "Lantern feels mean to me!" and variants thereof.
Very, very, very well said. It's basically what I have been saying to everybody at my FNM when someone is salty and considers one particular deck to be "unfun" and that "it shouldn't be Modern legal"! If you don't like a particular deck, this is not the format for you!
(Of course there is an exception, meaning when a deck is truly overpowered and format warping like GGT Dredge was for example, then it becomes a serious issue)
On the one hand, he basically acknowledges it's a meaningless article with opening quotes like this: "So I'll do what everyone else does: make overly opinionated statements based on my extremely low understanding of the format!" It's good to acknowledge limitations, even in a humorous fashion, but the later conclusions are so authoritative that it's almost like Brad forgot his own disclaimer. As we have talked about before, knowing that your article is "overly opinionated" and based on an "extremely low understanding of the format" does not give it a pass to be under-researched and uninformed. In a particularly unfortunate segment, he makes a few sweeping conclusions about Modern variance based on the results of what sounds like 5 Leagues; three of which he goes 13-2 in, and two of which he goes 1-3 in. These kinds of high-school op-ed pieces have no place in Magic as a whole, let alone individual formats.
(Remember folks: Modern has the same variance as Legacy at the SCG Open level).
Thankfully, Brad mostly acknowledges that he isn't a Modern authority and is just trying to figure things out. This is at least more measured than some of the truly offensive Modern pieces, but I wish we could get past this high school op-ed writing and into some more meat. It's clear that websites are asking their authors to write about Modern because it's popular, but they are not setting a high enough bar as to what that content needs to look like. It's not about using stats/math. It's about using MORE of the extensive data and results that are already out there, including one's own playtesting.
I believe he is already answering about trying to deduct conclusions from a bunch of leagues: "Why did I have such varying results? Well it's because each individual league is way too low of a sample size."
Re: Variance at the SCG Open Level, I know you did your math on this stuff, but I still seriously doubt them.
Ben Friedman on another article(non-premium) says this stuff about Modern's variance:
Ben Friedman: Playing Modern is like walking a tightrope with no safety net below. Folks who fancy themselves "experts" hate that kind of uncertainty. They want to insulate themselves in the warm blanket of consistency, with universally-applicable reactive cards that allow them to focus on answer sequencing, rather than answer selection. Modern challenges them to walk that tightrope, and although it is a decidedly high-variance format, the reward is that it is also a high-skill-gap one.
Take that to heart. Modern is undoubtedly high-variance, but the skilled players hold massive advantages over the mediocre ones. Compared to Legacy, which has Brainstorm, Ponder, and Force of Will to ameliorate inconsistency and wrong-answer syndrome, in Modern you're significantly more likely to wind up at the mercy of the top cards of your deck to decide your fate. However, the huge and constant influx of new blood in Modern means that there will always be a massive cohort of less-experienced players, which is less and less true of Legacy these days.
I am willing to believe it's possible so many pros saying this very thing over the years is a better sample size than any other proof.
On the other hand, I am unsure if we can trust data in every aspect/situation.
This is not a direct disagreement with you, just expressing that I am not sure enough about the thing, although I have literally played AN AWFUL LOT of Modern already and I do love it and I think it's the most fun and the best format by a Mile!
I saw that article too. I like how he put it, "Modern has a lot of variance, but the skilled players still hold a massive advantage over average ones." I think in the scheme of a small tournament, an average player can do super well, but once it gets to thousands of matches, it will even out (yes, even in Modern).
I don't know what it is because usually I like to disagree with Pro Players, but a lot of articles have been spot on IMHO. Obviously it helps that there haven't been those "ban 8th and 9th edition" articles, lol. It's pretty tough for anyone to agree with those.
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)
So we have our answer in, "What would we get if Wizards was to try and reprint Blood Moon?"
Blood Sun 2R
Enchantment
When Blood Sun enters the battlefield, draw a card.
All lands lose all abilities except mana abilities.
So this doesn't shut down the Tron lands, but it turns off a lot of stuff in Modern. Obviously Blood Moon is a lot better, but there are some decks like Tron that want a way to turn off specific lands (like Valakut) without hurting their own mana.
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
So we have our answer in, "What would we get if Wizards was to try and reprint Blood Moon?"
Blood Sun 2R
Enchantment
When Blood Sun enters the battlefield, draw a card.
All lands lose all abilities except mana abilities.
So this doesn't shut down the Tron lands, but it turns off a lot of stuff in Modern. Obviously Blood Moon is a lot better, but there are some decks like Tron that want a way to turn off specific lands (like Valakut) without hurting their own mana.
Ah, boo, this only targeting Valakut is useless then.
Too narrow for modern to even consider then
That sucks, they almost got things right, how useless.
At the end of the game, I always shake hands, give a smile, and comment on how much I admire the oppressiveness of the Lantern lock. My rant was more at the fact that the Lantern players I have played act all apologetic, like a bad puppy, because they know their deck is meant to be oppressive and so on and so forth. I'd rather have you own it and show me the power of your deck.
I don't care one way or the other about Lantern, but I really dislike this idea that Lantern is somehow uniquely "oppressive," or worse (as suggested earlier), "not real Magic." One of the main points of giant, nonrotating formats is to play a diverse selection of offbeat strategies and wild interactions. THAT is Magic. In fact, that combination of cards to create something new and interesting is Magic at its core. Lantern is no more/less Magic than any other deck that accomplishes this. Players who dislike that should not play Modern. Of course, if Lantern is creating logistical issues (it isn't), then that is another issue. But no one is really making that argument in a serious way; it's just "Lantern feels mean to me!" and variants thereof.
I agree wholeheartedly and think we're talking around each other a bit here. I don't believe the deck is oppressive in an un-fun, un-magic way, or that it's strategy is antithetical to the concept of Magic. It's a deck that is meant to stop the opponent from acting and win by completely imprisoning the opponent, stopping them from acting in any meaningful way, essentially. I am totally fine with that strategy, concept, play style, etc.
It is 1 of a myriad of ways to "play" the game. My gripe is with people that offer faux apologies about the manner in which their deck operates. I most often see this with Lantern players because it is the most commonly played and strongest "prison" style deck and it's sole purpose and, often, only win con is complete imprisonment of the opponent that eventually mills the opponent to death. It's a long, slow affair.
If you make a deck, own it. Own the strategy. Likewise, realize that I and others will make you play your deck to ultimate end and don't be upset that you have to go through the long, drawn out process of doing so, when you created a deck with such a slow clock.
That's all I'm getting at. I love the concept and strategy. Like I said, I'm building into a lantern deck, albeit, slowly, because I think it's a cool concept. Just don't apologize for the fact that your deck operates the way it does, when you're the one who built it.
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.
I don't scoop to Lantern, even at FNM. But not for any reasons you state above. Simply because a draw is better for my breakers than a loss. If it's game 1 and you lock I'll scoop to game 2 hoping for the chance to get to a game 3. Similarly if it's game 2 and losing that game makes us go to game 3 I'll scoop. But in a game that decides the match I won't scoop until I've actually lost.
Unless I'm already out of the money and just playing for fun. I'll scoop to any deck in the face of a lock at that point.
Ok, never mind, I think I read the card wrong and it's bad, it has a different restriction from what I thought. It's just EDH fodder.
The card is loot 5 times, then gain 5 life and flip. Seems ok honestly.
The card is loot five times, and then if you've discarded five different cmcs, flip. Much much much more challenging. How many Modern decks have a wide enough curve to support this reliably? You not only need to have one of your higher cmc cards early, you need to be willing to pitch it in order to get a boatload of Mana. Granted, I can see a specific deck arising from this card, but outside of control, which doesn't really want the backside, I think you need to build around this card.
Search your library for a card, put it into your hand, then shuffle your library
Choose a card you own from outside the game and put it into your hand
This card is definitely interesting. Not sure if it is Modern playable, but I am not going to immediately shoot down a card that can be either a Tutor or a Wish at first glance. Even if it does cost 4 mana.
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
Re: variance
I don't know if GP, Classics, FNMs, etc. are high variance. I just know that SCG Modern Opens have the same variance as SCG Legacy Opens. Any pro who thinks otherwise is objectively wrong. BUT the analysis doesn't necessarily extend to other events. It certainly might, but we don't know for sure.
Yeah, that article wasn't very good. It very much came off like editors wanted him to write about modern and he writes an article he didn't want to.
This.
Considering Nelson's comments about Modern as a format on Twitter, I can't imagine he enjoyed this assignment.
Side notes
- I haven't seen much chatter on it yet, but I'm wondering if Modern Human's doesn't take a hard look at the Warsail marauder
- It might be to clunky, but I sort of wondered about Timestream Navigator in a Young Pyromancer deck. Flood out with counters then take an extra turn or two to push through all the damage. Probably not, but it sounds cute.
Yeah, I'm incredibly frustrated that WOTC was so close to nearly putting effort into a proper sideboard hate card.
If this were real, some decks could actually have 2 to 3 of these in the side for Valakut and Tron
So frustrating that instead they just created a garbage card that nearly hit the right notes.
It's obvious they don't want Tron harmed, I guess.
I'm pretty sure this was primarily designed to be an anti-Desert card in Standard rather than being specifically made for larger formats.
Probably.
Though I think it's going to see some Legacy play. Turning off fetches, Thespian's Stage, Maze of Ith, etc is pretty sweet. Between this and the Silent Gravestone, there's some interesting Legacy sideboard cards.
Yeah, I'm incredibly frustrated that WOTC was so close to nearly putting effort into a proper sideboard hate card.
If this were real, some decks could actually have 2 to 3 of these in the side for Valakut and Tron
So frustrating that instead they just created a garbage card that nearly hit the right notes.
It's obvious they don't want Tron harmed, I guess.
I'm pretty sure this was primarily designed to be an anti-Desert card in Standard rather than being specifically made for larger formats.
Probably.
Though I think it's going to see some Legacy play. Turning off fetches, Thespian's Stage, Maze of Ith, etc is pretty sweet. Between this and the Silent Gravestone, there's some interesting Legacy sideboard cards.
Turning off lands is definitely interesting, could even be used in Sneak and Show to stop Karakas.
Well it's more Legacy Talk, but it hits multiple targets in Death and Taxes, it will be interesting to see if it has the effect I believe it could in Legacy.
There are a few differences in those scenarios from the lantern one, but, ultimately, my answer is, "yes". I want to see the game played out and for there to be finality to it, regardless of the inevitability. However, in the scenarios you provided, you're looking at a 1 - 2 turn clock. I'm unlikely to draw any answers in that time and, if I don't, big whoop, it took 30 seconds to get through those turns.
In the lantern example, you could set the lock up and there could be 40 turns left.
Also, the fundamental strategy, as noted by other subsequent posts, of Lantern is to deny the opponent the ability to do anything, while milling them to death. That's what you signed up for as the Lantern player and that's what you'll do to get the win. The other examples you provided are nothing like that. The most similar may be the Valakut example, in that it's a linear combo that doesn't really care what the other player is doing, it just needs to get to a certain board and hand state to create a winning combo / lock. Once that state is created, the game is over in 1 - 2 turns and yes, I will sill have them play it out because mistakes do happen. They may miss a trigger, they may sequence wrong, etc. etc.
Perfect example is Storm. I've had storm players start going off and where other people would have scooped, I let them go. They then screwed up their sequencing and combo, resulting in a fizzle. I then turned the game and won.
So, yes, I have players play out the win, even if a lock or combo is created because I want to see their deck fully engaged and I want to make sure they actually know how to play their deck. The deck they created and desired to play.
I play U-Tron. When I create a Mindslaver lock, I let the other player know and give them option to scoop, play through, and to ask questions/talk through the scenario. If they opt to play through, we do and I look for other ways to make the game end quicker while I engage the lock, if I can.
Lantern doesn't have that option. I have not run across a single lantern deck that, once the lock is established, that has any other win con than just milling.
Agree, that there should be no animosity. I don't make them play it out and then rub their nose in it like a bad puppy that crapped on the floor. I don't comment on it, along the lines of, "I know you have the lock, but I'm not going to concede to prove a point..." I play the game out because, in some of my decks, I certainly do have a variety of answers we might run into.
At the end of the game, I always shake hands, give a smile, and comment on how much I admire the oppressiveness of the Lantern lock. My rant was more at the fact that the Lantern players I have played act all apologetic, like a bad puppy, because they know their deck is meant to be oppressive and so on and so forth. I'd rather have you own it and show me the power of your deck.
2 mana artifact, tap 1 mana, draw a card and exile a card thats 5 mana or more to flip
Gain 5 life, flip card, it becomes untapped
Land has as much mana equal to your life total
How the hell did this pass design? Seriously, I hope I'm panicking over nothing, this just screams to snap a format or two in half.
I don't care one way or the other about Lantern, but I really dislike this idea that Lantern is somehow uniquely "oppressive," or worse (as suggested earlier), "not real Magic." One of the main points of giant, nonrotating formats is to play a diverse selection of offbeat strategies and wild interactions. THAT is Magic. In fact, that combination of cards to create something new and interesting is Magic at its core. Lantern is no more/less Magic than any other deck that accomplishes this. Players who dislike that should not play Modern. Of course, if Lantern is creating logistical issues (it isn't), then that is another issue. But no one is really making that argument in a serious way; it's just "Lantern feels mean to me!" and variants thereof.
In other news, I'm pretty ambivalent about this one from Nelson:
http://www.starcitygames.com/article/36403_55-Opinions-On-Modern.html
On the one hand, he basically acknowledges it's a meaningless article with opening quotes like this: "So I'll do what everyone else does: make overly opinionated statements based on my extremely low understanding of the format!" It's good to acknowledge limitations, even in a humorous fashion, but the later conclusions are so authoritative that it's almost like Brad forgot his own disclaimer. As we have talked about before, knowing that your article is "overly opinionated" and based on an "extremely low understanding of the format" does not give it a pass to be under-researched and uninformed. In a particularly unfortunate segment, he makes a few sweeping conclusions about Modern variance based on the results of what sounds like 5 Leagues; three of which he goes 13-2 in, and two of which he goes 1-3 in. These kinds of high-school op-ed pieces have no place in Magic as a whole, let alone individual formats.
(Remember folks: Modern has the same variance as Legacy at the SCG Open level).
Thankfully, Brad mostly acknowledges that he isn't a Modern authority and is just trying to figure things out. This is at least more measured than some of the truly offensive Modern pieces, but I wish we could get past this high school op-ed writing and into some more meat. It's clear that websites are asking their authors to write about Modern because it's popular, but they are not setting a high enough bar as to what that content needs to look like. It's not about using stats/math. It's about using MORE of the extensive data and results that are already out there, including one's own playtesting.
His whole article left me not knowing what I wanted to play, and depressed me declaring that thoughtseize+Goyf+lilly is bad.
He wasn't wrong about Shadow, the deck is no longer, "oh my god, it's amazing", it's just a good deck that drove out a lot of it's free wins. The deck is definitely capable of broken hands and games but has to earn its wins now.
I saw that article too. I like how he put it, "Modern has a lot of variance, but the skilled players still hold a massive advantage over average ones." I think in the scheme of a small tournament, an average player can do super well, but once it gets to thousands of matches, it will even out (yes, even in Modern).
I don't know what it is because usually I like to disagree with Pro Players, but a lot of articles have been spot on IMHO. Obviously it helps that there haven't been those "ban 8th and 9th edition" articles, lol. It's pretty tough for anyone to agree with those.
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)Blood Sun 2R
Enchantment
When Blood Sun enters the battlefield, draw a card.
All lands lose all abilities except mana abilities.
So this doesn't shut down the Tron lands, but it turns off a lot of stuff in Modern. Obviously Blood Moon is a lot better, but there are some decks like Tron that want a way to turn off specific lands (like Valakut) without hurting their own mana.
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
https://mobile.twitter.com/EliShffrn/status/948964062074818561
Blood Sun 2R
When Blood Sun enters the battlefield, draw a card
All lands lose all abilities except mana abilities?
Does this shut off the tron and valakut stuff?
If not, it's a garbage card and you can carry on, I'm asking anyone how this is interpreted
If yes, drawing a card while playing the hate seems fantastic
Ah, boo, this only targeting Valakut is useless then.
Too narrow for modern to even consider then
That sucks, they almost got things right, how useless.
I agree wholeheartedly and think we're talking around each other a bit here. I don't believe the deck is oppressive in an un-fun, un-magic way, or that it's strategy is antithetical to the concept of Magic. It's a deck that is meant to stop the opponent from acting and win by completely imprisoning the opponent, stopping them from acting in any meaningful way, essentially. I am totally fine with that strategy, concept, play style, etc.
It is 1 of a myriad of ways to "play" the game. My gripe is with people that offer faux apologies about the manner in which their deck operates. I most often see this with Lantern players because it is the most commonly played and strongest "prison" style deck and it's sole purpose and, often, only win con is complete imprisonment of the opponent that eventually mills the opponent to death. It's a long, slow affair.
If you make a deck, own it. Own the strategy. Likewise, realize that I and others will make you play your deck to ultimate end and don't be upset that you have to go through the long, drawn out process of doing so, when you created a deck with such a slow clock.
That's all I'm getting at. I love the concept and strategy. Like I said, I'm building into a lantern deck, albeit, slowly, because I think it's a cool concept. Just don't apologize for the fact that your deck operates the way it does, when you're the one who built it.
If this were real, some decks could actually have 2 to 3 of these in the side for Valakut and Tron
So frustrating that instead they just created a garbage card that nearly hit the right notes.
It's obvious they don't want Tron harmed, I guess.
Unless I'm already out of the money and just playing for fun. I'll scoop to any deck in the face of a lock at that point.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffModern Tallowisp Spirits - A Modern Tallowisp Deck UW
Eldrazi Ninjas - Summoning Octopus Jutsu YYYYAAAHHHH!
STANDARD
Naban Wizards
The card is loot 5 times, then gain 5 life and flip. Seems ok honestly.
The card is loot five times, and then if you've discarded five different cmcs, flip. Much much much more challenging. How many Modern decks have a wide enough curve to support this reliably? You not only need to have one of your higher cmc cards early, you need to be willing to pitch it in order to get a boatload of Mana. Granted, I can see a specific deck arising from this card, but outside of control, which doesn't really want the backside, I think you need to build around this card.
Sorcery
Choose One:
This card is definitely interesting. Not sure if it is Modern playable, but I am not going to immediately shoot down a card that can be either a Tutor or a Wish at first glance. Even if it does cost 4 mana.
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 don't know if GP, Classics, FNMs, etc. are high variance. I just know that SCG Modern Opens have the same variance as SCG Legacy Opens. Any pro who thinks otherwise is objectively wrong. BUT the analysis doesn't necessarily extend to other events. It certainly might, but we don't know for sure.
Basically a zero % chance.
This.
Considering Nelson's comments about Modern as a format on Twitter, I can't imagine he enjoyed this assignment.
Side notes
- I haven't seen much chatter on it yet, but I'm wondering if Modern Human's doesn't take a hard look at the Warsail marauder
- It might be to clunky, but I sort of wondered about Timestream Navigator in a Young Pyromancer deck. Flood out with counters then take an extra turn or two to push through all the damage. Probably not, but it sounds cute.
Modern: Storm
Legacy: ANT
Probably.
Though I think it's going to see some Legacy play. Turning off fetches, Thespian's Stage, Maze of Ith, etc is pretty sweet. Between this and the Silent Gravestone, there's some interesting Legacy sideboard cards.
Modern: Storm
Legacy: ANT
Turning off lands is definitely interesting, could even be used in Sneak and Show to stop Karakas.
Well it's more Legacy Talk, but it hits multiple targets in Death and Taxes, it will be interesting to see if it has the effect I believe it could in Legacy.
Still no spoilers that look impactful for modern yet