The only change I could see myself making initially is -1 Fulminator for 1 Sphere. Tron really sucks for Jund with or without 4 Fulminator Mage, but the percentages I can see gaining an advantage over the rest of the field with a sick curve makes me look at Sphere more as a "Golgari Charm" than a "Fatal Push"
That's not where sphere is amazing, take a look at this 5-0 Bant Sideboard, link to all decklists here
This is a deck where you can tell it actually does have a slow developing gameplan, and it doesn't look swell against both Storm or Tron. This is where you could find 3 copies of Sphere and it dramatically changes their matchup.
I see the new orb card being a 1 or 2 of in sideboards. It's pretty good but still somewhat narrow. Reminds me a bit of that Kambal card from Kaladesh, which hit mostly just burn and storm. On the flipside though the orb is colorless so maybe we'll see it more.
Decks like Skred have had no answer to Tron for years now, other than get lucky that your opponent has a slow draw. T3 Karn or Wurmcoil is absurdly hard to answer for many decks. Having a 2-drop answer is what I've been asking for since my first forays into Modern, because playing Midrange sucks if your opponent naturally goes 1-2-7, I win.
In other news, "WotC hates on Storm decks, more at 11."
No answer to Tron? Don't they run multiple maindeck Blood Moons?
Why do you think no one likes cards like Blood Moon
I like Blood Moon.
I do too, but we are twisted people. His "no one" probably is better put as "90% of players." You can't refute that.
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)
No one should ever feel sorry for punishing somebody that put all eggs in a single basket. Blood Moon doesn't phase the goodstuff decks out of the meta, gives two color decks a reason to exist and sometimes makes for good maindeck plans. Excellent Modern staple.
on one hand it can be abused, and getting locked out of playing is a feelbad. on the otherhand it "incentivizes" playing basics, which i think is good.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
This isn't related to any single post, but it's a general response to a pervasive thread I see on this forum, Reddit, and in many of the more critical articles.
I really do not like this concept of "feelsbad" games/cards or "non-games" as it often applies to Modern. There's an implicit definition of "proper Magic" in these kinds of complaints which many Spikes believe. Examples of their proper Magic tend to include grindy midrange matchups, control mirrors, complicated board states, and stack battles. Then there are examples of gameplay that is typically ruled as "not real Magic," "non-games," or ones that create "feelsbad" moments for another player. Examples include fast wins, strategies that an opponent can't interact with for whatever reason, powerful trump cards that shut down a strategy, etc. I often see traditional midrange/control players talk about this distinction as if it is a matter of objective truth, not personal preference.
This is frustrating because we all know Magic is the amazing game it is today because of its diversity. This is especially true in Modern, the diversity format. If someone wants to play a prison deck, they can. If they want to play a blue-based reactive deck, they can. If they want to play ramp, swarm aggro, or combo, they can do all of that. There is nothing objectively bad about any of those ways of playing Magic. Many players play decks/cards/the game for different reasons. There's nothing any more "feelsbad" about a Lantern player shutting down an opponent's draw step in the way the Lantern player wants to play Magic, than there is an aggro player killing the Lantern player on T3 and preventing the Lantern player from fulfilling their gameplan. Getting T3d Karn feels bad to one player but may feel great to the other and is the reason they play the deck. By a similar token, the blue player may love to chain Field of Ruin into Rejection into Snapcaster/Rejection (etc. etc.) and totally shut down Tron from doing anything. That feels just as bad to the Tron player as the T3 Karn probably did to the blue player.
I wish we could move away from the notion of there being a "right" way to play Magic or Modern. Honestly, the best way to do this that satisfies the most people is probably to create an environment where as many people can play whatever kind of strategy they want and where basically all of those could be viable in any given tournament. I.e. Modern as it basically is now. That feels much closer to Magic's original sandbox and open-ended vision than some kind of narrow view of a "right"/"proper" way to play.
I agree with all of kenshin's points, but I would also add that I think it's natural to feel frustrated when you lose because your opponent did something you can't interact with at all. Specifically Bogles stuff in this case, but Hollow One is another example.
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 agree with all of kenshin's points, but I would also add that I think it's natural to feel frustrated when you lose because your opponent did something you can't interact with at all. Specifically Bogles stuff in this case, but Hollow One is another example.
I don't disagree bur would add a spin. I think games are frustrating to Player A when Player A has a game plan in mind and Player B does something that totally invalidates it. Player B is probably having a grand time in this example, or at least not complaining. The classic example would be Bogles wrecking a deck like Grixis Control as we saw at the MOCS. Bogles player is executing the exact game plan the Bogles player came out to do. Grixis player came out to play a certain kind of Magic game and was completely prevented from doing so. But the other example would be something like Jeskai Control vs. Affinity when Affinity doesn't have the most outrageous start and Jeskai leads Bolt into Stony Silence and the Affinity player just can't do crap. Or a Storm player who is on the play and feeling great before getting hit by T1 IoK, T2 TS/Push, and T3 Liliana. It's just disheartening all around.
In all these examples, the issue is not any specific type of gameplan that is getting promoted or shut down. It's that someone is frustrated because their gameplan got shut down in a noticeable way. The reason I believe interactive players get more frustrated is because they notice the shut down happen earlier. Bogles prevents you from executing that gameplan in T1-T3. But when you're a Storm player losing to Jund, you sort of feel like you're in it throughout the game, even though you're probably screwed from T2 on.
Bogles can be answered by many Green or White cards, and sometimes Black sac effects. Those options may be somewhat narrow, but Enchantment hate isn't a bad thing to focus a bit more on in Modern. Heck, Engineered Explosives or Ratchet Bomb can easily ruin their day.
Hollow One loses to Path, Wrath, Grudge, and/or RiP. Settle shuts you down really hard.
Against G/X Tron? Other than Ceremonious/other Counterspells that will eventually run out if you aren't putting pressure on the Tron player, I can't think of anything that answers them. That's always been the problem; people's only reply is, "Just go faster!" That's not a SB or MD answer to a specific deck, that's a declaration of bad design. And no, after a year of playing Skred, I can assure you, T3 Blood Moon doesn't do jack to Tron; it's simply not fast enough to stop them from crushing you with an unanswerable threat, and 3 mana do-nothing is a terrible play in Modern; Goblin Rabblemaster was a more effective answer, and it wasn't very reliable.
I'll admit, my biggest issue with Hollow One is that the deck forcibly mulligans me to a hand that might just be... well, crap. I don't like the deck, but the majority of my dislike comes from Burning Inquiry as a card.
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.
Hey, fair enough point! Cast Inquiry Turn 1 in Regionals last fall against Storm, I ended up with 3 Hollow Ones and a Dragon's Claw, he discarded a Shattering Spree. Felt pretty damn bad, even though I was easily winning.
sorry ktkenshinx but i am going to have to disagree with some of your points.
what i do agree with is that there is no particularly 'right' way to play the game. especially in a format like modern, which is supposed to let you experience all that the game of magic has to offer - including the more nuanced and less seen cards and interactions. people shouldnt be villainized for playing a certain type of deck nor should players put themselves above others because they choose not to play said deck type.
what i dont agree on is telling people what they are allowed to feel. you are functionally telling people that you dont agree or understand why they find particular aspects of the game un-fun, therefore they are wrong and should stop feeling that way. which strikes me as odd because you propose that there is no right way for the game to be played, then immediately begin explaining the right way.
feelbad moments exist. certain sequences of events or gameplay patterns elicit a negative emotional response. for some more than others. that is just reality. the most notable and apt example for this discussion is locking a player out of making meaningful game actions. this can come in various forms like you mentioned including countering everything they do or invalidating their mana.
a probable explanation is that once a player stops being able to take game actions, they are no longer a participant in a game. so the opponent is having fun, thats good - at least someone is. however its akin to being bored, but then taking solace in the fact that other people are experiencing interesting things. which sounds ridiculous, because it is.
of course no one likes losing badly. however if people express a distinction in enjoyment levels between getting locked out by a turn 3 bloodmoon, and getting their teeth kicked in by some aggro deck on turn 3. well, thats their right.
basically my point is that you are expressing your opinion on the game and format without acknowledging that other opinions are just as valid as yours.
take a moment to consider why wizards has moved away from certain types of gameplay elements. whether or not you agree with their reasons isnt important; whats important is to realize that their reasons exist.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
I agree with all of kenshin's points, but I would also add that I think it's natural to feel frustrated when you lose because your opponent did something you can't interact with at all. Specifically Bogles stuff in this case, but Hollow One is another example.
I don't disagree bur would add a spin. I think games are frustrating to Player A when Player A has a game plan in mind and Player B does something that totally invalidates it. Player B is probably having a grand time in this example, or at least not complaining. The classic example would be Bogles wrecking a deck like Grixis Control as we saw at the MOCS. Bogles player is executing the exact game plan the Bogles player came out to do. Grixis player came out to play a certain kind of Magic game and was completely prevented from doing so. But the other example would be something like Jeskai Control vs. Affinity when Affinity doesn't have the most outrageous start and Jeskai leads Bolt into Stony Silence and the Affinity player just can't do crap. Or a Storm player who is on the play and feeling great before getting hit by T1 IoK, T2 TS/Push, and T3 Liliana. It's just disheartening all around.
In all these examples, the issue is not any specific type of gameplan that is getting promoted or shut down. It's that someone is frustrated because their gameplan got shut down in a noticeable way. The reason I believe interactive players get more frustrated is because they notice the shut down happen earlier. Bogles prevents you from executing that gameplan in T1-T3. But when you're a Storm player losing to Jund, you sort of feel like you're in it throughout the game, even though you're probably screwed from T2 on.
I was watching SaffronOlive play a restore balance deck against Tron the other day. The part that struck me as funny was that on g3 he was lamenting that they only got to play 1 real game out of magic out of three because g1/g3 the opponent had t3 Tron so g2 was the only real game. Of course g2 was when he got a restore balance to destroy 3 of the opponents lands (and wipe out any creatures if they had any) while he got to keep 2 mana sources.
Not that I want to harangue him specifically for it, but this sort of sentiment comes up quite often with people feeling that if they get to do their own broken thing it's okay, but Tron doing the same thing is too good.
The only change I could see myself making initially is -1 Fulminator for 1 Sphere. Tron really sucks for Jund with or without 4 Fulminator Mage, but the percentages I can see gaining an advantage over the rest of the field with a sick curve makes me look at Sphere more as a "Golgari Charm" than a "Fatal Push"
That's not where sphere is amazing, take a look at this 5-0 Bant Sideboard, link to all decklists here
This is a deck where you can tell it actually does have a slow developing gameplan, and it doesn't look swell against both Storm or Tron. This is where you could find 3 copies of Sphere and it dramatically changes their matchup.
You nailed it. I think this card will be slotted into decks like UW control.
Jund can't just stick 3 or 4 of these in and call it a day.
I imagine 1 fulminator will come out for this. MAYBE 2. Fulminators are crucial for other matchups. We can't just pick up a playset because of tron.
Jund will benefit from this because other decks will play this, not because jund picks it up.
As for Sheridan....nah, man. There are feel bad moments. When someone locks you out early before you make any meaningful interaction that's extremely unfun.
3 hollow ones turn 1. Fantastic. Rolling the dice took longer than the game
I play 1 land while my opponent on the play slams down blood moon. Great.
Telling people how they should feel seems unlike you.
I will say, it makes for crappy magic, bad viewing and agitated feelings. There's a reason wotc bans that nonsense if it happens too consistently and too quickly. It's bad magic.
Could you imagine playing call of duty modern warfare 2 and ten seconds into it a nuke was announced. You wasted your time. You spent more time in the lobby than playing. You couldn't do anything meaningful.
Honestly, id rather see decks like jund or shadow on top than dredge and infect.
Watching two ships in the night win by turn 3 sucks, and the message boards, reddit, twitch chat often reflect that. And yes, I understand the garbage thats in twitch chat
I think the new sphere is great. Finally, finally, finally a real sideboard card vs tron.
Tron is not too good. But it can really mess up local metas. Ive seen people quit modern because their decks could not compete in the 40 pct tron meta. The only advice you could give them was play a different deck, because theres no way to shore up the matchup from the sideboard. And in this aspect tron always was pretty unique.
This doesnt wipe out tron, it just forces them to hedge with artifact removal which slows down their linear plan. Thats enough for me.
I think it is worth considering that storm usually doesn't get targeted hate, and it still isn't really a top 5 deck. If everyone DOES run this thing in the sideboard, I can't see it ending well for storm.
However, I think that it may significantly improve matchups for a class of new decks, which previously had no game against those two decks (GWx company decks for example), really I'd like to wait and see.
Also I also like blood moon, but that's just because I'm a bad person who likes ruining humans' day.
@tronix & Spsiegel1987, When was the last time you built a deck in which you picked out cards to allow the opponent to interact with the gamestate to their hearts content? If you've included removal into your deck(s), have you ever stopped to consider what the exact purpose of that removal is?
It is there to deny the opponent the option to attack with their creature. Artifact removal is there to deny the opponent the option to use their artifacts. Discard spells, counters, etc., all there to reduce the number and significance of options from the opponent's decision tree, before they can do the same to you.
This is a major issue that comes up when people tend to define "interaction" and "linear" in a subjective way. They are doing so based on their feelings of entitlement - They feel entitled to playing the game how they want to play it, and not allow the opponent(s) to play it how they want to. We are only as entitled as the metagame and our choices in deck selection and construction allow. Kitchen table players who decry those who "netdeck" do so because they feel entitled to winning with their pile, displaying the same behavior. It's not about interacting with the opponent, it's about interacting with the gamestate more than the opponent can. If you are building a deck to allow the opponent to make significant choices as they see fit, then you're doing it wrong.
A better definition of "linear", when referring to a deck, is an objective one, in the designs of the inherent decision trees and other single-minded characteristics. Examples of single-minded characteristics are when there is a greedy manabase that is easily shut off by Blood Moon (their manabase has a single aspect that can be shut off, or "lined out"), or when about everything in the deck has cmc 1 that can be shut off by Chalice of the Void (the curve has a single aspect that can be "lined out"), or the deck is all-in on creature combat and can be shut off by Ensnaring Bridge (and, again, all of the branches on their decision tree are now "lined out").
Now, when we build or choose our decks, we would be naive or obstinate to not accept that there is some inherent weak characteristic of the deck that can effectively be "lined out". If this were not the case, then there would be only one correct deck to play (see: Eldrazi Winter or Flash Hulk). None of us are entitled to win every game as we wish. None of us are even entitled to force other players to play the game how we wish. We can only build and choose our decks. That other player has just as much a claim on how the game should be played as we do, however much we find it "unfun".
Now, our method of recognizing this aspect of the game (and all games) says a lot about our character and level of maturity. How seriously would you take me if I insisted that, if we were to play chess, you were only allowed to attack the flanks (1. a4, 1. h4) and not go for control of the center of the board?
Just because people feel bad 'Lantern locked me out' 'Tron is dumb' 'Bogles players are afraid to play magic' 'UWR just counters and kills all my stuff' 'Discard, Goyf, Lilly, so much skill!' doesnt mean that type of magic is the wrong fun.
Everyone has their reasons for playing X, and I promise you somebody somewhere think's that X deck is stupid.
i absolutely agree with everything you are saying.
in my last post i wasnt trying to make a case for or against either linear or interactive decks. both types, regardless of the depth and breadth of their corresponding decision trees are fundamentally trying to advance their own game plan while stifling the opponents. its pretty silly to think anyone would feel entitled to anything regarding the game.
what i was refuting was the notion that feelbad moments dont exist, or shouldnt exist because your line of reasoning has lead you to a place where you personally dont feel bad. it is an emotional response that for the most part isnt tied entirely to logical thinking.
in the same vein as those defending various decks or play patterns because they feel they have a right to exist and ultimately make the game a more rich experience; you have others asserting that the removal of some of these gameplay elements would foster an environment that they find more enjoyable.
so on one hand you have those who think these sorts of things are fine, and on the other hand you have those who think they arent. yet the latter half are labeled as entitled whiny crybabies. do you not see the hypocrisy in this?
everything you say about limiting choices and methods of interaction are true. but for instance if a player feels differently about being locked out by blood moon and being unable to cast their creatures opposed to playing their creatures and having them all killed do you think its right to go up to them and say 'no. youre wrong. your not allowed to feel that way. stop'
have you ever felt annoyed or frustrated when you flood or land screw? if so do you sit back and ease your frustrations by reflecting on the nature of probability? no, because that is absurd. yet according to logic, you have no grounds to feel anything.
people are allowed to not like stuff or to think any manner of things are fun and unfun. as long as they arent forcing their opinion on others, i find their commentary just as valuable as anyone elses.
consider this. wizards design philosophy has clearly shifted over the years to deemphasize certain aspects of the game, with some examples being cheap counterspells and land destruction. we can assume its true that they have some reason for doing this because its not like they are making decisions with a dart board. if they, at some point, decide to expand this philosophy to include the modern format and people can no longer play whatever deck/strategy; when players complain about this would that not be expressing a sense of entitlement?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1 Nihil Spellbomb
1 Hazoret the Fervent
4 Fulminator Mage
1 Ancient Grudge
1 Golgari Charm
2 Fatal Push
2 Anger of the Gods
2 Collective Brutality
That's not where sphere is amazing, take a look at this 5-0 Bant Sideboard, link to all decklists here
1 Gideon, Ally of Zendikar
2 Kitchen Finks
2 Negate
3 Reflector Mage
2 Stony Silence
3 Unified Will
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Man, some of my favorite sequences in Grixis revolve around Fulminator-Kolaghan's-Fulminator-Snapcaster-Kolaghan's-Fulminator.
WUBRG Humans
BRW Mardu Pyromancer
UW UW "Control"
UR Blue Moon
I do too, but we are twisted people. His "no one" probably is better put as "90% of players." You can't refute that.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)No one should ever feel sorry for punishing somebody that put all eggs in a single basket. Blood Moon doesn't phase the goodstuff decks out of the meta, gives two color decks a reason to exist and sometimes makes for good maindeck plans. Excellent Modern staple.
on one hand it can be abused, and getting locked out of playing is a feelbad. on the otherhand it "incentivizes" playing basics, which i think is good.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)I really do not like this concept of "feelsbad" games/cards or "non-games" as it often applies to Modern. There's an implicit definition of "proper Magic" in these kinds of complaints which many Spikes believe. Examples of their proper Magic tend to include grindy midrange matchups, control mirrors, complicated board states, and stack battles. Then there are examples of gameplay that is typically ruled as "not real Magic," "non-games," or ones that create "feelsbad" moments for another player. Examples include fast wins, strategies that an opponent can't interact with for whatever reason, powerful trump cards that shut down a strategy, etc. I often see traditional midrange/control players talk about this distinction as if it is a matter of objective truth, not personal preference.
This is frustrating because we all know Magic is the amazing game it is today because of its diversity. This is especially true in Modern, the diversity format. If someone wants to play a prison deck, they can. If they want to play a blue-based reactive deck, they can. If they want to play ramp, swarm aggro, or combo, they can do all of that. There is nothing objectively bad about any of those ways of playing Magic. Many players play decks/cards/the game for different reasons. There's nothing any more "feelsbad" about a Lantern player shutting down an opponent's draw step in the way the Lantern player wants to play Magic, than there is an aggro player killing the Lantern player on T3 and preventing the Lantern player from fulfilling their gameplan. Getting T3d Karn feels bad to one player but may feel great to the other and is the reason they play the deck. By a similar token, the blue player may love to chain Field of Ruin into Rejection into Snapcaster/Rejection (etc. etc.) and totally shut down Tron from doing anything. That feels just as bad to the Tron player as the T3 Karn probably did to the blue player.
I wish we could move away from the notion of there being a "right" way to play Magic or Modern. Honestly, the best way to do this that satisfies the most people is probably to create an environment where as many people can play whatever kind of strategy they want and where basically all of those could be viable in any given tournament. I.e. Modern as it basically is now. That feels much closer to Magic's original sandbox and open-ended vision than some kind of narrow view of a "right"/"proper" way to play.
I will however reserve the right to look down my nose at Bogles with main deck Leylines, no matter what I'm playing.
Spirits
I don't disagree bur would add a spin. I think games are frustrating to Player A when Player A has a game plan in mind and Player B does something that totally invalidates it. Player B is probably having a grand time in this example, or at least not complaining. The classic example would be Bogles wrecking a deck like Grixis Control as we saw at the MOCS. Bogles player is executing the exact game plan the Bogles player came out to do. Grixis player came out to play a certain kind of Magic game and was completely prevented from doing so. But the other example would be something like Jeskai Control vs. Affinity when Affinity doesn't have the most outrageous start and Jeskai leads Bolt into Stony Silence and the Affinity player just can't do crap. Or a Storm player who is on the play and feeling great before getting hit by T1 IoK, T2 TS/Push, and T3 Liliana. It's just disheartening all around.
In all these examples, the issue is not any specific type of gameplan that is getting promoted or shut down. It's that someone is frustrated because their gameplan got shut down in a noticeable way. The reason I believe interactive players get more frustrated is because they notice the shut down happen earlier. Bogles prevents you from executing that gameplan in T1-T3. But when you're a Storm player losing to Jund, you sort of feel like you're in it throughout the game, even though you're probably screwed from T2 on.
Hollow One loses to Path, Wrath, Grudge, and/or RiP. Settle shuts you down really hard.
Against G/X Tron? Other than Ceremonious/other Counterspells that will eventually run out if you aren't putting pressure on the Tron player, I can't think of anything that answers them. That's always been the problem; people's only reply is, "Just go faster!" That's not a SB or MD answer to a specific deck, that's a declaration of bad design. And no, after a year of playing Skred, I can assure you, T3 Blood Moon doesn't do jack to Tron; it's simply not fast enough to stop them from crushing you with an unanswerable threat, and 3 mana do-nothing is a terrible play in Modern; Goblin Rabblemaster was a more effective answer, and it wasn't very reliable.
what i do agree with is that there is no particularly 'right' way to play the game. especially in a format like modern, which is supposed to let you experience all that the game of magic has to offer - including the more nuanced and less seen cards and interactions. people shouldnt be villainized for playing a certain type of deck nor should players put themselves above others because they choose not to play said deck type.
what i dont agree on is telling people what they are allowed to feel. you are functionally telling people that you dont agree or understand why they find particular aspects of the game un-fun, therefore they are wrong and should stop feeling that way. which strikes me as odd because you propose that there is no right way for the game to be played, then immediately begin explaining the right way.
feelbad moments exist. certain sequences of events or gameplay patterns elicit a negative emotional response. for some more than others. that is just reality. the most notable and apt example for this discussion is locking a player out of making meaningful game actions. this can come in various forms like you mentioned including countering everything they do or invalidating their mana.
a probable explanation is that once a player stops being able to take game actions, they are no longer a participant in a game. so the opponent is having fun, thats good - at least someone is. however its akin to being bored, but then taking solace in the fact that other people are experiencing interesting things. which sounds ridiculous, because it is.
of course no one likes losing badly. however if people express a distinction in enjoyment levels between getting locked out by a turn 3 bloodmoon, and getting their teeth kicked in by some aggro deck on turn 3. well, thats their right.
basically my point is that you are expressing your opinion on the game and format without acknowledging that other opinions are just as valid as yours.
take a moment to consider why wizards has moved away from certain types of gameplay elements. whether or not you agree with their reasons isnt important; whats important is to realize that their reasons exist.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)I was watching SaffronOlive play a restore balance deck against Tron the other day. The part that struck me as funny was that on g3 he was lamenting that they only got to play 1 real game out of magic out of three because g1/g3 the opponent had t3 Tron so g2 was the only real game. Of course g2 was when he got a restore balance to destroy 3 of the opponents lands (and wipe out any creatures if they had any) while he got to keep 2 mana sources.
Not that I want to harangue him specifically for it, but this sort of sentiment comes up quite often with people feeling that if they get to do their own broken thing it's okay, but Tron doing the same thing is too good.
You nailed it. I think this card will be slotted into decks like UW control.
Jund can't just stick 3 or 4 of these in and call it a day.
I imagine 1 fulminator will come out for this. MAYBE 2. Fulminators are crucial for other matchups. We can't just pick up a playset because of tron.
Jund will benefit from this because other decks will play this, not because jund picks it up.
As for Sheridan....nah, man. There are feel bad moments. When someone locks you out early before you make any meaningful interaction that's extremely unfun.
3 hollow ones turn 1. Fantastic. Rolling the dice took longer than the game
I play 1 land while my opponent on the play slams down blood moon. Great.
Telling people how they should feel seems unlike you.
I will say, it makes for crappy magic, bad viewing and agitated feelings. There's a reason wotc bans that nonsense if it happens too consistently and too quickly. It's bad magic.
Could you imagine playing call of duty modern warfare 2 and ten seconds into it a nuke was announced. You wasted your time. You spent more time in the lobby than playing. You couldn't do anything meaningful.
Honestly, id rather see decks like jund or shadow on top than dredge and infect.
Watching two ships in the night win by turn 3 sucks, and the message boards, reddit, twitch chat often reflect that. And yes, I understand the garbage thats in twitch chat
Tron is not too good. But it can really mess up local metas. Ive seen people quit modern because their decks could not compete in the 40 pct tron meta. The only advice you could give them was play a different deck, because theres no way to shore up the matchup from the sideboard. And in this aspect tron always was pretty unique.
This doesnt wipe out tron, it just forces them to hedge with artifact removal which slows down their linear plan. Thats enough for me.
However, I think that it may significantly improve matchups for a class of new decks, which previously had no game against those two decks (GWx company decks for example), really I'd like to wait and see.
Also I also like blood moon, but that's just because I'm a bad person who likes ruining humans' day.
UWUW ControlUW
UGWSpiritsUGW
GHardened ScalesG
WGRUKiki PodWGRU [RIP]
It is there to deny the opponent the option to attack with their creature. Artifact removal is there to deny the opponent the option to use their artifacts. Discard spells, counters, etc., all there to reduce the number and significance of options from the opponent's decision tree, before they can do the same to you.
This is a major issue that comes up when people tend to define "interaction" and "linear" in a subjective way. They are doing so based on their feelings of entitlement - They feel entitled to playing the game how they want to play it, and not allow the opponent(s) to play it how they want to. We are only as entitled as the metagame and our choices in deck selection and construction allow. Kitchen table players who decry those who "netdeck" do so because they feel entitled to winning with their pile, displaying the same behavior. It's not about interacting with the opponent, it's about interacting with the gamestate more than the opponent can. If you are building a deck to allow the opponent to make significant choices as they see fit, then you're doing it wrong.
A better definition of "linear", when referring to a deck, is an objective one, in the designs of the inherent decision trees and other single-minded characteristics. Examples of single-minded characteristics are when there is a greedy manabase that is easily shut off by Blood Moon (their manabase has a single aspect that can be shut off, or "lined out"), or when about everything in the deck has cmc 1 that can be shut off by Chalice of the Void (the curve has a single aspect that can be "lined out"), or the deck is all-in on creature combat and can be shut off by Ensnaring Bridge (and, again, all of the branches on their decision tree are now "lined out").
Now, when we build or choose our decks, we would be naive or obstinate to not accept that there is some inherent weak characteristic of the deck that can effectively be "lined out". If this were not the case, then there would be only one correct deck to play (see: Eldrazi Winter or Flash Hulk). None of us are entitled to win every game as we wish. None of us are even entitled to force other players to play the game how we wish. We can only build and choose our decks. That other player has just as much a claim on how the game should be played as we do, however much we find it "unfun".
Now, our method of recognizing this aspect of the game (and all games) says a lot about our character and level of maturity. How seriously would you take me if I insisted that, if we were to play chess, you were only allowed to attack the flanks (1. a4, 1. h4) and not go for control of the center of the board?
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
Everyone has their reasons for playing X, and I promise you somebody somewhere think's that X deck is stupid.
Spirits
i absolutely agree with everything you are saying.
in my last post i wasnt trying to make a case for or against either linear or interactive decks. both types, regardless of the depth and breadth of their corresponding decision trees are fundamentally trying to advance their own game plan while stifling the opponents. its pretty silly to think anyone would feel entitled to anything regarding the game.
what i was refuting was the notion that feelbad moments dont exist, or shouldnt exist because your line of reasoning has lead you to a place where you personally dont feel bad. it is an emotional response that for the most part isnt tied entirely to logical thinking.
in the same vein as those defending various decks or play patterns because they feel they have a right to exist and ultimately make the game a more rich experience; you have others asserting that the removal of some of these gameplay elements would foster an environment that they find more enjoyable.
so on one hand you have those who think these sorts of things are fine, and on the other hand you have those who think they arent. yet the latter half are labeled as entitled whiny crybabies. do you not see the hypocrisy in this?
everything you say about limiting choices and methods of interaction are true. but for instance if a player feels differently about being locked out by blood moon and being unable to cast their creatures opposed to playing their creatures and having them all killed do you think its right to go up to them and say 'no. youre wrong. your not allowed to feel that way. stop'
have you ever felt annoyed or frustrated when you flood or land screw? if so do you sit back and ease your frustrations by reflecting on the nature of probability? no, because that is absurd. yet according to logic, you have no grounds to feel anything.
people are allowed to not like stuff or to think any manner of things are fun and unfun. as long as they arent forcing their opinion on others, i find their commentary just as valuable as anyone elses.
consider this. wizards design philosophy has clearly shifted over the years to deemphasize certain aspects of the game, with some examples being cheap counterspells and land destruction. we can assume its true that they have some reason for doing this because its not like they are making decisions with a dart board. if they, at some point, decide to expand this philosophy to include the modern format and people can no longer play whatever deck/strategy; when players complain about this would that not be expressing a sense of entitlement?
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)