The "problem" with KCI is that plays a different game form almost any other deck in the format. The usual maindeck choices of midrange and control decks don't line up well against it and trying to fight with 2/3/4 of sideboard cards is not enough to disrupt it. The high learning curve keeps it in check for now but I am afraid of what the meta might look if it becomes more popular...
I don't think there's any problem with KCI as a deck. I also don't think most of the ban discussion in this thread is aimed at KCI specifically. The potential problem is actually Stirrings; see below for more details.
Modern is a cyclical metagame. Sideboards were high on removal for Humans, moderate on stuff for the Jeskai matchup, and lacking enough artifact hate. That's all. Every time a deck top 8s, you guys cry for a ban. Modern is such an open format that Skred Red won a GP, it's all about a combination of luck and just general deck metagaming. Ancient Stirrings is fine. KCI/Tron are both fine.
What you should be complaining about is why are cards on the same power level as those decks banned unfairly.
I am one of the most, perhaps the most, vocal critic of ban mania and its associated mentality on this forum. It's bad for the format, it's lazy, it's uncritical, it rarely aligns with Wizards' thinking, and it has been flat out wrong for 1.5 years now. In this particular case, however, there is an actual argument to be made for a Stirrings ban OR a Preordain unban. These cards have been a longtime target of ban/unban talk in this thread but, until recently, it has not really been a legitimate target.
The Preordain/Stirrings contradiction has been a popular topic of Modern commentators for years. But for years, it wasn't an accurate comparison. Although Stirrings digs deeper, it operated as a fairly niche enabler for a fairly niche subset of decks over the years. By contrast, Preordain had the risk of going into all blue decks, particularly T3 combo decks, and improving their consistency with a catch-all cantrip. Modern pundits often did not appreciate this difference in metagame context, which resulted in lots of pithy articles comparing the cards but no action on Wizards' part, nor no widespread call for change.
Recent metagame developments have showed that Stirrings is no longer just a niche enabler. This card has powered up a host of top-tier colorless decks: KCI, Lantern, Gx Tron, and Amulet Titan. We can no longer say it's a limited enabler when it is a core engine of all of these powerful, consistent performers. Meanwhile, blue decks are stuck with Serum Visions and consistently have lower shares and lower overall performances than these top decks. This is particularly true at the GP and PT level, and likely true of MTGO, which is where Wizards derives their ban data from more than anywhere else.
If colorless decks are allowed to get their Preordain, blue decks need to be allowed to get their actual Preordain back. Alternately, Wizards needs to decide that Preordain style effects are not okay in Modern and remove Stirrings instead. Either of these solutions would be fair, but a Preordain unban would be better as it shortens the banlist, improves lagging archetypes, and improves access to universal answers (especially in early turns). Of course, the danger of a Preordain unban is that many of the Stirrings decks (KCI, Lantern, Amulet) could all ultimately shift towards Preordain if Stirrings ever got the axe. This is why it might just be safer, and the risk-averse Wizards' solution, to ban Stirrings and call it a day. Stirrings is also an appealing ban because it hits multiple decks while not destroying any one of them, so if Wizards wants to trim their power (not saying they do, but IF they do), it's an ideal target. This is in contrast to deck-killing, splash-damage heavy bans like Opal, KCI, or Bridge.
All of this is to say that there has never been a better time to have a reasonable conversation about Stirrings and Preordain. It wasn't justified before now. It is justified today. Note that this development does not mean it was justified 1.5 years ago. Hindsight bias won't play here. But now that the numbers actually support some of these arguments, it's a legitimate topic of conversation.
EDIT: Also, the SFM ban grows more indefensible with every published event. Unban this card. I am confident saying that anyone who thinks this card should stay banned is some combination of wrong, biased, and/or out of touch with the format.
Can we at least talk about getting Ponder, Preordain, and Chrome Mox back if we are going to keep Mox Opal and Ancient Stirrings in the format?
Although there is a legitimate conversation to be had about Preordain and Stirrings, this does not justify arguments for unbanning BOTH p&p, not for an Opal/Chrome comparison. Both cantrips would surely be an overcorrection in the wrong direction, especially if other formats (Pauper and Legacy most notably) are any indication of how those cantrips get used. As for Chrome Mox, we have enough NBL examples at this point to strongly suggest it benefits unfair decks far more than fair ones. This might shift towards an argument for banning Mox Opal, but it's not an argument to unban another unfair card.
Implicit in the term “midrange” is the existence of an interactive strategy—which Tron decks are not shining examples of, to put it as diplomatically as possible, lol.
Tron is a big mana deck, and as a secondary archetype I would assert that it has much more in common with combo than midrange due to all of the tutoring, cantrips, and the night-and-day difference between what the deck can do when the “combo” is assembled versus when it isn’t.
As for the GP top 8/top 16, it’s rather disgraceful. The prospect of boarding a flight, spending a not-insignificant amount of money, and taking time away from loved ones only to run afoul of a nonsense meta like this is unappealing in the extreme to a majority of players, relative to the prospect of participating in a heavily interactive meta where decisions matter and player knowledge/skill are paramount, and—bear with me here, because this may be controversial—the games are fun!
Are there really people out there who still don’t realize that interactive decks comprising the lion’s share of the meta is what this game needs to thrive (or even survive, in the long run)?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
GB Golgari Midrange GB YouTube Channel, with deck techs, gameplay, analysis, spoiler reviews, and more!
Say what you will about Tron's power level, but the deck is much more aligned with a "Ramp" definition than a "Midrange" one. Tron does not have one-drop or small threats and it does not play limited disruption. Rather, Tron uses its early turns to develop the manabase before deploying any threats to the board. I know the meme that says Tron always has T3 Tron in 100% of games, but we know that's not true. It's probably closer to T3 Tron in 50% of games and T3 Karn in 20% of games. T4 threat is far more probable. This makes Tron a faster ramp deck than a Standard ramp deck, but still a ramp deck that plays limited threats that depend on an assembled mana engine.
i dont get why people keeps talking about stirrings and preordain, when the green cantrip is almost even more powerful than ponder.
Even while stirrings is a reaaaally good magic card, i think that the problem is that there's no logic in modern, cause ponder and preodain gives too much consistency, so they are banned, but stirrings is legal AND part of the most powerful tier decks. id like to read WOTC about this subject, cause i really dont understand
i dont get why people keeps talking about stirrings and preordain, when the green cantrip is almost even more powerful than ponder.
Even while stirrings is a reaaaally good magic card, i think that the problem is that there's no logic in modern, cause ponder and preodain gives too much consistency, so they are banned, but stirrings is legal AND part of the most powerful tier decks. id like to read WOTC about this subject, cause i really dont understand
We need to remember that this was not an inconsistency until recently. Stirrings being a colorless Preordain was fine because it was only in a limited number of less-played decks. Wizards had Preordain banned because they went into so many blue-based strategies, particularly blue-based combo. This was even more worrisome when top-tier Twin was around. Nowadays, blue decks comprise a much smaller share overall (they basically lost all the share Twin once held and had a small increase over their non-Twin share), but Stirrings decks are much more powerful and prevalent. This means Wizards will have real pressure based on actual performance numbers to reexamine this alleged contradiction. It wasn't a contradiction for years: it was just a pithy talking point used by authors trying to stake a Modern claim. But now it's an actual question and real debate. I expect Wizards will speak to this in the next 6-8 months, whether with Tweets, an article, and/or a banlist change.
You can't assume you share an opinion with the majority. And you also can't project 'the modern meta' from a top 8, nor even a single tournament no matter how large it is.
We know (and yes, 'we' the community do have access to this information) that tournaments are often very different to each other in terms of their representation of different decks. It does nobody any good to get bent out of shape and complain on the Internet about how subjectively awful a top8 was or what it might mean to modern at large.
Also, people play different decks and enjoy different things. People wouldn't play decks like tron or kci if they didn't enjoy them, and they are all legitimate ways to play and enjoy magic as a game. You have no highground whatsoever in an objective or moral sense which would allow you to claim someone else's way of enjoying the game is less valid or worth 'deleting' from the format.
In reality, you may value decks like kci less than others, but you need to take a step back and understand that this doesn't mean they should disappear. This top 8 is objectively no different to any other. It's a selection of decks, representing very little in terms of the wider picture but representing very strongly the play-skill of a small handful of people. The finals are a fantastic example of this actually, I recommend you watch it. Matt Nass' opponent had the removal and tools to disrupt the kci deck and completely punted, throwing the game. This wasn't an example of kci being broken or unfun or unstoppable. It was an example of human players making mistakes. Every round of every tournament is such an example, of good plays mixed with human error. Taken across a huge swathe of samples this can average out and we can make some claims about decks being effective, but one tournament? A single tournament is susceptible to the effects of a single mistake, and let's be realistic; they are affected by singular mistakes. Entire top8s are decided by a single high-stress win-and-in round where mistakes are made. A single tournament doesn't mean anything at large, it's just a tiny part of the picture.
Back to your comment. You express distaste at a certain type of deck. That's totally fair. You go on to project your distaste onto "the majority" to try and justify your comment. That's definitely not valid. You also decry the state of modern based on a single result. Again, not valid.
I suggest we all take a step back and realise the scale on which we're discussing competitive modern and take a moment to think about whether it's worth getting riled up about one guy getting a couple of great results with a deck you might not like too much.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: G Tron, Vannifar, Jund, Druid/Vizier combo, Humans, Eldrazi Stompy (Serum Powder), Amulet, Grishoalbrand, Breach Titan, Turns, Eternal Command, As Foretold Living End, Elves, Cheerios, RUG Scapeshift
I agree in concept Purk, the issue for me comes in when there is a disconnect in power.
Looking at that top 32 even, I have massive issue with the representation of Tron and even Humans. Its clear to me that there is a power level disconnect. If there was so much UWR as to empower Tron, then Humans should have been lower. If there was that much Humans to still get that many into the Top 32, where is the stuff that preys on Humans?
Then you have the clear dissonance between Stirrings and Preordain, and its just all starts to fall apart. Its like suspension of disbelief in consuming a movie or book.
My ability to retain my belief in the format being 'balanced' or 'fair' so we can play what we want is shattered, when you have events that pan out this way.
It has nothing to do with a (currently) fringe combo deck winning an event. Good on it, I wish Turns could get there. I have no issue with any archetype, from Ramp or Prison, or Combo, or Aggro or Midrange.
I have issue when the balance is tilted, when the ban list is nonsensical, and when several people are able to predict the trends, and yet here we are, with that kind of top end to a massive event.
Tron is too good, and as someone who had a deck taken from them, I dont want it 'nuked from orbit' but it needs to either get knocked down a peg, or other cards must be unbanned.
In the end, I dont think you do anything by unbanning Preordain. Tron is still going to be an absolute juggernaut, because its just too good at what it wants to do.
Can we at least talk about getting Ponder, Preordain, and Chrome Mox back if we are going to keep Mox Opal and Ancient Stirrings in the format?
Although there is a legitimate conversation to be had about Preordain and Stirrings, this does not justify arguments for unbanning BOTH p&p, not for an Opal/Chrome comparison. Both cantrips would surely be an overcorrection in the wrong direction, especially if other formats (Pauper and Legacy most notably) are any indication of how those cantrips get used. As for Chrome Mox, we have enough NBL examples at this point to strongly suggest it benefits unfair decks far more than fair ones. This might shift towards an argument for banning Mox Opal, but it's not an argument to unban another unfair card.
For Chrome Mox, the most common place for it in NBL Modern was in Dark Depths decks, which will never be legal in real modern. The other deck that played it at least in the top 16, storm, will likely never have Seething Song and Rite of Flame back. This makes me question whether it would actually be too strong in current modern combo decks. Ad Nauseam would surely play it to great success, but that is currently in the lower tiers. KCI plays too many artifacts for it to work, and I am unsure about it slotting into Gifts storm or any other combo deck for that matter.
But if we were to take the other approach and decide that Mox Opal is probably too powerful for modern, I am still very much in favor of swapping it with the 5 artifact lands. Those cards being banned while Opal is legal is quite honestly a joke. They are a relic from a much, much older age.
Recent metagame developments have showed that Stirrings is no longer just a niche enabler. This card has powered up a host of top-tier colorless decks: KCI, Lantern, Gx Tron, and Amulet Titan. We can no longer say it's a limited enabler when it is a core engine of all of these powerful, consistent performers. Meanwhile, blue decks are stuck with Serum Visions and consistently have lower shares and lower overall performances than these top decks. This is particularly true at the GP and PT level, and likely true of MTGO, which is where Wizards derives their ban data from more than anywhere else.
Stirrings also showed up in an affinity list at last SCG invitational. It just may be a singleton, but it should be kept an eye event to those lists if we want to have a complete overvew of all decks playing it.
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)
With respect, the above argument is steeped in radical subjectivism.
This is the underlying assumption fueling complaints about uninteractive decks:
Close games in which both players cast a lot of spells, at least begin to execute their game plan in a meaningful way, and have to make important decisions that influence the game’s outcome are more desirable to most people than lopsided forgone conclusions in which only one (or neither) player makes relevant decisions.
“Fair” decks are, on average, more likely to facilitate what is known in common parlance as a good game than “unfair” decks.
Is it really so outlandish for me to claim that a majority of players share this opinion? Check out the prevailing sentiments on Twitch chat during GP coverage. Head down and talk to the players at your LGS. Witness the continued popularity of fair decks regardless of meta results. Read this very thread.
No one, least of all me, is saying that uninteractive decks are “worth deleting from the format” or “should disappear”: these are straw men.
Once more, radical subjectivism is at play here. It’s okay to have aspirations for this format that seek to maximize the level of player enjoyment and the relevance of player skill. There will always be variance, and there will always be pet peeve/boogeyman decks, but that doesn’t mean that overarching standards (that appeal to the majority but not every last individual) cannot exist.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
GB Golgari Midrange GB YouTube Channel, with deck techs, gameplay, analysis, spoiler reviews, and more!
When I encounter several non-interactive decks in a row at a tournament, there is a good chance that I will lose interest in attending tournaments at the respective place for the foreseeable future. MtG doesn't exist in a vacuum - there are plenty of hobbies that one can spend time and money on. And I don't think that I'm the only one who thinks that way. An unattractive tournament metagame directly translates into lower player attendance, lower revenue for store owners and, ultimately, a diminishing player base for the game.
Edited, my mistake as I was just scanning through and saw the Guide picture!
I think people need to start looking at Tron's game against the tier 1/2 field. They would probably not like what they see.
Other than Infect, is it a dog to really anything?
Uh, yeah. It's a dog to Bogles (I know it's got Ugin, Ratchet Bomb, and OStone, but those are not fast enough to handle the average hand for Bogles, in my anecdotal experience), Hollow One, Affinity, and fast aggro in general. It's also incredibly soft to KCI, ironically. Storm and most dedicated combo decks will ruin it.
The metagame will certainly rise up to tackle tron/KCI, I still feel Stirrings is a bit too much without blue having a similarly powered cantrip.
Also: the winner of the tournament was 8-whack, not burn. HUGE difference (gobbos need all the credit they can get!).
I agree that the metagame as a whole is probably fine with Stirrings decks performing well. But that doesn't address the inconsistency with Preordain, as Stirrings is clearly no longer just a niche enabler and is now filling the same effective role as Preordain is, but in a different (and large) subset of decks. One of those issues needs resolving.
I think you overestimate the game those decks actually have, and they are a lot closer to 50/50 at best.
sicsmoo's spreadsheet would lead me to think they are very good, or the matches are in Tron's favour...
Most match ups aren't actually all that far off from 50/50, frankly. 60/40 is the most lopsided I'd expect to see with the current deck building conventions and restrictions. Due to the turn 4 rule, decks get to be more durable without having sacrifice that durability for speed. If decks aren't fragile, you don't really get one-sided matchups that actually are 70-30 or 80-20.
I think you overestimate the game those decks actually have, and they are a lot closer to 50/50 at best.
sicsmoo's spreadsheet would lead me to think they are very good, or the matches are in Tron's favour...
I mean armchair match here for sure, but I'm like 4-1 against tron on burn. I mean tron definitely struggles against fast aggro in general. Sure it may not be 80/20, but they are definitely a dog in game one, then rooting for sb help in nature's claim or thragtusk while avoiding skullcrack ruining the whole thing anyways.
This is the cyclical nature of a format. Humans has a big target on its back, so people are playing more mardu and jeskai to fight back, which motivates some folks to pull out their tron decks to beat up the midrange and control players. This is quite literally how my meta operates: fair decks, a couple tron players to roast them, and then me going under the tron players.
JundBGR
RW Blood MoonRW
Pauper
Delver U
Elves G
Control B
Commander
Edgar Markov BRW
Captain Sisay GW
Niv-Mizzet, Parun UR
Tymna and Ravos WB
I don't think there's any problem with KCI as a deck. I also don't think most of the ban discussion in this thread is aimed at KCI specifically. The potential problem is actually Stirrings; see below for more details.
I am one of the most, perhaps the most, vocal critic of ban mania and its associated mentality on this forum. It's bad for the format, it's lazy, it's uncritical, it rarely aligns with Wizards' thinking, and it has been flat out wrong for 1.5 years now. In this particular case, however, there is an actual argument to be made for a Stirrings ban OR a Preordain unban. These cards have been a longtime target of ban/unban talk in this thread but, until recently, it has not really been a legitimate target.
The Preordain/Stirrings contradiction has been a popular topic of Modern commentators for years. But for years, it wasn't an accurate comparison. Although Stirrings digs deeper, it operated as a fairly niche enabler for a fairly niche subset of decks over the years. By contrast, Preordain had the risk of going into all blue decks, particularly T3 combo decks, and improving their consistency with a catch-all cantrip. Modern pundits often did not appreciate this difference in metagame context, which resulted in lots of pithy articles comparing the cards but no action on Wizards' part, nor no widespread call for change.
Recent metagame developments have showed that Stirrings is no longer just a niche enabler. This card has powered up a host of top-tier colorless decks: KCI, Lantern, Gx Tron, and Amulet Titan. We can no longer say it's a limited enabler when it is a core engine of all of these powerful, consistent performers. Meanwhile, blue decks are stuck with Serum Visions and consistently have lower shares and lower overall performances than these top decks. This is particularly true at the GP and PT level, and likely true of MTGO, which is where Wizards derives their ban data from more than anywhere else.
If colorless decks are allowed to get their Preordain, blue decks need to be allowed to get their actual Preordain back. Alternately, Wizards needs to decide that Preordain style effects are not okay in Modern and remove Stirrings instead. Either of these solutions would be fair, but a Preordain unban would be better as it shortens the banlist, improves lagging archetypes, and improves access to universal answers (especially in early turns). Of course, the danger of a Preordain unban is that many of the Stirrings decks (KCI, Lantern, Amulet) could all ultimately shift towards Preordain if Stirrings ever got the axe. This is why it might just be safer, and the risk-averse Wizards' solution, to ban Stirrings and call it a day. Stirrings is also an appealing ban because it hits multiple decks while not destroying any one of them, so if Wizards wants to trim their power (not saying they do, but IF they do), it's an ideal target. This is in contrast to deck-killing, splash-damage heavy bans like Opal, KCI, or Bridge.
All of this is to say that there has never been a better time to have a reasonable conversation about Stirrings and Preordain. It wasn't justified before now. It is justified today. Note that this development does not mean it was justified 1.5 years ago. Hindsight bias won't play here. But now that the numbers actually support some of these arguments, it's a legitimate topic of conversation.
EDIT: Also, the SFM ban grows more indefensible with every published event. Unban this card. I am confident saying that anyone who thinks this card should stay banned is some combination of wrong, biased, and/or out of touch with the format.
Although there is a legitimate conversation to be had about Preordain and Stirrings, this does not justify arguments for unbanning BOTH p&p, not for an Opal/Chrome comparison. Both cantrips would surely be an overcorrection in the wrong direction, especially if other formats (Pauper and Legacy most notably) are any indication of how those cantrips get used. As for Chrome Mox, we have enough NBL examples at this point to strongly suggest it benefits unfair decks far more than fair ones. This might shift towards an argument for banning Mox Opal, but it's not an argument to unban another unfair card.
Tron is a big mana deck, and as a secondary archetype I would assert that it has much more in common with combo than midrange due to all of the tutoring, cantrips, and the night-and-day difference between what the deck can do when the “combo” is assembled versus when it isn’t.
As for the GP top 8/top 16, it’s rather disgraceful. The prospect of boarding a flight, spending a not-insignificant amount of money, and taking time away from loved ones only to run afoul of a nonsense meta like this is unappealing in the extreme to a majority of players, relative to the prospect of participating in a heavily interactive meta where decisions matter and player knowledge/skill are paramount, and—bear with me here, because this may be controversial—the games are fun!
Are there really people out there who still don’t realize that interactive decks comprising the lion’s share of the meta is what this game needs to thrive (or even survive, in the long run)?
YouTube Channel, with deck techs, gameplay, analysis, spoiler reviews, and more!
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/latest-developments/ah-yes-very-standard-2012-08-10
Say what you will about Tron's power level, but the deck is much more aligned with a "Ramp" definition than a "Midrange" one. Tron does not have one-drop or small threats and it does not play limited disruption. Rather, Tron uses its early turns to develop the manabase before deploying any threats to the board. I know the meme that says Tron always has T3 Tron in 100% of games, but we know that's not true. It's probably closer to T3 Tron in 50% of games and T3 Karn in 20% of games. T4 threat is far more probable. This makes Tron a faster ramp deck than a Standard ramp deck, but still a ramp deck that plays limited threats that depend on an assembled mana engine.
Even while stirrings is a reaaaally good magic card, i think that the problem is that there's no logic in modern, cause ponder and preodain gives too much consistency, so they are banned, but stirrings is legal AND part of the most powerful tier decks. id like to read WOTC about this subject, cause i really dont understand
We need to remember that this was not an inconsistency until recently. Stirrings being a colorless Preordain was fine because it was only in a limited number of less-played decks. Wizards had Preordain banned because they went into so many blue-based strategies, particularly blue-based combo. This was even more worrisome when top-tier Twin was around. Nowadays, blue decks comprise a much smaller share overall (they basically lost all the share Twin once held and had a small increase over their non-Twin share), but Stirrings decks are much more powerful and prevalent. This means Wizards will have real pressure based on actual performance numbers to reexamine this alleged contradiction. It wasn't a contradiction for years: it was just a pithy talking point used by authors trying to stake a Modern claim. But now it's an actual question and real debate. I expect Wizards will speak to this in the next 6-8 months, whether with Tweets, an article, and/or a banlist change.
We know (and yes, 'we' the community do have access to this information) that tournaments are often very different to each other in terms of their representation of different decks. It does nobody any good to get bent out of shape and complain on the Internet about how subjectively awful a top8 was or what it might mean to modern at large.
Also, people play different decks and enjoy different things. People wouldn't play decks like tron or kci if they didn't enjoy them, and they are all legitimate ways to play and enjoy magic as a game. You have no highground whatsoever in an objective or moral sense which would allow you to claim someone else's way of enjoying the game is less valid or worth 'deleting' from the format.
In reality, you may value decks like kci less than others, but you need to take a step back and understand that this doesn't mean they should disappear. This top 8 is objectively no different to any other. It's a selection of decks, representing very little in terms of the wider picture but representing very strongly the play-skill of a small handful of people. The finals are a fantastic example of this actually, I recommend you watch it. Matt Nass' opponent had the removal and tools to disrupt the kci deck and completely punted, throwing the game. This wasn't an example of kci being broken or unfun or unstoppable. It was an example of human players making mistakes. Every round of every tournament is such an example, of good plays mixed with human error. Taken across a huge swathe of samples this can average out and we can make some claims about decks being effective, but one tournament? A single tournament is susceptible to the effects of a single mistake, and let's be realistic; they are affected by singular mistakes. Entire top8s are decided by a single high-stress win-and-in round where mistakes are made. A single tournament doesn't mean anything at large, it's just a tiny part of the picture.
Back to your comment. You express distaste at a certain type of deck. That's totally fair. You go on to project your distaste onto "the majority" to try and justify your comment. That's definitely not valid. You also decry the state of modern based on a single result. Again, not valid.
I suggest we all take a step back and realise the scale on which we're discussing competitive modern and take a moment to think about whether it's worth getting riled up about one guy getting a couple of great results with a deck you might not like too much.
Looking at that top 32 even, I have massive issue with the representation of Tron and even Humans. Its clear to me that there is a power level disconnect. If there was so much UWR as to empower Tron, then Humans should have been lower. If there was that much Humans to still get that many into the Top 32, where is the stuff that preys on Humans?
Then you have the clear dissonance between Stirrings and Preordain, and its just all starts to fall apart. Its like suspension of disbelief in consuming a movie or book.
My ability to retain my belief in the format being 'balanced' or 'fair' so we can play what we want is shattered, when you have events that pan out this way.
It has nothing to do with a (currently) fringe combo deck winning an event. Good on it, I wish Turns could get there. I have no issue with any archetype, from Ramp or Prison, or Combo, or Aggro or Midrange.
I have issue when the balance is tilted, when the ban list is nonsensical, and when several people are able to predict the trends, and yet here we are, with that kind of top end to a massive event.
Tron is too good, and as someone who had a deck taken from them, I dont want it 'nuked from orbit' but it needs to either get knocked down a peg, or other cards must be unbanned.
In the end, I dont think you do anything by unbanning Preordain. Tron is still going to be an absolute juggernaut, because its just too good at what it wants to do.
Spirits
For Chrome Mox, the most common place for it in NBL Modern was in Dark Depths decks, which will never be legal in real modern. The other deck that played it at least in the top 16, storm, will likely never have Seething Song and Rite of Flame back. This makes me question whether it would actually be too strong in current modern combo decks. Ad Nauseam would surely play it to great success, but that is currently in the lower tiers. KCI plays too many artifacts for it to work, and I am unsure about it slotting into Gifts storm or any other combo deck for that matter.
But if we were to take the other approach and decide that Mox Opal is probably too powerful for modern, I am still very much in favor of swapping it with the 5 artifact lands. Those cards being banned while Opal is legal is quite honestly a joke. They are a relic from a much, much older age.
Stirrings also showed up in an affinity list at last SCG invitational. It just may be a singleton, but it should be kept an eye event to those lists if we want to have a complete overvew of all decks playing it.
Modern:
This is the underlying assumption fueling complaints about uninteractive decks:
Close games in which both players cast a lot of spells, at least begin to execute their game plan in a meaningful way, and have to make important decisions that influence the game’s outcome are more desirable to most people than lopsided forgone conclusions in which only one (or neither) player makes relevant decisions.
“Fair” decks are, on average, more likely to facilitate what is known in common parlance as a good game than “unfair” decks.
Is it really so outlandish for me to claim that a majority of players share this opinion? Check out the prevailing sentiments on Twitch chat during GP coverage. Head down and talk to the players at your LGS. Witness the continued popularity of fair decks regardless of meta results. Read this very thread.
No one, least of all me, is saying that uninteractive decks are “worth deleting from the format” or “should disappear”: these are straw men.
Once more, radical subjectivism is at play here. It’s okay to have aspirations for this format that seek to maximize the level of player enjoyment and the relevance of player skill. There will always be variance, and there will always be pet peeve/boogeyman decks, but that doesn’t mean that overarching standards (that appeal to the majority but not every last individual) cannot exist.
YouTube Channel, with deck techs, gameplay, analysis, spoiler reviews, and more!
Top 8
8Whack
Infect
Dredge
GDS
Affinity
Blue Moon (Thing in the Ice)
Infect
Amulet
Tron rises, and Tron falls.
Top 16
Burn
Tron
4cDS
Miracles
Mardu Pyro
Mardu Pyro
UWR Control
Dredge
Top 32
Burn
Miracles
Dredge
UW Mana Denial
Tron
Affinity
Burn
Tron
Storm
Hollow One
Burn
UWR Control
Tron
Affinity
Hollow One
Eldrazi and Taxes
Spirits
Also: the winner of the tournament was 8-whack, not burn. HUGE difference (gobbos need all the credit they can get!).
I think people need to start looking at Tron's game against the tier 1/2 field. They would probably not like what they see.
Other than Infect, is it a dog to really anything?
Spirits
Uh, yeah. It's a dog to Bogles (I know it's got Ugin, Ratchet Bomb, and OStone, but those are not fast enough to handle the average hand for Bogles, in my anecdotal experience), Hollow One, Affinity, and fast aggro in general. It's also incredibly soft to KCI, ironically. Storm and most dedicated combo decks will ruin it.
sicsmoo's spreadsheet would lead me to think they are very good, or the matches are in Tron's favour...
Spirits
I agree that the metagame as a whole is probably fine with Stirrings decks performing well. But that doesn't address the inconsistency with Preordain, as Stirrings is clearly no longer just a niche enabler and is now filling the same effective role as Preordain is, but in a different (and large) subset of decks. One of those issues needs resolving.
Most match ups aren't actually all that far off from 50/50, frankly. 60/40 is the most lopsided I'd expect to see with the current deck building conventions and restrictions. Due to the turn 4 rule, decks get to be more durable without having sacrifice that durability for speed. If decks aren't fragile, you don't really get one-sided matchups that actually are 70-30 or 80-20.
I mean armchair match here for sure, but I'm like 4-1 against tron on burn. I mean tron definitely struggles against fast aggro in general. Sure it may not be 80/20, but they are definitely a dog in game one, then rooting for sb help in nature's claim or thragtusk while avoiding skullcrack ruining the whole thing anyways.
This is the cyclical nature of a format. Humans has a big target on its back, so people are playing more mardu and jeskai to fight back, which motivates some folks to pull out their tron decks to beat up the midrange and control players. This is quite literally how my meta operates: fair decks, a couple tron players to roast them, and then me going under the tron players.
It's generally assumed that it would mean only those two sets.
This is also very very unlikely to happen.