So to imply that people aren't still trying to throw Jace into reactive Uxy decks would be a bit disingenuous (if that's what you were doing - I don't know). I think it is important to note that it seems that the most consistently successful JtMS decks rely on pro-active cards or combinations, like Blood Moon or combo finishes (though they are still trying to shoehorn the reactive cards in there anyways).
I can add that anecdotally, Jace has been fairly awful for me in every shell I have tried him in, though mostly Blue Moon variants, using Kiki, Breach, or Thing/Pyro. The card is 4 mana and does nothing in most matchups. It doesn't help me recover from an onslaught of threats and it usually puts my shields down so they can resolve something ridiculous. He's only good in slow, grindy matches, and even then, I often wish he was just a Keranos. That's why I have personally moved from 3 copies main to 1 main 1 side, to 0 main 1 side. The card is just really, really bad in most cases, does not help our bad matchups, and is just a filler for (good_against_grindy_decks.card).
Long story short, Jace lives somewhere between bad and just OK, which is exactly what I predicted would happen if he was ever unbanned.
SFM and Preordain are asinine on the ban list, thats for sure.
I don't think Wizards even takes the time to think about their ban list for modern all that much. It's likely a subject that gets mentioned on the housekeeping tasks and unless the marketing team is prepping something special for a secondary product they don't have time to allocate doing a good investigation. They need a good reason to actually remove a card from a ban list and it has to be more than "well, a bunch of people playing modern think it's okay."
The conversation is probably going to go "Did you take some time to test this? Weren't you supposed to be working on that project named scrambled eggs?"
Then the guy gets stuck in a corner because he was supposed to be working on project scrambled eggs (the next standard set) and took time to test something in modern that makes the company zero money. And this example is just one guy: to test something like if SFM is okay in modern they probably need at least a few people to be doing it.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
After looking over all these articles and data points over the last few weeks, you dont need to convince me that they dont know much of anything.
Has anyone considered the actual amount of testing that would need to be done to 'prove' a card is fine? Simply think about it. It would be a massive number of iterations.
When I read other forums like reddit or good gamery, i always hear great things about jeskai control and all the 4-0's they're putting up. It beats up pretty well on burn and humans. I have a hard time believing control is as bad as people are making it out to be.
Format is becoming too graveyard heavy for my liking; reminds me of the golgari grave troll meta.
When I read other forums like reddit or good gamery, i always hear great things about jeskai control and all the 4-0's they're putting up. It beats up pretty well on burn and humans. I have a hard time believing control is as bad as people are making it out to be.
Format is becoming too graveyard heavy for my liking; reminds me of the golgari grave troll meta.
It certainly has game against Humans. Removal.dec is powerful when you can bolt all the things.
idk about twin and all the other bans and unbans people have been talking about but i have really soured on modern. the tier 1 decks are all just miserable to play and play against to me. i really want to like modern but the games just arent rewarding or enjoyable. i get that this is subjective and there is no denying the diversity but most of the actual games after the bbe and jace hyped died down are just races. maybe I just dont see the redeemable qualities.
...i have really soured on modern. the tier 1 decks are all just miserable to play and play against to me. i really want to like modern but the games just arent rewarding or enjoyable. i get that this is subjective and there is no denying the diversity but most of the actual games after the bbe and jace hyped died down are just races. maybe I just dont see the redeemable qualities.
You are not alone. I've played most of the day, and its just not fun games. The one's I have played against a weird UWR Miracles and Jund BBE were fun and interactive, but yeah, the 'usual suspects' that actually hit top 8 in GPs? I could do without them.
EDIT: To put it another way, I'd rather play against Tier 2 Jank all day.
I feel at this point, the format has become so linear/aggro based for so long, I really don't want them to wait for unbans. Stoneforge Mystic and Preordain should be unbanned next announcement. Maybe even GSZ. I just don't see preordain having almost any effect on the format.
I'm really tired of seeing Affinity, it's been tier one through every meta without fail, for such a long time. I'm tired of burn. Bogles being an actual deck at the moment is vomit inducing. And I was tired of Hollow One very quickly.
I don't know. Twin also felt like it was too oppressive on the lower tier decks, it felt like Twin played gatekeeper moreso than any other decks modern has seen. But again I don't know. I'm close to being inclined to agree with Jeff Hooglands thoughts on the banlist -- he says if it were up to him he would unban Stoneforge, Twin, Pod, Cloudpost and even more. How cool would it be if they just unleashed a bunch of the cards on the meta at the same time.
Though now that I really think about it. I just want control and midrange to be better. The ideas I saw earlier of the negate + bolt stapled together and the boardwipe for small creatures look like what the format really needs. And that's coming from someone who has been playing GW based decks for a long time.
by most standards jace is a good card. it sees play, and will likely continue to do so for the foreseeable future. the thing though is it is being held to a different standard than just any regular card entering the format. for one there is the hype and controversy coloring everybodys assessment. then there is the reasoning wotc gave for unbanning the card in the first place.
blue reactive decks are fine, and you can play them to success. you just have to face the reality that there likely wont be an option within the archetype that is ever 'tier 1' based on the available card pool. a LOT of other decks are in the same position, blue players are typically just more vocal about it.
judgement of the format comes down to how you define what decks are ultimately worth picking up and playing, which in turn can be dependent on how you personally play the game. local events, with maybe the occasional larger tournament 1 or 2 times a year versus a mtgo grinder playing competitive leagues for example. i tend to think i can make up any difference in experience and play skill, not to mention the psychological aspect of generally being better or more focused on tasks that you find enjoyable or interesting. however if i were to play regularly at the highest level of competition for prize implications that might have an impact on my livelihood i would definitely take the time to consider if im not limiting myself.
--------------------------------------------------
of the 'top' decks right now i just dont enjoy playing against hollow one. the deck isnt too good, its just a crappy experience.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
So I've spun my wheels on the merits of Reality Shift for a little while now. I've mainly been using it in my Hollow One matchups with good results, but I think it also has game against Humans. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Human rainbow lands couldn't be used to flip the manifested card, and the card itself is a no-type 2/2 so it doesn't trigger Champion or Thalia's Lieutenant. At this point I've been using it instead of Murderous Cut and/or Go for the Throat in the sideboard, and I'm shocked it doesn't see more play. It's a blue answer that right now hits a lot of questions at a reasonable rate.
Storm is already a Turn 3 deck, it is amazing how consistent it is.
Preordain won't make it a Turn 2 deck.
Just to be more clear here, we already know that Storm isn't really a "Turn 3 deck" right now. At least, not in the way I think you are framing it. It is certainly capable of winning on T3, but so is Grishoalbrand, Cheeri0s, Infect, and others. Even Affinity and Counters Company can win on T3. But that's okay; decks are allowed to win on T3 in Modern. They just can't do so consistently while also being top-tier. This is where the T4 rule violator definition comes from. Based on performance, Storm is very likely to be considered top-tier, which means the fact that it is not banned probably means it isn't winning consistently before T4.
That nuance aside, I'll agree that Preordain won't significantly increase Storm's T3 win-rate. It might make the deck better at recovering in the later game or winning through hate in G2/G3, but that won't speed up the deck and won't address Storm's fundamental weaknesses to a deck like Humans. Therefore, like you, I am much less worried about Preordain in Storm than I used to be.
I just spent like 2 hours typing thoughts on threats in Control vs. Midrange, but I scrapped it as it basically came down to this: Threats don't need to be good in just Control. A threat that slots into both (good) Midrange decks and (worse) Control decks is still fine, since the Control decks are likely replacing weaker elements of their decks. Plus, moderate improvements to some Midrange decks shifts the meta in a good direction for Control.
All that said, IMO the best Control threats are ones like Snapcaster Mage and Stoneforge Mystic. Come down early, help you stabilize, generate value, and can close out the long game. Big splashy lategame wow factor isn't necessary; surviving the early game is. More Baleful Strix, less Sorin, Grim Nemesis. Incidentally, these kinds of threats are the ones that are the most squarely targeted at Control, with less bleedover into other archetypes.
I've already stated my opinion that the Threats vs. Answers vs. Selection/Draw schism is a largely false one, since improving any leg inherently improves all the others. Better answers means your threats are more likely to carry you to victory. Better threats means your answers don't have to hold off the opponent for as many turns. Better selection means you're drawing the right cards more often, improving the effective quality of your resources compared to your opponent's.
But I will say this: when I look at most any Modern Control deck right now, I see a few things. Mediocre but barely palatable selection. OK threats, largely propped up by how damn strong Snapcaster Mage is (God bless Tiago Chan). And rotten answers. Granted, some answers are great against some decks. Path to Exile is pretty much always great. But taking the meta as a whole, not one matchup, not one archetype, but the Modern meta, we're talking wildly inconsistent at best.* "Nice Lightning Bolt," says Gurmag Angler and Bloodghast. "Negate LOL!" says Humans. "Here's 4 1/1s. Oh, with evasion," says Pyromancer. "Path to Exile? I've got 3 lands I'll just go off now" says Storm. "LOLOLOLOLOL" says Eldrazi. "LOLOLOLOLOLOL" says Tron. "WTF are you even about?" says Ironworks.
Do you know what shores that up? Good, maindeckable, stack interaction. Not Logic Knot, which I've advocated for for years, and is passable but finicky. Not Negate, which rots in your hand while you get beat down by turn-1 4/4s. Not Mana Leak, which is dead in your hand for over half the game (unless you lose immediately). Sure as hell not Wizard's Retort, which now that I think about it sounds like a very cynical meta joke. But even one or two printings like these would be a good start.
Good permission isn't a panacea. It's not even catch-all, with cards like AEther Vial and Cavern of Souls. But it's a big improvement, and IMO we don't really need or want answers to actually literally everything. In fact, I think the amount of good, broadly relevant permission Control would need to be in a decent spot (and a much better regulating force) is smaller than most of us realize.
And again, these are the kinds of cards that would be the least splashy into other decks. Humans might get a kick out of a new value-laden finisher, but they're not touching Counterspell with a 10-foot pole.
So that's my much-longer-than-expected spiel. I'm disheartened at how incredibly conservative WotC has been on this end (no Revolt Counterspell? No Kicker variant?), but I do think they're on the right path at least. It may take a lot longer than those of us on Blue Team want, but I do think we'll eventually get the few decent answers the archetype needs to flourish and raise the quality of the format along with it. Especially given the shift to "Hey I guess answers are important after all" in Standard, the repeated failed attempts to bolster the archetype via unbans in Modern, and now MaRo's explicit statement that they're looking at adding some cards directly to Modern, bypassing Standard.
*This is a product of a really diverse meta. I'm not knocking that; the diversity is great. But it's also the case that it exposes how poorly equipped Modern answers are outside Black discard. The frustration is with that deficiency of the card pool, not the meta itself.
ATTACHMENTS
Overcharge
Consign to Beyond
Dark Rebuttal
Assert Will
Contracharm
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing UX Mana Denial until Modern gets the answers it needs.
WUBRG Humans BRW Mardu Pyromancer UW UW "Control" UR Blue Moon
Yeah I dont mean it consistently wins Turn 3, but it is an insanely consistent goldfish, far more so than Cherri0's or Grishoalbrand. The fact it wont speed it up at all, to me, makes it a safe enough call.
threats, answers, and selection. of those three selection is probably the safest.
giving reactive decks better answer cards should be avoided at all costs. its the avenue that is most likely to result in a control deck becoming oppressive. having answers so good that you can stand amongst the top ranks against the field means it largely doesnt matter what your opponents are doing, or in other words you are ignoring them. this is something that there should be less of, not more.
the types of threats that control decks want are ones that double as disruption. however the problem therein becomes their eventual adoption into proactive strategies such as an aggro deck. this would likely prove more detrimental in the long run.
selection lets you find what you need, but you are still required to fill your deck with the most appropriate set of cards. it also places an onus on the player to make good decisions both in and out of games to maximize its effect, which is better gameplay.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
giving reactive decks better answer cards should be avoided at all costs. its the avenue that is most likely to result in a control deck becoming oppressive. having answers so good that you can stand amongst the top ranks against the field means it largely doesnt matter what your opponents are doing, or in other words you are ignoring them. this is something that there should be less of, not more.
The notion that having good answers means it doesn't matter what your opponent is doing... has been the exact opposite of my experience at any point in Magic. Charbelcher is not caring what your opponent is doing. Having to choose whether to Counterspell their threat or deploy your Batterskull is absolutely caring about what your opponent is doing.
Of course you can make answers that are so good they're broken. But first, that's true of exactly every type of card in the game, and second, I don't see how this means that literally any answer that is better than what we have at this exact moment must "be avoided at all costs." So we're currently at the exact perfect place for answers then? Or is the ideal format one without Supreme Verdict or Inquisition of Kozilek or Path to Exile or Mana Leak? Was it Abrade or Fatal Push (you know, some of the most celebrated cards printed in years) that finally ushered in the dystopian future of solitaire Magic?
Sorry for the sarcasm, but that kind of hyperbole from a respectable poster is more than I can stomach at this time of night.
i dont mind. you have some valid points. there is a difference between having better answers and broken ones, and it doesnt have to be all or nothing.
i dont think counterspell, or even your created examples, would be too good for the format. however good permission spells are dangerous territory. they answer everything equally, which invalidates the text on your opponents cards meaning the line between good and too good is much thinner because whether or not it 'works' is never in question (sans 'cannot be countered' clauses).
permission spells have proven through magics history to be THE most potent form of answer. so sure they could provide better answer cards, specifically counterspells, that are within acceptable power levels. however you offered three options for ways to improve control decks. between the three, better selection seems the lowest risk while providing the gameplay benefits i mentioned. not to mention its the path of least resistance because preordain is readily available.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
I do think that it's important to note that better selection spells can more often than not be put to better use in combo decks than control decks.
Personally, though, I think that control decks are already viable in the format, though underplayed. I've recently picked up Mono Blue Tron, and as much flak as the deck has received for being sub-par, it's performed astonishingly well for me. It's almost like deja-vu for me, from back when we first advocated for the strength of Lantern and it was shrugged off as a bad jank deck. It's got the things that you mention, rogue_LOVE: Good answers, good threats, and good selection. Now, I'm not saying it doesn't have some weak matchups, but if we're being honest with ourselves, every deck has weak matchups (or, at least, should). Lantern had troubling matchups, yet still top 16'd two Grand Prix in a row with few numbers of pilots in the crowd. I'd say it's about as difficult to pilot as Lantern, having played Lantern since what feels like forever now.
Personally, though, I think that control decks are already viable in the format, though underplayed.
This is my view as well. This should silence all Twin advocates. I also think UWx Control are very biable decks, even better than Mono U Tron.
I even believe there are Esper jace variations that haven't been tested properly yet. Hand disruption with JTMS is a very strong semi-compination.
Mono U Tron maybe somewhat problematic now because of Damping Sphere also.
Glad the two of you believe that, because results say otherwise.
I'm literally holding onto my blue staples because of a hope SFM or Twin is unbanned. Blue decks don't have enough broad answers, and it's threats aren't great. People have been wanting a good Esper deck for years, not sure where you're really getting that from
I do find it interesting how much Humans harmed the shadow archetype. With Jace underperforming and blue going back to normal meta shares, shadow still shrunk significantly.
Maybe bypassing standard would be great, because as of now asking the questions is far, far better than answering them. Reactive decks are definitely viable in modern, and they can win a GP, but you really are just better off playing a proactive deck if you're a spike at heart.
I do think that it's important to note that better selection spells can more often than not be put to better use in combo decks than control decks.
Personally, though, I think that control decks are already viable in the format, though underplayed. I've recently picked up Mono Blue Tron, and as much flak as the deck has received for being sub-par, it's performed astonishingly well for me. It's almost like deja-vu for me, from back when we first advocated for the strength of Lantern and it was shrugged off as a bad jank deck. It's got the things that you mention, rogue_LOVE: Good answers, good threats, and good selection. Now, I'm not saying it doesn't have some weak matchups, but if we're being honest with ourselves, every deck has weak matchups (or, at least, should). Lantern had troubling matchups, yet still top 16'd two Grand Prix in a row with few numbers of pilots in the crowd. I'd say it's about as difficult to pilot as Lantern, having played Lantern since what feels like forever now.
i agree that helping blue combo decks is potentially a risk. however its been pointed out that it seems unlikely to push any currently existing combo decks into the realm of being too good, which i agree with. so it comes down to whether the introduction of a better cantrip would be a net benefit for the format. if its helping combo, control, and tempo decks alike then 2 out of 3 seems alright.
i also think that control decks for the most part are fine. the complaints and concerns brought up in this thread, as well as other community forums tend to make it seem like a bigger issue than it really is, but that is just the nature of the beast. there isnt much else to talk about because the format is still in a decent spot, so honing in on the few faults we do find can be easy to misinterpret.
still things could be better. control and tempo decks are still on the lower end of representation. wizards has acknowledged this, but its unclear to what extent they think its a problem worth solving. maybe they figure jace is good enough, and that will be the end of it.
there are also the concerns brought up about the format, despite being technically diverse, moving in a direction that some dont find fun to play or watch. this is largely subjective, but its still something that wotc has to pay attention to. is it just a vocal minority, or is it something more widespread? aggro and combo decks can offer compelling gameplay, but it will get stale like anything else if that is mostly what is going on. its basically the same thing that many find distasteful about standard, but just a different flavor of it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
wait so there are a class of decks that are viable, but shouldnt be chosen if you actually care about winning. however its imperative to preserve the diversity among these equally poor options even if it comes at the cost of less diversity among the good options.
interesting...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
Guys please opinions on japanese cards. Lost a 3/3 creature against Japan celestial colonade. This guy played all creatures and spells in english cards, but some cards in his manabase was japanese. I dont registrated this really ( my brain say its all fine and all english to me lets attack his empty board)...and i am sure it is a Kind of legal cheating. It is not ok, but i know legal. I Hate such people. I never forget colonade normally, but with this Tricks it can happen one time in 3 years and such people take advantage of this
If I am a customer spending premium amount of dollars, I expect a premium service. Jund falls into the category of a premium deck costing more dollars than a majority of the rest of the format. I'm not getting the desired performance ratio per dollars spent out of the Jund deck because WOTC decided to make the format more diverse.
Just because control can't 1 for 1 everything in sight doesn't make Blue weak or Modern broken. It just takes more brain power and it's more unforgiving than slamming down 7 dudes and attacking. Time is money.
Control has tons of options in sweepers that easily 3 for 1 something. And late game they have resource advantages when someone has nothing to do but slam down a 6/6 fatty only to get removed for 2 mana. How is that fair? A 6 CMC fatty should be removed by an equal amount of resources if it's considered "fair". But control doesn't need to do that. Go run some Bontu's Last Reckoning so you can actually use some mana instead of holding mana up for the opponent's turn to do something end of turn. Heck they even have 3 mana instant sweepers now with Kozilek's Return and Fiery Cannonade
What really needs help is Green/White strategies, or oldschool ramp strategies.
Sweet Esper Gifts Control list takes down the event, beating both Humans and H1 on the way to the win. I have no idea if this deck is viable on a broader scale, but I do know mentalmisstep is trying new stuff and that's commendable. He 5-0d a Daily in early April with the list too; if I had these cards on MTGO, I'd certainly try it.
I fully believe there's a lot of groupthink in Modern, especially at the average player level, which artificially drives metagame diversity. A perfect example of this is H1/Humans before the PT and after. The card pool was virtually identical before and after this event, but after average players saw H1 and Humans succeed, they started playing it en masse. They certainly didn't discover the decks' viability on their own. We've seen this throughout Modern's history with both big examples (Eldrazi pre/post PT) and small ones (Amulet Bloom and Lantern). I expect blue decks, especially Blue Moon which has a very respectable and consistent tournament pedigree in the last few months, are in this exact same position.
wait so there are a class of decks that are viable, but shouldnt be chosen if you actually care about winning. however its imperative to preserve the diversity among these equally poor options even if it comes at the cost of less diversity among the good options.
interesting...
This comment seems to lack context, I feel I must have missed a post...
If one would avoid a selection because they care more about winning, then that selection is not viable. That seems fairly self evident.
What I would like to understand, is why with SCG showing over and over and over, that Control supposedly is viable (Top 8s), why its not reflected in GPs.
Today I will be playing probably nothing but UR Delver. I certainly hope its a better experience than what I had with UWR Control and Blue Moon yesterday, where the losses are easily analysed (especially that Kiki deck...just so poor) because in the end is a deck underplayed because its believed to be weak, or is it weak? Only by testing can we 'know'.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
UW Spirits
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I can add that anecdotally, Jace has been fairly awful for me in every shell I have tried him in, though mostly Blue Moon variants, using Kiki, Breach, or Thing/Pyro. The card is 4 mana and does nothing in most matchups. It doesn't help me recover from an onslaught of threats and it usually puts my shields down so they can resolve something ridiculous. He's only good in slow, grindy matches, and even then, I often wish he was just a Keranos. That's why I have personally moved from 3 copies main to 1 main 1 side, to 0 main 1 side. The card is just really, really bad in most cases, does not help our bad matchups, and is just a filler for (good_against_grindy_decks.card).
Long story short, Jace lives somewhere between bad and just OK, which is exactly what I predicted would happen if he was ever unbanned.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I don't think Wizards even takes the time to think about their ban list for modern all that much. It's likely a subject that gets mentioned on the housekeeping tasks and unless the marketing team is prepping something special for a secondary product they don't have time to allocate doing a good investigation. They need a good reason to actually remove a card from a ban list and it has to be more than "well, a bunch of people playing modern think it's okay."
The conversation is probably going to go "Did you take some time to test this? Weren't you supposed to be working on that project named scrambled eggs?"
Then the guy gets stuck in a corner because he was supposed to be working on project scrambled eggs (the next standard set) and took time to test something in modern that makes the company zero money. And this example is just one guy: to test something like if SFM is okay in modern they probably need at least a few people to be doing it.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Has anyone considered the actual amount of testing that would need to be done to 'prove' a card is fine? Simply think about it. It would be a massive number of iterations.
Spirits
Format is becoming too graveyard heavy for my liking; reminds me of the golgari grave troll meta.
It certainly has game against Humans. Removal.dec is powerful when you can bolt all the things.
Spirits
You are not alone. I've played most of the day, and its just not fun games. The one's I have played against a weird UWR Miracles and Jund BBE were fun and interactive, but yeah, the 'usual suspects' that actually hit top 8 in GPs? I could do without them.
EDIT: To put it another way, I'd rather play against Tier 2 Jank all day.
Spirits
I'm really tired of seeing Affinity, it's been tier one through every meta without fail, for such a long time. I'm tired of burn. Bogles being an actual deck at the moment is vomit inducing. And I was tired of Hollow One very quickly.
I don't know. Twin also felt like it was too oppressive on the lower tier decks, it felt like Twin played gatekeeper moreso than any other decks modern has seen. But again I don't know. I'm close to being inclined to agree with Jeff Hooglands thoughts on the banlist -- he says if it were up to him he would unban Stoneforge, Twin, Pod, Cloudpost and even more. How cool would it be if they just unleashed a bunch of the cards on the meta at the same time.
Though now that I really think about it. I just want control and midrange to be better. The ideas I saw earlier of the negate + bolt stapled together and the boardwipe for small creatures look like what the format really needs. And that's coming from someone who has been playing GW based decks for a long time.
WAbzan B CompanyG
blue reactive decks are fine, and you can play them to success. you just have to face the reality that there likely wont be an option within the archetype that is ever 'tier 1' based on the available card pool. a LOT of other decks are in the same position, blue players are typically just more vocal about it.
judgement of the format comes down to how you define what decks are ultimately worth picking up and playing, which in turn can be dependent on how you personally play the game. local events, with maybe the occasional larger tournament 1 or 2 times a year versus a mtgo grinder playing competitive leagues for example. i tend to think i can make up any difference in experience and play skill, not to mention the psychological aspect of generally being better or more focused on tasks that you find enjoyable or interesting. however if i were to play regularly at the highest level of competition for prize implications that might have an impact on my livelihood i would definitely take the time to consider if im not limiting myself.
--------------------------------------------------
of the 'top' decks right now i just dont enjoy playing against hollow one. the deck isnt too good, its just a crappy experience.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)In no way should SFM or Preordain be banned.
Storm is already a Turn 3 deck, it is amazing how consistent it is.
Preordain won't make it a Turn 2 deck.
SFM is not going into a single top deck right now.
When is the next announcement, June?
Spirits
Just to be more clear here, we already know that Storm isn't really a "Turn 3 deck" right now. At least, not in the way I think you are framing it. It is certainly capable of winning on T3, but so is Grishoalbrand, Cheeri0s, Infect, and others. Even Affinity and Counters Company can win on T3. But that's okay; decks are allowed to win on T3 in Modern. They just can't do so consistently while also being top-tier. This is where the T4 rule violator definition comes from. Based on performance, Storm is very likely to be considered top-tier, which means the fact that it is not banned probably means it isn't winning consistently before T4.
That nuance aside, I'll agree that Preordain won't significantly increase Storm's T3 win-rate. It might make the deck better at recovering in the later game or winning through hate in G2/G3, but that won't speed up the deck and won't address Storm's fundamental weaknesses to a deck like Humans. Therefore, like you, I am much less worried about Preordain in Storm than I used to be.
All that said, IMO the best Control threats are ones like Snapcaster Mage and Stoneforge Mystic. Come down early, help you stabilize, generate value, and can close out the long game. Big splashy lategame wow factor isn't necessary; surviving the early game is. More Baleful Strix, less Sorin, Grim Nemesis. Incidentally, these kinds of threats are the ones that are the most squarely targeted at Control, with less bleedover into other archetypes.
I've already stated my opinion that the Threats vs. Answers vs. Selection/Draw schism is a largely false one, since improving any leg inherently improves all the others. Better answers means your threats are more likely to carry you to victory. Better threats means your answers don't have to hold off the opponent for as many turns. Better selection means you're drawing the right cards more often, improving the effective quality of your resources compared to your opponent's.
But I will say this: when I look at most any Modern Control deck right now, I see a few things. Mediocre but barely palatable selection. OK threats, largely propped up by how damn strong Snapcaster Mage is (God bless Tiago Chan). And rotten answers. Granted, some answers are great against some decks. Path to Exile is pretty much always great. But taking the meta as a whole, not one matchup, not one archetype, but the Modern meta, we're talking wildly inconsistent at best.* "Nice Lightning Bolt," says Gurmag Angler and Bloodghast. "Negate LOL!" says Humans. "Here's 4 1/1s. Oh, with evasion," says Pyromancer. "Path to Exile? I've got 3 lands I'll just go off now" says Storm. "LOLOLOLOLOL" says Eldrazi. "LOLOLOLOLOLOL" says Tron. "WTF are you even about?" says Ironworks.
Do you know what shores that up? Good, maindeckable, stack interaction. Not Logic Knot, which I've advocated for for years, and is passable but finicky. Not Negate, which rots in your hand while you get beat down by turn-1 4/4s. Not Mana Leak, which is dead in your hand for over half the game (unless you lose immediately). Sure as hell not Wizard's Retort, which now that I think about it sounds like a very cynical meta joke. But even one or two printings like these would be a good start.
Good permission isn't a panacea. It's not even catch-all, with cards like AEther Vial and Cavern of Souls. But it's a big improvement, and IMO we don't really need or want answers to actually literally everything. In fact, I think the amount of good, broadly relevant permission Control would need to be in a decent spot (and a much better regulating force) is smaller than most of us realize.
And again, these are the kinds of cards that would be the least splashy into other decks. Humans might get a kick out of a new value-laden finisher, but they're not touching Counterspell with a 10-foot pole.
So that's my much-longer-than-expected spiel. I'm disheartened at how incredibly conservative WotC has been on this end (no Revolt Counterspell? No Kicker variant?), but I do think they're on the right path at least. It may take a lot longer than those of us on Blue Team want, but I do think we'll eventually get the few decent answers the archetype needs to flourish and raise the quality of the format along with it. Especially given the shift to "Hey I guess answers are important after all" in Standard, the repeated failed attempts to bolster the archetype via unbans in Modern, and now MaRo's explicit statement that they're looking at adding some cards directly to Modern, bypassing Standard.
*This is a product of a really diverse meta. I'm not knocking that; the diversity is great. But it's also the case that it exposes how poorly equipped Modern answers are outside Black discard. The frustration is with that deficiency of the card pool, not the meta itself.
WUBRG Humans
BRW Mardu Pyromancer
UW UW "Control"
UR Blue Moon
Spirits
giving reactive decks better answer cards should be avoided at all costs. its the avenue that is most likely to result in a control deck becoming oppressive. having answers so good that you can stand amongst the top ranks against the field means it largely doesnt matter what your opponents are doing, or in other words you are ignoring them. this is something that there should be less of, not more.
the types of threats that control decks want are ones that double as disruption. however the problem therein becomes their eventual adoption into proactive strategies such as an aggro deck. this would likely prove more detrimental in the long run.
selection lets you find what you need, but you are still required to fill your deck with the most appropriate set of cards. it also places an onus on the player to make good decisions both in and out of games to maximize its effect, which is better gameplay.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)The notion that having good answers means it doesn't matter what your opponent is doing... has been the exact opposite of my experience at any point in Magic. Charbelcher is not caring what your opponent is doing. Having to choose whether to Counterspell their threat or deploy your Batterskull is absolutely caring about what your opponent is doing.
Of course you can make answers that are so good they're broken. But first, that's true of exactly every type of card in the game, and second, I don't see how this means that literally any answer that is better than what we have at this exact moment must "be avoided at all costs." So we're currently at the exact perfect place for answers then? Or is the ideal format one without Supreme Verdict or Inquisition of Kozilek or Path to Exile or Mana Leak? Was it Abrade or Fatal Push (you know, some of the most celebrated cards printed in years) that finally ushered in the dystopian future of solitaire Magic?
Sorry for the sarcasm, but that kind of hyperbole from a respectable poster is more than I can stomach at this time of night.
WUBRG Humans
BRW Mardu Pyromancer
UW UW "Control"
UR Blue Moon
i dont think counterspell, or even your created examples, would be too good for the format. however good permission spells are dangerous territory. they answer everything equally, which invalidates the text on your opponents cards meaning the line between good and too good is much thinner because whether or not it 'works' is never in question (sans 'cannot be countered' clauses).
permission spells have proven through magics history to be THE most potent form of answer. so sure they could provide better answer cards, specifically counterspells, that are within acceptable power levels. however you offered three options for ways to improve control decks. between the three, better selection seems the lowest risk while providing the gameplay benefits i mentioned. not to mention its the path of least resistance because preordain is readily available.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Personally, though, I think that control decks are already viable in the format, though underplayed. I've recently picked up Mono Blue Tron, and as much flak as the deck has received for being sub-par, it's performed astonishingly well for me. It's almost like deja-vu for me, from back when we first advocated for the strength of Lantern and it was shrugged off as a bad jank deck. It's got the things that you mention, rogue_LOVE: Good answers, good threats, and good selection. Now, I'm not saying it doesn't have some weak matchups, but if we're being honest with ourselves, every deck has weak matchups (or, at least, should). Lantern had troubling matchups, yet still top 16'd two Grand Prix in a row with few numbers of pilots in the crowd. I'd say it's about as difficult to pilot as Lantern, having played Lantern since what feels like forever now.
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
Glad the two of you believe that, because results say otherwise.
I'm literally holding onto my blue staples because of a hope SFM or Twin is unbanned. Blue decks don't have enough broad answers, and it's threats aren't great. People have been wanting a good Esper deck for years, not sure where you're really getting that from
I do find it interesting how much Humans harmed the shadow archetype. With Jace underperforming and blue going back to normal meta shares, shadow still shrunk significantly.
Maybe bypassing standard would be great, because as of now asking the questions is far, far better than answering them. Reactive decks are definitely viable in modern, and they can win a GP, but you really are just better off playing a proactive deck if you're a spike at heart.
i agree that helping blue combo decks is potentially a risk. however its been pointed out that it seems unlikely to push any currently existing combo decks into the realm of being too good, which i agree with. so it comes down to whether the introduction of a better cantrip would be a net benefit for the format. if its helping combo, control, and tempo decks alike then 2 out of 3 seems alright.
i also think that control decks for the most part are fine. the complaints and concerns brought up in this thread, as well as other community forums tend to make it seem like a bigger issue than it really is, but that is just the nature of the beast. there isnt much else to talk about because the format is still in a decent spot, so honing in on the few faults we do find can be easy to misinterpret.
still things could be better. control and tempo decks are still on the lower end of representation. wizards has acknowledged this, but its unclear to what extent they think its a problem worth solving. maybe they figure jace is good enough, and that will be the end of it.
there are also the concerns brought up about the format, despite being technically diverse, moving in a direction that some dont find fun to play or watch. this is largely subjective, but its still something that wotc has to pay attention to. is it just a vocal minority, or is it something more widespread? aggro and combo decks can offer compelling gameplay, but it will get stale like anything else if that is mostly what is going on. its basically the same thing that many find distasteful about standard, but just a different flavor of it.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)interesting...
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Control has tons of options in sweepers that easily 3 for 1 something. And late game they have resource advantages when someone has nothing to do but slam down a 6/6 fatty only to get removed for 2 mana. How is that fair? A 6 CMC fatty should be removed by an equal amount of resources if it's considered "fair". But control doesn't need to do that. Go run some Bontu's Last Reckoning so you can actually use some mana instead of holding mana up for the opponent's turn to do something end of turn. Heck they even have 3 mana instant sweepers now with Kozilek's Return and Fiery Cannonade
What really needs help is Green/White strategies, or oldschool ramp strategies.
Modern Tallowisp Spirits - A Modern Tallowisp Deck UW
Eldrazi Ninjas - Summoning Octopus Jutsu YYYYAAAHHHH!
STANDARD
Naban Wizards
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/modern-challenge-2018-04-29
Sweet Esper Gifts Control list takes down the event, beating both Humans and H1 on the way to the win. I have no idea if this deck is viable on a broader scale, but I do know mentalmisstep is trying new stuff and that's commendable. He 5-0d a Daily in early April with the list too; if I had these cards on MTGO, I'd certainly try it.
I fully believe there's a lot of groupthink in Modern, especially at the average player level, which artificially drives metagame diversity. A perfect example of this is H1/Humans before the PT and after. The card pool was virtually identical before and after this event, but after average players saw H1 and Humans succeed, they started playing it en masse. They certainly didn't discover the decks' viability on their own. We've seen this throughout Modern's history with both big examples (Eldrazi pre/post PT) and small ones (Amulet Bloom and Lantern). I expect blue decks, especially Blue Moon which has a very respectable and consistent tournament pedigree in the last few months, are in this exact same position.
This comment seems to lack context, I feel I must have missed a post...
If one would avoid a selection because they care more about winning, then that selection is not viable. That seems fairly self evident.
What I would like to understand, is why with SCG showing over and over and over, that Control supposedly is viable (Top 8s), why its not reflected in GPs.
Today I will be playing probably nothing but UR Delver. I certainly hope its a better experience than what I had with UWR Control and Blue Moon yesterday, where the losses are easily analysed (especially that Kiki deck...just so poor) because in the end is a deck underplayed because its believed to be weak, or is it weak? Only by testing can we 'know'.
Spirits