I do agree that the bad matchups are really bad and good matchups are pretty close. I do agree that you are putting yourself at a handicap. But Control players have (almost) always put themselves at a handicap in Modern. There's a reason I went from playing Control (and the occasional Tempo or Aggro Control) for 8 years to not touching it with a 10 ft pole. It's been about 7 years since I played Control with any frequency. I actually don't know what Wizards can do at this point to make it more viable in this format without breaking stuff. I feel that Preordain is a small start. Trying to print something to port from Standard could help.
Like it or not, Modern is a very goldfishy format. Matchups are everything. If I were to list the most important tools to doing well in Modern in order, I would list it like this.
1. Draws during the game.
2. Matchup.
3. Mulligans.
4. Play skill.
Sorry, but play skill is not among the top 3 most important keys to winning in Modern. I went only doing worse than 3-1 at FNM twice at Shuffle and Cut to getting 2-2 five times in the past 4 months. I've had to come to some realizations about this, often losing to people who have played the game of Magic less than I've played Modern or play test a lot less than I do. I basically breathe Modern right now, going to many different websites to read articles or watch streams. Then I play test quite a bit and play tournaments 4-5 times per week. It absolutely suuuucks losing to someone who is playing a suboptimal deck or makes suboptimal plays, but this is the state of Modern right now. I've come to try to accept it because I have no other choice. I still love Modern a lot more than any other format (which previous to the Top ban in Legacy, I would say it was close to Legacy).
*And you want to talk about razor thin margins, try playing Amulet Titan. The slightest mistake is quite often GG for you. The last time I played Bloom Titan with Summer Bloom, I tried it at 2 FNMs, going 3-2 twice. I couldn't accept that it takes a while to play super good and that I was not going to win prize for a while. I PUNTED a match vs. Infect in the 2nd FNM with it, so I should have been 4-1. This whole deck is a process of learning, doing poorly, and relearning, and trying to do much better. Once you've gone through those stages, you can probably successfully pilot it nearly as good as a Tier 1 deck, but it takes a LOT to get to that point.
Swords to Plowshares, Counterspell, and Fact or Fiction would make control a T1 GP consideration. Swords gives the deck 8 1 mana exile effects and together with something like Detention Sphere really helps their bad MU's (Dredge, Hollow One, etc.) while cementing their good MU's. UWx control with 4 Swords, 4 Path, 1-2 D. Sphere, 1 Settle would be quite nice as an exile removal suite. I've had a feeling FoF has been needed in the format for a long time now. It's skill-testing and an extremely potent CA engine/selection spell. Counterspell would add consistency % and not be anti-synergy or frail to GY hate like Logic Knot.
Of course, I think the prison/hate pieces in the format are a lot stronger than counters (Runed Halo, Leyline, Rest in Peace, Graf. cage, Bridge, etc.) except against Tron. I think a RWu historic control deck may actually be preferable to traditional UWx control decks (as it checks one of those % boxes - being able to play 8 1 mana exile removal (4 dispatch, 4 path) in the 75, as well as a better bolt (Galvanic Blast) that hits important creatures like Hollow One/TKS or can snag a LoTV after a +1. Since you get to play mana acceleration, you also get to play better card filtering in something like Board the Weatherlight (2 mana is a little less taxing than non-acceleration decks). In any event, the reason people lament lack of competitively viable Control is because Control is the only macro archetype that is in this position. It's not fair to compare a macro archetype with micro-decks. For healthy magic, there has to be some semblance of balance imho, that's why I don't mind Tron/Big Mana decks.
Played against that Hollow One deck today and boy that deck is dumb.
Won 2-0 but only because I chose correctly on his Goblin Lore to take 2 Hollow Ones. He still had the 3rd Hollow One to play immediately afterwards. If I had not chosen correctly, I would probably have lost.
I am not too happy that the deck takes the already existing variance in Magic and magnifies it
By the way, what happened to Jund? Did it just get massacred? Bob was flying up in price for a while and now he's coming down along with LoTV, which usually only happens when something very bad happens.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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!
Jund is just not very good right now. One of our LGS players who runs Jund a lot played KCI yesterday and got 3-0-1 with it. Haven't seen him do better than 3-1, but more often 2-2 with Jund. The other Jund players literally are not even placing.
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)
By the way, what happened to Jund? Did it just get massacred? Bob was flying up in price for a while and now he's coming down along with LoTV, which usually only happens when something very bad happens.
Its only as good as the meta allows it to be. BBE/Jace convinced a lot of people to bring out Jund and Uxx decks.
As they said on stream at SCG.
"Is Jace a bust in Modern?"
"...Well yeah, he is."
So down goes Uxx, and because of that, down goes a good Jund Match Up.
If you are competing at big events and you play non-aggro, you are forcing yourself into having worse match ups.
Foodchain, I've started to come to the conclusion you have about modern.
I have my foiled out Jund deck, and have no plans of selling it off, but I'm definitely done with fair decks that aren't the Rock variety.
You have to play some form of aggro or linear combo or you're going to lose to worse decks or worse players, or sub-optimal lines.
I was not doing hot with Jund, I was beginning to think it was just me, but it was interesting to see that Jund players in general just started doing poorly.
I know it's weird to say---but is Jund just dead? Outside of the two month stretch, it's been dead for over a year and a half?
I'm still shocked Shadow isn't around, I thought it'd be around for years to come.
Modern is a linear format, and if you want to win, you really have to accept that fact. I'm not mad, angry or sad about that anymore, it just is what it is. At least a lot of the regulars here are being honest that it's viable, but a handicap. Talk about banning Cavern so blue can do well is foolish. The archetype in modern is fundamentally flawed and bad. It'll take years of the right printings to do something about it, or WOTC accidentally printing one or two cards to give it a major boost. If you cannot recognize this, you do not have any clue about what you're talking about nor do you understand this format. It's suggestions like this that are problems, and the people that say these things ARE the problem. I'm sorry me saying this will rub some people the wrong way.
Too bad UR breach isn't that good, according to the talk here, it was my last attempt to try a blue deck before selling all the staples off (minus Snaps and Fetches).
Uuuhhh, exactly. I bought into Hollow One the GP after Protour. I had most of the staples and only needed to buy the Bloodghasts and Lores
Even when Jund was getting results, I was getting all these free wins with Hollow One. It's like if Jund and Dredge had a baby.
Playing fair is just a bad idea in modern, man. The only reason Shadow was good was because Shadow is a busted ass card that makes Stubborn Denial oppressively good.
If you want to play fair, play standard or Delver in legacy (before DRS eats an eventual ban).
Fair decks are fine if all you want to do is win FNMs though, thats how we justify our arguments in this thread.
Or we point out for when world players like Reid Duke places in something significant with a fair deck.
I've definitely become bitter, but I do feel what I am saying is true, which sucks--because I was a fair player at heart. I'm going to eventually buy into Humans again. I have all of GBx, Hollow One and Tron (which has its ebbs and flows, but feels like a good deck to own if its not your only deck).
I'm going to wait until something makes blue explode in price instead of selling it for so low. When SFM sees the eventual unban, I'm going to sell the staples off for store credit. I'm absolutely convinced owning blue staples minus Snap is a joke and waste of money (Outside of those who genuinely love blue control).
And no, this isn't some ultimatum of "I want twin back!"
Too bad UR breach isn't that good, according to the talk here, it was my last attempt to try a blue deck before selling all the staples off (minus Snaps and Fetches).
I dont think that it 'isnt that good' I think its just comparably inferior to what it could be, and I wont put myself through it every game.
It's like telling BGx players that Moldgraf Scavenger is fine, Goyf has to go. How would you feel every single time you drew or cast that? That's where I am, every single game I play.
EDIT: Case in point, I just completely dominated a Blue Moon deck, because while he could resolve small things, attempting to navigate to a state of 5 mana (Breach or Kiki) with backup, simply a losing effort when you must interact.
I was on UWR, which is still the only 'Blue Control' deck I have found palatable in near 2 years (other than Turns, which has its own limitations).
What is your definition of 'blue control'? I'm genuinely curious, because a lot of what is being said in this thread lately seems largely dependant on what any given player feels is the 'right' kind of control deck.
I am not nearly so expert at MtG or Pauper as everyone on this board so that gives me license to ask a dumb question:
Why are bans the primary tool used to regulate format health? Why not come up with some more creative ways to regulate the format?
I get that there is also the possibility of introducing new cards that act as foils to too-strong cards or decks, but beyond banning and introducing new cards, I can think of all sorts of creative ways to improve format health, such as:
1) Making cards in linear decks restricted to 1x as is done in Vintage. Or could be 2x.
2) Increasing the total number of instants/sorceries that can be in a single deck. This could be total, for blue only, whatever. For example, a rule that said you can use more than 4 blue instants and 4 blue sorcery cards in any given deck would raise the power of blue based control, without having to ban linear decks.
3) Problem: Blue is weaker than the other colors. Potential Answer: Make it more consistent compared to other colors. This could be done by saying you can use more than 4x of any blue card. Or maybe you can use 5x blue but 2x limit for any other color to help make blue decks better. A possibly more effective variant on this idea might say that if there is a single card with blue in its mana cost in the deck, then the entire deck is allowed up to 5x limit per card. But decks without a single card containing blue in its mana cost would have a 3x limit.
4) There is a bonus given to the player who goes second currently (first player to draw a card). How about giving an extra card bonus to the blue control player who plays an instant or sorcery? For example if you lead in with island and a serum visions, you get to play an extra land from your hand.
I could come up with many more possibilities for raising the power of blue (also white) that don't involve a ban/unban. I can't tell in advance which idea would work and which wouldn't. It would obviously take testing to determine what is viable and what isn't.
But why not try? Why rely so much on bans for keeping a format balanced and diverse?
What is your definition of 'blue control'? I'm genuinely curious, because a lot of what is being said in this thread lately seems largely dependant on what any given player feels is the 'right' kind of control deck.
Are you running Serum, Logic Knot/Mana Leak/Remand, Cryptic? You may be 'Blue Control'.
Are you running Search for Azcanta, or Jace, and Snaps? You may be 'Blue Control'.
Are you running Clique? You may be 'Blue Control'.
Are you jamming Colonade or Tar Pit? You may be 'Blue Control'.
Are you running Faeries? Well then you are Faeries.
There was a US senator or judge or something, who said "I know Porn when I see it." Thats how I feel about what 'Blue Control' is.
What is your definition of 'blue control'? I'm genuinely curious, because a lot of what is being said in this thread lately seems largely dependant on what any given player feels is the 'right' kind of control deck.
Are you running Serum, Logic Knot/Mana Leak/Remand, Cryptic? You may be 'Blue Control'.
Are you running Search for Azcanta, or Jace, and Snaps? You may be 'Blue Control'.
Are you running Clique? You may be 'Blue Control'.
Are you jamming Colonade or Tar Pit? You may be 'Blue Control'.
Are you running Faeries? Well then you are Faeries.
There was a US senator or judge or something, who said "I know Porn when I see it." Thats how I feel about what 'Blue Control' is.
EDIT: I include Blue Moon in this too really, but its on the edge with Combo for most builds.
Alright, let me ask you this, which fits your definition better: a deck that tries to limit the opponent's board state while grinding out small advantages, or a deck that tries to hold the opponent off until it can land some kind of big finish?
For me, it's fun sometimes to have the big haymaker come down and win the game (I played GDS before Faeries), but there is just something fantastic about slowly building up my board while doing everything I can to disrupt my opponent. Faeries lets me do that more than any other deck I've tried, but of course being U/B has its drawbacks (glares at artifacts). I'm ok with it's weaknesses, I know how to minimize them, and that's a small price to pay to be able to play the brand of Magic I find most enjoyable and challenging. If I was going to be a pure Spike about it, I'd probably just keep tuning my GDS deck.
I don't have the time or resources to go to major events, the closest one to me will be GP Atlanta in November; I'm hopeful that work will be cooperative with giving me time off for it. If it does happen, I feel confident enough in my Faeries deck to bring it there.
It's particularly impressive that he beat Boggles 3 times. Isn't beating Humans supposed to be one of the draws to playing Boggles?
That actually is pretty impressive. Getting matched against bogles 3 times is pretty unlikely, but to actually beat it is tough. He must have dropped Meddling Mage on Daybreak Coronet like every game.
Since this thread is against banning things, printing better answers, and relatively charged about unbanning, but wants to slow things down (read: "move away from 50%+ aggro"); what tools do we have left to achieve an "acceptable" meta?
I'm honestly really close to just running Bant Sweeper Ramp to see if I can stem the tide of Humans decks in my local meta.
Since this thread is against banning things, printing better answers, and relatively charged about unbanning, but wants to slow things down (read: "move away from 50%+ aggro"); what tools do we have left to achieve an "acceptable" meta?
I'm honestly really close to just running Bant Sweeper Ramp to see if I can stem the tide of Humans decks in my local meta.
? This thread is all about unbannings and printing better answers. I struggle to find more than maybe 1-2 users who are consistently against these ideas.
I also have no idea what an "acceptable meta" is for most players in this thread. I feel like an acceptable meta would theoretically be some utopia of 20% each aggro/combo/control/midrange/big mana, but I actually think many players would probably dislike that too because 60% of the format would still be "linear" in their mind (aggro/combo/big mana). So it's likely closer to 15% aggro/10% combo/40% control/30% midrange/5% big mana for some of the vocal "control sucks" camp.
Slightly related: Blue Moon T8s the MOCS this week. This is yet another promising placement. If you want to play blue-based control, play this deck. It has more than enough results over the past few months to suggest an underlying top-tier viability. I am reasonably confident that people aren't playing it largely because of a groupthink narrative that says "blue sucks, don't bother." That, or they (especially top players) are just playing Humans because it's the closest to a 50/50+ deck we've seen in Modern for a while.
Slightly related: Blue Moon T8s the MOCS this week. This is yet another promising placement. If you want to play blue-based control, play this deck. It has more than enough results over the past few months to suggest an underlying top-tier viability. I am reasonably confident that people aren't playing it largely because of a groupthink narrative that says "blue sucks, don't bother." That, or they (especially top players) are just playing Humans because it's the closest to a 50/50+ deck we've seen in Modern for a while.
Is there a Top 8 with decklists? Magics Site sucks and I cant find anything.
As to my ideal meta, it would be in fantasy land, as you say 20% each aggro/combo/control/midrange/big mana. When aggro (in the spectrum)is 50% its hard to pretend the meta is actually balanced.
Case in point, in this SCG Team event that is FULL of Control decks. Day 2 (28 decks)
4 human
4 affinity
4 br hollow one
I'm waiting for the site to update with the rest, I think the next 2 are UW and UWR but I'm not positive.
@ktkenshinx
Ya, I get that "acceptable meta" is an opinion call, I'm not overly concerned with what anyone thinks that is, but I am curious how anyone would approach changes to make their definition a reality.
I didn't mean people are against unbannings, I'm actually excited to see people talking about GSZ having a good chance of coming off, but there's been some consistent back and forth about a particular unbanning and what effects it would have on the meta. The details of which I know you're more than familiar with and I'm not looking to really dive into.
Just looking for the less obvious tools that influence meta control.
How popular is the idea of new modern cards bypassing standard? I'm kind of torn by the idea myself.
Swords to Plowshares, Counterspell, and Fact or Fiction would make control a T1 GP consideration. Swords gives the deck 8 1 mana exile effects and together with something like Detention Sphere really helps their bad MU's (Dredge, Hollow One, etc.) while cementing their good MU's. UWx control with 4 Swords, 4 Path, 1-2 D. Sphere, 1 Settle would be quite nice as an exile removal suite. I've had a feeling FoF has been needed in the format for a long time now. It's skill-testing and an extremely potent CA engine/selection spell. Counterspell would add consistency % and not be anti-synergy or frail to GY hate like Logic Knot.
Of course, I think the prison/hate pieces in the format are a lot stronger than counters (Runed Halo, Leyline, Rest in Peace, Graf. cage, Bridge, etc.) except against Tron. I think a RWu historic control deck may actually be preferable to traditional UWx control decks (as it checks one of those % boxes - being able to play 8 1 mana exile removal (4 dispatch, 4 path) in the 75, as well as a better bolt (Galvanic Blast) that hits important creatures like Hollow One/TKS or can snag a LoTV after a +1. Since you get to play mana acceleration, you also get to play better card filtering in something like Board the Weatherlight (2 mana is a little less taxing than non-acceleration decks). In any event, the reason people lament lack of competitively viable Control is because Control is the only macro archetype that is in this position. It's not fair to compare a macro archetype with micro-decks. For healthy magic, there has to be some semblance of balance imho, that's why I don't mind Tron/Big Mana decks.
Won 2-0 but only because I chose correctly on his Goblin Lore to take 2 Hollow Ones. He still had the 3rd Hollow One to play immediately afterwards. If I had not chosen correctly, I would probably have lost.
I am not too happy that the deck takes the already existing variance in Magic and magnifies 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!
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)Its only as good as the meta allows it to be. BBE/Jace convinced a lot of people to bring out Jund and Uxx decks.
As they said on stream at SCG.
"Is Jace a bust in Modern?"
"...Well yeah, he is."
So down goes Uxx, and because of that, down goes a good Jund Match Up.
If you are competing at big events and you play non-aggro, you are forcing yourself into having worse match ups.
Spirits
I have my foiled out Jund deck, and have no plans of selling it off, but I'm definitely done with fair decks that aren't the Rock variety.
You have to play some form of aggro or linear combo or you're going to lose to worse decks or worse players, or sub-optimal lines.
I was not doing hot with Jund, I was beginning to think it was just me, but it was interesting to see that Jund players in general just started doing poorly.
I know it's weird to say---but is Jund just dead? Outside of the two month stretch, it's been dead for over a year and a half?
I'm still shocked Shadow isn't around, I thought it'd be around for years to come.
Modern is a linear format, and if you want to win, you really have to accept that fact. I'm not mad, angry or sad about that anymore, it just is what it is. At least a lot of the regulars here are being honest that it's viable, but a handicap. Talk about banning Cavern so blue can do well is foolish. The archetype in modern is fundamentally flawed and bad. It'll take years of the right printings to do something about it, or WOTC accidentally printing one or two cards to give it a major boost. If you cannot recognize this, you do not have any clue about what you're talking about nor do you understand this format. It's suggestions like this that are problems, and the people that say these things ARE the problem. I'm sorry me saying this will rub some people the wrong way.
Too bad UR breach isn't that good, according to the talk here, it was my last attempt to try a blue deck before selling all the staples off (minus Snaps and Fetches).
Uuuhhh, exactly. I bought into Hollow One the GP after Protour. I had most of the staples and only needed to buy the Bloodghasts and Lores
Even when Jund was getting results, I was getting all these free wins with Hollow One. It's like if Jund and Dredge had a baby.
Playing fair is just a bad idea in modern, man. The only reason Shadow was good was because Shadow is a busted ass card that makes Stubborn Denial oppressively good.
If you want to play fair, play standard or Delver in legacy (before DRS eats an eventual ban).
Fair decks are fine if all you want to do is win FNMs though, thats how we justify our arguments in this thread.
Or we point out for when world players like Reid Duke places in something significant with a fair deck.
I've definitely become bitter, but I do feel what I am saying is true, which sucks--because I was a fair player at heart. I'm going to eventually buy into Humans again. I have all of GBx, Hollow One and Tron (which has its ebbs and flows, but feels like a good deck to own if its not your only deck).
I'm going to wait until something makes blue explode in price instead of selling it for so low. When SFM sees the eventual unban, I'm going to sell the staples off for store credit. I'm absolutely convinced owning blue staples minus Snap is a joke and waste of money (Outside of those who genuinely love blue control).
And no, this isn't some ultimatum of "I want twin back!"
I dont think that it 'isnt that good' I think its just comparably inferior to what it could be, and I wont put myself through it every game.
It's like telling BGx players that Moldgraf Scavenger is fine, Goyf has to go. How would you feel every single time you drew or cast that? That's where I am, every single game I play.
EDIT: Case in point, I just completely dominated a Blue Moon deck, because while he could resolve small things, attempting to navigate to a state of 5 mana (Breach or Kiki) with backup, simply a losing effort when you must interact.
I was on UWR, which is still the only 'Blue Control' deck I have found palatable in near 2 years (other than Turns, which has its own limitations).
Thank Dr. Garfield, for Azcanta.
Spirits
Why are bans the primary tool used to regulate format health? Why not come up with some more creative ways to regulate the format?
I get that there is also the possibility of introducing new cards that act as foils to too-strong cards or decks, but beyond banning and introducing new cards, I can think of all sorts of creative ways to improve format health, such as:
1) Making cards in linear decks restricted to 1x as is done in Vintage. Or could be 2x.
2) Increasing the total number of instants/sorceries that can be in a single deck. This could be total, for blue only, whatever. For example, a rule that said you can use more than 4 blue instants and 4 blue sorcery cards in any given deck would raise the power of blue based control, without having to ban linear decks.
3) Problem: Blue is weaker than the other colors. Potential Answer: Make it more consistent compared to other colors. This could be done by saying you can use more than 4x of any blue card. Or maybe you can use 5x blue but 2x limit for any other color to help make blue decks better. A possibly more effective variant on this idea might say that if there is a single card with blue in its mana cost in the deck, then the entire deck is allowed up to 5x limit per card. But decks without a single card containing blue in its mana cost would have a 3x limit.
4) There is a bonus given to the player who goes second currently (first player to draw a card). How about giving an extra card bonus to the blue control player who plays an instant or sorcery? For example if you lead in with island and a serum visions, you get to play an extra land from your hand.
I could come up with many more possibilities for raising the power of blue (also white) that don't involve a ban/unban. I can't tell in advance which idea would work and which wouldn't. It would obviously take testing to determine what is viable and what isn't.
But why not try? Why rely so much on bans for keeping a format balanced and diverse?
Are you running Serum, Logic Knot/Mana Leak/Remand, Cryptic? You may be 'Blue Control'.
Are you running Search for Azcanta, or Jace, and Snaps? You may be 'Blue Control'.
Are you running Clique? You may be 'Blue Control'.
Are you jamming Colonade or Tar Pit? You may be 'Blue Control'.
Are you running Faeries? Well then you are Faeries.
There was a US senator or judge or something, who said "I know Porn when I see it." Thats how I feel about what 'Blue Control' is.
UWR - https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/established-modern/control/728834-jeskai-control?page=261
UW - https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/established-modern/control/678769-uw-control?page=162
Esper - https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/established-modern/control/571123-modern-esper-draw-go?page=651
EDIT: I include Blue Moon in this too really, but its on the edge with Combo for most builds.
Spirits
Alright, let me ask you this, which fits your definition better: a deck that tries to limit the opponent's board state while grinding out small advantages, or a deck that tries to hold the opponent off until it can land some kind of big finish?
Spirits
For me, it's fun sometimes to have the big haymaker come down and win the game (I played GDS before Faeries), but there is just something fantastic about slowly building up my board while doing everything I can to disrupt my opponent. Faeries lets me do that more than any other deck I've tried, but of course being U/B has its drawbacks (glares at artifacts). I'm ok with it's weaknesses, I know how to minimize them, and that's a small price to pay to be able to play the brand of Magic I find most enjoyable and challenging. If I was going to be a pure Spike about it, I'd probably just keep tuning my GDS deck.
I don't have the time or resources to go to major events, the closest one to me will be GP Atlanta in November; I'm hopeful that work will be cooperative with giving me time off for it. If it does happen, I feel confident enough in my Faeries deck to bring it there.
https://twitter.com/KenjiTsumura/status/992901161194668032
It's particularly impressive that he beat Boggles 3 times. Isn't beating Humans supposed to be one of the draws to playing Boggles?
That actually is pretty impressive. Getting matched against bogles 3 times is pretty unlikely, but to actually beat it is tough. He must have dropped Meddling Mage on Daybreak Coronet like every game.
I dont, but I would love to see the meta for this and if they can somehow get under 50% aggro decks
Spirits
I'm honestly really close to just running Bant Sweeper Ramp to see if I can stem the tide of Humans decks in my local meta.
"Reveal a Dragon"
I think most are fine with better printings, and they will keep happening, they do nearly every set.
People are simply tired of the excuses when it comes to things like SFM, and Preordain.
Casting Jace is openly mocked on the SCG stream now. Thats where we are with 'blue control'.
Spirits
? This thread is all about unbannings and printing better answers. I struggle to find more than maybe 1-2 users who are consistently against these ideas.
I also have no idea what an "acceptable meta" is for most players in this thread. I feel like an acceptable meta would theoretically be some utopia of 20% each aggro/combo/control/midrange/big mana, but I actually think many players would probably dislike that too because 60% of the format would still be "linear" in their mind (aggro/combo/big mana). So it's likely closer to 15% aggro/10% combo/40% control/30% midrange/5% big mana for some of the vocal "control sucks" camp.
Slightly related: Blue Moon T8s the MOCS this week. This is yet another promising placement. If you want to play blue-based control, play this deck. It has more than enough results over the past few months to suggest an underlying top-tier viability. I am reasonably confident that people aren't playing it largely because of a groupthink narrative that says "blue sucks, don't bother." That, or they (especially top players) are just playing Humans because it's the closest to a 50/50+ deck we've seen in Modern for a while.
Is there a Top 8 with decklists? Magics Site sucks and I cant find anything.
As to my ideal meta, it would be in fantasy land, as you say 20% each aggro/combo/control/midrange/big mana. When aggro (in the spectrum)is 50% its hard to pretend the meta is actually balanced.
Case in point, in this SCG Team event that is FULL of Control decks. Day 2 (28 decks)
4 human
4 affinity
4 br hollow one
I'm waiting for the site to update with the rest, I think the next 2 are UW and UWR but I'm not positive.
Spirits
Ya, I get that "acceptable meta" is an opinion call, I'm not overly concerned with what anyone thinks that is, but I am curious how anyone would approach changes to make their definition a reality.
I didn't mean people are against unbannings, I'm actually excited to see people talking about GSZ having a good chance of coming off, but there's been some consistent back and forth about a particular unbanning and what effects it would have on the meta. The details of which I know you're more than familiar with and I'm not looking to really dive into.
Just looking for the less obvious tools that influence meta control.
How popular is the idea of new modern cards bypassing standard? I'm kind of torn by the idea myself. Isn't this sort of what got us here in the first place?
"Reveal a Dragon"