We have updated our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Dismiss
 
Treasure Cruisin' with Monogreen Stompy
 
Chandra, Gideon, and the Purifying Fire
 
Treasure Cruisin' with Norin's Sisters
  • 0

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, metagame, and more! (3/13 update)
    Quote from SuperHans99 »
    Quote from gkourou »
    Quote from cfusionpm »
    Quote from Teysa_Karlov »

    And this is why the argument of "Go play Legacy" isn't a strawman like some are claiming. If you want to play a blue completely reactive deck without having to use black's engine, your options are Legacy, Vintage, and that's it. That style of deck is likely never coming back to Modern unless Wizards completely changes how they do power in standard.

    1. You're putting words in other peoples' mouths and misrepresenting peoples' stances.
    2. If that truly is the stance Wizards holds, then they need to unban Twin, plain and simple.


    First off, Teysa is completely right. This style of deck is never cutting it to Modern and if you do not know it by now, you should read some more Maro quotes about the future counterspells they are going to introduce to Standard.

    (Question: What do you say to the people who feel that their favorite parts of magic (for example, heavy control elements and discard) are being pushed out of the game? Is magic just not for them anymore?


    Maro: "Note, I’m not saying that elements of those strategies are unplayable. The decks that do nothing but that thing(draw-go-countering things) are purposely unplayable. For example, there have been playable counterspells. We just haven’t allowed Draw, Go decks that do nothing but counter spells to be good.

    If you’ve been playing long enough to remember decks that were centered solely on those strategies, that means you been playing Magic for about fifteen years without them.

    I don’t understand how you can be playing for so many years if the thing that makes Magic special to you, that you don’t want to play without, the thing that the game just isn’t fun if it’s missing hasn’t existed for fifteen years.")

    Source: http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/154751683168/what-do-you-say-to-the-people-who-feel-that-their
    A completely blue reactive deck that plays as a Draw-Go-Counter, ala a heavy value control deck is not going to come to Modern. Period.

    Why? Because Censor and Disallow are the best Counterspells you are going to find around.


    Concerning Twin, it is a diversity reducer in their books and you know it. Modern is super diverse and fun atm. Even Grixis Shadow, which we all thought it was by far the best deck, did not make a single top 8. This shows that even a very good deck is super beatable and hateable. They won't change a thing in this diverse format.
    But this is not my opinion. Twin should be unbanned in my opinion as well. It always was a nice deck to have around. If it was top8ing a lot(which it did) they could fix that by introducing a better card for the control decks which Twin could never play. For example, I genuinely believe Twin would still prefer Remand over the original Counterspell. This flexibility in cards could make people have a variety of blue decks to choose from in Modern: from draw-go Control decks, to other tempo strategies.
    Sadly, this is not happening either.


    You do realize that control decks still regularly exist in Standard, right? It looks like you are really misunderstanding what he is saying or you for some reason believe that if people here talk about control they mean some 20 year old deck with 30 counterspells, all he is saying is that they don't want 20+ counterspells decks to exist anymore(those haven't been a top tier strategy for probably more than 15 years anyway), it has nothing to do with "normal" control decks most people here are talking about.



    Exactly. An SFM counterspell snappy deck would be awesome. Even if that is a more midrange control hybrid, it's as close as well ever get to a good counterspell "top tier" deck.

    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, metagame, and more! (3/13 update)
    Quote from ktkenshinx »
    @HF
    It's not at all a strawman. What is with people in internet discussions using that term all the time. Combo, e.g. Cheeri0s, is supposed to struggle against disruptive decks that play cards like TS or IoK. Midrange, e.g. Jund, is supposed to struggle against big mana decks that play cards like Tron and Temple. I'm not constantly complaining about my bad matchups that are bad by design. The control and midrange players, by contrast, complain all the time.

    Non-Shadow fair decks, like Jund, aren't bad. They just aren't as good as the Shadow decks. That has little to do with Jund having bad matchups (which it should) and much more to do with DS decks having very few bad matchups (which could indicate brokenness). The problem isn't decks beating Jund. It's DS beating decks that it probably shouldn't be. The issue, if any exists, would be with DS itself, not big mana. If you banned big mana, DS decks don't get worse. They would still be better than Jund decks by most counts.


    but why arent there more jund decks policing shadow decks? they are good against them. and in fact decent against the non big mana field. big mana/eldrazitron is suppressing it, thats why it has adapted by using death shadow.

    saying it is simply that death shadow is Super powerful is not the only story. the meta is what shapes what is good and not.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 3

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, metagame, and more! (3/13 update)
    Quote from Wraithpk »
    Quote from spawnofhastur »

    Any time you sleeve up a deck, and I do mean any time, you are effectively saying "okay, I'm going to accept that these matchups will probably be bad for me". It doesn't matter what format you're playing, unless we're in one of those short periods where there is legitimately a best deck and playing anything that isn't it is incorrect.

    However, apparently not all people have gotten the memo, and seem to think that Jund in Modern MUST have a 50-50 match with the entire field.

    No, sorry. When you sleeve up Jund, you are saying "I am going to have trouble with my big mana matchup", and if you're not happy with that you can A, tune your list so the big mana matchup is closer to fair or advantageous (hi, Death's Shadow!) or B, play a different bloody deck.
    First of all, it's not just Jund, it's pretty much all non-Shadow fair decks. And it's not just that they have a bad matchup. Even Grixis Shadow has some bad matchups in the 35-40% range. It's that Tron and Valakut are nearly unwinnable matchups, like 20% or lower. Huge disparities in matchups like that aren't good. On average, you're going to see one of these decks about 2 times in a 15 round swiss, so you know you're practically going into a tournament already at X-2. So why would you play a deck with a matchup that bad against 14% of the field? You don't.

    And that's why Shadow is becoming so popular, it's the fair deck that can beat the big mana decks. If people have a problem with Shadow being as much of the meta as it is, the answer isn't to ban Shadow. The answer is either to unban something that creates another fair archetype that has a reasonable big mana matchup, or ban something from Tron to make it less oppressive to fair decks. Or, we just leave things as they are and accept that Shadow is basically the only viable fair deck right now.


    And that is called seing the big picture. Thank goodness there are some on here who do.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, metagame, and more! (3/13 update)
    Quote from ktkenshinx »
    Quote from spawnofhastur »
    I see a lot of people hating on big mana.

    And you know what? If you're playing a fair deck, yes, you should have to play Shadow or have a bad big mana matchup.

    Jund or whatever midrange stategy you like isn't some holy archetype gifted to us by Richard Garfield that has to have a 50-50 matchup across the board. It has to have its own weakness and you can either try to fix that weakness by shifting it by playing Death's Shadow, or just ignore it and keep on playing Jund.

    Deal with it. It's how it is.

    For the most part, the people hating on big mana are the same small and vocal crowd that want an extremely specific version of blue-based-draw-go-control in Modern. If I remember correctly, these people wanted Tron lands banned back when Tron was less than 4% of the metagame and Infect, DSZ, Dredge, and other fast, linear nonsense was running rampant. It's just a matter of (biased) principle, I suppose. Many of these players also believe that big mana is the main reason for control's weaknesses in Modern, arguing this despite Jund staying Tier 1 for 2-3 years despite a Tier 1 or Tier 2 Tron and Valakut deck existing right alongside it. Rather than admit the main problem is that blue-based-draw-go-control lacks Modern tools, some prefer to blame big mana instead.

    As far as I'm concerned, this would be like me as a Cheeri0s player arguing for a TS/IoK ban because those cards make my pet strategy of engine-based combo much weaker, ignoring the fact that these cards should be my weakness and I don't get to have 50/50+ matchups across the board.
    this argument is no longer quite as valid as Jund itself has been affected by big mana. You can no longer say its just urx control players whining like you did months ago. Now it's jund and abzan aswell.

    Death shadow is what happens to fair decks when you give them no other choice. Eldrazi are toxic to fair midrange and control whether you want to admit it not. And using a deck example such as cheerios vs an archtype argument as well as calling blue players whiners is a typical strawman argument.

    I agree we need better counterspells and maybe SFM but
    Tell me, what is jund missing in modern for it to do well now?
    It has good answers and threats and it still has to run death shadow, Why is that I wonder?
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, metagame, and more! (3/13 update)
    Quote from Wraithpk »
    The people clamoring for a DS ban (not so many people on here, more on reddit) need to understand why it is the preferred build for a fair deck in Modern now. As others have touched on, Shadow fixed the big mana matchup. Look at classic Jund. You had mostly even matchups across the board, which was always one of the appeals of the deck, but Tron and Valakut decks just crush you. Right now, we're talking about having a 20/80 matchup against 14% of the meta. Running the numbers through a binomial calculator, that means that for a 15 round swiss tournament, you have about a 35% chance of running into a big mana deck 3 or more times, X-3 usually being the record that locks you out of top 8 contention. Your odds of getting 2 or more matchups against big mana are 65%, so if you're playing Jund you basically have to hope you only see a big mana deck 2 times and you win every other matchup, because you're probably losing to big mana every time. That's a really tall order to fill, saying you basically have to win every non-big mana match or you're locked out of top 8.

    Going to the Shadow builds fixed this problem. Tron is somewhere close to even for them, and they traded percentage points against other slow fair decks like blue control and traditional GBx midrange to get that, but neither are as bad as big mana used to be, and both are combined less of the meta now. Shadow is basically the new Jund, it's the new 50/50 fair deck of the format. Banning it only makes it so there's no real viable fair deck anymore. If you do so, you have to ban Tron and probably Primeval Titan just to open up some breathing space for slower fair decks to exist in again.

    The answer here, as other people have stated, is not to ban Shadow out, it's to either unban or print new things that can enable other fair archetypes to also stabilize against the meta as a whole. Just SFM alone would probably be enough to create an entire other archetype of viable fair decks, which would reduce Shadow's metashare.


    But why should a fair player HAVE to play shadow? if you look deep into this argument isnt big mana the real problem in this format? not shadow?


    I wish they would have just banned both "eldrazi" lands in the first place.


    here is some food for thought:

    pod was dominant: they killed it
    twin was dominant: they killed it
    eldrazi was the most oppressive thing we have ever seen in modern: so they nerf it

    Something wrong with that picture? I think so
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, metagame, and more! (3/13 update)
    Quote from bizzycola »
    Quote from xxhellfirexx3 »
    Quote from bizzycola »
    Quote from xxhellfirexx3 »
    Quote from bizzycola »


    You should explain why the best Walker ever printed wouldn't fit into DS? Is brainstorming turn after turn something that would cause the deck to collapse? I play Grixis Shadow and IMO some number would see play as the deck already has the back up plan of hard casting 5 drops if need be and Jace is probably the best mid-range value engine ever printed.
    you really have to ask why Jace wouldn't go In death shadow, really? Are you sure you play it?

    What 19-20 land decks run 4 drops? Cast without fast mana or delve?


    yes I play the deck and hitting 4 lands isn't a normally a issue given all of the cantrips. 19-20 + 8 cantrips equals something like 24 lands when you factor in the +.5 land per cantrip unless your going to imply that this well established mathematical aspect of deck building doesn't pertain to Grixis Shadow.


    Actually there is a mathematical guide line to what your highest curve should be In a deck, In relation to how many lands you run. and Jace doesn't fit Grixis shadow.

    Nor does it fit its gameplan.


    First 24 is very close to the needed 26 needed to run 3 4cc spells and I would imagine that a deck like Grixis Shadow would only want 1-2 putting it at closer to 24 than 26.

    Again how would brainstorming every turn in a attrition deck be bad? how would fate sealing your opponents draw step in top deck wars would be bad? Jace would see play in every U deck that isn't running some wonky card intensive combo and DS would easily accommodate some number of him likely 1 of.

    Now if your done asserting things with absolutely nothing to support your assumption thanks.


    mayyybe a 1 of with 20 land, in the sideboard. but your original post made it sound like a top tier deck shouldnt get help such as jace. when jace would more than likely help other decks than grixis shadow.

    shadow deck wants to hurt itself and win fast. jace takes turns to win. its a contradictory strategy. and it would way more likely see play in a grixis control deck than a shadow deck.


    either way in my testing, jace is feeling underwhelming against the top decks atm. its sfm who is performing quite well.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, metagame, and more! (3/13 update)
    Quote from bizzycola »
    Quote from xxhellfirexx3 »
    Quote from bizzycola »
    Quote from Ym1r »
    Quote from Tolsiimir »
    So here's my problem. Grixis shadow is the best deck in modern, and from a technical standpoint it is undeniably blue. It plays blue creatures, blue spells, and islands that produce blue mana. Just because the deck ''doesn't feel blue''(I'd still argue it does) doesn't mean it isn't blue from a mechanical standpoint and that it can't cast blue spells.

    So when someone says that Jace should get unbanned, one of the best cards ever printed and probably the best pw in the game, even though the best deck in the format plays blue, I have a hard time taking them seriously. When someone says that we need better blue countermagic, even though the best deck in the format already plays one mana cancels, I have a hard time taking them seriously. You can't just introduce great blue cards into the format, when the best deck already plays blue. It could end up being a disaster.
    I don't disagree that DSGrixis is a blue deck. But you do understand that Jace has absolutely no place in DSGrixis right?


    You should explain why the best Walker ever printed wouldn't fit into DS? Is brainstorming turn after turn something that would cause the deck to collapse? I play Grixis Shadow and IMO some number would see play as the deck already has the back up plan of hard casting 5 drops if need be and Jace is probably the best mid-range value engine ever printed.
    you really have to ask why Jace wouldn't go In death shadow, really? Are you sure you play it?

    What 19-20 land decks run 4 drops? Cast without fast mana or delve?


    yes I play the deck and hitting 4 lands isn't a normally a issue given all of the cantrips. 19-20 + 8 cantrips equals something like 24 lands when you factor in the +.5 land per cantrip unless your going to imply that this well established mathematical aspect of deck building doesn't pertain to Grixis Shadow.


    Actually there is a mathematical guide line to what your highest curve should be In a deck, In relation to how many lands you run. and Jace doesn't fit Grixis shadow.

    Nor does it fit its gameplan.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, metagame, and more! (3/13 update)
    Quote from xenob8 »
    if jace is unbanned and people start to play it no matter what just because it is blue, then probably the state of blue in modern could even become worse
    You really think burn cares? Or eldrazitron? Or affinity dredge valakut coco? Oh wait I pretty much named the entire top tiers of the game. Which I've been testing Jace against. And Beleive me SFM is the crazy one not Jace.

    And even SFM would be fine...
    In fact I'd prefer an SFM unban over a Jace unban Becuase of the fact that that SFM is more proactive.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 1

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, metagame, and more! (3/13 update)
    Quote from bizzycola »
    Quote from Ym1r »
    Quote from Tolsiimir »
    So here's my problem. Grixis shadow is the best deck in modern, and from a technical standpoint it is undeniably blue. It plays blue creatures, blue spells, and islands that produce blue mana. Just because the deck ''doesn't feel blue''(I'd still argue it does) doesn't mean it isn't blue from a mechanical standpoint and that it can't cast blue spells.

    So when someone says that Jace should get unbanned, one of the best cards ever printed and probably the best pw in the game, even though the best deck in the format plays blue, I have a hard time taking them seriously. When someone says that we need better blue countermagic, even though the best deck in the format already plays one mana cancels, I have a hard time taking them seriously. You can't just introduce great blue cards into the format, when the best deck already plays blue. It could end up being a disaster.
    I don't disagree that DSGrixis is a blue deck. But you do understand that Jace has absolutely no place in DSGrixis right?


    You should explain why the best Walker ever printed wouldn't fit into DS? Is brainstorming turn after turn something that would cause the deck to collapse? I play Grixis Shadow and IMO some number would see play as the deck already has the back up plan of hard casting 5 drops if need be and Jace is probably the best mid-range value engine ever printed.
    you really have to ask why Jace wouldn't go In death shadow, really? Are you sure you play it?

    What 19-20 land decks run 4 drops? Cast without fast mana or delve?
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, metagame, and more! (3/13 update)
    Quote from gkourou »
    Quote from Wraithpk »
    Quote from ThirdDegree »

    I'm not saying the strengths of the deck are blue, I am saying that using blue cards to dig for your answers/threats or using snap to flashback removal is still a blue thing to do. When I would play jeskai control, my blue spells were all about finding and/or protecting nahiri, or snapping back bolt several times. (I'm by no means arguing that DS is as blue as jeskai control, just making a point). I see what you're saying, and I still think that blue needs help, despite that I also think DS is a blue deck. Someone previously talked about not just color identity, but shard/wedge identity. And GDS certainly 'feels' grixis to me.
    I agree that it's a blue deck, but for a lot of people who were asking for help for blue, it's not what they had in mind. Shadow probably satisfies the Delver people, but it doesn't satisfy the draw-go people. Those types of decks do still need help.


    I agree, but this kind of people that are still unsatisfied weren't satisfied even with Splinter Twin. Take a person like cfusionpm for example(@cf hope you don't mind this). He is kind of like me in the decks he is liking, and maybe as you. Proactive Ux based decks. This proactivity was residing in Twin, Delver and it's residing in the DS deck as well, even if it's a somewhat more distant cousin to the traditional blue control speciment.
    Bottomline is that the people who are looking for a hardcore U based draw-go control deck, aren't having one. A true draw go control deck was never a Tier 1 mainstay in Modern(except for Jeskai Control that won PT for just some months) and it will probably never be a mainstay Tier 1 deck. Tier 2 though? We have UW Control maybe, but another one is mandatory I feel also.

    If you want a mainstay Tier 1 draw go control, sadly you should look into Legacy instead, as I don't think Wizards is stating that such a deck should be Tier 1 also and this makes me believe they won't never try such a thing with new prints.


    its never been a tier 1 long term option because we lack better answers in blue...... twin scratched that itch and now its gone.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, metagame, and more! (3/13 update)
    Quote from gkourou »
    What is it with people not accepting anything but a true control deck in Tier 1? This thread was always filled with those kind of people and that's really fine but as a player who enjoyed Control decks, I felt like at home when I was on Grixis Shadow for the first time(and I beggining playing it since only Jund lists were around)

    As a player who enjoyed jund I found Grixis death shadow to be decent aswell, But not control.

    See with control it feels good to have generic non conditional answers at all stages of the game with counterspells. Discard really doesn't scratch that itch. And versatile early/lategame counterspells are non existent in this format.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 1

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, metagame, and more! (3/13 update)
    Quote from Pokken »
    2-3 interactive blue spells and 0 threats. The deck plays blue exclusively to find black cards and ramp them out (thought scour). It is clearly a splash.

    It's about the same splash as Jund to green except it seems bigger because it wants to use serum visions to find its land drops so there's a moderately heavier blue commitment.

    The way blue is played in modern tells you that its threats and answers are miserable, because no one really plays any of those types of cards. It's pure filtering. If a deck ran 8 discard spells and then nothing but green creatures, green planeswalkers and green removal, it'd be a green deck not a black deck.

    -------------------------------------

    Another thing you can thing you can think about is that the best modern removal spells (excepting terminate) are played in legacy - bolt, push, abrupt decay.

    The best blue answer spells (force, counterspell, daze) don't exist in modern. Of corresponding blue cards in modern the only ones to see any legacy play are spell snare (extremely fringe) and spell pierce (usually only in combo decks). Mana leak obviously sees no play in legacy.

    I'm not sure exactly what to take away from this except to say that it has always felt somewhat unfair to me that blue's answer spells get lumped in with their overpowered filtering spells from legacy.

    My inclination is to say that blue needs an answer based powerup in modern and I would do this long before considering loosing improved filtering on the format.

    One of the reasons for this is that blue filtering like Preordain or Ponder would see pretty much the same treatment as we see in Death's Shadow -- people playing blue exclusively to shrink the virtual size of their decks.



    Well said sir Smile
    It's funny because there are some ppl on this forum that will actually disagree with your post and call it bias
    Or try and say you are a spoiled blue player, and to just go play legacy. LOL
    Posted in: Modern
  • 1

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, metagame, and more! (3/13 update)
    Quote from SuperHans99 »
    The whole discussion is pointless, the people that criticize Grixis DS want a tier 1 deck that plays counterspells as its primary form of interaction not black discard, that's all there is to it.
    exactly. Counterspells at thoughtsiezes/inq power level. It's a pretty fair thing to ask.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 1

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, metagame, and more! (3/13 update)
    Quote from Tanukimo »
    Well both of those are true, so I don't see what you are trying to say. Blue doesn't just mean reactive control.
    counterspells are one of blues main thing and they are reactive..

    The whole reason he made that comment was to point out what people mean when they say BLue deck. Or most importantly how blue needs help. Which in fact it does . Are you getting it now?




    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, metagame, and more! (3/13 update)
    Quote from Ym1r »
    Quote from ktkenshinx »
    Out of curiosity, where do people get their Modern fix? LGS? MTGO? SCG tournaments? Tournaments by other providers (Hareruya, Card Kingdom, CF, etc.)?

    I ask because I'm almost exclusively an MTGO player, and I find Modern to be quite skill-testing and interactive even in some of the allegedly less interactive games. When I lose, I can often attribute that loss to at least one error I made, not just getting nut-drawn by an opponent or going second. Sometimes, I can't tell if people complaining about Modern are actually playing the format or if it's all theorycrafting based on articles/content they find. I know some of the critics do play and their criticism comes from experience, but I also know others who barely/don't play and still give Modern a hard time.
    I play mostly FNMs (8-26 people) with occasional GPTs, Grand Prix side-events and maybe a GP a year or two.

    I don't think modern is not skill intensive. I am not the best player in my area, but I am also not the worst. It is clear that people who are good do constantly well in modern events, even with fringe decks. People who stick to their strategy also do constantly well. Our AdNauseum player was not the best but now is constantly 3-1/4-1/4-0 with AdN, just because he has put so so much effort into it.

    Sure, Modern doesn't have a brainstorm, but that doesn't say much. I think even the occasional GP winner, like our AFfinity GP Vegas winner now, who claim that they never test the format, are players who are good. They pick up lists which are already proven and they have a good sense of the game. You can't be a random timmy with 0 sense of magic/metagame and just grab a Tier 1 deck and do well in such a GP.


    no your right all you have to do is learn how to play solitaire and ignore and race your opponent. very skill intensive format.... probably explains why computer bots can play half of the top decks in modern(
    Posted in: Modern
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.