All users will need to merge their MTGSalvation account with a new or existing Twitch account starting Sept 25th. You can merge your accounts by clicking here. Have questions? Learn more here.
Dismiss
 
Lineage 2 Revolution DB
 
Jaya Ballard Returns
 
The Magic Market Index for Nov 17, 2017
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)
    Quote from gkourou »
    There is only one thing that's eliminating(not fully, but up to a certain point) the skill factor in my eyes in Modern(outside of usual suspects like flod/screw which are some general Magic concerns and not about Modern): the absence of a card (or a Tier 1 fair deck) that keep big mana decks in check.

    Big mana decks provide lopsided matchups: they tend to do great vs fair strategies and bad vs unfair strategies. Modern does not have to get a card like Wasteland and GQ/TE/FoR are mediocre cards and this is making the Modern format less skilltesting than the Legacy one(this, and other reasons, like Brainstorm, Ponder, etc).

    We are not getting a much better Ghost Quarter, so it's an unsolved issue. We have to accept that Modern has great problems that keep it back from becoming a great format. It has the potential, but sadly, it wont ever meet it.


    A tier 1 "fair" deck that answers big mana would most likely be overpowered, as fair decks are commonly preyed upon by big mana. That's also ignoring decks like death and taxes which can definitely keep ramp in check.

    Is big mana really strangling the format? A cursory look at the results of the past few major events would say otherwise. I think the majority of the complaints stem from people just disliking ramp/big mana, specifically in regards to their fair decks.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)
    Quote from ThirdDegree »
    I know you never have enough sb room for any meta, but it felt (emphasis on felt) like the answers you needed in 2015 were more universal or had utility beyond the deck you had them for. Since this was pre delve threats, decay was just a good answer to most things, not just twin. As far as brewing is concerned, with twin you had to worry about twin: splash a color for decay, run that red uncounterable spell (I'm blanking on the name) things like that. Now the question is, "what about scapeshift? and tron? and dredge? and storm?" This seems way tougher to go rogue than simply 'what about twin?'

    I think we're saying the same thing, but representing the opposite sides of the coin. And as you say, this is all anecdotal. I just know that for me I haven't been psyched on modern for some time.


    Haha, the gool ol' "play a terrible rending volley for exactly one deck" game.

    But as far as your examples, people should by and large be playing both land interaction and graveyard interaction in their boards at all times. Rest in peace/grafdigger's/relic of progenitus hit both dredge and storm. Blood moon hurts scapeshift and tron. Sure, sticking any of those cards doesn't guarantee you a win, but I don't think they should.

    I think it's totally fine to not enjoy the current modern landscape. Even if you love MTG, certain prominent decks just aren't going to be for everyone. My only issue/concern is when people use misleading or false arguments to justify their disdain for the format (not you! just a comment in general).

    Obligatory "release more 5-0's" comment.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)
    I totally get you saying the matches felt more winnable, I just think the current cries that most MU's are 60-40 or worse are overplayed. We're also still using a lot of the same SB cards we were using then (sans torpor orb). GY hate hits dredge, storm, living end. Hand disruption is viable against tons of decks. Stony and kataki still hit any decks using artifacts. Blood moon/fulminator hits ramp/big mana/and greedy manabases. Sure, there aren't enough slots in the SB to hedge against every MU, but that is a feature of the SB, not a bug.

    And I personally doubt 2015 was better for brewing than now. Any brew used to be immediately met with "yeah, but twin?" I've seen more people complain about too much deck diversity recently than have complained about less brewing than 2015. But again, this is all anecdotal.

    The only deck that is potentially a problem IMO is storm. Due to an abundance of diversity and brewing, sometimes you'll see a deck that hoses you and you never stood a chance, but I believe that happens far less than people like to make it seem.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)
    One thing I don't quite understand is how adamantly people will say that the problem with the current modern meta is losing to decks, not players, and then reference 2015. Sometimes specifically saying the "twin beats affinity beats tron beats jund beats twin" meta. There's always going to be a degree of rock-paper-scissors action going on, and I think we need to acknowledge it is part of any game's meta. There are some random MU's that will be borderline unwinnable (MFTB's burn vs ad naus. is a great example), but I don't think they are as prominent as some people make it out to seem.

    Like Spsiegel said, knowledge and skills are still very much important in modern, especially when you have the potential to run into any one of 30 different decks at a given FNM. Knowing the MU's and how to SB appropriately is what gives a player their edge. But reducing modern to something as simple as "it's all a coin flip" is disingenuous to the format.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on Death And Taxes
    I personally use a 1/1 kataki/stony split. Kataki is better if it lasts, stony is harder to remove. The downside of turning off clue tokens and vials (which i'd side out regardless) is not an issue if the upside is turning off 90% of their deck.

    The matchup is rough for sure, but I don't think the %'s are so skewed you should feel obligated to mull to 4/5 for hate, especially in B/W builds that have cards like zealous persecution/orzhov pontiff to hedge.
    Posted in: Tier 2 (Modern)
  • posted a message on [Primer] Affinity
    If your meta is heavy with jeskai/grixis/grindy decks, it definitely doesn't hurt to have one or two thoughtcasts. However, I sort of would prefer the card selection glint-nest crane provides and want to play around with a 1-of. Anyone been getting results with the crane?
    Posted in: Tier 1 (Modern)
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)
    I like the idea of evaluating and comparing individual metas regionally like that. I'd say the hardest part is getting LGS's help in identifying decks. I play at a large shop in Philadelphia where one of the event organizers tried to make a weekly meta "snapshot" of decks and how they did, then posted the data on their site. Getting people to (correctly) submit what deck they were playing each week was hard enough, but then compiling and posting the data ended up just being too much work and the project petered out after a few weeks.

    If it's just finding out what decks are being played it might be simple enough to get the project rolling again. I'll definitely ask about it next time I'm around.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)
    I think any card that is part of a time-consuming combo is firmly entrenched in the banlist. Specifically SDT, sunrise, and the rituals. Even if decks like eggs are faster now than their previous iterations, I think that does more to hurt their enabler's chances coming off the banlist than it helps.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)
    Quote from thewrush »
    Wouldn't affinity play SFM? Search for Plating seems rather broken.


    There have been numerous occasions where people have tried steelshaper's gift. It's more efficient than SFM in the deck and affinity doesn't care enough about the "put directly into play" clause given how quickly they can empty their hand regardless.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)
    I completely understand the fears anyone has regarding SFM in modern if they played it in standard. It was an absolute terror there. But you have to acknowledge how much of a different beast modern is and how many cards have come out since then.

    I somewhat understand concern from those seeing it in legacy, too. But like Ym1r said, I think SFM is propped up a lot in legacy due to the other cards that exploit or protect it. Legacy has Mother of Runes, true-name nemesis, and better equipment than modern can ever expect to get in umezawa's jitte. Not to mention benefiting from being played in a format that uses significantly less removal than modern. SFM itself in legacy is a workaround to an issue that modern doesn't have: a way to get past (free)counterspells.

    Meanwhile, there is still a very real deckbuilding constriction in playing SFM in modern. Any current decks wanting to run it needs to trim at least 6 cards from their builds to play it reliably. D&T needs to seriously re-think their deck or suffer from leonin arbiter-related mishaps. Otherwise, it just provides a more reliable win-con to white decks that is still VERY much interact-able. I'm not saying the card isn't powerful, it is. But I feel as if people are putting too much weight on the strength it showed in standard and a very different legacy environment.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on [Primer] Affinity
    I feel like if you wanted to go that route, fling would be better than shrapnel blast.
    Posted in: Tier 1 (Modern)
  • posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)
    Quote from BlueTronFTW »
    I wouldn't be shocked if a pro tour team somehow found a way to break Eldrazi Tron.


    I don't think they will. But if they do adapt I hope they fail, I don't want to see a piece/pieces of the deck banned due to a one time result.


    That actually leads to the most important question in my mind regarding the upcoming pro tour: what kind of results would people/players need to see to justify a ban/unban after the first PT? What do you think wizards would need to see (rather than snarky "it doesn't matter they have no rhyme/reason" responses)?

    I could see them banning a storm piece after one solid showing just due to the nature of storm and how much they dislike the mechanic. I have a harder time saying the same for E-tron. I'd say any non-storm deck placing three copies in the top 8 would cause concern and potentially a knee-jerk reaction, but most decks would be safe even if they placed two copies in the top 8, at least initially.



    Personally? I understand that because all events cut to a top 8 playoff that we tend to look at top 8 as if it had some grand meaning over top 16 or top 32, but when it comes to bans it seems extremely shortsighted to only look at that point. For instance, let's say storm fails to place one player in the top 8, but puts 20 into the top 32...that would be more cause for alarm than three top 8 spots. Top 8 is just more visible. I think for data collection in general, given how events will have hundreds or thousands of participants, to stop at the top 8 is an incorrect method of analysis.


    I 100% agree, I just think people have a tendency to over-value top 8's, WotC included, and that would go doubly so in the case of a PT. But just reverse the question. What would you need to see at the first PT to make you consider certain bans/unbans more than you already do?
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)
    I wouldn't be shocked if a pro tour team somehow found a way to break Eldrazi Tron.


    I don't think they will. But if they do adapt I hope they fail, I don't want to see a piece/pieces of the deck banned due to a one time result.


    That actually leads to the most important question in my mind regarding the upcoming pro tour: what kind of results would people/players need to see to justify a ban/unban after the first PT? What do you think wizards would need to see (rather than snarky "it doesn't matter they have no rhyme/reason" responses)?

    I could see them banning a storm piece after one solid showing just due to the nature of storm and how much they dislike the mechanic. I have a harder time saying the same for E-tron. I'd say any non-storm deck placing three copies in the top 8 would cause concern and potentially a knee-jerk reaction, but most decks would be safe even if they placed two copies in the top 8, at least initially.

    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)
    Man, I miss the twin-talk ban...

    Quote from Spsiegel1987 »
    Jund is a tier 3 deck with no indiciation of moving up, I'll take making huntmaster and Olivia obsolete for a tier 2 jund.

    Honestly, no Jund player has ever been very impressed by the 4 cmc spot, it's just an obligation, they aren't consistently good. People rarely draw Collected Company and think, "ugh, this card isn't good in this matchup"

    Olivia is bad against combo decks, blistering fast aggro decks and control decks

    Huntmaster is bad against combo or aggro decks where you can't really afford to tap out

    Kalitas was mediocre against midrange and control and flat out awful against combo

    They all kind of suck, with Olivia having the most upside.

    Chandra is a straight up garbage card to maindeck, it's so bad to maindeck

    The only players who say BBE invalidates 4 Drops are the players who don't play the deck.

    it would be similar to saying something like snapcaster invalidating all other 2 drop blue creatures.


    I think that has more to do with how few viable 4-drops there are in general, at least in regards to modern. It needs to either be instant speed, win the game on the spot, or be reduced in some way a la tron to justify tapping out. I like the idea that BBE can be added and DOESN'T meet those requirements. It's just a value card with RNG attached. Good for sure, but I have serious reservations when people say it's too dangerous for the format.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on [[Official]] SCG Modern Discussions
    Quote from Spsiegel1987 »
    I wonder what this humans deck is bad against?

    It actually looks like it could overwhelm jund.

    What's the archetype weak to?


    Well that mana base gets shredded by blood moon. You can't rely on vial enough to bypass how much that sets you back.

    Otherwise, oldschool attrition-y MU's are probably one of the better bets. It can't value its way through jund removal/advantage, especially when it's not playing something like company. In retrospect, that's probably what made humans such a great meta-call: people not playing their BGx midrange decks.

    Haven't run into the deck yet, but definitely seems interesting.
    Posted in: Modern
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.