I make most lantern players play it out completely, especially game 1 where I keep a wrong hand in the dark and they establish an early lock.
Most players at an FNM don't play Lantern fast enough and I will absolutely make them play it out. I've only really met 1 competent Lantern player and it's because it was his first deck and all he plays.
Do I scoop against a Valakut deck when they have the win? Yup
Tron drops a Karn followed by Ugin? Yup
But those games end quickly, it takes a certain matchup to play a long game against Tron.
Now, if someone is in front of Sam Black or Elsik, yeah, you may as well scoop, they aren't going to make a dumb mistake and they play crazy fast, but most FNM players aren't fast enough with the deck to play like that
If you're going to play a deck like that, you'll play the whole thing. The fact you're outraged that people would scoop to Tron but not Lantern is silly.
I do agree with you to call a judge if someone is sitting there for 45 seconds every turn when you know they can't do much. If someone pulls that ***** on you in a Rel event, you absolutely tell them to their face you'll call a judge, you'll tilt them hard from that threat alone.
- StubbsMcAwesome
- Registered User
-
Member for 7 years, 10 months, and 22 days
Last active Tue, Jan, 1 2019 07:38:29
- 0 Followers
- 212 Total Posts
- 249 Thanks
-
2
Spsiegel1987 posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)Posted in: Modern Archives -
4
Earthbound21 posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)Posted in: Modern ArchivesQuote from getthere »People have brought up excellent argument backed up with good stats here and Sheridan has completely pushed them aside to favor his own bias loving view of the game.
And enough brown nosing. Calling someone handsome and smart shows a huge bias. What are you his undercover wife?
And the go play another format argument is getting old. No, people want changes and aren't completely happy. The customer is always right.
Where are these stats? Where are these excellent arguments? A 2015 data set that is no longer relevant?
You are correct. The customer is always right. That's why Modern is back on the pro tour, that's why we get yearly Masters sets, that's why SCG is 90% Modern these days. Hasbro wants money. The money is in Modern. You are not the only customer.
Ahem.
And since we are doing the 'not so subtle personal attack' thing, let me enlighten you, Mr. Internet-Arguer-New/Anonymous-Account-Guy-Who-Might-Also-Be-Ghosting-As-Howwish.
I am extremely biased towards Sheridan. Sheridan does not have to do this work. Sheridan does not have to share his work. Sheridan is not getting paid to do or share his work. But yet, we have access to it. That is respectable. I respect Sheridan and all the effort he puts into the community. It's extremely time consuming to compile and analyze data. How many other people on the internet are doing this for you and not getting paid for it? Sheridan deserves all the praise we can give him. He is literally a beacon of sound reason and discussion on a forum full of people like you. And if we disagree with his assessment or find his claims to erroneous, he deserves more from us than "You're wrong because I think so" arguments.
It's called respect, child. Someday you might know it.
Quote from Howwish »anyone who thinks matchup lottery does not have an impact on modern is ignorant beyond belief.
When a bgx player loses all the time to tron and says: "yea in my experience it's pretty close to unwinnable"
And then you have poeple like ktk saying it's cuz they suck. I'm pretty sure you can find a ton of "good" players who would agree with the matchup being brutal as hell.(pros say it all the time)
But are often discredited cuz they need skillz.... C'mon....
Soo burn and boggles are 50/50?
Merfolk and affinity are 50/50?
No one is saying this. See Sheridan's original claim and evidence here: http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/785096-the-state-of-modern-thread-rules-update-27-10-17?page=45#c1125
Or my less math involved summary here: http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/785096-the-state-of-modern-thread-rules-update-27-10-17?comment=1490
Read that. Read it again. Read it a third time. Read it until you understand it. Until you acquire understanding of the evidence and assertion, you aren't adding anything to the discussion and won't be taken seriously.
Quote from thnkr »Holy smokes, this is spot on, Earthbound21.
I'm afraid it may be slightly off topic, but I think you hit the nail on the head when you note that a good deal of ban talk, matchup analysis, "matchup lottery" claims, etc., seems influenced by articles on CFB, SCG, and their ilk, by people who are presumably authorities on the subject but provide zero data or evidence to back up their claims. More than anything, I feel that conversations about the state of Modern and suggested changes are largely knee-jerk reactions by people whose motives, judging by their methods of providing zero data, is to excuse away their lack of success that they somehow feel entitled to. It's a self-appointed feeling of superiority, which seems to say more about the character of the person than they may care to admit.
Pro player relevancy and money making are not non-issues in the realm of Modern reputation. If they can't write an article like "Look how awesome I did at X event" but their boss tells them they need to produce Modern content so their website can generate traffic, what do you think they will write about? -
6
ktkenshinx posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)Posted in: Modern ArchivesQuote from xxhellfirexx3 »
and thats why the people in charge should deal with the problem instead of let the whole format become this way.Quote from Albegas »
Not sure where you're going with that list of what's broken and what's not. Of course a single Bolt in a vacuum isn't as broken as a combination of multiple cards that result in a T2-3 8/8 or a T3 Karn.Quote from xxhellfirexx3 »
this is the core of my issue.Quote from idSurge »Those 'free wins' are what determine are the best decks in the format however. 'Fair Magic' is not what most high end players look for in a deck. This was commonly being discussed on twitter months and months ago.
Modern needs to be less broken Imo. Otherwise it's a Game of who can play the more broken deck.
Is thoughtsieze broken? No
Is snappy broken? No
Is Bolt broken? No
Push? No
Is a turn 2-3 1 mana 8/8 broken? Yes
Is a turn 3 karn broken? Yes
Is dumping your entire affinity hand pretty much making it impossible for the opponent to catch up broken? Yes
Is a Turn 2 tks or reality smasher broken? Yes
Is a turn 4 grapeshot lethal broken? Hell yes
People will say: but it's a small percentage that happens.
But combined with all the decks it happens more than I feel is healthy. Not to mention highroll magic is not a test of skill but rather a test of luck in which you pretty much auto lose that game no matter how good the answers are.
As for the "game of who can play the more broken deck" comment, what format in any TCG isn't a battle of broken versus broken? Competitive environments will always drive players to either play the most broken decks or create decks that break the broken decks, which either become broken themselves or get beat by a different slew of broken decks it can't deal with.
and I honestly wouldnt be asking for these insane bans if wizards would make fair decks just as powerful and prevalent as the linear broken ones.
its why I think we either level the playing field in 2 different ways.
multiple bans
or multiple unbans
Wizards just said the format was healthy and they only mentioned unbans. I know you don't like something about the format landscape and I see where your arguments come from. But I think it is actually you in the minority here and it seems very unlikely that Wizards and most players share this view. Look at the metagame in early October: that is Wizards' view of healthy. It's actually more diverse now with even more interactive decks than October. I just don't see any traction to these format complaints.
Again, I think there's a legitimate worry about what the PT is going to look like. But that's not on the table right now. -
2
Spsiegel1987 posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)Really? I think it would.Posted in: Modern Archives
I'd love to be a jund deck that can just focus on mirrors and small creature decks. I'll gladly play 4x leyline of the void if I don't need land destruction
I don't see this being fair to the base. I think combo and aggro would be very difficult to play. We are just turning modern into a standard format with a larger pool of fair cards.
What's going to prey on midrange? I don't see it without some kind or triangulation on making it difficult -
4
Spsiegel1987 posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)I feel like I'm going insane in this thread.Posted in: Modern Archives
Am I the only fair player who tries to stay objective? Yes, I'm calling out Storm despite it being a good matchup for me.
This thread spent last year saying things like, "there's no good blue deck!" "We need a 2 cmc counter!" "The banning of the deck left a huge hole and now blue is struggling!"
Then 2017 came by and we didn't just get a top blue deck, we got two. Grixis Shadow FEELS like a blue deck, it's now playing 10 blue cantrips, the snaps, the counter plan. I think it's unfair to say, "yawn, it's a thoughtseize, shadow, push deck. If that were the case, Jund/Junk players would have easily adapted, it's a skill testing deck and it sank in numbers in terms of the casual players sticking to it.
We also have Jeskai, and Modern Nexus' new article today even sheds light on it's success.
So, now the argument has shifted into, "I can't control what my opponents are playing, it's too linear, this format is garbage".
I don't think a 1/3rd interactive meta is bad
1/3rd interactive by standard means
1/3rd combo
1/3rd aggro
That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. I'm not sure aggro decks can afford to stay aggressive while packing the standard interactivity like bolt/push, etc. That had lukewarm results with the zoo decks from a couple of years ago.
It doesn't seem reasonable at all, what if the meta was 2/3rds of the typical point, click, removal and go draw counter? That would bore a lot of players to death, too.
-
5
ktkenshinx posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)Posted in: Modern ArchivesQuote from Spsiegel1987 »So, I had a pretty decent night with 5C Shadow at my FNM and played Storm. He made 11 Goblins on his turn 3 with me on the draw. I had staticaster in my opener so him going all in really backfired---but seriously, that deck is so broken and I can't wait until it's abused in the pro tour and eats a well deserved ban.
Last week I lost on my turn 2 to a game 1 grapeshot for over 20 damage, and game 3 he produced like 12 goblins on his turn 3 on the play. I was on Eldrazi and had a nut hand for turn 2 thought-knot and ratchet bomb which is the only reason I didn't lose on the spot. I whittled him down and he topdecked PIF to win that week.
Seriously, this deck is incredibly degenerate and I don't see how it survives in February, I'm seeing players of all skills levels do really broken things with the deck.
Yes, I absolutely crushed the Storm player tonight but witnessing this was absolutely insane, it's been consistent by different players.
Had I not had 3x discard game 1 I'm pretty sure the Storm player had the game on his turn 3.
Hmmm I think that posts like this represent a step backwards in our conversation. We were just having a wonderful discussion about how to quantify one of the most debated concepts in this thread. This just seems like one of the usual kneejerk complaints to a bad, personal experience. Sure, I understand that we've also done some more rigorous digging with Storm and maybe this informs that digging, but I feel it's more of a frustrated vent than a constructive addition to our understanding of Modern. It's also framed very questionably. I've looked at about 250 Storm games now and have literally zero instances of a Turn 2 win, so it feels like this might further undermine the post's credibility.
Don't get me wrong: I generally agree with Ari Lax's article earlier today about how there are secretly a few best decks in Modern. GK and I have talked about this in the thread before (those secret best decks being ETron, GDS, and Storm). But I feel there are more constructive ways we can investigate that issue without just venting about a bad experience with an opposing deck. Goodness knows we've seen enough of that with people wanting SSG, Moon, Chalice, Leyline, Dispel, and other bizarre cards banned because of a bad experience they've had. -
3
Spsiegel1987 posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)Posted in: Modern ArchivesQuote from h0lydiva »Titanshift is trending up, not down. It's happening right now as we speak.
Jeskai might be tier 1 popularity wise depending on how you look at things. It's 100% not tier 1 power wise. I've played it in different times, last one the other day on stream. It's a fun deck, a cool deck, and a not very good or powerful deck, ultimately. Eldrazi Tron and Titanshift utterly murder you in any game in which everything doesn't line up perfectly for you.
You're very all over the place with your predictions and opinions, It doesn't feel like a lot of the things you say usually come to fruition.
I mean, wasn't it you who said we should just ban everything from the top five decks? I want to say it was about a month ago, maybe two. No offense, but that was a really absurd opinion. Modern hands down looked the best on camera today, and that's not just because we favor modern.
You also thought UW was hot *****, it really never did much outside of MTGO.
Jeskai is a flat out better choice, since burn and Geist turn the corner quick.
The deck is definitely tier 1. Yes, it's true the deck suffers from drawing the wrong half of the deck or not having answers line up, but it's literally just a blue version of good stuff deck, all fair decks have that issue.
Eldrazi Tron is trending down.
Titanshift is probably trending up because supposedly it has a decent matchup against Humans.
The meta is about to become very creature heavy with midrange and control popping up, and then a meta shift will take advantage of all the fair decks.
-
3
Spsiegel1987 posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)Diva, besides having hyperboles that can be compared to our President, where are you getting your stats?Posted in: Modern Archives
If you want to be honest, nearly ever game has the
(Play these few things to win)
(Everything else that is inferior)
It doesn't mean those decks are bad or can't take a tournament
I mean, I'd put your suicide bloo in the inferior category
I'd put all your claims about UW in the inferior category
You go on about all your data that you collect through watching Twitch---good for you. Most of that is still you inserting your opinion into a lot of these facts
It's also really expensive to play the best deck at all times. I have a ton of staples in modern, but it feels like whenever there's something new or hot, i have to spend hundreds to play that deck. So, yeah, sure, there are large numbers of people happy playing their inferior deck
-
2
spawnofhastur posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)h0lydiva, I really like you - whenever we've interacted, you've been chill, and your music taste is great.Posted in: Modern Archives
But Jesus do you need to stop pulling random statistic out of your ass like that. You're obviously very opinionated when it comes to Modern, and I can't blame you, but making statements like that without evidence is doing nothing but weakening your arguments. -
4
ktkenshinx posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)Modern games are about 3%ish more variable than Legacy games, at least when top players are playing. But top players still appear in the same rate at top tables as they do in Legacy, so that 3% variance isn't affecting performance. If we want to parse out that 3% and try to figure out what is causing that, let's do so. My guess is that this is a function of metagame diversity, where Modern is way more than 3% more diverse than Legacy. But let's not pretend Modern is some super swingy 10% variance format where games are determined overwhelmingly by pairings and die rolls. Let's also not pretend that variance dramatically impacts performance.Posted in: Modern Archives - To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1
1
Sometimes people bring 6 cards in from the sb for you. It's fairly easy when you make sure your sideboard cards are broadly effective enough to help in other bad mu's. It's not like relic of progenitus has subtext reading *note: only bring for storm*
This was a single event. Let's look at at least one more before we get into our bomb shelters.
1
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.
1
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.
1
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.
1
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.
4
Sweepers/removal deal with affinity/aggro creatures. Fatal push will also kill storm bears, 1 cmc fatties, and make ravager look dumb. Chalice can be k-command'ed, bypassed w/ cards above 1 cmc, or you can acknowledge your opponent will not have chalice on 1 turn 2 every game.
Your post is EXTREME hyperbole and actively hurting the format. Yes, we had an event with 2 storm decks and 2 affinity decks in top 8. The big modern event before that? Jeskai flash/control mirrors. No, the sky is not falling.
1
Seriously. It doesn't take much, but even just briefly explaining rationale like that accumulates way more good will. February sure seems far away, but at least we know they 1. only referenced unbans, 2. explained why they were waiting that long, and 3. explained what would cause them to reverse that decision (and the accompanying unlikelihood of that happening).
I'd obviously prefer to play with new toys now, but transparency goes a long way. Now if only we could get that 5-0 information released....
1
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/october-17-2017-banned-and-restricted-announcement-2017-10-17
But explicitly mentioned considering an unban for modern. Progress!
1
Should be within a half hour. Someone generally finds the link to the announcement a little earlier, though.