We have updated our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Dismiss
 
Treasure Cruisin' with Mayael the Anima
 
The Magic Market Index for July 21st, 2017
 
Theros: Elspeth's Tragedy
  • 2

    posted a message on [[Official]] Modern Prices Discussion
    Quote from Daeyel »
    (Note to Moderators and readers - I realize this is not strictly a discussion of Modern card prices, but at the same time, these cards are modern and standard legal. I understand if this is moved, but note this is NOT a discussion about Frontier.)

    I'd like to discuss a new format that is looming. As I've seen new sets roll out with the hologram, I'm becoming aware of format staples being printed under new names and with new costs. I am watching the groundwork be laid out for a brand new format, and precautions taken to ensure certain elements remain under control. This format will likely supplement Modern. In my estimation, we are in the final year or two of Modern as a format. Modern Masters was a beautiful way to monetize the demand before letting it go the way of Legacy (yet Legacy seems to be getting more popular, as people realize you can build decent decks without dual lands)

    I'm not going to go into an exhaustive list, but, for instance, we do know MaRo is adamantly opposed to fetchlands in any new format replacing Modern. As such, a new format will not be able to grab the named dual lands currently in Modern. I do not expect any card to be able to do that on the level of current fetchlands. I could see a card released in coming years that searches for a specific basic such as 'search your library for a Plains', as have been printed in the past. This will not occur until the BFZ cycle rotates out, obviously. But will it wait until the Kaladesh cycle rotate? If such a card is released, their playability in a new format is greatly enhanced.

    Meanwhile, the only real fetchland in the current crop of sets that we accept as being eligible for a new format, be it Khans of Tarkir or Origins, is Sylvan Scrying. In a new format, as the only non-basic land tutor this card could easily see a sharp spike upwards. Likewise for other format staple replacements like Transgress the Mind ( IOK/Thoughtseize), Vessel of Nascency, Attune with Aether, and a host of others.

    My father has a test on investing: "If I put $X on the ground and walked away, would it hurt me?" If the answer was no, he could invest.

    With cards like Sylvan Scrying, Crook of Condemnation, Immolating Glare that would quickly become format staples it might not be a bad investment to sink $25 into getting ~100 them, in the hopes that in a few years, they become a huge demand item, with the attendant spike. If they do not, you haven't lost much. The trick is figuring out which currently cheap cards will be these staples.

    If you're playing a long, long investment game, there isn't much harm in this. You risk all those cards being reprinted, but the entry cost is probably quite low for many of the cards you are thinking of. That said, there is basically a 0% chance Modern goes anywhere for years to come. We're talking a 5-10 year scale here. It's Wizards' most popular format, they just introduced it back to the PT, and its tournaments generally have the best overall attendance for all providers. We all watched that ridiculous Frontier format crash and burn and we've seen Modern continue to put up impressive numbers.

    I suppose if you want to invest in the 5-10 (or more) investment range, go for it. But I think it's a much better use of your money to speculate on Modern staples, given that Modern isn't going anywhere and the profits will be more immediate, more certain (if you speculate well), and more predictable.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 9

    posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)
    Quote from Zorakkiller »
    Quote from ktkenshinx »
    Quote from Zorakkiller »
    Quote from ktkenshinx »
    @Zora
    I agree that's a problem because it means your arguments are totally out of dialogue with the overall metagame stats, their historical context relative to other Modern metagames, the recent major event finishes, and the last two years of Wizards' quotes/actions/policies. It is very problematic that a group of Modern critics don't want to engage any of that and would rather advance only their personal views and beliefs without any appeal to the vast body of evidence and information we have. This "my beliefs > evidence" stance makes it very hard to have meaningful conversations in this thread


    Convince me to care about all the stuff you just mentioned

    Metagame stats, tournament finishes, historical data, and Wizards quotations/articles are objective data points we can use as a shared language of Modern understanding. If we don't use those, it's just subjective experience vs. subjective experience and we're stuck on every argument. Currently, many critics refuse to cite any of those data points to make their arguments. This suggests their arguments aren't actually grounded in the data, and are therefore probably suspect, misinformed, and/or just plain wrong.

    Honestly, I shouldn't have to explain why we should all do our best to draw on data and the most objective data points we can find. That's how we build consensus, dispel myths, and improve our understanding of the format.


    Those data point are often flawed. Not to long ago we had a discussion on how mtgo data is borderline worthless due to the wotc policy change.

    All data is flawed. That doesn't mean we abandond data and stick in the realm of subjective personal opinion. We address flaws by using the best data we have with large Ns (old MN datasets, CeaselessHunger's current dataset), discussing how we can mitigate flaws, and drawing conclusions only as strong as the data allows. But none of that means making arguments with no data whatsoever, which is largely what the critics have done for many pages.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 10

    posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)
    Quote from Zorakkiller »
    Quote from ktkenshinx »
    @Zora
    I agree that's a problem because it means your arguments are totally out of dialogue with the overall metagame stats, their historical context relative to other Modern metagames, the recent major event finishes, and the last two years of Wizards' quotes/actions/policies. It is very problematic that a group of Modern critics don't want to engage any of that and would rather advance only their personal views and beliefs without any appeal to the vast body of evidence and information we have. This "my beliefs > evidence" stance makes it very hard to have meaningful conversations in this thread


    Convince me to care about all the stuff you just mentioned

    Metagame stats, tournament finishes, historical data, and Wizards quotations/articles are objective data points we can use as a shared language of Modern understanding. If we don't use those, it's just subjective experience vs. subjective experience and we're stuck on every argument. Currently, many critics refuse to cite any of those data points to make their arguments. This suggests their arguments aren't actually grounded in the data, and are therefore probably suspect, misinformed, and/or just plain wrong.

    Honestly, I shouldn't have to explain why we should all do our best to draw on data and the most objective data points we can find. That's how we build consensus, dispel myths, and improve our understanding of the format.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 8

    posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)
    @Zora
    I agree that's a problem because it means your arguments are totally out of dialogue with the overall metagame stats, their historical context relative to other Modern metagames, the recent major event finishes, and the last two years of Wizards' quotes/actions/policies. It is very problematic that a group of Modern critics don't want to engage any of that and would rather advance only their personal views and beliefs without any appeal to the vast body of evidence and information we have. This "my beliefs > evidence" stance makes it very hard to have meaningful conversations in this thread
    Posted in: Modern
  • 9

    posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)
    Quote from xxhellfirexx3 »
    Quote from ktkenshinx »
    Quote from xxhellfirexx3 »
    Quote from ktkenshinx »
    Quote from Zorakkiller »
    We play enough to be continually disappointed. I wonder how many people that actually praise modern play on a regular basis, some do but not all

    Well, I'm playing plenty pretty much every weekend on MTGO, so I can't speak for others but can speak for my own positive experience. Given how the recent major events (GP, Classics, Challenges, Opens) mirror my experience, the critics either aren't playing or are playing metagames that aren't representative of the general format. I really don't think any metagame short of a Legacy one would satisfy many critics, but thankfully, Wizards has moved away from that kind of format so the critics just need to adjust and/or move on.

    Related: I don't know what the critics even realistically want. There are so many viable top-tier interactive decks they can play. Just pick one and stop complaining.

    To be clear, I do think there are things in Modern worth criticizing. For example, white could be better. But this myth about a format of non-interactive decks hasn't been true since January 2017 and it needs to stop.
    so your saying that your weekend mtg games carry more weight than stats and other players experience? Ones that may be playing the game alot more than yourself?

    Because my experience aligns with the overall metagame stats AND the recent major events. I literally said this in the quoted post. If mine aligns with that very broad picture and someone else's experience does not, of course I'm going to think their's isn't representative of what ia going on in Modern, That, or they aren't really playing. Both of those scenarios are far likelier than the alternative: that the metagame stats and major event picture is somehow not representative of the experience for average Modern players.

    I have become very skeptical of and annoyed with many critics in this thread because their claims consistently lack support. It started with the "blue sucks" camp, which drove me to play blue decks in May to see if blue really did suck. I realized they had totally mis-evaluated decks like UW Control, and then UW Control hit Tier 1. This showed how wrong the "blue sucks" camp had been. Now we have critics who claim the meta isn't interactive when it has the same split as the late 2015 metagame, which I know was idealized as a perfect Modern meta. Or critics who want E-Tron banned when it isn't even the most-played deck and is barely 8% of the format or less. All of this suggests to me that the hyper-vocal, hyper minority is not in dialogue with what is actually going on in Modern. They have personal visions of the format that are heavily biased and they willfully present those visions without evidence and in opposition to Wizards' stated goals.

    Not all critics do this. Those arguing for BBE or SFM or other unbans are generally much more evidence-based. But other critics are just expressing personal fantasies of their perfect Modern, and it's often not productive or engaged with reality.



    no your experience aligns with your experience, that is it. there are so many decks being played that you could think lantern is tier 1.

    uw control wont last in tier 1 that is my prediction. and this prediction follows every non twin reactive bluer deck, since the twin banning. but 6 months will tell, and I am rightfully skeptical.

    hyper minority is an exaggeration im sure. but feel free to prove that this thread is all that modern is. there is another world other than this thread and it clearly dislikes alot of quirks modern has. keep straw-maning those comments away though.



    When my experience aligns with the overall metagame stats AND the picture from the last two months of major events, then of course I'm going to treat it as more representative than an experience that does not align with any of those datapoints. By contrast, if my experience was wildly different from the meta picture, I'd question if my experience was representative instead. That's such basic analysis. I don't understand what makes it complicated to understand.

    This is the second time you have incorrectly used the strawman accusation. I'm pointing out the minority opinion not to discredit the argument (it's discredited by the rest of the metagame picture already), but to show it's not a topic we should be seriously discussing in this thread. It's much better to talk about policy-aligned changes like a potential BBE or SFM unban than to fantasize about personal and biased visions of someone's ideal Modern, ESPECIALLY when that vision is grossly misaligned with Wizards' format aims. It's fine to criticize Modern, but some of the recent criticisms are just willfully misrepresenting, or outright ignoring, the format/facts/stats to advance a personal belief.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)
    Quote from Jenna Tolaria »
    What's the turn 4 rule?

    And why are there so many ways to "cheat" mana in the first place?

    T4 rule states that TOP-TIER decks can't CONSISTENTLY win before T4. Note the emphasis on those terms. If a deck is not top-tier or consistent, it can't be touched under the T4 rule.

    As for cheating on mana, this is a powerful, non-rotating format that uses cards that are almost across the board too powerful for Standard. You see the same thing in Legacy and Vintage, and it's just an inevitable consequence of decks/cards doing very powerful things. If that isn't one's cup of tea, Standard and Limited are more appropriate for them. I'll also say you don't need to cheat on mana to play top-tier Modern. See UW Control, BW Pox, Abzan/Jund, Jeskai Queller, and others.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 4

    posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)
    Quote from xxhellfirexx3 »
    Quote from ktkenshinx »
    Quote from Zorakkiller »
    We play enough to be continually disappointed. I wonder how many people that actually praise modern play on a regular basis, some do but not all

    Well, I'm playing plenty pretty much every weekend on MTGO, so I can't speak for others but can speak for my own positive experience. Given how the recent major events (GP, Classics, Challenges, Opens) mirror my experience, the critics either aren't playing or are playing metagames that aren't representative of the general format. I really don't think any metagame short of a Legacy one would satisfy many critics, but thankfully, Wizards has moved away from that kind of format so the critics just need to adjust and/or move on.

    Related: I don't know what the critics even realistically want. There are so many viable top-tier interactive decks they can play. Just pick one and stop complaining.

    To be clear, I do think there are things in Modern worth criticizing. For example, white could be better. But this myth about a format of non-interactive decks hasn't been true since January 2017 and it needs to stop.
    so your saying that your weekend mtg games carry more weight than stats and other players experience? Ones that may be playing the game alot more than yourself?

    Because my experience aligns with the overall metagame stats AND the recent major events. I literally said this in the quoted post. If mine aligns with that very broad picture and someone else's experience does not, of course I'm going to think their's isn't representative of what ia going on in Modern, That, or they aren't really playing. Both of those scenarios are far likelier than the alternative: that the metagame stats and major event picture is somehow not representative of the experience for average Modern players.

    I have become very skeptical of and annoyed with many critics in this thread because their claims consistently lack support. It started with the "blue sucks" camp, which drove me to play blue decks in May to see if blue really did suck. I realized they had totally mis-evaluated decks like UW Control, and then UW Control hit Tier 1. This showed how wrong the "blue sucks" camp had been. Now we have critics who claim the meta isn't interactive when it has the same split as the late 2015 metagame, which I know was idealized as a perfect Modern meta. Or critics who want E-Tron banned when it isn't even the most-played deck and is barely 8% of the format or less. All of this suggests to me that the hyper-vocal, hyper minority is not in dialogue with what is actually going on in Modern. They have personal visions of the format that are heavily biased and they willfully present those visions without evidence and in opposition to Wizards' stated goals.

    Not all critics do this. Those arguing for BBE or SFM or other unbans are generally much more evidence-based. But other critics are just expressing personal fantasies of their perfect Modern, and it's often not productive or engaged with reality.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)
    Quote from Zorakkiller »
    I can already tell we are going to have trouble labeling some of these decks. For instance I consider eldrazi tron a big mana deck

    Eldrazi Tron is midrange. Karn and E-Map are the only rampy cards in the deck, and most E-Tron builds don't even run the full Karn playset. Everything else is good, old-fashioned midrange with big dumb dudes, disruption, valuable creatures, etc. E-Tron just happens to do midrange better than many other midrange decks, and that mana efficiency makes people call it a big mana deck. Incidentally, cards that are good against big mana tend to be less good against E-Tron. Spreading Seas and Ghost Quarter, for example, are sweet against Gx Tron but really not spectacular against E-Tron. They help, sure, but not the same way they ruin Gx Tron. By contrast, many cards that aren't good against big mana are great against E-Tron. See Verdict.

    As multiple posters said earlier, and as recent articles have talked about, many successful Modern decks do so by cheating on mana in various ways. E-Tron happens to do this with lands, as opposed to GDS doing it with casting costs or Dredge doing it with a mechanic. This use of lands makes many people incorrectly label the deck as ramp. But E-Tron plays out as midrange, despite lands being its source of mana cheating: disrupt the opponent with Chalice/TKS/Dismember/All Is Dust and then win with mana-efficient monsters. Also as with midrange, E-Tron can switch between an aggressive role with Smashers and TKS or a more controlling route with Ballista.

    Just compare the real ramp decks like Gx Tron and Titanshift to E-Tron and the difference is very clear. The decks have little in common.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 1

    posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)
    Quote from idSurge »
    Burn - Aggro
    GDS - Aggro
    Eldrazi - Midrange
    Dredge - Aggro ?
    Titanshift - Ramp
    Affinity - Aggro
    DSJ - Aggro

    ...

    Some are weird obviously, but looking at that list...its Aggro, Midrange, Control, with some Ramp/Combo. As expected?

    How on earth are the DS decks aggro? I understand the Tribal Flames/domain version being aggro, but not JDS and certainly not GDS. It's either protect-the-queen style midrange or tempo.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 4

    posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)
    Quote from Zorakkiller »
    I see aggro checking control, control checking midrange, and midrange checking aggro but I'm not the mind reader you are. It does depend on what kind of control, aggro and midrange decks there are though to see if the checks would work

    I'm not a mind reader. That skill also wouldn't be too helpful for making metagame predictions. That said, I do know Magic history, and this hasn't happened in years and definitely hasn't happened in Modern and Legacy. Aggro hasn't checked a powerful midrange or control deck for a long time. It wouldn't suddenly start in this fantasy three-archetype metagame.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 4

    posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)
    Quote from Zorakkiller »

    Not trying to take a shot at the mods but being a mod doesn't really mean much. Heck I used to moderate the modernmagic subreddit. I never said that I wanted control and midrange should be the only viable decks I said that midrange control and aggro would be focal point

    Between modding here, doing the Nexus analyses, and being pretty plugged into the wider Modern community, I know that the "make interactive decks better" camp knowingly/unknowingly just wants control/midrange decks with 50/50+ matchups across the board. Aggro is not present in that metagame because midrange/control are so good. Do you see aggro checking midrange/control in Modern? Absolutely not. Ramp checks those decks. Or, if they over-prepare for ramp, then other decks can come in (aggro or combo). In a midrange/control/aggro metagame, there really isn't any aggro because the midrange/control decks can easily hedge against them. So then you just have a midrange/control metagame where one deck will eventually emerge as the best. No thank you. Wizards has no interest in that metagame in any competitive format, which leads me to believe most players don't want it either.
    Quote from cfusionpm »
    Quote from ktkenshinx »
    As I've said before and I'll say again, many Modern critics just want to play a fair deck with no bad matchups. They're cool with other decks having bad matchups, as long as their deck doesn't have them and is 50/50+ against everything else. Not all critics want this, mind you, but many do. It's totally out of alignment with Wizards' aims for EVERY format, let alone Modern, and doesn't actually make for a healthy or fun metagame for most players.

    As apparent by my previous post about non-games, I personally would love to see more 50/50 decks. Decks which are true tests of play skill and not matchup lotteries. I personally have no problems with having horrible matchups, so long as it's relatively evenly compensated with favorable matchups. That should be the risk/reward of playing decks like that. The problem I have personally encountered isn't that bad matchups are bad, it's that the bad matchups are really bad and the good matchups aren't even that good. What incentive does that give to play a deck like that? Why is it so awful to have 50/50 decks? Do people really enjoy losing to the pairings board?

    If you can think of small adjustments to make more matchups close to 45/55 instead of 40/60, I'm all ears and I'm sure Wizards would be too. But most of the suggestions I see in this thread are thinly veiled attempts to remove all the matchups worse than 50/50 for people's pet interactive decks.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)
    Quote from cfusionpm »
    Quote from ktkenshinx »
    To be clear, I do think there are things in Modern worth criticizing. For example, white could be better. But this myth about a format of non-interactive decks hasn't been true since January 2017 and it needs to stop.

    I think the complaint on "non-interactive" stems more from the massive feelbads of so many non-games in Modern. At least that was has dissuaded me from playing nearly as much as I used to and has pushed most of my focus elsewhere. Win or lose, so many games of Modern don't actually feel like games. They feel like landslide victories or insurmountable defeats with very little in between. There are a few really rich, engaging, and enjoyable games in between, but they appear to be the exception instead of the rule, especially with random and erratic FNM metas. It feels as though consequences for bad hands and rewards for good hands are so much greater than they probably should be. That leads to increased variance in match outcome and "more exciting top decks," like what we saw in the final round(s) of GP Vegas. I think a lot of this is pushed by the fact that the best decks in the format generally either want to do their own thing and ignore you; killing as quickly or efficiently as possible, do their own thing and ignore you; killing through many levels of hate, or load up on their own targeted hate and hope to win the matchup lottery. That does not seem fun or healthy at all.

    I think these are fair concerns to have abstractly, but don't see these playing out in the current metagame. For instance, if we look at CeaselessHunger's breakdown, we see about half of the Tier 1-2 decks are interactive and half are not. That's identical to the breakdown in December 2015, which I know you have previously cited as a prime example of a diverse and interactive Modern. I agree it could be a bit better, and I think SFM would facilitate that. But I think many of the critics make out the current metagame to be significantly worse than it really is, when in reality, both the overall metagame and the individual event T8s-T16s attest to a much more interactive format than the critics want to admit.
    Quote from Zorakkiller »

    I'm not disagreeing that control and midrange would be better than other types of decks but I'm okay with that if it means the majority of games are of a high quality. I value game quality higher than deck diversity. I love how you keep telling the modern critics what they want though

    I am going to keep telling the critics what they "want" because they aren't drawing out their desires to their logical conclusion. They want midrange and control at the top, but don't realize this will almost definitely mean a deck will almost certainly emerge as the best in the format with 50/50+ matchups across the board. Or worse, they realize this and don't care. This has happened historically in every recent format where you didn't have diversity. Diversity is a check on metagame dominance. Low diversity almost always indicates a deck is the best, with 50/50+ matchups across the board.

    At least here in the quoted post, you admit that what you personally want is incongruent with what Wizards wants for Modern. It's also incongruent with the direction Wizards has taken with every competitive format. Given these major disconnects, I don't see these criticisms as very valid. It would be like me saying I want more fast mana in Modern because I think Legacy doesn't let me play my fast combo decks due to lots of FoW and Daze. Or me saying "Ban Thoughtseize because it ruins my Cheeri0s experience." Those might be personal desires someone could have, but they're not something Wizards is going to base a policy or format change on. They aren't great arguments.

    Contrast those "personal desire" arguments with the "policy-aligned" arguments others make. For instance, consider when someone says "unban SFM; Wizards cited color diversity as an ongoing issue and SFM addresses that." That argument is totally aligned with Wizards' format aims, and is much more reasonable than someone saying "reduce Modern diversity so we have a few best decks with interactive gameplay." The latter is a personal fantasy. The former is in dialogue with the format's and game's evolution and direction.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 3

    posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)
    Quote from Zorakkiller »
    Quote from ktkenshinx »
    Quote from Zorakkiller »
    We play enough to be continually disappointed. I wonder how many people that actually praise modern play on a regular basis, some do but not all

    Well, I'm playing plenty pretty much every weekend on MTGO, so I can't speak for others but can speak for my own positive experience. Given how the recent major events (GP, Classics, Challenges, Opens) mirror my experience, the critics either aren't playing or are playing metagames that aren't representative of the general format. I really don't think any metagame short of a Legacy one would satisfy many critics, but thankfully, Wizards has moved away from that kind of format so the critics just need to adjust and/or move on.

    Related: I don't know what the critics even realistically want. There are so many viable top-tier interactive decks they can play. Just pick one and stop complaining.

    To be clear, I do think there are things in Modern worth criticizing. For example, white could be better. But this myth about a format of non-interactive decks hasn't been true since January 2017 and it needs to stop.


    The modern critics disagree that there are so many viable decks. Personally i would like a non rotating format with emphasis on midrange, control and aggro strategies. I would also like the amount of non games to be at a minimum. This would likely mean removing or nerfing certain combo and ramp strategies along with fast mana. I also believe that with these guidelines that the sideboard lottery would be drastically reduced

    This just results in midrange and control decks duking it out and pushing away all other stratgeies, likely with a best deck emerging over time that lacks bad matchups. It's what some pros want, because it makes Modern much easier to metagame and prepare for, but it's not what Wizards wants. Ramp is the foil for midrange and control. It means fair decks can't just emerge as 50/50+ against the field, and that's what we see in Modern today. You can even play two top-tier fair decks with good ramp matchcups: UW Control and GDS!

    As I've said before and I'll say again, many Modern critics just want to play a fair deck with no bad matchups. They're cool with other decks having bad matchups, as long as their deck doesn't have them and is 50/50+ against everything else. Not all critics want this, mind you, but many do. It's totally out of alignment with Wizards' aims for EVERY format, let alone Modern, and doesn't actually make for a healthy or fun metagame for most players.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 7

    posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)
    Quote from Zorakkiller »
    We play enough to be continually disappointed. I wonder how many people that actually praise modern play on a regular basis, some do but not all

    Well, I'm playing plenty pretty much every weekend on MTGO, so I can't speak for others but can speak for my own positive experience. Given how the recent major events (GP, Classics, Challenges, Opens) mirror my experience, the critics either aren't playing or are playing metagames that aren't representative of the general format. I really don't think any metagame short of a Legacy one would satisfy many critics, but thankfully, Wizards has moved away from that kind of format so the critics just need to adjust and/or move on.

    Related: I don't know what the critics even realistically want. There are so many viable top-tier interactive decks they can play. Just pick one and stop complaining.

    To be clear, I do think there are things in Modern worth criticizing. For example, white could be better. But this myth about a format of non-interactive decks hasn't been true since January 2017 and it needs to stop.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 8

    posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)
    Quote from Breathe1234 »
    The problem with modern is every deck operates on a completely different axis and games are frequently 2 ships passing in the night.

    I rather play a metagame that is UWR control vs Grixis Control vs Bant Eldrazi vs Jund than a meta game that is "diverse" with infect, affinity, burn, tron, lantern, boggles, burn etc that don't care at all about interacting.

    Lots of issues with this post. First, some of the decks you mention are quite interactive. Lantern is interacting from T1 onward. So is something like E Tron, which is really just a very strong midrange creature deck. Second, your list both oversells the presence of some lists to support your argument (you mention Burn twice, Bogles is Tier 3) and undersells others that don't prove your point (no mention of the most-played deck GDS or Tier 1 hit UW Control).

    If you want to guarantee interactive Modern games, like I do, then play an interactive deck. This often forces opponents to interact with you, find sneaky lines, and generally makes for exciting back and forth Magic. You'll still get some games where an opponent just wins and you couldn't do anything, but they are very rare in my experience.

    I wonder how many of the current Modern critics are actually playing the format vs. theorizing about it based on their perception of limited meta stats. In late 2016, I would have agreed the format experience as a player was a miserable mess. But that's not at all true right now. I suspect for some players this disconnect is because they aren't really playing. Not all, to be sure, but definitely some.
    Posted in: Modern
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.