What I'm trying to say is that in Legacy, the game is drawn out and is decided on one to two cards played at the right time or sticking around. As for standard, you cycle through cards at ridiculous speeds and you tend to need a lot of fodder for that. Pitching two cards from your hand to counter one card is horrible in standard. The more cards you have at your disposal, the better. In standard, this is the lifeline.
Saying that Legacy games aren't won with Card Advantage seems like a naive notion to me. Do you play Legacy?
I'd also like to point out that FoW never started out as a staple; because on paper 2 for 1'ing yourself is always bad, yes? But, people started using it; in a standard environment that favoured CA, because the Tempo advantage was absolutely insane; In a control vs. control match I'd gladly 2-for-1 myself it it meant coming out on top in a counter-war.
And Dismembering a Fauna Shaman on T2 as U/W Caw is also essentially a 2-for-1 on yourself; You just Flame Javelin 'ed yourself to kill a creature? Did you not? But hey, that tempo-boost was more than likely quite worth it.
And to whoever said they'd be glad if control counter your T1 and T3 plays as aggro; that's funny because even if they spent 4 cards dealing with 2 of yours they're going to get a Jace, TMS out on an open field on that T4 thanks to that tempo boost. Or they're going to live long enough to Batterskull you to death. Or they're going to live long enough to dig for some sort of answer.
Force of Will is an incredibly powerful card in any format right now. And will always be. Trying to refute that is asinine.
Force is incredibly powerful. That being said, it's not always as optimal as people will say it to be.
If.. and I repeat.. .IF you can get away with a Spell Pierce or Daze, not only will you be up on the counter war, but you'll also lose zero card advantage WHILE gaining tempo.
It's just a matter of whether you can afford to risk cards like spell pierce and daze or not.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find me online - I'm on Cockatrice * Tag - Badd B - Or on MTGO - Tag - Cbus05
Saying that Legacy games aren't won with Card Advantage seems like a naive notion to me. Do you play Legacy?
I do play legacy and I've played enough games to know that tempo is everything in that format. Card advantage is amazing, as it is in every format, but legacy is about getting the opponent to play around you. Take a look at Team America. It has card advantage through Sylvan Library and Jace TMS (in some lists). And while it does gain some card advantage, it wins by controlling the field with counters, removal, and getting the opponent to play at their own pace. Tempo is rarely used in standard and is only seen in the form of control decks. And even then, card advantage is what wins the games.
I'd also like to point out that FoW never started out as a staple; because on paper 2 for 1'ing yourself is always bad, yes? But, people started using it; in a standard environment that favoured CA, because the Tempo advantage was absolutely insane; In a control vs. control match I'd gladly 2-for-1 myself it it meant coming out on top in a counter-war.
Force of Will became a staple through the large amounts of combo decks in legacy. This is a necessity because you need an out to their combo and Force is one of the few things that can stop it without requiring mana. As for standard, Force was played in fair amounts. The main target for this was to stop the Hypnotic Specter/Dark Ritual combo that was ruining the format. And what counter war are you talking about when Alliance was legal in standard?
And Dismembering a Fauna Shaman on T2 as U/W Caw is also essentially a 2-for-1 on yourself; You just Flame Javelin 'ed yourself to kill a creature? Did you not? But hey, that tempo-boost was more than likely quite worth it.
Dismember is not card disadvantage like Force is. Life is a resource that doesn't set your hand back. Therefore Dismember is not a 2 for 1 at all. This has been seeing play in legacy because it's almost free and doesn't affect your own tempo.
And to whoever said they'd be glad if control counter your T1 and T3 plays as aggro; that's funny because even if they spent 4 cards dealing with 2 of yours they're going to get a Jace, TMS out on an open field on that T4 thanks to that tempo boost. Or they're going to live long enough to Batterskull you to death. Or they're going to live long enough to dig for some sort of answer.
For this part, are you talking about legacy UW stoneblade or if Force was in standard? Whatever, I'll address both.
In legacy, forcing a turn one or turn two aggro creature is always horrible unless you know that it will set you back to an extreme level. You take damage like a champ and wait it out for a chance to regain ground and take back the field, aka tempo.
In standard, forcing a turn one aggro creature (a turn two creature is much better if they haven't dropped a turn one creature) is bad because you are now lacking resources to get board position and start gaining some sort of card advantage or pressure. Also, on the lines of Jace TMS, you've already wasted resources on a creature you now have to try even harder to protect Jace. Batterskull is completely different. This is a highly tempo card with the only set back is that it costs five (for the purpose of tempo). But, obviously, stoneforge gets around this and lets you 'vial' it in. Another example of tempo. Lifelink and vigilance (more importantly vigilance) helps you control the entire board behind a shield. Being able to drop this on turn three ideally is not affected by force in a huge way. Forcing their early creatures is irrelevant when considering this card.
I should've clarified; my examples of FoW being good were current standard examples; And i suppose I should've not dealt in absolutes there and said that FoW would be incredibly powerful in Standard right now and would more than likely cause widespread panic in the streets and have thousands of people whining about it after the first SCG Open/PTQ/GP etc.
When I looked at the Modern decklists, I noticed two things:
1) Lots of diversity. At first, this appeared to be awesome! There were 16 unique decks being played in the format, all of which have different play styles and strategies. It looks healthier than Legacy, with no deck repeating at all on either team!
This represents only a proposal and an experiment. Self-contained events like the Community Cup are a perfect way for us to get data about potential new formats; by running Modern at the Community Cup, we will be able to get some data about what the format looks like, and we will be able to judge what you, the public, think about it. For now, that is our only goal.
This is what Wizards wants us to think about Modern. The reality is far different. I am not saying that Wizards has initiated some massive conspiracy to push Modern as a format, but they have at the very least misrepresented Modern in the context of the Community Cup.
Under the unified deck construction rules, each team will be responsible for creating eight decks (including sideboards) for the Standard and Modern rounds, however, each team is limited to only four copies of each card legal in that format (except basic lands) for all eight decks. For example, if Team Wizards of the Coast uses two Batterskulls in its Caw-Blade deck, it would only have two Batterskulls to use in its Training Drone deck.
This rule NECESSARILY means that the format is diverse! There is simply no other way to fulfill the rule. All decks MUST be different, because no staples can overlap between decks. This is an extremely artificial environment in which to test a format, and Wizards has not been forthcoming about it.
The decklists from the Modern Community Cup are a contrived experiment that do not provide real and accurate data. They show a format that is diverse ONLY because Wizards designed it to be diverse in the first place. Most of the decks appear strictly worse than other decks (why would you want to play white weenie over a powerhouse like Hypergenesis?). This shows that this test is extremely flawed, and it should not be used to inform decisions about the diversity of the format.
Again, this does not mean that Wizards is intentionally pulling the wool over players' eyes. But it does mean that they cannot use this event as a test for how healthy the format will ultimately look. In fact, looking at the data, it is clear that certain decks consistently won (Hypergenesis, Elves, White Blue Mystic, etc.). Think of it this way. Do you really think that only two decks of 16 would have Stoneforge Mystic in a real modern tournament? The answer to that question should tell you what you should really think about this "Experiment".
Again, this does not mean that Wizards is intentionally pulling the wool over players' eyes. But it does mean that they cannot use this event as a test for how healthy the format will ultimately look. In fact, looking at the data, it is clear that certain decks consistently won (Hypergenesis, Elves, White Blue Mystic, etc.). Think of it this way. Do you really think that only two decks of 16 would have Stoneforge Mystic in a real modern tournament? The answer to that question should tell you what you should really think about this "Experiment".
-ktkenshinx-
They always use unified for the CC; standard will be weird too. That's just part-and-parcel with the way they run the CC. It's hardly new info or anything they didn't announce in detail...
There's just no way a 16man tourney will ever produce a representative realistic metagame to a totally untested format...
I'm a bit surprised if you feel like a 8-on-8 team tournament with no deckbuilding constraints would be a better way to test the format than using 'unified' constraints. My understanding is - this is a 'proof of concept' type test to generate interest and see if the format seems fun. The more valuable metagame data would come from actual events to follow.
What's interesting is that some of the decks with Magic-League success aren't even on this list. (esp 12-post eldrazi, Melira combo + fires). For reference, here's Magic-League's last modern 5-rounder: http://www.magic-league.com/tournament/info.php?id=71156&view=decks
Also, though I agree with it here, I think that unified might actually limit deck choices as much as it forces variety. Less-tried-and-true but still potentially strong decks which would use the same engines as other decks aren't being tried. I'm hoping they have some MTGO events to support it to give us a better idea of the real meta layout of the format.
Definitely surprising that no one went with Twelve-post, given the magic-league results.
Your complaints seem petty, ktkenshinx, given that we've actually had a LOT of experience with a very similar Extended format a little more than a year ago. It was Mirrodin through Zendikar blocks, and most of the same non-Thepths deck archetypes are possible. I know you prefer Overextended to Modern, but that's looking more and more like a battle you've already lost.
And yes, Mystic is looking like a very bannable card.
Definitely surprising that no one went with Twelve-post, given the magic-league results.
I think one of the reasons is that modern actually prevents decks from hating sufficiently on hypergenesis, making it the better place for a team to sink their Emrakuls and the various lands that twelvepost needs.
Like, only having one set of canonist and chalice per team and only 1-2 decks able to really run countermagic changes everything and greatly advantages combo. Funny how that works
Edit:
This is from the coverage:
"Yeah, we didn't make any new decks. I'm definitely sure there are new decks out there to discover. The cards in this format haven't been together without all of the older Legacy cards around them. Someone is going to find something. We didn't want to work on decks we didn't know incredibly well and be unsure how they stacked up, so we stuck with what we knew," LSV explained.
Makes sense. Tried-and-true decks only - you'd be as likely to see more as less variety in a real tourney
When I looked at the Modern decklists, I noticed two things:
1) Lots of diversity. At first, this appeared to be awesome! There were 16 unique decks being played in the format, all of which have different play styles and strategies. It looks healthier than Legacy, with no deck repeating at all on either team!
This is what Wizards wants us to think about Modern. The reality is far different. I am not saying that Wizards has initiated some massive conspiracy to push Modern as a format, but they have at the very least misrepresented Modern in the context of the Community Cup.
This rule NECESSARILY means that the format is diverse! There is simply no other way to fulfill the rule. All decks MUST be different, because no staples can overlap between decks. This is an extremely artificial environment in which to test a format, and Wizards has not been forthcoming about it.
The decklists from the Modern Community Cup are a contrived experiment that do not provide real and accurate data. They show a format that is diverse ONLY because Wizards designed it to be diverse in the first place. Most of the decks appear strictly worse than other decks (why would you want to play white weenie over a powerhouse like Hypergenesis?). This shows that this test is extremely flawed, and it should not be used to inform decisions about the diversity of the format.
Again, this does not mean that Wizards is intentionally pulling the wool over players' eyes. But it does mean that they cannot use this event as a test for how healthy the format will ultimately look. In fact, looking at the data, it is clear that certain decks consistently won (Hypergenesis, Elves, White Blue Mystic, etc.). Think of it this way. Do you really think that only two decks of 16 would have Stoneforge Mystic in a real modern tournament? The answer to that question should tell you what you should really think about this "Experiment".
-ktkenshinx-
stoneforge shouldn't see much play out of U/W, zoo decks, and perhaps boros. It's much weaker in a format with spell snare and vedilion clique though. The real thing you should of said is do you really think only four decks would have vendilion clique or that only 2 would have tarmogoyf in a real modern sanctioned event.
turn 2 stoneforge on the draw getting run over by turn 3 clique, that would make my day over and over again
the format is fine, why is everyone acting like it wouldn't be diverse. Last extended season we had hive mind, scapeshift, a wide variety of fae decks, teachings, zoo, boros, mono red, dark depths (i know banned) and thopter (i know also banned) all of which could easily win a given tournament. extended was a very healthy format without the crazy card costs of legacy to get into. New extended is dunce standard that got held back a couple of years
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I'm fairly sure if they took porn off the Internet, there'd only be one website left, and it'd be called 'Bring Back the Porn!'"
—Dr. Cox, Scrubs
the format is fine, why is everyone acting like it wouldn't be diverse. Last extended season we had hive mind, scapeshift, a wide variety of fae decks, teachings, zoo, boros, mono red, dark depths (i know banned) and thopter (i know also banned) all of which could easily win a given tournament. extended was a very healthy format without the crazy card costs of legacy to get into. New extended is dunce standard that got held back a couple of years
This tournament gives no evidence as to why it is diverse. They say that the community cup is a test of diversity for Modern, but then they design the decklists so that they have no choice but to be diverse. The players did not choose to play those 16 distinct decks. The rules demanded that they play 16 distinct decks. So it is completely silly to use the CC as evidence of Modern's health.
Despite this, I admit that Modern does have diversity. It basically has to, by virtue of having over 7 years of Magic history represented in it. But even if it does, it has strictly less diversity than does an Overextended with an earlier cutoff. There is not a single deck in Modern that is not also viable in a format with an earlier cutoff, but there are plenty of decks (Madness, Astral Slide, Scepter Chant, Goblins, etc.) that are not viable without that old cutoff. There is no reason to artificially and arbitrarily cut out decks from a new eternal format.
This tournament gives no evidence as to why it is diverse. They say that the community cup is a test of diversity for Modern, but then they design the decklists so that they have no choice but to be diverse. The players did not choose to play those 16 distinct decks. The rules demanded that they play 16 distinct decks. So it is completely silly to use the CC as evidence of Modern's health.
Despite this, I admit that Modern does have diversity. It basically has to, by virtue of having over 7 years of Magic history represented in it. But even if it does, it has strictly less diversity than does an Overextended with an earlier cutoff. There is not a single deck in Modern that is not also viable in a format with an earlier cutoff, but there are plenty of decks (Madness, Astral Slide, Scepter Chant, Goblins, etc.) that are not viable without that old cutoff. There is no reason to artificially and arbitrarily cut out decks from a new eternal format.
-ktkenshinx-
Personally I think the better cut-off would be Onslaught Block; but that's really just my 2 cents. But I'd be completely perfectly happy with whatever starting set they decide on as long as it makes more sense than "the modern frames start here! lol!"; I think it should come down to; "We want to build the format from THIS cardpool, as opposed to THAT cardpool and thusly! that's why we've come to the conclusion to start at X set!" seems way more rational to me.
But giving them the benefit of the doubt, they might have a little more foresight than me and think "We will bring the Decrees back in M14 as our featured mechanic, and the Allied Fetchies are coming out in Innistrad, so the functionality of starting at Onslaught just bloats the cardpool." Or you know, something like that. That they can't REALLY tell us; so they just give us some of the reasons that are icing on the cake?
Who knows?
P.S. I don't actually think they'll reprint the Decrees in M14 nor the Allied Fetchies in INN; that was just an example ^^
Personally I think the better cut-off would be Onslaught Block; but that's really just my 2 cents. But I'd be completely perfectly happy with whatever starting set they decide on as long as it makes more sense than "the modern frames start here! lol!"; I think it should come down to; "We want to build the format from THIS cardpool, as opposed to THAT cardpool and thusly! that's why we've come to the conclusion to start at X set!" seems way more rational to me.
But giving them the benefit of the doubt, they might have a little more foresight than me and think "We will bring the Decrees back in M14 as our featured mechanic, and the Allied Fetchies are coming out in Innistrad, so the functionality of starting at Onslaught just bloats the cardpool." Or you know, something like that. That they can't REALLY tell us; so they just give us some of the reasons that are icing on the cake?
Who knows?
P.S. I don't actually think they'll reprint the Decrees in M14 nor the Allied Fetchies in INN; that was just an example ^^
I actually think there was quite a bit of this element in their decision as well; they've just chosen "card frames are new" as their company line, because it's less risky than alienating storm or goblin lovers by saying something like "we think card pools for your favorite deck are too degenerate".
Tendrils or Desire Combo, for example, is one of those things that makes the life of designers harder because they have to consider a wide variety of cards which might have cool design elements as "will this break the storm deck?"; whereas most combo decks are much more specific in terms of what designers have to be cautioned to look out for.
That kind of thing. There's just so many more cards in the onslaught block (and prior ones) that have serious format-breaking/constraining potential than the other sets in consideration. It's possible mirrordin should have been scrapped, but it's got a lot of cool stuff as long as they're willing to ban enough cards to break ravager. That's how I always figured it anyhow.
Maybe it is just so simple as the card backing or w/e, but I think there's a lot more consideration behind that. (and yes, I also read the article, just saying I think they left part of their decisionmaking process unsaid)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Slingin' cardboard out of Yokohama, Japan. (if you're local and play EDH or want to test competitive, drop me a line!)
Onslaught being gone is a blessing in disguise. As much as I love Stifle, I'm more than willing to not have to deal with the rest of the Scourge set. The Onslaught fetches will be reprinted someday, so its not like they're gone forever.
Onslaught being gone is a blessing in disguise. As much as I love Stifle, I'm more than willing to not have to deal with the rest of the Scourge set. The Onslaught fetches will be reprinted someday, so its not like they're gone forever.
What's so bad about Scourge?
If you're worried about Mind's Desire, it could easily be banned.
None of these cards are format warping with the proper bans. Warchief, as part of goblins, is only a serious problem in tandem with Vial (in Modern) and Lackey/Wasteland (in other formats). Vial is a problem on its own, and so it would be banned as part of a larger plan to contain aggro. At that point, Warchief just enables a specific aggro deck.
Decree is not broken now, nor has it ever been "broken" in any conventional sense.
As to the Storm cards, without Dark Ritual, Lotus Petal, Lion's Eye Diamond, and Chrome Mox (banned) to back up Tendrils, the rest of them are not too scary. Dragonstorm itself appears in Time Spiral, so that is a totally moot point.
Overall, the older sets have way, way more to offer than they do to cause problems. I urge all of you to take a look at the Overextended MTGO events for a showcase of real Eternal Format diversity. I acknowledge that its MTGO, and that MTGO is not necessarily representative of a paper metagame, but it is an excellent experiment in real diversity.
June 14 Event: http://mtgoverextended.com/?p=552
June 7 Event: http://mtgoverextended.com/?p=422
May 31 Event: http://mtgoverextended.com/?p=294
That's cool, it's like Extended is back. When Extended was killed, I quit competitive Magic. I don't think this will get me back in, but still, it'll be nice for those players who are still active. Casual for me
It doesn't matter if an earlier cutoff would give more decks to the format. This is an eternal format that grows every year. That means, every year new decks are coming in. It doesn't matter if a few decks are out of the format because new ones are coming in with every new set.
all those arguing that "more sets equals better" are sort of missing the point.
i mean, where do you draw the line? what if the set before onslaught or masques has "a lot to offer"... why not include that one as well?
the further back you go, the more the format becomes like a smaller legacy. with Modern, it feels like a good middle ground and has room to expand and develop through the new sets rather than relying on decks from the oldest parts of the format. that's a healthy format. wouldn't you agree?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: G Tron, Vannifar, Jund, Druid/Vizier combo, Humans, Eldrazi Stompy (Serum Powder), Amulet, Grishoalbrand, Breach Titan, Turns, Eternal Command, As Foretold Living End, Elves, Cheerios, RUG Scapeshift
You draw the line at Masques because it's the first set that the Reserve List doesn't apply to. The problem with Legacy is that the demand for many of the format staples is destined to outpace supply because they can never be reprinted. All of the cards in a format starting with Masques can be reprinted, which deals with the Reserve List problem while allowing the maximum number of cards.
You draw the line at Masques because it's the first set that the Reserve List doesn't apply to. The problem with Legacy is that the demand for many of the format staples is destined to outpace supply because they can never be reprinted. All of the cards in a format starting with Masques can be reprinted, which deals with the Reserve List problem while allowing the maximum number of cards.
You know, the core set paired with MM was 6th. Do you allow 6th, like you logically should, since it doesn't have the reserved list and came out about the same time? Or do you arbitrarily choose 7th as the first core set, since 6th has a bunch of format warpers that, when removed, leave the set as offering not much at all (Armageddon, Winter Orb, Perish, Mystical, Enlightened and Vampiric Tutor, etc.)? I don't understand why people want MM, when neither MM or 6th offers 'fair' strategies to the format.
#1 card people want from masques is probably brainstorm, that broken ancestral recall with fetches. Then #2 is probably dark ritual.
I personally think given the inclusion of Masques the format would get a 'Legacy-lite' feel to it. Which would be rather annoying and wouldn't get any attention from Legacy players.
It doesn't matter if an earlier cutoff would give more decks to the format. This is an eternal format that grows every year. That means, every year new decks are coming in. It doesn't matter if a few decks are out of the format because new ones are coming in with every new set.
But the format is going to be healthier from the start if it includes earlier cards. This will increase general diversity, make more decks viable, and attract more players from both Legacy and from older Magic eras who want to get back into the game. The cards will also continue to interact with later printings to make better and more exciting decks.
More importantly, there is just no historical reason to exclude Masques/Invasion/Odyssey/Onslaught. These sets have awesome staples that are not broken but do provide a format with a lot of exciting cards and strategies that cannot exist without them.
all those arguing that "more sets equals better" are sort of missing the point.
i mean, where do you draw the line? what if the set before onslaught or masques has "a lot to offer"... why not include that one as well?
the further back you go, the more the format becomes like a smaller legacy. with Modern, it feels like a good middle ground and has room to expand and develop through the new sets rather than relying on decks from the oldest parts of the format. that's a healthy format. wouldn't you agree?
As another poster wrote, the cutoff goes to Masques because it is historically significant and will withstand the test of time. In 5 years, people are going to wonder why the 4 blocks from 1999-2003 were not included, given that they are good sets with awesome cards, and they fall after the Reserve List.
Starting at the end of the Reserve List is a symbolic victory for those who fought against the Reserve List, and it is a historically significant moment that can justify our format forever. It is something to get excited about.
As to the format looking like Legacy lite, this is simply not true. I encourage you to check out the decks from the Overextended events on MTGO. The vast, vast majority of them are non-Legacy decks. Even with the addition of Masques, this would probably not change.
Scepter Chant, Combo Elves, Scapeshift Valakut, Astral Slide, Enduring Ideal, Living End, Twelvepost, Soul Sisters, UB Tron, Zombies, Madness, All In Red, Second Sunrise, Battle of Wits, etc. These are decks that are completely obsolete in Legacy, but they are ones that thrive in Overextended. The format is incredibly diverse and different, and this is a testament to the "earlier cutoff = more diversity" philosophy. Adding one set would not change that (Overextended has an Invasion cutoff currently because MM is not available on MTGO). It would only increase the diversity.
#1 card people want from masques is probably brainstorm, that broken ancestral recall with fetches. Then #2 is probably dark ritual.
Dark Ritual gets banned. This card is broken, unfair, and powers too many combo decks. Adding one more card to the banlist from MM is not going to make it too cumbersome or unattractive, and everyone can get behind a Dark Ritual ban.
As to Brainstorm, you can either keep it or ban it. Testing would have to determine what the right move is.
Masques has so many other awesome staples to offer that even the problem of Brainstorm would be worth it. Tangle Wire, Dust Bowl, rebels, Unmask, Land Grant, Misdirection, Saproling Burst, Parallax Wave, Parallax Tide, Rising Water, Blastoderm, Flame Rift, Accumulated Knowledge, etc. These are awesome cards that add a lot to a metagame, and having them around will help out a lot.
Overall, a Masques cutoff is more historically significant and better justifies the format and its importance. It also gives more cards, more decks, and more diversity.
-ktkenshinx-
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Saying that Legacy games aren't won with Card Advantage seems like a naive notion to me. Do you play Legacy?
I'd also like to point out that FoW never started out as a staple; because on paper 2 for 1'ing yourself is always bad, yes? But, people started using it; in a standard environment that favoured CA, because the Tempo advantage was absolutely insane; In a control vs. control match I'd gladly 2-for-1 myself it it meant coming out on top in a counter-war.
And Dismembering a Fauna Shaman on T2 as U/W Caw is also essentially a 2-for-1 on yourself; You just Flame Javelin 'ed yourself to kill a creature? Did you not? But hey, that tempo-boost was more than likely quite worth it.
And to whoever said they'd be glad if control counter your T1 and T3 plays as aggro; that's funny because even if they spent 4 cards dealing with 2 of yours they're going to get a Jace, TMS out on an open field on that T4 thanks to that tempo boost. Or they're going to live long enough to Batterskull you to death. Or they're going to live long enough to dig for some sort of answer.
Force of Will is an incredibly powerful card in any format right now. And will always be. Trying to refute that is asinine.
Sig courtesy of DOLZero
[82/360] Custom Cube
Blog about the Custom Cube
If.. and I repeat.. .IF you can get away with a Spell Pierce or Daze, not only will you be up on the counter war, but you'll also lose zero card advantage WHILE gaining tempo.
It's just a matter of whether you can afford to risk cards like spell pierce and daze or not.
I do play legacy and I've played enough games to know that tempo is everything in that format. Card advantage is amazing, as it is in every format, but legacy is about getting the opponent to play around you. Take a look at Team America. It has card advantage through Sylvan Library and Jace TMS (in some lists). And while it does gain some card advantage, it wins by controlling the field with counters, removal, and getting the opponent to play at their own pace. Tempo is rarely used in standard and is only seen in the form of control decks. And even then, card advantage is what wins the games.
Force of Will became a staple through the large amounts of combo decks in legacy. This is a necessity because you need an out to their combo and Force is one of the few things that can stop it without requiring mana. As for standard, Force was played in fair amounts. The main target for this was to stop the Hypnotic Specter/Dark Ritual combo that was ruining the format. And what counter war are you talking about when Alliance was legal in standard?
Dismember is not card disadvantage like Force is. Life is a resource that doesn't set your hand back. Therefore Dismember is not a 2 for 1 at all. This has been seeing play in legacy because it's almost free and doesn't affect your own tempo.
For this part, are you talking about legacy UW stoneblade or if Force was in standard? Whatever, I'll address both.
In legacy, forcing a turn one or turn two aggro creature is always horrible unless you know that it will set you back to an extreme level. You take damage like a champ and wait it out for a chance to regain ground and take back the field, aka tempo.
In standard, forcing a turn one aggro creature (a turn two creature is much better if they haven't dropped a turn one creature) is bad because you are now lacking resources to get board position and start gaining some sort of card advantage or pressure. Also, on the lines of Jace TMS, you've already wasted resources on a creature you now have to try even harder to protect Jace. Batterskull is completely different. This is a highly tempo card with the only set back is that it costs five (for the purpose of tempo). But, obviously, stoneforge gets around this and lets you 'vial' it in. Another example of tempo. Lifelink and vigilance (more importantly vigilance) helps you control the entire board behind a shield. Being able to drop this on turn three ideally is not affected by force in a huge way. Forcing their early creatures is irrelevant when considering this card.
Incorrect. There will always be a format, whatever it may be, where a certain card is bad.
Sig courtesy of DOLZero
[82/360] Custom Cube
Blog about the Custom Cube
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/eventcoverage/mtgoccup11/welcome#1
When I looked at the Modern decklists, I noticed two things:
1) Lots of diversity. At first, this appeared to be awesome! There were 16 unique decks being played in the format, all of which have different play styles and strategies. It looks healthier than Legacy, with no deck repeating at all on either team!
2) But these decklists are outrageously misleading. The purpose of the Moder community cup was as follows , according to Tom LaPille's DailyMTG article (source: http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/144)
This is what Wizards wants us to think about Modern. The reality is far different. I am not saying that Wizards has initiated some massive conspiracy to push Modern as a format, but they have at the very least misrepresented Modern in the context of the Community Cup.
Here is a quote from the rules of the community cup (source: http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/other/05192011d)
This rule NECESSARILY means that the format is diverse! There is simply no other way to fulfill the rule. All decks MUST be different, because no staples can overlap between decks. This is an extremely artificial environment in which to test a format, and Wizards has not been forthcoming about it.
The decklists from the Modern Community Cup are a contrived experiment that do not provide real and accurate data. They show a format that is diverse ONLY because Wizards designed it to be diverse in the first place. Most of the decks appear strictly worse than other decks (why would you want to play white weenie over a powerhouse like Hypergenesis?). This shows that this test is extremely flawed, and it should not be used to inform decisions about the diversity of the format.
Again, this does not mean that Wizards is intentionally pulling the wool over players' eyes. But it does mean that they cannot use this event as a test for how healthy the format will ultimately look. In fact, looking at the data, it is clear that certain decks consistently won (Hypergenesis, Elves, White Blue Mystic, etc.). Think of it this way. Do you really think that only two decks of 16 would have Stoneforge Mystic in a real modern tournament? The answer to that question should tell you what you should really think about this "Experiment".
-ktkenshinx-
They always use unified for the CC; standard will be weird too. That's just part-and-parcel with the way they run the CC. It's hardly new info or anything they didn't announce in detail...
There's just no way a 16man tourney will ever produce a representative realistic metagame to a totally untested format...
I'm a bit surprised if you feel like a 8-on-8 team tournament with no deckbuilding constraints would be a better way to test the format than using 'unified' constraints. My understanding is - this is a 'proof of concept' type test to generate interest and see if the format seems fun. The more valuable metagame data would come from actual events to follow.
What's interesting is that some of the decks with Magic-League success aren't even on this list. (esp 12-post eldrazi, Melira combo + fires). For reference, here's Magic-League's last modern 5-rounder: http://www.magic-league.com/tournament/info.php?id=71156&view=decks
Also, though I agree with it here, I think that unified might actually limit deck choices as much as it forces variety. Less-tried-and-true but still potentially strong decks which would use the same engines as other decks aren't being tried. I'm hoping they have some MTGO events to support it to give us a better idea of the real meta layout of the format.
Your complaints seem petty, ktkenshinx, given that we've actually had a LOT of experience with a very similar Extended format a little more than a year ago. It was Mirrodin through Zendikar blocks, and most of the same non-Thepths deck archetypes are possible. I know you prefer Overextended to Modern, but that's looking more and more like a battle you've already lost.
And yes, Mystic is looking like a very bannable card.
Current post- Grand Prix KC Modern Postmortem (7/7/13)
I think one of the reasons is that modern actually prevents decks from hating sufficiently on hypergenesis, making it the better place for a team to sink their Emrakuls and the various lands that twelvepost needs.
Like, only having one set of canonist and chalice per team and only 1-2 decks able to really run countermagic changes everything and greatly advantages combo. Funny how that works
Edit:
This is from the coverage:
Makes sense. Tried-and-true decks only - you'd be as likely to see more as less variety in a real tourney
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/eventcoverage/mtgoccup11/welcome#3 is the coverage.
stoneforge shouldn't see much play out of U/W, zoo decks, and perhaps boros. It's much weaker in a format with spell snare and vedilion clique though. The real thing you should of said is do you really think only four decks would have vendilion clique or that only 2 would have tarmogoyf in a real modern sanctioned event.
turn 2 stoneforge on the draw getting run over by turn 3 clique, that would make my day over and over again
the format is fine, why is everyone acting like it wouldn't be diverse. Last extended season we had hive mind, scapeshift, a wide variety of fae decks, teachings, zoo, boros, mono red, dark depths (i know banned) and thopter (i know also banned) all of which could easily win a given tournament. extended was a very healthy format without the crazy card costs of legacy to get into. New extended is dunce standard that got held back a couple of years
—Dr. Cox, Scrubs
This tournament gives no evidence as to why it is diverse. They say that the community cup is a test of diversity for Modern, but then they design the decklists so that they have no choice but to be diverse. The players did not choose to play those 16 distinct decks. The rules demanded that they play 16 distinct decks. So it is completely silly to use the CC as evidence of Modern's health.
Despite this, I admit that Modern does have diversity. It basically has to, by virtue of having over 7 years of Magic history represented in it. But even if it does, it has strictly less diversity than does an Overextended with an earlier cutoff. There is not a single deck in Modern that is not also viable in a format with an earlier cutoff, but there are plenty of decks (Madness, Astral Slide, Scepter Chant, Goblins, etc.) that are not viable without that old cutoff. There is no reason to artificially and arbitrarily cut out decks from a new eternal format.
-ktkenshinx-
Personally I think the better cut-off would be Onslaught Block; but that's really just my 2 cents. But I'd be completely perfectly happy with whatever starting set they decide on as long as it makes more sense than "the modern frames start here! lol!"; I think it should come down to; "We want to build the format from THIS cardpool, as opposed to THAT cardpool and thusly! that's why we've come to the conclusion to start at X set!" seems way more rational to me.
But giving them the benefit of the doubt, they might have a little more foresight than me and think "We will bring the Decrees back in M14 as our featured mechanic, and the Allied Fetchies are coming out in Innistrad, so the functionality of starting at Onslaught just bloats the cardpool." Or you know, something like that. That they can't REALLY tell us; so they just give us some of the reasons that are icing on the cake?
Who knows?
P.S. I don't actually think they'll reprint the Decrees in M14 nor the Allied Fetchies in INN; that was just an example ^^
Sig courtesy of DOLZero
[82/360] Custom Cube
Blog about the Custom Cube
I actually think there was quite a bit of this element in their decision as well; they've just chosen "card frames are new" as their company line, because it's less risky than alienating storm or goblin lovers by saying something like "we think card pools for your favorite deck are too degenerate".
Tendrils or Desire Combo, for example, is one of those things that makes the life of designers harder because they have to consider a wide variety of cards which might have cool design elements as "will this break the storm deck?"; whereas most combo decks are much more specific in terms of what designers have to be cautioned to look out for.
That kind of thing. There's just so many more cards in the onslaught block (and prior ones) that have serious format-breaking/constraining potential than the other sets in consideration. It's possible mirrordin should have been scrapped, but it's got a lot of cool stuff as long as they're willing to ban enough cards to break ravager. That's how I always figured it anyhow.
Maybe it is just so simple as the card backing or w/e, but I think there's a lot more consideration behind that. (and yes, I also read the article, just saying I think they left part of their decisionmaking process unsaid)
Current post- Grand Prix KC Modern Postmortem (7/7/13)
What's so bad about Scourge?
If you're worried about Mind's Desire, it could easily be banned.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
Warchief, Decree of Justice, and the Storm cards.
Current post- Grand Prix KC Modern Postmortem (7/7/13)
None of these cards are format warping with the proper bans. Warchief, as part of goblins, is only a serious problem in tandem with Vial (in Modern) and Lackey/Wasteland (in other formats). Vial is a problem on its own, and so it would be banned as part of a larger plan to contain aggro. At that point, Warchief just enables a specific aggro deck.
Decree is not broken now, nor has it ever been "broken" in any conventional sense.
As to the Storm cards, without Dark Ritual, Lotus Petal, Lion's Eye Diamond, and Chrome Mox (banned) to back up Tendrils, the rest of them are not too scary. Dragonstorm itself appears in Time Spiral, so that is a totally moot point.
Overall, the older sets have way, way more to offer than they do to cause problems. I urge all of you to take a look at the Overextended MTGO events for a showcase of real Eternal Format diversity. I acknowledge that its MTGO, and that MTGO is not necessarily representative of a paper metagame, but it is an excellent experiment in real diversity.
June 14 Event: http://mtgoverextended.com/?p=552
June 7 Event: http://mtgoverextended.com/?p=422
May 31 Event: http://mtgoverextended.com/?p=294
-ktkenshinx-
.
i mean, where do you draw the line? what if the set before onslaught or masques has "a lot to offer"... why not include that one as well?
the further back you go, the more the format becomes like a smaller legacy. with Modern, it feels like a good middle ground and has room to expand and develop through the new sets rather than relying on decks from the oldest parts of the format. that's a healthy format. wouldn't you agree?
http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/1959
You know, the core set paired with MM was 6th. Do you allow 6th, like you logically should, since it doesn't have the reserved list and came out about the same time? Or do you arbitrarily choose 7th as the first core set, since 6th has a bunch of format warpers that, when removed, leave the set as offering not much at all (Armageddon, Winter Orb, Perish, Mystical, Enlightened and Vampiric Tutor, etc.)? I don't understand why people want MM, when neither MM or 6th offers 'fair' strategies to the format.
I personally think given the inclusion of Masques the format would get a 'Legacy-lite' feel to it. Which would be rather annoying and wouldn't get any attention from Legacy players.
Sig courtesy of DOLZero
[82/360] Custom Cube
Blog about the Custom Cube
But the format is going to be healthier from the start if it includes earlier cards. This will increase general diversity, make more decks viable, and attract more players from both Legacy and from older Magic eras who want to get back into the game. The cards will also continue to interact with later printings to make better and more exciting decks.
More importantly, there is just no historical reason to exclude Masques/Invasion/Odyssey/Onslaught. These sets have awesome staples that are not broken but do provide a format with a lot of exciting cards and strategies that cannot exist without them.
As another poster wrote, the cutoff goes to Masques because it is historically significant and will withstand the test of time. In 5 years, people are going to wonder why the 4 blocks from 1999-2003 were not included, given that they are good sets with awesome cards, and they fall after the Reserve List.
Starting at the end of the Reserve List is a symbolic victory for those who fought against the Reserve List, and it is a historically significant moment that can justify our format forever. It is something to get excited about.
As to the format looking like Legacy lite, this is simply not true. I encourage you to check out the decks from the Overextended events on MTGO. The vast, vast majority of them are non-Legacy decks. Even with the addition of Masques, this would probably not change.
Decks: http://mtgoverextended.com/?p=552
http://mtgoverextended.com/?p=422
http://mtgoverextended.com/?p=294
Scepter Chant, Combo Elves, Scapeshift Valakut, Astral Slide, Enduring Ideal, Living End, Twelvepost, Soul Sisters, UB Tron, Zombies, Madness, All In Red, Second Sunrise, Battle of Wits, etc. These are decks that are completely obsolete in Legacy, but they are ones that thrive in Overextended. The format is incredibly diverse and different, and this is a testament to the "earlier cutoff = more diversity" philosophy. Adding one set would not change that (Overextended has an Invasion cutoff currently because MM is not available on MTGO). It would only increase the diversity.
Dark Ritual gets banned. This card is broken, unfair, and powers too many combo decks. Adding one more card to the banlist from MM is not going to make it too cumbersome or unattractive, and everyone can get behind a Dark Ritual ban.
As to Brainstorm, you can either keep it or ban it. Testing would have to determine what the right move is.
Masques has so many other awesome staples to offer that even the problem of Brainstorm would be worth it. Tangle Wire, Dust Bowl, rebels, Unmask, Land Grant, Misdirection, Saproling Burst, Parallax Wave, Parallax Tide, Rising Water, Blastoderm, Flame Rift, Accumulated Knowledge, etc. These are awesome cards that add a lot to a metagame, and having them around will help out a lot.
Overall, a Masques cutoff is more historically significant and better justifies the format and its importance. It also gives more cards, more decks, and more diversity.
-ktkenshinx-