You keep using percentages, how many events is 62%? 4? 10? 100? From the list above there is 1 line that has a zero next to it. Also, what time line are we looking at in your number? a month? 3 months? 6 months? formats inception?
Represented should be fine. But some want more. Another problem with the player base.
you can't read can you?
Number of events with 0 control decks in T8/T16: 7 (24%) : means 7 events had 0 control decks
Number of events with 1 control deck in T8/T16: 11 (38%) : means 11 events had 1
Number of events with 2 control decks in T8/T16: 10 (34%) : means 10 events had 2
Number of events with 3 control decks in T8/T16: 1 : means 1 events had 3
Number of events with 4 control decks in T8/T16: 0 : means 0 event had 4
Number of events with 5 control decks in T8/T16: 1 (3%) : means 1 event had 5
so i' m not sure what you even means. Is it a good thing that 0 event had exactly 4 control decks Top16ing?
I really don't think Fabiano's deck was control though but maybe that's just me. 4 copies of Serum Visions, 4 Inquisitions, only 5 counter spells, 24 lands and 11 creatures seems more midrange or tempo-like if anything. It definitely is a fun, innovative deck though.
I built that deck and have been running it for about a week. Feels very much like control to me.
I pick the hand apart, counter spells, kill stuff, close with Goyf or Tas. In other words, I control the game. It feels just as much control as when I play UWR.
A deck doesn't just need to be only counters and boardwipes to be considered control, but that is what many people on this forum think.
For a deck people keep harping on as proof of control being totally playable and in the metagame how come it has failed to make a dent anywhere since?
Counterspells, bounce, card drawing are the staples of the color and those qualities only really fit control.
So UR Delver was a Control deck then? Because it ran all three of them.
Counterspells are nothing Control exclusive. Tempo, Midrange, Control and Combo all can and make use of them.
Bounce is actually pretty bad in Control.
You: "I bounce your Tarmogoyf"
Opponent: "I play it again."
You: "Yeah, whatever."
And every deck would use card drawing if it could *cough* Treasure Cruise *cough*
Combo decks would draw more pieces.
Aggro decks would draw more threats and burn.
Control decks would draw more answers.
And Tempo and Midrange would both draw more answers and threats.
card advantage and counters to set the pace of the game seems to only fit into a control kind of archetype and nothing else.
And yet Twin is one of the formats best decks and it's as blue as it can get. In fact it runs many of the best blue cards. Snapcaster Mage, Remand, Cryptic Command just to name a few.
Also UR Delver was the dominant Blue deck before it.
I really don't think Fabiano's deck was control though but maybe that's just me. 4 copies of Serum Visions, 4 Inquisitions, only 5 counter spells, 24 lands and 11 creatures seems more midrange or tempo-like if anything. It definitely is a fun, innovative deck though.
I built that deck and have been running it for about a week. Feels very much like control to me.
I pick the hand apart, counter spells, kill stuff, close with Goyf or Tas. In other words, I control the game. It feels just as much control as when I play UWR.
A deck doesn't just need to be only counters and boardwipes to be considered control, but that is what many people on this forum think.
Didn't you get the memo?
If you run any creatures that are not named Snapcaster Mage or have flash then you are not playing Control.
It's like people forget that creatures can not only attack but can also block opposing creatures. I guess the creature needs to be an actual wall with Defender for people to remember that.
Counterspells, bounce, card drawing are the staples of the color and those qualities only really fit control.
So UR Delver was a Control deck then? Because it ran all three of them.
Counterspells are nothing Control exclusive. Tempo, Midrange, Control and Combo all can and make use of them.
The whole point of mid-range is that you trade one for one until the game becomes a topdeck war, and with midrange's "goodstuff" deck construction philosophy, it will have generally better topdecks than the opponent. Counterspells are pretty awful for that kind of strategy.
Delver died a horrible death once Cruise got banned, lame/bad attempts at reviving it (Grixis Delver, etc.) not withstanding. Snapcaster Mage at its best is merely okay, and its considered one of the best blue creatures of all time, so what does that tell you? Snapcaster's usage has gotten a lot worse in modern as time has gone on and I wouldn't be surprised if he disappears from the format entirely. There's so much better when it comes to 2 drops (like Goyf, Bob, Ooze, etc. they're just flatout superior) than Snapcaster. I'm partially convinced that Snapcaster is just bad in this current aggressive metagame.
Geist forces you into a thoroughly mediocre Blue/White shell, and relies on an empty board so that it doesn't get killed off. I mean, even mediocre 2/1s will knock him off.
card advantage and counters to set the pace of the game seems to only fit into a control kind of archetype and nothing else.
And yet Twin is one of the formats best decks and it's as blue as it can get. In fact is runs many of the best blue cards. Snapcaster Mage, Remand, Cryptic Command just to name a few.
Also UR Delver was the dominant Blue deck before it.
Unless you agree of course that Twin is a control deck...[/quote]
I consider Twin to be tempo. I feel like if freaking Remand is one of your best cards, then you're pretty bad as a color (I understand why Twin runs it, but Twin also runs a lot of really suboptimal cards like Exarch and Pestermite that are bad in a vacuum for the sake of the combo as opposed to the goodstuff mentality of Junk where it runs no bad cards at all). The cards Twin uses aren't good at all, its success comes from the fact that it has to the combo to threaten opponents to make very suboptimal moves.
I really don't think Fabiano's deck was control though but maybe that's just me. 4 copies of Serum Visions, 4 Inquisitions, only 5 counter spells, 24 lands and 11 creatures seems more midrange or tempo-like if anything. It definitely is a fun, innovative deck though.
I built that deck and have been running it for about a week. Feels very much like control to me.
I pick the hand apart, counter spells, kill stuff, close with Goyf or Tas. In other words, I control the game. It feels just as much control as when I play UWR.
A deck doesn't just need to be only counters and boardwipes to be considered control, but that is what many people on this forum think.
Didn't you get the memo?
If you run any creatures that are not named Snapcaster Mage or have flash then you are not playing Control.
It's like people forget that creatures can not only attack but can also block opposing creatures. I guess the creature needs to be an actual wall with Defender for people to remember that.[/quote]
No, control decks definitely can run creatures, but the main point of a control deck is to be defensive and above all - play defense. They're not offensively orientated decks, which is why they're very bad in this metagame and ultimately not viable. Fabiano's deck seeks to attack the other player with targeted discard, and uses Goyf/Tasigur/Thragtusk/etc. to put pressure on them. That's what a midrange deck does.
I don't even think a control deck needs counterspells, a mono white prison deck would be control to me because it seeks to play defensively by preventing the other play by doing anything. But it does need to play defense. Midrange decks do not play this way.
Snapcaster mage is "merely ok [...] at its best". Then you mention that ooze, goyf and bob are all "flatout superior".
Controversial statements, to say the least.
I think most would agree that you can argue Tarmo is better, but scooze and bob are certainly not better, likely not on par and maybe significantly worse.
I think you are wrong in all aspects of your analysis - from your narrow definition of control, to your condemnation of one of the most popular cards in the format being "merely ok [..] at its best".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
If you show up at a tournament, and you aren't there to win, you shouldn't be there at all. Pack up and go home since you don't belong at a tournament, as far as I'm concerned.
Nope. I play this game at every level for the enjoyment of the game. My goal is to prize. Anything more is just bonus. Too many pissed off, cry baby losers that make excuses when they come away from events. If I wanted to be mad after hours of an event, I know of other cheaper things I could be doing.
Quote from guineapirate »
you can't read can you?
Number of events with 0 control decks in T8/T16: 7 (24%) : means 7 events had 0 control decks
Number of events with 1 control deck in T8/T16: 11 (38%) : means 11 events had 1
Number of events with 2 control decks in T8/T16: 10 (34%) : means 10 events had 2
Number of events with 3 control decks in T8/T16: 1 : means 1 events had 3
Number of events with 4 control decks in T8/T16: 0 : means 0 event had 4
Number of events with 5 control decks in T8/T16: 1 (3%) : means 1 event had 5
so i' m not sure what you even means. Is it a good thing that 0 event had exactly 4 control decks Top16ing?
Again, throwing up percentages without some type of context means zero. We dont have a time frame, the number of total events, just percentages.
As I have said, the more the format has to settle and be 'solved', the more control we seem to be seeing. We saw almost zero control after the announcement of Pod, TC, and DTT being banned. Since BUG took down the GP, people have seen control is playable again and we have been seeing multiple builds at multiple events.
No, control decks definitely can run creatures, but the main point of a control deck is to be defensive and above all - play defense. They're not offensively orientated decks, which is why they're very bad in this metagame and ultimately not viable. Fabiano's deck seeks to attack the other player with targeted discard, and uses Goyf/Tasigur/Thragtusk/etc. to put pressure on them. That's what a midrange deck does.
Right, but targeted discard is defensive. It's spending a card to remove a threat that might disrupt you. Every control deck also has a finisher of some sort, whether its Celestial Colonnade or Vendilion Clique or what have you. Using Goyf or Tasigur as a finisher over Colonnade or Clique has no differences besides your finishers being slightly more efficient. In a lot of his games, he basically just popped one of them onto the table and then protected it with counters and discard, which is a textbook control move.
The whole point of mid-range is that you trade one for one until the game becomes a topdeck war, and with midrange's "goodstuff" deck construction philosophy, it will have generally better topdecks than the opponent. Counterspells are pretty awful for that kind of strategy.
So you have no idea what the Midrange archetype is about. That's OK I will tell you.
You know who is favored in an aggro mirror? The deck that is able to become bigger and more controlling after sideboarding.
"You play a bunch of Jackal Pups? Cool, I play a bunch of Lightning Bolts and Boros Reckoners. GG, bro."
At some point in time nifty people thought "Why not just remove all the small, dorky creatures entirely and play more removal, disruption and maybe even some board wipes in the main instead of just sideboarding into that configuration?"
Bam! The Midrange archetype was born. Of course a few things changed since then but the overall idea is still the same.
No Midrange deck would play a creature like Firedrinker Satyr. Courser of Kruphix or Sylvan Caryatid are interesting though since that is exactly the type of creatures that Midrange wants. Creatures that are a huge pain for aggro decks and often require additional card investment from the aggro player before getting buried by the superior firepower of the Midrange decks.
The stuff that you are saying has nothing to do with the Midrange archetype. You are just describing a characteristic of Jund and Abzan.
Go take a look at UWR Midrange and talk with players playing the deck. Ask them if they really want to end up in a topdeck war with anybody. The answer will be no. In fact that is one of the reasons why it has trouble against Abzan.
Snapcaster mage is "merely ok [...] at its best". Then you mention that ooze, goyf and bob are all "flatout superior".
Controversial statements, to say the least.
I think most would agree that you can argue Tarmo is better, but scooze and bob are certainly not better, likely not on par and maybe significantly worse.
I think you are wrong in all aspects of your analysis - from your narrow definition of control, to your condemnation of one of the most popular cards in the format being "merely ok [..] at its best".
No, control decks definitely can run creatures, but the main point of a control deck is to be defensive and above all - play defense. They're not offensively orientated decks, which is why they're very bad in this metagame and ultimately not viable. Fabiano's deck seeks to attack the other player with targeted discard, and uses Goyf/Tasigur/Thragtusk/etc. to put pressure on them. That's what a midrange deck does.
Or these creatures are used to stabilize.
You know Tarmogoyf is a great blocker and general roadblock. Tasigur, the Golden Fang is the same plus he fills up your hand at end of turn. How nifty.
Oh yeah and Thragtusk is a 5/3 that will always leave a 3/3 behind. Especially nice after blocking and killing a creature already. He also has this funny little ETB effect that reads "You gain 5 life". Clearly that is meant to only pressure the opponent. I mean the player who gets to the highest life total wins or did I get something wrong here?
Using the 'Who's the beatdown?' philosophy, I think that control is something that tries to not being the beatdown most of the time. Obv, in the Gifts vs WUR matchup somebody has to be the beatdown It's not in the cards, it's in the very name of the archetype: you want to control the game.
I believe WoTC's new policy is to make sure that every color can enjoy the exciting gameplay mechanic of making undercosted dudes and then turning them sideways. Clearly the future of magic.
Quote from "Kakaroto" »
Quote from "Disco Stu" »
Podríamos hacer un topic donde marquemos los peores horrores de ortografía.
You keep using percentages, how many events is 62%? 4? 10? 100? From the list above there is 1 line that has a zero next to it. Also, what time line are we looking at in your number? a month? 3 months? 6 months? formats inception?
Represented should be fine. But some want more. Another problem with the player base.
you can't read can you?
Number of events with 0 control decks in T8/T16: 7 (24%) : means 7 events had 0 control decks
Number of events with 1 control deck in T8/T16: 11 (38%) : means 11 events had 1
Number of events with 2 control decks in T8/T16: 10 (34%) : means 10 events had 2
Number of events with 3 control decks in T8/T16: 1 : means 1 events had 3
Number of events with 4 control decks in T8/T16: 0 : means 0 event had 4
Number of events with 5 control decks in T8/T16: 1 (3%) : means 1 event had 5
so i' m not sure what you even means. Is it a good thing that 0 event had exactly 4 control decks Top16ing?
This just goes to show that he really is just trolling at this point.
If you show up at a tournament, and you aren't there to win, you shouldn't be there at all. Pack up and go home since you don't belong at a tournament, as far as I'm concerned.
Nope. I play this game at every level for the enjoyment of the game. My goal is to prize. Anything more is just bonus. Too many pissed off, cry baby losers that make excuses when they come away from events. If I wanted to be mad after hours of an event, I know of other cheaper things I could be doing.
Quote from guineapirate »
you can't read can you?
Number of events with 0 control decks in T8/T16: 7 (24%) : means 7 events had 0 control decks
Number of events with 1 control deck in T8/T16: 11 (38%) : means 11 events had 1
Number of events with 2 control decks in T8/T16: 10 (34%) : means 10 events had 2
Number of events with 3 control decks in T8/T16: 1 : means 1 events had 3
Number of events with 4 control decks in T8/T16: 0 : means 0 event had 4
Number of events with 5 control decks in T8/T16: 1 (3%) : means 1 event had 5
so i' m not sure what you even means. Is it a good thing that 0 event had exactly 4 control decks Top16ing?
Again, throwing up percentages without some type of context means zero. We dont have a time frame, the number of total events, just percentages.
As I have said, the more the format has to settle and be 'solved', the more control we seem to be seeing. We saw almost zero control after the announcement of Pod, TC, and DTT being banned. Since BUG took down the GP, people have seen control is playable again and we have been seeing multiple builds at multiple events.
Ktkenshinx has given the time frame (since January 19th, the date of the banlist update). He has also given the number of events (29). I'll even quote it if it helps you.
This was stated clearly in previous posts, which is why I am continually convinced you aren't reading my posts. It was 29 SCG events, all since the 1/19 bannings. We can increase N by adding non-SCG events, which just makes this picture way less favorable for control, and/or by bootstrapping the data, which gives basically the same picture with an artificially boosted sample size. Either way, control's representation is very low, and the SCG events are actually over-estimating it by most metrics.
If you continue with deliberately ignoring what other people are saying, I am going to report you for trolling. I suggest that you stop.
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
Bocephus, the inability for us to measure player bias does not mean that we can attribute any gap in the Meta-archtypes' prevalence to player bias. Not knowing how to adjust to player bias is just as much a problem for your position as ktkenshinx's. For all you know, people might be MORE inclined to play control, and the numbers are skewed worse than ktkenshinx's data shows.
The margin of error for player bias is there for both sides of the discussion.
I actually agree with this. At the pro level we can see who plays what regularly. So in the PT/QT events we can probably figure out the player bias to a certain degree. At the SCG/TCG level it would be near impossible to calculate. Even if there was a poll it would have to include a lot of 'what ifs'.
Quote from Themis »
Though i doubt those hellbent on arguing with the numbers is going to listen to ktkenshinx no matter how often they post and reason with the data. People who dislike control seem content to argue with statements out of context and cherry pick events to make claims about the health of the archetype in this thread.
Actually I play control and have found it is very viable. It saddens me to hear people talk down about it.
We could have 6 different control decks in the top 16 of an event and people would still complain its not the right kind of control.
Quote from ktkenshinx »
This was stated clearly in previous posts, which is why I am continually convinced you aren't reading my posts. It was 29 SCG events, all since the 1/19 bannings. We can increase N by adding non-SCG events, which just makes this picture way less favorable for control, and/or by bootstrapping the data, which gives basically the same picture with an artificially boosted sample size. Either way, control's representation is very low, and the SCG events are actually over-estimating it by most metrics.
Do you honestly believe that any representation greater than 0.00% is fine? So if there's literally 1 control deck in the entire format, that's fine? That seems pretty absurd. My assumption through all of this is that we aren't talking about some tiny non-zero representation. We are talking about a real measure of viability. We can argue about what is a "viable" percentage for control (I would argue that about 12% of the metagame should be control, or 1 in 8 decks), but that's still a difference in the 6-12% range, not the .01% range.
Okay, I will ask again, can you show if control has grown the farther away we have gotten from 1/19?
There are more then 1 control deck viable in the format. That is one of the problems. Unlike Twin, Junk, Affinity, and Infect, they are not the same shell so they all are classified different unlike the decks I mentioned.
Okay, I will ask again, can you show if control has grown the farther away we have gotten from 1/19?
If your claim is that the Modern metagame is currently healthy, with control decks being well represented, then what difference does it make to compare the state of the format today with the state of the format before January 19th?
At best, even if you were right, you would show that control is more viable today than it was in early January, when it would have had to have been non-existent (in order for its representation to be measurably worse than it is today).
Playing millions of cards every turn... Slowly and systematically obliterating any chance my opponent has of winning... Clicking the multitude of locking mechanisms into place... Not even trying to win myself until turn 10+ once I have nigh absolute control... Watching my opponent desperately trying to navigate the labyrinthine prison that I've constructed... Seeing the light of hope fade and ultimately extinguished in an excruciatingly slow manner... THAT'S fun Magic.
We have 2-3 users that are dramatically making this thread incomprehensible and non-productive for anyone else to possibly join in the discussion. This needs to change.
Every time I see [ktkenshinx] post in here, I get the impression of a stern dad walking in on a bunch of kids trying to do something dumb and just shaking his head in disappointment.
Near Mint: The same as Slightly Played, but we threw some Altoids in the box we stored it in to cover up the scent of dead mice. Slightly Played: The base condition for all MTG cards. This card looks OK, but there’s one minor annoying ding in it that will always irritate and distract you whenever you draw it. Moderately Played: This card looks like it survived the Tet Offensive tucked inside the waistband of GI underwear. It may smell like it, too. Heavily Played: This card looks like the remains of Mohammed Atta’s passport after 9/11. It may be playable if you double-sleeve it to stop the chunks from falling out. The condition formerly known as "Washing Machine Grade" Damaged: This card is the unfortunate victim of a Mirrorweave/March of the Machines/Chaos Confetti/Mindslaver combo.
[M]aking counterfeit cards is the absolute height of dishonesty. Ask yourself this question: Since most people...are totally cool with the use of proxies...what purpose do [high] quality counterfeit cards serve?
Okay, I will ask again, can you show if control has grown the farther away we have gotten from 1/19?
There are more then 1 control deck viable in the format. That is one of the problems. Unlike Twin, Junk, Affinity, and Infect, they are not the same shell so they all are classified different unlike the decks I mentioned.
Again with the not reading of posts. I said this probably four times now. All of the control decks were grouped together for the purposes of this analysis. This includes Scapeshift, UWR Control, 4C Gifts, Sultai Control, Mono U Tron, Blue/Temur Moon, Cruel Control, UW Control, etc. If we look at the control share in the period from 1/23 - 2/26 and then again from 2/26 - 4/1 (a period split between the midpoint of the unban effective date and today), we see that it has fallen. In the first period (consisting of 920 decks from ~150 events), it was 12.21%. In the second period (about 600 decks from 95 events), it was 7.4%. That is a big drop to say the least.
If we repeat that analysis for just SCG events, which for some reason you keep focusing on, we see the same pattern. It's 12% from 1/23 - 2/26 and then 8% for 2/27 - 4/1. Another drop.
Again, the data strongly suggests that there is some series of factors that is causing control to be underrepresented in paper events. Based on the qualitative data we have, this is likely that the archetype isn't very viable. It seems unlikely that only 8% of players in the entire format want to play control. It's even more unlikely that 12% liked control in the first part of the post-ban period and then almost half of them stopped liking it in the second. It seems much more likely that their cards and strategy was proven to be non-viable.
So I went to SCG and typed in 1/19 till now Modern event decks and found 43 control decks out of 346 total decks, stopping at top 16. That is 12% control decks in the same amount of time you are saying it is less. Not sure where the difference is. I will agree the popularity of control bubbled prior to the last B&R announcement for some reason according to the numbers they have published.
Edit: after doing some more math, SCG is missing some decks in those 22 events posted on their site. There are 6 decks missing. Even so, with the 6 decks added the percentage is still 12%+.
So I went to SCG and typed in 1/19 till now Modern event decks and found 43 control decks out of 346 total decks, stopping at top 16. That is 12% control decks in the same amount of time you are saying it is less. Not sure where the difference is. I will agree the popularity of control bubbled prior to the last B&R announcement for some reason according to the numbers they have published.
Edit: after doing some more math, SCG is missing some decks in those 22 events posted on their site. There are 6 decks missing. Even so, with the 6 decks added the percentage is still 12%+.
Wait. Let me get this straight.
Even with your absurdly broad definition of control, your own analysis shows that control is hovering around 12% representation in top 16s. And you still think that control is viable, and that the 12% representation is indicative of a healthy metagame?
How low would the representation have to go, before you considered control not a competitive archetype?
Playing millions of cards every turn... Slowly and systematically obliterating any chance my opponent has of winning... Clicking the multitude of locking mechanisms into place... Not even trying to win myself until turn 10+ once I have nigh absolute control... Watching my opponent desperately trying to navigate the labyrinthine prison that I've constructed... Seeing the light of hope fade and ultimately extinguished in an excruciatingly slow manner... THAT'S fun Magic.
We have 2-3 users that are dramatically making this thread incomprehensible and non-productive for anyone else to possibly join in the discussion. This needs to change.
Every time I see [ktkenshinx] post in here, I get the impression of a stern dad walking in on a bunch of kids trying to do something dumb and just shaking his head in disappointment.
Near Mint: The same as Slightly Played, but we threw some Altoids in the box we stored it in to cover up the scent of dead mice. Slightly Played: The base condition for all MTG cards. This card looks OK, but there’s one minor annoying ding in it that will always irritate and distract you whenever you draw it. Moderately Played: This card looks like it survived the Tet Offensive tucked inside the waistband of GI underwear. It may smell like it, too. Heavily Played: This card looks like the remains of Mohammed Atta’s passport after 9/11. It may be playable if you double-sleeve it to stop the chunks from falling out. The condition formerly known as "Washing Machine Grade" Damaged: This card is the unfortunate victim of a Mirrorweave/March of the Machines/Chaos Confetti/Mindslaver combo.
[M]aking counterfeit cards is the absolute height of dishonesty. Ask yourself this question: Since most people...are totally cool with the use of proxies...what purpose do [high] quality counterfeit cards serve?
So I went to SCG and typed in 1/19 till now Modern event decks and found 43 control decks out of 346 total decks, stopping at top 16. That is 12% control decks in the same amount of time you are saying it is less. Not sure where the difference is. I will agree the popularity of control bubbled prior to the last B&R announcement for some reason according to the numbers they have published.
Edit: after doing some more math, SCG is missing some decks in those 22 events posted on their site. There are 6 decks missing. Even so, with the 6 decks added the percentage is still 12%+.
Your data is bad / you ran the search incorrectly. When I run that same search from 1/19 - 4/1, I see 340 decks. Of those 340 decks, a sizable number of them come from "premium suggested decks" and Magic Online Daily events.
This screenshot illustrates this error for "premium" decks.
This one illustrates it for MTGO ones:
When the search is run correctly, the data is the exact same as the numbers I presented above.
When are these non-concrete, and fictional posts going to get users banned?
Has this thread not derailed enough? There has been nothing concrete, and let's be honest; some posters have more posts than I do, without being a Moderator, or a standing member for 10 years of this community. I am all for contributing towards the discussion, but in the recent 6 months this thread has had claims of these varieties and others;
1. Super Secret Testing, done by communities, all asked for by specialized individuals specifically for Modern before it was a format. 2. That the statistics provided to us, are purposefully incomplete in order to deceive us. 3. That Wizards hates control. 4. That when Modern moves towards the power level of Legacy, the suspects are transferable between formats, and therefore must be banned. 5. Varieties of terminology in Magic are unable to be defined based on the consensus of each individual. 6. Taking a poll with over 800 point submissions is "not good/valid" 7. The reasoning behind each cards banning throughout the history of the format is given us in a specific way, yet Wizards has other secret reasons in order to protect the format without allowing the populace to understand the full reasoning.
This is how I see it; If I am in post secondary education, and I keep derailing the lecture, by asking questions and spinning arguments to the point that they are completely irrelevant and theoretically unsound, only one result happens - I am removed.
We have 2-3 users that are dramatically making this thread incomprehensible and non-productive for anyone else to possibly join in the discussion. This needs to change.
I second this notion.
I have said it two times already that the quality of this thread has gone downhill dramatically.
My last two responses in this thread are exactly what Im talking about. A bunch of controversial statements with nothing to back them up.
I mean is it really too much to ask to reinforce your arguments and statements with actual facts, numbers, meta-game/format data, past experiences and patterns, official statements and articles from Wizards, etc.?
I do so regularly. It's really not that hard. You won't find a post from me that goes like "I think deck X is dumb because it plays with a bunch of overpowered cards that even a monkey could play.". Posts like these reek of elitism and agenda. Things that I personally hate seeing and that will often invoke a response from me.
And even then there is still a difference between just stating your opinion and flat out lying, twisting and ignoring facts that could go against you just to make a point.
On the topic of the current discussion:
I mean sure it's a change from the typical "Tarmogoyf is $200 and I can't afford him so lets ban him" or
"Jund is a Tier 2 deck at best in Legacy and Abzan doesn't exist there. Clearly it's overpowered in Modern." or
"Blue is the worst color in the Modern format. Twin is only one of the best decks and Blue one of the most played colors because reasons."
But you know what? As stupid as these discussions are at least everybody can participate in the conversation.
I mean it's a sad thing when I check this thread out, see two new pages full of posts and can't actually participate in the conversation because there really isn't anything to participate in.
And Im one of the regulars on here too. Newer people enter this thread and will have no idea what's even going on here. And as has been already stated they will make posts in here and they will just be ignored and buried by the overarching and pointless debate that is going on in here.
@Shmanka, Glad to see that when things happen that you do not see you discredit them. also, someone has a different idea for the format and you crucify them. Good to know we have people like you in the community.
@Galerion, 1) I have agreed with you on almost every thought you have brought forth. 2) I have never said Goyf needs to be banned for any reason. 3) I went to the SCG site and counted up control decks. I have to go back and see what the difference is since kt got 340 decks and I got 352. But the only thing that makes then controversial is people dont want to believe control is viable in the format. Something that you, yourself have said people dont want to believe.
Dont bother responding, I am out. This little vocal minority is the problem with the format, not the solution. Keep believing you know whats best for your version of the format. I am sure Wotc will get around to all of you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Number of events with 0 control decks in T8/T16: 7 (24%) : means 7 events had 0 control decks
Number of events with 1 control deck in T8/T16: 11 (38%) : means 11 events had 1
Number of events with 2 control decks in T8/T16: 10 (34%) : means 10 events had 2
Number of events with 3 control decks in T8/T16: 1 : means 1 events had 3
Number of events with 4 control decks in T8/T16: 0 : means 0 event had 4
Number of events with 5 control decks in T8/T16: 1 (3%) : means 1 event had 5
so i' m not sure what you even means. Is it a good thing that 0 event had exactly 4 control decks Top16ing?
For a deck people keep harping on as proof of control being totally playable and in the metagame how come it has failed to make a dent anywhere since?
So UR Delver was a Control deck then? Because it ran all three of them.
Counterspells are nothing Control exclusive. Tempo, Midrange, Control and Combo all can and make use of them.
Bounce is actually pretty bad in Control.
You: "I bounce your Tarmogoyf"
Opponent: "I play it again."
You: "Yeah, whatever."
And every deck would use card drawing if it could *cough* Treasure Cruise *cough*
Combo decks would draw more pieces.
Aggro decks would draw more threats and burn.
Control decks would draw more answers.
And Tempo and Midrange would both draw more answers and threats.
See above.
Delver of Secrets, Snapcaster Mage and to name a multi-colored blue creature Geist of Saint Traft are surely mediocre.
And yet Twin is one of the formats best decks and it's as blue as it can get. In fact it runs many of the best blue cards. Snapcaster Mage, Remand, Cryptic Command just to name a few.
Also UR Delver was the dominant Blue deck before it.
So what magic is this?
Unless you agree of course that Twin is a control deck...
Didn't you get the memo?
If you run any creatures that are not named Snapcaster Mage or have flash then you are not playing Control.
It's like people forget that creatures can not only attack but can also block opposing creatures. I guess the creature needs to be an actual wall with Defender for people to remember that.
The whole point of mid-range is that you trade one for one until the game becomes a topdeck war, and with midrange's "goodstuff" deck construction philosophy, it will have generally better topdecks than the opponent. Counterspells are pretty awful for that kind of strategy.
Delver of Secrets, Snapcaster Mage and to name a multi-colored blue creature Geist of Saint Traft are surely mediocre. [/quote]
Delver died a horrible death once Cruise got banned, lame/bad attempts at reviving it (Grixis Delver, etc.) not withstanding. Snapcaster Mage at its best is merely okay, and its considered one of the best blue creatures of all time, so what does that tell you? Snapcaster's usage has gotten a lot worse in modern as time has gone on and I wouldn't be surprised if he disappears from the format entirely. There's so much better when it comes to 2 drops (like Goyf, Bob, Ooze, etc. they're just flatout superior) than Snapcaster. I'm partially convinced that Snapcaster is just bad in this current aggressive metagame.
Geist forces you into a thoroughly mediocre Blue/White shell, and relies on an empty board so that it doesn't get killed off. I mean, even mediocre 2/1s will knock him off.
And yet Twin is one of the formats best decks and it's as blue as it can get. In fact is runs many of the best blue cards. Snapcaster Mage, Remand, Cryptic Command just to name a few.
Also UR Delver was the dominant Blue deck before it.
So what magic is this?
Unless you agree of course that Twin is a control deck...[/quote]
I consider Twin to be tempo. I feel like if freaking Remand is one of your best cards, then you're pretty bad as a color (I understand why Twin runs it, but Twin also runs a lot of really suboptimal cards like Exarch and Pestermite that are bad in a vacuum for the sake of the combo as opposed to the goodstuff mentality of Junk where it runs no bad cards at all). The cards Twin uses aren't good at all, its success comes from the fact that it has to the combo to threaten opponents to make very suboptimal moves.
Didn't you get the memo?
If you run any creatures that are not named Snapcaster Mage or have flash then you are not playing Control.
It's like people forget that creatures can not only attack but can also block opposing creatures. I guess the creature needs to be an actual wall with Defender for people to remember that.[/quote]
No, control decks definitely can run creatures, but the main point of a control deck is to be defensive and above all - play defense. They're not offensively orientated decks, which is why they're very bad in this metagame and ultimately not viable. Fabiano's deck seeks to attack the other player with targeted discard, and uses Goyf/Tasigur/Thragtusk/etc. to put pressure on them. That's what a midrange deck does.
I don't even think a control deck needs counterspells, a mono white prison deck would be control to me because it seeks to play defensively by preventing the other play by doing anything. But it does need to play defense. Midrange decks do not play this way.
Controversial statements, to say the least.
I think most would agree that you can argue Tarmo is better, but scooze and bob are certainly not better, likely not on par and maybe significantly worse.
I think you are wrong in all aspects of your analysis - from your narrow definition of control, to your condemnation of one of the most popular cards in the format being "merely ok [..] at its best".
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
Nope. I play this game at every level for the enjoyment of the game. My goal is to prize. Anything more is just bonus. Too many pissed off, cry baby losers that make excuses when they come away from events. If I wanted to be mad after hours of an event, I know of other cheaper things I could be doing.
Again, throwing up percentages without some type of context means zero. We dont have a time frame, the number of total events, just percentages.
As I have said, the more the format has to settle and be 'solved', the more control we seem to be seeing. We saw almost zero control after the announcement of Pod, TC, and DTT being banned. Since BUG took down the GP, people have seen control is playable again and we have been seeing multiple builds at multiple events.
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
Right, but targeted discard is defensive. It's spending a card to remove a threat that might disrupt you. Every control deck also has a finisher of some sort, whether its Celestial Colonnade or Vendilion Clique or what have you. Using Goyf or Tasigur as a finisher over Colonnade or Clique has no differences besides your finishers being slightly more efficient. In a lot of his games, he basically just popped one of them onto the table and then protected it with counters and discard, which is a textbook control move.
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
So you have no idea what the Midrange archetype is about. That's OK I will tell you.
You know who is favored in an aggro mirror? The deck that is able to become bigger and more controlling after sideboarding.
"You play a bunch of Jackal Pups? Cool, I play a bunch of Lightning Bolts and Boros Reckoners. GG, bro."
At some point in time nifty people thought "Why not just remove all the small, dorky creatures entirely and play more removal, disruption and maybe even some board wipes in the main instead of just sideboarding into that configuration?"
Bam! The Midrange archetype was born. Of course a few things changed since then but the overall idea is still the same.
No Midrange deck would play a creature like Firedrinker Satyr.
Courser of Kruphix or Sylvan Caryatid are interesting though since that is exactly the type of creatures that Midrange wants. Creatures that are a huge pain for aggro decks and often require additional card investment from the aggro player before getting buried by the superior firepower of the Midrange decks.
If you want to read further about it you can do it at the Wizards website: http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/feature/396
The stuff that you are saying has nothing to do with the Midrange archetype. You are just describing a characteristic of Jund and Abzan.
Go take a look at UWR Midrange and talk with players playing the deck. Ask them if they really want to end up in a topdeck war with anybody. The answer will be no. In fact that is one of the reasons why it has trouble against Abzan.
Indeed. They are so many of them.
Snapcaster Mage the number 1 creature in the Modern format is "merely OK" and "bad in the current aggressive metagame" definitely takes the cake though.
I mean it's not like a thing like Lightning Bolt -> Snapcaster Mage -> Lightning Bolt exists which makes short work of aggression from dorky creatures or anything like that.
And lastly
Or these creatures are used to stabilize.
You know Tarmogoyf is a great blocker and general roadblock.
Tasigur, the Golden Fang is the same plus he fills up your hand at end of turn. How nifty.
Oh yeah and Thragtusk is a 5/3 that will always leave a 3/3 behind. Especially nice after blocking and killing a creature already. He also has this funny little ETB effect that reads "You gain 5 life". Clearly that is meant to only pressure the opponent. I mean the player who gets to the highest life total wins or did I get something wrong here?
For example, this is a Control deck: http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/eventcoverage/ptaus09/decktech3 it was in the top decks form the PT. I don't like it, but is a control deck.
This just goes to show that he really is just trolling at this point.
Ktkenshinx has given the time frame (since January 19th, the date of the banlist update). He has also given the number of events (29). I'll even quote it if it helps you.
If you continue with deliberately ignoring what other people are saying, I am going to report you for trolling. I suggest that you stop.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
Nope. I might have met him IRL without knowing it, but if I know him in real life then I don't know it.
Edit: If that was a joke, it needed a
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
Excuse me, I just found inspiration for my next fan fiction...
I actually agree with this. At the pro level we can see who plays what regularly. So in the PT/QT events we can probably figure out the player bias to a certain degree. At the SCG/TCG level it would be near impossible to calculate. Even if there was a poll it would have to include a lot of 'what ifs'.
Actually I play control and have found it is very viable. It saddens me to hear people talk down about it.
We could have 6 different control decks in the top 16 of an event and people would still complain its not the right kind of control.
Okay, I will ask again, can you show if control has grown the farther away we have gotten from 1/19?
There are more then 1 control deck viable in the format. That is one of the problems. Unlike Twin, Junk, Affinity, and Infect, they are not the same shell so they all are classified different unlike the decks I mentioned.
If your claim is that the Modern metagame is currently healthy, with control decks being well represented, then what difference does it make to compare the state of the format today with the state of the format before January 19th?
At best, even if you were right, you would show that control is more viable today than it was in early January, when it would have had to have been non-existent (in order for its representation to be measurably worse than it is today).
WUDeath&TaxesWG
Legacy
UBRGDredgeUBRG
UHigh TideU
URGLandsURG
WR Card Choice List
WUR American D&T
WUB Esper D&T
The Reserved List
Heat Maps
Again with the not reading of posts. I said this probably four times now. All of the control decks were grouped together for the purposes of this analysis. This includes Scapeshift, UWR Control, 4C Gifts, Sultai Control, Mono U Tron, Blue/Temur Moon, Cruel Control, UW Control, etc. If we look at the control share in the period from 1/23 - 2/26 and then again from 2/26 - 4/1 (a period split between the midpoint of the unban effective date and today), we see that it has fallen. In the first period (consisting of 920 decks from ~150 events), it was 12.21%. In the second period (about 600 decks from 95 events), it was 7.4%. That is a big drop to say the least.
If we repeat that analysis for just SCG events, which for some reason you keep focusing on, we see the same pattern. It's 12% from 1/23 - 2/26 and then 8% for 2/27 - 4/1. Another drop.
Again, the data strongly suggests that there is some series of factors that is causing control to be underrepresented in paper events. Based on the qualitative data we have, this is likely that the archetype isn't very viable. It seems unlikely that only 8% of players in the entire format want to play control. It's even more unlikely that 12% liked control in the first part of the post-ban period and then almost half of them stopped liking it in the second. It seems much more likely that their cards and strategy was proven to be non-viable.
Edit: after doing some more math, SCG is missing some decks in those 22 events posted on their site. There are 6 decks missing. Even so, with the 6 decks added the percentage is still 12%+.
Wait. Let me get this straight.
Even with your absurdly broad definition of control, your own analysis shows that control is hovering around 12% representation in top 16s. And you still think that control is viable, and that the 12% representation is indicative of a healthy metagame?
How low would the representation have to go, before you considered control not a competitive archetype?
WUDeath&TaxesWG
Legacy
UBRGDredgeUBRG
UHigh TideU
URGLandsURG
WR Card Choice List
WUR American D&T
WUB Esper D&T
The Reserved List
Heat Maps
Your data is bad / you ran the search incorrectly. When I run that same search from 1/19 - 4/1, I see 340 decks. Of those 340 decks, a sizable number of them come from "premium suggested decks" and Magic Online Daily events.
This screenshot illustrates this error for "premium" decks.
This one illustrates it for MTGO ones:
When the search is run correctly, the data is the exact same as the numbers I presented above.
When are these non-concrete, and fictional posts going to get users banned?
Has this thread not derailed enough? There has been nothing concrete, and let's be honest; some posters have more posts than I do, without being a Moderator, or a standing member for 10 years of this community. I am all for contributing towards the discussion, but in the recent 6 months this thread has had claims of these varieties and others;
1. Super Secret Testing, done by communities, all asked for by specialized individuals specifically for Modern before it was a format.
2. That the statistics provided to us, are purposefully incomplete in order to deceive us.
3. That Wizards hates control.
4. That when Modern moves towards the power level of Legacy, the suspects are transferable between formats, and therefore must be banned.
5. Varieties of terminology in Magic are unable to be defined based on the consensus of each individual.
6. Taking a poll with over 800 point submissions is "not good/valid"
7. The reasoning behind each cards banning throughout the history of the format is given us in a specific way, yet Wizards has other secret reasons in order to protect the format without allowing the populace to understand the full reasoning.
This is how I see it; If I am in post secondary education, and I keep derailing the lecture, by asking questions and spinning arguments to the point that they are completely irrelevant and theoretically unsound, only one result happens - I am removed.
We have 2-3 users that are dramatically making this thread incomprehensible and non-productive for anyone else to possibly join in the discussion. This needs to change.
I have said it two times already that the quality of this thread has gone downhill dramatically.
My last two responses in this thread are exactly what Im talking about. A bunch of controversial statements with nothing to back them up.
I mean is it really too much to ask to reinforce your arguments and statements with actual facts, numbers, meta-game/format data, past experiences and patterns, official statements and articles from Wizards, etc.?
I do so regularly. It's really not that hard. You won't find a post from me that goes like "I think deck X is dumb because it plays with a bunch of overpowered cards that even a monkey could play.". Posts like these reek of elitism and agenda. Things that I personally hate seeing and that will often invoke a response from me.
And even then there is still a difference between just stating your opinion and flat out lying, twisting and ignoring facts that could go against you just to make a point.
On the topic of the current discussion:
I mean sure it's a change from the typical "Tarmogoyf is $200 and I can't afford him so lets ban him" or
"Jund is a Tier 2 deck at best in Legacy and Abzan doesn't exist there. Clearly it's overpowered in Modern." or
"Blue is the worst color in the Modern format. Twin is only one of the best decks and Blue one of the most played colors because reasons."
But you know what? As stupid as these discussions are at least everybody can participate in the conversation.
I mean it's a sad thing when I check this thread out, see two new pages full of posts and can't actually participate in the conversation because there really isn't anything to participate in.
And Im one of the regulars on here too. Newer people enter this thread and will have no idea what's even going on here. And as has been already stated they will make posts in here and they will just be ignored and buried by the overarching and pointless debate that is going on in here.
@Galerion, 1) I have agreed with you on almost every thought you have brought forth. 2) I have never said Goyf needs to be banned for any reason. 3) I went to the SCG site and counted up control decks. I have to go back and see what the difference is since kt got 340 decks and I got 352. But the only thing that makes then controversial is people dont want to believe control is viable in the format. Something that you, yourself have said people dont want to believe.
Dont bother responding, I am out. This little vocal minority is the problem with the format, not the solution. Keep believing you know whats best for your version of the format. I am sure Wotc will get around to all of you.