I'm so glad I was wrong about the PT looking like a linear mess.
The "secret best deck" theory you and GK were worried doesn't look apparent, either.
Draft kinda skews things, but the format looks great, especially when it's pros looking to snap a format in half for big money.
Our secret best deck could still be ETron or Lantern, which were two we were concerned about. Maybe Storm too, but I don't know how it's doing because I've missed some of these later rounds. DS decks definitely don't look like the secret though, as GDS isn't doing amazing and JDS was under the radar the whole time.
I didn't see Storm on camera day 2, I missed some day 1 while at my internship.
Storm was an extremely bad call with Humans being so played. It looks safe from a ban for sure, barring some shocking stats they're hiding.
GDS was...well, it's gone from best deck to just another good deck now. Having to face Humans, Jeskai, Affinity is making it harder to steal wins. It's lost nearly all of its free wins in modern.
Lantern being top 8 was something I expected, although I don't think I wrote it to be a sure thing.
Is Traverse Shadow/DSJ that legit? I'm still skeptical.
E-Tron overperformed in my eyes, I thought it was dying for sure. I'm still not sure where E-Tron really is.
Needs more context since Top 8 requires a great record in both limited and constructed. E-Tron and Jeskai could have made Day 2 on the back of either, but not be in contention as a result. Once they release the constructed records, we can get a better picture of what happened.
If there was a true 50/50 deck, it would be by default, the best deck in the format.
I don't understand this logic. Why is this the case? If it is even across the board, then wouldn't its placement simply reply on player skill and gameplay decisions? You would rarely get free wins and would be punished badly for poor decisions and misplays. The only kind of deck that would so obviously be the best was if it had, not a 50/50 matchup against the field, but an overwhelmingly net positive matchup against the field (Eldrazi is an extreme example of this). The deck many people are probably allude to never got to the meta numbers of DRS Jund, Pod, or Eldrazi; decks which genuinely were the clear best decks of their respective times.
Is there a decklist for this? I remember trying this a few times pre- and post-Probe ban and found those two cards to be a massive nonbo with each other. Curious to see what he did with it.
Is there a decklist for this? I remember trying this a few times pre- and post-Probe ban and found those two cards to be a massive nonbo with each other. Curious to see what he did with it.
Is there a decklist for this? I remember trying this a few times pre- and post-Probe ban and found those two cards to be a massive nonbo with each other. Curious to see what he did with it.
Is there a decklist for this? I remember trying this a few times pre- and post-Probe ban and found those two cards to be a massive nonbo with each other. Curious to see what he did with it.
Very interesting take... Seems exceptionally weak to Fatal Push with such a low creature count and lacks the free wins gifted by Blood Moon. Was this ever on camera? I'd love to see it in action?
If there was a true 50/50 deck, it would be by default, the best deck in the format.
I don't understand this logic. Why is this the case? If it is even across the board, then wouldn't its placement simply reply on player skill and gameplay decisions? You would rarely get free wins and would be punished badly for poor decisions and misplays. The only kind of deck that would so obviously be the best was if it had, not a 50/50 matchup against the field, but an overwhelmingly net positive matchup against the field (Eldrazi is an extreme example of this). The deck many people are probably allude to never got to the meta numbers of DRS Jund, Pod, or Eldrazi; decks which genuinely were the clear best decks of their respective times.
I didnt get it at first either, but if your deck is a true 50/50, then its representation will only increase as people come to accept it as a 50/50.
If you LITERALLY have no natural predator, then pro's would gravitate to it, grinders would as well, because it would continue to eat up % share, until it was mirror matches.
Now, I dont believe we ever had a 50/50 deck in Modern, not even our lord and saviour Twin, but if there was one, why realistically play anything else?
Now, I dont believe we ever had a 50/50 deck in Modern, not even our lord and saviour Twin, but if there was one, why realistically play anything else?
Because having to work and strain and think and fight for every single win is draining and tiring for many players. Lots of players just want to win as quickly and efficiently as possible and would rather take a few losses as a trade for many, many free wins.
Nearly every type of competitive game has this. You have random stats A, B, and C, each of which make you proficient in something. You have characters that represent these strengths with distributions like this:
A: xx
B: xxxxxx
C: xx
or
A: xxxxxxxx
B: x
C: x
or
A: xxx
B: xxx
C: xxxx
Each showcase a specialty and weakness OR a lower overall power across the board with no glaring weaknesses. The "Jack of all Trades" is rarely, if ever, the best choice in any competitive game. You often want to specialize in something, capitalize on your strengths, and hope to avoid or get lucky in your weaknesses. But it seems silly to simply remove the center-of-the-road option entirely, UNLESS it becomes a legitimate problem (like DRS/Pod/Eldrazi), and it is no longer "center of the road" and instead "clearly and objectively better than everything else".
Well, the last round was painful to watch with mistakes all around. I can't believe they left mengucci take back his draw and pay his kataki upkeeps.
My take is: so much for pro breaking a format, bringing amazing innovations and showing next-level playing. (I only watch a few round. I've read Reid playing very well, or his opponent playing badly due to awe and fear. )
Only deck I'm interested in: hollow one.
PS: so, it invalidates all the bad-mouthing of SCG. SCG players have consistently played much better than the pro I've seen.
Now, I dont believe we ever had a 50/50 deck in Modern, not even our lord and saviour Twin, but if there was one, why realistically play anything else?
Because having to work and strain and think and fight for every single win is draining and tiring for many players. Lots of players just want to win as quickly and efficiently as possible and would rather take a few losses as a trade for many, many free wins.
Nearly every type of competitive game has this. You have random stats A, B, and C, each of which make you proficient in something. You have characters that represent these strengths with distributions like this:
A: xx
B: xxxxxx
C: xx
or
A: xxxxxxxx
B: x
C: x
or
A: xxx
B: xxx
C: xxxx
Each showcase a specialty and weakness OR a lower overall power across the board with no glaring weaknesses. The "Jack of all Trades" is rarely, if ever, the best choice in any competitive game. You often want to specialize in something, capitalize on your strengths, and hope to avoid or get lucky in your weaknesses. But it seems silly to simply remove the center-of-the-road option entirely, UNLESS it becomes a legitimate problem (like DRS/Pod/Eldrazi), and it is no longer "center of the road" and instead "clearly and objectively better than everything else".
This assumption works really well under the assumption that a true 50/50 deck could exist. This is not the case though. Decks that in the range of being close either hover below or over the curve. To put it into the terms you have, essentially a middle of the road deck will look more like this:
A:xxx
B:xxx
C:xxx
which is under the curve, and I'm pretty sure decks like this do exist in the format. Or they're like this:
A:xxx
B:xxxx
C:xxxx
Magic is not a game that you can ever have true parity. The problem with the 50/50 deck is the extra x helps a lot more in this scenario than this:
A:xxxxxxxxx
B:x
C:x
Adding an extra x to an already lopsided stat spread isn't going to do much. You're just going to crush what you already crushed, just harder. You're not really easing the burden elsewhere. Even if I added the extra x to B or C, it will most likely not be enough to change anything. In the "50/50 deck" though, that extra x will overall make more of a difference more often as you're pushing above the average in multiple areas. To put it into a different perspective, you're not playing a 50/50 deck, you're either playing a 49/51 deck, something I don't think anyone would ever really want to play, or the 51/49 deck, which I think would arguably be the overall best choice.
Other decks that lean heavily one way or another are very dependent on the meta you head into. If you can go in and be solidly 51/49, why bother trying to play the meta, when you can fall back on your skill to carry you that extra 1%? The jack of all trades is certainly never the best choice, but it does become the 'safe' choice, and that carries its own problems. Mainly that a majority of people are going to fall back on it, because safe = easy to many people.
Other decks that lean heavily one way or another are very dependent on the meta you head into. If you can go in and be solidly 51/49, why bother trying to play the meta, when you can fall back on your skill to carry you that extra 1%? The jack of all trades is certainly never the best choice, but it does become the 'safe' choice, and that carries its own problems. Mainly that a majority of people are going to fall back on it, because safe = easy to many people.
I think it only becomes the best choice for someone whose skill is high (or at least consistent) enough to take that incremental advantage. And at that point, you are still stressing and fighting and earning every win, because you are relying on a lot of decision trees and skillful play choices to earn your win. It only becomes the the "safe choice" when it is so much better than the majority of the rest of the field that people can win consistently with sloppy play or mediocre decision-making (like Eldrazi). And as I said, at that point it's no longer a 50/50 deck (or a 51/49), it's by far and away more powerful than everything else. Either way, this particular side discussion should probably continue in the State of the Metagame thread, instead of here.
As for the PT itself, it was definitely strange seeing multiple punts and errors from the top tables.
So now we have a healthy Day 1, a healthy Day 2, and a healthy overall PT T8. All that's left is to see what the top-performing Modern decks are (we already have the standings by format but still need all the decks). Those will probably look awesome too. We have ZERO big mana in the overall T8 and 5 fundamentally interactive decks. And we have Reid Duke with the 4th overall Modern performance on the allegedly defunct Abzan, who beat Tron at least twice en route to his finish. Guess skillful players beat bad matchups after all at the highest level.
Hopefully this puts an end to all but the bitterest Modern complainers and their incessant criticism of the format. I'm sure there is a subset that will continue to tear down Modern and top-performing interactive decks because it doesn't perfectly fit the exact deck and experience they want, but the overall format is excellent. Not only can you play any kind of deck you want, but you can basically do well with any kind of deck you want. When we see Mardu Pyromancer, Abzan, JDS, and Lantern all succeeding into the T8, it's clear that interaction is completely viable in Modern and that bad matchups can be overcome.
Re: 50/50 decks
If you want this deck, go play Legacy. It's the only format where it is allowed to exist the longest because Wizards has minimal oversight of the format. But the last deck that did this, Miracles, did eventually eat a ban. So even there it's not a guarantee.
BR Hollow One??
What else is in top 8?
Traverse Shadow
Abzan (Reid)
Mardu Pyromancer (Thompson)
Lantern?
Spirits
I didn't see Storm on camera day 2, I missed some day 1 while at my internship.
Storm was an extremely bad call with Humans being so played. It looks safe from a ban for sure, barring some shocking stats they're hiding.
GDS was...well, it's gone from best deck to just another good deck now. Having to face Humans, Jeskai, Affinity is making it harder to steal wins. It's lost nearly all of its free wins in modern.
Lantern being top 8 was something I expected, although I don't think I wrote it to be a sure thing.
Is Traverse Shadow/DSJ that legit? I'm still skeptical.
E-Tron overperformed in my eyes, I thought it was dying for sure. I'm still not sure where E-Tron really is.
We saw what a 50/50 deck did to standard recently.
Humans (Javier Dominguez)
I think Lantern got in and the 8th place is unknown.
WGUBR 5c Humans
GWR Naya Zoo
Legacy:
GW GW Maverick
R Goblins
UR Thing/Pyro (Vieren)
Abzan (Duke)
Lantern (Luis)
2x Humans (Mengucci, Dominguez)
Mardu (GerryT)
Hollow One (Yukuhiro)
Jund Shadow (Depraz)
http://www.cubetutor.com/viewcube/13649 - My all foil cube.
UR Pyromancer x Humans
Lantern x Traverse Shadow
BR Hollow One x Abzan
Mardu x Humans
WGUBR 5c Humans
GWR Naya Zoo
Legacy:
GW GW Maverick
R Goblins
Interesting, the Hollow One deck sounds spicy.
What happened to the E-Tron and UWR Day 2 Conversion rate. :[
Spirits
BWC Processors Eldrazi CWB
UBC Emerge EldraziCBU
C Tron Eldrazi C
RBC Meld Eldrazi CBR
GU Tokens Eldrazi UG
I don't understand this logic. Why is this the case? If it is even across the board, then wouldn't its placement simply reply on player skill and gameplay decisions? You would rarely get free wins and would be punished badly for poor decisions and misplays. The only kind of deck that would so obviously be the best was if it had, not a 50/50 matchup against the field, but an overwhelmingly net positive matchup against the field (Eldrazi is an extreme example of this). The deck many people are probably allude to never got to the meta numbers of DRS Jund, Pod, or Eldrazi; decks which genuinely were the clear best decks of their respective times.
Is there a decklist for this? I remember trying this a few times pre- and post-Probe ban and found those two cards to be a massive nonbo with each other. Curious to see what he did with it.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Yes, here it is: https://magic.wizards.com/en/events/coverage/ptrix/r14-vieren-vs-depraz-2018-02-03
WBC Eldrazi & Taxes CBW
UR Keep on Cantripin' (UR Phoenix) RU
WU Surprise! It's not UW Control! (UW Midrange) UW
BG The Rock, Straight BG
U Mono-Blue Fish U
RBW Mardu Pyromancer BWR
RG Rabble! Rabble! (GR Blood Moon Aggro) GR
Legacy
W Death & Taxes W
https://magic.wizards.com/en/events/coverage/ptrix/deck-tech-ur-pyromancer-vierens-2018-02-03
Very interesting take... Seems exceptionally weak to Fatal Push with such a low creature count and lacks the free wins gifted by Blood Moon. Was this ever on camera? I'd love to see it in action?
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
UR Thing/Pyro (Vieren) - 6-0 draft
Abzan (Duke)
Lantern (Luis)
Humans (Mengucci) - 6-0 Draft
Humans (Dominguez)
Mardu (GerryT)
Hollow One (Yukuhiro)
Jund Shadow (Depraz) - 6-0 Draft
Obviously not the whole picture yet, but it does make me ask about Blue and White decks again (since mardu runs a single white source only)
Legacy - LED Dredge, ANT & WDnT
I didnt get it at first either, but if your deck is a true 50/50, then its representation will only increase as people come to accept it as a 50/50.
If you LITERALLY have no natural predator, then pro's would gravitate to it, grinders would as well, because it would continue to eat up % share, until it was mirror matches.
Now, I dont believe we ever had a 50/50 deck in Modern, not even our lord and saviour Twin, but if there was one, why realistically play anything else?
Spirits
Because having to work and strain and think and fight for every single win is draining and tiring for many players. Lots of players just want to win as quickly and efficiently as possible and would rather take a few losses as a trade for many, many free wins.
Nearly every type of competitive game has this. You have random stats A, B, and C, each of which make you proficient in something. You have characters that represent these strengths with distributions like this:
A: xx
B: xxxxxx
C: xx
or
A: xxxxxxxx
B: x
C: x
or
A: xxx
B: xxx
C: xxxx
Each showcase a specialty and weakness OR a lower overall power across the board with no glaring weaknesses. The "Jack of all Trades" is rarely, if ever, the best choice in any competitive game. You often want to specialize in something, capitalize on your strengths, and hope to avoid or get lucky in your weaknesses. But it seems silly to simply remove the center-of-the-road option entirely, UNLESS it becomes a legitimate problem (like DRS/Pod/Eldrazi), and it is no longer "center of the road" and instead "clearly and objectively better than everything else".
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
My take is: so much for pro breaking a format, bringing amazing innovations and showing next-level playing. (I only watch a few round. I've read Reid playing very well, or his opponent playing badly due to awe and fear. )
Only deck I'm interested in: hollow one.
PS: so, it invalidates all the bad-mouthing of SCG. SCG players have consistently played much better than the pro I've seen.
A:xxx
B:xxx
C:xxx
which is under the curve, and I'm pretty sure decks like this do exist in the format. Or they're like this:
A:xxx
B:xxxx
C:xxxx
Magic is not a game that you can ever have true parity. The problem with the 50/50 deck is the extra x helps a lot more in this scenario than this:
A:xxxxxxxxx
B:x
C:x
Adding an extra x to an already lopsided stat spread isn't going to do much. You're just going to crush what you already crushed, just harder. You're not really easing the burden elsewhere. Even if I added the extra x to B or C, it will most likely not be enough to change anything. In the "50/50 deck" though, that extra x will overall make more of a difference more often as you're pushing above the average in multiple areas. To put it into a different perspective, you're not playing a 50/50 deck, you're either playing a 49/51 deck, something I don't think anyone would ever really want to play, or the 51/49 deck, which I think would arguably be the overall best choice.
Other decks that lean heavily one way or another are very dependent on the meta you head into. If you can go in and be solidly 51/49, why bother trying to play the meta, when you can fall back on your skill to carry you that extra 1%? The jack of all trades is certainly never the best choice, but it does become the 'safe' choice, and that carries its own problems. Mainly that a majority of people are going to fall back on it, because safe = easy to many people.
Commander
U Tetsuko Umezawa, Fugitive
RG Zilortha, Strength Incarnate
WU Yorion, Sky Nomad
I think it only becomes the best choice for someone whose skill is high (or at least consistent) enough to take that incremental advantage. And at that point, you are still stressing and fighting and earning every win, because you are relying on a lot of decision trees and skillful play choices to earn your win. It only becomes the the "safe choice" when it is so much better than the majority of the rest of the field that people can win consistently with sloppy play or mediocre decision-making (like Eldrazi). And as I said, at that point it's no longer a 50/50 deck (or a 51/49), it's by far and away more powerful than everything else. Either way, this particular side discussion should probably continue in the State of the Metagame thread, instead of here.
As for the PT itself, it was definitely strange seeing multiple punts and errors from the top tables.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
This PT came one set too late. If it was PT Ixalan instead, they could showcase cards like Hostage Taker, Unclaimed Territory, Kitesail Freebooter, Field of Ruin, and of course the card advantage powerhouse known as Search for Azcanta.
edit: Finkel is 9th
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
Spirits
Hopefully this puts an end to all but the bitterest Modern complainers and their incessant criticism of the format. I'm sure there is a subset that will continue to tear down Modern and top-performing interactive decks because it doesn't perfectly fit the exact deck and experience they want, but the overall format is excellent. Not only can you play any kind of deck you want, but you can basically do well with any kind of deck you want. When we see Mardu Pyromancer, Abzan, JDS, and Lantern all succeeding into the T8, it's clear that interaction is completely viable in Modern and that bad matchups can be overcome.
Re: 50/50 decks
If you want this deck, go play Legacy. It's the only format where it is allowed to exist the longest because Wizards has minimal oversight of the format. But the last deck that did this, Miracles, did eventually eat a ban. So even there it's not a guarantee.
Besides this, I really like the metagame, even though those decks that I do enjoy playing suffer under this
To be honest, if this stays like this, I wouldn't even mind, if no cards would get unbanned ^^
Greetings,
Kathal
Modern/Legacy
either funpolice (Delver, Deathcloud, UW Control) or the fun decks (especially those ft. Griselbrand)