How are you guys feeling about the designing of the cards in general? I have no clue how many allstars we have for modern in this set, but is the direction the design team moving towards feeling good or hopeful for MTG and modern?
They seemed to add interesting effects and answers. Nothing is looking like a card that looks trash that the design team was like, "you modern players will love this!"
There are a lot of really fun card designs in this set. I'll list a few of my favorites below:
Broken Bond1G
Sorcery
Destroy target artifact or enchantment. You may put a land card from your hand onto the battlefield.
Dauntless BodyguardW
Creature - Human Knight
As Dauntless Bodyguard enters the battlefield, choose another creature you control.
Sacrifice Dauntless Bodyguard: The chosen creature gains indestructible until end of turn.
2/1
Wizard's Lightning2R
Instant
This spell costs 2 less if you control a Wizard.
Wizard's Lightning deals 3 damage to any target.
Wizard's Retort1UU
Instant
This spell costs 1 less if you control a Wizard.
Counter target spell.
So why do I think these are interesting cards to look at for Modern?
Broken Bond seems like an interesting sideboard card for Valakut decks. Yes it's Sorcery speed, but it's an Explore stapled to a Naturalize. Probably not good enough for the mainboard, but definitely seems like a good sideboard card for those decks.
Dauntless Bodyguard seems like a really interesting card for Hate Bears decks. Imagine you are playing against a deck where Thalia is extremely good. You can either cast, or use Aether Vial to get down the Bodyguard and have it act as a protective spell for your Thalia to keep her alive. And it attacks for 2 to boot, which is great. Bodyguard also has good stock in Humans lists. Is Meddling Mage going to be the reason you win this game? Cool now you have a way to protect it from unanticipated non-path/dismember removal.
I mean think of this play pattern. Turn 3, use Wizard's Retort as a Cancel. Turn 4, you can cast Snapcaster Mage, and then flash the Retort back as a Counterspell. If that the most powerful play pattern ever? Oh hell no. In fact I think it's below average. But it is still interesting to me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks: UBG Lantern Control GBU BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
This card hits both players. If you think its going to just something played by every Control player...well I find that unlikely.
Storm can also deal with this, like they do many other 2 mana hate cards.
Those 3 colour Goodstuffs have just as much right to win as 'plz dont make me play magic' Bogles.
The point I'm trying to make is not if and how Storm deals with it. Storm has ways to deal with anything, even harder to beat permanents like Rule of Law.
My point is how it will affect the meta game. Because this new card hits 2 decks instead of 1 means there will be an increase of the probability your opponent will show up with it in their 75. Thing is, Tron has a much higher representation than Storm, and most decks will be putting this card in more for Tron. There's just no reason for it. To me its just pandering to the crybabies. The game is much more interesting when you dont have something like "well I resolved thi so I probably won." Why do you think no one likes cards like Blood Moon
I'm going to wait and see what else we get....but right now, I am sorely tempted to turn my mono-blue Delver deck into UR Wizards. It's gonna be hilarious!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Project Booster Fun makes it less fun to open a booster.
I can think of plenty of people who like Blood Moon. :]
Natural State simply gets into people's sideboards if its not already there. Or Repeal.
It has nothing to do with cry babies. It has to do with decks cheating on resources, having answers. You still need to draw it, you still need to stick it, and you need to not be damaged overly much by the card yourself, because it hits 'everyone'.
i dont understand why people are talking like its been six months since the unban. there have been zero major tournaments, and the small tournament results and online leagues we do see are still representing a wide array of decks doing well.
jund the best deck? it hasnt won a single thing. hell a single copy of the deck didnt even make it into the top 16 at the classic last weekend.
storm is dumpster tier? 3 weeks ago it was considered one of the better decks in the format. it still probably has the most consistent turn 3 kill.
dont want matches being all about who draws more sideboard cards? what has been any different in the format to where this WASNT the case.
i understand having concerns about the format becoming some midrange good-stuff wasteland, or jund becoming oppressive. but please wait until the format actually looks like that before complaining.
-----------------------------
on another note - anyone see the SCG tour season 2 schedule? not a single standalone standard event, with modern being the format for half of the scheduled events (8/16).
on one hand i think modern coverage is great. on the other hand im kind of nervous for being in the spotlight so much. ive made my opinion known in other threads that i believe that modern should NOT be the most popular format. it just isnt healthy for the game, and increasing popularity has side effects such as a larger burden on the card economy and pressures wotc to take a more 'hands-on' approach with the format.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
I would much prefer a scenario like we saw with the emergence of Death Shadow decks (full disclosure, I play traverse shadow) where midrange strategies adjusted their decks to be faster to compete with Tron and unfair combo rather than just sideboarding away their bad matchups. We saw the same thing with Jeskai control becoming Jeskai Queller, and with the reintroduction of Jace and BBE we were likely to see those matchups switching back to Jeskai control and BBE Jund to adapt to the slower meta.
I don't mind grafdigger's cage vs dredge because the mechanic is busted in a card pool this size...I'm glad there is something to keep it in check.
On the flip, these are all permanents you can easily bounce/destroy once you get comfortable with what threatens your game plan. I run ponza and regularly playtest against my bro that has abzan. He's gotten pretty good at floating mana for blood moon to abrupt decay it or discard it early. The rest of my threats he can handle, but that is public enemy number one for him.
It has to do with decks cheating on resources, having answers.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by this
Tapping 3 lands, for 7 mana, needs answers, and it needs them before you can just place those lands down and drop a bomb.
Generating the mana needed, and card draw on turn 3, to cast upwards of 15 spells in a turn, needs answers that come down before that Turn 3.
Its like Torpor Orb, or Stony Silence, or Rest in Peace. These things are good, because otherwise you just have meta's at the top where people play past one another. The meta like ETron, GTron, Storm, Affinity, and GDS. That meta, is not good for the game.
on another note - anyone see the SCG tour season 2 schedule? not a single standalone standard event, with modern being the format for half of the scheduled events (8/16).
on one hand i think modern coverage is great. on the other hand im kind of nervous for being in the spotlight so much. ive made my opinion known in other threads that i believe that modern should NOT be the most popular format. it just isnt healthy for the game, and increasing popularity has side effects such as a larger burden on the card economy and pressures wotc to take a more 'hands-on' approach with the format.
I think its great. Secondary market is going to be an issue for some, but you can build out decks to play for under $400 if you want. I'm all for showing the most entertaining format, with the most depth, that doesnt have $1000 cards that Wizards can actually reprint, as the benchmark for 'this is what Magic can be.'
It has to do with decks cheating on resources, having answers.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by this
Tapping 3 lands, for 7 mana, needs answers, and it needs them before you can just place those lands down and drop a bomb.
Generating the mana needed, and card draw on turn 3, to cast upwards of 15 spells in a turn, needs answers that come down before that Turn 3.
Its like Torpor Orb, or Stony Silence, or Rest in Peace. These things are good, because otherwise you just have meta's at the top where people play past one another. The meta like ETron, GTron, Storm, Affinity, and GDS. That meta, is not good for the game.
Yeah but my gripe was on the second part where it makes it so multiple spells a turn increases, effectively hitting Storm pretty hard. The whole point of my disgruntledness is that the card hits both archtypes in one, which i think is unnecessary.
Sure, and I understand that is your perspective. On the flip side, it saves sideboard space for decks that want to tighten up the match up against both.
Drawing sideboard cards increase your win %, obviously. But we'd rather have it so that games don't rely solely on drawing them or losing.
Dressedspring1 said it just a few posts before:
sorry i am still not understanding your point. haymaker hate cards have existed forever. 2 months ago leading up to the pro-tour, when people were loving the format - the same hate cards were being played and still were important in matchups.
suddenly 1 narrow hate card against 2 decks gets spoiled and the modern format devolves into a format where only getting lucky and drawing sideboard cards matters?
also deaths shadow didnt emerge as some response to format conditions. if you watch the evolution of the deck over the last 1.5-2 years starting with suicide zoo its clear it was a slow dawning realization that 'holy crap deaths shadow is really freaking powerful', and was then incorporated into every midrange strategy playing black. it was so powerful that decks warped around the card creating the DS decks we see today.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
The meta like ETron, GTron, Storm, Affinity, and GDS. That meta, is not good for the game.
Aside from the incredibly suspect inclusion of GDS in the non interactive category, you're making a subjective judgement and passing it off as given that "that meta, is not good for the game". Modern continued to see strong growth during periods when all of those decks were at the top of the metagame so I would argue that you're conflating "good for the game" with what you like to play. Personally I think there is substantially more interesting decision making in the midrange vs aggro/combo matchup, or the affinity mirror as opposed to midrange mirrors which often come down to the person top decking two good things beating the person who top decked two lands. That is however only my value based judgement and I wouldn't go so far as to say whether it's good for the game or not. I would suspect however that the metagame in which the most people are happy is one in which a variety of strategies from linear to interactive are competitively viable. People get caught up in this narrative that interactive strategies are the ones that belong in magic and seem to forget that cards like goblin guide were deliberately printed to enable aggro strategies and those strategies are every bit as valid as anything else.
Drawing sideboard cards increase your win %, obviously. But we'd rather have it so that games don't rely solely on drawing them or losing.
Dressedspring1 said it just a few posts before:
sorry i am still not understanding your point. haymaker hate cards have existed forever. 2 months ago leading up to the pro-tour, when people were loving the format - the same hate cards were being played and still were important in matchups.
suddenly 1 narrow hate card against 2 decks gets spoiled and the modern format devolves into a format where only getting lucky and drawing sideboard cards matters?
also deaths shadow didnt emerge as some response to format conditions. if you watch the evolution of the deck over the last 1.5-2 years starting with suicide zoo its clear it was a slow dawning realization that 'holy crap deaths shadow is really freaking powerful', and was then incorporated into every midrange strategy playing black. it was so powerful that decks warped around the card creating the DS decks we see today.
They printed a card that is pretty flexible in hitting multiple matchups. It is an unnecessary printing and is pandering to the crybabies that constantly cry about Tron and Storm, that's my point. From my experience, especially in paper magic where it is much softer than online magic, people who don't play the deck have a pretty bad understanding of the Storm deck.
Also, your last part about Death's Shadow is a misunderstand of Dressedspring1's point. It is not about the evolution of Death Shadow decks, its about how the format forms around other powerful decks like Death Shadow decks
also deaths shadow didnt emerge as some response to format conditions. if you watch the evolution of the deck over the last 1.5-2 years starting with suicide zoo its clear it was a slow dawning realization that 'holy crap deaths shadow is really freaking powerful', and was then incorporated into every midrange strategy playing black. it was so powerful that decks warped around the card creating the DS decks we see today.
That's factually untrue. People played Death Shadow because it had a better matchup against linear decks and Tron while sacrificing the matchup against grindyer interactive decks. Non death shadow GBx continued to exist all throughout the past year alongside Death Shadow because Death Shadow is not, and has never been strictly better or "incorporated into every midrange strategy playing black".
GP Toronto, GP Lyon, Pro Tour RIX also had multiple non death shadow black midrange decks in top finishes. Death Shadow is and always has been an adaptation of GB midrange decks to better address combo and tron at the expense of beating midrange. It has never pushed out non shadow decks, it was never "warped" decks around it, and it's never been considered a strictly better evolution of the archetype.
The meta like ETron, GTron, Storm, Affinity, and GDS. That meta, is not good for the game.
Aside from the incredibly suspect inclusion of GDS in the non interactive category, you're making a subjective judgement and passing it off as given that "that meta, is not good for the game". Modern continued to see strong growth during periods when all of those decks were at the top of the metagame so I would argue that you're conflating "good for the game" with what you like to play. Personally I think there is substantially more interesting decision making in the midrange vs aggro/combo matchup, or the affinity mirror as opposed to midrange mirrors which often come down to the person top decking two good things beating the person who top decked two lands. That is however only my value based judgement and I wouldn't go so far as to say whether it's good for the game or not. I would suspect however that the metagame in which the most people are happy is one in which a variety of strategies from linear to interactive are competitively viable. People get caught up in this narrative that interactive strategies are the ones that belong in magic and seem to forget that cards like goblin guide were deliberately printed to enable aggro strategies and those strategies are every bit as valid as anything else.
Correct. Its 100% subjective, I should have put 'imo' after it. I found that meta dull, in the extreme. I'll take Jund and URx games all day, every day, IN ADDITION to those and other decks (Burn, Elves, whatever) but I feel that that meta, was pushing out, or down, other strategies (mid range, and control) far too much.
I feel that that meta, was pushing out, or down, other strategies (mid range, and control) far too much.
All, of course, imo.
Sure, that's reasonable. I always felt that midrange decks were favoured against those matchups and I'd chose to play against Storm, Humans and Burn every single round of a GP over having to play midrange mirrors which were much closer to 50/50 and harder to win in my experience.
They printed a card that is pretty flexible in hitting multiple matchups. It is an unnecessary printing and is pandering to the crybabies that constantly cry about Tron and Storm, that's my point. From my experience, especially in paper magic where it is much softer than online magic, people who don't play the deck a pretty bad understanding of the Storm deck.
Also, your last part about Death's Shadow is a misunderstand of Dressedspring1's point. It is not about the evolution of Death Shadow decks, its about how the format forms around other powerful decks like Death Shadow decks
i can agree that it is a flexible hate card. whether it was necessary to print or not - to be honest i dont really know. there are obviously proponents of either side of the argument, even right here in this very thread.
i dont want to put words into anyone elses mouth, but the way i read Dressedspring1's statement was that midrange strategies were feeling stretched too thin fighting against the extreme ends of the format, and then looked for a way to be more aggressive - finding DS as the best avenue to do this.
from my perspective it didnt happen this way. deaths shadow was adopted because people realized it was just by and far the most powerful thing going on. with it just being happenstance that they could kill you quicker. evidence of this is that death shadow decks actually had an even, if not favorable, matchup against regular non-DS midrange decks.
regardless that is besides the point. what im trying to express is that its way too early to be making conclusions about the health of the format. i want linear and combo decks to remain competitive, and nothing ive seen (not even the spoiler) convinces me that this wont continue to be the case.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
also deaths shadow didnt emerge as some response to format conditions. if you watch the evolution of the deck over the last 1.5-2 years starting with suicide zoo its clear it was a slow dawning realization that 'holy crap deaths shadow is really freaking powerful', and was then incorporated into every midrange strategy playing black. it was so powerful that decks warped around the card creating the DS decks we see today.
That's factually untrue. People played Death Shadow because it had a better matchup against linear decks and Tron while sacrificing the matchup against grindyer interactive decks. Non death shadow GBx continued to exist all throughout the past year alongside Death Shadow because Death Shadow is not, and has never been strictly better or "incorporated into every midrange strategy playing black".
GP Toronto, GP Lyon, Pro Tour RIX also had multiple non death shadow black midrange decks in top finishes. Death Shadow is and always has been an adaptation of GB midrange decks to better address combo and tron at the expense of beating midrange. It has never pushed out non shadow decks, it was never "warped" decks around it, and it's never been considered a strictly better evolution of the archetype.
i never said that DS pushed their non-DS counterparts out. i said that every black midrange strategy incorporated DS. meaning that a DS version of jund, abzan, grixis, and 4c showed up.
GBx decks were still powerful, played, and occasionally placed well. however look at the top 32 for each of those events you posted. death shadow decks show up in greater numbers in the top 32 for all of them.
whether those death shadow decks were strictly better is debatable, but that isnt what im proposing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
That damping sphere feels like an experiment in "What if Modern sideboards were 18-20 cards?" to me almost. That's what it's going to do, add virtual sideboard space by allowing tron and storm hate to double up essentially, especially for decks like UWR and Jund. Should be pretty interesting.
Not sure I am in love with giving Lantern an efficient Tron hate card myself, but we'll see.
Decks like Skred have had no answer to Tron for years now, other than get lucky that your opponent has a slow draw. T3 Karn or Wurmcoil is absurdly hard to answer for many decks. Having a 2-drop answer is what I've been asking for since my first forays into Modern, because playing Midrange sucks if your opponent naturally goes 1-2-7, I win.
In other news, "WotC hates on Storm decks, more at 11."
So on one hand I feel like Tron will adjust by playing the Explore-Nature's Claim card in sideboards, and it'll be fine, but on the other I'm somewhat worried that Jund might drive Tron out of the format entirely with the combination of this and bloodbraid.
right now though B/R midrange decks typically run 3-4 fulminator mages in their sideboard. sideboard slots are super tight, as they have always been in the format.
fulminator gets brought in a lot of different matchups, while also being their way to fight against tron. this means that moving to the sphere as their hate card of choice is at the cost of losing versatility. a cost im not entirely sure they are willing to pay.
maybe it will be a split, or maybe it ends up as an auto 4-of. maybe every deck in the format plays 4x in the main deck because they hate tron and storm in particular, collapsing the format into mono jund mirrors.
who knows.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
I suspect you'll see something like 4 fulminators become 2-3 spheres+1-2 nihil spellbomb, or the like, and then Jund has a much better Storm matchup as well as a solid tron matchup. Cutting some terminates and abrupt decays for this feels like a free roll in the Jund v. Tron matchup. But we'll see I guess. I don't think anyone will main deck it ever except possibly a 1-of in lantern
The problem with shaving fulmies is Scapeshift, ultimately, so maybe it's more like 2 fulminators/2 spheres/1-2 spellbombs, I dunno.
It might be playable as a 1-2 of in Tezzerator actually as they have an abysmal tron matchup, and making this thing into a 5/5 seems okay
There are a lot of really fun card designs in this set. I'll list a few of my favorites below:
Broken Bond1G
Sorcery
Destroy target artifact or enchantment. You may put a land card from your hand onto the battlefield.
Dauntless Bodyguard W
Creature - Human Knight
As Dauntless Bodyguard enters the battlefield, choose another creature you control.
Sacrifice Dauntless Bodyguard: The chosen creature gains indestructible until end of turn.
2/1
Wizard's Lightning 2R
Instant
This spell costs 2 less if you control a Wizard.
Wizard's Lightning deals 3 damage to any target.
Wizard's Retort 1UU
Instant
This spell costs 1 less if you control a Wizard.
Counter target spell.
So why do I think these are interesting cards to look at for Modern?
Broken Bond seems like an interesting sideboard card for Valakut decks. Yes it's Sorcery speed, but it's an Explore stapled to a Naturalize. Probably not good enough for the mainboard, but definitely seems like a good sideboard card for those decks.
Dauntless Bodyguard seems like a really interesting card for Hate Bears decks. Imagine you are playing against a deck where Thalia is extremely good. You can either cast, or use Aether Vial to get down the Bodyguard and have it act as a protective spell for your Thalia to keep her alive. And it attacks for 2 to boot, which is great. Bodyguard also has good stock in Humans lists. Is Meddling Mage going to be the reason you win this game? Cool now you have a way to protect it from unanticipated non-path/dismember removal.
The Wizard spells are interesting, but I think to get the context of why they may be good, we need to list some good playable Wizards that are legal in Modern: Augur of Bolas, Baral, Chief of Compliance, Dark Confidant, Delver of Secrets(only pre-flip), Goblin Electromancer, Grim Lavamancer, Izzet Staticaster, Jace, Vryn's Prodigy, Magus of the Moon, Snapcaster Mage, and Vendilion Clique. I tried to only list Wizard creatures that do, in some form, see Modern play. I didn't list them, but there are also a lot of Merfolk creatures that happen to be Wizards, so keep that in mind as well. In decks that are running these creatures, they now can have access to not only Counterspell but Lightning Bolts 5-8. Now I think if these cards see play it will most likely be in a form of Delver shell. But these cards should make some decks in Modern more interesting.
I mean think of this play pattern. Turn 3, use Wizard's Retort as a Cancel. Turn 4, you can cast Snapcaster Mage, and then flash the Retort back as a Counterspell. If that the most powerful play pattern ever? Oh hell no. In fact I think it's below average. But it is still interesting to me.
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
The point I'm trying to make is not if and how Storm deals with it. Storm has ways to deal with anything, even harder to beat permanents like Rule of Law.
My point is how it will affect the meta game. Because this new card hits 2 decks instead of 1 means there will be an increase of the probability your opponent will show up with it in their 75. Thing is, Tron has a much higher representation than Storm, and most decks will be putting this card in more for Tron. There's just no reason for it. To me its just pandering to the crybabies. The game is much more interesting when you dont have something like "well I resolved thi so I probably won." Why do you think no one likes cards like Blood Moon
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
I can think of plenty of people who like Blood Moon. :]
Natural State simply gets into people's sideboards if its not already there. Or Repeal.
It has nothing to do with cry babies. It has to do with decks cheating on resources, having answers. You still need to draw it, you still need to stick it, and you need to not be damaged overly much by the card yourself, because it hits 'everyone'.
Spirits
Can you elaborate on what you mean by this
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
jund the best deck? it hasnt won a single thing. hell a single copy of the deck didnt even make it into the top 16 at the classic last weekend.
storm is dumpster tier? 3 weeks ago it was considered one of the better decks in the format. it still probably has the most consistent turn 3 kill.
dont want matches being all about who draws more sideboard cards? what has been any different in the format to where this WASNT the case.
i understand having concerns about the format becoming some midrange good-stuff wasteland, or jund becoming oppressive. but please wait until the format actually looks like that before complaining.
-----------------------------
on another note - anyone see the SCG tour season 2 schedule? not a single standalone standard event, with modern being the format for half of the scheduled events (8/16).
on one hand i think modern coverage is great. on the other hand im kind of nervous for being in the spotlight so much. ive made my opinion known in other threads that i believe that modern should NOT be the most popular format. it just isnt healthy for the game, and increasing popularity has side effects such as a larger burden on the card economy and pressures wotc to take a more 'hands-on' approach with the format.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Drawing sideboard cards increase your win %, obviously. But we'd rather have it so that games don't rely solely on drawing them or losing.
Dressedspring1 said it just a few posts before:
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
I'm a fan of cards like blood moon, trinisphere, sorcerous spyglass, rest in peace, leyline of sanctity etc. because they reset the rules of the game if someone intends on operating on an axis that supports a game plan too quickly/efficiently.
I don't mind grafdigger's cage vs dredge because the mechanic is busted in a card pool this size...I'm glad there is something to keep it in check.
On the flip, these are all permanents you can easily bounce/destroy once you get comfortable with what threatens your game plan. I run ponza and regularly playtest against my bro that has abzan. He's gotten pretty good at floating mana for blood moon to abrupt decay it or discard it early. The rest of my threats he can handle, but that is public enemy number one for him.
Tapping 3 lands, for 7 mana, needs answers, and it needs them before you can just place those lands down and drop a bomb.
Generating the mana needed, and card draw on turn 3, to cast upwards of 15 spells in a turn, needs answers that come down before that Turn 3.
Its like Torpor Orb, or Stony Silence, or Rest in Peace. These things are good, because otherwise you just have meta's at the top where people play past one another. The meta like ETron, GTron, Storm, Affinity, and GDS. That meta, is not good for the game.
Spirits
I think its great. Secondary market is going to be an issue for some, but you can build out decks to play for under $400 if you want. I'm all for showing the most entertaining format, with the most depth, that doesnt have $1000 cards that Wizards can actually reprint, as the benchmark for 'this is what Magic can be.'
Spirits
Yeah but my gripe was on the second part where it makes it so multiple spells a turn increases, effectively hitting Storm pretty hard. The whole point of my disgruntledness is that the card hits both archtypes in one, which i think is unnecessary.
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
Which to me, is a good thing.
Spirits
sorry i am still not understanding your point. haymaker hate cards have existed forever. 2 months ago leading up to the pro-tour, when people were loving the format - the same hate cards were being played and still were important in matchups.
suddenly 1 narrow hate card against 2 decks gets spoiled and the modern format devolves into a format where only getting lucky and drawing sideboard cards matters?
also deaths shadow didnt emerge as some response to format conditions. if you watch the evolution of the deck over the last 1.5-2 years starting with suicide zoo its clear it was a slow dawning realization that 'holy crap deaths shadow is really freaking powerful', and was then incorporated into every midrange strategy playing black. it was so powerful that decks warped around the card creating the DS decks we see today.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Aside from the incredibly suspect inclusion of GDS in the non interactive category, you're making a subjective judgement and passing it off as given that "that meta, is not good for the game". Modern continued to see strong growth during periods when all of those decks were at the top of the metagame so I would argue that you're conflating "good for the game" with what you like to play. Personally I think there is substantially more interesting decision making in the midrange vs aggro/combo matchup, or the affinity mirror as opposed to midrange mirrors which often come down to the person top decking two good things beating the person who top decked two lands. That is however only my value based judgement and I wouldn't go so far as to say whether it's good for the game or not. I would suspect however that the metagame in which the most people are happy is one in which a variety of strategies from linear to interactive are competitively viable. People get caught up in this narrative that interactive strategies are the ones that belong in magic and seem to forget that cards like goblin guide were deliberately printed to enable aggro strategies and those strategies are every bit as valid as anything else.
They printed a card that is pretty flexible in hitting multiple matchups. It is an unnecessary printing and is pandering to the crybabies that constantly cry about Tron and Storm, that's my point. From my experience, especially in paper magic where it is much softer than online magic, people who don't play the deck have a pretty bad understanding of the Storm deck.
Also, your last part about Death's Shadow is a misunderstand of Dressedspring1's point. It is not about the evolution of Death Shadow decks, its about how the format forms around other powerful decks like Death Shadow decks
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
That's factually untrue. People played Death Shadow because it had a better matchup against linear decks and Tron while sacrificing the matchup against grindyer interactive decks. Non death shadow GBx continued to exist all throughout the past year alongside Death Shadow because Death Shadow is not, and has never been strictly better or "incorporated into every midrange strategy playing black".
Jund - SCG Baltimore 4th Place http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=15744&d=296488&f=MO
Abzan - GP Kobe top 16 http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=15693&d=296002&f=MO
Abzan - GP Vegas top 16 http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=15927&d=298105&f=MO
Abzan - GP Sao Paulo top 8 http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=16542&d=302313&f=MO
Abzan - GP Birmingham top 4 http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=16525&d=302196&f=MO
GB Rock - GP Birmingham 2nd Place http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=16525&d=302198&f=MO
GP Toronto, GP Lyon, Pro Tour RIX also had multiple non death shadow black midrange decks in top finishes. Death Shadow is and always has been an adaptation of GB midrange decks to better address combo and tron at the expense of beating midrange. It has never pushed out non shadow decks, it was never "warped" decks around it, and it's never been considered a strictly better evolution of the archetype.
Correct. Its 100% subjective, I should have put 'imo' after it. I found that meta dull, in the extreme. I'll take Jund and URx games all day, every day, IN ADDITION to those and other decks (Burn, Elves, whatever) but I feel that that meta, was pushing out, or down, other strategies (mid range, and control) far too much.
All, of course, imo.
Spirits
Sure, that's reasonable. I always felt that midrange decks were favoured against those matchups and I'd chose to play against Storm, Humans and Burn every single round of a GP over having to play midrange mirrors which were much closer to 50/50 and harder to win in my experience.
Different perspectives are totally valid though.
i can agree that it is a flexible hate card. whether it was necessary to print or not - to be honest i dont really know. there are obviously proponents of either side of the argument, even right here in this very thread.
i dont want to put words into anyone elses mouth, but the way i read Dressedspring1's statement was that midrange strategies were feeling stretched too thin fighting against the extreme ends of the format, and then looked for a way to be more aggressive - finding DS as the best avenue to do this.
from my perspective it didnt happen this way. deaths shadow was adopted because people realized it was just by and far the most powerful thing going on. with it just being happenstance that they could kill you quicker. evidence of this is that death shadow decks actually had an even, if not favorable, matchup against regular non-DS midrange decks.
regardless that is besides the point. what im trying to express is that its way too early to be making conclusions about the health of the format. i want linear and combo decks to remain competitive, and nothing ive seen (not even the spoiler) convinces me that this wont continue to be the case.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)i never said that DS pushed their non-DS counterparts out. i said that every black midrange strategy incorporated DS. meaning that a DS version of jund, abzan, grixis, and 4c showed up.
GBx decks were still powerful, played, and occasionally placed well. however look at the top 32 for each of those events you posted. death shadow decks show up in greater numbers in the top 32 for all of them.
whether those death shadow decks were strictly better is debatable, but that isnt what im proposing.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Not sure I am in love with giving Lantern an efficient Tron hate card myself, but we'll see.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
In other news, "WotC hates on Storm decks, more at 11."
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
right now though B/R midrange decks typically run 3-4 fulminator mages in their sideboard. sideboard slots are super tight, as they have always been in the format.
fulminator gets brought in a lot of different matchups, while also being their way to fight against tron. this means that moving to the sphere as their hate card of choice is at the cost of losing versatility. a cost im not entirely sure they are willing to pay.
maybe it will be a split, or maybe it ends up as an auto 4-of. maybe every deck in the format plays 4x in the main deck because they hate tron and storm in particular, collapsing the format into mono jund mirrors.
who knows.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)The problem with shaving fulmies is Scapeshift, ultimately, so maybe it's more like 2 fulminators/2 spheres/1-2 spellbombs, I dunno.
It might be playable as a 1-2 of in Tezzerator actually as they have an abysmal tron matchup, and making this thing into a 5/5 seems okay
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall