MTG Salvation

Yeah, I feel you on it not working in 3 colour decks. People run a misers copy in UWR, but its simply not worth it to me. I've actually just given up on the Tron matchup. It feels terrible, and even TRYING to bring some parity into it just hurts you against other decks.

Expecting to have game against Tron game 1, just says you play aggro though, or you warp your deck towards it if possible (UW Control). I get you on it being frustrating, and I feel the new Eldrazi are the worst addition to the Modern pool....ever, but it is what it is. They go over top, and make the match not fun, just like me blowing up all the things against a creature deck is 'not fun' or how gigadrowsing and exhausting someone is 'not fun'.

Midrange/Control mirrors are not for everyone, and thats fine too.

We get a two mana artifact that explicitly hits the deck. Has anybody just said "screw it" and run a playset in the side?"

Quote from BlueTronFTW »

We get a two mana artifact that explicitly hits the deck. Has anybody just said "screw it" and run a playset in the side?"

I went up to 3 in my UWR deck to see what it would do for the match up, but UWR is simply too slow unless their own deck screws them over, and even getting it down with a Clique coming in, isnt enough unless you can.

1. Land a Sphere and it not get popped (again, they board in anti hate for games 2 and 3)
2. Land a Threat (Snap beats or hopefully Clique)
3. Protect the threat AND the sphere.

The point at which I gave up on the match up was when I was on Blue Moon, had 2 Moons out, Spreading Sea's, and they still had enough draw to get out from under the moon and pull back into the game as I stumbled on counters.

Its simply not worth trying to tune for the match up imo, unless you are playing a full Mana Denial strategy.

Quote from ktkenshinx »

I see we are back to midrange and control players complaining about Tron. This generally indicates the format is fine. In particular, allegations of 80/20 matchups are unsupportable without actual data. Are we really claiming Jeskai vs. Tron is the same as Ad Nauseam vs. Infect? No way. I played UW Control for months last year and had an MWP in the 40/60 - 45/55 range. Even if the true MWP is lower, this just means midrange/control is in the same boat as other archetypes that are significant underdogs in key matchups. You don't see combo mages complaining about how they are wrecked by disruptive aggro. You don't see big mana mages complaining about how they are wrecked by combo and aggressive strategies. It's just the midrange and control players who come off as entitled to not have polarizing matchups, and/or frustrated that they have to have bad matchups like other decks. It's particularly dissonant given that many less-played, lower-tier strategies were complete underdogs to something like Twin. Even big names like Affinity were 30/70 against Twin. You didn't see those players in here complaining about Twin's hold on their decks, but you do see many Twin expats in here complaining that their new deck doesn't have the same idealized matchup spectrum as Twin. That's a double standard which often goes unaddressed and detracts from the credibility of many complainants.

i think the reason for this is fairly obvious. linear decks tend to have fewer points of interaction because it detracts from accomplishing their primary goal as best as possible. which is entirely different from strategies that look to actively engage with what the opponent is doing. the former's complaints about bad matchups therefore lack substance because they are choosing not to address an issue, while the latter is complaining because they can't address an issue.

for example all-in combo player A is hardly going to complain about being unable to beat all-in combo player B that happens to be 1 turn faster; because doing so is just silly.

i do however think that 'fair' players tend to come off as feeling superior, especially when expressing bitterness or frustration. that isnt to say that wishing a certain class of decks were bigger features of the format because of the gameplay considerations is inherently wrong. its just a difference of opinion on what they would like from the format or the game.

Quote from pierrebai »

Quote from sicsmoo »

Their clock is too slow, they have no card advantage engines, no efficient answers to any of my threats (no Path for Wurmcoil, 0 to 1 Dreadbore for planeswalkers), no "free win" cards out of the side ie Stony Silence, etc. Jund can take over with an unchecked Bob/Liliana and they can close pretty quickly. Once UWx can stabilize with a Teferi or start looping Cryptics after a bunch of land destruction it gets pretty difficult. Mardu just has none of that.

Soooo.... they're just a few MB / SB cards away from adjusting? Play more path, fewer pushes. Play blood moon in SB. More LD? Fulminator mage?

I know no deck can cover every other deck and maybe Tron numbers are low enough in your meta that who ever it is you're crushing doesn't adapt, but it's not like Mardu has no tools.

I play exclusively online in competitive leagues and in bigger events now that I'm in the right time zone, so I'm playing against lists that are tuned for a wide meta. It's pretty normal for Mardu to play 3 Molten Rains in the side, and Rabblemasters to speed up the clock. It's still rarely enough. It's not really an issue of the deck not being able to adapt, it's an issue with how the deck is fundamentally built. It has always seemed weird to me that the deck doesn't play Path and I don't really know why. I guess one reason is that white is just a small splash and adding more would strain the mana/make the Blood Moon plan weaker.

In regards to the other matchups:
vs UW Control (4 Field, 4 Seas) I'm 23-12, 65.7%,
Jund (post-BBE) is 15-13, 53.6%.
My Jeskai sample is too small but currently I'm 10-3 for 77%.

Might as well just post my spreadsheet at this point: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ysFDPLK2vAYUwj0zgcAAekmtwAlxrJypwg8PU-VqD3E/edit?usp=sharing

props to you. those are some solid win rates. looks like infect is your only losing record against tier 1/2

yeah i expect the white mana issue being the primary reason mardu doesnt run path. that and the nonbo with moon.

Stats look very solid for a very good Tron player, but how in the hell did you get to 4-1 vs. Turns? What version of Turns? Any against SebaMTG or Phoenix? I'm only asking because Tron is pretty much a Bye for Turns. I know exaggerations happen quite often, but 4 Spreading Seas, Exhaustion, Gigadrowse, Remand, and Cryptic Command are all very tough for Tron. Not to mention, once it's turn 5 or so, Tron will literally never get another turn. I've played against Tron now just 3 times with Uw Turns, even before knowing how to play it, and easily 2-0ed each match.

Seemingly the only way to lose is get mana screwed or fizzle while Tron gets to 10 mana and Ulamog exiles 2 lands.

I've read very interesting points from all of you since I brought up the Tron problem, but I still think the reason control is just a 5-10% of the field is Tron. I don't think it's because control cards suck. Yes, they could reprint counterspell and other controlish cards in other colors and control decks would be better, but ultimately, Tron got too good and I don't think there can be a new card that could make the MU not as horrible as it is now.
My guess is they tried to fix this with the sphere, but I don't personally like the sideboard lotto as a fix. Like with dredge, I prefer bans. People are so afraid of bans! Well, they shouldn't, specially if the ban just weaknens a deck instead of completely destroying it.
#ban stirrings.

Quote from gkourou »

It's not only us who know Tron vs fair intetactive decks is a lopsided matchup. Seth Manfield said on camera that "I want to play BG tron, because it has so many free wins vs interactive decks and you get to play Collective Brutality post sb to win vs Tron and fix your many, bad matchups".

@ktk: playing UW vs tron. I fall of the sky that you can't even realize that this deck is a fixed, warped Jeskai to win vs Tron. Heck, it plays 4 seas + 4 ruin(quarters). Of course it will win half of the times.
Try and play Jeskai vs Tron the next time.

If one doubts that Tron vs Control is a lopsided(at least 70-30 matchup), feel free to let me tear you apart with it on cockatrice. Seriously, I challenge a control player who thinks the matchups is only 60-40 in favour of tron to do this experiment on cockatrice. Let's say 30-50 games, depending on our time.
The matchups will be ~70-30 in tron's favour. Whoever denies this, must have no reality with Modern whatsoever.

Also, it's really laughable that some of you treat us as we said that the deck is warping or bannable. I said 3 times already that it's not. Just pointing out that it's not the definition of health in a format, as it makes skill matter less when you play against it, either you are a fair interactive player that will probably lose the match or an aggro player that could win it.

I am going to go ahead and claim a big ol' MEH on the idea that magic is an incredibly complex, skill-comprehensive game. I think a lot of fair players overblow that concept. Every match is at least half luck.

Quote from BlueTronFTW »

Quote from gkourou »

It's not only us who know Tron vs fair intetactive decks is a lopsided matchup. Seth Manfield said on camera that "I want to play BG tron, because it has so many free wins vs interactive decks and you get to play Collective Brutality post sb to win vs Tron and fix your many, bad matchups".

@ktk: playing UW vs tron. I fall of the sky that you can't even realize that this deck is a fixed, warped Jeskai to win vs Tron. Heck, it plays 4 seas + 4 ruin(quarters). Of course it will win half of the times.
Try and play Jeskai vs Tron the next time.

If one doubts that Tron vs Control is a lopsided(at least 70-30 matchup), feel free to let me tear you apart with it on cockatrice. Seriously, I challenge a control player who thinks the matchups is only 60-40 in favour of tron to do this experiment on cockatrice. Let's say 30-50 games, depending on our time.
The matchups will be ~70-30 in tron's favour. Whoever denies this, must have no reality with Modern whatsoever.

Also, it's really laughable that some of you treat us as we said that the deck is warping or bannable. I said 3 times already that it's not. Just pointing out that it's not the definition of health in a format, as it makes skill matter less when you play against it, either you are a fair interactive player that will probably lose the match or an aggro player that could win it.

I am going to go ahead and claim a big ol' MEH on the idea that magic is an incredibly complex, skill-comprehensive game. I think a lot of fair players overblow that concept. Every match is at least half luck.

It's a game of using good cards and mitigating variance. Modern players typically aim for high consistency decks with a narrow focus, but you can still build a less consistent deck that can answer multiple scenarios.

@Nyzzeh
well i hope you can see how its difficult to find your argument compelling in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. tron has ups and downs just like a bunch of fair/midrange/control decks.

i can understand wanting control and midrange decks to be more of a presence in the format because the gameplay may be more interesting. also tbh i dont buy into the notion that the modern ecosystem is this fragile thing that would collapse if tron was no longer around.

that said i subscribe to the mentality of letting people do what they want as long as it isnt oppressive. especially in a format like modern, which is supposed to showcase the breadth of what magic has to offer. its one of the primary reasons to play it over something like standard, which has its own identity of offering rich gameplay (at least it should be) but with less dimensions (ie little to no combo, prison, etc).

if i had to guess, i would say that many of the people that complain about some of the more degenerate aspects of modern are seeking a format that plays like standard, but is non-rotating. im not sure if you fall into this category Nyzzeh, but it might be worth examining your feelings on the subject to see if you do.

Been reading for a bit now. I honestly don't think that tron is too overpowered. I play blue tron.. obviously not the tron people are talking(complaining) about but I have some matchups that are near the same. yes control and midrange are normally good matchups but there are always ways to beat it. If you deny mana on tron you still have to back it up. Its like playing control vs aggro. If you are mono sweepers and no threats, if your opp deck has reasonable card draw or good card quality they can come back. Magic metagames are a fine balance and I think modern is the healthiest its been in years.
Humans is a great deck, I don't want to be paired against it but what it does is fundamentally fair. Jeskai is the counter to Humans and other aggro decks, also what it is doing is fair. Gx tron, plays 16 cantrips, of course its going to do its thing most of the time, it was built to be a consistency monster. Jund and Mardu do their thing, Jund has a much better matchup vs tron than Mardu. Its faster and has better land disruption in fulminator rather than bloodmoon. Both have decent aggro match ups. Mardu is better vs control because it goes wide and has more hand disruption compared to jund. Every deck has matchups in mind when it was constructed, most of the time they just happen to overlap. Combo is also great right now. Storm is extremely consistent even through counter mage and hand disruption. but a fastclock and hand disruption will eat it up. Other combo like Ad Nauseum and Grishoalbrand imo are underplayed as they do fundementally broken things quickly (with the nut top 12 cards grishoalbrand can win on turn 0) Dredge is fast and hard to disrupt.

The cycle will always happen. if control is a big part of the metagame, big mana will come in and wreck it. If big mana is popular, aggro will come beat up on it. If aggro... Midrange. If midrange... Control.. so on and so forth. Combo just kinda does it thing on the side. but normally is an answer to big mana and aggro gets answered by hand disruption/counter magic. There is no deck that only is 50/50 and probably never will be. Someone will always try to hard counter your deck. Thats what I find great about Magic, modern especially.

P.S. I love playing against lantern (great matchup for me), its a dumb but good pile of jank cards. People just don't know when to concede.

I'm thinking that part of the issue here is that when you're playing at the local level, the wider metagame picture isn't really relevant. When the local meta is tuned against whatever you're bringing to the table, that can be incredibly frustrating. That being said, it doesn't mean that what they're doing is unhealthy or bannable. For instance, if everyone at my LGS suddenly started playing Elves, Affinity, and/or Goblins, I'd have a pretty miserable time going there three times a week. Doesn't mean that any of those decks need to be hit with a banhammer, just that they're particularly effective against what I'm trying to do.

Alternatively, it always helps to have reps on more than one Modern deck. Right now I'm using Faeries, but I've got GDS on standby in case the local meta shifts and/or I want to play something a little different.

EDIT
Apologies for the double post, my phone is super janky.

Quote from BlueTronFTW »

Quote from gkourou »

It's not only us who know Tron vs fair intetactive decks is a lopsided matchup. Seth Manfield said on camera that "I want to play BG tron, because it has so many free wins vs interactive decks and you get to play Collective Brutality post sb to win vs Tron and fix your many, bad matchups".

@ktk: playing UW vs tron. I fall of the sky that you can't even realize that this deck is a fixed, warped Jeskai to win vs Tron. Heck, it plays 4 seas + 4 ruin(quarters). Of course it will win half of the times.
Try and play Jeskai vs Tron the next time.

If one doubts that Tron vs Control is a lopsided(at least 70-30 matchup), feel free to let me tear you apart with it on cockatrice. Seriously, I challenge a control player who thinks the matchups is only 60-40 in favour of tron to do this experiment on cockatrice. Let's say 30-50 games, depending on our time.
The matchups will be ~70-30 in tron's favour. Whoever denies this, must have no reality with Modern whatsoever.

Also, it's really laughable that some of you treat us as we said that the deck is warping or bannable. I said 3 times already that it's not. Just pointing out that it's not the definition of health in a format, as it makes skill matter less when you play against it, either you are a fair interactive player that will probably lose the match or an aggro player that could win it.

I am going to go ahead and claim a big ol' MEH on the idea that magic is an incredibly complex, skill-comprehensive game. I think a lot of fair players overblow that concept. Every match is at least half luck.

Given a specific game, some times certain games require no skill, and a literal goldfish could pilot a deck to victory. However, over a course of multiple matches, over the course of multiple tournaments, skill becomes a gigantic factor in win rates. It is similar to Poker, as the above post said, its about "bad luck" mitigation and risk management. Given a single hand, a blind man could beat the best poker player of all time, but over the course of a year, the pro poker player would be up thousands of dollars while the bad players wont.

Not only is mechanical play important, but a lot of players downplay the importance of preparation for a given tournament. Deck familiarity, meta/format familiarity, and most important, deck/card choice going into an event is all factors that go into the skill of the game. Someone like Ben Nikolich or Caleb Scherer don't get top SCG points by just showing up and grinding out varience

I was playing Titanshift vs. White Eldrazi last night against my teammate and literally, 1 game of 10-12 had a really tough decision for me. All of the other decisions were something literally someone who knew how to play Magic could have done.

There is a reason that people downplay the skill factor. Part of it insulates them against losing; "it was luck, so therefore I am still the better player. And the other reason is that it actually only gets you so far. In a GP, the "best" player rarely wins. The player who prepared for the tournament the most rarely wins. Yes, it's easy to just say the first place winner practiced 1 hour more than the second place finisher, who both played 5 hours more than the 3rd and 4th place finishers, but it ends up being much more complex than that.

Quote from Pistallion »

[
Not only is mechanical play important, but a lot of players downplay the importance of preparation for a given tournament. Deck familiarity, meta/format familiarity, and most important, deck/card choice going into an event is all factors that go into the skill of the game. Someone like Ben Nikolich or Caleb Scherer don't get top SCG points by just showing up and grinding out varience

Eh, if you have a 65% win rate against the field and 2 byes that's pretty much all it takes to do well most of the time [and
I don't mean to minimize that; most people can't do it, that's just what the best players do]. That translates to, in a 15 game tournament, virtually being guaranteed 10/5 at every tournament and top 8 if you have a good run or hit some scrubs that're freerolls or whatever.

I think people actually *overstate* how much difference skill and preparation when playing at the top level, especially at the individual event level; we know almost exactly how much difference being a pro, vs. the best pro, makes.

IIRC, it was something like the top level pros have win rates in the 70% range against a GP field, right? (And lesser pros 65%?) When people have a day where their win rate is 90% we're keen to attribute it to the player being on the ball that day or having a secret read on the meta but it's significantly more likely to be blind luck*.

* I suspect pretty strongly if you plotted the best SCG open players you'd see that their records, for the most part, fall in a bell curvesque distribution consistent with luck. Really be interested in seeing that actually. It might be tough to adjust for early drops though.

Edit: I guess I'm oversimplifying here, because I'm sure that preparation is what makes up part of that ~65% winrate. And if that's what you're getting at I'll backpedal. But I don't think it's as much as you might think; I'm pretty sure if you gave Tom Ross a random netdeck of one of the best decks every tournament, he would do well consistently.

Quote from FoodChainGoblins »

Stats look very solid for a very good Tron player, but how in the hell did you get to 4-1 vs. Turns? What version of Turns? Any against SebaMTG or Phoenix? I'm only asking because Tron is pretty much a Bye for Turns. I know exaggerations happen quite often, but 4 Spreading Seas, Exhaustion, Gigadrowse, Remand, and Cryptic Command are all very tough for Tron. Not to mention, once it's turn 5 or so, Tron will literally never get another turn. I've played against Tron now just 3 times with Uw Turns, even before knowing how to play it, and easily 2-0ed each match.

Seemingly the only way to lose is get mana screwed or fizzle while Tron gets to 10 mana and Ulamog exiles 2 lands.

Yeah, I think variance is playing a large role there. The matches have been so few and far between that I don't remember many specifics, but I assume I was sneaking threats through and seeing my opponents fizzle more than average. The matchup does feel terrible and I'm always surprised when I win. Nature's Claim and Thought-Knot are solid out of the side though. Also some lists play Warping Wail which is pretty strong. One of the wins was against RGNKPheonix20, if that's who you mean.

Wow! That's pretty good. Yes, I believe that is the Phoenix who my friend and I talked to nearly every day. The funny thing is that he said he never sided a single card for Tron in 2 years and never lost to it. I'm not sure how many matches that was, but he also said that many of them were 2-0s as well. He even suggested not even siding in 2 Stony Silence, which is really the only card we have for Tron (unless you want to dilute the deck more with Chalice of the Void, which I'm assuming you don't?).

Yes, Nature's Claim actually made one of my matches somewhat tough and I assumed he had Warping Wail as well, but I didn't see them when I played against a friend at Monday Night Magic. All of the other matches, I didn't see either card, so either it was a sideboarding mistake or they didn't come up.

*I'm assuming that your match with Phoenix was vs. Ur Turns. We've been trying to do a Ur version and even a Jeskai Turns list.

(Black is the better splash, change my mind!)

I do believe that Turns is favoured heavily against Tron, Wail is a shocker at times, and Claim can do work, but that is nothing that Gigadrowse cannot cure before trying to go off.

Yeah, I have it in my text file as UR Turns, March 28. I'd like to go back and watch the replay but I had to do a fresh install of MTGO due to it being a piece of crap so my history doesn't go that far back now.

Quote from tronix »

@Nyzzeh
well i hope you can see how its difficult to find your argument compelling in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. tron has ups and downs just like a bunch of fair/midrange/control decks.

i can understand wanting control and midrange decks to be more of a presence in the format because the gameplay may be more interesting. also tbh i dont buy into the notion that the modern ecosystem is this fragile thing that would collapse if tron was no longer around.

that said i subscribe to the mentality of letting people do what they want as long as it isnt oppressive. especially in a format like modern, which is supposed to showcase the breadth of what magic has to offer. its one of the primary reasons to play it over something like standard, which has its own identity of offering rich gameplay (at least it should be) but with less dimensions (ie little to no combo, prison, etc).

if i had to guess, i would say that many of the people that complain about some of the more degenerate aspects of modern are seeking a format that plays like standard, but is non-rotating. im not sure if you fall into this category Nyzzeh, but it might be worth examining your feelings on the subject to see if you do.

What I hate is starting a game and knowing after their first tron land that my chances of winning are very small. And that happens with any kind of slow deck, not just a handful of decks. Entire archetypes are at an almost guaranteed loss since turn1 against Tron.
That is of course compensated by the more or less same feeling Tron players have when they see they got paired against aggro. But it's just plainly unfun. Fun is as important as format balance, and there is one deck making the format boring.

PD: sorry I said earlier that mardu had a decent MU against tron. Have never played that deck and didn't know it still has a horrible MU against tron even with blood moon MD. But it also does not surprise me one bit. Sad, and boring.

Quote from Nyzzeh »

Quote from tronix »

@Nyzzeh
well i hope you can see how its difficult to find your argument compelling in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. tron has ups and downs just like a bunch of fair/midrange/control decks.

i can understand wanting control and midrange decks to be more of a presence in the format because the gameplay may be more interesting. also tbh i dont buy into the notion that the modern ecosystem is this fragile thing that would collapse if tron was no longer around.

that said i subscribe to the mentality of letting people do what they want as long as it isnt oppressive. especially in a format like modern, which is supposed to showcase the breadth of what magic has to offer. its one of the primary reasons to play it over something like standard, which has its own identity of offering rich gameplay (at least it should be) but with less dimensions (ie little to no combo, prison, etc).

if i had to guess, i would say that many of the people that complain about some of the more degenerate aspects of modern are seeking a format that plays like standard, but is non-rotating. im not sure if you fall into this category Nyzzeh, but it might be worth examining your feelings on the subject to see if you do.

What I hate is starting a game and knowing after their first tron land that my chances of winning are very small. And that happens with any kind of slow deck, not just a handful of decks. Entire archetypes are at an almost guaranteed loss since turn1 against Tron.
That is of course compensated by the more or less same feeling Tron players have when they see they got paired against aggro. But it's just plainly unfun. Fun is as important as format balance, and there is one deck making the format boring.

PD: sorry I said earlier that mardu had a decent MU against tron. Have never played that deck and didn't know it still has a horrible MU against tron even with blood moon MD. But it also does not surprise me one bit. Sad, and boring.

By all measures, the majority do not find the format "boring." It's both the most-viewed and most-played format. It's also the most diverse. I understand that you personally don't like Tron, but that isn't exactly something to craft a format-wide policy around. Nor something to generalize around regarding format-wide fun.

It also gets back to the perceived entitlement of fair deck players. No other deck pilots regularly come into this thread and complain about an allegedly unwinnable or disheartening matchup. And when they do, they are rightfully dismissed. If you play combo and opponent opens on T1 TS, that typically signals a pending loss. The Affinity mage doesn't whine about losing to Bolt, Helix, Electrolyze. Or to Stony Silence. The Titan Shift player doesn't complain about losing to a T2 Kitesail into T3 Meddling Mage. The Dredge player does not come here to condemn format fun when Leylines and RiPs crash their MWP in events. The 30/70 dogs to Twin never came in here either. It's always just the fair deck players who present as wanting to remove their bad matchups and complain that they can't have a 50/50+ deck.

Some fair deck players make more nuanced arguments than this, so don't take this as a categorical swipe against all who pilot the archetype. But if you're in Nyzz's camp and truly believe the presence of something like Tron genuinely makes the format less fun, I encourage you to reevaluate your beliefs from another perspective.

Quote from ktkenshinx »

It also gets back to the perceived entitlement of fair deck players. No other deck pilots regularly come into this thread and complain about an allegedly unwinnable or disheartening matchup. And when they do, they are rightfully dismissed. If you play combo and opponent opens on T1 TS, that typically signals a pending loss. The Affinity mage doesn't whine about losing to Bolt, Helix, Electrolyze. Or to Stony Silence. The Titan Shift player doesn't complain about losing to a T2 Kitesail into T3 Meddling Mage. The Dredge player does not come here to condemn format fun when Leylines and RiPs crash their MWP in events. The 30/70 dogs to Twin never came in here either. It's always just the fair deck players who present as wanting to remove their bad matchups and complain that they can't have a 50/50+ deck.

The reason non-fair players dont complain is because they know that they are doing things 'against the rules'.

Decks that can win on Turn 3 cannot complain, they break the rules.
Decks that make a million mana cannot complain, they break the rules.

And so on and so on.

Only 'fair' decks complain, because for unfair decks to complain is hilarious as you can just point out that they are cheating at the game anyway.

EDIT: And I say this as a guy who wants nothing more than for you to do nothing when I have 4 mana, so I can cast Dictate of Kruphix, and prevent you from getting to play again until I win.

agreed. most combo or other decks heavily skewed towards linear play patterns dont really have a leg to stand on in terms of complaints. when your entire strategy hinges on hoping your opponent doesnt have the necessary pieces of interaction to stop you from goldfishing it doesnt make much sense to complain about it when they do. the same goes for two decks/players that just try to race one another.

fun is a subjective concept. in magic sometimes it is zero sum, and other times it isnt. however acknowledging this isnt the same as saying that some aspects of a game, or games in general, cant elicit better responses from a given playerbase. its one of the driving forces in game design. so its true that fun is subjective, but it is also true that some things are objectively more fun than others given a particular game, the designers intent, and the target demographic.

this is what i was alluding to when i brought up other formats and what they are meant to accomplish. modern not being like standard, or even legacy, isnt a problem that needs to be solved.