How can be a meta healthy without pure control decks? Modern is going to die.
Magic origins: a magic reboot, a new format will arise soon.
I hope they focus on the "new format" m15 and beyond for pro-tours and unban a lot from modern ban list, this is my desire.
Why does a control deck have to be pure? Why can't it be Control-Combo or Control-Aggro or Control-Midrange? We all seem to think that control is lacking in power, but the question is what do we do to make it viable? Can it be possible that just like pure aggro (Goblins, small Zoo) or pure combo (Eggs) isn't favourable in the format, that simply going "Draw, Island, go." and missing out on early tempo isn't good enough in Modern given the quality of cards we have to work with?
Ok, valid argument. Splinter twin is combo-control. I get it.
Faeries is control-midrange.
UR delver would be control-aggro.
I would like to see a control-control though. Some esper control, or grixis cruel control... this is only a desire. I know they need AV unban or printing some specific cards for that decks. Idea: multicolor/tricolor powerful instants at 4 cost?
I'd argue that Scapeshift is just one maindeck-able fat creature away from being a very good control deck with a combo plan. Maybe a something like Surrak that somewhat dodges removal. If you feel inclined to share your hypothetical 4cmc instant to fix control by all means do so. I think the problem lies card advantage or lack thereof. Something that benefits control colours (Esper/Grixis) without being immediately maindeckable for Twin. AV could do it, but I'm not so sure it'd be the big band-aid to the card advantage problem that some people think it to be.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I dare do all that may become a man / who dares do more is none"
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
How can be a meta healthy without pure control decks? Modern is going to die.
Magic origins: a magic reboot, a new format will arise soon.
I hope they focus on the "new format" m15 and beyond for pro-tours and unban a lot from modern ban list, this is my desire.
There have been plenty of healthy metagames that didn't have a "pure" control deck. In fact, I would argue that in most cases, metagames are better without a "pure" control deck, but that's just my personal preference.
I think all this "new post-M15 format" speculation is baseless. It doesn't make sense for Wizards to split their enternal customer base even further, and killing off Modern to replace it with another eternal format makes no sense. Especially so when you realize that they're releasing Modern Masters 2015 this year, mere months before the last core set. And even if they did create a new format and leave Modern around, why would they "unban a lot"? They've used the banlist to create the format they want Modern to be, and that won't change if they add another format.
I don't want to discuss new cards in this post, but it would be very very easy to create powerful instants 4 CMC for grixis or esper pure control decks.
Of course it would. But the key point here is that Twin/Scapeshift/etc. would be able to use those too. The end result is that existing decks get pushed up as much as this elusive, hypothetical "pure control deck" would, and so the "pure control deck" would still be worse than Twin. Twin and Scapeshift already often run some number of Cryptic Command, so no amount of blue mana symbols will keep Twin and Scapeshift from playing your control dream 4 CMC draw spell. I guess if you made it Grixis or Esper colors, you might (might!) have a case, but if it was good enough, they'd just play those colors. Heck, there was already a Grixis Twin deck at the Pro Tour, even with out some hypothetical awesome grixis draw spell.
I'm sick of this "pure control" discussion. We've said all there is say. I'll summarize: Some people wish really hard that there was a "pure control deck" (even though no one really knows what that means, or will admit that they just want to play draw-go from a decade ago). Most people, though. either dislike such control decks, or more likely just don't care enough to want Wizards to push hypothetical "only good for pure control" cards.
Pure, old school, draw go control is not going to happen in Modern because Wotc has moved away from the concept along with land destruction and other 'un-fun' strategies. Wotc has come out and said so much. Wotc moving away from 4cmc sweepers in Standard means absolutely zero in Modern. We already have some of the best 4cmc sweepers ever printed in the game, we really dont, and shouldnt need any more.
How often can Amulet of Vigor/primetime combo off turn 1 and turn 2? I was watching an SCG video and it was able to t1 a few times (granted it was a 5card nut hand).
I don't want to discuss new cards in this post, but it would be very very easy to create powerful instants 4 CMC for grixis or esper pure control decks.
Of course it would. But the key point here is that Twin/Scapeshift/etc. would be able to use those too. The end result is that existing decks get pushed up as much as this elusive, hypothetical "pure control deck" would, and so the "pure control deck" would still be worse than Twin. Twin and Scapeshift already often run some number of Cryptic Command, so no amount of blue mana symbols will keep Twin and Scapeshift from playing your control dream 4 CMC draw spell. I guess if you made it Grixis or Esper colors, you might (might!) have a case, but if it was good enough, they'd just play those colors. Heck, there was already a Grixis Twin deck at the Pro Tour, even with out some hypothetical awesome grixis draw spell.
I'm sick of this "pure control" discussion. We've said all there is say. I'll summarize: Some people wish really hard that there was a "pure control deck" (even though no one really knows what that means, or will admit that they just want to play draw-go from a decade ago). Most people, though. either dislike such control decks, or more likely just don't care enough to want Wizards to push hypothetical "only good for pure control" cards.
[/rant]
lol.. that is very true.. a good example is a very good card that control used previously and was used even to greater effect by the combo decks of scapeshift and twin is dig through time which was recently banned.. lol.. As in control need that instant speed, card quality and the raw power of dtt often allow it to find that stabilizing factor that they need or the specific card that they need to get out of a fix such a removal for a creature, a helix to prevent lethal or a threat to present for next threat.
I used DTT very well in a uwr shell and it often help me closed the games but when I added it to my twin or scapeshift deck, it is very obvious that no doubt the card is very good in control but it also at the same time pushes combo up very well.. so in reality, most control usable cards would somehow find a way into the combo decks that can make uses of them as well and this will never help a combo vs control matchup.
Yes, it is. Standard is healthy. However, name me the most powerful spells in Standard. I see Dig Through Time (ignoring Cruise since it sees less play), Thoughtseize, and after that maybe Whip of Erebos (and that is if we are looking at all noncreature cards). Now look at the creatures. Siege Rhino. Monastery Mentor. Goblin Rabblemaster. Stormbreath Dragon. Ashcloud Phoenix. Hornet Queen. Courser of Kruphix. The list continues. What spells in Standard other than Dig Through Time, Treasure Cruise, and Thoughtseize are at the level of those creatures? There isn't a balance between spell and creature power-level.
There is plenty of power left in non-creature spells. Otherwise a deck with only 9 creatures wouldn't be doing so well. Quite a few other decks run more spells than creatures too.
People play those cards because they have to, but the noncreature cards are still significantly less powerful than the creature cards.
The same is true for Modern. BG/x decks also run almost twice as many spells as creatures. Twin, Scapeshift, Burn, Infect, UWR Control/midrange, all Tron decks, Amulet, Storm, Bogles, etc.
All of these decks play more spells than creatures and will continue to do so. Creatures aren't overpowered and taking over everything. They are just balanced now.
The days where you constantly see blue decks playing draw-go against everyone and having only lands in play are over though.
Look at those decks then. The noncreature spells that those decks have gotten recently have in most cases been worse than the creatures (for example, Junk got Tasigur, Rhino, and Ooze while the only noncreature spell it got was Abrupt Decay).
If white can destroy all creatures for 4 mana then it is only fair that green can get Thrun, the Last Troll for the same mana cost. Don't you think?
Except white apparently can't get a destroy all creatures for 4 mana anymore. This is my problem. I am fine with cards like Thrun as long as the spells are similarly powerful. However, I am not ok with cards like Siege Rhino when the spells are things like End Hostilities.
No, I already said what I want it to be. Look at Alara and Zendikar Standard. Spells like Path to Exile, Lightning Bolt, Preordain, Terminate, and Ponder were printed at the same time as creatures like Knight of the Reliquary, Goblin Guide, Noble Hierarch, Bloodbraid Elf, and Primeval Titan. I want the power-level difference between the spells and the creatures to be like that, meaning very little difference at all. Currently, the power-level difference has swung towards creatures, as we can see in the current Standard of Siege Rhinos and Monastery Mentors against Hero's Downfalls and Wild Slashes.
And that is where we disagree. Hero's Downfall is very powerful spell. Taking out any creature and planeswalker at instant-speed is unprecedented. The same with Dreadbore. Abzan Charm is instant-speed removal, permanent pump and Sign in Blood rolled into one card. That's great.
You judge cards based on the skewed Modern environment.
I mean per your definition Sphinx's Revelation and Supreme Verdict are not powerful cards because they don't exactly tear up Modern right now.
Spells are still great. You just fail to see it.
Hero's Downfall might be great in Standard where 5-6 mana spells are prevalent. However, the problem is that if they are going to make removal cost 3 mana, it isn't going to be playable in Modern because the threats usually cost 1-3 mana, making it a loss of tempo. Another example is Sphinx's Revelation. That card was amazing in Standard. In Modern, it isn't, because the format is too fast for Sphinx's Revelation to be at full power. The noncreatures spells (specifically the instants and sorceries) that are printed today are much slower than cards in Modern need to be. That is why I think that the balance of spells and creatures should be where it was at Alara and Zendikar. Do you think that the balance of power-level between spells and creatures was imbalanced towards spells back then or do you agree that it was balanced?
This weird narrative of creatures being bad needs to end. Let's look back at the years 98, 99, 00, 01 and those standard seasons with broken spells like Tinker, Brainstorm, Dark Rit, Survival, and Bargain. Not only were those cards really good and present for winning decks, but lo and behold a plethora of creature decks that helped define those formats like Sligh (whose creatures aren't nearly good enough for today's standard), Stompy, Machine Head, Fires, GW aggro, and RG Angry Hermit. Extended had decks like Dump Truck, Junk, and Stompy also doing well. Creatures have always been important and good enough, but now they're way ahead compared to spells.
Ah... the glory days of Extended. Red Deck Wins, Goblins, Affinity, UG Madness, Psychatog, The Rock, Reanimator, Scepter-Chant, Aluren, Mind's Desire, Sutured Ghoul, Life Combo... all in one format, all at the same time, all them legit. I'm sorry but this is the standard by which I regard a format as diverse. The early 2000's in Extended. We may never see the likes of a format like at that time ever again. It's a shame if you weren't old enough to experience that, and when I mean "you" I mean anyone reading this.
I think the biggest problem when it comes to Amulet (I'm not saying I think anything needs to be banned per se, just that if something was to be, this is what I'd aim at) isn't that it's explosive with Primeval Titan or whatever. It's Hive Mind. Hive Mind + Pact is the single most uninteractive win condition in Modern. If it resolves, they're basically going to win- if you have removal for it, you'd best hope that they don't have Pact of Negation in hand, etc etc.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Well, I can saw a woman in two, but you won't wanna look in the box when I'm through.
In a large tournament, such as a Grand Prix, when time for the round expires, players are given five additional turns to complete their game. Usually, this takes a few minutes to conclude the rest of the games. However, a player playing Eggs might have a fifteen-minute turn during the additional turns, delaying the start of the next round by ten minutes or more (beyond the next-longest match). Over the course of a day, this can mean an extra hour of waiting for everyone else in the tournament.
Eggs was banned for logistics reasons, there was no mention of its power level or breaking any rules.
Amulet should 100% not be banned. People go crazy over combo decks, and whenever one becomes good, they ask for the ban hammer. This needs to stop. Combo makes magic interesting. The less bans the better. This banned list should be way shorter than it is at the moment. TC is a fine card to ban, there are others that shouldn't. Second Sunrise is not a banable card whatsoever if you dont bring into account the time factor. Amulet does not break any time factor rule, and the pre turn 4 rule (the dumbest rule ever) is not broken since it is not consistent.
There are actually a lot of decks that can win pre turn 4 that no one even talks about. Besides weird fringe decks, Burn, Zoo, and Affinity can consistently and easily win on turn 3. People complain about Amulet turn 1 wins, but there are hands that can be drawn by affinity or burn that, even though doesnt win on turn 1, cannot lose vs a lot of decks. Have you ever plays vs Rift Bolt>Eidolon>Eidolon>Eidolon>Boros Charm?
Good combo decks keep decks like Azban or even Pod in check, other wise these attrition decks are a little too good when control and tempo spells arent as good as creatures.
Why does this thread have to devolve into an argument about control vs. "pure control" vs. combo-control all the time?
Control is under represented.
It doesn't matter how you define control. You can call Scapeshift control, you can call Twin control, you can call RG Tron control. You can call Mono Green Stompy control for all I care. Add up all of their metagame representation and you still get a struggling archetype.
Disclaimer: I did not include anything even vaguely debatable in these counts except where noted below. Decks that don't clearly fit into one of the below definitions were omitted, for example RG Tron which is not definitively a combo or midrange deck, because I am not interested in arguing about archetypes. The numbers will not add up to 100% for that reason.
As I posted yesterday, aggro is currently 33%, one-third, of the metagame. That is decks like Burn, Affinity, Infect, and Zoo variants.
Combo is about 18% of the metagame. That is decks like Scapeshift, Twin variants, Amulet Bloom, and dedicated combo builds like Storm.
Midrange is over 19% of the metagame. This is primarily various flavors of BGx decks, but also includes UWR midrange.
Now let's look at control.
If we assume that anything even remotely resembling a control deck is in fact control (this includes UR and RUG Twin which are patently tempo decks) then we get 16% of the metagame. That's the lowest yet, but it's not terribly far off combo and midrange.
This is misleading though as neither UR Twin or RUG Twin are control decks in anything but the vaguest sense that they run Remand. They are tempo decks with a potential combo finish. UR Twin sometimes sideboards into a more controlling build, so for the time being let's save that and only omit RUG Twin. Now control has 13.7% representation. Things are looking worse.
If we take the next step and remove UR Twin as well (for the same reason Delver is not included here, and that Mono U Aggro of the last Standard season wasn't a control deck despite turning into one after sideboarding) then put control at 9.3% representation. Now things are looking pretty bad.
That 9.3% still contains a pretty broad range, but it represents decks that you could reasonably argue are control decks: Mono U Tron, Scapeshift, UWR Control, Blue Moon, etc. At this point there's little reason to argue whether or not they are control. We are looking at below 10% of the overall metagame for an entire archetype. For comparison both Abzan and Burn decks alone are better represented than the entire control archetype, and Junk remains equal even if you include UR Twin in control. To make matters worse control has less than a third of the representation of aggro, and about half of that of both combo and midrange.
So what's the point of all this? It does not matter how you define control. Short of blindly categorizing anything containing blue as a control deck, you cannot fudge the data to make it look like control has healthy representation in Modern. The numbers don't lie, and stretching archetype definitions in an attempt to support a point isn't even enough to make the archetype appear healthy. Can we please stop arguing about what is control and what isn't, admit that control is in a pretty bad place, and then think about what we can do to change that?
Why does this thread have to devolve into an argument about control vs. "pure control" vs. combo-control all the time?
Control is under represented.
It doesn't matter how you define control. You can call Scapeshift control, you can call Twin control, you can call RG Tron control. You can call Mono Green Stompy control for all I care. Add up all of their metagame representation and you still get a struggling archetype.
Disclaimer: I did not include anything even vaguely debatable in these counts except where noted below. Decks that don't clearly fit into one of the below definitions were omitted, for example RG Tron which is not definitively a combo or midrange deck, because I am not interested in arguing about archetypes. The numbers will not add up to 100% for that reason.
As I posted yesterday, aggro is currently 33%, one-third, of the metagame. That is decks like Burn, Affinity, Infect, and Zoo variants.
Combo is about 18% of the metagame. That is decks like Scapeshift, Twin variants, Amulet Bloom, and dedicated combo builds like Storm.
Midrange is over 19% of the metagame. This is primarily various flavors of BGx decks, but also includes UWR midrange.
Now let's look at control.
If we assume that anything even remotely resembling a control deck is in fact control (this includes UR and RUG Twin which are patently tempo decks) then we get 16% of the metagame. That's the lowest yet, but it's not terribly far off combo and midrange.
This is misleading though as neither UR Twin or RUG Twin are control decks in anything but the vaguest sense that they run Remand. They are tempo decks with a potential combo finish. UR Twin sometimes sideboards into a more controlling build, so for the time being let's save that and only omit RUG Twin. Now control has 13.7% representation. Things are looking worse.
If we take the next step and remove UR Twin as well (for the same reason Delver is not included here, and that Mono U Aggro of the last Standard season wasn't a control deck despite turning into one after sideboarding) then put control at 9.3% representation. Now things are looking pretty bad.
That 9.3% still contains a pretty broad range, but it represents decks that you could reasonably argue are control decks: Mono U Tron, Scapeshift, UWR Control, Blue Moon, etc. At this point there's little reason to argue whether or not they are control. We are looking at below 10% of the overall metagame for an entire archetype. For comparison both Abzan and Burn decks alone are better represented than the entire control archetype, and Junk remains equal even if you include UR Twin in control. To make matters worse control has less than a third of the representation of aggro, and about half of that of both combo and midrange.
So what's the point of all this? It does not matter how you define control. Short of blindly categorizing anything containing blue as a control deck, you cannot fudge the data to make it look like control has healthy representation in Modern. The numbers don't lie, and stretching archetype definitions in an attempt to support a point isn't even enough to make the archetype appear healthy. Can we please stop arguing about what is control and what isn't, admit that control is in a pretty bad place, and then think about what we can do to change that?
If you have been following and reading along, the answer is not much. Anything control would want is going to help another type deck more. If you want control to be a better percent of the meta, then combo has to be nerfed quite a bit.
Why does this thread have to devolve into an argument about control vs. "pure control" vs. combo-control all the time?
Control is under represented.
It doesn't matter how you define control. You can call Scapeshift control, you can call Twin control, you can call RG Tron control. You can call Mono Green Stompy control for all I care. Add up all of their metagame representation and you still get a struggling archetype.
Disclaimer: I did not include anything even vaguely debatable in these counts except where noted below. Decks that don't clearly fit into one of the below definitions were omitted, for example RG Tron which is not definitively a combo or midrange deck, because I am not interested in arguing about archetypes. The numbers will not add up to 100% for that reason.
As I posted yesterday, aggro is currently 33%, one-third, of the metagame. That is decks like Burn, Affinity, Infect, and Zoo variants.
Combo is about 18% of the metagame. That is decks like Scapeshift, Twin variants, Amulet Bloom, and dedicated combo builds like Storm.
Midrange is over 19% of the metagame. This is primarily various flavors of BGx decks, but also includes UWR midrange.
Now let's look at control.
If we assume that anything even remotely resembling a control deck is in fact control (this includes UR and RUG Twin which are patently tempo decks) then we get 16% of the metagame. That's the lowest yet, but it's not terribly far off combo and midrange.
This is misleading though as neither UR Twin or RUG Twin are control decks in anything but the vaguest sense that they run Remand. They are tempo decks with a potential combo finish. UR Twin sometimes sideboards into a more controlling build, so for the time being let's save that and only omit RUG Twin. Now control has 13.7% representation. Things are looking worse.
If we take the next step and remove UR Twin as well (for the same reason Delver is not included here, and that Mono U Aggro of the last Standard season wasn't a control deck despite turning into one after sideboarding) then put control at 9.3% representation. Now things are looking pretty bad.
That 9.3% still contains a pretty broad range, but it represents decks that you could reasonably argue are control decks: Mono U Tron, Scapeshift, UWR Control, Blue Moon, etc. At this point there's little reason to argue whether or not they are control. We are looking at below 10% of the overall metagame for an entire archetype. For comparison both Abzan and Burn decks alone are better represented than the entire control archetype, and Junk remains equal even if you include UR Twin in control. To make matters worse control has less than a third of the representation of aggro, and about half of that of both combo and midrange.
So what's the point of all this? It does not matter how you define control. Short of blindly categorizing anything containing blue as a control deck, you cannot fudge the data to make it look like control has healthy representation in Modern. The numbers don't lie, and stretching archetype definitions in an attempt to support a point isn't even enough to make the archetype appear healthy. Can we please stop arguing about what is control and what isn't, admit that control is in a pretty bad place, and then think about what we can do to change that?
If you have been following and reading along, the answer is not much. Anything control would want is going to help another type deck more. If you want control to be a better percent of the meta, then combo has to be nerfed quite a bit.
They could make more cards like Innocent Blood that can't be run in Midrange or Combo decks easily but are strong in Control.
If you have been following and reading along, the answer is not much. Anything control would want is going to help another type deck more. If you want control to be a better percent of the meta, then combo has to be nerfed quite a bit.
This is not true. There are cards you could add that would benefit control only. There are also cards, like Counterspell that would dramatically benefit control decks, while being marginally benefical to other decks (its arguable that UR Twin or Scapeshift would want to play Counterspell over Remand for example).
The problem most people agree that control has is : there is no benefit to drawing out the game
So to fix this, we need to design cards that give this. Expensive, uncounterable, colour intensive, isntant speed card draw for example would see very little play outside of control decks (combo decks/aggro decks) want cheap efficent card draw. Control decks just want pure card draw. Something like UU?? (non-red ?) draw 4 would easily see play in a control deck (drawing 1 card for each mana is a great deal when compared to Think Twice or Divination).
An instant speed board wipe, like ?WWW, so its not something that can be splashed for but gives control some card advantage and fight against instant speed combo creature decks would also benefit few decks outside control.
And these are just examples off the top of my head.
Just writing off an entire archetype from a format because it MIGHT give some other archetype a slight boost is insane. Control has been an archetype in MtG since it founding. Making a viable (or god forbid 2) pure control deck would help balance out the format.
The reason the meta is always so out of whack (and needs constant banning) is because it is missing an entire archetype that balances out the others.
Each archetype has strengths and weaknesses; which get preyed on by other archetypes. Right now specific archetypes are too strong because no decks can prey on their weaknesses.
If you have been following and reading along, the answer is not much. Anything control would want is going to help another type deck more. If you want control to be a better percent of the meta, then combo has to be nerfed quite a bit.
This kind of stuff is not helpful. You have no idea if combo decks would want them. If you want to make that argument do some testing with your card of choice in your combo deck of choice then come back here and tell us how it went. You have no idea if Twin or Scapeshift with Ancestral Vision would be good. You have no idea if Jace would break combo decks. It's all conjecture. What we need is data.
I DO NOT WANT THIS UNBANNED; but couldn't PF be adopted into like a RUG control deck theoretically?
I'm not even sure it would be that strong. Most creatures in Modern are X/3 or greater, it would kill:
Spirit Tokens (not a great trade)
Snapcaster Mage (would still get flashback)
Vendilion Clique (would still get info/card out of hand)
Bob (not really played anymore)
Asuza
Most of the cheap/fodder creatures in Affinity
Goblin Guide
Non-powress MS
Mana Dorks
Creeping Tar Pit
I'm sure there are others, I am missing, but none of those are really great trades. And most decks can outrace a 1 damage a turn clock (1 damage for 3 CMC anyways)
It would be interesting to see but I dont know if it would be enough to see RUG control be a thing.
The problem most people agree that control has is : there is no benefit to drawing out the game
I can think of one possible benefit. Potential extra revenue for Wizards from ads from Youtube vods and Twitch feeds as a result of longer games. I hear you kids like watching people play games rather than play them yourselves these days...
5+ pages-long discussions about how to best make control better in Modern aside, I love Modern right now. The Pro Tour's metagame was a little Abzan-heavy, but the top 8 also had a lot of decks designed to prey on Abzan. I also think you can't make too much of the Pro Tour metagame, as it tends to be a little inbred. I personally hate Amulet Bloom, but I guess it's cool that weird, innovative decks that that can be played in the format right now (And seeing it crumple to Blood Moon in the finals was awesome, just proving that most things in Modern have pretty easy answers to them).
I'm a happy Modern player right now. I expect no bans/unbans in March.
The phrase "The top 8 was heavy in one deck, but also featured decks designed to prey on that deck" shouldn't sound good to you. That's not a good thing.
This. This is the beginning to the definition of "format warping" or "inbred." I'd say that I don't understand how anybody can think Modern is healthy after these bans, but evidently each meta is different. Mine has gone from incredibly healthy (40+ players each week) to nearly non-existent (can't fire every week due to lack of participation, but sometimes does). The format is now Abzan>Splinter Twin>Burn>Abzan. Blech.
Can we please stop arguing about what is control and what isn't, admit that control is in a pretty bad place, and then think about what we can do to change that?
This is what it comes down to for me. Why do we need to change it? Why does pure control HAVE to exist? It adds nothing to the format where decks with inevitability and sweepers/counters like Tron and Scapeshift exist. Hell, the whole BGx shell is basically control (a few game ending threats that it protects with removal and discard).
What does a control build look like? Does it have to be mostly creatureless? Does it have to play counters and removal? What about discard? If so, why are these elements required for a control deck?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern URW Control WBG Abzan GRW Burn
EDH GR Rosheen Meanderer
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'd argue that Scapeshift is just one maindeck-able fat creature away from being a very good control deck with a combo plan. Maybe a something like Surrak that somewhat dodges removal. If you feel inclined to share your hypothetical 4cmc instant to fix control by all means do so. I think the problem lies card advantage or lack thereof. Something that benefits control colours (Esper/Grixis) without being immediately maindeckable for Twin. AV could do it, but I'm not so sure it'd be the big band-aid to the card advantage problem that some people think it to be.
#FreeSword
URWSkred, White and Blue
UBRGrixis Control
GWU2CMC CoCo Value Critters
MODERN - BANLIST TESTING:
UW - ThopterSword Tron
EDH - COMMANDER:
GU - Prime Speaker Zegana
WU - Bruna, Light of Alabaster (building)
TINY LEADERS:
UWR - Shu Yun, the Silent Tempest (building)
There have been plenty of healthy metagames that didn't have a "pure" control deck. In fact, I would argue that in most cases, metagames are better without a "pure" control deck, but that's just my personal preference.
I think all this "new post-M15 format" speculation is baseless. It doesn't make sense for Wizards to split their enternal customer base even further, and killing off Modern to replace it with another eternal format makes no sense. Especially so when you realize that they're releasing Modern Masters 2015 this year, mere months before the last core set. And even if they did create a new format and leave Modern around, why would they "unban a lot"? They've used the banlist to create the format they want Modern to be, and that won't change if they add another format.
Modern: GW Hatebears/midrange, WGU Knightfall/evolution midrange stuff
Standard: nope
Legacy: W Death & Taxes
EDH (not Commander!): W Avacyn, Angel of Hope, GR Ruric Thar, the Unbowed, WGB Anafenza, the Foremost, WU Hanna, Ship's Navigator
Of course it would. But the key point here is that Twin/Scapeshift/etc. would be able to use those too. The end result is that existing decks get pushed up as much as this elusive, hypothetical "pure control deck" would, and so the "pure control deck" would still be worse than Twin. Twin and Scapeshift already often run some number of Cryptic Command, so no amount of blue mana symbols will keep Twin and Scapeshift from playing your control dream 4 CMC draw spell. I guess if you made it Grixis or Esper colors, you might (might!) have a case, but if it was good enough, they'd just play those colors. Heck, there was already a Grixis Twin deck at the Pro Tour, even with out some hypothetical awesome grixis draw spell.
I'm sick of this "pure control" discussion. We've said all there is say. I'll summarize: Some people wish really hard that there was a "pure control deck" (even though no one really knows what that means, or will admit that they just want to play draw-go from a decade ago). Most people, though. either dislike such control decks, or more likely just don't care enough to want Wizards to push hypothetical "only good for pure control" cards.
[/rant]
Modern: GW Hatebears/midrange, WGU Knightfall/evolution midrange stuff
Standard: nope
Legacy: W Death & Taxes
EDH (not Commander!): W Avacyn, Angel of Hope, GR Ruric Thar, the Unbowed, WGB Anafenza, the Foremost, WU Hanna, Ship's Navigator
I buy HP and Damaged cards!
Only EDH:
Sigarda, Host of Herons: Enchantress' Enchantments
Jenara, Asura of War: ETB Value Town
Purphoros, God of the Forge: Global Punishment
Xenagos, God of Revels: Ramp, Sneak, & Heavy Hitters
Ghave, Guru of Spores: Dies_to_Doom_Blade's stax list
Edric, Spymaster of Trest: Donald's list
Also, a path will slow the deck down by 1 turn. You now have one tapped land in play.
I buy HP and Damaged cards!
Only EDH:
Sigarda, Host of Herons: Enchantress' Enchantments
Jenara, Asura of War: ETB Value Town
Purphoros, God of the Forge: Global Punishment
Xenagos, God of Revels: Ramp, Sneak, & Heavy Hitters
Ghave, Guru of Spores: Dies_to_Doom_Blade's stax list
Edric, Spymaster of Trest: Donald's list
I used DTT very well in a uwr shell and it often help me closed the games but when I added it to my twin or scapeshift deck, it is very obvious that no doubt the card is very good in control but it also at the same time pushes combo up very well.. so in reality, most control usable cards would somehow find a way into the combo decks that can make uses of them as well and this will never help a combo vs control matchup.
Hero's Downfall might be great in Standard where 5-6 mana spells are prevalent. However, the problem is that if they are going to make removal cost 3 mana, it isn't going to be playable in Modern because the threats usually cost 1-3 mana, making it a loss of tempo. Another example is Sphinx's Revelation. That card was amazing in Standard. In Modern, it isn't, because the format is too fast for Sphinx's Revelation to be at full power. The noncreatures spells (specifically the instants and sorceries) that are printed today are much slower than cards in Modern need to be. That is why I think that the balance of spells and creatures should be where it was at Alara and Zendikar. Do you think that the balance of power-level between spells and creatures was imbalanced towards spells back then or do you agree that it was balanced?
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
I buy HP and Damaged cards!
Only EDH:
Sigarda, Host of Herons: Enchantress' Enchantments
Jenara, Asura of War: ETB Value Town
Purphoros, God of the Forge: Global Punishment
Xenagos, God of Revels: Ramp, Sneak, & Heavy Hitters
Ghave, Guru of Spores: Dies_to_Doom_Blade's stax list
Edric, Spymaster of Trest: Donald's list
Ah... the glory days of Extended. Red Deck Wins, Goblins, Affinity, UG Madness, Psychatog, The Rock, Reanimator, Scepter-Chant, Aluren, Mind's Desire, Sutured Ghoul, Life Combo... all in one format, all at the same time, all them legit. I'm sorry but this is the standard by which I regard a format as diverse. The early 2000's in Extended. We may never see the likes of a format like at that time ever again. It's a shame if you weren't old enough to experience that, and when I mean "you" I mean anyone reading this.
Eggs was banned for logistics reasons, there was no mention of its power level or breaking any rules.
Amulet should 100% not be banned. People go crazy over combo decks, and whenever one becomes good, they ask for the ban hammer. This needs to stop. Combo makes magic interesting. The less bans the better. This banned list should be way shorter than it is at the moment. TC is a fine card to ban, there are others that shouldn't. Second Sunrise is not a banable card whatsoever if you dont bring into account the time factor. Amulet does not break any time factor rule, and the pre turn 4 rule (the dumbest rule ever) is not broken since it is not consistent.
There are actually a lot of decks that can win pre turn 4 that no one even talks about. Besides weird fringe decks, Burn, Zoo, and Affinity can consistently and easily win on turn 3. People complain about Amulet turn 1 wins, but there are hands that can be drawn by affinity or burn that, even though doesnt win on turn 1, cannot lose vs a lot of decks. Have you ever plays vs Rift Bolt>Eidolon>Eidolon>Eidolon>Boros Charm?
Good combo decks keep decks like Azban or even Pod in check, other wise these attrition decks are a little too good when control and tempo spells arent as good as creatures.
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
Control is under represented.
It doesn't matter how you define control. You can call Scapeshift control, you can call Twin control, you can call RG Tron control. You can call Mono Green Stompy control for all I care. Add up all of their metagame representation and you still get a struggling archetype.
Disclaimer: I did not include anything even vaguely debatable in these counts except where noted below. Decks that don't clearly fit into one of the below definitions were omitted, for example RG Tron which is not definitively a combo or midrange deck, because I am not interested in arguing about archetypes. The numbers will not add up to 100% for that reason.
As I posted yesterday, aggro is currently 33%, one-third, of the metagame. That is decks like Burn, Affinity, Infect, and Zoo variants.
Combo is about 18% of the metagame. That is decks like Scapeshift, Twin variants, Amulet Bloom, and dedicated combo builds like Storm.
Midrange is over 19% of the metagame. This is primarily various flavors of BGx decks, but also includes UWR midrange.
Now let's look at control.
If we assume that anything even remotely resembling a control deck is in fact control (this includes UR and RUG Twin which are patently tempo decks) then we get 16% of the metagame. That's the lowest yet, but it's not terribly far off combo and midrange.
This is misleading though as neither UR Twin or RUG Twin are control decks in anything but the vaguest sense that they run Remand. They are tempo decks with a potential combo finish. UR Twin sometimes sideboards into a more controlling build, so for the time being let's save that and only omit RUG Twin. Now control has 13.7% representation. Things are looking worse.
If we take the next step and remove UR Twin as well (for the same reason Delver is not included here, and that Mono U Aggro of the last Standard season wasn't a control deck despite turning into one after sideboarding) then put control at 9.3% representation. Now things are looking pretty bad.
That 9.3% still contains a pretty broad range, but it represents decks that you could reasonably argue are control decks: Mono U Tron, Scapeshift, UWR Control, Blue Moon, etc. At this point there's little reason to argue whether or not they are control. We are looking at below 10% of the overall metagame for an entire archetype. For comparison both Abzan and Burn decks alone are better represented than the entire control archetype, and Junk remains equal even if you include UR Twin in control. To make matters worse control has less than a third of the representation of aggro, and about half of that of both combo and midrange.
So what's the point of all this? It does not matter how you define control. Short of blindly categorizing anything containing blue as a control deck, you cannot fudge the data to make it look like control has healthy representation in Modern. The numbers don't lie, and stretching archetype definitions in an attempt to support a point isn't even enough to make the archetype appear healthy. Can we please stop arguing about what is control and what isn't, admit that control is in a pretty bad place, and then think about what we can do to change that?
'78 CB750F, '09 CBR600RR
If you have been following and reading along, the answer is not much. Anything control would want is going to help another type deck more. If you want control to be a better percent of the meta, then combo has to be nerfed quite a bit.
They could make more cards like Innocent Blood that can't be run in Midrange or Combo decks easily but are strong in Control.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Yes, but the problem is Zoo and other aggro and midrange strategies could slide it in the line up.
Well I would like to play Punishing Jund so Im all for unbanning that one.
This is not true. There are cards you could add that would benefit control only. There are also cards, like Counterspell that would dramatically benefit control decks, while being marginally benefical to other decks (its arguable that UR Twin or Scapeshift would want to play Counterspell over Remand for example).
The problem most people agree that control has is : there is no benefit to drawing out the game
So to fix this, we need to design cards that give this. Expensive, uncounterable, colour intensive, isntant speed card draw for example would see very little play outside of control decks (combo decks/aggro decks) want cheap efficent card draw. Control decks just want pure card draw. Something like UU?? (non-red ?) draw 4 would easily see play in a control deck (drawing 1 card for each mana is a great deal when compared to Think Twice or Divination).
An instant speed board wipe, like ?WWW, so its not something that can be splashed for but gives control some card advantage and fight against instant speed combo creature decks would also benefit few decks outside control.
And these are just examples off the top of my head.
Just writing off an entire archetype from a format because it MIGHT give some other archetype a slight boost is insane. Control has been an archetype in MtG since it founding. Making a viable (or god forbid 2) pure control deck would help balance out the format.
The reason the meta is always so out of whack (and needs constant banning) is because it is missing an entire archetype that balances out the others.
Each archetype has strengths and weaknesses; which get preyed on by other archetypes. Right now specific archetypes are too strong because no decks can prey on their weaknesses.
This kind of stuff is not helpful. You have no idea if combo decks would want them. If you want to make that argument do some testing with your card of choice in your combo deck of choice then come back here and tell us how it went. You have no idea if Twin or Scapeshift with Ancestral Vision would be good. You have no idea if Jace would break combo decks. It's all conjecture. What we need is data.
'78 CB750F, '09 CBR600RR
I'm not even sure it would be that strong. Most creatures in Modern are X/3 or greater, it would kill:
Spirit Tokens (not a great trade)
Snapcaster Mage (would still get flashback)
Vendilion Clique (would still get info/card out of hand)
Bob (not really played anymore)
Asuza
Most of the cheap/fodder creatures in Affinity
Goblin Guide
Non-powress MS
Mana Dorks
Creeping Tar Pit
I'm sure there are others, I am missing, but none of those are really great trades. And most decks can outrace a 1 damage a turn clock (1 damage for 3 CMC anyways)
It would be interesting to see but I dont know if it would be enough to see RUG control be a thing.
I can think of one possible benefit. Potential extra revenue for Wizards from ads from Youtube vods and Twitch feeds as a result of longer games. I hear you kids like watching people play games rather than play them yourselves these days...
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
This is what it comes down to for me. Why do we need to change it? Why does pure control HAVE to exist? It adds nothing to the format where decks with inevitability and sweepers/counters like Tron and Scapeshift exist. Hell, the whole BGx shell is basically control (a few game ending threats that it protects with removal and discard).
What does a control build look like? Does it have to be mostly creatureless? Does it have to play counters and removal? What about discard? If so, why are these elements required for a control deck?
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer