Someone in another thread posted a list and I found it amusing how we have a bunch of counterspells with names that are basically 'Spell [Verb]'. For example:
Spell Snare, Spell Pierce, Spell Burst, Spell Shrivel, Spell Rupture....you get the idea. What are some unused counterspell names along this vein of naming that you'd like to see in the future?
I know personally I'd like to see something like Spell Pop. Or Spell Crack.
Yes this is completely random, but I thought it was an amusing train of thought.
Spell Punch!
BYAAAAAAAHHH
What would that look like? O_o
Spell Punch UR
Instant
Counter target non-creature spell. That spell's controller takes damage equal to it's converted mana cost. Stop spelling yourself!
Idk, brewing is very difficult in modern and legacy and that difficulty is about the same to me. In legacy the blue cantrip shell restricts brews. You are heavily incentivesed In legacy to start your deck with 4 brainstorm, 4 ponder and 4 fow. In modern the diversity among tier 1 and tier 2 decks punish brews. You simply can't brew a deck that can have decent matchups across the majority of tiered decks
It is hilarious that you say diversity stifles brewing. How was that deck diversity reached I wonder? Like, what did it take to get so many different decks to a viable state?
WOTC's reckless bannings, the community being better informed about how metagame representation can lead to bans. Why do you think Tron and some other Turn 2 kill Grishoalbrand decks are under-represented?
Because the turn 2 Grishoalbrand decks, while capable of doing some crazy things, have major problems doing them on any kind of a consistent manner (while also lacking the inevitability that made Amulet Bloom so powerful) and as a result are generally untenable choices, so people don't have that much success in general with it?
I can guarantee you if you have 2 or 3 Modern GPs in a row with 10+ turn 2 kills on camera, Grishoalbrand would have eaten a ban.
And perhaps the reason it didn't do that is because it isn't capable of getting turn 2 kills that frequently...?
That's why Tron players don't get their deck banhammered, they saw how other decks with high metagame representation get hit and are scaling back accordingly.
Uh-huh. Do you have any actual proof for this, or is this just your completely baseless speculation? Especially because one would expect if so many players were choosing their decks based on this, there's no way Eldrazi Winter would've happened, because they would have wisely chosen to play something else to prevent it from getting banned.
What metagame? You mean your 100+ different deck metagame in a GP? How do you metagame that? How do I achieve the 90% win rate needed to top 8 the GP I need for the weekend? If I could play against Eldrazi Tron 15 times with Affinity in a GP, I wouldn't be having this discussion about Modern being too diverse. It's not like those MTGGoldfish metagame representation numbers are accurate, they base it mostly on MTGO decklists from comp leagues that are cherry picked. This EVOLUTION OF THE METAGAMEdoes not happen in practice the way you say it does. Unless I deliberately sink excessive amounts of cash to cleanout the community of certain cards that are favorable against my deck of choice, I cannot reliably predict what I play against in a large tournament when there are 100+ different decks that are viable and capable of winning a tournament of any size. This diversity is beneficial to the replayability of the format, but it is very detrimental to people who must win at all costs.
So first off, one of the necessary skills for Modern is knowing your deck, and the decks being played. Let's dive into that a little deeper.
Knowing Your Deck
It seems pretty self explanatory. You need to know how your deck functions, what it's strengths and weaknesses are, all that jazz. But it's not as simple as "I'm playing Eldrazi Tron and that's weak to Affinity." No, you need to delve further into why it's a weakness. Eldrazi Tron is weak to Affinity for two reasons. The first, is that Affinity is a fast aggro deck that can go extremely wide, so E-Tron has trouble disrupting that. The second reason, is E-Tron's premier sweeper, All is Dust, does literally nothing against Affinity. SO by examining the deck's weakness a little further we have improved the information we have. Eldrazi Tron can be weak to deck that are fast and go wide, and decks that invalidate All is Dust. This is a gross oversimplification of what knowing your deck entails, but if you are switching what you play in Modern every week, you aren't going to gain this necessary skill, and as such, it will effect your performance and make you do worse at tournaments.
Knowing What You're Playing Against
First, I'll mention that I am not saying you need to know the exact 75 cards every opponent you play against is using. As you said, the metagame can be 100+ decks in size, and expecting that is ludicrous. But you need to be able to know the format well enough, that you can make good assumptions about what your opponent's deck does if you face something you aren't use to. Opponent start by fetching and shocking a Watery Grave to Thoughtseize you? Most likely you're against Grixis Death's Shadow, though it could possibly be an Esper Control opponent trying to find out what they're playing against. Island into an Aether Vial? Well I suppose it's time to go Fishing this round. Just a Wooded Foothills? Well my first guess would be on Burn, since the green decks would rather be running Windswept Heath, though whatever land they fetch will definitely give you more information. Do you Thoughtseize your opponent and see a Ghostly Prison? Well I guess we're deal with some Prison style deck. Or it could be a strategy using Enduring Ideal. Better play towards me being against both until I have better confirmation on one or the other.
Modern rewards players who aren't lazy. Modern rewards players who put the time into knowing their deck, and knowing the decks they can play against.
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
What metagame? You mean your 100+ different deck metagame in a GP? How do you metagame that? How do I achieve the 90% win rate needed to top 8 the GP I need for the weekend? If I could play against Eldrazi Tron 15 times with Affinity in a GP, I wouldn't be having this discussion about Modern being too diverse. It's not like those MTGGoldfish metagame representation numbers are accurate, they base it mostly on MTGO decklists from comp leagues that are cherry picked. This EVOLUTION OF THE METAGAMEdoes not happen in practice the way you say it does. Unless I deliberately sink excessive amounts of cash to cleanout the community of certain cards that are favorable against my deck of choice, I cannot reliably predict what I play against in a large tournament when there are 100+ different decks that are viable and capable of winning a tournament of any size. This diversity is beneficial to the replayability of the format, but it is very detrimental to people who must win at all costs.
So first off, one of the necessary skills for Modern is knowing your deck, and the decks being played. Let's dive into that a little deeper.
Knowing Your Deck
It seems pretty self explanatory. You need to know how your deck functions, what it's strengths and weaknesses are, all that jazz. But it's not as simple as "I'm playing Eldrazi Tron and that's weak to Affinity." No, you need to delve further into why it's a weakness. Eldrazi Tron is weak to Affinity for two reasons. The first, is that Affinity is a fast aggro deck that can go extremely wide, so E-Tron has trouble disrupting that. The second reason, is E-Tron's premier sweeper, All is Dust, does literally nothing against Affinity. SO by examining the deck's weakness a little further we have improved the information we have. Eldrazi Tron can be weak to deck that are fast and go wide, and decks that invalidate All is Dust. This is a gross oversimplification of what knowing your deck entails, but if you are switching what you play in Modern every week, you aren't going to gain this necessary skill, and as such, it will effect your performance and make you do worse at tournaments.
Knowing What You're Playing Against
First, I'll mention that I am not saying you need to know the exact 75 cards every opponent you play against is using. As you said, the metagame can be 100+ decks in size, and expecting that is ludicrous. But you need to be able to know the format well enough, that you can make good assumptions about what your opponent's deck does if you face something you aren't use to. Opponent start by fetching and shocking a Watery Grave to Thoughtseize you? Most likely you're against Grixis Death's Shadow, though it could possibly be an Esper Control opponent trying to find out what they're playing against. Island into an Aether Vial? Well I suppose it's time to go Fishing this round. Just a Wooded Foothills? Well my first guess would be on Burn, since the green decks would rather be running Windswept Heath, though whatever land they fetch will definitely give you more information. Do you Thoughtseize your opponent and see a Ghostly Prison? Well I guess we're deal with some Prison style deck. Or it could be a strategy using Enduring Ideal. Better play towards me being against both until I have better confirmation on one or the other.
Modern rewards players who aren't lazy. Modern rewards players who put the time into knowing their deck, and knowing the decks they can play against.
People who succeed in Modern are those who have mastered their deck and know the field, i.e. format experts and specialists. People who fail are those that don't take the time to learn their deck and its matchups, i.e. format dabblers and, incidentally, many pros who don't have the time to commit to Modern.
Always refreshing when a top level player like BBD just restates and affirms an argument many of us have made for years.
What metagame? You mean your 100+ different deck metagame in a GP? How do you metagame that? How do I achieve the 90% win rate needed to top 8 the GP I need for the weekend? If I could play against Eldrazi Tron 15 times with Affinity in a GP, I wouldn't be having this discussion about Modern being too diverse. It's not like those MTGGoldfish metagame representation numbers are accurate, they base it mostly on MTGO decklists from comp leagues that are cherry picked. This EVOLUTION OF THE METAGAMEdoes not happen in practice the way you say it does. Unless I deliberately sink excessive amounts of cash to cleanout the community of certain cards that are favorable against my deck of choice, I cannot reliably predict what I play against in a large tournament when there are 100+ different decks that are viable and capable of winning a tournament of any size. This diversity is beneficial to the replayability of the format, but it is very detrimental to people who must win at all costs.
So first off, one of the necessary skills for Modern is knowing your deck, and the decks being played. Let's dive into that a little deeper.
Knowing Your Deck
It seems pretty self explanatory. You need to know how your deck functions, what it's strengths and weaknesses are, all that jazz. But it's not as simple as "I'm playing Eldrazi Tron and that's weak to Affinity." No, you need to delve further into why it's a weakness. Eldrazi Tron is weak to Affinity for two reasons. The first, is that Affinity is a fast aggro deck that can go extremely wide, so E-Tron has trouble disrupting that. The second reason, is E-Tron's premier sweeper, All is Dust, does literally nothing against Affinity. SO by examining the deck's weakness a little further we have improved the information we have. Eldrazi Tron can be weak to deck that are fast and go wide, and decks that invalidate All is Dust. This is a gross oversimplification of what knowing your deck entails, but if you are switching what you play in Modern every week, you aren't going to gain this necessary skill, and as such, it will effect your performance and make you do worse at tournaments.
Knowing What You're Playing Against
First, I'll mention that I am not saying you need to know the exact 75 cards every opponent you play against is using. As you said, the metagame can be 100+ decks in size, and expecting that is ludicrous. But you need to be able to know the format well enough, that you can make good assumptions about what your opponent's deck does if you face something you aren't use to. Opponent start by fetching and shocking a Watery Grave to Thoughtseize you? Most likely you're against Grixis Death's Shadow, though it could possibly be an Esper Control opponent trying to find out what they're playing against. Island into an Aether Vial? Well I suppose it's time to go Fishing this round. Just a Wooded Foothills? Well my first guess would be on Burn, since the green decks would rather be running Windswept Heath, though whatever land they fetch will definitely give you more information. Do you Thoughtseize your opponent and see a Ghostly Prison? Well I guess we're deal with some Prison style deck. Or it could be a strategy using Enduring Ideal. Better play towards me being against both until I have better confirmation on one or the other.
Modern rewards players who aren't lazy. Modern rewards players who put the time into knowing their deck, and knowing the decks they can play against.
People who succeed in Modern are those who have mastered their deck and know the field, i.e. format experts and specialists. People who fail are those that don't take the time to learn their deck and its matchups, i.e. format dabblers and, incidentally, many pros who don't have the time to commit to Modern.
Always refreshing when a top level player like BBD just restates and affirms an argument many of us have made for years.
Well, it also reinforces the point that it's the least time efficient to getting to a certain level of mastery to make profit at GPs. Modern GPs don't pay the appropriate amount of money for the amount of work you need to get top 8s consistently at GPs. There is no Modern master in the format that is the equivalent of Brad Nelson and Corey Baumeister's recent performance at back to back GP top 8s with a win in Standard. That indicates to me that no matter how much you work at being good at Modern, you cannot achieve that level of dominance just due to the high variance nature of the format because you CANNOT plug the weaknesses of your deck with playskill. Unless I'm wrong, there isn't a player to my knowledge who has back to back top 8'ed Modern GPs that I can remember in recent memory. Even in Legacy, Jarvis Yu has top 8'ed back to back Legacy GPs with Lands. Just watch the finals of GP Prague, Rodrigo Togores beats a Miracles player with ANT, his worst matchup because he is better than his opponent.
Unless I'm wrong, there isn't a player to my knowledge who has back to back top 8'ed Modern GPs that I can remember in recent memory. Even in Legacy, Jarvis Yu has top 8'ed back to back Legacy GPs with Lands. Just watch the finals of GP Prague, Rodrigo Togores beats a Miracles player with ANT, his worst matchup because he is better than his opponent.
Todd Stevens has iirc on multiple occassions back to back Top8'd multiple SCG Modern Opens. And their competition is on the level of GPs.
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
Unless I'm wrong, there isn't a player to my knowledge who has back to back top 8'ed Modern GPs that I can remember in recent memory. Even in Legacy, Jarvis Yu has top 8'ed back to back Legacy GPs with Lands. Just watch the finals of GP Prague, Rodrigo Togores beats a Miracles player with ANT, his worst matchup because he is better than his opponent.
Todd Stevens has iirc on multiple occassions back to back Top8'd multiple SCG Modern Opens. And their competition is on the level of GPs.
Whether the competition at SCGs is as strong as GPs is another debate, but you don't require a 13-2 to make top 8 of an SCG open. 12-3 usually gets the job done just due to the size of an SCG Open. Not to take anything away from his achievements but the path to top 8 isn't harder than say a GP.
Unless I'm wrong, there isn't a player to my knowledge who has back to back top 8'ed Modern GPs that I can remember in recent memory. Even in Legacy, Jarvis Yu has top 8'ed back to back Legacy GPs with Lands. Just watch the finals of GP Prague, Rodrigo Togores beats a Miracles player with ANT, his worst matchup because he is better than his opponent.
Todd Stevens has iirc on multiple occassions back to back Top8'd multiple SCG Modern Opens. And their competition is on the level of GPs.
Whether the competition at SCGs is as strong as GPs is another debate, but you don't require a 13-2 to make top 8 of an SCG open. 12-3 usually gets the job done just due to the size of an SCG Open. Not to take anything away from his achievements but the path to top 8 isn't harder than say a GP.
This is a really interesting topic that's come up in my playgroup a few times.
GP vs. SCG open, what are the differences?
Metagame variation and spread in the two stylea of tournament seems to be a little different, just from my own observation. My take is that GPs tend to favour a more stable, midrangey view into modern whereas at SCG events I've seen more of a proliferation of various "cheese" style decks such as cheerios. Not to say that they always reach the top tables, but that seems to be the case with the starting field.
Of course this could also be down to coverage! I'm at the whims of whatever the coverage team deems worthy of note.
In terms of "difficulty" that's another tricky question. I'd say, based on number of rounds, the two styles of tournament are approximately on par. Whether or not (on the day) you need a 13-2 or a 12-3 record is mostly arbitrary. The field of players and how competitive they are is another factor, but again I'd assume that both style of tournament were on par here as well.
On a side note, I enjoy watching both. SCG have good coverage which matters not to the players but it draws me in as a viewer.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: G Tron, Vannifar, Jund, Druid/Vizier combo, Humans, Eldrazi Stompy (Serum Powder), Amulet, Grishoalbrand, Breach Titan, Turns, Eternal Command, As Foretold Living End, Elves, Cheerios, RUG Scapeshift
Unless I'm wrong, there isn't a player to my knowledge who has back to back top 8'ed Modern GPs that I can remember in recent memory. Even in Legacy, Jarvis Yu has top 8'ed back to back Legacy GPs with Lands. Just watch the finals of GP Prague, Rodrigo Togores beats a Miracles player with ANT, his worst matchup because he is better than his opponent.
Todd Stevens has iirc on multiple occassions back to back Top8'd multiple SCG Modern Opens. And their competition is on the level of GPs.
Whether the competition at SCGs is as strong as GPs is another debate, but you don't require a 13-2 to make top 8 of an SCG open. 12-3 usually gets the job done just due to the size of an SCG Open. Not to take anything away from his achievements but the path to top 8 isn't harder than say a GP.
This is a really interesting topic that's come up in my playgroup a few times.
GP vs. SCG open, what are the differences?
Metagame variation and spread in the two stylea of tournament seems to be a little different, just from my own observation. My take is that GPs tend to favour a more stable, midrangey view into modern whereas at SCG events I've seen more of a proliferation of various "cheese" style decks such as cheerios. Not to say that they always reach the top tables, but that seems to be the case with the starting field.
Of course this could also be down to coverage! I'm at the whims of whatever the coverage team deems worthy of note.
In terms of "difficulty" that's another tricky question. I'd say, based on number of rounds, the two styles of tournament are approximately on par. Whether or not (on the day) you need a 13-2 or a 12-3 record is mostly arbitrary. The field of players and how competitive they are is another factor, but again I'd assume that both style of tournament were on par here as well.
On a side note, I enjoy watching both. SCG have good coverage which matters not to the players but it draws me in as a viewer.
I wouldn't be able to comment on the difficulty unless I had a large sample size of both tournaments. Unfortunately being on the West Coast and in Canada, it's not economically feasible for me to try and find out. I would think in theory, GP players would be more serious players because of the prizing involved, you get a PT invite, flight to the PT and more prize money than what SCG would give you. SCG is basically just an extremely large cash tournament with a points leaderboard in both the Opens and Invitationals.
I wouldn't be able to comment on the difficulty unless I had a large sample size of both tournaments. Unfortunately being on the West Coast and in Canada, it's not economically feasible for me to try and find out. I would think in theory, GP players would be more serious players because of the prizing involved, you get a PT invite, flight to the PT and more prize money than what SCG would give you. SCG is basically just an extremely large cash tournament with a points leaderboard in both the Opens and Invitationals.
Top 8 of the SCG Opens pay out something that honestly isn't too far off from what the GPs pay out. Here, we'll do a side by side, and we'll assume maximum (3,000+) attendance for the GP:
1st Place:
GP - $10,000
SCG - $5,000
2nd Place:
GP - $5,000
SCG - $2,000
3/4th Place:
GP - $2,500
SCG - $1,000
5-8th Place:
GP - $1,500
SCG - $500
9-16th Place:
GP - $1,000
SCG - $325
17-32nd Place:
GP - $500
SCG - $200
33-64th Place:
GP - $250
SCG - $100
65-100th Place:
GP - $250
SCG - No Prize Money
101-180th Place:
GP - $200
SCG - No Prize Money
Now you see the important thing to note is the HUGE attendance difference between the SCG Opens and GPs. SCG Richmond, which was their last Modern Open, had a maximum capacity of 900 players. The GP prize pool we just compared is for over 3,000 players. So think about that. If you go to an SCG Open, you are playing against a field that at maximum is 1/3 the size of a GP, with prizes that as essentially comparable, when you consider the size of the event. Add to that the fact that every player in the Top 8 gets an invite to to SCG Invitational, which has an even bigger prize pool, with a small field, and I believe offer PT invites to 1st place, it's a pretty damn competitive event.
Honestly I feel you're just arguing semantics when arguing SCG Opens aren't as competitive as a GP.
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
Yet where is Jund lately? im sure many out there want it to do well and know it intimately. BUT, if a meta is too hostile to a certain archetype or deck it will fail/underperform no matter how hard you prepare.
funny how some say pros words mean nothing, all the way up until one says something that matches their rhetoric.
there are many factors to a deck doing well. skill and preparation with your deck is big, but I would argue in a huuge playing field its only half the story, especially in modern.
of course I blame this on maindeckable better answers to the vast amount of linear POWERFUL strategies that exist in this format.
it simply doesn't make sense in this game to play fair( for the most part), and its the reason my lgs has faded into pokemon.
and the: "leave things be" attitude wizards has is not helping confidence of some players. unfortunately there are even more players who enjoy this kind of format as it currently is.
I don't get it, but to each their own I guess.
But I kind of wish they would meet us on a middle ground and give us sfm and/or print better generic hate or something like that...
Yet where is Jund lately? im sure many out there want it to do well and know it intimately. BUT, if a meta is too hostile to a certain archetype or deck it will fail/underperform no matter how hard you prepare.
funny how some say pros words mean nothing, all the way up until one says something that matches their rhetoric.
there are many factors to a deck doing well. skill and preparation with your deck is big, but I would argue in a huuge playing field its only half the story, especially in modern.
of course I blame this on maindeckable better answers to the vast amount of linear POWERFUL strategies that exist in this format.
it simply doesn't make sense in this game to play fair( for the most part), and its the reason my lgs has faded into pokemon.
and the: "leave things be" attitude wizards has is not helping confidence of some players. unfortunately there are even more players who enjoy this kind of format as it currently is. I don't get it, but to each there own I guess.
Why is everyone's fallback "Well where is Jund?" Seriously. That is the stupidest argument every. Jund has no right to always be a Tier 1 deck.
Public Mod Note
(Xaricore):
Infraction issued for trolling. – Xaricore
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
I wouldn't be able to comment on the difficulty unless I had a large sample size of both tournaments. Unfortunately being on the West Coast and in Canada, it's not economically feasible for me to try and find out. I would think in theory, GP players would be more serious players because of the prizing involved, you get a PT invite, flight to the PT and more prize money than what SCG would give you. SCG is basically just an extremely large cash tournament with a points leaderboard in both the Opens and Invitationals.
Top 8 of the SCG Opens pay out something that honestly isn't too far off from what the GPs pay out. Here, we'll do a side by side, and we'll assume maximum (3,000+) attendance for the GP:
1st Place:
GP - $10,000
SCG - $5,000
2nd Place:
GP - $5,000
SCG - $2,000
3/4th Place:
GP - $2,500
SCG - $1,000
5-8th Place:
GP - $1,500
SCG - $500
9-16th Place:
GP - $1,000
SCG - $325
17-32nd Place:
GP - $500
SCG - $200
33-64th Place:
GP - $250
SCG - $100
65-100th Place:
GP - $250
SCG - No Prize Money
101-180th Place:
GP - $200
SCG - No Prize Money
Now you see the important thing to note is the HUGE attendance difference between the SCG Opens and GPs. SCG Richmond, which was their last Modern Open, had a maximum capacity of 900 players. The GP prize pool we just compared is for over 3,000 players. So think about that. If you go to an SCG Open, you are playing against a field that at maximum is 1/3 the size of a GP, with prizes that as essentially comparable, when you consider the size of the event. Add to that the fact that every player in the Top 8 gets an invite to to SCG Invitational, which has an even bigger prize pool, with a small field, and I believe offer PT invites to 1st place, it's a pretty damn competitive event.
Honestly I feel you're just arguing semantics when arguing SCG Opens aren't as competitive as a GP.
Where did I say that SCG Opens are not as competitive as GP? I only said SCG Opens are not harder than GP. You're putting words in my mouth just like the rest of this forum loves to do. We're just going to have to agree to disagree because you're just going to employ your forum favoritism to get me banned because what I say does not fit your narrative.
Yet where is Jund lately? im sure many out there want it to do well and know it intimately. BUT, if a meta is too hostile to a certain archetype or deck it will fail/underperform no matter how hard you prepare.
funny how some say pros words mean nothing, all the way up until one says something that matches their rhetoric.
there are many factors to a deck doing well. skill and preparation with your deck is big, but I would argue in a huuge playing field its only half the story, especially in modern.
of course I blame this on maindeckable better answers to the vast amount of linear POWERFUL strategies that exist in this format.
it simply doesn't make sense in this game to play fair( for the most part), and its the reason my lgs has faded into pokemon.
and the: "leave things be" attitude wizards has is not helping confidence of some players. unfortunately there are even more players who enjoy this kind of format as it currently is. I don't get it, but to each there own I guess.
Why is everyone's fallback "Well where is Jund?" Seriously. That is the stupidest argument every. Jund has no right to always be a Tier 1 deck.
Yet where is Jund lately? im sure many out there want it to do well and know it intimately. BUT, if a meta is too hostile to a certain archetype or deck it will fail/underperform no matter how hard you prepare.
funny how some say pros words mean nothing, all the way up until one says something that matches their rhetoric.
there are many factors to a deck doing well. skill and preparation with your deck is big, but I would argue in a huuge playing field its only half the story, especially in modern.
of course I blame this on maindeckable better answers to the vast amount of linear POWERFUL strategies that exist in this format.
it simply doesn't make sense in this game to play fair( for the most part), and its the reason my lgs has faded into pokemon.
and the: "leave things be" attitude wizards has is not helping confidence of some players. unfortunately there are even more players who enjoy this kind of format as it currently is. I don't get it, but to each there own I guess.
Why is everyone's fallback "Well where is Jund?" Seriously. That is the stupidest argument every. Jund has no right to always be a Tier 1 deck.
Even stupider when you consider B/G rock just got 2nd in a GP
Where did I say that SCG Opens are not as competitive as GP? I only said SCG Opens are not harder than GP. You're putting words in my mouth just like the rest of this forum loves to do. We're just going to have to agree to disagree because you're just going to employ your forum favoritism to get me banned because what I say does not fit your narrative.
I mean...when most people say an event isn't as difficult, I take that as them meaning it isn't as competitive. Like FNMs are not as hard as PPTQs.
Also why do you flip off the handle every time is able to confront your argument with this wonderful thing called facts?
Knowing your deck, and knowing the field aren't the only skills required for Modern. No one is putting that forward. They are however two very important skills required to do well.
A lot of Jund's fallout has to do with the fact that Lightning Bolt just isn't the format staple it used to be. The meta has evolved past the point where you can control the board for the first 1-3 turns of the game with Bolts and discard.
Like seriously, to both of you (more sisicat right now) if you hate Modern so much, then why are you spending hours online arguing about it? Why not focus on something else you actually give a ***** about?
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
Yet where is Jund lately? im sure many out there want it to do well and know it intimately. BUT, if a meta is too hostile to a certain archetype or deck it will fail/underperform no matter how hard you prepare.
funny how some say pros words mean nothing, all the way up until one says something that matches their rhetoric.
there are many factors to a deck doing well. skill and preparation with your deck is big, but I would argue in a huuge playing field its only half the story, especially in modern.
of course I blame this on maindeckable better answers to the vast amount of linear POWERFUL strategies that exist in this format.
it simply doesn't make sense in this game to play fair( for the most part), and its the reason my lgs has faded into pokemon.
and the: "leave things be" attitude wizards has is not helping confidence of some players. unfortunately there are even more players who enjoy this kind of format as it currently is. I don't get it, but to each there own I guess.
Jund has no right to always be a Tier 1 deck.
If I am a customer spending premium amount of dollars, I expect a premium service. Jund falls into the category of a premium deck costing more dollars than a majority of the rest of the format. I'm not getting the desired performance ratio per dollars spent out of the Jund deck because WOTC decided to make the format more diverse.
I wouldn't be able to comment on the difficulty unless I had a large sample size of both tournaments. Unfortunately being on the West Coast and in Canada, it's not economically feasible for me to try and find out. I would think in theory, GP players would be more serious players because of the prizing involved, you get a PT invite, flight to the PT and more prize money than what SCG would give you. SCG is basically just an extremely large cash tournament with a points leaderboard in both the Opens and Invitationals.
Top 8 of the SCG Opens pay out something that honestly isn't too far off from what the GPs pay out. Here, we'll do a side by side, and we'll assume maximum (3,000+) attendance for the GP:
1st Place:
GP - $10,000
SCG - $5,000
2nd Place:
GP - $5,000
SCG - $2,000
3/4th Place:
GP - $2,500
SCG - $1,000
5-8th Place:
GP - $1,500
SCG - $500
9-16th Place:
GP - $1,000
SCG - $325
17-32nd Place:
GP - $500
SCG - $200
33-64th Place:
GP - $250
SCG - $100
65-100th Place:
GP - $250
SCG - No Prize Money
101-180th Place:
GP - $200
SCG - No Prize Money
Now you see the important thing to note is the HUGE attendance difference between the SCG Opens and GPs. SCG Richmond, which was their last Modern Open, had a maximum capacity of 900 players. The GP prize pool we just compared is for over 3,000 players. So think about that. If you go to an SCG Open, you are playing against a field that at maximum is 1/3 the size of a GP, with prizes that as essentially comparable, when you consider the size of the event. Add to that the fact that every player in the Top 8 gets an invite to to SCG Invitational, which has an even bigger prize pool, with a small field, and I believe offer PT invites to 1st place, it's a pretty damn competitive event.
Honestly I feel you're just arguing semantics when arguing SCG Opens aren't as competitive as a GP.
Where did I say that SCG Opens are not as competitive as GP? I only said SCG Opens are not harder than GP. You're putting words in my mouth just like the rest of this forum loves to do. We're just going to have to agree to disagree because you're just going to employ your forum favoritism to get me banned because what I say does not fit your narrative.
I wouldn't be able to comment on the difficulty unless I had a large sample size of both tournaments. Unfortunately being on the West Coast and in Canada, it's not economically feasible for me to try and find out. I would think in theory, GP players would be more serious players because of the prizing involved, you get a PT invite, flight to the PT and more prize money than what SCG would give you. SCG is basically just an extremely large cash tournament with a points leaderboard in both the Opens and Invitationals.
@sisicat - You alluded to the fact that you think that PT has "more serious players" versus an SCG Open here. Although you preface your statement by saying you can't comment on difficulty due to sample size, you proceed to suggest that PT has more serious players, which kinds of lends itself to being interpreted that you think PT is more difficult and more competitive. If we're going to dice semantics, you should probably create statements that don't lend themselves to these types of easy conclusions from the readers on this forum.
If I am a customer spending premium amount of dollars, I expect a premium service. Jund falls into the category of a premium deck costing more dollars than a majority of the rest of the format. I'm not getting the desired performance ratio per dollars spent out of the Jund deck because WOTC decided to make the format more diverse.
In this thread: Spoiled child upset because a format he spent maybe $1,000 that millions of people player doesn't cater to his whims
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
Where did I say that SCG Opens are not as competitive as GP? I only said SCG Opens are not harder than GP. You're putting words in my mouth just like the rest of this forum loves to do. We're just going to have to agree to disagree because you're just going to employ your forum favoritism to get me banned because what I say does not fit your narrative.
I mean...when most people say an event isn't as difficult, I take that as them meaning it isn't as competitive. Like FNMs are not as hard as PPTQs.
Also why do you flip off the handle every time is able to confront your argument with this wonderful thing called facts?
Knowing your deck, and knowing the field aren't the only skills required for Modern. No one is putting that forward. They are however two very important skills required to do well.
A lot of Jund's fallout has to do with the fact that Lightning Bolt just isn't the format staple it used to be. The meta has evolved past the point where you can control the board for the first 1-3 turns of the game with Bolts and discard.
Like seriously, to both of you (more sisicat right now) if you hate Modern so much, then why are you spending hours online arguing about it? Why not focus on something else you actually give a ***** about?
Well I flip the handle, because when I present you with facts that you don't want to hear, you dismiss it because it doesn't fit your narrative. I'm presenting you data straight from the coverage page, you choose to ignore my interpretation because it doesn't suit your views or your narrative. Instead you put words in my mouth in such a manner that flags a mod so they interpret my comments as not valid and therefore gets me a ban because you have forum favoritism.
Well I flip the handle, because when I present you with facts that you don't want to hear, you dismiss it because it doesn't fit your narrative. I'm presenting you data straight from the coverage page, you choose to ignore my interpretation because it doesn't suit your views or your narrative. Instead you put words in my mouth in such a manner that flags a mod so they interpret my comments as not valid and therefore gets me a ban because you have forum favoritism.
Please tell me what facts you have presented me with. You've presented a hell of a lot of opinion but that's about it.
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
Yet where is Jund lately? im sure many out there want it to do well and know it intimately. BUT, if a meta is too hostile to a certain archetype or deck it will fail/underperform no matter how hard you prepare.
funny how some say pros words mean nothing, all the way up until one says something that matches their rhetoric.
there are many factors to a deck doing well. skill and preparation with your deck is big, but I would argue in a huuge playing field its only half the story, especially in modern.
of course I blame this on maindeckable better answers to the vast amount of linear POWERFUL strategies that exist in this format.
it simply doesn't make sense in this game to play fair( for the most part), and its the reason my lgs has faded into pokemon.
and the: "leave things be" attitude wizards has is not helping confidence of some players. unfortunately there are even more players who enjoy this kind of format as it currently is. I don't get it, but to each there own I guess.
Jund has no right to always be a Tier 1 deck.
If I am a customer spending premium amount of dollars, I expect a premium service. Jund falls into the category of a premium deck costing more dollars than a majority of the rest of the format. I'm not getting the desired performance ratio per dollars spent out of the Jund deck because WOTC decided to make the format more diverse.
Buying a sports car doesn't entitle you to beat a professional F-1 racer. Buying a really nice computer doesn't mean you're entitled to be the top overwatch player. The difference is where ability and knowledge come into play. "I spent more money and therefore am entitled to win more often" is incredibly conceited.
The cards are worth what they are because that's what people are willing to pay or scarcity, not necessarily because they're the best cards in the format. And again, if you have a jund deck sitting around and want something that is proven to be viable at the top level, you have a very easy conversion.
Well I flip the handle, because when I present you with facts that you don't want to hear, you dismiss it because it doesn't fit your narrative. I'm presenting you data straight from the coverage page, you choose to ignore my interpretation because it doesn't suit your views or your narrative. Instead you put words in my mouth in such a manner that flags a mod so they interpret my comments as not valid and therefore gets me a ban because you have forum favoritism.
Please tell me what facts you have presented me with. You've presented a hell of a lot of opinion but that's about it.
Back to back top 8's in Standard GPs from Brad Nelson and Corey Baumeister, Rodrigo Togores overcoming a bad matchup with playskill in Legacy. Jarvis Yu top 8-ing back to back Legacy GPs. Is that not facts? Do you want links too?
well the art looks like this:
And perhaps the reason it didn't do that is because it isn't capable of getting turn 2 kills that frequently...?
Uh-huh. Do you have any actual proof for this, or is this just your completely baseless speculation? Especially because one would expect if so many players were choosing their decks based on this, there's no way Eldrazi Winter would've happened, because they would have wisely chosen to play something else to prevent it from getting banned.
So first off, one of the necessary skills for Modern is knowing your deck, and the decks being played. Let's dive into that a little deeper.
Knowing Your Deck
It seems pretty self explanatory. You need to know how your deck functions, what it's strengths and weaknesses are, all that jazz. But it's not as simple as "I'm playing Eldrazi Tron and that's weak to Affinity." No, you need to delve further into why it's a weakness. Eldrazi Tron is weak to Affinity for two reasons. The first, is that Affinity is a fast aggro deck that can go extremely wide, so E-Tron has trouble disrupting that. The second reason, is E-Tron's premier sweeper, All is Dust, does literally nothing against Affinity. SO by examining the deck's weakness a little further we have improved the information we have. Eldrazi Tron can be weak to deck that are fast and go wide, and decks that invalidate All is Dust. This is a gross oversimplification of what knowing your deck entails, but if you are switching what you play in Modern every week, you aren't going to gain this necessary skill, and as such, it will effect your performance and make you do worse at tournaments.
Knowing What You're Playing Against
First, I'll mention that I am not saying you need to know the exact 75 cards every opponent you play against is using. As you said, the metagame can be 100+ decks in size, and expecting that is ludicrous. But you need to be able to know the format well enough, that you can make good assumptions about what your opponent's deck does if you face something you aren't use to. Opponent start by fetching and shocking a Watery Grave to Thoughtseize you? Most likely you're against Grixis Death's Shadow, though it could possibly be an Esper Control opponent trying to find out what they're playing against. Island into an Aether Vial? Well I suppose it's time to go Fishing this round. Just a Wooded Foothills? Well my first guess would be on Burn, since the green decks would rather be running Windswept Heath, though whatever land they fetch will definitely give you more information. Do you Thoughtseize your opponent and see a Ghostly Prison? Well I guess we're deal with some Prison style deck. Or it could be a strategy using Enduring Ideal. Better play towards me being against both until I have better confirmation on one or the other.
Modern rewards players who aren't lazy. Modern rewards players who put the time into knowing their deck, and knowing the decks they can play against.
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
Interestingly, BBD just wrote an article that basically restates your main points.
http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/article.asp?ID=14140&writer=Brian Braun-Duin&articledate=8-31-2017
People who succeed in Modern are those who have mastered their deck and know the field, i.e. format experts and specialists. People who fail are those that don't take the time to learn their deck and its matchups, i.e. format dabblers and, incidentally, many pros who don't have the time to commit to Modern.
Always refreshing when a top level player like BBD just restates and affirms an argument many of us have made for years.
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
Well, it also reinforces the point that it's the least time efficient to getting to a certain level of mastery to make profit at GPs. Modern GPs don't pay the appropriate amount of money for the amount of work you need to get top 8s consistently at GPs. There is no Modern master in the format that is the equivalent of Brad Nelson and Corey Baumeister's recent performance at back to back GP top 8s with a win in Standard. That indicates to me that no matter how much you work at being good at Modern, you cannot achieve that level of dominance just due to the high variance nature of the format because you CANNOT plug the weaknesses of your deck with playskill. Unless I'm wrong, there isn't a player to my knowledge who has back to back top 8'ed Modern GPs that I can remember in recent memory. Even in Legacy, Jarvis Yu has top 8'ed back to back Legacy GPs with Lands. Just watch the finals of GP Prague, Rodrigo Togores beats a Miracles player with ANT, his worst matchup because he is better than his opponent.
Todd Stevens has iirc on multiple occassions back to back Top8'd multiple SCG Modern Opens. And their competition is on the level of GPs.
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
Whether the competition at SCGs is as strong as GPs is another debate, but you don't require a 13-2 to make top 8 of an SCG open. 12-3 usually gets the job done just due to the size of an SCG Open. Not to take anything away from his achievements but the path to top 8 isn't harder than say a GP.
This is a really interesting topic that's come up in my playgroup a few times.
GP vs. SCG open, what are the differences?
Metagame variation and spread in the two stylea of tournament seems to be a little different, just from my own observation. My take is that GPs tend to favour a more stable, midrangey view into modern whereas at SCG events I've seen more of a proliferation of various "cheese" style decks such as cheerios. Not to say that they always reach the top tables, but that seems to be the case with the starting field.
Of course this could also be down to coverage! I'm at the whims of whatever the coverage team deems worthy of note.
In terms of "difficulty" that's another tricky question. I'd say, based on number of rounds, the two styles of tournament are approximately on par. Whether or not (on the day) you need a 13-2 or a 12-3 record is mostly arbitrary. The field of players and how competitive they are is another factor, but again I'd assume that both style of tournament were on par here as well.
On a side note, I enjoy watching both. SCG have good coverage which matters not to the players but it draws me in as a viewer.
I wouldn't be able to comment on the difficulty unless I had a large sample size of both tournaments. Unfortunately being on the West Coast and in Canada, it's not economically feasible for me to try and find out. I would think in theory, GP players would be more serious players because of the prizing involved, you get a PT invite, flight to the PT and more prize money than what SCG would give you. SCG is basically just an extremely large cash tournament with a points leaderboard in both the Opens and Invitationals.
Top 8 of the SCG Opens pay out something that honestly isn't too far off from what the GPs pay out. Here, we'll do a side by side, and we'll assume maximum (3,000+) attendance for the GP:
1st Place:
GP - $10,000
SCG - $5,000
2nd Place:
GP - $5,000
SCG - $2,000
3/4th Place:
GP - $2,500
SCG - $1,000
5-8th Place:
GP - $1,500
SCG - $500
9-16th Place:
GP - $1,000
SCG - $325
17-32nd Place:
GP - $500
SCG - $200
33-64th Place:
GP - $250
SCG - $100
65-100th Place:
GP - $250
SCG - No Prize Money
101-180th Place:
GP - $200
SCG - No Prize Money
Now you see the important thing to note is the HUGE attendance difference between the SCG Opens and GPs. SCG Richmond, which was their last Modern Open, had a maximum capacity of 900 players. The GP prize pool we just compared is for over 3,000 players. So think about that. If you go to an SCG Open, you are playing against a field that at maximum is 1/3 the size of a GP, with prizes that as essentially comparable, when you consider the size of the event. Add to that the fact that every player in the Top 8 gets an invite to to SCG Invitational, which has an even bigger prize pool, with a small field, and I believe offer PT invites to 1st place, it's a pretty damn competitive event.
Honestly I feel you're just arguing semantics when arguing SCG Opens aren't as competitive as a GP.
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
funny how some say pros words mean nothing, all the way up until one says something that matches their rhetoric.
there are many factors to a deck doing well. skill and preparation with your deck is big, but I would argue in a huuge playing field its only half the story, especially in modern.
of course I blame this on maindeckable better answers to the vast amount of linear POWERFUL strategies that exist in this format.
it simply doesn't make sense in this game to play fair( for the most part), and its the reason my lgs has faded into pokemon.
and the: "leave things be" attitude wizards has is not helping confidence of some players. unfortunately there are even more players who enjoy this kind of format as it currently is.
I don't get it, but to each their own I guess.
But I kind of wish they would meet us on a middle ground and give us sfm and/or print better generic hate or something like that...
decks playing:
none
Why is everyone's fallback "Well where is Jund?" Seriously. That is the stupidest argument every. Jund has no right to always be a Tier 1 deck.
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
Where did I say that SCG Opens are not as competitive as GP? I only said SCG Opens are not harder than GP. You're putting words in my mouth just like the rest of this forum loves to do. We're just going to have to agree to disagree because you're just going to employ your forum favoritism to get me banned because what I say does not fit your narrative.
nothing does. but you missed the point so.....
decks playing:
none
Even stupider when you consider B/G rock just got 2nd in a GP
Affinity
Death & Taxes
Mardu Nahiri
Forcing people to merge with twitch is stupid
I mean...when most people say an event isn't as difficult, I take that as them meaning it isn't as competitive. Like FNMs are not as hard as PPTQs.
Also why do you flip off the handle every time is able to confront your argument with this wonderful thing called facts?
Knowing your deck, and knowing the field aren't the only skills required for Modern. No one is putting that forward. They are however two very important skills required to do well.
A lot of Jund's fallout has to do with the fact that Lightning Bolt just isn't the format staple it used to be. The meta has evolved past the point where you can control the board for the first 1-3 turns of the game with Bolts and discard.
Like seriously, to both of you (more sisicat right now) if you hate Modern so much, then why are you spending hours online arguing about it? Why not focus on something else you actually give a ***** about?
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
If I am a customer spending premium amount of dollars, I expect a premium service. Jund falls into the category of a premium deck costing more dollars than a majority of the rest of the format. I'm not getting the desired performance ratio per dollars spent out of the Jund deck because WOTC decided to make the format more diverse.
@sisicat - You alluded to the fact that you think that PT has "more serious players" versus an SCG Open here. Although you preface your statement by saying you can't comment on difficulty due to sample size, you proceed to suggest that PT has more serious players, which kinds of lends itself to being interpreted that you think PT is more difficult and more competitive. If we're going to dice semantics, you should probably create statements that don't lend themselves to these types of easy conclusions from the readers on this forum.
In this thread: Spoiled child upset because a format he spent maybe $1,000 that millions of people player doesn't cater to his whims
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
Well I flip the handle, because when I present you with facts that you don't want to hear, you dismiss it because it doesn't fit your narrative. I'm presenting you data straight from the coverage page, you choose to ignore my interpretation because it doesn't suit your views or your narrative. Instead you put words in my mouth in such a manner that flags a mod so they interpret my comments as not valid and therefore gets me a ban because you have forum favoritism.
Please tell me what facts you have presented me with. You've presented a hell of a lot of opinion but that's about it.
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
Buying a sports car doesn't entitle you to beat a professional F-1 racer. Buying a really nice computer doesn't mean you're entitled to be the top overwatch player. The difference is where ability and knowledge come into play. "I spent more money and therefore am entitled to win more often" is incredibly conceited.
The cards are worth what they are because that's what people are willing to pay or scarcity, not necessarily because they're the best cards in the format. And again, if you have a jund deck sitting around and want something that is proven to be viable at the top level, you have a very easy conversion.
http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=16525&d=302198&f=MO
Affinity
Death & Taxes
Mardu Nahiri
Forcing people to merge with twitch is stupid
Back to back top 8's in Standard GPs from Brad Nelson and Corey Baumeister, Rodrigo Togores overcoming a bad matchup with playskill in Legacy. Jarvis Yu top 8-ing back to back Legacy GPs. Is that not facts? Do you want links too?
http://magic.wizards.com/en/events/coverage/gpden17/top-moments-2017-08-20
http://magic.wizards.com/en/events/coverage/gppra16/finals-tholance-vs-togores-2016-06-12
http://magic.wizards.com/en/events/coverage/gpsea15/top-8-decklists-2015-11-08
http://magic.wizards.com/en/events/coverage/gpcol16/top-8-decks-2016-06-12
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros