Phew, that was a long time ago Ross wrote that article. I don't think it was a premium article but I'm not certain. I tried googling and looking through Starcity, couldn't find it.
I remember he wrote it and got a lot of outrage from it though.
Found it, it wasn't a full article, just a fact or fiction segment. He wrote,
"I predict that Nahiri, the Harbinger will be the next card banned from Modern. It'll be about six months from now, but it will happen. It's customary to ban the enablers of combo decks: Summer Bloom but not Primeval Titan, for example. In this case, it's Nahiri, he Harbinger and not Emrakul, the Aeons Torn."
Found it, it wasn't a full article, just a fact or fiction segment. He wrote,
"I predict that Nahiri, the Harbinger will be the next card banned from Modern. It'll be about six months from now, but it will happen. It's customary to ban the enablers of combo decks: Summer Bloom but not Primeval Titan, for example. In this case, it's Nahiri, he Harbinger and not Emrakul, the Aeons Torn."
I remember when that was the talk of the town. I played Nahiri at the time and was nothing but disappointed with it. It currently lives down in low tier where I firmly believe it never actually left. Despite its incessant popularity last spring, it never had any meaningful results outside of its inaugural weekend. Seems like the "pros" are just as bad at evaluating cards as Wizards.
Those shadow players are definitely earning those wins, after the meta adjusted free wins stopped happening. Todd Anderson said he bombed with Grixis Shadow for two tournaments in a row before he hit the top 8 in the Invitational. It took him serious grinding and practice as a player at his skill level to become good with the deck
It may have less to do with increase in skill with the deck and more to do with simple repeated reps. Eventually, matchups will line up to give you a solid run if you play in enough events. It's the same reason why RandomPile.dec can occasionally 5-0 MTGO leagues. Skill can tilt some of the "near 50/50" matchups in your favor, but that only goes so far if you are repeatedly paired up with miserable matchups.
I really thought Nahiri was here to stay, man, were most of us wrong. I actually even sold out of Jund on MTGO because I thought it would be a staple. I sold out of Jund because it didn't make sense owning two decks that are so similar with the same strengths and weaknesses to most decks. lol, huge bite in the ass.
I sold out of Jund/Junk on mtgo again, at least the pieces that don't go into Grixis Death Shadow or Jund Shadow. I still own a majority of it, just not like Bobs, the 4th copy of LOTV, etc
Jund and Junk are not coming back into prominence without the two major unbans the thread speaks about, or a surprise Shadow/Temple ban.
If you want to play a midrange deck, you're better off playing Shadow or E-Tron---or a blue deck, if that's how you'd like to play fair.
That's how Modern is intentionally designed, my win percentage is directly correlated to whether or not I get good pairings or not. The incentives to turn an unwinnable matchup to an even one are not there for me to dedicate the time to figure it out. I'd get more out of being a slave labourer in a third world country picking cotton off a field than figuring out how to turn an extremely unfavorable matchup to a favorable one. I only play Modern when it is PPTQ season and I put the Modern cards down afterwards since I personally don't enjoy that my win percentage is heavily influenced by what you get paired against. Diversity increases variance, you cannot have a format that is both diverse and playskill rewarding at the same time. Which is why players like Owen Turtenwald and PV never top 8 Modern GPs even though they are considered extremely skilled technical players. They actively avoid Modern GPs if they can just because they know the format does not reward their skillset. Also add to the fact that there are significantly more casual players than spikes which means more opportunity to monetize them from twitch views.
I have played Modern for 6 years now. I do agree with some of your sentiment about Modern being matchup dependent. It also can't be argued that a diverse format is always going to be tougher to do consistently well in. But I would like to point out some of my personal experience. I have had a 65.4% win percentage in Modern (kavu.ru). This is also despite a lot of scoops to players, especially during GPTs when I already have Byes and just want prizes. I will admit that the places that I play are not the most "spikiest" of places. They don't have Grinder or Pro level competition, but they are no slouches either. Of course, there's always occasionally going to be nearly free wins. But it is not like this too often. I have an over 70% win rate with the most inconsistent Modern deck - Grishoalbrand. And I have a close to 70% win percentage with the 3 other decks I've played the most in Bogles, RUG Scapeshift, and Ascension Storm. I've found success because I'm invested in the format. I'm invested card and deck-wise and emotionally. I would not enjoy formats as a player or for fun without Modern. I hear what you're saying. It takes a lot more playing to get to this level. But I enjoy it. I have played crappy decks, which I fear have made my win percentage go below 70%, and enjoyed myself. My goal now is to slowly get closer to 70%, but it is a work in progress since I've scooped a lot (while not getting as many scoops to me) and played some crappy decks.
I just wanted to share my experience because there are players who are invested greatly in Modern that do pretty well consistently. They could probably do better if they were invested with Standard, but it just doesn't appeal to some people as much.
Modern is wide open and diverse, but that's also a double-edged sword. The pro's don't like it because predicting a meta is much more difficult. Standard has like 4 viable decks and the pro's test from there. I do think standard is a skill testing format, but it makes pro's happier because they can spike a tournament with the right testing.
Modern isn't all luck based though, and people running that assertion are wrong, we constantly see big names at the top table in these Opens, GP's and Invitationals; they didn't stumble into the top 32 by luck.
Modern rewards knowledge of the format, knowing your deck inside and out and how your deck needs to sideboard, along with foreseeing if you're the beat down or control.
Modern doesn't have brainstorm, ponder and sylvan library to make games consistent; WOTC intended for variance to be a thing in modern and standard. By no means would I tell Cfusion, "if you dislike variance go play legacy". Legacy isn't available for everyone, but if that fact is true, you truly need to accept that variance is where Magic is going now, and if you don't enjoy the variance aspect, you may want to evaluate if this game is for you at all.
If you want to avoid variance, you should play competitive fighting video games or chess, where you rely solely on your skills.
I would tell him to go play Legacy because if he truly wanted to have low variance games, he will find a way to pay for that premium experience, even if it means offloading the remains of his Modern collection that doesn't port over well into Legacy. I dislike Modern's matchup diversity, which is why I pay a premium to upkeep Standard every 3 months and purchase Legacy cards in between that time. If you truly wanted to play Legacy, you WILL find ways to budget your cash properly to buy-in or find ways to borrow cards from Legacy players. Legacy players love when newer players are interested in their format and most Legacy communities I have seen are generally very friendly and willing to help others out the same way Modern players are as well.
Modern is wide open and diverse, but that's also a double-edged sword. The pro's don't like it because predicting a meta is much more difficult. Standard has like 4 viable decks and the pro's test from there. I do think standard is a skill testing format, but it makes pro's happier because they can spike a tournament with the right testing.
Modern isn't all luck based though, and people running that assertion are wrong, we constantly see big names at the top table in these Opens, GP's and Invitationals; they didn't stumble into the top 32 by luck.
Modern rewards knowledge of the format, knowing your deck inside and out and how your deck needs to sideboard, along with foreseeing if you're the beat down or control.
Modern doesn't have brainstorm, ponder and sylvan library to make games consistent; WOTC intended for variance to be a thing in modern and standard. By no means would I tell Cfusion, "if you dislike variance go play legacy". Legacy isn't available for everyone, but if that fact is true, you truly need to accept that variance is where Magic is going now, and if you don't enjoy the variance aspect, you may want to evaluate if this game is for you at all.
If you want to avoid variance, you should play competitive fighting video games or chess, where you rely solely on your skills.
I agree completely. You don't have to tell me. Our local team, which I couldn't join because I literally don't have the time, is focusing on playtesting only Standard. The players with Bronze or better literally have no reason to test Modern. There are around 4-5 players that still need to qualify for this season's RPTQ though, but some are practicing for the upcoming RPTQ from last season. Some just don't want to waste time testing Modern when they're already qualified and they won't even play at all "for fun."
I do agree with the variance thing, but I also believe that Wizards could unban consistency tools like Preordain, Green Sun's Zenith, and even Ponder. Then Modern would have at least almost half the consistency as Legacy, which is fine. I think that players are catching on to how powerful a meta that Modern has, so some of the cards on the banlist don't actually belong there. I have said so since the beginning of Modern.
I just wanted to point out that someone who doesn't play as often as he could want can have a moderately decent Modern win rate if they're willing to put in the time. I love the format. I'm invested. Of course, I'm going to put in the time (when I can of course). Also as of today, my win percentage in Modern has gone up a little bit at 66.2%. I'm still off my goal at 70%, but considering I've played no fewer than 50 Modern decks, I feel fine where it is for now.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
Pros complain because they may go up against someone on mono green stompy and get rolled as a burn player or something. But you know the thing about matchups, pairings and the inherent chaos thereof? Its fair. If you pick a decent deck and know what you are doing, the odds of you facing three awful matchups is about the same as LSV. I understand why the pros say it, every bit of variance lowers the odds of making Day 2, top 8, or winning a major event. I just don't really care, because the WOTC cartel of pro play bothers me on a fundamental level.
Pros complain because they may go up against someone on mono green stompy and get rolled as a burn player or something. But you know the thing about matchups, pairings and the inherent chaos thereof? Its fair. If you pick a decent deck and know what you are doing, the odds of you facing three awful matchups is about the same as LSV. I understand why the pros say it, every bit of variance lowers the odds of making Day 2, top 8, or winning a major event. I just don't really care, because the WOTC cartel of pro play bothers me on a fundamental level.
I don't actually care for pros either, but this is the crux of one of my main complaints about Modern: bringing a deck with positive matchups against a predicted metagame is significantly more beneficial than simply being skillful with any one particular deck. It would be nice to have the flexibility to switch on the fly between several $1,000+ decks that have virtually no crossover cards. As such, most players simply play what they have and deal with the matchups they are given. It leads to wildly swingy outcomes that are heavily influenced by things outside of your control.
Pros complain because they may go up against someone on mono green stompy and get rolled as a burn player or something. But you know the thing about matchups, pairings and the inherent chaos thereof? Its fair. If you pick a decent deck and know what you are doing, the odds of you facing three awful matchups is about the same as LSV. I understand why the pros say it, every bit of variance lowers the odds of making Day 2, top 8, or winning a major event. I just don't really care, because the WOTC cartel of pro play bothers me on a fundamental level.
I don't actually care for pros either, but this is the crux of one of my main complaints about Modern: bringing a deck with positive matchups against a predicted metagame is significantly more beneficial than simply being skillful with any one particular deck. It would be nice to have the flexibility to switch on the fly between several $1,000+ decks that have virtually no crossover cards. As such, most players simply play what they have and deal with the matchups they are given. It leads to wildly swingy outcomes that are heavily influenced by things outside of your control.
So you believe that diversity is bad? Or is it just a matter of diminishing marginal returns? The standard comparison has already been made, and I can tell you if the entire format literally was Grixis Shadow, E-Tron, let's say Burn and Affinity, no other deck existed that had a shot at going X-2 at a GP, I'd quit the format. That's standard to me. Hell, add Valakut and call it five decks and not only is that standard but that's a healthy standard!
Still worth noting how there aren't a ton of 80/20 matchups in modern nonetheless.
Lauer: Modern is a format created by players, not developers. So we tend to be hands off, although we try to avoid adding turn-three kills. With Legacy, we sometimes design "answer cards" such as Abrupt Decay being an answer to Counterbalance. When appropriate, we might do that with Modern. But we haven't had to yet.
Note this was from late 2012, hence the "we haven't had to [design "answer cards" for Modern] yet" (which is likely no longer true).
Even with that its obvious still a card that they heavily weighted for standard given the article I found about the card. It wasn't like it wasn't a very strong card in Standard it pretty much made 4cc stuff and up the better options when possible because it was just so punishing for the Rev decks to face down that uncounterable removal. Certainly a better attempt than Rending Volley which was designed specifically for Modern.
Volley is a great example of a modern answer comeing through standard. It unfortunately doesn't ever shine because blue creatures just aren't really relevant anymore.
Volley is a great example of a modern answer comeing through standard. It unfortunately doesn't ever shine because blue creatures just aren't really relevant anymore.
It's a great example of wotc saying we have x problem in modern so let's try to find a card we can print to help it. Rather than just not worrying about the format. I don't recall too much from that standard that would have justified volley although I may be wrong.
Pros complain because they may go up against someone on mono green stompy and get rolled as a burn player or something. But you know the thing about matchups, pairings and the inherent chaos thereof? Its fair. If you pick a decent deck and know what you are doing, the odds of you facing three awful matchups is about the same as LSV. I understand why the pros say it, every bit of variance lowers the odds of making Day 2, top 8, or winning a major event. I just don't really care, because the WOTC cartel of pro play bothers me on a fundamental level.
I don't think people complain about the matchups in modern for being unfair, but rather that they are a unrewarding play experience. Your average Player just want their in game decisions to matter more than say drawing a sideboard card in time or dodging certain matchups
Pros complain because they may go up against someone on mono green stompy and get rolled as a burn player or something. But you know the thing about matchups, pairings and the inherent chaos thereof? Its fair. If you pick a decent deck and know what you are doing, the odds of you facing three awful matchups is about the same as LSV. I understand why the pros say it, every bit of variance lowers the odds of making Day 2, top 8, or winning a major event. I just don't really care, because the WOTC cartel of pro play bothers me on a fundamental level.
I don't actually care for pros either, but this is the crux of one of my main complaints about Modern: bringing a deck with positive matchups against a predicted metagame is significantly more beneficial than simply being skillful with any one particular deck. It would be nice to have the flexibility to switch on the fly between several $1,000+ decks that have virtually no crossover cards. As such, most players simply play what they have and deal with the matchups they are given. It leads to wildly swingy outcomes that are heavily influenced by things outside of your control.
So you believe that diversity is bad? Or is it just a matter of diminishing marginal returns? The standard comparison has already been made, and I can tell you if the entire format literally was Grixis Shadow, E-Tron, let's say Burn and Affinity, no other deck existed that had a shot at going X-2 at a GP, I'd quit the format. That's standard to me. Hell, add Valakut and call it five decks and not only is that standard but that's a healthy standard!
Still worth noting how there aren't a ton of 80/20 matchups in modern nonetheless.
I just wish that my play decisions had as big of an impact to the match result as the pairings board does. Has nothing to do with diversity, but it just highlights Modern's weakness: hugely swingy matches on the backs of very powerful decks with weak or narrow answers.
I voiced my opinion earlier about deck choice vs deck skill. But I'll say it again.
At a big tournament, you will be far more rewarded for knowing your deck than making a meta choice. You are highly unlikely at a GP to see a large enough number of the top performing meta decks until the X-0 tables on day 2. Before that, you are going to see all sorts of powerful decks that may not be as big in the meta at that point. A lot of experience with your deck and knowing how best to navigate all of these matchups from hundreds of games along with a good strategy on how to beat the top decks in case you see them on day 2 or top 8, is the best way to do well at a large tournament.
Unless you have extensive experience with a ton of decks, metagaming will not take you very far on a large scale. Sure, at locals or in a 5 round league, you can get lucky and see all the decks you are trying to beat. But at a GP, you can't count on getting lucky with a deck you don't know and facing all the meta decks it's built to beat. That's where play experience and sideboarding experience against all sorts of decks comes into play.
I voiced my opinion earlier about deck choice vs deck skill. But I'll say it again.
At a big tournament, you will be far more rewarded for knowing your deck than making a meta choice. You are highly unlikely at a GP to see a large enough number of the top performing meta decks until the X-0 tables on day 2. Before that, you are going to see all sorts of powerful decks that may not be as big in the meta at that point. A lot of experience with your deck and knowing how best to navigate all of these matchups from hundreds of games along with a good strategy on how to beat the top decks in case you see them on day 2 or top 8, is the best way to do well at a large tournament.
Unless you have extensive experience with a ton of decks, metagaming will not take you very far on a large scale. Sure, at locals or in a 5 round league, you can get lucky and see all the decks you are trying to beat. But at a GP, you can't count on getting lucky with a deck you don't know and facing all the meta decks it's built to beat. That's where play experience and sideboarding experience against all sorts of decks comes into play.
Yet the top preforming meta decks in your scenario are X-0 so you have to beat them one way or another. Therefore it's best to have the correct call for the meta. I guess if your goal is to day 2 sure play the deck you know best and hope to miss your horrible matchups. If your goal is to win it all play the best deck for the meta and hope to miss the horrible matches (you will have to beat the meta to win). I'd bet there are still more top tier decks in the room than t3/brews. You want to have the best deck for the top tier and sure if you lose to a random bad matchup that could have happened either way. I really don't think the average player on this thread will gain that many percentage points with more than 2 weeks of testing a deck for a large event. This is just my opinion from my skill level after all.
Pros complain because they may go up against someone on mono green stompy and get rolled as a burn player or something. But you know the thing about matchups, pairings and the inherent chaos thereof? Its fair. If you pick a decent deck and know what you are doing, the odds of you facing three awful matchups is about the same as LSV. I understand why the pros say it, every bit of variance lowers the odds of making Day 2, top 8, or winning a major event. I just don't really care, because the WOTC cartel of pro play bothers me on a fundamental level.
I don't actually care for pros either, but this is the crux of one of my main complaints about Modern: bringing a deck with positive matchups against a predicted metagame is significantly more beneficial than simply being skillful with any one particular deck. It would be nice to have the flexibility to switch on the fly between several $1,000+ decks that have virtually no crossover cards. As such, most players simply play what they have and deal with the matchups they are given. It leads to wildly swingy outcomes that are heavily influenced by things outside of your control.
Spare deck makes this easily possible and if testing/playing online there is xmage or mana(something) for mtgo that allow you to pay a monthly fee to basically play anything you want. If you're a big grinder the options are there and affordable.
If you pick up a deck for an event and don't have time to really test it hard against all sorts of matchups, you will lose a ton of percentage points against everyone in the room. Sure the deck might have a good matchup on paper against the top decks, but you probably won't with it. And even if you test against those decks, you will still mess up against other decks and lose. It doesn't even have to be a bad matchup, just a deck you didn't prepare for in testing. You will make mistakes and lose. But, through a lot of preparation and knowledge of a deck across at least a month or two and a few hundred games, you can turn slightly unfavorable and even matchups into completely winnable or even favored by knowing how you have to play against that deck. And you can even turn usually bad matchups into winnable with some luck by knowing exactly what your outs are and how you have to play to win.
And in my scenario, the top decks you see at the top tables are likely to be people who did their homework with those decks.
Obviously if you have a ton of experience with every deck in the format or even just a handful, you can make a meta call on which deck you want to play. But choosing a deck for the meta that you have two weeks of practice with at your local shop against a handful of decks or playing a handful of leagues won't reward you as much as extensive experience with your deck and a solid sideboard plan for what you expect the top decks to be.
Edit: @Ktrojan, I love the banner in your signature. A couple of those are my favorite legends
Pros complain because they may go up against someone on mono green stompy and get rolled as a burn player or something. But you know the thing about matchups, pairings and the inherent chaos thereof? Its fair. If you pick a decent deck and know what you are doing, the odds of you facing three awful matchups is about the same as LSV. I understand why the pros say it, every bit of variance lowers the odds of making Day 2, top 8, or winning a major event. I just don't really care, because the WOTC cartel of pro play bothers me on a fundamental level.
I don't actually care for pros either, but this is the crux of one of my main complaints about Modern: bringing a deck with positive matchups against a predicted metagame is significantly more beneficial than simply being skillful with any one particular deck. It would be nice to have the flexibility to switch on the fly between several $1,000+ decks that have virtually no crossover cards. As such, most players simply play what they have and deal with the matchups they are given. It leads to wildly swingy outcomes that are heavily influenced by things outside of your control.
Spare deck makes this easily possible and if testing/playing online there is xmage or mana(something) for mtgo that allow you to pay a monthly fee to basically play anything you want. If you're a big grinder the options are there and affordable.
I've scaled back considerable in playing Modern. I sold off my entire MTGO account. I still play Modern in paper, but definitely not as much or with as much intensity as I used to. The banning of Probe (killing my second favorite deck, after my first favorite was killed by another ban) was the beginning of the downturn for me. The recent exaggeration of matchup and sideboard lotteries I experienced at FNMs in the past few months soured my experiences even further. Most of my time in Magic these days is spent with Commander, which has been nothing but fantastic fun, or trying new things like beginning my first D&D campaign with my wife and group of friends that don't play Magic. I'm sure those tools are great, but without massive format shifts, the game just doesn't draw me in like it used to. I guess I just miss when Jund, Tron, Infect, Affinity, and Burn were alongside my old deck. 4 of those 6 are effectively dead today.
If you pick up a deck for an event and don't have time to really test it hard against all sorts of matchups, you will lose a ton of percentage points against everyone in the room. Sure the deck might have a good matchup on paper against the top decks, but you probably won't with it. And even if you test against those decks, you will still mess up against other decks and lose. It doesn't even have to be a bad matchup, just a deck you didn't prepare for in testing. You will make mistakes and lose. But, through a lot of preparation and knowledge of a deck across at least a month or two and a few hundred games, you can turn slightly unfavorable and even matchups into completely winnable or even favored by knowing how you have to play against that deck. And you can even turn usually bad matchups into winnable with some luck by knowing exactly what your outs are and how you have to play to win.
And in my scenario, the top decks you see at the top tables are likely to be people who did their homework with those decks.
Obviously if you have a ton of experience with every deck in the format or even just a handful, you can make a meta call on which deck you want to play. But choosing a deck for the meta that you have two weeks of practice with at your local shop against a handful of decks or playing a handful of leagues won't reward you as much as extensive experience with your deck and a solid sideboard plan for what you expect the top decks to be.
Edit: @Ktrojan, I love the banner in your signature. A couple of those are my favorite legends
With online sources you can test an amazing amount these days in 2 weeks. Yes if you don't know your # of outs or how many detachable lands you have type things you're right it's not going to be a good day but if you're going to a gp to win and not just play because hey it's a gp you can test plenty in 2 weeks to be ready with a deck from somewhere like spare deck rather than your tokens list you play for fun on modern nights (not saying tokens is bad it's just an example of a casually fun type of deck to play).
Just saying there are rental programs for both so you can literally play any modern deck you want.
I actually don't play commander anymore sadly because games are way too swingy where you play a powerful deck with people that aren't or you play your uber casual deck and get t4 combod out of the game.
I actually don't play commander anymore sadly because games are way too swingy where you play a powerful deck with people that aren't or you play your uber casual deck and get t4 combod out of the game.
Our play group values fun first. Almost all our games are long grindfests, usually lasting 1-2 hours on average and most of our decks are built for that kind of play. We have huge diversity (25+ unique decks among usual players) and power levels are still fairly high. Combos and stax effects exist, but it's not obnoxious and it's definitely not cutthroat. Overpowered decks or "problems" can be dealt with as a table by teaming up. We have a good harmony in the group and it's been so much more enjoyable than the stress and misery found in recent Monday Night Moderns.
Pros complain because they may go up against someone on mono green stompy and get rolled as a burn player or something. But you know the thing about matchups, pairings and the inherent chaos thereof? Its fair. If you pick a decent deck and know what you are doing, the odds of you facing three awful matchups is about the same as LSV. I understand why the pros say it, every bit of variance lowers the odds of making Day 2, top 8, or winning a major event. I just don't really care, because the WOTC cartel of pro play bothers me on a fundamental level.
I don't actually care for pros either, but this is the crux of one of my main complaints about Modern: bringing a deck with positive matchups against a predicted metagame is significantly more beneficial than simply being skillful with any one particular deck. It would be nice to have the flexibility to switch on the fly between several $1,000+ decks that have virtually no crossover cards. As such, most players simply play what they have and deal with the matchups they are given. It leads to wildly swingy outcomes that are heavily influenced by things outside of your control.
So you believe that diversity is bad? Or is it just a matter of diminishing marginal returns? The standard comparison has already been made, and I can tell you if the entire format literally was Grixis Shadow, E-Tron, let's say Burn and Affinity, no other deck existed that had a shot at going X-2 at a GP, I'd quit the format. That's standard to me. Hell, add Valakut and call it five decks and not only is that standard but that's a healthy standard!
Still worth noting how there aren't a ton of 80/20 matchups in modern nonetheless.
From my point of view, if it is the main contributing factor to my win percentage decreasing, yes it is bad. There's no deck in Modern that has no bad matchups, that's normally how I would try to control variance in matchups, but due to how Modern is designed for the masses and not for people who want to play low variance mistake punishing magic, diversity is a big negative for me. I'd rather play Eldrazi winter mirrors than what we have now, only because I have to prepare for the mirror and that my deck will crush everything else that tries to stand in it's way naturally.
Pros complain because they may go up against someone on mono green stompy and get rolled as a burn player or something. But you know the thing about matchups, pairings and the inherent chaos thereof? Its fair. If you pick a decent deck and know what you are doing, the odds of you facing three awful matchups is about the same as LSV. I understand why the pros say it, every bit of variance lowers the odds of making Day 2, top 8, or winning a major event. I just don't really care, because the WOTC cartel of pro play bothers me on a fundamental level.
I don't actually care for pros either, but this is the crux of one of my main complaints about Modern: bringing a deck with positive matchups against a predicted metagame is significantly more beneficial than simply being skillful with any one particular deck. It would be nice to have the flexibility to switch on the fly between several $1,000+ decks that have virtually no crossover cards. As such, most players simply play what they have and deal with the matchups they are given. It leads to wildly swingy outcomes that are heavily influenced by things outside of your control.
So you believe that diversity is bad? Or is it just a matter of diminishing marginal returns? The standard comparison has already been made, and I can tell you if the entire format literally was Grixis Shadow, E-Tron, let's say Burn and Affinity, no other deck existed that had a shot at going X-2 at a GP, I'd quit the format. That's standard to me. Hell, add Valakut and call it five decks and not only is that standard but that's a healthy standard!
Still worth noting how there aren't a ton of 80/20 matchups in modern nonetheless.
From my point of view, if it is the main contributing factor to my win percentage decreasing, yes it is bad. There's no deck in Modern that has no bad matchups, that's normally how I would try to control variance in matchups, but due to how Modern is designed for the masses and not for people who want to play low variance mistake punishing magic, diversity is a big negative for me. I'd rather play Eldrazi winter mirrors than what we have now, only because I have to prepare for the mirror and that my deck will crush everything else that tries to stand in it's way naturally.
Would you acknowledge that the type of metas you prefer are generally considered poorly designed and unappealing to players?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern U Merfolk UB Tezzerator UB Mill
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I remember he wrote it and got a lot of outrage from it though.
Spirits
"I predict that Nahiri, the Harbinger will be the next card banned from Modern. It'll be about six months from now, but it will happen. It's customary to ban the enablers of combo decks: Summer Bloom but not Primeval Titan, for example. In this case, it's Nahiri, he Harbinger and not Emrakul, the Aeons Torn."
http://www.starcitygames.com/article/32946_Fact-Or-Fiction-GPCharlotte-Weekend.html
I remember when that was the talk of the town. I played Nahiri at the time and was nothing but disappointed with it. It currently lives down in low tier where I firmly believe it never actually left. Despite its incessant popularity last spring, it never had any meaningful results outside of its inaugural weekend. Seems like the "pros" are just as bad at evaluating cards as Wizards.
It may have less to do with increase in skill with the deck and more to do with simple repeated reps. Eventually, matchups will line up to give you a solid run if you play in enough events. It's the same reason why RandomPile.dec can occasionally 5-0 MTGO leagues. Skill can tilt some of the "near 50/50" matchups in your favor, but that only goes so far if you are repeatedly paired up with miserable matchups.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I really thought Nahiri was here to stay, man, were most of us wrong. I actually even sold out of Jund on MTGO because I thought it would be a staple. I sold out of Jund because it didn't make sense owning two decks that are so similar with the same strengths and weaknesses to most decks. lol, huge bite in the ass.
I still like the deck, but not even CLOSE to ban worthy.
Spirits
Jund and Junk are not coming back into prominence without the two major unbans the thread speaks about, or a surprise Shadow/Temple ban.
If you want to play a midrange deck, you're better off playing Shadow or E-Tron---or a blue deck, if that's how you'd like to play fair.
I would tell him to go play Legacy because if he truly wanted to have low variance games, he will find a way to pay for that premium experience, even if it means offloading the remains of his Modern collection that doesn't port over well into Legacy. I dislike Modern's matchup diversity, which is why I pay a premium to upkeep Standard every 3 months and purchase Legacy cards in between that time. If you truly wanted to play Legacy, you WILL find ways to budget your cash properly to buy-in or find ways to borrow cards from Legacy players. Legacy players love when newer players are interested in their format and most Legacy communities I have seen are generally very friendly and willing to help others out the same way Modern players are as well.
I agree completely. You don't have to tell me. Our local team, which I couldn't join because I literally don't have the time, is focusing on playtesting only Standard. The players with Bronze or better literally have no reason to test Modern. There are around 4-5 players that still need to qualify for this season's RPTQ though, but some are practicing for the upcoming RPTQ from last season. Some just don't want to waste time testing Modern when they're already qualified and they won't even play at all "for fun."
I do agree with the variance thing, but I also believe that Wizards could unban consistency tools like Preordain, Green Sun's Zenith, and even Ponder. Then Modern would have at least almost half the consistency as Legacy, which is fine. I think that players are catching on to how powerful a meta that Modern has, so some of the cards on the banlist don't actually belong there. I have said so since the beginning of Modern.
I just wanted to point out that someone who doesn't play as often as he could want can have a moderately decent Modern win rate if they're willing to put in the time. I love the format. I'm invested. Of course, I'm going to put in the time (when I can of course). Also as of today, my win percentage in Modern has gone up a little bit at 66.2%. I'm still off my goal at 70%, but considering I've played no fewer than 50 Modern decks, I feel fine where it is for now.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)I don't actually care for pros either, but this is the crux of one of my main complaints about Modern: bringing a deck with positive matchups against a predicted metagame is significantly more beneficial than simply being skillful with any one particular deck. It would be nice to have the flexibility to switch on the fly between several $1,000+ decks that have virtually no crossover cards. As such, most players simply play what they have and deal with the matchups they are given. It leads to wildly swingy outcomes that are heavily influenced by things outside of your control.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
So you believe that diversity is bad? Or is it just a matter of diminishing marginal returns? The standard comparison has already been made, and I can tell you if the entire format literally was Grixis Shadow, E-Tron, let's say Burn and Affinity, no other deck existed that had a shot at going X-2 at a GP, I'd quit the format. That's standard to me. Hell, add Valakut and call it five decks and not only is that standard but that's a healthy standard!
Still worth noting how there aren't a ton of 80/20 matchups in modern nonetheless.
I don't think people complain about the matchups in modern for being unfair, but rather that they are a unrewarding play experience. Your average Player just want their in game decisions to matter more than say drawing a sideboard card in time or dodging certain matchups
I just wish that my play decisions had as big of an impact to the match result as the pairings board does. Has nothing to do with diversity, but it just highlights Modern's weakness: hugely swingy matches on the backs of very powerful decks with weak or narrow answers.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
At a big tournament, you will be far more rewarded for knowing your deck than making a meta choice. You are highly unlikely at a GP to see a large enough number of the top performing meta decks until the X-0 tables on day 2. Before that, you are going to see all sorts of powerful decks that may not be as big in the meta at that point. A lot of experience with your deck and knowing how best to navigate all of these matchups from hundreds of games along with a good strategy on how to beat the top decks in case you see them on day 2 or top 8, is the best way to do well at a large tournament.
Unless you have extensive experience with a ton of decks, metagaming will not take you very far on a large scale. Sure, at locals or in a 5 round league, you can get lucky and see all the decks you are trying to beat. But at a GP, you can't count on getting lucky with a deck you don't know and facing all the meta decks it's built to beat. That's where play experience and sideboarding experience against all sorts of decks comes into play.
Marath, Will of the Wild Tokens!! / Karrthus, Tyrant of Jund Dragons! / Muzzio, Visionary Architect / Brago, King Eternal / Daretti, Scrap Savant / Narset, Enlightened Master / Alesha, Who Smiles at Death / Bruna, Light of Alabaster / Marchesa, the Black Rose / Iroas, God of Victory / Freyalise, Llanowar's Fury / Omnath, Locus of rage / Titania, Protector of Argoth / Kozilek, the Great Distortion
Modern
Elves / Titanshift / Merfolk
Yet the top preforming meta decks in your scenario are X-0 so you have to beat them one way or another. Therefore it's best to have the correct call for the meta. I guess if your goal is to day 2 sure play the deck you know best and hope to miss your horrible matchups. If your goal is to win it all play the best deck for the meta and hope to miss the horrible matches (you will have to beat the meta to win). I'd bet there are still more top tier decks in the room than t3/brews. You want to have the best deck for the top tier and sure if you lose to a random bad matchup that could have happened either way. I really don't think the average player on this thread will gain that many percentage points with more than 2 weeks of testing a deck for a large event. This is just my opinion from my skill level after all.
Spare deck makes this easily possible and if testing/playing online there is xmage or mana(something) for mtgo that allow you to pay a monthly fee to basically play anything you want. If you're a big grinder the options are there and affordable.
And in my scenario, the top decks you see at the top tables are likely to be people who did their homework with those decks.
Obviously if you have a ton of experience with every deck in the format or even just a handful, you can make a meta call on which deck you want to play. But choosing a deck for the meta that you have two weeks of practice with at your local shop against a handful of decks or playing a handful of leagues won't reward you as much as extensive experience with your deck and a solid sideboard plan for what you expect the top decks to be.
Edit: @Ktrojan, I love the banner in your signature. A couple of those are my favorite legends
Marath, Will of the Wild Tokens!! / Karrthus, Tyrant of Jund Dragons! / Muzzio, Visionary Architect / Brago, King Eternal / Daretti, Scrap Savant / Narset, Enlightened Master / Alesha, Who Smiles at Death / Bruna, Light of Alabaster / Marchesa, the Black Rose / Iroas, God of Victory / Freyalise, Llanowar's Fury / Omnath, Locus of rage / Titania, Protector of Argoth / Kozilek, the Great Distortion
Modern
Elves / Titanshift / Merfolk
I've scaled back considerable in playing Modern. I sold off my entire MTGO account. I still play Modern in paper, but definitely not as much or with as much intensity as I used to. The banning of Probe (killing my second favorite deck, after my first favorite was killed by another ban) was the beginning of the downturn for me. The recent exaggeration of matchup and sideboard lotteries I experienced at FNMs in the past few months soured my experiences even further. Most of my time in Magic these days is spent with Commander, which has been nothing but fantastic fun, or trying new things like beginning my first D&D campaign with my wife and group of friends that don't play Magic. I'm sure those tools are great, but without massive format shifts, the game just doesn't draw me in like it used to. I guess I just miss when Jund, Tron, Infect, Affinity, and Burn were alongside my old deck. 4 of those 6 are effectively dead today.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
With online sources you can test an amazing amount these days in 2 weeks. Yes if you don't know your # of outs or how many detachable lands you have type things you're right it's not going to be a good day but if you're going to a gp to win and not just play because hey it's a gp you can test plenty in 2 weeks to be ready with a deck from somewhere like spare deck rather than your tokens list you play for fun on modern nights (not saying tokens is bad it's just an example of a casually fun type of deck to play).
Just saying there are rental programs for both so you can literally play any modern deck you want.
I actually don't play commander anymore sadly because games are way too swingy where you play a powerful deck with people that aren't or you play your uber casual deck and get t4 combod out of the game.
Our play group values fun first. Almost all our games are long grindfests, usually lasting 1-2 hours on average and most of our decks are built for that kind of play. We have huge diversity (25+ unique decks among usual players) and power levels are still fairly high. Combos and stax effects exist, but it's not obnoxious and it's definitely not cutthroat. Overpowered decks or "problems" can be dealt with as a table by teaming up. We have a good harmony in the group and it's been so much more enjoyable than the stress and misery found in recent Monday Night Moderns.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
From my point of view, if it is the main contributing factor to my win percentage decreasing, yes it is bad. There's no deck in Modern that has no bad matchups, that's normally how I would try to control variance in matchups, but due to how Modern is designed for the masses and not for people who want to play low variance mistake punishing magic, diversity is a big negative for me. I'd rather play Eldrazi winter mirrors than what we have now, only because I have to prepare for the mirror and that my deck will crush everything else that tries to stand in it's way naturally.
Would you acknowledge that the type of metas you prefer are generally considered poorly designed and unappealing to players?
U Merfolk
UB Tezzerator
UB Mill