This thread was automatically marked as Locked.
Quote from Exatraz »On the General Modern Meta discussion. Part of what makes my meta kinda toxic right now is that it's steadily shrinking. We typically vary from 40-80 people for Thursday and Friday Modern. Lately that number has dwindled down to barely 20. Of those 20, many are still on fast combo, aggro or big mana because they enjoy the non-interactive meta. It's just been a perpetual spiral downward over the last 2-3 months.
Quote from Shockwave07 »Quote from Exatraz »On the General Modern Meta discussion. Part of what makes my meta kinda toxic right now is that it's steadily shrinking. We typically vary from 40-80 people for Thursday and Friday Modern. Lately that number has dwindled down to barely 20. Of those 20, many are still on fast combo, aggro or big mana because they enjoy the non-interactive meta. It's just been a perpetual spiral downward over the last 2-3 months.Don't have a good idea of what the overall health is, but to get a better picture is this online play or local game store this number of modern players coming from?
Quote from FoodChainGoblins »Since a lot of people are jumping on HolyDiva to announce their disgust with her comment from the previous page, I'd like to chime in that I personally agree with it quite a bit! It may have seemed rude or whatever, but some people are just brutally honest.
Quote from FoodChainGoblins »I mostly played Combo decks when Twin was around. I also played a lot of Bogles during this time. Losing to Bolt/Snap/Bolt is much, much less a concern when my deck has 6 pieces of lifegain, ranging from 1 mana to 3 mana. If I gain 4-8 life points on a swing and maintain that Hexproof creature, direct damage goes nearly completely out the window. But having only 3-4 Path to Exile in my deck without filtering like Serum Visions/Snapcaster Mage, it honestly felt like 3-4 Path to Exile vs. 12 Splinter Twin. I lost a bunch to this deck. I lost games where I Path to Exiled 2 creatures on separate turns with a Splinter Twin on the stack, targeting them. I'll admit it was rare for it to lose after it happened twice. If I did not build my deck purposely with Twin in mind, I would straight up lose. Even with other decks that I played (Combo), there was very rarely the fear of being burned out. I would normally get time to cobble the pieces to win together or just not find anything and die to some 2/1s (which was rare).
I'll give you an example that I remember very vividly that I did get burned out. I was playing against a Jeskai Control opponent in Round 6 of a local PTQ. I was playing Bogles. I did a turn 1, fetch and shock for Temple Garden, and play a Slippery Bogle. When I had lethal on the field, this opponent continued to Cryptic Command my (much more than) lethal creature to tap him and draw. He did this when he had one card in hand and kept doing it until he found lethal burn. He ended up doing 18 points of direct damage to me, while Cryptic Commanding me 7 times. This was the most extreme version of something like that happening to me and it was Jeskai Control, probably my best matchup. Although I was a bit on tilt from losing that game, in the end I was fine with him having 1 card in hand constantly and chaining Cryptic Commands. He ended up winning the 3rd game too after I mulled to 5 by doing 5 more Cryptic Commands, so maybe in Magic, the cards are telling the players something?
I've been honest about this before and it probably has to do with the decks that I play, but Twin has very, very rarely beaten me with Snap/Bolt beats. Sure, I have taken my share of them, but usually the decks that I play can cobble together a win by that time and if they go on that plan early, revealing that they have nothing, it can be very detrimental for them. Maybe I just never played good Twin palyers? Who knows? I played some that won PPTQs, but never a Pro on Twin since Ponder and Preordain were banned and rarely the top grinders. Who knows?
Quote from Wraithpk »You can infract this post if you want, but the censorship rule is bull*****. I don't particularly enjoy seeing and having to talk about the topic in question anymore either since it's all the same dumb arguments over and over, but this is the state of the meta and banlist thread. This is the place for discussions like that. If people don't want to talk about certain banned cards, MAYBE THEY SHOULDN'T BE IN THE BANLIST THREAD. Or they could just learn to skip over and ignore comments on topics they don't want to talk about.
The bottom line is that that particular banning was controversial (thus why people are still talking about it 2 years later), Wizards basically gave us a heads-up that they might unban something after the PT, and it's a card on many people's short-lists of potential unban targets. Whether or not it's a viable unban at this point is a perfectly reasonable debate to have IN THE BANLIST THREAD.
That's all I have to say on the topic, but you can consider this my formal dissent to reinstituting this censorship rule in this thread.
Quote from pizzap »
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
Quote from Teysa_Karlov »
I agree with this post, though not for the same reasons.
I'd rather we talk about the card in question and go in circles for days on end then have posters dance around the issue, doing just enough to not break the rules, and just turn the thread into a game of chicken with the mods. Censoring that one card makes people want to talk about it more because it's taboo.
Quote from Earthbound21 »
I will not be replying to rebuttals that are not at least as fleshed out as my assertion. If you're grown up enough to use the internet, you are grown up enough to understand that posturing, nit picking, and corner cases are not enough to constitute a rebuttal to an argument. You will attack my argument in full or you will not be getting a response from me.
Quote from mnesci »If people wanted a thread to discuss it, couldn't they just make one? Or am I missing how making general threads works? If people were constantly debating it in such a thread, it wouldn't need to be stickied or anything.
Having a thread actually sounds like a pretty good idea. There could even be a "primer" updated with the arguments from both sides.
Quote from Cody_X »I agree wit the censorship dislike.
I'd honestly be better to just cap the amount of times an individual user can reference the banned card in a certain time frame (ie: only 2 posts a day, or something).
As was mentioned earlier in the thread though, I definitely feel for the people who's attendance has dropped.
I definitely wish modern was more appealing to everyone (and not "oh you like interactive decks? Good, you have three choices: UW, UWR, or shadow. Oh, you like noninteractive decks? Pick from these 12").
I do hope that wizard's changes in set design (I hope opt, perilous voyage, chart a course, search for azcanta, and all the other borderline cards from ixalan are only the start) and banned list control start to change this.
Someone in the previous thread mentioned that the pro tour has a good chance of revealing some deck to be a lot stronger than everyone is aware of.
I almost want that to happen, just because any big change afterwards feels like it would be an improvement. Of course, getting someone's deck banned doesn't feel great either.
Quote from mtgnorin »Now i waste again 10 minutes of my life reading about this card. Ok not the card itself, reading about censoring it. Is this discussion really our goal? Again and again? By the way, i scrolled down... And scroll again and again... The same everywhere. Sorry but censoring is maybe our only chance to develope and go on without beeing a vintage thread. All you want to say, ALL of you did it several times