The old adage holds true Speed Kills and these aggro decks can runover in three turns. They all play the D'Antoni Basketball System of Seven Seconds or Less to score. With scoring being brutalizing their opponents life total.
1. Linear deck are easier to play initially, but knowing to play against hate is harder.
2. Most linear decks also have more dead hands. Hollow one without it's discard spells is an auto-mulligan. Non-linear deck tend to be more resilient.
3. I think this is not tied to linearity per-see. It's about average mana cost. Many non-linear decks have low curves too. It's just that linear decks tend to all be about winning quickly, so they do not play high CMC cards. Modern always has been a low-to-the-ground format, with a few obvious ramp exceptions.
4. Non-linear decks also tend to have fewer horrible match-up. Linear decks have unwinnable matchups.
5. This is the same of linear deck. The only difference is about which player drew better or won the die roll. They also need a good SB to beat the other linear decks. Linear deck also tend to have effective hate cards played against them in SB.
I agree that there is a kind of SB lottery, where what you decide to bring can put you down in a given meta-game. But I tend to favor versatile open-ended SB. I always have a few GY hate, I always have EE, I always have a few shattertorm-like cards.
So Green Sun's Zenith in modern means you can GSZ for Dryad Arbor and effectively play two lands + a bird or noble turn one, and follow up with a turn 2 Collected Company, Mwonvuli Acid-Moss or other 4-drop...? That is absoultely ridiculous, and why on earth would they prefer that over Birthing Pod?
How would you play 2 Lands + a mana dork on T1 with GSZ? Dryad Arbor has summoning sickness. You can't tap it for mana after using GSZ. Playing GSZ for X=0 is the equivalent of playing a Llanowar Elves. You won't have more mana until your next turn.
1. Linear deck are easier to play initially, but knowing to play against hate is harder.
2. Most linear decks also have more dead hands. Hollow one without it's discard spells is an auto-mulligan. Non-linear deck tend to be more resilient.
3. I think this is not tied to linearity per-see. It's about average mana cost. Many non-linear decks have low curves too. It's just that linear decks tend to all be about winning quickly, so they do not play high CMC cards. Modern always has been a low-to-the-ground format, with a few obvious ramp exceptions.
4. Non-linear decks also tend to have fewer horrible match-up. Linear decks have unwinnable matchups.
5. This is the same of linear deck. The only difference is about which player drew better or won the die roll. They also need a good SB to beat the other linear decks. Linear deck also tend to have effective hate cards played against them in SB.
I agree that there is a kind of SB lottery, where what you decide to bring can put you down in a given meta-game. But I tend to favor versatile open-ended SB. I always have a few GY hate, I always have EE, I always have a few shattertorm-like cards.
1. Even if that is true, you shouldn't expect hate game 1, and your opponent can't play that many hate cards against your deck specifically, so even post-sideboard they might not find it and you wouldn't need to play around it (once again, it is better if you know, but just talking about general rules).
2. I don't think that is true. Most linear decks have enough redundant copies of the particular effects that make their decks tick that I would argue they have fewer dead hands than control/non-linear decks that play higher CMC spells. Yeah, hollow one without discard spells is an auto-mull. How many discard spells they play? At least 10 right?
3. I agree, with a caveat. The best linear strategies are the most efficient ones, mana-cost wise. The caveat is that some linear decks like Hollow One and Grishoalbrand play higher CMC cards because they plan on cheating them into play. Regardless, the point still stands that linear decks need fewer lands to operate than non-linear ones.
4. That I also can agree with, but with a caveat. Sometimes the horrible matchups for a deck are metagame dependant. Back when probe was legal and infect was a thing, people played lots of spellskites, which hurt bogles a lot. Now that spellskites are nowhere to be seen, bogles can dodge a good chunk of horrible matchups. The long and short is that, in a tournament, it is better to be the linear deck and hope to dodge bad matchups than being the non-linear one with not-so-horrible matchups, because after many many rounds even a good pilot will probably pick up some losses with the non-linear deck, while the pilot of the linear deck that dodged the hate is gonna get into top 8.
5. No, they don't. The point is exactly that they are doing something fundamentally unfair, therefore they can hope to achieve their gameplan faster than their opponent and win the game. Of course that after SB things change for both decks, but game 1 the linear decks have the out of being more degenerate than their opponent, while the non-linear decks do not.
Would you like to read Commander stories? Check my latest stories, coming from Lorwyn and Innistrad: Ghoulcaller Gisa and Doran, The Siege Tower! If you like my writing, ask me to write something for your commander as well!
No changes in Modern is unsurprising. But if we look at the results from the last 2-3 months, let alone the results from the last 1.25 years, I really struggle to see an argument against unbanning SFM. In general, there are only a few good arguments against unbanning a card and a few questions we should be asking:
1. Does it slot directly into a Tier 1 deck?
2. Does it create T4 rule violations?
3. Does it empower a new archetype to overly-dominant levels?
If the answer to all three questions is no, it's generally a good unban. AV, Sword, Nacatl, BBE, JTMS, etc. all checked "no" to each of these questions.
As far as #1 goes, there's only one top-tier white deck (Humans) in the first place, and I doubt Humans would play this card due to slot tightness and manabase issues. But maybe it would in certain metagames: Humans plays 4 maindeck Illusions and a handful of non-Humans in the SB. Humans playing SFM would be a great reason to not unban the card, so if you can argue this successfully, that's a strike against SFM. I think the benefits to non-Humans white decks would be much greater: D&T and Jeskai would likely run the card, as would Mardu and potentially Abzan.
#2 is obviously not on the table at all, and given the current trajectory of aggressive, combination, and ramping decks in Modern, I can't imagine #3 is either. SFM was probably a safe card to unban 14 months ago, let alone today, and I am still struggling to look at this format and find a narrative that sees this cad as too broken. I am even more confident about this than I was a year ago because of the ridiculous doomsaying around JTMS and how utterly wrong those detractors were.
While it's true that SFM is no human, it's often correct to not name human for some lands. (For example, currently, naming illusion for phantasmal image.) Plus aether vial just doesn't care. As such, it's not yet clear that SFM you not be played. I don't think it would be, but maybe a few swords as silver bullets?
Edit: I somehow thought the batterskull germ token was colorless.
2. Most linear decks also have more dead hands. Hollow one without it's discard spells is an auto-mulligan. Non-linear deck tend to be more resilient.
3. I think this is not tied to linearity per-see. It's about average mana cost. Many non-linear decks have low curves too. It's just that linear decks tend to all be about winning quickly, so they do not play high CMC cards. Modern always has been a low-to-the-ground format, with a few obvious ramp exceptions.
4. Non-linear decks also tend to have fewer horrible match-up. Linear decks have unwinnable matchups.
5. This is the same of linear deck. The only difference is about which player drew better or won the die roll. They also need a good SB to beat the other linear decks. Linear deck also tend to have effective hate cards played against them in SB.
I agree that there is a kind of SB lottery, where what you decide to bring can put you down in a given meta-game. But I tend to favor versatile open-ended SB. I always have a few GY hate, I always have EE, I always have a few shattertorm-like cards.
How would you play 2 Lands + a mana dork on T1 with GSZ? Dryad Arbor has summoning sickness. You can't tap it for mana after using GSZ. Playing GSZ for X=0 is the equivalent of playing a Llanowar Elves. You won't have more mana until your next turn.
1. Even if that is true, you shouldn't expect hate game 1, and your opponent can't play that many hate cards against your deck specifically, so even post-sideboard they might not find it and you wouldn't need to play around it (once again, it is better if you know, but just talking about general rules).
2. I don't think that is true. Most linear decks have enough redundant copies of the particular effects that make their decks tick that I would argue they have fewer dead hands than control/non-linear decks that play higher CMC spells. Yeah, hollow one without discard spells is an auto-mull. How many discard spells they play? At least 10 right?
3. I agree, with a caveat. The best linear strategies are the most efficient ones, mana-cost wise. The caveat is that some linear decks like Hollow One and Grishoalbrand play higher CMC cards because they plan on cheating them into play. Regardless, the point still stands that linear decks need fewer lands to operate than non-linear ones.
4. That I also can agree with, but with a caveat. Sometimes the horrible matchups for a deck are metagame dependant. Back when probe was legal and infect was a thing, people played lots of spellskites, which hurt bogles a lot. Now that spellskites are nowhere to be seen, bogles can dodge a good chunk of horrible matchups. The long and short is that, in a tournament, it is better to be the linear deck and hope to dodge bad matchups than being the non-linear one with not-so-horrible matchups, because after many many rounds even a good pilot will probably pick up some losses with the non-linear deck, while the pilot of the linear deck that dodged the hate is gonna get into top 8.
5. No, they don't. The point is exactly that they are doing something fundamentally unfair, therefore they can hope to achieve their gameplan faster than their opponent and win the game. Of course that after SB things change for both decks, but game 1 the linear decks have the out of being more degenerate than their opponent, while the non-linear decks do not.
Read my other stories as well (some ongoing):
Reaper King (a horror story), Kaalia of the Vast (an origin story), Sequels for Innistrad (Alternative sequels for Inn), Grey Areas (Odric's fanfic), Royal Succession (goblins),The Tracker's Message (eldrazi on Innistrad) and Ugin and his Eye (the end of OGW).
1. Does it slot directly into a Tier 1 deck?
2. Does it create T4 rule violations?
3. Does it empower a new archetype to overly-dominant levels?
If the answer to all three questions is no, it's generally a good unban. AV, Sword, Nacatl, BBE, JTMS, etc. all checked "no" to each of these questions.
As far as #1 goes, there's only one top-tier white deck (Humans) in the first place, and I doubt Humans would play this card due to slot tightness and manabase issues. But maybe it would in certain metagames: Humans plays 4 maindeck Illusions and a handful of non-Humans in the SB. Humans playing SFM would be a great reason to not unban the card, so if you can argue this successfully, that's a strike against SFM. I think the benefits to non-Humans white decks would be much greater: D&T and Jeskai would likely run the card, as would Mardu and potentially Abzan.
#2 is obviously not on the table at all, and given the current trajectory of aggressive, combination, and ramping decks in Modern, I can't imagine #3 is either. SFM was probably a safe card to unban 14 months ago, let alone today, and I am still struggling to look at this format and find a narrative that sees this cad as too broken. I am even more confident about this than I was a year ago because of the ridiculous doomsaying around JTMS and how utterly wrong those detractors were.
Spirits
Edit: I somehow thought the batterskull germ token was colorless.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffMTGO/MTGA: Tyclone
My Primers ~ GWx Vizier Company ~ Knightfall ~ RG Eldrazi ~ Green's Sun's Zenith
More Brews ~ Modern Four Horsemen ~ Gitrog Dredge