You know what? I have been against Daze too in the near past. But seeing how things are going is leaning me towards it being okay. Tempo ... suuuuuucks in Modern. It gets run over by Aggro, mostly because of the archetype matchup wheel. I actually think it's okay to introduce something to try to help Tempo decks, the current best being I guess Bant Spirits.
Force of Will is a card that I don't think will be too strong, but I personally don't want to see it.
*Anyway, I don't know how these cards will be able to "get" into Modern, unless WotC is willing to do Modern only sets.
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)
Daze is unlikely to be particularly good in most standards due to the low number of basic-typed duals available. And the (usually) slower pace of the game as well.
Okdoke, so was at work for the past 36+ hours, just got home, but have some input for the conversation:
@tronix
so you only count cards as interactive that have a direct impact on minimizing decisions. you brought up deck construction as a point of interacting therefore i just followed that line of reasoning. if i build my deck to be full of redundant 1 for 1 trades (decision limiters) then card selection and draw to accumulate more of those influences the decks total ability to interact by your definition. its the same concept as including more copies of a card like blood moon so you have a higher chance for it to be a factor in a game. since you are a lantern player whir is another example. as a card by itself it does nothing, but because of the other components of the deck you can use it to limit decisions. it just happens to have a 100 percent success rate whereas card draw and selection is lower.
also does your definition of interaction means how interactive a deck is variable depending on the matchup? you used the hexproof creatures example as a form of interaction, but that is contingent on the opponent caring about removing creatures. therefore bogles has basically zero interaction against storm. or is it that a card has some potential value? even if the card in application versus a matchup or metagame may not serve the intended purpose.
note that im not heckling you or anything. im just trying to draw out your reasoning because i dont agree with how you define interactivity. as i understand it right now it is too broad and contains a certain amount of circularity, but im one to keep an open mind.
I think it basic reasoning should allow us to see that how interactive a deck is highly depends on the opponent's deck. For example, consider these three hypothetical decks:
You'll see that there is a rock-paper-scissors effect of interaction between the three. They all three have some objective static level of interaction, but the kinetic interaction, in an actual game, is entirely dependent on the matchup.
Thus, any attempt to measure how interactive a deck is in a vacuum is obviously a futile attempt, because an opponent is a prerequisite for the game to happen at all.
Scoring There is a "loose" way to score cards against eachother, which I already linked to having done. It isn't perfect, because it ignores variables.
So, I've already come to accept that most will not read this, but for the inclined, here are my observations:
We are building virtual machines. That's what these decks are. It's like programming, with variance built into the computer.
Each variable on a card is a variable to be considered.
- Power
- Toughness
- Type
- Subtype
- Casting cost
- Color affiliation(s)
- How many cards that specific card draws
- Kicker cost
- Crew requirement
....and a ton more variables. Every single mechanic and variable in the game, every card has a score for. In most cases, that score is a zero (most cards don't have a kicker cost, give Energy, etc.), but it's still a score. And each value from each card has some effect on the decision tree in which the card is included into.
Those decision trees are best designed to have three characteristics to be successful:
"Prune" or "wither" branches on an opponent's decision tree
Protect the safety and health of branches on its' own decision tree
Perform the two above tasks despite the variance built into the game
Now, thanks to the large card pool in Modern, there are quite a few ways to build different machines that meet this criteria. In every case, it means denying an opponent a resource of some sort, a resource necessary for a decision tree to exist. Those resources that are limited are defined by the variables of the cards in the opponent's deck.
Now, the biggest hurdle that I see when people look at this is that we, as a species, are very attached to measuring things as we see them. This means that we have to be able to see them. We cannot physically see the decision trees, yet they exist. Thus, people have a difficult time understanding why something like Ensnaring Bridge, Leyline of Sancity, and Chalice of the Void are interactive. Strictly speaking, they are extremely interactive with a typical opponent's decision tree.
Additionally, time is a resource. Turns, themselves, are resources. Again, we cannot physically see a "turn", only the passing of it. But if we deny the opponent the prerequisite turns for their decision tree to grow in order to reach it's programmed end nodes (winning condition), then that is a resource that is denied. That is why, when an opponent beats us on turn three, two, one, whatever, before we can interact, they have still interacted. We just don't physically see the resource that has been denied us. Their decision tree was built to take maximum advantage of that resource, at some cost.
But many of us have this emotional hang-up, in which, when we are denied access to branches on our decision trees that we would normally have during a game (or that we feel we should be allowed to have during a game), we assume that the opponent isn't being interactive because we can't interact. That was why I posted the analogy with the fighters in the ring to begin with: To demonstrate the absurdity of that line of thinking.
*Anyway, I don't know how these cards will be able to "get" into Modern, unless WotC is willing to do Modern only sets.
Both cards are not that good in standard. Standard is not a fast format, not countering the first few turns play is not essential as it is in fast eternal formats. Daze would still be strong and heavily played, but not oppressive.
While how interactive a deck is in a game depends on the opponent and even the specific draws we can still discuss how interactive a deck is attempting to be in general. That is if a deck has 4 Path 4 Push 4 Murder etc with 1 win con we can say that deck is interactive. The goal is to stop the opponents creatures, land the win con and then win. If the opponent is playing lantern control the first deck hasn't become non-interactive in general, but in that matchup it can no longer interact. Which is a specific goal of Lantern Control, to run no creatures so that removal becomes dead.
*Anyway, I don't know how these cards will be able to "get" into Modern, unless WotC is willing to do Modern only sets.
Both cards are not that good in standard. Standard is not a fast format, not countering the first few turns play is not essential as it is in fast eternal formats. Daze would still be strong and heavily played, but not oppressive.
Oh, I don't personally think they are too strong. Counterspell is not too strong for Standard. Standards have become pretty strong in the past few years. I was surprised to see some SCG guys play RUG Marvel vs. the monsters of Standard's past and hold up to them. I don't think they're too strong. I just don't know if Standard players are accepting to such cards and if Wizards themselves is willing to reprint the cards in Standard. We've already seen the inclination to NOT reprint something like Liliana of the Veil - a card that many expected years ago (although I do realize that it was not best to be reprinted during Mono Black Devotion).
"Free countermagic" also can lead to feels bad in Standard. I still remember when I came back to Standard during Kamigawa and Ravnica. I ran Heartbeat of Spring and was playing at my first PTQ. I played a Savage Twister for an exact amount to kill his creatures, but he used a Shining Shoal to save them and I lost after that. I could have used more mana and it would have still killed the creatures, but I literally did not expect a card to be played when tapped out. That was a bad punt, leading to a 5-3 day that could have gone much different (I was 3-0 at the tiem). Is the card too powerful? No. But there has to be a way to put "free spells" on the radar of a player who hasn't had "free spells" since New Phyrexia.
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)
*Anyway, I don't know how these cards will be able to "get" into Modern, unless WotC is willing to do Modern only sets.
Both cards are not that good in standard. Standard is not a fast format, not countering the first few turns play is not essential as it is in fast eternal formats. Daze would still be strong and heavily played, but not oppressive.
On top of that, there's MaRo's indication that they've warmed up to just bypassing Standard adding cards to the Modern card pool directly.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing UX Mana Denial until Modern gets the answers it needs.
WUBRG Humans BRW Mardu Pyromancer UW UW "Control" UR Blue Moon
While how interactive a deck is in a game depends on the opponent and even the specific draws we can still discuss how interactive a deck is attempting to be in general. That is if a deck has 4 Path 4 Push 4 Murder etc with 1 win con we can say that deck is interactive. The goal is to stop the opponents creatures, land the win con and then win. If the opponent is playing lantern control the first deck hasn't become non-interactive in general, but in that matchup it can no longer interact. Which is a specific goal of Lantern Control, to run no creatures so that removal becomes dead.
I agree with the first part, although I would disagree that that's why most Lantern decks don't run many creatures, at least in the main. The overall goal there is to control the opp's draws so that we've reduced their relevant interaction, and creatures don't reliably assist in doing that when most decks run some form of creature control. The other cards in Lantern (Bridge, Needle, discard spells, etc.) are much more reliable than nearly any creature in helping accomplish this goal. That the opponent's creature removal is dead just happens to be a secondary effect, not a primary plan.
as it stands right now i dont think things are that bad. even in that metagame picture posted there is a good mixture of things going on. the format has just sped up, which happens from time to time.
i think what people should be paying attention to is whether or not the meta continues to cycle. its a big reason why the diversity in modern is able to work. no deck or archetype should be free from its influence.
what people should worry about for humans and hollow one is whether or not any feasible configuration of good/competitive/whatever decks can feasibly push those two aside. remember that both humans and hollow one just plowed through a metagame that was heavily inflated with jace and bbe decks due to the unban, both of which typically run a lot of tools against creature decks.
they may or may not end up holding a too large portion of the metagame, but if they become the de facto aggro decks and playing any others is just a bad choice; then how is that any different from what twin was doing to blue decks? wizards has shown multiple times that they dont like when one archetype is dominated by a specific deck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
Scoring There is a "loose" way to score cards against eachother, which I already linked to having done. It isn't perfect, because it ignores variables.
How are you scoring relevance? It looks completely arbitrary with your measurement of how likely you are to use one card against another (Duress vs Lightning Bolt for example), or scoring Pithing Needle vs Gavony Township a 3 but Beast Within vs Township a 1.
Scoring There is a "loose" way to score cards against eachother, which I already linked to having done. It isn't perfect, because it ignores variables.
How are you scoring relevance? It looks completely arbitrary with your measurement of how likely you are to use one card against another (Duress vs Lightning Bolt for example), or scoring Pithing Needle vs Gavony Township a 3 but Beast Within vs Township a 1.
I think I explain it in the video, but what I eventually did to try to account for possible bias in scoring is count how many of one card could neutralize the other. I originally just tried to guestimate it, but later revised my method to try to remove possible bias. You'll see in the video that I began to account for how many copies of a particular card a deck runs, plus what percentage of decks run that average number of cards. I multiply that product by one, which gives the "ER" score (that you see at this point in the video). However, cards like Pithing Needle and Ensnaring Bridge were able to neutralize *all* copies of particular cards, so I added an additional multiplier to account for this. That's why something like Beast Within doesn't score as high as something like Ensnaring Bridge. Beast Within counts (barely) as a one-for-one, whereas Ensnaring Bridge counts...much higher. The end result of this work speaks for itself.
I don't think Humans is the problem, I think it's RB Hollow One.
I voiced my concern for this deck a few months ago, and I don't feel differently. I have the deck in paper and on mtgo and none of it feels healthy for a modern; it feels toxic at times. It's made me lose interest in Jund because the deck just hands me so many free wins in a color pie I enjoy.
Let's see what happens though.
I used to be opposed to GSZ, but after seeing Jace being so underwhelming I'm willing to give it a try. If Dig Through Time wasn't so worrisome to powering up linear combo decks, I'd probably be ok with that card, too.
Modern isn't bad but I think the format should be observed.
I don't think Humans is the problem, I think it's RB Hollow One.
I voiced my concern for this deck a few months ago, and I don't feel differently. I have the deck in paper and on mtgo and none of it feels healthy for a modern; it feels toxic at times. It's made me lose interest in Jund because the deck just hands me so many free wins in a color pie I enjoy.
Let's see what happens though.
I used to be opposed to GSZ, but after seeing Jace being so underwhelming I'm willing to give it a try. If Dig Through Time wasn't so worrisome to powering up linear combo decks, I'd probably be ok with that card, too.
Modern isn't bad but I think the format should be observed.
Well Humans doesn't break the 3 Turn or Less Rule. I mean sure it can set up a strong board state by Turn 3 but it cannot outright win by that point or even 4.
Hollow One on the other hand has a decent chance of finishing someone on turn 3 or 4 outright with some combination of two early hollow ones and some combination of lightning bolt, flameblade, flamewake and bloodghast.
I don't think Humans is the problem, I think it's RB Hollow One.
I voiced my concern for this deck a few months ago, and I don't feel differently. I have the deck in paper and on mtgo and none of it feels healthy for a modern; it feels toxic at times. It's made me lose interest in Jund because the deck just hands me so many free wins in a color pie I enjoy.
Let's see what happens though.
I used to be opposed to GSZ, but after seeing Jace being so underwhelming I'm willing to give it a try. If Dig Through Time wasn't so worrisome to powering up linear combo decks, I'd probably be ok with that card, too.
Modern isn't bad but I think the format should be observed.
Well Humans doesn't break the 3 Turn or Less Rule. I mean sure it can set up a strong board state by Turn 3 but it cannot outright win by that point or even 4.
Hollow One on the other hand has a decent chance of finishing someone on turn 3 or 4 outright with some combination of two early hollow ones and some combination of lightning bolt, flameblade, flamewake and bloodghast.
When GGT was legal, dredge didn't win on turn 3, but it would create disgusting board states. Humans is basically a better merfolk IMO.
To my mind hollow one does similar things to dredge, but it really requires hate on 2 parts (4 toughness from hollow one) and graveyard hate from Phoenix and bloodghasts. The fact that burning inquiry can also disrupt your opponent's hand, and it's pretty bad IMO.
The new meta is making me feel even more strongly that Stoneforge Mystic is a great unban target. At this point, Aggro is just trumping the interaction that's supposed to keep it in check. The early Batterskull is actually a good answer to those aggro decks, without being a complete hoser. For Hollow One, Bolt kills Mystic, Inquiry can discard Skull, Angler outsizes the 4/4, and the swam of recursive creatures can go around it. Humans can Freebooter away the Skull or Reflector Mage the germ while bashing face.
I'm especially in favor of an SFM unbanning as a Humans lover, just to keep the deck in check and keep the ban monkeys off of its back. Better answers means fewer bans. Fewer bans means better Magic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing UX Mana Denial until Modern gets the answers it needs.
WUBRG Humans BRW Mardu Pyromancer UW UW "Control" UR Blue Moon
Yeah that is the problem Hollow One hit their protection from getting disrupted way before anyone else can apply much pressure at all.
Hollow One can drops two threats that need a path or dismember to easily stop in terms of common removal. And if they are dropping two hollow one you can only kill one with those options. Beyond that Dismember forces use to lose life for an early removal and do you really want to lose 2 or 4 life against a Hollow One deck? Path gives them a land which is great for them cause not like they pay full price for most creatures. That is not counting bolts and hand disruption. And a host of recursive hasty threats that need to be exiled from the grave or from the field.
WOTC though is not going to nerf Humans. Humans is Magic as they want it played. Heavy Reliance on Creatures, Tapping To Attack that reach critical mass and not doing anything especially unfair.
According to this post, linearity is roughly 60% of the metagame, which is probably a problem
How is this a problem? Back in December 2015 (http://modernnexus.com/modern-metagame-breakdown-121-1231/) in a metagame that was widely beloved and enshrined as diverse and interactive, the metagame was 56% linear and 44% non-linear. This considers only Tier 1 and Tier 2 decks like the Reddit analysis.
Affinity 8.3%
RG Tron 6.9%
Burn 6%
Amulet Bloom 4.2%
Infect 3.7%
Merfolk 3.6%
Naya Company 2.3%
Living End 2.2%
Bogles 1.8%
Ad Nauseam 1.8%
If we're only +/-4% from that idealized time period, I think we're doing just fine. Incidentally, note that the collective Twin share was 35% of the non-linear metagame. If most of that has been replaced by other non-linear options, again, we are doing just fine.
EDIT: I'll also add that his analysis hinges entirely on Humans being defined as a linear deck. That is by no means an open and shut issue, especially because he considers stuff like Abzan Company, Eldrazi Tron, and Knightfall as non-linear strategies.
if people think hollow one is a problem then the most effective solution is bannings. unbanning stuff and hoping it helps against one deck has never been wizards method of choice. so id keep that in mind. is the deck broken and bad for the format? or is it just a good deck?
i still think the deck is within the acceptable limits. however you wouldnt hear a peep outa me if street wraith or hollow one itself took a dirt nap.
i think humans is a better deck between the two. it plays more 'fair' or w/e you wanna call it, but it does it better than any other aggro deck ive seen in a while.
good decks also take a while to overthrow. grixis death shadow and eldrazi tron showcased that pretty well.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
if people think hollow one is a problem then the most effective solution is bannings. unbanning stuff and hoping it helps against one deck has never been wizards method of choice. so id keep that in mind. is the deck broken and bad for the format? or is it just a good deck?
i still think the deck is within the acceptable limits. however you wouldnt hear a peep outa me if street wraith or hollow one itself took a dirt nap.
i think humans is a better deck between the two. it plays more 'fair' or w/e you wanna call it, but it does it better than any other aggro deck ive seen in a while.
good decks also take a while to overthrow. grixis death shadow and eldrazi tron showcased that pretty well.
I don't think Hollow One itself would be the card banned. Get rid of Burning Inquiry and get rid of Street Wraith, and Hollow One decks still retain their overall gameplan but are unable to put a Hollow One on the battlefield T1. That at least gives other decks a chance to use removal without completely nuking the entire deck.
How can you consider Eldrazi Tron non-linear but Humans Linear? That's nonsense.
As an Abzan Company player or many years too I would term Humans significantly more interactive G1 for sure. Chord of Calling for a silver bullet is less interactive by far than Meddling Mage/Image/Thalia/Kitesail.
According to this post, linearity is roughly 60% of the metagame, which is probably a problem
How is this a problem? Back in December 2015 (http://modernnexus.com/modern-metagame-breakdown-121-1231/) in a metagame that was widely beloved and enshrined as diverse and interactive, the metagame was 56% linear and 44% non-linear. This considers only Tier 1 and Tier 2 decks like the Reddit analysis.
Affinity 8.3%
RG Tron 6.9%
Burn 6%
Amulet Bloom 4.2%
Infect 3.7%
Merfolk 3.6%
Naya Company 2.3%
Living End 2.2%
Bogles 1.8%
Ad Nauseam 1.8%
If we're only +/-4% from that idealized time period, I think we're doing just fine. Incidentally, note that the collective Twin share was 35% of the non-linear metagame. If most of that has been replaced by other non-linear options, again, we are doing just fine.
EDIT: I'll also add that his analysis hinges entirely on Humans being defined as a linear deck. That is by no means an open and shut issue, especially because he considers stuff like Abzan Company, Eldrazi Tron, and Knightfall as non-linear strategies.
I dont think its a bad thing besides everyone thinking its a linear dominated meta, as seen by that post
According to this post, linearity is roughly 60% of the metagame, which is probably a problem
How is this a problem? Back in December 2015 (http://modernnexus.com/modern-metagame-breakdown-121-1231/) in a metagame that was widely beloved and enshrined as diverse and interactive, the metagame was 56% linear and 44% non-linear. This considers only Tier 1 and Tier 2 decks like the Reddit analysis.
Affinity 8.3%
RG Tron 6.9%
Burn 6%
Amulet Bloom 4.2%
Infect 3.7%
Merfolk 3.6%
Naya Company 2.3%
Living End 2.2%
Bogles 1.8%
Ad Nauseam 1.8%
If we're only +/-4% from that idealized time period, I think we're doing just fine. Incidentally, note that the collective Twin share was 35% of the non-linear metagame. If most of that has been replaced by other non-linear options, again, we are doing just fine.
EDIT: I'll also add that his analysis hinges entirely on Humans being defined as a linear deck. That is by no means an open and shut issue, especially because he considers stuff like Abzan Company, Eldrazi Tron, and Knightfall as non-linear strategies.
I dont think its a bad thing besides everyone thinking its a linear dominated meta, as seen by that post
I'm just pointing out the dissonance exhibited by people who did not complain about the 2015 meta but are going nuts about this one despite the minimal difference. Many people who think this is a linear meta have also stated at varying points that Twin meta was not linear. And yet, the difference is just 2-4% between the camps.
if people think hollow one is a problem then the most effective solution is bannings. unbanning stuff and hoping it helps against one deck has never been wizards method of choice. so id keep that in mind. is the deck broken and bad for the format? or is it just a good deck?
i still think the deck is within the acceptable limits. however you wouldnt hear a peep outa me if street wraith or hollow one itself took a dirt nap.
i think humans is a better deck between the two. it plays more 'fair' or w/e you wanna call it, but it does it better than any other aggro deck ive seen in a while.
good decks also take a while to overthrow. grixis death shadow and eldrazi tron showcased that pretty well.
IMO, it's burning inquiry that needs to go, I don't think the creature package is an issue, it's the ability of a SINGLE card to enable hollow two/three on turn 1, whilst potentially messing with your opponent.
I don't think Hollow One itself would be the card banned. Get rid of Burning Inquiry and get rid of Street Wraith, and Hollow One decks still retain their overall gameplan but are unable to put a Hollow One on the battlefield T1. That at least gives other decks a chance to use removal without completely nuking the entire deck.
Street wraith is fine for the moment, needing a faithless looting + street wraith in order to get a crazy turn 1 is more acceptable than just a burning inquiry.
the point i was trying to get across is that if you truly think hollow one is broken, unhealthy, toxic, etc there is nothing to be gained by pussyfooting around it - you want the deck gone. bans are how this is best accomplished, and the method that wotc would most likely use based on precedent.
better to understand whether the deck is actually too good or if you just dont like losing to it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
According to this post, linearity is roughly 60% of the metagame, which is probably a problem
How is this a problem? Back in December 2015 (http://modernnexus.com/modern-metagame-breakdown-121-1231/) in a metagame that was widely beloved and enshrined as diverse and interactive, the metagame was 56% linear and 44% non-linear. This considers only Tier 1 and Tier 2 decks like the Reddit analysis.
Affinity 8.3%
RG Tron 6.9%
Burn 6%
Amulet Bloom 4.2%
Infect 3.7%
Merfolk 3.6%
Naya Company 2.3%
Living End 2.2%
Bogles 1.8%
Ad Nauseam 1.8%
If we're only +/-4% from that idealized time period, I think we're doing just fine. Incidentally, note that the collective Twin share was 35% of the non-linear metagame. If most of that has been replaced by other non-linear options, again, we are doing just fine.
EDIT: I'll also add that his analysis hinges entirely on Humans being defined as a linear deck. That is by no means an open and shut issue, especially because he considers stuff like Abzan Company, Eldrazi Tron, and Knightfall as non-linear strategies.
I dont think its a bad thing besides everyone thinking its a linear dominated meta, as seen by that post
I'm just pointing out the dissonance exhibited by people who did not complain about the 2015 meta but are going nuts about this one despite the minimal difference. Many people who think this is a linear meta have also stated at varying points that Twin meta was not linear. And yet, the difference is just 2-4% between the camps.
You really want to know why people were ok with that 2015 meta???
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
UW Spirits
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Force of Will is a card that I don't think will be too strong, but I personally don't want to see it.
*Anyway, I don't know how these cards will be able to "get" into Modern, unless WotC is willing to do Modern only sets.
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)UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
@tronix
I think it basic reasoning should allow us to see that how interactive a deck is highly depends on the opponent's deck. For example, consider these three hypothetical decks:
43 Lightning Bolt
20 Wurmcoil Engine
20 Leyline of Sanctity
38 Ensnaring Bridge
2 Codex Shredder
You'll see that there is a rock-paper-scissors effect of interaction between the three. They all three have some objective static level of interaction, but the kinetic interaction, in an actual game, is entirely dependent on the matchup.
Thus, any attempt to measure how interactive a deck is in a vacuum is obviously a futile attempt, because an opponent is a prerequisite for the game to happen at all.
Scoring There is a "loose" way to score cards against eachother, which I already linked to having done. It isn't perfect, because it ignores variables.
So, I've already come to accept that most will not read this, but for the inclined, here are my observations:
We are building virtual machines. That's what these decks are. It's like programming, with variance built into the computer.
Each variable on a card is a variable to be considered.
- Power
- Toughness
- Type
- Subtype
- Casting cost
- Color affiliation(s)
- How many cards that specific card draws
- Kicker cost
- Crew requirement
....and a ton more variables. Every single mechanic and variable in the game, every card has a score for. In most cases, that score is a zero (most cards don't have a kicker cost, give Energy, etc.), but it's still a score. And each value from each card has some effect on the decision tree in which the card is included into.
Those decision trees are best designed to have three characteristics to be successful:
"Prune" or "wither" branches on an opponent's decision tree
Protect the safety and health of branches on its' own decision tree
Perform the two above tasks despite the variance built into the game
Now, thanks to the large card pool in Modern, there are quite a few ways to build different machines that meet this criteria. In every case, it means denying an opponent a resource of some sort, a resource necessary for a decision tree to exist. Those resources that are limited are defined by the variables of the cards in the opponent's deck.
Now, the biggest hurdle that I see when people look at this is that we, as a species, are very attached to measuring things as we see them. This means that we have to be able to see them. We cannot physically see the decision trees, yet they exist. Thus, people have a difficult time understanding why something like Ensnaring Bridge, Leyline of Sancity, and Chalice of the Void are interactive. Strictly speaking, they are extremely interactive with a typical opponent's decision tree.
Additionally, time is a resource. Turns, themselves, are resources. Again, we cannot physically see a "turn", only the passing of it. But if we deny the opponent the prerequisite turns for their decision tree to grow in order to reach it's programmed end nodes (winning condition), then that is a resource that is denied. That is why, when an opponent beats us on turn three, two, one, whatever, before we can interact, they have still interacted. We just don't physically see the resource that has been denied us. Their decision tree was built to take maximum advantage of that resource, at some cost.
But many of us have this emotional hang-up, in which, when we are denied access to branches on our decision trees that we would normally have during a game (or that we feel we should be allowed to have during a game), we assume that the opponent isn't being interactive because we can't interact. That was why I posted the analogy with the fighters in the ring to begin with: To demonstrate the absurdity of that line of thinking.
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
Both cards are not that good in standard. Standard is not a fast format, not countering the first few turns play is not essential as it is in fast eternal formats. Daze would still be strong and heavily played, but not oppressive.
Oh, I don't personally think they are too strong. Counterspell is not too strong for Standard. Standards have become pretty strong in the past few years. I was surprised to see some SCG guys play RUG Marvel vs. the monsters of Standard's past and hold up to them. I don't think they're too strong. I just don't know if Standard players are accepting to such cards and if Wizards themselves is willing to reprint the cards in Standard. We've already seen the inclination to NOT reprint something like Liliana of the Veil - a card that many expected years ago (although I do realize that it was not best to be reprinted during Mono Black Devotion).
"Free countermagic" also can lead to feels bad in Standard. I still remember when I came back to Standard during Kamigawa and Ravnica. I ran Heartbeat of Spring and was playing at my first PTQ. I played a Savage Twister for an exact amount to kill his creatures, but he used a Shining Shoal to save them and I lost after that. I could have used more mana and it would have still killed the creatures, but I literally did not expect a card to be played when tapped out. That was a bad punt, leading to a 5-3 day that could have gone much different (I was 3-0 at the tiem). Is the card too powerful? No. But there has to be a way to put "free spells" on the radar of a player who hasn't had "free spells" since New Phyrexia.
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)On top of that, there's MaRo's indication that they've warmed up to just bypassing Standard adding cards to the Modern card pool directly.
WUBRG Humans
BRW Mardu Pyromancer
UW UW "Control"
UR Blue Moon
I agree with the first part, although I would disagree that that's why most Lantern decks don't run many creatures, at least in the main. The overall goal there is to control the opp's draws so that we've reduced their relevant interaction, and creatures don't reliably assist in doing that when most decks run some form of creature control. The other cards in Lantern (Bridge, Needle, discard spells, etc.) are much more reliable than nearly any creature in helping accomplish this goal. That the opponent's creature removal is dead just happens to be a secondary effect, not a primary plan.
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
i think what people should be paying attention to is whether or not the meta continues to cycle. its a big reason why the diversity in modern is able to work. no deck or archetype should be free from its influence.
what people should worry about for humans and hollow one is whether or not any feasible configuration of good/competitive/whatever decks can feasibly push those two aside. remember that both humans and hollow one just plowed through a metagame that was heavily inflated with jace and bbe decks due to the unban, both of which typically run a lot of tools against creature decks.
they may or may not end up holding a too large portion of the metagame, but if they become the de facto aggro decks and playing any others is just a bad choice; then how is that any different from what twin was doing to blue decks? wizards has shown multiple times that they dont like when one archetype is dominated by a specific deck.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)How are you scoring relevance? It looks completely arbitrary with your measurement of how likely you are to use one card against another (Duress vs Lightning Bolt for example), or scoring Pithing Needle vs Gavony Township a 3 but Beast Within vs Township a 1.
I think I explain it in the video, but what I eventually did to try to account for possible bias in scoring is count how many of one card could neutralize the other. I originally just tried to guestimate it, but later revised my method to try to remove possible bias. You'll see in the video that I began to account for how many copies of a particular card a deck runs, plus what percentage of decks run that average number of cards. I multiply that product by one, which gives the "ER" score (that you see at this point in the video). However, cards like Pithing Needle and Ensnaring Bridge were able to neutralize *all* copies of particular cards, so I added an additional multiplier to account for this. That's why something like Beast Within doesn't score as high as something like Ensnaring Bridge. Beast Within counts (barely) as a one-for-one, whereas Ensnaring Bridge counts...much higher. The end result of this work speaks for itself.
Again, I explain all of this in the video.
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
I voiced my concern for this deck a few months ago, and I don't feel differently. I have the deck in paper and on mtgo and none of it feels healthy for a modern; it feels toxic at times. It's made me lose interest in Jund because the deck just hands me so many free wins in a color pie I enjoy.
Let's see what happens though.
I used to be opposed to GSZ, but after seeing Jace being so underwhelming I'm willing to give it a try. If Dig Through Time wasn't so worrisome to powering up linear combo decks, I'd probably be ok with that card, too.
Modern isn't bad but I think the format should be observed.
Well Humans doesn't break the 3 Turn or Less Rule. I mean sure it can set up a strong board state by Turn 3 but it cannot outright win by that point or even 4.
Hollow One on the other hand has a decent chance of finishing someone on turn 3 or 4 outright with some combination of two early hollow ones and some combination of lightning bolt, flameblade, flamewake and bloodghast.
When GGT was legal, dredge didn't win on turn 3, but it would create disgusting board states. Humans is basically a better merfolk IMO.
To my mind hollow one does similar things to dredge, but it really requires hate on 2 parts (4 toughness from hollow one) and graveyard hate from Phoenix and bloodghasts. The fact that burning inquiry can also disrupt your opponent's hand, and it's pretty bad IMO.
I'm especially in favor of an SFM unbanning as a Humans lover, just to keep the deck in check and keep the ban monkeys off of its back. Better answers means fewer bans. Fewer bans means better Magic.
WUBRG Humans
BRW Mardu Pyromancer
UW UW "Control"
UR Blue Moon
Hollow One can drops two threats that need a path or dismember to easily stop in terms of common removal. And if they are dropping two hollow one you can only kill one with those options. Beyond that Dismember forces use to lose life for an early removal and do you really want to lose 2 or 4 life against a Hollow One deck? Path gives them a land which is great for them cause not like they pay full price for most creatures. That is not counting bolts and hand disruption. And a host of recursive hasty threats that need to be exiled from the grave or from the field.
WOTC though is not going to nerf Humans. Humans is Magic as they want it played. Heavy Reliance on Creatures, Tapping To Attack that reach critical mass and not doing anything especially unfair.
How is this a problem? Back in December 2015 (http://modernnexus.com/modern-metagame-breakdown-121-1231/) in a metagame that was widely beloved and enshrined as diverse and interactive, the metagame was 56% linear and 44% non-linear. This considers only Tier 1 and Tier 2 decks like the Reddit analysis.
Affinity 8.3%
RG Tron 6.9%
Burn 6%
Amulet Bloom 4.2%
Infect 3.7%
Merfolk 3.6%
Naya Company 2.3%
Living End 2.2%
Bogles 1.8%
Ad Nauseam 1.8%
Jund 6.6%
UR Twin 6.2%
Abzan 5.2%
Grixis Twin 3.8%
Scapeshift 3.1%
Abzan Company 2.5%
Grixis Midrange 2%
Eldrazi 1.6%
Jeskai Twin 1.5%
EDIT: I'll also add that his analysis hinges entirely on Humans being defined as a linear deck. That is by no means an open and shut issue, especially because he considers stuff like Abzan Company, Eldrazi Tron, and Knightfall as non-linear strategies.
i still think the deck is within the acceptable limits. however you wouldnt hear a peep outa me if street wraith or hollow one itself took a dirt nap.
i think humans is a better deck between the two. it plays more 'fair' or w/e you wanna call it, but it does it better than any other aggro deck ive seen in a while.
good decks also take a while to overthrow. grixis death shadow and eldrazi tron showcased that pretty well.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)I don't think Hollow One itself would be the card banned. Get rid of Burning Inquiry and get rid of Street Wraith, and Hollow One decks still retain their overall gameplan but are unable to put a Hollow One on the battlefield T1. That at least gives other decks a chance to use removal without completely nuking the entire deck.
As an Abzan Company player or many years too I would term Humans significantly more interactive G1 for sure. Chord of Calling for a silver bullet is less interactive by far than Meddling Mage/Image/Thalia/Kitesail.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
I dont think its a bad thing besides everyone thinking its a linear dominated meta, as seen by that post
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
I'm just pointing out the dissonance exhibited by people who did not complain about the 2015 meta but are going nuts about this one despite the minimal difference. Many people who think this is a linear meta have also stated at varying points that Twin meta was not linear. And yet, the difference is just 2-4% between the camps.
IMO, it's burning inquiry that needs to go, I don't think the creature package is an issue, it's the ability of a SINGLE card to enable hollow two/three on turn 1, whilst potentially messing with your opponent.
Street wraith is fine for the moment, needing a faithless looting + street wraith in order to get a crazy turn 1 is more acceptable than just a burning inquiry.
better to understand whether the deck is actually too good or if you just dont like losing to it.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)You really want to know why people were ok with that 2015 meta???
Spirits