Quote from genini2 »If we don't use results from people like Duke or Burkheart where do we draw the line. Do we have a list of players that we don't use results from if they succeed and if they scrub out should we count the result as double or something. The idea that in a tournament filled with the best players in the world we are going to ignore results because the player is good is just bonkers to me.
There are some critics that will never be satisfied with any level of results. Unless the data matches their experience and views, they will find reasons to ignore and undermine it. An excellent example of this was the recent GP. It immediately validated to many Modern critics all the problems they had with the format. Never mind that it was a single event over an otherwise super healthy stretch of the format. That one event was all they needed. But all the other evidence was easy to throw out. MTGO? "Incomplete picture, still linear." SCG? "Glorified FNM, not representative." Smaller regional and local events? "Not competitive enough, not representative." The PT? "Too few rounds, too influenced by draft." We do not see the same criticisms and skepticism for events that support the "Modern too linear/bad/unfun" narrative.
It's the same annoying dissonance we see when players say "I want high-skill decks to win in this format" and then say later "This deck takes too much skill to win with and isn't viable." Again, the issue is not the format. It's a vocal subset of critics who readily discount evidence against their views but eagerly support any cases that validate their views.
I think there are legitimate issues we can talk about with Modern. It's by no means a perfect format. But the way some of the critics talk, we would think it was back in September 2016 again. The lack of measured criticism of the current format shows that some people will just never be happy until they get a very specific wish fulfilled, whether that's a ban, an unban, a deck being viable, a deck no longer being viable, etc. Thankfully, as I am sure we will see next Monday, those highly specific criticisms don't matter because Wizards is clearly not on board with them. That was the case in October 2017 and we'll see if it's the case Monday.
1
You can also pick snow cards that aren't permanents. Not sure how relevant it will be of course, but a card like Blood on the Snow being a snow wrath could definitely be important.
1
Your effects thematically don't make a lot of sense. What makes this a 'plot'? Like a plot would make more sense if you had to play another plot on top of a starter plot and it gained effects based on how many there were or what choices were previously made. Like if it were 'Plot- draw a card for each plot before this' and 'Plot- Final plot sacrifice all plots you control and each opponent sacrifices X creatres, loses X life, and you draw X cards'. Or if you had Plots that were specifically a start and ones that were specifically an end.
And as a side note your current effects aren't powerful enough. Unless you do a mutate type deal where with every new plot the previous plot effects happen again.
1
When the average player figures out deodorant I'll have more faith in bans like that.
1
1
Correct. Erratic Portal only cares who is the controller of the creature at the time it resolves so you as the current controller would decide.
Harbinger of the Tides has a 'may' clause in its ability that you decide on resolution so you wouldn't have to return it if you didn't want to, but because it specfies tapped creature an opponent controls if you control the creature or it becomes untapped before the ability resolves it will be countered for lack of a legal target so you don't get the option. Similarly Petty Theft specifies '...an opponent controls' so you would gain control of the creature and then the spell would be countered for lack of a legal target.
1
1
Correct. Because Temporal Distortion does not use the word target it will not trigger Cowardice.
1
1
I mean you are getting several things wrong in your explanation of it so it seems like it's harder than you think to understand it.
6
Restricting Lurrus doesn't do anything though. You already can only run one copy because his companion ability makes him unuseable in the main deck at the same time.