Magic Market Index for Dec 28th, 2018
 
Magic Market Index for Dec 21st, 2018
 
Ultimate Masters: MMI Review
  • posted a message on Jeskai Control
    UWr hasn't been doing just fine for a while now, it's just a very popular deck. Some pro teams make good metagame calls maybe, but even then I am skeptical. There are just so many decks right now where Terminus is infinitely better than other wraths. Especially with the rise of phoenix decks. Hell, the only reason jeskai is on the radar is that UW Terminus broke out big for a while and lightning bolt is always a good card to add.

    This thread has been dead for a while now,I'd like to hear some arguments about in what situation Terminusless is a better control deck than Terminus right now. In my opinion, to be competitive in Modern right now your deck has to be able to do something absurdly, stupidly strong, and for control that is Terminus. Between Phoenix, Spirits and dredge there are too many decks that make conventional removal look silly.
    Posted in: Control
  • posted a message on Jeskai Control
    I'm going to make a hard statement here; if you want to play control in modern, you should be playing terminus right now.

    There are too many decks with explosive openings or recurring threats, to a point where I've honestly stepped away from control myself. Unless you prepare for a very specific meta like your own FNM, you should not sleeve up UWx control to a big event unless that list a). has 4 terminus in the main, and b). you really really REALLY like control.
    Posted in: Control
  • posted a message on [POLL] What cards do you want banned or unbanned in the January 21, 2019, announcement?
    I have historically always been very conservative in banning cards but this time around I would hope for a carpetbombing. Realistically I'd see KCI go, with some luck looting and stirrings go too, if I was king of the world tronlands and blood moon also bite the dust but that is completely unrealistic.

    And of course unban stoneforge because it is downright hilarious that card is still banned. Hesitant about twin because I think it would still be very powerful but I am nostalgic of the days of bluffing interaction compared to dying on t3 to KCI and phoenixes
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on Jeskai Control
    Jeskai Terminus is incredibly powerful and I've used it with great success, it's your best bet at besting gravedecks and melts anything creature based. The problem with it is that between 4 terminus, 3 jace and additional removal, it becomes very hard to have a good sideboard plan versus noncreature combo. Terminusless jeskai can pack the threats to beat these combo decks but is virtually dead vs gravedecks
    Posted in: Control
  • posted a message on Jeskai Control
    Brad and Seth's miracleless lists really sparked my interest. I've been pretty down on control for a while but those lists look very interesting. My own main pickup from those lists is the close to absense of cantrips; Ive felt that, unless you get some secondary benefit like storm count or miracle triggers off of them, modern cantrips are just very weak and often not worth the mana in such a brutal format.
    Posted in: Control
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 26/11/2018)
    Quote from ktkenshinx »
    This thread is again going off the rails. I feel this happened last time too; we had a "No Changes" update, people went crazy in the thread, and after a few weeks of venting, everything chilled out. By October, the thread was largely a ghost town of some sporadic Twin arguments and discussions about Stirrings and Preordain. Now we're back at the anger cycle where people are making wild accusations and allegations about the format and Wizards' format management.
    Quote from Bearscape »

    After a long time of being mostly happy with the state of modern I'd now want several cards banned even though not much has really changed for modern since then other than having a good standard to conpare it to. So many matchups in modern end up being "can you beat my sideboardcard" now, and I've really started to see these matches as a chore I have to finish before I actually get to go have fun and play the game I went to FNM for. I've been an exclusive modern player for so many years it is an odd realisation to look at a good standard and think "wait a minute, insta-losing to blood moon actually doesn't have to be 'just how it goes' at all!".

    I thought this comment was going to be about the battle of sideboards element that got GGT banned. Then I read about Blood Moon and realized it's the typical Modern complaints we've seen and debunked for years. Moon is not a strong card. That's why few top decks use it. If it was the kind of insta-losing SB tech you allege, we would see it more. We would see Blue Moon played more as a deck, and we would see more Grishoalbrand (a deck that should check off all your boxes of what makes a powerful Modern deck). We don't see any of those things, however, because the "broken" Modern you allege exists is not the overall experience of the format. It might be your personal experience due to the deck you play, the area you play in, and/or the game decisions you make, but it's nothing Wizards will develop banlist policy based on. It hasn't been for 3 years now. Nothing about cards like Moon has changed in that time. Might Modern have issues? Yes, and those issues could be with Dredge (see stuff like MD RIP in UW Control) and Stirrings. But unless someone has an actual data-driven case about other issues to make, I haven't seen anything else worth discussing from a ban perspective.


    I want WotC to return to the turn 4 rule with a vengeance. I would not mind seeing a large list of bans, just straight up ending storm, tron, dredge, KCI and the likes. There are so many decks and cards in modern that solely exist to create non-games where the pre-sideboard game is basically irrelevant. They are much, MUCH more obnoxious than twin ever was which, although powerful, at least was a matchup where both players got to play cards and interact with eachother without needing enchantments out of the sideboard.

    T4 rule misinterpretations are a clear sign to me that the thread is going off the rails. Decks must be both top-tier AND consistently winning pre-T4 to violate this rule. No decks are currently doing this.
    Quote from KTROJAN »
    Standard is bad- nochanges we need to fix standard.

    Standard is good- no changes we want people to play standard.

    Modern is bad- no changes we want people to play standard.

    Modern is good- we should keep an eye on things so we can push people into playing standard.

    This kind of pithy comment is all too common in the Twitch chat and Reddit age. It sounds good and garners upvotes, but it doesn't remotely describe what literally happened this year. See BBE and JTMS being unbanned when Modern was good and Standard was bad just to improve Modern more. When you have a literal counterexample to your allegation in the last 12 months, it's clearly an allegation that needs reworking.
    Quote from Bearscape »

    Let me put it in another way; the way current modern works, it pushes the influence of variance in the game to the absolute maximum. You HAVE to accept you will have 80-20 matchups no matter what you play, and you HAVE to accept that plenty of games will end up revolving around maybe 8 out of your 75 cards and the entire game is decided around drawing those few cards. Of couse variance is always a factor in a card game, but modern ends games before they start with much fewer degrees of freedom on these luck factors.

    There are no top-tier 80/20 matchups in Modern. There haven't been for 3 years. I have debunked this outrageous claim numerous times. To reiterate, top players have the same MWP in Modern as in other formats. They also have the same MWP variance and MWP ceiling. Notably, they further have the same Modern MWP as they do in BOTH Legacy and Standard; the only outliers are player-specific (e.g. Reid Duke is better at Modern than Standard), but across the board, the averages and spread are identical. If Modern was packed with 80/20 matchups as you and hoards of Modern critics have alleged, this would not be the case.

    I understand that people are dissatisfied with a "No changes" update, and I understand that people want more communication from Wizards. Those are reasonable desires; arguing for an SFM unban or better Wizards updates and transparency are great topics. A meaningful "battle of sideboards" discussion through the lens of GGT might be fine too. Or Stirrings analysis. But fuming about long-debunked Modern issues is not the way to go, even if it happens every time Wizards does a "No changes" update on a metagame that some people perceive issues with.


    It is not powerlevel that I complain about - I would honestly say that Blood Moon is a poor card to run right now in Modern. What I have gotten tired of is the amount of matches I sit down for that are very often immediately ended once it is established my opponent is playing a certain archetype. There are currently many Modern decks that demand hard sideboard hosers that are often almost impossible to interact with without these kinds of cards and I think this creates poor gameplay.

    When I talk about good and bad gameplay I would say R&D agrees with me; I'd want modern to be more in line with the current design philosophy, shying away from abilities like intimidate and protection that are hard to balance since they are game ending in some matchups whilst being completely inconsequential in others. I use Blood Moon as an example of this not because I deem the powerlevel too high, but because I think this design adds poor gameplay; imagine making a new card game from the ground up, would you design a card like Blood Moon? Blood Moon does either nothing, or ends the game on the spot. I would say this is poor and frustrating game design. The same goes for the plethora of decks that demand sideboard hosers; you will not hear me claim that storm is in any way overpowered, but if I sit down at FNM and play 3 rounds of storm in a row (this happened once) I do not feel like I got to play the game I wanted to play. Yes, that is anecdotal, but there are so many decks in modern right now that promote this kind of "do you have the one relevant card" matchups, regardless of that matchup is bad or good, that it has worn me down after 5+ years of playing Modern.

    "80/20" matchups are more of a way of saying "very poor" matchups than an actual statistic and I shouldn't have used it. But if I compare what is deemed a poor matchup in current standard and a poor matchup in modern, in standard at least you most of the time still get to play a game of magic instead of praying for your sideboard hosers to stick. It is true that some pros consistently thrive in Modern and thus are doing something right, but it is also true that plenty of pros have complained about the matchup lottery in modern making it very hard to prepare for.

    Apart from maybe dredge, I would not argue any of the current decks in modern are inherently too powerful. But for years I've taken the mindset of just accepting non-games due to matchup lottery as a fact in Magic, when it really doesn't need to be. This doesn't mean modern is "ruined" or even bad, I still go to Modern FNM every other week. However it definitely is a big flaw of modern and judging from the last few pages it seems I have people who agree with me on this.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 26/11/2018)
    Quote from Bearscape »
    It's funny to see modern in the light of an actually GOOD standard format for the first time in years, it really highlights how many decks in modern demand you to play obnoxious non-games of "stop the one thing I do".

    After a long time of being mostly happy with the state of modern I'd now want several cards banned even though not much has really changed for modern since then other than having a good standard to conpare it to. So many matchups in modern end up being "can you beat my sideboardcard" now, and I've really started to see these matches as a chore I have to finish before I actually get to go have fun and play the game I went to FNM for. I've been an exclusive modern player for so many years it is an odd realisation to look at a good standard and think "wait a minute, insta-losing to blood moon actually doesn't have to be 'just how it goes' at all!".

    I want WotC to return to the turn 4 rule with a vengeance. I would not mind seeing a large list of bans, just straight up ending storm, tron, dredge, KCI and the likes. There are so many decks and cards in modern that solely exist to create non-games where the pre-sideboard game is basically irrelevant. They are much, MUCH more obnoxious than twin ever was which, although powerful, at least was a matchup where both players got to play cards and interact with eachother without needing enchantments out of the sideboard.



    You don't "instalose" to Blood Moon unless you're not interacting yourself minding your own business or you aren't fetching basics.In fact, if you find yourself losing to "sideboard cards" like Ensnaring Bridge, Choke, Blood Moon, Rest in Peace or Stony Silence too often, it's probably because you're up to some fishy business yourself. And it's not like there aren't answers for these cards. If you're complaining about format safety valves for degenerate strategies, chances are you're playing a degenerate strategy yourself. Furthermore, if you have "non-games" with Storm (which solely asks you to run creature removal), Tron, Dredge and KCI, it's probably because you're not interacting with them due to playing a non-interactive deck yourself. In which case, their combo is either faster, more consistent or more impactful than yours, and that's a concession you make when you pick up a deck.


    You are answering me like I have always looked at modern myself before; you can beat these cards if you just sideboard versus them. If you have to rely on the 4-ish copies of relevant cards in your 60 card deck or INSTANTLY lose, that is not an entertaining game. Look at it from the other side; how does blood moon being a card in any way add something good to the modern format? You CAN play around it, but why should you? What gameplay does blood moon add other than just randomly ending games? I've had plenty of games with 2 or 1 color decks where I recognise my opponent plays a blood moon deck from their turn 1-2 plays, looked at my hand without answers and just have to hope they don't have it or instantly lose

    Storm does not get beaten by creature removal, it can easily go off with your removal spell on the stack. Is it beatable, yes of course, it isn't a broken deck by modern standards, but why are you just accepting this is the game; I do my thing, you do yours, we have this one moment of crucial interaction and if I don't have it I instantly lose.

    Let me put it in another way; the way current modern works, it pushes the influence of variance in the game to the absolute maximum. You HAVE to accept you will have 80-20 matchups no matter what you play, and you HAVE to accept that plenty of games will end up revolving around maybe 8 out of your 75 cards and the entire game is decided around drawing those few cards. Of couse variance is always a factor in a card game, but modern ends games before they start with much fewer degrees of freedom on these luck factors.

    Finally, mind you that it is none of these single decks or cards that is the problem, it is the massive abundance of them. If there were one or two of these almost spanish inquisition-like decks it would be fine, but the absolute abundance of them is what has gotten on my nerves. Modern players have accepted that this matchup lottery factor is inherent to modern but it really doesnt have to be.

    EDIT: hold on, you misinterpreted what I said. I almost exclusively play fair decks, I am conplaining about the subgame of playing stony or rip being the only thing that really matters, regardless on what side of the table I am sitting. This is not some plea to ban sideboard hosers dear god no, this is a plea that a meta in which they are the norm should not be
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 26/11/2018)
    It's funny to see modern in the light of an actually GOOD standard format for the first time in years, it really highlights how many decks in modern demand you to play obnoxious non-games of "stop the one thing I do".

    After a long time of being mostly happy with the state of modern I'd now want several cards banned even though not much has really changed for modern since then other than having a good standard to conpare it to. So many matchups in modern end up being "can you beat my sideboardcard" now, and I've really started to see these matches as a chore I have to finish before I actually get to go have fun and play the game I went to FNM for. I've been an exclusive modern player for so many years it is an odd realisation to look at a good standard and think "wait a minute, insta-losing to blood moon actually doesn't have to be 'just how it goes' at all!".

    I want WotC to return to the turn 4 rule with a vengeance. I would not mind seeing a large list of bans, just straight up ending storm, tron, dredge, KCI and the likes. There are so many decks and cards in modern that solely exist to create non-games where the pre-sideboard game is basically irrelevant. They are much, MUCH more obnoxious than twin ever was which, although powerful, at least was a matchup where both players got to play cards and interact with eachother without needing enchantments out of the sideboard.

    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on Jeskai Control
    Quote from 0oSunnYo0 »
    Would Detention Sphere main deck be worth it as a tool against Dredge, or is Trophy common enough to make it too risky?


    The problem vs dredge isn't really aa lack of hate, 4 terminus main is often plenty to slow them down. It's that you also need to kill them and dredge is very good at grinding. I think Detsphere is only modern playable when you REALLY need a way to deal with resolved planeswalkers like straight UW does, otherwise it is just generally too slow.
    Posted in: Control
  • posted a message on Jeskai Control
    Quote from TheAller »
    Quote from Bearscape »
    I still like the angels; even though they're expected now, most aggro decks simply do not have many answers to it and cant possibly win as long as one stays on the table.


    Not sure about that. Spirits has Path. Vs Humans it's only a temporary solution as eventually they'll just grow their creatures bigger than the Angel. Also, Reflector Mage. The Angels also don't work well with mass removals.


    Those factors haven't changed though, spirits and humans already played the cards that kill angels when the angels became popular and they still do; you can only argue that the "gotcha" factor has diminished a bit. The angels have always been a gambit of demanding an answer when you play them
    Posted in: Control
  • posted a message on [POLL] What cards do you want banned or unbanned in the November 26, 2018 announcement?
    Holy Moly 70% of people want SFM unbanned (including me)
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on Jeskai Control
    I still like the angels; even though they're expected now, most aggro decks simply do not have many answers to it and cant possibly win as long as one stays on the table.

    The new rise of dredge is a big deal though, together with spirits finally getting the respect the deck deserves. I think with Terminus we have a good shot at besting dredge, but running gravehate always stays an issue for this deck.

    How do you guys adapt your stock terminus list to better beat dredge?
    Posted in: Control
  • posted a message on Jeskai Control
    Well, "heavily" favoured is a lie. But I would still say favoured as we just tend to go bigger than them which is what most of the time decides these kinds of matchups.
    Posted in: Control
  • posted a message on Jeskai Control
    So how has playing against Assassin's Trophy fared for all of you? So far I still think we are heavily favoured against most BGx decks, although Jund has been impressive.

    What do you all think about bringing in Angels versus BGx? I'm not certain yet, as although an angel that sticks obviously ends the game, they have a lot of ways to remove them and trading down in mana without gaining any value from the card is just really bad. Against the aggro decks, an angel generally means they have to answer it immediately or the game ends, vs BGx, losing after an angel hit is still very much possible
    Posted in: Control
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.