I think its UTTER bull***** to not destroy this deck. If you couldnt let Twin live, then get real if we have 6/6 UW Eldrazi in the final across 3 GLOBAL GP's.
Inexcusable.
I agree. It was certainly possible to bring Pod and Twin down to an acceptable level without killing them. The fact that Wizards wants to keep Eldrazi alive, despite the fact that it is responsible for much more nonsense than either of those two decks, does indicate a bias.
In all honesty the real problem is the violation of the color pie when it comes to Reality Smasher and Thought-Knot Seer, they just don't fit. Yes, "colorless" is supposed to be the new requirement, but it seems to do everything that every other color can do:
Reality Smasher is red, green and blue. Thought-Knot Seer is black, blue and white.
Name a single card in Magic history that comes close without actual color requirements?
Imho, those two cards would be my suggestion for a ban if there is one.
I remember looking through the OGW spoilers and having this exact same reaction. Why did R&D give colorless Eldrazi some of the best abilities from every part of the color pie? Moreover, why did they give them these abilities at a discount?
The decision to make low-cost, colorless creature with significant upsides--upsides equivalent to those that we typically see on three-color creatures--was extremely short-sighted. I get that Wizards designs and develops for standard, but even in that format this was a questionable idea. Unfortunately, now that the floodgates are open, and a precedent has been set that pushed midrange/aggressive Eldrazi are printable, I think Eldrazi temple and Eye of Ugin have to go.
How has it put up more results than Treasure Cruise powered Delver? If we're talking Top 8's, I honestly would dismiss any results from the Pro Tour in regards to the metagame. I've pointed this out before but people seem to forget it, but 37.5% of the rounds that led up to that Top 8 were Draft, i.e. not Modern. That's a pretty significant portion. Someone can engineer a completely different Top 8 by adjusting how the players did in the Draft portion.
Pro Tour Top 8's do tend to affect the metagame on a temporary basis because people see decks doing well and want to adopt them, but in terms of metagame strength their results actually mean very little (at least once they started doing them as multiple formats, back when they were just one format they gave a better read).
Did you not look at the insane win percentages the Eldrazi decks put up in the toughest field possible?
Do you not see a major problem with relying on results that are heavily affected by things other than Modern?
Like I said, adjust the Draft results and you can get an entirely different Top 8. When something completely unrelated to anything in Modern is that influential on the Top 8, the Top 8 really doesn't mean much.
Okay MTGO is being torn to bits by the deck. At my local shop here out of a 37 man modern tournament the 6 eldrazi players made it to the top. I was playing affinity and could not even come close to keeping up games one. Game 2 the deck is still quicker than me. I don't see how you can think this deck is healthy.
I'm not arguing one way or the other about whether the deck is healthy. Even if it's the most broken deck ever created in the history of Magic, I still think that appealing to the Pro Tour Top 8 as evidence of it being overpowered is silly.
Affinity
Colorless Eldrazi
UR Eldrazi
Colorless Eldrazi
Angel Chord
UR Eldrazi
UR Eldrazi
Affinity
Colorless Eldrazi
To be clear, I don't think that Wizards will or should emergency ban Eldrazi (although I selfishly would like them to), but I'm pretty certain that they will in April.
Let's be real here. Given Wizards' track record, either Eye or Temple, or both, WILL be banned. Discounting the World Championships, the deck has already put up more results than Treasure Cruise powered Delver and any deck that had Dig Through Time. If Wizards didn't give the meta time to deal with TC or DTT--two cards which enabled a diverse range of decks, and which were far more hate-able by mainstream strategies than Eldrazi--why on earth should we think they'll allow Eldrazi to survive a ban announcement?
If this isn't a broken format, I don't know what is. It's sad when the best case scenario is that the meta game will warp ferociously, and decks will be forced to pack another piece of incredibly narrow sideboard hate (Painter's Servant).
So, I guess the question is...what's next? It's evident that nothing is sacred, no deck is safe. Wizards does not seem to be interested in cultivating a stable format. "Mixing it up"...by instantly invalidating decks worth hundreds/thousands of dollars...seems to be the name of the game.
I can't imagine that Tron lands will last much longer, given that they've just lost their natural predator and seem to have been getting a lot of powerful tools lately.
Twin helped to keep linear decks in line, while at the same time being very answerable by common removal and discard spells. What on earth can police linear and fast combo decks now? Thoughtseize/Inquisition of Kozilek are not sufficient. Spot removal won't do it. Land destruction doesn't exist until turn 3, when it's too late. Counter spells are far too conditional.
I just don't understand this banning at all. Twin made sure that Affinity and Tron--the epitomes of "go under" and "go over" in Modern--wouldn't just obliterate fair, interactive decks.
It really doesn't seem like the people responsible for this banning actually understand how the format works at all. I was angry and sad when Pod was banned, but I still had faith that Wizards knew what they were doing. Now, I have no confidence whatsoever.
This is madness. My condolences to Twin players. As a former Pod player, I feel your pain. URx tempo/control of some kind will evolve (Delver? Monkey Grow? Grixis Control?) to somewhat fill the void, but it will be still be bad. I can't believe this has happened.
Time to pack some serious Affinity hate in the sideboard. Wow.
She actually seems quite good in Modern in combination with cards like Lingering Souls. I believe that she will see play in fair midrange decks that have the capacity to go wide like Abzan or Tokens. She's similar to Ashiok, in that she's an insidious card, which doesn't seem particularly dangerous right away, but which has the power to generate tremendous card advantage if she isn't dealt with quickly. Her main advantage over Ashiok is that she actually effects the board as soon as she comes down.
Her plus ability is somewhat reminiscent of Liliana of the Veil's, insofar as it is not terribly powerful immediately, but it has the effect of slowing the game down into a war of attrition. It shields her from bolt via 4 loyalty and ground creatures via the plant token. An endless stream of 0/1 chump blockers is valuable against non-Affinity aggro decks and effective against fair decks like Jund or Grixis control/midrange, whose threats don't usually have evasion.
Her minus ability not only combos well with the plus, but also lets you win Tarmogoyf/Siege Rhino Trades.
Her ultimate, while not technically game-winning, is pretty close. It's basically Sphinx's Revelation for 5+. That's a real threat, which means that your opponent cannot afford to ignore her. She demands expensive, non-Bolt removal.
If you're ahead on the board, she can buff an existing army and finish the game quickly. If you're even, she can break stalemates with her minus or provide tokens as shields from crackbacks. If you're behind, she can buy time to draw into answers. On an empty board, she can tick up safely and threaten either to ultimate or to make a substantial army of 1/2s or 2/3s.
In short, my evaluation is that she's a slow, but strong weapon for grindy decks. A mirror-breaker and significant threat in fair match-ups. Good vs. aggro, midrange and control, and terrible vs. combo. I think the meta will determine whether she is main-deckable
It's important to distinguish between the privatizing impulse to take personal offense at things that are not aggressive or hurtful and the important and laudable attempt to identify and challenge very real social inequalities. Being concerned with sexist, racist, or homophobic remarks or focusing attention upon the ways in which women, people of colour, and people with non-normative sexualities are often mistreated is NOT the same as finding ordinary aspects of interpersonal interaction triggering or offensive. One is privately oriented, that is, it focuses narrowly on individuals, and attempts to impose one's private desires on everyone. The other is publicly oriented, which is to say, its aim is to improve conditions for everyone.
The public as a whole benefits when sexist/racist/homophobic attitudes and actions are stamped out. The well-being of entire communities are improved when everyday racism/sexism is exposed and challenged. People taking offense at "good game" (which is outrageous) aren't doing so because they're concerned with making the world a better place, it's because they don't want to feel personal discomfort.
This privatizing desire to impose oneself on everyone else is not the fault of "Hippies" (whatever that's supposed to mean). On the contrary, it's the result of a corporate culture, which teaches us to think of ourselves, first and foremost, as consumers, not citizens; as individuals, rather than members of a shared community. In a corporate society, the customer is always right. Private impulses and selfish desires are cultivated and inflamed, because the more unchecked desires an individual has, the more products they are likely to buy to satisfy them.
A disturbing trend is the tendency--both by those on the reactionary right (a cause to which I fear a great number of the MTG community belongs) and by those naive, young, millenials who like to think of themselves as being on the left--to conflate the pursuit of social justice and the public good with the desire for private satisfaction and personal comfort. REAL public activism is uncomfortable, it takes courage. Challenging a LGS that is pervaded by sexism and homophobia can be terrifying, since it involves exposing yourself to ridicule and rage. PRIVATE indulgence, by contrast, is risk-free. One demands that other's conform to one's private desires or one threatens to leave. Whining about someone saying "good game" doesn't take any bravery.
Keep this in mind. It's important to know what you are actually against.
Well said. I can't blame Wizards and Hasbro for wanting to avoid the discomforting possibility that, if Zach Jesse won a major event, they would be obliged to publicly celebrate a convicted rapist.
The outrage that some members of the Magic community are expressing at Jesse's ban--outrage which will almost certainly dissipate after a few weeks--is nothing compared to the uproar that would emerge should the general public learn about the veneration of a sex offender.
It's important to evaluate the ban from the perspective of someone who knows and cares nothing about Magic. Would an outsider to the game, if told about Jesse's ban, be angry or even interested about the fact that someone is prevented from playing a silly card game? Doubtful. Would an outsider, by contrast, be upset if a convicted sex offender is venerated by a major corporation like Hasbro? You betcha.
It's not fair, but it doesn't have to be. Let's face it: rapists have a justifiably bad reputation in the public eye and a special place in hell.
Did you just gloss over the stuff about Patrick Chapin (Who I sincerely hope doesnt face any sort of negative action now), ask anyone who lives in an intercity area what they think about drug dealers or in Northern Mexico.
Let's not kid ourselves: different crimes are perceived differently by the public. Violent offenses like rape are without a doubt considered to be more heinous than drug crimes. The examples you give of places where people would have a lower estimation of drug crimes--"an intercity area" (I think you mean "inner city") or "Northern Mexico"--probably have more to do with the murders, rapes, and dismemberments that occur around the drug trade, NOT the act of selling drugs itself. Moreover, there is generally a different perception of "hard drugs" like heroin and "soft drugs" like ecstasy, which Chapin was convicted of selling.
CAN WOTC ban Zach Jesse from participating in sanctioned magic tournaments? Yes. Can they delete his MTGO account? Yes. This isn't up for debate. They are a company running private events and they are free to set policies on who and who not may attend, whether it be for truly moral reason or just becuase they think this will make them more money. I'm fairly certained "convicted rapists" isn't a protected class under the law.
SHOULD Zach Jesse have been banned is another question. I certainly don't feel BAD for Zach. When you decide to rape someone I'm not going to feel bad for you if it eventually leads to consequeneces. The reality is, this is a publicity thing. WOTC doesn't want a convicted rapist winning a GP or god forbid a pro tour. I don't want that either. It would be bad for magic. That said, I wish they could have just banned him from PTs/GPs/PTQs/PPTQs. It seems over the top to prevent him from doing a draft at his local game store. Wizards might claim they dont have the "technology" to do this... and I believe them because their tournament software hasn't been overhauled in like 13 years so it might actually be true.
Taking his MTGO account seems silly. At least in person you can make the "people don't want to sit down at a table across from a rapist" argument. Doesn't really hold online.
Ultimately, I can emapthize with Zach Jesse. Obviously he will live forever with the consequences of a horrible, disgusting choice he made. It must suck to have something you truly enjoy, but that is ultimately very trivial, get taken away from you because of it. But empathy is not the same as sympathy. Of that I feel little. At most, I can say the verdict was inconsistent/heavy-handed, but I certainly don't feel BAD for him. Hopefully a well-articulated policy will emerge from this.
Well said. I can't blame Wizards and Hasbro for wanting to avoid the discomforting possibility that, if Zach Jesse won a major event, they would be obliged to publicly celebrate a convicted rapist.
The outrage that some members of the Magic community are expressing at Jesse's ban--outrage which will almost certainly dissipate after a few weeks--is nothing compared to the uproar that would emerge should the general public learn about the veneration of a sex offender.
It's important to evaluate the ban from the perspective of someone who knows and cares nothing about Magic. Would an outsider to the game, if told about Jesse's ban, be angry or even interested about the fact that someone is prevented from playing a silly card game? Doubtful. Would an outsider, by contrast, be upset if a convicted sex offender is venerated by a major corporation like Hasbro? You betcha.
It's not fair, but it doesn't have to be. Let's face it: rapists have a justifiably bad reputation in the public eye and a special place in hell.
Not a persuasive argument. See how easily it can be undone: "Legacy is good for people who want to play unfair magic. Vintage is good for people who want to play unfair magic." Some people might like to play fair magic, but not have to buy a new deck every year.
This is not to say that combo decks shouldn't exist in Modern, but rather to note that the idea that Modern should be filled with linear combos in order to differentiate it from Standard is nonsense.
I agree. It was certainly possible to bring Pod and Twin down to an acceptable level without killing them. The fact that Wizards wants to keep Eldrazi alive, despite the fact that it is responsible for much more nonsense than either of those two decks, does indicate a bias.
I remember looking through the OGW spoilers and having this exact same reaction. Why did R&D give colorless Eldrazi some of the best abilities from every part of the color pie? Moreover, why did they give them these abilities at a discount?
The decision to make low-cost, colorless creature with significant upsides--upsides equivalent to those that we typically see on three-color creatures--was extremely short-sighted. I get that Wizards designs and develops for standard, but even in that format this was a questionable idea. Unfortunately, now that the floodgates are open, and a precedent has been set that pushed midrange/aggressive Eldrazi are printable, I think Eldrazi temple and Eye of Ugin have to go.
Affinity
Colorless Eldrazi
UR Eldrazi
Colorless Eldrazi
Angel Chord
UR Eldrazi
UR Eldrazi
Affinity
Colorless Eldrazi
To be clear, I don't think that Wizards will or should emergency ban Eldrazi (although I selfishly would like them to), but I'm pretty certain that they will in April.
I can't imagine that Tron lands will last much longer, given that they've just lost their natural predator and seem to have been getting a lot of powerful tools lately.
I just don't understand this banning at all. Twin made sure that Affinity and Tron--the epitomes of "go under" and "go over" in Modern--wouldn't just obliterate fair, interactive decks.
It really doesn't seem like the people responsible for this banning actually understand how the format works at all. I was angry and sad when Pod was banned, but I still had faith that Wizards knew what they were doing. Now, I have no confidence whatsoever.
Time to pack some serious Affinity hate in the sideboard. Wow.
Her plus ability is somewhat reminiscent of Liliana of the Veil's, insofar as it is not terribly powerful immediately, but it has the effect of slowing the game down into a war of attrition. It shields her from bolt via 4 loyalty and ground creatures via the plant token. An endless stream of 0/1 chump blockers is valuable against non-Affinity aggro decks and effective against fair decks like Jund or Grixis control/midrange, whose threats don't usually have evasion.
Her minus ability not only combos well with the plus, but also lets you win Tarmogoyf/Siege Rhino Trades.
Her ultimate, while not technically game-winning, is pretty close. It's basically Sphinx's Revelation for 5+. That's a real threat, which means that your opponent cannot afford to ignore her. She demands expensive, non-Bolt removal.
If you're ahead on the board, she can buff an existing army and finish the game quickly. If you're even, she can break stalemates with her minus or provide tokens as shields from crackbacks. If you're behind, she can buy time to draw into answers. On an empty board, she can tick up safely and threaten either to ultimate or to make a substantial army of 1/2s or 2/3s.
In short, my evaluation is that she's a slow, but strong weapon for grindy decks. A mirror-breaker and significant threat in fair match-ups. Good vs. aggro, midrange and control, and terrible vs. combo. I think the meta will determine whether she is main-deckable
It's important to distinguish between the privatizing impulse to take personal offense at things that are not aggressive or hurtful and the important and laudable attempt to identify and challenge very real social inequalities. Being concerned with sexist, racist, or homophobic remarks or focusing attention upon the ways in which women, people of colour, and people with non-normative sexualities are often mistreated is NOT the same as finding ordinary aspects of interpersonal interaction triggering or offensive. One is privately oriented, that is, it focuses narrowly on individuals, and attempts to impose one's private desires on everyone. The other is publicly oriented, which is to say, its aim is to improve conditions for everyone.
The public as a whole benefits when sexist/racist/homophobic attitudes and actions are stamped out. The well-being of entire communities are improved when everyday racism/sexism is exposed and challenged. People taking offense at "good game" (which is outrageous) aren't doing so because they're concerned with making the world a better place, it's because they don't want to feel personal discomfort.
This privatizing desire to impose oneself on everyone else is not the fault of "Hippies" (whatever that's supposed to mean). On the contrary, it's the result of a corporate culture, which teaches us to think of ourselves, first and foremost, as consumers, not citizens; as individuals, rather than members of a shared community. In a corporate society, the customer is always right. Private impulses and selfish desires are cultivated and inflamed, because the more unchecked desires an individual has, the more products they are likely to buy to satisfy them.
A disturbing trend is the tendency--both by those on the reactionary right (a cause to which I fear a great number of the MTG community belongs) and by those naive, young, millenials who like to think of themselves as being on the left--to conflate the pursuit of social justice and the public good with the desire for private satisfaction and personal comfort. REAL public activism is uncomfortable, it takes courage. Challenging a LGS that is pervaded by sexism and homophobia can be terrifying, since it involves exposing yourself to ridicule and rage. PRIVATE indulgence, by contrast, is risk-free. One demands that other's conform to one's private desires or one threatens to leave. Whining about someone saying "good game" doesn't take any bravery.
Keep this in mind. It's important to know what you are actually against.
Let's not kid ourselves: different crimes are perceived differently by the public. Violent offenses like rape are without a doubt considered to be more heinous than drug crimes. The examples you give of places where people would have a lower estimation of drug crimes--"an intercity area" (I think you mean "inner city") or "Northern Mexico"--probably have more to do with the murders, rapes, and dismemberments that occur around the drug trade, NOT the act of selling drugs itself. Moreover, there is generally a different perception of "hard drugs" like heroin and "soft drugs" like ecstasy, which Chapin was convicted of selling.
Well said. I can't blame Wizards and Hasbro for wanting to avoid the discomforting possibility that, if Zach Jesse won a major event, they would be obliged to publicly celebrate a convicted rapist.
The outrage that some members of the Magic community are expressing at Jesse's ban--outrage which will almost certainly dissipate after a few weeks--is nothing compared to the uproar that would emerge should the general public learn about the veneration of a sex offender.
It's important to evaluate the ban from the perspective of someone who knows and cares nothing about Magic. Would an outsider to the game, if told about Jesse's ban, be angry or even interested about the fact that someone is prevented from playing a silly card game? Doubtful. Would an outsider, by contrast, be upset if a convicted sex offender is venerated by a major corporation like Hasbro? You betcha.
It's not fair, but it doesn't have to be. Let's face it: rapists have a justifiably bad reputation in the public eye and a special place in hell.
This is not to say that combo decks shouldn't exist in Modern, but rather to note that the idea that Modern should be filled with linear combos in order to differentiate it from Standard is nonsense.