This line from that article does not inspire confidence:
"We’ve just reached an agreement with Wizards of the Coast and we’ll be broadcasting coverage of select Grand Prix in 2019"
This very loudly says they are not covering all GPs. This doesn't even say they will be covering all constructed GPs.
- Registered User
Member for 4 years, 6 months, and 9 days
Last active Wed, Feb, 20 2019 21:59:12
- 0 Followers
- 4,935 Total Posts
- 2126 Thanks
Feb 20, 2019It just depends on what you want out of the format. Some people spent thousands of dollars investing in a format that no longer exists and is more or less depressingly unrecognizable. And it's entirely understandable that those players are less than thrilled with the direction the format has been trending to over the years.Posted in: Modern
It is entirely possible to have absolutely magnificent, decision-heavy, intensive, back-and-forth games in Modern. But more and more, those seem to be the exception and not the norm. I know I personally have had much more fun once I stopped caring about winning or playing in high level competitive events. The top decks at any given time are almost always miserable, linear nonsense, fighting on a weird angle that requires narrow hate. But if your FNM rejects that as a whole, and simply "plays what they own and plays what they like", you get to see a larger variety of archetypes and strategies, and can have wonderful times tweaking and tuning for your local meta.
The format isn't "good" or "bad" because the individual experiences are so heavily dependant on what you play, where you play, and why you play. But just because you feel one way about a format, doesn't mean there aren't a lot of people who feel the opposite. At any given time, there are many things, both good and bad, that at least make Modern the "best" constructed format available for doing powerful things, while not restricted by the Reserved List.
Feb 18, 2019Posted in: Modernhttps://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/modern-finals-2019-02-18
Winner: 5c DS
Runner-up: Hollow One
Dredge x 4
Mono R prison
Whir of invention prison
UR Phoenix: 4
BG Midrange: 3 (2 Rock, 1 Jund)
Scales Affinity: 3
Mono R phoenix: 2
Hollow one: 2
Mono R Prison
B/W Eldrazi and Taxes
Am I reading that right? Zero control and 9 copies of Dredge? Oof.
That 5c Shadow deck is basically Probe-era DSZ, and not surprisingly still a very strong thing to be doing.
Feb 18, 2019Posted in: Modern
I think the only thing that really keeps me from being 100% on board with making it my main deck is that it runs 0 Snapcaster Mage in the 75, and that hurts my soul. For 3+ years, my deckbuilding starting point was always 4 bolts, 4 snaps, and then go from there. And after trying to shoe-horn a few copies in, it makes me sad that the deck definitely feels worse off with Snaps.
Feb 17, 2019Posted in: ModernQuote from ktkenshinx »an abundance of Izzet Phoenix decks. It's the kind of low floor, high ceiling, heavy cantrip proactive deck that pros/spikes/grinders seem to favor, and it has a high baseline MWP to backup that choice.
Add into that mix that a nonzero number of people craving for a good Steam Vents deck that isn't Storm. It definitely scratches the itch for some of us, even if only for a short while.
Feb 16, 2019Posted in: Modern
It's one of those decks that every modern player around has but doesn't always bring.Quote from cfusionpm »My LGS went from an average of 0-1 Burn players each week, to almost guaranteed 3-5 players each week. Even I (of all people!) sleeved up Goblin Guides and Lava Spikes a few weeks ago (and ran into multiple main deck Thalia and Knight of Autumn, DOH!). I still don't entirely understand why, but I'll happily warp my main decks to deal with it.
I cannot count the amount of people I heard talking about Emma's SCG articles on why Burn is good lately and so everyone's brought it out of the woodwork. And burn never goes away on MTGO either.
Burn was my first "real" modern deck, after spending a couple bucks trying to upgrade my actual first deck, the BW Tokens event deck. But once I discovered how much I loved blue cards from Jeskai Ascendancy Tokens in Standard, I moved to blue-based decks and never looked back. Still have everything though, and not much has changed. Literally just threw in Skewers and cut the Atarkas Commands, and had to fish my spare fetches from various Commander decks.
Feb 16, 2019Posted in: ModernQuote from Sephon19 »I'm glad all of you believe that current Burn is managable. I really care about Burn so the fact that it isn't a problem lightens my heart. I was really worried because Skewer really makes the deck that much stronger. Good thing it's so easy to sideboard against.
I don't think it makes it much stronger than versions running Shard Volley. Maybe a few small percentages, getting to run 1 or 2 fewer lands maybe? But it's not like some massive revelation; especially at sorcery speed. It's just a great addition to an already good deck.
Feb 15, 2019To be fair, a 5-0 league isn't really indicative of anything. With enough reps in the non-swiss pairing system, even the clunkiest of decks will eventually 5-0. And with the way 5-0s are reported, it means even less these days.Posted in: Modern
Though this may be the spark for people picking it up and trying...
Feb 14, 2019Posted in: ModernQuote from Sephon19 »I think they should have been more cautious printing Skewer the Critics. It's definitely upped Burn's power significantly. I'm unsure what the correct costing should have been, however. Instant with nonspectacle cost of 3R? Burn thread says it's cast for R about 80% of the time, and with that rate, 2R is fine to pay for it every once in a while. Another issue is that I'm unsure what to ban from Burn if it runs out of control. Probably Eidolon?
As hinted at by my previous post, there are decks and cards that simply dumpster all over Burn, and make it unplayably awful. It's also a totally fair check on greedy fetch/shock manabases, and turns powerful life-resource decks like GDS into a delicate dance. It's a totally fair and defeatable deck that has no business being banned.
Feb 14, 2019Posted in: Modern
When I nabbed Bitterblossom, Surgicals and Cliques, the foils were actually cheaper. Cryptic always seems to have a low multiplier from that set as well.
It's foiling is VERY dark, one of the worst by far that I've seen/own.
Yes, this is definitely the case. Not only do they look worse than other foils, I hold the opinion that they look considerably worse than nonfoils from that set. I own several foils from there and regret getting all of them.
Feb 14, 2019Posted in: Modern
So. Much. Burn.
Doesn't matter whether it's in paper or online.
My LGS went from an average of 0-1 Burn players each week, to almost guaranteed 3-5 players each week. Even I (of all people!) sleeved up Goblin Guides and Lava Spikes a few weeks ago (and ran into multiple main deck Thalia and Knight of Autumn, DOH!). I still don't entirely understand why, but I'll happily warp my main decks to deal with it.
Feb 14, 2019Posted in: ModernQuote from tronix »
In the case someone says that the "disruption of normal play" is the criterion and the "unfun to play against" clause is just the symptom of the first, which was also @KTK's answer back then, (and I took it), I have to say that Aetherworks Marvel is also being quoted in their text. Marvel did not cause logistical reasons, did not take aeons to play against. It was just unfun to play against, because it was causing "turn 4 scoop it up" moments.
I personally dont think much of their ban list 'logic'. In other words, I think they just do what they want.
that is what i was trying to get across in my post yesterday. there has never been a world where they havent done what they want. they have been making judgement calls based on opinion and perception because they have to. there is rarely black and white scenarios, and you have to bridge the gap with rationalizations. we here in this thread are proof positive that people 'tuned in' to modern can have wildly different perspectives on any number of topics and can hardly agree; yet when we see glimpses that this is also the case for a bunch of regular people trying design something as nebulous as an attractive entertainment/game experience we default to believing they just dont know what the hell they are doing or are incompetent.
also i get that it is easy to tunnel vision on modern, but modern is just one facet of MtG. a facet that will have objectives and purposes built in specifically to set it apart from others.
for example is it implausible or unreasonable to believe that at one point in the past that wizards worried about modern presenting itself as 'solved'? that the twins and junds and pods were just 'it', and how it might stunt the growth of the format long term?
like what is the value of diversity in the first place? why place an importance on having card choices being dynamic or situational? how might this impact the perceived room to experiment and explore? why could this be important in modern, but less so in other environments?
in the end it has to be a lot of 'i thinks' and 'maybes' with plenty of mistakes and wishes for 'do-overs', and what is true at one point may not be true at another. if players cant grasp that, then that naivety is going to set you up for disappointment.
I think it's not a matter of misunderstanding what or why WOTC does something, but of understanding and disagreeing with a number of their seemingly arbitrary choices. It's especially worrisome given their multiple misguided statements and beliefs of the past and present, regarding Modern.
As far as other specific previous statements, I forgot to include this gem from their April 2016 B&R:
"When Battle for Zendikar and Oath of the Gatewatch were in development, the development team knew that all the Eldrazi creatures in the block would be more powerful in Modern because of these two-mana lands. While there was some risk that Eldrazi decks could be too strong, there was also the possibility that a fun new competitive deck would emerge."
And boy did they make sure to take the steps necessary so the "fun new competitive deck" had a place to shine at the Pro Tour.
I'm not in any dire need to liquidate my cards, but I have lived in constant ban fear for more than 3 years, after seeing multiple decks destroyed because WOTC doesn't want me to play that way. I still begrudgingly play GDS and Phoenix, because at least those are better than the other trash piles I have tried to use to scratch the itch over the years, but they're far from what I want to be doing (bluffing and mind games with opponent, which is ironically word for word several of the questions on WOTC's quarterly player surveys). The last thing I want is to play my thing, then you play your thing, and we see who can top deck better in paint-by-numbers Battlecruiser Magic.
Feb 14, 2019Posted in: Modern
People play Surgical because it's essentially "free" and "colorless". Extirpate is neither of those things. I doubt it will ever gain much traction as the split second clause just isn't relevant enough to offset being free and colorless.Quote from Joban8 »I believe someone mentioned it earlier, but what are everyone's thoughts on Extirpate? I generally try to avoid buying into spikes, but the exception is when there's a very small foil multiplier. Last I checked TCGplayer, the price margins between foils and non were slim; picked up two Planar Chaos foils for $8/ea. Coincidentally, I've noticed the same trend for Surgical Extraction throughout the last few months; I went to list my foil copy on eBay sometime when it was spiking post-UMA and decided against it because foils were being sold for maybe a $5-$10 premium at best. The MM15 card quality isn't anything to write home about, so I could see if it was the case for just that version, but the same has held true for NP foils. Just something I found interesting.
Get em if you want to play with them, but I personally wouldn't spec.
Edit: also, foils may be cheaper because Masters set cards usually have foil prices pushed way down, due to foils in every pack and making them more common. The only time it doesn't seem to affect all foil prices are if other printings have different frame/art/etc.
Feb 14, 2019Sword of the Meek would break Lantern, Jace too good for Modern. UW miracles best deck in Modern. Stoneforge too good. Etc, etc. etc. Those are just off the top of my head (and avoid the litany of Twin-related statements). Many of their gaffes have been listed and discussed here numerous times.Posted in: Modern
It's a shame to lump these together, because most of the people claiming the deck was "unfun" to play against were, themselves, playing a deck that many find "unfun" to play against (something linear, difficult to interact with, folded to decks that require interaction if not racing, etc). Many playing interactive decks, to this day, will still say they were some of the most fun and engaging games they've had in Modern.
Personally, I think it's unfun to have my hand shredded by Burning Inquiry, to die to unblockable infect, to get turn 3 Karned or turn 4 Ugin/Ulamog, to get locked out of being able to draw or play anything, dying from an empty board after someone dredges/birds 15 power into play, dying from an empty board after someone end-step Breaches a Titan and gets Valakuts, dying from an empty board after someone Pacts for a Titan and gives it haste and double strike, dying from an empty board to anything Storm does, and so on and so on. How many of those situations kill me after I should be "safe to tap out on my turn"?
If this idea is actually applied to Modern fairly, then nearly half of all current decks should be banned. So either this is just a silly arbitrary justification for them to nuke a deck they don't like, or they are wild hypocrites, choosing when and when not to enforce any of their publicly-undefined, but-sort-of-acknowledged ban criteria.
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.