MTG Salvation

Comment Hidden

Quote from Niallplaysmagic »

Quote from theaxman »

Question: the people who think that the meta will improve... do these people think the current meta is an improvement?

The current meta (and all metas after the removal of a major deck) is a cursory glance at what might happen. Do I like the meta at this exact moment? No not really, but I'm not convinced it will stay like this for anything more than a month or two until people figure out that midrange (specifically Jeskai due to Snap-Helix) is good again.

I know I'm running maindeck Anger of the Gods with sideboard Kozilek's Return in a Grixis Control shell. It might be more correct to play a Jeskai control shell, but I want to get more life out of my foil Grixis manabase before we see what happens in the pro tour. I know last week I lost to Affinity, Lantern Control, and Smallpox/Land Destruction while playing Burn. That'll be the last time I play a deck without permission spells again! Lots of Affinity, Merfolk, Burn, Zoo and if the meta stays aggressive for the most part, both Grixis and Jeskai have good answers. Unfortunately, we also have Tron locally. I've dodged the matchup most of the time, but I figured Spreading Seas is a fun alternative until I ever get around to getting Fulminator Mages. It's cheaper than Crumble to Dust, draws me a card, and has value in other matchups where Blood Moon would hurt me just as much as them. Plus, since it leaves it in play, they can't replay it with Crucible of Worlds.

I've gone through my 5 stages of grief for the most part. Still mad about Twin and still greatly disagree with the ban in every regard, but I'm not going to let that stop me from enjoying the cards I still have left.

Quote from bocephus »

Quote from Spsiegel1987 »

I say this with no trolling intentions, but seriously, do you work for WOTC or something? I've never seen someone so adamantly defend every polar defining decesion made by a gaming company

Aaron forscythe could take tips from you

Nope, just understand both sides of this.

I don't think you actually do. Otherwise you would offer understanding and counterpoints from multiple angles, rather than ignoring criticisms and talking to us like we are children needing to be lectured to by the adult in the room.

People want what they want, even if its not the best move for the game. People are inherently selfish and want things to go their way so they can enjoy something. Life isnt like that. For every person that likes interactive Magic, there is at least another player that dislikes it. I have been playing since the beginning and there have always been players upset over control, removal, and fast combo and people stopping them from doing what they want. We may have come to the point where those people out number those who like interactive Magic and its is financially the correct thing to do to follow the masses.

OR... now stay with me here, OR we have come to a point where Wizards is out of touch with the way Modern has grown. Wizards is out of touch with the nuanced ebb and flow of a format that saw lots and lots of natural growth and evolution over the past year. Wizards can't even provide adequate commentary and coverage of a wildly popular format. Wizards, rather than looking at the metagame as a self-regulating ecosystem, decided to come in and poach all the lions, not understanding the effect it will have down the rest of the food chain. Wizards has set a precedent in banning a deck which broke no rules that were public knowledge to the players, and in fact was highly regarded as the benchmark for what was allowed in Modern (turn 4 combo, highly interactive, not immune to hate, never represented oppression in the meta, etc). So, it COULD be that. Or we could just call all the players a bunch of whining children who want what they want and don't understand business.

Comment Hidden

Quote from prismatic elf »

Burn is well positioned in this new modern meta. Still no Eldrazi is it a bust?

It's a bust when the vast majority of the field are linear aggro decks that can count to 20 before they cast Oblivion Sower. A friend of mine plays the BW version and with a great opener, he can do fine, but if he stumbles at all he gets wrecked by those decks.

Quote from bocephus »

We dont need caw blade in the format. For as many people who loved the deck and the constant mirror matches, there were those that couldnt stand it. Same goes for Stoneblade in Legacy. I think its fine those 2 cards have a grave for the time being in Modern.

JTMS would be pretty bad along side SFM, but I think Ms. Mystic would be just fine on her own. Pretty much every piece of equipment ever printed is already completely unplayable in Modern right now anyway, and if a turn 3 4/4 lifelinker that you have to dedicate 2 turns to is the worst you can do, I don't think anyone is particularly scared. I mean, you can already get a turn 3 6/6 lifelinker out of Tron. Though your last line... are you actually Aaron Forsythe in desguise?!?! It would explain your unquestioning support of everything they do.

What is frustrating to one or some, is just fine for others. As I have said multiple times Wotc can not keep everyone happy. If Wotc was going along with the way you are thinking and I posted that same statement you would disagree. There is 2 sides to everything. I have no problem with the direction of Modern at the moment. I wouldnt mind it become a little more midrange, but we had that already and people complained about that too, so I am fine where we are at.

You quote a poster talking about coverage and lack of expertise in the format, as demonstrated through poor coverage and strange, out-of-touch rules choices, then ignore those comments to blindly defend Wizards doin'-what-they-gotta-do, and it doesn't matter because someone will always be upset? Are you saying that poor, inadequate, inaccurate coverage Modern receives from Wizards demonstrates a sound fundamental understanding of the format? If LSV isn't in the building carrying the entire commentary crew, the booth seems to fall to pieces with regards to common cards and interactions. Given the general mistakes, lack of knowledge, and dead-air silence, it's almost as if they don't follow the format and don't know any of the intricacies and nuances of Modern. And given the way they generally seem to handle Modern, the banned list, and it's recent policies, this seems to come as no surprise. That poor commentary combined with the acknowledgement that they don't test for the format are representations that make it clear they really have no idea about the ins and outs of Modern. They do not show that they really follow the format at all. Among other things, the Twin ban is great reflection of this disconnect. (Hooray for bringing it back to the thread topic!) Maybe instead of banning Twin, they just hire Cedric Phillips and Patrick Sullivan to do commentary on all their Modern events instead. Extremely knowledgeable, funny, and able to fill dead air for days with relevant and witty remarks. They want good viewership for big events right? Maybe they should start with hosts familiar with the format instead of blanket banning a deck that broke no rules.

Quote from Themis »

Quote from cfusionpm »

Quote from Spsiegel1987 »

What do you guys think of what Todd Anderson said about his temur deck? He thinks it's a bad deck and just piloted it because he's so experienced with it

That almost kind of spits into wotcs face, doesn't it? It seems like a deck that would struggle with a lot of spot removal

I played a Grixis Delver variant last night and got completely wrecked. Spot removal is insanely good against it and there is almost zero late game. Deck doesn't go wide and rides 1 or 2 threats with tempo backup. If the threats are dealt with, the deck turns into an extremely weak control-ish shell with no finisher. I absolutely believe his statement and I feel he is exactly right.

This is fairly par for the course with Delver lists in modern. It's much harder to flip here than in legacy and the delver shell doesn't have the mana denial and disruption packages it has in legacy, so when you put all these things together you get an exceptional but inconsistent threat that places well every once in a while but then as the archetype gains traction and people look to refine it they end up just cutting the delvers for better cards. See Grixis Midrange/Control, which started as Grixis Delver.

EDIT: Even the TC Delver lists were referred to as Young Pyromancer decks a lot of the time.

It's just ironic that the whole point Twin was banned was so that UR shells could thrive in other iterations. Except we're seeing more and more that those other iterations just aren't that good (which is WHY they weren't being played before the ban). Just frustrating given the time and money I invested in the shell to see it puttering around the bottom of Tier 3 "Developing Competitive." Fingers crossed the Pro Tour brings some new ideas, but I fear without new printed cards or a drastic shift in the meta, the shell just isn't going to get any better.

Comment Hidden

Comment Hidden

Quote from bocephus »

Quote from prismatic elf »

It didn't bother me they ban twin it was there reasoning . Twin didn't break any rules so it leads players to live in fear that there deck is next.. I don't trust wizards anymore they talk out of both side of there mouth.

The problem with this thinking is Wotc never came out and told us the hard numbers a deck is in trouble.

It didnt break any rules according to how we interpret the rules, but it doesnt mean we were right, or Wotc has lied about anything.

If you consider that it's widely outside the criteria for every other ban that has happened in Modern, with the numbers to back that up, two things are possible. 1) It has always been this way and the pattern of previous bannings is a complete coincidence. Or 2) The influence of the Pro Tour caused them to alter the criteria they use for bannings, but never communicated that to players.

Quote from Richard Arschmann »

Quote from Equinox2793 »

I really hope we never see cards like thought-knot seer/smasher again tbh. These cards: violate color pool, are too aggressively costed, and are too aggressively pushed. I know wizards likes to push cards but those cards are the grossest examples of power creep I have ever seen. I'm more okay with cards like drowner of hope/worldbreaker because they require a mana investment both with cost and they cost specific colors.

How does a colorless-requiring creature violate the color pie when there was no space for those specific creatures before? Personally, I think the colored mana-requiring colorless Eldrazi are much dumber and harder to justify from a flavor standpoint.

The fact that any color can have a creature that has hand disruption(BW), a sorcery counterspell(U), a creature that has haste and makes it hard to kill (RG colors). These creature have multicolor effects but they are colorless. A colorless counterspell is when I realized how bad the design from Battle for zendikar was. I'm assuming that the eldrazi angel thing will be a mythic. Hopefully innistrad actually focuses on horror and doesn't shove too much eldrazi down our throats. Hopefully emerkul dies so the eldrazi aren't talked about for atleast 5 years. Such dull and uninteresting characters/cards.

A deck that looks to primarily win through a PW ultimate is most definitely a control deck. I think you could make the deck more midrange, such as the direction @cfusionpm is taking the deck; to add an even higher element of proactivity.

Each comes with its own advantages or disadvantages.

I think AV is a fine card for the deck. The problem is finding room for it, and whether the metagame you are expecting is accommodating. AV in itself is a slow card, no two ways about it. Paying a card and a mana for something that only provides dividends by the time many decks can kill you is a calculated risk.

I think playing AV in the main (in lieu of Serum) is giving your main deck a higher overall power level, but also a larger range of performance. So you trade consistency for power. Playing both seems to just take too much deck space.

@cfusionpm

Good call on the P&K and Kiki-combo; forgot about the non-legendary clause.

Yeah your numbers seemed kind of odd, but I also sort understood them. I've definitely also felt the strain between the RW requirements of the deck and a UUU cost of cryptic (some of my posts earlier were about a less punishing mana base). I still personally love to play with Clique (have 2 in the main) managing my colors in the early game is a large part of my decision making process. I'd be interested to hear how you end up tuning the numbers. Unfortunately I sold off my Kiki's during the Twin exodus so I won't be trying out the combo any time soon.

Rabblemaster definitely has the power level to compete in modern, and I think it was partially kept at bay due to twin (tapping out on turn 3 is asking to die).

Also if you are looking for something to try out to replace a Nahiri (if you decide to cut) is Goblin Dark Dweller. Since you are running AV it has the highest upside, and flashing in a resto on top is just bonkers.

Edit: I think another threat worth looking into is Young Pyromancer or Monastery Mentor. Both thrive in post board game where opponents board out removal, and you are boarding in more spells. I have no evidence of this at this point, but its a theory I am willing to try/defend.

Quote from sss123 »

Quote from cfusionpm »

According to MTGGoldfish, Nahiri is currently the 33rd most played card and the 21st most played noncreature spell. Granted, that Lightning Bolt is #1 and in 47% of decks, Nahiri isn't terrible down at 8-9% of decks. Looking at a picture today, she meets every criteria to be a "staple," if we're using something like "top 50 cards played in Modern." While I may not agree with her strength, numbers are numbers.

http://www.mtggoldfish.com/format-staples/modern

Thanks for the reference.
I am just confused by the definition of staple.
Where is the official definition of this term?
If it means the most frequently played cards, or can be used in multiple type of decks, I do not understand why Nahiri does not meet the condition.

Or, Modern staple can only be top 3 cards : bolt, Goyf, snappy?

It's another one of those terms that differs from Magic player to Magic player. For instance, my personal definition of "staple" is a card that I buy if I want to be able to swap between decks at a moment's notice with minimal additional investment. So fetches, shocks, bolts, thoughtseize, remand, goyf, snapcaster, liliana, cryptic, fulminator, noble hierarch, etc. all count. I'm not sure about Nahiri, though Emrakul probably counts in my personal definition.

Frankly anyone calling Nahiri a "modern staple" doesn't know what the term means and has proven their ignorance. She may be a staple in couple decks but she is far far far away from a format staple.

Quote from bocephus »

Really, get out and play in your local meta. A majority of the arguing done on this site is about a meta a majority of players will never play in. People see numbers, watch Twitch and think they know the meta. Well everyones meta id going to be different. I personally have been on UWr since the Eldrazi winter and have been racking up store credit at multiple shops in my area. Yes the build adjusts, the deck can be control, can be tempo, or can play the midrange game. It all depends on where I am playing. Now I could come play in one of your metas and do nothing. Why? because my deck is not tuned to your meta, its tuned to my meta(s). Its the same reason most people build decks they see on Twitch, then get mad because they dont op with it at their local events. The pro meta is not the local meta people.

Those that aspire to be pros or play in the PPTQs/PTQs/GPs, I feel for you. Modern is probably the hardest higher level meta to try and guess what to play in years. The early years of Legacy was hard, but nothing like it is now in Modern. It takes not only skill, knowledge, but a touch of luck to navigate 8,9 rounds and make day 2, let alone top 8 an event or win. I know a couple people who have made top 8 at local PPTQs trying to qualify for the PTQ, and have lost first round to the only deck they have bad match ups with of the other 7 decks. It gets frustrating.

Enjoy the format and play in your local meta. Learn it and you should be able to tweak the deck of your choice to do well.

It's great that you are enjoying your local meta, but wow is this argument of yours getting stale. A lot of people play almost exclusively online, where the twitch meta is the meta. In addition this thread is for discussing modern as a whole, not the health of your lgs

Quote from ktkenshinx »

Up until this deck, I was under the impression that results meant wins and top 8s; things that would be reported as "the results" of a particular event.

The data we collect comes from T8s with only a tiny handful of T16s. Jeskai had the second-most T8 results after Jund in May. It has excellent results for a deck that wasn't really "discovered" until early May and Ingram's big finish. All I see here is a bunch of people who are doubting Nahiri across multiple threads with basically no data to support them and numerous ulterior agendas. It is the first time I have ever seen so many players get an enjoyable new staple in a breakout deck and not be happy. Instead, some users are taking every opportunity to criticize Nahiri without actual evidence. This is fine if that is what they want to believe, but it is problematic when it starts to mislead others.

As for Abbot, the comparison isn't even close. Abbot saw scattered play in a handful of decks. It wasn't cloae to featuring in 64% of the second most-played deck in its breakout month.

Nahiri is real. Don't spend 40 on each copy, but get them at the 20 range where you can.

I think cfusionpm may be deciding to stick to the "competitive results" definition we've intuited from the Twin ban that GP and PT results matter more than anything else and even there we need Top 8s and wins. Of course one of the results of getting rid of Modern PTs is that the ban criteria has probably shifted quite a bit.

Quote from cfusionpm »

Quote from LEH »

I think you're wrong on this cfusionpm, Jeskai is clearly Tier 1, and everywhere right now. I don't know what your meta is like, but I'm playing against it every time I pick up my deck right now. The price of Nahiri may have gone down, however, you have to factor in that Nahiri is still in print and isn't doing all that much in Standard right now - meaning demand is balanced with supply currently.

Maybe I live in a bubble. Nobody besides me plays it locally (other than one guy who tried Mardu before giving it up) and I never run into it online unless in a Kiki Chord build. Also, its price should at least hold steady considering it's a full 4-of Mythic. Instead, it's been on a steady fall of nearly 50% value in less than three weeks. That kind of drastic fall is from lack of demand, not simply increase in supply.

To be fair most of my meta has moved away from Nahiri but stuck with control. Most of us honestly believe there is better winning conditions than Nahiri currently. That isn't to say she isn't good because she is but situations like this are why she is dropping in price but the Jeskai Control deck remains popular.

Quote from LeakyMana »

I imagine the title and summary (Two-Time Pro Tour Finalist Shaun McLaren loves him some Jeskai, but the deck's stock is already falling after its recent victory! Find out why Shaun thinks this is a new reality and what lists he's brewing to counteract the metagame!) are meant to be click-bait-y, but is there anything of interest in Shaun McLaren's SCG Premium article "The Jeskai is Falling"?

It is indeed a click bait title. I have premium from Charlotte, so I got to read it; in the comments he admits it himself (well...kinda; he's pretty serious about what he wrote; he's not trying to trick anyone -- just spun the title so that way it'd sound more interesting). To be fair, he does mention that Francis made 9th place. Here's the direct copy-pasta of the two comments:

Sheridan Lardner · Data and Program Evaluation Manager at Alternatives, Inc.
"I enjoyed the analysis of Jeskai as a strategy, but think the discussion about "Jeskai decks currently struggling to put up results" is really off-base. Francis missed the GP T8 by .018 on breakers, and if .018 is the difference between "struggling" and "viable" we need to re-examine our definition of competitiveness. Jeskai decks also saw more collective paper play in May than every deck except Infect, Jund, and RG Tron, and was the third most-played Day 2 deck at the GPs. The deck over-performed its Day 2 rate into the Top 32 and matched its rate going into the Top 16. Overall, Jeskai may have room to grow, but it's very well-positioned from a metagame standpoint as we go into June."
Unlike · Reply · 4 · 16 hrs

Shaun McLaren:
"I agree with what you're saying I also think the deck was hyped up and failed to live up to the hype.

If it's one of the most played decks and failing to put up Top 8's (even though it's an arbitrary cut off point) that supports that idea. But the sample size is small and not that revealing.

From a writing standpoint I think it's more interesting if I frame it as “The Jeskai is falling! Jeskai isn't dominating here's what I think needs to happen to propel it to the top.” rather than “Everything is pretty much average, Jeskai is decent, here's my lists, carry on with your life!” Either way the meat of the article would've been the same.

But you're absolutely right and good points!"

Quote from toroks »

Quote from LeakyMana »

I imagine the title and summary (Two-Time Pro Tour Finalist Shaun McLaren loves him some Jeskai, but the deck's stock is already falling after its recent victory! Find out why Shaun thinks this is a new reality and what lists he's brewing to counteract the metagame!) are meant to be click-bait-y, but is there anything of interest in Shaun McLaren's SCG Premium article "The Jeskai is Falling"?

What does his decklist look like? (Don't have premium)

Three deck lists, actually. General theme is that he's trying to see if he can move away from Ancestral Vision and Emrakul, the Aeons Torn. Apparently he doesn't really like AV, and he thinks Emmy is kind of a dead draw. He'd rather sideboard the card instead; idk if that makes any sense -- I think it's a play main or bust, honestly (siding it out is fine; siding it in seems sketch).

Jeskai Control (His personal take on Francis Cellona's list)


Jeskai Aggro:


Kiki Control: