All users will need to merge their MTGSalvation account with a new or existing Twitch account starting Sept 25th. You can merge your accounts by clicking here. Have questions? Learn more here.
Dismiss
 
Magic Market Index for April 20th, 2018
 
Pauper Review: Dominaria
 
The Limited Archetypes of Dominaria
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 10/02/18)
    Pod was not only banned for the raw amount of meta share it had before being banned, it's one of those cards that simply improves as the pool of creatures and creature-based combos increases over time. I don't see how the meta could possibly power-creep in a way that doesn't inherently power up Pod decks at the same time.

    I don't see why we'd unban Punishing Fire when Jund just got a noticeable boost in power via Bloodbraid Elf. Not only that, I don't see what the card does for the meta other than give Jund and other decks more tools to deal with small creature-based decks. If there were a lot more of them in the meta right now I'd say unban it, but while there are certainly some strong small creature-based decks, they aren't in such prominent numbers that we need a card that can potentially push them out of the meta
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 10/02/18)
    I'm getting confused about the exact nature of the "Draw-Go Control decks have no free wins" argument (I'm assuming Draw-Go since no one's alluded to 8Rack or Prison decks). Are people arguing that Draw-Go Control should have a T3-T4 god play or sequence of plays that destroys the opponent or locks them out of it?
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on Changing how the forums are structured - Looking for community feedback
    @headminerve
    The quick accessibility issue seems pretty easily fixed by just having a table of contents page like the Current Deck Classification thread, though as Xour said the links seem to be broken at the moment.

    Also, will the Current Deck Classification thread ever be updated to include brief descriptions of the decks? It'd be pretty useful for newer players to be able to get a quick idea of what everything does without having to jump into those threads
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on Changing how the forums are structured - Looking for community feedback
    For the most part I agree with the list, but it seems rather odd that Grixis Death's Shadow is listed in Aggro, but Jund Death's Shadow is listed in Midrange. As far as I can tell from what I've seen on camera, both decks have the same strategy and about the same amount of set up. Is there a key difference I'm unaware of that somehow makes GDS significantly faster than JDS?
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on Changing how the forums are structured - Looking for community feedback
    Wouldn't the Table of Contents idea lead to faster look ups than the node idea? The node idea requires multiple clicks to browse through each deck description, whereas the ToC would require going to just 1 page and still allow a user to look at descriptions of all the decks, and then it only takes another click. The ToC also avoids worrying about deck classification, which for a large number of users is a large concern
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on Changing how the forums are structured - Looking for community feedback
    At this point, I prefer either option 1 with a strict enough criteria that Established only has about 1 page worth of decks, or option 2 given some form of organization to make looking through decks relatively painless for newer users. Given that organizing the decks into Aggro, Midrange, Control, Combo and Other seems very unpopular, Lantern's idea of creating a sort of Table of Contents seems like a great way to give newer players a quick 1-page guide to potential Tier 1-2 decks without worrying about older players potentially spending days arguing semantics
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on Changing how the forums are structured - Looking for community feedback
    To add to what idSurge said, I've been going through old top 8s via TCGPlayer, and not including Team events or MOCS, there's over 30 decks that have top 8'd at least once just between December 2017 and now, including a BW Zombie deck, a Grixis As Foretold Goryo's Deck, and a Mono-Red Prison deck (not Skred).

    I think multiple Top 8s within a year or even 6 months would definitely have to be a minimum requirement if you want to keep the Proven subsection under 25 primers.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on Changing how the forums are structured - Looking for community feedback
    That definitely seems like way too many lists for established. I don't think it would be a huge deal for veteran users on the site, but for newer players looking to get into Modern, I really question if they're even going to be willing to go through 3 whole pages of primers. Seems more likely that they'll only read the first two pages at most. I think being stricter on the Established requirements and moving most of those asterisked decks to Developing would actually give those decks more exposure than if we kept in Established only for them to be stuck on the last page collecting dust.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on Changing how the forums are structured - Looking for community feedback
    I definitely like the idea of just emulating the Legacy subforum at this point and going with option 2.

    As for the subcategories, would it be good just to have an "other" category to include strategies that don't operate like traditional aggro/midrange/control decks but aren't really combo decks? Just from reading the State of Modern thread, it seems like for every player that would consider Prison tactics a subsection of Control, there's another that treats Prison as a distinct category. "Big Mana" can also be a bit vague given the differently methods that it can be done as well as the different end goals of those decks. It just seems like it'd be much easier to create a new category that encompasses all the non-traditional style decks than arguing semantics.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 15/01/18)
    Quote from BlueTronFTW »
    Destiny did not port anything into Destiny 2 for its players.
    Like what? Unless you paid money for a level 40 character, you weren't charged anything beyond the initial game and the DLC campaigns, and unless I'm mistaken, the Destiny servers are still open. It's a false equivalency.

    About the only games that could remotely compare to the scenario are games with micro transactions that received sequels, and even then most, if not all, sequels are reworked from the ground up, making them similar but unique products. MTGO and MTG Arena are the same game with two different UIs
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)
    Quote from Pistallion »
    Quote from ktkenshinx »
    Quote from Pistallion »
    https://www.reddit.com/r/ModernMagic/comments/7j3w6f/tron_eldrazi_tron_and_titan_shift_are_only_12_of/

    "Tron, Eldrazi Tron, and Titan Shift are only ~12% of the meta combined."

    Stop thinking the sky is falling

    I used to subscribe to this more, but we now know that Wizards places disproportionate weight on both major event T8s (primarily GP), and that they often weigh the Pro Tour heaviest of all. They also care about MTGO and we have no clue what that looks like. So it might not matter if a deck appears to be at a safe percentage of the overall paper metagame if it disproportionately shows up in areas Wizards cares more about. Not saying anything is currently a problem. I just don't want people to think paper-wide meta share will matter more than the T8s of the PT and GPOKC plus MTGO. It won't when Wizards makes their final decisions.

    I guarantee if the PT has a T8 like this one we'll see changes no matter how the overall paper metagame looks. I don't like that anymore than most people, but it's generally how Wizards acts.


    I agree that Wizards does weigh the PTs very heavily, but I disagree we hav eno clue about the MTGO meta. We have sites like MTGGoldfish that give approximate meta percentages, and Tron and Scapeshift don't currently have a dangerous meta share, or even are close to it.
    Goldfish's numbers use the curated league data though, which makes their online numbers completely inaccurate. I seriously doubt Temur Energy is anywhere close to only 23% of the Standard meta given its paper performance
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)
    Quote from xxhellfirexx3 »
    Quote from idSurge »
    Those 'free wins' are what determine are the best decks in the format however. 'Fair Magic' is not what most high end players look for in a deck. This was commonly being discussed on twitter months and months ago.
    this is the core of my issue.

    Modern needs to be less broken Imo. Otherwise it's a Game of who can play the more broken deck.


    Is thoughtsieze broken? No

    Is snappy broken? No

    Is Bolt broken? No

    Push? No
    Is a turn 2-3 1 mana 8/8 broken? Yes

    Is a turn 3 karn broken? Yes

    Is dumping your entire affinity hand pretty much making it impossible for the opponent to catch up broken? Yes

    Is a Turn 2 tks or reality smasher broken? Yes


    Is a turn 4 grapeshot lethal broken? Hell yes




    People will say: but it's a small percentage that happens.
    But combined with all the decks it happens more than I feel is healthy. Not to mention highroll magic is not a test of skill but rather a test of luck in which you pretty much auto lose that game no matter how good the answers are.

    Not sure where you're going with that list of what's broken and what's not. Of course a single Bolt in a vacuum isn't as broken as a combination of multiple cards that result in a T2-3 8/8 or a T3 Karn.

    As for the "game of who can play the more broken deck" comment, what format in any TCG isn't a battle of broken versus broken? Competitive environments will always drive players to either play the most broken decks or create decks that break the broken decks, which either become broken themselves or get beat by a different slew of broken decks it can't deal with.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)
    Quote from ktkenshinx »
    Standard continues to suck. Check out the horror of GP Portland and the Standard decks in the SCG Open and Cassic. What Modern-related implications do you think are in the pipeline? Is it a lack of strong answers? If so, better answers could filter into Modern after entering Standard. Is it a lack of color balance? Archetype diversity? I'm just curious how you think Wizards' R&D response to the *****show of Energy is going to play out for us. Thoughts?
    I think one thing that isn't emphasized enough lately is that Standard shouldn't need bans. Rotation should remove unwanted elements quickly enough to where bans shouldn't be needed even in twisted metas, but the recent bans have led people to treat Standard like other non-rotating formats. I don't play standard, so my opinion shouldn't hold much weight, but I really think that they should hold out on bans until Dominaria for no other reason than to restore faith that Standard is reasonably safe to invest in so long as you don't buy cards that'll quickly rotate out. If the B&R committee spends too much time talking about Standard to talk about Modern until February, that's fine with me, but I'd like to see a return to normalcy in the sense that Standard ban talk is an oxymoron and the B&R List committee can more or less ignore Standard. If they do ban something in Standard, I have literally 0 investment, but I really hope that regardless of Standard's state and future bans that it will not reflect future standards of banning for Modern and Legacy
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)
    It really does seem to be a problem as of late that anecdotal evidence is still being shut down entirely in the absence of consistent objective data. I get that 1 person's experience is rarely representative of the whole meta, but by design, we don't to have a clear picture of the whole meta anymore. The best we could ever hope for is for someone to compile the paper data and maybe the Modern Challenge data to try and paint some sort of picture, but as far as I can tell everyone either can't, won't, or can but won't share.

    Rather than just shut down anecdotal data, I would think it's way more productive to at least have a bunch of people talk about their experiences online and in their local metas. If we get a bunch of anecdotal evidence from multiple people using different decks, then at least that we might identify trends in terms of whether or not a deck is breaking the T4 rule or if there's been a general spike/decline in certain decks. It's woefully inferior to mass online data and probably won't paint an accurate picture, but we're seeing the result of the alternative where every conversation seems to end with someone demanding something they know basically doesn't exist.

    And yes I know that the burden of proof is supposed to be on the person asserting a point, but it wouldn't kill people to at least refute anecdotal evidence with their own anecdotal evidence rather than shut down all conversation by demanding something that no one has or wants to leak.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)
    Quote from LeoTzu »

    There's no way for us to believe the "objectively" statement without seeing data.

    Quite frankly, I don't know what point you intend to prove by stating that you have the data to prove that Storm is doing amazing right now and you've decided to not present the data you used to come to that conclusion.

    Like, "Hey guys, the Earth is flat. It looks flat and I've seen the data. Trust me."

    Just because something seems like it could be true through anecdotes, that doesn't mean that we should just believe it without seeing compelling evidence.


    You misquote me (I never said amazing) then make a stupid analogy (flat Earth) that has nothing to do with what I said. I could care less what you think, and I'm not trying to persuade you of anything. Posts like this are why I think this thread is full of circular arguments and not much substance.

    I know what Storm does because I play against it almost daily. Believe what you want. We're never going to have data at the detail level to know what decks win by what turn. Having that level of data isn't the barrier of entry for discussion on the deck. If that's that case, then just shut down the forum because no one can post any opinion whatsoever without the data police telling them to shut up or prove it mathematically. Ridiculous.
    Just out of curiosity, what decks do you frequently use to play against Storm?
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.