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.
Treasure Cruisin' Pauper Slivers
Magic Market Index for March 16th 2018
All Sets Are Good: Saviors of Kamigawa
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 10/02/18)
    Quote from BlueTronFTW »
    Okay, question: why is through the breach/scapeshift bad combos, but splinter twin is a good one? I mean, fundamentally I get why twin is good, but why are the two that are available entirely unacceptable.

    Splinter Twin’s other half of its combo could be used to execute a tempo gameplan, slowing your opponent down while you tried to last to your combo (or just get them with Pestermite beats). Breach/Emrakul are basically useless unless you have both in hand.

    Scapeshift needs to devote a lot of deckbuilding space to getting lands out, since the deck wins by comboing with the lands you have in play. Twin required little deckbuilding space for the actual combo, allowing it to use that space for cards that helped dig for the combo, or helped it survive until the combo could be executed.

    …but, Twin was banned. It was too good to NOT run in that color combination.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 10/02/18)
    Yikes. We’re truly just splicing semantics at this point.

    Free Win is just a term slung around to indicate that a deck can produce a game-state (generally early on) that makes their opponent’s decisions almost negligible for the remainder of the game. Control decks generally don’t have this, or have to match resource for resource until they can present a win condition.

    Land drop-->pass turn, wait to kill/counter/stop what your opponent is doing doesn’t really fit that bill.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 10/02/18)
    Quote from idSurge »
    The difference between a 10 turn game with the UWR player having all the answers, and a Turn 4 Shape Anew into Blightsteel what I mean by 'free win'

    This is more of the way I would define a Free Win. It's when you play 1 or 2 cards that essentially just seal the deal, making further decisions in the game much less impactful. Whether it's a lock piece like Blood Moon or Chalice of the Void, or just a crazy board state, like T1 Burning Inquiry into 3 Hollow Ones, or a straight combo that ends the game like Devoted Druid combo. I'd also toss Affinity godhands into this even though it requires more cards.

    A UWR player might have all the right answers in their hand, but it still requires them to heavily measure their resources and use the right answer at each stage to get the win
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 10/02/18)
    At the end of the day, I look at it like this. Chalice of the Void is a card that can provide “Free Wins”. Yes, jamming a Chalice of the Void with X=1 might basically shut down another deck, but you still had to build a deck that can operate with Chalice of the Void set on 1. You had to sequence that Chalice out correctly. You had to decide that it was a card that was good against the meta. You had to decide to keep a hand with Chalice in it.

    Just because you slammed Chalice on turn 2 and subsequently shut down your opponent, doesn’t mean that you didn’t have to make a series of choices leading up to that. It MIGHT, however, make the rest of the game quite trivial.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 10/02/18)
    Quote from pierrebai »
    While I understand that it's human nature to frame things to support one's belief and that's it's always tempting to use rhetoric, it's still annoying to constantly read negatively framed positions.

    What I'm tired of reading about is the tired "free wins".

    Some cards are good against some matchups. That's the point of playing them, isn't it? When a deck has cards that are good against a given deck and that deck pilot fails to sideboard or play properly against said card, it's not a free win. It's just wise deck building. I've watched a match this week-end where a multi-colors deck pilot chose to fetch shock land instead of basics and got locked out of his colors due to a blood moon. His opponent was ponza. It was not the first game. Fetching non-basics was just a plain greedy error.

    What people call free win fall into one of the categories:

    1. Early powerful cards. (Cranial plating for example)
    2. Good sideboard cards. (Blood moon for example)
    3. God hands. (Turn 3 Karn for example)
    4. High-variance decks that can get an early win. (Let's say charbelcher, even though it's not played to any extent. Or reanimator.)

    All of these are actually balanced plays. Affinity can fold to hate. Blood moon is entirely dead in some matchups and can be dead if played around smartly. Karn is a dead card if they don't assemble tron.

    You don't like these cards? Fine. Just say it.

    You think a card is unfair and should be banned? Fine. Just say it.

    Stop talking about "Free wins." A win is a win whatever the turn it was decided, some decks are just inherently designed to be fast.

    “Free Wins” is just another one of those terms that’s been coined by Magic players that isn’t meant as a derogatory term or as some kind of a slam. I think to most, it simply means that a deck has an extremely good matchup that allows you to win without much mental energy. I've never seen that term as a bad word, just an easy way to understand that the deck has the potential for some easy wins sometimes.

    It’s like fair deck vs unfair deck. To anyone outside the Magic community an “unfair” deck would sound like someone was cheating, but to most Magic players, they could give examples of an “unfair” deck. You could call Dredge an “unfair” deck, not because it’s unsportsmanlike, or cheating, but because it doesn’t cast creatures with mana and tries to generate threats via the graveyard and it attempts to make removal ineffective via graveyard recursion.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on [DOM] Dominaria spoiler discussion for Modern
    Llanowar Scout would naturally fit into an Elf deck, although I don't know what would get cut or if it would be playable or not. It also seems like with the return of BBE, that maybe there could be some sort of RG Ramp Aggro Elf deck pop up as well.

    Doubtful that it will see play. Skyshroud Ranger is already available in Modern and only costs one mana. Instant speed and the ability to survive Pyroclasm don't seem like enough of an upgrade to make Llanowar Scout playable.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on [[Official]] Modern Prices Discussion
    Quote from whocansay »
    Quote from Colt47 »
    On another subject I think Hasbro is the one truly responsible for this year's mess with masters sets. That and I think they skipped reprinting metalcraft and Karn due to Return to dominaria.

    Not saying they are printing old Karn in dominaria but they maybe thinking two at once is too much?

    Karn Liberated reprint in a story set is never gonna happen anyway as it's such a pivotal scene - guy can hardly be liberated twice, after all.

    It could easily be included as a Masterpiece though... not that it would really do anything to the price though.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 10/02/18)
    Sheesh people, it’s not “Hallowed One”.

    The card is Hollow One.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 15/01/18)
    Quote from h0lydiva »
    GDS has things over 4 or 5C, we know those things, but in the end it mostly comes down to 2 cards: Snapcaster Mage and Stubborn Denial. It's my opinion that what Snap adds doesn't offset the advantages a green build has. And the green build can just play Stubborn Denial, which is the actual most important one of the two.

    GDS is a deck that plays a lot of air in the form of cantrips, and it has to pay mana for most of those, unlike 5C. It has a very low threat density and some of those threats just doesn't cut it in many matchups. It has a fail rate, those games where you are spinning your wheels trying desperately to find a threat to then find a Tasigur your opponent laughs about. 5C has a higher threat count and the threats are on average larger, it's a more aggressive deck which makes it so it's better against GDS's bad matchups. You can see how people have been realizing this as of late and have been making GDS look closer to 5C, playing multiple TBR's and even cutting Tasigurs for more Anglers.

    I believe most of the domination of GDS among the DS decks came from a time where people flocked to decks like UW to beat up on Jund DS, and GDS is much better vs decks like UW than Jund DS, even if it's still a dog. So people moved into GDS massively. But then, several decks that beat GDS appeared, and people slowly dropped GDS until it had the shares it has today.

    What they didn't do was walk the next 2 steps.

    1- Identifying that green DS is better vs those decks
    2- Identifying that the critical card that made GDS so good was actually Stubborn Denial, and then jam it into 4/5C DS accordingly

    So they abandoned the original, crude Jund DS decks for the more refined GDS, and when GDS started to fail in the face of targeted attacks, they didn't think of going back to a more refined form of Jund DS that has the best of both decks. The amount of cantrips in GDS is a bug, not a feature. They need them to support a low land count and a low threat count that includes delve creatures, since that's the only way to keep the amount of interaction needed in such a deck.

    We'll see if I'm right or not.

    This analysis is spot on.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 15/01/18)
    Do we need something to compete with Fatal Push, or Thoughtseize?

    These are areas where the card pool already has high efficiency. It’s rather silly to use that as the standard for how hard it is for a card to break into Modern.

    idSurge’s list is quite good at illustrating that cards make it into the format all the time. Are they all Fatal Push level, format defining cards? No. Sometimes they’re small, innocuous upgrades like Spirebluff Canal. Sometimes they’re an old card with a new upside, like Kozilek’s Return. Sometimes they’re sideboard utility cards, like Collective Brutality. Sometimes they’re cards that push a new archtype into top tier, like Kitesail Freebooter and Thalia’s Lieutenant. Sometimes they're just new toys that open up new deck designs, like Hollow One.

    Do we have to gripe that we’re not getting new 1 mana removal or new 1 mana discard options that contend with Thoughtseize, every single set?
    I think WotC has been pretty good at printing cards that trickle into Modern, even if they’re not format defining slam dunks every single time.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)
    Quote from genini2 »
    Quote from Pistallion »
    I think we will see a rise in G/R Tron. Probably wont be that good, but people will be trying out the new card Blood Sun and I can see it best in G/R Tron. So I say be ready for that on MTGO

    It stops Ghost Quarter/ Field of Ruin, but it has a super high cost for Tron. If Tron wanted to defeat GQ effects for 3 mana it would just run Crucible of Worlds.

    Blood Sun also replaces itself and hoses opponent fetchlands and Valkut (among others), so it has a wider application. Seems much more playable than Crucible of Worlds which basically lets your recover from a very specific card.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on Grixis Death's Shadow
    Quote from whyjesse »
    Why is spell snare not played? Seems very relevant in the meta.

    It's too narrow and misses too many relevant cards. The format has largely shifted to more 1 CMC spells and ramped out threats, so a lot of time a Spell Snare sits in your hand for a long time. The deck tries to use as many universal answers as possible to cover all of its bases.

    It's better to just IoK/Thoughtseize problematic cards that can't be cleaned up with Stubborn Denial and Fatal Push/Terminate, since those get a broader swath of different cards.
    Posted in: Midrange
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)
    Quote from Spsiegel1987 »
    Dredge didn't have massive shares because people literally began packing 6 graveyard hate cards for it. In that process, it pushed out all graveyard decks in modern. I remember looking at the tier 2 status of modern, and tier looked slim with a lot of it being regulated to tier 3. The splash damage was too great. Affinity was too slow to deal with dredge and infect so it really retreated in shares as well. Meanwhile, Jund over prepared for it without having to worry about Affinity and had an ok game postboard because of the absurd amount of hate. Even Junk started to main Anafenza.

    Dredge was a massive problem and so unhealthy for the format.

    I think most Modern players would agree that Dredge needed to go. Strictly anecdotal, but even the people that were playing Dredge around my area were pretty quick to admit that the deck needed a ban.

    I still dislike their reasoning for banning it. As Ktkenshin said, it’s an explanation that's wide open to interpretation.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)
    The only thing iffy about the Golgari Grave-Troll ban that seems odd to me is their reasoning. I played Dredge in paper for a while, right about the time that it started taking its stride in MTGO. The deck was one of the few decks that I’ve had my hands on that truly “felt” ban-worthy. The only other deck that I’ve played that felt as broken as that was Treasure Cruise Delver.

    WotC stated that it created a battle of the sideboards style of gameplay, which they didn’t like. It’s true. Maindeck removal outside of Path was largely pointless against the deck and it had a level of speed which made it hard to keep pace, but they failed to provide any real data on Dredge beyond that. It didn’t eat a large metashare of the game and although I’d suspect it had a higher than acceptable win-rate, especially game 1’s, WotC never released a statement suggesting that.

    Although I agree on some instinctual level the ban was correct, I wish they had released some sort of data to back up their reasoning, because it relies a bit on subjective reasoning.

    Sideboards are meant to help with bad matchups or problem decks, but at what point is it too much? If you have 6 cards in the board the come in against Affinity, does it mean that Affinity is a problem, or is it just shoring up a bad matchup?

    WotC other ban choices have generally contributed to creating a better format though. The format is pretty great right now. There’s a solid competitive option for basically every archetype right now. I still think there are a handful of cards and decks that need to be watched—a few decks are really just one card away from being broken as heck. Storm is the obvious one right now, as many posters here have been discussing turn 3 win-rates.

    I still think E-Tron is one to watch too. It’s been perfectly fine in the format, but the Sol Lands, which provide accelerated tempo and are difficult to interact with in a meaningful way, make it a potential risk in the future.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)
    Quote from ktkenshinx »
    Quote from xxhellfirexx3 »
    Quote from Spsiegel1987 »
    I'm having a very different experience from you, I'm having a good mix of interaction and linearity against my opponents. That's both in psper and mtgo.

    Asking for 3 bans all at once is absurd and this doesn't sound healthy st all.

    If you're so unhappy about modern why are you devoting time to complain about it on here?

    because people like you dont seem to see the big picture. your fnm experience isnt all of modern.

    The present Modern picture of Modern is indisputably healthy. Anyone who thinks otherwise is somewhere on the spectrum of misinformed (understandable but fixable) to deliberately spreading misinformation (unreasonable and unfounded). I haven't seen a single metagame breakdown, or even article/opinion piece, from a reputable source to suggest otherwise.

    Now, it's a much more open question about how Modern will look at the PT. That's a real question and I'm a little nervous for reasons already mentioned. But the CURRENT state/picture of Modern is extremely healthy.

    I agree with this. Each time the metagame begins to look like it might leaning into unhealthy territory, the metagame has been adapting. GDS looked like trouble until E-Tron decks became "the menace". Then, Storm rose up to beat that. Now, Humans is stepping up to combat Storm. From a percentage share perspective, nothing is has been too dominating at any point. Of course, whether or not Storm is breaking the turn 4 rule is another question... but that's really only something that more data will answer (which some have done work looking at).
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.