I could see a world where DRS comes off in the future, it's probably broken, but i really WASN'T all that impressed with it. If I wanted to throat-punch Jund any given FNM, my Tron and burn decks didn't have a meaningfully more difficult time than they do now. That said, I am in no hurry for it, and it will be a LONG time. If we see it in the next 5 years, i will be shocked. It is certainly towards the lower end of power in cards on that list, but it means very little because some of those cards are really and truly stupid. Most of the banned cards are much, MUCH stronger than it in my eyes, but there are still a good 7-9 cards I would unban before it, and with how crazy cautious they are about it.....I would unban the card in a mass unban, I don't think it would be that bad with a few others, but I don't think it will be unbanned or even seriously looked at until some of the current bigwigs leave. I am more inclined to fore them than some people, but we definitely need an actual player having a say in Modern, ideally one who actually plays Modern.
I don't mean to be rude, but if you think DRS isn't that impressive, you probably don't really know enough about the card or the archetype to have much of an opinion on it; the card is oppressively good. In fact, right now it's the primary target of a ban in legacy in the same way SDT was.
DRS will never, ever be unbanned in modern unless the power level is way off the charts more powerful years from now.
I'm not sure prismatic moon would really be good enough, on the draw it already feels like I'm behind. It wouldn't work well on Tron, it would mainly just hose Valakut but we can't afford to just have land destruction solely for that deck
That's quite the assumption on your part. You can't compare Modern and Legacy, I don't understand what part of that concept people find difficult. Modern Tron is a great deck right now, the Tron lands don't see Legacy play. Should we be worried about Monastery Mentor because that is a big deal in Eternal formats?
You are way off the mark on my knowledge of DRS, the says when it and BBE were both legal, the very height of Jund, that was when I had the most time to play. I have played with it a handful of times, and against it more times than I can count. Do you know what DRS generally did to hurt my odds against them with Tron? Squat, it did absolutely squat. It's a powerful card, but in a format full of broken things, it's no worse than half the other things I can do, ans the recent rise of big mana would hurt it badly. I do think DRS would bring Jund back up to being a real factor, but no more than that. I think the problem last time was people choosing to just pick up the 'best deck' instead of trying to beat it, not it actually being too much. I couldn't afford it for myself, so I put in the time to beat it. The format is much stronger these days. I know Wizards WON'T test it, maybe ever, but I think if they did, the card wouldn't impress them.
How we view the format is also part of it. I view it in terms of speed. Jund can't actually move super fast (for Modern) so I am more inclined to let it be good.
Jund can't move super fast because ramp cards like DRS have been banned. DRS immediately speeds up jund and gives them significant percentage points in some of their worst mu's: burn and gy-centric strategies like dredge. It does way too much for way too little and has 0 drawback to running 4 of it in any green deck.
I don't know why I'm still surprised by this, but the hyperbole and quick overreaction to a single top 8 (which contained a diverse and interactive top 32) is astounding. The top 8 was bad, sure, but let's not rewrite history and pretend tron has been unbeatable for the past 6 months and has 50/50 mu's across the field. That's insane and disingenuous.
Sometimes people bring 6 cards in from the sb for you. It's fairly easy when you make sure your sideboard cards are broadly effective enough to help in other bad mu's. It's not like relic of progenitus has subtext reading *note: only bring for storm*
This was a single event. Let's look at at least one more before we get into our bomb shelters.
There is only one thing that's eliminating(not fully, but up to a certain point) the skill factor in my eyes in Modern(outside of usual suspects like flod/screw which are some general Magic concerns and not about Modern): the absence of a card (or a Tier 1 fair deck) that keep big mana decks in check.
Big mana decks provide lopsided matchups: they tend to do great vs fair strategies and bad vs unfair strategies. Modern does not have to get a card like Wasteland and GQ/TE/FoR are mediocre cards and this is making the Modern format less skilltesting than the Legacy one(this, and other reasons, like Brainstorm, Ponder, etc).
We are not getting a much better Ghost Quarter, so it's an unsolved issue. We have to accept that Modern has great problems that keep it back from becoming a great format. It has the potential, but sadly, it wont ever meet it.
A tier 1 "fair" deck that answers big mana would most likely be overpowered, as fair decks are commonly preyed upon by big mana. That's also ignoring decks like death and taxes which can definitely keep ramp in check.
Is big mana really strangling the format? A cursory look at the results of the past few major events would say otherwise. I think the majority of the complaints stem from people just disliking ramp/big mana, specifically in regards to their fair decks.
I know you never have enough sb room for any meta, but it felt (emphasis on felt) like the answers you needed in 2015 were more universal or had utility beyond the deck you had them for. Since this was pre delve threats, decay was just a good answer to most things, not just twin. As far as brewing is concerned, with twin you had to worry about twin: splash a color for decay, run that red uncounterable spell (I'm blanking on the name) things like that. Now the question is, "what about scapeshift? and tron? and dredge? and storm?" This seems way tougher to go rogue than simply 'what about twin?'
I think we're saying the same thing, but representing the opposite sides of the coin. And as you say, this is all anecdotal. I just know that for me I haven't been psyched on modern for some time.
Haha, the gool ol' "play a terrible rending volley for exactly one deck" game.
But as far as your examples, people should by and large be playing both land interaction and graveyard interaction in their boards at all times. Rest in peace/grafdigger's/relic of progenitus hit both dredge and storm. Blood moon hurts scapeshift and tron. Sure, sticking any of those cards doesn't guarantee you a win, but I don't think they should.
I think it's totally fine to not enjoy the current modern landscape. Even if you love MTG, certain prominent decks just aren't going to be for everyone. My only issue/concern is when people use misleading or false arguments to justify their disdain for the format (not you! just a comment in general).
I totally get you saying the matches felt more winnable, I just think the current cries that most MU's are 60-40 or worse are overplayed. We're also still using a lot of the same SB cards we were using then (sans torpor orb). GY hate hits dredge, storm, living end. Hand disruption is viable against tons of decks. Stony and kataki still hit any decks using artifacts. Blood moon/fulminator hits ramp/big mana/and greedy manabases. Sure, there aren't enough slots in the SB to hedge against every MU, but that is a feature of the SB, not a bug.
And I personally doubt 2015 was better for brewing than now. Any brew used to be immediately met with "yeah, but twin?" I've seen more people complain about too much deck diversity recently than have complained about less brewing than 2015. But again, this is all anecdotal.
The only deck that is potentially a problem IMO is storm. Due to an abundance of diversity and brewing, sometimes you'll see a deck that hoses you and you never stood a chance, but I believe that happens far less than people like to make it seem.
One thing I don't quite understand is how adamantly people will say that the problem with the current modern meta is losing to decks, not players, and then reference 2015. Sometimes specifically saying the "twin beats affinity beats tron beats jund beats twin" meta. There's always going to be a degree of rock-paper-scissors action going on, and I think we need to acknowledge it is part of any game's meta. There are some random MU's that will be borderline unwinnable (MFTB's burn vs ad naus. is a great example), but I don't think they are as prominent as some people make it out to seem.
Like Spsiegel said, knowledge and skills are still very much important in modern, especially when you have the potential to run into any one of 30 different decks at a given FNM. Knowing the MU's and how to SB appropriately is what gives a player their edge. But reducing modern to something as simple as "it's all a coin flip" is disingenuous to the format.
I personally use a 1/1 kataki/stony split. Kataki is better if it lasts, stony is harder to remove. The downside of turning off clue tokens and vials (which i'd side out regardless) is not an issue if the upside is turning off 90% of their deck.
The matchup is rough for sure, but I don't think the %'s are so skewed you should feel obligated to mull to 4/5 for hate, especially in B/W builds that have cards like zealous persecution/orzhov pontiff to hedge.
If your meta is heavy with jeskai/grixis/grindy decks, it definitely doesn't hurt to have one or two thoughtcasts. However, I sort of would prefer the card selection glint-nest crane provides and want to play around with a 1-of. Anyone been getting results with the crane?
I like the idea of evaluating and comparing individual metas regionally like that. I'd say the hardest part is getting LGS's help in identifying decks. I play at a large shop in Philadelphia where one of the event organizers tried to make a weekly meta "snapshot" of decks and how they did, then posted the data on their site. Getting people to (correctly) submit what deck they were playing each week was hard enough, but then compiling and posting the data ended up just being too much work and the project petered out after a few weeks.
If it's just finding out what decks are being played it might be simple enough to get the project rolling again. I'll definitely ask about it next time I'm around.
I think any card that is part of a time-consuming combo is firmly entrenched in the banlist. Specifically SDT, sunrise, and the rituals. Even if decks like eggs are faster now than their previous iterations, I think that does more to hurt their enabler's chances coming off the banlist than it helps.
Wouldn't affinity play SFM? Search for Plating seems rather broken.
There have been numerous occasions where people have tried steelshaper's gift. It's more efficient than SFM in the deck and affinity doesn't care enough about the "put directly into play" clause given how quickly they can empty their hand regardless.
I completely understand the fears anyone has regarding SFM in modern if they played it in standard. It was an absolute terror there. But you have to acknowledge how much of a different beast modern is and how many cards have come out since then.
I somewhat understand concern from those seeing it in legacy, too. But like Ym1r said, I think SFM is propped up a lot in legacy due to the other cards that exploit or protect it. Legacy has Mother of Runes, true-name nemesis, and better equipment than modern can ever expect to get in umezawa's jitte. Not to mention benefiting from being played in a format that uses significantly less removal than modern. SFM itself in legacy is a workaround to an issue that modern doesn't have: a way to get past (free)counterspells.
Meanwhile, there is still a very real deckbuilding constriction in playing SFM in modern. Any current decks wanting to run it needs to trim at least 6 cards from their builds to play it reliably. D&T needs to seriously re-think their deck or suffer from leonin arbiter-related mishaps. Otherwise, it just provides a more reliable win-con to white decks that is still VERY much interact-able. I'm not saying the card isn't powerful, it is. But I feel as if people are putting too much weight on the strength it showed in standard and a very different legacy environment.
I wouldn't be shocked if a pro tour team somehow found a way to break Eldrazi Tron.
I don't think they will. But if they do adapt I hope they fail, I don't want to see a piece/pieces of the deck banned due to a one time result.
That actually leads to the most important question in my mind regarding the upcoming pro tour: what kind of results would people/players need to see to justify a ban/unban after the first PT? What do you think wizards would need to see (rather than snarky "it doesn't matter they have no rhyme/reason" responses)?
I could see them banning a storm piece after one solid showing just due to the nature of storm and how much they dislike the mechanic. I have a harder time saying the same for E-tron. I'd say any non-storm deck placing three copies in the top 8 would cause concern and potentially a knee-jerk reaction, but most decks would be safe even if they placed two copies in the top 8, at least initially.
Personally? I understand that because all events cut to a top 8 playoff that we tend to look at top 8 as if it had some grand meaning over top 16 or top 32, but when it comes to bans it seems extremely shortsighted to only look at that point. For instance, let's say storm fails to place one player in the top 8, but puts 20 into the top 32...that would be more cause for alarm than three top 8 spots. Top 8 is just more visible. I think for data collection in general, given how events will have hundreds or thousands of participants, to stop at the top 8 is an incorrect method of analysis.
I 100% agree, I just think people have a tendency to over-value top 8's, WotC included, and that would go doubly so in the case of a PT. But just reverse the question. What would you need to see at the first PT to make you consider certain bans/unbans more than you already do?
I wouldn't be shocked if a pro tour team somehow found a way to break Eldrazi Tron.
I don't think they will. But if they do adapt I hope they fail, I don't want to see a piece/pieces of the deck banned due to a one time result.
That actually leads to the most important question in my mind regarding the upcoming pro tour: what kind of results would people/players need to see to justify a ban/unban after the first PT? What do you think wizards would need to see (rather than snarky "it doesn't matter they have no rhyme/reason" responses)?
I could see them banning a storm piece after one solid showing just due to the nature of storm and how much they dislike the mechanic. I have a harder time saying the same for E-tron. I'd say any non-storm deck placing three copies in the top 8 would cause concern and potentially a knee-jerk reaction, but most decks would be safe even if they placed two copies in the top 8, at least initially.
Jund can't move super fast because ramp cards like DRS have been banned. DRS immediately speeds up jund and gives them significant percentage points in some of their worst mu's: burn and gy-centric strategies like dredge. It does way too much for way too little and has 0 drawback to running 4 of it in any green deck.
Sometimes people bring 6 cards in from the sb for you. It's fairly easy when you make sure your sideboard cards are broadly effective enough to help in other bad mu's. It's not like relic of progenitus has subtext reading *note: only bring for storm*
This was a single event. Let's look at at least one more before we get into our bomb shelters.
A tier 1 "fair" deck that answers big mana would most likely be overpowered, as fair decks are commonly preyed upon by big mana. That's also ignoring decks like death and taxes which can definitely keep ramp in check.
Is big mana really strangling the format? A cursory look at the results of the past few major events would say otherwise. I think the majority of the complaints stem from people just disliking ramp/big mana, specifically in regards to their fair decks.
Haha, the gool ol' "play a terrible rending volley for exactly one deck" game.
But as far as your examples, people should by and large be playing both land interaction and graveyard interaction in their boards at all times. Rest in peace/grafdigger's/relic of progenitus hit both dredge and storm. Blood moon hurts scapeshift and tron. Sure, sticking any of those cards doesn't guarantee you a win, but I don't think they should.
I think it's totally fine to not enjoy the current modern landscape. Even if you love MTG, certain prominent decks just aren't going to be for everyone. My only issue/concern is when people use misleading or false arguments to justify their disdain for the format (not you! just a comment in general).
Obligatory "release more 5-0's" comment.
And I personally doubt 2015 was better for brewing than now. Any brew used to be immediately met with "yeah, but twin?" I've seen more people complain about too much deck diversity recently than have complained about less brewing than 2015. But again, this is all anecdotal.
The only deck that is potentially a problem IMO is storm. Due to an abundance of diversity and brewing, sometimes you'll see a deck that hoses you and you never stood a chance, but I believe that happens far less than people like to make it seem.
Like Spsiegel said, knowledge and skills are still very much important in modern, especially when you have the potential to run into any one of 30 different decks at a given FNM. Knowing the MU's and how to SB appropriately is what gives a player their edge. But reducing modern to something as simple as "it's all a coin flip" is disingenuous to the format.
The matchup is rough for sure, but I don't think the %'s are so skewed you should feel obligated to mull to 4/5 for hate, especially in B/W builds that have cards like zealous persecution/orzhov pontiff to hedge.
If it's just finding out what decks are being played it might be simple enough to get the project rolling again. I'll definitely ask about it next time I'm around.
There have been numerous occasions where people have tried steelshaper's gift. It's more efficient than SFM in the deck and affinity doesn't care enough about the "put directly into play" clause given how quickly they can empty their hand regardless.
I somewhat understand concern from those seeing it in legacy, too. But like Ym1r said, I think SFM is propped up a lot in legacy due to the other cards that exploit or protect it. Legacy has Mother of Runes, true-name nemesis, and better equipment than modern can ever expect to get in umezawa's jitte. Not to mention benefiting from being played in a format that uses significantly less removal than modern. SFM itself in legacy is a workaround to an issue that modern doesn't have: a way to get past (free)counterspells.
Meanwhile, there is still a very real deckbuilding constriction in playing SFM in modern. Any current decks wanting to run it needs to trim at least 6 cards from their builds to play it reliably. D&T needs to seriously re-think their deck or suffer from leonin arbiter-related mishaps. Otherwise, it just provides a more reliable win-con to white decks that is still VERY much interact-able. I'm not saying the card isn't powerful, it is. But I feel as if people are putting too much weight on the strength it showed in standard and a very different legacy environment.
I 100% agree, I just think people have a tendency to over-value top 8's, WotC included, and that would go doubly so in the case of a PT. But just reverse the question. What would you need to see at the first PT to make you consider certain bans/unbans more than you already do?
That actually leads to the most important question in my mind regarding the upcoming pro tour: what kind of results would people/players need to see to justify a ban/unban after the first PT? What do you think wizards would need to see (rather than snarky "it doesn't matter they have no rhyme/reason" responses)?
I could see them banning a storm piece after one solid showing just due to the nature of storm and how much they dislike the mechanic. I have a harder time saying the same for E-tron. I'd say any non-storm deck placing three copies in the top 8 would cause concern and potentially a knee-jerk reaction, but most decks would be safe even if they placed two copies in the top 8, at least initially.