Magic Market Index for Sep 14th, 2018
 
Magic Market Index for Sep 6th, 2018
 
Magic Market Index: Hit Over Miss
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 20/08/2018)
    Quote from Wraithpk »

    Again, this is not about any blue deck needing help (although let's be honest, Simic does). This is not about making them better. It's about WotC not printing anything playable in that design space. Think of all the playable removal spells they've printed recently. Push, Cast Down, Trophy, Abrade, Collective Brutality, Blessed Alliance, K Command, Spatial Contortion. I can't even count all the playable creatures they've printed recently. We get a playable Planeswalker like every other set. But only three counters that see play in the past 10 years. I know I keep bringing up the same example, but is Countersquall a game-breaking upgrade over Negate for UBx decks? No, it's really not. It has a small bonus in exchange for being harder to cast. Why can't we get similar things in other color combinations? Again, it's not about making blue control of any color combination better, it's just about having different options. Do I want to go base UW for the negate variant that gains me 2 life, or UR for the negate variant that shocks a creature, or UB for the negate variant that shocks my opponent, and so on. What about Essence Scatter? Essence Scatter is completely unplayable in Modern, but maybe playing around with color requirements in the casting costs for small bonuses could produce something with some application in Modern. It just feels like they're not even trying to make interesting counters that are on a fine power level anymore. They only play around in the 3 cmc counter area, and even though this new one is probably the best Cancel variant they've ever printed, it will see 0 play because a 3 cmc counter is too expensive in Modern unless it's doing something way more powerful than WotC would probably ever print into Standard.


    All of that was just, I wish I had more variation because it's fun and interesting. Do the things your advocating for provide improvements to those decks? Sure, marginal ones. It doesn't get to the crux of the issue, which is: Are the things you're asking for going to make whatever Ux variant you want to play a truly competitive deck?

    Maybe you're fine with certain Ux variants not being at the top tables, but something that's viable at the LGS, which is fine. I think, however, based on the tone of many people on here, that most people want more than just UW to be a viable competitor at competition level magic. Thus, my point in citing to UW Control's results is that those results demonstrate that counter magic, as the epitome of counter magic deck building, is currently healthy and performing very well at the competitive level. I understand people don't all want to play UW and want UB, UR, etc. BUT, once again, is another variation on the counterspells already available going to improve those Ux decks and make them competitive? And, once again, looking at the results from UW, packing the same counterspells that are all, every single one, available to every other Ux build, the answer has to be "No".

    I don't disagree that having different counterspells that incorporate elements of other parts of the color pie (Countersquall damaging opponent, your example of UR damaging a creature, etc.) would be fun and something that Wizards can do. However, those things aren't going to change the state of Modern, imo, and all of a sudden propel other Ux decks to the forefront of the Meta. They are fun, unique cards that make your Ux variant more interesting for you, which is great, for you. They are also marginal upgrades that will, admittedly, likely help those decks perform marginally better.

    In the current state of modern thread, however, that special, gold star feeling of having a new toy to play with that's a very marginal improvement doesn't change the state of modern. It doesn't change the meta or the way other decks interact or the way other decks are built, because it's not the tool, weapon, finisher, whatever that those Ux decks need to actually be competitive and impact Modern. So, let's get real and differentiate the wishful thinking about new counterspell magic from the actual needs of Modern to make specific archetypes viable competitors.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 20/08/2018)

    Well sure but for a thought experiment is the only thing holding BGx Down not having two cmc unconditional removal? Or is it Faithless Looting Backed Recursion Aggro Decks, Tribal Vial Decks, Ancient Stirrings Backed Colorless Decks and Superior Mardu Pyromancer Midrange Decks keeping it down. Yes this new removal helps aginast UW Control and Tron but is it really going to help against the rest of the format?


    I don't necessarily disagree with you. BGx certainly needs something more than another variation on board removal to become a true tournament competitor. However, the original arguments or line of thinking that, because BGx got another removal variant, Ux variants should get another counterspell variant that's better than everything they currently have, is a preposterous idea. I'm not saying @autumntwilight was necessarily making that argument, but just placing my counterpoints in context.

    Regardless of all that, I think a primary element that people continual forget, or willfully ignore, is that Modern has a somewhat cyclical meta. One season, a deck pops up and dominates, it's then beaten back by new decks or cards, and then some other decks come and pray on those decks, then another dominant deck pops up because it prays on those decks, so on and so forth. The ultimate result is, you're pet deck that you've loved for however many months or years isn't necessarily going to be great, good, or even playable in subsequent months or years because the meta continually shifts based on new cards entering the pool and the discovery of new/different interactions. Thus, you're not always going to have the exact card you want to answer those new interactions or threats, but have to wait on Wizards to develop and print something or ban, so your deck archetype can once again rise to the top of the heap.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 20/08/2018)
    Sure UW or UWx is doing fine these days...but is UW Control the only deck that is blue that is allowed to be good in Modern? UR is basically Storm combo which is just okay these days (and is unlikely to ever get better WOTC hates it), UG is infect occasionally sneaking through, and UB basically doesn't exist in Modern. So sure its good to be UW Control but try anything else in Blue and its not so grand.


    Is that resolved by adding another Ux counterspell to the mix though? Likely not. UW control has started performing well because it has U counterspells and NOW additional tools and finishers in the U, W, and UW spectrum to win games.

    All these Ux variants have access to the same counter magic as UW control, so why are they not performing at the same level as UW control? If the primary variable that's different is the non-counter magic tools and finishers, why would you then ask for a different/new counter magic spell to your Ux variant?
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 20/08/2018)
    @cfusionpm Certainly playing a deck you don't like, just because it's competitive is something people do, but it's not a productive comment in a thread like this, neither is a recommendation to change formats.

    However, as others have stated to different arguments, we really need to focus on the true issues in modern instead of focusing on red herrings or going down wishful rabbit holes.

    The deck @cfusionpm and others long for didn't have the counters that are being proposed and it managed to perform. Why? Because it had other tools, in combination with a win con that were efficient and quick enough to win matches.

    Would a UR counter help the current UR decks that have taken the place of Twin? Sure, they'd help, but it wouldn't fix the overarching issue, which is that UR doesn't have, or nobody has yet found, the correct tool(s)/finisher(s) to make that archetype viable in this field.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 20/08/2018)
    Jace alone didnt really do much for Control prior to Search and Teferi showing up.

    I think the point is more if we are pushing Removal with Fatal Push and Assasin's Trophy then why can we not get a decent 2 CMC Counterspell?



    Note my parenthetical indicating exactly that. The unbanning of Jace alone did not catapult UW Control forward, it was the addition of other tools as well. Meanwhile, Jund, Abzan, and other BGx decks have not had similar successes in recent history, especially Jund even with the unbanning of BBE. Thus, we continue to get tools for that part of the color pie to raise it's relative power to be in line with other decks that are currently dominating the meta.

    We don't have the counterspells you guys are asking for because, as I keep asking, why do we need them? With the current tools, everyone seems to agree, UW control is in a good spot. It's posting great results and empirical data indicate it has a fighting chance against nearly every other deck in the current meta.

    So, can you tell me, from a truly objective standpoint, not a, "I wish I had ..." standpoint, that another counterspell is going to make your UW, UR, or Ux deck any better than it currently is? OR is the true issue why your Ux deck is not performing because you've either tried to smash cards that just don't work into a deck and/or are missing one or two tools that would make the deck viable?

    Based on the UW control results being posted, I don't think anyone can honestly say that another counterspell is needed, at this time.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 20/08/2018)
    Quote from Wraithpk »


    So basically, I guess what I'm saying is that instead of them exploring the design space of Cancel with upside, as they have been doing in recent years, I want them to explore the design space of Negate or Essence Scatter side-grades, or unconditional 2 mana counters with downside, or narrow 1 mana counters. This is the space that could possibly produce something playable for Modern.


    Which comes back to the original question of: Why? Just because we haven't received any new cards, specifically for this: counter magic based cards, in modern for a while, doesn't mean we're in need of them.

    As I mentioned in an earlier post, UW Control is sitting about 50/50 across the prevailing meta currently, based on the data mining of other members. UW Control has also been posting significant finishes in recent tournaments. That being the case, the argument would seem to be, no new counterspells are needed to improve the control meta.

    It seems the natural flow of Modern is that something is printed or a new deck is "discovered" that causes a shift in the meta to counteract that, then there's a shift to counteract those decks, and so on and so on. For example, we saw GDS come into its own and make a splash, causing decks to rise up or cards to be played in existing decks to combat it and we've seen this with other decks in the meta. It's the circle of modern if you will. Currently, it seems like UW Control and KCI are making the biggest waves. I'm sure something will pop up in share to combat UW Control, then something will come up to take on whatever that is, etc. etc.

    As the meta shifts, the need for new cards to combat those new decks is needed, certainly. Right now, however, UW Control is sitting at or near the top of the heap and until something comes along to topple it, which UW Control doesn't have tools to deal with, there's no need for more counters. Once that does happen however, then you can harp on the argument of new and innovative counters being needed.

    Everyone seems to be yapping about the new GB tool, Assassin's Trophy, well, guess what we don't see much of these days? GBx decks. There was an unbanning of a significant tool, in the form of BBE. Likewise, Ux decks got Jace, but the share of GBx decks at the top tables didn't see a significant bump with that unbanning, while Ux decks did (after it also received some new tools). Well, now GBx will be getting some new tools and maybe it will rise up and the circle of modern will continue to spin.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 20/08/2018)
    Quote from cfusionpm »
    Quote from Darkx87 »
    Cripes, you'd be better off arguing, like however many other people, that un-banning Twin is the best means for making UR a thing, rather than wasting time discussing how it'd be nice to have a moderate upgrade in the form of a 2cmc UR counterspell...


    That's actually exactly how I got banned... twice. Laughing

    Needless to say, I absolutely agree with that statement.


    I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE YELLING ABOUT!!!!!!!!
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 20/08/2018)
    Quote from Shwivle »


    Just fyi, recently printed counters fitting into your - 1-2cc counterspell with possible downside - wish include Censor, Ceremonious Rejection and Wizards Retort, so they have actually been regularly printing new conditional counters.




    Which speaks to both points, that a counterspell can be good in Modern and just okay in Standard, but the larger point of, what other counterspells do you want/need? With the added question of, given that all of these already exist, how do you then expect Wizards to print a new Modern playable counter that fits the previously stated criteria of 1-2 CMC, fits nicely into UR tempo, is poor/okay in Standard, is good in Modern, and doesn't overlap with all of the other stuff already out there?
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 20/08/2018)
    Quote from cfusionpm »
    Quote from Darkx87 »
    The argument that UR is garbage because of a lack counter magic is incorrect.

    Which is also something I have said since January 2016. A new counterspell would be "nice." Nothing more nothing less. The fact that we don't get one (and likely never will) is symptomatic of what I described earlier, with regards to Battlecruiser Magic.

    I've made so many of these same points and arguments so many times that I honestly forget some people haven't heard me repeat them enough times to be tirelessly sick of it. Guess that's what happens after being banned twice for arguing what UR needs, and throttling back ever since.


    Fair enough, but then why even raise that as an issue? If it's a "nice to have" tool, as opposed to an actual, "this will make the deck viable tool", why in the heck would you even bother to bring it up as a talking point? Especially in a thread that's largely devoted to discussion concerning the B&R announcements....

    Cripes, you'd be better off arguing, like however many other people, that un-banning Twin is the best means for making UR a thing, rather than wasting time discussing how it'd be nice to have a moderate upgrade in the form of a 2cmc UR counterspell...
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 20/08/2018)
    I too like interacting with the stack and disrupting opponents' strategies, etc., but I don't see how another countermagic card is going to help you achieve your goals.

    The low cost, hard counters available in the other eternal formats are a necessity to stop the much faster strategies available in those formats. Modern is a T4 format, right? So having a 0, 1, 2 CMC hard counter to everything isn't required to be competitive. The recent data pulled together by other members, within this thread, shows that the current UW build is near 50/50 across the entire, currently prevailing meta.

    None, literally 0, of the counterspells in that deck require anything but U mana sources. Thus, they could all be played in a UR shell as well. You can argue about the requirements of colored sources being different in the decks and so forth. However, I think the ultimate conclusion is not that UR tempo needs better counters, as advocated for in this thread, but it just needs better utility and threat cards.

    The cards that have set UW apart and made it competitive again, as others have noted, include Terminus, Jace, Teferi, and Search. Obviously, part of the UW package is also Snapcaster and Colonnade. Of those, UR can play Jace, Search, and Snapcaster, leaving only Terminus, Teferi, and Colonnade out of the common cards between the UW and UR decks.

    Ultimately, the conclusion is either, UR tempo needs better utility / threat cards, like those found in the current UW build or folks need to stop trying to jam the cards they want to be good in UR tempo and actually use cards that are good. The argument that UR is garbage because of a lack counter magic is incorrect.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 20/08/2018)
    Quote from cfusionpm »
    Quote from Darkx87 »
    Quote from cfusionpm »
    Quote from idSurge »
    What question or problem, is being answered by a 2 mana Counter? Not Vintage, not Pauper, not Legacy, and not Standard.

    That's because Vintage has Mana Drain, Pauper and Legacy both have Counterspell itself, Legacy also has Force of Will, Daze and Flusterstorm, and Standard is slow and clunky enough that 3cmc is fine.

    What they are saying by not printing "downside" 1-2cmc counters for Modern is simply: "We do not want counters to be good in Modern."


    I think the comment was more, the only format that will benefit from a 2CMC counter is Modern, because every other eternal format already has better options and Standard doesn't need a 2CMC counter. By introducing a 2CMC counter to Standard, so that it can flow in to Modern, would more than likely disrupt Standard significantly and result in a ban, further damaging the image of Standard. If they unban already existing counters so Modern can use them, how does that impact Modern?

    Modern already has a plethora of counters and ways to disrupt the stack. Many people dislike stack interaction. And, as we're now seeing, Ux has a very competitively viable build, so how much would adding another, even lower CMC, counter affect the power level of Ux builds?

    I think the logical conclusion has to be that 2CMC counter would provide too much power to the Ux decks and further elevate their Top8/16/32 showings. Which then cascades into "slower" magic, with resulting timed-out matches, and logistics issues because more people are playing Ux decks with the powerful 2CMC counters and other decks drop in meta share because they can't get anything successfully through the stack bottle neck.

    Obligatory - "OMG that's a way overblown fear..."

    1) That's why I said (several times on the previous page) that a 1-2cmc counterspell with downside would be nice. There's a reason why Remand, Mana Leak, Logic Knot, Negate, Dispel, Spell Snare all see play, but not a single Cancel+upside sees any play whatsoever. It would have been nice to have something at least as powerful as the recent slew of busted removal spells.
    2) Yes, Ux has a great deck. Specifically UW, which would not be able to cast this hypothetical UR without taking several downgrading steps. That's entirely the point of printing it in specifically UR to provide help for the tempo decks they have destroyed multiple times in the past.
    3) The success of one deck that can't even play this hypothetical card should not impact whether or not we get to have that card.
    4) A card would not break Standard if it had a downside that makes it poor/OK in Standard, but great in Modern.


    1) You just named 6 1-2 CMC spells that can go currently go into a Modern UR Deck. Why do you need another, specifically for UR?

    2) The premise of your argument is that UR doesn't have an appropriately costed counterspell and therefore is "destroyed" as a result. Is that really the case though? Is a 1-2 CMC counterspell that fits narrowly into just a UR tempo shell going to catapult that deck forward, or will it actually do next to nothing for the deck that already has 6 of these options available, as you pointed out previously, and then end up being abused by a different build that you and Wizards didn't foresee?

    3) Correct, if the hypothetical card is unplayable in the deck cited. My argument wasn't narrowly tailored to a UR build. The reason being, the counter, at 1 CMC, would also be playable in UW because it would have to be a U costed counter. A R costed counter doesn't fit the pie and likely ends up breaking other Rx decks. So, your hypothetical card would have to be UR costed by its very nature and then, yes, you are correct, that would not be played in the current UW build and that argument fails. But, it may make Jeskai rise or UR tempo, as you propose, or some other deck(s) we haven't considered.

    4)How on earth do you design such a narrow counterspell that it's "poor/ok" in Standard but good in Modern? That seems like a complete impossibility for that type of card.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 20/08/2018)
    Quote from cfusionpm »
    Quote from idSurge »
    What question or problem, is being answered by a 2 mana Counter? Not Vintage, not Pauper, not Legacy, and not Standard.

    That's because Vintage has Mana Drain, Pauper and Legacy both have Counterspell itself, Legacy also has Force of Will, Daze and Flusterstorm, and Standard is slow and clunky enough that 3cmc is fine.

    What they are saying by not printing "downside" 1-2cmc counters for Modern is simply: "We do not want counters to be good in Modern."


    I think the comment was more, the only format that will benefit from a 2CMC counter is Modern, because every other eternal format already has better options and Standard doesn't need a 2CMC counter. By introducing a 2CMC counter to Standard, so that it can flow in to Modern, would more than likely disrupt Standard significantly and result in a ban, further damaging the image of Standard. If they unban already existing counters so Modern can use them, how does that impact Modern?

    Modern already has a plethora of counters and ways to disrupt the stack. Many people dislike stack interaction. And, as we're now seeing, Ux has a very competitively viable build, so how much would adding another, even lower CMC, counter affect the power level of Ux builds?

    I think the logical conclusion has to be that 2CMC counter would provide too much power to the Ux decks and further elevate their Top8/16/32 showings. Which then cascades into "slower" magic, with resulting timed-out matches, and logistics issues because more people are playing Ux decks with the powerful 2CMC counters and other decks drop in meta share because they can't get anything successfully through the stack bottle neck.

    Obligatory - "OMG that's a way overblown fear..."
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on [Primer] MonoU Tron - "The well-oiled machine"
    If they summarily dismiss a card without testing or acknowledging results, yes. My issue was that there is a continuous use of "This will not work." "This is a bad card." "This is ..." Without rationale for it, primarily play testing.

    If you watch Shock or, especially, Pie, something you note in your own post, they may indicate a card is something they wouldn't try or don't think will be good and provide their experience in trying it or analysis of the card based on their experience/playstyle as to why they aren't going to include it, rather than just saying "No, this will not work./end" (I don't know that I've seen an instance of them not doing this, but I haven't watched every second of footage).


    I wrote it not just one, but twice. It’s fine if you missed it, you don’t have to read my words all the time, but I provided enough reasons why I think the card is no good.

    @I don’t play (nor I intend to play) Talismans in the deck - we already discussed a lot about this - and Karn without Talismans isn’t that appealing for obvious reasons.
    @I’m already low on artifacts (the main reason to play 3 a Thirst instead of the full set) and if we consider Karn as a CA Spell, then, I do think it’s the worse of all them, because of him being a 4cc sorcery that dies to everything.
    @I jam more O-Stone effects than most of you guys, so running several planeswalkers sometimes is a nuisance.
    @It improves very few matchups.

    I definitely provided enough rationale, given that I always referred to my list and not to the one of someone else.


    Problem is, I did read your words. As you note, your rationale was specific to the decklist you run, yet the opinion of whether to run the card in the deck was given as a universal negative for all UTron decklists. So, you need to expand your rationale for all decklists then or confine your negative response to the card to your specific decklist.
    Posted in: Control
  • posted a message on [Primer] MonoU Tron - "The well-oiled machine"
    Quote from topkyle »
    Man you guys just love jumping on Bloody. Weird I am and probably always will be a "Shok-type" player for most events, but if you've ever tried their list it really is more consistent at pooping on aggro and their card evaluation seems well thought out. Pie is probably my favorite card evaluator in U Tron and he wasn't high on Karn either, you gonna go after him too?


    If they summarily dismiss a card without testing or acknowledging results, yes. My issue was that there is a continuous use of "This will not work." "This is a bad card." "This is ..." Without rationale for it, primarily play testing.

    If you watch Shock or, especially, Pie, something you note in your own post, they may indicate a card is something they wouldn't try or don't think will be good and provide their experience in trying it or analysis of the card based on their experience/playstyle as to why they aren't going to include it, rather than just saying "No, this will not work./end" (I don't know that I've seen an instance of them not doing this, but I haven't watched every second of footage).

    Over and over, I see people provide suggestions to improve the deck, with a very vocal minority consistently shooting nearly every idea down without explanation of why or proof that it doesn't work through play testing. Then, as we have here, 2 people post 5-0 results with a new card or cards included in the deck and we still get "Nope, doesn't work. It's a bad addition"

    That may be correct. It may be something that doesn't add value to the deck. As you point out, Karn, specifically for this conversation, is a one of in the decklist.

    However, UTron runs a lot of 1 ofs in the main board for game 1, especially, and has a lot of 1 ofs in general:
    1. Platinum Angel
    2. Snapcaster Mage
    3. Sundering Titan
    4. Solemn Simulacrum
    5. Trinket Mage
    6. Treasure Mage
    7. Walking Ballista
    8. Tolaria
    9. Chalice
    10. River of Tears
    11. Oboro
    12, Oblivion Stone
    13. Engineered Explosives
    14. Mindslaver (usually a 1 of in the MB)
    15. Wurmcoil (a 1 of in the "traditional" MB)
    16. Academy Ruins
    17. Ugin
    18. Crucible
    19. Cyclonic Rift
    20. Gifts Ungiven

    Depending on decklist, there are more or less, but those are the main ones that we most frequently see. The point being, to say it's a one of and therefore doesn't contribute anything to the deck is ridiculous. For the larger point, if you're going to dismiss new ideas / new cards, at least provide some rationale and playtesting results before making an absolute statement that the card is not worth consideration or inclusion. (The obvious carve out exception are the ridiculous suggestions, like: "Derp, play blood moon in teh side, har har har")
    Posted in: Control
  • posted a message on [Primer] MonoU Tron - "The well-oiled machine"
    1. I see further back a lot of people are beating ponza 2-0 multiple times. What is the secret or what cards should I be focusing on having in my opener?
    2. How do you all feel about Karn, Scion of Urza? He definitly felt okay but i think it might be better to just have another piece of interation or something more proactive.


    1) Having more counterspells and keeping lands with lot of lands OR early interaction (Dismember for Elf, to make an example). Ballista is good on the play for the same reason. Oblivion Stone is very good at dealing with a Moon. DON’T counter Blood Moon, focus on threats and land destruction. Wurmcoil Engine is how we win. It’s a tough mu anyway, because they will focus on our blue sources (if they are good players).

    2) Extremely bad card in our archetype, I already talked about him some pages ago.


    Yet a 5-0 x2 has been posted running Karn SOU in the list... so, you sure about that summary dismissal of the card?
    Posted in: Control
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.