Page 12 of 18

Re: [Official] State of Pioneer Thread (B&R 12/16/2019)

Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2020 8:25 pm
by Arkmer
The real issue is the "win the game" text on Oracle, let's be more direct about the issue. I think we all know Oracle isn't about to be banned since it's in Standard. The other option is Inverter and I really hate to see Inverter go because it is a very interesting card, but let's be honest with ourselves, it saw absolute zero play until Oracle was printed. Inverter is probably the correct choice for a ban based on that alone.

Dig is just a large delve spell with good utility. I may even go as far as to say it's a fair card. It's biggest sin is making combo decks more consistent, which isn't a bad thing. That consistency becomes an issue when the combo itself is hard to interact with; lo and behold we see Inverter standing tall instead of Heliod Combo (a much easier combo to interact with). Not to mention how irritating Nexus of Fate was.

I think many people are too quick to want to ban utility and instead need to see that WotC keeps printing things that break deck sift all the time. Banning Dig would be a big hit to many slower decks trying to play a longer game. Decks like that keep taking this punishment while other decks keep getting faster. Even Bomat Courier is an awesome card advantage engine in those decks, but if you want to set up a turn 4-5 Dig then you're breaking the game. It just sounds ridiculous to me.

Unfortunately, I feel as though Dig will eventually take a ban. If not now then later, certainly.

I'll throw down for Inverter of Truth and something like Pore Over the Pages to weaken Lotus Breach.

Re: [Official] State of Pioneer Thread (B&R 12/16/2019)

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 12:45 am
by motleyslayer
I don't think I'd like to see inverter banned this time around. I'd like to see what happens if dig was banned first, as it allows the deck to exile large amounts of it graveyard, which is super relevant when it wants to have a small library for the win combo.

Dig is just a massive mistake IMO too, which is banned or restricted in every other format except pioneer

Re: [Official] State of Pioneer Thread (B&R 12/16/2019)

Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2020 9:37 pm
by metalmusic_4
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... STH8XINccn

Here is a BBD article stating he wants no bans right now. He also says if the have to ban something this tome it should DTT only and then ban more if necessary.

Re: [Official] State of Pioneer Thread (B&R 12/16/2019)

Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2020 1:43 am
by motleyslayer
metalmusic_4 wrote:
4 years ago
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... STH8XINccn

Here is a BBD article stating he wants no bans right now. He also says if the have to ban something this tome it should DTT only and then ban more if necessary.
I'd like to see dig be the ban rather than an actual part of the inverter combo. Dig provides so much advantage by looking at so many cards and grabbing the best two you need. All while reducing grave size

Re: [Official] State of Pioneer Thread (B&R 12/16/2019)

Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2020 2:55 pm
by Arkmer
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/a ... uncement?j

Big ol' nothing banned in Pioneer.

Good? Bad? I'm on bad but not unwilling to try things. See if Essence Scatter or Horribly Awry get me anywhere.

They address the no change with some down playing of combo's power talking about how it's win rate is 49% and continuing to drift downward. Personally, I'd like to know what those bad matchups are, they mention that 5 of the top 10 decks are doing well against it. If it's just 5 aggro decks that are beating Inverter, then I think that's a sign of a problem because it shows that the combo is not rewarding interaction. Somehow I feel like it's a reasonable guess that Inverter is not rewarding interaction.

Re: [Official] State of Pioneer Thread (B&R 12/16/2019)

Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2020 11:57 pm
by motleyslayer
I don't know if I agree with their decision but I can at least accept and understand it.

I didn't know it's win rate was 49% but I guess the format will have to adapt for now

Re: [Official] State of Pioneer Thread (B&R 12/16/2019)

Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2020 11:53 am
by The Fluff
Anyone find something in ikoria that can be used for pioneer?

Re: [Official] State of Pioneer Thread (B&R 12/16/2019)

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2020 10:47 pm
by motleyslayer
I'm not too surprised at the meta breakdowns, inverter is still a good deck. There are plenty of decks doing well but mostly what I'd expect

baffling end as a sb choice is interesting though

Re: [Official] State of Pioneer Thread (B&R 12/16/2019)

Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2020 1:58 pm
by Arkmer
I feel like most of the people that follow this thread play in paper or play Modern on MTGO. Since LGSs are all closed I think this thread is pretty stalled for awhile. Maybe I'm mistaken but the drop off seems to have happened once isolation orders started becoming common.

From a distance (I only play in paper), I'm not overly keen on Companions. Feels too Commander-y and I actively avoid that format. With GK having posted the meta, looking at Goldfish, etc sources, it looks like combo holds a pretty good slice of the pie, I'm glad to see there are some slower decks making strides along side, but mostly I feel like the meta is wasted on the pandemic.

Not much for input right now, tbh. Maybe I'll throw some streamers up while I work from home, see if I can continue being wrong about stuff.

Re: [Official] State of Pioneer Thread (B&R 12/16/2019)

Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2020 4:37 pm
by The Fluff
with Kaheera, I'm glad there is now a 3 cmc lord for my deck. Although he comes at the expense of a sideboard slot. Also nice that it still allows the use of manlands.

Re: [Official] State of Pioneer Thread (B&R 12/16/2019)

Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2020 7:07 am
by Cyanu
it's true that so far pioneer has been mostly a paper format and the covid timing upon the introduction of a new format was unfortunate but still it won't matter in the longterm

btw i'm seeing the format receiving ridiculous hate by streamers, moderators and random posters which literally seem to grab every possible opportunity to bash it for mostly ridiculous reasons, not sure why they feel the need to, i assume modern enthousiasts who feel threatened by it?

there already seems to be a toxic divide within the community which is probably the worst outcome for everyone but i guess it's unavoidable. after all what's magic without a little smugness?

as for the meta it's too early to tell, the only thing that's certain so far is that Lurrus is an extremely powerful magic card, Yorion and Obosh seem to be making an impact as well, the rest of the companions seem to be playing minor roles (or not playing at all in some cases like Lutri, or Umori)

other than that wotc gave us some mixed signals about the format's identity: the early bannings (especially the cat) signaled a format with a pretty low tolerance to combos, coupled with a lack of big mana and absurd prison cards i personally was hoping we'd finally get to play some actual non-rotating magic, rather than mana-cheating fiesta of other non-rotating formats

and then Theros happened and introduced another 2 major combo decks while empowering the single we already have, so what's up with the format? where is it going? they need to clarify those things first

ps: at least they banned Veil of Summer when they got the chance

Re: [Official] State of Pioneer Thread (B&R 12/16/2019)

Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2020 5:30 pm
by ktkenshinx
Cyanu wrote:
3 years ago
it's true that so far pioneer has been mostly a paper format and the covid timing upon the introduction of a new format was unfortunate but still it won't matter in the longterm
I don't think as many people are actively pushing against Pioneer as you are suggesting throughout this post. A triple constructed future of Standard/Pioneer/Modern seems like one of Wizards' end goals. This gives them both an intermediate format where Standard graduates can go and a powerful, nonrotating format that can "replace" Legacy in the triple format (reserved list and all that nonsense). There will always be a market for both of these beyond Standard. I also don't think anyone is denying that Wizards is pushing Pioneer to such an extent that it is virtually guaranteed to find footing. Arena is the biggest Magic development in years and Wizards has pledged to bring Pioneer to Arena. That virtually guarantees its long-term success.
btw i'm seeing the format receiving ridiculous hate by streamers, moderators and random posters which literally seem to grab every possible opportunity to bash it for mostly ridiculous reasons, not sure why they feel the need to, i assume modern enthousiasts who feel threatened by it?

there already seems to be a toxic divide within the community which is probably the worst outcome for everyone but i guess it's unavoidable. after all what's magic without a little smugness?
The ironic thing about this quote is that it is incredibly smug itself, which is an illustration of the larger problem. There are some Pioneer players who seem like they want Pioneer to replace/"beat" Modern. On the other side of the fence, there are some Modern players who want Pioneer to fail/"lose" to Modern. Both sides tend to belittle the opposing side and think their own side is "right." Looking over your post history, it appears you personally dislike Modern and fit far more into the former category than the latter. Unfortunately, this entire conflict misses areas that can improve both formats and misses larger issues that threaten the game as a whole.

For instance, Wizards can improve both formats by being a lot clearer with Modern/Pioneer direction and vision. This would give players more confidence in where and what to invest in each respective format, and Wizards is notoriously opaque when communicating long-term constructed format visions. As another example, I've seen many players bemoan bad Play Design decisions that have "artificially rotated" Modern and introduced super broken cards. But they do this as if it's a Modern-specific issue. It's not. This issue hits all formats equally. It just hits Modern first because of its larger card pool which statistically creates more potentially broken synergies. Make no mistake: every format will be in serious trouble as a result of these decisions.

In an ideal world, Wizards would release a very clear strategic plan for their competitive, constructed formats. It would look something like: Standard --> Pioneer --> Modern. In this vision, the power level is clearly increasing as you add more cards to the pool, and players can expect ex-Standard decks to be better in Pioneer than Modern. Instead, you have a mess of overlapping missions where short-term profits are maximized at the expense of long-term format health. In this future, cards are barely tested for Standard and continue to break the format. Former Standard cards/decks find homes in Pioneer, which will continue to undergo bans and artificial rotations to ensure new ex-Standard staples remain viable. Meanwhile Modern suffers from even more regular and ongoing upheavals as broken new cards are even more broken there than in Standard. Pioneer will suffer as much as Modern in this future. Both formats need clear vision and will benefit from clear distinction between one another.

Lastly, I assume your jab about "moderators" is at me (there aren't a lot of other mods active on either the Pioneer or Modern subs here). If it's not, disregard this segment. If it is, this is both unwarranted and unsupported by evidence. My biggest complaint about Pioneer right now is the certainty I have heard from Pioneer players that Pioneer is a diverse format with a healthy metagame. This certainty is misplaced. There is simply not enough data and not enough people even playing Pioneer to know what the metagame looks like. Judging by three separate MTGO datasets I've analyzed, Pioneer has anywhere from 33%-50% fewer players than Modern. As a result, the metagame just isn't mature right now and the events aren't competitive or populated enough to produce the kind of iteration we need to get refined metagames. As you yourself said, this is probably because Pioneer is mostly a paper format to this point and doesn't have the MTGO following. In that regard, I will tell you the same thing I told GK: don't assume that my observation of lower attendance is a value statement about Pioneer. It's a simple, mathematical observation about lower numbers. I'm confident Pioneer will eventually have higher attendance in the future, especially in paper. It just doesn't right now which means no one can be sure about what the "true" Pioneer metagame looks like.

Re: [Official] State of Pioneer Thread (B&R 12/16/2019)

Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2020 8:04 pm
by Arkmer
ktkenshinx wrote:
3 years ago
This gives them both an intermediate format where Standard graduates can go
Given that we have three different combo decks sitting at the top or near the top of the meta, I'm not overly confident things are set up to accept "Standard graduates". I'm not a huge fan of combo but I do think it should exist in the meta. If the intention is to use Pioneer as Standard Plus then I feel like Pioneer is not well suited for this role. Which leads into...
ktkenshinx wrote:
3 years ago
Wizards can improve both formats by being a lot clearer with Modern/Pioneer direction and vision.
Ya, for real, lol. This might be something that nearly everyone can get behind. Does anyone actually not want them to define this better?
_____

And since I'm bored, I'll throw in that I think those Triome lands are pretty good. I think Pioneer will like them for triggering Check lands more than Modern will like them for being fetchable. Some minor mana upgrades for lists that I have been playing. By adding that single land type, there is only one of the ten checks that any single Triome cannot trigger.

Re: [Official] State of Pioneer Thread (B&R 12/16/2019)

Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2020 8:55 pm
by Cyanu
ktkenshinx wrote:
3 years ago
Cyanu wrote:
3 years ago
it's true that so far pioneer has been mostly a paper format and the covid timing upon the introduction of a new format was unfortunate but still it won't matter in the longterm
I don't think as many people are actively pushing against Pioneer as you are suggesting throughout this post. A triple constructed future of Standard/Pioneer/Modern seems like one of Wizards' end goals. This gives them both an intermediate format where Standard graduates can go and a powerful, nonrotating format that can "replace" Legacy in the triple format (reserved list and all that nonsense). There will always be a market for both of these beyond Standard. I also don't think anyone is denying that Wizards is pushing Pioneer to such an extent that it is virtually guaranteed to find footing. Arena is the biggest Magic development in years and Wizards has pledged to bring Pioneer to Arena. That virtually guarantees its long-term success.
btw i'm seeing the format receiving ridiculous hate by streamers, moderators and random posters which literally seem to grab every possible opportunity to bash it for mostly ridiculous reasons, not sure why they feel the need to, i assume modern enthousiasts who feel threatened by it?

there already seems to be a toxic divide within the community which is probably the worst outcome for everyone but i guess it's unavoidable. after all what's magic without a little smugness?
The ironic thing about this quote is that it is incredibly smug itself, which is an illustration of the larger problem. There are some Pioneer players who seem like they want Pioneer to replace/"beat" Modern. On the other side of the fence, there are some Modern players who want Pioneer to fail/"lose" to Modern. Both sides tend to belittle the opposing side and think their own side is "right." Looking over your post history, it appears you personally dislike Modern and fit far more into the former category than the latter. Unfortunately, this entire conflict misses areas that can improve both formats and misses larger issues that threaten the game as a whole.

For instance, Wizards can improve both formats by being a lot clearer with Modern/Pioneer direction and vision. This would give players more confidence in where and what to invest in each respective format, and Wizards is notoriously opaque when communicating long-term constructed format visions. As another example, I've seen many players bemoan bad Play Design decisions that have "artificially rotated" Modern and introduced super broken cards. But they do this as if it's a Modern-specific issue. It's not. This issue hits all formats equally. It just hits Modern first because of its larger card pool which statistically creates more potentially broken synergies. Make no mistake: every format will be in serious trouble as a result of these decisions.

In an ideal world, Wizards would release a very clear strategic plan for their competitive, constructed formats. It would look something like: Standard --> Pioneer --> Modern. In this vision, the power level is clearly increasing as you add more cards to the pool, and players can expect ex-Standard decks to be better in Pioneer than Modern. Instead, you have a mess of overlapping missions where short-term profits are maximized at the expense of long-term format health. In this future, cards are barely tested for Standard and continue to break the format. Former Standard cards/decks find homes in Pioneer, which will continue to undergo bans and artificial rotations to ensure new ex-Standard staples remain viable. Meanwhile Modern suffers from even more regular and ongoing upheavals as broken new cards are even more broken there than in Standard. Pioneer will suffer as much as Modern in this future. Both formats need clear vision and will benefit from clear distinction between one another.

Lastly, I assume your jab about "moderators" is at me (there aren't a lot of other mods active on either the Pioneer or Modern subs here). If it's not, disregard this segment. If it is, this is both unwarranted and unsupported by evidence. My biggest complaint about Pioneer right now is the certainty I have heard from Pioneer players that Pioneer is a diverse format with a healthy metagame. This certainty is misplaced. There is simply not enough data and not enough people even playing Pioneer to know what the metagame looks like. Judging by three separate MTGO datasets I've analyzed, Pioneer has anywhere from 33%-50% fewer players than Modern. As a result, the metagame just isn't mature right now and the events aren't competitive or populated enough to produce the kind of iteration we need to get refined metagames. As you yourself said, this is probably because Pioneer is mostly a paper format to this point and doesn't have the MTGO following. In that regard, I will tell you the same thing I told GK: don't assume that my observation of lower attendance is a value statement about Pioneer. It's a simple, mathematical observation about lower numbers. I'm confident Pioneer will eventually have higher attendance in the future, especially in paper. It just doesn't right now which means no one can be sure about what the "true" Pioneer metagame looks like.
smugness is the saltpeper of gaming communities,but the no1 person i had in mind when posting this was actually the professor (the streamer from tolarian academy) from which i'm watching videos with topics strictly unrelated to pioneer yet somehow i always end up hearing about how the pioneer meta sucks, the guy once even implied that modern might be cheaper... he even provided the numbers (going like 'ok nvm Jund' and then mentioning Sultai delirum and mono red prowess for modern... what do they say about lies and statistics?...)

but actually you too could fit (are you a mod/were you a mod?, not certain) haven't you been making some bizzare connections in your number brewing like: in some specific period of time, modern is played X% more than pioneer therefore pioneer is not playing in any competitive capacity? pretty sure you said this and then proceeded to tell another posted that his judgement is clouded... also sure you'll spare me the trouble of searching for quotes

so how does the fact that format A has X% more players during a specific time period means that format B is 'not being played in any competitive capacity?' , as long as there are high stakes event for a format it's being played in a competitive capacity and that's all really

being objective is not a personality trait but an attitude that can change in any given moment, considering that you seem to be in a personal crusade in multiple platforms (also pretty sure i've seen some ktkenshin on reddit, unless it was someone else's account? obviously i cannot know), making similar remarks, i think it's fair to assume that you do fit the category of 'moderners hoping pioneer will fall flat on it's face'

nothing wrong with that but nothing 'right' either, you can't expect to be 'anti- something' and not receive negative comments no matter what that 'something' is or whether you're right or wrong

as for me you have very little to worry about, even quarantined i don't post much, regardless as a former modern enthousiast i cannot keep up with the format (and i don't mean it in the monetary sense), it has changed in a way that some of us find unappealing and keeps changing towards that direction, i once pushed for a modern exclusive product that bypasses standard but after what i saw in horizons i quite regret it, it felt more like a money grabbing fiasco than a genuine love letter to modern (left the format wounded for months, intruduced new ~200 euros playsets) and essentially created 'artifical' archetypes with no historic continuity that rely almost exclusively on busted horizon cards and mistakes of 2019 which was a disastrous year for magic in general (all formats and regardless of sales)

essentially we're into a 'shift' here, modern is becoming legacy, look at how increasingly similar the play patterns of those two formats are becoming- some people never like legacy and are naturally turned off by this (and no ammount of 'data' is going to change this) and pioneer is practically the new modern (which is why i'm surprised so many moderners are hostile to it), especially if you consider the fiasco that early modern was (like the first modern GP that was completely dominated by combo decks and led to a surge of bans), it's fair to say that pioneer is largely ~2014 modern: Sultai is our BGx, Inverter is our Twin, Heliod even resembles kiki-pod but much more linear and uninteresting, UR ensoul as affinity, UWx control that's pretty much a classic in all formats etc

the community also largely reminds me of the attitude we(the early moderners) faced from legacy players being like: 'enjoy your linear %$#%, only legacy requires some actual skill, you just turn creatures sideways like simpletons'

regardless i won't derail the topic further than what i already did, instead i'll just leave a question open for everyone: do you see any companion other then Lurrus being banned in Pioneer? (i'm not saying that Lurrus WILL be banned, but rather that he'll probably range from one of the most powerful staples, to the banwatch range)

Re: [Official] State of Pioneer Thread (B&R 12/16/2019)

Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2020 11:05 pm
by drmarkb
They will actively try to avoid bans in Pioneer, far more so than any other format, because it had such a churn at its inception. Keeping Dimir Inverter shows they are trying to send a message. They want this format to succeed, they want to have variety and a little combo is tolerable, they don't want to ban the next big bad unless it really is big and bad.
Companion is obviously busted and homogenising but they will keep it if they possibly can, they need places for it to be played.

Standard bans will happen to keep the format "healthy".

Modern bans may happen, Legacy bans may happen. In both cases it will be because of overwhelming pressure from players as a result of online events.
If WOTC has an aim to make it Std/Pioneer/Modern it will fail, I am not sure they do. I feel their no 1 is to get Pioneer up, running and safe from the Legacy/Modern players, I don't think they care about the other two, if either dies they will support the other minimaly. Right now if they kill Legacy it will be run as a community thing like Canlander, in a couple of years if design continues as it has and they mismanage the ban list there is a chance that Legacy is resurrected as a 1994-2018 format, but more likely they just ban a few egregious designs a la breach. I actually think they don't mind Modern players becoming dissatisfied with it and going to transfer to Pioneer, and they will look at support for Modern in future at current Legacy levels once Pioneer is secure. Part of that will be Pioneer becoming more stable ban wise than the older formats.

Re: [Official] State of Pioneer Thread (B&R 12/16/2019)

Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2020 11:24 pm
by Cyanu
funny thing is that players have been %$#% for ages in modern about cards that were 'never given a chance' and 'let's unban most cards and only ban what HAS TO be banned' are extremely popular lines that you'll find everywhere

and wotc did exactly this: every card got a chance, even obvious bans and to my surprise it did work: something like marvel or tc could easily find itself premptively banned, instead they turned out quite allright and we have a non-rotating format with stuff like DRS and TC being completely fine

and the players are frustrated for the bans.. despite getting multiple warning about the rolling bans and head figures of wotc literally told them 'do not invest in paper, we're still banning stuff'... whos to blame here really?...

and then you have the other big catergory: Twin enthousiasts that still won't let go of that ban... yet some of them think that Inverter is a 'cancer deck' and that it's unacceptable for a combo deck to lead the meta like this- yep i still have some prominent streamers/semi-pros in mind

but indeed wotc does seem to be banning as little as possible (essentially letting the power level go up), while in modern they seem very trigger happy lately (which leads the power level down) and both of those leave us players confused, for example if let's say i'm a combo player, which format is for me? should i get into inverter or maybe it would be better for me to look into modern since the combos there are far more likely to stay legal?

Heliod/ballista is another big question mark, they did specifically mention it in the latest anouncement,saying it's too early... but what does that even mean? is the deck ok or not? you can't have like 2-3 tier 1 decks being in a constant watchlist, if anything it makes players nervous, you need to make a decision and postponing that decision forever for the sake of avoiding bans might have even greater cost than the bans themselves (especially if the actually happen!) - ironically enough this was another of the player's 'bright' ideas, let's postpone bans forever so we might avoid them! and now the same players are trapped in uncertainty

and then there's the lotus-breach deck.. that thing is just degenerate magic, some of us left modern specifically so we won't have to play with/against decks like this... and it just 'followed us', leading to even further confusion, they still need an official line: is this kind of all in combo that bypasses game state and can only be fought in a very specific axis ok with pionneer?

Re: [Official] State of Pioneer Thread (B&R 12/16/2019)

Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2020 1:45 pm
by Arkmer
drmarkb wrote:
3 years ago
They will actively try to avoid bans in Pioneer, far more so than any other format, because it had such a churn at its inception.
Funny thing is that I feel like that's what made it such an interesting format. Nothing was safe at the top so everyone at local levels played unconventional decks. The only people who constantly groaned about it were the spikes who wanted to do the same things over and over. Meanwhile I'm playing Sultai Flicker with Lazav, new Thassa, and Muldrotha because it was hilariously fun.

We had amazing Pioneer attendance while rolling bans were going on. Hard to measure as news cycles churned out grim things, but once combo decks started not getting banned (I think the first "No Ban" was the key event to this) our shop attendance fell by about half. I think Inverter is probably good for the format, but more than one combo deck doing so well is probably not awesome. Both unfortunately and fortunately we need to see individual decks be ban worthy, sort of a double edged sword, in my opinion. I think there may be some merit to assessing the impact of too many of the same deck type all at once.

Leads me to this quote:
Cyanu wrote:
3 years ago
for example if let's say i'm a combo player, which format is for me?
Honestly? No format should be for anyone in specific, instead all formats should be for as many people as possible. Formats should be a balance of each over arching strategy type. If we had a "combo format" and it was declared by WotC as such, would it not follow that that format become overwhelmingly combo and rarely see other deck types intervene that trend? As much as I have enjoyed control mirrors in the past, I would hate for them to be near 100% of my games because there are 10 different control decks creating a "diverse" format. This may sound strange, but it's the aggro decks that make control mirrors interesting. Both control players had to prep for strong decks of other types, so the mirror is a test of who rode that line the thinnest.

Some of the above is taken to an extreme, I don't want to leave that to be misinterpreted as straw manning a question. I just took an extreme example to make a point about WotC openly declaring a format as the X format being a bad path to choose.

Additionally, it's very difficult to make specialized formats for each archetype when (nearly) everything flows through Standard. If Oko was supposed to make one format more midrange then they successfully did it to all formats. It's just not possible to isolate formats well enough to declare them specified by archetype.

I honestly think WotC needs to sort their balance issues out, many people agree that the last year-ish+ has been pretty jarring. Bans are fine, artificial rotation of "eternal" formats is (mostly) fine, but at the bare minimum keep each archetype viable as a contending deck. Is that difficult? Yup! Is that going to happen? Nope! Are they trying? Clearly open for interpretation.

Re: [Official] State of Pioneer Thread (B&R 12/16/2019)

Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2020 3:54 pm
by drmarkb
It is very hard to play prison (not control) in any format after Legacy. Even then Legacy prison decks are closer to hybrid combo decks in Legacy, often packing a plus b kills like rip helm etc.
Modern prison....well a few land killing decks over the years in naya colours, 8 rack, Lantern top control, pyro prison, Sun and Moon, Martyr proc and hate bears is the sum total of generally lower tier decks in a decade amongst hundreds of archetypes. You can add enchantment prison I guess at a push on the fringe side.
Pioneer will have fewer- I have played enchantment control to some effect, I have seen Doom foretold decks but they are not exactly Stax.
There won't be enough cards through Standard make a good 8 rack I suspect, landkill will be a non starter, white is too weak to make hate bears great, Stax cards don't get printed full stop.
Without prison decks eventually Pioneer will go the way of Modern, lots of combo and linear decks, with UWx as the only decks to stop them. Every large pool format will go that way with the current threats/answers philosophy. Right now Pioneer is safe, but in five years or so it will be degenerate.

Re: [Official] State of Pioneer Thread (B&R 12/16/2019)

Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2020 6:28 pm
by Arkmer
I don't feel like I'm familiar enough with Prison decks to make too many judgements about them. The times I've encountered the Modern variety of them, I have viewed them as interesting puzzles and half-mirror control matches. I try to stay with one or two formats at most, last I was able to do anything that was Pioneer and Standard. I've never been into Legacy and I dropped Modern pretty quickly after Pioneer's announcement.

I can get behind WotC limiting what archetypes are viable in Standard, maybe there's an argument to a small amount of it in Pioneer (I won't make it), but I think that limitation is due to card pool size which I think is what you're saying. Pioneer going the way of Modern, I agree is likely a function of card pool growth and archetypes properly limiting each other.

I've seen the articles and some of the posts/opinions about how eternal will always devolve into linear/combo without Prison. I think much of what I have said in the past has been effort to avoid that outcome; preferred bans, thoughts on making removal better, the difference and importance of 1cmc vs 2cmc in basically everything. I guess I'm just not 100% convinced that Prison-less eternal formats will always become combo/linear nightmares, but I also agree that it's inevitably the outcome with WotC's current trend of printing multi-format impacting cards at lower costs.
Some rampant opinion about 7cmc spells that doesn't matter
Show
Hide
Sorta makes me lament the Ultimatums they just printed. Four out of the five just feel super lacking in "Ultimatum" feel. Though, I'm also used to only seeing Cruel Ultimatum as the only Ultimatum. I just think that a 7 mana one use spell should be sending a worth while message and Ruinous Ultimatum is basically the only one that I feel does that. Inspired Ultimatum is just bad Cruel Ultimatum and gets a "marginal" from me. If such low cost cards are going to be printed into having such great value, what the hell is this at 7cmc?

Re: [Official] State of Pioneer Thread (B&R 12/16/2019)

Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2020 5:52 pm
by Arkmer
I don't watch very often are these aired on twitch?

Re: [Official] State of Pioneer Thread (B&R 12/16/2019)

Posted: Sun May 03, 2020 8:31 pm
by motleyslayer
I noticed that Breach and 2 different Lurrus decks (burn and Auras) are the top 3 decks on MTG Goldfish right now. The fact that Lurrus is a hot new toy probably explains two of them but was there a sudden change that made Breach a lot better now?

or is it just because there hasn't been any paper events in a few months so we're relying on just MTGO data?

Re: [Official] State of Pioneer Thread (B&R 12/16/2019)

Posted: Mon May 04, 2020 7:08 pm
by FoilSquared
If I remember correctly, it's supposed to be a really good counter to all of these hot new decks (I assume because it's basically a toolbox deck)

In other news, just built Orzhov Auras ft. Sram and Lurrus in both paper and online, deck seems to be pretty fun so far, as well as cheap.

Re: [Official] State of Pioneer Thread (B&R 12/16/2019)

Posted: Tue May 05, 2020 3:12 pm
by drmarkb
Yes, I think it is an artifact of online. Paper players will be investing in EDH staples and high end cards now, other than that, little moves, so they won't be updating decks. Onlin ehas always reacted faster and had more peole playing about with stuff..........

Re: [Official] State of Pioneer Thread (B&R 12/16/2019)

Posted: Thu May 07, 2020 10:39 pm
by motleyslayer
Greeksis wrote:
3 years ago
I agree that Breach is a natural counter to most companion decks. It's natural predator is Inverter, I think. Or really fast aggro decks, like mono red.

Oh, yeah, Sram auras ft. lurrus seems one of the best (maybe the best) value for money deck atm.
I've been using arental service for MTGO but I was debating actually just buying the auras deck since it's so cheap and Lurrus might be what pushes the deck over the edge. I kind of liked the deck before but it just seemed like it had a hard time with removal before. Lurrus might have changed that though

Re: [Official] State of Pioneer Thread (B&R 12/16/2019)

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 7:03 am
by Lear_the_cat
About Lotus Breach - what is its' natural predator?
I wonder how to beat this deck while I'm playing Wu Yorion devotion. Why I'm asking - I sided 14 sb cards to fight this deck and still loose. :(
The possibility of going off on turn 3 is also very annoying - sometimes can't cast more\better treats to finish game faster and forced to sit on answers.