[Official] State of Modern Thread (B&R 07/13/2020)

User avatar
Mikefon
Posts: 29
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Modena (Italy)
Contact:

Post by Mikefon » 4 years ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
4 years ago

Again, it's very hard to identify Urza decks as overperforming online. The idea that they are some secret MTGO metagame influencer simply doesn't stick in this picture because their prevalence is too small. My proposed adjustment to the format in order to "fix" this metagame is still a series of nerf bans to the tune of Veil, Lattice, Claim/Force of Vigor, and Oko. This hits a number of top decks at the margins, opening up Modern to more interactive strategies which either can't answer the sideboard trumps (Veil/Claim/Force), can't outgrind Oko, or can't handle the Lattice knockout. No decks actually die with the bannings of these cards, and all but Claim represent direct or indirect (in Lattice's case) 2019 design failures. T3feri can also go because he directly disincentivizes non-UW control decks from playing, and he's yet another awful 2019 design disaster.
I think that we could put the sultai Urza variant (without the thopter-sword combo) under "interactive decks" lable. I feel it no more no less than a midrange/control deck. It plays cantrips (Baubles and astrolabes), permissions, removals.
Here's an example

User avatar
ktkenshinx
Posts: 571
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: West Coast
Contact:

Post by ktkenshinx » 4 years ago

Aazadan wrote:
4 years ago
Your nerf ban idea is interesting, I don't agree but it's a decent thought exercise as if nothing else it can help us narrow down what sorts of design ideas are unhealthy, as on the surface a card like Nature's Claim seems totally fine. However, I think that you're wrong on Force of Vigor. It requires a stronger commitment to green than cards like Nature's Claim do so it's not as easy to splash, and being mana free allows it to be a good strategy to prevent cards like Blood Moon from creating non games. I also find it to be a good way to create interaction against more unfair strategies than relying on just counterspells and discard, as being mana free is extremely important here as it allows you to tap out and progress your game plan while under a clock.

Sure, unfair decks can run it too, but that means they need to be running several green cards and green isn't really the most common color for unfair decks (assumes they don't have access to Veil to boost the green count)
Did a quick search on MTG Goldfish from 10/19 through present, same date range as in the MTGO sample, to see what decks actually run Force of Vigor. Of those 135 decks in that sample, 82% were definitively linear, less interactive decks (51% Amulet, 11% Infect, 16% Titanshift, 4% Bogles). The rest are a scattering of random decks. This supports my theory that Vigor disproportionately helps these types of decks beat regulatory pieces that would otherwise keep them in check. Less than 1% of all fair Jund, Snowblade, and Bant decks ran this card. It's in the same category as Claim and represents a great nerf ban to trim the margins of strong decks that don't need the G2/G3 edge.
Mikefon wrote:
4 years ago
I think that we could put the sultai Urza variant (without the thopter-sword combo) under "interactive decks" lable. I feel it no more no less than a midrange/control deck. It plays cantrips (Baubles and astrolabes), permissions, removals.
I agree that most Sultai Urza decks are pretty fair and interactive. They have Urza as the core engine, which is why I separate them into that other macro-archetype. If we break up the Urza lists into macro-archetypes (Sultai Urza to interactive, Paradoxical Urza and others to combo), we have the following breakdown:

Big mana: 28.8% (E Tron, G Tron, Amulet)
Traditional interactive: 18% (Jund, UW, Bant Snow, Sultai Urza)
Linear aggro/combo: 36.8% (Burn, Dredge, Infect, Humans, Prowess, CrabVine, Storm, Combo Urzas)
DS variants: 16.4% (Grixis, Sultai)

This is a little better, but we still see big mana and linear aggro/combo variants comprising 2/3 of the format. I think many players, especially enfranchised, spikey players, would prefer a more even distribution with control and midrange being more viable. I also think if we look at the actual win percentages of these decks, we'd find some players are willfully (or maybe unknowingly) piloting inferior strategies. In particular, I don't really know why you would play Jund instead of either DS decks (if you want to play disruptive protect the queen Magic) or Sultai Urza (for midrange). Similarly, I don't know why you would play Bant Snow without Urza when you can just play Sultai Urza. As we get more data, these two decks will likely fade from the metagame, leaving only one control deck in UW Control and one midrange deck in Sultai Urza. That's a dismal picture of diversity.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

User avatar
Amalgam
Posts: 151
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Amalgam » 4 years ago

gkourou wrote:
4 years ago
Seeing a deck that casts Cryptic Commands on 0 mana, just by tapping Urza, or cheating costs at creatures like Emry and trying to play her on Turn 1, or being able to turn 3 kill(even if it's rare), or playing several free mana cards, or having 0 mana spells, seems like weird at best.

Even if it plays midrange cards, and is interactive, we should NEVER put it in the traditional interactive decks category. I can not stretch enough how wrong is this. You could add a special category for it, just not with UW and Jund.
It's not about that though as the deck is always forwarding a midrange strategy and wins through pushing damage through from Oko, Urza tokens etc. It's pretty damn close and using the same logic we could consider Twin not a control deck even though it most certainly is.
Urza is also played in the deck as a pure value engine compared to a combo kill in the other variants and the deck follows the same approach where it's a bunch of cards just trying to generate value and card advantage

Aazadan
Posts: 547
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Aazadan » 4 years ago

gkourou wrote:
4 years ago
Amalgam wrote:
4 years ago
gkourou wrote:
4 years ago
Seeing a deck that casts Cryptic Commands on 0 mana, just by tapping Urza, or cheating costs at creatures like Emry and trying to play her on Turn 1, or being able to turn 3 kill(even if it's rare), or playing several free mana cards, or having 0 mana spells, seems like weird at best.

Even if it plays midrange cards, and is interactive, we should NEVER put it in the traditional interactive decks category. I can not stretch enough how wrong is this. You could add a special category for it, just not with UW and Jund.
It's not about that though as the deck is always forwarding a midrange strategy and wins through pushing damage through from Oko, Urza tokens etc. It's pretty damn close and using the same logic we could consider Twin not a control deck even though it most certainly is.
Urza is also played in the deck as a pure value engine compared to a combo kill in the other variants and the deck follows the same approach where it's a bunch of cards just trying to generate value and card advantage
I mean, I understand this, but Twin didn't cheat costs at all. Sure, it did Turn 4 killed a lot. But, it would play C.C at 4, not on 0. It could not play an Emry on the first turn, not play a Moxen. It's really fine if we disagree, that's where a good dialogue is being held at.
I really don't want to go into this too much, but the problem that a deck like Twin had is that the opponent couldn't realistically play against you. Usually you would need a 2 mana removal spell to stop Twin, so on turn 3, you would need to hold up 2 mana for that, plus 1 for the opponent to be able to tap down. That means that you essentially couldn't play anything past turn 2 if you wanted to interact with the opponent, and you needed 3 land drops to even do that much. That's a pretty big mana differential. At the point at which Twin plays their T4 Twin they've gotten 1, 2, 3, and then 4 mana to do things with. The opponent has gotten 1, 2, and if they have interaction to play, another 2. Worst case scenario of 3 mana and 2 turns to a best case scenario of 5 mana and 3 turns to play the game, while Twin had 10 mana and 4 turns. It's essentially the same advantage Tron has now, but with much better cards.

Mtgthewary
Posts: 220
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Mtgthewary » 4 years ago

One of the reason why it is banned. I hope urza decks could be banned because if this too. It is not fair, it is cheating. If we start putting such decks in category like fair, I am really out of this game after 20 years soon

Aazadan
Posts: 547
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Aazadan » 4 years ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
4 years ago
Did a quick search on MTG Goldfish from 10/19 through present, same date range as in the MTGO sample, to see what decks actually run Force of Vigor. Of those 135 decks in that sample, 82% were definitively linear, less interactive decks (51% Amulet, 11% Infect, 16% Titanshift, 4% Bogles). The rest are a scattering of random decks. This supports my theory that Vigor disproportionately helps these types of decks beat regulatory pieces that would otherwise keep them in check. Less than 1% of all fair Jund, Snowblade, and Bant decks ran this card. It's in the same category as Claim and represents a great nerf ban to trim the margins of strong decks that don't need the G2/G3 edge.
Is it that, or is it that decks have different sideboard strategies? A less interactive deck primarily only needs to sideboard against the hate cards that will be brought in against them, and the range of effective hate cards in Modern is quite low. If we power down the artifact/enchantment destruction we're still going to wind up with something like Naturalize or Deglamer as the anti hate card.

I'm curious how your numbers change if you pick a date range where decks like Amulet and Infect are the decks to beat. But, I'm not sure we've had that metagame since Force of Vigors printing to confirm that theory unless we look at Legacy/Vintage metas instead (and even then we might not have it). I will say though, and I've been saying this since it became apparent that Oko was very pushed, I really don't think it's a coincidence that he's the colors of the best Force cards.

iTaLenTZ
Posts: 252
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by iTaLenTZ » 4 years ago

Aazadan wrote:
4 years ago
I really don't want to go into this too much, but the problem that a deck like Twin had is that the opponent couldn't realistically play against you. Usually you would need a 2 mana removal spell to stop Twin, so on turn 3, you would need to hold up 2 mana for that, plus 1 for the opponent to be able to tap down. That means that you essentially couldn't play anything past turn 2 if you wanted to interact with the opponent, and you needed 3 land drops to even do that much. That's a pretty big mana differential. At the point at which Twin plays their T4 Twin they've gotten 1, 2, 3, and then 4 mana to do things with. The opponent has gotten 1, 2, and if they have interaction to play, another 2. Worst case scenario of 3 mana and 2 turns to a best case scenario of 5 mana and 3 turns to play the game, while Twin had 10 mana and 4 turns. It's essentially the same advantage Tron has now, but with much better cards.
This sums up everything about Twin. I have said it so many times but some prefer to look away and repeat the same thing over and over 'unban twin, unban twin, unban twin' like a broken record. Yes the format is broken, yes the format is degenerate and toxic and uninteractive, yes other decks are doing the same thing Twin was doing and NO Twin will not improve the format. What will improve the format is a series of bans like in Pioneer and better card design.

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1182
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 4 years ago

Aazadan wrote:
4 years ago
I really don't want to go into this too much, but the problem that a deck like Twin had is that the opponent couldn't realistically play against you.
People need to stop saying this. It is so horrendously untrue that it's not worth addressing further. These mischaracterizations are bordering on obsessive.

User avatar
Tzoulis
Posts: 323
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Tzoulis » 4 years ago

gkourou wrote:
4 years ago
Yes, sure. I will not disagree that it was problematic for the opponent back then(even though I strongly believe it would be fine now, as I have already tested the deck). The thing though is that, even if it was too good, it was a very interactive deck except for the combo kill, and it did not cheat mana costs of the spells.
Sultai Urza is interactive sure, but even then, if you want to compare it with twin, it plays a lot less interactive cards. Cards like Bauble, Opal, Emry, Urza, astrolabe are all strictly non interactive cards. Even EE is being played as a 0 mana artifact a lot of the times.
Then ,there is cryptic command and metallic rebuke and 2 Seize and sideboard cards, but, you know, that's just not enough to call it traditional interactive. Which was my point. It is not a traditional interactive deck. Or compare it with 35 cards that were interactive in twin(CC, Snap, bolt, remand, electrolyze, the tappers, snare, dispel, pretty much everything, but the combo and the serum visions).
While true, saying that CC is played for 0 is disingenuous. It NEEDS to have all of those on board and not have used them (well, not Opal, but the trinkets) AND Urza. I oftentimes don't have 4 mana in the Paradoxical version with 28 artifacts, Sai and Saheeli because you need to use them, and your own Explosives might delay you as well. If you untap with Urza, then okay, it's like untapping with Jace or Teferi.

Plus, the more midrange-y versions are also playing/trying Archmage's Charm. So it's more UW midrange (cantrips, pw interaction) than the counterburn style of Twin (which isn't traditional midrange either mind you).
gkourou wrote:
4 years ago
Splinter Twin will make the format better. There is a difference between all of the other decks and Twin. Twin encourages you to play interaction to win it. Those other Twin like decks you are referring to encourage you to just go faster and kill them on Turn 3.
Twin didn't. It's worse matchups (control) were barely playable, Grixis did good for like 2 months. It's next worse match-up was BGx and it was effectively a 50-50 matchup. Why play interaction just to have a 50% of winning Twin and then getting smashed by Amulet and Tron and Storm. The numbers bear that out.

Aazadan
Posts: 547
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Aazadan » 4 years ago

cfusionpm wrote:
4 years ago
Aazadan wrote:
4 years ago
I really don't want to go into this too much, but the problem that a deck like Twin had is that the opponent couldn't realistically play against you.
People need to stop saying this. It is so horrendously untrue that it's not worth addressing further. These mischaracterizations are bordering on obsessive.
I enjoyed playing Twin, but if you didn't see the bad play patterns in it, that's on you. In my opinion the deck would be fine with Bounding Krasis and one other creature like that. I don't see anything inherently wrong with the idea of EOT 3 drop into 4 drop, except for the fact that the deck was able to tap down your mana.

That little feature made the deck incredibly difficult to play against, because the opponent always had to play behind on the mana curve for fear of needing an extra mana any time they needed to interact. The decks combo essentially came with a free one sided Thalia. To use the previous example, if you had 3 mana, and you needed to cast an Abrupt Decay, or an Assassin's Trophy (not legal at the time) or whatever else that's 2 mana, you would have to leave that third mana up, otherwise the opponent would tap you down. And even if you then killed the flash creature in response, it didn't do anything to interrupt the enchantment half which would still be in hand.

I don't know if the deck would be ok now or not, (though with how weak bolt/snap/bolt is these days, I suspect it wouldn't be too problematic) and really I don't care too much about discussing it so I'll bow out of that conversation now. But, I do think Exarch/Pestermite put a rather bad play pattern into the format (as much as I liked tapping peoples lands). Bounding Krasis and a similar creature are something I would be much more receptive to, and if the format had that, I would definitely be on the side that thinks a swap ban would make a lot of sense.

metalmusic_4
Posts: 279
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by metalmusic_4 » 4 years ago

cfusionpm wrote:
4 years ago
Aazadan wrote:
4 years ago
I really don't want to go into this too much, but the problem that a deck like Twin had is that the opponent couldn't realistically play against you.
People need to stop saying this. It is so horrendously untrue that it's not worth addressing further. These mischaracterizations are bordering on obsessive.
I agree that this is hideous mischaractorsation. Thoughtsieze, abrupt decay, path, fatal push, ensnaring bridge, tefari time raveler are all main deck meaninful ways to combat the combo(I'm not even including the creatures that can help like meddling mage, thought knot seer, or flipping a thing in the ice) . Sideboard dedicated hate cards for those that want it include, authority of the counsel, illness in the ranks, among others.

Twin was good, but it is not the monster people make it out to be.

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 4 years ago

Twin is essentially Tron....well....I've not seen that before.

/imma head out JPEG
UR Control UR

Mtgthewary
Posts: 220
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Mtgthewary » 4 years ago

By the way, I think we didn't talked about. Scg Player championchip has same results in paper like allways. Best 16 player, 3 of them played urza and all of them logically on top 8. Finals was urza versus urza. Their is a big difference between eldrazi Tron in paper and urza in paper, compared to urza and eldrazi on mtgo. No mtgo is not better in this case again, like on last gp this time the best players was there, so again real pros one more time. And please stop this : it was 3 formats and maybe they was good at standard and legacy talk. Urza is allways on paper far ahead test of field. Seems it have real problems in mtgo because maybe time and not because they adapted better. It's proofed again and again how strong urza in reality is

User avatar
Amalgam
Posts: 151
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Amalgam » 4 years ago

Mtgthewary wrote:
4 years ago
By the way, I think we didn't talked about. Scg Player championchip has same results in paper like allways. Best 16 player, 3 of them played urza and all of them logically on top 8. Finals was urza versus urza. Their is a big difference between eldrazi Tron in paper and urza in paper, compared to urza and eldrazi on mtgo. No mtgo is not better in this case again, like on last gp this time the best players was there, so again real pros one more time. And please stop this : it was 3 formats and maybe they was good at standard and legacy talk. Urza is allways on paper far ahead test of field. Seems it have real problems in mtgo because maybe time and not because they adapted better. It's proofed again and again how strong urza in reality is
Except everything you just mentioned has been answered here multiple times in the last few pages some of which are even direct replies to your own posts that you have chosen to ignore.
Also for 100th time please understand the deck you are talking about if you want to make claims such as time. The deck now plays like a full blown midrange deck and time is not a constraint as no infinite combo is even played anymore. Even in multiple linked mtgo results the deck is everywhere online but it isnt dominating or converting into high end results. The two scg tournaments you keep quoting had super inbred metagames and were mixed formats making their data almost worthless.
The only relevant paper tournament result right now is the last gp and it is a single data point vs multitudes of other results.
I understand you hate the deck but it simply isnt putting up the results to get any form or ban. Not to mention your scg championship had 30 copies of oko in its top 8 and even then it's not a strong point of data.
Also in regards to mtgo it heavily sways any bans or unbans as its data wizards has direct access to. This weeks banning in pioneer for example were based directly off mtgo results and quoted as such in the b&r.

Mtgthewary
Posts: 220
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Mtgthewary » 4 years ago

Yeah sure, doesnt count like allways. Yes I hate this unfair deck which is far about rest of field, no matter if scg, gp, or player championchip. But you defend it because own reasons. You play it and you try to protect this busted deck so long as you can. Is this better as my hate? This can't be OK and the only reason this deck dodged bans is only, because wotc has allways another bigger problem like hoogak and now oko

User avatar
Amalgam
Posts: 151
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Amalgam » 4 years ago

Mtgthewary wrote:
4 years ago
Yeah sure, doesnt count like allways. Yes I hate this unfair deck which is far about rest of field, no matter if scg, gp, or player championchip. But you defend it because own reasons. You play it and you try to protect this busted deck so long as you can. Is this better as my hate? This can't be OK and the only reason this deck dodged bans is only, because wotc has allways another bigger problem like hoogak and now oko
I used to play the deck and currently play between bant control/bant snowblade actually but thanks for asking. The reason I defend the deck is because people such as yourself push for bans on a deck that is not putting up ban worthy results. You choose to ignore all data that doesnt agree with you and ignore anyone's replies that go against your point of view.
I see the same thing in these threads all the time with people asking for bans on things like simian spirit guide or green tron when it isnt even part of the upper metagame.
The other issue is you continue to make claims such as time constraints on mtgo is changing the results but all this does is prove ignorance on your behalf.
Bans only lead to more bans and banning urza or opal or whatever will not change modern enough in the way you desire. Modern needs more right now but it isnt in the form of endless rampant bans and should only be used for extreme cases
Last edited by Amalgam 4 years ago, edited 1 time in total.

Mtgthewary
Posts: 220
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Mtgthewary » 4 years ago

So let's unban hoogak, it was only less better as urza. Seems it is fine and ok and better as banning

User avatar
Amalgam
Posts: 151
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Amalgam » 4 years ago

Mtgthewary wrote:
4 years ago
So let's unban hoogak, it was only less better as urza. Seems it is fine and ok and better as banning
As long as you can present evidence to back your claim feel free. Unlike Urza though there is hard evidence against Hogaak both online and on paper.

Mtgthewary
Posts: 220
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Mtgthewary » 4 years ago

58% winrate urza while hoogak. Hoogak I am not sure if it was 60 or 62%. Nothing to prove, it is done allready several times again and again. If someone can't believe it, it doesnt change if we repeat this another 500 times. It's useless like all the results on paper everywhere. It doesn't count and waste only time. And this was even bevore new powerful cards like oko which put especially in this allready busted deck.

User avatar
Amalgam
Posts: 151
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Amalgam » 4 years ago

Mtgthewary wrote:
4 years ago
58% winrate urza while hoogak. Hoogak I am not sure if it was 60 or 62%. Nothing to prove, it is done allready several times again and again. If someone can't believe it, it doesnt change if we repeat this another 500 times. It's useless like all the results on paper everywhere. It doesn't count and waste only time. And this was even bevore new powerful cards like oko which put especially in this allready busted deck.
As long as you choose to be ignorant and ignore key data points that don't support your view you will never see the full picture. But you keep on believing whatever you want as arguing with you is pointless

Mtgthewary
Posts: 220
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Mtgthewary » 4 years ago

Tell me what's the picture of 58% winrate and second best deck after hoogak. What you think it is now after hoogak? At place 13 maybe?

Mtgthewary
Posts: 220
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Mtgthewary » 4 years ago

At this moment I am buying on my 1 commander a lot. I don't care anymore and I don't want spend my weekends anymore with modern like in the last 6 years. All this decks like urza can play with themselves and talk at themselves their are ok and not bannable, they can say even they are fair decks with lot of interaction like it was sayed on last page and lie to themselves into the mirror. It's over to me and I am not the first one. Last chance for modern to me is January. No I don't like Pioneer and I don't want follow their agenda (I know, Blabla no secret agenda Blabla). Commander is OK, not so funny like modern in past, but much better as modern now

iTaLenTZ
Posts: 252
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by iTaLenTZ » 4 years ago

I keep saying it, the problem is Emry. Getting to recycle EE, Mox, Bauble, Astrolabe puts you ahead in resources as soon as turn 2 and any attrition war. Emry potentially comes turn 1 and from there its a uphill battle for any deck trying to compete. As if weren't enough Emry also blocks any 2 power creature.

The sad thing is Emry was exclusively designed for Modern to go into this deck while Urza was already the best deck. This was a deliberated decision to what end? To make Modern unpopular due to balance issues right before announcing Pioneer? Is this also the reason why they are withholding from bans until after the Pioneer GP's in January? I really feel the state of Modern is being sacrificed to push Pioneer because if Modern were in a good state and people were happy with it and enjoying the format there would be less need for a new eternal format like Pioneer. There is also a huge financial aspect. Standard has been in shambles for at least a year. Sales and attendance have dropped significantly. War of the Spark was a huge mistake. Wizards can take a financial loss but your LGS can't. A lot of LGS have struggled this year to sell their Standard stuff have taken a big financial loss. Introducing Pioneer instantly increased the price of many boosterboxes and cards that have been on the shelfs for many years and that really financially helped a lot of LGS's out this winter. Wizards inflated demand for Pioneer cards by making Modern as bad as possible. Modern has been the most popular format for years now so they think it can take a short-medium term hit like this. The question is where do they go from now? Will they start fixing Modern by the end of January or will they wait until Pioneer is more established or will they do nothing and just let the ship sink completely? Nobody knows. The truth is Modern has been amortized. There isn't much more money to make without fundamentally breaking the format. Decks become more streamlined, more consistent every year. Powercreep is real without the safety valves of Legacy. Modern has some serious design flaws and problems moving forward and I think we might have reached the end. In an ideal world with no Reserve List, Legacy and Modern would merge into 1 format and Pioneer would take its place.

This is not a tin-foil-hat theory. Wizards is a huge company with a lot of financial advisors etc. Decisions are not made randomly nor without a clear objective and thought. I worked in the financial world and this is how decisions are made. You look at benefits and compare them to short-long terms. And when it comes to corporates money is always the biggest factor when decision making so you always have to look for the financial aspect to understand where the decisions come from.

Mtgthewary
Posts: 220
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Mtgthewary » 4 years ago

Great post! I don't believe anymore they want a healthy modern meta

User avatar
pierreb
Posts: 280
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Up North

Post by pierreb » 4 years ago

Don't need tinfoil conspiracy. Incompetence is more likely. Let's not forget the lead time between design and release. Emry was almost certainly designed before Urza was released and 100% certainly before the Urza decks were first played.

Sure, obviously, it is meant to help artifact-based combos. I'm pretty sure the play-design team thought it was a cute value engine for long-going strategy. (Now, how could they possibly think that after KCI and its abuse of myr retriever and friend... well like I said, 2019 showed the play-design team not to be on tp of its game.)

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Modern”