Re: [Official] State of Modern Thread (B&R 07/08/2019)
Posted: Sat Aug 10, 2019 7:07 pm
Ya but the real question is, how did Esper Mentor go for you last night. :p
Magic the Gathering Resources, Tools, Previews, and Community.
https://www.mtgnexus.com/
1-2 drop after second loss was to double nut draws from Burn games 2 and 3, despite 2 main deck Rest for the Weary, bunches of removal, and effectively 10+ Snapcaster effects. Answers are a chump's game. Get em dead and interact as little as possible. "London Mulligan helps reactive decks find answers!"
I'm not sure if this is format bashing, but it's definitely inaccurate. Jund and UW Control remain two of the best decks in the format with significant interaction. An N=2 loss to Burn on your rogue deck is wildly disproportionate evidence to the claim that "answers are a chump.'s game." Please don't allow your personal experiences in this kind of isolated venue to feed sweeping claims about the format that are factually inaccurate on a large scale.cfusionpm wrote: ↑4 years ago1-2 drop after second loss was to double nut draws from Burn games 2 and 3, despite 2 main deck Rest for the Weary, bunches of removal, and effectively 10+ Snapcaster effects. Answers are a chump's game. Get em dead and interact as little as possible.
Burn is the kind of deck that somehow still wins even if there are maindeck anti-burn cards, they are one of the more consistent decks in modern. My emeria control has 3 lone missionary and 2 finks in the main + ways to blink those. Burn can still slip through sometimes. It's also not guaranteed to draw all those lifegain cards, sometimes I draw the wrong half of the deck and get burned out. Bring in 2 veto, one dovin, hand of control, and a worship game 2.ktkenshinx wrote: ↑4 years agoI'm not sure if this is format bashing, but it's definitely inaccurate. Jund and UW Control remain two of the best decks in the format with significant interaction. An N=2 loss to Burn on your rogue deck is wildly disproportionate evidence to the claim that "answers are a chump.'s game." Please don't allow your personal experiences in this kind of isolated venue to feed sweeping claims about the format that are factually inaccurate on a large scale.cfusionpm wrote: ↑4 years ago1-2 drop after second loss was to double nut draws from Burn games 2 and 3, despite 2 main deck Rest for the Weary, bunches of removal, and effectively 10+ Snapcaster effects. Answers are a chump's game. Get em dead and interact as little as possible.
What!? That's exactly what it means. They made a guess about the future deck evolution based on too little data since they made the ban so quickly and the guessed wrong. This has been borne out in our current meta. I guess we will never know EXACTLY what bridge would have done in the future with it being banned and all, but we have past evidence it did virtually nothing in modern for almost a decade while Hogaak existed only 3 weeks when its deck first got a ban just for hogaak to carry on winning left and right even after that, albeit usually turn 4 instead of turn two, and it too will be banned at the next B&R announcement.ktkenshinx wrote: ↑4 years agoThey were totally wrong about Hogaak being acceptable, but that doesn't mean the Bridge ban was wrong.
If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas. We can't expect them to make nuanced and delicate decisions about a format they do not test for, and clearly show little understanding of.metalmusic_4 wrote: ↑4 years ago.
They could have just banned one card (hogaak) instead of two if they had made a better decision. That's all I'm saying.
I would agree with you if Hogaak didn't enter Modern alongside Feeder and Altar. If just Hogaak joined Bridge and Bridge suddenly became broken, Hogaak was clearly the right ban in the beginning. But it wasn't just Hogaak, and Wizards had to figure out the most problematic piece of the Feeder/Bridge/Altar/Hogaak combination that resulted in a broken deck. Wizards focused on the combo aspect. This sole focus was wrong, but if that was the focus, then Bridge was the correct target. They eliminated the "one-turn win combo" as cited in their article, specifically targeting a "graveyard combo archetype" enabled by Bridge. Bridge was the right ban to accomplish that and now we don't see one-turn win Hogaak decks.metalmusic_4 wrote: ↑4 years agoWhat!? That's exactly what it means. They made a guess about the future deck evolution based on too little data since they made the ban so quickly and the guessed wrong. This has been borne out in our current meta. I guess we will never know EXACTLY what bridge would have done in the future with it being banned and all, but we have past evidence it did virtually nothing in modern for almost a decade while Hogaak existed only 3 weeks when its deck first got a ban just for hogaak to carry on winning left and right even after that, albeit usually turn 4 instead of turn two, and it too will be banned at the next B&R announcement.ktkenshinx wrote: ↑4 years agoThey were totally wrong about Hogaak being acceptable, but that doesn't mean the Bridge ban was wrong.
I agree the decision as a whole was wrong. The correct decision was probably to ban Bridge AND Hogaak. But the failure to ban both does not mean the individual Bridge ban was wrong. Altar/Feeder/Bridge combo might have been just as bad or slightly less bad but still problematic. We'll never know.metalmusic_4 wrote: ↑4 years agoThe worry was its dominance but even if the combo was the main concern that could have been removed with banning any one of a few cards(bridge, alter or hogaak). They chose to ban bridge and the deck is still oppressively dominate and that means they made the wrong decision.
It was definitely spoken tongue-in-cheek, but it has long been that "answers" decks are inferior to "questions" decks, and this was an instance in which this was the case. With specific regards to Jund, they were irrelevant for the past several years, and are only back now because of a slew of upgraded, undercosted, high-value threats. And UW is good because of static, repeating, prison lock effects via Planeswalkers and enchantments.ktkenshinx wrote: ↑4 years agoI'm not sure if this is format bashing, but it's definitely inaccurate. Jund and UW Control remain two of the best decks in the format with significant interaction. An N=2 loss to Burn on your rogue deck is wildly disproportionate evidence to the claim that "answers are a chump.'s game." Please don't allow your personal experiences in this kind of isolated venue to feed sweeping claims about the format that are factually inaccurate on a large scale.cfusionpm wrote: ↑4 years ago1-2 drop after second loss was to double nut draws from Burn games 2 and 3, despite 2 main deck Rest for the Weary, bunches of removal, and effectively 10+ Snapcaster effects. Answers are a chump's game. Get em dead and interact as little as possible.
You're not wrong, about the fact that interactive decks haven't been the best options for a while, but it seems odd to be that you aren't praising the recent buffs to Jund and UW. I understand your complaints about UW Control's use of static effects even if I don't agree with them, but it seems weird that you're complaining that Jund's only good now because of upgraded, undercosted, high-value threats. What exactly did you think was going to put Jund or any form of BGx midrange back on the map? Fair decks were never going to be good just with slight increments to their ability to interact. They needed more cards that could do two things with one card, be it something modal like Cryptic Command or something that can be both a threat and an answer. We simply ended up with more of the latter rather than the former.cfusionpm wrote: ↑4 years agoIt was definitely spoken tongue-in-cheek, but it has long been that "answers" decks are inferior to "questions" decks, and this was an instance in which this was the case. With specific regards to Jund, they were irrelevant for the past several years, and are only back now because of a slew of upgraded, undercosted, high-value threats. And UW is good because of static, repeating, prison lock effects via Planeswalkers and enchantments.
Two things in this paragraph I have to disagree with. First, even if you discount UW Control as a prison deck (something I heavily disagree with) Jund is quite literally an interactive deck not seeking to race damage until about turn 4. The "janky tier 2 and 3 trash" line also seems off. If every match you played was nothing but T2 and T3 decks, I don't see how those decks wouldn't be classified as T1 and T2 decks. Maybe there was something else you were implying, but by the very definition of tiers, you will see T1 decks more than T2 or T3 decks in competitive environments. If you meant that at face value and really never want to see a format's T1 decks in a tournament, competitive formats may not be for you. If it's a complaint that you specifically don't want to see Modern's T1 decks, as someone suggested before, you should check out Pauper or other formats, because barring Hogaak or some random card in a standard set breaking Modern, I'd imagine most of Modern's T1 decks will be here for a while. I'm not trying to be rude and chase you out of a format, but your frustration with the format has been noted for literally years now, and it just seems like it'd be easier on you to experiment with other formats and just wait and see if Modern ever turns into what you want it to be rather than continue to grind an ax in perpetual frustrationcfusionpm wrote: ↑4 years agoAnd these are the experiences you will be having if you are not a prison deck or damage racing most of the time, and they will absolutely be happening at every top table. It's not just one experience with one deck; it's nearly four years of playing interactive cantrip decks and getting stomped on by count-to-20 decks that just have better, faster, more consistent plays (and just got disproportionately better with London Mulligan). That's what Modern is at the competitive level. If Modern were a bunch of janky tier 2 and 3 trash smashing into each other, I would be in heaven. Most of those (outside of glass cannon combos) are incredibly fun and interactive to play. It's just unfortunate that every paper encounter I have is full of "the best decks in Modern" which lead to awful play patterns and terrible experiences most of the time.
I guess T3feri and Narset are indeed bad for the style of playing mtg that you like. The static abilities of these walkers are actually stronger than +1 abiilites imo, because static are always in effect until the walker leaves the board.cfusionpm wrote: ↑4 years agoAnd I don't praise the buffs made to UW because I would literally rather see turn 3 Karn than T3feri or Narset. And unfortunately, those horrendous design mistakes will live on and continue to cause terrible gameplay in the deepest layers of my own personal hell for the foreseeable future.
any deck that adds bfb to the decklist aims to abuse bfb. Although not sure if the bridge ban was right or not. Bridgevine was fine until Hogaak came into the scene. Did wotc kill the wrong animal?
"So Bridge is gone, nothing of value was lost."idSurge wrote: ↑4 years agoI just don't understand the hand wringing over Bridge. This card was never going to do anything but add to the weight of aggro/gy type decks, and I'm sorry but the inn's full, try some other format.
We didn't need Bridgevine, we didn't need Hogaak, and we don't need Bridge in the format.
Was Hogaak too much? Clearly so.
So Bridge is gone, nothing of value was lost.
You are correct that Bridge was purely collateral damage. I said that at the beginning of this thread as well. However the other guy is right that we dont frigging need any more decks that would use Bridge in modern regardless of Hogaak being broke. So the net result will be Bridge and Hogaak both banned, Looting will live on to dominate the format since it is clearly the poster child for the format.metalmusic_4 wrote: ↑4 years ago"So Bridge is gone, nothing of value was lost."idSurge wrote: ↑4 years agoI just don't understand the hand wringing over Bridge. This card was never going to do anything but add to the weight of aggro/gy type decks, and I'm sorry but the inn's full, try some other format.
We didn't need Bridgevine, we didn't need Hogaak, and we don't need Bridge in the format.
Was Hogaak too much? Clearly so.
So Bridge is gone, nothing of value was lost.
I disagree with this logic. Following this logic we could easily ban 500 commons that don't see any play right now. Nothing of value would be lost. Would that be the right thing to do? Of coarce not, you ban the problem card when you have too.
The issue is ban list mismanagement. Like BBE vs DRS. They could have only banned one card(hogaak) but now we will have 2 cards banned and that IMO is mismanagment plain and simple.
same, would be playing as well no matter what things look like. :>I love modern and I will play it pretty much no matter what the meta looks like
I get you on the list management angle, I really do. To me though its like...Treasure Hunt or Belcher decks. They do something, and its really weird within the context of Aggro/Mid/Control/Combo.metalmusic_4 wrote: ↑4 years ago"So Bridge is gone, nothing of value was lost."
I disagree with this logic. Following this logic we could easily ban 500 commons that don't see any play right now. Nothing of value would be lost. Would that be the right thing to do? Of coarce not, you ban the problem card when you have too.
The issue is ban list mismanagement. Like BBE vs DRS. They could have only banned one card(hogaak) but now we will have 2 cards banned and that IMO is mismanagment plain and simple.