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

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

Simto wrote:
1 year ago
If Hogaak gets banned, there will be at least 12 pages of fighting over what should be banned next.
If Hogaak doesn't get banned, there will be 12 pages of fighting over why it wasn't banned.

I understand it's a forum for discussing modern, but I mean, is Hogaak the only thing to talk about? It's been nothing but back and forth about Hogaak for 47 pages. How much more can we talk about this? I think everybody knows each other's stance on it, so can we please get on with something else? How do people have time to write so many replies about the same thing over and over???

Hogaak is part of modern, it may or may not get banned, but it's part of modern, so it's time to adjust if your local meta is infested with it and if you don't like it then play something or somewhere else until August 26th and see what's announced.
Yes, its essentially Tier 0 right now, if not historically (Eldrazi Winter), has and will continue to suck all the air out of the format and its the only thing worth discussing.

It WILL be banned, after Vegas.

You can either talk about how you warp your deck to try and beat it, or you can talk about hypothetical's after its banned, or you can talk about how you tune it for the mirror, but the format is Hogaak.
UR Control UR

User avatar
The Fluff
is this so?
Posts: 1945
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Gradius Home World
Contact:

Post by The Fluff » 1 year ago

LeoTzu wrote:
1 year ago
There's no question that Modern has some issues beyond Hogaak, but until that gets dealt with, we don't really have a clear of how the format is doing. He haven't even gotten a chance to test other Horizons cards.

It's sort of like if you own a house that needs a bunch of repairs. If the roof is caving in, the leaky faucet in the basement and the broken cupboard door sort of need to wait until you take care of the larger problem.
i think this is a fairly good analysis of the current situation. Need to get rid of the biggest problem first which is Hogaak, before dealing with the smaller ones.
Image
AnimEVO 2020 - EFZ Tournament (english commentary) // OE 2016 // POF 2018
want to play a uw control deck in modern, but don't have Jace or snapcaster? please come visit us at the Emeria thread

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1109
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
I believe I noted this in an earlier post, but if not, it's worth emphasizing. Dropping memey one-liner images about a negative game experience has never been, and will never be, a viable method of assessing format health or bannable cards.
Except that it wasn't. It was a guy that grinded the deck day in and day out since it was printed and was sharing his experience with me (as he was handily crushing me) and I was forwarding that along. He was absolutely right in his evaluation because he did have plenty of play time with it and plenty of experience absolutely crushing people with it, often creating unwinnable positions for the opponent before turn 4 (if not outright winning). All of this was said multiple times as I was personally being attacked by multiple users.

I do not appreciate this complete and utter dismissal of experience in a world where we do not have data and Wizards actively hides and distorts data. %$#% things happen to me just about every FNM, but I often don't feel the need to post about them here because of their irrelevant one-off nature. This did not seem that way (and hey! guess what! it wasn't!) because of the experience shared by the friend who played it was seeing repeated success game after game, match after match, as well as in his grinding. Hogaak was still the real deal, and everyone here dismissed that.

User avatar
Ym1r
Posts: 153
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Ym1r » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
I do not appreciate this complete and utter dismissal of experience in a world where we do not have data and Wizards actively hides and distorts data.
Except that this is not very accurate. We had full meta-game reports for D1 and D2 of the Pro Tour, Channel Fireball has been giving us almost complete data and even win ratios for every Grand Prix they are hosting, SCG also provides a ton of data and if one cares can even track win rations, considering the post most of the decklists.

The existence of data is the reason we know FOR A FACT that Hogaak is broken and not through individual play experience. Sure we don't have the complete 5-0 league data, but we do have enough I would say.
Counter, draw a card.

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1109
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

Ym1r wrote:
1 year ago
The existence of data is the reason we know FOR A FACT that Hogaak is broken and not through individual play experience. Sure we don't have the complete 5-0 league data, but we do have enough I would say.
Which is weird how many people were telling me the exact opposite when I shared that experience. Because a NUMBER of people told me Hogaak was fine. And they were categorically wrong. This was before we had any data (including the MC or any GPs).

While I agree with dismissing random "hot takes" articles, written for clicks, I don't understand that same animosity aimed towards grinders of a particular deck and ignoring their findings. Or at least animosity towards the messenger.

User avatar
LeoTzu
Posts: 30
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by LeoTzu » 1 year ago

The problem is that play experience often tends to be skewed and biased, unless it's backed up by numbers. Plenty of pros and grinders are notorious for making some bold, sweeping statements, without anything to back it up aside from " I played it a bunch of times and it's busted."

I know a local grinder that I trust who told me that Death's Shadow needed a ban. Heck, H0lyDiva was predicting a Death's Shadow ban at one point. Experience is inherently filtered through the lens of personal perception, and humans are biased. That's why it's hard to trust experience-based opinions on the matter and it's why people tend to dismiss those sorts of experience-based claims without things like concrete winrates, tournament results, etc.

User avatar
Ym1r
Posts: 153
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Ym1r » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
Ym1r wrote:
1 year ago
The existence of data is the reason we know FOR A FACT that Hogaak is broken and not through individual play experience. Sure we don't have the complete 5-0 league data, but we do have enough I would say.
Which is weird how many people were telling me the exact opposite when I shared that experience. Because a NUMBER of people told me Hogaak was fine. And they were categorically wrong. This was before we had any data (including the MC or any GPs).

While I agree with dismissing random "hot takes" articles, written for clicks, I don't understand that same animosity aimed towards grinders of a particular deck and ignoring their findings. Or at least animosity towards the messenger.
I don't think it's a matter of animosity, at least not from my perspective. Posting a picture of a board-state, with almost no context, by itself, says nothing. Of course it did turn out that you were right, not saying you weren't.

But we know that you were right BECAUSE we have data, not because of a picture. I am unsure why you disregarded the first paragraph of my comment, but it remains a matter of fact that we can't say, at least not any more, that we lack the data to make correct predictions/interpretations of and around the meta.

Sharing experiences is fine, but by itself, it's not an argument. In addition, while I am not disputing you personally, none has any way to evaluate and/or validate what you or anyone else who shares personal FNM experiences has to say. It's just a matter of trust.

Again, you were right in your assessment, not gonna take that away. But we wouldn't be able to KNOW it if it wasn't for data. As it has been said multiple times, personal experiences can vary WILDLY. I have a kid in my LGS that plays ONLY goblins. I have been winning most of our games with all sorts of control decks because he is inexperienced and tends to play loosely. Yet Goblins is one of the most difficult fair MU for any control deck. If I would go to the UW forum and say "hey you guys suck, goblins is super easy", while it might be true for my case, it's not the data driven fact.
Counter, draw a card.

Mapccu
Posts: 87
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Mapccu » 1 year ago

Thanks for the chalice responses guys, I appreciate them. I know it's not ideal to try and guess what a meta is going to evolve into but it's not a cheap investment to make. I think I probably will try and go bigger with something ukamog and see how it plays out until the format settles a bit.

I feel kinda bad for throne of eldraine. Between war, MH1, two multi color sets and the mulligan rule this set has some stiff competition to feel like it's going to make a modern splash.

True-Name Nemesis
Posts: 156
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by True-Name Nemesis » 1 year ago

There needs to be a stop to this 'speculation' that SFM would simply slot into UW. a 5-7 card package does not simply slot into a deck without major deck-building concessions.

Swapping out some number of sweepers, planeswalkers and the weakest counters for a creature + equipment package transforms the way the deck plays completely, forming different archetype that is simply using the same colour combination.

A midrange blade deck to a control deck is like what UR phoenix is to Blue Moon. Like how back in 2013/2014 we had UWR control with or without kiki-jiki, UWR Geist midrange. Outside of the colours played, they are different strategies with different strengths and weaknesses. There is space for the different styles of UW to coexist within Modern.

Even when we look outside of Modern, Legacy shows that there can be multiple different strategies within each colour combination and within each of the format's "pillars".

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

True-Name Nemesis wrote:
1 year ago
There needs to be a stop to this 'speculation' that SFM would simply slot into UW. a 5-7 card package does not simply slot into a deck without major deck-building concessions.

Swapping out some number of sweepers, planeswalkers and the weakest counters for a creature + equipment package transforms the way the deck plays completely, forming different archetype that is simply using the same colour combination.

A midrange blade deck to a control deck is like what UR phoenix is to Blue Moon. Like how back in 2013/2014 we had UWR control with or without kiki-jiki, UWR Geist midrange. Outside of the colours played, they are different strategies with different strengths and weaknesses. There is space for the different styles of UW to coexist within Modern.
Its the basic 'appeal to authority' lowest common denominator argument we get these days. People dont look at the deck and understand how it functions, they just see W in SFM's costs, and assume you can dump it into a Tier 1 deck with no changes.

Its the same ignorance that leads to a lot of poor arguments against cards being fine, but your UR Phoenix vs Blue Moon comparison is spot on.
UR Control UR

Amalek0
Posts: 65
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Amalek0 » 1 year ago

I've been playing Esper and UW control in modern since inception--UW from the community cup time period through to 2014, esper from 2014-modern horizons, and UW since modern horizons. I've been a serious legacy player since 2007. I play Lands, dredge and stoneblade in legacy. I used to play batterskull as a win condition in modern UW.

I say this now, and will continue to back it up: Stoneforge Mystic is nowhere near too good for modern, and while it might spawn modifications to existing archetypes, I think the most likely outcome is that it spawns its own new archetype, be it some kind of modern delverblade or a modern flavor of stoneblade/deathblade. I certainly am not going to play it when I have access to timely reinforcements and kaya's guile and blessed alliance in my UWx decks, alongside JTMS and Teferi, HoD to close the game out.

Do I think it's possible jeskai control disappears and becomes jeskai stoneblade forevermore? Possibly. And I'm OK with that. Bolt decks want to swing with creatures (like the tons of snapcaster mages they also want to play, who happen to conveniently hold swords). Fatal Push and Path to Exile decks don't.

True-Name Nemesis
Posts: 156
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by True-Name Nemesis » 1 year ago

Based on what does SFM make UW become better? Provide the evidence since you made the claim. Also while you're at it, go look at a stock UW control list and have a good hard think of what you are cutting for a stoneforge package that allows UW control to maintain the same playstyle with the same strengths.

Upside for wizards? Archetype diversity. An alternative way to play. Was it not stated that one of their goals for modern was diversity?

So what if it's still UW, it's a different strategy altogether. Or are you implying that Modern is not allowed to have different strategies within colour combinations?

People have been saying SFM is likely to spawn a different UW archetype while you seem to be intent on parroting how it improves UW control. Hence entirely missing the point of why people disagree with your opinion.

Furthermore, there is precedent in modern where differing archetypes within colour combinations have been top tier at the same time. Namely UWr control and mid-range. Various URx control, delver and their respective twin variants.
Last edited by True-Name Nemesis 1 year ago, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

Amalek0 wrote:
1 year ago
I say this now, and will continue to back it up: Stoneforge Mystic is nowhere near too good for modern, and while it might spawn modifications to existing archetypes, I think the most likely outcome is that it spawns its own new archetype, be it some kind of modern delverblade or a modern flavor of stoneblade/deathblade. I certainly am not going to play it when I have access to timely reinforcements and kaya's guile and blessed alliance in my UWx decks, alongside JTMS and Teferi, HoD to close the game out.

Do I think it's possible jeskai control disappears and becomes jeskai stoneblade forevermore? Possibly. And I'm OK with that. Bolt decks want to swing with creatures (like the tons of snapcaster mages they also want to play, who happen to conveniently hold swords). Fatal Push and Path to Exile decks don't.
This is the issue I have. So UWR shifts toward a Stoneblade build? So what. UWR is nothing now, because UW Control is simply better. So a UW Midrange build or Esper Mid, comes out? So what?

Why is it ok and 'diverse' to have 15 Faithless Family decks, and we can only have one UW Deck that is meaningful and competitive? How does that remotely make sense?

Decks can share colours. Decks can share cards. This is fine for everyone else, but not UW?

Formats are different, and have different pressures which lead to card's being wildly different in application, such as our boy Jace, who wasnt even CLOSE to one of the best card in any Control shell's 75 in Modern and was cut for a better Walker (Teferi), until we got the necessary support and free spells to protect him.

Anyone who says otherwise, is being intellectually dishonest and a revisionist.

EDIT: And I know you are not saying that Amalek0 but people do, and I dont understand how they can be so wrong. :p
UR Control UR

Amalek0
Posts: 65
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Amalek0 » 1 year ago

idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
Amalek0 wrote:
1 year ago
I say this now, and will continue to back it up: Stoneforge Mystic is nowhere near too good for modern, and while it might spawn modifications to existing archetypes, I think the most likely outcome is that it spawns its own new archetype, be it some kind of modern delverblade or a modern flavor of stoneblade/deathblade. I certainly am not going to play it when I have access to timely reinforcements and kaya's guile and blessed alliance in my UWx decks, alongside JTMS and Teferi, HoD to close the game out.

Do I think it's possible jeskai control disappears and becomes jeskai stoneblade forevermore? Possibly. And I'm OK with that. Bolt decks want to swing with creatures (like the tons of snapcaster mages they also want to play, who happen to conveniently hold swords). Fatal Push and Path to Exile decks don't.
This is the issue I have. So UWR shifts toward a Stoneblade build? So what. UWR is nothing now, because UW Control is simply better. So a UW Midrange build or Esper Mid, comes out? So what?

Why is it ok and 'diverse' to have 15 Faithless Family decks, and we can only have one UW Deck that is meaningful and competitive? How does that remotely make sense?

Decks can share colours. Decks can share cards. This is fine for everyone else, but not UW?

Formats are different, and have different pressures which lead to card's being wildly different in application, such as our boy Jace, who wasnt even CLOSE to one of the best card in any Control shell's 75 in Modern and was cut for a better Walker (Teferi), until we got the necessary support and free spells to protect him.

Anyone who says otherwise, is being intellectually dishonest and a revisionist.
No disagreement from me. I'm a legacy player. I made the mistake in like, 2010 or 2011 of reading the entirety of the "ban brainstorm" thread on the source. The same arguments apply here, and the same arguments are what people *try* to apply in favor of faithless looting.

I don't even think they're wrong. Wotc keeps pushing busted delve creatures and card draw, but if they want to double down and do some more graveyard recursive removal or countermagic, I'm willing to buy that faithless looting could become the real "brainstorm" of modern in that it enables a bunch of different strategic options because it's a consistency tool. At the current time, all it enables is uninteractive linear aggro decks, and tricks those poor dega players into thinking black, white and red midrange cards are good enough.

BloodyRabbit
Posts: 143
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by BloodyRabbit » 1 year ago

Pretty sure that:

a) Stoneforge argument is non-profit related.
b) UW in its current iteration doesn't want Stoneforge.
c) Esper Blade would be a very decent deck in Modern.

True-Name Nemesis
Posts: 156
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by True-Name Nemesis » 1 year ago

gkourou wrote:
1 year ago

Also, a uw archetype with the same 54 cards, is not different, but highly similar. So, we both agree. Its just that you call this deck different, i call a deck with 54 cards similar.
This statement right here showcases a lack of fundamental understanding in how these 6 cards completely change the strategy and play patterns of the deck and how it affects the percentage points across the spectrum of matchups. Hence why we call it a different deck, not just in how it's played but also in how other decks play against it.

Raising a few examples:

Example 1: UW vs Jund
In a classic control build without SFM, Jund's removal spells are more or less bad cards due to the lack of targets, they also get boarded out frequently. With SFM, suddenly those main deck pushes and bolts are cards that interfere with the blade deck's strategy in a major way. The match vs Jund now becomes that much worse now that the removal spells are relevant.

Example 2: UW vs RDW/Burn/Blitz style decks
In a classic control build without SFM, you are at the mercy of what the red deck does, short of finding sideboarded timely reinforcements and hoping to draw removal and counterspells in the right order. With SFM however, now they have to devote resources to prevent the batterskull from hitting the board, with the threat from batterskull the red deck now has to devote resources to interact with you on top of the removal and counters that you may draw. The dynamic of the matchup is completely different.

TL:DR - Claiming that the two decks are similar just because they play a lot of the same cards is being deliberately obtuse. Similar in construction? Yes. Similar in playstyle and strategy? No. Strategy in playing against them? Completely different.

True-Name Nemesis
Posts: 156
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by True-Name Nemesis » 1 year ago

You claim it's easy, but you haven't been able to provide a sample deck or even list down your cuts to fit the package? I also like how you had no rebuttal for or ignored everything strategy-related and just went straight to quoting a pro.

Do you actually have any thoughts of your own or are you just going to keep hiding under the skirts of professional players and personalities in your constant appeal to 'authority'? In case you didn't know, pros can be and are often wrong. Quoting something some guy said doesn't mean it's right. And it's certainly not evidence.

You obviously have no ability to debate in good faith since you can't actually produce any succinct arguments while obviously mimicking me.

Greatest Gargadon
Posts: 9
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Greatest Gargadon » 1 year ago

Pretty sure what makes stonefore nutty is the fact that it can fetch out Jitte in legacy, not batterskull.
Tapping out on t2 to fetch a batterskull, then "vialing" it in on t3 isn't much better than where Dredge and Phoenix sit at T3. Infect is setting up lethal, midrange mains assassin's trophy, Tron is going to ugin the token, or karn the batterskull itself. Humans can vial in reflector mage or deputy of detention. This isn't counting the plethora of pushes, paths, bolts, decays that are in the format. I don't know, I wouldn't run SFM in my decks, but I would like it to get unbanned so that control players will finally have a clock and stop making games take forever while they stress over whether they opt for a path or verdict.
Swords are a slow plan. It'd be nice to see UW midrange, GW midrange, Abzan midrange, Mardu midrange be more than just "yeah it's fun for fnm" decks. My only complaint is how much more expensive decks that run her will become.

User avatar
Albegas
Posts: 127
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Albegas » 1 year ago

gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
This above statement right here showcases a lack of fundamental understanding in how a 6 card package works in modern.
Unlike twin, its just 5-6 cards, hence not a big deal.
It is easy for any deck to play them, just like lsv and matt nass explained.
Argument: blue decks used to jam 10 cards package.

Ps: i wish it gets unbanned.
It really isn't, and it's honestly more than a 5-6 card difference if you want to run the SFM package. The big question you need to ask when figuring out the real card difference is "Why am I running this package?". Stoneforge does two things: puts in an early game threat and searches equipment.

The first is pointless in Control. Early resources need to be put into keeping your opponent's board clear to make way for Planeswalkers, neither of which is accomplished by SFM or Batterskull. In fact, against the wrong deck, you risk a tempo blowout by wasting mana on a dead Stoneforge. The package also non-bos with sweepers, another important tool in keeping the board clear and advancing your gameplan.

The second element is just not very good without at least some sort of evasive creature to slap the equipment on. Trying to equip a Sword to SFM or Snapcaster is pretty underwhelming given their lack of evasion and their weak P/T, and anytime you deem it both safe and reasonable to equip a Batterskull to them, Colonnade probably would have accomplished the same goal of closing out the game.

The only way SFM works is by ditching sweepers and introducing additional creatures with some form of evasion worth equipping Swords to. So what really happens is that the Stoneforge Mystic package turns Control decks into Midrange decks that are more creature heavy, and the actual card difference becomes closer to 8-10. It's likely even more if more expensive cards like T5feriof the excess lands get cut in favor of cheaper counter magic to help the creature plan. You can see this whole phenomenon play out in Legacy where Stoneblade decks run True-Name Nemesis and cheap early game counters like Spell Pierces. They're not just cutting Terminus and some walkers to jam in the package. They need to add additional pieces to make the package work, and the resulting difference is more than just 6 cards.

User avatar
ModernDefector
Posts: 26
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: xe /xim

Post by ModernDefector » 1 year ago

Twitch streamer ewlandon abandons Modern streaming because of decaying interest

Image

True-Name Nemesis
Posts: 156
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by True-Name Nemesis » 1 year ago

gkourou wrote:
1 year ago

Its really that you have no arguments here. My arguments have been said over 1,000 times yet you ignored them. I said its going to be used in many decks and make modern more diverse and you chose to ignore this and told i havent been recognizing it.
My argument is dispelling the myth where SFM is an automatic slot into UW.

But yes, keep up your accusations and keep nitpicking on the ONE thing i missed out about diversity while STILL ignoring everything else.
gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
I am not interested in one way monologues, but in meaningful discussions with arguments.
Pot meet kettle.
gkourou wrote:
1 year ago

Similarly, i presented my arguments so many times. Again, ignored.
For one more time:
1) its just a 5-6 card combo that slots right into the uw deck. Take out two narsets, one t3feri , meaning some 3 cmc walkers and a sweeper(keep one, then move them to the sideboard), and mission accomplished. Its not some twin package, requiring 8-10 cards, thus its very easy
2) if you are white, there is no reason to not just run 5-6 cards that are powerful.
3) You have the power of a proactive deck, while being reactive deck
4) uw curves way, way nicely
5) jtms hiding out certain cards helps very much.
1) That's only 4 cards, and 4 cards that also play an important role in how the deck finds its answers and maintains board control.
2)Yes there is reason not to run these cards, as you yourself have stated in (1) especially since your proposed cuts are a major part of what make the deck good right now.
3) Yes, you have the power of a proactive deck, while weakening your reactive ability.
4) Valid
5) Not any more than JTMS hiding out cards you don't want in any general scenario.

All this literally shows that SFM is a side-grade, seeing as how you're trading away some of your best reactive value cards for a proactive Stoneforge package.
gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
I know that you are going to take this post and use it like i think sfm is broken in modern, because, i know how fora and people work, sadly.
So, again, sfm is fine power level wise. And imo, its fine in uw also, maybe.
Show me where I said that you think SFM is broken in Modern, go on. I'm simply pushing back against the myth you propagate saying that SFM is an auto-include in UW. Or do you just like framing things in a way that make yourself seem like a victim? Sadly, it seems that's how you work.
gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
But i dont blame wizards for fearing to unban her, while there is a chance a tier 1 deck takes it and become a better deck with a way to close out games also. I know people are not careful, because if sfm (small chance) proves to be so good in uw, wizards is in trouble, while they are not.

We should be more responsible in such matters.

&Tldr: i think SFM would be fine, but slot right into uw.
Wizards fears to unban a card that may slot into a tier 1 deck. Rather than play it more experienced than they are(you are not), try to understand it.
Personally I'm more concerned about them printing even more busted graveyard cards that break the format rather than letting UW have an alternative build with a proactive game plan. But yes there we go again we that fragile appeal to 'authority'.

User avatar
ktkenshinx
Posts: 571
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: West Coast
Contact:

Post by ktkenshinx » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
I do not appreciate this complete and utter dismissal of experience in a world where we do not have data and Wizards actively hides and distorts data. %$#% things happen to me just about every FNM, but I often don't feel the need to post about them here because of their irrelevant one-off nature. This did not seem that way (and hey! guess what! it wasn't!) because of the experience shared by the friend who played it was seeing repeated success game after game, match after match, as well as in his grinding. Hogaak was still the real deal, and everyone here dismissed that.
I'm fine with citing qualitative, experiential examples to make arguments. We don't have data for everything and sometimes data misses the in-depth, qualitative stuff. That said, the actual post in question does not actually pose an argument. It's just a sort of casual observation of a powerful deck, hence the one-liner attribution I gave it. I believe this is the quote in question but, if not, please redirect me and I will happily rescind/edit this if needed:
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
Looks like Hogaak is still doing just fine. A casual 20 power in play, and attacaking for 9 on their turn 2, on the draw.

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/9523/XYLG9Z.png
There are many ways to develop that qualitative experience into a decent, albeit limited, argument for why a certain deck is broken. Or, in the case of Hogaak, still broken. But simply describing the "casual 20 power in play" is the same kind of Twitter and Reddit soundbite we routinely see about all kinds of allegedly broken decks. It simply doesn't meet the bar of an argument, which is why I will push back against that style of posting whenever I see it. Again, there's nothing wrong with using experience an qualitative examples to argue for an issue. But the above example isn't arguing for an issue; it's just that same one-liner we need to fight back against.
LeoTzu wrote:
1 year ago
The problem is that play experience often tends to be skewed and biased, unless it's backed up by numbers. Plenty of pros and grinders are notorious for making some bold, sweeping statements, without anything to back it up aside from " I played it a bunch of times and it's busted."

I know a local grinder that I trust who told me that Death's Shadow needed a ban. Heck, H0lyDiva was predicting a Death's Shadow ban at one point. Experience is inherently filtered through the lens of personal perception, and humans are biased. That's why it's hard to trust experience-based opinions on the matter and it's why people tend to dismiss those sorts of experience-based claims without things like concrete winrates, tournament results, etc.
This is also a significant problem with experience, and why I don't trust it even when it's right 1 in N times. LSV infamously wanted DS banned too in 2017, and we've all seen tons of "ban this/that/this too" arguments by many of Magic's most iconic players. Data is a way arbitrate those claims and separate the off-base ones from the accurate ones. Given how few of them end up being accurate or predictive, it's good for us to be skeptical.
gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
This above statement right here showcases a lack of fundamental understanding in how a 6 card package works in modern.
Unlike twin, its just 5-6 cards, hence not a big deal.
It is easy for any deck to play them, just like lsv and matt nass explained.
Argument: blue decks used to jam 10 cards package.

Ps: i wish it gets unbanned.
I don't think any "side" here definitively knows if Wx decks, or UWx decks, will or won't jam the SFM package. Anyone who definitively states otherwise is misrepresenting our ability to predict how new cards/unbans affect the format. It's an open question and basically everyone routinely get these kinds of evaluations wrong. That's fine! Card evaluation is super difficult and I don't hold that against anyone. We just need to admit it's hard and tone back the certainty on all "sides" of this SFM issue.

Can anyone think of another "package" that got introduced in Modern, either through unbans/new cards/reprints, which decks adopted or didn't adopt? For instance, WAR Karn represents a MD/SB package that many decks can adopt. Who actually did adopt this and who didn't but could've? Those historical examples might be more telling than just speculating on future lists. I'm extremely skeptical of our ability to accurately predict what formats will look like after cards get introduced, especially after the laughably community failures in WAR/MH1 evaluation (Teferi, Narset, W6, Urza, Hogaak, etc.).
ModernDefector wrote:
1 year ago
Twitch streamer ewlandon abandons Modern streaming because of decaying interest

Image
Although just a single streamer, this still contributes to a picture of some broader Modern issues. I haven't done enough format analysis of articles, readership, stream views, event attendance, etc. to definitively say Modern is/is not losing players. But I can definitely feel (not very data-driven, admittedly) a nasty, dissatisfied undertone with Modern that has never been this bad. Again, I can't prove that/haven't tried to prove it yet, but it's my read on the format over the last 3-6 months. It might just be that vocal Modern representatives/community members are down on the format and their negativity is the most visible, but I suspect (emphasis: suspect, cannot currently prove/haven't tried to in a rigorous way) it's indicative of a broader problem.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

User avatar
Albegas
Posts: 127
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Albegas » 1 year ago

gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
Its really that you have no arguments here. My arguments have been said over 1,000 times yet you ignored them. I said its going to be used in many decks and make modern more diverse and you chose to ignore this and told i havent been recognizing it. I am not interested in one way monologues, but in meaningful discussions with arguments.
Similarly, i presented my arguments so many times. Again, ignored.
For one more time:
1) its just a 5-6 card combo that slots right into the uw deck. Take out two narsets, one t3feri , meaning some 3 cmc walkers and a sweeper(keep one, then move them to the sideboard), and mission accomplished. Its not some twin package, requiring 8-10 cards, thus its very easy
2) if you are white, there is no reason to not just run 5-6 cards that are powerful.
3) You have the power of a proactive deck, while being reactive deck
4) uw curves way, way nicely
5) jtms hiding out certain cards helps very much.
1) I've made my case on how it really is an 8-10 card package even if it looks like a 5-6 card package on the surface.
2) White's in a weird place in Modern. It's a great utility color, but there really aren't any decks that are white in the sense that they focus on White cards in Modern. Humans cares more about the subtype than the color, Abzan's dead, and UW Control arguably cares more about the hybrid cards than the white cards. Decks like Death and Taxes that are almost exclusively white are dead in Modern.
3) That's not how it works. Turns taken being proactive and tapping out are turns that sacrifice being reactive. If you spend T2 playing SFM and T3 spending 2 mana putting out Batterskull, you forfeit your reactive abilities and cut into your ability to interactive with your opponent. Jamming proactive elements into a primarily reactive deck doesn't inherently give you the best of both worlds.
4) That's more of an observation and almost vacuously true of any T1 deck. SFM doesn't change UW's curve.
5) This is also more of a vacuously true statement. SFM doesn't impact JtMS's ability to fix your hand if you're on UW Control.

On a side note, you seem to be trying to defend Wizard's previous statements on SFM while also claiming that SFM would be fine in Modern. I'm no stranger to playing Devil's Advocate, but you're active defending and attempting to justify claims that keep SFM banned while also claiming that you're on the the opposing side, which doesn't really work. If you really think SFM should come off, then you should be able to see that the claims keeping her banned aren't justified
that's fine. A nice represented opinion. I am not sure I agree, though to be honest, I lack experience on the matter. UW is more tap out those days and can certainly tap out turn 2 for her. Then keep on tapping for other cards.
This seems more like an argument based on semantics. Yes, UW Control is more proactive these days. However, it's not tapping out T2 to search for a card it may tap out for on T3. The early game cards it taps out for are cards that both provide utility and strong static effects that help them to control the board. Batterskull at best represents a threat with no evasion and no utility. You can't compare tapping out for SFM and Batterskull to tapping out for Narset or T3feri
ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
Can anyone think of another "package" that got introduced in Modern, either through unbans/new cards/reprints, which decks adopted or didn't adopt? For instance, WAR Karn represents a MD/SB package that many decks can adopt. Who actually did adopt this and who didn't but could've? Those historical examples might be more telling than just speculating on future lists. I'm extremely skeptical of our ability to accurately predict what formats will look like after cards get introduced, especially after the laughably community failures in WAR/MH1 evaluation (Teferi, Narset, W6, Urza, Hogaak, etc.).
The only thing that really comes to mind is ThopterSword, and that's a pretty loose definition of "package". If we're talking some form of toolboxing, WAR Karn is really the closest thing we've had to a format defining toolbox card since Birthing Pod. CoCo doesn't even really compare since it only dug through the top cards of your deck.

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1109
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
There are many ways to develop that qualitative experience into a decent, albeit limited, argument for why a certain deck is broken. Or, in the case of Hogaak, still broken. But simply describing the "casual 20 power in play" is the same kind of Twitter and Reddit soundbite we routinely see about all kinds of allegedly broken decks.
Chalk the original post up to my paramount frustrations seeing a banned deck absolutely dumpster me 2-0, and it not be even remotely close. But the subsequent posts elaborating on his testing, his experiences, and some light analysis on why I agreed with his views of it being really, really good were also mostly ignored and discarded, and even scoffed. It would be nice if, instead of just dismissing these one-off occurrences, have some open discussions about how likely that might actually be? Does anyone have similar experiences? etc. We live in a world where WOTC hides most meaningful real-time data, obscures or misrepresents most other data, and when we finally do get something useful, it's often outdated or irrelevant by the time we get it (new sets, B&Rs, evolutions, etc).

While it sucks to lack hard numbers, or be extremely delayed with less-than-relevant numbers (especially with these worthless, Hogaak-warped GPs), I think that one-liners and other such observations from players should be used as a springboard to discuss, especially if it is some of the ubiquitous fast-win-feelbads that permeate a format that has measurably sped up in the last several years. And even moreso when these happen much more frequently than they probably should (something we would never know without MTGO data, or personal accounts from players).

metalmusic_4
Posts: 260
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by metalmusic_4 » 1 year ago

Reminder, SFM did just get a new toy in colossis hammer. It still has to pair with puresteel paladin or sigarda's aid but that is something new she can do besides batterskull. Also she could see play in the thopter-sword decks running around. I agree SFM should be unbanned, but I just wanted to say there are more issues than batterskull and UW control being good.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Modern”