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

User avatar
Bearscape
Posts: 213
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Bearscape » 1 year ago

They're not going to forego Field of Ruin though. FoR is much better than these lands, it is one of the big reasons to be straight UW over 3 colors to begin with..

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

Post by Amalek0 » 1 year ago

Bearscape wrote:
1 year ago
They're not going to forego Field of Ruin though. FoR is much better than these lands, it is one of the big reasons to be straight UW over 3 colors to begin with..
Hard disagree. I had a ton of success recently with a 23 land build of UW control packing zero field of ruins; I instead opted to build around the combination of archmage's charm and Generous Gift. I went back to esper for the specific strength of kaya's guile, but I would not move back to playing UW with field of ruin--there are just better ways to attack the decks that have problematic lands than trying to hit them with repeated ghost quarters.

User avatar
Cow31337Killer
Posts: 139
Joined: 1 year ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Cow31337Killer » 1 year ago

Amalek0 wrote:
1 year ago
Hard disagree. I had a ton of success recently with a 23 land build of UW control packing zero field of ruins; I instead opted to build around the combination of archmage's charm and Generous Gift. I went back to esper for the specific strength of kaya's guile, but I would not move back to playing UW with field of ruin--there are just better ways to attack the decks that have problematic lands than trying to hit them with repeated ghost quarters.
*cough* Tron *cough*

Greenhide
Posts: 1
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Greenhide » 1 year ago

I'd add Giant Killer to the list of cards which will likely see play in modern, any decks running Ranger-Captain of Eos will be interested in at least a 1-of in the side for the Jund/GDS/Eldrazi matchups. Devoted Druid decks especially profit since they play both Ranger and Eternal Witness to then possibly return Giant Killer. You tend to lose to Goyf/Deaths Shadow beatdowns with those decks and this will help keeping the threats in check while not dying to W&6/Plague Engineer which is a nice bonus.

User avatar
Bearscape
Posts: 213
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Bearscape » 1 year ago

Amalek0 wrote:
1 year ago
Bearscape wrote:
1 year ago
They're not going to forego Field of Ruin though. FoR is much better than these lands, it is one of the big reasons to be straight UW over 3 colors to begin with..
Hard disagree. I had a ton of success recently with a 23 land build of UW control packing zero field of ruins; I instead opted to build around the combination of archmage's charm and Generous Gift. I went back to esper for the specific strength of kaya's guile, but I would not move back to playing UW with field of ruin--there are just better ways to attack the decks that have problematic lands than trying to hit them with repeated ghost quarters.
Everything you just said made me more certain you should be running 4 Field of Ruin

User avatar
Wraithpk
Posts: 177
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Connecticut, USA

Post by Wraithpk » 1 year ago

Amalek0 wrote:
1 year ago
Hard disagree. I had a ton of success recently with a 23 land build of UW control packing zero field of ruins; I instead opted to build around the combination of archmage's charm and Generous Gift. I went back to esper for the specific strength of kaya's guile, but I would not move back to playing UW with field of ruin--there are just better ways to attack the decks that have problematic lands than trying to hit them with repeated ghost quarters.
There's not a better way to deal with those decks, or else everyone would be doing that... Field isn't just for Tron or Valakut, it's also good against anyone running manlands, which is a ton of decks, or killing an Inventor's Fair, or a horizon land, or a Cavern of Souls, etc. There are a bunch of Field targets in the meta in almost every deck in Modern. UW Control used to have real trouble against problematic lands, and Field pretty much single-handedly fixed that problem.
Modern
ubr Grixis Shadow ubr
uwg Bant Stoneblade uwg
gbr Jund gbr

Pioneer
urIzzet Phoenixur
rMono-Red Aggror
uwAzorius Controluw

Commander
bg Meren of Clan Nel Toth bg

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

Post by Ym1r » 1 year ago

Amalek0 wrote:
1 year ago
Bearscape wrote:
1 year ago
They're not going to forego Field of Ruin though. FoR is much better than these lands, it is one of the big reasons to be straight UW over 3 colors to begin with..
Hard disagree. I had a ton of success recently with a 23 land build of UW control packing zero field of ruins; I instead opted to build around the combination of archmage's charm and Generous Gift. I went back to esper for the specific strength of kaya's guile, but I would not move back to playing UW with field of ruin--there are just better ways to attack the decks that have problematic lands than trying to hit them with repeated ghost quarters.
Yeeeeah... I also will be on the Field of Ruin camp. I have tried some different builds, but nothing compares to the power FoR against any deck that has key lands. It just hits SO many things and never sets you back a land. It can also tutor for the color you are missing if you are looking for a second white or a third blue. FoR is just way too good to pass. It is, imho, part of the reason (alongside T3feri and Dovin's Veto) that UW is just so far ahead than any other control color combination.
Counter, draw a card.

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

Post by ktkenshinx » 1 year ago

4 Field is almost certainly correct. Even ignoring the statistic that something like 100% of recorded Stoneblade and Azorius control lists are using 4 Field, it's just too versatile. Jumping through hoops with subpar cards to achieve the same effect as Field is not a winning deckbuilding strategy. As others have stated, Field is one of the top reasons to be in straight UW. Even before T3feri and Veto totally warped the picture, Field ensured a decisive edge to UW that neither Jeskai nor Esper (despite playing the strong white SB cards plus premium removal Path) were able to meet. It's the main reason Jeskai vs. Tron is something awful like 35/65 and UW vs. Tron is about 55/45. Cutting them is a mistake and is one reason UW is likely to stay on top. It's also another reason that Drown is likely overrated, unless people find a way to make UB Control work (unlikely because you fold to T3feri, have no good Path substitute, and lose the best SB cards).
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

User avatar
robertleva
Posts: 484
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by robertleva » 1 year ago

Agree with Ktks above post. Though 3x FoR isn't insane, most people probably want 4x. Also UB, imo, is far far worse than UW currently.
Robert Leva
Creator of Modern's 8Rack Deck
Image

User avatar
Tzoulis
Posts: 279
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Tzoulis » 1 year ago

gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
Looks like we have a tiered paradoxical outcome modern deck, guys! Whoever likes those kind of decks, I would recommend to try it out. Now is the time that brewers brew, optimize the deck. Only downside, it takes a loooot of minutes to win. Close to 6-10 mins. People mainly win via mirrodin besieged. Backup win cons being sai, saheeli, urza thopters. Deck feels a little bit stronger or the same as Urza whir. Certainly not worse.
Super fun to play with, i missed when modern had such a deck. Also rewarding as hell!
Super high chance that it remains a sleeper deck until the next modern season or the next modern pt.
Been playing the deck for the past few weeks and my experience with it is that it's an awesome deck, different kind of "Storm" style deck. Minor nitpicks, the back up wincons are things like Nexus of Fate/Ghirapur Aethergrid (Mirrodin Besieged has been in one list that I've seen). People usually give up after you've drawn 30 cards and created 40 thopters/servoes, or you have a Paradox Engine and an Urza on the battlefield.

The toughest matchups are infect/burn and Tron with Karn TGC, although post SB the aggro decks can be managed Tron is just awful overall and will need some tweaking.

Also, I'd expect to see it more and more because the artifact Witching Well (U, Scry 2 ETB, 3U draw 2) will REALLY help the deck with it's velocity and consistency, plus it doesn't care about Stony Silence or artifact removal.

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

gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
Looks like we have a tiered paradoxical outcome modern deck, guys! Whoever likes those kind of decks, I would recommend to try it out. Now is the time that brewers brew, optimize the deck. Only downside, it takes a loooot of minutes to win. Close to 6-10 mins. People mainly win via mirrodin besieged. Backup win cons being sai, saheeli, urza thopters. Deck feels a little bit stronger or the same as Urza whir. Certainly not worse.
Super fun to play with, i missed when modern had such a deck. Also rewarding as hell!
Super high chance that it remains a sleeper deck until the next modern season or the next modern pt.
That sounds like agonizing misery, and sounds worse than both Lantern or Eggs/KCI. Why is this a good thing? Why not just have combos that win on the spot?

User avatar
Tzoulis
Posts: 279
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Tzoulis » 1 year ago

Because not everyone likes what you like?

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

Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
Because not everyone likes what you like?
Do you consider it healthy and good for a format to have decks whose primary win condition is the opponent conceding out of frustration rather than sit and watch someone non-deterministically play solitaire for 10 minutes? That may be OK on the fringes, but it's pretty awful if the decks ever actually get good.

Win. Get it over with. Go to the next game. It's the same misery that plagued Standard for a long time with Teferi and Nexus loops. Sorry for wanting a game to be fun, but it's apparently one of the stated goals for the format, as per Aaron Forsythe.

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
Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
Because not everyone likes what you like?
Do you consider it healthy and good for a format to have decks whose primary win condition is the opponent conceding out of frustration rather than sit and watch someone non-deterministically play solitaire for 10 minutes? That may be OK on the fringes, but it's pretty awful if the decks ever actually get good.

Win. Get it over with. Go to the next game. It's the same misery that plagued Standard for a long time with Teferi and Nexus loops. Sorry for wanting a game to be fun, but it's apparently one of the stated goals for the format, as per Aaron Forsythe.
This is a very subjective take, which is fine, but it's framed very objectively, which is not. These kinds of puzzle/solitaire combo decks are acceptable in non-rotating formats. Wizards has made that extremely clear, notably by not banning these decks (See Lantern) unless elements of these decks are violating other rules (see KCI and Eggs). I have no issue with you framing this as a matter of you liking or disliking a deck. Everyone is allowed to like or dislike whatever Modern elements they want. But I have a major problem with you framing it as a fundamental and objective issue of format health, i.e. "Do you consider it healthy and good for a format..." These are the same kind of overstated claims you typically argue against. If you personally don't like something, I don't think I or anyone has an issue with that, especially if it's something as simple as not liking certain kinds of decks. Just don't frame it as a format-wide truth that everyone else should agree with.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

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
. Just don't frame it as a format-wide truth that everyone else should agree with.
I'm not. I'm asking if they feel that misery is part of a healthy format. As I explained, it's fine if it can be if it is answerable and not the forefront of the format. But it absolutely is not fine when it defines it. That was the very argument that got Nexus of Fate banned in Best of One Arena. I was just curious about gk's excitement and enthusiasm for a deck like that, especially when praising its power, and claiming tiered status. Then I just defended my position after snarky trolling.

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
ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
. Just don't frame it as a format-wide truth that everyone else should agree with.
I'm not. I'm asking if they feel that misery is part of a healthy format. As I explained, it's fine if it can be if it is answerable and not the forefront of the format. But it absolutely is not fine when it defines it. That was the very argument that got Nexus of Fate banned in Best of One Arena. I was just curious about gk's excitement and enthusiasm for a deck like that, especially when praising its power, and claiming tiered status. Then I just defended my position after snarky trolling.
Again, this is the kind of overstatement masked as an opinion that we need to avoid. You claim you are not framing it as a format-wide truth, but then with no justification you describe the deck/the deck's gameplay as "misery" (a highly subjective and polarizing term), following that up by strongly suggesting "misery" should NOT be part of a healthy format. I don't believe this problem is unique to you. Many streamers and authors make similarly overstated evaluations of formats because it sounds good on Twitter, Twitch, Reddit, and other venues depending on audience engagement. That doesn't make it critical or accurate. This post is particularly problematic because it equates the Paradoxical Urza list, which is just another solitaire engine combo that is part and parcel to nonrotating formats, with BO1 Nexus of Fate, a card banned largely due to digital limitations with handling loops.

I understand you vehemently dislike certain deck styles. You have made that known with extreme terms like "toxic" and "misery" and "awful." But this is a nonrotating format where such decks are allowed to see play. They are only problematic in Modern if they are also extremely powerful, see KCI, or extremely disruptive of tournament structure, see Eggs. If you want to make that comparison that's fine, but just offhandedly equating "Paradoxical Urza" with "misery" and then saying it's not part of a healthy format is not making an argument. It's just frustrated venting with a ban or Modern-complaint undertone. If you think the combo "defines" Modern, then you need to pull those numbers to make that case, not simply say it as if it was true.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

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
This post is particularly problematic because it equates the Paradoxical Urza list, which is just another solitaire engine combo that is part and parcel to nonrotating formats, with BO1 Nexus of Fate, a card banned largely due to digital limitations with handling loops.
If that were truely the case for Nexus, it would have been banned across the board. It was specifically only banned in BO1 because it created awful, lopsided gameplay, in which players lacked sufficient answers to deal with it when a sideboard is not available.

From their announcement: "Again, we are mindful that much of the frustration surrounding Nexus of Fate comes from unenjoyable games and subpar viewing experiences, and not with the overall power level of the card or complexity with rules interactions."
I understand you vehemently dislike certain deck styles. You have made that known with extreme terms like "toxic" and "misery" and "awful." But this is a nonrotating format where such decks are allowed to see play.
Am I not allowed to hold opinions about those decks? I endured years of people telling me Twin is all those things, most of which supported and encouraged by mods and other users. Why are those opinions more valid than mine? I specifically and explicitly qualify my statements as best as I can, as often as I can.

If you want to enforce people not sharing their opinions on things in sweeping ways, might as well shut this entire thread down.

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
If that were truely the case for Nexus, it would have been banned across the board. It was specifically only banned in BO1 because it created awful, lopsided gameplay, in which players lacked sufficient answers to deal with it when a sideboard is not available.
This is another assumption and it is not backed up the announcement. The term "sideboard" comes up only once in the entire article, and it has nothing to do with the ban justification. Indeed, Wizards explicitly writes out why they didn't ban Nexus in other formats: they wanted Arena to reflect the "authentic" Magic experience even in paper. See quote below:

"Because it bears repeating, we'll say it again: it has always been the plan for MTG Arena to provide an authentic digital Magic experience, and we're sticking to that plan. This includes best-of-three formats, sideboarding, and an authentic-to-tabletop banned and restricted list. As such, Nexus of Fate will still be playable in all other events and formats, including the Traditional Constructed event and Traditional Ranked queue."

If Nexus isn't too powerful to ban in paper, they aren't going to ban it in B03 Arena either. They want to preserve their Arena/paper connection as much as possible. Unfortunately for Nexus players, B01 Arena has all of the cited digital limitations (they have a huge paragraph discussing this). This is why they took the step of banning it in the one problematic area they could, digital B01 Magic. I am sure there were other considerations, which is why I said "largely" in my original post. But it remains that the main, i.e. "largely," reason for banning Nexus in BO1 were digital considerations unique to that digital-only format.
If you want to enforce people not sharing their opinions on things in sweeping ways, might as well shut this entire thread down.
Any time I see a sweeping opinion overstated in hyperbolic, unsupported terminology, I am going to push back. If you or anyone else feels like I missed one, it's totally possible it got posted (potentially during working hours) and I didn't see it. If I notice it or if anyone brings it to my attention, I will push back against it too. This style of posting is epidemic in Magic/Modern these days and it makes for a worse community. I don't care how many people do it or think it's okay. It's not and it hurts our discussions, here and elsewhere.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

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
This style of posting is epidemic in Magic/Modern these days and it makes for a worse community. I don't care how many people do it or think it's okay. It's not and it hurts our discussions, here and elsewhere.
How do you expect this to ever change when Wizards actively and purposely skews, misrepresents, and hides data that allows us to have meaningful conversations about things like deck strengths? Literally everything we have to discuss is either built upon personal experiences, small n observations, or events that themselves are skewed by people metagaming for a meta that may or may not even exist; leading to chaotic and volatile results. It's made even worse by the schedule of meaningful events to pull from; especially looking at the past six months of Hogaak nullifying half a dozen events, and the bleak and empty next 6 months.

So I don't know what our goal is here. As mentioned before, several users (myself included) will put lengthy thought and analysis into posts just to have them dismissed, ignored, or refuted by trolling one-liners and clickbait hot takes instead of any meaningful discussion. Meanwhile, those hot takes spark pages worth of discussion. What's the point?

With regards to Nexus, I play a considerable amount of Bo1 on Arena and Nexus was absolutely a toxic awful pile of garbage to play against, and they explicitly reference that in the ban announcement (the bolded part that you didn't quote of my previous post). If what you are saying is true (and it was not a sideboard issue), then the logistics issues at hand absolutely applied to Bo3 just as much as Bo1. While I don't remember the citation off the top of my hand, inability to deal with it via sideboards was absolutely a considering factor. If it was not, it would have been banned outright across all Standard formats.

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

Post by Albegas » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
With regards to Nexus, I play a considerable amount of Bo1 on Arena and Nexus was absolutely a toxic awful pile of garbage to play against, and they explicitly reference that in the ban announcement (the bolded part that you didn't quote of my previous post). If what you are saying is true (and it was not a sideboard issue), then the logistics issues at hand absolutely applied to Bo3 just as much as Bo1. While I don't remember the citation off the top of my hand, inability to deal with it via sideboards was absolutely a considering factor. If it was not, it would have been banned outright across all Standard Arena formats.
It wasn't a sideboard issue, but the issue of long play sequences isn't necessarily as bad in Bo3 as Bo1. In Bo3, if your opponent tries to loop Nexus without a wincon indefinitely you can concede the game and still win the match, which is still better than losing a Bo1 "match" because you were coerced into conceding. My personal opinion aside, you also seem to focus more on the lines in the announcement about frustrating play and not the cause of the frustration, which is fairly explicitly stated:
When looping a sequence in tabletop, if both players mutually understand what's going on, it's okay to fast forward until the loop is broken—either because the game is won, or the player looping has reached their desired board state. Worst case scenario, players in competitive play can also call over a Judge to keep a stalled game moving. The same cannot be said for digital environments where you must explicitly identify each game choice every time you wish to make it. There's no calling over the games rules engine to explain the situation so you can skip ahead, or to issue a ruling on whether the actions taken could be considered stalling or slow play (at least not yet!).
It isn't simply that the Nexus player can take a while to win. It's the absence of of a way to shortcut deterministic outcomes, which not only forces a Nexus player who has won to have to go through all the steps because the opponent won't concede, but it also leads to the existence of a way for a Nexus player with a loop online but no win condition to create a scenario forcing an opponent to concede that according to the rules should not exist. This is no longer a case of being "frustrating", this is a disruption of normal play procedure that only exists because of weaknesses in how Arena as a whole is designed.

Ultimately, going back to whether it's OK to have another "frustrating" deck in the format, there's a difference between disrupting normal play (Eggs, Nexus in Bo1 Arena) and simply creating an experience others find frustrating (Lantern, Teferi looping in standard), and unless the deck is doing the former, there's no reason why the deck can't do the latter. That being said, I haven't actually seen the Paradoxical Outcome deck in action, and I'm curious if people think it's another Eggs deck or another Lantern deck since it seems most of the discussion has been less about the deck and more about analyzing complaints of frustration

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

Albegas wrote:
1 year ago
Ultimately, going back to whether it's OK to have another "frustrating" deck in the format, there's a difference between disrupting normal play (Eggs, Nexus in Bo1 Arena) and simply creating an experience others find frustrating (Lantern, Teferi looping in standard), and unless the deck is doing the former, there's no reason why the deck can't do the latter. That being said, I haven't actually seen the Paradoxical Outcome deck in action, and I'm curious if people think it's another Eggs deck or another Lantern deck since it seems most of the discussion has been less about the deck and more about analyzing complaints of frustration
I was trying to discuss more about it with my original reply, which said: "That sounds like agonizing misery, and sounds worse than both Lantern or Eggs/KCI. Why is this a good thing? Why not just have combos that win on the spot?" Which was met with a snarky one-liner and devolved into people not addressing the topic at hand, and instead quibbling about meaningless and unnecessary tangents. It would have been nice if instead of meaningless dick waiving and %$#%, someone would talk about what the deck does, why it's a good thing to do what the deck does, and whether or not that is something to celebrate in the format.

Yes, I interjected an opinion, I also framed it specifically in the follow up. And instead of ANYONE discussing that, it was needless nitpicked about syntax and presentation of opinion instead of the context or content of the post. Those decks are awful to play against, and I challenge you to find anyone who enjoys being on the other side. The people who play them revel in this (or simply don't care and just want to win). Is that something good for our game? Is that a topic worth discussing? Thank you for at least one person addressing that question! :party:

But I guess this is a byproduct of being blocked by the person who made that post and doesn't want to have a conversation (or maybe it's just the cute passive-aggressive thanks people who reply to me), who knows!

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
It would have been nice if instead of meaningless dick waiving and %$#%, someone would talk about what the deck does, why it's a good thing to do what the deck does, and whether or not that is something to celebrate in the format.
I already addressed this and I believe you just disagreed with my response. I'll address it again:

1. It's not a good or bad thing for the deck to do what it does. It's just a part of playing a powerful nonrotating format with synergies for different kinds of players. EDIT: It's no more or less annoying/awful than Moon, Bridge, T3feri, T3 Karn, Bogles, TS into IoK destroying your gameplan, everything Dredge does, everything involving Griselbrand ever, etc. No one wants to lose to any of these optimized and tuned strategies. That doesn't make these win conditions or deck styles less desirable in a large format.

2. I celebrate that, recently, Wizards tries to stay more hands-off with decks that are subjectively unfun to different types of players. I do not want Wizards having unpredictable, subjective bans in a nonrotating format. It kills format confidence and any gains made by some subjective increase in "fun" in a subset of matches is more than lost by the constant fear of a deck getting banned because a vocal group of players doesn't like some element of its gameplay.

I know you're focused on the time element of the Urza win, but it's misplaced. I've said this before and I'll say it again. There is no material difference between sitting around for 5-10 minutes while a fully-assembled engine combo wins and playing 5-10 minutes of a Azorius Control game where they have 7 cards in their hand and a T3feri or 3 loyalty JTMS on the battlefield. Those games are both determinstically over in most cases and extremely unfun for the person on the other side. One of them has the illusion of counterplay whereas the other one you are just sitting there watching an opponent win, but in both cases, nothing you do is going to matter and it is going to take a while for the game to end. In both cases, you should concede. The illusion of counterplay is still a lack of engagement and interactivity.
Those decks are awful to play against, and I challenge you to find anyone who enjoys being on the other side. The people who play them revel in this (or simply don't care and just want to win).
This is both biased and offensive to players who enjoy those kinds of decks. I'm sure Matt Nass has a more intricate and honest explanation of why he enjoys engine combo other than him being a person to "revel" in an experience that is "awful to play against," or simply not caring and wanting to win. This is the kind of aggressive, minimizing, and belittling opinion we don't need targeting players who enjoy something. We don't need it in Magic generally. Maybe those players just enjoy assembling a complicated puzzle through hate and interaction. That is no different than a control player who wants to kill/counter everything the opponent does and deterministically win 15 minutes later after the opponent hasn't resolved a single spell.

I don't judge those players and just let all these player types do their thing. That's the beauty of nonrotating formats; we can all play different deck styles that appeal to different reasons we play Magic. We should never insult players who like a deck type because every deck type can be reduced into some essentialized, negative meme where the deck appears "awful" or "miserable' or "toxic" to play against.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

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

Albegas wrote:
1 year ago
Ultimately, going back to whether it's OK to have another "frustrating" deck in the format, there's a difference between disrupting normal play (Eggs, Nexus in Bo1 Arena) and simply creating an experience others find frustrating (Lantern, Teferi looping in standard), and unless the deck is doing the former, there's no reason why the deck can't do the latter. That being said, I haven't actually seen the Paradoxical Outcome deck in action, and I'm curious if people think it's another Eggs deck or another Lantern deck since it seems most of the discussion has been less about the deck and more about analyzing complaints of frustration
would be nice if someone can link a decklist here.
anyway, don't really have a problem with these type of combo decks. More competitive decks present in modern, the more fun and diverse the format becomes - just my subjective opinion..
Last edited by The Fluff 1 year ago, edited 1 time in total.
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

spawnofhastur
Posts: 9
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by spawnofhastur » 1 year ago

> Wants Splinter-Twin unbanned.
> Complains about misery in the format.

Pick one.
Warning for trolling
-ktkenshinx-

User avatar
Tzoulis
Posts: 279
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Tzoulis » 1 year ago

Spoiler
Show
gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
Albegas wrote:
1 year ago
That being said, I haven't actually seen the Paradoxical Outcome deck in action, and I'm curious if people think it's another Eggs deck or another Lantern deck since it seems most of the discussion has been less about the deck and more about analyzing complaints of frustration
Thanks for the input. Totally agree. I would very much like to know opinions from other people as well. Do you guys believe this PO deck is so good?

Quoting this one(I know those may be exaggerating comments or bad hot takes. I would just love to know where people stand on this):

The Fluff wrote:
1 year ago
Albegas wrote:
1 year ago
Ultimately, going back to whether it's OK to have another "frustrating" deck in the format, there's a difference between disrupting normal play (Eggs, Nexus in Bo1 Arena) and simply creating an experience others find frustrating (Lantern, Teferi looping in standard), and unless the deck is doing the former, there's no reason why the deck can't do the latter. That being said, I haven't actually seen the Paradoxical Outcome deck in action, and I'm curious if people think it's another Eggs deck or another Lantern deck since it seems most of the discussion has been less about the deck and more about analyzing complaints of frustration
would be nice if someone can link a decklist here.
anyway, don't really have a problem with these type of combo the decks. More competitive decks present in modern, the more fun and diverse the format becomes - just my subjective opinion..
While not the list that I'm playing (or I like) PK played a version of the deck:



I find it's more like Devoted Druid if anything, but more slanted towards the "midrange" /"card advantage" plan.

You usually win on the spot if you have Urza and Paradox Engine (95% of the time). To be honest, most games I'm winning because I'm creating a huge amount of thopters/servos and not because I'm going infinite with either Nexus or Aethergrid, while some list are toying with Reservoir which I find easier to disrupt. The deck is still in its nascent stage and there are a few cards coming from Eldraine that will empower it even more (Namely Witching Well, Emry, Lurker of the Loch and Wishclaw Talisman)

For reference here's the list I played today:

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Modern”