[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

Ym1r wrote:
1 year ago
idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
Bearscape wrote:
1 year ago
Creature combat is the best part of magic as a game compared to other similar games. There's a reason we devote 6 phases to it. It's the part where the most decisions and interaction takes place, it's the most skill intensive part of magic. Good magic formats are about creature combat.
Nope.

There are many people who want very little to do with creatures. We use them because they are the only way to remain competitive.
Creature combat being core to the game doesn't mean that you necessarily play with them. If you like creatures you play aggro/midrange decks, and if you don't like creatures you play decks that kill creatures (control) or ignore them (combo), but either way, creatures ARE central to the game.

It is true that good magic formats are about creature combat, because it means that decks that revolve around winning with or beating creatures ARE viable. I said it before and I will say it again, I love creature less controls. Creature combat is what makes my creatureless decks enjoyable, because I get to do stuff to creatures. Otherwise what would my control deck do?
Thats a really good distinction actually. I appreciate that.
UR Control UR

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

Post by True-Name Nemesis » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
Bearscape wrote:
1 year ago
Can't say much more than that's just straight up incorrect. Plenty of card games have stack interaction (hint: Heartstone is not the only other cardgame), all card games have resource systems (and MtG's outdated land system is its biggest weak point). If you think that putting everything sideways is the depth of magic's combat system then I can understand why you don't appreciate it.
I plan on responding to JS's article and some of the points around it. Before I do, out of curiosity, can you point me to some examples of card games that have a) creature (or equivalent) combat, b) stack-based (or equivalent) interaction, c) creatures but NO stack based interaction, d) stack-based interaction but NO creatures? Anyone can answer this too, if they feel like they have some examples.
Final Fantasy TCG is very focused on combat, and has stack-based interaction too, although being a Final Fantasy game with a rich cast of characters throughout decades of history, gameplay pretty much has to revolve around the battlefield. They have their own version of instants and a lot of cards have activated abilities so the instants in the game are focused around bounce, damage to units, kill spells and combat tricks, as far as I know, no counters. The 'stack' in FFTCG works pretty much the same as in Magic.

Combat works the similarly. You can only choose to attack the player. 1 damage to player if unblocked (deal 7 to win). Main difference in combat being units attack 1 at a time.

They also have a pretty alright resource system where any card can be discarded to generate 2 'mana' of the discarded card's 'colour'. They also have cards called backups that tap for 1 'mana' so you're not constantly throwing cards away from hand to cast spells.

Like it can be entirely possible to cast a 6-cost card on turn 1 by discarding 3 cards but you would be resource-starved the following turns because you didn't spend some time developing your resources. And you could just lose if they spend 1 mana on a summon (instant) that bounces it back to your hand.

The game was designed by a former Magic pro from the earlier days. https://archive.wizards.com/sideboard/a ... geyama,,en

User avatar
drmarkb
Posts: 553
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by drmarkb » 1 year ago

The idea that people prefer creature based Mtg fails to distinguish between eras and formats. People play Legacy to play Brainstorm, combo and Prison cards. Even the creatures are prison pieces unless they are part of gamewinning combos and cheated out, and if they are not they tend to be backed up by some pretty serious mana denial. Few who play Legacy do so to play "fair mtg". Legacy will be here long, long after Modern dies.

Kitchen table players and commander players may prefer creatures: the gathering, standard players too, no dobt, but Legacy and Vintage players do not.
The number of Nic Fit and similar players playing Legacy is tiny, and Goblins don't seem very fair when they are Porting and Wastelanding your lands. Legacy does just fine and has so few decks that win over a number of combats. One or two combats maybe.

Modern does not need more fair decks, it needs more prison cards and selected tutoring to find them so that the unfair decks get hosed more easily. Trouble is removal is actually good in Modern, and selection is awful, so the decent answers just don't work that well. If they are permanents they are often easily answered and lots of unfair decks have multiple ways of winning.

User avatar
The Fluff
is this so?
Posts: 1943
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Gradius Home World
Contact:

Post by The Fluff » 1 year ago

I see this is just a never ending debate, since people have different preferences / playstyle. And this is what makes mtg the fun game that it is, plenty of different decks to play against.

My only modern deck right now is full of spells, and only 10 or so creatures. But the creatures are the win cons, because I like to win with creatures.
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

Aazadan
Posts: 516
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Aazadan » 1 year ago

drmarkb wrote:
1 year ago
The number of Nic Fit and similar players playing Legacy is tiny, and Goblins don't seem very fair when they are Porting and Wastelanding your lands. Legacy does just fine and has so few decks that win over a number of combats. One or two combats maybe.
Goblins is a control deck. Like you said, creatures often interact in that format in ways other than just being able to hit the opponent.

Believe it or not, Nic Fit is basically a tempo deck. It plays a game of disruption+big clock. It doesn't do much on the stack, but it's very proactive.

User avatar
drmarkb
Posts: 553
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by drmarkb » 1 year ago

I often describe nic fit as a disruption deck too.
It interacts with combo via a lot of discard, board wipes and ramps to big monsters who often have clauses stuck on to stop stuff. Add in toolboxing to Teeg, you have a disrupting deck.
It has to be interactive, you interact with your opponent or combo to a win in Legacy. Problem is people don't see Humility, for example as an interactive card, but when you play it, the thing nerfs dudes, until it gets removed, as it does against Nic Fit, for example. That is interacting to me. Show and Tell into Emrakul is not interactive until the opponent shows in Humility or Karakas or something to copy the Emmy.
Nowadays some people even define counterspell as not interactive, because their critter did not get to turn sideways.

User avatar
drmarkb
Posts: 553
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by drmarkb » 1 year ago

The Fluff wrote:
1 year ago
I see this is just a never ending debate, since people have different preferences / playstyle. And this is what makes mtg the fun game that it is, plenty of different decks to play against.

My only modern deck right now is full of spells, and only 10 or so creatures. But the creatures are the win cons, because I like to win with creatures.
I am always amazed at how many 'control' decks in Standard have ten critters. In my day they had a couple of Mishras' and a Blinking spirit. Then people wonder why I won't play Standard.

iTaLenTZ
Posts: 216
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by iTaLenTZ » 1 year ago

The banlist for Pioneer and Legacy is handled better than for Modern.

Legacy: No W6 and Urza doesn't see play. Blue reactive decks are the core in a very diverse metagame
Pioneer: Pushed to become a midrange, creature/combat damage based format
Modern: Non-interactive linear degenerated meta

What has Modern to offer that is better than Legacy or Pioneer? The uniqueness of Modern are decks like Tron, Amulet, Valakut, Urza, decks people despise playing against. If you have the money you play Legacy and if you don't you can now choose between Pioneer and Modern. Who in his right mind is going to choose playing in a toxic degenerated linear meta over Pioneer? Sure you always have those persons who enjoy playing solitaire but those are a minority.

Wizard won't fix this issue with bans because data says the meta is 'balanced and diverse'. If you don't like it then what you really don't like is what Modern has to offer and right now you have a very cheap alternative called Pioneer. Mark my words, within 6 months Modern will have lost 80% of their player base. Wizards then has to choose who they cater too. Will they enforce the same metagame as Pioneer or Legacy through aggressive bans (or perhaps unbans)? I don't think that is feasible because you would have to ban 10+ cards and a lot of those have been legal since the beginning and people are heavily invested in those decks. So its a lose-lose situation. They either do nothing and Modern stays as it is and people will abandon ship or they do something through bans and people will be pissed off as well. Modern has no solution and as a format will disappear within 6 months and Wizards will stop support within a year due to lack of player base. Modern will become an obscure kitchen table format.

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

Post by Ym1r » 1 year ago

iTaLenTZ wrote:
1 year ago

Legacy: No W6 and Urza doesn't see play. Blue reactive decks are the core in a very diverse metagame
Pioneer: Pushed to become a midrange, creature/combat damage based format
Modern: Non-interactive linear degenerated meta

What has Modern to offer that is better than Legacy or Pioneer? The uniqueness of Modern are decks like Tron, Amulet, Valakut, Urza, decks people despise playing against. If you have the money you play Legacy and if you don't you can now choose between Pioneer and Modern. Who in his right mind is going to choose playing in a toxic degenerated linear meta over Pioneer? Sure you always have those persons who enjoy playing solitaire but those are a minority.
Posts like this are just purely bias and/or frustration. I mean, I can get that people are frustrated with Modern, I am not, but I can see reasons why. However, the description of Modern as a hellhole of degeneracy is just purely false.

Yes you have decks like Tron, Amulet, Valakut and Urza. But saying that Legacy is better in that front is just purely false. You are saying that people "despise' playing against these modern decks. Who "likes" playing against Legacy Strom, dredge, reanimator, sneak and show? If these decks were available in modern we were grinding our pitchforks saying how horrible the metagame is and how you can lose T3 even through hate. Well in Legacy you can lose T2 even through hate against these decks. Playing against lands is one of the most miserable gameplay experiences you can have in magic. You literally can do nothing and you see your opponent chaining land-drops overtaking the battlefield from the back.

But we don't describe Legacy as toxic degenerate because "oh holy brainstorm and FoW" that happen to make Delver a good deck, because none is bringing lightning bolt, because why would they when the biggest part of the field is degenerate combo decks? Sure you can enjoy legacy, I well never go out there saying legacy is a hellhole, but let's be real, saying that Legacy doesn't offer similar "miserable" experiences at its core like modern is like trying to hide an elephant behind a tree.

At the same time you can say whatever you want for Pioneer, but we only know in 6 months from now when both the banlist and the metagame have settled. I, for once, am bracing myself for people who will complain that "midragne creature decks are too good and you can't do anything else in the format".
Counter, draw a card.

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

Post by True-Name Nemesis » 1 year ago

Man, some of y'all have some serious misconceptions about Legacy.

For the bunch of you that are so against gameplay and strategies that revolve around creatures, then I'm sorry but Legacy is still not going to be the format for you. It might be a brainstorm + ponder feel-smart format but it still revolves around creatures.

Heck the most popular macro-archetype is freaking Delver since the card got printed. It's a brainstorm and ponder deck and it's also the closest thing Legacy has to a turn-creatures-sideways deck in the top tier.

Please don't go into Legacy with the mindset that Ponder+brainstorm = big brain control; while creatures = turn sideways aggro. Death and Taxes is more of a control deck than 90% of the blue decks in Legacy.
Ym1r wrote:
1 year ago

But we don't describe Legacy as toxic degenerate because "oh holy brainstorm and FoW" that happen to make Delver a good deck, because none is bringing lightning bolt, because why would they when the biggest part of the field is degenerate combo decks? Sure you can enjoy legacy, I well never go out there saying legacy is a hellhole, but let's be real, saying that Legacy doesn't offer similar "miserable" experiences at its core like modern is like trying to hide an elephant behind a tree.
At the same time, let's address this too because it's simply not true.

Image

Not taking into account the 'other' (looks 50-50 between combo and interactive just via eyeballing) category.

ALL the combo decks 'degenerate' or otherwise made up for a combined <25% of the 69.4% of this field. I counted ANT, BG Depths, SNS, Hogaak, Reanimator, Infect, Elves. We can stretch that a bit more if you wanna count mono-red prison and lands. That still adds up to about 30%. Less than half the field.

Of course we don't usually get data as comprehensive as this but even in the MTGO challenges, more often than not it's the FoW decks that are a majority in the top 8s of those.
Last edited by True-Name Nemesis 1 year ago, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
The Fluff
is this so?
Posts: 1943
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Gradius Home World
Contact:

Post by The Fluff » 1 year ago

drmarkb wrote:
1 year ago
The Fluff wrote:
1 year ago
I see this is just a never ending debate, since people have different preferences / playstyle. And this is what makes mtg the fun game that it is, plenty of different decks to play against.

My only modern deck right now is full of spells, and only 10 or so creatures. But the creatures are the win cons, because I like to win with creatures.
I am always amazed at how many 'control' decks in Standard have ten critters. In my day they had a couple of Mishras' and a Blinking spirit. Then people wonder why I won't play Standard.
Is there a problem with a Standard deck with.... ten critters? I'm curious on the reason for this.
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
Bearscape
Posts: 213
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Bearscape » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
Bearscape wrote:
1 year ago
Can't say much more than that's just straight up incorrect. Plenty of card games have stack interaction (hint: Heartstone is not the only other cardgame), all card games have resource systems (and MtG's outdated land system is its biggest weak point). If you think that putting everything sideways is the depth of magic's combat system then I can understand why you don't appreciate it.
I plan on responding to JS's article and some of the points around it. Before I do, out of curiosity, can you point me to some examples of card games that have a) creature (or equivalent) combat, b) stack-based (or equivalent) interaction, c) creatures but NO stack based interaction, d) stack-based interaction but NO creatures? Anyone can answer this too, if they feel like they have some examples.
All TCGs I know of have some kind of creature combat system. Many forego the stack entirely like hearthstone, mythgard and artifact. Pokemon, Yugioh and Force of Will are some games with stack interaction; especially YuGiOh nowadays mostly plays out like Legacy ANT mirrors. I don't really know any TCGs without creatures... going into non-collector cardgames I would make an argument Star Realms is a game that purely uses a stack; you draw spaceships that are essentially direct damage spells and a big part of the game is chaining your cards in such a way you maximize the damage output. It has no interplayer stack interaction however (can't play cards on your opponent's turns at least for the expansions I've played).

From all the cardgames I've tried, I think MtG has by far the most interesting and skilltesting combat (Mythgard's system is really neat too though). I have to admit I don't know of a TCG that has a better stack system than magic, but I feel that that's mostly a matter of the stack just being a functional system to order player actions; there's not much fancy stuff you can add to that. Yes, in mtg you once in a blue moon get to do a cool thing by knowing how priority works, but most of the time you just stop your opponent's action at the right time.
idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
Bearscape wrote:
1 year ago
Creature combat is the best part of magic as a game compared to other similar games. There's a reason we devote 6 phases to it. It's the part where the most decisions and interaction takes place, it's the most skill intensive part of magic. Good magic formats are about creature combat.
Nope.

There are many people who want very little to do with creatures. We use them because they are the only way to remain competitive.
Then you're right at home in Modern! Invalidating combat is the name of the game here.

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

Post by Bearscape » 1 year ago

Ym1r wrote:
1 year ago
idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
Bearscape wrote:
1 year ago
Creature combat is the best part of magic as a game compared to other similar games. There's a reason we devote 6 phases to it. It's the part where the most decisions and interaction takes place, it's the most skill intensive part of magic. Good magic formats are about creature combat.
Nope.

There are many people who want very little to do with creatures. We use them because they are the only way to remain competitive.
Creature combat being core to the game doesn't mean that you necessarily play with them. If you like creatures you play aggro/midrange decks, and if you don't like creatures you play decks that kill creatures (control) or ignore them (combo), but either way, creatures ARE central to the game.

It is true that good magic formats are about creature combat, because it means that decks that revolve around winning with or beating creatures ARE viable. I said it before and I will say it again, I love creature less controls. Creature combat is what makes my creatureless decks enjoyable, because I get to do stuff to creatures. Otherwise what would my control deck do?
This is a better post than I made.

The point I am trying to make is that MtG's combat system is fantastic and a format where very little combat is viable suffers from it. When creature combat matters (with decision trees larger than "do I have to chump this Death Shadow") the game becomes the most skill intensive. You can of course enjoy spell based decks (Hell, I myself mostly play UWx decks) but, although those decks also require a lot of skill, you're kidding yourself if you think creature combat is somehow "beneath you".

Aazadan
Posts: 516
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Aazadan » 1 year ago

iTaLenTZ wrote:
1 year ago
What has Modern to offer that is better than Legacy or Pioneer? The uniqueness of Modern are decks like Tron, Amulet, Valakut, Urza, decks people despise playing against. If you have the money you play Legacy and if you don't you can now choose between Pioneer and Modern. Who in his right mind is going to choose playing in a toxic degenerated linear meta over Pioneer? Sure you always have those persons who enjoy playing solitaire but those are a minority.
I have the money and the cards for Legacy, but no opportunity to play. And that's only getting worse, because a smaller and smaller percentage of the playerbase can get into Legacy.

Again, we can read a lot into the health of Legacy from what happened at the team PT. When only 1/3 of the players needed cards to play the format, and some teams still had significant issues in obtaining cards, worse due to the costs of the decks there's very little mobility in the format.

Legacy offers some fun games/decks, but the format is much less balanced than casually believed, it has deck mobility issues which are only partially mitigated by sideboard options in the format, and the opportunities to play are not that high, and they're declining. These are all things that both Modern and Pioneer address.

Also, Legacy is very much a creature based format.

User avatar
Arkmer
Opinionated and Wrong
Posts: 287
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Minnesota

Post by Arkmer » 1 year ago

Not to split hairs or anything, but I feel like much of this "Combat vs the Stack" debate is talking about the same thing.
  • The combat system is very good because it allows for the stack to operate within it.
  • The stack very is good because it is the system through which you can manipulate combat.
While neither needs the other, they mutually make each other more interesting than they otherwise would be.
I've boxed my cards up for long term storage.

Maybe I will return... Maybe not.

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

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

Bearscape wrote:
1 year ago
Then you're right at home in Modern! Invalidating combat is the name of the game here.
While you may think so, it should come as no surprise that I want nothing to do with Modern.

ETron - Never.
GDS - Nope.
Urza - I would, but its going to be banned.
Humans - Creatures.
Burn - Nope.
Infect - Nope.
Titan - Nope.
Dredge - Creatures.
Tron - Never.
Crabvine - Creatures.
Gifts Storm - Nah.

To get to an even remotely appealing deck, you have to dig deep, to UR Delver or something, and that too, is a Creature deck.
UR Control UR

witness
Posts: 3
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by witness » 1 year ago

Bearscape wrote:
1 year ago
I would make an argument Star Realms is a game that purely uses a stack; you draw spaceships that are essentially direct damage spells and a big part of the game is chaining your cards in such a way you maximize the damage output. It has no interplayer stack interaction however (can't play cards on your opponent's turns at least for the expansions I've played).
So it's been a while since I've played Star Realms, but I don't recall it using a stack - your cards resolve immediately upon being played. A "stack" is specifically a "last-in, first-out" system (LIFO) - instead of resolving immediately, another effect can be put "on top" of the effect just played to ensure that it resolves first.

In Magic, this can lead to single-sided interactions (Infernal Tutor plus Lion's Eye Diamond, Oblivion Ring shenanigans, etc) and multi-sided interactions (countering spells, Giant Growth in response to Lightning Bolt, etc).
Arkmer wrote:
1 year ago
Not to split hairs or anything, but I feel like much of this "Combat vs the Stack" debate is talking about the same thing.
  • The combat system is very good because it allows for the stack to operate within it.
  • The stack very is good because it is the system through which you can manipulate combat.
While neither needs the other, they mutually make each other more interesting than they otherwise would be.
It's important to understand that when people talk about loving the stack, stack interactions are probably pretty significant to them - it's not just about using spells versus using creatures.

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

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

witness wrote:
1 year ago
It's important to understand that when people talk about loving the stack, stack interactions are probably pretty significant to them - it's not just about using spells versus using creatures.
When you run into people who desire this game play above all, UW players who refuse to use T3feri, or UR players still stuck playing Kiki or Breach, the funny thing is, when the game is decided on the stack, in a flurry of counterspells, thats kind of the whole point. At least in my experience, its that hand crafting, mana development, and eventually 'go for it', that makes for the most fun.

I dont really care that I made a million Pestermites. I care that we had 5 cards on the stack to determine if I can make million pestermites.
UR Control UR

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

Post by Ym1r » 1 year ago

idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
witness wrote:
1 year ago
It's important to understand that when people talk about loving the stack, stack interactions are probably pretty significant to them - it's not just about using spells versus using creatures.
When you run into people who desire this game play above all, UW players who refuse to use T3feri, or UR players still stuck playing Kiki or Breach, the funny thing is, when the game is decided on the stack, in a flurry of counterspells, thats kind of the whole point. At least in my experience, its that hand crafting, mana development, and eventually 'go for it', that makes for the most fun.

I dont really care that I made a million Pestermites. I care that we had 5 cards on the stack to determine if I can make million pestermites.
If the whole point it the "flurry of counterspells" then why does Twin matter so much? You can do that playing UW or Bant control in the current modern environment and to good success (both decks that for whatever reason you chose to not mention above even though they are highly competive).

It's pretty clear that the people who want Twin back they don't only want the flurry of counterspells. Yes this is part of the deck, and yes they probably enjoy that part of the deck, but there is more to that, otherwise, just play UW/Bant control or GDS or, heck, even Urza can do that.
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
It's pretty clear that the people who want Twin back they don't only want the flurry of counterspells. Yes this is part of the deck, and yes they probably enjoy that part of the deck, but there is more to that, otherwise, just play UW/Bant control or GDS or, heck, even Urza can do that.
I dont know if I can speak for others, but the big draw for me wasn't just a flurry of counterspells, but counterspells that draw cards (like Remand and Cryptic). But more specifically, the draw of 4 Snaps and 4 Bolts sparks joy. Sorcery speed vanilla ground creatures, prison lock style planeswalkers, or expensive, inevitably-banned decks do not spark that same joy.

Plus nothing irritates me more than playing a deck that flatly loses to Ensnaring Bridge (which means it must win through creature combat).

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

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

Ym1r wrote:
1 year ago
If the whole point it the "flurry of counterspells" then why does Twin matter so much? You can do that playing UW or Bant control in the current modern environment and to good success (both decks that for whatever reason you chose to not mention above even though they are highly competive).

It's pretty clear that the people who want Twin back they don't only want the flurry of counterspells. Yes this is part of the deck, and yes they probably enjoy that part of the deck, but there is more to that, otherwise, just play UW/Bant control or GDS or, heck, even Urza can do that.
I did. I spent considerable time, months actually, playing UWR with Teferi, 1 Jace, and Azcanta. It was awesome, and a lot of fun. I've probably cast Remand in Modern, more than the rest of this forum combined, outside of cfusionpm, forcing it into Blue Moon shell after Blue Moon shell.

I also spent some time on straight UW, and I messed around with Bant Control as well.

If T3feri was out of the format, I would play them again.

If I didnt expect Urza to eat a ban, I would be playing that as well.

GDS is not a control deck however. Its a hyper aggro suicide deck that pretends it can play control. We all know this. :p

Ultimately though, its what cfusionpm mentioned. "Spark Joy".

Bolt, Remand, Snaps, Clique. Those are the cards that 'spark joy'. They are not competitive. They have not been competitive in the same deck, for near half a decade.

Blue Moon, is not, and has not, been good. It needed Twin, and thats honestly the truth.
UR Control UR

Aazadan
Posts: 516
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Aazadan » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
Ym1r wrote:
1 year ago
It's pretty clear that the people who want Twin back they don't only want the flurry of counterspells. Yes this is part of the deck, and yes they probably enjoy that part of the deck, but there is more to that, otherwise, just play UW/Bant control or GDS or, heck, even Urza can do that.
I dont know if I can speak for others, but the big draw for me wasn't just a flurry of counterspells, but counterspells that draw cards (like Remand and Cryptic). But more specifically, the draw of 4 Snaps and 4 Bolts sparks joy. Sorcery speed vanilla ground creatures, prison lock style planeswalkers, or expensive, inevitably-banned decks do not spark that same joy.

Plus nothing irritates me more than playing a deck that flatly loses to Ensnaring Bridge (which means it must win through creature combat).
Have you tried Humans? The deck has some deep lines, can leverage Aether Vials to add in all sorts of tricks, has ample disruption, and can customize enough to add in plenty of spice. All while almost always being able to threaten to kill the opponent.

It has a lot of the same feeling of Twin in that the opponent must always play around you.

User avatar
Amalgam
Posts: 151
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Amalgam » 1 year ago

Honestly I don't think I've ever seen a year this thread has been happy even back in the 2015 days. Do we really need to make the format boil down to hill giants hitting eachother?
Also linear/combo decks are allowed to exist in non rotating formats, the fact people in these threads argue for Neobrand to be banned because they don't like it should say enough.
Also I love how we are casually ignoring that Bant Control has been doing incredibly well recently which is a full blown control deck. Just because UW control has dropped down doesn't mean control is dead. Bant control has legs and is getting results

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

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

Where has Bant Control been doing incredibly well?

The 5th and 16th place from here? https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/a ... 2019-12-01
Amalgam wrote:
1 year ago
Honestly I don't think I've ever seen a year this thread has been happy even back in the 2015 days. Do we really need to make the format boil down to hill giants hitting eachother?
Also linear/combo decks are allowed to exist in non rotating formats, the fact people in these threads argue for Neobrand to be banned because they don't like it should say enough.
I'll also say, this is unfair. Modern was never 'hill giants'. Not remotely close. Linear/Combo of course gets to exist.

The more I think on it, the more its (personally) 2 issues.

1. I could find a deck to play, but I dont want to play AGAINST most Modern decks.
2. Veil, and T3feri should not exist, and Control will not exist in a form I desire to play, as long as they do.
UR Control UR

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

Aazadan wrote:
1 year ago
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
Ym1r wrote:
1 year ago
It's pretty clear that the people who want Twin back they don't only want the flurry of counterspells. Yes this is part of the deck, and yes they probably enjoy that part of the deck, but there is more to that, otherwise, just play UW/Bant control or GDS or, heck, even Urza can do that.
I dont know if I can speak for others, but the big draw for me wasn't just a flurry of counterspells, but counterspells that draw cards (like Remand and Cryptic). But more specifically, the draw of 4 Snaps and 4 Bolts sparks joy. Sorcery speed vanilla ground creatures, prison lock style planeswalkers, or expensive, inevitably-banned decks do not spark that same joy.

Plus nothing irritates me more than playing a deck that flatly loses to Ensnaring Bridge (which means it must win through creature combat).
Have you tried Humans? The deck has some deep lines, can leverage Aether Vials to add in all sorts of tricks, has ample disruption, and can customize enough to add in plenty of spice. All while almost always being able to threaten to kill the opponent.

It has a lot of the same feeling of Twin in that the opponent must always play around you.
Kind of hard to sell a deck that to someone who wants to play lots of cantrips, counters, removal/direct damage, and hates Ensnaring Bridge. It's one of the best examples of how much I hate the fact that spells stapled to creatures are better than spells as spells.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Modern”