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

metalmusic_4
Posts: 260
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by metalmusic_4 » 2 years ago

robertleva wrote:
2 years ago
Am I the only one who thinks 2 hogaak decks making top 8 is a warning sign the ban wasn't enough?
So first let's be clear, the problem was realy hogaak and not bridge from below. Bridgevine was a deck before hogaak was printed, but was not top teir. We will continue to see the 8/8 trampler coming out of the graveyard for zero mana as long as it is legal.

Second, those were two different decks. One was dredge running only one copy of hogaak and the other is a sleightly updated version of the bridgevine deck with a full four hogaak. These are not the same and we should not conflate them.

The bridge from below ban did exactly what it was targeted to do, which is weaken the bridgevine deck by removing the self-perpetuating mill plan. A 8/8 trampler coming out of the graveyard for zero mana is too good to not find a home somewhere. Hogaak itself is a powerhouse and is here to stay. 2 top eights in different decks is not enough to alarm me. We should all have a SB or even MB cards to answer it because we have not seen the last of it.

User avatar
Necrofish
Posts: 65
Joined: 2 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Necrofish » 2 years ago

I mean.. it's not like you can actually pay mana for Hogaak. So yeah, he will always be a 0 mana 8/8 trampler.
And Bridge had a lot of problems of its own. Hogaak is a strong card that needs a deck built around it. If you cannot remove a single creature on T2 even after sideboarding, maybe your deck is lacking in removal/interactivity.
The real problem is when there is more than a single Hogaak on T2. I haven't seen the new Hogaak play yet.

Yes, you should definitely pack some answers into at least your SB. That's what it's there for.
Wydwen is much too cool for you.

User avatar
LeoTzu
Posts: 30
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by LeoTzu » 2 years ago

The "it was fine until X card got printed" argument just doesn't make sense to me.

Eye of Ugin was in the format for a long time without causing problems. Krark Clan Ironworks was fine for a long time in the format. When you apply that argument to those cards, it just doesn't work. Being in the format and not causing problems for a while isn't proof alone that the card is not the offending card.

The fact the Hogaak decks are still competitive isn't proof of anything. If they start resurging to the top of the hill again over the next few months, then we might have to talk about Hogaak/Altar being the real problem.

metalmusic_4
Posts: 260
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by metalmusic_4 » 2 years ago

Necrofish wrote:
2 years ago
I mean.. it's not like you can actually pay mana for Hogaak. So yeah, he will always be a 0 mana 8/8 trampler.

The real problem is when there is more than a single Hogaak on T2.
2 things about your statement: 1) it's legendary, so I don't know what you're talking about. 2) the fact that it is always a free 8/8 trampler is what I am saying. That will always be a draw to this card and it will always be powerful. It also increases the risk of having the card in the format because it's floor is so high. It might not take much to push the ceiling too high as we have already seen.

Bridge from below has been legal since the format was created and was never a problem until now. Why? Let's be real, it's because hogaak was printed. I'm not calling for a ban or anything but let's acknowledge the fact.

User avatar
Necrofish
Posts: 65
Joined: 2 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Necrofish » 2 years ago

metalmusic_4 wrote:
2 years ago
2 things about your statement: 1) it's legendary, so I don't know what you're talking about. 2) the fact that it is always a free 8/8 trampler is what I am saying.
1. Basically if the enemy is able to put out more than a single threat.
2. It's not free. It uses cards on the board or in your graveyard. Those are real resources that are used up on casting Hogaak.

Bridge from Below on the other hand is way more of a free card than Hogaak is. You don't need to cast it, or even draw it. The Vengevine hype before Hogaak has been revealed was a good indicator that the cost to reward ratio Bridge from Below has has the potential to be abused. So no, it wasn't a problem before Hogaak entered the format - but it had problematic design.
Wydwen is much too cool for you.

User avatar
The Fluff
is this so?
Posts: 2115
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Gradius Home World
Contact:

Post by The Fluff » 2 years ago

any competitive deck that adds Bridge from Below has the intention to abuse it to get free 2/2. Bridge was only waiting for a card to break it, and Hogaak woke up too many zoms. Result = bridge finally get jailed.

although it can also be suspected that Hogaak was not banned, because wotc does not want to hurt sales of their new product.

still keeping the 3 remorseful cleric in the main of my uw. Looks like Hogaak still has some muscles to flex. Banning his bridge won't keep a good tree down. hehe :?
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
robertleva
Posts: 582
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by robertleva » 2 years ago

I mean I am fine with the bridge ban, but that was a cop out ban. But then again we get back to the card that is really the engine of all these damn decks that annoy us. That conversation has run its course long enough bleh.
Robert Leva
Creator of Modern's 8Rack Deck
Image

Zorakkiller
Posts: 57
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Zorakkiller » 2 years ago

maybe wotc should stop printing or at least stop pushing things that circumvent the games resource systems. they keep making the same mistake over and over

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 2 years ago

Zorakkiller wrote:
2 years ago
maybe wotc should stop printing or at least stop pushing things that circumvent the games resource systems. they keep making the same mistake over and over
At this point, thats the defining feature of Modern.
UR Control UR

metalmusic_4
Posts: 260
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by metalmusic_4 » 2 years ago

Necrofish wrote:
2 years ago
metalmusic_4 wrote:
2 years ago
2 things about your statement: 1) it's legendary, so I don't know what you're talking about. 2) the fact that it is always a free 8/8 trampler is what I am saying.
1. Basically if the enemy is able to put out more than a single threat.
2. It's not free. It uses cards on the board or in your graveyard. Those are real resources that are used up on casting Hogaak.

Bridge from Below on the other hand is way more of a free card than Hogaak is. You don't need to cast it, or even draw it. The Vengevine hype before Hogaak has been revealed was a good indicator that the cost to reward ratio Bridge from Below has has the potential to be abused. So no, it wasn't a problem before Hogaak entered the format - but it had problematic design.
I'm going to ignore the 2 hogaaks or two threats comment and just move past that. I don't think we are super far apart with the rest of our conversation. Sure bridge had a weird semi-problematic design, and is very powerful, as proven by legacy, vintage and recently modern, but it saw very little modern play for YEARS unlike hogaak who hit like a tornado ripping through everything from the day it was released and which will continue to see alot of play.

I think bridge required more build around than hogaak does. Hogaak requires 2 creatures in play and you exile your fetch lands and anything else in your grave yard, then BOOM you have an 8/8 trampler, and you can recast it from your graveyard later if it dies. Just a big dumb beater. Bridge required much more IMO. Casting it from your hand was useless, you have to be able to kill your own creatures without killing your opponents creatures and your opponent could remove it from your grave yard with any basic creature removal by killing their own creature, all of which is different from, more complex than and more fragile than big hogaak beater. We can all agree the bridgevine deck was too fast and because of that it was hard to interact with, but I believe in general moving forward hogaak will prove to be much more powerful and prevelant due to its more flexible design than bridge and its one modern deck (pre-hogaak) ever was.

If anyone disagrees with me, that's fine, no hard feelings, but this is my view and the reasons why. I'll keep using hogaak since its still legal, it beats face real good, but I really believe the ban should have been hogaak instead. (And i believe they should have waited until the next b&r announcement because 3 weeks is not enough time for the meta to shift. I know very few people agree with this point and thats ok.) Anyway, I'm going to move off this topic now.

User avatar
FoodChainGoblins
Level 47
Posts: 859
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Riverside

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 2 years ago

idSurge wrote:
2 years ago
Zorakkiller wrote:
2 years ago
maybe wotc should stop printing or at least stop pushing things that circumvent the games resource systems. they keep making the same mistake over and over
At this point, thats the defining feature of Modern.
Yep, it's on the white board at the WotC headquarters - name a card that we want to break and we'll figure out cards to print to break it. ;)
Standard - Will pick up what's good when paper starts
Pre Modern - Do not own anymore
Pioneer - DEAD
Modern - Amulet Titan, Elementals, Trollementals, BR Asmo/Goryo's, Yawmoth Chord
Legacy - No more cards, will rebuy Sneak Show when I can
Limited - Will start when paper starts
Commander - Nope

User avatar
Albegas
Posts: 149
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Albegas » 2 years ago

I mean, jokes aside, the format really is founded on decks cheating on resources. The only fair decks you see these days are UW, BGx, Humans and Burn. Almost every other deck uses some form of odd interaction to cheat on some resource or another, and to me that's what makes Modern decks and decks from other eternal formats so interesting. If every set consisted only of safe cards that never pushed some sort of boundary, I think the format would just become stale

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 2 years ago

Even Jund and Humans cheats, with BBE and Vial. It is a very rare thing for a deck to be ACTUALLY fair, and competitive in Modern.
UR Control UR

User avatar
ktkenshinx
Posts: 571
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: West Coast
Contact:

Post by ktkenshinx » 2 years ago

Zorakkiller wrote:
2 years ago
maybe wotc should stop printing or at least stop pushing things that circumvent the games resource systems. they keep making the same mistake over and over
idSurge wrote:
2 years ago
Even Jund and Humans cheats, with BBE and Vial. It is a very rare thing for a deck to be ACTUALLY fair, and competitive in Modern.
There are no competitive decks in any non-rotating format that do not cheat resources. That is why I find the "fair/unfair" binary to be largely meaningless. I often read it as a proxy for "good/bad" or "I like this/I don't like this" shorthand which doesn't actually describe any characteristics of a format. It's particularly meaningless because everyone wants to cheat on resources, get ahead, and win games. No one is actively putting inefficiencies in their decks to encourage closer games with opponents.

The difference between fairness standards in Legacy and Modern is that Legacy has some extremely unfair reactive cards, not just proactive cards, which check the equally unfair proactive strategies. Many of Modern's reactive elements, however, are very fair. It's hard for fair reactive strategies to keep pace with unfair proactive strategies. That doesn't make Modern more or less fair/unfair than Legacy. It's just a difference of where those fair/unfair elements show up.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

User avatar
robertleva
Posts: 582
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by robertleva » 2 years ago

Saying jund cheats resources because of bbe is a stretch. Its a 2 for 1 at 4cc. Jund is pretty much the poster boy for fair decks being competitive right now.
Robert Leva
Creator of Modern's 8Rack Deck
Image

Zorakkiller
Posts: 57
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Zorakkiller » 2 years ago

@ktkenshinx i believe you read it wrong, you should interpret this as written and not project onto it. my statement was about wizards design philosophy and how they will print things that circumvent the games resource systems. By not printing or at least not pushing things that circumvent the games resource systems you avoid breaking the modern format like hogaak did. im actually shocked that someone with your standing in the community would twist others words like this

User avatar
ktkenshinx
Posts: 571
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: West Coast
Contact:

Post by ktkenshinx » 2 years ago

Zorakkiller wrote:
2 years ago
@ktkenshinx i believe you read it wrong, you should interpret this as written and not project onto it. my statement was about wizards design philosophy and how they will print things that circumvent the games resource systems. By not printing or at least not pushing things that circumvent the games resource systems you avoid breaking the modern format like hogaak did. im actually shocked that someone with your standing in the community would twist others words like this
How am I twisting words? I didn't even say you called anything "fair" or "unfair," which you clearly don't in the quoted passage in my post. There is no point in my post where I accuse you of saying this. I'm simply saying nonrotating formats revolve around cheating on resources by their nature (in reference to your post) and that many uses of "fair" are loaded and don't actually say anything about the format they are describing (in reference to id's post).

I disagree that Wizards should avoid resource-cheating cards, as this is one of the few ways to reliably impact nonrotating formats. The problem with cards like Hogaak is that they cheat resources and exclusively benefit proactive decks that can abuse the card as quickly as possible. That contributes to potential speed and interactivity issues in Modern. I have no issue with a card like Force of Negation cheating resources, and would have been fine with Wizards pushing that kind of reactive resource-cheat spell even harder.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

Zorakkiller
Posts: 57
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Zorakkiller » 2 years ago

please avoid quoting me or at least address each post individualy if you are going to continue doing this.

metalmusic_4
Posts: 260
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by metalmusic_4 » 2 years ago

I don't see any twisted words, just a difference of opinion. I like to cheat on resources, it helps alot. But I think zorakkiller is just stating WOTC should push it less. That's a fine opinion. I disagree, I prefer more cheating spells and creatures of all types because I'm a combo player. But that is just my opinion and there is a balance that they have to work on to get it right for everyone.

Zorakkiller
Posts: 57
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Zorakkiller » 2 years ago

he quoted me in his post thus lumping me into an argument I didn't make. I just think it is far more beneficial for the game to not have it be broken by cost reduction mechanics and their ilk every few sets than to try to work them in

User avatar
Ym1r
Posts: 153
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Ym1r » 2 years ago

I mean, there was a point when people where calling Miracles an unfair deck because Terminus is an 1 mana sweeper and even considered a potential ban.
Counter, draw a card.

User avatar
The Fluff
is this so?
Posts: 2115
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Gradius Home World
Contact:

Post by The Fluff » 2 years ago

idSurge wrote:
2 years ago
Even Jund and Humans cheats, with BBE and Vial. It is a very rare thing for a deck to be ACTUALLY fair, and competitive in Modern.
One of the fair decks in modern that still post some results in sites like mtgtop8 is mono g stompy. Although even that deck can do things like 5-6 additional damage with a single Aspect of Hydra, and almost all the creatures are above the curve. Every competitive / semi-competitive deck in modern is doing something busted, to try and keep up with everyone else imo.
gkourou wrote:
2 years ago
If people want to present Modern as an unfair beast they don't like, they can even present Naya Zoo as an unfair deck, because "1 mana, 3 dmg to you is not fair". I was arguing some weeks ago with a guy saying "Merfolk is technically unfair, because it uses synergies and aims to win on the back of this.

I playtest against merfolk all the time, and that deck is one of the more "fair" among the still competitive decks here. A spreading seas on my land + an army of fish lords = I'm dead this turn or the next... but well, that's modern. The power level here is different, and those who don't like it should maybe just play Standard where cards are weaker.
Last edited by The Fluff 2 years 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

User avatar
ktkenshinx
Posts: 571
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: West Coast
Contact:

Post by ktkenshinx » 2 years ago

Zorakkiller wrote:
2 years ago
he quoted me in his post thus lumping me into an argument I didn't make. I just think it is far more beneficial for the game to not have it be broken by cost reduction mechanics and their ilk every few sets than to try to work them in
Again, I never said you made this argument you are accusing me of misrepresenting. You were simply commenting about resource systems and I was simply saying nonrotating formats revolve around cheating those systems. The original post said that and now this is the second time after that post I have confirmed that meaning. I'm really not sure where the miscommunication is happening here.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 2 years ago

There's not a lot of value in debating the definition of fair. We all should have learned by now from MTGS, it won't go anywhere.
UR Control UR

User avatar
ktkenshinx
Posts: 571
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: West Coast
Contact:

Post by ktkenshinx » 2 years ago

idSurge wrote:
2 years ago
There's not a lot of value in debating the definition of fair. We all should have learned by now from MTGS, it won't go anywhere.
I actually disagree with this. We might not all agree on the definition in the end, but it's helpful to move as much towards a shared definition as we can. These terms are used so frequently in Modern conversation that it's hard to discuss them without some shared understanding. Here's my general take on it.

I tend to define fair vs. unfair in terms of resource baselines and spectrums. In a fair baseline, one land produces one mana, players draw one card per turn, we have X mana available to use by turn X, we can trade one card to remove or neutralize another card, etc.. It's Portal magic or Limited Magic with commons. These are all examples of fair, clean, classic Magic. Anything that gets ahead of those fair exchange rates starts to slip into unfair, but they become unfair on a long spectrum. Trading Bolt for Hierarch is a perfectly fair trade: one mana and one card to kill a one-mana creature. Fatal Pushing (w/ revolt) a Mantis Rider, however, is an unfair trade for the Pusher, as the Pusher now spent one mana to kill a three-mana creature. A T4 Verdict to kill six-mana worth of creatures is also unfair, but not as unfair as a one-mana T4 Terminus to do the same thing.

We can also extend this to mana and resource generation. Mana is where the fair/unfair spectrum typically appears. Tapping three shocklands to cast T3feri is fair. Tapping three Tronlands to cast Karn is not fair. Tapping Hierarch and two lands to cast Rider on T2 is also not fair, but is much more fair than casting T2 TKS off two E-Temples. But we also see fair/unfair elements appear in mana costs and resource expenditure. Protecting your T1 creature with FoW/Daze in Legacy is not fair. Nor is a virtual draw three off Brainstorm. To use Modern examples, BBE into Lily is not fair either. Nor is Primeval Titan with Pact of Negation backup.

Whether we're cheating resource generation (e.g. Tronlands, Temple, Vial, Hierarch, SSG, Opal, etc.), resource exchange (e.g. Cryptic Command, Verdict, KCommand, etc.), or resource expenditure (e.g. Tasigur and delve, Amalgam and Bloodghast coming into play sans mana, Mutagenic Growth, etc.), we can always construct a spectrum from most fair to most unfair. We can put all competitive decks on that spectrum. If we went with that method, we would probably find that all competitive decks are trying to cheat fair resource curves in multiple ways, and that the best competitive decks are just doing it better than their competitors.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Modern”