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

User avatar
drmarkb
Posts: 593
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by drmarkb » 1 year ago

In Legacy I think eventually labe will go.
It will probably go when other formats get shaken.

I can't see a Modern ban, no data, but more importantly no imperative need of a fix. Modern is on fire? So what, it has been pretty toasty for all of 2019 and now it is out of the spotlight. Veil won't be the one to go if a ban does happen, ouat is more likely. Veil might be nuts (unless your opponent has a chalice on one), but it is not going to get above ouat in the broken stakes.

We desperately need better answers in mtg.

User avatar
FoodChainGoblins
Level 47
Posts: 863
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Riverside

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 1 year ago

Spsiegel1987 wrote:
1 year ago

I like WOTC pushing the limits, I just wish they'd push the answers not the questions.
drmarkb wrote:
1 year ago
We desperately need better answers in mtg.
It is tougher to figure out how to make a card that answers, rather than just asking the question. Maybe WotC needs someone like Reid Duke on their development staff?

Cards like Underworld Breach, Dryad of Ilysian Grove, Once Upon a Time… I don't see what the motivation to recreate a Yawmoth's Will is. If you do, it will either be 100% unplayable or busted as %$#%. Even a card as simple as Yawgmoth, Thran Physician, is seriously busted. We don't see it because there is too much else going on in Modern, but I play the GB Yawgmoth deck that Aaron Barich won an SCG Open with. The deck can be silly against Aggro and Control strategies. Combo and Big Mana is another thing, but to be able to consistently power out a Yawgmoth's Bargain, with the only thing holding you back is how many creatures you have (Undying ones like Strangleroot Geist) to simply just start drawing cards at 1 life per card. It's pretty silly, but even something like this is completely under the radar because of the over the top stuff going on right now.

Force of Negation definitely was a good start, even if I abhor the card as a Neoform player, lol. :grin:
Standard - Will pick up what's good when paper starts
Pre Modern - Do not own anymore
Pioneer - DEAD
Modern - Jund Sacrifice, Jeskai Phoenix, 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
drmarkb
Posts: 593
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by drmarkb » 1 year ago

The problem is answers includes answers to everything, and will, if done correctly, end up with game states that at times allow one player to do something and the other not. That is a huge no no for wotc, who don't want to upset Johnny big monster. They don't mind upsetting competetives with broken stuff, because they can ban it.

"Everything" includes lands. That is the first point. Lands need answers at reasonable cost. They have started to learn this with field of ruin and damping sphere, but it still does not go far enough, and then gets ruined when labe style stuff gets printed. Modern having Moon is decent, but back to basics would be a decent edition. No land should ever be banned, if a board is overrun with 2 power zombies generated by a land, then the designers have screwed up.

Planeswalkers obviously need answers. Not removal, but preemptive answers. I would make it white's theme, as it does sod all else.

Combo in general is harder to execute if Meddling Mage effects are playable.
There are few good ones, and again they don't like to upset Johnny big monster, who wants to be able to cast whatever he wants.


There are enough answers for graveyards, artifacts etc. but narrow one sided strategies easily hosed by one card don't get caught till game 2 often. In all my years of Modern I had precisely one deck that could main deck Rest in Peace, enchantment control where its use coincided to up the enchantment count. In Legacy, where Helm of Obedience exists, this is not the case, you can main deck hardcore bin hate and use it to combo win.This is also insoluble for wotc, unless you happen to freakly stumble upon a random hate piece that wins the game under certain situations in some awkward combo.

Modern also has huge issues because its selection does not draw the answers. The threats are greater in number and decks with threats often have great redundancy. A plan and B plan. The answer is often not suitable for both, meaning two hate pieces are needed to stop degeneracy, and they cannot be summoned. Wotc cannot print a card that reads "tutor for an answer only", at least unless it reads "tutor for a card named x,y or z" and any tutors they do print can find the threats available or give combo consistency. This is unfixable, it is a function of them having screwed up the pool for years with threat heavy design that data tells them people want, but probably fails to tell them that it is what people think they want. The best solution, and it is only a sticking plaster, is to keep printing modal cards as they have done, but make them more powerful and entirely skewed towards removal.

Finally hosing hosers is fine, if you play a control strategy the same thing applies to you as it does to Johnnybig monster, you don't get to control the game and have your answers unanswered. Veil might be a bit OP but it is an answer to an answer, which is fine. The issue with Veil is that it answers answers in an environment that is threat heavy and answer light, and the card did a little too much. Pyroblast style cards are fine, just as lattice making things colourles had a side effect of hosing free Force of Vigors.

User avatar
drmarkb
Posts: 593
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by drmarkb » 1 year ago

It is not the graveyard answers, it is the fact that they are rarely maindeckable and cannot be found reliably. In game 2 and 3 they board in to match your answers. So you are always a game down playing a game you can and will sometimes lose even if you draw the nuts. It is not about the bin, either, it is answers to a wide range of strategies that are needed. They can't be dead too often.

Also Legacy has subtle answers beyond Modern. For example, Dredge making bunches of 2/2s does not fare well vs a Tabernacle. It is not bin hate but functions in that way. Trinisphere on t1 or 2 is a preemptive answer to many an egregious strategy, whilst not ensuring a win for you by itself, of course. Thought-not seer comes down t2 very often in non Eldrazi decks like Stax, making it disruptive and relevant. Modern is often if not always behind on ideploying its answers, but not as much its proactive synergies, which exist in Legacy too of course. Amulet would not be able to scare me in Legacy, because the Moon stompy decks would force it to include answers to t1 Moon, which that deck regularly hits.

Not sure about vintage, but Legacy games normally wnd with one person making more mistakes than the other, in my experience in Modern that happens less often, unless you include the mistake of bringing a knife to a gunfight.

User avatar
Tzoulis
Posts: 314
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Tzoulis » 1 year ago

drmarkb wrote:
1 year ago
It is not the graveyard answers, it is the fact that they are rarely maindeckable and cannot be found reliably. In game 2 and 3 they board in to match your answers. So you are always a game down playing a game you can and will sometimes lose even if you draw the nuts. It is not about the bin, either, it is answers to a wide range of strategies that are needed. They can't be dead too often.
If (all) answers were maindeckable and good in game 1's then,

1. What's the point of SB?
2. Why play combo decks, if your G1's are almost as bad as the sideboarded games?

Historically, even in the good times(TM), combos had great game 1's and way worse games 2 and 3. Similar to aggro decks.

General answers such as Trophy, Force of Negation are good, but making answers too good (i.e. a bolt with split second) is going too far and risks hosing whole strategies.
gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
I agree about Legacy, being more skilltesting format and Modern being more like a "do you have it, if yes I lose" format.
I see this a lot and I disagree. There are far more relevant degenerate-Force-or-you-lose strategies in Legacy, but are not as "whineworthy" because it's an accepted part of the format. Getting T1'd by Reanimator/Storm or Chalice'd or Trinisphere'd is common. You have Forces to try and stop it, else 90% of the time you lose. And oftentimes 1 isn't enough.

You see it as a more skill testing format because the brainstorm mirrors usually are, but those are the plurality of matches not the majority.
gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
The upside of the broken answers of course is that in Legacy, you don't get to have a perma broken format, like Modern is
Legacy is perma broken -that's the point of the format, we just don't see the uglier aspects of it, mainly due to cost of entry and lack of (professional) competitive scene.

Modern isn't even "broken" -whatever that means- now. You have OUaT decks being slightly ahead of the curve and that's it. They'll still be "broken" without it, same as the rest of the T1 decks.

As for the Underworld Breach discussion, the deck is still new, but the hate pieces are here and are efficient enough. You can't get better than Surgical/Trap/RiP/Leyline or Needle/Torpor Orb and not risk hosing whole inoffensive strategies. Plus there's Kaya's Guile for an efficient, maindeckable, modal card. We need more of those, not a remake of RiP that's maindeckable with no drawback.

Tomatotime
Posts: 197
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Tomatotime » 1 year ago

Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
If (all) answers were maindeckable and good in game 1's then,

1. What's the point of SB?
2. Why play combo decks, if your G1's are almost as bad as the sideboarded games?

Historically, even in the good times(TM), combos had great game 1's and way worse games 2 and 3. Similar to aggro decks.
I think from recent MTG Arena dev updates, Wotc has made it clear that Bo1 game modes see more play then Bo3 do. With this in mind, it may simply be a matter of time when the game itself is intentionally designed for this purpose. Honestly from my perspective, I think that is fine, I don't actually care if the game is best of 1,3,5,7,etc as long as game play standards are curated to be good.

User avatar
pierreb
Posts: 278
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Up North

Post by pierreb » 1 year ago

Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
So, no, "scales" isn't alive, a list playing it won an event, nothing more.
That list is pretty much 100% the classic hardened scale deck, with the heliod combo added in because, hey, it's only 4 copy of a card to win on the spot.

But you say it's an heliod deck with scale. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the deck is hardened scales. (Unless you meant that the when a deck wins something, it doesn't prove it can win. Again, ... :thinking: )
FoodChainGoblin wrote: I don't see what the motivation to recreate a Yawmoth's Will is.
Designer hubris? Basically, we see human nature express itself. Designers want:
  • To create a card that will become a classic forever played.
  • To prove they can fix mistakes from the past.
  • To make exciting cards that sell product and become the facecard of a set.

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

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

pierreb wrote:
1 year ago
Designer hubris? Basically, we see human nature express itself. Designers want:
To create a card that will become a classic forever played.
To prove they can fix mistakes from the past.
To make exciting cards that sell product and become the facecard of a set.
This is actually how I have justified all of 2019 development. These cards are a blatant example of arrogance, and disrespect to the living state of a game that has gone on now for decades.
UR Control UR

User avatar
Tzoulis
Posts: 314
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Tzoulis » 1 year ago

pierreb wrote:
1 year ago
That list is pretty much 100% the classic hardened scale deck, with the heliod combo added in because, hey, it's only 4 copy of a card to win on the spot.

But you say it's an heliod deck with scale. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the deck is hardened scales. (Unless you meant that the when a deck wins something, it doesn't prove it can win. Again, ... )
I meant it's not an artifact deck. It's also not really the same as the pre-ban scales deck. The common threads are: Ballista, Ravager and Hangarback Walker (and OUaT).

Pre-ban scales played: Worker, Jars, Modules, Throne of Geth, Citadels and, well, Opals.

So yeah, it's a(nother) Ballista/Heliod/Spike Feeder deck that happens to run Scales. It's not a resurgence of the archetype, it won an event.

It's also not an artifact deck.

Tomatotime
Posts: 197
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Tomatotime » 1 year ago

I mean...Urza lists are still strong, and they are 100% artifact focused so if you are looking for that playstyle why not just play Urza?

Aazadan
Posts: 547
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Aazadan » 1 year ago

The Fluff wrote:
1 year ago
Astrolabe combined with a manabase of mostly basic snow lands, allows my snow deck to skirt around blood moon effects easily. Just the experience of using it. Well, I didn't know it's now also the target of a possible ban. Is this card a part of a broken deck or something? :/
What's really egregious in my opinion is how easily Astrolabe slots into decks utilizing either Teferi or Urza. As an enabler for the snake and other snow cards it's great, but a card that costs 1 mana to cast, then taps for blue, all while drawing you a card when paired with Urza, or drawing you 3 cards if paired with cast, Teferi bounce, cast, really just is too much (and that's without getting into Emry/Engineer).

I do like a lot of what the card represents. It was clearly a risk, and I think they got incredibly close on the tuning for it (which is no small feat for what it represents), but the fact they had to ban it in Pauper, the format where it was clearly meant to do the most good, and that it's too good in the other formats where it would have been great, such as Legacy to ease the need for dual lands shows they overshot the mark. Astrolabe is a card that I feel needed tried, but tuning for such a card is incredibly tricky. A card like this is either going to be underpowered, perfect, or overpowered, and there's not really any sort of gradients between the three outcomes.

Tomatotime
Posts: 197
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Tomatotime » 1 year ago

Aazadan wrote:
1 year ago
I do like a lot of what the card represents. It was clearly a risk, and I think they got incredibly close on the tuning for it (which is no small feat for what it represents), but the fact they had to ban it in Pauper, the format where it was clearly meant to do the most good
Do we actually know if Astrolabe was made specifically with Pauper in mind? Or are you just saying that the rarity was changed for consideration for the format, I think those are 2 very different things.
Aazadan wrote:
1 year ago
and that it's too good in the other formats where it would have been great, such as Legacy to ease the need for dual lands shows they overshot the mark.
Is Astrolabe too good in Legacy? Do we have data to show this? MTGGoldfish staples section shows Astrolabe in rank 26 for Legacy, while the top 10 or so ranks still seem mostly the same that they always have been.

User avatar
Tzoulis
Posts: 314
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Tzoulis » 1 year ago

Tomatotime wrote:
1 year ago
I mean...Urza lists are still strong, and they are 100% artifact focused so if you are looking for that playstyle why not just play Urza?
I was and still am playing Urza. I'm saying that presenting this deck as an artifact deck and proclaiming/implying that artifact decks are fine after the Opal ban is disingenuous. It is as much an artifact deck as Tron is.

There only viable artifact decks are Urza decks. Breach still has to prove it's worth the hype, but yesterday's 5-0 list seems to be leaning towards artifact synergies as a back up plan.

Astrolabe could get banned on the same vein that Probe did. It is card free and helps bypass a huge risk with manabases: Blood Moon in modern and Wasteland in Legacy.

It's synergies with T3feri and Urza are secondary if not inconsequential to the above.

Tomatotime
Posts: 197
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Tomatotime » 1 year ago

Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
There only viable artifact decks are Urza decks. Breach still has to prove it's worth the hype, but yesterday's 5-0 list seems to be leaning towards artifact synergies as a back up plan.
Is this a problem though? How many artifact decks are specifically needed, I mean for a long time in Modern the only real artifact deck was literally just affinity, and that deck played in a fairly limited way. Urza on the other hand gets to play a huge variety of artifacts to accomplish a large variety of game plans, certainly more creative freedom than affinity allowed for. Isn't this just a step up?
Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
Astrolabe could get banned on the same vein that Probe did. It is card free and helps bypass a huge risk with manabases: Blood Moon in modern and Wasteland in Legacy.
I mean..Probe was banned due it's combo implications for decks like Infect and such where they got to play MTG on easy mode, not having to risk anything, the actual effect of Probe in a vacuum wasn't a big deal.

And does Legacy having wasteland resistant manabases really present a problem? Wasteland was never really made to go after basics anyways, it is for going after dual lands and lands that basically have spells attached to them, so again, what exactly is the problem?

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

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

The problems are systemic ones.

Decrease in Variance.
Decrease in Mana based issues.
Decrease in the effectiveness of hate.

'Free' cards are a risk. Free cards that also have side benefit are even worse.

Magic is being put on tracks. You build your deck and you play it out regardless of what your opponent is doing, and you do it with increasing consistency.

The lower the variance, the more repetitive the play patterns, the shorter the span of the games draw.

Variance matters, and these cards ( and the London Mulligan) are ruining it.
UR Control UR

User avatar
Ed06288
Posts: 169
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Ed06288 » 1 year ago

I wouldn't mind a stone rain with more upside. Molten rain is nice, but it would be better if it gained you 2 life. Or exiled 2 or 3 cards out of a graveyard. This way your tron hate could double as burn hate, or soft dredge hate.

User avatar
Tzoulis
Posts: 314
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Tzoulis » 1 year ago

Tomatotime wrote:
1 year ago
Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
There only viable artifact decks are Urza decks. Breach still has to prove it's worth the hype, but yesterday's 5-0 list seems to be leaning towards artifact synergies as a back up plan.
Is this a problem though? How many artifact decks are specifically needed, I mean for a long time in Modern the only real artifact deck was literally just affinity, and that deck played in a fairly limited way. Urza on the other hand gets to play a huge variety of artifacts to accomplish a large variety of game plans, certainly more creative freedom than affinity allowed for. Isn't this just a step up?
How many midrange decks do we need? Why should Jund etc exist if there is Snow Midrange? That question is disingenuous.
There was affinity, there was Lantern and there was Thopter/Sword. Later Scales was created. Now it's just Urza decks. Artifact decks can't compete without him. Also, that huge variety is non-existent, at least Paradoxical Urza played (or tried to play) things like Witching Well and Paradox Engine.

Opal provided a powerful tool to artifact decks to be able to compete. With that you had all the flavors of artifact decks, plus the Urza variants. Now you only have the latter, and will only have the latter unless something comparable is printed to diversify artifact decks.
Tomatotime wrote:
1 year ago
Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
Astrolabe could get banned on the same vein that Probe did. It is card free and helps bypass a huge risk with manabases: Blood Moon in modern and Wasteland in Legacy.
I mean..Probe was banned due it's combo implications for decks like Infect and such where they got to play MTG on easy mode, not having to risk anything, the actual effect of Probe in a vacuum wasn't a big deal.
Probe was played by Delver and Shadow variants not just combo.

Probe was banned because:

1. It was free
2. It replaced itself
3. Gave you ample information at no cost.

While it helped combo decks more -comparatively, it's function was absurd to anyone who's played it and that's why it had to go.
Tomatotime wrote:
1 year ago
And does Legacy having wasteland resistant manabases really present a problem? Wasteland was never really made to go after basics anyways, it is for going after dual lands and lands that basically have spells attached to them, so again, what exactly is the problem?
I mean they banned Deathrite because it made 4 Color piles too easy and not really care about Wasteland (among others). So, a card that color filters, replaces itself and negates Wasteland effects by way of "forcing" you to play basics -and can't be bolted or pushed- and thus enabling carefree 3 color shenanigans is bannable. Hell, it's almost never a bad topdeck and isn't hosed by GY hate.

Wasteland's primary function in Legacy is mana screwing people, it hosing non-Loam ramp decks is secondary.

Tomatotime
Posts: 197
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Tomatotime » 1 year ago

Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
How many midrange decks do we need? Why should Jund etc exist if there is Snow Midrange? That question is disingenuous.
There was affinity, there was Lantern and there was Thopter/Sword. Later Scales was created. Now it's just Urza decks. Artifact decks can't compete without him. Also, that huge variety is non-existent, at least Paradoxical Urza played (or tried to play) things like Witching Well and Paradox Engine.
This is a non sequitur, it is laughable to try and compare Affinity and Lantern to midrange decks. Affinity would try to goldfish a turn 3 win off the back of Opal, Lantern would turn off Magic: The Gathering(TM), and Thopter/Sword literally still exists, it simply got wrapped into Urza lists as Urza makes Thopter/Sword stronger than it otherwise would have been. To compare those to something like Jund which aims to have an uncontroversial 50/50 winrate against the field and not render the game itself meaningless or obsolete is just a stretch, and this assumes we are using Jund as the representative for all midrange in Modern when there could also be other decks assuming the format wasn't so linear in nature.
Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
Probe was played by Delver and Shadow variants not just combo.
By the time Probe was banned, Delver was not a format player anymore as Treasure Cruise was already long since banned. And in the context of Shadow using Probe, in that context I think it would be more appropriate to label the deck a combo deck more so than a midrange deck.
Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
I mean they banned Deathrite because it made 4 Color piles too easy and not really care about Wasteland (among others).
Which was not the only reason it was banned, the chief reason given was it's actual winrates, and often overlooked component for people in this thread talking about banning some cards and not banning others.
Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
So, a card that color filters, replaces itself and negates Wasteland effects by way of "forcing" you to play basics -and can't be bolted or pushed- and thus enabling carefree 3 color shenanigans is bannable. Hell, it's almost never a bad topdeck and isn't hosed by GY hate.
So Wasteland becomes situationally weaker? Again, where is the problem? Maybe this is a Legacy thing, but I'm not aware of some community expectation that states that Wasteland must always maintain a pinnacle of power level in the format or else something bad will happen.

Aazadan
Posts: 547
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Aazadan » 1 year ago

Tomatotime wrote:
1 year ago
Do we actually know if Astrolabe was made specifically with Pauper in mind? Or are you just saying that the rarity was changed for consideration for the format, I think those are 2 very different things.
I don't think it has been stated, but it's pretty damn obvious, as their ability to help mana fixing in the format is rather limited. If doing that style of design I guarantee they had Pauper in mind. I've spent enough time working in game development to spot this stuff. Among other things, I'm pretty sure the template wouldn't have passed NWO in any normal set due to the filtering into snow mana thing.
Is Astrolabe too good in Legacy? Do we have data to show this? MTGGoldfish staples section shows Astrolabe in rank 26 for Legacy, while the top 10 or so ranks still seem mostly the same that they always have been.
It's more about what it does to most decks. There is literally zero cost to playing it. I suspect it was also aimed at being an alternative to ABU duals to reduce RL pressure on the format. On that mark it has been successful actually, popular decks have gone from 6 duals being standard to 4. That's great for the format, 1/3 of duals are freed up. The bigger issue is that the card is invalidating a bunch of strategies. I think it's less of a ban target in Legacy than it is in Modern, mostly because I think the dual land issue makes up for the bad side of the card. But it is seriously warping the meta in ways that would be alarming in any year other than 2019.

User avatar
Tzoulis
Posts: 314
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Tzoulis » 1 year ago

Tomatotime wrote:
1 year ago
This is a non sequitur, it is laughable to try and compare Affinity and Lantern to midrange decks. Affinity would try to goldfish a turn 3 win off the back of Opal, Lantern would turn off Magic: The Gathering(TM), and Thopter/Sword literally still exists, it simply got wrapped into Urza lists as Urza makes Thopter/Sword stronger than it otherwise would have been. To compare those to something like Jund which aims to have an uncontroversial 50/50 winrate against the field and not render the game itself meaningless or obsolete is just a stretch, and this assumes we are using Jund as the representative for all midrange in Modern when there could also be other decks assuming the format wasn't so linear in nature.
I mean, I'm just following up from your non-sequitor, if you don't like it as an argument maybe don't make it? The rest of the paragraph illustrates you not really understanding the hypocrisy of your earlier comment.

Mox Opal increased diversity in artifact strategies. Now there are -only- Urza artifact decks. That Scales deck isn't an artifact deck, it's a Company Heliod/Ballista/Spike Feeder deck. It's as much an artifact deck as Tron is.
Tomatotime wrote:
1 year ago
By the time Probe was banned, Delver was not a format player anymore as Treasure Cruise was already long since banned. And in the context of Shadow using Probe, in that context I think it would be more appropriate to label the deck a combo deck more so than a midrange deck.
Delver, along with Shadow decks were relevant, not T1 but relevant. Label Shadow decks however you want, but its playstyle is still the same and was (and still is) a fair deck. So I don't know the relevance of this with the reasons that got Probe banned.
Tomatotime wrote:
1 year ago
Which was not the only reason it was banned, the chief reason given was it's actual winrates, and often overlooked component for people in this thread talking about banning some cards and not banning others.
Never said it was the only reason, it's right there in the quote. But it enabling carefree greedy manabases was one of the key reasons it got banned.
Tomatotime wrote:
1 year ago
So Wasteland becomes situationally weaker? Again, where is the problem? Maybe this is a Legacy thing, but I'm not aware of some community expectation that states that Wasteland must always maintain a pinnacle of power level in the format or else something bad will happen.
It's a Magic expectation, not a Legacy expectation. If cards like Wasteland and Blood Moon are losing value, i.e. not punishing greedy manabases, because tools such as Deathrite or Astrolabe exist, then there's no point in running less than 3 colors.

Take a look at Khans-Zendikar Standard, 4-C piles everywhere, because going 4 colors had no risk and was super easy. Negating the color choice restriction homogenizes decks and strategies. It's creating balance issues.
gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
agree about Legacy matchups being "you either have fow or lose" sometimes, but at least there is a safety valve there when needed. It's not good having those type of games, but it's better than modern, where basically the player who opened the best seven wins the game
I mean Force or Bust is the definition of whoever has the best 7 wins and Legacy is far more egregious than Modern in this regard.
gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
Honestly, the last time I encountered skilltesting games of magic was 2015; the period where I was playing Grixis Control vs Jund, or the same deck vs Twin, etc. In Legacy, the brainstorm mirrors are super skill intensive for sure. In Modern, skill is diminished nowadays.
This might have to do with where you're playing, but I've had no shortage of skill testing games in the past 2 years. Miracles vs Humans and Spirits was extremely satisfying. T3feri has soured my experience against Spirits and Stoneblade decks lately when playing my Control deck and he's the reason why I'm focusing on my Urza deck. Hell, I've had skill intensive with my Urza (and previously Thopter/Sword) decks, which by nature of its prison elements and Whir, it is relatively easy to find the lines and names for Pithing Needle,
gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
You not only have OuAt decks. You also have astrolabe decks. As I showcased in my last post, there seem to be two categories of those decks around. If you ask me, those cards have some months of life ahead of them. They are both going to be banned post next PT.
I agree with your classification. My point was that Legacy is just if not more "broken" than Modern at all times. We just don't see it and that "broken" has become a buzzword and not something that indicates something (way) above the curve.

User avatar
drmarkb
Posts: 593
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by drmarkb » 1 year ago

Would a lightning bolt that did 6 damage be too good? Yes. But it would not get play in lots of non red decks, and nor would Legacy have every deck run it.
Same with Astrolabe. It recreated previously dead decks- 4c pile decks, as well as changing one top deck into a new beast entirely. It enables 4 colour decks to play Blood Moon. You won't find it in Chalice decks, Tempo decks , Vial decks, or combo decks. But you will find it in the Ux control decks pretty uniquitously. Astrolabe will eventually go from Legacy, not now but eventually.

iTaLenTZ
Posts: 226
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by iTaLenTZ » 1 year ago

drmarkb wrote:
1 year ago
It enables 4 colour decks to play Blood Moon.
Blood Moon, Veil of Summer, Pyroblast, Brainstorm, Terminus, Oko, StP, Ice-Fang Coatl, all in the same deck because of Astrolabe. Its DRS all over again.

I am still sad to see OUAT go in Modern because it makes my midrange fair creature deck actually viable but I completely support and understand the decision to ban it. It should have had restrictions like 'creature with manacost 3 or less' so it wouldn't be abused by big mana decks that much. 2019 has been absolutely terrible.

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

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

What is viable? I've not seen anything pointing to a fair deck like zoo being good because of OuaT.
UR Control UR

User avatar
pierreb
Posts: 278
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Up North

Post by pierreb » 1 year ago

Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
Mox Opal increased diversity in artifact strategies.
I don't agree with this line of reasoning. Moxen merely increase the speed of decks. When the ability to play a given mox is asymmetrical, then it artificially enable a sub-set of strategies to have more deck just because they're empowered by the mox.

For decks full of artifacts, mox opal makes them more viable by gaining a turn.

For decks full of legends, mox ember makes them more viable by gaining a turn.

For decks full of green beasts with flying, a mox that gets turned on by green beast with flying makes them more viable by gaining a turn.

So, Wizards should print plenty of narrow moxen? I think it's the wrong way to go.

Mapccu
Posts: 90
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Mapccu » 1 year ago

Another issue I think modern has going for it right now is that I've seen a surprising number of creatures with great abilities being printed that pass the bolt test in the last 5ish years.

Like courser of kruphix is a good example of creatures just outpacing the damage based removal where you're trading 2 cards often to try and them off the table.

Walkers starting with too high loyalty fall into this category as well. Oko, the scions, 3feri (by his ability and his plus) all survive bolt.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Modern”