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

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

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 1 year ago

Albegas wrote:
1 year ago
FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
I don't think it's so much as he doesn't realize it, he doesn't want to think about it. If something arises that can't be absorbed in other formats, they can always ban something.

I hope they realize that Modern is still a cash cow and money can definitely still be made here. I would suggest some unbans, probably 2-3 bans, and a well thought out Modern Horizons 2 that includes fetchlands from Zendikar/MM17. I am currently about to sell all the extra copies I have in hopes that they do get it right.
You are probably right about him just not wanting to think about it. I wish I had the proper quote, but I distinctly remember that Eldrazi winter was caused by them ignoring Modern in favor of a better Standard, and I'm actually OK with them not caring about non-rotating formats so long as Standard is fun. What bugs me is that they continue to have multiple Standard bans after implementing the very team that was supposed to stop them, and rather than own up to those mistakes, they seem to now be doubling down on what can only be called a flawed methodology. I really want to play paper Modern after the COVID-19 stuff dies down, but I don't know what I'm supposed to do. Do I sell my two Misty copies and my Uro to build that neat Grixis Delver deck, or is Bant Snow actually less busted, i.e. I should buy more Misty copies and Uros so that I can compete in paper? I don't think I've ever felt so indecisive about what I should do in terms of MtG finance, and it's basically because I have no good data to work off of to make those decisions.

Sorry, I know that the above paragraph is about half discussion material and half rant, but it really is frustrating to want to invest in Modern at the same time that the people who could alleviate our concerns seem to almost be going out of their way to agitate them.
I think the best financial option is to wait until we see when we can actually play in paper (I am a paper mtg player only myself). I wouldn't put together those decks because you never know what could happen.

As for Misty Rainforest, I am currently selling my extra copies. Honestly I should sell all of them, but I tend to not care much when they're cards that I bought in that Standard rotation for pretty low in price. The Professor (Tolarian Academy) talked with PR man, Blake Rasmussen and Blake kind of indirectly told him that those fetchlands in particular were going to be reprinted this year (not including the Secret Lair, but after the Secret Lair in a more universal set). He also alluded to MH2, some sort of Pioneer Masters, and even some other "Masters" were in the works before the year ends. So I feel that Misty Rainforest and those lands will go down. Now some people like myself often can't wait until that time, but it is in someone's best financial interest.

I am so tempted myself to buy the companions to play broken stuff, but will I even get to ever play that legally in paper? I'm not so sure.

*I should specify that the fetchlands that he said would be reprinted are the ones that are in the Secret Lair. I never remember if those are called Allied or Enemy fetchlands; I think Enemy fetchlands. As for Uro, the prices are so high right now that I feel by the time paper rolls around, there is a good chance it will be lower. I don't think the price will be higher than now, but occasionally I have been wrong before (Wrenn and Six being the most recent).
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
ktkenshinx
Posts: 571
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: West Coast
Contact:

Post by ktkenshinx » 1 year ago

Lots of interesting discussion here, especially around the overall issue of card design. I want to redirect our attention towards these macro issues and how they affect Modern among other formats. Specifically, there is some fascinating and extremely worrisome information in today's Ikoria M Files article on the mothership:

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/a ... 2020-04-23

At face value, this article just talks about some basic design considerations for cards. But if you read between the lines, the article reveals some glaring Play Design shortfalls and dangerous assumptions. The first problem is this quote in the Kogla, the Titan Ape section:
Jadine Klomparens wrote:Play Design does a lot of things, but our core mission is to keep our play environments fun and balanced. That means it's our job to keep track of all the cards that will be in Standard together and to always be on the hunt for powerful interactions between cards in different sets.
Emphasis added. We know Play Design focuses on Standard and has this as its mandate. So why is this quote so problematic? The answer is Oko and Uro. I want everyone to realize that Play Design tested a play environment where Oko was legal alongside not just Veil and OUaT, but also Uro. Can you even imagine a Standard where both of those Simic powerhouses were legal at the same time? It would have been an even bigger UGx catastrophe than the one we saw. And yet, Play Design tested both cards simultaneously and thought they were both individually okay and acceptable together. This suggests an alarming disconnect between the testing environment in Play Design and how Standard is ultimately played. If Play Design can't even get this risk management right, there is a virtual 0% chance they will be able to get it right in nonrotating formats that they aren't even testing.

Speaking of nonrotating formats, try a Ctrl+F for any constructed format outside of Standard. Zero results. Not even for "nonrotating" or "eternal," and honestly, just one hit for even "Standard." And yet, we know they are testing for Standard and Limited environments. So where are all the notes about non-Limited formats? In an inadvertent tell, Klomparens, and presumably all of Play Design, tips their hand and shows that they may actually be considering all Constructed formats as one.

Just look at these references from different cards:
RE: Shark Typhoon wrote:ABRO: The Sharks are also on a more Constructed card. Everyone wins.
RE: Sprite Dragon wrote:A simple stat increase would have made Sprite Dragon stronger than we wanted in Limited, so we had to look for knobs that would be more powerful in Constructed then Limited.
RE: Regal Leosaur wrote:One of the things Play Design keeps in mind while working to get a new mechanic like mutate to be fun in Constructed is that we need cards that do lots of different things
RE: Yidaro wrote:MDT: Looks super fun in Constructed <3
At the risk of extrapolating too much from one article, it appears Play Design primarily considers the vast macro category of "Constructed" when designing cards more than individual formats. They do this in both the actual notes for cards and in Klomparens' writeup. This should be deeply and profoundly troubling. There is very little that is remotely similar between different Constructed formats, especially from a power-level perspective. This suggests Play Design either doesn't understand the differences between Constructed formats, or they truly believe they can design for "Constructed" as a collective. They may also believe that "Constructed" is just shorthand for "Standard," which is an extremely narrow definition which disregards chunks of the playerbase.

I don't have any positive way to interpret this. No matter how I spin it, I'm seeing a Play Design process that designs "Constructed" cards with no regard for the reality of all the formats underneath Constructed. They aren't successfully doing it for Standard, they definitely aren't doing it for Modern, and they are all but guaranteed to continue creating massive power level disasters with every subsequent set until this changes. It's possible I'm reading too much into these quotes and the article as a whole. Maybe Play Design has some internal processes that we don't know which clarify these seeming problems. But given the rate of multi-format bans from the last year, including their primary Standard format, I'm leaning towards a much less generous interpretation. As I and others have said, this will have severe, negative consequences for all formats going forward.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

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

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

You aren't reading too much into it.

Take what you have there.
Add in several of maros tweets this week.
Add in Sam Blacks comments.

Put it all together. Your an intelligent and analytical person.

You know, just as some of us do, they are utterly failing vast segments of the player base.
UR Control UR

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

Post by Albegas » 1 year ago

I hope this is my last rant that I make for some time. For years, we were plagued by WotC's mistakes. We truly seem to now be plagued by their decisions. I really wish there was a platform where we could truly talk to MaRo about this, because he chooses to discuss on a platform where dissent can be disregarded as mindless ranting, and I have never felt so compelled to challenge him as I do today.

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

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

Hit him on his blog.
UR Control UR

User avatar
WizardMN
Posts: 1420
Joined: 2 years ago
Answers: 65
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Twin Cities
Contact:

Post by WizardMN » 1 year ago

Albegas wrote:
1 year ago
I hope this is my last rant that I make for some time. For years, we were plagued by WotC's mistakes. We truly seem to now be plagued by their decisions. I really wish there was a platform where we could truly talk to MaRo about this, because he chooses to discuss on a platform where dissent can be disregarded as mindless ranting, and I have never felt so compelled to challenge him as I do today.
Even if he had a better platform, he isn't the one to complain to. He is in charge of Design (and arguably might have a miss here with Companions because of their Design). But power level is the issue. Oko, Astrolabe, Veil of Summer (well, this might be pushing it on the Design side I suppose, but at 2 or 3 mana might have been fine) are generally fine designs that are insanely pushed. But he has said time and again that he just comes with the designs. Development, and now Play Design, are supposed to be the ones that keep things like this in check. I don't think Oko would have been a problem if he cost more or had fewer loyalty. Knobs the Play Design team should have been twisting.

MaRo is the most vocal, and most accessible member of WotC. But to put the majority of blame on him for the problems we face is just ignorant of Wizards' internal process. He has said he will forward things to the right groups so email him or whatever, but ultimately it is the decisions in other groups making things worse by not doing their jobs and testing, tweaking, developing, playing with these cards before they get released in the wild.

My point is more to just not expect much of a response from him because a lot of the issues we face don't really fall on his shoulders. He is supposed to come up with new designs, but the rest of the teams are supposed to reign them in so they don't break things. Tweak them, cost them appropriately, that kind of thing.

Of course the guy who gave us the Free mechanic in Urza's Saga is going to come up with things that break things if they aren't checked. The lack of checks are the problem here.

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1179
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
I don't have any positive way to interpret this. No matter how I spin it, I'm seeing a Play Design process that designs "Constructed" cards with no regard for the reality of all the formats underneath Constructed. They aren't successfully doing it for Standard, they definitely aren't doing it for Modern, and they are all but guaranteed to continue creating massive power level disasters with every subsequent set until this changes. It's possible I'm reading too much into these quotes and the article as a whole. Maybe Play Design has some internal processes that we don't know which clarify these seeming problems. But given the rate of multi-format bans from the last year, including their primary Standard format, I'm leaning towards a much less generous interpretation. As I and others have said, this will have severe, negative consequences for all formats going forward.
I have long since lamented that Wizards' R&D and B&R teams measure along some sliding scale between lazy and ignorant, and this interpretation seems to solidify that more and more. Whatever they are doing is horrendously bad and they've burning formats to the ground left and right for more than a year. At this point, I don't even care why anymore, as long as someone with any meaningful power can do something to rectify it. And if they're not, then give us back several of our banned toys to apologize and compensate.

blkdemonight
Posts: 80
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by blkdemonight » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
Lots of interesting discussion here, especially around the overall issue of card design. I want to redirect our attention towards these macro issues and how they affect Modern among other formats. Specifically, there is some fascinating and extremely worrisome information in today's Ikoria M Files article on the mothership:

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/a ... 2020-04-23

At face value, this article just talks about some basic design considerations for cards. But if you read between the lines, the article reveals some glaring Play Design shortfalls and dangerous assumptions. The first problem is this quote in the Kogla, the Titan Ape section:
Jadine Klomparens wrote:Play Design does a lot of things, but our core mission is to keep our play environments fun and balanced. That means it's our job to keep track of all the cards that will be in Standard together and to always be on the hunt for powerful interactions between cards in different sets.
Emphasis added. We know Play Design focuses on Standard and has this as its mandate. So why is this quote so problematic? The answer is Oko and Uro. I want everyone to realize that Play Design tested a play environment where Oko was legal alongside not just Veil and OUaT, but also Uro. Can you even imagine a Standard where both of those Simic powerhouses were legal at the same time? It would have been an even bigger UGx catastrophe than the one we saw. And yet, Play Design tested both cards simultaneously and thought they were both individually okay and acceptable together. This suggests an alarming disconnect between the testing environment in Play Design and how Standard is ultimately played. If Play Design can't even get this risk management right, there is a virtual 0% chance they will be able to get it right in nonrotating formats that they aren't even testing.

Speaking of nonrotating formats, try a Ctrl+F for any constructed format outside of Standard. Zero results. Not even for "nonrotating" or "eternal," and honestly, just one hit for even "Standard." And yet, we know they are testing for Standard and Limited environments. So where are all the notes about non-Limited formats? In an inadvertent tell, Klomparens, and presumably all of Play Design, tips their hand and shows that they may actually be considering all Constructed formats as one.

Just look at these references from different cards:
RE: Shark Typhoon wrote:ABRO: The Sharks are also on a more Constructed card. Everyone wins.
RE: Sprite Dragon wrote:A simple stat increase would have made Sprite Dragon stronger than we wanted in Limited, so we had to look for knobs that would be more powerful in Constructed then Limited.
RE: Regal Leosaur wrote:One of the things Play Design keeps in mind while working to get a new mechanic like mutate to be fun in Constructed is that we need cards that do lots of different things
RE: Yidaro wrote:MDT: Looks super fun in Constructed <3

At the risk of extrapolating too much from one article, it appears Play Design primarily considers the vast macro category of "Constructed" when designing cards more than individual formats. They do this in both the actual notes for cards and in Klomparens' writeup. This should be deeply and profoundly troubling. There is very little that is remotely similar between different Constructed formats, especially from a power-level perspective. This suggests Play Design either doesn't understand the differences between Constructed formats, or they truly believe they can design for "Constructed" as a collective. They may also believe that "Constructed" is just shorthand for "Standard," which is an extremely narrow definition which disregards chunks of the playerbase.

I don't have any positive way to interpret this. No matter how I spin it, I'm seeing a Play Design process that designs "Constructed" cards with no regard for the reality of all the formats underneath Constructed. They aren't successfully doing it for Standard, they definitely aren't doing it for Modern, and they are all but guaranteed to continue creating massive power level disasters with every subsequent set until this changes.
It's possible I'm reading too much into these quotes and the article as a whole. Maybe Play Design has some internal processes that we don't know which clarify these seeming problems. But given the rate of multi-format bans from the last year, including their primary Standard format, I'm leaning towards a much less generous interpretation. As I and others have said, this will have severe, negative consequences for all formats going forward.
In other words, Wizards are just designing Yugioh cards, since that game has one main format which happens to be a mishmash of Vintage and Legacy. They are constantly trying to release pushed cards while also releasing mistakes since that game is constantly having a higher bar of mechanical/powe entry while pretending optimally designed decks play nice with casual/jank decks.

blkdemonight
Posts: 80
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by blkdemonight » 1 year ago

Albegas wrote:
1 year ago
blkdemonight wrote:
1 year ago
I see this after pulling the B/R companion that screams "Lightning Bolt!!!!!!!!!!!" in Arena. Wizards clearly didn't test any of the companions for formats not named Standard or limited.
I don't think that Sam Black tweet gets enough attention. If I am wrong, someone please show me, but if what I remember is correct from what was posted a few pages back, they don't even test for Standard, at least not in the way we want them to. Someone posted some tweets from his feed, and it sounded an awful lot like they now test new sets with the assumption that they don't need to test for broken cards in Standard because they can just ban those if need be. If that really is true, they now work under the assumption that it's OK to ban cards in their lone rotating format. Never mind us jaded Modern players, that should terrify anyone playing Standard that isn't privy to a sponsor because they've just become YGO players

Also God help us if Rosewater actually thinks that formats with larger card pools are LESS capable of breaking cards. Does he not remember Treasure Cruise? Or any of the other examples any poster can think of?
Which tweet was it?

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

Post by Albegas » 1 year ago

blkdemonight wrote:
1 year ago
Which tweet was it?

Took more digging than I thought it would to find this. This was originally in a post by idSurge. If you click the link and read through the posts, Sam Black says that cards tested are tested under the assumption that no card is homogenizing because if such a card did that, they could just ban the card and remove it from Standard. To put it another way, they don't need to try and "break" a card because if Standard players broke a card and revealed that it pushed a deck too far, they'd just ban it.

blkdemonight
Posts: 80
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by blkdemonight » 1 year ago

Albegas wrote:
1 year ago
blkdemonight wrote:
1 year ago
Which tweet was it?

Took more digging than I thought it would to find this. This was originally in a post by idSurge. If you click the link and read through the posts, Sam Black says that cards tested are tested under the assumption that no card is homogenizing because if such a card did that, they could just ban the card and remove it from Standard. To put it another way, they don't need to try and "break" a card because if Standard players broke a card and revealed that it pushed a deck too far, they'd just ban it.
This explains why Wizards never knew Saheeli cat was a broken interaction. They are designing cards with the idea people will play them as somewhat better decks for Limited.

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

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

Albegas wrote:
1 year ago
Took more digging than I thought it would to find this. This was originally in a post by idSurge. If you click the link and read through the posts, Sam Black says that cards tested are tested under the assumption that no card is homogenizing because if such a card did that, they could just ban the card and remove it from Standard. To put it another way, they don't need to try and "break" a card because if Standard players broke a card and revealed that it pushed a deck too far, they'd just ban it.
And this is absolutely, WITHOUT A DOUBT, a departure from previous lines of thought that they had regarding design and development.

I have said this over and over, but it bears repeating.

Maro has seen it all. Many of the busted cards in this game came from him, or Aaron and look them up on the mtg wiki to see how many sets they touched.

He knows about Design, and he knows about Game Theory.

He knows, without a doubt, that the things they have pushed are bad for the long term health of any format that is not Standard, but he almost 100% has a directive from %$#% idiot at Hasbro, to push some cards and make a splash for the last few years to max out on Standard churn and profits.

Its not good enough to have rotation, they need SET based rotation. Look at Krasis. Look at Oko. Look at Uro. Look at Growth Spiral, Neoform, Veil of Summer.

What in the ever loving name of Garfield, are these designs?

Maro is too educated in the field. His tenure too long and his understanding of Game Design too deep, to not know what they are doing.

It has become a case of 'push it, and if it breaks, too bad.'
UR Control UR

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

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

I played some Arena tonight, first time in a long time.

Companion is idiotic lol.
UR Control UR

blkdemonight
Posts: 80
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by blkdemonight » 1 year ago

Is the Krasis that good outside of Standard? Sp far I've only played against it in Arena

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

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 1 year ago

blkdemonight wrote:
1 year ago
Is the Krasis that good outside of Standard? Sp far I've only played against it in Arena
It was pretty good in Pioneer as well until there were fewer reasons to run Blue in Green Devotion decks. Nowadays, the default Devotion decks just have Mono Green and Karn, the Great Creator. It's a better "2019 mistake" than Krasis in Pioneer, lol.
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

BloodyRabbit
Posts: 143
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by BloodyRabbit » 1 year ago

In the last 3 competitive online leagues I saw there were:

- 1 Burn
- 1 MR Prowess
- 1 UR Delver
- 1 Grixis Delver
- 1 4C Shadow
- 2 Bant Soulhearder (80 cards)
- 2 Bant Control
- 1 Amulet Titan
- 1 Eldrazi Tron
- 1 Vizier Druid
- 1 Esper Control
- 1 Jeskai Saheeli (80 cards)
- 1 DredgeVine

Is this meta supposed to be bad? I see a bit of everything. I'm having the most fun I ever had in Modern.

ThatStoryTeller
Posts: 55
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by ThatStoryTeller » 1 year ago

bad is subjective definitioning. it depends upon interpretation, I agree seeing these decks makes me feel a bit better about the whole situation, but there is this uneven playing field complication that sours the whole situation. Any of the suggested rules fixes Ive seen on twitter and in articles would easily fix the situation but +1 top tier card that is part of an engine in your deck is a solid bonus. With the fact that companions are an ikoria only mechanic I'm not feeling the "you should be playing these cards because they are far better than most things you could be doing" as a fan of many of the tier 2 decks. Hooray to delver and the control decks though, good to see them

BloodyRabbit
Posts: 143
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by BloodyRabbit » 1 year ago

Of course fun it's subjective. No doubts here.

But is it also the diversity? I saw many people pointing out that they were always face the same decks.

blkdemonight
Posts: 80
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by blkdemonight » 1 year ago

Maybe experimentation is back for time being?

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

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

How many of those decks run Lurrus.
UR Control UR

BloodyRabbit
Posts: 143
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by BloodyRabbit » 1 year ago

idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
How many of those decks run Lurrus.
Does it even matter? Cause they are very diverse and Lurrus is ONE card.

Anyway, six of them. (Burn, Prowess, Grixis Delver, 4C Shadow, Vizier, Esper Control).

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

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

Yes it matters, because you either play Lurrus, within its restrictions, or perhaps another Companion, within its restrictions, or you are down a card.

Now maybe Bant Control still has the legs to keep up, it does pack multiple 2019 Mistakes in its own right, but yes, Lurrus Family (much like the Faithless Family) warping the format would still be a bad thing, that matters.
UR Control UR

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

Post by ktkenshinx » 1 year ago

We don't really have enough data for a Challenge/SQ/Premier breakdown like we had pre-IKO, but we can throw in non-curated Preliminary results to increase N and start some summaries. As a reminder, here was the Tier 1 and Tier 2metagame on the eve of IKO in a N=352 deck sample:

PRE-IKO MODERN: MARCH-APRIL
1. Bant Snow Control: 11.6% (41)
2. Gruul Ponza: 8.2% (29)
4. Dredge: 7.4% (26)
9. Burn: 6.5% (23)
7. Eldrazi Tron: 5.1% (18)
8. Temur Urza: 5.1% (18)
5. Humans: 4.8% (17)
3. Mono R Prowess: 4.8% (17)
6. Jund: 4.5% (16)
14. Amulet Titan: 4% (14)
15. Mono G Tron: 3.7% (13)
10. Infect: 3.7% (13)
11. 5C Niv: 2.6% (9)
12. Death and Taxes: 2.3% (8)
13. Bant Snowblade: 2% (7)

We debated whether this aggro/Astrolabe/ramp/midrange metagame was healthy or not, and I don't think we reached consensus. That said, the week 1 IKO metagame is totally different. We can start to see the metagame in a N=168 sample (56 of these decks are from Prelims). N is a little smaller so we can't quite capture the full Tier 2 picture, but we can definitely get all of Tier 1 and a rough estimate of the Week 1 Tier 2, comprising about 71% of the metagame instead of our usual 75%:

POST-IKO MODERN: WEEK 1
1. Burn: 16.7% (28)
2. Jund: 8.3% (14)
3. Humans: 7.1% (12)
4. Prowess: 5.4% (9)
5. Grixis Delver: 4.8% (8)
6. Bant Snow Control: 4.8% (8)
7. Devoted Devastation: 4.2% (7)
8. Dredge: 3.6% (6)
9. Amulet Titan: 3.6% (6)
10. Hardened Scales: 3.6% (6)
11. The Rock: 2.4% (4)
12. Ponza: 2.4% (4)
13. Neobrand: 2.4% (4)
14. Temur Urza: 2.4% (4)

It doesn't take a lot of analysis to see this is a different format. Burn jumped from 4th place to 1st. Jund jumped from 9th place, basically a Tier 2 deck, to 2nd. We went from three big mana decks in the top tiers (12.8% split between G Tron, E Tron, and Amulet) to 3.6% (just Amulet); even if you went all the way below the top 75%, all big mana decks collectively would only make up 7.1% of the format. Astrolabe decks are also way down, with Bant Snow plummeting from 1st to 6th with an almost 2/3 share drop, and Temur Urza getting its share cut in half. Meanwhile, we see Grixis Delver (is it 2015??), Devoted Devastation, Hardened Scales, Neobrand, and The Rock (is it 2013??) all make it into the current Tier 1/Tier 2 picture. Also, COMPANIONS: of the 120 decks making up the Tier 1/Tier 2 picture, 73 (61%) have a companion. This is still a very Modern format, but everything has also changed overnight.

Before I talk about some bigger picture takeaways, here are some CRITICAL caveats:
  • Week 1 metagames rarely stick. There's a ton of experimentation, no one knows the best deck, and people tend to shy away from old standbys while enjoying new tech.
  • Week 1 metagames tend to be more diverse. Not only do Week 1 metas shift, but the decks in Week 1 metas tend to be more experimental. This would explain why Goblins has as many pilots as 5C Niv. It also might account for cool new appearances like Grixis Delver and old returns like Hardened Scales.
  • Everyone wants to try companions. Regardless of how good Lurrus and co. end up (read: very good and better than you probably realize), we may be experiencing an artificial uptick in companion decks because everyone wants to try them.
  • Aggro, especially Burn, excels in Week 1 metagames. We've seen this paradigm in many metagames, even formats, and Week 1 IKO Modern is no exception. If the metagame is in flux, jam a reliable, proactive deck. Coupled with the companion novelty effect, this may lead to an even higher artificial spike in Lurrus Burn decks.
  • Old standbys can be boring. Players may not want to return to their tired old mainstays like Amulet, Tron, Bant Snow, etc. in this bold new format. Doubly so if those decks can't run companion well (G Tron), can't run it without major changes (Bant Snow w/ Yorion), and can't run it at all (E Tron).
These are all key limitations to interpreting this current metagame picture. Based on this, I'd expect things like Burn to drop, Bant Snow and big mana to eventually increase their share, and some of the rogue decks to fall out of Tier 1 and Tier 2. At the same time, powerful new cards can really change formats, and some of the pre- to post-IKO shifts should stick. For instance, Lurrus has clearly led to yet another renaissance in Jund/Rock decks, and I'm sure that will continue going forward, even if only in Jund. Similarly, Hardened Scales used to be a real deck very recently, so its return is likely a trend and not an anomaly.

Given all this, I'm back at the question I'm posing on Reddit: are we comfortable with a strategically diverse metagame that revolves around a few fixed slots in decks? Modern looks like an Astrolabe, ramp, companion, random-proactive-aggro/combo format right now, but those different pillars appear to support everything. Can you imagine if we had a top tier that included The Rock, Tron, Bant Snow, Grixis Delver, Burn, Jund, Temur Urza, and Amulet? Plus stuff like Hardened Scales, Devoted Devastation, and Humans? That's something for basically everyone and it checks virtually all strategic boxes. Of course, the cost is a format where close to 100% of decks are playing either companions, Tron lands, Titan, or Astrolabe. So, is that a cost we are willing to take on? I think this is a much more open question than a lot of people are suggesting.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

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

Post by Ym1r » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
Given all this, I'm back at the question I'm posing on Reddit: are we comfortable with a strategically diverse metagame that revolves around a few fixed slots in decks? Modern looks like an Astrolabe, ramp, companion, random-proactive-aggro/combo format right now, but those different pillars appear to support everything. Can you imagine if we had a top tier that included The Rock, Tron, Bant Snow, Grixis Delver, Burn, Jund, Temur Urza, and Amulet? Plus stuff like Hardened Scales, Devoted Devastation, and Humans? That's something for basically everyone and it checks virtually all strategic boxes. Of course, the cost is a format where close to 100% of decks are playing either companions, Tron lands, Titan, or Astrolabe. So, is that a cost we are willing to take on? I think this is a much more open question than a lot of people are suggesting.
For me the answer is a resounding yes. There are a LOT of decks to choose here, like, a lot. Midrange and control CAN keep up finally. Combo is still here, and aggro variants can take people by surprise if built correctly. I really don't see a problem.

EVERY version of modern even the 2015 one that was so loved by everyone (apparently) had pillars. Control decks HAD to play Lightning Bolt (there was no Esper or UW to be seen, only Jeskai/Twin). Rock decks HAD to play Tarmo/Lili. Combo decks had to be fast and explosive to compete with Twin's value. Aggro decks like Affinity had to have a deck building twist to take advantage of in order to compete (like the artifact synergy). This seems quite similar to me as now. It's just that people for whatever reason loved the 2015 pillars (Lili/Bolt/PtE/TS) more than the pillars now (Tron/Titan/Astrolabe and probably now Lurrus).

I am 101% certain that if we let this format settle, so give it a few months, and stabilize, then eventually there will be some new decks that come out of nowhere (with old cards even) that all of a sudden are relevant, because this is what happens in Modern, when it gets solved, there is a new deck that breaks it, like was Death's Shadow at some point.
Counter, draw a card.

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

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

Ultimately, understanding that these cards form the new normal, if they could achieve a balance between the archetypes and core enabling macro archetypes, then so be it.

Just be ready for next rotation.
Ym1r wrote:
1 year ago
I am 101% certain that if we let this format settle, so give it a few months, and stabilize, then eventually there will be some new decks that come out of nowhere (with old cards even) that all of a sudden are relevant, because this is what happens in Modern, when it gets solved, there is a new deck that breaks it, like was Death's Shadow at some point.
We have till Core Set 2021.
UR Control UR

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Modern”