Re: [Official] State of Modern Thread (B&R 03/09/2020)
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2020 11:03 pm
I've seen enough jund playing Kroxa that I'm not convinced the deck would even care about losing astrolabe.
Magic the Gathering Resources, Tools, Previews, and Community.
https://www.mtgnexus.com/
It is fine in Legacy. Astrolabe is an issue, labe is not. But I get the point.cfusionpm wrote: ↑3 years agoAt what point before the printing of Urza and Uro and other busted 2019/20 cards, were blue or black interactive decks ever a "problem" that needed to be dealt with? Why did green ever "need" this card? Blue has been trash for YEARS and Thoughtseize decks were supposed to fill the void of blue being terrible by helping police the linear degeneracy. Almost all linear degenerate decks run green, and now have access to a fast-pass, get-out-of-jail-free card to do whatever they want. Veil is an atrocious insult to pretty much every format it remains legal
London is not the issue there. Tron is. I do agree with you, 4 field is never enough to speed bump tron, which had become more consistent and had better threats, but Tron just really needs to go because it is always close to being broken by good green filtering, which keeps getting printed.
I've watched Rounds 1 and 2 so far and it's the most interesting Modern I've watched in a long time. I know this is completely just my opinion, but this was fun game play to watch. Normally I don't watch unbanned series because it's not a legal format, but this one was fun! Still watching now...
Nailed itYm1r wrote: ↑3 years agoHey look, fair decks in modern finally have the tools to compete and now fair decks is the problem!
People have been arguing that modern is, essentially a rotating format because things change with every set or metagame shift.
I would argue that at this point, Modern is a rotating complain. Whatever is the best deck it is a cause for complain about modern (and modern specifically). Doesn't matter if it is artifact decks, tron variants, fair decks, combo decks, GY decks, if it's the best deck people will hate it.
Modern has had periods where 1) several decks were so close to each other power-wise that it wasn't clear what the best deck was and 2) the gap between the best deck(s) and the rest of the field was much smaller than it is now.Simto wrote: ↑3 years agoNailed itYm1r wrote: ↑3 years agoHey look, fair decks in modern finally have the tools to compete and now fair decks is the problem!
People have been arguing that modern is, essentially a rotating format because things change with every set or metagame shift.
I would argue that at this point, Modern is a rotating complain. Whatever is the best deck it is a cause for complain about modern (and modern specifically). Doesn't matter if it is artifact decks, tron variants, fair decks, combo decks, GY decks, if it's the best deck people will hate it.
If you've been playing long enough and/or have been around these forums for years, then you'll see why that phrase is close to true. I mean, UW is favored against Tron, Tron hasn't done anything of relevance the past few months and yet it's a problem? It's just regular whining about Tron. Yes, it is annoying to play against, but everyone has decks that hate to play against.
How in living hell is Coatl a problem? Especially on the level of Veil and maybe Astrolabe? As for Uro, we've been going on for literal years that fair decks need cards on the power level of the tools that linear/combo decks have been getting in order to compete, and when they get them (ie Uro, Astrolabe and Snake, along with Sanctuary) it suddenly is a problem? Uro isn't a problem. Snake definitely isn't. Astrolabe is borderline. Veil is an atrocious card and has to go above everything else, then we can talk whether the rest are even a problem.
th33l3x wrote: ↑3 years agoTemur Urza's core is 4x Urza, 4x Coatl, 4x Goose, 4x Astrolabe, 3-4x Uro, +counterspells+0xmc artifacts. All in all it runs about 30 cards printed within the last year, in a format with a 10 year deep card pool. Similar deal with bant Snow. If you don't see a problem with that, you're beyond help.
Tzoulis wrote: ↑3 years agoIf you've been playing long enough and/or have been around these forums for years, then you'll see why that phrase is close to true. I mean, UW is favored against Tron, Tron hasn't done anything of relevance the past few months and yet it's a problem? It's just regular whining about Tron. Yes, it is annoying to play against, but everyone has decks that hate to play against.
How in living hell is Coatl a problem? Especially on the level of Veil and maybe Astrolabe? As for Uro, we've been going on for literal years that fair decks need cards on the power level of the tools that linear/combo decks have been getting in order to compete, and when they get them (ie Uro, Astrolabe and Snake, along with Sanctuary) it suddenly is a problem? Uro isn't a problem. Snake definitely isn't. Astrolabe is borderline. Veil is an atrocious card and has to go above everything else, then we can talk whether the rest are even a problem.
th33l3x wrote: ↑3 years agoTemur Urza's core is 4x Urza, 4x Coatl, 4x Goose, 4x Astrolabe, 3-4x Uro, +counterspells+0xmc artifacts. All in all it runs about 30 cards printed within the last year, in a format with a 10 year deep card pool. Similar deal with bant Snow. If you don't see a problem with that, you're beyond help.
Right, do that for every deck now for the past 5-6 years. Other than Ixalan block, every deck has gained cards from the past few sets, so that argument isn't even relevant. Jund has changed. Tron has changed. Every deck has gained a huge amount of cards to play.
This number is also heavily skewed by Modern Horizons, a set that by and large the community asked for by the way. Besides Hogaak and maybe Astrolabe, the set did what it was supposed to do. What the community asked them to do.
Also, people whining about Modern being a "rotating" format, are either oblivious to the format's history or haven't been paying attention.
No.
Your going to need to quantify that.
I argued something similar not too long ago, providing the list of new cards influencing the format, as well as the number of influencing cards vs necessary bannings.pierreb wrote: ↑3 years agoNo.
*YOU* do the maths to provide a counterpoint that is more that mere posturing.
You could have said "look at these 5 other top decks. They also have 30 cards from the past year." Or "look at these 5 deck from 2018, they contained 30 cards from their past year." Except for extreme outliers like Eldrazi winter, I'm pretty sure (but won't claim as fact, like you did) that you will come up empty.
I can get with that. I will admit that Twin and Pod seemed much better than I would have guessed. I would have said top 5-10 for both decks, but I'm sure now that they would be in the top 5 if unbanned now. I do also realize that this is just very minimal testing by 2 players only and like you said, different versions should also be tested.Greeksis wrote: ↑3 years agoSo, I watched the Twin/Pod unban video series. All of the videos.
Evaros and Fpawlusz's conclusions are: "Twin would be a big problem if unbanned". I agree. And the Twin player made some really big mistakes and he didn't splash Green for veil of summer, which he regretted.
So, Twin would be really a problematic card, but it feels like Bant is more problematic as a deck. In other words, if Bant is fine, Twin is fine. But they are/would be both big problems for Modern. If Wizards aims for AA to be legal, it feels like they should unban Twin. But the moment AA is banned, if Twin is legal, it will be really problematic for the format.
So, the safe thing is to unban nothing, I think. And also ban Arcum's Astrolabe/veil of summer.
Another line would be: ban veil of summer, unban Splinter Twin.
About Pod, they also think it would be too good, but my opinion is that Pod was not build optimally here. Not at all. The all in Pod version with Coridor Monitor remains something to be tested. With this in mind, I can't speak for the deck too much.
There's also something to take into consideration that none of their test lists were dramatically altered or tuned to fight against it, or included targeted hate cards. Imagine what would happen if people started playing Torpor Orb, Spellskite, Rending Volley, Fry, Suppression Field, and any other number of hate cards that, in addition to shutting down Pod and/or Twin also have multiple uses elsewhere.FoodChainGoblins wrote: ↑3 years agoI can get with that. I will admit that Twin and Pod seemed much better than I would have guessed. I would have said top 5-10 for both decks, but I'm sure now that they would be in the top 5 if unbanned now. I do also realize that this is just very minimal testing by 2 players only and like you said, different versions should also be tested.Greeksis wrote: ↑3 years agoSo, I watched the Twin/Pod unban video series. All of the videos.
Evaros and Fpawlusz's conclusions are: "Twin would be a big problem if unbanned". I agree. And the Twin player made some really big mistakes and he didn't splash Green for veil of summer, which he regretted.
So, Twin would be really a problematic card, but it feels like Bant is more problematic as a deck. In other words, if Bant is fine, Twin is fine. But they are/would be both big problems for Modern. If Wizards aims for AA to be legal, it feels like they should unban Twin. But the moment AA is banned, if Twin is legal, it will be really problematic for the format.
So, the safe thing is to unban nothing, I think. And also ban Arcum's Astrolabe/veil of summer.
Another line would be: ban veil of summer, unban Splinter Twin.
About Pod, they also think it would be too good, but my opinion is that Pod was not build optimally here. Not at all. The all in Pod version with Coridor Monitor remains something to be tested. With this in mind, I can't speak for the deck too much.
But this is why I tell people here that there are many routes that WotC could take or could have taken. They can allow AA, Veil, and more to be legal and unban Twin/Pod. Or they could go the other route and ban each of them or leave them banned. I prefer the "unban/leave unbanned" motion because it seems like power creep is a real thing, if M21 is any indication. Each time there is a "Lurrus" printed and allowed to be played with for a bit, people are always going to bring up old cards that are much worse and should be unbanned. I'm one of those people.
There were a lot of variables here. I see why many people don't take these types of matches into consideration, but I think that they can be taken into consideration, just not be the end all, be all. There were several misplays as well, both from Evaros's side and Fpawlusz's side, which is to be expected. Some of these decks are decks that they've never played before and take years to master. When you are playing against Twin, you have to think about everything that they could possibly have, which is not that many different cards, but endless possibilities. For example, when he asked if he should -3 Chandra, Torch on the Exarch or the Mite, I was thinking "oh no." You have to do the Mite. The game is about every bit of damage and the Mite has evasion. He had blockers for the Exarch.cfusionpm wrote: ↑3 years agoThere's also something to take into consideration that none of their test lists were dramatically altered or tuned to fight against it, or included targeted hate cards. Imagine what would happen if people started playing Torpor Orb, Spellskite, Rending Volley, Fry, Suppression Field, and any other number of hate cards that, in addition to shutting down Pod and/or Twin also have multiple uses elsewhere.
And as for their comments about "I can't advance my board for fear of Twin"........ yeah. THAT'S THE POINT!
Edit: Even just looking back over those cards listed.... Torpor Orb and Suppression Field sound like they would be NUTS today. With so many ETBs and activated abilities, why does no one play em? Or does the shift away from symmetrical effects mean people would rather have things like WAR walkers that shut off opponents without hurting your own stuff?
And I think this is a big factor in peoples' opinions: "I don't want to have to deal with Twin." And that seems both silly and selfish; especially considering the toxic and degenerate nonsense that has effectively ruled the format since its ban.FoodChainGoblins wrote: ↑3 years agoWith Twin and Pod back in the meta, most definitely people will play things that do well against some combination of 1 or both. But I think that is some people's problems with the decks in the meta - that they will definitely have to sideboard, mainboard, and play differently if these decks are in the meta.
Cant play your own busted Uro, if you try and bring in cards that hate on it.cfusionpm wrote: ↑3 years agoEdit: Even just looking back over those cards listed.... Torpor Orb and Suppression Field sound like they would be NUTS today. With so many ETBs and activated abilities, why does no one play em? Or does the shift away from symmetrical effects mean people would rather have things like WAR walkers that shut off opponents without hurting your own stuff?
I can understand that. That's why I think there are different routes that WotC can take. I don't know which they will take. I personally wished I could play OUaT if Lurrus is legal (with the companion rule before the change). But I know this is a much more broken card than many others.cfusionpm wrote: ↑3 years agoAnd I think this is a big factor in peoples' opinions: "I don't want to have to deal with Twin." And that seems both silly and selfish; especially considering the toxic and degenerate nonsense that has effectively ruled the format since its ban.FoodChainGoblins wrote: ↑3 years agoWith Twin and Pod back in the meta, most definitely people will play things that do well against some combination of 1 or both. But I think that is some people's problems with the decks in the meta - that they will definitely have to sideboard, mainboard, and play differently if these decks are in the meta.
But we're at a point where "fixing Modern" isn't really an option anymore. Which is why I just want my %$#%$#% toys back. And if I have to sit here and hold up removal/counters for Primeval Titan, you (plural/collective) should have to hold up removal/counters for my Exarch.
And if Veil is a concern, ban Veil. Nothing good will ever come from that card.
If a deck got 30 newly printed cards in the last year, most of them from one set/block, then it's a new deck. Bant Snow certainly qualifies as such. It's also a fair deck that at the moment is -probably- the best deck in the format, and without concrete data sets, Modern is as it always has been. Relatively diverse, but linear dominated, with Veil and T3feri being utter mistakes of cards that need to go. We've known that these cards are problems since last year, but the fact that a NEW deck appeared isn't what's wrong with the format.drmarkb wrote: ↑3 years agoYou need to do some maths....
If 30 cards are in the past year, and we get another year the same, that means 60/75 will be there this time next year. That is a worry, and nothing at all like the rate at which cards were added to Modern by any previous year.
Modern has always changed, but it has changed at a measurably slower rate. I suggest you do exactly what you suggested- but count up years (not blocks). How many cards has each year added- and the answer will be more in the post war phase of MTG than any other. The numbers added are greater than they have been. Every year adds some, even Ixalan, but we are adding more now.
cfusionpm wrote: ↑3 years agoI argued something similar not too long ago, providing the list of new cards influencing the format, as well as the number of influencing cards vs necessary bannings.
The conclusion was pretty clear, and aligns very much with the claims being made here: in less than half the time, we've had more than double the cards influence the format per set, and more than two and a half times as many bans, or six and a half times as many bans per set.
th33l3x wrote: ↑3 years agoYou are continuing your habit of taking stuff out of context. Example: Coatl isnt itself problematic, but it slots almost exclusively into the Astrolabe-Uro snow core, and in that context, it IS problematic.
No deck ever in the past 5-6 years has changed every 2nd card, and 2/3 nonland cards within a year except UGx Uro/Urza.
I don't understand where you're coming from with your reasoning. Is it simply for the sake of starting a conflict? because a lot of what you write is just removed from reality.
Even though some of the cards linked are arguable, almost half of 2019 cards are from Modern Horizons. This was the point of the set. This set was asked for by the community and Wizards delivered. Saying that this is the "new norm" is wrong. Counting the number of cards added by MH into the Modern pool as something to be expected is also wrong. A set designed for Modern will of course shake up the format far more than a regular set, if it didn't you'd (royal "you") be here whining that the set was a failure because it didn't affect Modern.cfusionpm wrote: ↑3 years agoI argued something similar not too long ago, providing the list of new cards influencing the format, as well as the number of influencing cards vs necessary bannings.
The conclusion was pretty clear, and aligns very much with the claims being made here: in less than half the time, we've had more than double the cards influence the format per set, and more than two and a half times as many bans, or six and a half times as many bans per set.
The math has been done numerous times. CFP and others have done them. It's around the same number of cards. When people start including Modern Horizons, is when the problems start. You can't include MH and say: "See?! More and more cards have been entering Modern, that's why it sucks!"pierreb wrote: ↑3 years agoNo.
*YOU* do the maths to provide a counterpoint that is more that mere posturing.
You could have said "look at these 5 other top decks. They also have 30 cards from the past year." Or "look at these 5 deck from 2018, they contained 30 cards from their past year." Except for extreme outliers like Eldrazi winter, I'm pretty sure (but won't claim as fact, like you did) that you will come up empty.