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

User avatar
drmarkb
Posts: 592
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by drmarkb » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
Four and a half years have pretty conclusively proven that Twin's "Plan B" is utter trash. The only reason it was remotely successful was because of the fear generated by the combo, which caused opponents to hold back and play cautiously. What, if anything, causes players to hold back and play cautiously today? It seems almost *always* that the most correct play is to jam your thing and hope they don't have an answer. Because if they don't, you win. And if they do, either you were going to lose the game anyway, or your deck is redundant enough to recover. *shrug*
Yes, it was the combo + plan B that did it, and when the combo was about players had to play cautiously. The plan B is in the context of plan A, when I or anyone else says plan B was good, we don't mean in a vacuum. Plan B was bloody excellent because all the opposition decisions had to account for plan A. Otherwise, as you say, trash.

Trouble is playing cautiously in white meant not playing your three drops- which hardly seemed fair, as well as not attacking with Thalia or other 1 toughness dudes.

The solution to "jam your thing" is not to have a combo + plan B deck, but to have better answers (as well as the obvious tone down the slap it on the table cards). If you get to a point where answers are better then not only do you stop the "jam it on the table and deal" that we both detest but you can have decks like twin running about happily. Trouble is when we get cards like Forces, blue gets Negation, Green gets Vigor and white gets ********d. Again. You can look it up for yourself to see the white Force. Remember, of course, that the answers cannot be locked into one deck- they need to be across colours and strategies, and Modern really fails on that, typically costing answer cards and hatbears at 1 too much, minimum.

It was the same with pacts- white should get something like redirect the whole combat damage back to the opponent- oops you lost because you swung for 200000. That would make both players have to play cautiously, which seems fairer. Red and White cards in a cycle are invariably trash. UG are excellent and B ok.

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

Post by Aazadan » 1 year ago

drmarkb wrote:
1 year ago
The problem in Modern is there are ways to defend against Bolt+ Snappy+ Bolt + nibble as plan B. Or grinding Pods. There are also ways to defend against respective combos, but there were were no decks to defend well against both the plan A and B, and certainly none to even come close to dealing with two such decks in a meta. The best and only deck at fighting that was BG-x, and even then it was not really up to fighting both those decks with both their plans. It could beat Twin, especially the combo part, but you could often get them with the plan B as cards like Thoughtseize and shocks did a chunk of the work. It did not really beat Pod. No hatebear build came close.
Mediocre plan A's + mediocre plan B's make for strong decks because it's hard to oppose both at the same time. The Twin combo itself wasn't overly powerful because if it were, the all in decks would have had a stronger showing. And the deck without the combo was also easy to oppose. However, two plans of attack that use different angles to attack made for a potent deck. We all know the combo, it would simply kill you regardless of board state, but between some land damage and then a bolt/snap/bolt, an opponent could be low enough that some chip shots would get them. This is where the plan B was so strong, because if the opponent left 1 creature back to block, it could be tapped, if they left 2 back, they weren't making meaningful progress against your life total (and Exarch made a great blocker for anything small), and if they tried to play too much defense, sooner or later a Cryptic Command would tap all those blockers regardless if they didn't simply get to combo by that time.

That meant that trying to go either under or over the deck would leave you vulnerable to one of those two attack plans. That is why it was good, and that's what makes combo decks good in Modern. Urza not too long ago had a similar sort of issue in that it had multiple paths to win, some with Sword some without and the way to stop one plan was contrary to the way to stop the other plan.

I'm not really sure if Goblins can do that or not. It remains to be seen.

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

Post by ktkenshinx » 1 year ago

Re: Snoop and Goblins
Just to be very clear, although I dislike the Snoop/Twin comparison for reasons I've already stated, this doesn't make the deck bad. It just makes it "not really Twin." The combo is almost certainly in the Tier 2 range and perhaps better just based on its theoretical gameplay. Devoted Devastation has been hovering in that range for months, which shows there's plenty of competitive space in Modern for fast, 2-3 card creature combos. Snoop is a much truer 2 card combo (probably 2.x because you can't draw Kiki, which sets an additional requirement on the combo) that wins at about the same speed. This alone suggests the combo is viable. Goblins itself had about as much metagame presence in the post-IKO world as Titanshift, Death and Taxes, Living End, and that wonky Hammertime combo, which suggests Snoop's underlying shell was semi-viable on its own. As long as Snoop combo makes the Goblins base better, the deck should be at least as good as Lurrus era Goblins, which suggests at least Tier 2 presence. I'd be surprised if we don't see this deck as a MTGO regular going forward.

Last note on Goblins: it actually does have two more general comparisons with Twin which are worth remembering. First, it's a 2C combo (Pure BR/Rakdos) just like old-school Twin could support pure UR/Izzet. This minimizes manabase complications and allows Snoop to run Blood Moon. It also allows Snoop to branch to BRx if it wants other bullets, much like URx Twin. Second, although Goblins does not have a specific tempo/control Plan A, it does legitimately have a dual Plan A/Plan B gamestyle: Plan A is run them over with aggro gobbos. Plan B is an incidental combo win, which can even be at instant speed via the Vials Goblins was running anyway. That's a potent approach for Modern decks and another reason this combo is likely to see play.

Re: Overall Modern health
MTGO Modern didn't look nearly as bad this week as it did in previous weeks, unless the Challenges yesterday/today are way different than what we saw throughout the week. That was also true for the week of 06/15. Astrolabe saw a lot less play, companions remain a merely strong element of a few decks, ramp has maintained reasonable shares, and many of the decks Lurrus enabled (Shadow, Hardened Scales, Jund, etc.) have appeared to stay viable. All of this suggests some of our post-companion Modern fears are not materializing.

My big caveat here is that we know all Magic formats, Modern included, look a lot better when they have less competitive focus. This is because all Magic formats are secretly, not-so-secretly broken by a few bad Wizards design decisions, so the less light we shine on the formats, the less incentive players have to expose Wizards' format holes. Right now, the community spotlight has been more on Standard and Historic, which is why those formats look just awful and other formats may look a little better. Wizards also continues to pour support into Arena, where a number of the formats that appear more healthy see zero play. All of this means Modern, to say nothing of the other MTGO formats, may appear healthier than they actually are for lack of competitive play. This isn't nearly as big of an issue with Modern as with something like Pioneer, which is seeing even less play, but it is still a factor we need to consider. At this point, I expect Modern to keep looking this way barring some new, obvious Wizards mistake, or a focus shift back towards Modern/MTGO or even paper if the pandemic ever gets better (probably needs a vaccine for that to happen).
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1177
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

drmarkb wrote:
1 year ago
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
Four and a half years have pretty conclusively proven that Twin's "Plan B" is utter trash. The only reason it was remotely successful was because of the fear generated by the combo, which caused opponents to hold back and play cautiously. What, if anything, causes players to hold back and play cautiously today? It seems almost *always* that the most correct play is to jam your thing and hope they don't have an answer. Because if they don't, you win. And if they do, either you were going to lose the game anyway, or your deck is redundant enough to recover. *shrug*
Yes, it was the combo + plan B that did it, and when the combo was about players had to play cautiously. The plan B is in the context of plan A, when I or anyone else says plan B was good, we don't mean in a vacuum. Plan B was bloody excellent because all the opposition decisions had to account for plan A. Otherwise, as you say, trash.

Trouble is playing cautiously in white meant not playing your three drops- which hardly seemed fair, as well as not attacking with Thalia or other 1 toughness dudes.

The solution to "jam your thing" is not to have a combo + plan B deck, but to have better answers (as well as the obvious tone down the slap it on the table cards). If you get to a point where answers are better then not only do you stop the "jam it on the table and deal" that we both detest but you can have decks like twin running about happily. Trouble is when we get cards like Forces, blue gets Negation, Green gets Vigor and white gets ********d. Again. You can look it up for yourself to see the white Force. Remember, of course, that the answers cannot be locked into one deck- they need to be across colours and strategies, and Modern really fails on that, typically costing answer cards and hatbears at 1 too much, minimum.

It was the same with pacts- white should get something like redirect the whole combat damage back to the opponent- oops you lost because you swung for 200000. That would make both players have to play cautiously, which seems fairer. Red and White cards in a cycle are invariably trash. UG are excellent and B ok.
White literally has the single best removal spell available to Modern: Path to Exile. No one in their right mind would attempt to combo into a single white mana left up, unless they had sufficient additional protection. Which is entirely the point. Twin leaves up 3+ mana to threaten combo piece and opponent "can't tap out." Opponent leaves up W or BG or 1U, and the Twin player "can't combo." It's this back and forth dance of representing, bluffing, and reading that made the games so fascinatingly engaging.
ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
Re: Overall Modern health
MTGO Modern didn't look nearly as bad this week as it did in previous weeks, unless the Challenges yesterday/today are way different than what we saw throughout the week. That was also true for the week of 06/15. Astrolabe saw a lot less play, companions remain a merely strong element of a few decks, ramp has maintained reasonable shares, and many of the decks Lurrus enabled (Shadow, Hardened Scales, Jund, etc.) have appeared to stay viable. All of this suggests some of our post-companion Modern fears are not materializing.

My big caveat here is that we know all Magic formats, Modern included, look a lot better when they have less competitive focus. This is because all Magic formats are secretly, not-so-secretly broken by a few bad Wizards design decisions, so the less light we shine on the formats, the less incentive players have to expose Wizards' format holes. Right now, the community spotlight has been more on Standard and Historic, which is why those formats look just awful and other formats may look a little better. Wizards also continues to pour support into Arena, where a number of the formats that appear more healthy see zero play. All of this means Modern, to say nothing of the other MTGO formats, may appear healthier than they actually are for lack of competitive play. This isn't nearly as big of an issue with Modern as with something like Pioneer, which is seeing even less play, but it is still a factor we need to consider. At this point, I expect Modern to keep looking this way barring some new, obvious Wizards mistake, or a focus shift back towards Modern/MTGO or even paper if the pandemic ever gets better (probably needs a vaccine for that to happen).
I mean, anecdotally, I've been having a blast with a janky BW Lurrus Aristocrats list. It's got a ridiculous win rate in the practice rooms (with most matches still against tiered decks). But who knows what that means. I sure as heck am not going to piss away real money for a League or Challenge event, but I'm having tons of fun with this stupid little deck. What does it mean for Modern as a whole? Nothing. Would I even bother building this deck in paper? Probably not. Is it giving me a good time for now? Sure.

User avatar
FoodChainGoblins
Level 47
Posts: 862
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Riverside

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
I mean, anecdotally, I've been having a blast with a janky BW Lurrus Aristocrats list. It's got a ridiculous win rate in the practice rooms (with most matches still against tiered decks). But who knows what that means. I sure as heck am not going to piss away real money for a League or Challenge event, but I'm having tons of fun with this stupid little deck. What does it mean for Modern as a whole? Nothing. Would I even bother building this deck in paper? Probably not. Is it giving me a good time for now? Sure.
Why would you not try a League or a Challenge with it?

One of the decks I play is Elementals. I ran it at Comp REL. I nearly thought about it for the Super FNM, but decided on Amulet. I finished 4-1 with Amulet and got some good store credit and 2 Windswept Heath at 4th place, but who knows what I could have done with Elementals? This is my placement with the deck and even though the tournament numbers were small due to Covid-19 starting (our actual knowledge of it of course), it had some of the best players. So it was a more concentrated tournament, even if there were around 10 of the top players in the area not in attendance. First and Second got 2 Scalding Tarn, so I was done with my match and left with the prize. The guy who got first because we didn't play out the finals was beaten very badly by me and probably my best draw ever with the deck in the Swiss rounds. He made the top 8 at the only 3-2.
https://www.mtgtop8.com/event?e=24965&d=374694&f=MO

Now, building it in paper and paying big money for that is another thing. I have a huge pool of cards, so usually I am willing to finish the last few parts just to try it. Quite often, I've literally tried the deck that I finished off only 1 time at FNM. It does seem a bit of a waste, but those parts can be used in other decks for the most part.
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
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1177
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
Why would you not try a League or a Challenge with it?
Personally, because I don't like lighting tix on fire. I justified paying FNM dues to support my LGS and hang out with and chat with other players in a social environment. The competitive aspect of a game with this much variance has been very much lowered on my priority list over the past few years. When I play FNMs, I consign that my $5 entry fee is the price to enjoy an evening with friends and fellow players. But $10-30 tix for a nameless faceless competition? Meh. When the best players in the world struggle to maintain a 60%+ MWP, the EV just ain't worth it for me unless there's something else worth playing for (like the social aspect).

User avatar
FoodChainGoblins
Level 47
Posts: 862
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Riverside

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
Why would you not try a League or a Challenge with it?
Personally, because I don't like lighting tix on fire. I justified paying FNM dues to support my LGS and hang out with and chat with other players in a social environment. The competitive aspect of a game with this much variance has been very much lowered on my priority list over the past few years. When I play FNMs, I consign that my $5 entry fee is the price to enjoy an evening with friends and fellow players. But $10-30 tix for a nameless faceless competition? Meh. When the best players in the world struggle to maintain a 60%+ MWP, the EV just ain't worth it for me unless there's something else worth playing for (like the social aspect).
I don't think about it like that. It's entertainment. I'm a really old school guy. Some people pay $22 per person to watch a movie at the theaters. They often pay $4-10 for snacks there. Some people go to a shooting range for a hobby. Many people do illicit drugs. I don't worry about spending $20-40 on a Friday for fun and enjoyment. During the quarantine and saving so much money on gas and FNM/Magic stuff, I would often buy a fifth of Hennessey Cognac or buy something for my son. I figured that I'd be spending so much more money if there wasn't a quarantine. You never know. I could be dead next week. It's very, very important and underrated to save money. But you have to enjoy your life too. It's a balance, which I'm sure you know and I'm also sure that you do much better than I do. :grin:

But if you don't enjoy it, I can see that. I often play fun decks at FNM or even sometimes at Comp REL because I have to push myself to be the best player I can be, even at a handicap in deck decision sometimes. I played Cragganwick Cremator at a GP where 2 friends made their first Pro Tour Q with UR Phoenix and KCI, while Eli Kassis won with UR Phoenix. I went 2-0, had 2 Byes, and went 0-4 vs. UR Phoenix. In fact, 3 of my Phoenix opponents won nearly identically, winning the die roll and Games 1 and 3, flipping TiTI on turn 3 in the wins. I was really upset at the time. It sucks not making Day 2 at least and especially so for me in the format where I am my own best at. I let myself down. But it was fun. I can say I did that. If a few things went differently, maybe I don't lose 4 die rolls to the same deck and lose 2-1 in each of those matches. Who knows? I still had fun at the GP because all of my buds were there, the homie made his first Q, didn't get to talk to the other one, many friends made Day 2 and all of the other fun things about GPs. As I get older, I realize that I'm never going to be as good as some of these players. I play a lot, a LOT. But it doesn't compare with the preparation of some of these players. I often thought that my own play skill will push me through, but Magic is a hard game when you don't prepare.
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
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1177
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
It's very, very important and underrated to save money. But you have to enjoy your life too. It's a balance, which I'm sure you know and I'm also sure that you do much better than I do. :grin:

But if you don't enjoy it, I can see that.
I had a much longer thing typed out, but there's little point in spending so many words. The short version is losing all my decks in high school (stolen) caused me to quit the game for nearly 15 years. Losing my favorite standard deck (Jeskai Tokens) because a ridiculously prevalent new card (Dromoka's Command) pushed me to Modern. Actual, factual rotation for the first time pushed me out of Standard entirely, and looked to enjoy a "non-rotating format" where you don't just lose your decks. Then lost Twin, then lost Delver, then pretty much every Uxx reactive deck "lost" in the sense of not being competitively viable, and the only choice of a "Snap/Bolt" deck was one that played 0-1 Snaps, 0-1 Bolts, and was effectively "low-curve Jund with 1 mana Negate." In a brief glimpse of hope, UW control AND a sweet UR deck (Phoenix) were BOTH good! Then lost Phoenix, and UW was "lost" to Bant Snow; a totally different shell that needed several hundred dollars to upgrade to, while simultaneously living on the razor's edge of receiving a ban itself.

In essence, my only experiences with Modern, and contemporary age competitive Magic, is the constant stress of loss and fear of when the next loss will take place. Something I never expected from "non-rotating formats."

So my confidence and desire to want to invest and play in this game gets lower and lower with each passing era. I put together some sweet Commander decks in the meantime and have more fun than I ever did with Modern. They are also significantly more shielded against loss than literally anything in Modern. Never mind the whirlwind of chaos in Pioneer and the joke that is Historic.

At the end, I find myself prioritizing other things: spending time with my toddler, D&D, Commander, other board games, anything else to pass the time and avoid the anxiety of constant loss.

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1177
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

One result is literally meaningless in a game with this much variance. You know better than to believe otherwise.

Stoneforge is still not a good card, and is orders of magnitude worse than Uro/Snake.

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

Post by Tzoulis » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
Then lost Phoenix, and UW was "lost" to Bant Snow; a totally different shell that needed several hundred dollars to upgrade to, while simultaneously living on the razor's edge of receiving a ban itself.
I haven't had the chance to play much lately, especially because my father is in high risk groups, but the new UW Miracles -and now with more CA- really seems nice and possibly can go toe-to-toe with the Snow core. Knowing you though, you'd avoid playing it online due to time reasons, but keep it as a consideration.

On more or less irrelevant thoughts, both M21 and Ikoria really made me eager to play Delver, my favorite archetype Jeskai Midrange and mess around with Chance for Glory and Discontinuity.

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

Post by Aazadan » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
Why would you not try a League or a Challenge with it?
Personally, because I don't like lighting tix on fire. I justified paying FNM dues to support my LGS and hang out with and chat with other players in a social environment. The competitive aspect of a game with this much variance has been very much lowered on my priority list over the past few years. When I play FNMs, I consign that my $5 entry fee is the price to enjoy an evening with friends and fellow players. But $10-30 tix for a nameless faceless competition? Meh. When the best players in the world struggle to maintain a 60%+ MWP, the EV just ain't worth it for me unless there's something else worth playing for (like the social aspect).
The best players in the world don't struggle to get 60+ MWP. They struggle to get 60% MWP against the other best players in the world. Look at the win rates of people like Ari Lax (including him for a very notable win rate a couple years ago), PVDDR, and Finkel in GP's and PT's. That is a whole different level of competition than an FNM. And at an FNM, even a competitive one, it's very much a play what you want atmosphere. You don't have to play a T1 deck to do well at them, you just need to play well.

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

Post by Aazadan » 1 year ago

@Greeksis

It is fair to say that better decks usually require less of a skill cap, so if you're a weaker player you'll probably see better returns in playing a stronger deck and that can let you do better than you otherwise would. But, at least at the FNM level playing basically any T2 or better deck as long as you know your matchups you can do quite well.

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1177
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

Aazadan wrote:
1 year ago
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
Why would you not try a League or a Challenge with it?
Personally, because I don't like lighting tix on fire. I justified paying FNM dues to support my LGS and hang out with and chat with other players in a social environment. The competitive aspect of a game with this much variance has been very much lowered on my priority list over the past few years. When I play FNMs, I consign that my $5 entry fee is the price to enjoy an evening with friends and fellow players. But $10-30 tix for a nameless faceless competition? Meh. When the best players in the world struggle to maintain a 60%+ MWP, the EV just ain't worth it for me unless there's something else worth playing for (like the social aspect).
The best players in the world don't struggle to get 60+ MWP. They struggle to get 60% MWP against the other best players in the world. Look at the win rates of people like Ari Lax (including him for a very notable win rate a couple years ago), PVDDR, and Finkel in GP's and PT's. That is a whole different level of competition than an FNM. And at an FNM, even a competitive one, it's very much a play what you want atmosphere. You don't have to play a T1 deck to do well at them, you just need to play well.
I'll keep that in mind whenever FNMs ever fire back up again safely. Here in the absolute dumpster fire of the US, maybe 2021 at this point. Which is probably why FNM success has been entirely irrelevant for months, and will continue to be entirely irrelevant for at least the rest of this year, and a good chunk of next.

Glad to see that theme and point of my post was generally completely lost on everyone, in favor of pedantic dog piling. Have fun y'all. 👍

User avatar
drmarkb
Posts: 592
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by drmarkb » 1 year ago

Ok, I have to say this
Path to exile is TRASH in every white creature deck. If anyone thinks otherwise, they need to play with it. At it's best it is mediocre in to ok UWx control where counters or better removal can be used early and it has a drawback less relevant later on. It is unplayable in white hatebear decks. I have pathed a lot of dudes, often my own. That is how good giving your opponent an early extra land is. Pathing Bob t2? You die to a Jund deck with 4 or 5 mana to your two very quickly. Pathing v Pod. Same. Path v Tron? Useless. Path v Twin?leave one white back (two with Thalia down) and you got it tapped eot, you path in response you are going to lose anyway because, strangely pathing a deck t3 running cryptic command and remand is really bad. Path won't hit walkers or other troublesome permanents and casting it t2 or 3 is a sure fire way to lose.
White is screwed in Modern, and has been for years, relegated to a bit role in UWx and Humans, where the meaningful interaction comes from elsewhere. Those who don't get that are beyond. It has been systematically run down, whilst UG get all the goodies. The fact that removal was so bad compared to threats is what got cards like Twin and Pod banned. And correctly so. Correct then. Correct now, and plenty of the new cards will eventually bite bans too because the format lacks good answers, especially in W, but in general. People look pretty stupid with Fatal push in hand vs Uro, and no better with Path.

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1177
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

Greeksis wrote:
1 year ago
Spoiler
Show
I believe the point of your post was thoroughly discussed. That is, you don't have to upgrade UW, into going Bant, just because Bant is a bit better. You can still play UW stoneblade(which you called a garbage deck) and do well, when FNM's return.

Only, it seems to be that you seem to think you have to always upgrade your deck into the best version, to remain super competitive. If you are going to play at a GP, probably you must. If you are playing at side events(which I recall you saying you prefer side events to an open GP) of GP's, or FNM's, or even Modern Preliminary, or Modern challenges, let alone your favorite practise rooms, UW Stoneblade is a super reasonable deck, if you like the playstyle.

The hierarchy is this one:
PT
GP
SCG
Modern Challenge
Modern Preliminary
Modern League
PTQ/higher local events
GP side events
FNM
Modo Practise rooms.

So, some players can play UW Stoneblade and win a Modern challenge or top 8 one, even once, or go several 5-0 with it, but you complain about UW Stoneblade not serving you well on MODO practise rooms, which is the thing you are doing. That seems at least not reasonable and it seems like you are not trying hard enough to do well with the deck you like.

If you like the deck, whatever Tier 2 deck will serve you well. Yes, it needs more practise and try if it is Tier 2 or less. If you are not willing to make it, and you always like easy things, and that's why you feel you should upgrade into a Tier 1 deck every time, then complaining all the time won't serve you well at all. You should have patience with a deck, learn it well enough, practise with it a lot, and then you will reap the rewards.

I have seen so many people trying UR Control in modern so hard, losing so much, only to reap some rewards in the process, when they finally are better players and the patience and practise is finally paying off. I really can't take anyone complaining "SFM is garbage" for serious after that. Because UW Stoneblade is for surely a better deck than UR Control.

Modern is the format where Tier 2 and Tier 1 has a huge gap; sure. Bigger than any other format. But even in Modern, you can still do well with Tier 2. And UW Stoneblade is for sure a Tier 2 deck, not less.

TLDR: If you like a deck, complaining won't do. You don't even have to upgrade it all the time with the new cards if you are not going to play at a super competitive event. Pick it, practise with it, learn to have patience, lose some at first, become a better player, then you will reap some rewards for sure. At what extend, I do not know. But at a certain amount, for sure
.
If the take away from my post is your uncanny fixation on the non-mediocrity of UW, kindly stop replying to me.

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

Post by Ym1r » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
Glad to see that theme and point of my post was generally completely lost on everyone, in favor of pedantic dog piling. Have fun y'all.
Might it not be that you didn't illustrate or present your theme and point appropriately? Because I would also have responded similarly to what the others already responded.
Counter, draw a card.

User avatar
FoodChainGoblins
Level 47
Posts: 862
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Riverside

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 1 year ago

Aazadan wrote:
1 year ago
The best players in the world don't struggle to get 60+ MWP. They struggle to get 60% MWP against the other best players in the world. Look at the win rates of people like Ari Lax (including him for a very notable win rate a couple years ago), PVDDR, and Finkel in GP's and PT's. That is a whole different level of competition than an FNM. And at an FNM, even a competitive one, it's very much a play what you want atmosphere. You don't have to play a T1 deck to do well at them, you just need to play well.
Thank you! I know this was in response to cfusionpm's post, but this is exactly what I was getting at whenever I've told people here or otherwise that I expect to win more than 67% of my matches. I don't play against LSV and the like. The last time I faced LSV was in 2005. The last time I played someone who has been a mainstay on the Pro Tour was 5 months ago and it was just once out of several matches. The competition that I play against normally is my FNM or Staple tournaments (this competition is tough, but a bit less than Day 2 of a GP).

Those players often struggle to get a 60% win rate because of the competition. It's tough to beat Reid Duke and others 60% of the time. Just my butt guess is I'm about 35% life time vs. Pro Players (that have done it for 10+ years) and probably 40% vs. Pro Players over 2 years. But my FNM is not these types of players. (I was gonna say some) Many of them never even want to play in a GP. :dizzy:
Greeksis wrote:
1 year ago
I also think @FoodChainGoblins had moderate success with Elementals, from what he said.
Excuse me sir, my record is 57-17 or 77%. It's a very high percentage. Most of this is at FNM and I have a rougher win percentage at Staples tournaments. Do I think it would be as high if it was mostly Staples tournaments? No. Would it be the same if I did it at GPs? No, but I would still shoot for a percentage at GPs between 60-65% if I could.

I feel like it's capable and I know I'm capable.

*But regarding cfusionpm, he just has other priorities. I'm assuming it's not fun enough to try it and still enjoy it, even if he doesn't do well. I have that same feeling and have often scrapped a deck after just 1 FNM of 2-2. I'm not dumb. I realize the margin between 3-1 and 2-2 is almost nothing sometimes, but it's tough when you are used to prizing. UW Control is not UR Twin. People have different likes. I hate Jund. Hate it! I would only play it if it was Tier 0. Not everyone is like this. Some will still not play it. Do you know how many people played non-Eldrazi during Eye of Ugin's legality and confined themselves to mediocrity (in my eyes)? If the Companion rules were the same as when they came out, I'd play nothing but RB Prowess. I hate the deck, but there is no reason to put money elsewhere. Not everyone can build a deck or play a deck that's going to beat the best in the format.

Not to mention, there are other priorities in life. I realize how many things I shoved to the back just to constantly play Magic throughout my life. I feel that the friends that I made and the fun that I had outweighs that, but it's close. I could be selfish and play an extra night during the week or I can invest in my children and their future. We all need a break some time, but it's tough.
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
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1177
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

Ym1r wrote:
1 year ago
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
Glad to see that theme and point of my post was generally completely lost on everyone, in favor of pedantic dog piling. Have fun y'all.
Might it not be that you didn't illustrate or present your theme and point appropriately? Because I would also have responded similarly to what the others already responded.
What in this post seemed to imply in any way that the relative viability of UW Control was the point of my statements? And not, perhaps, a systemic string of losses dating back 15 years, that pushed a player away from rotating formats, and then proceeded to repeatedly destroy faith in a format whose promise of "non-rotation" was broken time and time again?

But sure. It's that UW control can sometimes do well at FNMs. And that Stoneforge, under ideal conditions, isn't laughably bad. Goodness f**king gracious. It's no wonder the community here is effectively dead.

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

Post by The Fluff » 1 year ago

just dropping by to say @FoodChainGoblins elemental deck is good. Have enjoyed reading the tournament reports he posted awhile ago.
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

True-Name Nemesis
Posts: 156
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by True-Name Nemesis » 1 year ago

Greeksis wrote:
1 year ago
So, some players can play UW Stoneblade and win a Modern challenge or top 8 one, even once, or go several 5-0 with it, but you complain about UW Stoneblade not serving you well on MODO practise rooms, which is the thing you are doing. That seems at least not reasonable and it seems like you are not trying hard enough to do well with the deck you like.
Random stuff are going to place well in Challenges from time to time, It means very little.

Let's not even talk about 5-0 leagues since it's not even worth repeating by now how those are curated and published. Going 5-0 and getting published with a deck is more a matter of reps than how strong a deck is.

Consistency is the hallmark of what's viable if you're serious about winning, not random flash-in-the-pan performances.

Of course if your definition of viability is that a deck has a puncher's chance of placing well time to time, then literally anything in Modern can be considered viable. Let's not forget Magic is a game of variance. And variance is going to give you a puncher's chance regardless.
Greeksis wrote:
1 year ago
That is, you don't have to upgrade UW, into going Bant, just because Bant is a bit better.
Please don't even try to spin this as Bant being just a bit better to make your argument sound better. Bant is miles ahead of UW and you know it.

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

Post by Aazadan » 1 year ago

True-Name Nemesis wrote:
1 year ago
Of course if your definition of viability is that a deck has a puncher's chance of placing well time to time, then literally anything in Modern can be considered viable. Let's not forget Magic is a game of variance. And variance is going to give you a puncher's chance regardless.
Player strength and strength of competition are big factors here. Finkel can and has top 8'ed Modern PT's with Storm, when Storm isn't particularly good. He knows that deck, and that style of deck well, and is an incredibly good player on top of it. That can carry you really, really far especially in non rotating formats.

Knowing a deck or a style is a huge advantage, probably roughly comparable to always playing a T1 deck. If you don't have deep knowledge of a deck/archetype, a T1 deck will get you better results. If you are a specialist in a particular deck though, you can play it over and over. Watch for example Patrick Dickmann's old matches, he was a Twin specialist and quickly made a name for himself, but dropped off once he couldn't play Twin anymore (and before the deck was T1 he still had many strong finishes with it). Another example is Reid Duke with Jund. Jund usually isn't going to be considered T1 these days, but he can definitely put up results with it. (Edit: To add some older names to this list, Patrick Sullivan once remarked on stream that Jesse Hampton was so good that he would put money on him top 8'ing any SCG Open he played in, while playing a draft deck. Deck choice and luck are factors in Magic, but the game is primarily one of skill).

Most of us are at best average players though because skill gaps confer exponential advantages, and tend to need a bit more help to put out good results. If you give me an aggro deck I'm going to do really well because I've got a pretty good understanding of the underlying mechanics. Give me control and while I find it fun I'm going to do awful. Give me midrange and I'm almost as good as I am with aggro. I can pick up and play anything relatively competently, but if you put something like Affinity, Humans, or Burn in my hands, I'm a far more difficult opponent to beat.

That said, I've got no ambition to play MTG professionally, or even as a semi pro, so I've simply stopped caring about winning. Once I had enough money to buy the cards I wanted, and no longer needed to rely on tournament winnings to continue to build and improve my deck, winning just became a lot less important to me. I still like to win, but if it's a choice between playing what I enjoy and winning, I'll choose to have greater enjoyment.
Last edited by Aazadan 1 year ago, edited 2 times in total.

th33l3x
Posts: 89
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by th33l3x » 1 year ago

David just published a metagame breakdown for the last couple weeks on Modern Nexus. His conclusion is that it's a diverse meta game in flux. He says that with a straight face while never once mentioning that if you add Bant Snow, Temur Snow and Sultai snow together, which you should at the very least mention are versions of the same deck, UGx Snow control make up almost 20% of the meta.

Spsiegel1987
Posts: 38
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Spsiegel1987 » 1 year ago

I have stopped listening to much of what David says. It feels like so much of what he says is inaccurate. That website was the bees knees when Sheridan was leading it.


Astrolabe needs an obvious ban, it's pushed Shadow variants out of the meta. Jund looks foolish to play, as a 1 for 1 game plan looks silly when 30+ plus cards have a 2 for 1 stapled onto them. Combo decks aren't doing so hot. Getting underneath them can be tough when Coatl does so much meaningful work. Oh, and also, the deck can play 3 colors along with field of ruins, have a fairly painless mana-base, a smooth mana base, and can also play Mystic Sanctuary. Did I mention that Blood Moon is also is a bad strategy against a 3 color deck that plays spells with WW and GG on them?

The format is obviously not in crisis mode like with Companions, but it still looks really awful, snow decks are head and shoulders above the rest of the format and invalidating a ton of decks. If paper events were going on we'd see this issue magnified, but despite just MTGO I think the meta is very solved.


Just ban Astrolabe and take Veil with it while you're at it, as a 3 for 1 stapled onto 1 mana should have never been printed.

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1177
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

Spsiegel1987 wrote:
1 year ago
I have stopped listening to much of what David says. It feels like so much of what he says is inaccurate. That website was the bees knees when Sheridan was leading it.


Astrolabe needs an obvious ban, it's pushed Shadow variants out of the meta. Jund looks foolish to play, as a 1 for 1 game plan looks silly when 30+ plus cards have a 2 for 1 stapled onto them. Combo decks aren't doing so hot. Getting underneath them can be tough when Coatl does so much meaningful work. Oh, and also, the deck can play 3 colors along with field of ruins, have a fairly painless mana-base, a smooth mana base, and can also play Mystic Sanctuary. Did I mention that Blood Moon is also is a bad strategy against a 3 color deck that plays spells with WW and GG on them?

The format is obviously not in crisis mode like with Companions, but it still looks really awful, snow decks are head and shoulders above the rest of the format and invalidating a ton of decks. If paper events were going on we'd see this issue magnified, but despite just MTGO I think the meta is very solved.


Just ban Astrolabe and take Veil with it while you're at it, as a 3 for 1 stapled onto 1 mana should have never been printed.
I agree. But because of your second paragraph, see this post: viewtopic.php?p=90991#p90991
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
I suspect AA does not meet that definition because it's much newer than Brainstorm and conflicts with one of Modern's chief identities: if most/all top decks are just 3c+ AA piles, that doesn't fulfill Modern's promise of diversity
I think the biggest issue here is that WOTC can, at any time, arbitrarily decide whether or not AA is ok. While "a bunch of 3c+ piles" is absolutely not diverse from our perspective, WOTC has repeatedly considered similar archetypal lists with different card names as "diverse." They seem to only actually begin to care if any one of the lists becomes a "problem" in any way they happen to choose to define. Faithless Looting is a perfect example of this. It was a borderline/legitimate problem for a year and a half, but didn't get banned until Hogaak.

With that in mind, Astrolabe will continue to live in Schrödinger's Banlist. Probably should be banned, might be banned, but also could totally justifiably not be banned. It all depends on which secret, selective reasoning WOTC chooses to use, if it chooses to do anything at all.
Which also ties directly to my sentiments of loss. I can neither get invested in Snow for fear of its removal, nor can I consign it to an obvious and eventual ban. It lives in perpetual limbo until WOTC decides it's a problem.

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

Post by Aazadan » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
Which also ties directly to my sentiments of loss. I can neither get invested in Snow for fear of its removal, nor can I consign it to an obvious and eventual ban. It lives in perpetual limbo until WOTC decides it's a problem.
I feel like snow is fine. I would be lying if I said I thought it was a well designed mechanic, because it's not. But, for the moment I don't think it's a shell that is broken on it's own. The problem in my opinion is that it amps up every other shell out there. We had Urza+Thopter/Sword+Emry/Engineer+Snow in a dominant deck. Uro+Snow, Oko+Snow.

It doesn't do much that's tangibly broken, but it does something that plays into most decks game plans, and slides almost effortlessly into any sort of midrange or control deck. It's a subtle effect and makes existing shells stronger. Whether that's ban worthy or if it's the things that are being enabled and will get overpowered again at some point that should be banned is the bigger question in my mind. For what it's worth I'm firmly on the ban Uro bandwagon, not ban Snow.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Modern”