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

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

Post by iTaLenTZ » 1 year ago

Astrolabe and Veil should have been banned 6 months ago and that is the fundamental problem. Black has lost all relevance ever since Veil was printed and it was already clear for some months that the snow mechanic was busted mainly because of Astrolabe for all the reasons that have been discussed in length. I was watching a stream some weeks ago where someone went turn 3 Anger off the Gods of 3 islands, turn 4 Mystic Sanctuary-->recover Anger and escape Uro. I turned off the stream, smiled and thought:"Now I remember why I sold my collection".

Everything is too little to late. They let obvious and fundamental problems fester way too long to a point people give up on the game.

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

Post by th33l3x » 1 year ago

I dunno, I can just speak for myself on this: I hate some aspects of modern right now. With a vengeance. And I don't play any other format, but it's obvious that other format's player bases have the same issues we have in modern.

However, that doesn't prevent me from looking foward to the possibility of WotC getting it right at some point, even if only blindly, by chance. Modern at it's best is something I enjoy more than most games, of any sort, period.

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

Banning Astrolabe does what? Destroy the best interactive decks? Leave a vacuum only to be filled by strong linear decks like Titan, Tron, Dredge, and aggro.dec? If Astrolabe goes, then something needs to be introduced to incentivize the kind of interaction Snow decks are providing today (*cough*). Otherwise we're right back to the same degenerate, linear rat races that Modern has been known for over the past four years, and the format is no better off.

I'd much rather have interactive Snow piles punishing the linear degenerate decks then simply let them run rampant. They've had the last four years to themselves, minus a week or to here and there. And we want to give it right back to them?

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

Post by ktkenshinx » 1 year ago

As I said on some other online discussions, AA is the likeliest ban target just by community pressure and some publicly known stats, but it's not like Wizards is in a great spot here. There are just sooooo many 2019/2020 design mistakes that are defining Modern right now. Without a vision statement, at least a publicly known one, the community has no idea whether Wizards is okay with this kind of power level shift, or if they would prefer something a little more like 2017-2018 Modern which was more open. There are equally reasonable arguments to be made for banning probably a dozen-plus cards in Modern, from T3feri to Sanctuary to Uro to Astrolabe to Veil to some Dredge card to a bunch of other options in between. But it's hard to make those predictions without knowing what Wizards wants from Modern.

(Sadly, Wizards itself may not know what Wizards wants from Modern, but that's a sidebar for another time...)

Previous predictions were clearer because there were defined format villains and problems based on known MWP and prevalence numbers. This is why I don't fully agree with CFP's assertion about opaque ban decisions. We have successfully predicted basically all "No actions" and "insert-ban-here" changes for years now, including a string of home runs in 2020. But with companions getting their much-needed errata, we're back to a Modern that is less obviously broken. At least, it's harder to pinpoint the clear culprit. Lurrus, OUaT, Oko, and others had some really glaring, damning statistics piled up against them. Cards like Astrolabe really don't reach those levels and get into much more subjective territory.

For reference, here are some card prevalence #s from the post-errata Modern summer. If you think of another card worth checking, let me know and I can try adding it:
image.png
Interestingly, many of these dominant cards are way less prevalent in Prelims than Challenges. This makes me suspicious that Prelims have grown less competitive than Challenges and might be a less reliable source of metagame data. I suspect we'd see more rogue noise in Prelims if we compared the full meta breakdowns, which means we might need to focus on Challenges instead. Thankfully, the table has both. If we consider the margin of error (roughly +/- 4% for all values), most of these cards are seeing about the same play. AA is virtually identical to Uro and statistically identical to Bolt. Gust sees more play than even Bolt but still less than Veil. In fact, only Veil really jumps into that alarming 40% metagame share which is true for both Challenges and Prelims. On prevalence alone, that would be a red flag, and I suspect there are few if any non-land Modern cards which see >40% shares for any sustained period of time without a ban. But obviously, bans are more than just prevalence and we don't have access to all that data (this is where CFP's criticism of Wizards is spot on).

Overall, a snow-targeted ban seems like a safe bet, and Astrolabe hits snow decks without completely eliminating incentive to play them (Coatl is still sweet). Wizards also tends to dislike the normalization of fair decks towards 3C/4C goodstuff piles, and Astrolabe absolutely has that effect. I'm sure these decks are also very close to 51/49 against most of the field too, which is an added strike. My only (pleasant) surprise is that Wizards is willing to act on MTGO Modern data to do another ban just 1.5 months after the most recent format change, which itself was just just a few months after a previous ban, which was ALSO preceded by THREE BANS at the beginning of 2020. JUST FOR MODERN!! Add in the other formats and this should be the most damning indictment of Play Design and FIRE we could imagine, but I'm still sure Wizards can find the mental gymnastics to avoid accountability again.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

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
Wizards also tends to dislike the normalization of fair decks towards 3C/4C goodstuff piles, and Astrolabe absolutely has that effect.
Which is a shame, because they often allow for much more intriguing and interesting gameplay, and more engaging decision trees. Instead of blindly devolving into "Did linear deck do its thing" vs "Did opponent find hate card" vs "Did linear deck find anti-hate card" that seems to have defined much of Modern.

As I said, if they hurt the Snow decks (losing Astrolabe makes them effectively not exist; they would need to shift into entirely different decks, as the manabases simply cannot support the cards they currently play) then I hope something with similar intentions can replace it.

All in all though, interesting to see Astrolabe number not nearly as high as I expected...

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

Post by Tzoulis » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
Overall, a snow-targeted ban seems like a safe bet, and Astrolabe hits snow decks without completely eliminating incentive to play them (Coatl is still sweet). Wizards also tends to dislike the normalization of fair decks towards 3C/4C goodstuff piles, and Astrolabe absolutely has that effect
Respectfully disagree here. UW Miracles or an Esper Control are pretty good in the meta now and can go toe-to-toe with Bant, but they have a huge disadvantage: Veil (and T3feri) in the Control mirror destroys them. Both of them have multiple clean answers for Uro/Coatl, and sweet options for CA (Frantic Inventory and/or Into the Story), but they can't really effectively counter their spells because Veil says "Nope" while drawing them a card. There is no incentive to really run anything but UGx, because eventually you'll run into the Bant/Sultai mirror (and random Veil-using combo decks), that you're better off joining them rather than fighting them. Banning Astrolabe won't change that dynamic, and it (probably) won't nerf Snow decks appreciably.

Moreover, banning Astrolabe really puts a tombstone on Urza artifact decks and the ban of Opal looks even more silly.
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
As I said, if they hurt the Snow decks (losing Astrolabe makes them effectively not exist; they would need to shift into entirely different decks, as the manabases simply cannot support the cards they currently play) then I hope something with similar intentions can replace it.
The Snow core is still extremely strong. Currently they play the majority of their early turns without Astrolabe, and they still can beat on aggro. If they ban Astrolabe, they just got 4 slots they can dedicate on aggro specifically if deemed necessary. This won't really change the dynamics. Sure, they might cut a Field of Ruin and a Sanctuary for Shocks, but the 4 new cards can remedy the consistency loss on Dead of Winter or the loss of death touch on the snake.

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

Those fetch-shocks are going to add up if you're expecting to cast W on 1, UG in 2, UUU or 1UG or 1WU on 3 and UUGG or 1UUU or 1WWU on 4. Astrolabe is the glue that makes your cards possible to cast. The deck will not function as is and will take a big transformation afterwards. Especially if there is a new increase for U on 1 (for cantrip spells) or G on 1 (for Abundant Growth).

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

Post by True-Name Nemesis » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
I'd much rather have interactive Snow piles punishing the linear degenerate decks then simply let them run rampant. They've had the last four years to themselves, minus a week or to here and there. And we want to give it right back to them?
Come on now, if it's too strong, it's too strong. Doesn't matter whether its a linear goldfish pile or a control deck.

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

Post by th33l3x » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
Those fetch-shocks are going to add up if you're expecting to cast W on 1, UG in 2, UUU or 1UG or 1WU on 3 and UUGG or 1UUU or 1WWU on 4. Astrolabe is the glue that makes your cards possible to cast. The deck will not function as is and will take a big transformation afterwards. Especially if there is a new increase for U on 1 (for cantrip spells) or G on 1 (for Abundant Growth).
1) Yes they will!! You're making it sound like that's an obnoxious thing to have to contend with. 4c mana bases SHOULD hurt. It's a basic principle of mtg that running multiple colors costs life.

2) I disagree that 4c-piles make for interesting game play. Because those piles tend to homogenize, simply because there are some clear best cards in modern. Path, T3feri, Uro, Astrolabe, Veil, Coatl, Wrenn. Its a %$#% drag tbh.

3) Do you reall believe for a second donating a turn 4 "I win" button in a Veil/T3feri format is a better measure than banning Astrolabe/Veil? Because I don't. I believe that's your nostalgia speaking.

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

Post by drmarkb » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
drmarkb wrote:
1 year ago
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
If one's stance is "Twin is a problem because of Veil" that can easily be rephrased as "Veil is the problem."
If I banned Islands and things that produced U, Twin would not be an issue either. Does that mean they should be banned? No, of course. So yes, you could say "veil is the problem". You could also say "the ability to counterspell things that stop the combo is the problem".
Twin already had access to Dispel, so that point is moot. What Veil does that is different is that it
A) can be used preemptively, so as to draw out counters,
B) can be used to stop sorcery discard spells, and
C) gets around uncounterable spells like Abrupt Decay.

If your problem with Twin is that it might play Veil, your problem is with Veil.
As you can see from the rest of my quote, my problem is with Twin having other cards too.
Veil might be an issue in a range of decks anyway, for the reasons you state.
As I said, you can play Kiki if you want a crap deck that makes infinite men. If you want a good one, then that is an issue, not Veil or Twin or whatever. A good deck with an I win button is not needed in this answer lite format....

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

Post by drmarkb » 1 year ago

The only thing about Astrolabe is that it is amore egregious offender in Legacy, having been considered a problem for ages by the bulk of the players. So why in Modern, where it is moaned about less and only more recently.....

User avatar
Simto
Posts: 324
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Simto » 1 year ago

Has Wizards announced a banning date? I have a feeling something big is coming since they didn't even mention the word "Modern" in the last couple of ban announcements.

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

Post by Ym1r » 1 year ago

Simto wrote:
1 year ago
Has Wizards announced a banning date? I have a feeling something big is coming since they didn't even mention the word "Modern" in the last couple of ban announcements.
there is a bnr update for Modern this Monday
Counter, draw a card.

User avatar
The Fluff
is this so?
Posts: 2123
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Gradius Home World
Contact:

Post by The Fluff » 1 year ago

received an email from SCG, it says the next ban-restrict announcement will impact four formats.

sharing it here to the thread. :)

https://articles.starcitygames.com/news ... r-formats/
Image
AnimEVO 2020 - EFZ Tournament (english commentary) // OE 2016 // POF 2018
want to play a uw control deck in modern, but don't have Jace or snapcaster? please come visit us at the Emeria thread

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

Post by ktkenshinx » 1 year ago

Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
Respectfully disagree here. UW Miracles or an Esper Control are pretty good in the meta now and can go toe-to-toe with Bant, but they have a huge disadvantage: Veil (and T3feri) in the Control mirror destroys them. Both of them have multiple clean answers for Uro/Coatl, and sweet options for CA (Frantic Inventory and/or Into the Story), but they can't really effectively counter their spells because Veil says "Nope" while drawing them a card. There is no incentive to really run anything but UGx, because eventually you'll run into the Bant/Sultai mirror (and random Veil-using combo decks), that you're better off joining them rather than fighting them. Banning Astrolabe won't change that dynamic, and it (probably) won't nerf Snow decks appreciably.
I agree UW Miracles is a viable deck (less sold on Esper), and also think we fundamentally agree that Bant Snow and the other 4C pile variants are just plain better than most competing options. I am confident their MWP spectrum puts all matchups at 51/49+ or at least most of them with only a few weaker matchups. That said, I think you underestimate the impact of losing Astrolabe. Astrolabe allows these decks to run Field of Ruin alongside costly UUU spells. It lets them run Verdict at the same time as they are playing green cards. And it does so with no splash damage to fetches/shocks that would otherwise make them vulnerable to aggro decks. It even adds additional velocity as a sort of bonus. All of this makes Astrolabe a Snow lynchpin and losing Astrolabe will hurt the decks a lot. We'll still see Bant Snow Control as a deck, and likely Sultai Reclamation, but both will be much weaker.
Moreover, banning Astrolabe really puts a tombstone on Urza artifact decks and the ban of Opal looks even more silly.
This is particularly true given that Wizards specifically called out Urza as a main reason for banning Opal. With Astrolabe gone, the ban becomes much thinner and it's less than 8 months old. This would go down as yet another ridiculous side effect of awful, untested 2019/2020 design decisions and Wizards bad format management in response to their mistakes.
Greeksis wrote:
1 year ago
Arcum's astrolabe is a card that should be banned 4 months ago, with once upon a time. Some of us saw it. Well, good riddance, I suppose.
I adamantly disagree with this notion that we should preemptively ban cards before they become measurable problems. Astrolabe had a 24% metagame share when OUaT was legal. If we allow Wizards to preemptively ban cards because they are subjectively problematic, we enter a twilight zone of bans where all the bizarre suggestions of previous years would probably have been banned without cause. It is always better to wait for actual prevalence and MWP offenses prior to pulling the trigger on a ban. We can invent subjective, theoretical arguments for why dozens of otherwise fine Modern cards are unfun, broken, unhealthy, warping, etc. Numbers are, in most cases, a much more reliable guide.

A potential exception to this is a "fun ban" like Lattice, but Astrolabe would never have been banned under that criterion.
drmarkb wrote:
1 year ago
The only thing about Astrolabe is that it is amore egregious offender in Legacy, having been considered a problem for ages by the bulk of the players. So why in Modern, where it is moaned about less and only more recently.....
As others said, Wizards is very hands-off with Legacy. There is no way a Miracles equivalent would have survived in Modern for as long as it did in Legacy. There is also no way Wizards would permit a card with Brainstorm-like dominance to define any other newer format. Wizards gives Legacy lots of passes because they don't support that format at the major paper/MTGO event level in the same way.
Greeksis wrote:
1 year ago
I also suspect Modern will be a two ships passing in the night format with the Snow decks nerfed to the ground. This means, back to usual Modern.
This is probably not as definite as you are suggesting but definitely a risk. This is also a huge reason why I have supported AA for a while now. In the grand format scheme, I believe it is far better to have a bunch of these 3C/4C goodstuff piles that are fundamentally interactive/reactive strategies than to have a format with weaker interactive decks. A more diverse Modern where more people are playing diverse flavors of noninteractive/proactive decks is worse than a slightly less diverse Modern where the only diversity is in goldfish strategies. Wizards does not seem to believe this based on their track record, but Wizards is wrong on this point just as they have been glaringly wrong on a number of awful decisions in the last few years.

The good news is that depending on the ban(s), there are definitely a few interactive/reactive decks which will survive Monday and continue to be viable. This should prevent the format from totally collapsing into goldfish decks. But heavyhanded bans (e.g. AA + Sanctuary) would almost certainly result in just that happening.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

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

Post by True-Name Nemesis » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
This is probably not as definite as you are suggesting but definitely a risk. This is also a huge reason why I have supported AA for a while now. In the grand format scheme, I believe it is far better to have a bunch of these 3C/4C goodstuff piles that are fundamentally interactive/reactive strategies than to have a format with weaker interactive decks. A more diverse Modern where more people are playing diverse flavors of noninteractive/proactive decks is worse than a slightly less diverse Modern where the only diversity is in goldfish strategies. Wizards does not seem to believe this based on their track record, but Wizards is wrong on this point just as they have been glaringly wrong on a number of awful decisions in the last few years.

The good news is that depending on the ban(s), there are definitely a few interactive/reactive decks which will survive Monday and continue to be viable. This should prevent the format from totally collapsing into goldfish decks. But heavyhanded bans (e.g. AA + Sanctuary) would almost certainly result in just that happening.
If as some posters have suggested, UW Miracles or Esper Control are almost as good as Bant and are only losing in the control match ups due to not having veil, then they should have no issue stepping in to police the goldfish strategies.

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

Post by pierreb » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
Banning Astrolabe does what? Destroy the best interactive decks? ...
I'd much rather have interactive Snow piles punishing the linear degenerate decks then simply let them run rampant.
I'm kinda tired of reading 'interactive' when you simply mean 'run counterspells'. The only interactive bits in snow is archmage charm, cryptic command, mana leak and the like. Oh yeah, I forgot: veil, blood moon and anger of the gods.

Meh. If you want control decks to be tier 1 and be the top decks, fine. But stop saying they are interactive and other decks are not. They are a form of control.

There are interactive decks. Jund, UW, ... even GDS and humans have interactive cards. We know what the problem is with interaction in modern: the answer cards are too weak. Modern is a legacy with weaker threats but vastly weaker answers, like pyroblast, swords to plowshares and FoW (among others).

Beside, Uro (possibly snow) decks would continue to exists, they just would not be 4 colors and as painless and consistent.

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

Post by Aazadan » 1 year ago

Greeksis wrote:
1 year ago
I guess it has to do with the fact that WOTC polices Modern more strictly than Legacy. In Legacy most cards(well, outside of Underworld breach) are taking a long-long chance to see if the metagame can adapt. In Modern, AA is already a year legal. I think this is too much, considering it's prevalence.

Also, the community outrage vs AA and Mystic Sanctuary is so big, that can't be ignored. Bant Snow is a problematic deck.
Bant snow ceases to exist without Astrolabe. Coatl becomes too weak unless you become just UG. And without coatl plus Astrolabe some large consistency sources are lost. Instead you get reduced to opt and snap. Still good cards but much weaker. And the third color while supporting Titan but without Astrolabe makes white get used less. See jund using kroxa and making compromises like no treetop, fewer ravines, and no ooze to make it work.

It's possible it could stay Bant with a small white splash, much like Kroxa Jund still leverages Wrenn and Six, and sometimes Bloodbraid Elf. But, it wouldn't be able to play any double white sweepers. Similar issue with Temur and Sultai, in that they lose Anger of the Gods and Dead of Winter. This isn't necessarily a bad thing either, the UG core needs taken down a notch at the moment. After being on the Uro ban train for a while though, I think it needs to just be Astrolabe, snow is and has been the mistake since MH came out.

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

Post by Ym1r » 1 year ago

Aazadan wrote:
1 year ago
Similar issue with Temur and Sultai, in that they lose Anger of the Gods and Dead of Winter. This isn't necessarily a bad thing either, the UG core needs taken down a notch at the moment.
I mean, in that sense Sultai would be the best option to go for. Dead of Winter will be weaker but still a 3 mana sweeper with no double color requirments. You can still play Fatal Push which is, currently, the superior removal, and you can also play Plague Engineer in the board for extra sweeping action. Your singletons with Assassin's Trophy and/or Abrupt Decay can also remain because as singletons the opportunity cost is low so yeah, maybe we will see more Sultai.
Counter, draw a card.

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

pierreb wrote:
1 year ago
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
Banning Astrolabe does what? Destroy the best interactive decks? ...
I'd much rather have interactive Snow piles punishing the linear degenerate decks then simply let them run rampant.
I'm kinda tired of reading 'interactive' when you simply mean 'run counterspells'. The only interactive bits in snow is archmage charm, cryptic command, mana leak and the like. Oh yeah, I forgot: veil, blood moon and anger of the gods.

Meh. If you want control decks to be tier 1 and be the top decks, fine. But stop saying they are interactive and other decks are not. They are a form of control.

There are interactive decks. Jund, UW, ... even GDS and humans have interactive cards. We know what the problem is with interaction in modern: the answer cards are too weak. Modern is a legacy with weaker threats but vastly weaker answers, like pyroblast, swords to plowshares and FoW (among others).

Beside, Uro (possibly snow) decks would continue to exists, they just would not be 4 colors and as painless and consistent.
There are two ways of describing "interactive" decks: disruptive and reactive. Disruptive decks have kind of always done well; especially when backed by aggro threats. Reactive decks have been garbage fires for most of the last 4 years, until just recently.

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

Post by Tzoulis » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
I agree UW Miracles is a viable deck (less sold on Esper), and also think we fundamentally agree that Bant Snow and the other 4C pile variants are just plain better than most competing options. I am confident their MWP spectrum puts all matchups at 51/49+ or at least most of them with only a few weaker matchups. That said, I think you underestimate the impact of losing Astrolabe. Astrolabe allows these decks to run Field of Ruin alongside costly UUU spells. It lets them run Verdict at the same time as they are playing green cards. And it does so with no splash damage to fetches/shocks that would otherwise make them vulnerable to aggro decks. It even adds additional velocity as a sort of bonus. All of this makes Astrolabe a Snow lynchpin and losing Astrolabe will hurt the decks a lot. We'll still see Bant Snow Control as a deck, and likely Sultai Reclamation, but both will be much weaker.
I disagree that banning Astrolabe would hurt them much. Especially in the inevitable mirror matches. Veil would still be a game breaker and will keep on crapping on interactive patterns with or without Astrolabe, so it'll still be better to run UGx instead of anything else. Besides, your numbers show that Veil is as prevalent if not more than Astrolabe. Aether Gust is getting up there as a response for that matter.

I may underestimating how important Astrolabe is for the Snow decks, but 4 cards can really shift a matchup which will counteract whatever extra damage they'll get from their new manabase, which Snow decks will get with an Astrolabe ban. Plus, they already do play most of their early turns without Astrolabe, especially the Yorion versions

I guess I put a higher priority on cutting Veil, a card that definitely has no place in Modern (or Legacy for that matter) and how toxic it is for the format and has similar prevalence to Astrolabe if not more, rather than a card that props up Midrange and Control strategies (and mostly 3 color ones, I haven't seen many 4 or 5 color ones besides 5C Niv).
Aazadan wrote:
1 year ago
Bant snow ceases to exist without Astrolabe. Coatl becomes too weak unless you become just UG. And without coatl plus Astrolabe some large consistency sources are lost. Instead you get reduced to opt and snap. Still good cards but much weaker. And the third color while supporting Titan but without Astrolabe makes white get used less. See jund using kroxa and making compromises like no treetop, fewer ravines, and no ooze to make it work.
Coatl will still be great, whether it has deathtouch on T3 or T5. The rest of the core still has enough power to slow down the game and the 4 extra slots they get in case they ban Astrolabe can really mess with Aggro decks.
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
There are two ways of describing "interactive" decks: disruptive and reactive. Disruptive decks have kind of always done well; especially when backed by aggro threats. Reactive decks have been garbage fires for most of the last 4 years, until just recently.
And UBx disruptive has been getting worse and worse because of Veil and Uro.

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

Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
And UBx disruptive has been getting worse and worse because of Veil and Uro.
I would love Veil gone yesterday. :party:

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

Post by th33l3x » 1 year ago

Imo Veil would actually the more important ban, but Astrolabe is the more likely one.

Also, has anybody else had massive problems vs Burn? Them occasionally casting Rift Bolt into a 6/6 trample on turn 2, and doing the same thing extremely consistently on turn 3 has been really back-breaking for me. That abomination dodges Push, Bolt, Decay, Drown in the Loch.

It's extremely frustrating that Burn keeps getting upgrade after upgrade after upgrade, seemingly every set. In the last year: Sunbaked Canyon, Skewer the Critics, Light up the Stage, and now a 1cmc 6/6 trample.

Its just %$#% ridiculous.

BeneTleilax
Posts: 915
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by BeneTleilax » 1 year ago

burn is fun.
Decks: Feather, Judith, Varina, Zabaz

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

Post by Aazadan » 1 year ago

Ym1r wrote:
1 year ago
I mean, in that sense Sultai would be the best option to go for. Dead of Winter will be weaker but still a 3 mana sweeper with no double color requirments. You can still play Fatal Push which is, currently, the superior removal, and you can also play Plague Engineer in the board for extra sweeping action. Your singletons with Assassin's Trophy and/or Abrupt Decay can also remain because as singletons the opportunity cost is low so yeah, maybe we will see more Sultai.
If you can swing 3 colors, I agree that black has a lot to offer with a potential 3 mana sweeper as well as Fatal Push which is much better than Path in most situations. You also get easier casting of Ashiok (since you could cast off a GB dual), and have Narset should you want another 3 mana PW. It also opens up some possible options in Tasigur (not seeing play now, but I'm toying with that idea) plus some GB creatures if needed, not to mention Abrupt Decay and such.

But, that's contingent on 3 colors still being realistic. It all comes down to when you need that third color and how badly you need it. Being able to use green as a main color does open up more options than non green colors have for color fixing without Astrolabe though.

There's also a non zero chance that a mix of Wrenn and Six, Lightning Bolt, and two single red sweepers in Radiant Flames and Pyroclasm could make red a thing. Wrenn specifically as that would go a long way towards alleviating mana issues. Although, I still like the concept of using a mixture of Delve plus Escape to manipulate Tasigur. It could be too much GY reliance though.
Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
Coatl will still be great, whether it has deathtouch on T3 or T5. The rest of the core still has enough power to slow down the game and the 4 extra slots they get in case they ban Astrolabe can really mess with Aggro decks.
You're placing a big assumption on there being that many snow permanents at that point. Without Astrolabe to both reward basics and remove the downsides of using basics it becomes far harder to actually put a bunch of them on the field. Current decks are playing 8 to 9 basics while non Astrolabe 3 color decks are typically in the 4 to 5 range, and they don't fetch them as aggressively. Without Astrolabe you end up with half as many, and you bring them out half as fast. Especially if you need to cast off color spells and are still interested in Mystic Sanctuary and/or Archmage Charm.
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
There are two ways of describing "interactive" decks: disruptive and reactive. Disruptive decks have kind of always done well; especially when backed by aggro threats. Reactive decks have been garbage fires for most of the last 4 years, until just recently.
Disruption plus clock is basically the fundamental recipe for success in Magic. More disruption means you can use a slower clock, a faster clock means you need less disruption. Optimal amounts have an inverse relationship, but good decks have a specific threshold of each (the typical threats vs answers argument is a subset of this, as removal is one form of disruption). The optimal threshold being whichever gets your clock below your opponents clock, but getting more specific than that is a rather detailed debate.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Modern”