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

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
But do you have a list? Played some games and presented those experiences? You know, actual proof not silly conjectures.
I'd be happy to. I've played several UW and Bant SFM lists since being legal. Some more controlling, some more creature midrange. Most run a single BS and single F&F, with a F&I in the side (some run all 3 main).

But I can't imagine you actually want those lists, do you? I certainly can, but other than a card tweak here and there, most lists are just stolen from League dumps or Twitter postings.

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

Post by True-Name Nemesis » 1 year ago

Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
@Arkmer I think you've missed some episodes. Some people who were dismissing arguments were asking, nay demanding proof, against the "drivel" before this thread was locked for a couple of days. If those same people now are basing their arguments on past and present experiences, as well as logic, then's something's fishy or dare I say biased?
This goes both ways. Some other people were also dismissing arguments based on evidence they claimed* they had from testing they claimed* they did but refused to present any of it for fear of being put under scrutiny.

I don't see how asking for some evidence from testing that was supposedly done is unreasonable.

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

I think it's fair for many things that have analogous existing pieces that could be compared. Namely with Jitte. We have Stoneforge decks that play Swords. Would any of them consider Jitte a substantial upgrade? Would they cut their F&Fs or cut some other card and run an extra sword? Since those decks aren't doing outstanding in the first place now, what effect does Jitte provide that improves their shortcomings? At least any more support than F&F/F&I or other X&Y swords already provide?

My thesis statement is that "I believe Jitte is fine, because the shells which use equipment now are already not very strong, and the effects Jitte provide are less relevant and less impactful than what the current suite of Swords already provide in the majority of cases."

All that said, I sincerely hope they never waste a precious unban on such a pointless card that wouldn't change anything.

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
I wonder why nobody is trying to present such data, but just repeats it over and over again, as if that would make it true.
I also wonder how you manage to come up with such sanctimonious, hypocritical BS statements when you failed to do the very thing you think others should do.

Still waiting for your super secret tier 0 private twin testing data that proves beyond a doubt that it's broken which you're afraid to present while repeating it over and over again, as if that would make it true.

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

Post by Tzoulis » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
But I can't imagine you actually want those lists, do you? I certainly can, but other than a card tweak here and there, most lists are just stolen from League dumps or Twitter postings.
I asked, didn't I? I know of the lists currently being played, I even played some of them. I even made my own DelverBlade brews. But I don't want those lists, I want the Jitte list(s) and the testing that you (or someone else did) that clearly show Jitte will be fine in Modern.
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
I think it's fair for many things that have analogous existing pieces that could be compared. Namely with Jitte. We have Stoneforge decks that play Swords. Would any of them consider Jitte a substantial upgrade? Would they cut their F&Fs or cut some other card and run an extra sword? Since those decks aren't doing outstanding in the first place now, what effect does Jitte provide that improves their shortcomings? At least any more support than F&F/F&I or other X&Y swords already provide?
Blade decks have been doing very well the past couple of weeks. Other than that, yeah, they'd rather have Jitte over any Sword, but they'd probably play 3 Equipments, with priority going to F&F. Jitte is superior against any deck that uses creatures, which is the majority of Modern and it'll also give an unnecessary edge to E-Tron that already has big creatures.
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
My thesis statement is that "I believe Jitte is fine, because the shells which use equipment now are already not very strong, and the effects Jitte provide are less relevant and less impactful than what the current suite of Swords already provide in the majority of cases."
Can you prove that? Blade decks are having a kind of a renaissance the past few weeks, so that's part of your thesis on shaky grounds.
True-Name Nemesis wrote:
1 year ago
This goes both ways. Some other people were also dismissing arguments based on evidence they claimed* they had from testing they claimed* they did but refused to present any of it for fear of being put under scrutiny.
Sure it does, and that person can speak for themselves and/or demand as such from them.

However, I am not them, but my (and others') arguments were dismissed by asking for proof, while the Jitte discussion has been using the same arguments that were dismissed earlier due to "lack of proof".

So what is it? Arguments can only be made when there's proof? Or are personal experience, format history and present and current (and potential) card pool a valid basis for an argument? Because, I'm seeing a certain disconnect here.

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

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
I asked, didn't I? I know of the lists currently being played, I even played some of them. I even made my own DelverBlade brews. But I don't want those lists, I want the Jitte list(s) and the testing that you (or someone else did) that clearly show Jitte will be fine in Modern.
If you're truly curious for something outside the 5-0 posts, this is the list I have been trying most recently. Been fun, but relies almost entirely on T1 mana dork living. I have basically abandoned all UW Stoneblade decks in favor of Miracles or Sultai. I have overwritten my old UW lists, but if I were to find the closest thing now, it would be similar to the other anemic UW control lists that trade interaction for the disappointing SFM package as their only real win con, as well as a disturbingly low number of bodies to carry the singleton F&F, like this.

I also at no point claimed I had evidence or testing with regards to Jitte. Just decks Jitte would likely go into. This is different from say, "I have extensively tested with Jitte specifically, and have concluded that it is fine/not fine. But I refuse to share any part of that testing with anyone."

User avatar
Arkmer
Opinionated and Wrong
Posts: 325
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Minnesota

Post by Arkmer » 1 year ago

Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
I think you've missed some episodes.
That could be the case, I can't say I've been 100% read up on the thread. I did go back and scan through it again and I do remember that conversation as it was happening; I don't think I'm misplaced but I'm gonna dodge that red text though since it strays deep into Twin and that's not really where I want to be. Rather just read the actual debate than participate- least in this thread.

I quoted you, sure, consider it present context opposed to relevant context. Let's take a moment to scrub personal references from what I said and recognize the statement not who it was originally directed at but generically for what it means.

"No one is testing for unbans, not even WotC."

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
True-Name Nemesis wrote:
1 year ago
Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
@Arkmer I think you've missed some episodes. Some people who were dismissing arguments were asking, nay demanding proof, against the "drivel" before this thread was locked for a couple of days. If those same people now are basing their arguments on past and present experiences, as well as logic, then's something's fishy or dare I say biased?
This goes both ways. Some other people were also dismissing arguments based on evidence they claimed* they had from testing they claimed* they did but refused to present any of it for fear of being put under scrutiny.

I don't see how asking for some evidence from testing that was supposedly done is unreasonable.
Do people want Twin so much that they can't understand that the one who is making the claim that Twin should be unbanned ar the ones that should have proof to unban the card?

We don't claim we have any proof, we just claim we played some games with the card. If we are wrong, we are wrong. Nobody who isn't pushing for a Twin unban is so strong in his statements. It seems to me that people wanting Twin back are making the stronger claims. Twin could be fine(especially with AA banned even more so), it also couldn't.

We, just, don't care all that much. Let it rot in the Banlist. We. Don't. Care. At. All.

PS: Here we go again...
Nope don't care at all about Twin, just calling out your hypocrisy.

Hmm you don't claim you have proof huh yet in the past you were so confident making these statements based on your 'testing'.
Greeksis wrote:
1 year ago
Cfusion probably thinks otherwise and I am trying to correct him, as I have playtested with the deck.
Greeksis wrote:
1 year ago
I know Splinter Twin would be too risky
Greeksis wrote:
1 year ago
Long story short, we are certain that Splinter Twin would be super scary and absolutely bannable if it was unbanned right now, because of the list of cards I mentioned. The whole deck, it's kind of snow + twin and it seems it has a super positive matchup against all big mana decks which we tested. It also wins vs most aggro decks, has a 55+% matchup vs Burn and Prowess(Uro is there). The matchup vs Snow is the one that needs more playtesting hours, as it seems to be at about even. Not Urza decks, this one is fine. The Bant snow one.
Twin also seems to be doing great, as it already was, vs all kinds of combo and if FoN is in the main, also Neoform.
Talk a big one don't you.

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

Post by Tzoulis » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
If you're truly curious for something outside the 5-0 posts, this is the list I have been trying most recently. Been fun, but relies almost entirely on T1 mana dork living. I have basically abandoned all UW Stoneblade decks in favor of Miracles or Sultai. I have overwritten my old UW lists, but if I were to find the closest thing now, it would be similar to the other anemic UW control lists that trade interaction for the disappointing SFM package as their only real win con, as well as a disturbingly low number of bodies to carry the singleton F&F, like this.
I'd never play so few creatures in a Blade list as the UW ones are running, but they do seem effective. Shark Typhoon can provide a surprise body to attach a sword to, and also bypasses T3feri.
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
I also at no point claimed I had evidence or testing with regards to Jitte. Just decks Jitte would likely go into. This is different from say, "I have extensively tested with Jitte specifically, and have concluded that it is fine/not fine. But I refuse to share any part of that testing with anyone."
Nice dodge, but you've repeatedly demanded proof, not even evidence, about our criticisms that were based on past performance, shoddy contemporary deckbuilding. extremely loose playlines and current Modern card pool. So, why the disconnect?

I'd also appreciate if you don't project the words and actions of other people unto me.
Arkmer wrote:
1 year ago
That could be the case, I can't say I've been 100% read up on the thread. I did go back and scan through it again and I do remember that conversation as it was happening; I don't think I'm misplaced but I'm gonna dodge that red text though since it strays deep into Twin and that's not really where I want to be. Rather just read the actual debate than participate- least in this thread.

I quoted you, sure, consider it present context opposed to relevant context. Let's take a moment to scrub personal references from what I said and recognize the statement not who it was originally directed at but generically for what it means.

"No one is testing for unbans, not even WotC."
Hey, no worries, and I certainly do agree with you in that WotC doesn't test for unbannings, although I think they've said they'll jam a few games before and see how a potential candidate feels, but I can't remember where I saw it. I was merely pointing out the disconnect when discussing two different cards, and how the "burden of proof" shifts dramatically when one is certainly biased towards a particular card.
True-Name Nemesis wrote:
1 year ago
Hmm you don't claim you have proof huh yet in the past you were so confident making these statements based on your 'testing'.
Proof =/= Evidence. Proof was demanded as a counter to evidence. Evidence that was a %$#% video, with a bad list and inherently bad match ups and subpar plays when it was criticized as such.

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
Those are aren't contradictory at all. First off, I didn't start the conversation and neither I wasn't the one asking for Twin to be unbanned.
Second, because "We are certain that Twin would be scary with Arcum's Astrolabe and Ice Fang Coatl legal" is your claim from back in the day AA was legal. It's not anymore.
Third off, hiding the part where I said "Twin could be fine if AA was banned" is the real deal and you hide it for what?

That's what I don't like in fora. People cherrypicking parts and they don't like and leaving out of it the other ones where it does not suit them.

And again, I am not the one proposing Twin should be unbanned, just that I want data to prove it would be fine. Can someone give those to me? Because so far, you cherrypicked the part you want to be hypocritical, leaving the non hypocritical part outside.

Again, we.don't.care.about.Twin.at.all. It can rot in the Banlist, it can be unbanned, it's literally the same. We just want you to not repeat claims you don't have any data from again and again.

If you want to showcase Twin would be fine play some games, gather some data and then come back to us. You don't have to warp the same thread with the same topic again and again.
Yes it is extremely contradictory when you make claims based on evidence you don't have. Highly doubt you even did any testing and are just making up %$#%.

"Second, because "We are certain that Twin would be scary with Arcum's Astrolabe and Ice Fang Coatl legal" is your claim from back in the day AA was legal. It's not anymore."
I made no such claims, feel free to quote me and stop being dishonest.

"That's what I don't like in fora. People cherrypicking parts and they don't like and leaving out of it the other ones where it does not suit them."
Pot calling kettle black

"And again, I am not the one proposing Twin should be unbanned, just that I want data to prove it would be fine. Can someone give those to me? Because so far, you cherrypicked the part you want to be hypocritical, leaving the non hypocritical part outside."

I can completely make up this just like you did here:
Greeksis wrote:
1 year ago
Long story short, we are certain that Splinter Twin would be super scary and absolutely bannable if it was unbanned right now, because of the list of cards I mentioned. The whole deck, it's kind of snow + twin and it seems it has a super positive matchup against all big mana decks which we tested. It also wins vs most aggro decks, has a 55+% matchup vs Burn and Prowess(Uro is there). The matchup vs Snow is the one that needs more playtesting hours, as it seems to be at about even. Not Urza decks, this one is fine. The Bant snow one.
Twin also seems to be doing great, as it already was, vs all kinds of combo and if FoN is in the main, also Neoform.
"Again, we.don't.care.about.Twin.at.all. It can rot in the Banlist, it can be unbanned, it's literally the same. We just want you to not repeat claims you don't have any data from again and again."

I don't care whether Twin gets unbanned or not and i have said so repeatedly, but obviously you're gonna try to paint it otherwise. I have also not made or repeated any claims on twin, feel free to quote me.

"If you want to showcase Twin would be fine play some games, gather some data and then come back to us. You don't have to warp the same thread with the same topic again and again."

I really don't want to showcase anything but even if I did I could just make up the data and claim it's a secret decklist that i'm not willing to share because people will just criticize it anyway.
Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
Proof =/= Evidence. Proof was demanded as a counter to evidence. Evidence that was a %$#% video, with a bad list and inherently bad match ups and subpar plays when it was criticized as such.
Ah, we're referring to different things. I did not think that whatever video was good evidence at all.

I was referring claims like the one I'm quoting below.
Greeksis wrote:
1 year ago
Also, don't you guys forget that any of us aren't supposed to showcase Twin lists. We could, I could. I have playtested with Twin for more than 30 hours. I know it's power. But the thing is that the one who calls for an unban should record videos and present arguments. So far, the arguments about Twin are disappointingly few. In reality, they may be zero.
Claims to have 30 hours of testing. provides nothing.

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
Claims to have 30 hours of testing. provides nothing.
I am not the one trying to convince you over here. I am the one telling you it could be fine, especially with AA. You are the one with the strong sentiments here. So, I am waiting for your data and proof on Twin, if you want it to be unbanned. Otherwise, as I told you, it could stay banned. I am fine with it. You could also tone down your hostile speech as well.

I did link the lists. But those lists had some Astrolabes in them. I also said that if this card will someday be banned, Twin would be even safer to be unbanned. And I truly believe this. The only card that strikes me as a problem in Twin now is Veil of summer and maybe T3feri. I know some may say "it's veil's or t3feri's problem" and I agree, and those cards maybe should be banned, but unfortunately, they are legal.

A list would probably look like that now: viewtopic.php?p=96427#p96427
Can you not read? lol. How many times do I have to say I don't care whether Twin is unbanned or not.

My strong sentiments are not towards twin but to your hypocrisy.

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
I already proved you that there is no hypocrisy to my posts, but clearly you don't agree. To each their own.

I will now stop the conversation, because your behavior is extremely hostile, and you are trying to attack me, instead of my ideas. Also, linked a decklist. You can take a look and discuss in the corresponding thread, in a friendlier manner.
You proved nothing.

Demanding people to present evidence while refusing to present any of your own is hypocrisy.

Repeatedly claiming that the onus is on the person(s) calling for unbans to present evidence does not in any way dispel that hypocrisy. That they are unable to do so makes them incapable. That you have the evidence but are afraid to share for fear of critic makes you a hypocrite.

I'm attacking you instead of your points? True, but it's actually hilarious and again extremely hypocritical that you're calling out this out when you have no issues in the past dismissing ideas because the poster is pro-Twin.
Greeksis wrote:
1 year ago
You still don't understand the issue. It's not this one. I have a list and I won't share it with you, because you were seeking to criticize the list, no matter what, before you even get to see it. This shows clear bias. In addition to that, I don't care about your opinion at all, as you are well known as I can see on this forum, for being a biased Twin player.
Attacking the user instead of the ideas wasn't an issue when you were doing it to others, but now you wanna call it out?

What's the point of linking a decklist to me now instead of to the relevant parties during the discussion 2 months ago when I said to you at least 3 times in the past hour that I do not give a %$#% about Twin.

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

Post by Simto » 1 year ago


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

Post by Aazadan » 1 year ago

FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
Those parts of the game are being phased out more and more. WotC has an idea of what players enjoy in Magic and they have felt for a long time that Prison, especially hard Prison, is not that
I'm not sure that's accurate, because they've printed several creatures and PW's that implement aspects of prison. Like I've said before, WotC wants the battlefield to matter. A prison deck that still involves some degree of meaningful attacking and blocking even if it severely limits one players options is likely to be considered ok by them. Decks that forego the combat step, for better or worse have a much tougher case to make.

For their balance problems the WAR planeswalkers did one thing right, it brought artifact/enchantment abilities to the battlefield in a way that all colors can interact with through attacking and blocking. Power levels are certainly off right now, but that general idea leads to a more interactive game which is what they're trying to show. Because the side of the game that involves in depth strategy and reading what your opponent might or might not have doesn't come across well when broadcasting events or even streaming them while board positions are easier to read especially to a widespread audience.

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

Making PW static effects one-sided was a massive mistake. They either should have been symmetrical (thus giving a deckbuilding restriction to the user), or should have been a tax (like Thalia) so that it doesn't completely shut off modes of play. Horrid failure in design.

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

Post by Aazadan » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
Making PW static effects one-sided was a massive mistake. They either should have been symmetrical (thus giving a deckbuilding restriction to the user), or should have been a tax (like Thalia) so that it doesn't completely shut off modes of play. Horrid failure in design.
One sided is fine, but most of them are approximately 1 mana too cheap for their effects, or too high in their loyalty. Ashiok for example is a considerably different card at say 5 loyalty and -1 to mill 4 compared to 3 loyalty and -1 to mill 6.

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

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 1 year ago

Aazadan wrote:
1 year ago
FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
Those parts of the game are being phased out more and more. WotC has an idea of what players enjoy in Magic and they have felt for a long time that Prison, especially hard Prison, is not that
I'm not sure that's accurate, because they've printed several creatures and PW's that implement aspects of prison. Like I've said before, WotC wants the battlefield to matter. A prison deck that still involves some degree of meaningful attacking and blocking even if it severely limits one players options is likely to be considered ok by them. Decks that forego the combat step, for better or worse have a much tougher case to make.

For their balance problems the WAR planeswalkers did one thing right, it brought artifact/enchantment abilities to the battlefield in a way that all colors can interact with through attacking and blocking. Power levels are certainly off right now, but that general idea leads to a more interactive game which is what they're trying to show. Because the side of the game that involves in depth strategy and reading what your opponent might or might not have doesn't come across well when broadcasting events or even streaming them while board positions are easier to read especially to a widespread audience.
I'm talking about a Prison deck, of which we've only had 1 in the past umpteen years, that has been good. Lantern Control seems more like a mistake that used several odd printings from numerous sets to make up. So, I would say that WotC has done a good job of avoiding a Tier 1 (and arguably Tier 2) Prison deck in most formats.

Taxes or soft locks are very different than a deck that is trying to make you not play the game at all. I also take your point that the game is more creature-centric. That can be an issue for some people, but obviously it's more of a non issue if WotC keeps pushing it. I have always hated playing creatures, for the most part. I would say that Brian Kibler's RG Strangleroot Geist/Thundermaw Hellkite, Hellrider deck was the first time I ever got excited to play creatures to win in combat. But I've moved on since then. While I still enjoy a good "creatureless" deck that makes the opponents' Fatal Pushes, etc. dead cards, I can find a good playing experience from a deck that uses the combat step. Burn, Affinity, and super quick aggro decks are still not favorites of mine, even through these years. I feel like it's too easy to run out of gas. (someone's at 2 life, but you draw 3 lands in a row, whereas other decks have much stronger cards to draw in these type of games)

The War Planeswalkers were a problem. There is no doubting that. I think when WotC was trying the new static abilities, they wanted to make sure that the cards were good. They needed to sell the set, not have a set with a bunch of planeswalkers that nobody wants.
Standard - Will pick up what's good when paper starts
Pre Modern - Do not own anymore
Pioneer - DEAD
Modern - Jund Sacrifice, Jeskai Phoenix, Elementals, Trollementals, BR Asmo/Goryo's, Yawmoth Chord
Legacy - No more cards, will rebuy Sneak Show when I can
Limited - Will start when paper starts
Commander - Nope

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

Post by Aazadan » 1 year ago

There's nothing wrong with creatureless decks, but the ones that lean more towards the unfair side of things tend to get negative attention from WotC. Take a deck like Storm, how ok it is in the meta and how tolerant Wizards would be of it would be considerably different if Electromancer and Baral were instead additional rituals. Those creatures still enable Storm to go off, but it provides a much broader method of interaction for most players and at the end of the day, that's what they're after.

It's a flaw in the color pie that each color simply can't answer certain types of cards because it leads to less interactive or non interactive games. Since WotC has clearly gotten away from an expectation of everyone running some counterspells, it becomes necessary to move effects that would have been countered in earlier years, to card types that are considered more acceptable for all colors to deal with.

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

FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
Aazadan wrote:
1 year ago
FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
Those parts of the game are being phased out more and more. WotC has an idea of what players enjoy in Magic and they have felt for a long time that Prison, especially hard Prison, is not that
I'm not sure that's accurate, because they've printed several creatures and PW's that implement aspects of prison. Like I've said before, WotC wants the battlefield to matter. A prison deck that still involves some degree of meaningful attacking and blocking even if it severely limits one players options is likely to be considered ok by them. Decks that forego the combat step, for better or worse have a much tougher case to make.

For their balance problems the WAR planeswalkers did one thing right, it brought artifact/enchantment abilities to the battlefield in a way that all colors can interact with through attacking and blocking. Power levels are certainly off right now, but that general idea leads to a more interactive game which is what they're trying to show. Because the side of the game that involves in depth strategy and reading what your opponent might or might not have doesn't come across well when broadcasting events or even streaming them while board positions are easier to read especially to a widespread audience.
I'm talking about a Prison deck, of which we've only had 1 in the past umpteen years, that has been good. Lantern Control seems more like a mistake that used several odd printings from numerous sets to make up. So, I would say that WotC has done a good job of avoiding a Tier 1 (and arguably Tier 2) Prison deck in most formats.
it's fortunate that Lantern never really became tier 1. Many people did not like playing against the deck. Still remember that reddit article written as a "guide" for Lantern players.. on how to anger / confuse the opponent. lol - lasted less than a week before it got deleted.

Don't have a problem with Storm decks, biased opinion because I was a storm combo player in legacy.
Anyway, here in modern storm is not that strong.., good pieces like rite of flame / seething song are not legal. Baral and electromancer are also easy to get rid of.
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

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

Post by Aazadan » 1 year ago

The Fluff wrote:
1 year ago
Don't have a problem with Storm decks, biased opinion because I was a storm combo player in legacy.
Anyway, here in modern storm is not that strong.., good pieces like rite of flame / seething song are not legal. Baral and electromancer are also easy to get rid of.
If what you got out of what I said was that Storm is a problem, then I was misunderstood. What I said is that Storm isn't a problem, and a large part in why it's not a problem is that a good chunk of the decks functionality is now tied up in creatures. The vast majority of decks have the option to run either removal or counterspells. This means that should they choose to, the vast majority of decks can interact to some extent even in game 1, without having to change their colors to make the deck into something else.

That is ultimately why Wizards has pushed creatures so much. Baral exists in place of rituals, and by doing so shifts the axis of interaction from only counterspells and discard to more accessible options as well. This is a rather deep design issue in the game, and one they've been phasing out slowly over time.

WAR walkers was essentially them playing in the same space for persistent effects, as all colors can interact with PW's. Now, they pushed those PW's too much, but it's fundamentally good design only their power balance was off. As they are, they're each about 1 mana too cheap, or their abilities and loyalty are tuned wrong.

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

Post by pierreb » 1 year ago


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

pierreb wrote:
1 year ago
Diversion (could be a new thread). Here's the list of 2MX card reprints that are relevant to Modern.

<snip>
nice list. Did not know engineered explosives and ensnaring bridge had become so cheap.

noble hierarch and goblin guide are also more affordable now. Glad this reprinting happened.
Aazadan wrote:
1 year ago
The Fluff wrote:
1 year ago
Don't have a problem with Storm decks, biased opinion because I was a storm combo player in legacy.
Anyway, here in modern storm is not that strong.., good pieces like rite of flame / seething song are not legal. Baral and electromancer are also easy to get rid of.
If what you got out of what I said was that Storm is a problem, then I was misunderstood. What I said is that Storm isn't a problem, and a large part in why it's not a problem is that a good chunk of the decks functionality is now tied up in creatures. The vast majority of decks have the option to run either removal or counterspells. This means that should they choose to, the vast majority of decks can interact to some extent even in game 1, without having to change their colors to make the deck into something else.

That is ultimately why Wizards has pushed creatures so much. Baral exists in place of rituals, and by doing so shifts the axis of interaction from only counterspells and discard to more accessible options as well. This is a rather deep design issue in the game, and one they've been phasing out slowly over time.

WAR walkers was essentially them playing in the same space for persistent effects, as all colors can interact with PW's. Now, they pushed those PW's too much, but it's fundamentally good design only their power balance was off. As they are, they're each about 1 mana too cheap, or their abilities and loyalty are tuned wrong.
huh? that was just me giving own opinion on storm decks.

my post on storm was not directed at all to your post. And I have no strong feelings on this issue.

_________________

anyway, since we have a conversation started. About WAR walkers... also just giving an opinion on it, the only static ability I'm slightly annoyed is the small teferi, but can live with it.. not waste burn spells on him, simply keep burning the player instead when using my mono red prowess deck. :?
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

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

Post by Aazadan » 1 year ago

The Fluff wrote:
1 year ago
Huh? that was just me giving own opinion on storm decks.

my post on storm was not directed at all to your post. And I have no strong feelings on this issue.
Sorry. Saw myself quoted in the response, thought it was aimed at me since I had just brought them up.
anyway, since we have a conversation started. About WAR walkers... also just giving an opinion on it, the only static ability I'm slightly annoyed is the small teferi, but can live with it.. not waste burn spells on him, simply keep burning the player instead when using my mono red prowess deck. :?
To be clear, I think that every single WAR walker is a development mistake, and most of them by being tuned too strong rather than too weak. That said, I also very much think that they are incredibly good design space for the previously mentioned reasons.

Every single color has multiple ways of interacting with planeswalkers. Aside from the obvious answer in hitting them, white can force sacrifices and tax activations, blue can counter, bounce, and steal, black can kill spell, red can burn, green can blow up non creatures. Furthermore, these effects can all be mainboard, or more likely to be sideboarded.

The cards themselves are very much development mistakes, just as several early PW's were. Like I said before, Ashiok should either cost 4 as is, or perhaps be 3 starting loyalty and -1 to mill 6. Narset should be 4, or 3 loyalty and -1 to activate as a dig 2 (or 2 loyalty as a dig 4), and so on.

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
Diversion (could be a new thread). Here's the list of 2MX card reprints that are relevant to Modern.

My take away:
I think the combination of apathy (or outright discontent) with nearly every non-Commander constructed format, combined with the lack of paper events, and continued fallout from COVID (at least the unprecedented failures to contain here in the States) mean that many of these cards are going to drop like rocks. The time to sell any of them was months ago. But the silver lining is that if you're on the fence about buying anything, the next month will likely be the cheapest ever to jump in.

Depending on how the full art ones pan out (once actual supply trickles out and true prices evolve), I'm definitely looking to pick up some pretty pieces. Something Seth/SaffronOlive pointed out on Twitter is that its entirely likely that foil Box Toppers might hold LESS value than non-foils. Not just because of the issues people have with foils, but because in theory, they are in more packs and may be opened more. $100 VIP packs have 2 foil showcase slots vs $330 box including only 1 non-foil.

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

Aazadan wrote:
1 year ago
The Fluff wrote:
1 year ago
anyway, since we have a conversation started. About WAR walkers... also just giving an opinion on it, the only static ability I'm slightly annoyed is the small teferi, but can live with it.. not waste burn spells on him, simply keep burning the player instead when using my mono red prowess deck. :?
To be clear, I think that every single WAR walker is a development mistake, and most of them by being tuned too strong rather than too weak. That said, I also very much think that they are incredibly good design space for the previously mentioned reasons.

Every single color has multiple ways of interacting with planeswalkers. Aside from the obvious answer in hitting them, white can force sacrifices and tax activations, blue can counter, bounce, and steal, black can kill spell, red can burn, green can blow up non creatures. Furthermore, these effects can all be mainboard, or more likely to be sideboarded.

The cards themselves are very much development mistakes, just as several early PW's were. Like I said before, Ashiok should either cost 4 as is, or perhaps be 3 starting loyalty and -1 to mill 6. Narset should be 4, or 3 loyalty and -1 to activate as a dig 2 (or 2 loyalty as a dig 4), and so on.
my theory on some WAR walkers being rather strong is... it's the first time they did this static ability on walkers, wotc wanted to print useful ones to catch people attention.
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

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Modern”