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

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

Post by ThatStoryTeller » 2 years ago

I think the project would have to gain attention through a twitter profile to really draw a crowd and create meaningful discussion. I would love seeing results of an edited banned list testing even if just for exploratory purposes. But I have always wanted a return to OverExtended with updated set legality

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

Post by ktkenshinx » 2 years ago

Zorakkiller wrote:
2 years ago
you can do something about it though. we aren't obligated to play wotc's version of modern. we could Just make our own psuedo modern. signs outside of wotc hq may also be effective
idSurge wrote:
2 years ago
One could certainly do it local. There are No Banlist Modern events that get run over I believe by Eldrazi, but..yeah.
ThatStoryTeller wrote:
2 years ago
I think the project would have to gain attention through a twitter profile to really draw a crowd and create meaningful discussion. I would love seeing results of an edited banned list testing even if just for exploratory purposes. But I have always wanted a return to OverExtended with updated set legality
Unfortunately, these projects don't work when there are viable, easy alternatives that are so close to the proposed idea. Pauper and EDH worked because they had unique niches no other formats were fulfilling. Same with Legacy spinning off Vintage and Overextended --> Modern off of bad old Extended. But a new community-driven Modern is just a worse Modern than the existing version. See Frontier for a horrible example of this failure, or Tiny Leaders, or a variety of other community experiments that never panned out. The best way to address Modern issues is now, and has always been, publicly discussing them, influencing player opinions, and, in the case of content creators, making quality content that Wizards consumes. Wizards 100% reads articles on various sites and is out there on Reddit; anyone who thinks otherwise is being unjustifiably cynical or is just out of touch with how digital companies like Hasbro/Wizards work. They might not read everything and act on everything (thank goodness), but their eyes are out there. That's the best way to influence future policies and decisions.
gkourou wrote:
2 years ago
What do you believe about Wizard's stance on Twin several years after it's banning?
These are interesting questions worth discussing, so I'm taking a stab. For this one, I'd say Wizards is still anti-Twin and will continue to be anti-Twin for a while. They are hyper-conservative with unbans (fricking SFM is still on that list and it took until 2018 to get JTMS off), and Twin is significantly less conservative than at least one potentiall 2-3 other cards on that list. I think we're all in agreement that Wizards is unlikely to unban the card and probably views it unfavorably.
Do you believe Twin thought it was successful or not? If they believe it was not, why aren't they unbanning it?
I have no idea if it was successful at opening up diversity because that analysis has not been done. I do know it was unsuccessful at opening up blue decks. There were just as many blue decks viable in 2018 as in 2015, and far less in 2016 and 2017. That said, Wizards is still unlikely to unban it because they believe it has too much risk and not enough upside for a format that is mostly stable except for horrible Hogaak. Again, I think we all agree they are unlikely to unban the card.
Did they even care to look up at their data and see if it was a successful one or they are just using their intuition now?

Do you believe Twin was banned clearly due to diversity reasons in the beggining and then, either Wizards did not care to look up to their data and see it did not fruit up and did not open Modern?
- Did they look at the data and believed the Twin ban was succesfull?
- Did they ban Twin, but saw it was unsuccessful and now they are not unbanning the card out of "stubbornness" ?
Responding to all of these, I'm sure they looked at the data, saw it as a frontrunner deck going into the PT, and were worried based on a few datapoints it would be too prevalent at that PT. So they banned it, resulting in a firestorm further fueled by Eldrazi that led to a public article by AF himself on Modern's future. AF admitted that PTs dictated ban timing and predicate bans on Twitter, factors NEVER MENTIONED IN THE ARTICLE. When the head of R&D is dropping these bombs on Twitter and not in the actual banning article, some shady %$#% is going on.
I know nobody has those answers probably, but just asking. Maybe some people do have some tweets than can indicate some stuff going on. @ktk said AF tweeted some weird stuff. What are those kind of tweets? Which tweets are you referring to?
They are in my old article on the ban: http://modernnexus.com/last-word-splinter-twin-banning/

I'm going to emphasize again that neither I nor other people discussing Twin necessarily want it unbanned OR believe Wizards will unban it. We just don't want Twin myths getting thrown around after they've been disproven. I've referenced those three myths before. Everything else is a totally fine topic.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

Zorakkiller
Posts: 57
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Zorakkiller » 2 years ago

I don't see how discussing moderns issues will solve moderns issues to the point where those who are critical of it will actually enjoy it. wotc has had literal years to fix modern and let's be honest they dont have an real incentive to aside from blatant mistakes like eldrazi winter. I have already messaged a couple people from my old playgroup and most were on board with giving it a go even if it is just for our own amusement. what's the worst that happens? we just go back to being stuck with hogaak modern. also we can still voice our concerns about modern while doing a psuedo modern format, its not a one or the other scenario.

User avatar
Wraithpk
Posts: 181
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Connecticut, USA

Post by Wraithpk » 2 years ago

gkourou wrote:
2 years ago
I dont know if they are right or not. I wont tell my opinion on it. I am here to remind you what they said, because some people seem to forget or even worse make wizards look like incompetent.
Full disclosure; they are not.
You're assuming that WotC is:
a) Fully honest and transparent with their customers
b) Perfectly competent in their decisions.

These can't both be true. We know for a fact that their stated reasoning for banning Twin (hurting diversity of other blue decks) was wrong. Sheridan has provided ample data that proves this fact.

More importantly, though, this reasoning was intuitively believed to be false by a lot of Modern players immediately at the time of the banning. That's why there was so much controversy at the time, and the accusations that it was nothing more than a PT shakeup ban. The data we got afterwards just confirmed what many of us already knew to be true: Other blue decks were not being avoided at the competitive level just because Twin existed, they were being avoided because they were not competitively viable.

Just to add an anecdote, I personally knew this immediately. I played Twin, but I also played some other blue decks, and I knew full well that the #1 reason to play any non-Twin blue deck was to beat Twin. UW Control was good against Twin and Jund, but it was miserable against the rest of the field. I also knew exactly what was going to happen after the ban (if Eldrazi hadn't muddled things up for a while). I remember a bunch of people bemoaning that Tron would take over the format with Twin gone, but that matchup had crept closer and closer to 50/50 over the years. No, the real unleashing was going to be the fast, uninteractive, linear aggro/combo decks who now got to cut all the interaction they used to play to improve their miserable Twin matchup, and focus 100% on their linear gameplan. Sure enough, a year later Probe and GGT get banned because there are too many games ending before turn 4. We've had ebbs and flows where decks like GDS, Humans, and UW Control have slowed down the format for a while, but we haven't had sustained periods of interactivity in the format. 2018 was probably the best year for the format since the Twin ban, and we still had a banning. Maybe this would have happened anyway whether Twin was around or not, but its absence surely didn't help.

Now, I'm not saying all this to toot my own horn like I'm some perfect seer of the Modern meta. I've been wrong before (I thought Cheeri0s was going to be THE deck in early 2017, but Fatal Push's adoption and the rise of GDS ruined that idea... I know you feel my pain, Sheridan, lol). What I'm saying is that why was I able to see the mistaken reasoning and consequences of the banning almost immediately, but the people making the decision, WotC, could not? Granted, I have a Phyics background, which involves a lot of data analysis, and I'm an invested Modern player, but I also was pretty new to Modern and Magic in general. I started playing Magic in July 2014, and I began following Modern closely later that Fall before buying into Twin.

WotC actually paid people to make that decision. A decision that some random nerd who just started playing their game knew immediately was wrong. So we come back to those first two points, either:

a) WotC was not completely open and honest about their reasons to ban Twin, and/or
b) The people being paid to make that decision were less competent than a random nerd who just started playing their game 1.5 years prior.

To be honest, I think it's a little of both, but both are pretty damning. I think WotC thought that Twin was a problem because they didn't do more than a surface level analyzation, but I think they also wanted to make sure the Eldrazi deck they seeded into Oath of the Gatewatch got screen time at the Pro Tour, and they wanted the meta to be "fresh." That's just my opinion, though.
Modern
ubr Grixis Shadow ubr
uwg Bant Stoneblade uwg
gbr Jund gbr

Pioneer
urIzzet Phoenixur
rMono-Red Aggror
uwAzorius Controluw

Commander
bg Meren of Clan Nel Toth bg

User avatar
FoodChainGoblins
Level 47
Posts: 859
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Riverside

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 2 years ago

It's easy to look at the mistakes Wizards has made regarding Modern. But I think we should also at least take into consideration the positive choices they've made. They held off on banning anything from Grixis Shadow, Humans, and even the more recent UR Thing. I am way more lenient regarding ban decisions and even I was pretty close to agreeing with a possible ban, especially during Grixis Shadow.

Banning a piece from Hogaak as soon as they did was actually the correct thing to do; but they banned the wrong piece. So they're kind of 50/50 on that. I don't know if they were hoping that Hogaak Vine could still be Tier 1, but even if it were only Tier 1, is that acceptable in most Modern players' eyes? I don't think so. It's bad enough that Dredge has been on the cusp of passing Tier 1 from time to time (and did when it was pushed, causing Golgari Grave-Troll to be put on the ban list again). They did not wait as long as they did during Eldrazi Winter. I truly believe that time hurt Modern and Wizard's ability to profit off of Modern. So many Modern players took a hiatus or could care less how often they got slaughtered by turn 2, three 4/4s two with haste. They knew they had to make a decision right away at the first chance. It's too bad they got jaded by MH sales to ban the correct card...
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
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 2 years ago

I don't agree they hit the wrong piece though. The aim should always be to have the deck remain at an appropriate power level.

I want everyone to get to keep their deck, as having 'your' deck taken from you, is easily the worst experience I've had in the 30 years I've been a gamer.

I will say, it's pretty interesting how much the last few sets have rebuilt the top of the meta.

Phoenix
Hogaak
Urza
Jund
UW
E Tron

All are either new, or updated fundamentally.
UR Control UR

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

Post by cfusionpm » 2 years ago

gkourou wrote:
2 years ago
Up to then, since this analysis was not made at all, I make a plea to everyone not presenting the case as if the Twin was unsuccessful at opening up overall diversity or not; we are just not sure for this.
(As I understand we are sure it was unsuccessful at opening up blue decks.)
It's pretty easy to look at the hundreds of meaningful cards that have been added to Modern since OGW that have had a considerably more meaningful impact in expanding deck possibilities than simply removing some top deck that categorically did not suppress any deck which was powerful enough to stand on its own merits.

Look at any of the current decks and look at how many cards it plays that have been printed in the past 3 years. A quick, cursory glance through Goldfish's top decks show at least these:
Phoenix: Phoenix, Thing, Drake, Opt, Abrade, Finale, Sinkhole, Saheeli, Force, Narset, Dart, Aria, Fiery Islet, Spirebluff Canal
Jund: Hexdrinker, W6, Seasoned Pyro, Plague Engineer, Fatal Push, Assassin's Trophy, Ouphe, Chandra ToD, Peatland, Blooming Marsh,
BG: Lili Last Hope, Brutality, Kalitas, Tireless Tracker, all the BG stuff from Jund
E-Tron: Basically every creature
Tron Tron: Newlamog, Walking Ballista, new Karn, Blast Zone, Spacial Contortion, Warping Wail, new Emrakul
Humans: Kitesail, Thalia's Lieutenant, Mantis Rider, Deputy of Detention, Reflector Mage, Unsettled Mariner, big Thalia, Damping Sphere, Unclaimed Territory,
UW: Teferi, T3feri, Jace, Search, Opt, Veto, Narset, Force, Field, Stroke, Rejection,
Spirits: Nearly everything in the deck
Hogaak: Hogaak, Altar, Feeder, Supplier, Neonate, Trophy, Shenanigans, Force of Vigor
Urza: Urza, Sai, Trawler, Goblin Engineer, Whir, SOTM, Push, Sphere
Dredge: Amalgam, Reunion, Neonate, Creeping Chill
Burn: Skewer, Inspiring Vantage, Sunbaked Canyon, even Cindervines
Mono R Phoenix: Phoenix, Soul-Scar, Bedlam, Dart, Finale, Light up the Stage, Abrade, Finale, Saheeli, Sunbaked Canyon
Neobrand: Literally exists because of Neoform and Eldritch Evolution, but also land upgrades
Hardened Scales: Mimic, Ballista, Animation Module
Hollow One: Hollow One, Push, Flameblade Adept, Collective Brutality
Infect: Blossoming Defense, Giver of Runes, Scale Up, Force of Vigor, Rejection, Veil of Summer, lands
Storm: Baral, Pieces, Opt, Spirebluff

I have a hard time believing there is a world where some random Remand, Lightning Bolt, 25%-on-turn-4 deck being removed is the reason for any of these decks existing as they do today.

We have "diversity" because new cards made new decks. It literally has nothing to do with Twin.

User avatar
FoodChainGoblins
Level 47
Posts: 859
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Riverside

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 2 years ago

cfusionpm wrote:
2 years ago
We have "diversity" because new cards made new decks. It literally has nothing to do with Twin.
This is something I brought up about 5 -7 posts back. The format is obviously going to be more "diverse" with a larger card pool, outside of mistakes like Eldrazi Winter and Hogaak Vine. There have been what, 9 sets since late 2016? But you also brought up something important - many new decks were actually created because of these sets or became playable.
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
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 2 years ago

I'm honestly not sure how it's even questioned. New cards make decks viable. Suppression in a format as wide open (Day 1) as Modern is simply not a thing.

We freak out when Pros decide to warp a meta to have 1 deck hold roughly 20% share on day 1. Meaning, you have 4 chances out of 5 to NOT play against it right? Even if you do, outside historically notable cases, the odds are better that that 1/5 deck you hope to dodge is in the 60-40 range at worst and probably closer to 55/45.

Again, someone show me suppression? I don't see it.

New cards make Decks. It's been this way since 2015. Nothing has changed.
UR Control UR

User avatar
robertleva
Posts: 582
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by robertleva » 2 years ago

idSurge wrote:
2 years ago
I'm honestly not sure how it's even questioned. New cards make decks viable. Suppression in a format as wide open (Day 1) as Modern is simply not a thing.

We freak out when Pros decide to warp a meta to have 1 deck hold roughly 20% share on day 1. Meaning, you have 4 chances out of 5 to NOT play against it right? Even if you do, outside historically notable cases, the odds are better that that 1/5 deck you hope to dodge is in the 60-40 range at worst and probably closer to 55/45.

Again, someone show me suppression? I don't see it.

New cards make Decks. It's been this way since 2015. Nothing has changed.
You want Modern to be the Graveyard / Dredge format? Because this is how Modern becomes the Graveyard / Dredge format.
Robert Leva
Creator of Modern's 8Rack Deck
Image

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

Post by Arkmer » 2 years ago

robertleva wrote:
2 years ago
You want Modern to be the Graveyard / Dredge format? Because this is how Modern becomes the Graveyard / Dredge format.
He doesn't actually say anything about graveyards at all in that post. The reason it's lead to a format with as much grave prevalence as some of us note is that they keep printing very strong things to go into those deck types. I would cite Hogaak as the indisputable, and Phoenix and Creeping Chill as proponents that created new or pushed existing decks into T1.

The combination of your statement and his post is just a statement about WotC printing more graveyard strategy cards that stuck to the format.

If over the next few years, WotC prints amazing answers to nearly everything in the format and we see the rise of 3 distinctly different types of control decks, then we would see that "new cards make decks viable", just in a different context. I certainly agree with the statement that we have a sort of surplus of things coming out of the graveyard. But until Hogaak is gone and we feel like we can analyze the format accurately again, I think calling it a graveyard format is only relative to the obnoxious 8/8 Trampler.

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

Post by idSurge » 2 years ago

robertleva wrote:
2 years ago
You want Modern to be the Graveyard / Dredge format? Because this is how Modern becomes the Graveyard / Dredge format.
You are going to have to walk me through the logic that says "Deck Suppression is not a thing" and "This is how you get GY/Dredge formats!"

I'm well aware of how we get GY/Dredge The Format. I called this out on MTGS before abandoning ship, and Twitter, and was mocked for it.

Faithless Looting
Cathartic Reunion
Creeping Chill
Prized Amalgam
Stitcher's Supplier
Bloodghast
Insolent Neonate
H Daddy Himself

Add in Hollow One, Phoenix, Vengevine, Snapcaster Mage (yes, its a GY card), I mean...again, this is not Deck Suppression. This is format design as approved by Wizards.

You are playing the GY/Dredge Format, but lets not forget the other half dozen+ decks that were created since 2015 on the back of new cards. They just are not as good as the Faithless Family of decks.
UR Control UR

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

Post by ktkenshinx » 2 years ago

idSurge wrote:
2 years ago
You are playing the GY/Dredge Format, but lets not forget the other half dozen+ decks that were created since 2015 on the back of new cards. They just are not as good as the Faithless Family of decks.
I fully agree graveyard decks are a major pillar of the format, and also agree Modern has changed immensely since 2015 off new cards. But I'll push back against the notion that other decks aren't as good as the Faithless Family (catchy name!). Plenty of other decks have been viable, top-tier options in this time frame for extended periods of time, and I suspect this will continue to be the case. For example, Urza ThopterSword did excellently at MC4, even if its narrative is obscured due to Hogaak's oppression.

As long as you are playing Modern's pillars as core parts of your deck, you are going to be competitive. Those pillars are Looting, Stirrings, Opal, Hierarch/Vial, SV/Opt, TS/IoK, and maybe Bolt; I'm undecided on that last one. TS and IoK in particular have newfound relevance due to W6 and other Jund edges, not to mention upgrades to Mardu strategies. I will say if you aren't playing those pillars, or if you are using those pillars in worse versions of other decks using them, then you are at a complete competitive disadvantage in Modern and should probably be playing something else OR you are in a predicted/smaller metagame.

I just don't want us to assume Looting decks are the Modern end-all, be-all when the last two years have shown many other viable, top-tier strategies that don't use Looting. We can have a separate conversation about graveyard hate and pressures Looting places on decks, but I think the Hogaak situation has people so fixated on the graveyard we are forgetting positive Modern periods in the last few years.
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 » 2 years ago

Arkmer wrote:
2 years ago
If over the next few years, WotC prints amazing answers to nearly everything in the format and we see the rise of 3 distinctly different types of control decks, then we would see that "new cards make decks viable", just in a different context. I certainly agree with the statement that we have a sort of surplus of things coming out of the graveyard. But until Hogaak is gone and we feel like we can analyze the format accurately again, I think calling it a graveyard format is only relative to the obnoxious 8/8 Trampler.
The counterpoint to this statement is that the rate at which they print busted new threats vs good generalized answers is at least tenfold. They have no issue breaking the format into pieces with some splashy new card that sells sets. But God forbid they allow decks and cards back into the format that promoted healthy and interactive gameplay. They simply don't sell packs, and it's really not more complicated than that. It's also another reason why the newest cards (usually the ones that break decks) is rarely banned, in favor of banning an older card. Gotta sell those packs!

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

Post by idSurge » 2 years ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
2 years ago
I fully agree graveyard decks are a major pillar of the format, and also agree Modern has changed immensely since 2015 off new cards. But I'll push back against the notion that other decks aren't as good as the Faithless Family (catchy name!). Plenty of other decks have been viable, top-tier options in this time frame for extended periods of time, and I suspect this will continue to be the case. For example, Urza ThopterSword did excellently at MC4, even if its narrative is obscured due to Hogaak's oppression.
I think you are probably right, but my frame of reference (I should have called out) since Phoenix/Chill entered the scene.

We have since that period been either Dredge, Phoenix, or Hogaak, and admittedly Hogaak is now warping the format to the point of obfuscation on what the meta could/would/should look like, when not dominated by such a deck.

I do agree, other decks are viable, but again put a gun to my head in an open meta for the last almost 12 months and say "Top 8 or else"? I play a Looting deck.
UR Control UR

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

Post by Arkmer » 2 years ago

cfusionpm wrote:
2 years ago
The counterpoint to this statement is that the rate at which they print busted new threats vs good generalized answers is at least tenfold.
Oh, I'm totally on board with that statement. It was only last page that a few people lamented the difference between Exile and Destroy on Force of Despair. Exile is very much at a premium right now because facing a yard deck is a very real probability. It puts some hefty strain on removal packages and, as we've seen, forces some terrible mainboard choices like Surgical and Leyline.

iTaLenTZ
Posts: 224
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by iTaLenTZ » 2 years ago

I feel planewalkers have become too strong through the years. They started as 4 mana gamechangers, then they go pushed to 3 mana, then they added selfpeel to most of them, then they added passive abilities and now they are pushed to 2 mana. The problem is planewalkerhate has not evolved at the same rate over time. The best things we still got are Dreadbore and Hero's Downfall. Creatures have lost a lot of ground and can't hardly pressure walkers effectively any more.

All planewalkers have some sort of inbuild CA so removing a planewalker with a card usually results in a 2 for 1 and attacking it with creatures is almost a timewalk effect on top of it. I feel we need creatures that can deal efficiently with planewalkers. Something like Vampire Hexmage but instead of sacrificing it its reads: "Whenever X comes into play remove all counters from target permanent". The planewalker vs creature and planewalker vs removal paradigms need to be rebalanced especially now that Wrenn, Narset and baby Teferi exist.

User avatar
Necrofish
Posts: 65
Joined: 2 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Necrofish » 2 years ago

Ashiok, Dream Render,Narset, Parter of Veils, Teferi, Time Raveler and Wrenn and Six
vs.
The Elderspell and Price of Betrayal.

While Ashiok and Narset are more answers than threats themselves, I think T3feri and W&6 count as threats.
Compare that to the answers we get. The best way to fight planeswalkers still seems to be proactive and just Discard or Counter them; never let them hit the board.

If I forgot any cards please comment on it.
Wydwen is much too cool for you.

User avatar
FoodChainGoblins
Level 47
Posts: 859
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Riverside

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 2 years ago

I'm pretty sure WotC wants Planeswalkers to see more play in Modern. As of now, usually only Jund/Tron/UW Control run them for the most part. (I know there's Mono Red Phoenix with Green and W&6 and a few more)

I personally don't like Planeswalkers much, but if I do decide to do them, I like to overdo it, lol. UW Control appeals the most out of these.
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 » 2 years ago

What I hate most about Planeswalkers is that it goes against the absolute core of what I want to be doing in Magic. I do not want to play on my own turn. What makes this game unique compared to others is the Stack and playing cards at Instant speed on your opponent's turn. Planeswalkers are essentially the polar opposite of that. I do not want to tap out on my turn. I do not want to cast spells on my turn. If I wanted to play Hearthstone Battlecruiser Magic, I would play Hearthstone. The problem is we are now at a point where PWs are so pushed and so powerful, they are essentially mandatory in many decks. Especially value decks, interactive decks, and pretty much anything other than linear racing (unless using T3feri to protect your combo).

User avatar
FoodChainGoblins
Level 47
Posts: 859
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Riverside

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 2 years ago

cfusionpm wrote:
2 years ago
What I hate most about Planeswalkers is that it goes against the absolute core of what I want to be doing in Magic. I do not want to play on my own turn. What makes this game unique compared to others is the Stack and playing cards at Instant speed on your opponent's turn. Planeswalkers are essentially the polar opposite of that. I do not want to tap out on my turn. I do not want to cast spells on my turn. If I wanted to play Hearthstone Battlecruiser Magic, I would play Hearthstone. The problem is we are now at a point where PWs are so pushed and so powerful, they are essentially mandatory in many decks. Especially value decks, interactive decks, and pretty much anything other than linear racing (unless using T3feri to protect your combo).
That's what Wizards has been pushing and what they'll continue to push more. Battlecruiser Magic is what Hasbro has deemed to make sales skyrocket. That and having Treasures (ie. Masterpieces or foil Mythics) in mtg packs. Trading cardboard for money is the dream, similar to how Casinos print money.

I was a spell based player for many years. I played Control mostly, with the occasional Tempo and Combo. I loved Blue and still love Blue, no matter what I choose to play nowadays. But they stopped that many years ago. I was a Control player with hardly any way to outplay my opponents to win because my deck was not that good anymore. I had to learn how to play other strategies. I literally did not know combat math for many years. People who thought I was "good" probably did not know this. I learned combat math from Limited and by forcing myself to play the better decks in the metas of that time - Aggro and Midrange. It has helped a lot, but not playing Control for any extended time in the past 8 years or so has now made me worse at Control, lol. I think some players should try to branch out. It's tough. You love what you love. But you never know - you may end up loving something else nearly as much.

Don't get me wrong. If given the choice not to play Aggro or Midrange, I will always take that. But when those end up being the best perceived decks in certain metas, I can play them semi proficiently without literally vomiting on my own cards. :)
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

metalmusic_4
Posts: 260
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by metalmusic_4 » 2 years ago

I played my hogaak deck at a MCQ in Orlando FL yesterday and I thought I would write a bit about my experience. Bottom line is the meta is EXTREMLY hostile to hogaak and if I had it to do over again I would play a different deck. I dropped at 2-3. I expected alot of main board grave hate so I put rotting ragisaur in my main as a big threat that synetgized decently. I saw a very diverse field but there was alot of hogaak, tron, burn/pheonix variants as seemingly the most prevalent decks.
I played against a RG through the breach deck with primeval titan and valakut first round. He had main board chalices and 2 anger of the gods, with more angers in the side. Rotting ragisuar was an all star because it got around both those hate peices. I won 2-1.
Then I played against a recent pro tour participant on UR pheonix with MB surgicals. Surgical and TITI destroyed me game one and the ravenous traps in his side sealed the deal. I lost 0-2.
Game 3: E-tron. Hogaak was just to big and fast game one. Game 2 force of vigor destroying his map followed up with damping sphere just never let him get into the game. I won 2-0.
Game 4: Jund. I play paper and with W6 being so expensive I had never played against this new version of the deck before. I had a great opening hand, loaded my graveyard with a bloodghast and a vengevine set up for a hogaak and vine on turn two but a MB spellbomb shut that down. 2 Goyfs kill me quickly after that. Game 2 leyline of the void locked me out of the game and W6 just kept killing my small creatures. Rotting ragisaur ate a fatal push and then I lost 0-2.
My last round was a hogaak mirror match. This was the best game all day. We both had turn 2 hogaaks and huge graveyards. We both could attack with hogaak, block with hogaak and recast him the same turn, grave crawlers and ghasts coming back and getting saced over and over. It was awsome. He milled two vengevines before I did and that made the difference. Next game I mulled to 5 and he had a leyline to start with and I had a force of vigor. He played the leyline and I forced it, so I am down several cards. I was just too far behind and he beat me. I lost 0-2.

There were several former pro tour participants there and I didn't see any of them playing hogaak, they may have been but I didn't see it. The one I played spoke to me about the deck a bit. He expected hogaak itself to be the ban at the end of the month and he said several of his friends agreed. The head judge also made a joke about how many hogaak decks we were going to see at the start of the event. I left before top 8 was announced and there were still a few rounds to play, but the top tables looked like alot of Urza thopter sword, hogaak and pheonix decks.
Last edited by metalmusic_4 2 years ago, edited 1 time in total.

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

Post by Albegas » 2 years ago

Necrofish wrote:
2 years ago
Ashiok, Dream Render,Narset, Parter of Veils, Teferi, Time Raveler and Wrenn and Six
vs.
The Elderspell and Price of Betrayal.

While Ashiok and Narset are more answers than threats themselves, I think T3feri and W&6 count as threats.
Compare that to the answers we get. The best way to fight planeswalkers still seems to be proactive and just Discard or Counter them; never let them hit the board.

If I forgot any cards please comment on it.
There's also Angrath's Rampage and the white Beast Within (the name escapes me) if we're just talking about stuff from recent sets. More aggressive decks also the option of burn spells and creature swinging. Granted, good players won't drop Planeswalkers if they're just going to get blown away afterwards unless they need to to answer the board, but keeping pressure on an opponent and forcing them to either hold off playing Planeswalkers or using them as one for ones is unto itself an answer

I don't think the numbers comparison is really helpful though. We don't need one answer card for every possible threat, just enough good ones that the majority of the threats will be covered. Creature answers are a good example. You don't need to run 4 copies of a creature removal card for every non-recursive 4-of creature in the format (in fact I would surmise that there aren't enough) because we have good removal cards that answer enough of those creatures so that you just need to see more answers than they do threats. In other words, if my answers are good enough, I just need to draw X answers to X threats and win; it doesn't matter if they have Y more threats left in the hand or deck.

That being said, with the recent uptick of cheap Planeswalkers, it would be nice to see a few more answers to them that have other applications so as to make them main deck worthy. Figure something modal like Kaya's Guile with a planeswalker removal option or something a like two-cost black or white spell that can either hit a creature or hit a planeswalker. Given the current means of Planeswalker counter-play, I don't think we need a large sling of answers, just a few more good ones to make it easier for creature-light decks to answer Planeswalkers in those moments where they're caught without discard or counter spells.

User avatar
robertleva
Posts: 582
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by robertleva » 2 years ago

Arkmer wrote:
2 years ago
robertleva wrote:
2 years ago
You want Modern to be the Graveyard / Dredge format? Because this is how Modern becomes the Graveyard / Dredge format.
He doesn't actually say anything about graveyards at all in that post. The reason it's lead to a format with as much grave prevalence as some of us note is that they keep printing very strong things to go into those deck types. I would cite Hogaak as the indisputable, and Phoenix and Creeping Chill as proponents that created new or pushed existing decks into T1.

The combination of your statement and his post is just a statement about WotC printing more graveyard strategy cards that stuck to the format.

If over the next few years, WotC prints amazing answers to nearly everything in the format and we see the rise of 3 distinctly different types of control decks, then we would see that "new cards make decks viable", just in a different context. I certainly agree with the statement that we have a sort of surplus of things coming out of the graveyard. But until Hogaak is gone and we feel like we can analyze the format accurately again, I think calling it a graveyard format is only relative to the obnoxious 8/8 Trampler.
I could have been more clear on my reasoning but I stand by the statement. The post I was replying to was warpign tourney data to make it seem "perfectly fine" for Hogaak to be doing Hogaak things using logic like:
"We freak out when Pros decide to warp a meta to have 1 deck hold roughly 20% share on day 1. Meaning, you have 4 chances out of 5 to NOT play against it right? "
Yeah, no. That's not how statistics work.
Robert Leva
Creator of Modern's 8Rack Deck
Image

User avatar
FoodChainGoblins
Level 47
Posts: 859
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Riverside

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 2 years ago

idSurge wrote:
2 years ago
I don't agree they hit the wrong piece though. The aim should always be to have the deck remain at an appropriate power level.

I want everyone to get to keep their deck, as having 'your' deck taken from you, is easily the worst experience I've had in the 30 years I've been a gamer.
I understand what you're saying. Before Bridge from Below was banned, I was telling people that Hogaak, Arisen Necropolis is the correct ban if turn 2 Hogaak is unacceptable without the milling plan. I didn't know for sure if turn 2 Hogaak is acceptable since it can be Pathed or killed very few other ways, but maybe Modern's power level is okay with that? It turns out it isn't okay with that, just like I thought. Putting that much power onto the field that early is not good for Modern, at that low a cost. The meta nowadays revolves around 3-4 main board graveyard hate pieces with 4 Leyline of the Void in every single sideboard. Is that healthy?

And no matter what someone says, when your deck even takes a little hit, it really hurts. I never wanted to play several decks after something got banned and haven't really locked on any of those decks (Amulet, "Pod" aka Company, Kiki Mite/Copy Cat, KCI without KCI but with Semblance Anvil, Eggs without Second Sunrise, Storm without Seething Song) Yes, I know most of those are still very viable and 2 aren't. But none of those decks are at the top of the current meta and that's just the facts

*Sorry, actually E Tron is at the top of the meta, even without Eye of Ugin. But honestly I don't count that deck because I never enjoyed it. I felt dirty. I felt like I was playing Vintage vs. Modern.
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

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Modern”