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

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

Post by Aazadan » 1 year ago

Mtgthewary wrote:
1 year ago
they should started it with next standard. so people would play all standard because cards are now eternal too. even me, never playing standard would start with it too. don't understand why they made so many sets starting for where standard cards not so important already. and because they use standard, they could see problems too and print cards on standard caring about Pioneer too. so answers can come on only after 1 - 2 years. it could be developing together with standard a long time
I guarantee you they were planning Pioneer well in advance. The issues that lead to wanting another format inbetween Modern and Standard weren't some unknown quantity. In fact you can see this all the way back to where their last Modern Masters ended, conveniently stopping just in time to start branding them as Pioneer Masters.

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

Post by robertleva » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
Greeksis wrote:
1 year ago
Their last bannings were not timely; but they were spectacular and brave.
No they weren't. Players had been clamoring for exactly these bans for months, and celebrated their announcement! There was nothing "brave" about this ban. If anything, it would have been "brave" had they done this at their last scheduled B&R announcement, when they should have happened. Because the lack of action then is what sparked the outrage to have them act in an unprecedented way, banning several cards, 2 months away from rotation, completely unannounced.

That reeks of reactionary desperation.

And yet, nothing for Modern. Because not enough people are outraged enough to warrant them getting rid of T3feri or Veil or any number of obnoxious things that make for terrible gameplay and awful "not fun" experiences.
This is correct. Your bit about WOTC reacting (badly) to public outcry then coming up with some flimsy justification afterwards is also correct. I think going forward, you can expect WOTC to just make whatever changes the public force them to make by refusing to play the poorly managed formats. Pioneer events were not firing: Pioneer gets %$#% fixed. They only understand the bottom line.
Robert Leva
Creator of Modern's 8Rack Deck
Image

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

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 1 year ago

robertleva wrote:
1 year ago
This is correct. Your bit about WOTC reacting (badly) to public outcry then coming up with some flimsy justification afterwards is also correct. I think going forward, you can expect WOTC to just make whatever changes the public force them to make by refusing to play the poorly managed formats. Pioneer events were not firing: Pioneer gets %$#% fixed. They only understand the bottom line.
It's probably the best way to do things at this point. If the numbers agree with some specific decision, then go with it. You should at least have the numbers backing you, right?
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

User avatar
Ed06288
Posts: 169
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Ed06288 » 1 year ago

Overall I'm happy with the decisions WOTC makes. Modern is in a good spot. The pioneer shake-ups make me a little nervous though. We just had a no-ban announcement and then a surprise ban announcement. Very bad for people who picked up inverter combo pieces after the non-ban announcement.

My criticism of modern would be amulet titan getting access to valakut, the molten pinnacle. Also Uro being too good. Third on the list would be T3feri. Veil of summer doesn't bother me but I would confess this is personal preference. Matches are tight and often go to game 3. Still very enjoyable.

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

Post by Wraithpk » 1 year ago

Just an update on Project Modern: apparently Twin is really underperforming so far. And remember, they have Preordain legal (but Veil banned). Lists still need to be refined, but so far it's looking like Twin would be safe.
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
Ed06288
Posts: 169
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Ed06288 » 1 year ago

Regarding project modern, the August 3rd, B&R Announcement says nothing about neoform having the highest win percentage. I do like that it mentions dryad of the ilysian grove being too good.

That is just modern but with mox opal and twin legal.

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

Wraithpk wrote:
1 year ago
Just an update on Project Modern: apparently Twin is really underperforming so far. And remember, they have Preordain legal (but Veil banned). Lists still need to be refined, but so far it's looking like Twin would be safe.
Honestly, with some of the Sultai and Bant Uro lists I've been playing, if that card remains legal, I don't know if I would actually register Twin for a competitive event if it were legal. Like, I would, but mostly for the warm feelings of staring lovingly at the cards, but not because I thought it was the best deck by any means. Not surprised by this, and definitely looking forward to more from them.

User avatar
Ed06288
Posts: 169
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Ed06288 » 1 year ago

Well, project modern says Twin is okay. I guess I can look forward to building a goodstuff twin deck with a stoneforge package.

I still can't convince myself that preordain is okay. There just seems like no drawback on that card.

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

Post by ktkenshinx » 1 year ago

Wraithpk wrote:
1 year ago
Just an update on Project Modern: apparently Twin is really underperforming so far. And remember, they have Preordain legal (but Veil banned). Lists still need to be refined, but so far it's looking like Twin would be safe.
I am always a little doubtful of results from these kinds of relatively insular events. Metagames can look relatively tame when there are minimal incentives to finish big and/or less competitive player bases. We see this all the time in Modern MTGO events, where there's a CLEAR Tier .5 or Tier 0 deck and dozens of T32 finishers are willfully not playing this deck. Or in the recent Pioneer queues that were barely firing and MWPs were totally disproportionate to their deck's true power in more competitive fields. Even if you disagree with this, perhaps the clearest and least ambiguous examples of this are metagames just before a Pro/Player's Tour. Same cardpool. Same "known" metagame decks. But once the pros get at the metagame, they can break it wide open with strategies the non-pro field wasn't even considering. See PT Eldrazi. See post-Bridge Hogaak. See Amulet in 2015. If this is true when comparing high-incentive pro events to even regular incentive MTGO/SCG/paper events, it is almost certainly even more true of Project Modern's much smaller and less competitive events.

Twin and other decks may or may not be broken in the "true" Modern metagame. But we are very unlikely to learn it from Project Modern.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

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

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
Twin and other decks may or may not be broken in the "true" Modern metagame. But we are very unlikely to learn it from Project Modern.
I agree with you. But since Modern is not even a "Pro Tour" format anymore, it probably won't get broken open. Formats other than Limited and Standard are very unlikely to get broken by Pros because they choose to not play them all that often. Even Reid Duke, someone who plays Modern more than the average Pro, just usually defaults to some version of Jund (Midrange or Shadow).

Even if WotC decided to do some fairly safe unbans and then decided to do the next Pro Tour as Modern, there also is no guarantee that they would break something (and if they did, it would be most likely due to newer cards). I realize that the onus is on the card being proven NOT broken, as opposed to broken, once it's already banned. But this is just my feeling.

The bottom line is that those who believe Twin is fine will believe the results of Project Modern and those who don't will dispute it no matter what evidence is proven. So, I kind of get what you're saying about the effectiveness of it @ktkenshinx.
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

User avatar
Ed06288
Posts: 169
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Ed06288 » 1 year ago

That's saying it's okay to unban a broken card because no one would recognize it as being the best strategy. That's too gimmicky a reason to unban. I am inclined to think twin is okay powerwise because of the addition of war of the spark and modern horizons, but I'm not liking this sub-culture where twin must be unbanned. In the context of 2016 it was probably the right move to ban it.

Does project modern tinker with other cards on the ban list? I think there's better stuff to try unbanning.

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

Ed06288 wrote:
1 year ago
In the context of 2016 it was probably the right move to ban it.
The world will never know. What we *do* know is that 2016 was arguably the worst year in the history of Modern between both Eldrazi Winter and Pump-Aggro Summer/Fall. I'd say its misery is only rivaled by the brief reign of Hogaak. Who knows what Twin would have done, but it certainly would not have been center stage by any stretch of the imagination.

For all we know, Twin could have flown under the radar, just like Affinity, because the spotlight would be repeatedly stolen by all the other broken things that wreaked havoc on us in the meantime. But again, we will never know.

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

is only rivaled by the brief reign of Hogaak.
it's strange how Hogaak never really shot up in price, but Oko did.

people correctly predicted Hog would soon be banned.. but expected Oko to stay longer?
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
FoodChainGoblins
Level 47
Posts: 863
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Riverside

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 1 year ago

The Fluff wrote:
1 year ago
is only rivaled by the brief reign of Hogaak.
it's strange how Hogaak never really shot up in price, but Oko did.

people correctly predicted Hog would soon be banned.. but expected Oko to stay longer?
2 of my Hogaaks cost over $30 and that's a lot for a rare from a set where the Mythics take up a lot of value.
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

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

Post by Ym1r » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
Ed06288 wrote:
1 year ago
In the context of 2016 it was probably the right move to ban it.
The world will never know. What we *do* know is that 2016 was arguably the worst year in the history of Modern between both Eldrazi Winter and Pump-Aggro Summer/Fall. I'd say its misery is only rivaled by the brief reign of Hogaak. Who knows what Twin would have done, but it certainly would not have been center stage by any stretch of the imagination.

For all we know, Twin could have flown under the radar, just like Affinity, because the spotlight would be repeatedly stolen by all the other broken things that wreaked havoc on us in the meantime. But again, we will never know.
What an interesting text to analyze.
You start of by claiming that definitively none will ever know whether the ban was the right move in the context of 2016.
Then you make a claim that 2016 was the worst year in modern history. Eldrazi Winter is admittedly a horrible period of modern, however the "pump-Aggro Summer/Fall" is definitely not a term widely, or even nichely, used by the modern community.
In that context you repeat that none can possibly know, however you make a claim of certainty that Twin could not have been center stage. So we (or you in that case) DO seem to know something. It is interesting how the thing that you claim that we definitively know is the one that follows your own narrative.

In the next sentence you repeat "for all we know", claiming again that it is impossible to know, however you still make a claim of potentiality that fits your narrative, i.e. that it could had flown under the radar.
You then finish off by saying that we will never know.

If we "will never know", why then don't you make any hypotheses (since these are what they are if we will never know) about Twin actually being super strong in that meta game? Or why not make a claim that Twin would had remain a strong Tier 1 deck, following a trajectory more similar to Tron which, while it had its ups and downs, remained and remains one of the strongest decks in Modern.
If you want to make an unbiased claim that we will never know and throw some hypotheses, please do, but try to be at least somewhat objective. Your post is not a "we will never know" post. Your post is "I will say we will never know, but in reality I will rub the point that Twin would suck because that's what I believe".
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

Ym1r wrote:
1 year ago
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
Ed06288 wrote:
1 year ago
In the context of 2016 it was probably the right move to ban it.
The world will never know. What we *do* know is that 2016 was arguably the worst year in the history of Modern between both Eldrazi Winter and Pump-Aggro Summer/Fall. I'd say its misery is only rivaled by the brief reign of Hogaak. Who knows what Twin would have done, but it certainly would not have been center stage by any stretch of the imagination.

For all we know, Twin could have flown under the radar, just like Affinity, because the spotlight would be repeatedly stolen by all the other broken things that wreaked havoc on us in the meantime. But again, we will never know.
What an interesting text to analyze.
You start of by claiming that definitively none will ever know whether the ban was the right move in the context of 2016.
Then you make a claim that 2016 was the worst year in modern history. Eldrazi Winter is admittedly a horrible period of modern, however the "pump-Aggro Summer/Fall" is definitely not a term widely, or even nichely, used by the modern community.
What would you call the combination of Infect and DSZ that famously killed on or before turn 3 with pretty good consistency? Do you think the rest of 2016 was good? What do you think was the worst time in Modern's history? Is 2019/2020 worse, just based on pure amount of broken things?
In that context you repeat that none can possibly know, however you make a claim of certainty that Twin could not have been center stage. So we (or you in that case) DO seem to know something. It is interesting how the thing that you claim that we definitively know is the one that follows your own narrative.
I am making the assumption based on Affinity; the deck which was nearly identical to Twin in terms of prevalence and competitive success. A deck which sort of held its own, but "flew under the radar" as nobody ever claimed it was a problem. They did this because other things like Eldrazi and Infect/DSZ were orders of magnitude better and thus "drew the spotlight." (which is why I used that term specifically). If other things are broken, they seem to draw attention away from things that are "good, solid pillars and staples."
If you want to make an unbiased claim that we will never know and throw some hypotheses, please do, but try to be at least somewhat objective. Your post is not a "we will never know" post. Your post is "I will say we will never know, but in reality I will rub the point that Twin would suck because that's what I believe".
We had the example of Affinity, and I based my conclusion on that. Affinity remained legal, untouched for years, until falling to irrelevance, and then seeing a key piece banned years later for unrelated reasons. Is there any reason to believe Twin would have followed a different path? Maybe it got banned anyway years down the road? We'll never know. But the placement and progress of Affinity (remember, very similar metagame numbers and competitive success compared to Twin) gives us a look at what did happen to a similar "pillar."

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

Post by Ym1r » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
Spoiler
Show
Ym1r wrote:
1 year ago
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago

The world will never know. What we *do* know is that 2016 was arguably the worst year in the history of Modern between both Eldrazi Winter and Pump-Aggro Summer/Fall. I'd say its misery is only rivaled by the brief reign of Hogaak. Who knows what Twin would have done, but it certainly would not have been center stage by any stretch of the imagination.

For all we know, Twin could have flown under the radar, just like Affinity, because the spotlight would be repeatedly stolen by all the other broken things that wreaked havoc on us in the meantime. But again, we will never know.
What an interesting text to analyze.
You start of by claiming that definitively none will ever know whether the ban was the right move in the context of 2016.
Then you make a claim that 2016 was the worst year in modern history. Eldrazi Winter is admittedly a horrible period of modern, however the "pump-Aggro Summer/Fall" is definitely not a term widely, or even nichely, used by the modern community.
What would you call the combination of Infect and DSZ that famously killed on or before turn 3 with pretty good consistency? Do you think the rest of 2016 was good? What do you think was the worst time in Modern's history? Is 2019/2020 worse, just based on pure amount of broken things?
I wouldn't call that summer anything really as it never felt particularly oppressive to me. Infect and DSZ were indeed incredible powerhouses but neither deck ever felt unbeatable. At least in my experience, outside of the Eldrazi Winter the rest of 2016 was pretty ok. I would say, again personal opinion exclusively, that Eldrazi Winter and Hogaak summer are the worst periods of modern.
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
Spoiler
Show
In that context you repeat that none can possibly know, however you make a claim of certainty that Twin could not have been center stage. So we (or you in that case) DO seem to know something. It is interesting how the thing that you claim that we definitively know is the one that follows your own narrative.
I am making the assumption based on Affinity; the deck which was nearly identical to Twin in terms of prevalence and competitive success. A deck which sort of held its own, but "flew under the radar" as nobody ever claimed it was a problem. They did this because other things like Eldrazi and Infect/DSZ were orders of magnitude better and thus "drew the spotlight." (which is why I used that term specifically). If other things are broken, they seem to draw attention away from things that are "good, solid pillars and staples."
I don't think the comparisson between Affinity and Twin is a valid one. In terms of prevalence they are indeed comparable, however competitive success was never comparable, Twin has a significantly higher success rate than Affinity. At the same time, the most crucial part of the comparisson is left out, which is what these decks are and how they play. Affinity was outclassed by other better versions of itself (Hardened scales) or more potent aggro decks either because they are more disruptive (Humans) or faster (prowess). Affinity didn't fly under the radar because other decks "drew the spotlight" but simply because Affinity was not competitive any more and there were better versions of aggro decks out there.

Now, you can claim that there could had been a similar case for Twin, but as of now we don't have too many other combo/control decks outthere, at least not ones that had the potency of Twin. The only thing that was comparable both in terms of success and play patters is Urza, and it has seen several bans by now. We can agree or disagree on that, but the comparisson between Twin and Affinity is, I think, fruitless, because they are simply two completely different cases.
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
Spoiler
Show
If you want to make an unbiased claim that we will never know and throw some hypotheses, please do, but try to be at least somewhat objective. Your post is not a "we will never know" post. Your post is "I will say we will never know, but in reality I will rub the point that Twin would suck because that's what I believe".
We had the example of Affinity, and I based my conclusion on that. Affinity remained legal, untouched for years, until falling to irrelevance, and then seeing a key piece banned years later for unrelated reasons. Is there any reason to believe Twin would have followed a different path? Maybe it got banned anyway years down the road? We'll never know. But the placement and progress of Affinity (remember, very similar metagame numbers and competitive success compared to Twin) gives us a look at what did happen to a similar "pillar."
I already discussed the Affinity part of the claim. Regarding the bolded part, if, as you claim, we simply can't know, there as much reason there is to believe that Twin would have fallen off equally reasonable can be that it wouldn't. Again, you say we'll never know, but you still put forward the narrative you believe. It is fine (and known) to believe that Twin would not have been competitive but if you want (and clearly you do) to frame the discussion as hypothetical and "impossible to know" then, again, it is equally valid to argue, based on belief, that Twin would not have been fine and it would continue being up there with the most competitive decks (and whether I believe that or not is completely besides the point, I am not presenting an opinion). Again, if you make the same comparisson but with Tron this time instead of Affinity you can tell a completely different story.
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

Ym1r wrote:
1 year ago
I wouldn't call that summer anything really as it never felt particularly oppressive to me. Infect and DSZ were indeed incredible powerhouses but neither deck ever felt unbeatable. At least in my experience, outside of the Eldrazi Winter the rest of 2016 was pretty ok. I would say, again personal opinion exclusively, that Eldrazi Winter and Hogaak summer are the worst periods of modern.

I suppose it's fair to hold that opinion. My view as someone that loves reactive tempo/control decks, pretty much all of Modern was equally awful until at least 2018.
I don't think the comparisson between Affinity and Twin is a valid one. In terms of prevalence they are indeed comparable, however competitive success was never comparable, Twin has a significantly higher success rate than Affinity.
I guess this depends on available data and timeline choices. In 2015 Affinity's GP/PT placements were within margin of error, given the baked-in variance of our game.
At the same time, the most crucial part of the comparisson is left out, which is what these decks are and how they play. Affinity was outclassed by other better versions of itself (Hardened scales) or more potent aggro decks either because they are more disruptive (Humans) or faster (prowess). Affinity didn't fly under the radar because other decks "drew the spotlight" but simply because Affinity was not competitive any more and there were better versions of aggro decks out there.
Maybe. It took several years for these decks to emerge and Affinity remained relevant-but-not-top for quite a while.
Now, you can claim that there could had been a similar case for Twin, but as of now we don't have too many other combo/control decks outthere, at least not ones that had the potency of Twin. The only thing that was comparable both in terms of success and play patters is Urza, and it has seen several bans by now. We can agree or disagree on that, but the comparisson between Twin and Affinity is, I think, fruitless, because they are simply two completely different cases.
Yeah, that's a total other variable to consider. After Twin was removed, Modern was basically "do whatever you want because control decks are irrelevant" for at least the next 3 years. It would take about a dozen new cards to change that.
I already discussed the Affinity part of the claim. Regarding the bolded part, if, as you claim, we simply can't know, there as much reason there is to believe that Twin would have fallen off equally reasonable can be that it wouldn't. Again, you say we'll never know, but you still put forward the narrative you believe. It is fine (and known) to believe that Twin would not have been competitive but if you want (and clearly you do) to frame the discussion as hypothetical and "impossible to know" then, again, it is equally valid to argue, based on belief, that Twin would not have been fine and it would continue being up there with the most competitive decks (and whether I believe that or not is completely besides the point, I am not presenting an opinion). Again, if you make the same comparisson but with Tron this time instead of Affinity you can tell a completely different story.
I never said Twin wouldn't be competitive at all. I said it was would have flown under the radar, like Affinity, because we can't seem to go more than 6 months without something else breaking and drawing attention to itself. With regards to Tron, no version of it was ever as good or as popular as either Affinity or Twin. Jund might be a good comparison though, as it was another staple pillar that fell to irrelevance due to being outclassed. And might have stayed there if it weren't for multiple powerful new cards. I don't think the same can be said for Twin. For every new tool Twin might use, there are two or three that absolutely wreck it. Just a thought. 🤷‍♂️

Edit: lastly, with Uro control as good as it is, I don't even care if Twin comes back or not. Like it absolutely SHOULD, for a myriad of reasons, but arguing about it is more of an academic thought experiment than anything meaningful. We know WOTC hates the deck and will never bring it back, whether it makes sense or not.

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

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
I never said Twin wouldn't be competitive at all. I said it was would have flown under the radar, like Affinity, because we can't seem to go more than 6 months without something else breaking and drawing attention to itself. With regards to Tron, no version of it was ever as good or as popular as either Affinity or Twin. Jund might be a good comparison though, as it was another staple pillar that fell to irrelevance due to being outclassed. And might have stayed there if it weren't for multiple powerful new cards. I don't think the same can be said for Twin. For every new tool Twin might use, there are two or three that absolutely wreck it. Just a thought. 🤷‍♂️

Edit: lastly, with Uro control as good as it is, I don't even care if Twin comes back or not. Like it absolutely SHOULD, for a myriad of reasons, but arguing about it is more of an academic thought experiment than anything meaningful. We know WOTC hates the deck and will never bring it back, whether it makes sense or not.
I think the comparison of Twin to Affinity is a fair one. The main difference is that better players are attracted more to Twin (Pro Players, Grinders, and people that perfect a deck). Even with this so, there still were a lot of strong players attracted to Affinity as well. I think the differences come down to this. Twin is much harder to hate out because you have to dedicate enough hate to slow down your own game plan, beat Blood Moon, and be able to grind through Bolt/Snap/Bolt/Cryptic. Vs. Affinity, you mostly have to weather the turns 1-3, have some early hate, and possibly some destructive cards like Stony Silence and get to the midgame at higher than a Galvanic Blast range. I know this is definitely SUPER simplifying it, but it lists some differences between the decks. Pros are going to be more attracted to a deck that can Blood Moon people (I know Affinity can too, but they lose something when they do it too) and will be able to give the player a way to construct a line to win in almost any situation. Affinity can't do that, but its tradeoff is winning before someone can stabilize or make it to a certain turn. And I certainly realize that everyone here in this whole thread understands this. (Me writing this is more for myself to remember the differences.)

@Ym1r - I personally saw that time as Dredge/Infect meta. I did not think any other decks were particularly close in power level. I played Dredge myself and prided myself in having a better than average Infect matchup cuz that's really the only deck I cared about. I also felt like E Winter and Hogaak were the only truly terrible tiimes in Modern history, but you can't fault someone else for feeling differently. Cfusionpm is free to feel like that was a bad time, especially since WotC thought the SAME and banned Golgari Grave-Troll and Gitaxian Probe.

Now I will say this. I know it gets excruciating for some people to hear someone harp on Twin so much. I realize this. But you can ignore it. You don't have to feed into it. I harp on Preordain quite a bit. I see many people not engaging with me and that gives me nothing really more to say about it. You cannot force someone to feel a certain way about something, those pushing Twin or Preordain included. But everyone is free to have their opinion. Edgar Magalhaes told me in his Twitchtv chat that the original Companion rule with Lurrus was fine, but Twin shouldn't be unbanned. Did I tell him he's dumb? No, he's free to have whatever opinion he likes. I don't have to agree with it.

*Regarding doing the comparison of Tron to Twin, I feel there's no comparison. Tron has never reached the metashare in Modern and has rarely even been Tier 1 in my opinion. When E Winter and Hogaak ruled, Affinity was still very good. Tron wasn't. The only time I can see Tron being super good is right now in Eldrazi Tron, not big Tron. Big Tron has just been a deck to beat up on Control (and doesn't even do that now), Midrange, and hover near Tier 1 ranks.
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

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

Post by robertleva » 1 year ago

Yay more Twin talk. Fans of the card don't want to / refuse to admit that the card creates play patterns in the game that enough people find obnoxious that it stays banned. I dont care about win rates. I dont care about other combo's being better. This Card. Is Dead.

#letitgo
Robert Leva
Creator of Modern's 8Rack Deck
Image

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

robertleva wrote:
1 year ago
Yay more Twin talk. Fans of the card don't want to / refuse to admit that the card creates play patterns in the game that enough people find obnoxious that it stays banned. I dont care about win rates. I dont care about other combo's being better. This Card. Is Dead.

#letitgo
Either read the substance and content of posts, or ignore them and move on.
FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
I personally saw that time as Dredge/Infect meta.
I honestly forgot that period was also a Dredge mess... likely because I was more focused on the Probe ban at the time, and Dredge's more recent memories of Looting + Chill simply overshadow it. But yeah, Dredge/Pump Aggro* was nearly as bad as Eldrazi. 2016 was f**king awful.

*I'll add that, with regards to terminology, the era was commonly referred to as "linear summer" which then bled into the entire rest of the year, if I remember correctly. That "linear" name generally referred to the combination of Dredge (newly powered up by Cathartic Reunion and Prized Amalgam) as well as the speed and efficiency of Infect and Death's Shadow Zoo (and to a lesser extent, "Bloo" decks). Each of the non-Dredge decks relied on casting spells to pump up cheap/small creatures in order to win as fast as possible; hence "Pump Aggro." I don't know if that term was widely used, but I personally used that term ever since the Probe ban itself, as a way to group together the decks hit by the ban.

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

Post by drmarkb » 1 year ago

Ignoring Twin talk and bedroom Modern and anything else where the banlist is not that of Modern, ignoring the banlist entirely, and moving to the future of Modern- the questions on my mind are

Will Modern become an online only format- a reason to keep mtgo? What big events will have it? Do people enjoy the format in enough numbers to play *in paper* in large events?

What is the function of Modern in a world where they need Pioneer to exist and Legacy players are as tenacious about their format (and their dual lands are only going up and are liquid) as Twin fans are about their deck? If Legacy refuses to die how can Modern survive, unless it is online?

Is there one more MH set before the format dies or will wotc cut their losses and go into Pioneer masters cutting out MH2.

I think the last one will be most telling- I have no idea when Modern will cease as a format, but I would suspect 12 months after MH2 might be the time paper Modern is cut out completely outside of FNM,

In a covid era, where the US, Brazil etc. are looking screwed for the immediate, and where Europe and Australia are beginning to look towards a resurgence, paper is dead. When it returns- and it will with a vaccine (DV)- how many formats can it support beyond EDH?

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

Honestly, a lot of that could be answered by a hypothetical article announcing foals and visions for the format; an update to the laughably out-of-date, and entirely-irrelevant piece from 4 and a half years ago.

I would love to play in paper again, at least at the FNM level. And I will happily go to any local GP.... to avoid the main event and play Commander with the other "filthy casuals" at the back tables. :P

User avatar
AvalonAurora
Posts: 171
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: they / them

Post by AvalonAurora » 1 year ago

drmarkb wrote:
1 year ago
Ignoring Twin talk and bedroom Modern and anything else where the banlist is not that of Modern, ignoring the banlist entirely, and moving to the future of Modern- the questions on my mind are

Will Modern become an online only format- a reason to keep mtgo? What big events will have it? Do people enjoy the format in enough numbers to play *in paper* in large events?

What is the function of Modern in a world where they need Pioneer to exist and Legacy players are as tenacious about their format (and their dual lands are only going up and are liquid) as Twin fans are about their deck? If Legacy refuses to die how can Modern survive, unless it is online?

Is there one more MH set before the format dies or will wotc cut their losses and go into Pioneer masters cutting out MH2.

I think the last one will be most telling- I have no idea when Modern will cease as a format, but I would suspect 12 months after MH2 might be the time paper Modern is cut out completely outside of FNM,

In a covid era, where the US, Brazil etc. are looking screwed for the immediate, and where Europe and Australia are beginning to look towards a resurgence, paper is dead. When it returns- and it will with a vaccine (DV)- how many formats can it support beyond EDH?
I think magic will remain an online primarily game in most areas as long as Covid remains a prominent issue. I don't know if people will come back to paper after such is over, it partly remains to be seen if there might be lasting cultural changes post-Covid, or if not playing paper for a while will cause players to leave the game who didn't switch to digital at least temporarily or something like that, but I think if the game continues to exist in prominent paper numbers, then Modern will return to paper about as strong as it is on MTGO relative to other formats there (sans EDH, which is more casual focused and might be more popular in paper than online, relatively speaking).

I don't think being stuck between Pioneer and Legacy will kill Modern, if anything, Pioneer will fail to take off, because while it doesn't have some of Modern's most problematic potential cards, it also has even worse issues of the kind of cards it is missing to make a stable metagame for it's size, and it's entire premise is based on faulty assumptions based on impossible player desires. I find the idea of a non-rotating format that remains near Standard power levels ridiculous, because simple more options for synergies will power up many decks over time unless you go so crazy with bans you are basically using bans as a pseudo-rotation. Pioneer will either become a broken mess, ban hell that people are terrified to buy into, or will quickly violate the principles of being something way more powerful than standard, and Modern's larger card pool will make it more attractive to many at that point who don't want to go full Legacy/Vintage.

I think a Modern Horizons 2 could be great. The first one gave us some great stuff like Force of Negation, Archmage's Charm, Giver of Runes, and Collector Ouphe even if it also gave us some more problematic stuff and stuff that needed to be banned, I'm hopeful that a round 2 will have less problematic stuff and more things the format needs because of lessons they might have learned with round 1. I kinda expect they might give us a pioneer horizons though, to try to give that format the tools it needs to stabilize somewhat in the medium term and reduce the number of needed combo bans by giving the format the means to fight back against whatever combos float to the top of the metagame, and such could help modern as well if it's made Modern legal too. I suspect we're in for a Pioneer Masters before that though.

I think Wizards probably wants Modern to remain, and wants Legacy and Vintage to die, and Modern to become the new Legacy. They don't actually want Pioneer to become the new Modern though, Modern wasn't really set out to be a place where people can still play their Standard deck with relatively little tweaks after rotation, which is what Pioneer seems to have been set out to be, Modern was made to be a thing that was more manageable than Legacy and Vintage thanks to dropping a bunch of older baggage from early particularly unbalanced stuff, and something they could actively support without the issue of the Reserved List, with a vague extra guideline of the 'turn 4 rule' to keep things from being too degenerate and scaring off too many players like Legacy and Vintage sometimes can.

For a little while, Modern was able to also fill the role that Pioneer was intended to, at least to some degree in less competitive areas, but as it's card pool grew, this potential died off.

I don't think the death of Modern would be related to MH2, but instead, it would be if paper magic doesn't return to prominence, and wizards ends MTGO without adding Modern to MTGArena. I don't think MTG Arena is anywhere near ready for being Wizards' main product though, it's got serious issues with certain types of gameplay that MTGO doesn't have, and it doesn't run on a wide enough array of computer/console/etc. systems yet to enable a large enough potential player base for it to seem like a 'safe' way for Wizards to replace paper magic. Plus, digital card games have more serious competition out there and have their popularity rise and wane faster than paper card games, so it would be a risky gamble if Wizards shifted to too much of an online type of game any time soon.

As for post-Covid paper magic, and what formats it can support beyond EDH? Probably whatever is played in MTGO at the time, in similar ratios for Standard, Pioneer, and Modern, but likely different for EDH and Legacy/Vintage for various reasons.

I think Wizards does need to refine their mission statements for Pioneer and Modern both, as well as stop keeping the data hidden, so people can properly predict likely bans.

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

Post by Wraithpk » 1 year ago

Ed06288 wrote:
1 year ago

Does project modern tinker with other cards on the ban list? I think there's better stuff to try unbanning.
Yeah, Mox Opal, Bridge from Below, and Preordain are all legal and seem fine, which probably won't surprise anyone here. Faithless Looting was legal, but it needed to be banned for the same reason it got banned in real Modern: graveyard decks were too good. They also have Veil of Summer banned.
robertleva wrote:
1 year ago
Yay more Twin talk. Fans of the card don't want to / refuse to admit that the card creates play patterns in the game that enough people find obnoxious that it stays banned. I dont care about win rates. I dont care about other combo's being better. This Card. Is Dead.

#letitgo
That's not a good reason for a deck to be banned or stay banned. A lot of people hate Tron, is that a good reason to ban it? Lots of people don't like prison cards like Blood Moon, Ensnaring Bridge, and Chalice of the Void, should we ban them just because of that? And let's be clear: a lot of people really loved Twin. So why should your opinion of the deck carry more weight than mine?
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

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Modern”