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

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

Ya but the real question is, how did Esper Mentor go for you last night. :p
UR Control UR

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1109
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
Ya but the real question is, how did Esper Mentor go for you last night. :p
1-2 drop after second loss was to double nut draws from Burn games 2 and 3, despite 2 main deck Rest for the Weary, bunches of removal, and effectively 10+ Snapcaster effects. Answers are a chump's game. Get em dead and interact as little as possible. "London Mulligan helps reactive decks find answers!" :party:

User avatar
ktkenshinx
Posts: 571
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: West Coast
Contact:

Post by ktkenshinx » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
Ya but the real question is, how did Esper Mentor go for you last night. :p
1-2 drop after second loss was to double nut draws from Burn games 2 and 3, despite 2 main deck Rest for the Weary, bunches of removal, and effectively 10+ Snapcaster effects. Answers are a chump's game. Get em dead and interact as little as possible. :party:
I'm not sure if this is format bashing, but it's definitely inaccurate. Jund and UW Control remain two of the best decks in the format with significant interaction. An N=2 loss to Burn on your rogue deck is wildly disproportionate evidence to the claim that "answers are a chump.'s game." Please don't allow your personal experiences in this kind of isolated venue to feed sweeping claims about the format that are factually inaccurate on a large scale.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

Burn, just always sitting there waiting, ready to kill someone. :p

Timely in the side, or Kor Firewalker (Mono R or RG Phoenix) even if you really wanted to hedge.
UR Control UR

User avatar
The Fluff
is this so?
Posts: 1943
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Gradius Home World
Contact:

Post by The Fluff » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
Ya but the real question is, how did Esper Mentor go for you last night. :p
1-2 drop after second loss was to double nut draws from Burn games 2 and 3, despite 2 main deck Rest for the Weary, bunches of removal, and effectively 10+ Snapcaster effects. Answers are a chump's game. Get em dead and interact as little as possible. :party:
I'm not sure if this is format bashing, but it's definitely inaccurate. Jund and UW Control remain two of the best decks in the format with significant interaction. An N=2 loss to Burn on your rogue deck is wildly disproportionate evidence to the claim that "answers are a chump.'s game." Please don't allow your personal experiences in this kind of isolated venue to feed sweeping claims about the format that are factually inaccurate on a large scale.
Burn is the kind of deck that somehow still wins even if there are maindeck anti-burn cards, they are one of the more consistent decks in modern. My uw emeria control has 3 lone missionary and 2 finks in the main + ways to blink those. Burn can still slip through sometimes. It's also not guaranteed to draw all those lifegain cards, sometimes I draw the wrong half of the deck and get burned out. Bring in 2 veto, one dovin, hand of control, and a worship game 2. :)
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

metalmusic_4
Posts: 260
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by metalmusic_4 » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
They were totally wrong about Hogaak being acceptable, but that doesn't mean the Bridge ban was wrong.
What!? That's exactly what it means. They made a guess about the future deck evolution based on too little data since they made the ban so quickly and the guessed wrong. This has been borne out in our current meta. I guess we will never know EXACTLY what bridge would have done in the future with it being banned and all, but we have past evidence it did virtually nothing in modern for almost a decade while Hogaak existed only 3 weeks when its deck first got a ban just for hogaak to carry on winning left and right even after that, albeit usually turn 4 instead of turn two, and it too will be banned at the next B&R announcement.

We can agree to disagree here, but a ban is supposed to be used to fix a problem. The bridge ban did not solve the problem, and that makes it the wrong decision. BBE vs DRS all over again. Time proved the problem was really DRS with that proof being its ban. This time it will be proven the problem is really hogaak when it is banned at the end of this month.

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

If the worry was not the aggro, but the combo kill, Bridge was still right to ban.

Wizards is pretty consistently going to remove fast combo kills.
UR Control UR

metalmusic_4
Posts: 260
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by metalmusic_4 » 1 year ago

The worry was its dominance but even if the combo was the main concern that could have been removed with banning any one of a few cards(bridge, alter or hogaak). They chose to ban bridge and the deck is still oppressively dominate and that means they made the wrong decision.

They could have just banned one card (hogaak) instead of two if they had made a better decision. That's all I'm saying.

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1109
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

metalmusic_4 wrote:
1 year ago
.
They could have just banned one card (hogaak) instead of two if they had made a better decision. That's all I'm saying.
If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas. We can't expect them to make nuanced and delicate decisions about a format they do not test for, and clearly show little understanding of.

User avatar
ktkenshinx
Posts: 571
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: West Coast
Contact:

Post by ktkenshinx » 1 year ago

metalmusic_4 wrote:
1 year ago
ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
They were totally wrong about Hogaak being acceptable, but that doesn't mean the Bridge ban was wrong.
What!? That's exactly what it means. They made a guess about the future deck evolution based on too little data since they made the ban so quickly and the guessed wrong. This has been borne out in our current meta. I guess we will never know EXACTLY what bridge would have done in the future with it being banned and all, but we have past evidence it did virtually nothing in modern for almost a decade while Hogaak existed only 3 weeks when its deck first got a ban just for hogaak to carry on winning left and right even after that, albeit usually turn 4 instead of turn two, and it too will be banned at the next B&R announcement.
I would agree with you if Hogaak didn't enter Modern alongside Feeder and Altar. If just Hogaak joined Bridge and Bridge suddenly became broken, Hogaak was clearly the right ban in the beginning. But it wasn't just Hogaak, and Wizards had to figure out the most problematic piece of the Feeder/Bridge/Altar/Hogaak combination that resulted in a broken deck. Wizards focused on the combo aspect. This sole focus was wrong, but if that was the focus, then Bridge was the correct target. They eliminated the "one-turn win combo" as cited in their article, specifically targeting a "graveyard combo archetype" enabled by Bridge. Bridge was the right ban to accomplish that and now we don't see one-turn win Hogaak decks.

Unfortunately, they missed that behind the graveyard combo archetype revolving around Bridge was an even better graveyard aggro archetype revolving around Hogaak. In that sense, they didn't additionally ban the card they needed to in order to prevent future problems. But they did successfully ban out the combo deck they, too narrowly, focused on. The Bridge ban may have been correct (i.e. "doesn't mean the Bridge ban was wrong"), but the overall decision to focus solely on the combo aspect and ignore Hogaak was definitely wrong.
metalmusic_4 wrote:
1 year ago
The worry was its dominance but even if the combo was the main concern that could have been removed with banning any one of a few cards(bridge, alter or hogaak). They chose to ban bridge and the deck is still oppressively dominate and that means they made the wrong decision.
I agree the decision as a whole was wrong. The correct decision was probably to ban Bridge AND Hogaak. But the failure to ban both does not mean the individual Bridge ban was wrong. Altar/Feeder/Bridge combo might have been just as bad or slightly less bad but still problematic. We'll never know.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

I just don't understand the hand wringing over Bridge. This card was never going to do anything but add to the weight of aggro/gy type decks, and I'm sorry but the inn's full, try some other format.

We didn't need Bridgevine, we didn't need Hogaak, and we don't need Bridge in the format.

Was Hogaak too much? Clearly so.

So Bridge is gone, nothing of value was lost.
UR Control UR

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1109
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
Ya but the real question is, how did Esper Mentor go for you last night. :p
1-2 drop after second loss was to double nut draws from Burn games 2 and 3, despite 2 main deck Rest for the Weary, bunches of removal, and effectively 10+ Snapcaster effects. Answers are a chump's game. Get em dead and interact as little as possible. :party:
I'm not sure if this is format bashing, but it's definitely inaccurate. Jund and UW Control remain two of the best decks in the format with significant interaction. An N=2 loss to Burn on your rogue deck is wildly disproportionate evidence to the claim that "answers are a chump.'s game." Please don't allow your personal experiences in this kind of isolated venue to feed sweeping claims about the format that are factually inaccurate on a large scale.
It was definitely spoken tongue-in-cheek, but it has long been that "answers" decks are inferior to "questions" decks, and this was an instance in which this was the case. With specific regards to Jund, they were irrelevant for the past several years, and are only back now because of a slew of upgraded, undercosted, high-value threats. And UW is good because of static, repeating, prison lock effects via Planeswalkers and enchantments.

And these are the experiences you will be having if you are not a prison deck or damage racing most of the time, and they will absolutely be happening at every top table. It's not just one experience with one deck; it's nearly four years of playing interactive cantrip decks and getting stomped on by count-to-20 decks that just have better, faster, more consistent plays (and just got disproportionately better with London Mulligan). That's what Modern is at the competitive level. If Modern were a bunch of janky tier 2 and 3 trash smashing into each other, I would be in heaven. Most of those (outside of glass cannon combos) are incredibly fun and interactive to play. It's just unfortunate that every paper encounter I have is full of "the best decks in Modern" which lead to awful play patterns and terrible experiences most of the time.

Luckily for me though, school is starting back up again soon and I won't have time to play anymore. This is probably for the best because, I imagine the next few months of Modern could be truly awful. We have a Modern GP this weekend (with zero video coverage), and another two Modern GPs over the following weeks. However, the next B&R announcement is the day after GP Vegas, which means, that unless there is some random emergency ban, ALL of the data and information from these three major events is totally worthless once Hogaak is banned. We then have only 1 single Modern event for the rest of the year, in the end of November. So I imagine they will just pretend Hogaak doesn't exist until it ruins all three of these GPs, and then they ban it, and ignore Modern entirely for at least the next six months.

User avatar
Albegas
Posts: 127
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Albegas » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
It was definitely spoken tongue-in-cheek, but it has long been that "answers" decks are inferior to "questions" decks, and this was an instance in which this was the case. With specific regards to Jund, they were irrelevant for the past several years, and are only back now because of a slew of upgraded, undercosted, high-value threats. And UW is good because of static, repeating, prison lock effects via Planeswalkers and enchantments.
You're not wrong, about the fact that interactive decks haven't been the best options for a while, but it seems odd to be that you aren't praising the recent buffs to Jund and UW. I understand your complaints about UW Control's use of static effects even if I don't agree with them, but it seems weird that you're complaining that Jund's only good now because of upgraded, undercosted, high-value threats. What exactly did you think was going to put Jund or any form of BGx midrange back on the map? Fair decks were never going to be good just with slight increments to their ability to interact. They needed more cards that could do two things with one card, be it something modal like Cryptic Command or something that can be both a threat and an answer. We simply ended up with more of the latter rather than the former.
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
And these are the experiences you will be having if you are not a prison deck or damage racing most of the time, and they will absolutely be happening at every top table. It's not just one experience with one deck; it's nearly four years of playing interactive cantrip decks and getting stomped on by count-to-20 decks that just have better, faster, more consistent plays (and just got disproportionately better with London Mulligan). That's what Modern is at the competitive level. If Modern were a bunch of janky tier 2 and 3 trash smashing into each other, I would be in heaven. Most of those (outside of glass cannon combos) are incredibly fun and interactive to play. It's just unfortunate that every paper encounter I have is full of "the best decks in Modern" which lead to awful play patterns and terrible experiences most of the time.
Two things in this paragraph I have to disagree with. First, even if you discount UW Control as a prison deck (something I heavily disagree with) Jund is quite literally an interactive deck not seeking to race damage until about turn 4. The "janky tier 2 and 3 trash" line also seems off. If every match you played was nothing but T2 and T3 decks, I don't see how those decks wouldn't be classified as T1 and T2 decks. Maybe there was something else you were implying, but by the very definition of tiers, you will see T1 decks more than T2 or T3 decks in competitive environments. If you meant that at face value and really never want to see a format's T1 decks in a tournament, competitive formats may not be for you. If it's a complaint that you specifically don't want to see Modern's T1 decks, as someone suggested before, you should check out Pauper or other formats, because barring Hogaak or some random card in a standard set breaking Modern, I'd imagine most of Modern's T1 decks will be here for a while. I'm not trying to be rude and chase you out of a format, but your frustration with the format has been noted for literally years now, and it just seems like it'd be easier on you to experiment with other formats and just wait and see if Modern ever turns into what you want it to be rather than continue to grind an ax in perpetual frustration

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1109
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

Never said Jund isn't interactive, just that it's strength doesn't come from its interaction. Its strength is interaction backed by cheap and super efficient "must answer" threats. Jund had been irrelevant for at least the past year or two, even after getting back BBE. Jund is good now, specifically due to the buffs it received from MH1.

And I don't praise the buffs made to UW because I would literally rather see turn 3 Karn than T3feri or Narset. And unfortunately, those horrendous design mistakes will live on and continue to cause terrible gameplay in the deepest layers of my own personal hell for the foreseeable future. :sick: :sick: :sick:

Just my personal view. :hmm:

Either way, what I'm most put off by, is the huge chunk of modern data that we will be getting in the next few weeks will be absolutely and completely useless. And then we have no meaningful modern events for months. Which means people will continue to use League data and anecdotal stories to justify whether they think this format is great or garbage.
Last edited by cfusionpm 1 year ago, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

Albegas wrote:
1 year ago
Jund's only good now because of upgraded, undercosted, high-value threats. What exactly did you think was going to put Jund or any form of BGx midrange back on the map?
This is also (DRS, Goyf, Lily) the only thing that actually made them good in the first place.
UR Control UR

User avatar
The Fluff
is this so?
Posts: 1943
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Gradius Home World
Contact:

Post by The Fluff » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
And I don't praise the buffs made to UW because I would literally rather see turn 3 Karn than T3feri or Narset. And unfortunately, those horrendous design mistakes will live on and continue to cause terrible gameplay in the deepest layers of my own personal hell for the foreseeable future. :sick: :sick: :sick:
I guess T3feri and Narset are indeed bad for the ur style of playing mtg that you like. The static abilities of these walkers are actually stronger than +1 abiilites imo, because static are always in effect until the walker leaves the board.
idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
I just don't understand the hand wringing over Bridge. This card was never going to do anything but add to the weight of aggro/gy type decks, and I'm sorry but the inn's full, try some other format.
any deck that adds bfb to the decklist aims to abuse bfb. Although not sure if the bridge ban was right or not. Bridgevine was fine until Hogaak came into the scene. Did wotc kill the wrong animal?
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

metalmusic_4
Posts: 260
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by metalmusic_4 » 1 year ago

idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
I just don't understand the hand wringing over Bridge. This card was never going to do anything but add to the weight of aggro/gy type decks, and I'm sorry but the inn's full, try some other format.

We didn't need Bridgevine, we didn't need Hogaak, and we don't need Bridge in the format.

Was Hogaak too much? Clearly so.

So Bridge is gone, nothing of value was lost.
"So Bridge is gone, nothing of value was lost."
I disagree with this logic. Following this logic we could easily ban 500 commons that don't see any play right now. Nothing of value would be lost. Would that be the right thing to do? Of coarce not, you ban the problem card when you have too.
The issue is ban list mismanagement. Like BBE vs DRS. They could have only banned one card(hogaak) but now we will have 2 cards banned and that IMO is mismanagment plain and simple.

User avatar
robertleva
Posts: 484
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by robertleva » 1 year ago

metalmusic_4 wrote:
1 year ago
idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
I just don't understand the hand wringing over Bridge. This card was never going to do anything but add to the weight of aggro/gy type decks, and I'm sorry but the inn's full, try some other format.

We didn't need Bridgevine, we didn't need Hogaak, and we don't need Bridge in the format.

Was Hogaak too much? Clearly so.

So Bridge is gone, nothing of value was lost.
"So Bridge is gone, nothing of value was lost."
I disagree with this logic. Following this logic we could easily ban 500 commons that don't see any play right now. Nothing of value would be lost. Would that be the right thing to do? Of coarce not, you ban the problem card when you have too.
The issue is ban list mismanagement. Like BBE vs DRS. They could have only banned one card(hogaak) but now we will have 2 cards banned and that IMO is mismanagment plain and simple.
You are correct that Bridge was purely collateral damage. I said that at the beginning of this thread as well. However the other guy is right that we dont frigging need any more decks that would use Bridge in modern regardless of Hogaak being broke. So the net result will be Bridge and Hogaak both banned, Looting will live on to dominate the format since it is clearly the poster child for the format.
Robert Leva
Creator of Modern's 8Rack Deck
Image

metalmusic_4
Posts: 260
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by metalmusic_4 » 1 year ago

That point of view is fine enough to me. Others are now saying similar things that are not all the way to my POV but they have moved away from the starting position of something like, "Bridge was the right ban, period." So I guess that is all I can hope for.

***As long as we acknowledge the bridge ban was collateral damage, much like BBE was, and not the root cause I am happy enough.***

I love modern and I will play it pretty much no matter what the meta looks like, but the size of the ban list is a GREAT concern to me. Ban list should be as small as possible to give the most players access to different tools to play different kinds of decks. I think we all agree with that statement. The concern is deck diversity, if one deck is to dominate it invalidates many other decks people might want to play. We all understand and agree with that too I believe.

So that gets us to ban list management as a balance to make the most people happy. Obviously we all will never agree on everything, but I view opinions like, "well this card could have broke something in the future," or "there was nothing of value lost with that ban anyway so who cares," as very dangerous slippery slopes that could be applied to ban almost anything. I am not attacking anyone personally, this is a philosophy and management discussion.

User avatar
The Fluff
is this so?
Posts: 1943
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Gradius Home World
Contact:

Post by The Fluff » 1 year ago

I love modern and I will play it pretty much no matter what the meta looks like
same, would be playing as well no matter what things look like. :>

although had a hard time when the eldrazi took over modern for a short time.
forced to build a ur eldrazi deck during those times to be able to keep up with the meta.
Spoiler
Show
BattleforZendikar.jpg
As for the present, I believe wotc only need to get rid of Hogaak, and things would be fine again.
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
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

metalmusic_4 wrote:
1 year ago
"So Bridge is gone, nothing of value was lost."
I disagree with this logic. Following this logic we could easily ban 500 commons that don't see any play right now. Nothing of value would be lost. Would that be the right thing to do? Of coarce not, you ban the problem card when you have too.
The issue is ban list mismanagement. Like BBE vs DRS. They could have only banned one card(hogaak) but now we will have 2 cards banned and that IMO is mismanagment plain and simple.
I get you on the list management angle, I really do. To me though its like...Treasure Hunt or Belcher decks. They do something, and its really weird within the context of Aggro/Mid/Control/Combo.

I just dont need more of those things in my life. You mention you love Modern, and you'll play it regardless of the meta. To me, thats a contradiction. Modern is so vast one meta could be COMPLETELY unpalatable compared to another.

Bridge was never going to do anything remotely fair and if it was part of a competitive deck, it was going to be busted and demand GY hate. Thats not a good deck to add to the other 5+ GY decks at the top of the format.
UR Control UR

User avatar
Albegas
Posts: 127
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Albegas » 1 year ago

This is my hot take on Bridge. I actually wanted Hogaak banned and not Bridge back when we had the last pair of polls. Is this because I knew Hogaak would continue to be a problem? Not a chance. My feeble deck building mind couldn't even comprehend that Hogaak would be an issue. I simply thought that banning Hogaal but keeping bridge would allow a unique Altar mill deck exist in Modern, which I thought would be interesting.

Of course, that unto itself could be an issue. There's not a lot you can do against a really good mill deck. Yeah we have cards that can reshuffle our graves into our decks, but most can be Surgicaled and become dead cards when drawn. The only one that works when drawn that comes to mind is Elixir of Immortality, and fast mill can strip you of it before you play it (and then get Surgicaled)

I don't have evidence that Wizards thought about it, but if I can reach this conclusion then there's a good chance that they saw two possible decks that would come from a ban (a mill deck and a Hogaak deck) and decided that keeping Hogaak around was less risky than keeping an almost equally fast mill deck around. Of course I have no idea if such a fast mill deck would exist without Hogaak, and if anyone's tried making the mill deck I described I'd really loke to know the results

User avatar
FoodChainGoblins
Level 47
Posts: 816
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Riverside

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 1 year ago

So we had a 125 person MCQ yesterday. Hogaak won (not Dredge Gaak). The top 8 was
1. Mardu Shadow
2. Tron
3. Jund
4. UR Phoenix
5. Jund
6. Humans
7. UW Control
8. Hogaak

Tron beat Shadow
UR Phoenix beat Jund
Hogaak beat UW Control
Jund beat Humans

I didn't see the top 4, but I heard that Hogaak beat Tron in the finals.

The 7 players in our 2 cars went …
1. Tron - 4-3 (started 4-0 :(
2. Devoted Combo 1-3 drop
3. Naya Scapeshift - 3-4
4. Dredge Gaak - 4-3

5. Burn - 5-2
6. Bogles 5-2
7. UW Control 3-3-1
8. Tron 3-4

(We got pretty wrecked; well I did at least.)
Standard - Will pick up what's good when paper starts
Pre Modern - Do not own anymore
Pioneer - MBA, UB Inverter
Modern - Amulet Titan, Elementals, Yawmoth Chord, Uroza
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: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

You on Devoted?

We dont even have Day 2 for the GP yet, and the Top 8 is shaping up. Wizards coverage has become a complete joke.
UR Control UR

User avatar
Albegas
Posts: 127
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Albegas » 1 year ago

Looks like they outsourced a lot of coverage to ChannelFireball, which does at least have the undefeated decks from day 1. Also, let's be real: no coverage from Wizards can match Cedric Phillip's match coverage :p

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Modern”