Don't know about you but I'd like to see UB faeries back with visions and/or bitterblossom. I prefer that 10 times to playing against twin or storm. Not that it would be broken... bitterblossom was banned just for hate issues.
I'm fairly confident that the unbanning of Bitterblossom would make Faeries a very powerful strategy, and possibly borderline "broken". Add Ancestral Visions to the list and you'd have a monster.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MODERN RGB Jund BGR WGB Junk/Abzan Company WGB
LEGACY RUGB Delver GURB
EDH UW Geist of Saint Traft Aggro-Control WU RUG Riku of Two Reflections Combo GUR BBB Skithiryx Control BB
But those faeries cards were all legal during last old extended. And before dark depths.deck adopted the thopter foundry combo, faeries wasn't even good enough afaik, although there was valakut, hypergenesis and nacatl zoo.
Irrelevant to whether or not it actually is teir1. I fail to see what you are getting at.
Whats the sense in wanting a deck that isnt competitive in a competitive game? I understand a tier 2 deck can catch a meta off guard and put up real good numbers for a weekend, but if it isnt consistant it isnt going to be played by highly competitive magic players.
Whats the sense in wanting a deck that isnt competitive in a competitive game? I understand a tier 2 deck can catch a meta off guard and put up real good numbers for a weekend, but if it isnt consistant it isnt going to be played by highly competitive magic players.
It is not even that, so much. In a format with as many competitive decks as Modern has, it begins to get difficult to deal with all potential tier 1.5 and better matchups with only a 15 card SB. If that is difficult, then adding in the tier 2 decks can cause some very hard choices. This makes the win % of a Tier 2 deck, with a skilled player that knows the meta-game, as good as the win % of a tier 1.5 deck (perhaps better at times). The tier to win ratio breaks down a bit when the meta is very diverse, and the SB answers are not always universally good.
But those faeries cards were all legal during last old extended. And before dark depths.deck adopted the thopter foundry combo, faeries wasn't even good enough afaik, although there was valakut, hypergenesis and nacatl zoo.
And last extended also had Jace, Valakut, Stoneforge Mystic, and other insane cards legal. Oh and by the way, Faeries WERE the most powerful deck in last extended, and were part of the reason why extended was awful (became a 3way battle between scapeshift, faeries and stoneforge mystic decks by the end).
As for when thopter depths was around, faeries was a very viable strategy because it was one of the best anti-combo decks in the format. The only matchup it wasn't favored in was against Zoo, but even then it could easily win off the back of shackles and jitte. That being said, it resembled current mono blue faeries, and most lists didn't even bother with blossom, although that was mostly a meta issue with the fact that blossom didn't do much against a combo heavy meta.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find me online - I'm on Cockatrice * Tag - Badd B - Or on MTGO - Tag - Cbus05
It is not even that, so much. In a format with as many competitive decks as Modern has, it begins to get difficult to deal with all potential tier 1.5 and better matchups with only a 15 card SB. If that is difficult, then adding in the tier 2 decks can cause some very hard choices. This makes the win % of a Tier 2 deck, with a skilled player that knows the meta-game, as good as the win % of a tier 1.5 deck (perhaps better at times). The tier to win ratio breaks down a bit when the meta is very diverse, and the SB answers are not always universally good.
In my opinion you shouldnt be able to have all the answers to all the decks in your 75 card deck (60 main, 15 side) for the whole meta. Thats what makes a good meta. There is no way anyone should be able to sleeve up a deck and know they are going to be fighting for top 8 week in and week out. There has to be bad match ups to make the format diverse and fun. People generally dont like playing hours of mirror matchs at a large tourny.
It doesn't even matter if you have answers for every deck in your sideboard since you don't even draw them in many games, specially if you are running 1 or 2-ofs.
In my opinion you shouldnt be able to have all the answers to all the decks in your 75 card deck (60 main, 15 side) for the whole meta. Thats what makes a good meta. There is no way anyone should be able to sleeve up a deck and know they are going to be fighting for top 8 week in and week out. There has to be bad match ups to make the format diverse and fun. People generally dont like playing hours of mirror matchs at a large tourny.
You are exaggerating the effectiveness of "having answers". Your opponent too will be packing answers of his own, and as Pein said just because you have it in your deck or your SB does not mean you will draw it. Skill and timing have a lot to do with it as well, otherwise you really could just sleeve up a GP winner and expect to get top 8. Any experienced player will tell you that is not the case.
The thing that a healthy meta should have is that it is diverse enough to allow for a wide variety of decks that are able to satisfy the play needs for a variety of players, and those decks are still able to pack enough answers for enough decks that they do not have any auto-loose matches. If you have a meta that is so diverse that you are unable to pack enough answers (even poor ones) to the other common decks such that you have a virtual auto-loose if you get paired with one of those decks, then it is too diverse. It would be terrible to go to a tournament knowing that if your get paired against mono blue fae you will almost certainly loose.
You are exaggerating the effectiveness of "having answers". Your opponent too will be packing answers of his own, and as Pein said just because you have it in your deck or your SB does not mean you will draw it. Skill and timing have a lot to do with it as well, otherwise you really could just sleeve up a GP winner and expect to get top 8. Any experienced player will tell you that is not the case.
The thing that a healthy meta should have is that it is diverse enough to allow for a wide variety of decks that are able to satisfy the play needs for a variety of players, and those decks are still able to pack enough answers for enough decks that they do not have any auto-loose matches. If you have a meta that is so diverse that you are unable to pack enough answers (even poor ones) to the other common decks such that you have a virtual auto-loose if you get paired with one of those decks, then it is too diverse. It would be terrible to go to a tournament knowing that if your get paired against mono blue fae you will almost certainly loose.
You do understand luck plays a part in the game too, right? Pairings is part of that luck. Having no bad match ups means the meta is not diverse enough.
You do understand luck plays a part in the game too, right? Pairings is part of that luck. Having no bad match ups means the meta is not diverse enough.
I did not say anything about "having no bad matchups", oh snarkmaster general. I said "auto-loose"- which means that barring your opponent draws no lands or all lands (regardless of mulligans) you will loose to a good player. Bad matchups are part of the game, agree with that, but a bad matchup should be possible to win given good play and some luck on your part. When Deck X has matchup against the rest of the feild of around 52% but against Deck Y it is 35% that is expected in a diverse metagame. On the other hand when Deck X matchup is still 52% against the rest of the field, but against Y it is 8% then that means the the metagame is too diverse. In a healthy meta the top decks should have answers for the other top decks- they may be poor compromise answers so that you can have an answer to two different strategies, but the answer is there.
Answers do not have to be cards, either. Answers can be strategies for playing your deck against a particular deck, like if Deck X's answer to Deck Y is to play faster and more aggressive than it naturally does against the rest of the field. That may be a compromise answer because there is just no room for Monkey Cage in the SB, but it is still an answer of sorts.
I did not say anything about "having no bad matchups", oh snarkmaster general. I said "auto-loose"- which means that barring your opponent draws no lands or all lands (regardless of mulligans) you will loose to a good player. Bad matchups are part of the game, agree with that, but a bad matchup should be possible to win given good play and some luck on your part. When Deck X has matchup against the rest of the feild of around 52% but against Deck Y it is 35% that is expected in a diverse metagame. On the other hand when Deck X matchup is still 52% against the rest of the field, but against Y it is 8% then that means the the metagame is too diverse. In a healthy meta the top decks should have answers for the other top decks- they may be poor compromise answers so that you can have an answer to two different strategies, but the answer is there.
Answers do not have to be cards, either. Answers can be strategies for playing your deck against a particular deck, like if Deck X's answer to Deck Y is to play faster and more aggressive than it naturally does against the rest of the field. That may be a compromise answer because there is just no room for Monkey Cage in the SB, but it is still an answer of sorts.
In practice, 30% is about as bad a matchup as you can get. By the time you're seeing 8% against other decks, your deck is already not worth playing.
DrWorm, I think you miss the point that in a diverse meta like we have now, that one deck you might have a 0% chance against, it has 0% chance against some other deck. Thats one of the great things about a diverse meta. I would much rather have it that way then playing mirror matches all day. I am a math guy too and love my stats and such, but some times you just have to put down the calculator and play. There is a point where you over think it. For me thats the point the game becomes unfun for me.
DrWorm, I think you miss the point that in a diverse meta like we have now, that one deck you might have a 0% chance against, it has 0% chance against some other deck. Thats one of the great things about a diverse meta. I would much rather have it that way then playing mirror matches all day. I am a math guy too and love my stats and such, but some times you just have to put down the calculator and play. There is a point where you over think it. For me thats the point the game becomes unfun for me.
I have to agree. I'd rather have almost no clue what I'm going to be up against than have to wrack my brains deciding between deck A and deck B because A folds to C and B folds to D and that's our whole meta. And really, if you look at modern right now, it isn't off the wall diverse. At least not in my opinion.
Off the wall diverse is standard right now, at least at our LGS. I don't think 2 people out of the 25 to 35 that regularly come to FNM are playing the same deck. Every week I look at my matchups and every week each match is something else. I planned for WRR one week (after PT Honolulu) and saw it on one match. The rest of the night was Zombies, Spirits and something else that I can't even remember.
Now THAT is diverse.
Modern? At least where I am, I'm going to either see Affinity, Jund, Melira Pod, Zoo and maybe 1 control deck piloted by one of those die hard (I'm looking at you Matt) freaks who thinks control can actually beat the rest of us.
If Modern isn't as healthy as a horse right now then I don't know what format is or even can be.
I did not say anything about "having no bad matchups", oh snarkmaster general. I said "auto-loose"- which means that barring your opponent draws no lands or all lands (regardless of mulligans) you will loose to a good player. Bad matchups are part of the game, agree with that, but a bad matchup should be possible to win given good play and some luck on your part. When Deck X has matchup against the rest of the feild of around 52% but against Deck Y it is 35% that is expected in a diverse metagame. On the other hand when Deck X matchup is still 52% against the rest of the field, but against Y it is 8% then that means the the metagame is too diverse. In a healthy meta the top decks should have answers for the other top decks- they may be poor compromise answers so that you can have an answer to two different strategies, but the answer is there.
Answers do not have to be cards, either. Answers can be strategies for playing your deck against a particular deck, like if Deck X's answer to Deck Y is to play faster and more aggressive than it naturally does against the rest of the field. That may be a compromise answer because there is just no room for Monkey Cage in the SB, but it is still an answer of sorts.
Excuse me, but do you really think that's a thing? This is honestly my first time reading/hearing anyone mention anything close to that. How can you possibly think a metagame is too diverse? Isn't that what everyone wants in any format?
When extended was in it's golden years wasn't it precisely because the meta-game was incredibly diverse? Like when LSV was like "i think i'll play elves this weekend?" after zero elves lists posted zero results until he won a PT (or GP?) with them.
In the current Legacy metagame there's a few 'top decks' like Nick Fit that are absolutely dogs in certain matchups, read as "won't win game 1, ever." and "Might win a game two if they draw hate and their opponent mulls to 5".
DrWorm, I think you miss the point that in a diverse meta like we have now, that one deck you might have a 0% chance against, it has 0% chance against some other deck.
First of all, I am not complaining about the current meta in any way. I do not think that the current meta in anyway resembles the extreme that I hypothesized.
You stated that in your opinion a healthy meta is one where you cannot pack enough answers to the top decks (and by that we were talking about tier 2 or better) in your 75. I commented that if that extreme resulted in an auto-loose it would be, IMO, too diverse. You commented that you find a meta to be unhealthy if it is so dominated by the tier 1 decks that you could simply sleeve up one of those decks and confidently make top 8. My impression then is that you would rather have hypothetical potential auto-loose matchups (which means that play skill does not enter in to the results), than a meta that had virtual guaranteed top 8 placement- which I think play skill could influence at least a bit. I really could care less if the deck that I have an "auto-loose" matchup with has the same with another deck, because play skill should enter in to it to some degree and not be determined strictly by what you face.
Excuse me, but do you really think that's a thing? This is honestly my first time reading/hearing anyone mention anything close to that. How can you possibly think a metagame is too diverse? Isn't that what everyone wants in any format?
I do not think that this is "a thing" that is likely to happen, but I believe it could happen with the right set of circumstances. That said we were having a discussion (at least I thought) about which extreme we felt was more acceptable, not about the fact that one or the other is on the horizon.
I was speaking in hyperbole so as to illustrate my point.
That's exactly my point though. Although 8% matchups don't exist - the lowest you can find are 30% matchups. Those ones you CAN win with some skill and luck on your side, which is what you wanted. Metas can never be too diverse because matchups themselves never go below the 30% mark, assuming they were both competitive decks to begin with.
As long as the deck you auto-lose to, has there auto-lose in the group playing everything should work itself out. If deck A loses to deck B that loses to deck C that loses to deck D that loses to deck E, the tourny will be figured out by part skill and part luck as it should be. There comes a time in every match you either know you got it won or you cant pull it out.
Control is a lot more viable when your finisher is called Grapeshot.
Just sayin'.
Yeah, I've seen the gifts/storm list everyone has been posting, and even the most controlish lists are not control. 4 Remands + a lot of control 1of's and maybe 1-2 bolts does not make a deck control. Especially when, outside of those, the rest of your deck (80%) are not control cards.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern (I collect the format):
WURDelver
[/MANA]MANA]R[/MANA]GTron WDeath and Taxes WSoul Sisters RWG Pod Combo URSplinter Twin URStorm RBurn
Ehh I didn't say it isn't, in fact I've been saying wall of omens is the card control players should be playing instead of moaning because control is not good enough.
Ehh I didn't say it isn't, in fact I've been saying wall of omens is the card control players should be playing instead of moaning because control is not good enough.
Wall Of Omens is a house. In fact, it's so good at 2 CMC (a 4 toughness body against zoo and jund is nuts PLUS card advantage) there is no reason not to run 4 in a control deck.
Top it of with Wall of Denial at 3 cmc (blue/white perfect control colors) and a body the size of Texas and I don't see anybody getting through for damage for a long time.
Sure, you're going to have a tough time against storm but aggro won't have a prayer between the bodies and CA.
Just a brief interjection. Someone claimed storm Gifts wasn't control, because it didn't have enough answers in it. Just to make sure, you have to include the 4 Merchant Scrolls in my list as defensive cards, as they're terrible cards if you don't often grab countermagic or answers with them, and you should include Gifts itself, which generally can represent 2 answer cards or draw spells on its own, and it adds up very quickly. The deck can grind the game out with the best of them. I'm not claiming it's
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Go to my blog, Musings of the False God, for in-depth guides playing the game, from the building blocks of deck design to deceiving your opponent through clever game play!
You may also know me as the guy in the art of Dark Confidant. No, not Bob Maher, the OTHER one.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
WURDelver
[/MANA]MANA]R[/MANA]GTron
WDeath and Taxes
WSoul Sisters
RWG Pod Combo
URSplinter Twin
URStorm
RBurn
I'm fairly confident that the unbanning of Bitterblossom would make Faeries a very powerful strategy, and possibly borderline "broken". Add Ancestral Visions to the list and you'd have a monster.
RGB Jund BGR
WGB Junk/Abzan Company WGB
LEGACY
RUGB Delver GURB
EDH
UW Geist of Saint Traft Aggro-Control WU
RUG Riku of Two Reflections Combo GUR
BBB Skithiryx Control BB
Whats the sense in wanting a deck that isnt competitive in a competitive game? I understand a tier 2 deck can catch a meta off guard and put up real good numbers for a weekend, but if it isnt consistant it isnt going to be played by highly competitive magic players.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
And last extended also had Jace, Valakut, Stoneforge Mystic, and other insane cards legal. Oh and by the way, Faeries WERE the most powerful deck in last extended, and were part of the reason why extended was awful (became a 3way battle between scapeshift, faeries and stoneforge mystic decks by the end).
As for when thopter depths was around, faeries was a very viable strategy because it was one of the best anti-combo decks in the format. The only matchup it wasn't favored in was against Zoo, but even then it could easily win off the back of shackles and jitte. That being said, it resembled current mono blue faeries, and most lists didn't even bother with blossom, although that was mostly a meta issue with the fact that blossom didn't do much against a combo heavy meta.
In my opinion you shouldnt be able to have all the answers to all the decks in your 75 card deck (60 main, 15 side) for the whole meta. Thats what makes a good meta. There is no way anyone should be able to sleeve up a deck and know they are going to be fighting for top 8 week in and week out. There has to be bad match ups to make the format diverse and fun. People generally dont like playing hours of mirror matchs at a large tourny.
The thing that a healthy meta should have is that it is diverse enough to allow for a wide variety of decks that are able to satisfy the play needs for a variety of players, and those decks are still able to pack enough answers for enough decks that they do not have any auto-loose matches. If you have a meta that is so diverse that you are unable to pack enough answers (even poor ones) to the other common decks such that you have a virtual auto-loose if you get paired with one of those decks, then it is too diverse. It would be terrible to go to a tournament knowing that if your get paired against mono blue fae you will almost certainly loose.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
You do understand luck plays a part in the game too, right? Pairings is part of that luck. Having no bad match ups means the meta is not diverse enough.
Answers do not have to be cards, either. Answers can be strategies for playing your deck against a particular deck, like if Deck X's answer to Deck Y is to play faster and more aggressive than it naturally does against the rest of the field. That may be a compromise answer because there is just no room for Monkey Cage in the SB, but it is still an answer of sorts.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
In practice, 30% is about as bad a matchup as you can get. By the time you're seeing 8% against other decks, your deck is already not worth playing.
Just sayin'.
I have to agree. I'd rather have almost no clue what I'm going to be up against than have to wrack my brains deciding between deck A and deck B because A folds to C and B folds to D and that's our whole meta. And really, if you look at modern right now, it isn't off the wall diverse. At least not in my opinion.
Off the wall diverse is standard right now, at least at our LGS. I don't think 2 people out of the 25 to 35 that regularly come to FNM are playing the same deck. Every week I look at my matchups and every week each match is something else. I planned for WRR one week (after PT Honolulu) and saw it on one match. The rest of the night was Zombies, Spirits and something else that I can't even remember.
Now THAT is diverse.
Modern? At least where I am, I'm going to either see Affinity, Jund, Melira Pod, Zoo and maybe 1 control deck piloted by one of those die hard (I'm looking at you Matt) freaks who thinks control can actually beat the rest of us.
If Modern isn't as healthy as a horse right now then I don't know what format is or even can be.
Again, just my opinion.
Excuse me, but do you really think that's a thing? This is honestly my first time reading/hearing anyone mention anything close to that. How can you possibly think a metagame is too diverse? Isn't that what everyone wants in any format?
When extended was in it's golden years wasn't it precisely because the meta-game was incredibly diverse? Like when LSV was like "i think i'll play elves this weekend?" after zero elves lists posted zero results until he won a PT (or GP?) with them.
In the current Legacy metagame there's a few 'top decks' like Nick Fit that are absolutely dogs in certain matchups, read as "won't win game 1, ever." and "Might win a game two if they draw hate and their opponent mulls to 5".
Sig courtesy of DOLZero
[82/360] Custom Cube
Blog about the Custom Cube
First of all, I am not complaining about the current meta in any way. I do not think that the current meta in anyway resembles the extreme that I hypothesized.
You stated that in your opinion a healthy meta is one where you cannot pack enough answers to the top decks (and by that we were talking about tier 2 or better) in your 75. I commented that if that extreme resulted in an auto-loose it would be, IMO, too diverse. You commented that you find a meta to be unhealthy if it is so dominated by the tier 1 decks that you could simply sleeve up one of those decks and confidently make top 8. My impression then is that you would rather have hypothetical potential auto-loose matchups (which means that play skill does not enter in to the results), than a meta that had virtual guaranteed top 8 placement- which I think play skill could influence at least a bit. I really could care less if the deck that I have an "auto-loose" matchup with has the same with another deck, because play skill should enter in to it to some degree and not be determined strictly by what you face.
I do not think that this is "a thing" that is likely to happen, but I believe it could happen with the right set of circumstances. That said we were having a discussion (at least I thought) about which extreme we felt was more acceptable, not about the fact that one or the other is on the horizon.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
That's exactly my point though. Although 8% matchups don't exist - the lowest you can find are 30% matchups. Those ones you CAN win with some skill and luck on your side, which is what you wanted. Metas can never be too diverse because matchups themselves never go below the 30% mark, assuming they were both competitive decks to begin with.
WURDelver
[/MANA]MANA]R[/MANA]GTron
WDeath and Taxes
WSoul Sisters
RWG Pod Combo
URSplinter Twin
URStorm
RBurn
Wall Of Omens is a house. In fact, it's so good at 2 CMC (a 4 toughness body against zoo and jund is nuts PLUS card advantage) there is no reason not to run 4 in a control deck.
Top it of with Wall of Denial at 3 cmc (blue/white perfect control colors) and a body the size of Texas and I don't see anybody getting through for damage for a long time.
Sure, you're going to have a tough time against storm but aggro won't have a prayer between the bodies and CA.
I just need one more WoD to finish my playset.
You may also know me as the guy in the art of Dark Confidant. No, not Bob Maher, the OTHER one.