Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
I know Monastery Mentor is a 3-drop, and doesn't see much play in Modern, but I think it belongs in the discussion. It's a beefed-up Young Pyromancer and snowballs incredibly quickly. For one additional mana over YPeezy, both Mentor itself and the tokens grow with each prowess trigger.
I know Modern has historically been very hostile to 3-drops but with the innate power in Mentor I have to believe the failing isn't the card's abilities or its mana cost but instead the availability of cheap proactive spells in White and the colors it's typically paired with.
The problem comparatively, is that Young Pyromancer and his minions all die to the same suites of removal that Mentor does. It's not about the offensive capabilities (more on that in a bit) but the resilience is a problem as well.
Whenver someone brings up the discussion of Monastery Mentor, and compares it to Young Pyromancer, it feels like we are comparing Flinthoof Boar or Leatherback Baloth to Tarmogoyf. Having weird similarities isn't the reason a card is competitive - note all the variants of Dark Confidant we have had over the years, and in the end most of them not weren't even Standard playable.
To be "optimal" and take advantage of the Prowess of Mentor, is essentially just win-more. It's just a way of saying Still had all Deez. That's the difference as to why it see's amazing play in Vintage compared to Modern. Legacy barely plays the card as a 3 of in it's new Miracle variation. That should show a testament to how much of a requirement that card demands from it's deck construction to be viable.
TL;DR
Mentor is win more - play Young Pyromancer.
Even though I highlighted a couple of Mentor's differences with Pyromancer, I didn't intend to compare the two. I was replying to a conversation about White's "power card" such as 'goyf, Bob, Snapcaster, and Young Pyro. I won't argue whether or not it's a win-more card, but if it is then that actually furthers my point. If Young Peezy is the red power card, and Mentor is a win-more version of it, then Mentor can be considered to fill that role for White.
Splinter twin, while not too broken or powerful could severely reduce diversity so it doesn't seem beneficial to unban
To this day, I still do not understand why it is better to have a bunch of bad and mediocre decks without a good option, instead of a bunch of bad and mediocre decks with a good option. How does that in any way help the bad and mediocre decks?
Because our definition, is simply your definition.
Is UWR Control bad? If so, how is it getting Top 8's? There were 3 or 4 UR Breach decks in the Top 16 at the GP. Is it bad or mediocre?
What decks are NOT mediocre, may be a better question. UW Control?
Twin would (I know it pains me as well) limit diversity in the following ways.
1. Unless your Uxx deck has MASSIVE game against Twin, if you are playing UR, you should be on Twin. That means Blue Moon, UR Breach, Temur Moon, and UR Madcap, all of which HAVE been able to get into that Top 16 realm against the field we have of today, disappear. They become URx Twin, period.
2. Any deck that is not disruptive, and does not win prior to Turn 3/4, can simply lose the game, immediately. They could have executed an infinite life combo and tapped out with Twin on the play on their Turn 3, and lose. There are any number of jank (imo) decks, that do not have any game against Twin. I know this, you know this, we used to prey on those decks and just smirk (maybe that was just me) at how they had zero chance.
Those are decks that in this world, right now, actually have game. Those all go away.
3. Perception matters, and in a world where Jund has once again claimed its pillar, with Affinity, and apparently GxTron (...) you would 100% see people claiming if you are not on one of those decks (or the popular but less regarded decks like Burn) then you dont have a chance.
I'd drop everything and play Twin this afternoon, if it was unbanned. No more messing with GDS, or UWR Control (why play 12 turns when I can play 3.5?) or stupid 4 colour Bloodbraid brews...I would just play Twin, and so would a lot of others.
Now to go back to 'bad and mediocre decks'...well context matters. If those bad/mediocre decks are close to parity with the field, are they really bad or are they still competitive, just more narrow?
The decks have inconsistent and mediocre results, as they have had for the past two years. Hit and miss flurries of stubborn people jamming the decks over and over until a few people sporadically pull their way near (but not too near) the top. However, the same same could be said about just about any deck in the format. The difference is that people aren't taking URx decks to a GP because they expect to win; they're taking it because they love playing those decks, no matter how good or bad they may be. In today's meta, I'm honestly more sad to not be playing Delver than to not be playing Twin.
1. Considering multiple other blue decks existed at reasonable levels for years with Twin in the format, I expect many people would continue to play them. Geist, Delver, Control were all popular strategies that stayed firmly Tier 2, and drifted in and out of Tier 1 with Twin in the format. Each of those other kinds of decks got Top 8s with Twin legal. These new builds, if they are strong enough to hold their own, would continue to be played. If they're not, well that's not Twin's fault. Most builds of most URx decks today are still either too slow, too inconsistent, or both.
2. Based on the current level of broken debauchery that can kill you on the first few turns of the game if you choose not to interact, this has never once resonated with me in any way as a reasonable thing to criticize. Especially with the frequency with which it actually happened. And if it means fragile jank brews don't get to top 8 a GP, so be it. Perhaps they should actually try to care about what their opponent is doing instead of vomiting their hand on the field and hoping to goldfish past their opponents for free wins themselves. Or accept that ignoring your opponent will cost you games a certain percentage of time.
3. So it's fine for Jund and Affinity and Tron to be pillars, but not URx? Must be nice for them. /shrug.
Basically, the fact that Jace is only really helping preexisting combo decks (Scapeshift, Knightfall, Breach) tells us that the fundamental problem in the archetype is STILL a combination of lack of answers and lack of good win conditions. You either have to win with a relatively quick/reliable combo OR you doll the dice and hope your answers line up with your opponent.
The difference is that people aren't taking URx decks to a GP because they expect to win; they're taking it because they love playing those decks, no matter how good or bad they may be.
This is simply wrong. There are a lot of players, and professional players, who play URx decks at GPs AND expect to win with them. People who do magic for a living often always play for the win. Claiming that people like Jim Davis are playing UWR just for the sake of it is wrong, both because he plays to win, as well because at several points he discussed his choices.
1. Unless your Uxx deck has MASSIVE game against Twin, if you are playing UR, you should be on Twin. That means Blue Moon, UR Breach, Temur Moon, and UR Madcap, all of which HAVE been able to get into that Top 16 realm against the field we have of today, disappear. They become URx Twin, period.
Except pretty much every Uxx deck does have game against Twin. Non-Twin URx decks were consistently among its worst matchups.
2. Any deck that is not disruptive, and does not win prior to Turn 3/4, can simply lose the game, immediately. They could have executed an infinite life combo and tapped out with Twin on the play on their Turn 3, and lose. There are any number of jank (imo) decks, that do not have any game against Twin. I know this, you know this, we used to prey on those decks and just smirk (maybe that was just me) at how they had zero chance.
And this is different from the current format... how, exactly? Storm, Dredge, and the rest of the combo crop will kill you that quickly if you don't either win first or have disruption.
3. Perception matters, and in a world where Jund has once again claimed its pillar, with Affinity, and apparently GxTron (...) you would 100% see people claiming if you are not on one of those decks (or the popular but less regarded decks like Burn) then you dont have a chance.
Who cares? People claim all sorts of things about Modern that are clearly not true.
Splinter twin, while not too broken or powerful could severely reduce diversity so it doesn't seem beneficial to unban
To this day, I still do not understand why it is better to have a bunch of bad and mediocre decks without a good option, instead of a bunch of bad and mediocre decks with a good option. How does that in any way help the bad and mediocre decks?
Because our definition, is simply your definition.
Is UWR Control bad? If so, how is it getting Top 8's? There were 3 or 4 UR Breach decks in the Top 16 at the GP. Is it bad or mediocre?
What decks are NOT mediocre, may be a better question. UW Control?
Twin would (I know it pains me as well) limit diversity in the following ways.
1. Unless your Uxx deck has MASSIVE game against Twin, if you are playing UR, you should be on Twin. That means Blue Moon, UR Breach, Temur Moon, and UR Madcap, all of which HAVE been able to get into that Top 16 realm against the field we have of today, disappear. They become URx Twin, period.
2. Any deck that is not disruptive, and does not win prior to Turn 3/4, can simply lose the game, immediately. They could have executed an infinite life combo and tapped out with Twin on the play on their Turn 3, and lose. There are any number of jank (imo) decks, that do not have any game against Twin. I know this, you know this, we used to prey on those decks and just smirk (maybe that was just me) at how they had zero chance.
Those are decks that in this world, right now, actually have game. Those all go away.
3. Perception matters, and in a world where Jund has once again claimed its pillar, with Affinity, and apparently GxTron (...) you would 100% see people claiming if you are not on one of those decks (or the popular but less regarded decks like Burn) then you dont have a chance.
I'd drop everything and play Twin this afternoon, if it was unbanned. No more messing with GDS, or UWR Control (why play 12 turns when I can play 3.5?) or stupid 4 colour Bloodbraid brews...I would just play Twin, and so would a lot of others.
Now to go back to 'bad and mediocre decks'...well context matters. If those bad/mediocre decks are close to parity with the field, are they really bad or are they still competitive, just more narrow?
The decks have inconsistent and mediocre results, as they have had for the past two years. Hit and miss flurries of stubborn people jamming the decks over and over until a few people sporadically pull their way near (but not too near) the top. However, the same same could be said about just about any deck in the format. The difference is that people aren't taking URx decks to a GP because they expect to win; they're taking it because they love playing those decks, no matter how good or bad they may be. In today's meta, I'm honestly more sad to not be playing Delver than to not be playing Twin.
1. Considering multiple other blue decks existed at reasonable levels for years with Twin in the format, I expect many people would continue to play them. Geist, Delver, Control were all popular strategies that stayed firmly Tier 2, and drifted in and out of Tier 1 with Twin in the format. Each of those other kinds of decks got Top 8s with Twin legal. These new builds, if they are strong enough to hold their own, would continue to be played. If they're not, well that's not Twin's fault. Most builds of most URx decks today are still either too slow, too inconsistent, or both.
2. Based on the current level of broken debauchery that can kill you on the first few turns of the game if you choose not to interact, this has never once resonated with me in any way as a reasonable thing to criticize. Especially with the frequency with which it actually happened. And if it means fragile jank brews don't get to top 8 a GP, so be it. Perhaps they should actually try to care about what their opponent is doing instead of vomiting their hand on the field and hoping to goldfish past their opponents for free wins themselves. Or accept that ignoring your opponent will cost you games a certain percentage of time.
3. So it's fine for Jund and Affinity and Tron to be pillars, but not URx? Must be nice for them. /shrug.
Basically, the fact that Jace is only really helping preexisting combo decks (Scapeshift, Knightfall, Breach) tells us that the fundamental problem in the archetype is STILL a combination of lack of answers and lack of good win conditions. You either have to win with a relatively quick/reliable combo OR you doll the dice and hope your answers line up with your opponent.
This doesn't even make sense. Jace helps existing decks with a combo because Jace isn't a card that just creates archetypes all on its own. BBE is the same - they are just super good cards. We all friggin' knew that. The problem with Twin is that you either have those other blue decks you are referring to, or twin. No cool UR Pyromancer (which top 8'ed a pro tour this year, just saying), no UW control, no grixis shadow, no jeskai flash, no UR breach, no madcap experiment shenanigans. It all becomes Twin.
I'll agree with you on one point, and I've said it about jund all the time - the idea that certain decks need to exist and be tier one as "pillars" is stupid. Modern has been evolving and changing since Twin was banned. Except for one bad period with eldrazi, the format has been incredibly diverse while also not stagnating. Innovation is constant, decks are rising and falling constantly, it's frankly amazing. The idea that a certain handful of decks need to exist for modern's health just because they were at the top five years ago is ridiculous.
The difference is that people aren't taking URx decks to a GP because they expect to win; they're taking it because they love playing those decks, no matter how good or bad they may be.
This is simply wrong. There are a lot of players, and professional players, who play URx decks at GPs AND expect to win with them. People who do magic for a living often always play for the win. Claiming that people like Jim Davis are playing UWR just for the sake of it is wrong, both because he plays to win, as well because at several points he discussed his choices.
Looking at MTG Top 8 (the only place I know where I can search old records by player) shows him with his recent SCG Dallas placement with Jeskai (9-16 placement), but his only other placements in the past year have been with Gx Tron decks. His next most recent URx posting is a Jeskai Nahiri list from 2016. So... I guess there's that. He plays Jeskai because he likes Jeskai and he writes articles about Jeskai for StarCity Games.
I still feel players have to jump through hoops just to do as well as midrange, combo and aggro. Not that this is me claiming blue is bad---it just takes more dedication than normal.
The problem with Twin is that you either have those other blue decks you are referring to, or twin. No cool UR Pyromancer (which top 8'ed a pro tour this year, just saying), no UW control, no grixis shadow, no jeskai flash, no UR breach, no madcap experiment shenanigans. It all becomes Twin.
Repeating this line over and over does not make it true. But other decks existed concurrently with Twin, just as they would if Twin was legal today. I've been banned fighting this line of revisionist history in the past, so I will leave it at this: Other builds would survive as long as they were strong enough do to so (or had passionate enough followings), just as they did in the past. If they do not survive, it has nothing to do with whether or not Twin is around, and everything to do with those decks just not being good enough in the current meta.
I still feel players have to jump through hoops just to do as well as midrange, combo and aggro. Not that this is me claiming blue is bad---it just takes more dedication than normal.
I'm not sure what this means. Blue decks, still really, are not doing as many powerful things, and have not been able to 'jump through hoops' to do as well
There is a reason we have.
UR Madcap
UR Breach
UR Kiki
UR Pyro
Etc, etc, etc.
The URx crowd continues to look for a replacement, that simply does not exist. We have spent literally thousands, chasing a dream that is no longer possible.
I still feel players have to jump through hoops just to do as well as midrange, combo and aggro. Not that this is me claiming blue is bad---it just takes more dedication than normal.
I just don't understand what the interactive players want. On the one hand, I constantly here stuff about how linear decks are not skill-testing Magic and skill doesn't matter. They then naturally follow-up by saying interactive decks are the opposite: skill-testing decks where play skill and choices do matter and you can pick up tiny edges for excellent play. This part makes sense to me and I think it reflects what most interactive players believe about their decks. As a player who prefers interactive strategies, I also want such a deck to exist and I want to play it.
On the other hand, and here's the part that makes zero sense, the interactive players are always complaining that their decks take TOO much skill to win and the matchups are too hard. As someone who played a lot of UW Control on MTGO, this is exactly my favorite part of playing the deck. Mistakes were highly unforgiving and I learned from them. You didn't have Brainstorm or FoW to fall back on in case something went wrong. You had to make extremely tight decisions and gameplay to come out on top, and I loved the feeling of eking out 45/55 or worse matchups. Many decisions were related to mulligans, correct deck configuration, and reading an opponent's turn 1 play. I would imagine other Spikey interactive players would enjoy the same feeling, but instead many of them constantly complain about that same experience.
I remain convinced that many interactive players just want the 50/50 Twin type back deck. They don't want bad matchups and they try to camouflage this by saying that their matchups should be as close to 50/50 across the board, not polarized in the 20/80 or 80/20 range. The implication is that the following two decks are equally fair and equally acceptable in a format:
These two theoretical decks and their theoretical matchup spectrums have the same average MWP across the board. But the range is totally different in practice and Deck A is almost definitely a better deck. This is particularly true because Deck A secretly has a ton of 70/30 matchups against random decks because it's so tuned. This typically polarizes the format towards a few top-tier decks that can battle against each other on even footing, with all the lower-tier stuff getting totally pushed out by some format beasts.
I believe there is a contingent of interactive players who want Deck A and view their success on such a deck as a testament to their skill and prowess on the archetype. In reality, this deck isn't actually highlighting their skill or lack of skill. The deck is just probably too good and everyone should probably be playing it. That deck also wouldn't require as much skill to pilot as many claim. It basically plays itself because it's so good in so many situations. If you want to play skill-testing, interactive Magic, Modern has decks for you. If you want a 50/50+ interactive deck that picks up random 70/30+ games against lower-tier decks, Modern will never have such a deck (competitive Magic as a whole probably won't for any sustained period of time) and you're requesting something that isn't aligned with format realities. It would be like combo players clamoring for a tiered Hypergenesis deck to get a proper explosive combo experience.
I remain convinced that many interactive players just want the 50/50 Twin type back deck.
....
These two theoretical decks and their theoretical matchup spectrums have the same average MWP across the board. But the range is totally different in practice and Deck A is almost definitely a better deck. This is particularly true because Deck A secretly has a ton of 70/30 matchups against random decks because it's so tuned. This typically polarizes the format towards a few top-tier decks that can battle against each other on even footing, with all the lower-tier stuff getting totally pushed out by some format beasts.
...
In reality, this deck isn't actually highlighting their skill or lack of skill. The deck is just probably too good and everyone should probably be playing it. That deck also wouldn't require as much skill to pilot as many claim. It basically plays itself because it's so good in so many situations. If you want to play skill-testing, interactive Magic, Modern has decks for you. If you want a 50/50+ interactive deck that picks up random 70/30+ games against lower-tier decks, Modern will never have such a deck (competitive Magic as a whole probably won't for any sustained period of time) and you're requesting something that isn't aligned with format realities.
This is essentially what I've been saying, but articulated better.
People can say Twin would be fine, but the reality in practice is different.
This typically polarizes the format towards a few top-tier decks that can battle against each other on even footing, with all the lower-tier stuff getting totally pushed out by some format beasts.
Pillars of the format, is what we are talking about here. Some think its good, some dont.
I've accepted it, but yes, some people (including myself) simply want Twin back.
I think Twin will be worth revisiting at some point, but it's still a year or two away, IMO. I'm hoping for SFM next year, and then maybe Twin the following year if things are still going well.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern UBR Grixis Shadow UBR UR Izzet Phoenix UR UW UW Control UW GB GB Rock GB
Commander BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
I think Twin will be worth revisiting at some point, but it's still a year or two away, IMO. I'm hoping for SFM next year, and then maybe Twin the following year if things are still going well.
The dissonance between "I want a deck where my decisions matter" and "My deck doesn't get enough free wins" is incredibly amusing to me.
It's the epitome of a cognitive dissonance. If skill matters in principle, let it matter in practice. Don't argue for skill-testing Magic and then explain that decks require too much skill to succeed.
On a related note, I understand the arguments for such a theoretical Deck A in Modern, at least if your goal is something closer to chess than Magic. Caw Blade mirrors were extremely skill-testing, for example, but it didn't make for a great format. I don't understand the arguments in favor of Deck A given the realities of Modern and Wizards' approach to the format. 2017 and 2018 so far went by with no bans and explicit acknowledgements that this is the Modern that Wizards wants to promote. At this point, the argument has changed from "Modern has problems because it is not living up to Wizards' vision" (reasonable in late 2016!) to "Modern has problems because it is living up to that vision and I disagree with that vision." The vision is basically set in stone at this point. I wish we would spend more time discussing within that fulfilled vision (e.g. "how do we improve white as a primary color) instead of picking apart that vision as if there is something fundamentally wrong with it (e.g. "diversity is bad because I want to?" prepare for fewer top-tier matchups"). That would be like me going to a Standard forum and asking why I can't play T4 combo decks like Saheeli; it's just outside of the acknowledged format scope.
not entirely sure what you guys are talking about. vanilla blue control decks as a macro archetype arent inconsistent in their performance because of some skill requirement. its because the fundamental strategy, given the tools available, isnt suited for an environment with such a large card pool providing a wide array of powerful things to be doing. sure you can make up percentages if you are better than your opponent, but talking about decks in the abstract should be done under the assumption that both players are equally skilled.
so you end up in a situation where these control players win a reasonable amount because of their skill, but everyone else is also winning with skill AND picking up free wins.
you could be some bastard love child of chuck norris and bruce lee, but if you are bringing a knife to a gunfight you are probably gonna die.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
I think Twin will be worth revisiting at some point, but it's still a year or two away, IMO. I'm hoping for SFM next year, and then maybe Twin the following year if things are still going well.
What about...just like BBE/Jace, SFM and Twin???
I think that would be too much of a risk for Wizards. Regardless of how things have shaken out with Jace, BBE was pretty much a known quantity and they knew it wasn't going to break anything, Jace was the only risky card. SFM and Twin are both closer to Jace. both (like Jace) would probably be fine, but it would be wise to do one then the other. I am not sold on Twin, the format has changed, and that deck has picked up some very real new toys...and personal bias, I would rather see Preordain, and I would think they are mutually exclusive. I'm not saying we will never get Twin back, but both in one announcement just seems like a risk.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Project Booster Fun makes it less fun to open a booster.
not entirely sure what you guys are talking about. vanilla blue control decks as a macro archetype arent inconsistent in their performance because of some skill requirement. its because the fundamental strategy, given the tools available, isnt suited for an environment with such a large card pool providing a wide array of powerful things to be doing. sure you can make up percentages if you are better than your opponent, but talking about decks in the abstract should be done under the assumption that both players are equally skilled.
so you end up in a situation where these control players win a reasonable amount because of their skill, but everyone else is also winning with skill AND picking up free wins.
you could be some bastard love child of chuck norris and bruce lee, but if you are bringing a knife to a gunfight you are probably gonna die.
Do I need "Free wins" as a control player? I personally don't. I'm totally fine with all my wins being hard fought and based on skill and decisions, not games that are effectively over on T2 when I start countering/removing every threat the opponent plays.
I admit not everyone is like this, and some people do want free wins on even their interactive decks. But if that's the case, then just go out and say so. Many of the "control sucks in Modern" critics don't say that though. They disguise the "I want free wins" subtext under a mask of "I want a deck that rewards skill" and "free win decks are brainless and unhealthy." This is extremely disingenuous because they secretly want free wins too but don't typically admit it. Instead, they talk endlessly about variance losing games, bad matchups, and skill/decisions/gameplay needing to matter more than variance. Those are two entirely different desires. Want free wins? Argue for that. Don't pretend that "I want a control deck with free wins" is the same thing as "I want a control deck that rewards skill and tight gameplay."
not entirely sure what you guys are talking about. vanilla blue control decks as a macro archetype arent inconsistent in their performance because of some skill requirement. its because the fundamental strategy, given the tools available, isnt suited for an environment with such a large card pool providing a wide array of powerful things to be doing. sure you can make up percentages if you are better than your opponent, but talking about decks in the abstract should be done under the assumption that both players are equally skilled.
so you end up in a situation where these control players win a reasonable amount because of their skill, but everyone else is also winning with skill AND picking up free wins.
you could be some bastard love child of chuck norris and bruce lee, but if you are bringing a knife to a gunfight you are probably gonna die.
Do I need "Free wins" as a control player? I personally don't. I'm totally fine with all my wins being hard fought and based on skill and decisions, not games that are effectively over on T2 when I start countering/removing every threat the opponent plays.
I admit not everyone is like this, and some people do want free wins on even their interactive decks. But if that's the case, then just go out and say so. Many of the "control sucks in Modern" critics don't say that though. They disguise the "I want free wins" subtext under a mask of "I want a deck that rewards skill" and "free win decks are brainless and unhealthy." This is extremely disingenuous because they secretly want free wins too but don't typically admit it. Instead, they talk endlessly about variance losing games, bad matchups, and skill/decisions/gameplay needing to matter more than variance. Those are two entirely different desires. Want free wins? Argue for that. Don't pretend that "I want a control deck with free wins" is the same thing as "I want a control deck that rewards skill and tight gameplay."
I want to play interactive games with some free wins, just as other decks get away with Turn 3 free wins, and they get to keep those.
I dont think Control sucks. I've played it since Search came out, and doubled down once Jace was free, but it has zero (or close enough) free wins. I sit down every night, and just take a deep breath because I'm playing and Island and a Serum Visions, and its gonna be a grind.
Thats all well and good, but I'll take some of that 'Free Wins' too please. The Turn 3 Exarch with a flash of the Twin to your tapped out opponent. Yes sir.
you want people to be honest? Kevin Jones Gerrard Fabiano and Jacob Van Lunen called my particular brand of blue deck trash on camera because it couldn't interact with bloodbraid elf or humans with cavern of souls...when its popular enough to get actual support instead of trash like smuggler's copter...and yet doesn't. You want skill testing interactive magic? Faeries is where people constantly wish got archetype support because it is interactive and very skill testing. But yeah, "Faeries is magic on hard mode and jund with bloodbraid is magic on easy mode". Idk what to tell you. Not having free wins isnt the issue, the issue is not having interactive means to race what you cant answer. so yeah I guess its affinity and storm for a while.
Decks I have in my bag of tricks- Needless to say, someone who wants to play will probably have a deck UB/x Faeries UR Storm XURWB Affinity G Elves UW control
Not having free wins isnt the issue, the issue is not having interactive means to race what you cant answer. so yeah I guess its affinity and storm for a while.
Thats completely what I at least mean by 'free wins'. People actually feared Jace 'Fate Seal' victories and how 'demoralizing' it is to lose to! Thats how out of touch a LARGE number of people are.
Free wins, to me, means games you just take and finish, near immediately. Like first 5 turns.
That Discard, Goyf, Lily. GG. When you steal the only interaction they had and they are just praying for removal.
That 'I play 3 lands, Karn'. GG if you are on anything but the fastest of clocks.
That 'I dump my hand, plating' Affinity.
Many people want interactive magic, but not all of those people want every game, literally every single game, to be about grinding out the win.
Spsiegel said it on the last SCG Open, watching Jim Davis on UWR was exhausting. Every game, that one GAME not match, going 40+ Minutes.
I mean the only deck I have played for any amount of time post Twin, is UWR Control/Nahiri. I've tried Quellers, and Geist does work (the best clock UWR decks have? probably) but in the end I would GLADLY drop it, and go back to UR Twin, because every single game, the height of interactive, but no game is short, unless you are run over by any number of degenerate Modern decks. :]
Do I need "Free wins" as a control player? I personally don't. I'm totally fine with all my wins being hard fought and based on skill and decisions, not games that are effectively over on T2 when I start countering/removing every threat the opponent plays.
I admit not everyone is like this, and some people do want free wins on even their interactive decks. But if that's the case, then just go out and say so. Many of the "control sucks in Modern" critics don't say that though. They disguise the "I want free wins" subtext under a mask of "I want a deck that rewards skill" and "free win decks are brainless and unhealthy." This is extremely disingenuous because they secretly want free wins too but don't typically admit it. Instead, they talk endlessly about variance losing games, bad matchups, and skill/decisions/gameplay needing to matter more than variance. Those are two entirely different desires. Want free wins? Argue for that. Don't pretend that "I want a control deck with free wins" is the same thing as "I want a control deck that rewards skill and tight gameplay."
i never said that control decks need or deserve to have free wins. i was merely offering an explanation on why blue control decks have historically suffered in the format. just a statement on reality, in which case what people want is irrelevant.
thats great that you like fighting for your wins, im in the same boat. however when their are options that are equally skill testing and occasionally picking up free wins; then that is simply the better path to success. its the entire reason people have picked up these explosive win cons.
edit: reading your post im not sure you actually responded to anything i said. regardless i understand your crusade to stamp out complaints about the format.
so hey, turns out modern is all full of diverse archetypes and didn't collapse into a black hole of Jace, lol.
also, it's nice to see people trying BBE in a bunch of different shells. Some of them have questionable longevity of course but hey, let the people jam their elves in their decks for a while if they want ^_^. we're still very much in a honeymoon period for 'trying out BBE' as we are seeing the first large events we've had since the unbannings.
if modern was good before, it's good now. in fact, potentiially it might even be.... better? interestingly the whole format seems to have slowed by a whole turn which is *weird*.
also let's talk about burn - what's with the 0% conversion rate from day 2 to top 32? (for reference, recent GP phoenix had 28 burn decks, the most represented deck in day 2, but not a single copy in the top 32) that's *also* pretty weird!
loving where the format's at right now. some really interesting developments and none of them intrinsically bad.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: G Tron, Vannifar, Jund, Druid/Vizier combo, Humans, Eldrazi Stompy (Serum Powder), Amulet, Grishoalbrand, Breach Titan, Turns, Eternal Command, As Foretold Living End, Elves, Cheerios, RUG Scapeshift
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
The decks have inconsistent and mediocre results, as they have had for the past two years. Hit and miss flurries of stubborn people jamming the decks over and over until a few people sporadically pull their way near (but not too near) the top. However, the same same could be said about just about any deck in the format. The difference is that people aren't taking URx decks to a GP because they expect to win; they're taking it because they love playing those decks, no matter how good or bad they may be. In today's meta, I'm honestly more sad to not be playing Delver than to not be playing Twin.
1. Considering multiple other blue decks existed at reasonable levels for years with Twin in the format, I expect many people would continue to play them. Geist, Delver, Control were all popular strategies that stayed firmly Tier 2, and drifted in and out of Tier 1 with Twin in the format. Each of those other kinds of decks got Top 8s with Twin legal. These new builds, if they are strong enough to hold their own, would continue to be played. If they're not, well that's not Twin's fault. Most builds of most URx decks today are still either too slow, too inconsistent, or both.
2. Based on the current level of broken debauchery that can kill you on the first few turns of the game if you choose not to interact, this has never once resonated with me in any way as a reasonable thing to criticize. Especially with the frequency with which it actually happened. And if it means fragile jank brews don't get to top 8 a GP, so be it. Perhaps they should actually try to care about what their opponent is doing instead of vomiting their hand on the field and hoping to goldfish past their opponents for free wins themselves. Or accept that ignoring your opponent will cost you games a certain percentage of time.
3. So it's fine for Jund and Affinity and Tron to be pillars, but not URx? Must be nice for them. /shrug.
Basically, the fact that Jace is only really helping preexisting combo decks (Scapeshift, Knightfall, Breach) tells us that the fundamental problem in the archetype is STILL a combination of lack of answers and lack of good win conditions. You either have to win with a relatively quick/reliable combo OR you doll the dice and hope your answers line up with your opponent.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
And this is different from the current format... how, exactly? Storm, Dredge, and the rest of the combo crop will kill you that quickly if you don't either win first or have disruption.
Who cares? People claim all sorts of things about Modern that are clearly not true.
This doesn't even make sense. Jace helps existing decks with a combo because Jace isn't a card that just creates archetypes all on its own. BBE is the same - they are just super good cards. We all friggin' knew that. The problem with Twin is that you either have those other blue decks you are referring to, or twin. No cool UR Pyromancer (which top 8'ed a pro tour this year, just saying), no UW control, no grixis shadow, no jeskai flash, no UR breach, no madcap experiment shenanigans. It all becomes Twin.
I'll agree with you on one point, and I've said it about jund all the time - the idea that certain decks need to exist and be tier one as "pillars" is stupid. Modern has been evolving and changing since Twin was banned. Except for one bad period with eldrazi, the format has been incredibly diverse while also not stagnating. Innovation is constant, decks are rising and falling constantly, it's frankly amazing. The idea that a certain handful of decks need to exist for modern's health just because they were at the top five years ago is ridiculous.
Looking at MTG Top 8 (the only place I know where I can search old records by player) shows him with his recent SCG Dallas placement with Jeskai (9-16 placement), but his only other placements in the past year have been with Gx Tron decks. His next most recent URx posting is a Jeskai Nahiri list from 2016. So... I guess there's that. He plays Jeskai because he likes Jeskai and he writes articles about Jeskai for StarCity Games.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Repeating this line over and over does not make it true. But other decks existed concurrently with Twin, just as they would if Twin was legal today. I've been banned fighting this line of revisionist history in the past, so I will leave it at this: Other builds would survive as long as they were strong enough do to so (or had passionate enough followings), just as they did in the past. If they do not survive, it has nothing to do with whether or not Twin is around, and everything to do with those decks just not being good enough in the current meta.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I'm not sure what this means. Blue decks, still really, are not doing as many powerful things, and have not been able to 'jump through hoops' to do as well
There is a reason we have.
UR Madcap
UR Breach
UR Kiki
UR Pyro
Etc, etc, etc.
The URx crowd continues to look for a replacement, that simply does not exist. We have spent literally thousands, chasing a dream that is no longer possible.
I mean really, delete Goyf, does BGx survive?
Spirits
Modern remains king of formats.
https://www.channelfireball.com/articles/4-lessons-from-grand-prix-phoenix/
Spirits
I just don't understand what the interactive players want. On the one hand, I constantly here stuff about how linear decks are not skill-testing Magic and skill doesn't matter. They then naturally follow-up by saying interactive decks are the opposite: skill-testing decks where play skill and choices do matter and you can pick up tiny edges for excellent play. This part makes sense to me and I think it reflects what most interactive players believe about their decks. As a player who prefers interactive strategies, I also want such a deck to exist and I want to play it.
On the other hand, and here's the part that makes zero sense, the interactive players are always complaining that their decks take TOO much skill to win and the matchups are too hard. As someone who played a lot of UW Control on MTGO, this is exactly my favorite part of playing the deck. Mistakes were highly unforgiving and I learned from them. You didn't have Brainstorm or FoW to fall back on in case something went wrong. You had to make extremely tight decisions and gameplay to come out on top, and I loved the feeling of eking out 45/55 or worse matchups. Many decisions were related to mulligans, correct deck configuration, and reading an opponent's turn 1 play. I would imagine other Spikey interactive players would enjoy the same feeling, but instead many of them constantly complain about that same experience.
I remain convinced that many interactive players just want the 50/50 Twin type back deck. They don't want bad matchups and they try to camouflage this by saying that their matchups should be as close to 50/50 across the board, not polarized in the 20/80 or 80/20 range. The implication is that the following two decks are equally fair and equally acceptable in a format:
Deck A
Matchup 1: 50/50
Matchup 2: 45/55
Matchup 3: 55/45
Matchup 4: 50/50
Deck B
Matchup 1: 30/70
Matchup 2: 40/60
Matchup 3: 60/40
Matchup 4: 70/30
These two theoretical decks and their theoretical matchup spectrums have the same average MWP across the board. But the range is totally different in practice and Deck A is almost definitely a better deck. This is particularly true because Deck A secretly has a ton of 70/30 matchups against random decks because it's so tuned. This typically polarizes the format towards a few top-tier decks that can battle against each other on even footing, with all the lower-tier stuff getting totally pushed out by some format beasts.
I believe there is a contingent of interactive players who want Deck A and view their success on such a deck as a testament to their skill and prowess on the archetype. In reality, this deck isn't actually highlighting their skill or lack of skill. The deck is just probably too good and everyone should probably be playing it. That deck also wouldn't require as much skill to pilot as many claim. It basically plays itself because it's so good in so many situations. If you want to play skill-testing, interactive Magic, Modern has decks for you. If you want a 50/50+ interactive deck that picks up random 70/30+ games against lower-tier decks, Modern will never have such a deck (competitive Magic as a whole probably won't for any sustained period of time) and you're requesting something that isn't aligned with format realities. It would be like combo players clamoring for a tiered Hypergenesis deck to get a proper explosive combo experience.
This is essentially what I've been saying, but articulated better.
People can say Twin would be fine, but the reality in practice is different.
This typically polarizes the format towards a few top-tier decks that can battle against each other on even footing, with all the lower-tier stuff getting totally pushed out by some format beasts.
Pillars of the format, is what we are talking about here. Some think its good, some dont.
I've accepted it, but yes, some people (including myself) simply want Twin back.
Spirits
UBR Grixis Shadow UBR
UR Izzet Phoenix UR
UW UW Control UW
GB GB Rock GB
Commander
BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG
BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
What about...just like BBE/Jace, SFM and Twin???
Spirits
It's the epitome of a cognitive dissonance. If skill matters in principle, let it matter in practice. Don't argue for skill-testing Magic and then explain that decks require too much skill to succeed.
On a related note, I understand the arguments for such a theoretical Deck A in Modern, at least if your goal is something closer to chess than Magic. Caw Blade mirrors were extremely skill-testing, for example, but it didn't make for a great format. I don't understand the arguments in favor of Deck A given the realities of Modern and Wizards' approach to the format. 2017 and 2018 so far went by with no bans and explicit acknowledgements that this is the Modern that Wizards wants to promote. At this point, the argument has changed from "Modern has problems because it is not living up to Wizards' vision" (reasonable in late 2016!) to "Modern has problems because it is living up to that vision and I disagree with that vision." The vision is basically set in stone at this point. I wish we would spend more time discussing within that fulfilled vision (e.g. "how do we improve white as a primary color) instead of picking apart that vision as if there is something fundamentally wrong with it (e.g. "diversity is bad because I want to?" prepare for fewer top-tier matchups"). That would be like me going to a Standard forum and asking why I can't play T4 combo decks like Saheeli; it's just outside of the acknowledged format scope.
so you end up in a situation where these control players win a reasonable amount because of their skill, but everyone else is also winning with skill AND picking up free wins.
you could be some bastard love child of chuck norris and bruce lee, but if you are bringing a knife to a gunfight you are probably gonna die.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)I think that would be too much of a risk for Wizards. Regardless of how things have shaken out with Jace, BBE was pretty much a known quantity and they knew it wasn't going to break anything, Jace was the only risky card. SFM and Twin are both closer to Jace. both (like Jace) would probably be fine, but it would be wise to do one then the other. I am not sold on Twin, the format has changed, and that deck has picked up some very real new toys...and personal bias, I would rather see Preordain, and I would think they are mutually exclusive. I'm not saying we will never get Twin back, but both in one announcement just seems like a risk.
Do I need "Free wins" as a control player? I personally don't. I'm totally fine with all my wins being hard fought and based on skill and decisions, not games that are effectively over on T2 when I start countering/removing every threat the opponent plays.
I admit not everyone is like this, and some people do want free wins on even their interactive decks. But if that's the case, then just go out and say so. Many of the "control sucks in Modern" critics don't say that though. They disguise the "I want free wins" subtext under a mask of "I want a deck that rewards skill" and "free win decks are brainless and unhealthy." This is extremely disingenuous because they secretly want free wins too but don't typically admit it. Instead, they talk endlessly about variance losing games, bad matchups, and skill/decisions/gameplay needing to matter more than variance. Those are two entirely different desires. Want free wins? Argue for that. Don't pretend that "I want a control deck with free wins" is the same thing as "I want a control deck that rewards skill and tight gameplay."
I want to play interactive games with some free wins, just as other decks get away with Turn 3 free wins, and they get to keep those.
I dont think Control sucks. I've played it since Search came out, and doubled down once Jace was free, but it has zero (or close enough) free wins. I sit down every night, and just take a deep breath because I'm playing and Island and a Serum Visions, and its gonna be a grind.
Thats all well and good, but I'll take some of that 'Free Wins' too please. The Turn 3 Exarch with a flash of the Twin to your tapped out opponent. Yes sir.
Spirits
UB/x Faeries
UR Storm
XURWB Affinity
G Elves
UW control
Thats completely what I at least mean by 'free wins'. People actually feared Jace 'Fate Seal' victories and how 'demoralizing' it is to lose to! Thats how out of touch a LARGE number of people are.
Free wins, to me, means games you just take and finish, near immediately. Like first 5 turns.
That Discard, Goyf, Lily. GG. When you steal the only interaction they had and they are just praying for removal.
That 'I play 3 lands, Karn'. GG if you are on anything but the fastest of clocks.
That 'I dump my hand, plating' Affinity.
Many people want interactive magic, but not all of those people want every game, literally every single game, to be about grinding out the win.
Spsiegel said it on the last SCG Open, watching Jim Davis on UWR was exhausting. Every game, that one GAME not match, going 40+ Minutes.
I mean the only deck I have played for any amount of time post Twin, is UWR Control/Nahiri. I've tried Quellers, and Geist does work (the best clock UWR decks have? probably) but in the end I would GLADLY drop it, and go back to UR Twin, because every single game, the height of interactive, but no game is short, unless you are run over by any number of degenerate Modern decks. :]
Spirits
i never said that control decks need or deserve to have free wins. i was merely offering an explanation on why blue control decks have historically suffered in the format. just a statement on reality, in which case what people want is irrelevant.
thats great that you like fighting for your wins, im in the same boat. however when their are options that are equally skill testing and occasionally picking up free wins; then that is simply the better path to success. its the entire reason people have picked up these explosive win cons.
edit: reading your post im not sure you actually responded to anything i said. regardless i understand your crusade to stamp out complaints about the format.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)also, it's nice to see people trying BBE in a bunch of different shells. Some of them have questionable longevity of course but hey, let the people jam their elves in their decks for a while if they want ^_^. we're still very much in a honeymoon period for 'trying out BBE' as we are seeing the first large events we've had since the unbannings.
if modern was good before, it's good now. in fact, potentiially it might even be.... better? interestingly the whole format seems to have slowed by a whole turn which is *weird*.
also let's talk about burn - what's with the 0% conversion rate from day 2 to top 32? (for reference, recent GP phoenix had 28 burn decks, the most represented deck in day 2, but not a single copy in the top 32) that's *also* pretty weird!
loving where the format's at right now. some really interesting developments and none of them intrinsically bad.