I think Alpine Moon will have a big impact on Tron decks. The difference between 2 mana and 1 mana hate is not insignificant
Also, I tend to sympathize with the Jund, Jeskai, and Mardu decks of the world since they represent the interactive decks in modern. Personally, these are the types of matchups I enjoy the most and I think a lot of players do as well. It's better than the "two ships passing in the night" phenomena we get with many modern decks
I don't think it is better. It is boring.
Its such a weird take to me. I had a game yesterday, my opponent could not interact with me, I did literally nothing but cantrip and play lands for 4 turns as there was zero threat to me.
Turn 5 I Breach Emrakul and win.
Thats not boring to you? People can play linear decks, they can play big mana, they can play combo, but if they have no ability to interact, I fail to see how more interaction (midrange/control) is more 'boring' than a couple of goldfish.
I find it boring to 1 for 1 where virtually nothing substantive occurs, until the game becomes a topdeck war where the midrange or control player relies on their average card being better. It is boring because nothing is progressing. Then I get to sit there going "welp now I get to wait five turns to die while they just hold a kill spell or counter for any sort of a comeback attempt." Tron is funny because it takes that slow, monotonous gameplan and tells the player "ohhhhhhh yeah I win now."
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. There is nothing entertaining to watch, there is no tension, when Tron is active. 'Oh I guess here comes the overpowered bomb..oh no, its a Stirrings so they can find it first or clear out 5 dead draws...nice game play!'
I'd watch URx vs Jund all day every day because there is that tension, that fight over resources. There is so much more depth to what can take place between those decks, that non-interactive ones simply do not touch.
I mean I'm all for 'I win now' decks. No argument there, but its difficult to say they are more entertaining to watch.
It’s hard to complain too much about Tron when we recently got Field of Ruin and Damping Sphere, and now Alpine Moon and Infernal Reckoining are coming out.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern
JundBGR
RW Blood MoonRW
Pauper
Delver U
Elves G
Control B
Commander
Edgar Markov BRW
Captain Sisay GW
Niv-Mizzet, Parun UR
Tymna and Ravos WB
It's not hard at all, when 2 (and Blood Moon) of those cards were already legal, 1 is going to naturally turn on their enchantment/artifact removal, and one is an incredibly niche sideboard card.
Oh, and not a single one is enough on its own to balance a match up.
So you want one card, auto-pilot, I win button against Tron, that they can't play around at all? Sounds like some fair and interactive Magic right there, folks.
No, I think Alpine would have been about as good as we could possibly asked for (reasonable that is) if it wasn't a free rainbow source to turn on the removal they are already packing that makes any single one of the hate cards little more than a speed bump.
It's not as if getting land drops is hard for Tron.
It's like I've said, there is no hate like Back to Basics, or even Choke, for Tron.
It's all stuff they are already dealing with like Storm packing 3+ kind of bounce spells.
Alpine moon will not see anymore play than dampening sphere, and I believe you rather play dampening sphere over a card that is specifically for one match up. That isn't a real SB card when you face against such a diverse meta in the lower rounds of any REL tournament.
No, I think Alpine would have been about as good as we could possibly asked for (reasonable that is) if it wasn't a free rainbow source to turn on the removal they are already packing that makes any single one of the hate cards little more than a speed bump.
I think that interaction is a bit overemphasized. I don't even bring in Nature's Claim against Jeskai, opting to just ignore cards like Damping Sphere (or Moon in this case) by loading up on Thragtusks and Thought-Knot Seers.
No, I think Alpine would have been about as good as we could possibly asked for (reasonable that is) if it wasn't a free rainbow source to turn on the removal they are already packing that makes any single one of the hate cards little more than a speed bump.
I think that interaction is a bit overemphasized. I don't even bring in Nature's Claim against Jeskai, opting to just ignore cards like Damping Sphere (or Moon in this case) by loading up on Thragtusks and Thought-Knot Seers.
lol so we are at least clear here that the 'hate' is useless?
I mean you are more than an experienced voice with this deck, is there any hate that is even remotely viable against you, or is it really just decks like Infect?
No, I think Alpine would have been about as good as we could possibly asked for (reasonable that is) if it wasn't a free rainbow source to turn on the removal they are already packing that makes any single one of the hate cards little more than a speed bump.
I think that interaction is a bit overemphasized. I don't even bring in Nature's Claim against Jeskai, opting to just ignore cards like Damping Sphere (or Moon in this case) by loading up on Thragtusks and Thought-Knot Seers.
lol so we are at least clear here that the 'hate' is useless?
I mean you are more than an experienced voice with this deck, is there any hate that is even remotely viable against you, or is it really just decks like Infect?
Again, the variable is clock speed. The hate is only "useless" if you can't close fast enough. Damping Sphere is a huge pain out of decks like Jund, Humans, Affinity, Elves, Dredge, Hollow One, etc.
In the context of control decks, Stony Silence is the real problem card, but Jeskai tends not to play that one.
This is the issue here, where people are framing their control deck's problems against Tron as if that's the only relevant angle to look at.
No, I've long accepted that hard control is a dog, and frankly should be. The question to me is simply 'is there hate that is sufficient, or is it deck choice that matters more'.
For example Stony against Affinity, or War's Wage. Those can go in any deck, and matter against Affinity. When you say 'I dont even care about Claim and just run them over with TKS' that to me says the hate simply isnt sufficient.
EDIT: Like for example if I tap out, and a surprise Choke hits me. I'm 99% dead. Right there. Is there anything that does that against Tron? It feels like a huge nope.
Are you really going to play Alpine moon for 2 azcantas and collonades? I would rather play blood moon and that effectively shuts those decks down harder than a one mana enchantment that helps them fix their mana.
Valakut is in the same hedge interest.
Why would you waste SB slots for a non versatile card vs. something like blood moon? Feches help you get the basics you need and it is more versatile in almost every single match up in a diverse format with people playing nonbasics up to 80-95% of their manabase.
I would rather just have them create more spreading seas type cards. If Alpine moon did not allow them to create Mana of any color, it would have been better. But you can play seas claim and that effectively is a better card.
No, I've long accepted that hard control is a dog, and frankly should be. The question to me is simply 'is there hate that is sufficient, or is it deck choice that matters more'.
For example Stony against Affinity, or War's Wage. Those can go in any deck, and matter against Affinity. When you say 'I dont even care about Claim and just run them over with TKS' that to me says the hate simply isnt sufficient.
EDIT: Like for example if I tap out, and a surprise Choke hits me. I'm 99% dead. Right there. Is there anything that does that against Tron? It feels like a huge nope.
Crumble to Dust . If you drop this and hit a Tron land before they start dropping Karns, and you still lose, you need to watch the TCC tutorials on deckbuilding and basic play again. I've been hit with it where I lose not only any chance of Tron, but the second Tower that was gonna be my land drop in hand. that card is a house.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Project Booster Fun makes it less fun to open a booster.
No, I've long accepted that hard control is a dog, and frankly should be. The question to me is simply 'is there hate that is sufficient, or is it deck choice that matters more'.
For example Stony against Affinity, or War's Wage. Those can go in any deck, and matter against Affinity. When you say 'I dont even care about Claim and just run them over with TKS' that to me says the hate simply isnt sufficient.
EDIT: Like for example if I tap out, and a surprise Choke hits me. I'm 99% dead. Right there. Is there anything that does that against Tron? It feels like a huge nope.
Crumble to Dust . If you drop this and hit a Tron land before they start dropping Karns, and you still lose, you need to watch the TCC tutorials on deckbuilding and basic play again. I've been hit with it where I lose not only any chance of Tron, but the second Tower that was gonna be my land drop in hand. that card is a house.
If you're on the draw, and you perfectly hit your own land drops, it's possible they resolve both Karn and Ugin (or even Karn and Ulamog if plant/mine/tower/tower) before you even cast this card.
Control has options against Tron. Blue Moon has blood moon and burn as a clock, and has Crumble to Dust in the side. Azorius Control has spreading seas + Field of Ruin, Gideon as a clock, and has stony silence in the side.
Also, I’ve played a choke against control several times and still lost. I played a turn 3 Thrun against control one game and lost to bolts and helixes to my face. Not every sideboard card gets you a free win, and that’s not how Magic is supposed to work.
Also it’s hypocritical to criticize Tron for being non interactive, and then when people mention there are lots of sideboard options against Tron, some printed recently, you say, “Yeah, but Tron can interact with them!”
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern
JundBGR
RW Blood MoonRW
Pauper
Delver U
Elves G
Control B
Commander
Edgar Markov BRW
Captain Sisay GW
Niv-Mizzet, Parun UR
Tymna and Ravos WB
No, I've long accepted that hard control is a dog, and frankly should be. The question to me is simply 'is there hate that is sufficient, or is it deck choice that matters more'.
For example Stony against Affinity, or War's Wage. Those can go in any deck, and matter against Affinity. When you say 'I dont even care about Claim and just run them over with TKS' that to me says the hate simply isnt sufficient.
EDIT: Like for example if I tap out, and a surprise Choke hits me. I'm 99% dead. Right there. Is there anything that does that against Tron? It feels like a huge nope.
No disrespect to you or anyone else here but I feel like I kinda answered all that in my previous reply and the discussion is getting a bit cyclical so I'm replying at my own peril here. What I'm really confused about though is this bizarre "sufficient hate" argument, which seems to imply that the people propagating it (Control players specifically) deserve or are owed what they deem to be "sufficient hate", using busted cards from eons ago as benchmarks. Why do you feel entitled to that? I don't get it.
And for the record, my winrates against Control with my big bad Tron deck in the month of June:
You guys sound like the most entitled magic players I've heard in a long time. Tron is not unbeatable with your fair decks, you have in no way the right to have a hate card that 100% of the time blows the deck out. Crumble to dust will blow them out in 90% of games and that is good enough. Yes sometimes there are non-games, but I honest to god hate this idea that by virtue of being fair your games are 'deeper'. They can be, but they also can be extremely shallow. I am a control player at heart but I've had my fair share of 'fair' non-games, if you've never been hit by the ole triple thoughtseize into LotV draw by Jund as a fair blue deck, let me tell you its just as bad as tron resolving turn 3 karn, which you have actually more chance of interacting against (you know with counterspells). Does no one remember the citrus assassin (Greg Orange) beating tron with UWR on camera at a PT (or GP I actually forget), through some of the tightest play I've seen (ambush viper into cryptic as a timewalk multiple times). Yes it's uphill but you're allowed to have bad matchups.
Moreover there are plenty of games against control where you're playing aggro, and they draw some variation of 3/4 removal spells and an azcanta or planeswalker. That's a complete non-game too. I like midrange mirrors, but often they are nowhere as deep as you're making out, you do the obvious one-for-ones (don't beat around the bush 90% of the time you just hit them with the correct removal spell it's not extremely hard) and then you topdeck until someone drops a bomb with no answer. Yes sometimes you have great interplay but often it plays out like that.
My final point is that you guys aren't the only magic players, I love tuning wacky control decks and playing long drawn out defensive games (I actually tuned 4c teachings for years in modern and top 8'd some PTQ's by myself) but one of the beauties of magic is that it's not just one dimensional play. The clash of different styles is what makes it unique and such a great game, I said this when people were complaining that aggro was over represented (which was guess what, not permanent anyway) but "aggro (big mana) players deserve to play too". Especially in a non-rotating format like modern. They deserve to have a deck to drop early bombs with and thats ok. Just like engine combo players, just like linear aggro players, just like midrange players
No disrespect to you or anyone else here but I feel like I kinda answered all that in my previous reply and the discussion is getting a bit cyclical so I'm replying at my own peril here. What I'm really confused about though is this bizarre "sufficient hate" argument, which seems to imply that the people propagating it (Control players specifically) deserve or are owed what they deem to be "sufficient hate", using busted cards from eons ago as benchmarks. Why do you feel entitled to that? I don't get it.
And for the record, my winrates against Control with my big bad Tron deck in the month of June:
Jeskai: 8-8 (50%)
UW: 2-3 (40%)
No offense taken, and yeah I think this answers it, and I agree, there is no hate that will be printed, like the old stuff.
I was just trying to convey that as an open question. 'Is there an anti tron blow out card?'
Yes sometimes there are non-games, but I honest to god hate this idea that by virtue of being fair your games are 'deeper'. They can be, but they also can be extremely shallow.
To me, it's all about decision trees. Picking a plan and sticking to it. Changing the plan if the circumstances change, etc. When I first got into Modern, I played BW Tokens, built from the Modern Event Deck. Then I built my first "real" deck: Burn. I loved it because it was simple and it won without too much trouble on my end. Attack with things, point burn to face, and win. Then I discovered Islands and never looked back. I actually still have Burn sleeved up and ready to go today, but I haven't touched it in years because the games were ALL one dimensional. I don't like the feeling that I've won as a result of the top 10 cards of my deck and not my choices and decisions within the game.
The idea that URx decks can produce non-games is true, but it is the tiny minority and the exception, not the rule. And when a matchup consistently involves multiple decision trees, changes of role from beatdown to control and back, and decisions that could win or lose you the game; those just feel more engaging and rewarding to play. And the games I've had with Snap Bolt decks over the past several years have been orders of magnitude more enjoyable and more complex than almost any of my matches with Burn.
To me, it's all about decision trees. Picking a plan and sticking to it. Changing the plan if the circumstances change, etc. When I first got into Modern, I played BW Tokens, built from the Modern Event Deck. Then I built my first "real" deck: Burn. I loved it because it was simple and it won without too much trouble on my end. Attack with things, point burn to face, and win. Then I discovered Islands and never looked back. I actually still have Burn sleeved up and ready to go today, but I haven't touched it in years because the games were ALL one dimensional. I don't like the feeling that I've won as a result of the top 10 cards of my deck and not my choices and decisions within the game.
The idea that URx decks can produce non-games is true, but it is the tiny minority and the exception, not the rule. And when a matchup consistently involves multiple decision trees, changes of role from beatdown to control and back, and decisions that could win or lose you the game; those just feel more engaging and rewarding to play. And the games I've had with Snap Bolt decks over the past several years have been orders of magnitude more enjoyable and more complex than almost any of my matches with Burn.
This is simply not true, and a lot of fair players fall into this trap. Burn is one of the easier decks to be ok with but is extremely (I mean extremely) punishing on misplays. Just listen to Pat Sullivan commentate any burn match. In fact at the highest level I would claim that linear decks lose due to singular (often small) misplays more than fair decks. I used to grind gifts storm on MTGO, sadly my PhD has sucked up a lot of my time and I can't anymore, but what a lot of people don't understand is, that to play the linear decks correctly you have so limited options and you can often lose by 1 mana or 1 point of damage, you have a string of complex decisions to make with little to no information, ie they promote a different skill set. No matter what deck you are playing, to succeed at the highest level (assuming it is viable) takes an enormous amount of skill, but that skill might not be grinding incremental card advantage (which seems to be all fair players really care about deep down).
Seriously has no one noticed that Paul Muller and Caleb Scherer wreck with storm and thats about it? Linear decks can also be extremely rewarding to pilot just in different ways. I haven't played Tron for years but I would assume that it rewards different skills as well, and that just because it doesn't fit your idea of grinding out CA it's not 'worse' magic.
As a long time Tron (and basically every other deck) player, I don't recognise what you're saying. You've taken the stance that Tron is somehow less meaningful to play with and against, citing complexity?
Let me tell you, just like any deck in modern, Tron can be simple enough to pick up the rudiments but to play it well it's as complex as anything else. It may be very light on combat maths and thoughtseize-esque choices but what it lacks it makes up for in nuanced sequencing, just like burn or elves or KCI.
99% of complaints I see to the effect of "Tron is autopilot blah" come from people who haven't really learnt the deck beyond a cursory glance or borrowing it from their mate that one time. Those comments are invalid.
Just like when someone tries to tell you burn is an autopilot deck, you can just switch off from the rest of whatever they say because you know it's rubbish.
Every deck needs a slightly different kind of play pattern but all of them are complex once you get to the high-tier levels of play. Mediocre players complaining about their opponent and his deck full of fatties is a complaint as old as magic, and it's been invalid the whole time. I played some games in 1995 with a juggernaut in my deck as a win condition. It was a sweet deck with lots of disruption and interaction, and the win condition itself was interchangeable for more or less anything beefy, but i had complaints from opponents that my deck was 'easy mode' and of course they waxed lyrical about their complex superior deck choices and play patterns. It was kind of funny even at the time but the fact that this mentality still exists implies that it's less about any one deck and more about a human need to blame failures on some vague scapegoat by making a load of dissonant assumptions about what opponents are playing. Losing a matchup? Of course! My opponent couldn't possibly outclass my skill as a player, so they must be playing a simple deck that can win without thinking! It all makes sense now!
That's a real psychological effect btw. What's frustrating is that most of the time, it's not a conscious decision to create blame in this way and challenging that sort of dumb pseudo-logic can be a non-starter. Most people aren't open to analysing their own behaviours and biases, and can get very defensive and angry if you expose the weaknesses in their evaluation of the world around them (even if you do it in a very tactful and considerate way)
I find it boring to 1 for 1 where virtually nothing substantive occurs, until the game becomes a topdeck war where the midrange or control player relies on their average card being better. It is boring because nothing is progressing. Then I get to sit there going "welp now I get to wait five turns to die while they just hold a kill spell or counter for any sort of a comeback attempt." Tron is funny because it takes that slow, monotonous gameplan and tells the player "ohhhhhhh yeah I win now."
I'd watch URx vs Jund all day every day because there is that tension, that fight over resources. There is so much more depth to what can take place between those decks, that non-interactive ones simply do not touch.
I mean I'm all for 'I win now' decks. No argument there, but its difficult to say they are more entertaining to watch.
Spirits
JundBGR
RW Blood MoonRW
Pauper
Delver U
Elves G
Control B
Commander
Edgar Markov BRW
Captain Sisay GW
Niv-Mizzet, Parun UR
Tymna and Ravos WB
Oh, and not a single one is enough on its own to balance a match up.
Spirits
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Preordain is fine, or Stirrings is not.
I may go farther and say Dig is fine...but I'm not there yet.
Spirits
It's not as if getting land drops is hard for Tron.
It's like I've said, there is no hate like Back to Basics, or even Choke, for Tron.
It's all stuff they are already dealing with like Storm packing 3+ kind of bounce spells.
Spirits
Nothing will be unbanned either, because there isn't a set coming out that Wizards can pack SFM into as a chase mythic
lol so we are at least clear here that the 'hate' is useless?
I mean you are more than an experienced voice with this deck, is there any hate that is even remotely viable against you, or is it really just decks like Infect?
Spirits
In the context of control decks, Stony Silence is the real problem card, but Jeskai tends not to play that one.
This is the issue here, where people are framing their control deck's problems against Tron as if that's the only relevant angle to look at.
For example Stony against Affinity, or War's Wage. Those can go in any deck, and matter against Affinity. When you say 'I dont even care about Claim and just run them over with TKS' that to me says the hate simply isnt sufficient.
EDIT: Like for example if I tap out, and a surprise Choke hits me. I'm 99% dead. Right there. Is there anything that does that against Tron? It feels like a huge nope.
Spirits
Valakut is in the same hedge interest.
Why would you waste SB slots for a non versatile card vs. something like blood moon? Feches help you get the basics you need and it is more versatile in almost every single match up in a diverse format with people playing nonbasics up to 80-95% of their manabase.
I would rather just have them create more spreading seas type cards. If Alpine moon did not allow them to create Mana of any color, it would have been better. But you can play seas claim and that effectively is a better card.
Crumble to Dust . If you drop this and hit a Tron land before they start dropping Karns, and you still lose, you need to watch the TCC tutorials on deckbuilding and basic play again. I've been hit with it where I lose not only any chance of Tron, but the second Tower that was gonna be my land drop in hand. that card is a house.
If you're on the draw, and you perfectly hit your own land drops, it's possible they resolve both Karn and Ugin (or even Karn and Ulamog if plant/mine/tower/tower) before you even cast this card.
4 mana and sorcery speed is a huge drawback.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Also, I’ve played a choke against control several times and still lost. I played a turn 3 Thrun against control one game and lost to bolts and helixes to my face. Not every sideboard card gets you a free win, and that’s not how Magic is supposed to work.
Also it’s hypocritical to criticize Tron for being non interactive, and then when people mention there are lots of sideboard options against Tron, some printed recently, you say, “Yeah, but Tron can interact with them!”
JundBGR
RW Blood MoonRW
Pauper
Delver U
Elves G
Control B
Commander
Edgar Markov BRW
Captain Sisay GW
Niv-Mizzet, Parun UR
Tymna and Ravos WB
And for the record, my winrates against Control with my big bad Tron deck in the month of June:
Jeskai: 8-8 (50%)
UW: 2-3 (40%)
Moreover there are plenty of games against control where you're playing aggro, and they draw some variation of 3/4 removal spells and an azcanta or planeswalker. That's a complete non-game too. I like midrange mirrors, but often they are nowhere as deep as you're making out, you do the obvious one-for-ones (don't beat around the bush 90% of the time you just hit them with the correct removal spell it's not extremely hard) and then you topdeck until someone drops a bomb with no answer. Yes sometimes you have great interplay but often it plays out like that.
My final point is that you guys aren't the only magic players, I love tuning wacky control decks and playing long drawn out defensive games (I actually tuned 4c teachings for years in modern and top 8'd some PTQ's by myself) but one of the beauties of magic is that it's not just one dimensional play. The clash of different styles is what makes it unique and such a great game, I said this when people were complaining that aggro was over represented (which was guess what, not permanent anyway) but "aggro (big mana) players deserve to play too". Especially in a non-rotating format like modern. They deserve to have a deck to drop early bombs with and thats ok. Just like engine combo players, just like linear aggro players, just like midrange players
No offense taken, and yeah I think this answers it, and I agree, there is no hate that will be printed, like the old stuff.
I was just trying to convey that as an open question. 'Is there an anti tron blow out card?'
Crumble would have been my thinking too.
Spirits
To me, it's all about decision trees. Picking a plan and sticking to it. Changing the plan if the circumstances change, etc. When I first got into Modern, I played BW Tokens, built from the Modern Event Deck. Then I built my first "real" deck: Burn. I loved it because it was simple and it won without too much trouble on my end. Attack with things, point burn to face, and win. Then I discovered Islands and never looked back. I actually still have Burn sleeved up and ready to go today, but I haven't touched it in years because the games were ALL one dimensional. I don't like the feeling that I've won as a result of the top 10 cards of my deck and not my choices and decisions within the game.
The idea that URx decks can produce non-games is true, but it is the tiny minority and the exception, not the rule. And when a matchup consistently involves multiple decision trees, changes of role from beatdown to control and back, and decisions that could win or lose you the game; those just feel more engaging and rewarding to play. And the games I've had with Snap Bolt decks over the past several years have been orders of magnitude more enjoyable and more complex than almost any of my matches with Burn.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
This is simply not true, and a lot of fair players fall into this trap. Burn is one of the easier decks to be ok with but is extremely (I mean extremely) punishing on misplays. Just listen to Pat Sullivan commentate any burn match. In fact at the highest level I would claim that linear decks lose due to singular (often small) misplays more than fair decks. I used to grind gifts storm on MTGO, sadly my PhD has sucked up a lot of my time and I can't anymore, but what a lot of people don't understand is, that to play the linear decks correctly you have so limited options and you can often lose by 1 mana or 1 point of damage, you have a string of complex decisions to make with little to no information, ie they promote a different skill set. No matter what deck you are playing, to succeed at the highest level (assuming it is viable) takes an enormous amount of skill, but that skill might not be grinding incremental card advantage (which seems to be all fair players really care about deep down).
Seriously has no one noticed that Paul Muller and Caleb Scherer wreck with storm and thats about it? Linear decks can also be extremely rewarding to pilot just in different ways. I haven't played Tron for years but I would assume that it rewards different skills as well, and that just because it doesn't fit your idea of grinding out CA it's not 'worse' magic.
Let me tell you, just like any deck in modern, Tron can be simple enough to pick up the rudiments but to play it well it's as complex as anything else. It may be very light on combat maths and thoughtseize-esque choices but what it lacks it makes up for in nuanced sequencing, just like burn or elves or KCI.
99% of complaints I see to the effect of "Tron is autopilot blah" come from people who haven't really learnt the deck beyond a cursory glance or borrowing it from their mate that one time. Those comments are invalid.
Just like when someone tries to tell you burn is an autopilot deck, you can just switch off from the rest of whatever they say because you know it's rubbish.
Every deck needs a slightly different kind of play pattern but all of them are complex once you get to the high-tier levels of play. Mediocre players complaining about their opponent and his deck full of fatties is a complaint as old as magic, and it's been invalid the whole time. I played some games in 1995 with a juggernaut in my deck as a win condition. It was a sweet deck with lots of disruption and interaction, and the win condition itself was interchangeable for more or less anything beefy, but i had complaints from opponents that my deck was 'easy mode' and of course they waxed lyrical about their complex superior deck choices and play patterns. It was kind of funny even at the time but the fact that this mentality still exists implies that it's less about any one deck and more about a human need to blame failures on some vague scapegoat by making a load of dissonant assumptions about what opponents are playing. Losing a matchup? Of course! My opponent couldn't possibly outclass my skill as a player, so they must be playing a simple deck that can win without thinking! It all makes sense now!
That's a real psychological effect btw. What's frustrating is that most of the time, it's not a conscious decision to create blame in this way and challenging that sort of dumb pseudo-logic can be a non-starter. Most people aren't open to analysing their own behaviours and biases, and can get very defensive and angry if you expose the weaknesses in their evaluation of the world around them (even if you do it in a very tactful and considerate way)