But when you criticize the format you (rightfully) have the burden of proof, which is next to impossible with the massive amount of variance and tiny amount of data we have access to. You're not going to change anyone's mind on the internet anyways so once the discussion inevitably turns toxic I think a lot of Modern critics tend to just shut up.
Well, maybe it's just my experience or perspective and I am completely wrong, but for the most part, I have seen toxic discussions coming from those who dislike modern.
If personal experience is of any value (which is not necessarily), I often have refrained from posting just because I can't bare another discussion around how "modern sucks cause it's linear", "unban Twin or modern it horrible" and so on. I would argue that even if it is true that people don't post their distaste for the format because they are afraid they will be bashed, then the same definitely holds true for the "other" side.
Further, people who mostly care about the format (i.e. ktk), are the ones who actually come in with all the possible data that we can have, and not the ones who are bashing the format (i.e. the ones as you said with the burden of proof).
I could definitely see modern critics being the first ones to go toxic, most of them are posting from a point of frustration and there definitely are a lot of people who just want to ban whatever they lost at FNM to last night. That makes it even harder when you do want to come from a reasonable point of view and modern defenders start with a mindset of "oh boy here we go again" (understandably so).
As for the defenders bringing the most stats in, it is a *lot* easier to defend modern being healthy by showing that, with the little data we have, there is no deck that is significantly better.
I could definitely see modern critics being the first ones to go toxic, most of them are posting from a point of frustration and there definitely are a lot of people who just want to ban whatever they lost at FNM to last night. That makes it even harder when you do want to come from a reasonable point of view and modern defenders start with a mindset of "oh boy here we go again" (understandably so).
As for the defenders bringing the most stats in, it is a *lot* easier to defend modern being healthy by showing that, with the little data we have, there is no deck that is significantly better.
I very much agree with your first point. Indeed often the "modern defenders" will be quick to go towards the "not again" reaction. I would like to point out, however, that none of us (with minimal but obvious exceptions) are set in stone in regards to modern. I mean, we have seen several changes of heart over the years, not because people were wrong and then right (or vice versa), but because the meta is shifting and modern is changing. I have called for bans myself at some points, and I will do it in the future if need be, and the same applies to several people. Ktk most of all is the one who has been very critical when needed and positive when things are good.
What I want to say is that this is not a definitive answer, we are talking about the here and now (before the first "rotation").
In regards to your point about how easy it is to defend it or not, there is indeed some truth to it as, often, people who want a deck to be banned just "feel" that it should, based on experiences playing/watching, which is not entirely unjustifiable. At the same time, however, we can't completely disregard the data we have. One can disagree with the picture these data paint, but nowadays we have more data than we had 2 years ago, after they stopped publishing full 5-0s and before they started publishing day 2 meta breakdowns and top 32/64s.
So I believe that now we have a clearer picture than a few years ago, and this picture, for now, seems to be relatively healthy. I also do think that, with the new streaming technologies wizards is adopting (see decklists and standings showing up during feature match for example), we will have an even clearer picture in the future to discuss these matters.
I think our perspective is also influenced by past experiences. I am a returning player, left the game 14 years ago. I have been playing modern since November of last year, first with a budget white weenie humans deck and now with tokens.
My experience with the format is positive, but again this must be very meta dependent, the only deck I truly hate is Tron, but definitely modern is a much more interactive format that what I was familiar with from old extended circa 2005 and before. Cards are much less broken, and you don't have blue dominating everywhere.
In addition, oftentimes certain people (mostly from people who vocally dislike modern for the past few years), claims have been made that modern is just not enjoyable. Popularity numbers in general indicate to the opposite, as well as event attendance.
Popularity does not mean enjoy, as shown by the number of people selecting Option #4. There are likely many players who are so heavily invested that the choices between selling out the cards or begrudgingly continue to play, lean towards continuing to play. They have spent so much time/effort/money on the format that walking away would feel like a monumental waste.
Its impossible to argue the format is not popular and successful, and therefore enjoyable to many. I dont know how anyone is going to quantify an argument against those statements.
It's also, not particularly relevant to the question 'Do you (I) enjoy Modern right now?'
EDIT: Also as of this writing, 53 of 62 voters either want change, or (4) are just playing and dont really seem to care what the format looks like.
Its impossible to argue the format is not popular and successful, and therefore enjoyable to many. I dont know how anyone is going to quantify an argument against those statements.
It's also, not particularly relevant to the question 'Do you (I) enjoy Modern right now?'
EDIT: Also as of this writing, 53 of 62 voters either want change, or (4) are just playing and dont really seem to care what the format looks like.
79% of voters would like to see change.
In option (2) wouldn't mind change=/=want change. I wouldn't mind changes, that doesn't mean I actively want them, I thought it was quite clear. Option (3) also doesn't include changes.
Also, I mean, you have at several points bashed the format as a whole saying that it is horrible to play and that it is a complete mess. Granted that at certain points you have stated that you only reflect your own opinion, still you tend to go for wide format bashing and generalized statements.
The poll is a personal one. Feel free to look at the start of my last post.
Its impossible to argue the format is not popular and successful, and therefore enjoyable to many. I dont know how anyone is going to quantify an argument against those statements.
Either way, I'm not interested in getting dragged over this, when people will not even think about the potential of removing some of these egregious cards. If you dont face down (or you actually enjoy) the top decks of the format over and over, thats great, I'm glad you enjoy it.
I, personally, my own opinion, feel the format is terrible. Yes I'm going to generalize, but...thats kind of what you are asking for here. 'Do you enjoy Modern'? No. You asked a general question. I provide a general answer. That answer has not changed in months on end, because while people celebrated the KCI ban, I shrugged because it does not change what Modern fundamentally is within the 'winners meta'.
If you want a more nuanced, long and thoughtful answer/discussion around certain cards, or hell even the format all together, I wouldnt mind that Swan Song but if you are going to call me out for a 'wide generalization' when thats the point of your question/poll? I'm going to just have to pass on that discourse.
I voted for the #2. Sometimes I feel extra aggravated by the linearity of the format. On the other hand, my LGS has a pretty decent metagame that fluctuates just the right amount to keep it fresh and interesting.
Even though I'm enjoying most of the games, playing UW, I really feel that I'm putting myself at a disadvantage on purpose for playing something I want to. Modern isn't perfect but it's good enough. I'm still scared of the disparity of the power of the format "pillars". I still think that the U pillar is way weaker than the rest.
Considering that the format is fine at the moment I would just do a couple of things to make it, in my perspective better:
1. Unban Stoneforge Mystic, Preordain and Green Sun's Zenith
2. Print on Horizons the following cards: Counterspell, Containment Priest, Flametongue Kavu, Shardless Agent, Baleful Strix and probably Hymn to Tourach and Daze.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Playing: WUMiracles ControlUW RUBGrixis Death's ShadowBUR
This looks like a redundant topic, but also a useful poll. Players will discuss the same things here as they do in the "official" thread. It'd be nice to have this poll at the begining of the official thread, so we know a bit more about the silent crowd.
Overall, enjoyment seems to equal the ratio between expectation and experience. The more you want from the format, the worse you'll feel.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Pioneer - A bunch of stuff Modern - Humans Legacy - Grixis Phoenix / Death & Taxes
Something Maro often comments on is that those who read his blog, or a forum like this are the most enfranchised players. The silent majority just play magic and maybe netdeck occasionally... I voted for the #2, however the wouldn't mind some changes is an acknowledgement of a very simple fact, first War of the Spark, is apparently a different sort of set, so may have a wider impact. Second we all know Modern Horizons is coming, inherently one would hope this set does provide some changes to modern.
Full disclosure I play G Tron and Hollow One, they are fairly different decks but also both fairly linear, in the sense the play patterns repeat and obviously driven by the two apparent boggy men Ancient Stirrings and Faithless Looting. So yes I enjoy it as it stands, but I know that change is likely imminent, which is also fine.
Considering that the format is fine at the moment I would just do a couple of things to make it, in my perspective better:
1. Unban Stoneforge Mystic, Preordain and Green Sun's Zenith
2. Print on Horizons the following cards: Counterspell, Containment Priest, Flametongue Kavu, Shardless Agent, Baleful Strix and probably Hymn to Tourach and Daze.
I'd be fine with everything you suggest, except Hymn to Tourach, that card is way over-powered, even from the guy playing Burning Inquiry. In addition I'd like to see Careful Study and Dack Fayden.
Considering that the format is fine at the moment I would just do a couple of things to make it, in my perspective better:
1. Unban Stoneforge Mystic, Preordain and Green Sun's Zenith
2. Print on Horizons the following cards: Counterspell, Containment Priest, Flametongue Kavu, Shardless Agent, Baleful Strix and probably Hymn to Tourach and Daze.
Shardless Agent and Strix? That's an interesting suggestion. Makes me wonder if we could have a weaker modern version of the Shardless BUG deck in legacy.
Agree with all cards except tourach. It's hard for me to put in words, but I feel that card is wasteland power level and should not be here in modern.
I wouldn't feel well in a meta with Hymn and Snaps lurking around the corner. I agree that heavy hand disruption feels good, but Hymn indirectly supports graveyard centerd decks and we know the current hand disruption decks have a hard time against Phoenix and Dredge.
If you would reprint Hymn more fair decks will suffer or rely on Leyline of Sanctity while the current decks that can empty their hands by turn 3 will get out of it unscathed... Oh and we already have the Cabal Therapist version of Hymn: Whispers of Emrakul this is also by the way how Modern Horizons will get its treatment. Close to legacy, but never really there.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My decks:
Competetive: Lantern Control, MonoR Phoenix, Dredge
Meta-Dependant: Modern Cheeri0s, Esper Spirits, Wilderness Teachings , Modern Elves, All-in Death's Shadow, Aristocrats, BW Death&Taxes
Fun own projects: Spireside Industries, UB Scrapyard, Thundercat Worship, Dirty Kitten, RB Rock, Eternal Toolbox
I agree. I'm on board with everything else DaveJacinto said. In fact, he may be a brother from another mother, lol.
But Hymn to Tourach shouldn't be in. I think Wrench Mind is the extent of how powerful a "Hymn" effect should be or possibly a bit more strong.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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 like playing with my cards. I like playing with all of my cards. I like having to think about and learn about more cards and potential interactions. Modern is a format that rewards knowing about difference archetypes and strategies. Net decks and brews can currently be successful at many tournaments. You want to grind your Grand Prix? Fine, there are many options to choose from. You want to play at your local store, there are even more to choose from. The point at which BG Rock becomes a pillar deck again is the point at which I think we have a decent midrange balance.
Honestly, it's refreshing to be able to go to a tournament and see some variance in deck performance against a broad array of strategies. Could tweaks be made? Sure. But overall it's nice to have a game be intellectually challenging on so many different levels.
What I really don't want is straight to modern printings. But, I will deal with it. It's a format that is mentally challenging but also rewards you for knowing your deck and the format.
Well I've been pretty silent for a while, but I'll chime in.
I voted for 4.
I won't say its the worst its ever been. I've played through Probe + grave troll and eye of ugin + TKS.
This is better.
Somewhat.
As someone who forces interactive decks that produce (in my opinion) consistently interesting games, the fact that the format heavily rewards those that do the exact opposite is certainly disheartening.
I do enjoy winning, everyone does, but I'm not upset at the format because my deck isn't good (not exactly, any how).
I really just want to sit down to play magic every week, and know there 75% of my matches are going to be interesting games, full of decisions, potential back and forth, and just generally stimulating games.
I know this is possible, because its true for legacy, but it is not remotely true for modern.
Theres a whole laundry list of cards I'd love to ban for selfish reasons, because I don't believe that they promote interesting decks (tron lands, stinkweed/thug, cavern of souls, ensnaring bridge, valakut, spirit guide, burning inquiry, and plenty more I'm sure.)
Despite looting/stirrings being popular targets, given wizard's general goal to ban the enablers, there is atleast a chance that those cards produce interesting games. If decks like phoenix or amulet titan are fringe decks that pop up from time to time, I could deal with it. (Not to mention things like lantern, hardened scales, or mardu, that actually do produce interesting games much more frequently). At the very least, they do provide a decision to two to make, which is more than can be said of cards like burning inquiry.
My local meta is a pretty good mix of people playing what they enjoy, and people playing what we all know is good, so theres certainly variety. If people around me were more inclined to just play the top decks, I'd probably have voted closer to 5.
Perhaps this isn't a popular opinion, especially given the long list of complaints, but at the core, I just want to play interesting games. If wizards can make that happen by printing a lot of interesting fair cards in modern horizons, thats great. If they can't, then I'll probably start to reevaluate how much of my modern cards I want to keep.
I really just want to sit down to play magic every week, and know there 75% of my matches are going to be interesting games, full of decisions, potential back and forth, and just generally stimulating games.
...
I just want to play interesting games.
That's all I want too. But it's not something you can get from the vast majority of top decks in the format today.
Yea, I was literally just talking about this at legacy today too.
I played against BR reanimator, which by an metric, is a deck not designed to produce interesting games.
And I won't say that it exactly does, but legacy as a whole produces a lot more decision points, and a lot more opportunities for a game to subtly shift.
Do you counter their fast mana? Do you surgical their chancellor in response to an exhume knowing they left up mana for a potential entomb when you have a plow in hand? Do you want to throw a spell away to a chancellor trigger turn 1? Do you want to cast a brainstorm in response to their therapy? How much are you willing tuck? What if it was an unmask instead? How many turns do you want to time walk yourself leaving up a deathrite shaman? Would you rather cast a thalia or a revoker on turn 2 if they've already dropped double petal? Is a turn 1 ooze better than mulling to leyline? Is it worth crop rotating a karakas into a bog with no loam in hand?
This just scratches the surface, but this is the bread and butter of games vs a deck thats the epitome of a roulette machine.
Games in modern do not consistently feel like this. Frequently the reanimator deck just has it doesn't and you're left with a coloring book.
I voted for 4 but with a caveat. I enjoy playing my deck but find the gameplay that dominates modern, power wise, to be oppressive and boring. I could have just as easily voted for 2, if I was looking solely at my own deck play experience. But persistently being a dog, or at least suboptimal, for enjoying control chips away at my good will toward the format and sometimes I just want to throw in the towel and build Storm,(or any of the top five decks sans DS) and be the guy not caring at all what the other player brings to the table.
I didn't vote, because none of the options are correct for me. Every option either says "I still play Modern" or "I hate Modern." I wouldn't say that I "hate" it, or that it's awful, but I've given up on playing it for now. I only ever played extreme aggro in Modern, and my introduction to the format was being told that it's a format where you have to goldfish at least a turn 4 win or not bother showing up. So I don't pine for an older, less degenerate Modern, because this is all I've ever known. And it's fine, I guess.
I made my entry into Legacy late last year and I haven't looked back. I used to practice Modern and learn decks by goldfishing, and I quickly found that to be impractical for any Legacy deck, because no plan survives first contact with the enemy there. Occasionally I come back and play a few rounds of Modern online and get frustrated because I can't seem to do anything about what's happening on the other side of the table. And no, I don't play blue in Legacy.
I'll keep an eye on Modern and play occasional matches to stay somewhat current, but for now I've mostly lost interest.
overall I would say I'm enjoying modern a lot right now, format doesn't seem too bad. I feel that maybe they could change it up a bit but I don't know if that involves banning or unbanning something. I would be fine with stoneforge mystic getting the unban even if they have to give it the golgari grave-troll treatment later
Not to go too much off topic, but this assumes they print equipment better than Batterskull and the Swords, which is incredibly unlikely, if not outright impossible given their thoughts and feelings about their past mistakes. Because GGT wasn't a problem until two GREAT new enablers and one AMAZING payoff card was printed and busted the deck to shreds. GGT was legal for more than a year before being relevant with these new cards. These two situations are nothing alike.
I really like modern right now, and my last FNM went to show why it is so good in my opinion.
While the majority of the top decks are hyperaggressive linear strategies, that doesn't mean you don't get to play interactive magic in modern. If you want a deck that's interactive, choose a deck that's interactive. I went 3-1 at FNM against Dredge, UR Phoenix, UW Control, and Mono Red Phoenix playing Assault Loam, which is just a grindy midrange deck. I only lost to dredge (1-2) while I sat with Anger in the Gods and Scavenging Ooze in hand, probably misplaying hard. Phoenix is a good matchup for the deck because of Seismic Assault and Scavenging Ooze, though sequencing your spells, removal, and Scooze around Lightning Bolt and Lightning Axe makes your decisions far from easy.
My point is if you want to play interactive magic where your decisions matter in this metagame, you still can. My deck is one rogue example, but decks like Grixis Shadow have been consistently putting up results too. To put it bluntly, if you want consistency, play a more consistent deck.
Yeah of course you can (sleeve up an interactive deck - sign up for an event - have some moderate success) play interactive magic in this metagame, that was never really up for debate. It's just sub optimal.
Technically you can also play basketball with 1 hand and score some points here and there, doesn't mean it's a good idea to do so when everyone else is using 2 hands.
Guys please opinions on japanese cards. Lost a 3/3 creature against Japan celestial colonade. This guy played all creatures and spells in english cards, but some cards in his manabase was japanese. I dont registrated this really ( my brain say its all fine and all english to me lets attack his empty board)...and i am sure it is a Kind of legal cheating. It is not ok, but i know legal. I Hate such people. I never forget colonade normally, but with this Tricks it can happen one time in 3 years and such people take advantage of this
If I am a customer spending premium amount of dollars, I expect a premium service. Jund falls into the category of a premium deck costing more dollars than a majority of the rest of the format. I'm not getting the desired performance ratio per dollars spent out of the Jund deck because WOTC decided to make the format more diverse.
I really like Modern right now, and think it's at a "medium" place in terms of the format's history. I think "fair" decks need some slight boosts and then it would be pretty perfect. I'm cautiously optimistic about Modern Horizons adding things for historically underrepresented color pairings in Modern, like BUG, Esper, Temur, Bant, Dimir, etc. If they print playable fair cards (don't even have to approach broken) and steer clear of combo and gy enablers in the set then I think we're headed in a great direction.
If personal experience is of any value (which is not necessarily), I often have refrained from posting just because I can't bare another discussion around how "modern sucks cause it's linear", "unban Twin or modern it horrible" and so on. I would argue that even if it is true that people don't post their distaste for the format because they are afraid they will be bashed, then the same definitely holds true for the "other" side.
Further, people who mostly care about the format (i.e. ktk), are the ones who actually come in with all the possible data that we can have, and not the ones who are bashing the format (i.e. the ones as you said with the burden of proof).
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
As for the defenders bringing the most stats in, it is a *lot* easier to defend modern being healthy by showing that, with the little data we have, there is no deck that is significantly better.
What I want to say is that this is not a definitive answer, we are talking about the here and now (before the first "rotation").
In regards to your point about how easy it is to defend it or not, there is indeed some truth to it as, often, people who want a deck to be banned just "feel" that it should, based on experiences playing/watching, which is not entirely unjustifiable. At the same time, however, we can't completely disregard the data we have. One can disagree with the picture these data paint, but nowadays we have more data than we had 2 years ago, after they stopped publishing full 5-0s and before they started publishing day 2 meta breakdowns and top 32/64s.
So I believe that now we have a clearer picture than a few years ago, and this picture, for now, seems to be relatively healthy. I also do think that, with the new streaming technologies wizards is adopting (see decklists and standings showing up during feature match for example), we will have an even clearer picture in the future to discuss these matters.
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
My experience with the format is positive, but again this must be very meta dependent, the only deck I truly hate is Tron, but definitely modern is a much more interactive format that what I was familiar with from old extended circa 2005 and before. Cards are much less broken, and you don't have blue dominating everywhere.
Popularity does not mean enjoy, as shown by the number of people selecting Option #4. There are likely many players who are so heavily invested that the choices between selling out the cards or begrudgingly continue to play, lean towards continuing to play. They have spent so much time/effort/money on the format that walking away would feel like a monumental waste.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
It's also, not particularly relevant to the question 'Do you (I) enjoy Modern right now?'
EDIT: Also as of this writing, 53 of 62 voters either want change, or (4) are just playing and dont really seem to care what the format looks like.
79% of voters would like to see change.
Spirits
Also, I mean, you have at several points bashed the format as a whole saying that it is horrible to play and that it is a complete mess. Granted that at certain points you have stated that you only reflect your own opinion, still you tend to go for wide format bashing and generalized statements.
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
Either way, I'm not interested in getting dragged over this, when people will not even think about the potential of removing some of these egregious cards. If you dont face down (or you actually enjoy) the top decks of the format over and over, thats great, I'm glad you enjoy it.
I, personally, my own opinion, feel the format is terrible. Yes I'm going to generalize, but...thats kind of what you are asking for here. 'Do you enjoy Modern'? No. You asked a general question. I provide a general answer. That answer has not changed in months on end, because while people celebrated the KCI ban, I shrugged because it does not change what Modern fundamentally is within the 'winners meta'.
If you want a more nuanced, long and thoughtful answer/discussion around certain cards, or hell even the format all together, I wouldnt mind that Swan Song but if you are going to call me out for a 'wide generalization' when thats the point of your question/poll? I'm going to just have to pass on that discourse.
Spirits
Even though I'm enjoying most of the games, playing UW, I really feel that I'm putting myself at a disadvantage on purpose for playing something I want to. Modern isn't perfect but it's good enough. I'm still scared of the disparity of the power of the format "pillars". I still think that the U pillar is way weaker than the rest.
Considering that the format is fine at the moment I would just do a couple of things to make it, in my perspective better:
1. Unban Stoneforge Mystic, Preordain and Green Sun's Zenith
2. Print on Horizons the following cards: Counterspell, Containment Priest, Flametongue Kavu, Shardless Agent, Baleful Strix and probably Hymn to Tourach and Daze.
WUMiracles ControlUW
RUBGrixis Death's ShadowBUR
Overall, enjoyment seems to equal the ratio between expectation and experience. The more you want from the format, the worse you'll feel.
Full disclosure I play G Tron and Hollow One, they are fairly different decks but also both fairly linear, in the sense the play patterns repeat and obviously driven by the two apparent boggy men Ancient Stirrings and Faithless Looting. So yes I enjoy it as it stands, but I know that change is likely imminent, which is also fine.
I'd be fine with everything you suggest, except Hymn to Tourach, that card is way over-powered, even from the guy playing Burning Inquiry. In addition I'd like to see Careful Study and Dack Fayden.
Shardless Agent and Strix? That's an interesting suggestion. Makes me wonder if we could have a weaker modern version of the Shardless BUG deck in legacy.
Agree with all cards except tourach. It's hard for me to put in words, but I feel that card is wasteland power level and should not be here in modern.
Nexus MTG News // Nexus - Magic Art Gallery // MTG Dual Land Color Ratios Analyzer // MTG Card Drawing Odds Calculator
Want to play a UW control deck in modern, but don't have jace or snaps?
Please come visit us at the Emeria Titan control thread
If you would reprint Hymn more fair decks will suffer or rely on Leyline of Sanctity while the current decks that can empty their hands by turn 3 will get out of it unscathed... Oh and we already have the Cabal Therapist version of Hymn: Whispers of Emrakul this is also by the way how Modern Horizons will get its treatment. Close to legacy, but never really there.
Competetive: Lantern Control, MonoR Phoenix, Dredge
Meta-Dependant: Modern Cheeri0s, Esper Spirits, Wilderness Teachings , Modern Elves, All-in Death's Shadow, Aristocrats, BW Death&Taxes
Fun own projects: Spireside Industries, UB Scrapyard, Thundercat Worship, Dirty Kitten, RB Rock, Eternal Toolbox
But Hymn to Tourach shouldn't be in. I think Wrench Mind is the extent of how powerful a "Hymn" effect should be or possibly a bit more strong.
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 like playing with my cards. I like playing with all of my cards. I like having to think about and learn about more cards and potential interactions. Modern is a format that rewards knowing about difference archetypes and strategies. Net decks and brews can currently be successful at many tournaments. You want to grind your Grand Prix? Fine, there are many options to choose from. You want to play at your local store, there are even more to choose from. The point at which BG Rock becomes a pillar deck again is the point at which I think we have a decent midrange balance.
Honestly, it's refreshing to be able to go to a tournament and see some variance in deck performance against a broad array of strategies. Could tweaks be made? Sure. But overall it's nice to have a game be intellectually challenging on so many different levels.
What I really don't want is straight to modern printings. But, I will deal with it. It's a format that is mentally challenging but also rewards you for knowing your deck and the format.
I voted for 4.
I won't say its the worst its ever been. I've played through Probe + grave troll and eye of ugin + TKS.
This is better.
Somewhat.
As someone who forces interactive decks that produce (in my opinion) consistently interesting games, the fact that the format heavily rewards those that do the exact opposite is certainly disheartening.
I do enjoy winning, everyone does, but I'm not upset at the format because my deck isn't good (not exactly, any how).
I really just want to sit down to play magic every week, and know there 75% of my matches are going to be interesting games, full of decisions, potential back and forth, and just generally stimulating games.
I know this is possible, because its true for legacy, but it is not remotely true for modern.
Theres a whole laundry list of cards I'd love to ban for selfish reasons, because I don't believe that they promote interesting decks (tron lands, stinkweed/thug, cavern of souls, ensnaring bridge, valakut, spirit guide, burning inquiry, and plenty more I'm sure.)
Despite looting/stirrings being popular targets, given wizard's general goal to ban the enablers, there is atleast a chance that those cards produce interesting games. If decks like phoenix or amulet titan are fringe decks that pop up from time to time, I could deal with it. (Not to mention things like lantern, hardened scales, or mardu, that actually do produce interesting games much more frequently). At the very least, they do provide a decision to two to make, which is more than can be said of cards like burning inquiry.
My local meta is a pretty good mix of people playing what they enjoy, and people playing what we all know is good, so theres certainly variety. If people around me were more inclined to just play the top decks, I'd probably have voted closer to 5.
Perhaps this isn't a popular opinion, especially given the long list of complaints, but at the core, I just want to play interesting games. If wizards can make that happen by printing a lot of interesting fair cards in modern horizons, thats great. If they can't, then I'll probably start to reevaluate how much of my modern cards I want to keep.
That's all I want too. But it's not something you can get from the vast majority of top decks in the format today.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I played against BR reanimator, which by an metric, is a deck not designed to produce interesting games.
And I won't say that it exactly does, but legacy as a whole produces a lot more decision points, and a lot more opportunities for a game to subtly shift.
Do you counter their fast mana? Do you surgical their chancellor in response to an exhume knowing they left up mana for a potential entomb when you have a plow in hand? Do you want to throw a spell away to a chancellor trigger turn 1? Do you want to cast a brainstorm in response to their therapy? How much are you willing tuck? What if it was an unmask instead? How many turns do you want to time walk yourself leaving up a deathrite shaman? Would you rather cast a thalia or a revoker on turn 2 if they've already dropped double petal? Is a turn 1 ooze better than mulling to leyline? Is it worth crop rotating a karakas into a bog with no loam in hand?
This just scratches the surface, but this is the bread and butter of games vs a deck thats the epitome of a roulette machine.
Games in modern do not consistently feel like this. Frequently the reanimator deck just has it doesn't and you're left with a coloring book.
I made my entry into Legacy late last year and I haven't looked back. I used to practice Modern and learn decks by goldfishing, and I quickly found that to be impractical for any Legacy deck, because no plan survives first contact with the enemy there. Occasionally I come back and play a few rounds of Modern online and get frustrated because I can't seem to do anything about what's happening on the other side of the table. And no, I don't play blue in Legacy.
I'll keep an eye on Modern and play occasional matches to stay somewhat current, but for now I've mostly lost interest.
Not to go too much off topic, but this assumes they print equipment better than Batterskull and the Swords, which is incredibly unlikely, if not outright impossible given their thoughts and feelings about their past mistakes. Because GGT wasn't a problem until two GREAT new enablers and one AMAZING payoff card was printed and busted the deck to shreds. GGT was legal for more than a year before being relevant with these new cards. These two situations are nothing alike.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
While the majority of the top decks are hyperaggressive linear strategies, that doesn't mean you don't get to play interactive magic in modern. If you want a deck that's interactive, choose a deck that's interactive. I went 3-1 at FNM against Dredge, UR Phoenix, UW Control, and Mono Red Phoenix playing Assault Loam, which is just a grindy midrange deck. I only lost to dredge (1-2) while I sat with Anger in the Gods and Scavenging Ooze in hand, probably misplaying hard. Phoenix is a good matchup for the deck because of Seismic Assault and Scavenging Ooze, though sequencing your spells, removal, and Scooze around Lightning Bolt and Lightning Axe makes your decisions far from easy.
My point is if you want to play interactive magic where your decisions matter in this metagame, you still can. My deck is one rogue example, but decks like Grixis Shadow have been consistently putting up results too. To put it bluntly, if you want consistency, play a more consistent deck.
Technically you can also play basketball with 1 hand and score some points here and there, doesn't mean it's a good idea to do so when everyone else is using 2 hands.
I really like Modern right now, and think it's at a "medium" place in terms of the format's history. I think "fair" decks need some slight boosts and then it would be pretty perfect. I'm cautiously optimistic about Modern Horizons adding things for historically underrepresented color pairings in Modern, like BUG, Esper, Temur, Bant, Dimir, etc. If they print playable fair cards (don't even have to approach broken) and steer clear of combo and gy enablers in the set then I think we're headed in a great direction.
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