R&D met earlier this month to review several formats—notably Standard and Vintage—
This highly indicates to me that we are FAR, FAR away from unbannings. I doubt that we are having any unbans in the coming announcements. It's time we people stop trying and let it sink. They just don't care about Blue control. It's over. Move on to other decks if you want to play control(notably a Jund variation)
We had an explicit tweet that they would discuss about JTMS at the upcoming meeting regarding modern. It is possible that the session of meetings regarding modern was so dominated with the release of MM2017 that they haven't brought the topic up yet. Since they had meetings on Standard and Vintage and have addressed the issues (specifically for the latter) so far, I would expect that there will be something regarding modern in the next announcement. That doesn't necessarily mean ban/unban but at least a more comprehensive discussion on it.
By far the top three decks are the "midrange" deck of the format (really just a more resilient aggro/synergy deck that has pushed the traditional midrange decks mostly out of the format), the go big decks that pray on the smaller midrange deck, and a burn deck that prays on the go big deck praying on the midrange deck. The rest are just other ignore you and hope to goldfish decks except abzan, jund, and grixis control which combine for 10% of the meta. You have a single blue based reactive deck listed and it has the smallest share.
The format could certainly be worse, but again if this is fine then modern just isn't the format for me or for a ton of Magics player base.
It's true that blue is bad, but the format as a whole looks good, and full of diversity. Oh, well. I was very for the preordain/SFM unban, but after reading Todd Stevens article I had a feeling there'd be no unbans.
Blue is so bad that 27% of the decks on MTGGoldfish are running a basic Island.
I guess people just like to trot out horrible decks.
"No changes" for Modern was expected. An unban would have been nice. A ban would have been outrageous.
I'll be pushing hard for controlling/reactive blue decks to get their unban soon. Lots of numbers to publish and discussion to spark!
You should be pushing hard for them to print better cards for Blue control in the format instead of pushing for anything reasonably banned now to be unbanned.
Blue also needs a counterspell variant that is live on T1 or free. A Prohibit reprint or update would be the best. Unfortunately, even if Wizards printed such a card the day after the article went live, we wouldn't see it for over a year. In that time, I am sure the lack of strong blue reactive decks will lead to a stupid ban that better blue strategies would have prevented.
"No changes" for Modern was expected. An unban would have been nice. A ban would have been outrageous.
I'll be pushing hard for controlling/reactive blue decks to get their unban soon. Lots of numbers to publish and discussion to spark!
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the solution for the dearth of blue reactive decks to print some better counterspells? Wizards will never unban/print better cantrips because of combo fear, and I think they're exceedingly worried about unbanning JTMS, because if it breaks the format it will quickly become a multi-hundred dollar card and they will get utterly crucified for unbanning it.
On another note, I imagine the safest unban (not counting things they're just not going to unban becauase of tournament issues i.e. Second Sunrise) is Green Sun's Zenith. Am I way off base here?
This is new. If my memory serves me right, this is the first time they bothered to explain a "no changes" announcement.
Summary:
- Standard and Vintage were singled out as "notable" formats for review.
- Death's Shadow is mentioned for Modern. Dredge is not mentioned, nor any deck playing Mox Opal or Simian Spirit Guide. No banned cards are mentioned.
- "[P]layers seem to greatly enjoy" Modern.
- Legacy and Pauper are not mentioned at all.
I don't play Vintage so I don't know if there's any imbalance in the format, but for it to be mentioned in the same sentence as Standard suggests an itchy trigger finger.
The 4th point makes it seem like they don't give a ***** about those two formats any more, but it's probably just the lack of big tournaments for those formats -> nothing to talk about.
It's true that blue is bad, but the format as a whole looks good, and full of diversity. Oh, well. I was very for the preordain/SFM unban, but after reading Todd Stevens article I had a feeling there'd be no unbans.
Blue is so bad that 27% of the decks on MTGGoldfish are running a basic Island.
I guess people just like to trot out horrible decks.
When people say Blue is bad, they mean there are no decks available to them on the internet that will provide them with easy wins at FNM (like Twin provided).
I always argued blue was a great support color. It plays a good role there, and it might be exactly where WOTC wants it.
Huge fan of no changes. Creating an additional "oh *****" button to the ban cycles then immediately using it only perpetuates the ban mania created by the last b&r announcement
By far the top three decks are the "midrange" deck of the format (really just a more resilient aggro/synergy deck that has pushed the traditional midrange decks mostly out of the format), the go big decks that pray on the smaller midrange deck, and a burn deck that prays on the go big deck praying on the midrange deck. The rest are just other ignore you and hope to goldfish decks except abzan, jund, and grixis control which combine for 10% of the meta. You have a single blue based reactive deck listed and it has the smallest share.
The format could certainly be worse, but again if this is fine then modern just isn't the format for me or for a ton of Magics player base.
Obviously you're wrong, because Modern is thriving. Huge attendance. If its not for you, pick another format.
It's true that blue is bad, but the format as a whole looks good, and full of diversity. Oh, well. I was very for the preordain/SFM unban, but after reading Todd Stevens article I had a feeling there'd be no unbans.
Blue is so bad that 27% of the decks on MTGGoldfish are running a basic Island.
I guess people just like to trot out horrible decks.
I want to play decks with ONLY islands.
I want to play decks with only rogues. Can I get more rogue support, too?
It's true that blue is bad, but the format as a whole looks good, and full of diversity. Oh, well. I was very for the preordain/SFM unban, but after reading Todd Stevens article I had a feeling there'd be no unbans.
Blue is so bad that 27% of the decks on MTGGoldfish are running a basic Island.
I guess people just like to trot out horrible decks.
When people say Blue is bad, they mean there are no decks available to them on the internet that will provide them with easy wins at FNM (like Twin provided).
I always argued blue was a great support color. It plays a good role there, and it might be exactly where WOTC wants it.
Blue control is also the hardest archetype to learn and master. Playing it at the top level requires near encyclopedic knowledge of the format, and demands an almost perfect, mistake-free pilot...unless you have an easy, I win button like Splinter Twin.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
FREE MODERN. Break the Standard link.
I play Magic: the Gathering, not Magic: the Commandering.
R&D met earlier this month to review several formats—notably Standard and Vintage—
This highly indicates to me that we are FAR, FAR away from unbannings. I doubt that we are having any unbans in the coming announcements. It's time we people stop trying and let it sink. They just don't care about Blue control. It's over. Move on to other decks if you want to play control(notably a Jund variation)
We had an explicit tweet that they would discuss about JTMS at the upcoming meeting regarding modern. It is possible that the session of meetings regarding modern was so dominated with the release of MM2017 that they haven't brought the topic up yet. Since they had meetings on Standard and Vintage and have addressed the issues (specifically for the latter) so far, I would expect that there will be something regarding modern in the next announcement. That doesn't necessarily mean ban/unban but at least a more comprehensive discussion on it.
Saying they are going to discuss a card in a super secret meeting no one can watch or see, really doesnt mean they will, and doesnt mean an unbanning will happen just because they talked about it. It is pretty clear Wotc has a different vision for the format then some posting here, and a very different position on the ban list and what is safe to come off.
Since the stance on JTMS (and a few other cards) in the past by Wotc has been they have a grave in the format and can be played else where. I dont think the collective running Modern now is going to change the thinking of the format that much, that quick. I mean, even though AF isnt in charge of Modern anymore, is he out of the talks? I am asking because I seriously dont know.
disclaimer, I own a playset of JTMS so cost doesnt factor in with me.
It's true that blue is bad, but the format as a whole looks good, and full of diversity. Oh, well. I was very for the preordain/SFM unban, but after reading Todd Stevens article I had a feeling there'd be no unbans.
Blue is so bad that 27% of the decks on MTGGoldfish are running a basic Island.
I guess people just like to trot out horrible decks.
When people say Blue is bad, they mean there are no decks available to them on the internet that will provide them with easy wins at FNM (like Twin provided).
I always argued blue was a great support color. It plays a good role there, and it might be exactly where WOTC wants it.
Blue control is also the hardest archetype to learn and master. Playing it at the top level requires near encyclopedic knowledge of the format, and demands an almost perfect, mistake-free pilot...unless you have an easy, I win button like Splinter Twin.
Exactly. So people want easy-win-blue.dec. Why? You're not entitled to one. I play temur tempo and it is very rewarding. It requires a lot of knowledge on the format, its cards, its decks, and even type of player. And I need to play well. And when I do, I usually win. Its fun. People need to try.
I think you'll have a hard time with a deck that contains 60+ basic lands...
... yes, it's a knee-jerk response, but I'm not sure why you're more special than everyone else who "wants to play <insert favorite non-tiered archetype of choice here>". Plus, if you really want to play a certain type of deck, there's nothing stopping you. Heck, Seismic Swans(!) spiked a tournament this month.
I am not surprised by this announcement in regards to modern. I am slightly surprised about standard, but I am glad they didn't go for back to back ban announcements. While the additional B&R schedule adds opportunities to impact all formats, I still read its roll-out as being more focused on Standard, allowing them to print stronger cards in the format and deal with the potential format. The fact that it is tied to the Pro-Tour (now a standard only format as far as constructed relevance) indicated to me that they want to monitor the meta post PT and prevent Bant Company style periods. Is standard there right now? Yes, but back to back bannings would have been a major hit to that format.
Exactly. So people want easy-win-blue.dec. Why? You're not entitled to one. I play temur tempo and it is very rewarding. It requires a lot of knowledge on the format, its cards, its decks, and even type of player. And I need to play well. And when I do, I usually win. Its fun. People need to try.
This is another Modern (Magic?) myth: sleeper decks are sleepers because they are super hard to play. In 9 out of 10 cases, maybe 99 out of 100 cases, these decks are hard to play because they are weak, poorly positioned, or just plain bad. When decks are legitimately powerful but also legitimately hard to play, their metagame prevalence still reflects that. See Amulet Bloom for a glaring example of this; a deck that required extensive experience but still hit Tier 1 for a span of multiple months before an eventual ban. I suspect that all the skills that reward you on bad Temur decks would reward you even more on good BGx or other top-tier decks. That's why top players, even Modern specialists who don't have to prepare for multiple formats, aren't playing blue right now. Blue might reward their skills, but better decks reward them more.
If a deck is on the radar and not succeeding over long stretches of time, the deck isn't good. I concede that some decks aren't on the radar and are secretly good, but they are the rare exception, not the norm (e.g. Amulet Bloom and Lantern Control, and only one of those was Tier 1).
WOTC had decided that Counterspell is bad for the game long before Modern was a thing. Which is a good thing -- you know how Modern was widely considered a "bolt format" to the extent that most top decks are pidgeonholed into red? Counterspell Standard/Extended were like this, except ten times worse.
For the benefit of post year 2000 players, I do not agree with the bolded part. I played during Counterspell Standard and Extended and there were plenty of non-blue decks. It does matter which Standard you think back to however. If you're remembering Urza's block, blue decks were some of the strongest but it wasn't Counterspell's doing. It was because cards like Mind Over Matter and Tolarian Academy are broken beyond belief.
Think back to Onslaught standard for example. This format was much healthier and included Counterspell. There were many non-blue strategies that were dominant, many archetypes represented and gameplay varied from game to game very well.
My memory of Counterspell in Standard and Extended is that it was merely a fine answer to any kind of threat as a reactive control deck, which helps you exist because otherwise it's hard to deal with a multitude of card types. It isn't free either. You have to hold double blue up and if something resolves while your shields are down, you risk drawing into reactive countermagic instead of hard answers. Counterspell wasn't so strong that it was play it or bust.
The real reason Counterspell is not in Modern is because 8th edition was chosen as the starting point and WotC's current design philosophy for Standard makes Counterspell look like a piece of Power. The formats Counterspell was legal in were more powerful than the new-player friendly Standards of today so Counterspell merely became an answer card alongside the likes of Terror, Wrath of God and Smother.
WOTC had decided that Counterspell is bad for the game long before Modern was a thing. Which is a good thing -- you know how Modern was widely considered a "bolt format" to the extent that most top decks are pidgeonholed into red? Counterspell Standard/Extended were like this, except ten times worse.
For the benefit of post year 2000 players, I do not agree with the bolded part. I played during Counterspell Standard and Extended and there were plenty of non-blue decks. It does matter which Standard you think back to however. If you're remembering Urza's block, blue decks were some of the strongest but it wasn't Counterspell's doing. It was because cards like Mind Over Matter and Tolarian Academy are broken beyond belief.
Think back to Onslaught standard for example. This format was much healthier and included Counterspell. There were many non-blue strategies that were dominant, many archetypes represented and gameplay varied from game to game very well.
My memory of Counterspell in Standard and Extended is that it was merely a fine answer to any kind of threat as a reactive control deck, which helps you exist because otherwise it's hard to deal with a multitude of card types. It isn't free either. You have to hold double blue up and if something resolves while your shields are down, you risk drawing into reactive countermagic instead of hard answers. Counterspell wasn't so strong that it was play it or bust.
The real reason Counterspell is not in Modern is because 8th edition was chosen as the starting point and WotC's current design philosophy for Standard makes Counterspell look like a piece of Power. The formats Counterspell was legal in were more powerful than the new-player friendly Standards of today so Counterspell merely became an answer card alongside the likes of Terror, Wrath of God and Smother.
The reason counterspell isnt in Modern is because they dont wish for any 2 cmc counters to come without any draw back. Double blue really isnt the drawback it use to be, especially in Modern. Look at all the 2 cmc counter in the format and they have a draw back of some type. They only hit creatures, or only non creature spells, or you have to return a land to your hand, or you need to control 3 or more artifacts.
Wotc doesnt want catch all counters without any drawbacks in the format. They dont want them in Standard anymore either. So old timers (I am one too) that wish to play that style of deck can play other older formats.
I caveat this as a thought experiment those pushing for Twin back and/or Jace; when GB/X decks were going the way of Dodo because of Dig, Cruise, Pod with Rhino, and then followed by Eldrazi Winter, if a GB/X players argued for a return of Elf (Deathrite and BloodBraid), GSZ or depending how you wanted to stretched it Punishing Fire. So they would get their proper meta share back. Would you have said "No to strong (Deathrite)", "Remove/Weaken X Archtype (Fire)" or "Homogenize Green Decks (GSZ)".
While admittedly GB/X never fell as low (hovering around 7-8 percent if you combined Abzan and Jund) as (Reactive/'Control') U/X is now (which is I believe noted earlier to be around 4-6 percent depending on catorgization. More if we count Delver, the statistics I saw (believe) quoted only include the Explicit Control decks and excluded Delver/Flash). To avoid a constant ramble, if the position was reverse and you were in GB/X or DS Jund (which was quoted (Deathshadow) at being around 20% two week ago, but earlier this week it was mentioned to have fallen to 11%, and but has cannablize more traditional GB/X Decks), and they asked you "Can we unban Deathrite? It dies to removal, does nothing vs fast aggro that kills on turn 3, worst it could do is power out T2 Veil, which is only good vs decks that are only one creature on board, and makes it boltable. In addition you have to fetch to ramp, you need a proper card type in graveyard, requiring setup. But it could really help GB/X because it can help us speed up to keep pace with Zoo, Affinity etc, it's a win condition that we don't need to swing so we can win on stall board states."
The comparison is off because Jace is attackable and three more Mana. However he also has instant board impact (bounce), filters in two different ways, and his Win Condition is harder to reverse once setup. But the arguments and card itself is very similar, and is honestly almost akin to Deathrite + Veil Package (two turns different, but one is two cards and other is one card. And nominally Mana intensity but DS makes Veil effectively only 2B in this circumstance)
If you heard the following argument "Our deck has to many 'narrow' removal, with Rhinos, Tasigurs and Drazi's running around Abrupt and IoK not very reliable. And our unconditional other two mana removal forces us into red or to give them a Mana. Thoughtseize only fills their grave faster, or prevents us building a board so we don't die. We need a card that can let us search, our few creatures earlier and fast, I mean it can't be Pod, that is too slow, and requires a board. How about GSZ? It can fix consistency issues, search out silver bullets!" Now the difference this and Twin is Twin as stated with Jace v Deathrite, 4 Mana to 1 Mana. However Twin provides a more immediate clock (well it ends the game then). However like GSZ it homogenized Green decks to a certain setup. And prevents in a Deck Out. For all that matters
Punishing Fire kills an archetype (tribal aggro decks cited in particular), and would power up GB/X (Jund especially) vs Aggro (also Grove vs DS Jund sounds funny to me going on). Unbanning Mystic would fall into this same potential category. I have not discussed her in particular given she fits in U/X and Abzan style decks. And is similar to Deathrite (Deathrite - Veil), Twin (Having to hold up Mana once she drops turn 3 onwards if you don't remove her on spot), as well Twin/GSZ (Homogenizes Deck Construction), and shuts down certain archetypes (Aggro, K-Commandless midrange that cannot discord Batterskull for whatever reason), and is two Mana (more expensive than Deathrite but cheaper than Jace/Twin. And is good top deck like GSZ).
The full thought question for those arguing for Return of Twin/Giving Jace a Chance. How would you argue this scenerio is fundmentally different than Cruise/Eldrazi was for GB/X decks or is it not, and then how are Jace/Twin different than Deathrite/GSZ are or they the same?
And if the answer to the above they are the same, GB/X got better overtime until it has evolved into Death Shadow Jund with 11% of the Metagame and why will U/X decks not in time do the same?
Exactly. So people want easy-win-blue.dec. Why? You're not entitled to one. I play temur tempo and it is very rewarding. It requires a lot of knowledge on the format, its cards, its decks, and even type of player. And I need to play well. And when I do, I usually win. Its fun. People need to try.
This is another Modern (Magic?) myth: sleeper decks are sleepers because they are super hard to play. In 9 out of 10 cases, maybe 99 out of 100 cases, these decks are hard to play because they are weak, poorly positioned, or just plain bad. When decks are legitimately powerful but also legitimately hard to play, their metagame prevalence still reflects that. See Amulet Bloom for a glaring example of this; a deck that required extensive experience but still hit Tier 1 for a span of multiple months before an eventual ban. I suspect that all the skills that reward you on bad Temur decks would reward you even more on good BGx or other top-tier decks. That's why top players, even Modern specialists who don't have to prepare for multiple formats, aren't playing blue right now. Blue might reward their skills, but better decks reward them more.
If a deck is on the radar and not succeeding over long stretches of time, the deck isn't good. I concede that some decks aren't on the radar and are secretly good, but they are the rare exception, not the norm (e.g. Amulet Bloom and Lantern Control, and only one of those was Tier 1).
Even if I concede to all of what you just said (I don't). It still goes back to why should we have a mono-blue.dec and have it viable? There was never any promise by WotC that all colors will be equally playable.
And again, you are conceding that people want to play decks that give them easy wins. I find that uninteresting to me. If you want easy wins, dont play blue. Simple as that.
I feel standard is the place of greatest concern for wizards, so chances are we won't see many changes to the modern format due to how nuanced it is in comparison. Modern isn't having a warring triad issue.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Even if I concede to all of what you just said (I don't). It still goes back to why should we have a mono-blue.dec and have it viable? There was never any promise by WotC that all colors will be equally playable.
Who wants a mono blue deck? I don't care what it looks like. I think most players would be happy with any Tier 1 reactive/controlling blue deck. It could be a more "traditional" control list like Esper or UW, one with a combo finish like Jeskai Nahiri or Copy Cat, a tempo deck like Delver, a midrange deck with Mentor, etc. There are probably 50 distinct decks which might fit this definition but, unfortunately, all of them are performing poorly and have been performing poorly since August 2016.
And again, you are conceding that people want to play decks that give them easy wins. I find that uninteresting to me. If you want easy wins, dont play blue. Simple as that.
I never conceded that. People want to play decks that give them the same chance of winning as any other top-tier deck. They don't need to have the same matchup percentages, but they should have basically the same distribution of matchup percentages (i.e. number of unfavorable, even, and favorable matchups). Now, if you think all of those top-tier decks are "easy win" decks, and that Tier 1 decks are necessarily "easy win" strategies because they are Tier 1, then I would just urge you to redefine your definitions.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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
Combined top 32 of GPs and SCG opens: decks with more than 2 copies
Death Shadow Jund - 17 (13.3%)
Bant Eldrazi - 10 (7.8%)
Eldrazi Tron - 9 (7%)
Burn - 9 (7%)
Abzan - 6 (4.7%)
Dredge - 5 (3.9%)
Infect - 5 (3.9%)
Titanshift - 5 (3.9%)
Abzan Company - 4 (3.1%)
Merfolk - 4 (3.1%)
Affinity - 4 (3.1%)
Jund - 4 (3.1%)
Ad Nauseam - 4 (3.1%)
Revolt Zoo - 4 (3.1%)
8 Rack - 3 (2.3%)
Grixis Control - 3 (2.3%)
By far the top three decks are the "midrange" deck of the format (really just a more resilient aggro/synergy deck that has pushed the traditional midrange decks mostly out of the format), the go big decks that pray on the smaller midrange deck, and a burn deck that prays on the go big deck praying on the midrange deck. The rest are just other ignore you and hope to goldfish decks except abzan, jund, and grixis control which combine for 10% of the meta. You have a single blue based reactive deck listed and it has the smallest share.
The format could certainly be worse, but again if this is fine then modern just isn't the format for me or for a ton of Magics player base.
I want to play decks with ONLY islands.
You mean that card I love, Disrupting Shoal?
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver
There you go:
https://www.mtggoldfish.com/articles/instant-deck-tech-taking-turns-modern
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the solution for the dearth of blue reactive decks to print some better counterspells? Wizards will never unban/print better cantrips because of combo fear, and I think they're exceedingly worried about unbanning JTMS, because if it breaks the format it will quickly become a multi-hundred dollar card and they will get utterly crucified for unbanning it.
On another note, I imagine the safest unban (not counting things they're just not going to unban becauase of tournament issues i.e. Second Sunrise) is Green Sun's Zenith. Am I way off base here?
Summary:
- Standard and Vintage were singled out as "notable" formats for review.
- Death's Shadow is mentioned for Modern. Dredge is not mentioned, nor any deck playing Mox Opal or Simian Spirit Guide. No banned cards are mentioned.
- "[P]layers seem to greatly enjoy" Modern.
- Legacy and Pauper are not mentioned at all.
I don't play Vintage so I don't know if there's any imbalance in the format, but for it to be mentioned in the same sentence as Standard suggests an itchy trigger finger.
The 4th point makes it seem like they don't give a ***** about those two formats any more, but it's probably just the lack of big tournaments for those formats -> nothing to talk about.
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
Spirits
When people say Blue is bad, they mean there are no decks available to them on the internet that will provide them with easy wins at FNM (like Twin provided).
I always argued blue was a great support color. It plays a good role there, and it might be exactly where WOTC wants it.
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver
UWRjeskai nahiri UWR
UBRgrixis titi UBR
UBRgrixis delverUBR
UR ur kikimite UR
EDH
RUG Riku of Two Reflections RUG
UBR Marchesa, the Black Rose UBR
UBRGYidris, Maelstrom Wielder UBRG
UBRJeleva, Nephalia's ScourgeUBR
Obviously you're wrong, because Modern is thriving. Huge attendance. If its not for you, pick another format.
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver
I want to play decks with only rogues. Can I get more rogue support, too?
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver
Been using Deprive a lot recently (70+ matches). It is awesome.
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver
Blue control is also the hardest archetype to learn and master. Playing it at the top level requires near encyclopedic knowledge of the format, and demands an almost perfect, mistake-free pilot...unless you have an easy, I win button like Splinter Twin.
I play Magic: the Gathering, not Magic: the Commandering.
Saying they are going to discuss a card in a super secret meeting no one can watch or see, really doesnt mean they will, and doesnt mean an unbanning will happen just because they talked about it. It is pretty clear Wotc has a different vision for the format then some posting here, and a very different position on the ban list and what is safe to come off.
Since the stance on JTMS (and a few other cards) in the past by Wotc has been they have a grave in the format and can be played else where. I dont think the collective running Modern now is going to change the thinking of the format that much, that quick. I mean, even though AF isnt in charge of Modern anymore, is he out of the talks? I am asking because I seriously dont know.
disclaimer, I own a playset of JTMS so cost doesnt factor in with me.
Exactly. So people want easy-win-blue.dec. Why? You're not entitled to one. I play temur tempo and it is very rewarding. It requires a lot of knowledge on the format, its cards, its decks, and even type of player. And I need to play well. And when I do, I usually win. Its fun. People need to try.
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver
I think you'll have a hard time with a deck that contains 60+ basic lands...
... yes, it's a knee-jerk response, but I'm not sure why you're more special than everyone else who "wants to play <insert favorite non-tiered archetype of choice here>". Plus, if you really want to play a certain type of deck, there's nothing stopping you. Heck, Seismic Swans(!) spiked a tournament this month.
This is another Modern (Magic?) myth: sleeper decks are sleepers because they are super hard to play. In 9 out of 10 cases, maybe 99 out of 100 cases, these decks are hard to play because they are weak, poorly positioned, or just plain bad. When decks are legitimately powerful but also legitimately hard to play, their metagame prevalence still reflects that. See Amulet Bloom for a glaring example of this; a deck that required extensive experience but still hit Tier 1 for a span of multiple months before an eventual ban. I suspect that all the skills that reward you on bad Temur decks would reward you even more on good BGx or other top-tier decks. That's why top players, even Modern specialists who don't have to prepare for multiple formats, aren't playing blue right now. Blue might reward their skills, but better decks reward them more.
If a deck is on the radar and not succeeding over long stretches of time, the deck isn't good. I concede that some decks aren't on the radar and are secretly good, but they are the rare exception, not the norm (e.g. Amulet Bloom and Lantern Control, and only one of those was Tier 1).
Even if I concede to all of what you just said (I don't). It still goes back to why should we have a mono-blue.dec and have it viable? There was never any promise by WotC that all colors will be equally playable.
And again, you are conceding that people want to play decks that give them easy wins. I find that uninteresting to me. If you want easy wins, dont play blue. Simple as that.
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Who wants a mono blue deck? I don't care what it looks like. I think most players would be happy with any Tier 1 reactive/controlling blue deck. It could be a more "traditional" control list like Esper or UW, one with a combo finish like Jeskai Nahiri or Copy Cat, a tempo deck like Delver, a midrange deck with Mentor, etc. There are probably 50 distinct decks which might fit this definition but, unfortunately, all of them are performing poorly and have been performing poorly since August 2016.
I never conceded that. People want to play decks that give them the same chance of winning as any other top-tier deck. They don't need to have the same matchup percentages, but they should have basically the same distribution of matchup percentages (i.e. number of unfavorable, even, and favorable matchups). Now, if you think all of those top-tier decks are "easy win" decks, and that Tier 1 decks are necessarily "easy win" strategies because they are Tier 1, then I would just urge you to redefine your definitions.