Playing artifacts are fair, even if its Mox Opal. Chalice is fair since its just an artifact.
There's a difference in playing 1 or 2 rituals into a big thing like Chandra, Torch of Defiance, an Ensnaring Bridge, or something like that and playing 3+ rituals + Past in Flames to OTK you. I think cads like Birds of Paradise and Arbor Elf all fall under the former. Theres also a difference in playing Mox + Mox Jace, the Mindsculpter and Mox + Mox + multiple mana rocks + Paradoxical Outcome + Tendrils of Agony
Basically what I'm saying is that Ramp is a fair part of the game, where OTK'ing you would be unfair.
[quote from="BlueTronFTW »" url="/forums/the-game/modern/799362-the-state-of-modern-thread-b-r-01-10-2018?comment=713"]
I agree. But this is the actual opposite to what @Wraith and @ktk said before. They basically said that even if you use Birds or paradise to ramp, it's unfair(for that matter, they exactly said using Llanowar elves as a ramp in Standard is an unfair element). I think the standard elves paradigm can be assigned into a fair play, as you use mana to play it and can be removed.
Have not read all the previous posts, so did not see those. Anyway, surprised that ramping with Birds of Paradise is considered an unfair strategy.
1. Casting a mana dork for mana acceleration takes the entire first turn, they are not "free" like mox opal or eldrazi temple.
2. If the dork is bolted or pushed it can lead to mana screw.
3. Having many mana dorks can lead to explosive starts, but they are also dead draws mid-late game.
4. It takes effort to find the right number that is comfortable for the deck. I started with 4 sprawl, 4 elf, 0 birds... then a week later 4 sprawl 4 elf 1 bird... and a few more weeks later.. currently 4 sprawl, 4 arbor elf, and 2 birds which I now feel is correct with the Ponza build I'm using. In Affinity you put 4 opal into the deck, and that's it.
5. The more mana dorks in a deck, the less actual threats can be put into the deck.
I think there are enough disadvantages that using BoP is actually fair.
To be clear, BoP and other acceleration is itself unfair in that it cheats on a natural one land per turn curve, but that doesn't make a deck using acceleration unfair. It would just earn that deck a few points on the unfair spectrum. Just to use a very rudimentary analysis, Standard Golgari Midrange would have just 4 points from its 4 Elves copies, as opposed to something like Modern Titanshift with tons of ramp and many more points.
Similarly, Opal is an unfair card. Maybe it even gets more unfair points because it costs 0 and is immediately usable. But a fair deck could use Opal and still be eminently fair. KCI would not, because it plays far more CMC and number of spells in a turn than is otherwise commensurate with that turn's mana development. UR/Grixis Prison, however, would be closer to fair.
To be clear, BoP and other acceleration is itself unfair in that it cheats on a natural one land per turn curve, but that doesn't make a deck using acceleration unfair. It would just earn that deck a few points on the unfair spectrum.
I disagree that BoP and its ilk are unfair, but agree with the rest of it. Yes, T2 you can have 3 mana. But that's at the cost of your mana on T1 and in the form of battlefield presence. In other decks that same amount of mana could represent 2 damage on T1 and another 2 on T4, or something else. If it's "unfair" by any stretch of the imagination, it is the most fair of the unfair.
To me, "unfair" implies that you are doing something that is not natural in the game. This includes infinite combos as well as cards like the power 8 (timetwister is pretty fair). I would put any Sol-effect in there as well, and cards like Eldrazi Temple are only made moderately more fair through their restrictions. I'd include Cavern of Souls since the creature you cast would otherwise be counterable off the same number of lands.
Cascade, to me, is in a middle ground because of the random factor. It can be unfair to BBE into LotV, but it's supremely fair to BBE into Inquisition or Bolt. A 3/2 Haste creature should typically cost RG - you're basically getting whatever you cascade into for 2 generic mana.
I am not sure Miracle is Fair but is is the only thing keeping various Faithless Abusing Creature Decks in line besides fighting fire with fire. Besides you mean Terminus no other Miracle card sees much play.
I don't consider BoP unfair either, it puts you one turn ahead which is fine by me that doesnt compare to Tron puttting you 4 or 5 ahead easily. Made even worse when you consider how hard it is to deal with lands.
BoP enables a Turn 3 kill in Knightfall, and its not particularly rare if people skimp on removal. It is fair in terms of Modern, but that 1 extra mana is enabling unfair things, just like everything else in the format.
Totally agree on it being a scale, I just think BoP and Llanowar, and even Hierarch, are WELL down the Fair side of it.
If we're talking about natural game limitations and mana development, that means one mana per turn. Elves/BoP advance that by a turn, which is a little unfair. But at least it costs mana to do so and is on a fragile body, which makes it less unfair than the less easily disrupted Opal that is on an artifact and costs 0.
For me, fair state Magic means one mana per turn, one card per turn, and no more spells cast/CMC on board than is allowable by those mana and card parameters. That breaks down to something like:
T1: 1 card, 1 mana, total CMC 1, max CMC 1, total spells cast 1
T2: 2 cards, 2 mana, total CMC 3, max CMC 2, total spells cast 2
T3: 3 cards, 3 mana, total CMC 6, max CMC 3, total spells cast 3
Something like Elves might only advance your curve by 1 which isn't very unfair. But Tron might Map a land (+1 card) and then have access to +4 mana AND a permanent with +4 CMC over where the natural limit should be. This scores way more unfair points and shifts the deck further down the spectrum.
[quote from="BlueTronFTW »" url="/forums/the-game/modern/799362-the-state-of-modern-thread-b-r-01-10-2018?comment=713"]
I agree. But this is the actual opposite to what @Wraith and @ktk said before. They basically said that even if you use Birds or paradise to ramp, it's unfair(for that matter, they exactly said using Llanowar elves as a ramp in Standard is an unfair element). I think the standard elves paradigm can be assigned into a fair play, as you use mana to play it and can be removed.
Have not read all the previous posts, so did not see those. Anyway, surprised that ramping with Birds of Paradise is considered an unfair strategy.
1. Casting a mana dork for mana acceleration takes the entire first turn, they are not "free" like mox opal or eldrazi temple.
2. If the dork is bolted or pushed it can lead to mana screw.
3. Having many mana dorks can lead to explosive starts, but they are also dead draws mid-late game.
4. It takes effort to find the right number that is comfortable for the deck. I started with 4 sprawl, 4 elf, 0 birds... then a week later 4 sprawl 4 elf 1 bird... and a few more weeks later.. currently 4 sprawl, 4 arbor elf, and 2 birds which I now feel is correct with the Ponza build I'm using. In Affinity you put 4 opal into the deck, and that's it.
5. The more mana dorks in a deck, the less actual threats can be put into the deck.
I think there are enough disadvantages that using BoP is actually fair.
To be clear, BoP and other acceleration is itself unfair in that it cheats on a natural one land per turn curve, but that doesn't make a deck using acceleration unfair. It would just earn that deck a few points on the unfair spectrum. Just to use a very rudimentary analysis, Standard Golgari Midrange would have just 4 points from its 4 Elves copies, as opposed to something like Modern Titanshift with tons of ramp and many more points.
Ok, I can agree to that.
Anyway, even beginner precon decks have some llnowar elves.. so I guess WoTC tries to teach us early how to be unfair in mana production.
Similarly, Opal is an unfair card. Maybe it even gets more unfair points because it costs 0 and is immediately usable. But a fair deck could use Opal and still be eminently fair. KCI would not, because it plays far more CMC and number of spells in a turn than is otherwise commensurate with that turn's mana development. UR/Grixis Prison, however, would be closer to fair.
For many years, I've used a complete Modern Affinity before selling the opals in 2017 to help buy some tarmogoyf... and I can say that opal is a different power level from a BoP in terms of speed, it costs 0 and is never summoning sick. One of the few things that limit the opal is that it can only be used effectively in decks with 40+ artifacts, making that deck itself vulnerable to artifact sweepers and Stony Silence. There are few modern decks with main board artifact removal, but there are many with mainboard creature removal to which the BoP is easily killed.
Totally agree on it being a scale, I just think BoP and Llanowar, and even Hierarch, are WELL down the Fair side of it.
If we're talking about natural game limitations and mana development, that means one mana per turn. Elves/BoP advance that by a turn, which is a little unfair. But at least it costs mana to do so and is on a fragile body, which makes it less unfair than the less easily disrupted Opal that is on an artifact and costs 0.
For me, fair state Magic means one mana per turn, one card per turn, and no more spells cast/CMC on board than is allowable by those mana and card parameters. That breaks down to something like:
T1: 1 card, 1 mana, total CMC 1, max CMC 1, total spells cast 1
T2: 2 cards, 2 mana, total CMC 3, max CMC 2, total spells cast 2
T3: 3 cards, 3 mana, total CMC 6, max CMC 3, total spells cast 3
Something like Elves might only advance your curve by 1 which isn't very unfair. But Tron might Map a land (+1 card) and then have access to +4 mana AND a permanent with +4 CMC over where the natural limit should be. This scores way more unfair points and shifts the deck further down the spectrum.
i dunno, id rather stick to fair/unfair dichotomy being this abstract thing we know exists, but with a level of subjectivity and relativity.
the way you define it, its so broad the distinction loses all meaning. for example fair decks exist in vintage, yet they are breaking through your metrics so utterly and completely they could never be categorized as such. sometimes playing out a mox sapphire and casting ancestral recall is fair relative to what is going on around it.
your post look to bring it up, but just to reiterate, there is a difference between unfair elements and a deck being unfair. there is also a gradient of unfairness. however at some point, and maybe its just arbitrary for most people, a split happens. i can look at jund and ad naus next to eachother and see it. who cares if cascade is 'unfair', obviously its fair relative to drawing your entire deck and killing at instant speed.
maybe some just want to use archetypes and throw out fair/unfair entirely. however there are cases where, even within the same archetype, some difference can be observed. for example some generic zoo deck and dredge. both are aggressive creature decks and mostly linear, but dredge is operating on a completely different axis.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
Regarding Tron, is it really that ******* hard to stuff some LD or disruption in your 75 if you are consistently disadvantaged against them? Field of Ruin, GQ, Surgical, Blood Moon, Spreading Seas, Ceremonious Rejection, just to name a few that I use.
Regarding Prison, is it really that hard to throw some basic lands, artifact/enchantment removal in your 75 to not get blown out by a Chalice, Bridge, Moon deck?
This thread is grossing me out. Adapt or get run over.
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 dunno, id rather stick to fair/unfair dichotomy being this abstract thing we know exists, but with a level of subjectivity and relativity.
Unfortunately, there is too much subjectivity in such discussions and we're never talking about the same terms or meanings. I'd rather settle on a definition that at least I can personally use when discussing the decks. If others want to use it, that's fine. If they don't, that's fine too, but then at least they know exactly what I'm referring to.
the way you define it, its so broad the distinction loses all meaning. for example fair decks exist in vintage, yet they are breaking through your metrics so utterly and completely they could never be categorized as such. sometimes playing out a mox sapphire and casting ancestral recall is fair relative to what is going on around it.
It's not broad at all. If you started scoring decks on this paradigm, you would quickly see decks start to create enormous relative gaps between each other. Miracles has a bunch of cards that we could categorize as unfair. Terminus cheats on cost, many effects draw multiple cards, Search can accelerate by a turn, etc. When we added all those up, we'd probably see the deck get at least a dozen so-called unfair points, which might sound unfair in a vacuum. But then we can compare it to something like Dredge. Dredge is wildly violating all of those benchmarks, particularly the number of permanents in play on a given turn and their total CMC. Similarly, Storm and Ad Nauseam would both create gigantic violations in their ability to cast so many more spells in a turn than is ordinarily bounded by the baseline assumption. This would create massive relative differences between Miracles and its 12ish unfair points and Storm and its score. We just have to tweak the baselines and come up with measurement standards; I'm confident the rest of the scoring would work once we started measuring decks against one another.
The key to this method is, as you said, moving away from this idea that decks are either fair or unfair. All decks exist on a spectrum of fair to unfair, not a dichotomy. The other key is moving away from the pejorative connotations of "unfair" like it's necessarily something that is worse, lower skill, less fun, etc. All Constructed decks use unfair elements that break fundamental game rule parity in order to excel. This is particularly true in non-rotating formats where the power level is high. For instance, Legacy, a format that people routinely enshrine as some paradise of fair and skillful Magic, does not have a single top deck that doesn't flagrantly violate all those proposed baselines above. FoW and Daze are free. Brainstorm and JTMS draw tons of cards. SFM cheats mana. And that doesn't get into the truly unfair stuff. All powerful constructed decks have unfair elements. This does not make the deck unfair, and it does not make the format less skillful, fun, interesting, etc. Once we move past that, it will be easier to discuss this distinction.
Regarding Tron, is it really that ******* hard to stuff some LD or disruption in your 75 if you are consistently disadvantaged against them? Field of Ruin, GQ, Surgical, Blood Moon, Spreading Seas, Ceremonious Rejection, just to name a few that I use.
Regarding Prison, is it really that hard to throw some basic lands, artifact/enchantment removal in your 75 to not get blown out by a Chalice, Bridge, Moon deck?
This thread is grossing me out. Adapt or get run over.
You say that as if people are not already doing as much? Nearly every 'tier 1' deck is aware of the match up issues against things like Tron, or Prison, and tries to mitigate the negative % points (if they have any) against them.
Its not about adaptation, which takes place on a near weekly period, so I'm not sure what you are 'grossed out' by?
Yeah, im not even kinda implicating you should even attempt to prepare for every single matchup. What I AM saying, is if you KNOW your meta is going to have specific decks OR you don't want to lose to specific decks, then there is absolutely NOTHING stopping a player from preparing appropriately. For example, if you are playing Blue Moon, you have no reason to complain about Tron, Valakut, or Amulet because you have a ton of tools to fight those strategies that are also useful in other matchups. If a player refuses to adapt, change a build, or change an approach, then it is their burden and doesn't mean that the aforementioned strategies are wrong, unfair, or too good.
In case someone still isn't quite getting it. If you are a black deck and you keep losing to Tron, it isn't hard to GQ, Field of Ruin a Tron land and use Surgical to cripple a dude, all while using cards that are still useful against other decks. This isn't rocket science and seems like a no brainer for a veteran modern player.
Yeah, im not even kinda implicating you should even attempt to prepare for every single matchup. What I AM saying, is if you KNOW your meta is going to have specific decks OR you don't want to lose to specific decks, then there is absolutely NOTHING stopping a player from preparing appropriately. For example, if you are playing Blue Moon, you have no reason to complain about Tron, Valakut, or Amulet because you have a ton of tools to fight those strategies that are also useful in other matchups. If a player refuses to adapt, change a build, or change an approach, then it is their burden and doesn't mean that the aforementioned strategies are wrong, unfair, or too good.
In case someone still isn't quite getting it. If you are a black deck and you keep losing to Tron, it isn't hard to GQ, Field of Ruin a Tron land and use Surgical to cripple a dude, all while using cards that are still useful against other decks. This isn't rocket science and seems like a no brainer for a veteran modern player.
Ah that explains it all. I have no idea why Jund players struggle against Tron, Valakut or Amulet when they literally just need to GQ and Surgical.
You seem to misunderstand this discussion around 'unfair' as it has nothing with being too good. Its simply 'is this a fair or unfair axis' which we are navel gazing about to...pass the time, since Modern is kind of just doing its thing right now churning through a meta shift.
Have been casually following this discussion, so forgive me if this query has been answered, but I don't understand the point of rating decks on a fair-unfair spectrum. Has Wizards ever said that unfairness is something they look for when banning/unbanning decks? IIRC, the closest they've gotten to that is drawing lines in the sand re: diversity and winning turn. And strategically, I feel the discourse fails, as tuning for unfair decks as a whole and not for the specific ones you want to beat is a recipe for disaster in Modern.
All that combines so that, as far as I can gather, the discussion about fairness is either a) one of matchup/playstyle preferences or b) one of personal wishes for Modern that are not necessarily in line with Wizards' stated goals. Am I off-base here?
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
There is no point, its just discussion as 'fair' 'unfair' 'linear' and 'interactive' are terms thrown around a lot in this thread, but we have no definitions for them to facilitate any kind of movement of the conversation.
As far as I can tell, there was no stated goal for better defining the unfair-fair dichotomy. It's a philosophical conversation about terms that are frequently thrown around on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis. It's greatly enjoyable (for me at least) to see an attempt at a better definition, because more precise words help better describe and then better understand existing and emerging decks.
It's similar to bucketing decks as Aggro, Tempo, or Control archetypes. When those terms are relatively clear to a player, they're lampposts for identifying who's the beatdown, has inevitability, etc. which in turn lead to (at least considering) different approaches in play. Conceptualizing the differences leads to a deeper conversation.
Have been casually following this discussion, so forgive me if this query has been answered, but I don't understand the point of rating decks on a fair-unfair spectrum. Has Wizards ever said that unfairness is something they look for when banning/unbanning decks? IIRC, the closest they've gotten to that is drawing lines in the sand re: diversity and winning turn. And strategically, I feel the discourse fails, as tuning for unfair decks as a whole and not for the specific ones you want to beat is a recipe for disaster in Modern.
All that combines so that, as far as I can gather, the discussion about fairness is either a) one of matchup/playstyle preferences or b) one of personal wishes for Modern that are not necessarily in line with Wizards' stated goals. Am I off-base here?
i dont think you are off base. like idsurge said, its mostly just us kicking the tires on some more abstract/philosophical stuff cause modern is just sorta doing its own thing atm.
as for its relation to bans/unbans, i think you could loosely connect it if you wanted to. like if perception of fairness is dealing with playstyles, then its in the realm of play patterns; which is in turn dealing with diversity.
for example if cfusionpm makes a claim about playing a fair deck putting you at a disadvantage it implies that he thinks diversity is suffering. just like he has his own definition that he is applying to decks that are unable to do as well, wizards should have their own as well. maybe that line of reasoning pushes them to take action.
i guess its kinda in the same space as linearity and interactivity; both being things people generally agree exist but have no common definition for. complaints about the format often mush them all together into something that translates to 'this subset of decks that i like isnt as good as this other subset of decks i dont like'. its really flimsy, but wizards track record of decisions isnt exactly a shining example of logic or objectivity at work.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
The point is that besides Dredge possibly being our new overlord, Modern is kinda stale right now and we're grasping at straws for conversation, lol.
Any mechanic or play that reduces costs or accelerates mana is unfair, but there are degrees. Mana dorks are more fair than moxen, because you have to invest usually 1 mana into them, they can't usually be used the turn you play them, and they die to creature removal. Paying 1 for a Gurmag Angler is more fair than Goryos'ing an Emrakul into play. The degree to which you're being unfair is what determines if the deck is generally fair or unfair. Most decks that use mana dorks are considered fair, but most decks using Mox Opal aren't. A deck trying to play a turn 2 Gurmag Angler is considered fair by most of us, but a deck trying to have a turn 2 Emrakul is not.
Also, I don't consider drawing more than one card per turn to be inherently unfair. For instance, is Divination an unfair card? I would say no. You paid 3 mana at sorcery speed to go up one card. Now, there may be some kind of synergy that's letting you draw cards without paying a "fair" price, and that might be unfair. For instance, the synergy between Sram and 0 mana equipment, and the synergy between Dredge cards and things that want to be in your graveyard (if we consider dredging to be "drawing cards" for that deck). This is an issue of synergy, though: taking two effects that are innocuous on their own and combining them to gain a game-breaking effect.
For instance, look at UW's card advantage. Teferi requires a 5 mana investment up front, and then you have to protect him over several turns to get your cards. You certainly have to work for those cards. Search for Azcanta requires a 2 mana initial investment, waiting several turns, and then 4 mana for each card you draw with it. So yeah, I wouldn't say that UW's card advantage engines are unfair. The unfair things in that deck are the cost reducing miracle mechanic on Terminus, and the mana advantage you get from Teferi's +1 and Search flipping.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern UBR Grixis Shadow UBR UR Izzet Phoenix UR UW UW Control UW GB GB Rock GB
Commander BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I guess so. 99% of the time its on 1, and I Abrade it and move on, so it slipped my mind.
Spirits
There's a difference in playing 1 or 2 rituals into a big thing like Chandra, Torch of Defiance, an Ensnaring Bridge, or something like that and playing 3+ rituals + Past in Flames to OTK you. I think cads like Birds of Paradise and Arbor Elf all fall under the former. Theres also a difference in playing Mox + Mox Jace, the Mindsculpter and Mox + Mox + multiple mana rocks + Paradoxical Outcome + Tendrils of Agony
Basically what I'm saying is that Ramp is a fair part of the game, where OTK'ing you would be unfair.
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
As for fair vs unfair I think it's very subjective. I wonder how fair vs unfair coincides with linear/nonlinear.
WUBRGCommander Decklists - PaperWUBRG
CCCCCommander Decklists - TheorycraftCCCC
Sig Credit: Pegasus Bishop
To be clear, BoP and other acceleration is itself unfair in that it cheats on a natural one land per turn curve, but that doesn't make a deck using acceleration unfair. It would just earn that deck a few points on the unfair spectrum. Just to use a very rudimentary analysis, Standard Golgari Midrange would have just 4 points from its 4 Elves copies, as opposed to something like Modern Titanshift with tons of ramp and many more points.
Similarly, Opal is an unfair card. Maybe it even gets more unfair points because it costs 0 and is immediately usable. But a fair deck could use Opal and still be eminently fair. KCI would not, because it plays far more CMC and number of spells in a turn than is otherwise commensurate with that turn's mana development. UR/Grixis Prison, however, would be closer to fair.
To me, "unfair" implies that you are doing something that is not natural in the game. This includes infinite combos as well as cards like the power 8 (timetwister is pretty fair). I would put any Sol-effect in there as well, and cards like Eldrazi Temple are only made moderately more fair through their restrictions. I'd include Cavern of Souls since the creature you cast would otherwise be counterable off the same number of lands.
Cascade, to me, is in a middle ground because of the random factor. It can be unfair to BBE into LotV, but it's supremely fair to BBE into Inquisition or Bolt. A 3/2 Haste creature should typically cost RG - you're basically getting whatever you cascade into for 2 generic mana.
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
I don't consider BoP unfair either, it puts you one turn ahead which is fine by me that doesnt compare to Tron puttting you 4 or 5 ahead easily. Made even worse when you consider how hard it is to deal with lands.
Spirits
Although I should note Llanowar is back in Standard and it hasn't carried Green to the top or any unfair level of dominance.
Yeah its definitly a scale, as has been said there isnt a single good Modern deck that is not doing SOMETHING unfair.
Spirits
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
If we're talking about natural game limitations and mana development, that means one mana per turn. Elves/BoP advance that by a turn, which is a little unfair. But at least it costs mana to do so and is on a fragile body, which makes it less unfair than the less easily disrupted Opal that is on an artifact and costs 0.
For me, fair state Magic means one mana per turn, one card per turn, and no more spells cast/CMC on board than is allowable by those mana and card parameters. That breaks down to something like:
T1: 1 card, 1 mana, total CMC 1, max CMC 1, total spells cast 1
T2: 2 cards, 2 mana, total CMC 3, max CMC 2, total spells cast 2
T3: 3 cards, 3 mana, total CMC 6, max CMC 3, total spells cast 3
Something like Elves might only advance your curve by 1 which isn't very unfair. But Tron might Map a land (+1 card) and then have access to +4 mana AND a permanent with +4 CMC over where the natural limit should be. This scores way more unfair points and shifts the deck further down the spectrum.
Ok, I can agree to that.
Anyway, even beginner precon decks have some llnowar elves.. so I guess WoTC tries to teach us early how to be unfair in mana production.
For many years, I've used a complete Modern Affinity before selling the opals in 2017 to help buy some tarmogoyf... and I can say that opal is a different power level from a BoP in terms of speed, it costs 0 and is never summoning sick. One of the few things that limit the opal is that it can only be used effectively in decks with 40+ artifacts, making that deck itself vulnerable to artifact sweepers and Stony Silence. There are few modern decks with main board artifact removal, but there are many with mainboard creature removal to which the BoP is easily killed.
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
i dunno, id rather stick to fair/unfair dichotomy being this abstract thing we know exists, but with a level of subjectivity and relativity.
the way you define it, its so broad the distinction loses all meaning. for example fair decks exist in vintage, yet they are breaking through your metrics so utterly and completely they could never be categorized as such. sometimes playing out a mox sapphire and casting ancestral recall is fair relative to what is going on around it.
your post look to bring it up, but just to reiterate, there is a difference between unfair elements and a deck being unfair. there is also a gradient of unfairness. however at some point, and maybe its just arbitrary for most people, a split happens. i can look at jund and ad naus next to eachother and see it. who cares if cascade is 'unfair', obviously its fair relative to drawing your entire deck and killing at instant speed.
maybe some just want to use archetypes and throw out fair/unfair entirely. however there are cases where, even within the same archetype, some difference can be observed. for example some generic zoo deck and dredge. both are aggressive creature decks and mostly linear, but dredge is operating on a completely different axis.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Regarding Prison, is it really that hard to throw some basic lands, artifact/enchantment removal in your 75 to not get blown out by a Chalice, Bridge, Moon deck?
This thread is grossing me out. Adapt or get run over.
RG BBE Ponza
UX Eldrazi Tron
UR Jace Breach
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)Unfortunately, there is too much subjectivity in such discussions and we're never talking about the same terms or meanings. I'd rather settle on a definition that at least I can personally use when discussing the decks. If others want to use it, that's fine. If they don't, that's fine too, but then at least they know exactly what I'm referring to.
It's not broad at all. If you started scoring decks on this paradigm, you would quickly see decks start to create enormous relative gaps between each other. Miracles has a bunch of cards that we could categorize as unfair. Terminus cheats on cost, many effects draw multiple cards, Search can accelerate by a turn, etc. When we added all those up, we'd probably see the deck get at least a dozen so-called unfair points, which might sound unfair in a vacuum. But then we can compare it to something like Dredge. Dredge is wildly violating all of those benchmarks, particularly the number of permanents in play on a given turn and their total CMC. Similarly, Storm and Ad Nauseam would both create gigantic violations in their ability to cast so many more spells in a turn than is ordinarily bounded by the baseline assumption. This would create massive relative differences between Miracles and its 12ish unfair points and Storm and its score. We just have to tweak the baselines and come up with measurement standards; I'm confident the rest of the scoring would work once we started measuring decks against one another.
The key to this method is, as you said, moving away from this idea that decks are either fair or unfair. All decks exist on a spectrum of fair to unfair, not a dichotomy. The other key is moving away from the pejorative connotations of "unfair" like it's necessarily something that is worse, lower skill, less fun, etc. All Constructed decks use unfair elements that break fundamental game rule parity in order to excel. This is particularly true in non-rotating formats where the power level is high. For instance, Legacy, a format that people routinely enshrine as some paradise of fair and skillful Magic, does not have a single top deck that doesn't flagrantly violate all those proposed baselines above. FoW and Daze are free. Brainstorm and JTMS draw tons of cards. SFM cheats mana. And that doesn't get into the truly unfair stuff. All powerful constructed decks have unfair elements. This does not make the deck unfair, and it does not make the format less skillful, fun, interesting, etc. Once we move past that, it will be easier to discuss this distinction.
You say that as if people are not already doing as much? Nearly every 'tier 1' deck is aware of the match up issues against things like Tron, or Prison, and tries to mitigate the negative % points (if they have any) against them.
Its not about adaptation, which takes place on a near weekly period, so I'm not sure what you are 'grossed out' by?
Spirits
Yeah, im not even kinda implicating you should even attempt to prepare for every single matchup. What I AM saying, is if you KNOW your meta is going to have specific decks OR you don't want to lose to specific decks, then there is absolutely NOTHING stopping a player from preparing appropriately. For example, if you are playing Blue Moon, you have no reason to complain about Tron, Valakut, or Amulet because you have a ton of tools to fight those strategies that are also useful in other matchups. If a player refuses to adapt, change a build, or change an approach, then it is their burden and doesn't mean that the aforementioned strategies are wrong, unfair, or too good.
In case someone still isn't quite getting it. If you are a black deck and you keep losing to Tron, it isn't hard to GQ, Field of Ruin a Tron land and use Surgical to cripple a dude, all while using cards that are still useful against other decks. This isn't rocket science and seems like a no brainer for a veteran modern player.
RG BBE Ponza
UX Eldrazi Tron
UR Jace Breach
Ah that explains it all. I have no idea why Jund players struggle against Tron, Valakut or Amulet when they literally just need to GQ and Surgical.
You seem to misunderstand this discussion around 'unfair' as it has nothing with being too good. Its simply 'is this a fair or unfair axis' which we are navel gazing about to...pass the time, since Modern is kind of just doing its thing right now churning through a meta shift.
Spirits
All that combines so that, as far as I can gather, the discussion about fairness is either a) one of matchup/playstyle preferences or b) one of personal wishes for Modern that are not necessarily in line with Wizards' stated goals. Am I off-base here?
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
Spirits
I woould agree with someone said that every decent deck in Modern are doing something "unfair".
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
It's similar to bucketing decks as Aggro, Tempo, or Control archetypes. When those terms are relatively clear to a player, they're lampposts for identifying who's the beatdown, has inevitability, etc. which in turn lead to (at least considering) different approaches in play. Conceptualizing the differences leads to a deeper conversation.
i dont think you are off base. like idsurge said, its mostly just us kicking the tires on some more abstract/philosophical stuff cause modern is just sorta doing its own thing atm.
as for its relation to bans/unbans, i think you could loosely connect it if you wanted to. like if perception of fairness is dealing with playstyles, then its in the realm of play patterns; which is in turn dealing with diversity.
for example if cfusionpm makes a claim about playing a fair deck putting you at a disadvantage it implies that he thinks diversity is suffering. just like he has his own definition that he is applying to decks that are unable to do as well, wizards should have their own as well. maybe that line of reasoning pushes them to take action.
i guess its kinda in the same space as linearity and interactivity; both being things people generally agree exist but have no common definition for. complaints about the format often mush them all together into something that translates to 'this subset of decks that i like isnt as good as this other subset of decks i dont like'. its really flimsy, but wizards track record of decisions isnt exactly a shining example of logic or objectivity at work.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Any mechanic or play that reduces costs or accelerates mana is unfair, but there are degrees. Mana dorks are more fair than moxen, because you have to invest usually 1 mana into them, they can't usually be used the turn you play them, and they die to creature removal. Paying 1 for a Gurmag Angler is more fair than Goryos'ing an Emrakul into play. The degree to which you're being unfair is what determines if the deck is generally fair or unfair. Most decks that use mana dorks are considered fair, but most decks using Mox Opal aren't. A deck trying to play a turn 2 Gurmag Angler is considered fair by most of us, but a deck trying to have a turn 2 Emrakul is not.
Also, I don't consider drawing more than one card per turn to be inherently unfair. For instance, is Divination an unfair card? I would say no. You paid 3 mana at sorcery speed to go up one card. Now, there may be some kind of synergy that's letting you draw cards without paying a "fair" price, and that might be unfair. For instance, the synergy between Sram and 0 mana equipment, and the synergy between Dredge cards and things that want to be in your graveyard (if we consider dredging to be "drawing cards" for that deck). This is an issue of synergy, though: taking two effects that are innocuous on their own and combining them to gain a game-breaking effect.
For instance, look at UW's card advantage. Teferi requires a 5 mana investment up front, and then you have to protect him over several turns to get your cards. You certainly have to work for those cards. Search for Azcanta requires a 2 mana initial investment, waiting several turns, and then 4 mana for each card you draw with it. So yeah, I wouldn't say that UW's card advantage engines are unfair. The unfair things in that deck are the cost reducing miracle mechanic on Terminus, and the mana advantage you get from Teferi's +1 and Search flipping.
UBR Grixis Shadow UBR
UR Izzet Phoenix UR
UW UW Control UW
GB GB Rock GB
Commander
BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG
BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW