MTG Salvation

Quote from ktkenshinx »

Sun is a badly designed card. Helps Tron and Eldrazi decks, hurts fair decks. Both a missed opportunity to make good hate and a potentially harmful failure. And it took the online community about 10 minutes to realize this; Play Design input can't come soon enough.

I think you might be exaggerating a bit. If Tron is playing this on turn 3, they aren't exactly playing a turn 3 Karn that everyone likes to complain about. Most opponents would have already used any possible fetches, and frankly this just gives opponents an additional turn while your opponent wasted their turn 3 doing nothing.

Second of all, they have to revert back to good old GR Tron to even run Blood Sun reliably, losing recent tech of Fatal Push/Collective Brutality (making them softer to certain decks). In regards to Eldrazi Tron, I can't see them diluting their mana bases to run a sideboard card just to counter cards like Ghost Quarter.

I like Blood Sun, it's an interesting card that hits greedy fair decks and has weird build around merits. It also hates on Valakut which is fine by me. We'll see if it has any place in modern.

Quote from Shmanka »

I'd like to point something out very abruptly before we continute this conversation.

Look at the top spells and creatures played in Modern please. Do not show me results of a deck that's 0.005% of a metagame and claim that a new set has added a format staple.

Here are the links.

https://www.mtggoldfish.com/format-staples/modern/full/creatures

https://www.mtggoldfish.com/format-staples/modern/full/spells

Recently, we got Fatal Push, Ceremonious Rejection, Walking Balista, Collective Brutality, Baral, Vizier of Remedies, and Tireless Tracker as recent additions.

That is very par for 2-5 per block. Don't ******* tell me Disallow is a ******* format staple in Modern.

Playable cards =/= format staple all stars. Not every card has to as powerful as Fatal Push to be considered a playable card. That's a ridiculous standard.

For example, Cathartic Reunion/Insolent Neonate miss the top 50 in both lists, but are extremely relevant cards that make Dredge tick. These, by definition, are playable cards. The same is true of many cards that enter the format.

All Modern is really missing is a few generic answers. Barring that, most new cards that enter the format would be better off either supporting underdeveloped archetypes or new build arounds.

And for the record on bans, we don't need any bans and don't need any unbans. I'm against Stoneforge Mystic not because of her power, but the fact that she homogenizes every white/white splashing deck to look the same. She has the hidden cost of being a card that takes up 7+ slots. I'd rather white be shored up another way.

Quote from SultaiAscendancy »

Because Paradoxical Outcome was way too powerful...

You can't discard lands to Paradoxical Outcome. Hell late game if your flooded, this is great way to turn all those duds into gas.

Quote from Creedmoor »

Aside from reprinting old Counterspells, what are some realistic options for new counterspells that could be considered "good"?
Cancel + cycling for 2 Mana?
Mana Leak for UU?

Disprove - UU
Instant
Counter target spell with a converted mana cost of 3 or less.

Would go along way of providing a good answer to a lot of cards, but leave Standard relatively intact.

It's too mana intensive, but I like how Trueheart Duelist's mummy token is a Zombie and still a Human. Shenanigans with Xathrid Necromancer abound! I'm also interested in how 1 body = 3 zombies, but eh, it's Magic.

Quote from Shmanka »

and instead of embracing those features like you mentioned, Wizards has dramatically toned down Instants, and made them Sorceries, or even worse, they made unplayable Instants. Why did they make Steam Augury when Fact or Fiction was available? Before Fatal Push, they were killing Sylvans with Murder. Look at how horrible Ruinous Path is, and people were forced to play that into Aetherworks Marvel and Smuggler's Copter, then they wonder why no one likes Standard.

I'm not saying the days of 1999+ Standard were perfect, but gosh-darn-it those problems were negligible compared to what we have now. They need a complete overhaul of the banned list for Modern and a really good re-evaluation of Legacy, and a brand new design team for Standard.

Collected Company, Fatal Push, Dig Through Time, Become Immense, Kolaghan's Command, Atarka's Command, Abrupt Decay, Blossoming Defense, etc., etc.

Sure they haven't been printing 20 must play instant spells per block, and sure they have screwed the pooch in terms of appropriate answers in these last few standard seasons, but far from what your spouting. WotC has acknowledged the need to print better answers, and I'm sure we'll see them within the next few blocks. This era of magic is far from the travesty of Mirrodin block.

Frankly your doomsaying has been almost completely baseless, especially when it comes to formats outside of Standard (can we stop talking about standard in the modern thread?). Every time they have used the ban list modern has only grown in popularity (not saying they are correlated, just saying it hasn't stopped the format). Modern GP attendance has always been stable/high, and anecdotal evidence about some people's LGSs are not to be taken as hard data. To counter it, I know of several stores in my area who are starting to support Modern due to popular demand, and there are stores near me that get 50+ people firing for their modern events weekly, sometimes multiple times a week. Wizards does products like Modern Masters because there is a demand for it. Why wouldn't they reap the rewards of that market?

Furthermore the ban list does not need an overhaul. In fact I (and many other players) like the banlist. Not everyone agrees with what you want the power level of the format to be.

Quote from gkourou »

At the moment, top-tier metagame does not include a Blue based control/attrition deck. Such decks were/are historic during all of MTG history. Modern not having such a deck into the higher tiers to represent it, is something they are looking into.

At the moment we don't really have a metagame, so why don't we let the dust settle first?

If WoTC is willing to print stronger and better answers, why would they compound that with JTMS? Giving superior removal, counters, and then Jace on top of that leads to another tier 0 deck. If Jace prevents stronger, more fair, blue cards from being printed, then he shouldn't be unbanned. Exactly kind of like the Birthing Pod being banned. Ancestral Visions and JTMS are leagues apart in this regard.

Mono white Death and Taxes list, SCG Classic - 15th Place

Pretty no nonsense but with some spicy 1 drops in the form of Weathered Wayfarer and Kytheon.

Quote from idSurge »

Yeah no kidding. Any thoughts of buying into Jund, already on life support after banning of Twin, are just gone. Forget that noise. Same with Affinity, no chance. I have Dredge, but it didnt do it for me after a short while, I need my UR core...

Its interesting, and I saw a post in another area of the forum that reflects my thoughts pretty well. Wizards keeps digging a hole. They are not solving the issues that they themselves are creating.

'Well it feels bad to have your creature die.'
'Well discard feels bad.'
'Well counters feel bad.'
'Well combo's feel bad.'

If you design for the stereotypical 'safe place' millennial, you'll get whats coming to you eventually and it looks like we are finally getting there.

Ah yes, instead of playing decks that respect interaction (you know, actual conflict), combo players need a safe space so they can combo freely. Who is the real "millennial"?

Also millennials are people who were born around 1980. Magic's first set, Alpha, came out in 1993. I would posit the majority of players that play magic are millennials, even the ones that played "hardcore" magic back in the day.

Quote from Lord Hazanko »

It's just super funny to me they print Fatal Push, everyone gets super hyped about it's potential... Then they ban off the decks Push was gonna be so good against. Hahaha.

Infect will still be tier 1, push is still good against infect.

Push is also great against the litany of threats that come from Jund and other interactive/midrange decks.

The biggest losers are tier 2 zooicide (the only real deck that fatal push loses prey on) and tier 3 decks like prowess and storm.

In other words, the threats for Fatal Push to hit are still there, the hype train is still real, choo choo.

Continuation from Death And Taxes' Primer v.2

What is Death And Taxes?

“Death & Taxes (D&T) is a deck based loosely on the Legacy deck by the same name. It is a white based deck (originally strictly mono-white) that plays small creatures who provide some element of control on the battlefield. At its most basic form, the general idea is to out tempo the opponent through virtual card advantage, evasive/efficient beats, and creating dead cards in their hand utilizing taxes and an aggressive land destruction plan. Keep in mind this deck is a meta deck at heart, its power stems from that, not the intrinsic power of the cards themselves.”- Sheepz

Death And Taxes has continued to follow the core values that Sheepz addressed but has also begun to evolve in the Modern format. With the latest printings, Death And Taxes has grown to incorporate sub themes and color variations that were not previously supported. In example, during "Eldrazi Winter", we found ourselves with a new build titled, “Eldrazi And Taxes” taking the format by surprise. Eldrazi and Taxes took advantage of the powerhouse/aggressive Eldrazi printings and has continued to maintain promising performances and results.

(To continue educating yourself on the archetype, history, understanding DnT vs. Hatebears, key cards, and best practices, read the previous Death And Taxes' Primer v.2).
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Which variations have the most success?

As it currently stands, there are multiple list that could claim to be the "correct" build. Just like in Legacy, Death And Taxes has multiple builds that are performing well and potentially answer different areas of the meta game. With Modern having nearly fifteen different archetypes performing at any given moment, it makes sense that various versions of Death And Taxes would blossom from those resulting metas.


Variants In The Current Meta (Summer 2019):



Modern has gone through a wild ride since 2018! What started off as an expected midrange format, it quickly evolved with success of the Humans deck, Storm (and other combo) strategies and the eventual unbannings of Jace, the Mind Sculptor & Bloodbraid Elf. Many players thought this would lead to a more stabilized and slower format. In actuality, this increased the amount of pressure that aggro decks would apply and made combo decks focus on being less interactive. Modern officially became a hyper aggressive format. As the moniker goes, Death And Taxes continues to find its way. Settling back down into lower Tier 2 status due to players bing split on consensus of builds, splashing secondary colors are currently the only thing consistant in most DNT lists.

Eldrazi Taxes and Death & Staxes have been more popular than ever but this is not to say Mono-White and Red-White variants are completely absent. Normally, this section would break down the most popular variations but there is no major consensus at this time. There is a beacon of hope for consistency coming up in Magic’s Core 2019 set. Cards like Militia Bugler and Remorseful Cleric have the potential to make the baseline strategy come full circle. And if not, Core 2019 seems to bring a lot of tools to potential splash builds as well. Keep an eye for recent finishes here:
MTGTOP 8
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Why does the metagame affect Death And Taxes?

"Your tournament performance will be determined by more than just your skill in deck building and game play. In Magic, it's also important to predict what strategies your opponents will be using, and make an effort to counter them as effectively as possible. Understanding how other players think can give you a leg up on the competition." - Reid Duke

This deck is built on the axis of exploiting unfair strategies that the rest of the format is abusing. The problem that can occur is, Death And Taxes variants may be focusing on beating strategies that just aren't being played in the expected meta. Understanding the meta and what portions of the meta a variant struggles with, will help secure more victories and insure that underwhelming card choices are not being played in critical slots.

(To continue educating yourself on the meta and "winner circle's metagame", read article titled, "The Metagame" by Reid Duke).
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Are there videos to watch?

• Eldrazi And Taxes piloted by Pascal Maynard
• Eldrazi And Taxes piloted by Frank Lepore
• Eldrazi And Taxes piloted by Craig Wescoe
• Eldrazi And Taxes piloted by Craig Wescoe
• Eldrazi And Taxes piloted by Bava (MagicGatheringStrat)
• G/W Death And Taxes Deck Tech by Danny West
• G/W Death And Taxes Deck Tech by Craig Wescoe
• G/W Death And Taxes from Lantern Control's Perspective
• Mono-White Death And Taxes piloted by Tom Ross
• Mono-White Death And Taxes piloted by DeathandCatmix
• Mono-White Death And Taxes as described by PleasantKenobi
• Mono-White Death And Taxes as described by the Mana Source

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Banner by x1uo3yd

Utilize this section for quickly accessing articles, deck lists, important archived thread posts, and more. The Leonin Library is a way to get answers quickly without having to scour through years worth of posts and prevents the frustration of waiting for an untimely response on the forum. Anything posted in this section is archived data which means it could potentially be outdated information (or links may be broken). In order to keep the library clean and up-to-date, send messages to me, DeathandCatmix, in order to keep it updated and accurate.

Have something to share in Leonin’s Library? Send me a private message with: accurate link to content, explanation of what the resource is, and whether you want to be credited for sharing the source (or not).

Still have questions?

If there are any remaining questions (or feedback), please send me a private message. Send anything that you believe will help the forum as a whole or any questions you need answered discretely.

Here's an update to the MWP analysis with GPOKC. Below, you can find the MWP confidence intervals for all decks with >100 matches using two MWP calculations. The first only calculates MWP when BOTH opponents are known. The second calculates MWP if AT LEAST ONE deck is known. This means the second MWP value generally has a larger N (because there are more matches where we only know one deck) but is also a wider interval.

1. Affinity: (48.7% - 58.6%) vs. (53.8% - 61.3%)
2. Grixis Death's Shadow: (47.8% - 58%) vs. (51.9% - 60.2%)
3. Burn: (43.5% - 54.6%) vs. (49.7% - 58.4%)
4. Titanshift: (41.2% - 54.3%) vs. (46.7% - 56.9%)
5. Eldrazi Tron: (41.1% - 53.2%) vs. (47.5% - 57.4%)
6. Jeskai Control: (51.2% - 62%) vs. (57% - 65.8%)
7. Tron: (49.9% - 62.4%) vs. (54.2% - 64%)
8. Humans: (44.1% - 57.3%) vs. (50.4% - 60.8%)
9. Storm: (42.1% - 56.7%) vs. (48% - 60.4%)
10. Elves: (35.8% - 51.6%) vs. (43.9% - 57%)
11. Abzan: (36.1% - 53.9%) vs. (42.5% - 56.1%)
12. Abzan Company: (45.7% - 61.6%) vs. (48.1% - 61%)
13. Merfolk: (30.6% - 49%) vs. (41.3% - 55.9%)
14. UW Control: (37.9% - 57.9%) vs. (45.7% - 61.7%)
15. Jund: (36% - 54.8%) vs. (46.3% - 61.5%)
16. Lantern Control: (45.3% - 64.9%) vs. (47.9% - 64.7%)
17. Infect: (46.6% - 65.1%) vs. (50.7% - 65.9%)
18. Ponza: (34% - 57.4%) vs. (36.5% - 55.2%)
19. Death and Taxes: (35.8% - 59.7%) vs. (39.7% - 58.4%)
20. 5C Death's Shadow: (45.3% - 66.1%) vs. (49% - 67.4%)
21. Bant Eldrazi: (35.9% - 62.3%) vs. (38.2% - 60.5%)
22. Dredge: (41.9% - 65.1%) vs. (45.2% - 64.8%)

Interestingly, Jeskai Control still maintains the best MWP intervals no matter what metric you use. There is no significant difference in MWPs between any of the top decks.

Quote from Spsiegel1987 »

I mean, in some ways that does frustrate me.

The game already has variance itself with card draws; it feels awful losing to someone worse because a matchup is so lopsided. It's a totally different genre, but in games like street fighter, wouldn't it be upsetting to lose to someone so much worse to you?

I understand the 50/50 dilemma, too. Why play a deck with some awful matchups when I can play this deck that can beat anything. I get it, I really do--I just dislike the extra added variance on top of the inherent variance of the game. My opponent shouldn't win the matchup because he got up that morning, brushed his teeth, and sat down across from me.

I don't think Eldrazi Tron is a 50-50 deck, to be honest, it really can't beat go wide aggro archetypes or non graveyard spell based combo decks; I'm finding E-Tron to be poorly positioned right now (but a very powerful deck, even if the meta isn't great). I mean, E-Tron can have the nut hands and race aggro, or drop all is dust, but it's not really something that does that consistently in time. Chalice was meant to stop aggro that's so reliant on 1 drops, it can't handle diverse 1, 2 3 cmc drops.

Shadow was forcing the format to slow down and E-Tron really took advantage of that---I think the meta needs to shift again for this deck to really thrive again.

As you said, if there's a deck that is 50-50 against most things, 45-55 against like 1-2 decks, and then 60-40 or better against the rest, that is going to be the best deck for most tournaments. As Wizards has talked about, and as we have seen in most metagames, these kinds of decks slowly take over until you are either playing that deck or playing the deck that specifically beats that deck; not a healthy metagame. Wizards has also explicitly moved away from these metagames.

I will also say that this is a myth:
"My opponent shouldn't win the matchup because he got up that morning, brushed his teeth, and sat down across from me. "

To paraphrase Ari Lax and his recent article, anyone who genuinely believes that in a tournament is definitely bad at Modern and probably bad at Magic. I'm not saying you believe that because I think you were just trying to make a rhetorical point, but anyone who really does operate off that assumption is honestly, as Lax said, not very good. There are many ways to minimize this alleged variance before and during a tournament, and it's no coincidence that top Magic players are also consistently top placing Modern players. Based on a previous analysis I did, at the tournament level, Modern does tend to have a little more variance than Legacy which amounts to something like 2%-5% depending on the matchup. But there is no difference between top players placing well in Modern tourneys vs. Legacy tourneys. The variance, something to the order of 3%, just appears in win-rates, but it affects everyone equally. Therefore, better players can ignore that effect and place just as frequently in Modern events as Legacy ones. See below for more:
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/779266-how-much-luck-is-involved-in-magic?page=3#c70

Modern variance is frequently a myth perpetuated by players who don't want bad matchups, don't like losing, don't want to innovate new strategies, and just want their deck to be the best. There IS a degree to which Modern variance decides games (see above), but it's a very small fraction of games and it has no impact whatsoever on a top player's ability to place well in a Modern tournament.

Formal and official announcement, I won't be a Mod here in 2 weeks time. I'll be here long enough to find someone to replace me, which you can apply here!

So with that formal announcement out of the way I get my 15 minutes of being sappy and sentimental. I'm sure some have you have noticed that I've been much less active lately on the forums. It has everything to do with jobs. I've been at MTGsal for 7 years and I've loved every second of it. I started here in college, and really did a lot of growing up.

So much so if you dive into the code... you'll find my user name is actually KidLantern... but I dropped the Kid part because I started to joke about becoming an all grown up Lantern. I've watched my user name go from Green Lantern jokes, to pumpkin, to a completely new archetype that people think I play now. Also.. I don't play Lantern.

I'm getting off track, but I am really attached to this place, so saying my semi goodbye got me a little emotional. The point I want to make is, ya'll helped me grow. In really real life I'm a movie and television producer, so no joke, even trying to manage uncooperative users has helped me in gain the tools to advance in my career.

And thats why I've had to step down. Its hard to move on from something so rooted in me as a person. Don't get me wrong, I'll still be around sometimes. And in a weird way, ya'll are likely still going to see my work a lot more now that I've been promoted to Executive Producer. I know the staff I've helped make here are the best people to help grow the modern community to reach ever greater heights. I'm thankful for them too, because I can rest assured that my leaving won't cause major disruptions.

At the end of the day, the community was the main draw for me. When I started, if you can believe it or not, Modern wasn't even what the format was called, and most of the player base thought it would die. It actually had quite a small following AND most stores refused to run the format. I started out here running tournaments online for Modern because people who wanted to play the format didn't have a store. I was genuinely worried the format would die.

But wow! Its an FMN format, has pros playing, and is one of the most popular things to do in magic. With huge scores of you all talking about it. I don't really think anything I did was that impressive. A drop in the bucket, but I still couldn't be prouder of the format, and the people who made it possible. So this is just a huge thank you to all of you for giving me a place to play and talk about the thing I love, and helping me get to where I am as a person.

Well... I guess thats really it! Anyone who reads my posts knows I'm always wordy as hell. So this isn't goodbye, Its just a see ya later and a thank you.

Quote from Billiondegree »

I think they realize standard is in a better shape than modern right now, and would rather have everyone ideally switching over to that format. If they make modern too good, they may lose standard players

Sarcasm noted, but I also think you and others believe this to some extent. We should avoid these kinds of unfounded theories even as jokes. It seems far more likely they view exactly as they said they viewed it. Modern appears healthy to them and they just don't want to disrupt that.

Quote from StubbsMcAwesome »

No changes

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/october-17-2017-banned-and-restricted-announcement-2017-10-17

But explicitly mentioned considering an unban for modern. Progress!

As expected.

Happy they are considering an unban. Surprised they called the format "healthy" and doubled down on that, stating a January change was not just unlikely but "extremely" unlikely.

Also, very happy Wizards said something about Modern. Good communication like that goes a long way.

Quote from rcwraspy »

Quote from Lord Seth »

Quote from rcwraspy »

Quote from Lord Seth »

But those ruminations aside, my larger point was that the desire for a better mulligan rule really comes from a desire for a better mana system, and that's not really fixable at this point.

I disagree. I think the desire for a better mulligan rule stems from players not understanding how to properly deck build or mulligan. If players understood both of those then "mana screw" would happen MUCH less frequently than it does. So infrequently that it would become a moot point. Therefore the issue simply cannot lie with the mana system.

Many players bring "netdecks" to tournaments, so the point of deck building is likely lost on most people. But what net-deckers (and I'm one of them) often don't understand is that the deck that Person Y brought and showed up as #1 on mtgtop8 was likely tailored to that person. Perhaps that person knows they make riskier keeps than the majority and therefore shaved a land off what most players should actually run. Knowing your playstyle well and being able to identify someone else's playstyle based on their 75 are keys to bringing the correct 75 for you (i.e. deckbuilding).

And the playerbase in general makes abysmal mulligan decisions.

You make the claim "so infrequently it would become a moot point" but neglect to provide any definite data for that statement, which would seem required, rather than what amounts to little more than speculation. If you don't get enough lands, you don't get enough lands. And unlike the Pokemon TCG, you don't have free, super-efficient draw/tutor effects that increase the chance of you being able to get the stuff you need.

Sure, some cases of feel-bad mulligans come from bad decisions. But a lot--too many--are simply not getting lands (or ending up going down to a low number when you finally get lands) and no different sequence would have changed that.

I didn't do the math because I don't need to. It's readily available. Anybody can run the numbers for any deck utilizing hypergeometric distribution. You can find out how at the following links, and many more:
http://diestoremoval.com/hypergeometric-distribution
http://www.kibble.net/magic/magic10.php
http://www.gatheringmagic.com/chrismascioli-100512-of-math-and-magic-part-1-the-hypergeometric-distribution/
https://www.mtggoldfish.com/articles/brewer-s-minute-hypergeometric-distribution-in-deck-building

I've done the numbers for various standard, modern, and legacy decks in the past, which is why I'm confident making the assertions I did. But pick a deck, run the numbers, show us the math, and let's discuss the results.

Just be careful since adding mulligans into the mix makes the calculation a bit more complicated.

Disclaimer: I'm pretty well-versed with probability.

I don't think your post is inherently wrong, but I do think you've missed the point. From a deck construction standpoint, even if you build your deck optimally for a certain number of lands on a certain turn, you'll be flooded or screwed relative to your optimization in a fair number of games. Of course it varies by deck and what you're trying to optimize for, but just as an example: if you wanted a deck with the maximum likelihood of having 3 lands in your starting 7, you would put 26 lands in your 60 card deck. But even that only gives you a 31.22% chance of having exactly 3 lands in your starting hand. And there is a 22.20% chance of having fewer than 2 or more than 4 lands.

If you consider having fewer than 2 or more than 4 lands in your opening hand a "failure" (which would be reasonable), then you're having to mulligan in 1 out of every 5 games no matter what. Of course, mulligans make your failure rate go down. They're independent events, so having to mulligan to 5 should only happen in roughly 1 out of every 25 games (in this case, the odds that you draw fewer than 2 lands or more than 4 lands doesn't actually change very much when you go to 6, it goes from 22.20% to 22.06%).

To be fair, this would happen less often if people were better at math. But to be fair to the people you're arguing with, I think the complaint is that even if you build your deck optimally, the current system results in a certain number of non-games. People don't like variance; that's why the fetchlands are as popular as they are. Variance is a requirement for almost all card games. One possible way of reducing variance is separating the spells from the lands.

I'm not really taking a position on this topic. I just don't think you can stipulate that people are bad at math, point to the hypergeometric distribution, and claim that non-games wouldn't be a problem if people knew what they were doing. Yes, there would be fewer non-games. But hypothetically, why wouldn't you want a system with the fewest number of non-games possible?

To be clear: I'm not advocating for Magic becoming chess. I just think it's a tough sell to advocate for more variance in a game where the players generally like that skill matters.

EDIT: Also, I'm already aware that separating lands from spells simply results in having to manage two different hypergeometric distributions. It doesn't actually eliminate the need for understanding probability. It just changes the problem from "I had too few/many lands" to "I had a suboptimal mixture of spells throughout the game".

Quote from rcwraspy »

Quote from Zorakkiller »

Quote from BlueTronFTW »

Quote from xxhellfirexx3 »

[quote from="BlueTronFTW »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/780164-temporary-state-of-the-meta-thread-rules-update-7?comment=470"]
says the guy whose name is blue tron....I wonder if there is any bias in your words.

jund has been tier 1, forever, most of the time. and now it isnt, because of eldrazi. which is a deck that slams fatties way ahead of curve. that is not the direction I think modern should head if we want a balance between broken and fair. but im sure you are on the side of broken, so im not going to argue with you anymore.

Strawmanning again, as has been pointed out already. Your arguments consist entirely of personal opinions (I want deck X to be tier 1), or fallacies (strawmans).

It doesn't matter how long jund has been tier 1. Interactive decks are very viable in modern. Grixis Shadow, Abzan midrange, and UW control chief among them. Eldrazi Tron has interaction as well. With that being made clear, your argument is now that ONE PARTICULAR deck needs to exist as a sign of format health, and I don't buy it.

So tell us, why does jund midrange have to exist for modern to be good?

</blockquote>

It doesn't but people want some form of stability in their non rotating formats and jund was a pillar for most of modern existence. If something takes away a deck that was a pillar for so long that stability is shaken.

To expand on this with my own thoughts, nobody cares that Jund isn't Tier 1 and nobody is saying that Jund needs to be Tier 1. I'm a Jund player. I'm not crying, I'm adapting. That's the nature of metagames.

BUT, the fact that Jund was able to survive so many prior meta shifts but not the latest is a very interesting fact and one that is worth probing into. That's not the same as saying it needs to be Tier 1. It's just saying that it's worth it to understand why it's no longer Tier 1.

The biggest reason for that is Fatal Push. A secondary reason is the Delve creatures. It makes no sense to play Tarmogoyf right now when a one mana black spell kills it so easily. It also doesn't make sense to play Lightning Bolt right now when so many creatures have 4+ toughness. If you can't play goyf and bolt, why play Jund? Grixis just has a better selection of cards right now.

I don't think people appreciate how format warping Fatal Push has become.

Quote from Zorakkiller »

Quote from ktkenshinx »

@Zora
I agree that's a problem because it means your arguments are totally out of dialogue with the overall metagame stats, their historical context relative to other Modern metagames, the recent major event finishes, and the last two years of Wizards' quotes/actions/policies. It is very problematic that a group of Modern critics don't want to engage any of that and would rather advance only their personal views and beliefs without any appeal to the vast body of evidence and information we have. This "my beliefs > evidence" stance makes it very hard to have meaningful conversations in this thread

Convince me to care about all the stuff you just mentioned

Metagame stats, tournament finishes, historical data, and Wizards quotations/articles are objective data points we can use as a shared language of Modern understanding. If we don't use those, it's just subjective experience vs. subjective experience and we're stuck on every argument. Currently, many critics refuse to cite any of those data points to make their arguments. This suggests their arguments aren't actually grounded in the data, and are therefore probably suspect, misinformed, and/or just plain wrong.

Honestly, I shouldn't have to explain why we should all do our best to draw on data and the most objective data points we can find. That's how we build consensus, dispel myths, and improve our understanding of the format.

@Zora
I agree that's a problem because it means your arguments are totally out of dialogue with the overall metagame stats, their historical context relative to other Modern metagames, the recent major event finishes, and the last two years of Wizards' quotes/actions/policies. It is very problematic that a group of Modern critics don't want to engage any of that and would rather advance only their personal views and beliefs without any appeal to the vast body of evidence and information we have. This "my beliefs > evidence" stance makes it very hard to have meaningful conversations in this thread