MTG Salvation

Always hard to evaluate Hoogland's opinions objectively given that he presents his thoughts in the most cantankerous, dismissive way possible. A format with the "feel bads" removed would be interesting. Hard to say what effect that would have on Modern's player base if you push the format towards Standard. How much of Modern's appeal is being able to do something more powerful and Legacy is unapproachable because of the restricted list?

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.

Rabblemaster is occasionally cast first turn from Pyro Prison off SSG and/or rituals. Appreciated the turn-by-turn analysis, @ktkenshinx.

Thank you for fighting the good fight, @ktkenshinx. The sheer volume of "the sky is falling" posts in this thread make my head hurt. It's tedious to continue pointing it out, but anything beyond mild concern about the future is a vast overreaction to a small sample size. For the love of all that is holy, stop the crusading for bans based on hurt feelings.

Wait to see how the meta adjusts. Last month we had gathered the torches for KCI, last week it was Humans, and now it's Vengevine. Stop looking for decks to crucify because you're unhappy. Yes, I mean you random thread poster. Stop veering from one poorly formed ban argument to another. The fact that decks are cycling IS A FEATURE OF A HEALTHY META. You're welcome to dislike whatever is Tier 1 at any given moment, but the solution 9 out 10 times IS NOT A BANNING.

Quote from sicsmoo »

Maybe flavor of the week is more accurate. The deck was in a serious lull in the early-mid portion of this month before Bugler was printed and caught on. I had a streak of 21 leagues without seeing the deck once. Just Modern doing its cyclical thing, nothing to see here.

I saw Humans a little more often, but their shares in competitive leagues had fallen off a cliff for several weeks, probably in response to the heavy Ux Control and Mardu presence. Those decks have in turn retreated a bit online and looks like they were also underrepresented at the SCG Open. Surprise! Humans then does well. That's exactly what you'd expect out of a very tempo-y deck (or aggro control, if you prefer).

Far too many Chicken Littles as of late -- the meta is absolutely fluctuating as shares of archetypes shift. That's exactly what we should want for a healthy format. Humans is not an unconquerable beast; if it starts to become dominant, there will likely be a corresponding rise in its natural predators.

Quote from ktkenshinx »

I'm looking only at decks that are running SV currently or could replace Opt with an unbanned Preordain. So this is the broadest possible definition of Preordain-compatible decks based on current deck constructions. This does not include decks that could change their current structure to run to Preordain (e.g. KCI ditching Stirrings and green to run Preordain). It just includes decks that are running Opt/SV right now. So like you said, it's actually a larger number than the number of decks that are truly running legitimate SV copies currently. That number is under 15%. This may "skew" the numbers, but if it does, it probably inflates the number of decks that would run Preordain. And that inflated number is still almost half of those running Stirrings.

Looks like I misunderstood your methodology -- that 17% includes all decks running any combination of SVs or Opts. Your population is all SCG and GP/PTs to date, right? Assuming so, that would seem to indicate a boom in Ancient Stirrings decks within the top 8 relative to potential Preordain decks. I'm not sure it immediately follows that the gap must be narrowed though. Someone would still need to make the argument that either it's healthier to stunt the Stirrings decks despite their diversity or that potential Preordain decks should compose a higher percentage of the top 8s. Quite possible, just not ground this thread has covered.

As for Twin, I 100% support people arguing the Twin ban in terms of its actual language. This is how cards are unbanned; Wizards looks at an old ban, sees if that ban accomplished its goals, and sees how the unban would affect the current Modern. See explanations for unbanning Nacatl, BB, AV, BBE, JTMS, etc. The Twin unban camp consistently fails to address one of these arguments: why would Wizards would unban Twin when the share of non-Twin blue decks is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than it was when Twin was legal? Total blue share has dropped, we know. But total share of decks not playing Twin, however, is more than double what it was at the GP/PT level. I am not saying this increase was CAUSED by the Twin ban. I have never said this. I am simply stating that this diversity is the current state of Modern.

I should probably clarify -- I don't have strong feelings about a Twin un/ban, but I followed the points made in this thread. I've always agreed with the way you kept others' arguments grounded in logic, like regarding the actual ban language instead of fruitless comparisons to Storm, etc. I think some of your comments on Ancient Stirrings vs Preordain (and many more of those from others) stray into "it must be this OR that, for consistency" when we KNOW WoTC doesn't really care that much about logical consistency as an un/ban criteria. Far too many comments are framing this as a false dilemma. By your own previous admission, WoTC's decisions on Ancient Stirrings legality has little to no direct impact on Preordain much the same way that arguments for Splinter Twin's unbanning aren't really bolstered by pointing out other turn 4 combo decks that are legal.

Framing this as either/or is a cheap hedge that ignores that, from all available evidence, WoTC's decisions on Ancient Stirrings and Preordain aren't linked. Sure, the same criteria of game consistency will be evaluated but the choice to un/ban one doesn't have a direct impact on the other (outside of causing a meta shift). A lot of words to say that we should stop the "ban Ancient Stirrings or unban Preordain nonsense" and start arguing for banning Ancient Stirrings or unbanning Preordain on their own grounds using WoTC criteria.

Having played both versions, I have to agree with Click5. Arcbound Worker (and Sparring Construct, much to my earlier chagrin) often make a full turn difference in when you can have lethal. There's an art to sequencing a turn 4 kill where you drop Ravager or Ballista and your tapped out opponent can only watch; usually it relies on a 1 drop to round your curve/add the last couple counters. Then you can leverage the threat of winning on the spot to edge ahead on value when needed.

I'm also not a big fan of Metallic Mimic because it's so susceptible to spot removal compared to the alternatives. In a nutshell it's a weaker choice because it's not an individual threat, further jams your 2 spot, and encourages you to take less threatening lines to maximize its value. I was introduced to this deck through Zyrnak's videos and tried Magic Aids' version with Mimics. Matt Nass and company have it right, or at least very close to it (see the 9th place finisher at GP Barca).

For what it's worth, I'm up to a 68.5% win rate through 111 matches and just put up my first 5-0. Net winnings are roughly 210 tickets.

I've become a huge fan of this deck. Started with the Metallic Mimic version (no Vials) and then I started watching Matt Nass after Click5 turned me on to him (thanks again). At this point I've seen about 90% of his videos where he's playing Hardened/Scaled Affinity; still not an expert but I feel very comfortable with how his version runs and generally how he'd sideboard.

Quick rundown of my own stats, with more detail I can fill in later if there's interest:

• 86 matches played on MTGO, 54 in Competitive Leagues. Small sample size but enough to play most decks a couple times and get a feel.
• Overall 66% win rate.
• Match-ups with an even better win rate (great): Humans, GDS, Hollow One, Affinity, Elves, Ponza
• Match-ups with a ~ 66% win rate (good): Tron, Burn, Counter Company
• Match-ups with a much worse win rate (bad): Mardu Reveler, Jeskai/UW/UR/Grixis Control, Living End, Valuetown
• Match-ups without enough games to get a feel: Titanshift, KCI, Bogles

Like Click5 says above, Gut Shot is for small creature decks especially those that side in Kataki. There may be room to improve the SB overall for those bad match-ups; I've been playing an extra Leap MB in place of a Throne, but I'm not sure that's the solution. A lot to be said on sequencing, when to push, etc. but this is a great deck that can turn 4 or 5 non-interactive decks while grinding against other creature decks and not getting completely stomped versus control.

All this Tron talk is exhausting. I'm not a fan by any means, but I can recognize that a large part of that comes from exclusively playing mid-range as my entry into Modern. If you are a player frustrated by Tron, try playing aggro or combo for a bit. You'll quickly find you don't give a damn about Tron anymore and there's a new archetype you find "un-fun" -- Control gets sweepers and Jund discard. That's the nature of a generally cyclical rock-paper-scissors format.

If you want to play mid-range, accept that Tron is not a great match-up (but can likely be hedged to 40-60 depending on your 75). Sure, some of your losses will feel lopsided and most of your wins will feel very close. But that's what you're signing up for when you play mid-range, and that's manageable when Tron is <5% of the metagame.

That's the MTG equivalent of "Won't someone please think of the CHILDREN?!". It's a change that would be easily explained with a clear, succinct definition. As long as that change is properly publicized with the release of this hypothetical MM4, I don't think modern players will suddenly start ante-ing their children and playing sorceries as lands & creatures as instants.

A direct-to-modern product is unlikely to usher in the end of times, or even moderate confusion.

Quote from cfusionpm »

Quote from MrTzoulis »

Quote from cfusionpm »

Many have said Search for Azcanta, not only is this too slow, it doesn't find creature combo pieces. I would not play, just as I didn't play in Breach Moon.

Wanna know why you didn't play one or more in Breach Moon? Hint: it's in the name of the deck.

I don't know what the point of this comment is; agreeing with me that it's bad in Breach, or agreeing with me it would be bad in Twin? Still curious about all these format-breaking "upgrades" everyone was talking about.

I'm assuming he's pointing out the fact that your original argument is a bit of a non sequitur - of course you wouldn't play Azcanta in a deck that turns all non-basics into Mountains.

PS. It will be Phoenix taking over after KCI.

I like how we went from "terminus invalidates fair midrange" to "salty jund players wanting their deck to be the best again".

Newsflash: Wanting Midrange to be able to compete in Modern does not equate to wanting Midrange to be the best archetype.

Quote from Niallplaysmagic »

This leads to the ultimate thought that possibly this format has reached it's diversity limits. All of these decks cannot coexist, there is no balance point, and as long as Terminus is on one end and wildly fast and consistent combo/aggro (this is almost just one classification at this point) is on the other then where is this format actually going? Is anyone satisfied at this point?

Cutting down for space, but this is exactly it and as I went through the 'stages of grief' over the 4 Top 8 KCI slots.

1. This is outrageous, we need a ban!
2. Wait, what would a ban even do?
3. Wait, is 1 ban enough?
4. I dont think its even close to enough.
5. We need to ban 6+ cards.

As long as Terminus Lotto is required for 'Control' to live, true fair midrange, is dead.
As long as decks are throwing up on the table for 10+ damage on turn 2, Terminus Lotto, is required.

In the middle, you have decks that run from Burn, to Dredge, to KCI, to Tron, and there is nothing that can even remotely compete with all of them, and the 2 poles (Terminus and Looting) of the format.

I know what I believe the answer to be, but people refuse to think about it logically.

Stirrings.

Oh, please, Mengucchi is full of *****. He wrote that second statement because he doesn't want to see the repercussions of his original feelings. I also think there's a reason CFB stopped giving him modern content and regulated him to mainly legacy articles, sprinkled with standard.


This all being said, banning KCI won't fix an inherent problem modern is facing---it is very much a format with decks ignoring one another. KCI is just another powerful, problematic deck---but it's not solely to blame.

I truly think it's time to unban some powerful, risky cards like Twin. If not, then I feel like WOTC is going to have to continue to ban decks like this and we have to hope to god to continue to have very fair, meaningful cards enter the pool.

Or, some type of cards that bypass standard and enter modern.

Let's remind ourselves that banning KCI still doesn't address a myriad of other problems plaguing the format. KCI is a symptom of a larger disease: the lack of any meaningful or respected safety valve for the format.

All good points, its the same with Phoenix. Interactive decks eat it up so the question becomes.

Why are interactive decks not seeing success?

it wasnt an argument. unless your counterclaim is that kci is on the level of eldrazi winter.

maybe its over the line, regardless it is close to it, and that matters. for player confidence, and how the format is perceived. modern is already at a point with meme level criticism, and the format may be at a critical juncture of either being part of the future defined by arena or displaced.

modern was supposed to be different, more resilient, more self correcting. optimism for unbans, and constructive methods to solve format issues.

i dont even like kci, but bans seriously suck. great kci is dead, continue getting your teeth kicked in by whatever other degeneracy because a ban doesnt address any of the systemic issues keeping those midrange or control decks showing up more in top8s like you want.

Twitch chat has been rife with soundbites like "Ban Looting", "Ban Stirrings", "Ban Opal", while ignoring that those cards aren't the best targets if you are to nerf KCI. Also, Noble or Vial decks have the same total representation as them in that day 2 breakdown

Aaaaand Jeff Hoogland blocked me from Twitter because I presented KTK's numbers on his ***** post. Damn, that man has a thin skin.