MTG Salvation

Keep strong discard. Print (or unban) better permission. Simple as that!

Quote from Wraithpk »

Quote from LEH »

Isn't UW Control doing really well currently?

It is, but I would say that's in spite of the weakness of blue answers in the format. It's doing well because it's really well positioned; UW Control is the best deck against DS decks. If DS gets banned, UW Control goes away.

I foresee As Foretold making a splash in UW come next week.


(can I get credit for that subtle play on words? :))

No, because Foresee has only seen modern play in U/R combo decks. ~Lantern


Edit:

Quote from Lantern »

Quote from sisicat »

Quote from Kovo »

Not that I want to bring that up again, but since someone else did! I think TS is not oppressive like other cards in the format, but it is exactly the kind of card that most players underestimate its power level. TS is stronger than any permission in Modern. 2 Life is NOTHING compared to derailing an opponents first few turns. That, coupled with absolute knowledge of what your opponent has in hand, makes for one of the most powerful turn 1 plays you can make in the format.

That being said, I dont see TS getting banned any time soon because it does not throttle any deck into Tier 1 on its own. If anything, Id prefer using TS as a reason for allowing stronger blue permission into modern.

Stronger blue permission is even less likely now, especially when they skinned the Miracles deck alive with this announcement. If they won't even tolerate the only control deck in the game with a banning, the chances are even lower now for strong counterspell reprints. And even if they do, expect it to be mythic rarity because WOTC is a business that cares about profits first. I wouldn't be surprised if Modern Masters 3 had fetchlands in them just because they needed to hit their quarterly numbers to appease their shareholders.

Miracles was overtly (1/3rds - 2/3rs at times) the best deck in that format. They killed it off due to top time constraints and power. They didnt kill off permission... they killed off top.

that announcement says top wont come off our banlist... not they hate control.

This. I was letting it go, but the hyperbole of WOTC killing permission in legacy because of the SDT ban, is....well, hyperbolic.

Which is why I want a strong permission card, and leave TS alone

But we should agree at least that TS is incredibly powerful. Being on the receiving end of Turn 1 TS/IoK, Turn 2 a follow-up TS/IoK, I can tell you that the game is nearly over at that point, in many situations. Imagine mulling to 6 or 5 and then getting seized. Luckily we only have one card like TS. Everything else has varying limitations. Though I find IoK more powerful in many situations as well considering the average card cost in the format.

I tend to have a problem with discard in general, not because I think it shouldnt exist, but because too many players underestimate its potency, and yet turn around and complain about permission being too strong.

If you ban Traverse, DS gets a downgrade. All the versions of DS Ive seen that dont run Green, are more fair at power level. Traverse makes it hard to win when they can keep getting the next DS.

Its too bad, because I love the concept of Traverse as a card. Its just being abused, which is the problem. Green tutoring tends to get abused all the time (CoCo, Pod, Zenith, Chord, Stirrings).

Quote from Sabertooth »

ok, so you should babn all the rituals, and all the mana dorks, cause they can power up blood moon and chalice faster than normal. Look at rg ponza. Turn 1 utopia sprawl, turn 2 blood moon, or, on the same deck, you can change the utopia with birds of paradise, or arbor elf

Or in storm, turn 2 ritual into blood moon

This kind of thinking is just so empty of real analysis...

Can you respond to Mana dorks, sprawl, and other ramp spells? The easy answer is, yes. You cannot respond to SSG in any meaningful way.

This kind of response is just so empty of critical thinking.

Yea, thats fair. SSG in particular, though, is a problem. I know Ad Nauseum needs it to win, but chalice on 1 turn 1 is essentially a pre-turn 4 kill more 99% of the decks in the format. I play Blood Moon and even I think Blood Moon cast ahead of its intended curve is a little too oppressive. SSG allows for these degenerate plays. So, although there is no oppressive deck right now running SSG, I wonder if it needs to leave simply from the stand point that it allows for too many non-games with prison decks, as well as tron, and skred.

I dont think Im gung-ho about banning it, but it must be at least on a watch list. Fast mana is always a problem. Tron lands have a similar effect. WOTC never intended for turn-4 Ulamogs (especially ones that stick past the end step).

Quote from jwf239 »

Quote from Kovo »

There are objective ways to determine if Modern is healthy. The fact that your archetype is not 10%+ of the meta does not make it objectively *****ty.

What are the objective measures you are using? And is the causality you are attributing to those measures valid? Crime raises in the summer but that doesn't mean heat makes people commit crimes. There are a lot of things going on and I would be cautious to say the format is in a good spot because of some x and y. Even if those are true and valid, is that reason to not demand better?

The format has healthy attendance numbers overall, does not have an overly oppressive deck present (though DS is on the watch list), and most tier 1-2 have a good amount of decks present. Tier 3 is also pretty plentiful.

The fact that deck X is not playable, means nothing overall. If Burn, a mainstay of Modern, becomes unplayable tomorrow, it does not mean Modern is now unhealthy.

Quote from Varyag »

Quote from Kovo »

There are objective ways to determine if Modern is healthy. The fact that your archetype is not 10%+ of the meta does not make it objectively *****ty.

But there is an archetype that's 10% of the current meta (2 DS decks combined), and more broadly aggro-midrange is overwhelmingly dominant in meta. Where you stand on those two entirely depends on what you perceive as healthy.

MTGTop 8 - http://mtgtop8.com/format?f=MO
Aggro - 57%
Control - 19%
Combo - 23%

There is not even a semblance of balance in this.

Why does it have to be 33% across the board? Who says that is balanced? Card availability is what determines a lot of these numbers. If the mechanic or card does not exist to boost the amount of Control decks (for example), then control will be hard to get up to 33%.

There is no rule that says all archetypes need to be represented equally for the format to be healthy. In fact, history shows the opposite is usually better so long as one particular deck does not become too oppressive.

There are objective ways to determine if Modern is healthy. The fact that your archetype is not 10%+ of the meta does not make it objectively *****ty.

Quote from axman »

EDIT: at local tournaments with 6 or less rounds before a top 8, tier system is less relevant.
That's because fewer games = less variance.

So we should ignore most of the events on MTGO, dailies specifically.

And why should we discount the events the majority of people will be playing in? The majority of the player base only plays those smaller local events and never strives to go to PTQ's or GPQ's. For most players States is the biggest event they play in or even want to play.

I personally think using mainly the larger events for Tiers and decks viability is the wrong way to go about it.

Tap dancing your way through a larger event and missing all your bad match ups skews the numbers. Luck plays a huge factor in larger events. More so then smaller ones. Granted, you possibly may not see as many types of decks in a smaller event.

At the end of the day, those are only numbers posted by certain decks during a certain period of time, and it's up to each one of us to give them whatever use/weight we want, whether we personally choose to disregard them entirely, assign sideboard slots accordingly, theorycraft or whatever. Point is, if most people can't or don't want to understand it's mostly a prevalence metric, you can either tell them or move on.

While I will argue the tier system actually reflects power level to some extent, since the data is the successful metagame rather than the Round 0 metagame, we lack the information to rank decks by power level (winrate % comes to mind). Even if we had that information, tiers would still need some cutoffs, which would still be debatable, although a much less discussed topic.

For me, Bant Company is a Tier 1 deck with 4.7% and Tier 2 decks are decent, for someone else 36% Eldrazi was the only good deck in Modern, ever

Quote from Kovo »

I admit, playing without one snap is a weird feeling. But I find leaning on one snapcaster is too naive, anyways.

I have a few beefs with this list (put in 4 matches with it):

- Too many U costs. Holding up Deprive frequently means not casting any cantrips, and throwing in a cycle, Delver, or Simic is even harder. Sleight of Hand is kind of miserable for this reason and should be Traverse, which incidentally gets better with Curator and Tarfire.
- Some clunky numbers. Specifically, I think 3 Deprive are too many, 4 Denials are too many, and 2 Curators are too many. Simic is also really underwhelming in a build with such a high curve. Would run a single Snap over Curator #2 (improves Traverse better as well) and pretty much anything over the other cards.
- The Snare/Pierce split. I just don't get why run Pierce at all if you're maxing on Denials. A second Snare is probably a better if you're not running Shoals, but IMO a couple of Shoals work better here. They de-clog hands full of Deprive and Simic and help you win permission wars when you have to spend all your blue on one counterspell.
- Curve is too high. Would run an 18th land (Island or Foothills).
- How is 1 Snap "naive?" We play tons of cantrips and have always relied on one-ofs in some capacity. Snap is a card we love late and hate early. I think one is fine.

So overall Deprive did not impress me compared with Mana Leak, although I can see playing one or even two copies. Straight up swapping 3 Leak with 3 Deprive seems kind of ham-fisted to me though. You need to do a lot of work to accommodate it. There are plenty of matchups where we want both Moon and Leak post-board, for example, and that plan just doesn't work with Deprive. Additionally, the lands that make Deprive better (fastlands) make the Moon plan even worse. We really can't afford to play a second Bluff IMO.

I will say that Narnam Renegade was very impressive! Kudos to everyone for jumping on that one (especially Blaze? I think he's the one who came up with the idea).

Kovo, here is my "fixed" version of your build:

Sheridan was a pure numbers man, it's ridiculous you guys would accuse him of having bias in tiering decks. If he had any biases, he straight up would say so before making statements

Don't be ungrateful, he did a lot here. Good luck to him

We would be remiss, to also not thank KTK for his efforts and time over the years.

As plainly evident already it was thankless work.

So thanks Sheridan, hope you are on to good things.

Quote from DaveJacinto »

Quote from Lilijuana »

Quote from Kovo »

I look forward to a new tiering system. Had some qualms with the existing one (not a criticism of Sheridan).

Had some qualms myself, and about Sheridan also. He was the one most vocally pushing the "only GOOD decks in Modern are Tier 1 decks" mantra, and apparently he reinforced that w/ his tiering system.

If this change is real and going to stick I wholeheartedly applaud it.

I don't want to revive some old issues but I'm genuinely curious about what were the problems you saw in the old tiering system and how do you think it will be solved.

I never had a problem w/ the tiering system before. I did have a problem w/ Sheridan stating on multiple occasions that the only good decks in the format were the Tier 1 decks, and I said as much to him about it.

Now just look at the difference in perception one gets from the Modern format when you look in one case and see a Tier 1 w/ only 5-6 decks in it and then you look at a Tier 1 w/ 15 decks in it. It makes the format look much more alive and open when you see more decks listed in the top tiers. It does not seem so restrictive a format to get into, and it OPENS up the perception that a lot more styles of decks are viable as winning decks.

I don't know how much Sheridan had to do himself w/ the old system, but the change in tiering now coupled w/ his departure makes me think he wasn't just using hard data to tier decks but he was letting his own opinion about what made a deck "good" influence how he tiered them. That then influenced the perception of many readers/players and directed conversations down a certain line about decks and the format as a whole.

Overnight we have gone from from 11 Tier 1/2 decks to 31. Look at all the possibilities. It also gives a different perspective of the health of the format and a different baseline upon which to base our assessment of that health.

Quote from Kovo »

I look forward to a new tiering system. Had some qualms with the existing one (not a criticism of Sheridan).

Had some qualms myself, and about Sheridan also. He was the one most vocally pushing the "only GOOD decks in Modern are Tier 1 decks" mantra, and apparently he reinforced that w/ his tiering system.

If this change is real and going to stick I wholeheartedly applaud it.

Without counterspell, maybe even a BETTER counterspell, there is nothing that Wizards of today will provide that is interaction, that is better than 1 mana discard.

Its about as efficient as it can possibly be.

Quote from idSurge »

Well, forget it. A complete disgrace, frankly a total embarrassment.

One could say, a cat-astrophe.

Thoughtseize leaving the format would make permission more playable even without additional, better permission spells being printed. Thoughtseize is what makes playing blue unnecessary in Modern. If it didn't exist, Black disruption would still be good because of Inquisition, but would have a hole in their gameplan against 4+ cc threats that would incentivize either more conditional hand destruction like Duress (if an expensive spell deck became a thing) or true permission to address. Right now the 8+ selective discard decks can line up their Inquisitions against your early plays and their 4 Thoughtseize against your expensive bombs you had in your opening hand or drew early (because how many bombs can any non-ramp deck in Modern play? not many more than 4). The only hole in the plan is your topdecks and card filtering effects, but card filtering in Modern is intentionally kept weak.

Of course there are risks. Thoughtseize is used in bigger formats to address combo, but combo in Modern is already held under pretty tight wraps. I don't think we need Thoughtseize for combo.

An alternative would be to make card filtering/selection better (Preordain unban) which many here advocate for, and while I agree Preordain wouldn't break the format, I suspect banning Thoughtseize at the end of the day would be more interesting and make a better format.