2019 Holiday Exchange!
 
A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)
    Quote from ashtonkutcher »
    Quote from ashtonkutcher »
    At Regular REL, the emphasis is on learning, so judge calling the Esper Charm target is indeed rules lawyering (and your opponent will be permitted to draw 2 cards). But at Competitive REL, it's your responsibility to know what your cards do and to clearly announce your actions. I feel like the players calling it rules lawyering at Comp actually just don't play in Comp events. There's nothing "scummy" about forcing your opponent to discard in that kind of setting. Ask a judge.


    You're right player says targeting me they should discard but the bit that people are debating as 'scummy' is not asking 'which mode?', but 'targeting?'.
    It's a jerk move if done on purpose despite it being within the rules.

    And just because lots of players are scum bags doesn't make it acceptable no matter what level you're playing.
    Eh. If you're that averse to reading your own cards you should really just avoid Comp IMO.


    So you're willing to purposely ask a deceptive question to get an edge? Good to know. Personally would ask the player which mode but each to their own.


    What does "tap,tap, tap : esper charm" mean? the rules of the game state that the caster is supposed to declare the chosen mode at the time that you cast it, not to wait for your opponent to respond in some way. I mean if you say okay to "tap tap tap esper charm" you could just as easily say that the opponent allowed the spell to resolve and you simply announce the mode after fact?

    If the esper charm caster had to learn the hard way that he needs to cast his spells properly than that is a painful lesson in technical play.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)
    Quote from Zorakkiller »
    Quote from bizzycola »
    Quote from Zorakkiller »
    Quote from bizzycola »
    Quote from Skitzafreak »
    Since someone brought up Esper Charm I want the community's opinion on something (75% of you probably know where I am going with this).

    Let's say you are playing against someone and they cast Esper Charm. You ask the question, "Are you targeting me, or targeting yourself?"

    Your opponent replies, "I am targeting myself"

    At FNM or another non-Comp REL event, do you just let it slide and let them draw 2 cards?
    What about at a Comp REL event?
    What about at a Pro REL event?

    I'm asking because the last Comp REL even I went to this came up, and the guy called a Judge on his opponent for drawing instead of discarding. For the rest of the tournament, I noticed almost everyone who got paired against him had this, "Why did I have to get paired against the scumbag" attitude to them.

    I feel Modern is, and always has been, a format where if you don't understand interactions like this you deserve to be punished for it. But what are everyone else's takes?


    That is some high quality rule Lawyering. At FNM it slides at a serious event I paid money to travel and compete in, I'm standing up and doing my best Phoenix Wright impression, this is exactly what we mean when we talk about "technical playing skills" aka playing by the rule book as technically as possible. Not the kind of victory you would be proud about and brag to others like it was cool but still a victory.


    To me this is not a exanple of technical playing skill. It is more of knowing how to get a specific reaction from a judge. This isn't as much a magic skill as it is social skill because at the end of the day it comes down to who can convince a judge. An example of technical playing skill is not bolting a 2/3 goyf with no instant in the yard.


    No they are both examples of technical play skill it is the rules that once you declare something it is on the stack no take back's. Getting punished for declaring something you really didn't intend is really very similar to a player getting punished because that they didn't understand that the gofy goes up to 3/4 on the instance the card resolves, i've seen plenty of newer players make that error. I understand that this isn't going to play out the way they think it will but I don't broadcast it and I am still at that moment allowing them to make a terrible misplay do to a technical aspect of the game.


    I simply disagree the goyf example comes down purely to a understanding of the rules the esper charm example involves in part being able to convince a judge and arguable misrepresenting what happened during the game


    no the caster of esper charm is making a error when not declaring the mode on casting; tap, tap, tap, esper charm? that means nothing if he isn't announcing the mode he is selecting then he is leaving himself open to getting screwed by the rules of the game.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)
    Quote from Zorakkiller »
    Quote from bizzycola »
    Quote from Skitzafreak »
    Since someone brought up Esper Charm I want the community's opinion on something (75% of you probably know where I am going with this).

    Let's say you are playing against someone and they cast Esper Charm. You ask the question, "Are you targeting me, or targeting yourself?"

    Your opponent replies, "I am targeting myself"

    At FNM or another non-Comp REL event, do you just let it slide and let them draw 2 cards?
    What about at a Comp REL event?
    What about at a Pro REL event?

    I'm asking because the last Comp REL even I went to this came up, and the guy called a Judge on his opponent for drawing instead of discarding. For the rest of the tournament, I noticed almost everyone who got paired against him had this, "Why did I have to get paired against the scumbag" attitude to them.

    I feel Modern is, and always has been, a format where if you don't understand interactions like this you deserve to be punished for it. But what are everyone else's takes?


    That is some high quality rule Lawyering. At FNM it slides at a serious event I paid money to travel and compete in, I'm standing up and doing my best Phoenix Wright impression, this is exactly what we mean when we talk about "technical playing skills" aka playing by the rule book as technically as possible. Not the kind of victory you would be proud about and brag to others like it was cool but still a victory.


    To me this is not a exanple of technical playing skill. It is more of knowing how to get a specific reaction from a judge. This isn't as much a magic skill as it is social skill because at the end of the day it comes down to who can convince a judge. An example of technical playing skill is not bolting a 2/3 goyf with no instant in the yard.


    No they are both examples of technical play skill it is the rules that once you declare something it is on the stack no take back's. Getting punished for declaring something you really didn't intend is really very similar to a player getting punished because that they didn't understand that the gofy goes up to 3/4 on the instance the card resolves, i've seen plenty of newer players make that error. I understand that this isn't going to play out the way they think it will but I don't broadcast it and I am still at that moment allowing them to make a terrible misplay do to a technical aspect of the game.

    To be clear tap,tap,tap esper charm? is meaningless you are supposed to declare the mode on casting it isn't some ambiguous card that you only choose after it resolves, if I have a counterspell in hand the mode you select could dictate my choice of countering it. The play error is certainly on the caster of esper charm here and if I exploit your sloppy play to my benefit then didn't the better player just get rewarded for being better at the game.

    Like I said if its FNM I would let it slide but not at a GP or something nope.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)
    Quote from Skitzafreak »
    Since someone brought up Esper Charm I want the community's opinion on something (75% of you probably know where I am going with this).

    Let's say you are playing against someone and they cast Esper Charm. You ask the question, "Are you targeting me, or targeting yourself?"

    Your opponent replies, "I am targeting myself"

    At FNM or another non-Comp REL event, do you just let it slide and let them draw 2 cards?
    What about at a Comp REL event?
    What about at a Pro REL event?

    I'm asking because the last Comp REL even I went to this came up, and the guy called a Judge on his opponent for drawing instead of discarding. For the rest of the tournament, I noticed almost everyone who got paired against him had this, "Why did I have to get paired against the scumbag" attitude to them.

    I feel Modern is, and always has been, a format where if you don't understand interactions like this you deserve to be punished for it. But what are everyone else's takes?


    That is some high quality rule Lawyering. At FNM it slides at a serious event I paid money to travel and compete in, I'm standing up and doing my best Phoenix Wright impression, this is exactly what we mean when we talk about "technical playing skills" aka playing by the rule book as technically as possible. Not the kind of victory you would be proud about and brag to others like it was cool but still a victory.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)
    Quote from bizzycola »
    It was a reply to you.

    I understand what a "Sol land" implies I was simply pointing out that the only other to my knowledge in the format is a land that literally see's no play and just find it odd that you bring up that it plays more than any other deck as though non-Eldrazi decks are running any similar type of land.

    I disagree that it Temple is what enables the deck to be so successful in the Meta. I think it is that it essentially just plays alot of really good cards that even at "full cost" are great play's. Sure TKS on T2/3 is ideal but a T4 TKS is not bad by any measure, Reality Smasher is still fine on T5 etc.... This is not as True for Classic Tron decks Karn is strong at seven but the deck does little to nothing between the beginning of the game and Karn so if you are hard casting it with out Tron assembled you are very likely in a very bad spot, this isn't true for E-Tron every thing they play is reasonable even if you have to cast it for full cost.

    While you might run more top end cards like Ulamog that is not the norm for E-Tron, most lists top out at Karn/all is dust split in the main. I think its the quality threat heavy aspect of the deck that really makes it so good, it just runs playsets of awesome Mid-Range creatures and can accelerate them out 1/2 turns ahead depending on their draw, but is not contingent on that to be a solid deck, T2 chalice, T3 Matter Reshaper, T4 TSK etc.... are all still very powerful plays which are only made better with Temple or a Mind Stone or assembling Tron.

    I think the difference between a Ramp deck and a Big Mana deck are what are your intentions with the ramping. Pretty much every "big mana" deck is a Ramp deck but not every Ramp deck is looking to play 7,8,9,10 drops etc.... Valukut is a Ramp deck but its most expensive card is 6c.c. its not really looking to Spend big mana its looking to enable its combo kill. Classic Tron is a big mana deck, it is looking to play very expensive things early always it is the classic mid-range Ramp/Control deck essentially looking to do the kinds of things that a traditional draw-go control deck would do but ramping them out 2-3 turns earlier than a traditional control deck can. I think the major difference is that Ramp is a design guideline while "big mana" is the strategy for exploiting the early mana, E-Tron Titainshift are both perfectly fine only netting -1 turn on the c.c. of their business spells TKS on 3, Reality of 4 Titan on 5 etc... Tron on the other hand is having a terrible match up if all they gained was Karn on 6.


    Cool Smile

    It's worth mentioning simply because I was asking what defines the difference between midrange and big mana and it's an area where there is a difference. No other reason.

    Agreed that the cards in E-Tron are great even without temple (I enjoyed playing Bant Eldrazi which is definitely midrange), all I was suggesting is that without temple the deck would have to make a choice (Karn and Ulamog, both of which have become pretty standard in the last month, check the E-Tron thread for the discussions) or (play noble hierarch, birds etc to get to big beaters) and couldn't do both plans equally well. (Which is why it's interesting to try to categorise E-Tron, because it does both plans well).

    I also agree with you on the reasons for difference between ramp and big mana is in the philosophy.

    I'm not sure I agree there is sufficiently large philosophy difference between E-Tron and Gx Tron to call one big mana and the other midrange.


    Both Ramp and Big Mana are Mid-range strategies, Mid-range is a phase of the game not a particular strategy. It encompasses multiple strategies, Jund Mid-range is a aggro/control ( by means of attrition) deck the cards it looks to pivot the game into a winning position are LotV, whatever 3-4 drop creatures the build might be running and man lands. Ramp decks are mid-range decks that look to accelerate their mana in one way or another RG Titain/x decks do this with various green ramp spells Tron decks do it by assembling 3 specific lands in play both are looking to put their mana base in a position that has them with +2-4 position on Mana by as early as T3 to exploit some ahead of curve plays.

    I think this has been lost in recent years because WotC has in Standard made it a point to almost always have some type of Mid-range Aggro/Control deck be viable in the format and has drawn back on Mid-range Ramp strategies ( like not printing 1c.c. mana dorks because they are to good at what they do for standard apparently). So when someone says "mid-range" they automatically associate that with Aggro/control decks that are looking to play sweet things in the mid-range phase of the game like 3-5 cc creatures and planeswalkers. Kind of similar to how when someone says "control" most players will auto assume you mean some Blue based counterspell and drawspell driven late-game deck. It also doesn't help that other non-ramp mid-range decks that are not in the BGx spectrum have not really performed well in Modern, decks like Big Zoo are solidly looking to play their pivotal spells in the mid-range phase of the game with strong 3 drops and 4 drops but they just don't have the tools that BGx has to make a flexible enough deck to ever compete with the BGx decks segment of the meta-game.

    I would say that E-Tron is a even more hybrid strategy within that the spectrum, it is a Aggro/Attrition/Ramp deck IMO which means it covers even more ground and is more resilient because of it. The deck obviously likes to be in a position where it can play as many of its creatures a turn as possible but the built in 2 for 1 nature of the creatures it runs make it so that if the Ramp aspect of the deck doesn't line up it isn't nearly as impacting as when it doesn't line up for other Ramp strategies but I also think that the ramp aspect is secondary to the Aggro/Attrition aspect. I find it a bit odd that you would say that Bant Eldrazi is "definitely" mid-range while questioning that E-Tron is, other than the reality that both are mid-range strategies by the nature of the decks, I see the biggest difference being the method in which the decks intend to accelerate mana production, Bant obviously looks to do it Bird, Hierarch's etc.. and gains access to better removal spells for the color splash while E-Tron simply looks to do it with tron lands and Mind Stone (obviously both are running temple just looking at the differences) but also has less access to powerful non-creature spells sure they get to run Chalice but it always has the problem of "you play it for one, opponent has a bunch of 2-3 drops" other than that they get what Dismember? which while strong is always painful.

    I didn't go look at the threads for what E-Tron is doing I looked at the decks that have put up results as often the case in the deck threads a lot of the "tech" people are running is much more local meta calls.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)
    It was a reply to you.

    I understand what a "Sol land" implies I was simply pointing out that the only other to my knowledge in the format is a land that literally see's no play and just find it odd that you bring up that it plays more than any other deck as though non-Eldrazi decks are running any similar type of land.

    I disagree that it Temple is what enables the deck to be so successful in the Meta. I think it is that it essentially just plays alot of really good cards that even at "full cost" are great play's. Sure TKS on T2/3 is ideal but a T4 TKS is not bad by any measure, Reality Smasher is still fine on T5 etc.... This is not as True for Classic Tron decks Karn is strong at seven but the deck does little to nothing between the beginning of the game and Karn so if you are hard casting it with out Tron assembled you are very likely in a very bad spot, this isn't true for E-Tron every thing they play is reasonable even if you have to cast it for full cost.

    While you might run more top end cards like Ulamog that is not the norm for E-Tron, most lists top out at Karn/all is dust split in the main. I think its the quality threat heavy aspect of the deck that really makes it so good, it just runs playsets of awesome Mid-Range creatures and can accelerate them out 1/2 turns ahead depending on their draw, but is not contingent on that to be a solid deck, T2 chalice, T3 Matter Reshaper, T4 TSK etc.... are all still very powerful plays which are only made better with Temple or a Mind Stone or assembling Tron.

    I think the difference between a Ramp deck and a Big Mana deck are what are your intentions with the ramping. Pretty much every "big mana" deck is a Ramp deck but not every Ramp deck is looking to play 7,8,9,10 drops etc.... Valukut is a Ramp deck but its most expensive card is 6c.c. its not really looking to Spend big mana its looking to enable its combo kill. Classic Tron is a big mana deck, it is looking to play very expensive things early always it is the classic mid-range Ramp/Control deck essentially looking to do the kinds of things that a traditional draw-go control deck would do but ramping them out 2-3 turns earlier than a traditional control deck can. I think the major difference is that Ramp is a design guideline while "big mana" is the strategy for exploiting the early mana, E-Tron Titainshift are both perfectly fine only netting -1 turn on the c.c. of their business spells TKS on 3, Reality of 4 Titan on 5 etc... Tron on the other hand is having a terrible match up if all they gained was Karn on 6.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)
    Quote from ktkenshinx »
    Quote from Zorakkiller »
    I can already tell we are going to have trouble labeling some of these decks. For instance I consider eldrazi tron a big mana deck

    Eldrazi Tron is midrange. Karn and E-Map are the only rampy cards in the deck, and most E-Tron builds don't even run the full Karn playset. Everything else is good, old-fashioned midrange with big dumb dudes, disruption, valuable creatures, etc. E-Tron just happens to do midrange better than many other midrange decks, and that mana efficiency makes people call it a big mana deck. Incidentally, cards that are good against big mana tend to be less good against E-Tron. Spreading Seas and Ghost Quarter, for example, are sweet against Gx Tron but really not spectacular against E-Tron. They help, sure, but not the same way they ruin Gx Tron. By contrast, many cards that aren't good against big mana are great against E-Tron. See Verdict.

    As multiple posters said earlier, and as recent articles have talked about, many successful Modern decks do so by cheating on mana in various ways. E-Tron happens to do this with lands, as opposed to GDS doing it with casting costs or Dredge doing it with a mechanic. This use of lands makes many people incorrectly label the deck as ramp. But E-Tron plays out as midrange, despite lands being its source of mana cheating: disrupt the opponent with Chalice/TKS/Dismember/All Is Dust and then win with mana-efficient monsters. Also as with midrange, E-Tron can switch between an aggressive role with Smashers and TKS or a more controlling route with Ballista.

    Just compare the real ramp decks like Gx Tron and Titanshift to E-Tron and the difference is very clear. The decks have little in common.


    Interested in debating where you see the midrange versus ramp/big mana line (BTW I'm using both of these terms interchangeably despite very slight differences on how I perceive them)

    C'mon now ktkenshinx while the plan is midrange (big dumb dudes, as you said) the plan is also definitely get a boat load of mana as fast as possible. Eldrazi Tron runs more sol lands than any other deck in the format. I agree it's not as 'big mana' as traditional Tron but it's still a ramp/big mana deck.

    In response to you believing people miss categorise this deck your point seems to counter itself. Traditional Tron ramps using lands too (so is it not a ramp deck?) and Titan(Scape)shift decks win with Valakut (combo which relies on having lots of lands) or beats with a green fatty.

    If WotC suddenly took away Valakut and printed a mountain forest that tapped for 2 if you use that mana to cast giant spells there is no doubt that you'd be able to compare Titanshift and E-Tron much better and it's be clear they're both doing a similar thing. The reason E-Tron is doing other things too is that it doesn't need to utilise all it's spells to ramp so can game 2 equally powerful game plans (It also isn't packing a combo win con).


    Isn't Untaidake, the Cloud Keeper the only other "Sol Land" in the format? could be wrong might be a third that I am not aware of.

    I think the the reason E-Tron is able to afford not dedicating as much space to finding its Urza lands etc.. is that its Threats are not embarrassing if played on curve. While not Ideal T3 Matter Reshaper, T4 TKS T5 Reality Smasher etc... is still a very powerful line of play which backed up by Chalice on 1 T2 can give most other color Shard decks fits to deal with.

    E-Tron is not going as big as classic Tron, E-Tron is running what 4 total 7 drops split between Karn and All is Dust while Classic Tron decks are running 10+ cards =/< than 7. Even with that difference the difference between them in regards to how many cards they run dedicated to "ramping" is not that as high as your post seems to be leading people to think, 6 on average in E-Tron 4 maps, 2 Mind Stone compared to only 8 dedicated Ramp Spells in classic Tron decks 4 map/ 4 Sylvan Scrying, Im purposefully not including Stirrings which while it can find a land isn't dedicated to that purpose also excluding the egg's in the deck as they are also not dedicated to finding lands but instead serve multiple purposes with in the deck. So in reality the difference between the two decks "dedicated" ramp cards is only 2 more in the classic Tron decks. The far more significant element in each deck is the strategy it is employing in tandem with the ramp.

    E-Tron is playing a Aggro/Attrition plan like Jund Mid-range
    Classic Tron is playing a much more dedicated long game Control plan.
    Both are Mid-range decks as that is the phase of the game in which they both intend to deploy their pivotal cards, but they are deploying wildly different strategies once at that phase.

    I do agree that it isn't really a great comparison to draw between Valakut and E-Tron, both are Mid-Range decks but Valakut is is very much a Ramp/Aggro/Combo Mid-Range deck.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)
    completely disagree with that articles application of the term "mid-range", Mid-Range has and remains a Phase of game play. While Jund mid-range could simply slam a T2 Gofy and ride it all the way, that really wasn't the primary plan of the deck. That is the Primary plan of GDS, you wan't to deploy your threat as early as possible and protect it long enough for it take you to promised land.

    Game phases tell a lot about what a decks primary goal is sure, 1-3 aggro/ 3-6 mid-range/ 6 and beyond long game, this doesn't though tell us what the strategy of the deck is. Lots of decks in Modern are decks that look to deploy its primary win-con in the Mid-range phase of the game but simply because a deck posses the ability to "grind" if it has to in no way means that is its primary designed strategy. Look at the most recent top preforming GDS decks, the ones that have preformed better are the ones that have shifted cards like Lilly's and such to the SB and this is because that is where Aggro decks have always kept their "grindy" cards, it made sense for GDS to main deck those types of cards when the Mirror was super prevalent but now that the meta has adapted to the deck it is rewarding the players who have refocused back towards more streamlined Aggro/control builds. This makes absolute sense when you consider that decks like UW control that are strong against GDS have a sliding scale towards victory against the deck, the longer the game goes the more favored the deck is to win GDS can easily deal with T2-3 paths with its discard and denial protection its once UW gets into Verdict range that the odds start simply fall off for the GDS player. Sure you can still win but it is often a far more up hill battle and this is a expected characteristic of a Aggro deck.


    Calling a deck "mid-range" is about as informative as calling Goryo's Vengeance decks a "Early Game" deck, it only informs you as to at what phase of the game the deck is looking to do whatever it is that the deck is designed to do to begin winning the game.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)
    Quote from Teysa_Karlov »
    I could see BBE and SFM coming off. Same with GSZ and JtMS.

    Jace isn't the boogeyman people think he is. He's strong in Legacy because Blue is the strongest color bar none in Legacy. Without his support tools, he would just be a fairly powerful 4 drop in a format with a bunch of them.

    I don't see Seething Song coming off as long as Storm is still doing decent. Second Sunrise has a coffin lined up next to Sensei's.

    I could see Voldetwin come back eventually. Not a likely scenario, but I could see it. Maybe if the format got a little bit stronger.


    Come on now, JtmS has been strong in every format in which he has been legal. He is in the top 50 in Vintage.

    I don't WotC will ever unban GSZ or BBE. GSZ they view as a card that leads to homogenizing deck types and I just don't see them reversing such a strong opinion on a card. BBE I also don't think they would unban as Cascade is a functionally broken mechanic and BBE is by far the best Cascade card available in the Modern card pool, they just produced the Expertise cycle as a fixed version of that mechanic and just doubt that they will reintroduce it.

    SFM could come off, I'm all for giving most of the never legal cards a try with a few exceptions but SFM isn't one of them. I just don't think that it will enable the kinds of decks many assume it would.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)
    Quote from bizzycola »
    I'm pretty sure people would try to run fair things with Chrome Mox it's just that whatever fair card you trying to get out early will never be as good as letting essentially every combo deck shave a entire turn off their kill. Your T1 bob or T2 LotV will be laughably bad in the face of T2/3 storm kills or T3 ad naus.


    The card disadvantage of Chrome Mox does not lend itself to playing fair with it. You want to play unfair with it to make up for the card you're losing. Only combo decks are going to want that card and combo is strong enough already. Chrome Mox is staying on the banned list, probably forever.


    Well lots of decks like UB control etc... ran it in Extended and they where not for the most part trying to do much more than take advantage of the synergy it has with Thirst and letting you jam a bob out on T1. Modern lacks some of the tools to really help mitigate the card disadvantage like JtmS was a major player in nearly every "fair" Chrome Mox deck back then. The major reason it doesn't see play in fair decks like Delver in Legacy is because you are already committed to 4x card disadvantage spells in the form of FoW and running that plus Chrome Mox is simply to taxing.

    So I disagree that "only combo decks are going to want that card" but I do agree that in Modern only combo decks will be able to exploit it in a highly favorable way.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)
    I'm pretty sure people would try to run fair things with Chrome Mox it's just that whatever fair card you trying to get out early will never be as good as letting essentially every combo deck shave a entire turn off their kill. Your T1 bob or T2 LotV will be laughably bad in the face of T2/3 storm kills or T3 ad naus.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)
    Hey guys (and gals), please take a look at my competitive paper meta analysis that I've been working on.

    http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/780304-mtg-modern-competitive-paper-meta-analysis-and


    How many events are covered in the scope of your review?
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)
    Quote from KTROJAN »
    It's not like we saw that many less bans anyway without a pt.


    Idk haven't the ban's since then mostly been to stop degenerate things? like Eye, GGT, Probe? Seems like when the PT is around we get more but I don't know. Number cruncher's should hop on that and see how more frequently they do or do not occur with as compared to without. I'm not personally afforded the time to crunch the numbers on something like that but I know plenty of guys in this forum have their Excel's waiting to do some work.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)
    Well now that the PT is back for the format, what do people predict the top 8/16 will look like given the current state of the format? Would be interesting to get some predictions we can look back on.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)
    Quote from idSurge »
    Sure.

    I'm not going to continue this, you are arguing to argue.


    right sure you didn't interject into it at all... it was me telling you what you think sure....
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.