MTG Salvation

Also, Legacy isnt affected by new sets nearly as much as Modern, hence why Legacy doesnt have these issues. DRS is good in Legacy, but broken in Modern. Seige Rhino might be decent in legacy, but possibly the best card in Modern. Thats what is so great about modern, the new cards you get from the new sets can actually be used in Modern, but at the same time it might be a curse as well

Quote from Kovo »

Quote from MrM0nd4y »

Quote from Kovo »

Quote from MrM0nd4y »

Anyone who's paid attention to my posts in the last little bit know that I was sure that BGx wasn't going to immediately take over the format.

HOWEVER, I feel that having 28% metashare of a large tournament should be raising some alarm bells. Obviously PT metas are going to be a tad inbred, especially after a major metagame shakeup, but it's still an indicator that BGx is definitely a powerful archetype. I think we need to watch the meta closely over the next little while to see if it remains at 16% of the overall meta.

28% is the effect of Pod being banned. Abzan was the easiest build without Pod using 95% pod cards. And no, 28% share will not raise the alarm considering it did not win the PT despite being 28% present (almost triple the next most played deck). And in fact, the winner did not face it in the top 8.

So if a deck is 40% of the field, but doesn't win the PT, then it shouldn't raise any alarms? That's just silly.

28%*

And no, it shouldn't. Not for one PT after a ban. It was 37.5% of the top 8 and it still did not win. Burn was 25%. Twin 25%. So even with the odds on its side, it was not a winner. Unless some miracle formula is discovered, the Abzan build will decline in the coming months. I cant say how much.

Of course, im not a god, or a professional. So I can be completely wrong.

Why would Azban drop in number? Because it didn't win? The pro tour actually shower how good Abzan is based in such a high percentage. Winning is irrelevant tbh

Quote from HomelandZecurity »

Quote from Pistallion »

Jeskai Ascendancy was the main deck that was created because of DTT besides scapeshift and twin. Delver would be a deck still, but defiantly not as power, but in a better place than it is now, which is garbage. Thats 2 viable decks that can possibly be in the top tier along side scapeshift, affinity, twin, and Junk. How is 5-6 total decks in top tier not more interesting than the current 3-4? DTT also gave potential for future decks. One example is the Woo Brew of the doubling season fog deck

(I agree with you about Jace and AV)

I do understand that Jeskai Ascendancy was one of the decks featuring Dig Through Time, but it also was playing copies of Treasure Cruise. Eventually it seemed that DTT was the preferred spell, but early on Treasure Cruise was the favorite 4-slot. I think this, combined with the fact that Jeskai Ascendancy was released at the same time as Cruise/Dig, nullifies the argument that DTT created JA as a deck.

Looking at MTGtop8, the current top 6 decks are:

Junk
RDW
Affinity
Tron
Bloom Titan
Twin

and pre-bans it was something like:

Pod
Junk
UR Delver
Affinity
RDW
Scapeshift

Not that much has really changed. Sure, Jeskai Ascendancy is worse now, as is Scapeshift, but in terms of sheer numbers, the top Tier is pretty similar. We lost Pod and Delver and Twin and Tron stepped up instead. I don't really think Dig Through Time was making the format more diverse. And if it was still around, we'd probably just have UR Delver and Scapeshift or mayyybe Ascendancy in the top 6 rather than a couple other options.

Mostly, we'd still have Delver as probably the #1 deck, especially in the absence of Pod. That still sounds like an issue. It would have been interesting, don't get me wrong, but only for another 6 months. They could have waited until the next go-round to ban DTT in that case, but they took the safer route, which they often do. I can't fault them for that.

Also, Woo decks don't really count unless they actually catch on permanently, which is rare. He's a great brewer, but it's not often his creations become Tier 2 or better. Also, look at the new Naya Ghostway decks sprouting up. Those are a new innovation in the wake of Pod's departure, does that not count as renewed diversity?

Ok i understand that. But whats new about the format? Finkle once said Modern is the most boring format. He didnt say this for no reason. Khans shook up the format, which was awesome. Now we go back to the old boring, stale metagame taht it was before minus pod. I believe that DTT gave potential, nothing more.

Side note: Jeskai Ascendancy 4 color used 4x TC. The 3 color, more Control oriented and better version only used 1 copy of TC and could have easily substituted it with something. DTT was its best card by far (besides Ascendancy obv). It basically kiled the deck. While the archetype still exists somewhat, idk if its any good, and definitely not as good as it was with DTT

Quote from MotleyJu »

I've said this before, but I've been running 4x Tormenting Voice and 3x Ravings, running Voice instead of Thought Scour. I came in 2nd in a PPTQ the other week with this configuration, and while I'm not 100% sure that it's the best build, it's been promising enough that I'm going to continue playing it. You do lose something from having one fewer 1-mana cantrip, but you'll much more rarely get choked on blue mana, or whiff off of drawing too few/the wrong cards when you have Ascension online.

I'm not sure i really want to add more 2 mana spells. I view Thought Scour as kinda doing the same thing as Ravings and Voice, its sill only one mana, blue i know, but still 1 mana is much more important

Quote from ashtonkutcher »

Quote from Sirius_B »

8Rack became unplayable, but I'm not complaining.
BGx became better and Junk/Pod players are crying because Delver was above them in popularity for like two weeks.

8Rack is the only deck I can understand is seeing less play, and that was never a great deck to begin with (and never a tier deck). Given power creep, are we really that surprised we're now seeing it less? Quick aside: I saw an 8Rack deck stomp a UR Delver player 2-0 at a local a couple weeks ago. He would target discard the Cruises and Smallpox did the rest. I think with a pair of Darkblast they'd probably be fine.

Quote from jmlima »

Quote from Sheepz »

... With big investments like jund, this hurts. At least to my knowledge, it's quite rare a legacy deck becomes permanently obsolete, whereas in modern there's no real promises. The format just isn't old enough to really know yet.

Well, if money spent ever became the reasoning behind bannings , unbannings and the format rotation that wizards does with them, then you could very well scratch the format dead since the logical route was to bring back all the Jund toys and that would be the only deck allowed.

Its repeated a couple of times on this thread, and it is true. People here show a strong dislike for change in the modern format. It is obvious people here enjoyed their Jund vs UWR. It is very fortunate for the format that out of here things like this still happen in an 107 people tourney:

http://www.mtgdecks.net/events/view/17691

Is that the norm? Unfortunately not, but heck, it shows there's more being played out there than meets the eye.

That "big investment" argument only stands if the cards you invested in lose their value. I don't understand this whole "My 2000$ deck is worthless" thing. That entire core of cards (sans Dark Confidant, who you can still sell for close to his heyday price if you're that scared of him losing more value) is still playable, and is even played in the same deck. Junk just swaps Bolts for Souls and Confidant for Rhino, but it's the same BGx strategy.

As for that event, I'm really glad you posted it. Not a single Treasure Cruise in the Top 8. Makes sense, Chalice was the third most played card. New decks spring up, and old answers become relevant again. Modern has never been healthier.

Quote from RDSRedemption »

Or wizards doesn't wanna see a ton of Delver/Jeskai combo decks like at Worlds and decided to ban something just in case.

Wizards doesn't care about Worlds. Actually, nobody cares about Worlds. That metagame is in no way indicative of what's happening in real events around the world.

^^^^ ban Cruise?... oh wait

ban Birthing Pod?... http://www.reddit.com/r/ModernMagic/comments/2reydi/scg_colombus_top_16_decklists/

(my link not working to direct decklists idk why)

Healthy format? Probably

Quote from Crumpet »

Here's my 2 cents on Treasure Cruise.. This week I forcefully shoehorned blue mana into my BGX deck and quite literally threw in 4 copies of treasure cruise, directly replacing Dark Confidant. I have been running BGX decks pretty much since the inception of the Modern format.

This put me up to 4 colours, which honestly, I noticed 0 difference in the life lost per game compared to running 3, and blood moon is a beating either way.

What I can straight up say though, is that Treasure Cruise, the 50p common, was SO much better in play than Dark Confidant, the £50 rare that it was laughable. I wanted to see 2 every game, and could afford to be picky about what was left in my graveyard, leaving goyf in a great place.

If I drew more than 2, it was an easy +1 to Liliana of the Veil.

When my opponents sided in graveyard hate, and were hitting my yard with Scavenging ooze and co, I just fired my removal at the problem card without a care, because I KNEW I could rely on treasure cruise to grab me more goodies.

Treasure cruise is so powerful it made me think less about my plays, worry less about my gameplan, and wasn't particularly effected by graveyard hate or disruption.

I love it, the card is absolutely broken as hell... But it HAS to go. If a midrange deck that isn't set up to specifically abuse treasure cruise can benefit massively by shoehorning in 4 copies, it should go to show how much these lower mana curve decks can benefit from treasure cruise.

I say ban the card before the format is all U/x/x/x decks.

First, how are you filling your grave with 7 cards? If your answer is Liliana, thats not really a good answer. Then you have scavenging ooze with Cruise? If you are casting TC for more than 1 or even 2 mana, just play Jace's Ingenuity, or Divination its more reliable. And what about drawing 2 Cruises? You arent Delver where you can refill the grave.

Delver is really the only deck that abuses TC. And saying that Delver is unbeatable and crying about TC is just a scapegoat everyone wants to throw around, especially anyone that plays B that wants to use their life as a resource.

Hell, i might actually want TC banned, but arguing that you can throw it in basically any deck is the totally wrong.

The tier 1 decks that are using it is Delver and Jeskai Ascendancy with Green. Control can use 1-2 and Jeskai Ascendancy combo -control uses 1.

Quote from RyO37 »

Quote from Anthreion »

In Delver, on the other hand, it was mainly good with Thought Scour, which is a really bad card by itself.

This is not true. We (my testing group) have been playing UR/RUG Delver most of the time with just one Thought scour or none, and it still can reliably cast TC.
Thought Scour is not needed, is not like you have to play "bad cards" like Thoght Scour and Probe to play TC, no.
1. Those are not bad cards, you are not playing Ardent Pleas or whatever, you are playing one mana cantrips.
2. You play them because they have also sinergy with Swiftspear and YP, not only because of TC.

Thought Scour is a bad card by itself. 1 mana do nothing but draw a card is bad. Without TC you would never play Thought Scour.

Quote from BiggerKahuna »

I was always under the impression that Delver decks initially got there spike out of fear from the NEW 4 JAC decks that we we're just now hearing about.

Both Delver and Burn have pretty good matchups because of the clock it can put the deck on and the lack of interaction that Ascendancy has for these decks.

So the numbers now rise because of its preformance in evenyts, cost to build and consistency of which the deck preforms.Not to mentioned the soft counters delver uses to get under the combo.

So both decks start to rise in popularity and why not with the constant push that Modern is here to stay and a surge of new players obviously theses are decks they'll look to. So burn and delver are up while holding the numbers of Ascendency down.

Now after all that what is the rest of the meta to do?

Pod says hey if we if we add a little more life gain and drop our slower combo we should be good. Cryptic becomes a little to slow in this new meta and now Scapeshift is down and UWR control now becomes a burn/aggro deck.I'm assuming this is true for Twin, with a deck that pressures early and gets under your combo then players will be deterred for playing these kind of decks. Hell even Robots is now playing chalice Main Board.

So I don't think cruise needs a ban or dig but i do think they should ban Ascendancy or unban BBE.I think this will correct some of the numbers.

As a primarily GR Tron Player I enjoy the current enviroment, nothing say hello to the meta better then a turn three Wurmcoil.

Karn will be Liberated

Yeah but Tron does bad vs Afinity, which is now on the rise, Delver and Burn. Pod can fair well vs any of those

Quote from ktkenshinx »

Quote from InVinoVeritasXXX »

Who else here thinks a possible response to Treasure Cruise is the unban of Deathrite Shaman?

No one who even remotely pays attention to Legacy, which has already proven over the past 3 months that DRS just makes TC-based decks better. People need to think through their suggestions before making them. If you are worried about URx Delver, why would you make the problem worse by adding BUG Delver as a viable tier 1 deck? If the objective is to make Pod and Junk 15% of the metagame, with Uxx Delver 30%, then DRS is a great unban. But if it's to balance out TC, it's one of the worst unbans on the list.

DRS isnt played muych in Legacy anymore thanks directly to TC

Quote from lostatsea »

I don't think banning TC makes any sense. Just look at the current stats on mtgtop8 for modern. If you look at the last 2 months, delver is the top deck, which makes a lot of sense, because it was hyped and the format hadn't adjusted to it yet... But if you look at the last two weeks (as of this post), pod is by far the most prevalent deck (25% of the meta), and it doesn't even have blue. Delver (TC) and scapeshift (DTT) are only 14% of the meta, tied for second. The format is clearly adjusting. Also, RDW/burn only has 1 successful deck in the last two weeks, and it's not even running treasure cruise.

TC isn't even in the top 20 cards currently being played in modern (as of post). The format has changed around it slightly, but whatever. The format is far more warped by lightning bolt, and no one really thinks bolt should be banned.

mtggoldfish also has delver as the second most popular deck in modern, still behind pod. (as of post)

I do think it sucks that BG strategies have been weakened (though they are still putting up results).... unbanning BBE or deathrite shaman or punishing fire would probably be a better solution to buff it though - unbannings are way more fun than bannings. Also punishing fire would do a pretty good job of keeping delver in check, and deathrite could hate on delve strategies pretty hard.

Seriously, the biggest problem with modern is the lack of control right now, and making blue draw worse is not going to help that out. Top would probably be the easiest way to help control, because then you could see a modern miracles deck work. Of course, they could/should unban jace too. If they were cool they'd unban a cantrip or two, but unfortunately they have an irrational fear of storm.

Also, I think it's worth giving dredge a real shot in modern. There's no reason at all for GGT troll to be on the banned list, and even dread return is just another card wizards put on the initial (and very lame) banned list without bothering to actually evaluate.

Delver is represented a lot more than just under the UR Delver tag on MTG Goldfish

Quote from Slarg232 »

I am neither for nor against a Treasure Cruise Ban, however, I would like to compare it to another card/staple, Tarmogoyf.

Let's assume fully stocked graveyards. This is the basis for the comparison, as both use the same "resource", the Graveyard.

Tarmogoyf: 8/9 for 1G. Very Impressive.

Treasure Cruise: 3 cards for U. Very impressive.

Both can be slotted into any deck that has their colors for great results, with little to no build around. Both are probably the most powerful cards, or at least amongst the most powerful, in the color (in the format). I don't have to explain to anyone here why both of these are broken. Neither card outright wins you the game (Chumped or 3x Lands, respectively), but the real reason why I believe Goyf is weaker (?!?) than Treasure Cruise is simple;

Cruise is harder to control. Cruise uses Delve, an additional cost. It can't be responded to, it can only happen preemptively. A resolved Goyf can easily be rendered a non-issue with a Tormod's Crypt or Relic of Progenitus, on top of the mutually shared weakness of being countered.

Now, you could argue that Goyf leaves the graveyard alone, while Cruise takes it away. But the counter-point there is, a deck built to use Goyf isn't really using the graveyard heavily in the first place (Barring of course the exception of RUG Delver and some others).

There is also the point that Goyf is almost never going to be the 8/9, more likely a 4/5. A cruise is always going to give you 3 Cards.


Now, someone is saying, or thinking "You can't compare a creature to a sorcery....", to which I would normally agree. However the problem is, is that Goyf, the best creature in the format, is inconsistent compared to Treasure Cruise. Goyf is inconsistent compared to TC.

So the question I pose is this; Do we want Wizards to create creatures as powerful as TC, or do we want them to create spells as powerful as Goyf? Leaving Treasure Cruise unbanned sets a precedent for Power Creep, where as banning it pretty much sets the bar at Goyf.

I'm for or against neither, but that's just my observation.

Goyf is pretty consistently a 3/4 in modern because of fetches. But guess what, creatures are by far the easiest permanents to get rid of

I didn't play modern during death rite but Imo it's pretty bad now. Look at the top 8 for scg columbus. Delver everywhere.

When do they usually do bannings? I'm thinking about building some final pieced I need for jeskai ascendancy but I don't want to spend the money since jeskai ascendancy and cruise are probably getting banned

Quote from gkourou »

Quote from Earthbound21 »

Quote from gkourou »

@ktk, I respect the work you have done. It's excellent. And you were right to calculate the Modern vs Legacy comparison, because people make this particular comparison in here.

But, truth be told, the right comparison concerning matchup lottery and MWP of top players should always be a "Modern vs Standard" one. I am almost certain that Standard rewards you more as a player and takes more the skill aspect than Modern. Now, I could be wrong, but that's my "complaint" about Modern. I still love it, but I watch tons of friends at the Standard FNM portion having a "50-50 matchup" everywhere with their Temur or Ramunap decks. On the other hand, some times I get paired against Eldra Tron, Big Tron, Dredge, Ad Nauseam, Boggles or some other weird deck build to win vs a Jeskai Control deck and I question all of my life choices at this very moment.

It's so sad that we have no tools to fight big mana decks, other than "change you deck, play an aggro deck or a Turn 3 deck like Storm to win it instead".

Still, I highly enjoy Modern and I think it's the best format of all, because of the reasons Shmanka mainly explained in a recent post of his.

It should not be Modern vs Standard because the two are incomparable. How do you compare a format with 5 decks tops and no combo to a format of 15+ decks with combo? Legacy is by far the better comparison metric to use.

Technically, you are right. And I don't deny that. I am not even complaining about a matchup lottery in Modern. But the technicalities do not matter here, because PROS and people complain anyway. We have heard so many Standard pros complaining about Modern being a "matchup and sideboard" lottery format and them saying this is the reason they prefer playing Standard instead. Their argument is exactly this, meaning that in Standard you don't get to "draw" your 3 almost unwinnable matchups in a 15 round tournament, which probably means you are eliminated from the competition not based on the in game skill. If you lose in Standard, there is a higher chance you lost, because you were the worst player out of the 2.

That's why we need to see if this is holding ground.

Well, two things really. First, Sheridan should really publish his work somewhere where it can garner attention and disprove the nonsense. Second, while it sucks that some pro players have platforms to voice their opinions that paint a negative picture of Modern (Jeff Hoogland, PVD, etc,), their voices are inconsequential because Modern is the biggest draw in viewers and event turnout. They can shat their pants all they want, but they can't argue with the money. Hoogland can spout "Ban Tron! Ban Grapeshot! Ban whatever!" but Modern (via Twitch and Youtube) buys his kids diapers and puts mushy bananas in their mouths.

The biggest issue you're addressing is the influence or weight these pros have on certain player opinions, which goes back to the first point. If people like Sheridan (or really just Sheridan, because he's smart and handsome and does math and asks good questions) had the same platforms (articles on major MTG websites, Youtube, whatever) to showcase his findings and present his research, I'm certain that both ban mania and all these wild negative perceptions of Modern would diminish in strength. Can you point us to a pro player who has done the research and math to prove Sheridan wrong? Or are they all just scapegoating for their lack of success in Modern?

We hear things like "I didn't place well in this event because I got paired against Tron while I played Jund. I played Jund because I wanted to be as close to 50/50 as possible" instead of trying to read the meta or "I didn't draw my two of narrow sideboard hoser. I need more sideboard slots." instead of trying to cast a wider net. You can't just assume they have proof to what they say or aren't just making excuses like any other magic player does when they do poorly. Pros that do well in Modern espouse its virtues up and down every chance they get. See Todd Stevens for an example.

Also, Legacy has many of the same match up problems. The classic example being Miracles vs 12 Post. Completely unwinnable for Miracles. That's how big formats are and that's not inherently bad in and of itself. If anyone wants a format with 5 decks to meta game against, and 40/60 at worst matchups, there is a format for that. That format is currently dwarfed in popularity by Modern, but why does that matter? Play what you want. Not directly at you, GK, but I don't understand why people who want those always 50/50, only a few decks to worry about environments play Modern. If you really want a hamburger, why did you get pizza instead?

As an aside, I think part of the issue is pro player relevancy. They are aware what articles/streams/events generate the most hits. And if they can't find the same success in Modern they can in Standard, are they even pros? You can be the best naked yodel hula hooper, but if there are only five naked hula hooping yodelers, what good is it? If they aren't relevant either as as top players or a community voice to what the player base wants, they aren't making money. That's why you see so many low quality articles about bans and unbans and *****ing about sideboards and lottery matchups. Seriously, Andrea Menagucci's last article about Modern was complete effortless trash. But it was on CFB and he got paid for it. They have to stay relevant in the community eye to make money. If they aren't making money, they have to do something else besides play games for a living. And growing up sucks.

Do you think Jon Finkel's boss hired him because he is an ace magic player? No. He got hired because he went to college and got job experience in something tangible. What do you suppose PVD's back up plan is if the pro magic thing doesn't work out? Status is at stake for some of them, so they lash out. Part of this negativity stems from either this perceived threat to their pro status or their financial standing.

Final edit to this post that grew longer than I wanted: You can make the argument that pro players have Wizard's ear and therefore their opinions matter more than yours or mine. And there may or may not be truth to that. Wizards holds the key to a lot of data we don't have. But we know, and Wizards knows, that 800 people show up to random Modern SCG events and GP Vegas is always crazy packed and they know their Youtube and Twitch channels get more hits when Modern content is played. But to think pro player negativity is the only thing Wizards recognizes would be an untruth.

There, six edits later, I feel I have adequately addressed your concerns.

You can. The Chain cycle from Onslaught does not care who controls the initial target. You can cast these spells on yourself/your permanents and continue to copy them for yourself if you so choose.

Quote from Spsiegel1987 »

So...Doing damage=being interactive?

Storm rarely cares about the board state, it just wants to play 20 spells that your opponent can't really do much about and win, or vomit out 12 goblins at the end of their turn 2 or 3...

This Monday, I was on the draw for game 1, and kept a reasonable hand in the dark, I got to lay down 2 lands and on my opponents turn 3 he hit me for over 20 damage with the grapeshot+remand combo. Come on, man, you can write down all your eloquent scientific writing but that's what people mean by linear.

Maybe we should just have a scaling system. There's also been some really absurd arguments on reddit where people said that Affinity boards in spell pierce and thoughtseize postboard and is therefore an interactive deck

It's a stretch...

Yes, interacting with a variable of the gamestate is...interaction. I'm guessing you didn't read prior comments, but I suppose I'll explain again. The issue with how you are defining interaction is that it is a self-centered definition. You are defining interaction in such a way as to assume that you are entitled to having the opponent interact on an axis that you prefer. If you actually understand the basic game theory concept that we've been talking about, then you'll see that this is exactly what a competitive deck is designed not to do. If we interact on our opponents' terms, then we are allowing the branches of their decision trees to retain significance.

It doesn't matter what some majority, or even number, of MtG players "mean" by linear or interaction. Simply because a group of people believe a certain way does not make it true or accurate - that is called the bandwagon fallacy.

Quote from gkourou »

Paper RPTQ Archetype Breakdown

Source HERE

Affinity - 23
Eldrazi Tron - 18
Titanshift - 16
Storm - 15
Abzan Counters CoCo - 12
Humans - 12
Grixis Shadow - 11
UW Control - 9
Jeskai Geist - 8
Traverse Shadow - 8
Dredge - 8
UR Breach - 7
Abzan - 7
Burn - 6
Jund - 5
Lantern - 5
BW Taxes - 5
GR Vengevine - 3
Mono W Taxes - 3
Jeskai Control - 3
BG Tron - 3
BR Moon/Control - 3
BG Rock - 3
Infect - 3
Ad Nauseum - 3
Grixis Control - 2
Knightfall - 2
GR Tron - 2
Elves - 2
GW Value - 2
Bant Counters CoCo - 1
Grishoalbrand - 1
4C Scapeshift - 1
5C Zoo - 1
UW Taxes - 1
MonoU Merfolk - 1
8 Rack - 1
Esper Mentor - 1
Bogles - 1
Bant Drazi - 1
RG Ponza - 1
Grixis Delver - 1
Skred - 1
BW Zombies - 1
Bant Spirits - 1

PS: This post does not belong to me. It's taken by a reddit post(link HERE)

Comment: This is why I don't trust the previous reddit post - Modern metagame brekadown. It probably is not that much important. This picture taints a more linear metagame, a metagame I expect that will be the real deal in the next next PT. It's not that this breakdown totally sucks. After all, we can see UW Control, Jeskai Queller, Jund Midrange, Abzan Midrange(even BR midrange has a presence!) and Grixis/Jund DS decks having a good representation. It's just that the first 5 or 6 decks are ultra linear or kind of linear.

PS3: Lots of UR Breach lists. Also, this top 8 is one of the most beautiful things I have ever seen in my life: https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/rptq-top-8-decklists/bellevue-2017-11-12

Modern analysis is so strange. Larger N samples, like the previous reddit post I linked, are routinely picked apart as not representative. Smaller N samples, like the one posted here, are routinely used to illustrate one problematic Modern phenomenon or another. This is particularly odd because the RPTQs were tiny. The average RPTQ attendance was 56. The largest RPTQ we have data for is Madrid with 106 players, which is smaller than every single SCG Modern Classic (not even Open) for basically all of 2017. There are all sorts of weird events that contribute to this too. For instance, the Lima RPTQ represents not one, not two, but THREE of the Titanshift lists and two of the Affinity lists. How many players were at Lima? 9 players.

That said, there is a reason to be worried about the RPTQ picture, but it isn't a reason I have read yet. Most of the reasons people give are the tired "too linear!" arguments we always here. The reason to be worried about the RPTQ picture: it is an invitation only event that probably approximates the PT metagame more than a general-public metagame. But, and here's the kicker, this should not affect most people in this thread. As far as I can tell, almost all of us play on MTGO or in local/regional events that are open to the public. If you're playing at that level, the reddit post I linked to above is more representative of what you will encounter. If you're at the PT, however, it might look more like this RPTQ picture, or a next-level evolution.

Of course, this can still lead to some worry about the PT for all of us even if we aren't playing. Why? Because a bad PT metagame might affect all of us by either a) influencing the general public metagame or b) affecting banlist policy. The former shouldn't be too worrisome. With the exception of Eldrazi Winter, most Modern PT metagames are not repeated in the following months. See the 2015 PT which was infested with Abzan, despite Abzan never being big thereafter. The latter could be worrisome, but again, it is a very specific worry that people are not articulating. Instead, they are more just generally worried about linear decks.

Overall, we need to be more specific and measured in our worry, avoiding the usual anti-Modern criticisms to draw out real format issues. It's okay to be worried about the RPTQ picture, but it needs to be for the right reasons.

I agree with Sheridan when it comes to ban talk rising in the midst of combo. I don't understand why a combo deck in tier 1 in terms of success and popularity IMMEDIATELY leads to calls for a ban, even if that deck has clear bad matchups against many decks in the format. This is the life cycle of the past year-ish:

Phase 1: Aether Revolt gets printed, bringing us Baral and Fatal Push
Phase 2: ramp decks gain popularity by dodging FP
Phase 3: GP Vancouver reveals shadow jund
Phase 4: shadow variants reach the optimal version in an open meta - grixis shadow which both abuses and dodges FP, right around here is when storm just started to gain popularity
Phase 5: people figure out storm beats some of shadows more difficult matchups in valakut and affinity
Phase 6: storm rises up a bit more and gets some visible victories at SCG events
Phase 7: mtgsalvation's most polarizing pinned topic sees more claims of banning storm, among other things

Push lead to jund shadow, which lead to grixis shadow, which lead to valakut, which lead to storm, which honestly lead to humans. The format is literally gaining new decks every couple months that are seeing success with new cards AND some clever design. The calls for storm's ban are literally a combination of some salty players, some feel bad moments, and general dislike of combo. There isn't enough actual evidence yet based on previous cases. I hate jund. I've said it before. I am not calling for a ban on LOTV to make me feel better though.

Quote from ktkenshinx »

Honestly, this isn't just engine combo. It's all Tier 1 decks. And some Tier 2 and 3 decks for good measure. This year alone, we've seen serious ban discussion from multiple segments of the community aimed at DS, Temple, Chalice, Tron lands, Valakut, Titan, Mox Opal, CoCo, Cavern of Souls, Blood Moon, Puresteel Paladin, SSG, Street Wraith, and probably another dozen cards I don't remember. Ban mania is endless. Unfortunately, Storm may actually violate the T4 rule, so this ban talk is far more justified than most of the other 2017 ban talk.

TW: semantics

What about your last sentence is unfortunate? That Storm perhaps violates the T4 rule? Aren't decks springing up occasionally that do violate the T4 rule an inevitability of positive factors, such as new cards printed and strategy discovered? In that case there's nothing unfortunate about Storm gunning for a ban, it's just a fact of Modern life. Or are you saying it's unfortunate that players also clamor for more unjustified bans?

My issue with the turn four rule is that it makes Modern care about the die roll. If you have an arbitrary rule that decks can't consistently win before turn four, then decks will be tuned to winning ON turn four. The person on the play has a definite advantage in this situation.

Of course, that's oversimplified, but without a definite control presence in the format, it always feels like games that go on longer than four turns are on borrowed time. There just aren't many decks that intend to win by pushing games past the fourth turn. Too many decks race to the fourth turn, and it creates a certain stale feeling about the format.

I'm sure that someone will point out that "caring about the die roll" is an issue in Legacy, but in Legacy the importance of the die roll is at least somewhat mitigated by the diversity of strategies and the strength of control decks.