You know what as I type this, the issue is not Aggro losing to Control, shouldnt aggro BEAT control? Isnt the issue here that Midrange loses to aggro, shouldnt Jund be the one picking off all these Aggro decks, or am I wrong on that?
Yes to both points. Aggro should beat control and midrange should beat aggro. It is a bit simplistic to look at it that way, but my one "major" complaint since I switched to playing mostly modern has been aggro decks being a bit over-represented / too strong. I say this incredibly loosely though since there isn't any 1 deck causing this issue or perception and frankly the data doesn't even support it being THAT big of an issue on a higher level (GPs and such). I personally gravitate towards 2 types of decks combo or removal.dec and in both camps aggro has always been the hardest match ups.
Now I'm not a Jund player in particular, but a lot of the challenge with Jund style decks vs aggro strategies in modern is that your 1 for 1 removal isn't enough to get you there and sometimes your creatures aren't enough to allow you to turn the corner. Aggro decks can just have god hands that make it damn near impossible to win without your own god hand that has to also line up perfectly with answering theirs. I can recall several matches that I have lost to some seemingly absurd lines of play (looking at you devastating summons), but it happens and I move on. Not like I'm not guilty of absurd lines of play myself
I think people get irked when a pretty clear aggro deck has access to that level of disruption. If you are playing removal.dec and they are able to invalidate with thalia, freebooter, and meddling mage, it leads to frustration. Removal.dec should be favored and likely IS favored, but that's not what people remember. If I have learned anything about magic, it is that people will complain... often. Sometimes they are justified. Most of the time it boils down to complaining about bad match ups or recent bad games. That being said, I don't see anything problematic with the humans deck. It is a strong choice, but I don't see any data that supports it being too strong.
I'd argue "free wins" are different than god hand wins. Free wins are (to me) a byproduct of strategy and deck construction on both sides of the table. The easiest way for me to describe this is Grishoalbrand vs Elves or Tron (traditional G or GR). In either match, the Shoal player is highly favored AND the opponent can do very little to change that. They don't have enough disruption against the strategy and they aren't fast enough to meaningfully pressure their opponent. This is very different than a game against UW control where my opponent can answer what I'm doing, but doesn't sequence things right or falls to a "gotchya" moment which happens. These matches tend to be on the fringes though.
If I contrast that to when I play more fair decks, those style matches seem to be few and far between, but I gain percentage points in the other direction by being less susceptible to it in the first place / having more game across the spectrum. The matches become much more of a grind and sometimes the answers don't line up the way I need them to, but I still had an opportunity in the game. I know some in this camp will claim that they might as well have signed the match slip when facing tron, but I never felt like I was down and out as soon as I sat down across from my opponent. The only exception to this was Eldrazi Winter. That was a nightmare.
I mean aggro is SUPPOSED to beat control, so using UW vs Affinity as an example of how one needs some serious exact top decks to win seems a bit like of an "of course it does" type of situation. I know that it isn't the cleanest of examples since things like stony silence exist, but my overall point is Aggro > Control.
I personally feel the fact that control is doing as well as it is in such an open meta is impressive and indicates that they are in a healthy place. No deck has game against everything and some decks are going to take a long time to win. Some people enjoy the grind (Jim Davis being one of them). Personally control mirrors are especially yawn inducing, but some people enjoy it.
There has been a lot of Tron variants on camera, but they have seemed to be fairly so-so overall? I was pretty busy yesterday, but had the stream on in the background. Maybe I missed something. Hopefully we'll get some Day 2 metagame numbers.
Here are some reasons that cards are banned in Modern:
Some cards enable a top tier deck to consistently win on turn 3 or earlier. Because this violates the "turn 4" rule of the format, the following cards have been banned:
Other cards have been banned because they make certain decks too consistent/reliable and thus stagnate the format. Here are some examples of these cards:
Some cards, currently only one, are banned because they were just mistakes. This card is one of the most broken cards of all time and has been banned in almost every format where it was or is legal:
There are also some cards that were banned for logistical reasons. These cards made tournaments last too long and were banned to make events run smoother. They were not necessarily banned for power reasons.
Have to agree. Rabblemaster doesn't seem particularly helpful? I love the idea of grave titan since that has long been one of my favorite cards, but even there I feel like it is a bit reaching. Typically I fall back to Emrakul, but I can certainly see an argument for an "earlier" threat that is still a good breach target. Either way I think additional creatures need to be high impact and preferably worthy of putting into play with Breach. Titan fits that, rabblemaster doesn't.
i think most people would agree that the obvious answer is stoneforge mystic. but that is a whole other can of worms
whites issue is that it doesnt have a clearly defined space in the color pie, which means it has a little of everything going on. incidentally this is what makes it arguably the strongest support color - which in turn makes it difficult to make white stronger.
Isn't taxes / tax effects white's space in the color pie? I'd also argue small creatures (white weenie), but tax effects seem to be pretty exclusive to W
It saw some play in certain reanimator builds with Pull from Eternity (Joe Lossett played it in 2015), but it didn't really catch on from what I can tell. Certainly no one active in the Griselbrand thread posts about it. Perhaps it is better in a non-twin meta, but still seems like a low upside overall vs the shoal version.
We'll have to wait and see how the card is adopted / how people sideboard against us. I could see this coming in for opponents in decks that had no / little game against us, but I'm not convinced (yet) it'll be a widely used option vs griselband decks. It does make Death and Taxes style decks really annoying. Thalia + Sphere? bleh
Yes to both points. Aggro should beat control and midrange should beat aggro. It is a bit simplistic to look at it that way, but my one "major" complaint since I switched to playing mostly modern has been aggro decks being a bit over-represented / too strong. I say this incredibly loosely though since there isn't any 1 deck causing this issue or perception and frankly the data doesn't even support it being THAT big of an issue on a higher level (GPs and such). I personally gravitate towards 2 types of decks combo or removal.dec and in both camps aggro has always been the hardest match ups.
Now I'm not a Jund player in particular, but a lot of the challenge with Jund style decks vs aggro strategies in modern is that your 1 for 1 removal isn't enough to get you there and sometimes your creatures aren't enough to allow you to turn the corner. Aggro decks can just have god hands that make it damn near impossible to win without your own god hand that has to also line up perfectly with answering theirs. I can recall several matches that I have lost to some seemingly absurd lines of play (looking at you devastating summons), but it happens and I move on. Not like I'm not guilty of absurd lines of play myself
If I contrast that to when I play more fair decks, those style matches seem to be few and far between, but I gain percentage points in the other direction by being less susceptible to it in the first place / having more game across the spectrum. The matches become much more of a grind and sometimes the answers don't line up the way I need them to, but I still had an opportunity in the game. I know some in this camp will claim that they might as well have signed the match slip when facing tron, but I never felt like I was down and out as soon as I sat down across from my opponent. The only exception to this was Eldrazi Winter. That was a nightmare.
I personally feel the fact that control is doing as well as it is in such an open meta is impressive and indicates that they are in a healthy place. No deck has game against everything and some decks are going to take a long time to win. Some people enjoy the grind (Jim Davis being one of them). Personally control mirrors are especially yawn inducing, but some people enjoy it.
I mean the very first post in the thread (and all B&R threads) summarizes this.
Isn't Deathtouch a G/B thing though?
edit: quick gatherer search show no W creatures with deathtouch WITHOUT B in either their casting cost or activation cost to enable deathtouch.
Isn't taxes / tax effects white's space in the color pie? I'd also argue small creatures (white weenie), but tax effects seem to be pretty exclusive to W