You know what deck I feel the most sympathy for? The B/x Eldrazi shell(s) that people had been brewing and tweaking for the past two months or so. I thought we were going to see a brand new tier 1 deck, not three new tier 0 decks! I'm with everyone saying we should wait to see how the meta develops, but if Eye or Temple does get banned I'll still feel bad for the B/x Eldrazi players.
I agree with idSurge. It's not that I dislike cluttered boardstates or creature-dominant games, because I love those things. That's why I draft and play sealed.
But in Limited, you (and your opponent) can't really play control, you can't have a primarily reactive game plan, and the stack doesn't matter very much. That's what I play Constructed (Modern, Legacy) for: games of Magic that are unlike Limited games of Magic in important ways.
And that's why I love playing Lantern. I hear that Lantern has a pretty decent Eldrazi matchup too, but I'll have to wait and see for myself.
So, if trends follow what I'm reading, the metagame should become better for us now, even though two of our easier matchups are now gone.
Whew, I'm glad to hear you say this, thnkr (or should I call you phlsphr? I love your vids, keep 'em coming), because my initial reaction was that the metagame would be worse for us. I put stock in your opinion, so it has cheered me up.
Now, thnkr, you say more Surgicals are good in the Tron matchup. I'm wondering: what are the main targets you go for with Surgical? O-Stone, Newlamog, Tron lands?
That makes me think of a wider question: could we compile a "cards to Surgical Extraction" list for the different decks we play against, similar to the "cards to Pithing Needle" list we formulated a few weeks ago? I know it can be very game dependent, but having a rough-and-ready guideline for each matchup would be helpful, especially for newer players who are curious about Lantern. Our deck already has that certain "but how does it win?" quality, the fact that we use incredibly narrow (though powerful) cards like Needle and Surgical can make it seem even more opaque.
Also, just as a fall back plan: remember, my fellow Lanterneers, if Twin's absence opens the meta to more aggro strategies, we've always got the "Burning Lantern" variant that was talked about in late November. (Here is Zac's list of that version of Lantern.) I assume (having not played it yet) that Burning Lantern is better than regular Lantern against matchups like Infect and Affinity, but what about Tron? or Eldrazi?
(Another fringe and hypothetical benefit to Burning Lantern is that it doesn't rely on Ancient Stirrings, which some people have said is in jeopardy if R/G Tron becomes too powerful.)
Bocephus, honest question: have you ever seen a criticism of WOTC that you agreed with? You've been playing Magic since the 1990s; in the past two decades, has Wizards ever done something that made you think, "This is a wrong move. They should have done [alternative course of action] instead" ?
I'm beginning to suspect that you have what amounts to a philosophical objection to people lodging complaints at the behavior of a company with which they are engaged in business. Do you also oppose people's criticism of elected officials ("We chose them, after all..."), people's neighbors ("You chose to live next to them..."), people's friends and loved ones ("You chose to be friends..."). Does voluntary choice eliminate the grounds for criticism? Is the use of force the only thing worth complaining about?
It would be too easy and cheap to say that you're a WOTC employee, and I don't believe it besides. What I think is that you're in the grip of just world theory. Just world theory can take many forms, but two of them are, "You chose voluntarily to interact with Person/Organization, so because you made that choice, any criticism of the subsequent behavior of that Person/Organization is invalid" and "Person/Organization knows better than we do—they must, because they are in power, after all". Just replace "Person/Organization" with "Wizards". Here is more information on this relatively well-known cognitive bias: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
Maybe you're just a extraordinarily optimistic person, or maybe you really do happen to authentically agree with every single action that WOTC takes. Maybe. But it is a bit... suspicious.
Decks like Scapeshift, Gifts, UWR Control/Geist just all got *worse*, not better. They lost a good matchup + the bad matchups got a bump. I really don't get the rationale.
Precisely.
I'd like to address two bad arguments that I've seen crop up.
1. "The Splinter Twin ban makes sense, because it allows for more diversity in tempo/control/blue decks."
This relies on a misunderstanding of why diversity exists and why decks are viable (or not viable). Magic is roughly a Rock–Paper–Scissors type of game. An idealized version of a healthy Magic format is: Midrange beats Aggro, Combo and Ramp beat Midrange, Control and Tempo (Aggro-Control) beat Combo and Ramp, and finally Aggro beats Control and Tempo.
However, decks and archetypes are not viable in a vacuum, they are *only* viable because they beat something else. Think of it like this: a format in competitive equilibrium doesn't want to keep the Scissors decks viable just because, instead it "wants" to have as few decks and archetypes as possible. Scarcity, not surplus, is the natural rule.
So, let's say Twin was the best Scissors deck. It could usually beat Paper (Tron and linear Aggro like Infect or Affinity) and lose to Rock (UWR Control, or other blue/control decks; also Jund and other BGx midrange and disruptive decks). When Scissors disappears because of something external to the game (a banning), the Rock decks won't magically step in to fill its role. Instead, they'll become worse because they've lost their natural prey. With Scissors dead, Rock begins to starve, and Paper cleans up.
I know it's a bummer to be brewer and always be told, "If you like blue control, why not play Twin?" but you have to appreciate that Twin is what created the niche for other control decks to exist in the first place. With the major Tempo/Control deck gone, the Ramp, Combo (except Bloom), and linear Aggro (nearly combo decks themselves) decks have nothing to fear.
When the dinosaurs died out, our rat-like mammalian ancestors peaked out of their holes and said, "What's stopping us now?" The answer was nothing.
2. "The Splinter Twin ban makes sense, because WOTC doesn't want a solved format."
This incorrectly implies that Modern was solved or was near to being solved. It was not. In the past year we've seen the competitive ascent of some old decks (Amulet Bloom, Grishoalbrand, Lantern) and we've seen entirely new decks (Eldrazi, CoCo, Grixis) thanks to new cards being printed (BFZ cards, Collected Company, and Tasigur/KCommand/Angler, respectively).
If absolutely no cards had been banned for another year, I guarantee that the meta would have continued to evolve. Slowly and subtlely, yes, but surely. Slow and subtle changes are what we should want for a non-rotating format. (Even chess — considered by some to be a "static" game — has an evolving metagame.) Standard should be fast and drastic, obviously appealing to new players. Modern should be slow and subtle, appealing to players who have been playing for at least two years and who plan to play for many more. The only bad thing about Legacy is its price*, its barrier to entry, not its stability or subtlety.
*And perhaps its lack of color balance. I will go on the record as saying archetype balance (which Legacy has) is far more important than color balance, because balance is only worth having when the things being balanced are inherently different. I'd much rather have a format where, for example, blue control, blue combo, and blue aggro are all viable, than a format with five colors of midrange.
From what I've read, Blue Moon doesn't have a very good Tron matchup (counterintuitive, I know). Does Blue Moon have a good matchup against Affinity, Infect, or Burn? If not, then this is not good for Blue Moon.
If the Twin ban was more about shaking up the format to create excitement for the PT than anything else, and if you're unhappy about this, I'd recommend not watching the PT. (I already don't watch live MTG, so my absence will not matter.)
Or, if you must watch it, then at least spam chat with obnoxious anti-Tron or anti-Affinity memes. "Modern: big mana ramp or a million little dudes... how exciting!" Something like that. I'm not good at meme-crafting and Twitch chat is a cesspool that makes the living envy the dead, so who knows what will catch on there.
If "shake-up bans" are the bad part of the Faustian bargain that's necessary to have a Modern PT, is it possible to start a campaign to get rid of Modern PTs? "No Modern PT; Please, Think of the Format's Health." Like I said, I'm no good at sloganeering.
My initial reaction to the Twin ban is that one of Lantern's decent matchups (Twin) is now gone, and this will have the secondary effect of making some of Lantern's worst matchups (G/R Tron, Burn) more prevalent. Another secondary effect is that decks that had pretty good Twin matchups (Jund, Junk) will now do a bit worse, and this is unfortunate because Lantern also has pretty good matchups against GBx decks.
I hope that this is wrong and I'm just being hasty. It will take a bit for the new metagame to settle down. Who knows, maybe Tron and Burn won't become more popular?
I think it's appropriate to adapt Harvey Dent's famous line to Modern: you either lose with a Tier 2 pile, or win enough top 8s to see your deck become the next banned "villain".
As a Lantern player, I'm saddened by the Twin ban. Why? Not because Tron and linear aggro (Affinity, Infect, Bogles, Burn) just got a whole lot better, which they did, but because I assume Tron and Affinity are next on the chopping block. Why do I care that Tron and Affinity will be on the chopping block? Because the natural bans for those decks are Ancient Stirrings and Mox Opal... and Lantern needs those two cards.
Honestly, if you're a Tron player, how are you not terrified that you're next? Because you are. Tron is next.
And WOTC is worried Sword of the Meek would slot into Lantern? What are they smoking? Why would we waste 8 slots on a win-con for a deck that already has enough (Lantern of Insight + mill rock + Ensnaring Bridge)?
Finally, when WOTC says "diversity", do they mean deck diversity or archetype diversity? I think archetype diversity is far more important. The way I see it, Infect and Bogles, for example, are basically the same deck: make tiny dudes, buff 'em, swing. Getting rid of Twin allows for more deck diversity, but greatly narrows archetype diversity.
I'm beginning to suspect that what WotC wants from the format may differ in (perhaps) a significant way from what Modern players want from the format. In short: what's up with WotC's concern about staleness?
In all the time I've spent reading about Modern in various forums, subreddits, and comment sections, and in all the conversations in real life I've had with Modern players, I've never heard anyone mention "staleness". That is, I've never read or heard anyone express the fear that the format is stale, or will soon become stale, or would have become stale if WotC hadn't done [some action].
I have heard players express concerns about speed *(1), archetype balance *(2), color balance *(3), the "fun" factor *(4), Modern's "starting" set *(5), the price of Modern staples *(6), and ban-panic *(7), but never about staleness.
Why is WotC concerned about a PT meta being stale if the players aren't?
Would anyone really stop playing Modern if the upcoming 2016 PT top 8 (16, 32, ...) were identical to 2015's PT top 8 (16, ...)?
I contend that established players won't stop playing because of staleness. I also contend that new players wouldn't notice staleness because they're new.
So why would WotC value something that isn't valued by either established or new players?
Especially when that value ("anti-staleness", I'll call it) potentially plays a major role in determining bannings, which definitely do affect players?
It's a conundrum for me. Anyone have any ideas?
-----------
Endnotes:
*(1) Turn 4 rule discussion; "virtual" kills vs. actual kills
*(2) "Linear strategies are too prevalent", "reactive control is nerfed", etc.
*(3) "U/R or G/B are oppressive", "W is too weak", "if [counterspell/some other card] were reprinted, U would dominate and Modern would become Legacy", etc.
*(4) "Prison/land destruction/mill/fateseal/combo/midrange creature combat is no fun", "interaction is necessary for fun", etc.
*(5) "Ban 8th/9th editions", "ban pre-Lorwyn sets", "expand Modern to include Invasion and everything after", etc.
*(6) "Ban Goyf/LotV/Snapcaster", "reprint in mass quantities Goyf/LotV/Snapcaster", etc.
*(7) "Don't invest in [some deck], it's performing too well", "is it safe to build [some deck]?", "should I unload my Pact of Negations now?", etc.
No matter what the right answer turns out to be, at least one group will have to admit that WotC has done something they definitely didn't think WotC would do.
If the Eldrazi-Snow answer is correct, then the "<> = " folks will be wrong about WotC not including such a parasitic mechanic.
If the "<> = " answer is correct, then the Eldrazi-Snow folks will be wrong about WotC not making such a big change in the middle of a block.
Either way, the salt will be real and the tears will be delicious.
I'm in the Eldrazi-Snow camp myself, but I'm not particularly bothered by parasitic mechanics. I loved drafting Kamigawa and Coldsnap, and I've never played Standard, so let a thousand parasites bloom.
Just to clarify, I do not believe it will be Snow, just that it will be like Snow. In what way? In the way that Snow is about mana quality, not mana type. An example of a card that has a mana quality restriction in its mana cost: Myr Superion.
I forgot to say that I don't think any of these three cards will have any impact in Modern. If Mirrorpool didn't enter the battlefield tapped it might have seen some play, but it won't in its current form.
What (I think) will happen:
<> mana has a type and a quality: colorless and Eldrazi-Snow. If <> occurs in a mana cost or an activation cost, <> is required. If you have <> in your mana pool, you can use it to pay for mana costs and activation costs requiring <> or (one generic mana). The card Wastes, though full art, has the ability " : Add <> to your mana pool". <> will not occur outside of Oath of the Gatewatch (until maybe we return to Zendikar again, if we do).
What (I think) will not happen:
1. <> will not be the new symbol for colorless mana. Painlands, Sol Ring, Tron lands, Boreal Druid, etc. will not produce <>.
2. <> will not only be able to be used to cast colorless spells or activate abilities of colorless permanents. You will be able to cast Jace, Vryn's Prodigy by tapping one Island and one Wastes (or one Mirrorpool).
As a Combo player, the archetype that I am scared of the most is ... ding, ding, ding, Aggro.
This is one of the things that struck me as bizarre when I first started getting into Modern earlier this year. No draw-go/reactive Control? Eh, I'll get over it. Not much difference between Midrange and Aggro-Control strategies? Okay, whatever. But: Aggro is just as fast as Combo? That's more than just a bit weird.
That's just the wayt the things are - very few people are actually playing to win in magic.
Awesome, that's the first time I've seen someone refer to Sirlin's 'playing to win' series in... well, in a very long time. Those articles were enormously important in molding how I think about competitive games. "Don't be a scrub" used to be what "get good" is now.
I don't mind non-Combo (or non-linear) deck players, I really don't. (I play as much Limited as Modern, and Limited truly is Midrange: The Interactioning.) But when the strongest strategies in a format are linear and don't allow for much interaction, if your response is to complain about your opponent picking the best strategy, then you're a scrub. "Stop playing decks that perform well by ignoring me" is the "stop spamming Ryu's fireball" of Magic. If you can't beat linear decks with your non-linear deck, get good. If non-linear decks are just inferior across the board to linear decks, play a linear deck. Or play a different format. If you can't beat fireball, and you don't want to play fireball, maybe Street Fighter isn't your game, eh?
But in Limited, you (and your opponent) can't really play control, you can't have a primarily reactive game plan, and the stack doesn't matter very much. That's what I play Constructed (Modern, Legacy) for: games of Magic that are unlike Limited games of Magic in important ways.
And that's why I love playing Lantern.
Whew, I'm glad to hear you say this, thnkr (or should I call you phlsphr?
Now, thnkr, you say more Surgicals are good in the Tron matchup. I'm wondering: what are the main targets you go for with Surgical? O-Stone, Newlamog, Tron lands?
That makes me think of a wider question: could we compile a "cards to Surgical Extraction" list for the different decks we play against, similar to the "cards to Pithing Needle" list we formulated a few weeks ago? I know it can be very game dependent, but having a rough-and-ready guideline for each matchup would be helpful, especially for newer players who are curious about Lantern. Our deck already has that certain "but how does it win?" quality, the fact that we use incredibly narrow (though powerful) cards like Needle and Surgical can make it seem even more opaque.
Also, just as a fall back plan: remember, my fellow Lanterneers, if Twin's absence opens the meta to more aggro strategies, we've always got the "Burning Lantern" variant that was talked about in late November. (Here is Zac's list of that version of Lantern.) I assume (having not played it yet) that Burning Lantern is better than regular Lantern against matchups like Infect and Affinity, but what about Tron? or Eldrazi?
(Another fringe and hypothetical benefit to Burning Lantern is that it doesn't rely on Ancient Stirrings, which some people have said is in jeopardy if R/G Tron becomes too powerful.)
I'm beginning to suspect that you have what amounts to a philosophical objection to people lodging complaints at the behavior of a company with which they are engaged in business. Do you also oppose people's criticism of elected officials ("We chose them, after all..."), people's neighbors ("You chose to live next to them..."), people's friends and loved ones ("You chose to be friends..."). Does voluntary choice eliminate the grounds for criticism? Is the use of force the only thing worth complaining about?
It would be too easy and cheap to say that you're a WOTC employee, and I don't believe it besides. What I think is that you're in the grip of just world theory. Just world theory can take many forms, but two of them are, "You chose voluntarily to interact with Person/Organization, so because you made that choice, any criticism of the subsequent behavior of that Person/Organization is invalid" and "Person/Organization knows better than we do—they must, because they are in power, after all". Just replace "Person/Organization" with "Wizards". Here is more information on this relatively well-known cognitive bias: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
Maybe you're just a extraordinarily optimistic person, or maybe you really do happen to authentically agree with every single action that WOTC takes. Maybe. But it is a bit... suspicious.
Precisely.
I'd like to address two bad arguments that I've seen crop up.
1. "The Splinter Twin ban makes sense, because it allows for more diversity in tempo/control/blue decks."
This relies on a misunderstanding of why diversity exists and why decks are viable (or not viable). Magic is roughly a Rock–Paper–Scissors type of game. An idealized version of a healthy Magic format is: Midrange beats Aggro, Combo and Ramp beat Midrange, Control and Tempo (Aggro-Control) beat Combo and Ramp, and finally Aggro beats Control and Tempo.
However, decks and archetypes are not viable in a vacuum, they are *only* viable because they beat something else. Think of it like this: a format in competitive equilibrium doesn't want to keep the Scissors decks viable just because, instead it "wants" to have as few decks and archetypes as possible. Scarcity, not surplus, is the natural rule.
So, let's say Twin was the best Scissors deck. It could usually beat Paper (Tron and linear Aggro like Infect or Affinity) and lose to Rock (UWR Control, or other blue/control decks; also Jund and other BGx midrange and disruptive decks). When Scissors disappears because of something external to the game (a banning), the Rock decks won't magically step in to fill its role. Instead, they'll become worse because they've lost their natural prey. With Scissors dead, Rock begins to starve, and Paper cleans up.
I know it's a bummer to be brewer and always be told, "If you like blue control, why not play Twin?" but you have to appreciate that Twin is what created the niche for other control decks to exist in the first place. With the major Tempo/Control deck gone, the Ramp, Combo (except Bloom), and linear Aggro (nearly combo decks themselves) decks have nothing to fear.
When the dinosaurs died out, our rat-like mammalian ancestors peaked out of their holes and said, "What's stopping us now?" The answer was nothing.
2. "The Splinter Twin ban makes sense, because WOTC doesn't want a solved format."
This incorrectly implies that Modern was solved or was near to being solved. It was not. In the past year we've seen the competitive ascent of some old decks (Amulet Bloom, Grishoalbrand, Lantern) and we've seen entirely new decks (Eldrazi, CoCo, Grixis) thanks to new cards being printed (BFZ cards, Collected Company, and Tasigur/KCommand/Angler, respectively).
If absolutely no cards had been banned for another year, I guarantee that the meta would have continued to evolve. Slowly and subtlely, yes, but surely. Slow and subtle changes are what we should want for a non-rotating format. (Even chess — considered by some to be a "static" game — has an evolving metagame.) Standard should be fast and drastic, obviously appealing to new players. Modern should be slow and subtle, appealing to players who have been playing for at least two years and who plan to play for many more. The only bad thing about Legacy is its price*, its barrier to entry, not its stability or subtlety.
*And perhaps its lack of color balance. I will go on the record as saying archetype balance (which Legacy has) is far more important than color balance, because balance is only worth having when the things being balanced are inherently different. I'd much rather have a format where, for example, blue control, blue combo, and blue aggro are all viable, than a format with five colors of midrange.
From what I've read, Blue Moon doesn't have a very good Tron matchup (counterintuitive, I know). Does Blue Moon have a good matchup against Affinity, Infect, or Burn? If not, then this is not good for Blue Moon.
Or, if you must watch it, then at least spam chat with obnoxious anti-Tron or anti-Affinity memes. "Modern: big mana ramp or a million little dudes... how exciting!" Something like that. I'm not good at meme-crafting and Twitch chat is a cesspool that makes the living envy the dead, so who knows what will catch on there.
If "shake-up bans" are the bad part of the Faustian bargain that's necessary to have a Modern PT, is it possible to start a campaign to get rid of Modern PTs? "No Modern PT; Please, Think of the Format's Health." Like I said, I'm no good at sloganeering.
I hope that this is wrong and I'm just being hasty. It will take a bit for the new metagame to settle down. Who knows, maybe Tron and Burn won't become more popular?
Honestly, if you're a Tron player, how are you not terrified that you're next? Because you are. Tron is next.
And WOTC is worried Sword of the Meek would slot into Lantern? What are they smoking? Why would we waste 8 slots on a win-con for a deck that already has enough (Lantern of Insight + mill rock + Ensnaring Bridge)?
Finally, when WOTC says "diversity", do they mean deck diversity or archetype diversity? I think archetype diversity is far more important. The way I see it, Infect and Bogles, for example, are basically the same deck: make tiny dudes, buff 'em, swing. Getting rid of Twin allows for more deck diversity, but greatly narrows archetype diversity.
In all the time I've spent reading about Modern in various forums, subreddits, and comment sections, and in all the conversations in real life I've had with Modern players, I've never heard anyone mention "staleness". That is, I've never read or heard anyone express the fear that the format is stale, or will soon become stale, or would have become stale if WotC hadn't done [some action].
I have heard players express concerns about speed *(1), archetype balance *(2), color balance *(3), the "fun" factor *(4), Modern's "starting" set *(5), the price of Modern staples *(6), and ban-panic *(7), but never about staleness.
Why is WotC concerned about a PT meta being stale if the players aren't?
Would anyone really stop playing Modern if the upcoming 2016 PT top 8 (16, 32, ...) were identical to 2015's PT top 8 (16, ...)?
I contend that established players won't stop playing because of staleness. I also contend that new players wouldn't notice staleness because they're new.
So why would WotC value something that isn't valued by either established or new players?
Especially when that value ("anti-staleness", I'll call it) potentially plays a major role in determining bannings, which definitely do affect players?
It's a conundrum for me. Anyone have any ideas?
-----------
Endnotes:
*(1) Turn 4 rule discussion; "virtual" kills vs. actual kills
*(2) "Linear strategies are too prevalent", "reactive control is nerfed", etc.
*(3) "U/R or G/B are oppressive", "W is too weak", "if [counterspell/some other card] were reprinted, U would dominate and Modern would become Legacy", etc.
*(4) "Prison/land destruction/mill/fateseal/combo/midrange creature combat is no fun", "interaction is necessary for fun", etc.
*(5) "Ban 8th/9th editions", "ban pre-Lorwyn sets", "expand Modern to include Invasion and everything after", etc.
*(6) "Ban Goyf/LotV/Snapcaster", "reprint in mass quantities Goyf/LotV/Snapcaster", etc.
*(7) "Don't invest in [some deck], it's performing too well", "is it safe to build [some deck]?", "should I unload my Pact of Negations now?", etc.
If the Eldrazi-Snow answer is correct, then the "<> =
If the "<> =
Either way, the salt will be real and the tears will be delicious.
I'm in the Eldrazi-Snow camp myself, but I'm not particularly bothered by parasitic mechanics. I loved drafting Kamigawa and Coldsnap, and I've never played Standard, so let a thousand parasites bloom.
I forgot to say that I don't think any of these three cards will have any impact in Modern. If Mirrorpool didn't enter the battlefield tapped it might have seen some play, but it won't in its current form.
What (I think) will happen:
<> mana has a type and a quality: colorless and Eldrazi-Snow. If <> occurs in a mana cost or an activation cost, <> is required. If you have <> in your mana pool, you can use it to pay for mana costs and activation costs requiring <> or
What (I think) will not happen:
1. <> will not be the new symbol for colorless mana. Painlands, Sol Ring, Tron lands, Boreal Druid, etc. will not produce <>.
2. <> will not only be able to be used to cast colorless spells or activate abilities of colorless permanents. You will be able to cast Jace, Vryn's Prodigy by tapping one Island and one Wastes (or one Mirrorpool).
This is one of the things that struck me as bizarre when I first started getting into Modern earlier this year. No draw-go/reactive Control? Eh, I'll get over it. Not much difference between Midrange and Aggro-Control strategies? Okay, whatever. But: Aggro is just as fast as Combo? That's more than just a bit weird.
Awesome, that's the first time I've seen someone refer to Sirlin's 'playing to win' series in... well, in a very long time. Those articles were enormously important in molding how I think about competitive games. "Don't be a scrub" used to be what "get good" is now.
I don't mind non-Combo (or non-linear) deck players, I really don't. (I play as much Limited as Modern, and Limited truly is Midrange: The Interactioning.) But when the strongest strategies in a format are linear and don't allow for much interaction, if your response is to complain about your opponent picking the best strategy, then you're a scrub. "Stop playing decks that perform well by ignoring me" is the "stop spamming Ryu's fireball" of Magic. If you can't beat linear decks with your non-linear deck, get good. If non-linear decks are just inferior across the board to linear decks, play a linear deck. Or play a different format. If you can't beat fireball, and you don't want to play fireball, maybe Street Fighter isn't your game, eh?