I think it is unfair to say green is in a poor position. In fact it is hard to tell what colors if any have an advantage in this current meta!
Looking through the mtg top 8 there are decks like Azban/Junk (Goyf and Flayer), infect (Heirarch, Glistening Elf, and a ton of pump!), Counters Company (which is almost all green creatures!), and others within just the SCG tournaments. Neither has fatal push killed off Jund as it has had showings elsewhere.
I can accept if people are questioning if they are top tier, and right now there is no "green" deck making as regular appearances as Etron, Humans, Storm, or Affinity. "Green" decks aren't dead in this meta.
- inwiththenoose
- Registered User
-
Member for 8 years, 2 months, and 14 days
Last active Wed, Jan, 30 2019 08:02:47
- 0 Followers
- 29 Total Posts
- 0 Thanks
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
-
Nov 5, 2017Shockwave07 posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)Posted in: Modern Archives
-
4
ktkenshinx posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)What's wrong with green? Green is doing fine. There have been 2-3 green decks in the T8 of every single October SCG Open and Classic, and every single October MTGO Challenge. Other large Modern events in October followed the same trend: 3 green decks in the 197 player Ovino XII side event, 4 green decks at the SCG Dallas Classic, and 2 at Danish Modern Masters with 106 players. In fact, the only large >100 player event that did not have 2+ green decks in the T8 was the recent Washington Classic which only had 1.Posted in: Modern Archives
It takes about 5 minutes to look through standings to check claims like this. Green does not have the issues that players claim. -
3
BlueTronFTW posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)Posted in: Modern ArchivesQuote from cfusionpm »Quote from gkourou »
PS: People, like cfusion pm, saying that they will ban/unban something right before the PT probably proven hugely wrong today. Instead, it seems like Wizards will follow a "unban a card after the Pro Tour and ban something only if it's Eldrazi winter stuff" policy from now on. This is totally correct in my eyes.
I'll believe it when that B&R comes and goes with "no changes." It'd be easier to believe if they didn't make so many other statements, changes, and claims that were either extremely misleading or later walked back on.
But if they actually do hold to this, I feel it's almost like they would rather let another Modern PT be a miserable dumpster fire so they can justify removing it (again). Or maybe use it as a means to swoop in and be the "hero" by giving us back cards that have no business being banned as an apology for an awful PT. I mean, that's what they did in 2016 (even thought it had no meaningful impact...). They get to sit back on a "healthy" meta, do nothing, and then be the hero. Makes sense.
As far as them claiming Modern is "healthy," it looks like their definition of "healthy" is based solely on how many decks people are playing and nothing at all on the quality of gameplay or nuances and interplay of top decks. Doesn't matter that all the top decks are miserable, toxic, and narrow to play against, where most games result in wildly swingy, variance-driven outcomes. As long as there are a lot OF decks, it doesn't matter what they ARE. Very disappointed to have this fear confirmed.
I'm definitely not selling out of Modern, but at least if Modern is going to continue to be so toxic and miserable, I don't have to worry about making time to fit in FNMs until after January. More of the same is a pretty terrible place to be, IMO.
Glad you're at least willing to acknowledge that this is solely your opinion, although the conspiracy theory of WOTC trying to sabotage modern could use some evidence besides "there is going to be a modern PT and I don't like modern." -
2
Spsiegel1987 posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)Posted in: Modern ArchivesQuote from h0lydiva »Quote from acc95 »
Or just screw Modern entirely, I'm actually taking a break Nothing is really OP so I don't expect any changes. There's no point in playing a game you don't enjoy anymore though. It's been months, but hopefully the metagame eventually shifts. Maybe then I'll come back.Quote from gkourou »
I completely agree. That's what Modern is about at the moment. It saddens me though to see one of the main UR Control and interactive players of this site saying "screw interaction".
This is it, what I've been saying, what has led me to even talk about mass bannings. It's not that anything is busted, it's that the format is not fun because of how the best decks are.
Maybe for you?
You're not exactly concerned for the meta, you just want your deck to be good or played.
The fact you felt 2016's modern was just fine because you played suicide bloo is problematic; you're presenting a toxic attitude about the format because the format isn't how you envision it.
As for 2015, I'd gladly take a jund/twin/infect/tron meta over 2016 or 2017, but I'm ok with how things are.
MTGGOLDfish isn't the greatest place for info anymore, but it's meta distribution of decks and archetypes is fantastically diverse and spread out, no deck is encroaching dangerous numbers.
I don't think anything changes tomorrow, but I really really keep hoping for an SFM/BBE unban, along with Twin.
Depending on how storm does, I could see another storm hit. Chalice or Temple ban in the future is likely someday, how soon I'm not sure of. Grixis Shadows top 8 conversation is outrageous, the decks going to hit more top 8s than Twin at this pace.
-
2
Spsiegel1987 posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)I mean, Diva, last year was a garbage, dumpster fire of a mess formatPosted in: Modern Archives
Dredge and Infect ruined the format, and probe added to supplementary problems with the deck you enjoyed. A few months before that, Eldrazi Winter
I mean, I'm sorry you dislike modern where it is now, but you indicating last year as modern being remotely good really leaves me suspect that you view modern as healthy too selfishly. You did call yourself on that though, which I appreciate.
And I disagree heavily, modern is better now by miles than anytime at any single point of last year. Dredge was a toxic deck that wasn't quite on par with TC, DRS, but just a notch below those.
-
3
k0no posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)Living in the UK I don't think we've seen a noticeable decrease in modern attendance at any of the stores that offer regular modern sanctioned tournaments.Posted in: Modern Archives
In fact, recent modern events have broken attendance records in cities like Birmingham where larger stores operate.
I'm not disputing that some smaller stores may have seen a shift in format interest, but as is often the case, this can be swung just by a small group of friends trying something different, and suddenly it looks like a format has completely dropped off in your local shop. From my own experience, a group of modern aficionados in my small town decided on a whim to give legacy a try, selling their modern decks to buy into the format. As they quickly discovered, legacy events weren't popular and most people didn't follow them down the rabbit hole, so the experiment collapsed and a few of them ended up selling out of magic altogether. As a result, modern attendance dipped, but then we only had about 8-14 players max anyway for an average modern FNM so this one group jumping ship made a big difference. My point is that you could look at this example in a superficial way and come to all sorts of conclusions about how modern was dying and attendance was suffering, but in reality it was just a handful of guys deciding to try out legacy (with less than ideal results).
In aggregate, I don't think you can make those sorts of "modern is dying" claims based on anecdotal local evidence. It just doesn't work. It's a common facet of how people tend to think, but it's not factual or helpful. -
4
Spsiegel1987 posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)How interesting that modern is in a bad state now after some of the regulars here were laughing about how bad standard was for years...Posted in: Modern Archives
Go ahead and play standard, I have no interest in spending all that money on rotating metas where a tier 1 deck can literally become unplayable weeks later. I do think as a whole standard is more skill-testing and interactive, mainly because there's so much interaction and board-stalls.
I do feel as though people are beginning to say, "hey, modern is now too diverse, I can't meta as well"
I don't think that's completely untrue. The meta has become so open that you simply can't be prepared, and some matchups are so atrocious that the better player is really fighting uphill
There's no way to meta against Titanshift, Grixis Shadow, Storm and E-Tron while fighting through a slew of diverse decks in a long tournament.
At the same time, is it really a coincidence we see so many familiar big names do well in these modern tournaments?
Standard was a pile of garbage for years, it makes sense that modern is shrinking now that the format is decent again.
Not really sure how you guys think things will be fixed, but I don't think a BBE unban is going to do it.
I do think the death of infect hurt this format though, it kept decks like storm and titan shift in check
I called Infect a police deck and was corrected that it was a parameter deck. What do you guys think?
Infect being dead severely hurt jund. I actually think Jund is a straight up bad deck now, despite playing a pile of some of the best cards in the format.
There's not enough keeping combo in check while being reasonable against an open field---this is an issue.
I absolutely believe dredge was a toxic deck and believe GGT was one of the best bans modern has ever received.
But I am starting to doubt Probe's ban now, for the first time ever, along with Splinter Twin.
Would splinter twin really do well though? Shadow would eat it alive, and I'm trying to think if E-Tron would, too
-
2
genini2 posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)Part of people moving away from modern into standard is just because standard is actually playable atm. For months standard events just didn't fire because no one wanted to play saheeli rai then Aetherworks Marvel, then just some weak garbage sets. Modern swelled because standard was miserable and now that standard is playable again many of the players who went to modern will move back to standard.Posted in: Modern Archives -
9
Seymour_TUBES posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)Posted in: Modern Archives
Seriously.Quote from pierrebai »I'm not too enthusiastic about this recent discussion.
For starter, like many, I think the speculation of what would happen without the current tier-1 is both mostly hot air and entirely pointless. It's not that I mind people shooting from the hip and giving their opinion, but that I find the discussion to be a symptom of a lack of mental rigor. Any meta has a tier one, every tier set will have its detractor, every deck has its lover and hater. You'd replace one set of dissatisfied players with another. I'd rather read people discuss how to make some decks better than how to destroy the ones that exist. I find the current displayed hate for the existing tier-1 a bit tasteless.
Furthermore, the discussion seems to take for granted two things. One, that the current tier-1 suite is dominating. It's not true. Multiple recent results have shown other decks taking the crown in a given tournament. There is no huge gulf between tier-1 and tier-2. So why want to change the tier-1? It does not extinguish variety, that's just not true. Two, history bears this out, a single new card can push tier-2 deck into tier-1. Look at Baral making storm better for example. So, I would much prefer to see people speculating on new cards (even made up ones) that would help change the meta rather than bashing tier-1 decks you think are no-fun.
'I don't like the decks in tier 1 so lets ban a card from each of them and then there's no reason that everything shouldn't be fine and if you think there is then you don't know how to read or understand reason' is what I've been getting from the last ~4 pages (of course this clearly means that I can't read or understand reason).
What the heck happened to Sheridan? I mean I know he had to work more but it's been awhile since I've seen a post from the resident voice of reason in this ***** show. -
10
pierrebai posted a message on Temporary State of the Meta Thread (Rules Update 7/17/17)I'm not too enthusiastic about this recent discussion.Posted in: Modern Archives
For starter, like many, I think the speculation of what would happen without the current tier-1 is both mostly hot air and entirely pointless. It's not that I mind people shooting from the hip and giving their opinion, but that I find the discussion to be a symptom of a lack of mental rigor. Any meta has a tier one, every tier set will have its detractor, every deck has its lover and hater. You'd replace one set of dissatisfied players with another. I'd rather read people discuss how to make some decks better than how to destroy the ones that exist. I find the current displayed hate for the existing tier-1 a bit tasteless.
Furthermore, the discussion seems to take for granted two things. One, that the current tier-1 suite is dominating. It's not true. Multiple recent results have shown other decks taking the crown in a given tournament. There is no huge gulf between tier-1 and tier-2. So why want to change the tier-1? It does not extinguish variety, that's just not true. Two, history bears this out, a single new card can push tier-2 deck into tier-1. Look at Baral making storm better for example. So, I would much prefer to see people speculating on new cards (even made up ones) that would help change the meta rather than bashing tier-1 decks you think are no-fun.
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1