sure you can play alot of decks and the format is diverse(tm) but it takes more than diversity to make a format good. magic is a game and if the game play is enjoyable to a majority of players ( i may not be in the majority)shouldn't that be reason for concern. also when did i mention having success with a deck im not sure what you are getting at. its not about interactive or non interactive, its about the average game being worth the time and money of a modern tournament. games coming down solely to sideboard cards, fast mana creating non games, burning inquiry being played in a tier 1 deck, are these not legitimate? people complain about bad game play because there are legitimate complaints. first popularity does not mean something is "good" or the 'best' . second modern has been the most popular format for years now (since 2012 i believe) just on the virtue of it being a semi affordable non rotating format. with standard being pretty bad over the last 2 years and legacy being prohibitively expensive, modern is going to be the most popular by default.
If those complaints were describing actual Modern problems on a significant scale, that would be cause for concern. Thankfully, this is not the case. We see this both anecdotally and more scientifically. Anecdotally, I can say that as a regular MTGO player I see even polarized matchups decided by far more than just who draws their SB cards. This often boils down to small decisions that we forget because we're fixated on typical Modern memes like "T3 Karn kappa" or "GG mulled to 4 no Leyline F6." Decisions like when to mulligan and when to keep, what to hit with your one removal spell, what outs to play into, etc. make a huge difference. We also see this all the time at high-level games. Twitch chat tends to remember memes like T3 Karn into scoop phase, but then doesn't remember tight matchups like Spirits vs. Humans that might seem like aggro slugfests on paper but boil down to tight decisions over many turns.
Scientifically, we have strong reason to suggest this is not true because the top Modern players do as good in Modern as in Legacy, have the same MWP ceiling as in Legacy, and perform consistently in Modern across multiple events. If Modern was just a SB lottery high variance mess, we would see the best Modern players doing worse in Modern than low-variance formats like Standard, and we would see their Modern performance ceiling fall relative to their ceiling in other formats. We do not see this. So unless we think that top Modern players are just luckier than other Modern players, it seems much more likely that there is much more to stable Modern success than just random Burning Inquiry draws.
We've seen these Modern complaints for years, especially since Twin got banned. These complaints were absolutely true in 2016, which is why Wizards acted so decisively in the early 2017 B&R update. They have not been true since then.
im not saying skill doesn't matter or that modern is more luck based than other constructed formats. the scenarios i listed do happen though and too me with too much frequency. i just cant justify spending tournament entry and hours of time simply for the opportunity to have a series of awful games regardless of who wins or loses. maybe i just look at magic with more scrutiny but the potential reward vs the cost is awful.
sure theres a ton of decks but there its kinda getting there on a technicality. like how different are hollow one, dredge and dredgevine really? idk to me most of the decks that are competitively viable create such a unrewarding play experience and i don't value deck diversity as much as rewarding and engaging games of magic
These kinds of complaints were sketchy 6 months ago and just groundless today. There are plenty of viable interactive decks that lead to this kind of gameplay. Similarly, the format is healthy and has been healthy for over 1.5 years. You can play all archetypes, including midrange and control, and have just as good of a chance at making T8 at any event as any other deck. This is particularly true at the levels I'm sure most of us play at, i.e. locally and on MTGO. We see this time and time again at everything from local 50 player events to MTGO Challenges, Classics and comparable regional events (e.g. Hareruya, F2F, MKM, etc.), and Opens and GP. For all the flak it gets, Humans, probably the pound for pound best Modern deck, as a disruptive, interactive deck that can play tempo and aggro roles. Not to mention UW, Jeskai, and Mardu. Top tier Modern has plenty of rich, skill-testing games.
If one is not having success with these decks, especially at any event short of a giant GP where lots can happen and byes are critical, the fault is with the pilot, not the format. Interactive decks are viable. If you play them, you will have lots of interactive games.
I just don't understand how people look at recent events and see significant factors to complain about like bad gameplay experience. Complaining about Ancient Stirrings' legality? Yeah, I get that based on 2018 results so far. Complaining about how SFM is STILL banned? Makes sense. But conplaining about the Modern experience after a 1.5+ year stretch without bans in an era where Modern is HANDS DOWN the most popular format by views and attendance? It's puzzling.
sure you can play alot of decks and the format is diverse(tm) but it takes more than diversity to make a format good. magic is a game and if the game play is enjoyable to a majority of players ( i may not be in the majority)shouldn't that be reason for concern. also when did i mention having success with a deck im not sure what you are getting at. its not about interactive or non interactive, its about the average game being worth the time and money of a modern tournament. games coming down solely to sideboard cards, fast mana creating non games, burning inquiry being played in a tier 1 deck, are these not legitimate? people complain about bad game play because there are legitimate complaints. first popularity does not mean something is "good" or the 'best' . second modern has been the most popular format for years now (since 2012 i believe) just on the virtue of it being a semi affordable non rotating format. with standard being pretty bad over the last 2 years and legacy being prohibitively expensive, modern is going to be the most popular by default.
sure theres a ton of decks but there its kinda getting there on a technicality. like how different are hollow one, dredge and dredgevine really? idk to me most of the decks that are competitively viable create such a unrewarding play experience and i don't value deck diversity as much as rewarding and engaging games of magic
Not really I dont think. There is obviously power in sideboards, but if you are playing one of the good decks, you seemingly have game against a wide range of other top level decks.
is that true because most of the top decks are racing past each other so you just get there from winning die rolls
To a point, but I mean we watch (and play) a lot of sideboard cards, but the good decks have game naturally. There is a reason Ben with UWR has 3 Settles in his main deck right now, for example.
so we are at play various linear graveyard or artifact deck, uw control, humans, tron and maybe mardu pyromancer it seems
Not really I dont think. There is obviously power in sideboards, but if you are playing one of the good decks, you seemingly have game against a wide range of other top level decks.
is that true because most of the top decks are racing past each other so you just get there from winning die rolls
are we in or approaching a battle of sideboards in modern? we have had multiple new, linear, hyper aggressive graveyard and artifact decks become competitive over the past year. this also explains why uw control is doing well. they can utilize the restrictive white sideboard cards along with removal that doesn't put creatures in the graveyard.
are we in or approaching a battle of sideboards in modern? multiple linear graveyard and artifact decks have entered the competitive scene. it also helps explain why uw control has been performing well as it can run very specific sideboard cards along with a wrath that doesn't put creatures back in the graveyard
I've been looking around a bit last night. Does anyone else have any input on the idea that green is under-represented in modern right now in the top deck line up? I tend to be bigger on FNM level play than the top level these days and I know people still play a lot of green decks at that level. I haven't heard of a lot of top lists being primarily green though, and seeing the decay on Tarmogoyf prices on the second hand market appears to indicate that the pro scene for green is a tad stagnant.
Well, green has the best creatures and mana acceleration... but how many of the top decks are actually looking at casting creatures? Humans is the only such deck, the only creature deck disruptive enough to push through the Combo/Tron/Control gauntlet. Bridgevine and Hollow One are cheating creatures into play, Jund is pretty bad against the decks that are at the top of Modern and Titanshift is far too slow against the other combo decks.
Frankly, who is scared of Tarmogoyf nowadays, when you can have over 10 power on the board on turn 1 or 2, or Karn or a combo on turn 3? Green decks are too fair for Modern.
Given the assessments I've seen elsewhere, I'm now really starting to think they may try to unban GSZ in the near future. At this point searching out a green creature in particular is only of interest to a few decks: Ponza, Nikthos, and possibly Stompy to name a few. Right now Jeskai, Grixis, and UW are the major representation in modern.
i actually think gsz is a great card to unban that has gotten a bad rap. most modern players have been noting a decline in green creature decks (zoo, company decks, some would consider abzan)this is due to multiple reasons. fatal push was a big blow green creature decks particularly zoo. meta shifting to more combo decks they cant race or interact with and control decks playing more "wraths" like terminus you cant play around. gsz has many critics but most of the complaints against the card aren't valid or can be applied to cards currently legal. unbanning gsz means fair green creature decks can possibly come back
while I wouldn't say green is great in modern, it does have decks even if they aren't typical green decks as most are creature combo. now you could argue that green decks aren't very good and and that is reasonable but at least green has some decks compared to white. white is mostly a sideboard color and path to exile at the moment. i will say though the more powerful a format gets the more green and white tend to suffer. its going to be interesting to see if green and white stay relevant in modern in the coming years
idk about twin and all the other bans and unbans people have been talking about but i have really soured on modern. the tier 1 decks are all just miserable to play and play against to me. i really want to like modern but the games just arent rewarding or enjoyable. i get that this is subjective and there is no denying the diversity but most of the actual games after the bbe and jace hyped died down are just races. maybe I just dont see the redeemable qualities.
yeah this top 8 and to a certain extent top 16 was pretty miserable. hopefully sfm and gsz and maybe even twin can come off but im not sure wotc wants to even touch those cards. its pretty apparent to me that the best decks right now are the ones that either blank interaction, circumvent the mana system or both. this is my biggest concern, it just seems the way they design cards now and in the recent past is suspect
color balance in modern and how you categorize decks in colors is a very strange beast. i dont think one can argue that white isn't the worst color. sure death and taxes will do well in a tournament every now and then but i dont really think that disproves the claim as a whole. good tournament finishes shouldn't be discounted but you have to look at the meta game as a whole. remember skred won a gp and yet skred isnt really part of the meta. i also think its a little disingenuous to call humans a white weenie deck. sure it has white cards but the deck is firmly a 5 color tribal beatdown strategy, i mean just look at its mana base. its more like a disruptive zoo deck than white weenie. green is a little tougher to breakdown. now many decks in modern play green but i wouldn't necessarily call them green decks, tron comes to mind. i think a great example of a thematically green deck is the todd stevens gw value town deck, lots of forests and green creatures with no combo. where it gets a little murky is stuff like 3 color midrange decks (jund) or linear decks that happen to play green ( bogles and infect). now i wouldn't call them green decks but i can see how some one could come to that conclusion. i also think categorizing decks by color in a non rotation fetchland format is pointless, as most colors having many different archetypes and strategies. while i would like more unbans is dont think that unbanning things according to the perceived weakness of a color is a good precedent to set. does unbanning sfm actually help white decks? I would argue it helps blue more similarly to the same way tarmogoyf helps black midrange decks. not all banned cards are like this though such as gsz. i dont think there is any getting around gsz helping green decks in a green way. it important to mention that while ponder and preordain are banned for making decks too consistent comparing them to gsz isn't really fair. gsz doesnt enable fast hard to interact with combo kills like ponder and preordain, while also going in far fewer decks. i am looking forward to seeing what the next set of unbans are in the coming months/years if we get any
the unbans gave me a reason to brew and play decks that were terrible or non existent prior. granted this is almost certainly temporary. it was also looking like tron was the best deck prior to the unbans. not that i hate tron but if tron is the deck im gonna play against the most in a format i will just find something else to do with my time as most games against tron and decks similar to it are just kinda boring to me. i would much rather have jund be the best deck
im not saying skill doesn't matter or that modern is more luck based than other constructed formats. the scenarios i listed do happen though and too me with too much frequency. i just cant justify spending tournament entry and hours of time simply for the opportunity to have a series of awful games regardless of who wins or loses. maybe i just look at magic with more scrutiny but the potential reward vs the cost is awful.
sure you can play alot of decks and the format is diverse(tm) but it takes more than diversity to make a format good. magic is a game and if the game play is enjoyable to a majority of players ( i may not be in the majority)shouldn't that be reason for concern. also when did i mention having success with a deck im not sure what you are getting at. its not about interactive or non interactive, its about the average game being worth the time and money of a modern tournament. games coming down solely to sideboard cards, fast mana creating non games, burning inquiry being played in a tier 1 deck, are these not legitimate? people complain about bad game play because there are legitimate complaints. first popularity does not mean something is "good" or the 'best' . second modern has been the most popular format for years now (since 2012 i believe) just on the virtue of it being a semi affordable non rotating format. with standard being pretty bad over the last 2 years and legacy being prohibitively expensive, modern is going to be the most popular by default.
so we are at play various linear graveyard or artifact deck, uw control, humans, tron and maybe mardu pyromancer it seems
is that true because most of the top decks are racing past each other so you just get there from winning die rolls
i actually think gsz is a great card to unban that has gotten a bad rap. most modern players have been noting a decline in green creature decks (zoo, company decks, some would consider abzan)this is due to multiple reasons. fatal push was a big blow green creature decks particularly zoo. meta shifting to more combo decks they cant race or interact with and control decks playing more "wraths" like terminus you cant play around. gsz has many critics but most of the complaints against the card aren't valid or can be applied to cards currently legal. unbanning gsz means fair green creature decks can possibly come back