MTG Salvation

Quote from The Dead Weatherman

The fact that blue is doing badly is because of the apathy. There have been many playable control brews on this very forum that work quite well but never take off. I was just telling Worm the other day how the problem is this apathy - the absence of flow of ideas and the championing of self-defeating memes.

It's a nice idea, but it's just wholly unsupported by all recent evidence. To my knowledge, there is no player from any level who has enjoyed consistent, recent success with a Modern control deck. There have been a lot of attempts with a lot of testing behind those attempts, but no results to speak of. When I used to track all MTGO results, not just those posted on the mothership, I saw a bunch of control brews go 2-2, 1-3, 0-2 drop, etc. In many instances, they were piloted by the same players week on end, but it very rarely (if ever) paid off with Daily finishes.

The other issue with your argument is that it's basically nonfalsifiable. We say "there is zero evidence of control in the format; look at all this data!" You say "well, control (like the truth) is out there somewhere, we just haven't found it." That argument is equally applicable to any other archetype in the format. The same could definitely be said of aggro, which you maintain is doing poorly, but by most metrics is actually doing okay. Like Wizards, I prefer my arguments to be based on data, not on rhetoric.

Comment Hidden

Comment Hidden

Quote from Valanarch

It would be a good choice, but I don't think that it would be better than reprinting the original fetchlands.

I don't think Modern needs any more 3+ color good stuff decks unless we are also getting some quality nonbasic hatred that is better than Tec Edge. Whether that's Back to Basics (strong, fair, but limited), Price of Progress (probably too strong and definitely not very fair), Ruination (personal favorite but also a bit color limiting), or something else, we need the hate before we expand the manabase.

I've been reading along but haven't posted much, but I did want to chime in on this issue of the unfair vs. the fair format.

I respect that some players want a fair format and others want a format with more unfair interactions. That's all a matter of player preference and although I lean only slightly towards the "unfair" side of things, I see where both camps are coming from.

But the issue with Modern is that the format was not advertised or described as either a fair or unfair format. In fact, it just wasn't really described as much at all. It was just advertised as a new non-rotating format that wouldn't have the card availability issues of Legacy. The introductory articles, all by Tom LaPille, talked at length about the banlist, but not about the format's goals. Sure, the format would represent newer sets and newer interactions, but what did that all mean? Many players would likely have read Wizards' introduction to Modern and expected a format that was hospitable to all decktypes. And many other players would have read into this and assumed that a fairer format than Legacy was coming. Either way, the meaning of the Modern forum was ambiguous from day one, and that has caused problems ever since.

That's really where all the Modern issues come from. Players still aren't sure what the format means and what kind of decks are okay in it. We have dozens of posters, myself included, who have combed through countless pages, twitter feeds, podcasts, and videos just looking for small grains of truth about the format. That's fine for historians and university researchers, but terrible for customers who are trying to figure out their product. It's a bad way for Wizards to do business, and an equally bad way for them to create unified expectations of the format.

So long as these basic sorts of questions remain unanswered, and/or the answers aren't publicly available, then Modern will remain a divisive format with inconsistent support, popularity, and opinions.

Of course, this isn't to suggest that Wizards has all these answers. It is very possible that the powers-that-be in Seattle don't even know the meaning of Modern. It might be an evolving entity whose direction remains unspecified. Or it might just be that Wizards hasn't identified this lack of clarity and needs to get its rear in gear to publish some answers. Either way, the solution seems simple to me: Wizards needs to be make it very clear about what Modern means and what cards/decks it should contain.

Quote from Poopingmypants

If I see this correctly there is a turn 2 win in this deck? You would have a ton of Forests in your deck but still. This deck would just love an unbanned Chrome Mox.

I've never won on turn 2 even though I have cast a turn 1 Belcher for a turn 2 activation (that didn't hit for lethal). But I have seen turn 3 lethal activations with this in real games, but it is very inconsistent. It's a solidly turn 4 combo deck but, what makes it strong, is how hard it is to interact with the Belcher win condition and how resilient your gameplan is to conventional discard/countermagic/removal.

Oh, and Chrome Mox would be obscene in this deck. Although at this point I would rather have Nature's Lore.

Quote from rxavage

I agree, lets only be hypocritical when it suits us.

Agreeing with someone when they're right and disagreeing with them when they're wrong is not hypocritical. It's simply using your brain and not being a mindless sheep.

Comment Hidden

Quote from Beat

To me it seems that the people who are upset at speculators are upset that the speculators can get their hobby to pay for itself but they can't .

I understand if that is how it appears to you, but let me explain why I feel the way I do about speculators.

In 2007 my wife and I started looking to buy a home. We weren't interested in trying to "flip" it, as was extremely popular at the time. We just wanted a nice place to live and not just throw away money on rent.

We stated our price range and were shown various houses and apartments. I was appalled at the condition of these places. There was no way that these places could be worth $175k! But the realtors kept assuring me that yes, this is the nature of things, and that the housing market is only going to keep going up because "land is finite".

I said hell no, something is wrong with the system. I didn't know what it was, but I knew that it was way off from what I was shown and the "value" I was told they were worth. I did think it was odd that they never cared to see my W2 at the bank when we inquired about a loan. We kept renting.

Do you remember what happened that later that year, and the years that followed? The market crashed. There were speculators, basically, that were manipulating the market to grab cash. People were duped into believing they could afford houses well above their standard of living, and it was partly their fault because they didn't second-guess it. They wanted to believe that the banks were right. The "stock" got handed off to other people who thought they were good investments. When it crashed, it was a big game of hot-potato with stocks and mortgages.

So what's happening now? Let's consider how much it costs, real world, to make Magic cards. WotC pays for the R&D, the materials, the work of printing, the packaging, etc. Did it really cost WotC upwards of $100 to design and print Tarmogoyfs? Seriously, now.

The market is being managed under the idea that artificial inflation is a good thing. And maybe it is, to a degree. But let's be realistic about the value of some of these pieces of cardboard. So if someone comes along that can offer the same product with somewhat equal quality, what happens to the market? Can people really afford these prices? I'm sure some can, sure, but just as the majority of the people who went under due to the weight of their mortgage during the housing bubble, there are people playing right now, paying for these cards at these prices, that are essentially not being fiscally responsible.

I am at well above the poverty line, and I will be debt free at retirement at the age of 42 in just under nine years. I am a minority in the world, and I can't reasonably afford the prices of staple cards in this game. So what is the financial outlook for people who aren't in the minority, like myself? And what effect will the future of those consumers of Magic product mean for the game itself?

At some point someone will come along with an equal product, quality wise (like the recent Chinese counterfeiters), and what will WotC and the secondary market do? That's a big game of hot-potato with the cards, except there will be no government assistance for Magic the Gathering. That will be people who own our LGS eating the debt and trying to figure out how to get their business to survive. That's a whole lot of speculators, who will then claim they were just "players trying to make their hobby pay for itself", getting very upset at something that will then be out of their control.

It's not a question of if it will happen, it's when, because Magic cards are not that difficult to make. Maybe WotC has already recognized this, and thus the reasoning behind MM and this recently announced Modern Event Deck. Maybe they're trying to ease down the prices. But they are racing against time, racing against when the counterfeits will start flooding the market.

EDIT - I like to do more than just point out what I see as problems. I like to provide solutions.

It is possible that WotC could start reprinting cards to drive down the prices of Vintage, Legacy, and Modern staples. They would have to do some insane guestimating to figure out how many, exactly, to print and distribute. If they distribute too much, the secondary market and LGS's take the brunt of the hit. They could forewarn the LGS's, but then the LGS's would likely hold a fire sale to minimize losses. That means handing off the hot potato to the players, who would likely be very, very unhappy at that point. If they print too little, then it would have a negligible effect on the market, and they're still in the race with high-quality counterfeiters.

But there is an alternative, where the LGS's, WotC, and players are relatively happy. Special events could be held, and gold-bordered (non-playable in sanctioned events) staples could be offered as alternative prizes for attendance, winnings, and various special challenges. Attendance would be the only way to get these cards, initially (I'm sure some would hit Ebay quickly after the initial distribution), which would be good for both the LGS's and WotC. Players would get to choose their prizes, based on their preference, and allow players to play how they wish.

There is the problem that some LGS's may try to make a quick buck and just sell off this special product immediately rather than offer them as prizes. Of course, I for one know that I would be much more likely to attend a LGS where I could possibly get these staples just for attending and playing than one that does not offer this special bonus to me. That, and the LGS would be risking adverse consequences from WotC.

Hi,

So 2 of my user names are The_Great_Dustini and Noobie7. As I have noticed, this thread has discussed the Borderpost-less Restore Balance build, based off of suspend cards, that I have been working on. This makes me very happy, because the deck is a lot of fun. It is powerful and mulligans very well. It rarely loses when it draws Gargadon (over 50% of games, including added % from mulligans), and it has a decent shot at winning even when it doesn't draw GG. The main strategy is to wipe the opponent's creatures and hand, not destroy their lands. If GG lets you do that too, great, but it's usually not necessary. Boom/Bust gives you the armageddon option for those decks that are land based (e.g. scapeshift or tron).

I don't see the need for Nihilith at all. There are perfectly fine win cons in the other 4 colors. I can understand the drive to have more consistent cascaders, but the odds are pretty good already, especially when you consider that Sand-Mage can speed up a naturally suspended restore balance. Sand-Mage plus Balance plus Gargadon means you are going off on turn 4 even without a cascade spell. I'm going back and forth between 25 land (15GW) and 24 land (14GW). The 24 land build lets it fit in the 4th Sand Mage, which has been a useful card in many ways. However, having the right colors early is important, and a deck that wipes all lands often wants to draw land after that point. This last card is the only question for me at this point.

Regardless, glad to see people are thinking about the deck and I hope you play it because, again, it's loads of fun

Here's a brief history of my version that raised recent interest. This is the list spanky_kc played the following day to 4-0 the DE.

Kaas' cascade balance list from Magic-League is the inspiration for this borderless version. His list isn't built to focus on the armageddon aspect. Rather, it attempts to mind twist the opponent so that they're left in topdeck mode to find an answer to a threat on the board.

From his comments:

"for the 'easily recovering' part. I think you're better off when your opponent is in topdeck-for-removal-mode than topdeck-for-land-mode. Because removal is very cheap nowadays. if you're opponent can keep 1 path to exile in hand, and only needs to topdeck 1 land, then you're *****ed if you don't have more than 2 creatures. Topdecking removal is harder to do, takes longer, and gives you time to recover as well, which is not so difficult if you already have 2 land or something or a suspended search for tomorrow, or a coalition relic."

For further commentary, I also found this interview a few days ago, which may be an interesting read for anyone interested in his take.

Sometime around RTR's release, I decided to take play around with Kaas' template to port it to a jund manabase. The keyrunes seemed like an upgrade to the coalition relics and cutting the 5-color manabase to 3 provided the room to add man lands. This added 5 additional threats that didn't count towards having a creature in play, increasing the opportunity to capitalize on damage after a balance. In the control match ups, it also punished players for wasting a turn on counter spell mana (or in the case of key runes, wasting counters on irrelevant spells or risk losing tempo and invalidating tax counters). Always consider using a Simian Spirit Guide to play a turn 2 keyrune. Decreasing your hand size pre-balance is a good thing in most matchups.

Despite having access to 11 cascade spells and a more consistent ability to suspend balance if drawn, I didn't like the idea of using gemstone mines. True, they do whittle down your land count when you balance, but in the control match ups you often wanted the land in play for the reasons above. 3 lands in play and a suspended Nihilith quickly puts a lot of pressure on rwu players. 6 in play and a Nihilith coming off suspend threatens to pay for the counter and potentially follow up with a more lethal cascade spell.

In my initial versions, I did try Liliana. The discard ability seemed good, but it wasn't the greatest since it was another symmetric effect. After all, if you're going to balance, you want to come out ahead on at least 2 of the 3 cases. Both players having empty hand sizes when balance resolved happened more than I would have liked. In addition, Liliana as removal was just that - a 3 mana removal spell that maybe fogged some damage. In both cases, balance is trying to do the same thing. Versus Jund, it was nice being able to wipe their Liliana but also annoying when your option is to let them sac a Bob or Deathrite and letting the 'Goyf in play gain an additional +1/+1.

Beast Within was also tested, naturally, given the proven synergy with the jund suite of cascade spells. However, similar to Liliana, it targeted card types that Restore Balance was supposed to handle. Vs. Aggro, trading an early drop for a 3/3 didn't give you the time that you wanted to draw into a cascader, and hitting a land vs. control pre-cascade came up less frequently than getting jammed with multiple Beast Withins in hand.

It was because of these constant awkward hands that I tried adding the cyclers. Having played Living End enough times to know the limited choices of cmc 3 or more spells and that plan 'B', which is playing them as threats, is a valid option for wins, it seemed like a good idea. Misleading the opponent to deck archetype is a bonus.

I'll try to follow up with a post about match ups later. I've had better results playing vs. rwu than what's discussed here and a few other discrepancies that's worth noting, but I've run out of time. Anyway, I thought bringing up the path to this version was worth adding to the thread.

Quote from bocephus

Because you would make 2 fringe decks top notch decks. Which in turn would warp what other decks have to play to combat those T1 decks. So more or less, the definition of meta warping.

Okay, I think I'm finally starting to understand your point of view here. What's happening is that we have fundamentally different definitions of "warping" which is skewing our ability to communicate properly.

When I say a deck is "format warping," I mean to say that the meta has devolved into state where you either play Deck A, or you play a deck specifically built to beat Deck A. Caw Blade is the perfect example of this: you either played Caw Blade or you played a deck to beat Caw Blade. There was no in-between (unless you just liked losing a lot).

When you say a deck is "format warping," you mean to say that it causes the metagame to shift because of its presence. A new deck can't suddenly jump into tier one without causing a metagame disruption, and you use the word "warp" to describe that shift.

The trouble is, I don't believe most people share your definition of the word "warp." When you say "warp," I think most people read that you're claiming that Faeries would become an oppressive force on the format. If you're just claiming that unbanning Bitterblossom would cause a metagame shift, then you and I agree on that.

That being said, I don't believe that's necessarily a bad thing. The format is going to be constantly shifting, and I don't believe that Bitterblossom's reintroduction would be a negative impact on the future of Modern. Sure, maybe Jund plays more Abrupt Decay than it does now, and maybe we see some Volcanic Fallouts or Illness in the Ranks hit sideboards, but that doesn't mean that the format has gotten worse because of it.