Some Thoughts Upon the Past Months
Modern forum
Posted on March 23, 2015, 10:01 p.m. by CanadianShinobi
The logic that the Modern meta is fine because nothing is dominating is erroneous. Everything being nice and status, is precisely the problem. By banning Dig and Cruise, Wizards brought the meta game backwards. Hell, I could accept Cruise getting banned, because at least I can see viable traces of logic there, but the banning of Dig was asinine, because it was based on faulty reasoning that had and now will never have any contradicting or supporting evidence.
Arguably the meta is not fine. I would argue that if a meta is stale and stagnant that it is not thriving. The current meta lacks energy and diversity. Yes, diversity. We have midrange, combo and... aggro. And we have only one viable combo deck, several midrange decks and a the usually aggro decks. We're missing something though... hmmmm could it be Control, or hell even Tempo? By golly gee I think it is!
The existence of Wizards in a vacuum is absurd. Someone can tell me that Abzan isn't nearly as bad as Pod or Delver for the percentage of the meta game, but at least the meta game back then, about 4-5 months ago? Was energetic. I'd rather play against Pod than Abzan Midrange, because Pod actually requires my opponent to know what they are doing. Abzan is just a bunch of goodstuff crammed into 75 slots.
When entire archetypes are removed due to poor foresight and poor logical decision making then is it not reasonable to ask for change? I am more than well aware that as a TCG Company, Wizards is in no way inclined to even consider my arguments. I am aware that Trading Card Games are asymmetrical in terms of accessibility. I am aware of these things and more, but that does not mean I, and perhaps others, cannot be angry and frustrated with these things.
What I expect is to discuss whether or not the format is healthy. Truly, undeniably healthy. You have my reasons here for why it is not. I see it as stagnant and a step backwards. We have seen this meta before. The last bans were problematic. That there has been no change to day furthers this problem.
CanadianShinobi says... #3
The alternative is to begin to unban things, or as I have widely suggested multiple times over the past months (especially after the bans) that Wizards begins to take responsibility for Modern as a format and test before jumping to conclusions.
The latter solution is perhaps slightly ludicrous, but I truly believe that if you want a format to be healthy you need to have a diversity of decks. Prior to the bans of Dig and Cruise we had this diversity. Yes, there were dominant decks, there will always be dominant decks, but we also had at least a reasonable representation of other archetypes.
March 23, 2015 10:12 p.m.
GlistenerAgent says... #4
Unfortunately, no changes today. I really was excited for Dig Through Time re-entering the format.
With regards to the health of the format: It's completely fine. The Pod and Delver decks were becoming just as "goodstuff"-oriented as Abzan is today. Pod players were playing at minimum 3 Siege Rhinos (sometimes 4) in addition to having access to a literally unbeatable source of card advantage for any non-combo deck. It also had tools to beat those combo decks. I'll point out that Abzan players also need to know what they're doing, and the deck is just about as hard to pilot optimally as Pod.
Pre-bannings, the only major archetype that was different was combo. Now, the combo decks are receding but that allows for more interesting games to watch. Combo is my favorite archetype to play, but Scapeshift can get boring to watch, and in general cards that win the game on the spot are not good for an enjoyable Modern viewing or playing experience.
Sometimes it's correct to take a step backwards. Before Khans of Tarkir became legal, the format was excellent. It really was. Moving back to that time with some new additions to the format is a really good place to be, especially since people don't have to worry about awful play experiences. Playing against Abzan and Twin will almost guarantee an interesting matchup with lots of back and forth and decisions. When you're up against Pod and Delver, the situatino of "do you have it?" comes up a great deal more, making for much more luck-based matches than I feel comfortable with.
March 23, 2015 10:17 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #5
"Moving back to that time with some new additions to the format is a really good place to be, especially since people don't have to worry about awful play experiences."
GlistenerAgent I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you. To me moving backwards is a means to crush innovation. And what new additions do we have to the format? Additions that are actually competing, Bloom Titan? What else? Control and Tempo are virtually nonexistent. Hell, Blue as a colour is virtually non existent unless we count Twin. How is any of this justifiable? Does it not just present a status quo that people don't want to change. Because that's how it feels. As a player who has lost confidence in the management of this format it seriously seems as if innovation is taboo.
And furthermore, there was not enough time to validate the banning of Cruise or Dig (especially Dig). Pod, well... that conversation should have been had long before Rhino, and it was. Rhino was not the card that "broke" Pod.
March 23, 2015 10:28 p.m.
FreddyFlash311 says... #6
For context, where are you not seeing a diversity of decks? Your local shop? MTGO? Major events you've been to? Taking that a step further, what's your definition of a reasonable representation of other archetypes?
I'm not being a smartass for once, for the record.
Just as an easy-to-access reference, I checked the last 5 Modern Dailies I saw listed on mtgtop8. I don't take that site as the gospel, don't think that please, but it's a nice and easy reference I can look at while I'm at work. Below's just the names of the lists as they're shown on the site, with how many times I saw them.
Affinity (x2)
Grixis Delve
UR Aggro (x2)
Twin Exarch (x3)
Jund (x3)
Martyr Life
Mono Green Aggro
UR Storm
Burn (x4)
Infect
UWR Midrange (x2)
Ad Nauseam (x3)
Gift Tron
Snow Red
Junk
Selesnya Junk
Bloom Titan
Dredgevine
I didn't look through decklists, nor did I pay attention to the names of whom ran the decks. Be that as it may, for 5 Dailies I think that's acceptably diverse. I know there was at least one event with 2 burn decks in the top 8, and Burn (at least in my opinion) has a bit of a stigma as an extremely popular deck to be played on MTGO.
I obviously can't speak for your local area but I'd say that list above is acceptable. If it makes you feel better, my local did a GP trial a few weeks back and seriously at least 2/3's of the decks were control decks. It was irksome, my abrupt decays had much fewer targets than I'd like
March 23, 2015 10:35 p.m.
GlistenerAgent says... #7
Rhino was the card that broke it. Not many cards made it to 3 of in Pod, and Rhino was one of them. Before that, Scapeshift could beat the crap out of it because of its slow clock. Rhino let you cut the combo and have an aggro-midrange plan that beat the combo decks that preyed on you while losing even less to the other midrange and aggro decks.
If you're leaving a broken format, it's not a hampering of innovation.
About Blue: If you're playing blue, or any color really, you need a reason. If your opponent is Thoughtseizeing you and playing midrange cards, you need to go over the top. Blue isn't always the best suited to doing that. Once people realize that they need to play decks that beat Abzan (Tron, certain Scapeshift builds, Bloom Titan, Infect), then the blue decks that have a normally easy time with those decks can cycle in. It's a developing metagame, and I think it's developing fine.
The argument would be that the format hasn't shifted in such a way since the PT. That's just a part of the fact that Modern has incredible versatility with regards to maindeck and sideboard options, and thus Abzan is able to beat many shifts. However, people are already discovering with Twin and Burn how to change their decks to more easily beat the Abzan matchup.
March 23, 2015 10:38 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #8
FreddyFlash311 Top8 bothers me as a source for how it divides and classifies decks.
Anyway,I actually play via MTGO (for various reasons), but my thoughts and feelings come from the observation of various levels of play. I realize that within my statements there are elements of bias, but I do think it is problematic that Wizards has been rather arbitrary of late in its handling of Modern.
Epochalyptik said something in another thread, but I feel it is appropriate here as well:
"Adaptation is fine, and it's what will happen. The thing is, though, "adapt" is a legitimate response only if the change was a legitimate change. Say WOTC changes planeswalker rules so that there's no more damage redirection because they decide they want players to get more out of planeswalkers, and now the only course of action is to attack to kill them. That's a change that only serves a feel-good purpose and actually harms the health of the game by shutting down a legitimate solution to a threat. How would you feel? Same if they banned combo in EDH because they felt it ended the game too soon. That's a whole archetype gone so the Timmies can feel better. That's the kind of precedent we're looking at, here."
I suspect that Epochalyptik will disagree with my sentiments and i'm sure he will provide excellent data for why I am objectionably wrong. However, from my observations and research I do think it is troublesome that not only are the Magic Community is okay with the meta, but that it seems to welcome this meta. A meta, as I will continue to state: is stale and devoid of innovation.
The only exciting deck I have seen is an Esper Mentor deck, but its small glimmer of light.
March 23, 2015 10:45 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #9
This, while slightly outdated does address several of the concerns that I have expressed here. If you skip to the 24 Minute mark they begin discussing what I feel is relevant.
March 23, 2015 10:49 p.m.
This arguement that the format was diverse before the bans never made sense to me. How does 2 decks comprising of nearly 40% of the meta Seem diverse?
I have a Feeling somewhere down the road we may see dig unbanned for a while, but it's honestly better for the meta to have bAnned both at the same time so the "diverse??" Meta would shift. It wasn't diverse, math proves that.
March 23, 2015 10:49 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #11
I said that in a thread about Commander changes, which are managed by the RC, not WOTC. I don't follow Modern at all, so I can neither confirm nor criticize anyone's stance on the matter at hand in this discussion.
That said, I trust WOTC a whole hell of a lot more than I trust the RC, and they generally do make calls that improve the health of the format. If the last bans really made for an unhealthy format, then expect additional bans or unbans to help diversify the format as it becomes clear that the intended effect was not achieved before.
March 23, 2015 10:50 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #12
GoofyFoot"This arguement that the format was diverse before the bans never made sense to me. How does 2 decks comprising of nearly 40% of the meta Seem diverse?"
Firstly it wasn't 40%. Secondly, if you recall Jund, that deck dominated to greater extents than either Pod and Delver combined before anything was done to cut it down to size.
As I have said, I can accept Pod and Cruise being banned. However, the problem with the Cruise and Dig banning is that not enough time was given to see if they would be degenerate. Then the reasoning behind the Dig banning was arbitrary and asinine. That we will never know the result of what banning Pod alone would have done is the greatest disappointment in all this.
I admit, I wrote the OP in a state of high emotion and bitterness, but that does not necessarily mean I have made invalid assertions.
March 23, 2015 10:56 p.m.
GlistenerAgent says... #13
Except it was close to 40%. 30-35 at the very least. Anyway, what's done is done with both Pod/Delver and Jund in the past. Comparing them doesn't accomplish much.
I agree that banning Dig Through Time specifically was asinine. The decks that used it were inherently more interactive archetypes. Cruise, on the other hand, was breaking Legacy. It needed to go in Modern, because in this format it was doing inane things and building up decks that are inherently linear.
March 23, 2015 11 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #14
Yes, what's done is done, however as I stated that doesn't mean what was done was a good idea. We'll go around in circles at this point. I'm exhausted and currently the only one around providing a case for this and am doing so in fashion not up to my regular standards. Perhaps I'll pick this debate up tomorrow.
Overall it just seems to be a sad state of affairs.
March 23, 2015 11:04 p.m.
lemmingllama says... #15
The meta is healthy. We are seeing a lot of variance in decks being played, and there are several brews that are being playtested and refined to fit the current meta, like Sultai Control and Gifts Tron.
I currently want Dig Through Time unbanned, Bloodbraid Elf unbanned, and Sword of the Meek unbanned. Not because I hate the current meta, but because I believe that they would increase the health of the format even more. (I'm also not saying unban all at once, that could cause some crazy things to happen)
Also if you are currently dissatisfied with the meta, try making a deck that "breaks" the meta. Brewing is the best way to make a stale meta into a fun one again.
March 23, 2015 11:05 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #16
@ lemmingllama I have been trying. But there aren't any proper tools to do so. This is the problem with moving backward and having to rely on Wizards to hopefully print Modern relevant cards.
Esper Mentor is the closest I've seen and it just isn't good enough.
I prefer tempo and control, you only have so many options with that type of deck and as we've seen tempo and control are nonexistent. Dig would have helped this, I'm adamant about this and slightly obsessive with it, but serious. There's nothing to be excited for. People have been talking about Myth Realized but it needs a home and with the current tools available to Blue in the face of this meta, it isn't enough.
March 23, 2015 11:10 p.m.
selesvyaloverer8 says... #17
@CanadianShinobi What do you mean there is no blue in the meta? All of team pantheon brought infect to the pt, there were 2 twin decks in the top 8, scapeshift is doing fine. All the colors are represented and if anything blue is overrepresented or even. Case in point, lets look at the top decks in the format:
Scapeshift
Twin
Burn
Junk Midrange
Infect
Affinity
Bloom Titan (GU and not gurbw for the purposes of stats b/c those are the non-land colors)
4x green
4x blue decks
3x Red Decks
2x White decks
1x Black Decks
While those numbers are not exact due to differences in prevalences in decks, blue is played more than 3 of the 5 colors, and from checking stats on mtgtop8(which is not perfect i know) the % winners are
Junk-%15
RDW/Burn-%13
Twin-%12
Affinity-%8
Bloom Titan-%6
Infect-%5
Scapeshift-%3
Other fringe stuff-%38
So here we have:
Green in 29% of decks
Red in %28
White in %28
Blue in %26
Black in %15
So we can see that blue occupies a pretty even spot with the other colors while the only color really underrepresented is black, a color in the "dominant" jink midrange.
March 23, 2015 11:11 p.m.
GlistenerAgent says... #18
When one says blue decks, one does not mean decks with blue cards in them. Twin is a blue deck. Scapeshift is a blue deck. Jeskai Control is a blue deck. Amulet is not a blue deck. Infect is not a blue deck. It's a playstyle thing, not an actual color thing. Kinda like how Jund doesn't have to be a BRG colored deck.
March 23, 2015 11:14 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #19
selesvyaloverer8 source?
Also, I was strictly speaking in terms of Control and Tempo decks. They don't exist. Scapeshift and Twin are Combo decks and therefore do not fall under this particular classification.
Oh and according to your source Burn and Junk make up nearly 30% of the meta. Roughly what Delver and Pod had prior to the last bannings. Why is no one outraged over that? That seems like hypocrisy.
March 23, 2015 11:14 p.m.
UrbanAnathema says... #21
I think the problem specifically with 
and Wizards is that they are far too wary of letting it get too powerful as its very nature is to change the rules of the game. They consistently err on the side of weakness when it comes to in order to prevent game breaking dominance of strong color defining mechanics; specifically card draw and counterspells. My real issue with this latest ban is that while I don't necessarily disagree with the bans, (Though Wizards own explanation for banning Dig is moot since they didn't also ban it in Legacy.)
I do think that if Wizards was going to experiment with nerfed versions of banned mechanics, at least they should have given the experiment time to work itself out. Clearly they felt it was not having the desired result and warping the format in a way they didn't want. They are particularly knee jerk when it comes to . I just wish they gave it more time for significant data to be collected before acting, because now we'll never know.
March 23, 2015 11:19 p.m.
selesvyaloverer8 says... #22
source is here. The reason that people arent outraged is that burn and junk are "fair" decks and pod and delver werent. people like to be able do do their stuff and delver didnt let people do that as well as overwhelming card advantage. People dont like to be beat in the face by 3-4 siege rhinos a game every game as well as pod being a rediculous card advantage engine that shats upon every other creature deck.
March 23, 2015 11:22 p.m.
GlistenerAgent says... #23
Burn is a combo deck. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
March 23, 2015 11:27 p.m.
selesvyaloverer8 says... #24
forgot to say that this mindset may not be rational but its how magic players work.
March 23, 2015 11:27 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #25
selesvyaloverer8 Fair? That's fucking arbitrary bullshit reasoning. And I repeat Rhino did NOT break pod. Because nearly a year ago people were calling for the banning of Pod. Nearly a year ago people were having the same conversation that Pod was going to be too good. And then the meta adjusted. And then Rhino came and before the meta could possibly adjust they banned Pod after sucking people into the format. So no, that argument doesn't work when Wizards should have picked up on the conversation prior Rhino.
As for Delver. Just fucking no. Blue counters, bounces and draws. That is what Blue does. That is what Blue is meant to do. The fact that people don't like it is too fucking bad. It's part of the game. It is an integral part of the game and by those standards of being part of the game it is fair.
If Blue isn't fair because it doesn't let things get into play, then White isn't fair for exiling things. Black isn't fair for its removal and Red isn't fair for being able to directly damage a player. So don't fucking use the "it's not fair" argument, because that argument is irrelevant.
March 23, 2015 11:31 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #26
uhg... I hate forums some times because I missed your add on... selesvyaloverer8
March 23, 2015 11:32 p.m.
Wizards is probably afraid of letting get even close to a fraction of the power it holds in Legacy so they shit on it in Modern. Unfortunate to say the least but it _is_ warranted. The degree to which they lay their feces over the face of blue is debatable but I don't think anyone will say they hate it less than the other colors.
That itself is another discussion entirely but it does give some insight as to why there is a lack of true control decks in the format. You can't build control without blue, and if it's a weak color then it won't go far. And please, I'm not saying blue is a bad color, but it could be much more than what it is right now. You can't say that about green.
March 23, 2015 11:39 p.m.
UrbanAnathema says... #28
I think it's the question of timing CanadianShinobi. With the intended power creep of yet to be printed creatures, Pod was allowing the potential for creatures too big with too few answers available for balance, to be played too early for Wizards's taste. Same idea for Delve. Allowing blue to be way too blue, way too early. Not saying it's right, but that's the argument.
March 23, 2015 11:46 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #29
UrbanAnathema it's a poor argument. Stagnation really isn't a solution and that Wizards treats Modern in a vacuum is becoming less and less tolerable.
March 23, 2015 11:49 p.m.
UrbanAnathema says... #31
Particularly in the face of the fact that they didn't even give it time enough for data to be gathered to bolster said argument.
March 23, 2015 11:51 p.m.
selesvyaloverer8 says... #32
the problem wasnt that blue was being blue it was that blue was being blue with a rediculous card advantage source that could be cast 8 times a game. At worlds last year patrick chapin cast treasure cruise 5 times for a total of 15 cards for 5 mana that is vintage shit.
March 24, 2015 12:13 a.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #33
Again I can see the logic of Cruise being banned. I'm advocating however that having a stale meta is equally unhealthy as having a meta dominated by a select deck or two. Because it didn't take long for this current meta to emerge and DTK didn't give us anything worth using in Modern that will help change things up in a drastic way.
March 24, 2015 12:33 a.m.
Serendipitous_Hummingbird says... #34
Bloom Titan, Infect, and Twin are all tier 1-1.5 combo decks. Storm is one card away from beating everyone and everything.
Control needs reliable card draw to become a viable archetype (although BUG control has started to appear due to it's incidental lifegain allowing it to stabilize) but it is hard to give control draw without also boosting combo decks and bringing UR delver back to tier 1 (Notice how it is tier 1 with Ponder or Treasure Cruise but otherwise barely tier 2?)
Aggro is fine and healthy. Affinity is as reliable as one would expect machines to be, Junk is the deck to beat (and if there is a deck to beat it really should be a "fair" deck * cough * Birthing Pod * cough *, and burn is doing the linear burn thing and making everyone's overall experience less enjoyable. We've even seen fish start to creep into top8 performances, as a playset of Spreading Seas can keep a rhino from hitting the battlefield.
Do I think there could be changes to the ban list? Absolutely. I think that BBE could come off, as could sword of the meek.
I agree with DCI's decision to ban Dig though. It made the already very good twin decks too consistent.
March 24, 2015 12:41 a.m.
@GlistenerAgent Burn isn't combo, it's Kindergarden :) who can count to 20 the best?
March 24, 2015 1:09 a.m.
Serendipitous_Hummingbird says... #36
perhaps GlistenerAgent was thinking of infect? That deck certainly is a combo deck.
March 24, 2015 1:10 a.m.
OtakulordAndrew says... #37
In all honesty I'm in agreement that Siege Rhino was fine in pod it wasn't broken yet, I believe it was banned more for the reason that wizards won't have to constantly look back over their shoulders when printing new cards, which if we get more modern viable cards would over all be nice. I used to have a melira pod deck myself although I didn't use it very frequently now it just sits on my mantel in front of my ghost in the shell s.a.c. poster. The problem with the ban was the suddenness with which it happened people almost needed a heads up considering the number of people playing the deck at the time which where then left with a bunch of singles and a lack of a deck. In terms of the current state of the meta the main difference I have noticed is more midrange mostly junk aswell as some hatebears along with more splinter twin as the pod players either switch to what they feel to be a powerful combo deck that most likely won't get banned or the next closest thing in terms of cards that they have left over from their pod decks. At my local game store things stay fairly diverse with about somewhere in-between a third to half the store being rouge deck builders, the other being more competitive people who like to win with the major decks of the format such as twin, and abzan (lots of that) but with sleight variations here and there, and then there is usually that small number of casual players who will bring in a deck loaded with high drop 6-8 mana cost creatures or a bunch of non competitive commons thinking themselves the best player in the world only to get a reality check. In terms of the competitive scene though it's hard to say there might be some decent variety but it just does not make it to the later days of most large scale competitive tournaments. The best thing wizards could probably do now would be to create some more cards that are actually modern viable in their new sets like what they just did with Atarka's Command and Dromoka's Command. Also I agree with the statement that the banning of Dig Through Time was overkill.
March 24, 2015 1:16 a.m.
OtakulordAndrew says... #38
Note control is not dead though from what I have seen. I just recently this past Sunday saw a strong grixis control deck at my local store it seemed to be doing fine. There is also a decent number of urw controls decks still placing in the major tournaments judging from mtg top 8 in the form of more aggressive midrange variants of the usual control decks meaning they are just evolving to fit the current aggressive meta and once things start to calm down again and get less aggressive they will go back to their usual control deck nature's hopefully.
March 24, 2015 1:28 a.m.
JexInfinite says... #39
I am very disappointed to not see Bloodbraid Elf or Dig Through Time unbanned.
The meta seems more diverse than it was, but not nearly as diverse as it could be. With Dig, I could definitely see a good format. There are currently no tempo decks in the meta. There are currently no control decks in the meta. Dig allows multiple archetypes to be viable, and if you are complaining that it would make blue overpowered, I will remind you that Dig does absolutely nothing to the board state. Siege Rhino does. If you're attacking me with Rhino, and I'm just casting Dig, who will win?
The lack of combo decks is worrying. Amulet Bloom and Burn are the only ones, and Burn can get hosed really easily with Kor Firewalker, which all white decks run (or to the same effect).
OtakulordAndrew A single control deck being good does not mean the archetype is currently good. Sure, I can completely wreck people with my control deck, but who wants to learn a difficult play style, and have to work really hard on that perfect 75 when you can play Abzan good stuff and win?
The problem at the moment is not that Abzan is too good, but that nothing else is that good.
March 24, 2015 4:05 a.m.
OtakulordAndrew says... #40
That was one example the numbers do vary from tournament to tournament and store to store it's common to see roughly 1/4 of the metagame at my local store as control, 1/2 of the metagame as midrange, and 1/4 as combo with a minute number of 1-2 decks that are casual and shouldn't be there or classify as part of the meta. Like I said in my erlier post in terms of competitive larger tournaments it looks like the control decks are adopting more of a midrange variant. the control decks at my local game store though tend to be 1 grixis, 2 esper, and 3-4 uwr control decks with larger numbers If it's around the time of a large event such as pre release which draws more people in.
March 24, 2015 4:21 a.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #41
JexInfinite has done a better job of summing up my thoughts and opinions in one paragraph than I have been able to do so in nearly 2 pages.
March 24, 2015 8:09 a.m.
GlistenerAgent says... #42
No, burn is a combo deck. It really is. When you kill on turn 4 through an exceedingly linear series of actions, you're a combo deck. That may not be a strict definition, but the fact that burn wins on turn 3-4 is enough for me.
I think people may be underestimating how hard Abzan is to play. Just my two cents.
@JexInfinite Here's the thing: Combo decks lose to Abzan. All of them do. Scapeshift (which probably has the best matchup but still bad), Twin, Bloom, everything but Burn dies pretty hard to an Abzan deck. If you want to play combo decks, people need to start playing Tron and properly-built control decks so that Abzan gets pushed down. As I said, we need to figure out a way to do that past all of Abzan's sideboard cards. Remember that we have sideboard cards too.
To people saying Siege Rhino wasn't the breaker: It really was. There was no serious ban-talk for Pod anytime before the January bannings. Rhino specifically made its bad matchups so good that nothing could really stand up to it. Pod lost to Jund and Scapeshift, and with Rhino those decks can no longer consistently beat you.
March 24, 2015 8:40 a.m.
Abzan was hard to play but is now easier. Although thinking that it's easy to play is laughable. That deck can be a real challenge.
Overall I find this argument presented by CanadianShinobi both compelling AND invalid. It's invalid because there's nothing inherently wrong with a stable meta. So what if you're bored? You don't represent every magic player. Don't act like you do. Being stable in and of itself is not a problem. The lack of control in the meta is troublesome however. So whilst the meta is stable it is missing an important piece that should be present. I would like to see a buff to control.
However, how much did the bannings kill control? UWR wasn't a bad deck before cruise and dig were even printed. What went wrong? Was it printing Siege Rhino
March 24, 2015 8:47 a.m.
GlistenerAgent says... #44
Here's the problem: There are more threats than you can possibly have answers while also having your own game plan. As a reactive deck in Modern, you have to have ways to beat not only the tier decks, but also the random stuff people are throwing at you. People often have very good sideboards to beat control, and when your counterspell/removal spells are overloaded you're not in a good place.
March 24, 2015 8:54 a.m.
Yeh I think the larger creature counts killed control. I've noticed recently that control has struggled against abzan because it's gone from 10-12 threats to like 12-16. It plays more cards that are happy to just turn sideways. That's tricky for control because they run out of answers.
I am amused though that everyone was outraged by delver doing well and most aren't about abzan. It does seem to be a clear case of discriminating against blue just cos.... It's blue.
March 24, 2015 9:05 a.m.
GlistenerAgent says... #46
It's really not that. Abzan is just more interesting to play against. Delver was just like "draw cards, draw cards, draw cards" with the occasional burn spell thrown in, and was a great deal less interactive than Abzan is today. Same deal with Twin. Pod also lent itself to very interesting games, but the aggregate is still less than Twin + Abzan I think.
March 24, 2015 9:11 a.m.
Yeh but my argument is - so what? So what if you dislike playing against a certain deck. That should in no way determine the banlist. I have pet favourite and pet hated decks. I don't think the meta is bad because a deck I dislike does well. That's utterly subjective. If someone wants to spend 10 minutes drawing cards then that's their decision. As long as they're not breaking the game then leave them be.
Lots of this thread is really shitty though in general. There are a ton of people who are basically echoing this nonsense of 'meta is bad because abzan is at the top and is easy to play'. The predicates of that are faulty. It's not an easy deck to play. It's not just good stuff (although if it is then so are most decks in modern). A lot of this argument seems to be based on subjective opinions about a deck that I'm sure the vast majority of you don't play. Stop.
March 24, 2015 9:19 a.m.
lemmingllama says... #48
No, people prefer Abzan because they get to do their thing and then win/lose. Delver games were normally very fast, it was either you won or lost based on your opening hand and theirs. Abzan grinds a bit, which allows you to see more of your deck and play a more interactive game. Plus most people would rather be Hellbent against Abzan than facing the Delver player who has a full hand.
As for the meta, it's fine. Tempo is still an existing archetype, although it hasn't placed a lot recently. Control is the one that is getting the shaft right now, but the meta is full of midrange and aggressive decks that control can't deal with. Once some new cards come out and the meta shifts, we may see control become more viable.
March 24, 2015 9:28 a.m.
UrbanAnathema says... #50
I do think that Control needs a serious buff in the format, and by and large Wizards needs to be a little less scared of breaking the game.
MSU_Iced_Z says... #2
Okay, so what would a "healthy" format look like? It's not like before the bans Control was doing great. I am actually very sympathetic to your concerns (especially on DTT), but I'm not sure what you think the alternative is.
March 23, 2015 10:08 p.m.