What Does Modern Offer?
Modern forum
Posted on Feb. 15, 2016, 11:14 a.m. by CanadianShinobi
It's time for some controversy! Well, perhaps less controversial than is typical, but still, I have a question to posit to the Community.
So, Modern is clearly up in the air right now. People are rejoicing that a broken deck has arrived, in the form of Eldrazi. Some people are grumbling. Others have forsaken all hope for the Modern format. It's an interesting time, no doubt, but it isn't exactly interesting for the right reasons.
Recently, I posted a rather angry and idiotic response in a thread where I essentially blamed Modern's problems on WotC's mismanagement and the majority of players being to ban happy. I still stand by those sentiments to a degree. However, a recent article on Mtggoldfish has finally scratched the itch that I had at the back of my mind. That is, "Why is Modern so troublesome?"
Now, the conclusions in the article are things that I have seen other present and I suppose something I have always known, but never could express. However, the article is rather accurate to a degree. The author is certainly correct in saying that Modern is a rotating format.
The metagame may not rotate overly quickly, but as you can see by the evidence in the article, it certainly does rotate through artificial means, ie. bans.
So, the begs the question: between the price of Modern and the artificial rotation imposed by WotC, what does Modern offer? Why continue to play a format that, claims to be non-rotating, but, as we have seen is not so, due to the meddling of WotC. And why sink so much money into that format if your investment is not safe?
To those who did not read the article: Read the article. Also, I am speaking from the perspective of competitive play.
JakeHarlow says... #3
Many of the reasons enumerated here are why I don't find Modern attractive at present.
February 15, 2016 11:33 a.m.
FAMOUSWATERMELON says... #4
Yeah, Guardian got it. He says to buy individual staples, but at one point, you're going to have to invest in a deck, like it or not. The best be would honestly to play something Tier 1.5 of 2, like Merfolk or Abzan. Those decks won't really get hit by a ban, and remain very solid decks.
February 15, 2016 11:37 a.m.
I think, personally, every game store needs to have a brew night to bring back the ingenuity of magic. Modern is a semi-eternal format with thousands of deck opportunities. If people were encouraged to brew, then magic, or the modern format specifically, wouldn't be so god damn cutting edge. Personally, i dont believe in netdecking, so i dont ever have problems with banning. Just my thoughts.
February 15, 2016 1:10 p.m.
APPLE01DOJ says... #6
Modern offers freedom and flexibility. It adds much more interaction than standard (let's not talk about "unsafe investment") while not being completely bonkers like I assume Legacy is or requiring the cash Legacy demands to play optimally.
February 15, 2016 1:44 p.m.
Well if modern wouldnt't be popular other formats would be, so their staples would hurt legacy.
Sadly 100 card singleton is bound to have some cards that are pricy.
Besides playing fair but competitive decks - instead of some degenerate combo - does not carry much risk, for 1 the banning of 1 card will not make your deck unplayble (Merfolk, Jund, Abzan, Boogles, ...etc.), unlike things like tron or or eldrazi (Eye of Ugin), lantern controll, or affinity's free creatures - as had been similarly costed artifacts that produce mana. So if you play modern because you can play a completly unfair deck then you have to fear the bannhammer to some degree.
February 15, 2016 3:15 p.m.
Well, it's not like your investment goes from 1000$ to 0$. Just because the deck gets banned, it's often only a single card that gets affected. In Twin, it was only Twin which was affected. The fetchlands didn't drop. Snapcaster Mage didn't drop. You really don't lose a whole lot because of a banning.
Besides that, it is not difficult to buy a deck that won't be banned. Twin and Bloom was both combo decks and Pod was extremely good. If you just play "normal decks" (Burn, Jund, Tron, Affinity), the chances are that the deck won't be banned. Ever.
February 15, 2016 4:32 p.m.
I think a lot of people are moving away from it (modern) now. There have been many many articles such as this over the last few weeks and a lot of sentiment that matches the tone of the article posted on Facebook. A lot of very intelligent people are just done with the entire joke a format it's become.
There isn't much point playing modern. The format isn't very diverse. Key archetypes are impossily weak. It doesn't welcome home-brews at decent levels of play. It's not a safe investment. Its over priced. It's not supported that well.
February 15, 2016 5:30 p.m.
Harashiohorn says... #11
The reason to play modern is that its the middle ground. Legacy offers a lot of security for your investment but the meta isn't stagnant, its static. Yesterdays legacy will be remarkably similar to tomorrows legacy. That isn't to say there are never new decks in legacy, but part of its function is its continuity. Standard is the polar opposite, an untamed wilderness where decks come charging forward into the spotlight for a month before falling back into the void. Modern offers a pretty decent level of continuity, you get bannings and such but all of the major archetypes hang out from tier 1-2.5 ad infinum, unless their game breaking (a la Bloom). Right now modern is broken. That happens. It's either time to enjoy playing the broken deck or to work on your draft skills some more, in two months or so it will be gone and modern will be wide open for the formation of a new tier one. You play modern because it's fluid, but more consistent than its often given credit for. If you invest in an archetype, you might lose a single good card, but your archechtype will endure. Even Storm still puts up results. Decks become tier one, decks become fringe tier two, but they are pretty much always still playable. Modern is a format where brewing is still alive, but where you can play with some good cards in powerful archetypes. Thats my two cents anyway.
February 15, 2016 6:27 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #12
Harashiohorn I'm curious, did you read the article I linked?
You play modern because it's fluid, but more consistent than its often given credit for. If you invest in an archetype, you might lose a single good card, but your archechtype will endure.
Because, what you said here is simply untrue. In fact, one of the biggest problems many people are seeing, especially after the Twin ban is that Modern has far too much in common with Standard. The issue is that your archetype might not endure at all. Whether it's a ban or whether a developing metagame cannibalizes it. If the latter happens, then at least I can see the justification there. However, bans are becoming an artificial form of rotation and for a format that isn't supposed to have a rotation, it is becoming a significant problem.
February 15, 2016 8:45 p.m.
The only thing that modern offers is the ability to brew on a competitive level. The card-pool of standard makes brewing a little humdrum. Legacy is solved, so there is no point. Modern is fluid, and thus unsafe, but the fact that it is not solved and yet is also eternal (mostly) as far as its card pool goes causes rogue brewers to be drawn to modern.
That said, modern is basically one of two options: Spend a year or two brewing your own deck and IF it becomes T1 then hope it doesn't get banned, OR just drop a down payment for a car every two years or so. "My modern deck costs more than my car." is something I have been hearing far too often recently, and I have a feeling I'm not going to stop hearing it.
February 16, 2016 12:34 a.m.
JaceArveduin says... #14
I think what he's saying is that even if your favorite archetype gets banned, the deck generally still finds a way reform, though sometimes in a different way. Does it lose power? Of course, that's why it had a card banned. Instead of Pod you now have the Melira-Anafenza/Podless Pod decks. Storm is still a deck, though nowhere near the same power level, same for Eggs. Twin is now a Kiki Jiki deck, though people don't seem to be playing it to my limited knowledge.
February 16, 2016 5:33 a.m.
JakeHarlow says... #15
I don't think Legacy is quite "solved" but the meta is very stable.
Anyway, I think Chief has it right. The format is a far cry from what a lot of players think it should be. Key archetypes are too weak and it simply isn't a viable place to brew. The RC's meddling with the format means its requisite stability (which is normally one of the more attractive aspects of eternal formats) is regularly threatened. It's a tough time for Modern and I'm sad but not surprised to see many players recede from playing it. I'm personally more interested in Legacy these days, though I'd very much like to return to Modern if it becomes "worth it" in my eyes.
February 16, 2016 8 a.m.
FAMOUSWATERMELON says... #16
Legacy is very stable, but it's also extremely well balanced. The thing with legacy is that it offers every deck the same base power, and then those decks can choose basically any card, any strategy, and it'll be at least somewhat competitive. I mean, there are tournament winning decks out there that use Sea Drake or the Isochron Scepter + Orim's Chant combo, something that could absolutely never happen in Modern. It's honestly pretty amazing.
February 16, 2016 8:21 a.m.
alanwescoat says... #17
Modern offers an Eternal format which was more affordable for me than Legacy or Vintage when it started. Like other Eternal forums, it is less expensive to stay current than it is to stay current with a format like Standard, which is perpetually expensive.
Legacy is certainly more fun, but...money. I have a family to support, and I missed out on the dual lands. I started playing M.T.G. with Revised when I was in graduate school. I was poor. I recognized that the game was a money sink, sold the small collection I had, including two unused dual lands, and went on to finish my degree, after which, I remained poor for ten years.
Despite that, I got back into M.T.G. My friends and I played endless tabletop and bought packs when we could. We played lots and lots of commons, brewed our own decks, etc. The idea of paying premiums for singles did not work for us. We had to get a LOT of value out of the packs we purchased, and we did!
I have more money for M.T.G. now than I did then, but I do not have thousands to build up a playset of dual lands for Legacy in addition to staying somewhat current with the new Standard cards which are useful in Modern and Legacy. I have to pick and choose, and I brew when I can. If I had not bought into the Zendikar fetch lands when they were in Standard, I would likewise be unable to afford even Modern.
It goes beyond that. Even if I have the cards for a format, I need others to play with. My meta just had its first Legacy tournament where many people played decks like Birthing Pod because that was what they had to compete with. The necessary staples are simply not present because Wizards refuses to make the staples available. We have more luck with Modern because the cards are available to more players.
February 16, 2016 8:26 a.m.
The issues with Modern can be summed up in one statement. - "Wizards doesn't test new cards for playability in Modern."
It really is that simple. They need to see the interaction of some cards in Modern before printing them.
The original Eldrazi were 'high cost' and 'high power' - They only became playable if combined with colorless ramp. - Wizards knew this, and printed ramp for Eldrazi that only worked with colorless Eldrazi (Eldrazi Temple and Eye of Ugin), knowing that the cheaper colored Eldrazi cards should not be ramped into.
Completely ignoring Modern, they printed cheap colorless Eldrazi, without thinking of the consequences of allowing these cards in the same format as the ramp that makes it more effective.
Even moderate play-testing before printing would have shown them just how broken this can get. - Wizards doesn't want to spend any money on ensuring the format remains intact. They would much rather rely on the ban list to cover their mistakes.
February 16, 2016 8:54 a.m. Edited.
Harashiohorn says... #19
Rayenous I think this is honestly less of a problem than we act like it is though. Eldrazi blew up modern, yes, but it will go away soon too, so it's kind of Mox-Nix. Eldrazi has been yet another temporary flash in the pan, that we be gone come the spring rains (for those in the northern hemisphere). I think the primary grievance of the modern playerbase is bans like Splinter Twin, and Birthing Pod, ones that the logic behind wasn't already established for.
And CanadianShinobi what Archetypes have truly died in modern so far? I understand decks fall out of favor and become considerably weaker than before, but Zoo survived the pod banning, GBx Survived Deathrite Shamans banning, U/R Tempo type decks will survive the Splinter Twin banning, Infect wins without Blazing Shoal, Jund without Bloodbraid Elf, 12-post is now Tron, Affinity endures despite its own personal section of bans on the list, storm survived its special section of the banlist, Bloom-Titan is still playable (worse though for sure). The only Archetype I can think of that went from Tier 1 to Tier 3 or lower without a replacement is Delver, and that was because it was of the same nature as the Eldrazi deck, a temporary abomination in the meta that will gone soon. Our decks sometimes get worse, but I don't think a single archetype has ever completely died in modern before... Excluding I suppose faeries and Dredgevine but they were never good to begin with... My point is that you might lose value on individual cards, and your archetype might have a hard run of the meta, but it's never truly dead or out. And unlike in legacy or Vintage, every new set has the potential to give your deck a shot in the arm, or make the meta more favorable.
February 16, 2016 9:31 a.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #20
Harashiohorn You know, I find it somewhat irritating when I ask a question and you blatantly ignore it.
However, to answer your question the following archetypes are dead from a competitive stand point:
Birthing Pod. CoCo is not Pod, and does not function like Pod. They are similar to a certain degree, but to say that CoCo is Pod is erroneous.
Bloom-Titan. Dead. With the Summer Bloom ban the deck cannot function at a competitive level. Yes, the ban was possibly necessary, but that is beside the point of your question.
Twin. Once again, dead. Kiki-Jiki is a similar combo in theory, however it is no longer competitively viable.
Delver. Find me a competitive Delver deck.
Any form of Control. That's an entire style of deck that simply doesn't exist in Modern. So when you say "your archetype might have a hard run of the meta, but it's never truly dead or out." You're just completely wrong.
So, based on that we have Affinity and GBx as archetypes which have not died out from the competitive scene since Modern's inception. If you had read the article (which I now doubt you have) you would have had this question answered for you. There's even a very nice visual chart which displays this. What you seem to fail to grasp is that this is a discussion about competitive Modern. I actually don't care if Billy and Tommy play Storm and Dredgevine at the kitchen table. That's perfectly fine. But, if one day Billy decides he wants to take his Storm deck to a tournament, then he can expect to lose handily.
Modern is not user friendly anymore, if it ever was. WotC has imposed artificial rotations upon the format through bans. Yes, the players are to blame for the Pro Tour, however, WotC has options to alleviate these concerns. They have done remarkably poorly in supporting the format. Indeed, I could easily argue that their policies are destroying the format by eroding player confidence. Especially with the Twin ban. Should Affinity be next? Tron? Jund (again)? Modern is supposed to be a middle ground, not some bastardized version of Standard.
February 16, 2016 7:17 p.m.
CanadianShinobi "Should affinity be next? Tron? Jund (again)?"
This is what I believe to be the biggest problem with WotC's handling of the modern format. It isn't that bans produce an artificial rotation, nor even that bans happen. It's that bans happen suddenly and the player base can be completely blindsided by it. What WotC needs to do is announce their bans in advance, say maybe a month or two, and then make the bans on a scheduled date. That way, the player base has time to adjust. No, this does not completely fix the problem of players losing the money that they spent on a competitive deck, and no it does not fix the fact that entire archetypes can die off. What it does though is gives players a fair warning of incoming bans, so that even if Billy builds Twin and Tommy builds bloom titan, they can AT LEAST get a good two months of competitive play out of their decks before the decks die.
It also completely fixes the problem of modern being "unsafe." This seems to contradict with my previous statement that archetypes can still die off, but the feeling of insecurity in modern stems not from the fact that bans are made, but rather that your favorite deck could simply be yanked out from under you because "it was hurting diversity" or was "too powerful."
"Modern is supposed to be a middle ground, not some bastardized version of standard." I wish I could give Modern even that much credit right now. At least in standard you know when rotations are coming. Modern can't even claim that lowly position. The point of standard is that it rotates. Rotating implies a smooth action though, not this sudden and jerky motion that Modern goes through. Modern's "rotations" are better described as "clunks" or "drops," and that is the root of the issue.
As someone who sank the last year and a half of his life and almost 1.2 grand into a home brew, even I don't find modern all that attractive. My goal is to make my deck so powerful that it may warrant a ban. A ban would mean I have succeeded as a brewer. Yet I fear that kind of success, because if I succeed in making my deck the next "best deck," it will disappear without warning. A bittersweet victory, made all the worse because the bitterness is completely unnecessary.
February 16, 2016 9:38 p.m.
Troy242621 says... #22
Modern offers me the ability to play a deck I really like indefinitely. I'd try legacy, but I can't afford Bayou/Wasteland.
Frankly, even if I could, Legacy is a little too powerful and fast-paced for my tastes.
February 16, 2016 9:42 p.m.
CanadianShinobi, I dont think you play enough modern. You said control isnt competitive anymore, but Grixis Control is on the rise, as is Jeskai and Jund control has and will always be a thing.
February 16, 2016 9:47 p.m.
Troy242621 the point of this thread is that statistically speaking, modern does not offer you the ability to play a deck you really like indefinitely. At least, not if it is a competitively viable deck. The competitive decks have a very low survival %. If it is not competitive, then you are essentially just playing table-top with some restrictions, in which case the modern ban list is something you can choose to ignore.
Tl;Dr: T2 decks are considered "not competitive" for the purposes of this comment, and to this thread as well to my understanding.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with playing table-top modern, but rather that it is irrelevant to this thread specifically.
February 16, 2016 9:47 p.m. Edited.
CanadianShinobi says... #25
Sergal Well, you're right. Sorta. You see, I don't play Modern. Because I stopped playing Modern. Because Modern stopped being something worthwhile to play. But, I still keep up with Modern. And I am an avid control player, so I may know a thing or two when it comes to that type of deck.
Grixis Control: Is on the decline. It has been for months. It isn't even a Control deck in the strictest definition, it's a Midrange deck. Surprisingly enough, those are two different styles of play, though I can see how one might confuse them, especially with the Grixis version.
Jeskai Control: My deck of choice and one I am very very familiar with. I saw it place well on MTGO recently. And it was perhaps the closest I've seen the deck be a Draw-Go deck since its decline a few years ago. The deck has gone through several iterations, most of them midrange variants. However, I would not say it is on the rise. It has plateaued in the "barely playable" region of the competitive scene, and only if you're extremely well versed in the deck and the metagame, but certainly not the hyper aggressive metagame Modern has devolved into.
Jund: This is not a control deck. It is a Midrange deck. It is THE midrange deck of the format. It is also currently in decline due to the hyper aggression of the format with Eldrazi and Affinity.
So, please, tell me more about how I clearly lack knowledge about Modern. Because, when I say control doesn't exist, that isn't my opinion. That's a fact. And I'm not the only one who says that.
DuTogira I'd rather we unban things before we ban anything else. I think WotC's oversight was deliberate in terms of the Eldrazi and Modern. They perhaps did not foresee the extent of this oversight, but I am hard pressed to imagine they're that ignorant. So, to me this is simply lazy. Using the ban list to fix obvious mistakes shouldn't be a thing. And with such a lackluster unban policy it's very hard for someone like myself to get excited with Modern. At least unbanning a card presents players with unknown possibilities.
February 16, 2016 10:10 p.m.
CanadianShinobi oh no I fully agree that Wizards was just lazy with the eldrazi decks and the current state of modern. I would argue that unbanning cards is more of a balancing element though, rather than something which promotes diversity. We already have seen the most optimal ways to break most of the banned cards, which is why they warranted a ban. Unbanning them would just see the decks that broke them having a massive resurgence in popularity. I have a feeling we are simply going to disagree on the usefulness of unbanning cards, so I don't want to get into an argument over this where we both just end up agreeing to disagree when we could just cut to the chase.
WotC definitely needs to do more testing with modern before they release sets though, and OGW proved that in what is a painfully obvious lesson. Either that or they need to drop their support of the format entirely, because seeing sudden bans as the only form of regulation that format has coupled with the rise of a new OP deck with every new set release just creates a setting even more repulsive than the price tags on Legacy decks.
February 16, 2016 10:21 p.m.
Troy242621 anything t1.5 is semi competitive. T2 and under are not. FNM is considered table top for the purposes of this discussion.
February 16, 2016 10:29 p.m.
Troy242621 says... #28
@ DuTogira I am of the opinion that tier 1.5 and sometimes tier 2 decks are perfectly fine at FNMs, and restrictions certainly matter there.
If FNMs considered too casual for the discussion as well, then I feel as though we're excluding a vast majority of the playerbase in the question's premise. Nevertheless, even tier 2 decks do win, they are usually just less consistent and therefore sport a lower win rate. That doesn't make them unusable.
I guess what this boils down to is, what exactly do you consider casual?
February 16, 2016 10:29 p.m.
Troy242621 says... #29
Sorry double post,...Someone is downloading here, and it's tanking our internet. I sincerely wish I could delete posts,...
Point stands, if you're excluding everything except high end tournament play, you're excluding the vast majority of players.
February 16, 2016 10:30 p.m.
Among the player base, Commander is the goto casual format. Modern, Standard, and Legacy are supposed to be the competitive formats.
Standard rotates and promises new and exciting decks every set release, and is comparable to leasing a car.
Modern is supposed to be accessible to the common man, stable enough to invest in, and yet fluid because its cards are on the same power level as the top 5% of standard cards. It is comparable to buying a car which you expect to drive for around 100,000 - 200,000 miles. Currently, WotC is repo-ing these cars at around 25,000 miles.
Legacy is expensive but stable. Comparable to buying and restoring a car.
February 16, 2016 10:35 p.m.
DuTogira, i like that. That puts things in perspective well. I still stand by my point that Wotc should encourage brewing. Modern, in my opinion, is THE go to format for brewing decks. I said earlier that every game store should have a brew night. Modern doesnt have to be expensiv. I play a deck at my local FNM every wednesday and consistently go 3-1. The reason for that is simple: Nobody knows how to handle a rogue deck except the pilot. Practicing my deck has made me perfect with it. All of the cards have eloquent synergy and flow perfectly into the next move. I have perfected my curve, handling my weaknesses, and abusing my advantages. I also keep up on the changes of the format, and the changes of my meta and adjust my sideboard accordingly and frequently. Know how much my deck costs? 147.43 at tcg mid, but i have only spent 60 bucks on it. Its not like i am playing against brews or tier 3 decks either. I play against jund, affinity, grixis control, tron, eldrazi, infect, burn, merfolk and elves frequently. I am the only brewer in my meta which makes me hard to combat. Modern doesn't have to be uber expensive.
On another note, i, personally, believe that any card that costs 50 dollars or more needs to be reprinted in surplus to make those cards accessible to not only new players ,but players that have children, or are in college or anything that prevents justification of spending 400+ dollars on a playset of cards. It probably costs wizards less than 2 cents to make a card. They are being selfish in making that card cost 75, 100, 150 dollars. Thats rediculous. Snap, goyf, lili, baby jace, fetchlands, bob, they all need to be reprinted to death. Make them cost like 10 bucks rather than a trip to the grocery store.
February 16, 2016 10:57 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #32
Sergal So, a few things.
Modern doesn't have to be uber expensive.
It does if you want to be competitive outside FNM. Again, I posted the article for a reason. I expected people to read it.
On another note, i, personally, believe that any card that costs 50 dollars or more needs to be reprinted in surplus to make those cards accessible to not only new players ,but players that have children, or are in college or anything that prevents justification of spending 400+ dollars on a playset of cards. It probably costs wizards less than 2 cents to make a card. They are being selfish in making that card cost 75, 100, 150 dollars. Thats rediculous.
Do you even understand how the secondary market works? Because I don't think you do.
Troy242621 Point stands, if you're excluding everything except high end tournament play, you're excluding the vast majority of players.
I agree. However, not every conversation should cater to the lowest common denominator. I suggest you read the article I linked in my original post so that you have a better understanding of what I am attempting to achieve by broaching this topic. Sometimes, talking about the competitive scene is necessary, because, like it or not he competitive scene determines what Modern is and what Modern isn't. This is especially true when it comes to cards that are banned, or in the very rare instance, unbanned.
It is frustrating, that having expressly noted that I am looking for a discussion about competitive Modern, that people chose to ignore that sentiment. I understand the appeal of casual play. One of my go to formats is Commander. However, as a former Modern player and someone who wanted to (and to some extent still wants to) play semi-competitive Magic, it is necessary to have a a decent understanding of what Modern is like on the competitive scene. While I have no qualms educating people, it is ultimately detracting from the desired conversation I had hoped to inspire by linking that article. This is further compounded by the fact that it is obvious that several people ignored the fact that the article was by and large what the entire point of this conversation was about.
February 17, 2016 1:35 a.m.
CanadianShinobi, just to let you know, I did read the article. I, however, do not think the article was intended to bash wotc for thier banning like you intend to. The article, however, was intended to tell players the facts about the format and how to handle those facts, such as bans. Or did you just stop reading before the last three paragraphs? I think, honestly, you are extremely pessimistic, and confrontational. What is it exactly that you want someone to tell you? Because everything anyone tells you, you shut it down, or was that the point of this whole thread? I think you are mad at wizards for some reason and want to rally the troops. Just my thoughts buddy, good luck with the rest of this thread.
February 17, 2016 7:43 a.m.
alanwescoat says... #34
CanadianShinobi, I went back and actually read the article. I think the author makes some important points, ones which make a lot of sense and should give players who are thinking about getting into Modern some pause for consideration.
Modern is actually not really an Eternal format. It is kind of Eternal, sort of.
When Modern started up, I thought the idea was great. I had experienced a couple of years of excess cash. I had quite a few accumulated cards, and the format seemed to be much cheaper than Legacy, which I simply could not afford. Last year, I got pretty serious about Modern, but I have seen the format drop off in my local meta. Players come and go. Those with the collections can compete, and those without them have a difficult time. My local shop has not hosted a Modern tournament in months, though there is a little interest in Legacy.
The prices of key Modern cards have become stupidly expensive. I thought I was nuts paying over $200 for a playset of the Zendikar fetchlands back when they were Standard. Now, I would nearly double my money selling just my Scalding Tarn playset (not that I have any intention of doing so).
I bought Splinter Twin back when it was cheap, but I was missing key cards like Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker and Remand. I acquired the cards I needed to complete the twin shell about a week before Splinter Twin was banned. Sure, I can used it with Restoration Angel. I only have two, and I now need to make a mana base which includes white, which means spending more money on shock lands I still have not been able to afford.
For someone who has to plunk down the cash for a full deck outright, this has got to be a nightmare, especially in light of banning.
On the other hand, there is plenty of room for brewing. That is an old-school tradition. Decksmithing is part of the game, something I love to do, and something far too few players seem to have an interest in attempting.
A huge problem is that too many competitive M.T.G. players are not interested in just playing a great game. They seem to want to be pros. You do not need to have the best deck in the format to have a fantastic time playing Modern. This is something people seem to forget. M.T.G. is a game to be enjoyed, and quality decksmithing can be a great substitute for cash. Sure, I have the cards to play Robots, but I have great success with my own Goblins brew. It can beat Robots, Twin, and Burn. It does not always do so, but I have taken first place with it in my local meta more than any other place I have got with it.
So, if people are going to play Eldrazi, load up on anti-Eldrazi. I am already running 4x Simian Spirit Guide maindeck. I sideboard 4x Pyroclasm and prepare to burn out Eldrazi Mimic on the first turn. Maybe I add Whipflare, too. That is just an example, of course. There are other possibilities. The tech is probably present or about to be printed. People simply have to look for it, which is a decksmithing skill, while learning to play around problems is a play skill.
Of course, Wizards relies far too heavily on the banhammer. They could ban Eldrazi Mimic in the name of diversity. Of course, they could also unban cards, which would also allow for format diversity. Unbanning Splinter Twin, Summer Bloom, Deathrite Shaman, Bloodbraid Elf, Green Sun's Zenith, Stoneforge Mystic, Birthing Pod, and Jace, the Mind Sculptor would most certainly diversify the format. Eldrazi would likely simply become one more heavy hitter among many. Meanwhile, Robots, Burn, and Tron might even fall to tier two. Heck, unban everything. Then, Modern could become as much fun as Legacy.
The simple fact of the matter is that I am not convinced that Wizards is actually interested in format diversity. I think they are fairly heavily involved in manipulating the secondary market in order to soak players. I am certain that someone at Wizards made bank buying up cheap copies of Eye of Ugin knowing full well what Eldrazi Mimic could do. An increase in value of 800% in two months is pretty fabulous.
February 17, 2016 8:53 a.m.
Unbanning absurd cards like Stoneforge Mystic, Jace, the Mind Sculptor would do no good for the format.
You would have to play them. Or lose to them.
Mystic1s ability to fetch the sword required for any given situation is overpowered, and that is without it putting artifacts on the battlefield for "free"
Once Jace resolves in a hard controll shell not much can be done against it later in game. (now imagine it with The Chain Veil... its just absurd)
February 17, 2016 12:51 p.m.
Troy242621 says... #36
CanadianShinobi I didn't ignore your sentiments. I don't know what you specifically consider competitive. Some tournaments can be won with a tier 2 deck, depending on its size. We've seen tier 1.5/tier 2 decks do pretty well in big tournaments as well. Granted, they don't win you a pro tour, but they can certainly compete.
Which goes back to my point, tier 1.5 and tier 2 decks are reasonably safe, and I don't feel they are completely non-competitive.
February 17, 2016 9 p.m.
Harashiohorn says... #37
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/announcing-eternal-masters-2016-02-15
Modern? You mean the format I'm about to sell my deck from to buy some cheaper Force of Wills? >_<... Honestly though, at this point it almost seems like the most ingenious ploy to rebuild the interest in legacy ever... ;P
February 18, 2016 5:27 p.m.
Modern prices shoot up from popularity, the playerbase's faith is gone, diversity reaches one of its lows, and legacy gets cheaper. Honestly I might build legacy bomberman and just get into fine tuning that deck. Seems like a pretty fun challenge. If only LED wasn't on the reserve list and as expensive as goyf. And the land base wasn't so much more expensive. Yeah legacy still hurts your wallet pretty bad.
February 18, 2016 6:12 p.m.
Sceadugenga says... #39
I'm not really into the pessimism and absurd confrontationalism, but I do have 2 cents to share. If we, as a discussion, are defining "competitive" as "able to get to, play at, and possibly top 8 a pro tour," then you're definition analyzes less than 1% of the modern format. It is therefore incorrect. If you want to define competitive as decks that can go to PPTQs/PTQs and have a greater than 50% chance of making, say top 32, then you might have a reasonable marker of what constitutes competitive for the actual modern player base, not some irrelevant fiction we've crafted. Being a competitive deck doesn't mean you get to go to every event of MtG ever and expect to top 8. As far as archetypes go, I'll agree that control is not well supported in Modern right now. Blue is missing a lot of key interactive pieces compared to Legacy that enable it to perform well in a powerful environment. I'll also agree that the out of the blue printing of "Eternal Masters" with a definition that very pointedly does NOT include Modern, is pretty obvious telegraphing that the banlist rotation strategy probably isn't going away. Those general weaknesses in the format aside, I'd like to return to a few points that have been shot down unjustly. The first is that single card bannings destroy archetypes. They can destroy decks, but not archetypes. I would encourage some investigation and following of Mtgtop8.com, which is a statistics tracker for MTGO and live large tournament win rates of varying decks. Control is currently on the decline thanks to the Eldrazi Menace, but it hasn't been that way until a few weeks ago.
As far as overall foramt balance goes, that's bad, and WotC should know it. Whether they care or not isn't something any of us have any real data on, so to speculate is just that: speculation. If someone on TappedOut knows/works at WotC and has legal permission to discuss, please provide some real data. It would be illuminating to many. Easy example: most people who are upset about WotC's actions seem to think they have a right to be taken care of by the corporation. That simply isn't true. Corporations have one and only one group of people they are legally required to care for where profit-making decisions are concerned, and that is the corporate shareholders. Nobody else. Not us players, not the formats, not the Pro Tour. Now, as a general business decision plan, they should be taking care of the formats and players, because those are prime investment capital territory, but it isn't a requirement. And legal requirements will always influence decisions of profit-making companies before anything else. That is far from the entirety of corporate decision making, but its a single example that should demonstrate that getting upset at a corporation for doing what a corporation does and is legally required to do is pretty silly.
February 18, 2016 10:48 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #40
If you want to define competitive as decks that can go to PPTQs/PTQs and have a greater than 50% chance of making, say top 32, then you might have a reasonable marker of what constitutes competitive for the actual modern player base, not some irrelevant fiction we've crafted.
That's a reasonable definition.Control is currently on the decline thanks to the Eldrazi Menace, but it hasn't been that way until a few weeks ago.
Well I have to say I'm not a fan of MTG Top 8 because it classifies decks in very broad terms. For instance, it doesn't identify midrange as its own archetype which is problematic when analyzing those statistics. Even though Grixis "Control" is listed as a control deck, I argue that it is primarily a midrange deck.
This aside, Control hasn't properly existed in Modernsince UWR Control a couple of years ago. Yes, we can argue the semantics of Twin, but I am referring to Draw-Go Control. This type of deck simply does not have the cards necessary to support it.
In fact, if we look at Modern, it is the only format where Blue does not do its job. Or at least properly. Modern lacks counterspells that curve well enough to stop early plays. The best it can manage is Cryptic Command, which has become out paced and can be difficult to cast due to its casting cost. And things like Mana Leak or Remand become quickly out classed or irrelevant. So, Blue as a colour within Modern, especially after the Twin ban, is more or less nonexistent in function as well as representation.As far as overall foramt balance goes, that's bad, and WotC should know it. Whether they care or not isn't something any of us have any real data on, so to speculate is just that: speculation.
Arguably, based upon past and current decisions I would say the speculation is reasonable and to a certain degree, educated.
February 18, 2016 11:07 p.m.
Still people play blue for some reason...
Yes mono blue is in effect extinct (but so are other monocolored decks)
And while modern legal counterspells are nowhere near the strength of their legacy counterparts, they are very far from being bad, or unplayable. You complain about not being able to counter efficiently early plays... ,and that counterspells are above curve.
I would disagree. Hard counters are above curve, but if you worried about the curve you can just run things like Mana Tithe; Mana Leak and the like, which are quiet efficient, will completely wreck early game, and considerably delay the opponent if he has to play around them.
Yes pure counter spell controll is no good - it has the same problems as 8rack, its narrow and linear and for controll that is very bad.
February 19, 2016 3:47 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #42
Still people play blue for some reason...
To find combo pieces, mostly. But, those days are gone for now due to the hyper agressive nature of the format currently. But even then, people play blue mostly for the cantrips.
Yes mono blue is in effect extinct (but so are other monocolored decks)
Okay...? No one mentioned mono coloured decks.
And while modern legal counterspells are nowhere near the strength of their legacy counterparts, they are very far from being bad, or unplayable.
Bad? Yes. By comparison Modern counter spells are bad. Not only when compared to Legacy, but also Standard. However, I never said they were unplayable.
You complain about not being able to counter efficiently early plays... ,and that counterspells are above curve.
Well, sure if you want to demean my argument by calling it a complaint. But, it's also true to a certain extent.
Hard counters are above curve, but if you worried about the curve you can just run things like Mana Tithe; Mana Leak and the like, which are quiet efficient, will completely wreck early game, and considerably delay the opponent if he has to play around them.
You're misrepresenting my argument to a degree. Yes, Mana Leak is good early game. No one will ever argue that. However, have you ever drawn a Mana Leak late game? Do you realize how utterly useless it is when most of the spells played in Modern fall under 4 CMC? And most control decks will run 4 of them. Without an efficient means of dealing with late game problems, or even mid game problems, Modern will never possess a proper control deck.
Yes pure counter spell controll is no good - it has the same problems as 8rack, its narrow and linear and for controll that is very bad.
I would agree that draw-go control is no good. However, I would also then argue that Draw-Go Control is not supposed to be a linear strategy. If you ever played the old UWR Control list from a few years ago, you'd realize the deck has several means of winning the game. But back on track; Counter spells should be looked as the equivalent of removal. Counter spells are to Control decks as what Terminate, and Abrupt Decay are to Jund.
Because, WotC has made Modern so heavily biased toward creatures, they have neglected a significant portion of the game. Draw-Go Control decks are what keep formats honest. They require you to think and encourage intelligent, thoughtful play from both parties. Otherwise, you end up with what you have currently: the person to turn more things sideways fastest wins.
February 19, 2016 6:44 p.m.
I think that counterspells need something like abrupt decay. 2 colour restriction but really, really good. If control is really supposed to suffer then terminate and abrupt decay are mistakes. They just answer everything. If we (killspell based decks) get that then I see no reason for counterspell control to have a spell that's like: UW, counter target spell that's 3 mana or less. I mean that just seems fair enough.
February 19, 2016 8:42 p.m.
Harashiohorn says... #44
It's worth noting that a key difference between killspells and counterspells is versatility, so you do have to be a bit more careful insofar as design is concerned since a great counterspell can stop any deck.
The main problem with control in Modern is not a shortage of good counterspells though. The problem is that there are no effective ways for control to recover resources in modern. In legacy the greatest control decks don't even hinge on counterspells themselves, instead using reusable forms of control like Counterbalance, in modern however a true control deck would have to trade single spells for single spells, which is just too inefficient when a single resolved spell for an enemy can carry away a game a-la Tarmogoyf, Reality Smasher, or Karn Liberated.
February 19, 2016 11:35 p.m.
It seems far too early to be talking about Modern when such a huge shift has just happened, doesn't it? Like, waiting for a couple of GPs at least to roll past before you write off the format entirely seems like a good plan, nevermind trying to get other people into Modern.
And your definition of control remains incredibly narrow.
canterlotguardian says... #2
Bans. That's what Modern offers. And inflated prices on pieces that people need for EDH and other Eternal formats but can't get due to Modern being so "popular."
"Why sink so much money into the format if your investment is not safe?" You don't. /thread
February 15, 2016 11:22 a.m.