Modern Format diversity disappointing?

[Tormod]

So I've been playing Modern lately, I played in 3 events in the last 2 months and actually been having a blast. I seem to play different decks all the time, so I happy about the diversity I'm facing.

In a tournament series I'm playing in, they posted the meta breakdown of the format...

Out of 126 players

There were:
23 Twin deck/variants (Tarmo, Tempo, Control, RUG Twin)
14 Pod decks (Melira, Kiki)
12 Jund + 5 Rock
9 Robots

That's 62 decks or nearly half of the meta is comprising of the "big 4"

Mainly I don't care because I haven't faced multiple matches against the same archetype at these events, but I do feel cheated about how "diverse modern is" I suppose its human nature to play the "best deck" But the format is so weak, it rewards decks that your opponents doesn't know whats going on.

[Arsenal]

If your opponent is unaware of the decks in the meta, then you'll gain free wins no matter what format you're playing in. Like, if you go "end of turn, Pestermite" and your opponent doesn't at least anticipate/acknowledge the threat of "mainphase, Splinter Twin on my Pestermite... win?", then I don't think that really speaks about the format, but rather the unpreparedness of your opponent.

[Dice_Box]

Got to agree. While modern is not the most dispersed of formats, that argument holds no weight if you don't know that "In response to Pest trigger, Pact you Kiki" is a good idea, it is not going to matter what the decks are you go against.

[Lord Seth]

So I've been playing Modern lately, I played in 3 events in the last 2 months and actually been having a blast. I seem to play different decks all the time, so I happy about the diversity I'm facing.

In a tournament series I'm playing in, they posted the meta breakdown of the format...

Out of 126 players

There were:
23 Twin deck/variants (Tarmo, Tempo, Control, RUG Twin)
14 Pod decks (Melira, Kiki)
12 Jund + 5 Rock
9 Robots

That's 62 decks or nearly half of the meta is comprising of the "big 4"Except you didn't list 4 decks, you listed 8 decks.

EDIT: I suppose I should clarify. RUG Twin and Tarmo Twin are, to my knowledge, different terms for the same deck, so that brings it down to 8. I assume "Control Twin" refers to the UWR deck that uses Kiki-Jiki and Restoration Angel to combo off. That makes 8 decks.

The problem is that the "big 4" is UR Twin, Melira Pod, Jund, and Affinity. Adding these other decks into it seems disingenuous, especially in the case of Control Twin and Kiki Pod.

I suppose you can argue that RUG Twin belongs with Tempo Twin and Rock belongs with Jund because they're mostly just separated by a splash and play similarly. But "Control Twin" is a very different deck from Tempo/RUG Twin (and doesn't even play Twin most of the time), and shares far more in common with the UWR Control decks than it does with Splinter Twin. And lumping Melira Pod and Kiki Pod together is like lumping RUG Delver and UR Delver together. They share some of the same cards, but the decks themselves are quite different in both construction and execution.

[JDK]

But the format is so weak, it rewards decks that your opponents doesn't know whats going on.
:eyebrow:

You might want to rephrase that.

[Tormod]

:eyebrow:

You might want to rephrase that.

lol, it sounded better in my head.

What I mean, is that Modern rewards rogue strategies because the format isn't as tight as legacy where the first few turns are so critical.

re: the Twin variants.

I agree that the decks play differently, same with pod. But in terms how how you play against them from a sideboard perspective its pretty similar. You want to draw your hate against those decks. It still feels all the same when its EOT exarch, untap twin regardless of flavor.

[Erdvermampfa]

As much as I would like to enjoy Modern, I can't really get into it for reasons that you partly mentioned. My main complaint about the format is that the playable disruption doesn't match the playable combo strategies. This issue is illustrated in a blatant manner by the heavily combo-centered meta. You can tell that something is wrong when the best two decks by far are infinite-type Combo decks. Aside from the severe lack of tools to handle Combo, there are also way too few possibilities to answer Utility lands (especially Tronlands) in an efficient way that doesn't restrict your deckbuilding. Maybe my view is a bit distorted by the usualness of Legacy, but there's seems to be a quite appalling discrepancy right now.

[lyracian]

I am playing Modern tonight for, I think, my third tournament. Our Legacy scene has dried up these last few weeks so I thought I would give it a try. I would agree there does seem to be a lack of answers to some strategies; well maybe it is not a lack of answers but more a constraint that you have to keep 2 mana open at all times just in case the opponent combo's off...

[JDK]

As much as I would like to enjoy Modern, I can't really get into it for reasons that you partly mentioned. My main complaint about the format is that the playable disruption doesn't match the playable combo strategies. This issue is illustrated in a blatant manner by the heavily combo-centered meta. You can tell that something is wrong when the best two decks by far are infinite-type Combo decks. Aside from the severe lack of tools to handle Combo, there are also way too few possibilities to answer Utility lands (especially Tronlands) in an efficient way that doesn't restrict your deckbuilding. Maybe my view is a bit distorted by the usualness of Legacy, but there's seems to be a quite appalling discrepancy right now.
Most current Twin-builds and Melira Pod do, however, often win with simple beats. In the case of the former paired with a control scheme. Just calling them combo-decks, doesn't do them justice.
I still don't understand the crying about Tron-Lands. If you are playing combo, you probably don't mind them at all. If you play midrange or control you have access to disruption (Discard, Counter and cards like Shadow of Doubt) in different colors as well as cards like Molten Rain, Sowing Salt, Blood Moon, Stony Silence and Spreading Seas. If you play aggro, you just race them.

btw weren't you the one who cries about Brainstorm in Legacy all the time?


lol, it sounded better in my head.

What I mean, is that Modern rewards rogue strategies because the format isn't as tight as legacy where the first few turns are so critical.
If rogue strategies would be rewarded so much by the format, why don't we see any of them in the Top8s?
In my opinion it's more like a rogue strategy doesn't give you a significant advantage (unless it's good in the meta), but knowing the format does.

[Arsenal]

Tormod -

I don't understand. Isn't a format where rogue strategies can win, sometimes thrive, what people want from a competitive, Constructed format? They want to be able to not only feel like their brew can win, but it actually does win?

Also, I think you're overstating the competitiveness of these rogue strategies that you're apparently losing to. Someone's brew may take down their local FNM, but get to a larger tourney and I highly doubt that you will see rogue strategies littering the Top 8 of a GP/PT.

[Tormod]

Tormod -

I don't understand. Isn't a format where rogue strategies can win, sometimes thrive, what people want from a competitive, Constructed format? They want to be able to not only feel like their brew can win, but it actually does win?

Also, I think you're overstating the competitiveness of these rogue strategies that you're apparently losing to. Someone's brew may take down their local FNM, but get to a larger tourney and I highly doubt that you will see rogue strategies littering the Top 8 of a GP/PT.

Hey, do you have a problem not putting words into people's mouths or trying to manipulate people's words to your own agenda?

Its really hard to have a dialogue when one side has an undertone to everything they post

[Tormod]

If rogue strategies would be rewarded so much by the format, why don't we see any of them in the Top8s?
In my opinion it's more like a rogue strategy doesn't give you a significant advantage (unless it's good in the meta), but knowing the format does.

Rogue strategies are rewarded because the format is a "draw you sideboard". However archetype density and frequency is relevant.

Take for example the last GTP I mentioned in my original post: 126 players. a Twin deck ended up winning it. Twin was also the most represented at 23, thats basically 20% of the field.

One Rogue strategy that top 8'd the event was a big zoo top 8'd there were 2 big zoo players in the 126. The remaining decks were 3 twin, 1 scapeshift, 1 kikipod and affinity.

So yea rogue strategies are rewarded. Case and point: Jun Young Park won GP Minnesota with Scapeshift when it was still a rogue strategy (less than 3% of the meta)

[Arsenal]

Umm... maybe if you were better at communicating your point? Your original statement was:


But the format is so weak, it rewards decks that your opponents doesn't know whats going on.

To which I explained that if you're unfamiliar with the decks in the meta, then you'll be appropriately punished for it.

JDK then asked you to rephrase, to which you agreed and stated:


What I mean, is that Modern rewards rogue strategies because the format isn't as tight as legacy where the first few turns are so critical.

To which I disagreed, as I do not believe, nor do tourney results support, your claim that rogue strategies are "rewarded" in Modern. Maybe at the local FNM level, sure, someone's homebrew may go 4-0 a couple weeks, but once you go to a larger tourney like GP or PT, I definitely don't see where you're coming to the conclusion that rogue decks are being "rewarded". If anything, they're being punished for being what they are; rogue homebrews that cannot withstand 9 rounds of grueling Swiss.

EDIT: Scapeshift is not a rogue deck at all. It is a tried and true deck that has been fully developed and played to success. The fact that it was underrepresented in comparison to the more popular decks doesn't make it a "rogue" deck. Further, PT Valencia was won by UWR Control, a deck that accounted for approx. 5% of the field whereas Zoo accounted for something crazy like 20%... under your definition, UWR Control is a "rogue" deck?

[Tormod]

Umm... maybe if you were better at communicating your point? Your original statement was:



To which I explained that if you're unfamiliar with the decks in the meta, then you'll be appropriately punished for it.

JDK then asked you to rephrase, to which you agreed and stated:



To which I disagreed, as I do not believe, nor do tourney results support, your claim that rogue strategies are "rewarded" in Modern. Maybe at the local FNM level, sure, someone's homebrew may go 4-0 a couple weeks, but once you go to a larger tourney like GP or PT, I definitely don't see where you're coming to the conclusion that rogue decks are being "rewarded". If anything, they're being punished for being what they are; rogue homebrews that cannot withstand 9 rounds of grueling Swiss.

EDIT: Scapeshift is not a rogue deck at all. It is a tried and true deck that has been fully developed and played to success. The fact that it was underrepresented in comparison to the more popular decks doesn't make it a "rogue" deck. Further, PT Valencia was won by UWR Control, a deck that accounted for approx. 5% of the field whereas Zoo accounted for something crazy like 20%... under your definition, UWR Control is a "rogue" deck?

Scapeshift isn't a rogue strategy anymore, it won the GP. It was a rogue strategy because it was less than 3% of the field and no one was prepared for it.

Why are you trying to argue against that? Playing a rogue strategy is not the same as playing "a janky brew"

All these archetypes are be considered rogue strategies

G/W Hatebears
Big Zoo
Titan-Shift
Goyf-Shift
Blue Moon
B/W Tokens
8-Rack
Dega Burn
G/R Aggro
U/W Control
4 Color Gifts
Mono Black Control
Bant-Pod
U/W Hatebears
Loam
Geist Zoo
Boros Blood Breaker
Infect
U/G Tron
Bogle
Esper Fae
Blue Tron
Soul Sisters
Mono-Green Beat Down
Living End
Ad Nauseum
Goblins

[Arsenal]

Your definition of "rogue" is based upon field penetration %; in other words, the lowest field penetrators are "rogue" decks. This is wholly inaccurate.

[JDK]

As Arsenal has already said, your definition of "rogue" is pretty unique. Usually a rogue deck is something relatively new, which hasn't been on the radar yet.

Seriously, it's just embarrassing to call Scapeshift "rogue" until the latest GP win. Scapeshift has been a pillar of the metagame since its unbanning and considering it "rogue" just shows you don't want to get to know the modern format. Same goes for Big Zoo and what not. If someone doesn't know these decks, he didn't prepare for the format at all. This is no "rewarding rogue decks", but just "being rewarded for playing against clueless people".

[Tormod]

We don't need to agree on what "rogue" is.

The point being made is that you prepare your sideboard accordingly against the expected field. Everyone has an answer to twin, pod, affinity, jund. By playing one of the "less than 4% of the field" decks I guess you do get free wins against certain opponents. I still see many players lose to scapeshift because they don't know whats going on or they didn't spend much time testing against it.

[JDK]

Yeah, you have free wins against some decks*. If you cannot constantly win against the big dogs, however, these free wins are worth nothing.
This evens out. There is a reason why certain decks are more played than others. They are more powerful and/or more consistent. Neither variance nor a narrow strategy is something to rely on.

You are still arguing that people lose to unknown decks and yet format preparation takes care of it almost completely.

*you said "free wins against certain opponents" - of course you get free wins against people not taking the time to get to know the format...

What do you want from Modern? On the one hand you are not satisfied with the diversity and on the other hand you are not satisfied with "rogue" strategies being able to steal a win.

[Timber]

But the format is so weak, it rewards decks that your opponents doesn't know whats going on.

I don't see Scapeshift winning GP Minneapolis as a sign that Modern is a weak format. I see it as selecting a deck that will catch the tournament by surprise based on the perceived metagame. When everyone is hunting Pod, Twin, Affinity and UWR, playing something that's been dormant (like Scapeshift or Living End) could get you the win because your opponents are unprepared.

Perhaps I'm missing something because I don't play Legacy, but how is deck choice based on perceived metagame unique to Modern? If everyone at a Legacy tournament is preparing for Stoneblade decks, wouldn't Dredge be a good choice? Isn't deck choice based on perceived metagame how a Food Chain deck won an SCG Legacy Open?

I agree with Arsenal and JDK that you have a unique definition of rogue. Dredgevine does not make up a large part of the current metagame, but it's a known quantity therefore, not rogue. Brewing up a Modern Dredge deck using Bridge from Below and making zombies would be rogue.

[Tormod]

What do you want from Modern? On the one hand you are not satisfied with the diversity and on the other hand you are not satisfied with "rogue" strategies being able to steal a win.

It was an opened ended question "Modern format diversity disappointing?"

But when you look at the format archetype breakdown, over half the field is playing the big 4 Archetypes (Jund, Twin, Robots, Jund) A quarter is made up of Scapeshift, Tron, Storm, Burn merfolk, and the last quarter is a bunch of 1ofs decks.

So really the claim to diversity is based around the bottom 25%.
And that competitive players will gravitate towards the top 4 archetypes.

I'm not complaining. (you guys are typical men. you only speak when you want to "fix something":tongue:) I'm trying to have a dialogue here. lol

[JPoJohnson]

When you have rules such as:

Can't kill before turn 4
Slow players can't play certain decks
Cards that would see high field penetration shouldn't exist

You end up with a shallow grouping of cards that you're left with. There are many many decks I would love to run, but having a certain card here or there banned out makes the resulting mess of a deck either not consistent or too glass cannon. Either are big cons to attempting to build further.

I think there are some decks such as Merfolk, Soul Sisters and the likes that are indeed stronger than people give them credit. The format is a bit stagnant in that there are not many brewers in the format.

[JDK]

It was an opened ended question "Modern format diversity disappointing?"

But when you look at the format archetype breakdown, over half the field is playing the big 4 Archetypes (Jund, Twin, Robots, Jund) A quarter is made up of Scapeshift, Tron, Storm, Burn merfolk, and the last quarter is a bunch of 1ofs decks.

So really the claim to diversity is based around the bottom 25%.
And that competitive players will gravitate towards the top 4 archetypes.

I'm not complaining. (you guys are typical men. you only speak when you want to "fix something":tongue:) I'm trying to have a dialogue here. lol
Well, you see why people want to "fix something", when you post contradicting things like "rogue too good vs. competitive players just play the top 4", don't you? :wink:

If you are looking for opinions on the diversity of the format: To me, modern is interesting, as I can play several decks I like (competitively). Yes, sometimes my euphoria takes a step back, when I get stripped of recently build decks with a ban (curse you, Sunrise and Seething Song bans!), but it wasn't bad for the format. PTQ season will show, how dominant Twin and Pod really are. I just hope Wizards achieves balance/to create new archetypes by creating new cards/unbanning rather than stripping away some tools.

On FNM level you get away with nearly everything anyway, but if it comes to PTQ+ events, you have to be prepared AND play a deck which is good in the field. This isn't different in any other format, though.

[JPoJohnson]

Well, you see why people want to "fix something", when you post contradicting things like "rogue too good vs. competitive players just play the top 4", don't you? :wink:

If you are looking for opinions on the diversity of the format: To me, modern is interesting, as I can play several decks I like (competitively). Yes, sometimes my euphoria takes a step back, when I get stripped of recently build decks with a ban (curse you, Sunrise and Seething Song bans!), but it wasn't bad for the format. PTQ season will show, how dominant Twin and Pod really are. I just hope Wizards achieves balance/to create new archetypes by creating new cards/unbanning rather than stripping away some tools.

On FNM level you get away with nearly everything anyway, but if it comes to PTQ+ events, you have to be prepared AND play a deck which is good in the field. This isn't different in any other format, though.

Agree, I don't think Second Sunrise or Seething Song were bans that were truly necessary... The respective decks that they were played in weren't hard to work with or against.

[Lord Seth]

lol, it sounded better in my head.

What I mean, is that Modern rewards rogue strategies because the format isn't as tight as legacy where the first few turns are so critical.

re: the Twin variants.

I agree that the decks play differently, same with pod. But in terms how how you play against them from a sideboard perspective its pretty similar. You want to draw your hate against those decks. It still feels all the same when its EOT exarch, untap twin regardless of flavor.But by this logic you might as well argue that High Tide and ANT are the same deck because how you play against them from a sideboard perspective is similar, you want to draw your hate against both, and "it still feels the same when your opponent casts a whole lot of spells in one turn and then kills you with their final spell." Are you going to start grouping High Tide in with ANT?

Again, "Control Twin" has far more in common with the American Control deck than it does with UR Splinter Twin, so grouping them together is completely disingenuous. Kiki Pod and Melira Pod are a little closer, but again you might as well claim that UR Delver and RUG Delver are the same basic deck when they obviously aren't.


Agree, I don't think Second Sunrise or Seething Song were bans that were truly necessary... The respective decks that they were played in weren't hard to work with or against.Considering Storm is still decent and can still sometimes win on turn 3 even without Seething Song, the Seething Song ban may not have been that unnecessary. But that point can at least be argued. However, the argument advanced makes no sense in regards to Second Sunrise. Second Sunrise wasn't banned because Eggs was too powerful; it was banned because Eggs made tournaments take hours longer to complete.

It's kind of like arguing Shahrazad should be unbanned because it's not that powerful a card. Power is not why it's banned.

[JDK]

Agree, I don't think Second Sunrise or Seething Song were bans that were truly necessary... The respective decks that they were played in weren't hard to work with or against.

Don't get me wrong, I fully understand the bannings, I was just not happy with those two. People picking up Second Sunrise without proper testing resulted in UWx Miracles-level draw rates and Storm was too potent in terms of "no top deck should consistently win before turn 4".

[Phoenix Ignition]

Considering Storm is still decent and can still sometimes win on turn 3 even without Seething Song, the Seething Song ban may not have been that unnecessary. But that point can at least be argued. However, the argument advanced makes no sense in regards to Second Sunrise. Second Sunrise wasn't banned because Eggs was too powerful; it was banned because Eggs made tournaments take hours longer to complete.


This is the best reason I've seen, whether they've said it or not. I would also say boredom is a huge factor, as that deck takes like 10 minutes on its combo turn to play out. I liked when someone just wrote "F6" on a piece of paper during the pro tour (I think) and slid it under the camera while their opponent went off. At least storm only needs to play ~20 spells in opposed to like 5 Second Sunrises and all of the artifact/land triggers involved in that going off. And I do realize that my boredom isn't necessarily a good reason to ban something, but I'm pretty sure that was the opinion of the majority of people, and at the point where a highly played deck takes up 90% of match time I think a lot of people get bored. At least online you could watch them tick down their play time and not both of you's play time.

As for format stagnancy I kind of agree that it's stale right now, but I also think there are a few good decks not being played as much as they should be. I wouldn't say the decks are off the radar, but definitely ones like Merfolk are under played. I think Pod may be a problem in that it takes the slot of great insta-kill and best midrange deck in the format due to it's pretty much unending card value, but there are definitely decks that can shut it down fairly easily.

Twin is pretty common too, but I think gets worse in tournaments the more people know exactly what to do against it. That's the case for most decks, but I think especially for twin since knowing how and when and why to kill their creature is extremely important.

[Lord Seth]

This is the best reason I've seen, whether they've said it or not.They straight up said in the banning announcement that the reason Second Sunrise got banned was that Eggs' extremely long turns would make large tournaments take an hour or more longer than they would have otherwise.

Though really, the problem wasn't just that Eggs took a long time to win. If that was the case, it would have been banned earlier. The problem was that and the fact that Eggs took those ultra long turns and was a popular enough deck that enough people were playing it. If a handful of people in a big tournament are playing it, it's not so much a problem, so it'd be like High Tide in Legacy. And that's why Eggs escaped a ban for a while after Cifka's victory with it; people just weren't playing the deck enough for it to be a real problem.

But then Bloodbraid Elf and Seething Song got banned, and suddenly Eggs was a whole lot better, leading to it being played far more often and even getting a Grand Prix win. Imagine if High Tide was a Tier 1 deck in Legacy and you can have a feeling for why Eggs was a problem.

[Tormod]

But by this logic you might as well argue that High Tide and ANT are the same deck because how you play against them from a sideboard perspective is similar, you want to draw your hate against both, and "it still feels the same when your opponent casts a whole lot of spells in one turn and then kills you with their final spell." Are you going to start grouping High Tide in with ANT?

Not exactly, maybe if ANT's plan was to BSZ me for a ton of cards I would agree with you. ANT combo's off a lot faster than Hightide which also feels different.

Since we're basing this around how I feel about it, that example doesn't work for me.

[Lord Seth]

The point is, you're lumping together two decks that really have rather little in common (I'll restate it yet again: "Control Twin" has far, far more in common with American Control than it does with Tempo Twin) just so you can artificially inflate your "big 4" percentage.

[Tormod]

The point is, you're lumping together two decks that really have rather little in common (I'll restate it yet again: "Control Twin" has far, far more in common with American Control than it does with Tempo Twin) just so you can artificially inflate your "big 4" percentage.

Sure I can, if you look at mtg goldfish they do exactly that.

I'm not disagreeing with you control twin has lots in common with american control, but its still a twin deck.

[Arsenal]

Are you talking about this? http://tcdecks.net/deck.php?id=13662&iddeck=100360

Because that deck is essentially UWR Control with Kiki-Jiki in there to threaten a combo kill, but can also just copy Wall of Omens for free cantripping value.

[Tormod]

Are you talking about this? http://tcdecks.net/deck.php?id=13662&iddeck=100360

Because that deck is essentially UWR Control with Kiki-Jiki in there to threaten a combo kill, but can also just copy Wall of Omens for free cantripping value.

That's the Shawn Maclaren Resto Kiki deck. No I'm not talking about that. Maybe Seth?

[Lord Seth]

That's the Shawn Maclaren Resto Kiki deck. No I'm not talking about that. Maybe Seth?Well then, after I said "I think you're talking about..." why did you not say "no, that isn't what I'm talking about" instead of leaving that hanging and leaving me with the impression that you were referring to that deck? Because now I'm sure what you're talking about. If you are talking about the (not particularly popular) "American Twin" deck, then...


Sure I can, if you look at mtg goldfish they do exactly that.Actually, as far as I can tell it classifies American Twin as UWR Control, like here (http://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/233096) and here (http://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/232516). So your cited source actually disagrees with you.


I'm not disagreeing with you control twin has lots in common with american control, but its still a twin deck.And is still distinct enough from Tempo Twin that lumping them together is still just artificially inflating your percentage. It's like saying UR Stiflenought is "still a Delver deck" and putting it in with RUG Delver.

[Timber]

Yay, ANOTHER Modern thread hijacked by whining about the Second Sunrise banning. Please stop.

Back to the original thread topic: no, I'm not disappointed. Competitive Magic will always gravitate towards the best 4 or 5 decks, regardless of format. Standard had Jund, Reanimator, and Aristocrats variants last season and has mono black, Jund Monsters, and UW Control this season. Modern has Twin, Pod, UWR Control and Affinity. Legacy has Stoneforge decks and Show and Tell.

I've seen a pretty good variety of decks in my short time in Modern, but I think Kibler's article today touches on two points that shed light on the reason that eternal formats feel, or can actually get, stale:

First: "A big part of that is because of the on-again, off-again competitive events in the format. With only brief windows during which Modern is relevant to most players throughout the year, it doesn't get explored nearly as thoroughly as a format like Standard or even Legacy."

Second: "In fact, the price of many cards in Modern also makes it so this is the only way many players can actually participate in the format at all. Sure, they might want to try out a new deck idea... but when they've already invested hundreds or even thousands of dollars into the fetchlands and other expensive staples that it takes to build a deck like Birthing Pod or Splinter Twin, it's going to take a lot to get them to switch to something else." http://www.starcitygames.com/article/28748_Modern-For-The-Honest-Man.html

I don't want to be a hypocrite and whine about card prices, but I do think that manabase prices restrict format diversity.

I've given up on the utopian idea that competitive formats will have more than 8 or 9 consistent winning decks where 3 or 4 make up 90% of any given tournament. Maybe in the 1990s you could show up with an unknown brew and top 8 a major tournament. I think that dream is over.

[Tormod]

@ Seth,

Those 2 decks are anomalies under UWR Control, clearly they are twin decks. They have quite a number of cards (12+) dedicated to the combo such as full sets of twins and exarchs and some number of pestermites.

Its certainly not the resto control deck that splashes 3 kiki for CA and a combo finish.

[Lord Seth]

@ Seth,

Those 2 decks are anomalies under UWR Control, clearly they are twin decks. They have quite a number of cards (12+) dedicated to the combo such as full sets of twins and exarchs and some number of pestermites.

Its certainly not the resto control deck that splashes 3 kiki for CA and a combo finish.But your defense was that MTG Goldfish put that deck under the Splinter Twin umbrella, which I showed they did not. You were the one that cited that source, not me.

And you still haven't offered any real defense for your lumping of Kiki Pod in with Melira Pod, when the "big 4" (Jund, Melira Pod, Splinter Twin, and Affinity) clearly differentiates between Melira Pod and Kiki Pod.

[Tormod]

But your defense was that MTG Goldfish put that deck under the Splinter Twin umbrella, which I showed they did not. You were the one that cited that source, not me.

And you still haven't offered any real defense for your lumping of Kiki Pod in with Melira Pod, when the "big 4" (Jund, Melira Pod, Splinter Twin, and Affinity) clearly differentiates between Melira Pod and Kiki Pod.

Seth,

Where does it show any splinter twin? http://www.mtggoldfish.com/archetype/8961

Combing over deck list to find some odd examples to prove a point is a little "too much".

[Lord Seth]

Seth,

Where does it show any splinter twin? http://www.mtggoldfish.com/archetype/8961Why should it show any Splinter Twin? All that page does is list the most commonly played cards in the deck. Whether or not it has Splinter Twin listed is irrelevant, because all it shows is it isn't played that much. Which adds up, considering American Twin is not particularly popular; I actually had to search a bit to find the specific decks I did discover.


Combing over deck list to find some odd examples to prove a point is a little "too much".It's not "odd examples." With considerable consistency, MTG Goldfish puts all of the American Twin decks under American Control; the reason I only listed a few is because, again, the deck isn't that popular and for that reason there were only a few recent examples of it. Why don't you point me to the UWR decks that are listed under the umbrella of UR Splinter Twin then on that site, because you're the one who made that claim in the first place?

[Tormod]

OK Seth you win.

Is that what you want to hear? Its like arguing with my wife lol.

[Qweerios]

I picked up Modern about 8 months ago. I have been playing staple decks as well as many spicy brews in a competitive metagame where I get to play 4-6 rounds against powerful decks piloted by all sorts of players on the "skill scales". Most successful brews I encounter and brew myself tend to be Delver, Midrange, and Control decks because the combo route seems to be the most developed one as if a great combo race had taken place when the format was invented.

What makes modern so un-appealing with regards to the metagame IMO is the lack of manipulation. When all the manipulation you get is Serum Visions, Pod, and Chords of Calling, the format's top decks quickly become cyclical where a certain archetype will prey on another at the cost of many more matchups than it should. The reason for this cycle is the fact that nobody can dedicate enough SB space to combat enough of the format's contenders.

[DragoFireheart]

On a different note, seeing various top-tier decks randomly running Tarmogoyf is kinda funny. Who would have thought that the Goyf would play nice in Affinity!? :laugh:


The format is a bit stagnant in that there are not many brewers in the format.

There's little reason to brew when you're at risk of having key pieces of your brew banned when it goes against WotC philosophy of how the format should behave.