- Which is why things like Grim and Snappy are good choices.Quote:
Originally Posted by hi-val
Printable View
- Which is why things like Grim and Snappy are good choices.Quote:
Originally Posted by hi-val
Given that these guys are pros, still not sure they know what they're talking about. I find RUG and U/W just as lame to play against in Legacy because they play FoW and Daze, but by no means are they the same decks. How can having a bunch of different decks not be diverse? When there are many differing things, how can this be homogenous?Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyRo
Kibler's comment against a prepared opponent is silly. Even in sports, a prepared opponent is always more difficult to play against than an unprepared opponent. (Georgia Tech and Navy get wins because they play a rare and unique offense. If you have sub-standard players, no amount of prep will help because instinctively, they play football differently. However, if you have above average players with great sideline to sideline speed, a lil bit of studying and you can stymie the triple option.) And a lot of decks have an Achilles' heel, be it a piece of color hate (like Choke), Pithing Needle, Chalice of the Void, or xyz. Being fragile in one respect typically greatly pays off in another. (Looking at you Belcher, you wonderful glass cannon, you. Belcher goes BOOM!, but who's dead?)
Sam Black said there is no card draw- sleight of hand, telling time, think twice, serum visions, faithless looting, izzet charm, cryptic command, esper charm, all have the text "draw card(s)" on them (or put card into hand.) If these spells aren't as great as options in other formats (or compared to the banned list which is more appropriate), it's not lack of having the option, it's the efficiency of said option.
What is wrong with being able to pick "colors you want and play any of the 'good cards'"? This seems like flawed logic- I should only play certain colors, and mix good and bad cards.
I play bad cards in Legacy because it's a pet deck, and dammit, that's my choice. I also don't fully expect to win, but have no problem entering tourney's and wasting $30 for fun (because it's a game after all.) So in Legacy, is it incorrect to play good cards? Are the good cards not being "played so much throughout history that it's all fairly bland,"?
As hi-val said, those that are playing Modern and enjoy it like it the way it is. If you're not already onboard, unbanning Blazing Shoal* is not apt to whet your whistle and convert you to playing.
When there is a room full of RUG or some other U.dec (Merfolk, SnT, High Tide, U/W Miracles, U/W Control, my meta is full of tons and tons of U.decs), this is supposed to be diversity and fun?
Both pros come across whiny and vague. Most likely, the snippets (thank you for providing them to further the conversation TonyRo) don't do them complete justice in explaining their thoughts. Seeing as how I found my RtR product cheaper from another retailer, I did not get the gratis premium membership from SCG, and nor am I interested in paying for such content. I'm sure they've play tested a lot with friends and on-line to develop these well thought out treatise, but the quotes ring hollow for me.
Cheers,
Modern is fine
Im not going to tell yoj that it is wrong to play your pet decks because they are what you want to play and ljke you saod you dont mind losing. Kibler and other pros play to win though and the fact that the choice to win is basically to play one of like 2 de ks is why the format is unhealthy and boring
They site combo and Jund as the reason the format is boring (generalizing.) They're trying to win, agreed. Why wouldn't they play a combo deck or Jund and go at it from there? If they want to play aggro, Affinity is a thing, and cranial plating is a beating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Megadeus
Sam Black is playing a pet deck for all intents and purposes with R/B zombies in Legacy, but he's winning. Just him, other pilots aren't putting up significant numbers. So pet decks can work, with some hard work and innovation.
Where as control is a default in Legacy, combo is the default in Modern. Not liking combo doesn't make a format bad (=unhealthy and boring), makes it unliked. I don't like Standard, so I became a Modern player.
People might not be thinking of particular cards. But there are a lot of times I think of a cool idea for a Modern deck and then discover some important card is banned and have to abandon it.Quote:
Originally Posted by hi-val
Wait, Skullclamp? Has anyone called for that to be unbanned? I've seen people suggesting Jace be unbanned, but Skullclamp? The card's not even legal in Legacy.Quote:
The people who want to play Modern are playing it and an unbanning of JTMS or Skullclamp won't likely spice things up enough to get uninvolved people to engage.
Chapin's thoughts on Modern will be posted tomorrow on SCG. I can't link to the article yet. :rolleyes:
EDIT: Chapin on Modern (Premium)
So I should be happy that Hurricane Sandy isn't greatly affecting me, as I live in Philly and do not need to travel to Pittsburgh to get back to Philly. And, that Pack Rat is being complained about... that's all I get from SCG. If I remember, I'll attempt to respond in November.
Or...
You could write what thoughts were provoked by the article, and give your analysis of the given conversation.
Cheers,
I want Pack Rat to do something awesome with Necrotic Ooze... but what
I don't understand what you're trying to say in your post. You're saying that you didn't read anything having to do with Modern in the article?
My snark was neither necessary, nor useful in conveying my point.
I was saying the article is not available for us non-paying stiffs (me.) However, as you think it is a valid source to reference to this discussion, I (haphazardly) suggested that you give your opinions of the article. Possibly highlight some of the main topic points, without reproducing the cited material, or otherwise infringing on the fair use of the article.
So, in a direct response to your question, given my limitations, no, I did not read anything Modern related from that link. However, after 30 days time, when the Premium content becomes available to the rest of the MtG community, I could respond referring to the linked article.
Cheers,
still like Modern just the way it is
- I think anyone with any semblance of sanity isn't suggesting for skullclamp to be unbanned. Only trolls and the mad would seriously consider unbanning that monstrosity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Seth
It's a one mana common artifact. How bad could it be? It's not banned in EDH, totally safe I bet.Quote:
Originally Posted by DragoFireheart
Cheers,
says the Toll Troll - It's Always Sunny
Worst troll post ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by ahg113
My nic fit deck dreams of the day I have T1 explorer into t2 skullclamp anx equip drawkng 2 and getting 2 untapped basics...
Patrick Chapin says he thinks that there are too many unfair decks in Modern, and that there's too much degeneracy, especially without Force of Will holding things together. He says that, ideally, the way to go about fixing it would be to ban about 20 cards (not hyperbole--he says that straight up, and suggests banning "Lotus Bloom, Cranial Plating, Second Sunrise, Serum Visions, Snapcaster Mage, Gifts Ungiven, Gravecrawler, Dark Confidant, Goryo's Vengeance, Seething Song, Past in Flames, Splinter Twin, Kiki-Jiki the Mirror Breaker, Through the Breach, Life from the Loam, Birthing Pod, Inkmoth Nexus, Urza's Mine, Urza's Powerplant, Urza's Tower, and Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle").Quote:
Originally Posted by ahg113
However, he admits that while he would prefer they do that, such a thing would be politically infeasible. So he instead advocates unbanning Bitterblossom, Jace, and Green Sun's Zenith while banning Dryad Arbor, Serum Visions, and Sleight of Hand (and possibly Dark Confidant), Dryad Arbor because it's too good with Green Sun's Zenith and the latter two because they enable unfair decks too much.
Another suggestion he has is to have a "rotating ban." I'm unsure of how to put it, so I'm just going to quote what he says (I think one paragraph should be okay to quote):
"Another possibility is to reimagine what the banned list means. What if Modern's banned list was less permanent than other formats? What if cards were banned somewhat aggressively but only temporarily? For instance, what if a few cards were unbanned and a dozen cards were banned, but at least half of those cards were unbanned next year? And when those cards are unbanned, some other cards are banned, but again only temporarily?"
So take all of that for whatever it's worth.
That sounds ridiculous. I never played Modern, but I follow the forums.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Seth
Is Modern really to unfair? Life from the Loam is unfair without Wasteland and cycle lands, really? Snapcaster Mage is very good, but doesn't make an unfair deck.
Cranial Plating is too unfair with all the artifact lands, Skullclamp and Vial being banned?
You don't need FoW in a format, who's fundamental turn is 4.
Banning 20 cards is feasible, but not printing future cards in the similar calibre is not feasible. I tend to agree Ponder and Preordain are too good, but speaking about Serum Visions and Sleight of Hand being unfair is stretching the boundary too far, how about Opt, Peek, and Gitaxian Probe? I don't want cantrips in future sets as good as Ponder or Preordain, but devoiding MtG from 1-mana cantrips seems too harsh.
It is amusing that WotC wanted an Aggro format, and they have achieved that, but still think the Aggro decks look too similar. They banned Zoo's one drop, and people start to cry about Jund and Delver? Then something else banned, but how could it ever stop babies from crying? Bringing back one or more control cards would stir up the format enough. If I understand correctly, people would play eternal formats because it is more powerful than Standard.
Does anyone get the thought that statements that you oft hear such as, "Ponder and Preordain are too good" and Chapin's "Ban Serum Visions and Sleight of Hand" mean the format is just effed up? When Preordain is too good in an eternal, non-rotating format, you're already walking down the wrong path in my opinion.
So much is backwards when people complain about the ban-list.
Unban this, but ban that. Totally see what TonyRo is saying.
Modern is a non-rotating watered down version of extended of yester-year. Extended wasn't all that popular, and but they banned all the cards that were good in extended, so we pretty much have the card pool of the very last extended format, minus all the good cards. I play modern, its not terrible, but the format isn't very interesting.
I don't think Chapin advocating for their bans means the format is "effed up," I think it just means his suggestion to ban them is "effed up." In fact, he might be the first person I've seen make that claim. Usually people either are neutral on the current state of 1-mana cantrips in Modern or think the opposite of what he's advocating. For example, Sam Black complained that the library manipulation/draw in the format wasn't good enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyRo
When pros talk about unfair decks, they're not saying the deck is too powerful. Fair decks are ones that act on a traditional axis and interacts with the opponent. Unfair decks are ones that don't. Zoo and Jund are fair decks. Second Sunrise combo isn't. More importantly, a deck like Illusions/Donate, while a terrible deck, is still an unfair deck. He acknowledged that affinity is something of a weird case; it interacts with your opponent, but that the answers that affinity requires are so specific that the deck borders on unfair.Quote:
Originally Posted by sco0ter
Also, for the record, looking at the DTB forum the fundamental turn in Legacy is about turn 4 too. Just throwing that out there.
Which is actually a facet of a different argument that's tangentally related; should WotC ban the broken decks/cards, or should they ban the enablers? A part of me wonders what would happen if WotC banned Tron, Spinter Twin, Second Sunrise (and some other cards from Chapin's list), and nuked Storm from orbit, and then umbanned ponder and/or preordain, what the format would look like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Seth
Then again, it could just be that for any Eternal format, be it Vintage, Legacy, or Modern, a card like Force of Will is crucial. Even in Modern, with a card pool a quarter the size of Legacy, there are simply too many interactions and Force of Will is needed to keep those interactions in check.
Wizards has their work cut out for them with Modern. They've never seriously managed an eternal format before; EDH is outsourced, Legacy is managed less by WotC and more by Force/Wasteland, and from what I hear, their tweaks to Vintage have been catastrophic and hurt the format a lot. Modern won't be a '"set it and forget it" format like Legacy, it doesn't have the card depth and archetype diversity to self-correct as well as Legacy can. I don't think Wizards is up to this challenge though, which is why I think Modern is going to struggle a lot. It has a lot of potential, but I don't think the current Wizards philosophy of format management is going to be able to get much out of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyRo
The biggest three issues facing Modern are probably:
-Insufficient non-basic land hate: TecEdge, Ghost Quarter, Blood Moon, and Fulminator Mage just aren't good enough against things like Tron and Scapeshift, and greedy manabases are just far too secure. There needs to be either some sort of ubiquitous answer to problem non-basics in the vein of Wasteland or good enough specialized hate to come out of the sideboard that is absolutely devastating. Take gravehate as an example. There are cards that absolutely wreck graveyard strategies and they come in many variations to fit in many kinds of decks. There is nothing nearly comparable to this in the realm of dealing with non-basics in Modern, yet decks in Modern utilize with non-basics to as devastating an effect as the graveyard.
-Not enough variance reducers: You need consistency in an Eternal format for a few reasons. One, the fundamental turn is lower; you have less time to do things and need to make every play count, and variance hurts a lot more because of this. The other main reason is in sideboarding. Fifteen cards is often scarcely enough when you can be attacked by so many different strategies. But without good variance reducers, that space is essentially "shrunk". You can get a lot more out of your 15 when you have cantrips, tutors, dig spells, and the like. We see this in Legacy, as practically every archetype has some at least a couple methods of getting the cards they need, when they need them. Even the mono-red tribal deck has Goblin Matron and Goblin Ringleader to get stuff. Modern...doesn't really have that, and that's a problem in a format full of varied "unfair" decks.
-Wizards has an overly simplistic view of combo: When they ban/don't ban combo solely on the "Modern is a turn four format", it shows how simple their views on combo are. There's more to combo than speed; resilience, skill barrier, meta position, etc. A combo that goes off turn 2, but is easily disrupted by just about anything is probably a lot less dangerous than something like Eggs, which while not as fast, is a lot harder to interact with for a lot of decks. Essentially by banning all the "fast" combo, they leave only the more resilient, harder to interact ones around, shaping the meta in a direction they probably didn't intend.
I think these three issues are the most significant explanatory factors of why the Modern meta is pretty much comprised of aggro (Affinity, Tokens, Lifegain), midrange goodstuff (Jund, U/W Resto), and "combo" (Tron, Scapeshift, Twin, Pod, Storm, Eggs); a state that a lot of people find pretty unsatisfactory.
And in case anyone thinks Wizards knows what they're doing, here's a discomforting litttle tidbit. Wizards has ceased publishing MTGO Daily results citing (when prodded; they tried to slip this under the rug):
http://community.wizards.com/go/thre...rrrr.....?pg=2
Translation: Standard and Block Constructed have been utter shit lately, so rather than fess up to the fact we've made some big mistakes, let's screw everyone out of valuable information to try and reduce the impact of R&D's poor recent performance in designing/developing for tournament players. I wonder if this was one of LaPille's welcome back decisions....Quote:
In regards to the recent reduced event coverage, this was a conscious decision by the Wizards R&D team that wasn’t made lightly. Ultimately, we feel that publishing every deck list leads to solving constructed formats far too efficiently, resulting in early stagnation that’s not fun for anybody. We still want to show new deck ideas every day and provide insight into the Magic play environment, but we don’t want metagame development to become purely a function of data analysis. Going forward, we’ll still provide the winning deck lists from all Premier Event top 8’s. We will also show the 4-0 and 3-1 deck lists for one completed Daily Event in each format per day.