drmarkb wrote: ↑4 years ago
The obvious point to me Ktkenshinx is that Modern needs to not be a PT format, because it cannot have balance by itself. If Legacy is secretly broken with better answers, and I suspect there is some truth in that, Modern is perma-broken without them, so there is literally no hope. Maybe we should agitate for a better format, but give up on the idea of Modern as anything other than FNM, because if Legacy is secretly broken with illusionary diversity with all its answer tools, what hope can there ever be for a format with so few? None is the only logical answer, and that is seen when looking back over the past few years. I would welcome the absence of top Modern play. I don't think it will have the community support it needs to thrive at that level as it has an audience with wildly different ideas of what it wants, but you never know.
The Modern metagame would probably do better as a GP-only format with no PT support, but the Modern format seems to require Wizards attention to thrive. If Wizards withdraws PT support, it sends a very negative signal that hurts the format overall. This has definitely been the historical case, and I suspect it remains the case today, especially after a turbulent 2019. Thankfully, we've seen some Modern PT that were not totally busted and did not lead to bans. This is encouraging and suggests there are some states of the Modern metagame where the format isn't secretly solved. At the same time, you're correct that we need better answers and I think we'll continue to see them as BO1 Arena pressures rise.
I am very unsure that Modern is a play what you want format. I want to play prison. That is a no no for them. Only Legacy gets to lock people out....
Modern isn't literally a play ANYTHING you want format. There are some cards/effects that simply have not been printed since Modern's start point with 8th Edition and Mirrodin. To some extent, prison is one of those. At the same time, you can definitely play two very strong prison elements in Modern through Moon and Bridge. There is also a very decent top-tier Bridge deck in Grixis Whirza. We need to remember that Modern can be the diversity, play-what-you-want format at the FNM/local/MTGO level without being that way at the PT level. In my experience, anyone who loves a deck and is experienced with a deck can basically go infinite 3-2 on MTGO as long as the deck is doing some fundamentally powerful things. This does cover prison strategies, although you should not expect to win a GP with those kinds of decks.
gkourou wrote: ↑4 years ago
Early SCG regional data:
Amulet Titan: 8
Mono R Prowess: 8
Jund: 7
Snow variants: 7 (3 bant, 2 4c, 1 temur, 1 sultai]
Breach: 4
{....other decks, with lower showings}
Again, astrolabe and once seem like the two strongest cards in Modern. There are some e tron decks also.
I will repost in a couple of days
Astrolabe and OUaT are clearly defining cards, but again, they are fundamentally different in what they do to the format. Astrolabe has pushed a renaissance of grindy, slower decks that tend to be strategically diverse with distinct 75-card lists. OUaT is just a super buff at the fringes to a bunch of decks that don't need the card to be successful. Modern is allowed to have powerful, defining format pillars, and if Astrolabe becomes one of them that should be a net positive for Modern; the decks Astrolabe enables were not viable before Astrolabe was around. They would likely suck after it was hypothetically banned.
I'll also note it's important to mention Jund's showing at Regionals. This remains a very strong contender with consistent MTGO results even throughout the OUaT/ramp rise. If Jund and Astrolabe decks are both competitive, this suggests Modern is in an overall healthy spot.
drmarkb wrote: ↑4 years ago
Price on twin has gone up. Normally people delisting copies as well as speccers, but keep an open mind.
This is just par for the course at this point. Dealers don't really lose anything if Twin gets delisted and we can't purchase spec-copies, but they stand to lose a ton of money if speculators pull the copies out from under them. They also stand to lose reputation if they accidentally oversell Twin stock. Twin is definitely the "new SFM" in terms of its unban hype, which means we can't read into any of the pre-announcement sales figures. It might get unbanned in any announcement, but the sales figures are unlikely to reflect that in any given month.
gkourou wrote: ↑4 years ago
If Astrolabe is a necessary evil, so should
Deathrite Shaman be. DRS literally solves too many of our problems: Dredge, breach decks, Storm and other nonsense gy based combos for all eternity. If labe is legal, literally unban DRS. Or ban astrolabe. WOTC chooses.
Spsiegel1987 wrote: ↑4 years ago
I didnt think of that. If astrolabe can basically make players say, "hey, let's play a good color 4c stuff and pack in all the best stuff in one fair deck", why is drs off the table? If you're going by that philosophy, you may as well let the good stuff 3 color decks play drs.
I am in no way advocating for drs, but I believe astrolabe is an atrociously designed card.
Bearscape wrote: ↑4 years ago
DRS is quite a lot better than Astrolabe, but I'm not really strictly opposed to unbanning it.
Ym1r wrote: ↑4 years ago
I find the compassion between DRS and Astrolabe COMPLETELY off base personally.
DRS does: i) color fixing, ii) mana ramping, iii) offers a way to deal with GY on the mainboard without sacrificing slots, iv) a continuous source of life gain which, against some decks, is basically card advantage, and v) a way to close out the game or put the pressure on in chunks of 2.
Astrolabe: i) replaces itself, and ii) provides mana fixing. That's it.
How is DRS more healthy or viable to have around than Astrolabe? Astrolabe doesn't let you land LoTV T2, which was a major issue with Jund at the time. Astrolabe doesn't ruin your Snapcaster, doesn't hose your aggressive strategy.
I think people have forgotten how absurdly powerful DRS is. There is a reason he was called a creature planeswalker.
On the one hand, I think DRS is less offensive than a lot of people think, and I think it's probably less powerful in Modern than in Legacy. On the other hand, there is a massive difference between color fixing and mana ramping. We need to be aware of that in the future.
Finally, I really want us to move past the notion of cards being bannable or problematic solely on the grounds of bad design. Bad, pushed, overloaded, and powerful designs define nonrotating formats. There is nothing inherently wrong with these cards as long as they are not a) dominating the metagame and/or b) leading to overall negative play experiences (subjective but important to note in the Lattice ban wake). Something like OUaT does contribute to negative play patterns by making linear, less interactive ramp decks even more prevalent than they would otherwise be; this is a regular Modern criticism the format needs to evolve beyond. OUaT also leads to metagame dominance issues where Amulet and OUaT strategies are likely "better" than competing options. Astrolabe may lead to the perception of metagame dominance issues in aggregate, but individually, it empowers grindy, slow decks that Modern needs more of. Those decks are also strategically distinct and we should shy away from grouping Simic Urza with Bant Snow Control. In that regard, even an offensively, badly designed card like Astrolabe might help the format and ultimately be a net gain for Modern.