Some Thoughts Upon the Past Months
Modern forum
Posted on March 23, 2015, 10:01 p.m. by CanadianShinobi
The logic that the Modern meta is fine because nothing is dominating is erroneous. Everything being nice and status, is precisely the problem. By banning Dig and Cruise, Wizards brought the meta game backwards. Hell, I could accept Cruise getting banned, because at least I can see viable traces of logic there, but the banning of Dig was asinine, because it was based on faulty reasoning that had and now will never have any contradicting or supporting evidence.
Arguably the meta is not fine. I would argue that if a meta is stale and stagnant that it is not thriving. The current meta lacks energy and diversity. Yes, diversity. We have midrange, combo and... aggro. And we have only one viable combo deck, several midrange decks and a the usually aggro decks. We're missing something though... hmmmm could it be Control, or hell even Tempo? By golly gee I think it is!
The existence of Wizards in a vacuum is absurd. Someone can tell me that Abzan isn't nearly as bad as Pod or Delver for the percentage of the meta game, but at least the meta game back then, about 4-5 months ago? Was energetic. I'd rather play against Pod than Abzan Midrange, because Pod actually requires my opponent to know what they are doing. Abzan is just a bunch of goodstuff crammed into 75 slots.
When entire archetypes are removed due to poor foresight and poor logical decision making then is it not reasonable to ask for change? I am more than well aware that as a TCG Company, Wizards is in no way inclined to even consider my arguments. I am aware that Trading Card Games are asymmetrical in terms of accessibility. I am aware of these things and more, but that does not mean I, and perhaps others, cannot be angry and frustrated with these things.
What I expect is to discuss whether or not the format is healthy. Truly, undeniably healthy. You have my reasons here for why it is not. I see it as stagnant and a step backwards. We have seen this meta before. The last bans were problematic. That there has been no change to day furthers this problem.
Yeah, but there are only so many snapcasters one can fit in a deck.
March 25, 2015 2:49 p.m.
Serendipitous_Hummingbird says... #3
The problem is finding a good draw spell that won't also buff combo. Twin was even better than it currently is when it was running DDT.
The trick is to print something that can ONLY be used by control, and I think Narset is that something. Her +1 gives you rebound on your serum visions. 
for draw a card, scry 2, do it again is pure, unadulterated value.
March 25, 2015 3:07 p.m.
I understand the problem. That said I'm unconvinced Narset will make the cut. She might work for control, but I don't think it'll do anything for tempo.
March 25, 2015 3:13 p.m.
I don't know how everyone will feel about the below, but I've been thinking about these issues for a while and arrived at the following conclusion:
Non creature based decks seem to have this fundamental problem compared to creature based decks where they (almost by definition) get less mileage out of their cards. The pretty obvious reason for this is that any single spell can be cast once, whereas any single creature can potentially do infinite damage if left unchecked. The gameplan of a midrange or aggressive deck is far more efficient than the gameplan of control. A control player might spend 4 mana to counter a spell and draw a card; when I spend 4 mana I cast a creature that can potentially win the game. It seems like everything a creature based deck does has the capability of being more impactful.
A further problem created by the above is that control players have to be less conservative with how they use their cards to some extent. As a player who often plays midrange vs. control I find myself in the position where I'm happy to play out a single card and let it cruise me to victory. In the following 4 turns I could pick up multiple copies of the same card and sculpt a nice hand for myself but feel the need to play none. Swapping to the control players point of view - I'm now staring down a siege rhino and whilst I too am drawing cards every turn, I need to answer it or lose. A creature based deck can be conservative with its resources, whereas a control deck has to be more liberal. This creates a strong psychological advantage. I know that my T2 goyf can sit there and slowly win me the game whilst I draw through my deck looking for the next one. However I also know that the control play is going to have to tap out some mana to answer it shortly. There's this discrepancy between how our resources function.
It's certainly correct, in theory, that a control player can trade 1-for-1 with a midrange player by keeping up with their own counterspells or killspells for an entire game, but this won't happen in practice. Why? 1) Because the control player usually plays a greater number of lands, 2) because the midrange or aggro player can play threats that cost less mana to cast than the counterspells cost (control player forced to tap out), and 3) because at some point the control player is going to draw into their wincon (which is great but occasionally a counterspell / killspell is needed instead). Furthermore, in many cases control players rely on SPECIFIC spells. It's no use holding a Dispel when you need a Mana Leak instead. Therefore another problem is that a creature player can play literally any creature in their deck and win the game. For a control player to further their own plans they need very specific cards.
So what does this mean?
Control decks are super card intensive. They need to answer everything the opponent does or risk losing the game. Everything they do postpones the game, whereas every creature the opponent plays is a potential game winner. There's a very large tilt there. This is precisely WHY Electrolyze and Cryptic Command are so popular. It's not enough to have answers on its own - you need to cycle through your deck because your opponent can win the game for one mana, but you can't. You NEED that special, certain counterspell. Your resources are harder to find, less impactful, and sometimes even more costly than the opponents.
Essentially control needs multi-for-1s and strong card draw. This sounds like it would be too powerful but it's not really. Cards like Maelstrom Pulse are actually kind of clunky and slow in modern. Also, by virtue of the fact that you're responding to the opponent you're always on the back foot. If you Maelstrom Pulse 2 turns after your opponent plays some creatures then sure, you'll clear the board (maybe - this is just an example so roll with it) but you'll also take a fair amount of damage. You do that a few more times and you're dead. So, sure, it's a strong option but it's also slow and prone to failure. In the same way that strong card draw is also prone to failure. You tap out to draw cards and I tap out to cast rhino? Fine - I'm still going to win if you do nothing. Doesn't matter how many cards you have.
What do you think about the inherent problems for control?
March 25, 2015 3:16 p.m.
That's a pretty solid analysis, and likely the reason I gravitate towards tempo, which somewhat mitigates the issue. Although, this is an increasing issue mainly, i think, because of the more creature oriented direction wizards has been taking. Resulting in much more utility creatures with useful effects than used to be around 10 ish years ago. So I guess that begs the question: Is control an archetype that will die out over time? Thoughts ChiefBell ? Or am I just too old?
March 25, 2015 3:32 p.m.
It won't die out. Wizards will print more efficient answers, and more efficient draw spells. Giving control a solid way to maintain their advantage versus creatures is key. So perhaps treasure cruise and dig through time (maybe) were too powerful; there's still a middle ground. Something inbetween Serum Visions and Treasure Cruise. Eventually it'll come.
March 25, 2015 3:39 p.m.
OtakulordAndrew says... #8
I don't think control will ever truly die out in magic as an arc-type but it might get absorbed into or become a sub-type in combo and midrange decks instead.
March 25, 2015 3:45 p.m.
Control as a sub-type of midrange? I'm not sure I follow your reasoning there. To me that makes about as much sense as saying blue will become a sub-colour of green. What do you mean?
March 25, 2015 3:51 p.m.
Control elements are already present in most midrange. Abzan plays 3-4 Abrupt Decay, 3-4 Path to Exile and usually some number of Dismember or Maelstrom Pulse. Also Liliana of the Veil.
March 25, 2015 3:54 p.m.
GlistenerAgent says... #11
@ChiefBell That's a pretty spot-on analysis of why control decks aren't the only decks people play. Kinda exemplified in our match, if I do say so myself.
@PValBlanc Control decks and aggro decks are more or less midrange decks that went off opposing deep ends. That's why you see many more "midrange-aggro" and "midrange-control" decks than you see aggro-control decks.
March 25, 2015 4:23 p.m.
OtakulordAndrew says... #12
ChiefBell and GlistenerAgent have already answered the question excellently but to elaborate rather than seeing the straight control deck it might get fazed out for heavier control variations of combo and midrange decks. For example rather than running 15-20 creatures in a mid range deck we might see more arc types that prefer running only 10-15 creatures mostly made up of the usual creatures you would expect in control such as Snapcaster Mage, Vendilion Clique, Tasigur, the Golden Fang, Eternal Witness, etc along with the usuall big midrange threats such as Tarmogoyf, Siege Rhino, etc. meanwhile the combo control variant rather than focusing on its combo such as Splinter Twin, or Scapeshift rather than focusing on the combo aspect would favor control more and use the combo as an alternative win con, or at least carry fewer copies of the combo components mabey on 3 of Splinter Twin, 2 of Pestermite, 3 of Deceiver Exarch, for example in favor of running more control.
March 25, 2015 4:43 p.m.
jandrobard says... #13
So modern needs more playable noncreature spells that continue to gain value?
March 25, 2015 4:50 p.m.
Serendipitous_Hummingbird says... #14
control will never die, but control is also a bad word to use.
At its heart, there are two types of decks in Magic: The Gathering. There are combo decks and control decks.
Burn, Affinity, Infect, Twin, Bloom, and Scapeshift are all combo decks. The have a set strategy and stick to it. It might be the interaction between twin and pestermite/deceiver exarch, or it might just be to unload everything ASAP. Either way, you "go off" over the course of 1-3 turns, relying on the rapid nature of action to completely overwhelm your opponent. An infinite number of Pestermites relying on the same overwhelming assault as 0 cmc robots or cheap burn spells.
Everything else is control. Tempo, Junk attrition, and I actually can't think of any other decks, are control. Unlike combo decks, control decks react to the board and sculpt it to their advantage. Do you think an affinity player cares what you put down? Absolutely not. But you CERTAINLY care about their board.
Either you sculpt the board or you overwhelm it. The first is a control deck, the latter combo.
Permission is dead for the reasons ChiefBell explained. But control is not a matter of "yes" or "no" to a spell on the stack. It is a devotion of resources to manipulation of your opponent's side of the board, rather than just your own.
March 25, 2015 4:59 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #15
Pretty much. And that flies in the face of Wizards current policy of making Magic a more creature oriented game.
March 25, 2015 5:01 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #16
Also where do people get off calling Burn a "combo" deck. It's an aggro deck.
March 25, 2015 5:02 p.m.
Makes sense. Twin already does that to some extent. I've seen it play as a tempo deck winning off of the threat of combo instead of off of the combo itself. People play conservatively to defend against the combo and lose to beatdown. If they spend too many ressources protecting against the beatdown you punish that by comboing out. Your points are well made. TIL.
March 25, 2015 5:03 p.m.
GlistenerAgent says... #18
Burn plays like a combo deck. Linear strategy, less variance between individual games, turn 3 kill (potentially).
March 25, 2015 5:07 p.m.
I actually really, vehemently disagree with muddling aggro in with combo. They're completely different in the way they approach their game. A deck that goes 'Mountain, Lightning Bolt' does not create a combo thats more than the sum of its parts. It just plays straightforward magic. It also really DOES CARE what the opponent plays. I also disagree that Junk is a control deck. Sometimes it has no care about what the opponent does, like for example if you go T1 Noble Hierarch into T2 Tarmogoyf into T3 Kitchen Finks etc. But then if it's playing like that it's certainly not a combo either. I still think separating aggro from combo is worthwhile. A combo is something that creates an instantaneous overwhelming advantage once the pieces are together. Burn does not 'go off'. Or if it does - it's the slowest 'going off' I've ever seen. I mean next we're going to be saying that decks that win slowly over 5 turns 'go off'.
I also don't think permission necessarily has to be dead. I think permission is awesome but lacks certain resources. I much rather see permission change than people make blanket statements about it not being worthwhile. Also, its silly to think that control decks only played permssion cards. UWR has Anger of the Gods, Path to Exile and Lightning Bolt. They always did do more than counter.
March 25, 2015 5:08 p.m.
CanadianShinobi I've seen people argue for pages over wether affinity is aggro or combo, same for burn. I don't even know if U-Tron should be categorised as control or combo anymore. Its a recurring problem with metalanguage. The lack of a dictionary definition leads to discrepancies in semantics. Don't lose sleep over it.
March 25, 2015 5:12 p.m.
GlistenerAgent - there's a difference between sufficient and necessary. If a deck plays a linear strategy then it /may/ be combo but it doesn't /have/ to be combo. Just because they share traits doesnt mean theyre one and the same. Also, since when did Twin play a linear strategy?
I disagree with this whole 'we need to radicalise control' type argument. I mean, BG/x has been doing the whole "run 10 threats alongside a ton of control spells" for AAAAGES now. It's not new. That's still midrange though to a great extent. I think that the last thing control needs is muddling in more win conditions because most of the time they're just dead draws. Bad idea I think. It doesn't need some revolution, it just needs to change.
March 25, 2015 5:13 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #22
ChiefBell pretty much stopped me from my rant about why people who call Burn a "combo" deck are inherently wrong. Everyone should give him a cookie in thanks.
March 25, 2015 5:13 p.m.
PValBlanc, GlistenerAgent - I feel that language should be as informative as possible. By muddling in things like burn with things like twin and calling them both 'combo', it tells you less than separating them and calling one 'aggro' and one 'combo'. Ie - the greater level of specificity we have, the more useful language becomes. Someone new to the game would learn more from a separation in terms, than they would if we used 'combo' for more deck types.
March 25, 2015 5:15 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #24
Also, while Control needs to change, it also needs the tools so that it can change. Again we've looped back to the notion of player confidence and Wizards' potential mismanagement of the format.
March 25, 2015 5:15 p.m.
GlistenerAgent says... #25
I don't call Burn a combo deck in common conversation. I call it that when we get into in-depth discussions of exactly what they are. If I'm talking to a friend about beating aggro decks, I'll mention burn.
March 25, 2015 5:17 p.m.
GlistenerAgent - thats fair enough. I still think that we should be as specific as possible. If we define combo as one strict thing, and aggro as one strict thing, and midrange as another, and control as another etc then everything becomes a lot clearer. That's not to say that decks can't overlap but thats even more useful because then you learn even more about how the deck works. It's a nice solution.
Can I say something that you guys might really, actually hate.
I think that Lightning Bolt has lost value and that it may be worth moving away from in control decks.
I think this because there's a ton of creatures now with >3 toughness and they seem to be everywhere. The last thing control needs is dead cards. Ergo, to me at least, Lightning Bolt has been devalued.
March 25, 2015 5:20 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #27
No, I can agree with that assessment ChiefBell. However, it's just another sad day then. Reality Shift never made the impact I thought it had the potential to make.
March 25, 2015 5:22 p.m.
GlistenerAgent says... #28
YES I AGREE WITH YOU SOMEONE GIVE THIS MAN A MILLION DOLLARS.
I will never play four Lightning Bolts in Scapeshift (hell, I have trouble playing any sometimes), and I've cut one from my UWR Control deck in favor of the fourth Path. Bolt just doesn't kill everything that shows up to party these days.
March 25, 2015 5:22 p.m.
As a guy who went to college in linguistics, I couldn't agree with you more ChiefBell, I'm just pointing out that the implied subjectivity sadly means people will always argue over the definitions.
March 25, 2015 5:22 p.m.
Serendipitous_Hummingbird says... #30
I'm this close to replacing all my basics in xR decks with snow lands so I can run skred.
Bolt doesn't hit everything like it used to. Not even flame slash.
March 25, 2015 5:59 p.m.
Serendipitous_Hummingbird says... #31
and on affinity and burn as combo, "combo" is short for combination. It's about self synergy. Combo decks are concerned only with their own side of the board. The mentality of an affinity player is more similar to that of a bloom titan player than that of a junk player.
March 25, 2015 6:01 p.m.
/Boros Charm i guess does the trick. Bolt won't stop a resolved +1 LotV
March 25, 2015 6:07 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #35
I think the potential problem that many players run into is that because one style of Control deck was prominent in the past, that is the only control deck that is viable. Notably: Jeskai Control.
However, in theory, two options present themselves to me. The first in Grixis Control, which has been given access to overlooked tools with the coming of DTK. The second is Sultai Control.
Sultai Control 
Let me work backwards and start with Sultai Control, since it is, perhaps the more obvious deck due to its recent showing. The obvious assumption is that since you're running green, then you must run 4x Tarmogoyf because you're running green. This is dangerous thinking and shifts the deck into a Midrange deck because then you begin to play various B/G/X components. I would argue that Sultai control is perfectly viable with a set of Snapcasters, 1-2 Tasigurs and potentially 1-2 Thragtusk. This configuration of creatures allows for greater access to elements of control. It also removes itself from the concept of being a pure midrange deck since the theory and game plan of the deck have changed. Tarmogoyf is such an influential card that it does change deck building theories. Another potential set up is to place 2x Eternal Witness into the deck so that you can recall anything should you lose it.
Grixis Control 
The next is Grixis. Grixis is often overshadowed by Jeskai control for a variety of reasons. Removal, creatures and life gain are the notable reasons, especially with the printing of Sphinx's Revelation. However, Grixis has recently been given two key tools which, again in theory, solve certain problems. The first is Kolaghan's Command and the next is Commune with Lava. While people have initially praised Kolaghan's Command for it's versatility, they often overlook the first ability: Return Target creature from your graveyard to your hand. Couple that with a shock and/or discard and you have an incredibly powerful card. In This card allows you to further recycle Snapcaster Mage, thus gaining further advantage from a creature that is already a huge boon to any control deck. The second overlooked tool that Grixis has gained is Commune with Lava. Those who analyzed DTK have all overlooked this card, dismissing it as the poor man's Sphinx's Revelation. However, what such players have failed to realize is that for something like Grixis, especially in Modern, this is an excellent late game card. Firstly it allows you to sort through however many cards you cast it for. It's 1 cheaper. Many control spells, like Cryptic Command are perfectly fine at sorcery speed and it allows you to dig deeper to find your win con. Not only that, but it removes late game dead draws such as Mana Leak and unecessary land.
March 25, 2015 6:27 p.m.
I'll also put a word in for esper, with the more recent esper-mentor builds that have put it back on the map. How powerful that becomes remains to be seen.
March 25, 2015 6:54 p.m.
Oh and that modern esperblade build that's been floating around the feature banner these passed couple of days also gives me hope.
March 25, 2015 6:56 p.m.
OtakulordAndrew says... #38
I'm glad that someone made reference to sultai, and grixis control as they are my favorite control decks.
In sultai control I completely agree with Snapcaster Mage, Eternal Witness, Tasigur, the Golden Fang and depending on the deck you are running and your tournament meta Thragtusk another card often overlooked that sometimes ends up in the deck is Nulltread Gargantuan for it's ability to return snapcasters and witness' to your hand while providing a 5\6 body. Combine this with blue's control and the great removal of green/black and you have a nice deck.
In terms of grixis though I would say the main things that set it apart from other control decks is the Cruel Ultimatum arc type which plays like your usual control deck in terms of blue control and red burn but that black gives it acces to hand disruption and better creature control than white offers in the form of mono black removal or the even more effective red/black removal with cards like Terminate and Dreadbore. The deck usually finishes with cards like Cruel Ultimatum, Rakdos's Return, and Suffer the Past.
March 25, 2015 7:09 p.m.
OtakulordAndrew says... #39
By hand I mean on your deck and then in to your hand. pseudo hand return.
March 25, 2015 8:14 p.m.
selesvyaloverer8 says... #40
the problem with such narrow definitions of archetypes is this:
Is scapeshift a control deck? It plays counters, removal, and very few win conditions. however, said win condition is a combination of a buch of small parts into something greater than their sum.
Is twin a control deck? it play counters, including the control stereotype Cryptic Command, but again it has an instant win. however it even plays more like a UR Tempo b/c of the Pestermite beatdown plan but again, combo finish.
Storm is clearly a combo deck but it is extremely different from the other two "combo" decks.
In my opinion, the different archetypes can be defined by how many slots in the deck are devoted to actively winning the game.
Aggro-every nonland slot is devoted to winning the game as quickly as possible. ex. burn, every card is a burn spell, a burn spell on a stick, or a land.
Midrange-9-15ish slots are dedicated to winning the game with efficient, resilient threats and the rest are dedicated to making sure the opponent cant do whatever they want to by removing cards on board and disrupting the hand. ex. Junk Midrange, 4x siege rhino, goyf, 2x taz, <=5 others, abrupt decay, path, dismember, murderous cut, thoughtseize, etc.
Tempo-Same as midrange but also draws cards and counters instead of answering on board. ex. old delver, 4x delver, young pyro, 2-4x swiftspear, burn, remand, treasure cruise, etc.
Control- 2-4 slots are dedicated to winning the game with nigh-unkillable threats. The rest are counterspells and removal. ex uwr control, batterskull, keranos, celestial colonnade, rest are paths, bolts, electrolyzes, mana leaks, cryptic commands, remand, etc.
Combo-Wins the game in 1 turn out of nearly nowhere and can also be defined under another category ex. storm aggro combo, every card draws cards, makes mana, or is a grapeshot ex. scapeshift control combo, 4x scapeshift rest are control pieces ex. twin tempo midrange, beats down with pestermite and deceiver exarch and threatens to combo while controlling the opponent's side with counters.
March 25, 2015 8:45 p.m.
OtakulordAndrew says... #42
That's a good way to look at things for simplicity most decks are put into a single deck arc type based on their win con but can usually have aspects of or fall under multiple categories or sub categories when you look at their content.
OtakulordAndrew says... #1
Yes PValBlanc yes you are It's what most control players would like. I find the second best solution to card draw is to try and have a way to get my used control cards back rather than draw more of them. Preferably having the card get them back also be a threat and then I look for cards that allow me to do this again while either providing a threat or being another control card. It is the same reason why control cards or burn spells that allow for draw are good they let you replace what is used while giving you an effect. These things might no be straight up great card draw like Dig Through Time but they are an alternative.
March 25, 2015 2:26 p.m.