Modern Myths: Debunking the Format's Biggest Misconceptions


Modern has a lot of things said about it, and I want to tackle in this week's article a few that I find to be myths about the format. I'm calling these four "Modern Myths," and I hope that bringing up these topics will spark a discussion. Do you think you'll agree with these points? Let's dive in and start off with the first one.

1. "Modern needs Counterspell."


Control enthusiasts in the format have asked for Counterspell to be a part of their Modern arsenal as long as anyone can remember. Blue-based control decks, they contend, are underrepresented and need a catchall answer to the various threats that the format presents. In its current state, Modern is a linear format where decks that try to interact face the conundrum of having the wrong answers at the wrong time, and Counterspell would be able to get around this problem.

What exactly would Counterspell do in Modern? I can't say with one hundred percent accuracy, but it's not going to punish the likes of Five-Color Humans, Hollow One, Affinity, and Bogles. These linear aggro decks are built to effectively end the game as early as turn three. The decks that would be punished by Counterspell – the midrange decks of the format – are already struggling as is. While the card would undoubtedly make control decks better, the question is, "Against what?" The answer to the question points to Modern not needing Counterspell.

2. "Standard has been too weak for cards to make an impact in Modern."

Just going back to Battle for Zendikar block, we have the following cards that have made a noticeable impact on Modern:

Battle for Zendikar block: colorless Eldrazi, allied creature-lands, Reflector Mage, Ulamog, the Ceaseless Hunger, Part the Waterveil, Oath of Nissa, Cinder Glade, Nissa, Voice of Zendikar, Kozilek's Return, Natural State, Warping Wail, and Crumble to Dust.

Reflector Mage Liliana, The Last Hope

Shadows over Innistrad block: Liliana, the Last Hope, Tireless Tracker, Traverse the Ulvenwald, Collective Brutality, Thalia's Lieutenant, Thing in the Ice / Awoken Horror, Prized Amalgam, Grim Flayer, Spell Queller, Bedlam Reveler, Selfless Spirit, Eldritch Evolution, Nahiri, the Harbinger, Thalia, Heretic Cathar, and Blessed Alliance.

Kaladesh block: Fatal Push, enemy fast-lands, Walking Ballista, Baral, Chief of Compliance, Chandra, Torch of Defiance, Inventors' Fair, Blossoming Defense, Whir of Invention, Cathartic Reunion, Smuggler's Copter, Spire of Industry Sram, Senior Edificer, and Scrap Trawler

Fatal Push Hollow One

Amonkhet block: Hollow One, Abrade, Ramunap Excavator, Gideon of the Trials, Hazoret the Fervent, Rhonas the Indomitable, As Foretold, Sweltering Suns, and new cycling creatures

Ixalan block: Field of Ruin, Unclaimed Territory, Search for Azcanta / Azcanta, the Sunken Ruin, Kitesail Freebooter, Opt, Settle the Wreckage, Dire Fleet Daredevil, Entrancing Melody, Merfolk Branchwalker, and Merfolk Mistbinder.

Opt Damping Sphere

Dominaria (so far): Damping Sphere, Shalai, Voice of Plenty, and Mox Amber.

I've missed some cards here and there, but I think those are the big ones. In any case, Standard has had a huge say in building and transforming archetypes in Modern, and if this trend is any indication, we'll continue to see Modern shaped by powerful Standard cards.

3. "Jace, the Mind Sculptor will continue to be a non-factor in the format."

When Jace, the Mind Sculptor was unbanned, I was one of the players who felt that blue-based midrange/control decks would swallow up the archetypes and homogenize it. In a strange way Jace did something to the midrange decks of the format, but it had more to do with decks speeding up to beat the fair decks and their powerful four-drops.

Jace, the Mind Sculptor

With linear decks keeping Jace down, does this mean that the four-mana planeswalker is safe for Modern? I don't think so. At some point, Humans and Hollow One, as well as the other top decks of the format, are going to see a decline in play. Whether that's a huge metagame shift or the printing of new cards that affect the format, Modern has shown historically that it constantly changes. Once midrange and control strategies rise to the top, one of the boogeymen sitting on the throne will be the strongest planeswalker in Magic. The card is too good and too powerful to not be a format mainstay. Only time will tell when it becomes the menace the community predicted it to be.

4. "Modern is cheaper than Standard."

Liliana of the Veil

One of the advantages of a non-rotating format that the community touts is the fact that rotation doesn't occur in Modern. While it's true that when players buy cards for Modern, the value of those cards won't drop like stones after twenty-one months, Modern isn't necessarily cheaper than Standard depending on how you play it.

One of the ways to make this happen is through the digital platform Magic Online. Much like paper magic, cards on Magic Online (or MTGO for short) have their own prices and a secondary market to sell and purchase them exist, as well. For example, it costs 185 tickets (the currency in MTGO that translates to roughly $1 per ticket) to purchase Mono-Red Aggro in Standard, according to MTGGoldfish. If you at any point you decided you want to sell the deck – whether in preparation for an upcoming rotation or to buy into a different deck – the secondary market on MTGO would offer you somewhere around 80 to 90% of the deck's cost. If we compare this with playing paper Modern, we get a much different picture. Buying the format's top deck in Five-Color Humans runs you easily over a thousand euros, and if you were to sell the deck as a whole, you would expect to get somewhere around 60 to 70% of the deck's value. Piecing it out via Cardmarket or a Facebook group would up those numbers, but that also means waiting for those cards to sell before you can trade into another deck. Playing Modern on MTGO would expedite the trading and selling process, but Modern cards have lower buylist prices across the board compared to Standard. You could expect to get 70 or 75% of the cards' value, but if you're planning on switching decks (because of a shifting meta or personal taste), the cost of Modern does tally up. The compounding factor in all of this, additionally, is how much more expensive Modern cards have become in paper and how many of the format's most important and fringe cards have failed to see a reprint in the past year.

This leads us to the point about the rising costs of Modern: when will the bubble burst? At a certain point, players will have easy enough access to Standard on the cheap that they will roll their eyes at having to pay an upwards of a thousand euros or more just to play a deck in Modern. A format needs new blood to continue to thrive, and Wizards is making Standard more accessible while ignoring much-needed reprints for Modern. This worries me about the format's health in the future.

That's all for this week – do you agree with these as "Modern myths"? Are there any that I may have missed? Leave a comment below to let me know!

Opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily Cardmarket.


To leave your comment please log into your Cardmarket account or create a new account.

Capuchat(17.05.2018 15:00)

I'd like to see counterspell in modern anyway !

Nice article,

hdavidson21(14.05.2018 11:54)

Hey @Tupiaz, thanks for your comment. Why is it necessary to compare digital prices of Standard with digital prices of Modern but not compare digital prices of Standard with paper prices of Modern? If you're someone who is interested in playing Modern or Standard, you have currently four ways of doing so: paper Standard, paper Modern, digital Standard, and digital Modern. Due to the split in having a digital collection and a paper collection (that is to say, one isn't linked to the other), that player - assuming that he or she is trying to get into a format that costs the least - has to decide whether he or she wants to get into paper Magic or digital Magic. I think we can both agree that paper Magic is the costliest way due to the difficulty of selling cards and the margins that are lost via sales. When we compare digital prices (and I mentioned this in the article), Modern cards have a lower buylist than Standard cards, so it ends up costing more to switch decks and cards. Having a Standard collection on MTGO, then, is actually cheaper than Modern - especially paper Modern. The point of that section was to point out how oftentimes I hear players recommending Modern as "a better investment than Standard." I find that to be false because maintaining a paper Modern deck (and adjusting to metas) certainly isn't cheaper than keeping up with a Standard online collection.

Tupiaz(12.05.2018 01:28)

Comparing digital prices with papaer prices doesn't make any sense unless compared one to one. Of cause Standard is cheaper online than most if not any format in paper because the prices is simply lower. The only format cheaper in paper format than most online format is Pauper. Which only tells you pauper is the cheapest way to play mtg if you want a no rotating format (otherwise it is penny). If you want to compare the prices of standard online with the prices of other formats, you have to compare them with their prices online not in physical format.

hdavidson21(12.05.2018 00:57)

@fablodibong Thanks for sharing your thoughts :)

fablodibongo(11.05.2018 16:17)

1 : counterspell seems good against KCI and amulet titan
2 : modern is so weak (because no counterspell brainstorm) that it looks worst than an old standard
3 : jace is weak if there's no (free?) counterspell and brainstorm effects. Teferi could be better than jace for modern control decks but there's no true counterspell to use with the two mana
4 : both formats are realy expensive. But in standard you lose evrything when rotating. Worst format being draft
5 : legacy is the only true magic