Great to hear. I would like to hear a breakdown between the 3 removal spells. There are also some exciting new creatures.

Keep up the good work. 🙂

Raider costs 3. Update article is definitely in the works; just waiting for the metagame to settle a bit more.

Once the opponent taps out any GBX deck, or WB Death and Taxes, can garantee to sett up a card draw. I would love to see this article updated to take Fatal Push into consideration, and include the new creatures like Tierless Tracker and Ruin Raider.

Thanks for the replies, Jordan and Jason. 🙂

It’s not so much that I’m specifically wanting qualitative data rather than quantitative data; it’s more that once you get past a certain level of precision, the pool of players for whom it matters starts to shrink dramatically. For example, there’s that sidebar with the breakdown of the current metagame. Great! Now anybody looking to play some Modern can see what’s out there and make decisions based on that information. However, the additional precision afforded by expanding that metagame breakdown into an entire article is only relevant to a pretty particular subset of players. Nothing wrong with that kind of content, mind you; back in my Standard days I was tuning my decks week to week and the slightest metagame shift was relevant to me. But that’s not where I am now, and so that type of content has lost its relevance to me (and to those like me, whatever portion of the audience they may comprise).

Perhaps in practice this might mean that the content I’ll enjoy most and the content that’s more qualitative than quantitative are virtually identical sets. That’s fine. The point is that articles which can apply to a wide range of player types seem like a good idea. This creature breakdown article, for instance, can be helpful for a PTQ grinder looking for candidates for that last flex spot, but can also be helpful for the $10/month budget player desperately digging through commons boxes in an effort to cobble together something not shame-worthy, and can serve anyone in between.

I’m definitely in favor of you continuing to include content that’s only relevant to high-level competitors. Just… maybe keep an eye on what percentage of your total content is relevant to what percentage of your total playerbase. 🙂

Editor in chief here. We definitely aspire to cater to a wide variety of Modern enthusiasts—pretty much anyone who loves the format like we do. So your feedback is appreciated, and definitely heard. We’re looking to bring on more writers in the next couple months or so, and hopefully expand our offerings. If I understand you correctly, It sounds like you’re interested in the more qualitative theoretical discussions of Modern. That’s certainly something we will aim to provide (in addition to the quantitative stuff, of course). I hope you’ll stick around!

Not sure I can speak for the other writers here, but my target audience is anyone who plays Modern at least semi-competitively. I try to stick to stuff I know a lot about, explaining all my pieces on tempo and combat decks, but this creature article is one I’ve thought about and wanted to write for a long time. I’d like to do related articles in the near future on spells and maybe even utility lands, and some stuff about format speed. If you can think of something broadly Modern-applicable you’d like to read more about, and think I did a decent enough job on this article, don’t hesitate to drop me a line about it!

Even so, perhaps I should just ask directly: If I have no aspirations of getting onto the Pro Tour, am I part of your target audience? Or should I just check the archives every couple of months in case something relevant to me has turned up?

The list has already changed by now, but a link to the real-time list is in the first paragraph.

Nice catch. What I should have written: “It’s unlikely we’ll see enablers as powerful as Birds and Hierarch enter Standard anytime soon, and therefore very unlikely we’ll ever see enablers that outclass them enter Modern.”