Wizards really killed Modern with the recent B&R announcement. Players want to play with (very) good cards in an Eternal format, that's why Legacy has so much success.
The banlist of my dreams :
Batterskull
Vesuva
Sensei's Divining Top
Chrome Mox
Dark Depths
Artifacts Lands
Skullclamp
And probably also :
Umezawa's Jitte
Mental Misstep
That format would be so awesome to play !
No, it would be just as horrible as it was before. Without Force of Will you need to aggressively ban cards to keep combo weak. And your ban list makes no sense anyway-why allow insanely fast decks like Storm to exist but not decks that use Dark Depths?
Thoughtseize, Duress, and Inquisition of Kozilek are contributing factors to this, I suppose. Turn 1 Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth into Thoughtsieze (followed by Surgical Extraction for bonus Points!) to get rid of your answer, turn 2 Dark Depths into Hexmage for the game. You're left with the somewhat dubious Ghost Quarter as your only "answer" to a 20/20 indestructible, flying token. Hmmm...
I'm finding it hard to justify your opinion the more I think about it.
Storm decks can splash black if they really feel like it, so I'm not sure what your point it.
I'm not saying Dark Depths is fair, by any stretch. I'm just disputing that it's less fair than storm. Please at least try to look at posts in context.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When you peer long enough through the depths, the depths peer also through you.
Wizards said it often enough I guess.. decks that consitently win before turn 4 will face the banhammer. Either accept it or go play Legacy. I'm glad that we don't need a Fow in this format and the banlist will probably become longer, too. This is just healthy for this format. We have to wait for the next big tournament to see if the balance is right. I don't see a card at the moment that needs to be added to this list.
DongJohnson is definitely correct; Turn 4 wins is the metric that Wizards is going to use for combos. At least, top tier, consistent turn 4 wins. My pump infect deck CAN win on turn 2, but that really only happens against players who get bad hands, lack caution, or when I am capable of drawing something stupid (like Pact of Negation backup in addition to my 3 kill cards). The same goes for Breach Hulk, which CAN use Simian Spirit Guide to power out a Seething Song fueled Through the Breach for the Protean Hulk win. But these are not consistent wins, and they are not going to fall to the banhammer like UR Storm, UR Ascension, or Infect Shoal.
But remember, the metric of consistent turn 3, top-tier wins includes the cards an opponent is playing. The reason Shoal Infect was so scary was not only its consistent turn 2 or 3 wins off of Shoal. It was the fact that it often had mana open to cast Spell Pierce or Dispel, or it had Pact of Negation and/or Disrupting Shoal in hand. That's a LOT of protection, so even though Path to Exile and Lightning Bolt were prevalent, the combo had to get the axe. If Dark Depths can reach similar levels of degeneracy and resiliency, then it too must stay banned.
So does Dark Depths fit that metric? Can it produce consistent turn 3 wins (It can't do it on Turn 2 without Chrome Mox)? I ran a little statistical analysis of the deck to figure it out, and my conclusion is:
Dark Depths is NOT SAFE to unban in Modern
-----
(Read on for why that conclusion makes sense)
I started by identifying the godhand and godplay for Dark Depths Combo, in an effort to see how hard it was to replicate. The best possible play that I came up with was as follows (a time honored play, so I don't claim to take credit for it)
The play gets even more outrageous if you add in Disrupting Shoal backup on turn 2, but at the point in time where we are considering a 5.5 card combo, we really shouldn't care. The two card combo of Hexmage and Depths cannot win until, at absolute earliest, turn 4. That's totally fine for Modern, so the reason this card must be banned is obviously its synergy with Urborg or other ways of accelerating Hexmage into play.
So what are the chances of getting the god play?
(NOTE: Some of these calculations might be off. I have yet to find a reliable Magic or math tool that can do this, so I just use a shoddy Excel simulator)
Probability of having AT LEAST ONE Urborg, Thoughtseize, and either Hexmage/Dark Depths in your hand on turn 1 on the play: 5%
...on the draw: 7%
...on turn 2: 10%
Probability of having all 4 pieces by turn 2 on the play: 4%
...on the draw: 6%
So it looks like we are talking really miniscule margins for a turn 3 win. What if we remove Thoughtseize from the equation and just look at the 3 combo pieces needed for the turn 3 win: Dark Depths, Vampire Hexmage, and Urborg.
Turn 1 on the play: 5%
Turn 1 on the draw: 7%
Turn 2 on the play: 7%
Turn 2 on the draw: 10%
These numbers aren't terrifying, but they are definitely somewhat scary. In the grand course of a tournament, you would not want to play against this deck too often, especially with Disrupting Shoal and Slaughter Pact backup in about 6% of those games. The numbers, of course, don't tell the full story. Those percentages are just too abstract for me, so I wanted to do better.
Just as a thought experiment, I made a version of the deck that could presumably maximize its turn 3 win with Dark Depths. This version included Slaughter Pact, Disrupting Shoal, Thoughtseize, Serum Powder, Spoils of the Vault, Grim Discovery, and a host of other hilariously non-interactive cards. Spoils of the Vault was selected because it is the only digging card you can cast on turn 1 off of an Urborg. If you don't play Urborg on turn 1, then you can't get the turn 3 win, so this was the situation I was hoping for. Shoal was around to give countermagic backup at the end of turn 2, and Slaughter Pact was there to kill any flyers that an opponent might have. Here are my results after a bunch of goldfishes. I mulliganed aggressively to find the combo when possible.
"Failures": 12
Later than turn 5: 5
Spoils death on turn 1: 4
Mulliganing too low: 3
I understand that this represents only 30 games of testing, but in my opinion, the deck is a bit too consistent and scary to exist in this metagame. It has a very real potential for a turn 3 win, with a lot of powerful turn 4 wins following that up. It's basically a faster Twin, with just as much resiliency courtesy of Grim Discovery and the like. The card should definitely stay banned to avoid plays like the above.
Wizards really killed Modern with the recent B&R announcement. Players want to play with (very) good cards in an Eternal format, that's why Legacy has so much success.
The banlist of my dreams :
Batterskull
Vesuva
Sensei's Divining Top
Chrome Mox
Dark Depths
Artifacts Lands
Skullclamp
Storm decks can splash black if they really feel like it, so I'm not sure what your point it.
I'm not saying Dark Depths is fair, by any stretch. I'm just disputing that it's less fair than storm. Please at least try to look at posts in context.
Dark depths was the best combo and control deck in the format it was in. Thats the problem with the deck...no only can they run a crap load of tutors, but they can do so while keeping you shut out of the game if they can't win early.
DongJohnson is definitely correct; Turn 4 wins is the metric that Wizards is going to use for combos. At least, top tier, consistent turn 4 wins. My pump infect deck CAN win on turn 2, but that really only happens against players who get bad hands, lack caution, or when I am capable of drawing something stupid (like Pact of Negation backup in addition to my 3 kill cards). The same goes for Breach Hulk, which CAN use Simian Spirit Guide to power out a Seething Song fueled Through the Breach for the Protean Hulk win. But these are not consistent wins, and they are not going to fall to the banhammer like UR Storm, UR Ascension, or Infect Shoal.
But remember, the metric of consistent turn 3, top-tier wins includes the cards an opponent is playing. The reason Shoal Infect was so scary was not only its consistent turn 2 or 3 wins off of Shoal. It was the fact that it often had mana open to cast Spell Pierce or Dispel, or it had Pact of Negation and/or Disrupting Shoal in hand. That's a LOT of protection, so even though Path to Exile and Lightning Bolt were prevalent, the combo had to get the axe. If Dark Depths can reach similar levels of degeneracy and resiliency, then it too must stay banned.
So does Dark Depths fit that metric? Can it produce consistent turn 3 wins (It can't do it on Turn 2 without Chrome Mox)? I ran a little statistical analysis of the deck to figure it out, and my conclusion is:
Dark Depths is NOT SAFE to unban in Modern
-----
(Read on for why that conclusion makes sense)
I started by identifying the godhand and godplay for Dark Depths Combo, in an effort to see how hard it was to replicate. The best possible play that I came up with was as follows (a time honored play, so I don't claim to take credit for it)
The play gets even more outrageous if you add in Disrupting Shoal backup on turn 2, but at the point in time where we are considering a 5.5 card combo, we really shouldn't care. The two card combo of Hexmage and Depths cannot win until, at absolute earliest, turn 4. That's totally fine for Modern, so the reason this card must be banned is obviously its synergy with Urborg or other ways of accelerating Hexmage into play.
So what are the chances of getting the god play?
(NOTE: Some of these calculations might be off. I have yet to find a reliable Magic or math tool that can do this, so I just use a shoddy Excel simulator)
Probability of having AT LEAST ONE Urborg, Thoughtseize, and either Hexmage/Dark Depths in your hand on turn 1 on the play: 5%
...on the draw: 7%
...on turn 2: 10%
Probability of having all 4 pieces by turn 2 on the play: 4%
...on the draw: 6%
So it looks like we are talking really miniscule margins for a turn 3 win. What if we remove Thoughtseize from the equation and just look at the 3 combo pieces needed for the turn 3 win: Dark Depths, Vampire Hexmage, and Urborg.
Turn 1 on the play: 5%
Turn 1 on the draw: 7%
Turn 2 on the play: 7%
Turn 2 on the draw: 10%
These numbers aren't terrifying, but they are definitely somewhat scary. In the grand course of a tournament, you would not want to play against this deck too often, especially with Disrupting Shoal and Slaughter Pact backup in about 6% of those games. The numbers, of course, don't tell the full story. Those percentages are just too abstract for me, so I wanted to do better.
Just as a thought experiment, I made a version of the deck that could presumably maximize its turn 3 win with Dark Depths. This version included Slaughter Pact, Disrupting Shoal, Thoughtseize, Serum Powder, Spoils of the Vault, Grim Discovery, and a host of other hilariously non-interactive cards. Spoils of the Vault was selected because it is the only digging card you can cast on turn 1 off of an Urborg. If you don't play Urborg on turn 1, then you can't get the turn 3 win, so this was the situation I was hoping for. Shoal was around to give countermagic backup at the end of turn 2, and Slaughter Pact was there to kill any flyers that an opponent might have. Here are my results after a bunch of goldfishes. I mulliganed aggressively to find the combo when possible.
"Failures": 12
Later than turn 5: 5
Spoils death on turn 1: 4
Mulliganing too low: 3
I understand that this represents only 30 games of testing, but in my opinion, the deck is a bit too consistent and scary to exist in this metagame. It has a very real potential for a turn 3 win, with a lot of powerful turn 4 wins following that up. It's basically a faster Twin, with just as much resiliency courtesy of Grim Discovery and the like. The card should definitely stay banned to avoid plays like the above.
-ktkenshinx-
Your even looking at this the wrong way. you really only need two cards to combo off and one of them is land. The deck can run a crap load of tutors and control the game and win with venny clique and dark confidant if needed.
The only time you must have a thoughseize is when they have an answer in hand which isn't going to be every turn. Venny clique also does the job just a bit later, and that's not even considering free counterspells.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In life all we can do is try to make things better. Sitting lost in old ways and fearing change only makes us outdated and ignorant.
Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.
Albert Einstein
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
Dark depths was the best combo and control deck in the format it was in. Thats the problem with the deck...no only can they run a crap load of tutors, but they can do so while keeping you shut out of the game if they can't win early.
Dark Depths was half of the best deck in the format it was in, Dark Depths.deck was never the best combo and control deck in the format. It was only really good once people paired it up with the Thopter Combo.
And Dark Depths honestly is far from the most degenerate combo on the banned list there are tons of maindeckable answers to the combo and the deck was far from unbeatable during its tenure. That being said, I don't think it should be coming off the list, especially when there are far less threatening cards on the list.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
On Mono Black in Commander:
Quote from BlackJack68 »
But whomever your commander is, Cabal Coffers is really in charge.
Dark Depths was half of the best deck in the format it was in, Dark Depths.deck was never the best combo and control deck in the format. It was only really good once people paired it up with the Thopter Combo.
And Dark Depths honestly is far from the most degenerate combo on the banned list there are tons of maindeckable answers to the combo and the deck was far from unbeatable during its tenure. That being said, I don't think it should be coming off the list, especially when there are far less threatening cards on the list.
Honestly dark depths did pretty well before the thoper combo was added because the format had warped so much. Every deck ran like 10 ways to deal the the marit token after about a month. Even after the thoper combo was added a few thoperless DD decks did well in a PT and several PTQs.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In life all we can do is try to make things better. Sitting lost in old ways and fearing change only makes us outdated and ignorant.
Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.
Albert Einstein
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
Honestly dark depths did pretty well before the thoper combo was added because the format had warped so much. Every deck ran like 10 ways to deal the the marit token after about a month. Even after the thoper combo was added a few thoperless DD decks did well in a PT and several PTQs.
Yes but DD.deck was pretty much strictly worse than DDT in every way so I'm not so sure it did that well after DDT hit the scene.
Quote from Magidex »
Goyf = Auto-include. And that might be okay, if it weren't for the fact that players splash green to include him in decks he doesn't belong in.
I think this is partially because the meta is sort of poorly defined at the moment and people are trying to cram him in everywhere because he's really good, but I'm sure once the metagame settles, he wont show up in decks that don't need him.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
On Mono Black in Commander:
Quote from BlackJack68 »
But whomever your commander is, Cabal Coffers is really in charge.
Storm decks can splash black if they really feel like it, so I'm not sure what your point it.
Legacy Storm might be able to, but I don't think Modern ones really can - at least not all that well. The lists are too tight, even before Ponder and Preordain were banned, for that kind of splash to work out.
Dark Depths doesn't need to splash black for that disruption, because it's already in black. DD also has a lot more open slots, since the goal of the deck only requires sticking one land and resolving one spell - not running through 7+ spells on one turn, and possibly sticking an enchantment during the process. Storm may be harder to disrupt as a mechanic, but in practice a deck built around DD has a lot more room to fight back against disruption than a deck built around Storm.
Yes but DD.deck was pretty much strictly worse than DDT in every way so I'm not so sure it did that well after DDT hit the scene.
I think this is partially because the meta is sort of poorly defined at the moment and people are trying to cram him in everywhere because he's really good, but I'm sure once the metagame settles, he wont show up in decks that don't need him.
Nope, he's going to show up in decks forever, in perpetuity, as long as he is legal in Modern. Even at the height of Legacies Stoneforge Madness, guess who saw more play?
The problem with Goyf isn't that he is "just" a vanilla creature, it is that he is a vanilla creature, and has no real drawback or deck considerations and is so aggressively costed. He blanks most creatures that cost twice as much, the only creature that is nearly as good as him is Knight of the Reliquary, and he is two colors and costs one more. Let's look at some of the best creatures for an example.
Stoneforge Mystic - Must play equipment
Knight of the Reliquary - Must play G/W, must play lots of fetches and lands with types plains/forest.
Dark Confidant - Must a low average CMC, additionally must have a reasonable amount of library manipulation.*
Snapcaster Mage - Must play a lot of instants and sorceries.
Tarmogoyf - Must splash green.
The only one of these that is ever going to be better and see more play than Goyf is Dark Confidant, and that is ONLY in Vintage, aka who cares. It is possible Snapcaster Mage ends up being more played in Vintage as well, it won't be in Legacy or Modern due to the steeper deck requirements and mana required to make him good.
The only cards competing with Goyf for playability are Brainstorm and Force, and we're fresh out of those other two.
I don't really think he will be banned, but he is just infinitely worse than Jace, Dark Confidant or Stoneforge Mystic, because all of those extremely powerful cards have real deck considerations that must be made.
I just love that people think his being "vanilla" makes him a safe card, when that is actually what puts him completely over the top.
Huh? Punishing Fire is only really good vs Merfolk or extremely aggressive Zoo. It is too slow vs Affinity and isn't great vs Elves because the right lord will blank it.
It is really good in Big Zoo because they can search out their groves and get multiple going, but I doubt it sees a ban. It is annoying that with multiple groves out they can play around extirpate but it is pretty unreliable and if a big zoo deck untaps with KOTR it was probably game over anyway.
You can also run Surgical Extraction in any color since the split second clause for extirpate is irrelevant since Grove is a mana ability and Punishing Fire is a triggered ability.
@BonSequitur - That's true, it is definitely Brainstorm, Goyf and then Force. I don't think almost any decks play Force without Brainstorm, but decks will essentially splash blue for both. I lot of cards see play just because they can be pitched to force that otherwise wouldn't sniff legacy.
My overall point was that cards like Jace, SFM, Bob and soon Tiago that people endlessly complain about are much less of a problem for this format than Goyf. If they actually wanted to ban a green card for diversity (they just wanted to hurt zoo, they didn't) Goyf would have been the choice over GSZ. This format really lacks a Swords to balance out Goyf and it shows. Path has a very serious drawback, bolt works about 1 percent of the time and Dismember costs life and isn't even guaranteed to work.
I'm not sure I really want him banned, but he's basically the Dual Land of the format until he gets printed - you can't play many of the real decks without him.
I'm sorry vs elves it's also totally ownage. The 1/1 elves die even with a lord out. Lords die to unless they are coupled with another lord (very improbable given that if you run punishing fire combo you are also running other cheap red removal).
TLDR: punishing fire destroys merfolks, elves, or any kind of weenie deck like soldiers or knights or any tribal.deck.
Zoo is already the best aggro deck. Punishing fire makes the aggro department even more imbalanced.
While the combo does do a good job of beating elves, it isn't like it is that easy to assemble, you can't fetch burnwillows. It is good in a gifts package but you aren't going to have time to do that against any of the good aggro decks anyway.
That combo was really designed to beat a slower deck like Faeries. Zoo absolutely dominates Elves in Legacy, where Elves is very good, and it doesn't bother to run Punishing Fire. Any deck willing to run enough removal is going to beat Elves every time, that's just the nature of Elves, and to an extent Merfolk.
I don't even think Zoo is going to run it that often, they already beat every creature mirror, that's just what it does. I really don't think you have to worry about the Punishing Fire combo, I haven't seen any of the competitive decks run it yet other than the Kavu Predator Zoo variant, and that is going to beat trival decks and affinity regardless.
If you want a cheap, competitive aggro deck, Merfolk is the best answer I can give you. It is the best Aether Vial deck and it absolutely destroys most blue decks, and can actually put up a fight vs Zoo, although it is still unfavored. Affinity is the other competitive option, but that's unfortunately it. There was a reason people were complaining about Zoo being so good in OE and how nothing was banned from it when the format was announced.
What does this even mean? Can you please contribute a little more...
Why do you not think that it isn't the best deck for Aether Vial?
Which deck do you think is the best?
... sigh
I haven't played since the bannings because I delved into Innistrad, first Standard purchases since Shards of Alara pre-release.
How have the bannings played on everyone's testing?
The format seems healthy at the moment.
PFire can easily face a ban because of how oppressive it is against a lot of decks. But of course nobody can believe this card is bad for the format because "You can just do this!" :|
I dunno if it should, but it's far too good against far too many archetypes. That much is certain.
Most decks aren't even running the Groves/Fire combo for the facts listed already.
1. Zoo minimal toughness is 3.
2. Too slow against Affinity.
3. Does very little in a control matchup.
The only deck I see running it is Jund and UGR Gifts.
I love being able to hold off decks that try and drop their hand by T3. Don't ostrasize a card cause it gives decks a chance against those kind of decks. They have to have both cards to make Punishing Fires good.
You guys complained that banning Cloudpost would kill the archetype (we all knew it would). But now you want to kill UGR Gifts? The deck is good. Not broken. And if you ban either combo piece, the deck loses all stability against Weenie decks. You would completely hinder another archetype.
The format hasn't even stabalized from the bannings yet. I say this, cause the bannings aren't even in place yet. I play 6-10 games a night online w/ Jund-Loam (I use the PF/GotB) and not once has it been so broken that it caused my opponent to lose. It kept me in games that I would have lost with my slower strategy, but that's it's job.
What does this even mean? Can you please contribute a little more...
Why do you not think that it isn't the best deck for Aether Vial?
Which deck do you think is the best?
... sigh
I haven't played since the bannings because I delved into Innistrad, first Standard purchases since Shards of Alara pre-release.
How have the bannings played on everyone's testing?
The format seems healthy at the moment.
Most decks aren't even running the Groves/Fire combo for the facts listed already.
1. Zoo minimal toughness is 3.
2. Too slow against Affinity.
3. Does very little in a control matchup.
You've got your cause and effect reversed. One of the reasons Zoo's minimal toughness is 3, and it runs Kird Ape over Goblin Guide and such, is because it doesn't want to lose straightway to PF. Even still, PF can still kill things like Nacatal and Kird Ape on the play before the appropriate land can be searched up. Then, a player can start using it twice in one turn once he makes 2rrr, and not even 4 toughness is safe. PF is a big problem, and the reason Zoo is built that way is to minimalize this problem, not to be able to block Lord of Atlantis. Unlike mentioned above, Zoo is not the king of all decks when it comes to creature based mirrors. The Kavu Predator/Oust/Punsihing Fire aggro decks we saw in Philly are. A good sign that you can't beat 'em is when they join 'em. The main problem here is that the deck restraints are ridiculously oppressive. Every playable 1-2cc creature must have 3 toughness, and all others must have at least 5. A ton of would-be answers to the format do not meet this criteria, and are now almost strictly unplayable now that GSZ was banned.
Likewise, one of the reasons Affinity needed to be so fast was to outpace 12 Post on a PF draw. I submit however that PF is not too slow against affinity. Affinity is reliant on things like Signal Pest and Arcbound Ravager, and after those are killed, Ornithopters and Memnites won't get there. The only thing PF on the play has to fear from affinity is Tempered Steel, and of course Blood Moon.
And as to control v. control, yeah we see so much of that in this format, tons of cards are practically dead in control mirrors. It will always be that way. And of course, this is not a format where we will see control tooling itself for other control. So, doesn't matter.
It's hidden in the playtesting, but PF is one of the most compelling reasons why combo was the right choice at Philly. Aggro that was too interactive, or built incorrectly, was just too big of a dog in the wrong matchup, and even built with the above constraints, you were dependent on the coin-flip. These restraints are just too oppressive.
DnT is far and away the best Vial deck. Merfolk isn't even close.
Wait, DnT is a real deck? In any format? I guess I missed something.
Also, a note to the people suggesting a ban on PUNISHING FREAKING FIRE. Please lay off smoking crack, it's bad for you. Something needs to be a check on weenie aggro now that combo got banhammered. Enter Punishing/Grove. It's also pretty good against control, if you didn't know (kind of hard to counter the inevitable burn engine forever).
You've got your cause and effect reversed. One of the reasons Zoo's minimal toughness is 3, and it runs Kird Ape over Goblin Guide and such, is because it doesn't want to lose straightway to PF.
Please stop drawing cause-effect relationships where there are none and strawmanning. Zoo has ALWAYS run the largest creatures it can for the smallest amounts of mana (this goes all the way back to the days of Watchwolf and company, and probably long before that). Immunity to Punishing/Grove is just an unintentional benefit.
I'm sorry vs elves it's also totally ownage. The 1/1 elves die even with a lord out. Lords die to unless they are coupled with another lord (very improbable given that if you run punishing fire combo you are also running other cheap red removal).
TLDR: punishing fire destroys merfolks, elves, or any kind of weenie deck like soldiers or knights or any tribal.deck.
Zoo is already the best aggro deck. Punishing fire makes the aggro department even more imbalanced.
ZOO makes other non-affinity aggro decks unplayable because of goyf, nactl, and KotR. Zoo with ancient grudge in board is actually favored against affinity. How many decks even run PK-fire? Some jund and some zoo.... thats a low % of decks. Plus zoo can run cards like pyroclasm in board to deal with elf and merfolk decks because all of their creatures are bigger and more efficent.
Zoo is the aggro deck, and for at least the foreseeable future it will remain so.
PFire can easily face a ban because of how oppressive it is against a lot of decks. But of course nobody can believe this card is bad for the format because "You can just do this!" :|
I dunno if it should, but it's far too good against far too many archetypes. That much is certain.
Its not bad for the format. We have tons of ways to shut it down if its such a big deal. Honestly it has seen almost no modern play this far and will only see a decent % of play if aggro decks dominate the format. It was never broke in 1.x and it wont be broke in modern at least in the near future.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In life all we can do is try to make things better. Sitting lost in old ways and fearing change only makes us outdated and ignorant.
Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.
Albert Einstein
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
Thomas Jefferson
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No, it would be just as horrible as it was before. Without Force of Will you need to aggressively ban cards to keep combo weak. And your ban list makes no sense anyway-why allow insanely fast decks like Storm to exist but not decks that use Dark Depths?
Thoughtseize, Duress, and Inquisition of Kozilek are contributing factors to this, I suppose. Turn 1 Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth into Thoughtsieze (followed by Surgical Extraction for bonus Points!) to get rid of your answer, turn 2 Dark Depths into Hexmage for the game. You're left with the somewhat dubious Ghost Quarter as your only "answer" to a 20/20 indestructible, flying token. Hmmm...
I'm finding it hard to justify your opinion the more I think about it.
I'm not saying Dark Depths is fair, by any stretch. I'm just disputing that it's less fair than storm. Please at least try to look at posts in context.
DongJohnson is definitely correct; Turn 4 wins is the metric that Wizards is going to use for combos. At least, top tier, consistent turn 4 wins. My pump infect deck CAN win on turn 2, but that really only happens against players who get bad hands, lack caution, or when I am capable of drawing something stupid (like Pact of Negation backup in addition to my 3 kill cards). The same goes for Breach Hulk, which CAN use Simian Spirit Guide to power out a Seething Song fueled Through the Breach for the Protean Hulk win. But these are not consistent wins, and they are not going to fall to the banhammer like UR Storm, UR Ascension, or Infect Shoal.
But remember, the metric of consistent turn 3, top-tier wins includes the cards an opponent is playing. The reason Shoal Infect was so scary was not only its consistent turn 2 or 3 wins off of Shoal. It was the fact that it often had mana open to cast Spell Pierce or Dispel, or it had Pact of Negation and/or Disrupting Shoal in hand. That's a LOT of protection, so even though Path to Exile and Lightning Bolt were prevalent, the combo had to get the axe. If Dark Depths can reach similar levels of degeneracy and resiliency, then it too must stay banned.
So does Dark Depths fit that metric? Can it produce consistent turn 3 wins (It can't do it on Turn 2 without Chrome Mox)? I ran a little statistical analysis of the deck to figure it out, and my conclusion is:
Dark Depths is NOT SAFE to unban in Modern
-----
(Read on for why that conclusion makes sense)
I started by identifying the godhand and godplay for Dark Depths Combo, in an effort to see how hard it was to replicate. The best possible play that I came up with was as follows (a time honored play, so I don't claim to take credit for it)
Turn 1: Urborg, Tomb of Yawmgoth into Thoughtseize
Turn 2: Dark Depths into Vampire Hexmage. Activate at end of turn.
Turn 3: Swing with Marit Lage
The play gets even more outrageous if you add in Disrupting Shoal backup on turn 2, but at the point in time where we are considering a 5.5 card combo, we really shouldn't care. The two card combo of Hexmage and Depths cannot win until, at absolute earliest, turn 4. That's totally fine for Modern, so the reason this card must be banned is obviously its synergy with Urborg or other ways of accelerating Hexmage into play.
So what are the chances of getting the god play?
(NOTE: Some of these calculations might be off. I have yet to find a reliable Magic or math tool that can do this, so I just use a shoddy Excel simulator)
Probability of having AT LEAST ONE Urborg, Thoughtseize, and either Hexmage/Dark Depths in your hand on turn 1 on the play: 5%
...on the draw: 7%
...on turn 2: 10%
Probability of having all 4 pieces by turn 2 on the play: 4%
...on the draw: 6%
So it looks like we are talking really miniscule margins for a turn 3 win. What if we remove Thoughtseize from the equation and just look at the 3 combo pieces needed for the turn 3 win: Dark Depths, Vampire Hexmage, and Urborg.
Turn 1 on the play: 5%
Turn 1 on the draw: 7%
Turn 2 on the play: 7%
Turn 2 on the draw: 10%
These numbers aren't terrifying, but they are definitely somewhat scary. In the grand course of a tournament, you would not want to play against this deck too often, especially with Disrupting Shoal and Slaughter Pact backup in about 6% of those games. The numbers, of course, don't tell the full story. Those percentages are just too abstract for me, so I wanted to do better.
Just as a thought experiment, I made a version of the deck that could presumably maximize its turn 3 win with Dark Depths. This version included Slaughter Pact, Disrupting Shoal, Thoughtseize, Serum Powder, Spoils of the Vault, Grim Discovery, and a host of other hilariously non-interactive cards. Spoils of the Vault was selected because it is the only digging card you can cast on turn 1 off of an Urborg. If you don't play Urborg on turn 1, then you can't get the turn 3 win, so this was the situation I was hoping for. Shoal was around to give countermagic backup at the end of turn 2, and Slaughter Pact was there to kill any flyers that an opponent might have. Here are my results after a bunch of goldfishes. I mulliganed aggressively to find the combo when possible.
TESTING SUICIDE DARK DEPTHS ON THE PLAY
Turn 3 Wins: 10
1 (Turn 1 Urborg --> Spoils -6 (hexmage), Turn 2 Depths, Grim Discovery Backup on turn 3)
1 (Turn 1 Depths, Turn 2 (Draw Urborg), Urborg --> Hexmage, Grim Disc. backup on turn 3)
1 (Turn 1 Urborg, Turn 2 (Draw Hexmage), Depths --> Hexmage, Disrupting Shoal (CMC 1 --> Spell Pierce) backup)
1 (Turn 1 Urborg --> Spoils -15 (Dark Depths), Turn 2 Depths)
1 (Mull to 6, turn 1 Urborg, Turn 2 (Draw Depths, Turn 2 Depths --> Hexmage, Disrupting Shoal (CMC 2 --> Telling Time) backup)
1 (Turn 1 Urborg --> Spoils -5 (Hexmage), Turn 2 Depths --> Hexmage)
1 (All 3 cards in opening hand, Disrupting Shoal (CMC 1) backup)
1 (Turn 1 Urborg --> Spoils -11 (hexmage), Turn 2 Depths, disrupting Shoal (CMC 1) Backup)
1 (Turn 1 Urborg --> Thoughtseize, Turn 2 (Draw Depths), Hexmage --> Depths)
1 (All 3 cards in opening hand, Slaughter Pact backup)
Turn 4 wins: 6
3 (Spell Pierce backup)
1 (Disrupting Shoal for 2 and Spell Pierce backup)
2 (No backup)
Turn 5 wins: 2
1 (Spell Pierce backup)
1 (Slaughter Pact backup)
"Failures": 12
Later than turn 5: 5
Spoils death on turn 1: 4
Mulliganing too low: 3
I understand that this represents only 30 games of testing, but in my opinion, the deck is a bit too consistent and scary to exist in this metagame. It has a very real potential for a turn 3 win, with a lot of powerful turn 4 wins following that up. It's basically a faster Twin, with just as much resiliency courtesy of Grim Discovery and the like. The card should definitely stay banned to avoid plays like the above.
-ktkenshinx-
so you want the format to be nothing but combo and aggro. Really.....
Dark depths was the best combo and control deck in the format it was in. Thats the problem with the deck...no only can they run a crap load of tutors, but they can do so while keeping you shut out of the game if they can't win early.
Your even looking at this the wrong way. you really only need two cards to combo off and one of them is land. The deck can run a crap load of tutors and control the game and win with venny clique and dark confidant if needed.
The only time you must have a thoughseize is when they have an answer in hand which isn't going to be every turn. Venny clique also does the job just a bit later, and that's not even considering free counterspells.
Albert Einstein
Thomas Jefferson
Dark Depths was half of the best deck in the format it was in, Dark Depths.deck was never the best combo and control deck in the format. It was only really good once people paired it up with the Thopter Combo.
And Dark Depths honestly is far from the most degenerate combo on the banned list there are tons of maindeckable answers to the combo and the deck was far from unbeatable during its tenure. That being said, I don't think it should be coming off the list, especially when there are far less threatening cards on the list.
Honestly dark depths did pretty well before the thoper combo was added because the format had warped so much. Every deck ran like 10 ways to deal the the marit token after about a month. Even after the thoper combo was added a few thoperless DD decks did well in a PT and several PTQs.
Albert Einstein
Thomas Jefferson
Yes but DD.deck was pretty much strictly worse than DDT in every way so I'm not so sure it did that well after DDT hit the scene.
I think this is partially because the meta is sort of poorly defined at the moment and people are trying to cram him in everywhere because he's really good, but I'm sure once the metagame settles, he wont show up in decks that don't need him.
Legacy Storm might be able to, but I don't think Modern ones really can - at least not all that well. The lists are too tight, even before Ponder and Preordain were banned, for that kind of splash to work out.
Dark Depths doesn't need to splash black for that disruption, because it's already in black. DD also has a lot more open slots, since the goal of the deck only requires sticking one land and resolving one spell - not running through 7+ spells on one turn, and possibly sticking an enchantment during the process. Storm may be harder to disrupt as a mechanic, but in practice a deck built around DD has a lot more room to fight back against disruption than a deck built around Storm.
Nope, he's going to show up in decks forever, in perpetuity, as long as he is legal in Modern. Even at the height of Legacies Stoneforge Madness, guess who saw more play?
The problem with Goyf isn't that he is "just" a vanilla creature, it is that he is a vanilla creature, and has no real drawback or deck considerations and is so aggressively costed. He blanks most creatures that cost twice as much, the only creature that is nearly as good as him is Knight of the Reliquary, and he is two colors and costs one more. Let's look at some of the best creatures for an example.
Stoneforge Mystic - Must play equipment
Knight of the Reliquary - Must play G/W, must play lots of fetches and lands with types plains/forest.
Dark Confidant - Must a low average CMC, additionally must have a reasonable amount of library manipulation.*
Snapcaster Mage - Must play a lot of instants and sorceries.
Tarmogoyf - Must splash green.
The only one of these that is ever going to be better and see more play than Goyf is Dark Confidant, and that is ONLY in Vintage, aka who cares. It is possible Snapcaster Mage ends up being more played in Vintage as well, it won't be in Legacy or Modern due to the steeper deck requirements and mana required to make him good.
The only cards competing with Goyf for playability are Brainstorm and Force, and we're fresh out of those other two.
I don't really think he will be banned, but he is just infinitely worse than Jace, Dark Confidant or Stoneforge Mystic, because all of those extremely powerful cards have real deck considerations that must be made.
I just love that people think his being "vanilla" makes him a safe card, when that is actually what puts him completely over the top.
Goyf is more playable than Force. You can't splash blue just for Force.
It is really good in Big Zoo because they can search out their groves and get multiple going, but I doubt it sees a ban. It is annoying that with multiple groves out they can play around extirpate but it is pretty unreliable and if a big zoo deck untaps with KOTR it was probably game over anyway.
You can also run Surgical Extraction in any color since the split second clause for extirpate is irrelevant since Grove is a mana ability and Punishing Fire is a triggered ability.
@BonSequitur - That's true, it is definitely Brainstorm, Goyf and then Force. I don't think almost any decks play Force without Brainstorm, but decks will essentially splash blue for both. I lot of cards see play just because they can be pitched to force that otherwise wouldn't sniff legacy.
My overall point was that cards like Jace, SFM, Bob and soon Tiago that people endlessly complain about are much less of a problem for this format than Goyf. If they actually wanted to ban a green card for diversity (they just wanted to hurt zoo, they didn't) Goyf would have been the choice over GSZ. This format really lacks a Swords to balance out Goyf and it shows. Path has a very serious drawback, bolt works about 1 percent of the time and Dismember costs life and isn't even guaranteed to work.
I'm not sure I really want him banned, but he's basically the Dual Land of the format until he gets printed - you can't play many of the real decks without him.
TLDR: punishing fire destroys merfolks, elves, or any kind of weenie deck like soldiers or knights or any tribal.deck.
Zoo is already the best aggro deck. Punishing fire makes the aggro department even more imbalanced.
That combo was really designed to beat a slower deck like Faeries. Zoo absolutely dominates Elves in Legacy, where Elves is very good, and it doesn't bother to run Punishing Fire. Any deck willing to run enough removal is going to beat Elves every time, that's just the nature of Elves, and to an extent Merfolk.
I don't even think Zoo is going to run it that often, they already beat every creature mirror, that's just what it does. I really don't think you have to worry about the Punishing Fire combo, I haven't seen any of the competitive decks run it yet other than the Kavu Predator Zoo variant, and that is going to beat trival decks and affinity regardless.
If you want a cheap, competitive aggro deck, Merfolk is the best answer I can give you. It is the best Aether Vial deck and it absolutely destroys most blue decks, and can actually put up a fight vs Zoo, although it is still unfavored. Affinity is the other competitive option, but that's unfortunately it. There was a reason people were complaining about Zoo being so good in OE and how nothing was banned from it when the format was announced.
Nope.
What does this even mean? Can you please contribute a little more...
Why do you not think that it isn't the best deck for Aether Vial?
Which deck do you think is the best?
... sigh
I haven't played since the bannings because I delved into Innistrad, first Standard purchases since Shards of Alara pre-release.
How have the bannings played on everyone's testing?
The format seems healthy at the moment.
I dunno if it should, but it's far too good against far too many archetypes. That much is certain.
1. Zoo minimal toughness is 3.
2. Too slow against Affinity.
3. Does very little in a control matchup.
The only deck I see running it is Jund and UGR Gifts.
I love being able to hold off decks that try and drop their hand by T3. Don't ostrasize a card cause it gives decks a chance against those kind of decks. They have to have both cards to make Punishing Fires good.
You guys complained that banning Cloudpost would kill the archetype (we all knew it would). But now you want to kill UGR Gifts? The deck is good. Not broken. And if you ban either combo piece, the deck loses all stability against Weenie decks. You would completely hinder another archetype.
The format hasn't even stabalized from the bannings yet. I say this, cause the bannings aren't even in place yet. I play 6-10 games a night online w/ Jund-Loam (I use the PF/GotB) and not once has it been so broken that it caused my opponent to lose. It kept me in games that I would have lost with my slower strategy, but that's it's job.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=519290
DnT is far and away the best Vial deck. Merfolk isn't even close.
You've got your cause and effect reversed. One of the reasons Zoo's minimal toughness is 3, and it runs Kird Ape over Goblin Guide and such, is because it doesn't want to lose straightway to PF. Even still, PF can still kill things like Nacatal and Kird Ape on the play before the appropriate land can be searched up. Then, a player can start using it twice in one turn once he makes 2rrr, and not even 4 toughness is safe. PF is a big problem, and the reason Zoo is built that way is to minimalize this problem, not to be able to block Lord of Atlantis. Unlike mentioned above, Zoo is not the king of all decks when it comes to creature based mirrors. The Kavu Predator/Oust/Punsihing Fire aggro decks we saw in Philly are. A good sign that you can't beat 'em is when they join 'em. The main problem here is that the deck restraints are ridiculously oppressive. Every playable 1-2cc creature must have 3 toughness, and all others must have at least 5. A ton of would-be answers to the format do not meet this criteria, and are now almost strictly unplayable now that GSZ was banned.
Likewise, one of the reasons Affinity needed to be so fast was to outpace 12 Post on a PF draw. I submit however that PF is not too slow against affinity. Affinity is reliant on things like Signal Pest and Arcbound Ravager, and after those are killed, Ornithopters and Memnites won't get there. The only thing PF on the play has to fear from affinity is Tempered Steel, and of course Blood Moon.
And as to control v. control, yeah we see so much of that in this format, tons of cards are practically dead in control mirrors. It will always be that way. And of course, this is not a format where we will see control tooling itself for other control. So, doesn't matter.
It's hidden in the playtesting, but PF is one of the most compelling reasons why combo was the right choice at Philly. Aggro that was too interactive, or built incorrectly, was just too big of a dog in the wrong matchup, and even built with the above constraints, you were dependent on the coin-flip. These restraints are just too oppressive.
Wait, DnT is a real deck? In any format? I guess I missed something.
Also, a note to the people suggesting a ban on PUNISHING FREAKING FIRE. Please lay off smoking crack, it's bad for you. Something needs to be a check on weenie aggro now that combo got banhammered. Enter Punishing/Grove. It's also pretty good against control, if you didn't know (kind of hard to counter the inevitable burn engine forever).
Please stop drawing cause-effect relationships where there are none and strawmanning. Zoo has ALWAYS run the largest creatures it can for the smallest amounts of mana (this goes all the way back to the days of Watchwolf and company, and probably long before that). Immunity to Punishing/Grove is just an unintentional benefit.
UBRGW T.E.S.
UUUSpiral Tide
Modern:
UBR Grixis Control
EDH:
UB Oona, Queen of the Fae
Combo is a part of magic. If you cant deal with combo then your not a magic player.
ZOO makes other non-affinity aggro decks unplayable because of goyf, nactl, and KotR. Zoo with ancient grudge in board is actually favored against affinity. How many decks even run PK-fire? Some jund and some zoo.... thats a low % of decks. Plus zoo can run cards like pyroclasm in board to deal with elf and merfolk decks because all of their creatures are bigger and more efficent.
Zoo is the aggro deck, and for at least the foreseeable future it will remain so.
Its not bad for the format. We have tons of ways to shut it down if its such a big deal. Honestly it has seen almost no modern play this far and will only see a decent % of play if aggro decks dominate the format. It was never broke in 1.x and it wont be broke in modern at least in the near future.
Albert Einstein
Thomas Jefferson