Or consistency. I don't see how people can defend certain actions and deny others. So we're going to sit here and tout this "list of criteria" but only apply it where we see fit?
You prefer a consistent ban list, that makes the format bad. Than a unconsistent one (not saying the current one is), that makes the format better?
Yeah, because making it consistent is more important than make the game good.
I know, you will reply with something along the lines "but the game isn't good bla bla bla", well this is just a matter of opinion.
For some it's great, and in the end what will matter is: the "happy crowd" is bigger than the "unhappy crowd"?
And this can't be seen on a single forum post. When tournament attendance drops and other negative things happens, then you can say that the "unhappy crowd" is bigger.
Also, consistency is relative. For consistency to exist, you need a reference. What is the reference you're using to claim that the current one is uncosistent? Probably one narrow factor, instead of all factors related.
Here's what I'm dying to know. Before they came up with these points, did they bother to take a poll of the player base to find out if this is in fact what the majority of the players even wanted? Or did they just say, "This is going to be what Modern is and they can like it or lump it."
You know that wizards keep feedback of players right?
They don't need to 'make a poll' for that. They already have that data. Modern popularity is high for how long it's alive, so i suppose they did exactly what the majority wanted. It just seems that the majority don't share your vision.
You know that wizards keep feedback of players right?
They don't need to 'make a poll' for that. They already have that data. Modern popularity is high for how long it's alive, so i suppose they did exactly what the majority wanted. It just seems that the majority don't share your vision.
For now? Maybe. Let's see how popular this format is in 3 years when players start to notice that they have to keep changing their decks every 3 months because the latest "top dog" always gets banned.
Then we'll see how much the "majority" loves this format.
In the meantime, I've already been burned enough (4 decks unplayable) so I'm going to go and play something else that I know won't change with the wind.
You prefer a consistent ban list, that makes the format bad. Than a unconsistent one (not saying the current one is), that makes the format better?
Yeah, because making it consistent is more important than make the game good.
I know, you will reply with something along the lines "but the game isn't good bla bla bla", well this is just a matter of opinion.
For some it's great, and in the end what will matter is: the "happy crowd" is bigger than the "unhappy crowd"?
And this can't be seen on a single forum post. When tournament attendance drops and other negative things happens, then you can say that the "unhappy crowd" is bigger.
Also, consistency is relative. For consistency to exist, you need a reference. What is the reference you're using to claim that the current one is uncosistent? Probably one narrow factor, instead of all factors related.
Can you expand on what you are saying? Maybe with some examples? I don't really understand the point you are making here.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Playing:
Modern: UWUW TronUW
Legacy: WDeath N TaxesW CEldrazi C
If you couldn't tell I hate greedy blue decks.
For now? Maybe. Let's see how popular this format is in 3 years when players start to notice that they have to keep changing their decks every 3 months because the latest "top dog" always gets banned.
Can you expand on what you are saying? Maybe with some examples? I don't really understand the point you are making here.
The point is that some people says that the ban list is unconsistet.
They choose some cards banned, and claim that they should be unbaned because cards that share a feature with these cards should be banned, or that the banned should come out because of it.
Examples:
- "SMF, Vsions and Jace are banned because of Cross-format Relevance, so Bob, Lilly II, and DRS should be banned or SFM, Vsions and Jace unbanned"
- "SMF is banned because of power level, so they should ban SCM, Bob and Goyf because they have the same power level, or uban SFM"
Basically, they simply ignore the format as a whole, and use a single argument to justify their point.
This is the "consistency" they seems to want on the ban list: a "Ban all" or "Ban nothing" based on narrow points. Even it the "ban all" or "ban nothing" isn't automatically good for the format.
But wizard isn't stupid. If people raged when SS was banned, a 1$ card that don't even killed the storm.
People would totally quit Modern if Bob or Tarmogoyf were to be banned, it would have impact in more decks.
But even they being strong and staples, they're more usable outside of a single stratrgy helps the format.
If a card is strong, widely used, but not to the point of pushing other decks of the same type out (like they thought Nacatl did, for example), it probably won't be banned.
The point is that some people says that the ban list is unconsistet.
They choose some cards banned, and claim that they should be unbaned because cards that share a feature with these cards should be banned, or that the banned should come out because of it.
Examples:
- "SMF, Vsions and Jace are banned because of Cross-format Relevance, so Bob, Lilly II, and DRS should be banned or SFM, Vsions and Jace unbanned"
- "SMF is banned because of power level, so they should ban SCM, Bob and Goyf because they have the same power level, or uban SFM"
Basically, to justify their points, they simply ignore the format as a whole, and use a single argument to justify their point.
This is the "consistency" they seems to want on the ban list: a "Ban all" or "Ban nothing" based on narrow points. Even it the "ban all" or "ban nothing" isn't automatically good for the format.
So you are saying that in the context of modern as a format it makes sense for certain things to be banned because of how strong they are in a different format. This makes sense and I can see your line of thinking. I think the logical argument to answer your point is that because many of these justifications were made before the modern format was created, its not really fair to say in the context of the format.
For example, Ancestral Visions was banned before Modern had a chance to exist and this was because it is used in legacy. However we never got a chance to see its power in the context of the modern format, which can be frustrating. I can see the argument which you are making, but you must in turn see how others can be frustrated by current ban list and Wizards explanations.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Playing:
Modern: UWUW TronUW
Legacy: WDeath N TaxesW CEldrazi C
If you couldn't tell I hate greedy blue decks.
While I value you're ability to quote John Stewart, I must disagree with a large portion of your sentiments. Firstly, I don't think we live in a dystopian present? While the format(pre inevitable banning) had a best deck, there were plenty of other viable decks.
Secondly, modern is a brand new format in relative infancy, so decrying all of the bans seems uncalled for. How long did it take for Legacy to matter to the world at large outside of the "Legacy enthusiasts". I don't see semi-frequent bans as a sign of a bad format. I see them as a sign of a developing format. It could be that one of us is right, or maybe we're just half full vs. half empty. Either way, I think drawing a hard line calling the format "Good" or "Bad" is a waste of time because the definition is largely subjective and it's not a useful way of talking about the format.
I'm glad someone at least got my reference.
I suppose it is kind of ironic that I used a quote about enforcing stricter gun control laws as a way to try reduce a banned list.
However, the "infant format" argument held water a year ago. It doesn't anymore. Between how Modern was forced into the limelight from day 1, the internet deck building Hivemind, and improved deck construction theory, Modern has had to grow up fast- and it shows. Heck, the last time we saw so many bans in a single format at once was in 1998, and technically during the formation of Legacy in 2004.
The other problem comparing the growth pattern of Modern to Legacy is that Legacy was essentially a retooling of Type 1.5, a format that had been played for quite some time, had a banned list tied to another format that helped develop our ideas about Magic strategy, and a lot of the banned cards were fairly obvious as to why they deserved to be on the list. Or at least demonstratively clear, like Flash. Due to the Forced Fruition of the format, Modern hasn't had the luxury that Legacy had- time to sort itself out before the big tournaments began using it. So basically, we need to treat Modern like its own animal.
Perhaps good and bad are too charged- shall we use Healthy/Unhealthy then instead? I was trying to keep things straightforward given how bad the conversation got.
So, there are three major rules and minor one governing banned list right now, correct? The Turn 4 Combo rule, design mistakes, the percentage of the meta rule, and then cross-format relevance rule.
So, Turn 4 combo related bans: Dark Depths, Blazing Shoal, Golgari Grave-troll, Dread Return, Hypergenesis, Glimpse of Nature, Rite of Flame, Ponder, Preordain, and finally Seething Song. Previously: Valakut. Possibly Chrome Mox?
Design Mistakes: Jace the Mindsculptor, Stoneforge Mystic, Skullclamp, the Artifact Lands, and Mental Misstep.
Percentage of the Meta: Green Sun's Zenith, Cloudpost, Punishing Fire, Wild Nacatl, and now Bloodbraid Elf.
Cross-Format Relevance: Uh... Probably Ancestral Visions, maybe Sword of the Meek, maybe Umezawa's Jitte, though it could just be a design mistake. Probably contributed to Jace and SFM's bannings as well.
Sensei's Divining Top was banned to appease the Judges, because Speed of Play is a really thorny issue if you've got Top in play.
If you look back through the thread, the two major issues have been the "Turn 4 Combo" rule and the "Cross Format Relevancy"- simply because of how poorly defined they are. How often is a combo deck allowed to win on turn 3? We don't know. Cross Format Relevancy in partiuclar doesn't seem to have any rhyme or reason applied to it. If it was strictly applied, Tarmogoyf, Snapcaster, Dark Confidant, Liliana of the Veil, Deathrite Shaman, Abrupt Decay, Delver of Secrets, Past in Flames, Lingering Souls, Emrakul, Aether Vial, Trinket Mage, and quite a lot of other cards would be illegal. So at what point are these sorts of cards banned? To what sets and formats does it even apply? We don't know. Does it apply to Vintage? Add Lodestone Golem and Blightsteel Colossus to the list. To Block Constructed? Previously, we would have needed to add Intangible Virtue. Standard? Or only Legacy?
Basically, a lot of the resentment has to do with how ill-defined the reasoning is behind the bannings. A lot deck builders I've met are turned off to the format because of how hideously narrow it is and how unstable the card pool is. They feel their decks might be banned out from under them. I've said before, there are only a precious few strategies that really work right now. URx Combo, BGx Shell, GWx Pod, URx Tempo, and as has been pointed out to me: XxTron AKA Resolving Emrakul.
Hah for the first time in forever I really agree with all of the above. Self Regulation is not going to happen in modern for the foreseeable future. It's just not. Like Bocephus and and Key-Fan have stated WOTC is not going to let it.
Well, maybe if I rant about loud enough and long enough, somebody with connections might listen and pass along some of my better-stated ideas. Maybe it could help. I don't know, but I can hope and I can blow off steam.
Modern doesn't have the tools to self regulate. Cards like Wasteland, FOW, etc. are not available. There are no police cards for the format. Wizards kind of loosely allowed the format to attempt to self regulate and Jund was still dominant. It could be argued that UWR was possibly showing the ability to fight it, and that Wizards didn't allow for enough time to truly solve the format. It could also be argued that players are "Lazy" and didnt bother to come up with a more efficient way to deal with with Jund. Still the fact that Jund wasn't "solved" means that Wizards decided to act.
This just isn't really true. It would be entirely accurate to say:
Modern doesn't have the tools to self regulate as a turn 4 format.
My understanding is that it self-regulates at about Turn 2-3 or so and not in a very "newbie-friendly" way, but your mileage may vary.
It just so happens that a great deal of the cards to do so are banned or made unnecessary by the banned list. For instance, Angel's Grace is utterly pointless without Belcher tearing up the format, Trickbind and Mindbreak Trap are unnecessary without Storm doing much of anything these days, Act of Aggression is hilariously good against Dark Depths, Hypergenesis is beaten by taxing effects, Trickbind, and Countermagic in general. Mental Misstep would have wrecked most of the Combo decks at Pro-tour Philly, except Twin and Infect... Heck, we're even prepared for Owling Mine's imminent return with our sick One with Nothing tech.
In fact, its very likely that the ban list will continue to grow rather than shrink. Without these "police" cards the meta has a lot of difficulty keeping certain strategies / decks in check. So I see the ban list only increasing, unless more of these "police" cards enter the format.
Yep. It is likely it won't change- especially if we just 'lie still and think of England.'
If you look back through the thread, the two major issues have been the "Turn 4 Combo" rule and the "Cross Format Relevancy"- simply because of how poorly defined they are. How often is a combo deck allowed to win on turn 3? We don't know. Cross Format Relevancy in partiuclar doesn't seem to have any rhyme or reason applied to it. If it was strictly applied, Tarmogoyf, Snapcaster, Dark Confidant, Liliana of the Veil, Deathrite Shaman, Abrupt Decay, Delver of Secrets, Past in Flames, Lingering Souls, Emrakul, Aether Vial, Trinket Mage, and quite a lot of other cards would be illegal. So at what point are these sorts of cards banned? To what sets and formats does it even apply? We don't know. Does it apply to Vintage? Add Lodestone Golem and Blightsteel Colossus to the list. To Block Constructed? Previously, we would have needed to add Intangible Virtue. Standard? Or only Legacy?
Basically, a lot of the resentment has to do with how ill-defined the reasoning is behind the bannings. A lot deck builders I've met are turned off to the format because of how hideously narrow it is and how unstable the card pool is. They feel their decks might be banned out from under them. I've said before, there are only a precious few strategies that really work right now. URx Combo, BGx Shell, GWx Pod, URx Tempo, and as has been pointed out to me: XxTron AKA Resolving Emrakul.
How hard is this for people to understand? The above quote is essentially what is wrong with this format.
This poster nailed it. End of story.
Maybe if WotC came out and said, this is what we're doing, this is why we're doing it and this is the reason for these particular bans but not the reason why THESE cards weren't banned, MAYBE we'd have a better understanding and MAYBE we'd be able to accept this strategy.
But right now, because of the inconsistency, it's just arbitrary crap to me and I am sure a lot of other players.
Enough players to force WotC to change their tactics?
I agree with you 100%. I think it's going to get worse before it gets ... worse.
Right, it'll never get better. We don't have the police cards, though we do have more than WotC seems to think that I do believe could make some difference. But whatever. That isn't how WotC sees it and because of this, the banned list is going to eventually hit 35 to 40 or even more. We might actually end up with a banned list that, proportionately speaking, is larger than Legacy's for the number of cards in the format.
Won't that be a kicker.
What is worse for one, is better for others. Its all a matter of perspective.
Here's what I'm dying to know. Before they came up with these points, did they bother to take a poll of the player base to find out if this is in fact what the majority of the players even wanted?
If you would have bothered to read the posts I put in the other thread that got nuked, Wotc did say they spoke with many players and designed the format to what the wants of the majority of the player base wanted from what they spoke to.
Maybe if WotC came out and said, this is what we're doing, this is why we're doing it and this is the reason for these particular bans but not the reason why THESE cards weren't banned, MAYBE we'd have a better understanding and MAYBE we'd be able to accept this strategy.
I believe they have made it perfectly clear in the bullet points they have set out, it seems the problem is in agreeing with them. They have laided out why they have banned certain cards with in depth explanations. You are free to disagree with those reasons, but it doesnt change the fact they laided out what they want from the format and have been sticking to it.
While they gave a paragraph on the cards, they banned, the reasoning is extremly vague and some reasons seem to apply only on one card, but not on another that violate the same rule even more.
Perception again. Just because some feel one way about a banning or the lack of a banning, doesnt mean everyone feels the same.
What is worse for one, is better for others. Its all a matter of perspective.
Yup. And objectively speaking, the more possible ways for a player to become interested in the format, the better for WotC. More cards means more ways for players to interact with a format, which rather directly correlates to more viable decks, which means a healthier metagame. Having a sensible plan that people are aware of probably wouldn't hurt either.
If you would have bothered to read the posts I put in the other thread that got nuked, Wotc did say they spoke with many players and designed the format to what the wants of the majority of the player base wanted from what they spoke to.
And to be perfectly frank, it's proved pretty hard to actually locate these players. I did, in fact read that thread.
I believe they have made it perfectly clear in the bullet points they have set out, it seems the problem is in agreeing with them. They have laided out why they have banned certain cards with in depth explanations. You are free to disagree with those reasons, but it doesnt change the fact they laided out what they want from the format and have been sticking to it.
Well, here I can say pretty objectively that you're incorrect. If you were correct, we wouldn't have two threads and I don't even want to think about how many posts trying to figure out what Wizards is doing, over the calm, cool, rational, logical, sensible arguments of many apologists, like our dear friend Victor Sant. Speaking of which, I have a cat to sell him. It is neither alive nor dead and is in a box. But you can't observe it, or it will go away. It is very unique though.
If you look back through the thread, the two major issues have been the "Turn 4 Combo" rule and the "Cross Format Relevancy"- simply because of how poorly defined they are. How often is a combo deck allowed to win on turn 3? We don't know. Cross Format Relevancy in partiuclar doesn't seem to have any rhyme or reason applied to it. If it was strictly applied, Tarmogoyf, Snapcaster, Dark Confidant, Liliana of the Veil, Deathrite Shaman, Abrupt Decay, Delver of Secrets, Past in Flames, Lingering Souls, Emrakul, Aether Vial, Trinket Mage, and quite a lot of other cards would be illegal. So at what point are these sorts of cards banned? To what sets and formats does it even apply? We don't know. Does it apply to Vintage? Add Lodestone Golem and Blightsteel Colossus to the list. To Block Constructed? Previously, we would have needed to add Intangible Virtue. Standard? Or only Legacy?
Basically, a lot of the resentment has to do with how ill-defined the reasoning is behind the bannings. A lot deck builders I've met are turned off to the format because of how hideously narrow it is and how unstable the card pool is. They feel their decks might be banned out from under them. I've said before, there are only a precious few strategies that really work right now. URx Combo, BGx Shell, GWx Pod, URx Tempo, and as has been pointed out to me: XxTron AKA Resolving Emrakul.
Yep. It is likely it won't change- especially if we just 'lie still and think of England.'
Very true, I know people in the same camp
Not the best quote though, although I am sure people will get it
Well, here I can say pretty objectively that you're incorrect. If you were correct, we wouldn't have two threads and I don't even want to think about how many posts trying to figure out what Wizards is doing, over the calm, cool, rational, logical, sensible arguments of many apologists, like our dear friend Victor Sant. Speaking of which, I have a cat to sell him. It is neither alive nor dead and is in a box. But you can't observe it, or it will go away. It is very unique though.
+1 for quote, easily one of my favorites
Of the bans I do agree with Cloudpost, the card is very degenerate, even without Emrakul and the Eldrazi there are still to manyDegeneratethingsthatcanbe done with it, not to mention that save Crop Rotations and swapping Candelabras for Magus I can build a Legacy deck
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern:
Paper: WUR Waffle Control, RG and U Tron
MTGO: U Tron, BRG Living End, B Infect
Testing Modern on MTGO and helping to craft decks on a Budget I stream!
How long did it take for Legacy to matter to the world at large outside of the "Legacy enthusiasts". I don't see semi-frequent bans as a sign of a bad format. I see them as a sign of a developing format.
Strawman argument, this is the failure of Wizards to allow the format to develop instead of forcing it to be a GP format by switching GP Philly from extended to modern 2 weeks before.
Sure, let's make a new low powered format and throw it into "Spike" snake pit and see what happens
Yup. And objectively speaking, the more possible ways for a player to become interested in the format, the better for WotC. More cards means more ways for players to interact with a format, which rather directly correlates to more viable decks, which means a healthier metagame. Having a sensible plan that people are aware of probably wouldn't hurt either.
Wanted to point out, if Wotc keeps trying to appease multiple groups of people the format is going to fail. They need to appease the group enjoying the format at the moment and let the format grow into what they are aiming for. If they continue to aim to please everyone, the format will become diluted and a big mess that will fail like many other formats they have tried and are now gone.
And to be perfectly frank, it's proved pretty hard to actually locate these players. I did, in fact read that thread.
What? Wotc has polls on their site, they have Wotc reps out and about at larger tournaments. Not to mention the surveys sent out about magic from MTGO. Just like Modern was tested prior to its announcement, but no one will believe because they were not involved in the testing. Its happening, and I am sorry not everyone was involved in the process.
Well, here I can say pretty objectively that you're incorrect. If you were correct, we wouldn't have two threads and I don't even want to think about how many posts trying to figure out what Wizards is doing, over the calm, cool, rational, logical, sensible arguments of many apologists, like our dear friend Victor Sant. Speaking of which, I have a cat to sell him. It is neither alive nor dead and is in a box. But you can't observe it, or it will go away. It is very unique though.
There is always 2 sides to everything. Just because we are not hearing the other side as much as the vocal unhappy, doesnt mean there isnt that other side out there. We the player base doesnt have the data that Wotc has. We are questioning things with limited information when they are looking at the whole landscape of the format and its their format to steer where they wish to.
Quote from Fizzler »
Of the bans I do agree with Cloudpost, the card is very degenerate, even without Emrakul and the Eldrazi there are still to manyDegeneratethingsthatcanbe done with it, not to mention that save Crop Rotations and swapping Candelabras for Magus I can build a Legacy deck
See, I am all for bannings, but they should have banned Vesuva instead of cloudpost. 8 post decks were never a problem in the past and wouldnt have been in Modern. Now that they printed another version of Vesuva in GTC (something we the player base didnt know about) I can understand the banning of cloudpost.
But wizard isn't stupid. If people raged when SS was banned, a 1$ card that don't even killed the storm. PeopleI would totally quit Modern if Bob or Tarmogoyf were to be banned, it would have impact in more decks.
But even they being strong and staples, they're more usable outside of a single stratrgy helps the format.
If a card is strong, widely used, but not to the point of pushing other decks of the same type out (like they thought Nacatl did, for example), it probably won't be banned.
AHA! The truth comes out and this is the first honest thing you had to say in this whole thread and now we can see where your biases come from.
What you are saying is that "YOU" would quit Modern if Bob or Tarmogoyf were banned.
Your arguments aren't coming from anywhere of from a place of format preservation, or format balance but simple because of your own pet cards.
Wanted to point out, if Wotc keeps trying to appease multiple groups of people the format is going to fail. They need to appease the group enjoying the format at the moment and let the format grow into what they are aiming for. If they continue to aim to please everyone, the format will become diluted and a big mess that will fail like many other formats they have tried and are now gone.
Nope. Appeasing multiple groups is basically what commercial enterprise is about. The format will fail because of a lack of money before it fails to overabundance. Look at Old Extended.
What? Wotc has polls on their site, they have Wotc reps out and about at larger tournaments. Not to mention the surveys sent out about magic from MTGO. Just like Modern was tested prior to its announcement, but no one will believe because they were not involved in the testing. Its happening, and I am sorry not everyone was involved in the process.
Okay, WotC's polls were more along the lines of "What do you like about Modern? Pick One:" and "Do you like Modern: Yes or Yes," than any fact finding. Unless you can produce the testing results, it's pretty hard to prove your point about Wizard's early testing of the Modern format.
There is always 2 sides to everything. Just because we are not hearing the other side as much as the vocal unhappy, doesnt mean there isnt that other side out there. We the player base doesnt have the data that Wotc has. We are questioning things with limited information when they are looking at the whole landscape of the format and its their format to steer where they wish to.
Actually, we hear plenty from the Apologist standpoint as well- between you and Victor at least. It's just that a lot of your points can't be backed up properly or verified.
See, I am all for bannings, but they should have banned Vesuva instead of cloudpost. 8 post decks were never a problem in the past and wouldnt have been in Modern. Now that they printed another version of Vesuva in GTC (something we the player base didnt know about) I can understand the banning of cloudpost.
We know- but oddly enough, no-one here is complaining about Cloudpost. We're all mystified as why Preordain is banned, why Deathrite Shaman isn't, and numerous other things, but Cloudpost something where we have the results to say- yep, that should have been banned. There's also the issue of Primeval Titan just pulling out all four Cloudposts. Keep it up though, I might have a cat in a box for you too. We might end up with a format that needs bans every three months, or with the release of every new set, really, to keep combo down- but hey, you have your Shroedinger Award to keep you happy!
What you are saying is that "YOU" would quit Modern if Bob or Tarmogoyf were banned.
Your arguments aren't coming from anywhere of from a place of format preservation, or format balance but simple because of your own pet cards.
Seriusly... the mods can punish me but you desever this: YOU ARE TOTALLY INSANE.
You don't know me neither cards i have or not, i don't have bobs and goyfs, and neither have plans to get them, so it's stupid to assume such thing. One of my "pet card" that i most liked was my set of Planechase BBE, it get banned, in fact i was in favor of her banning even liking her, so your point is ridiculous.
I woudn't even care if they're banned or not. But using common sense (thing that you seem to not have): if some people raged with SS ban, do you really belive that they won't go crazy if Bob and Goyf are banned? Use your brain for a change.
I'm going to report myself for this post. I don't care if i'm punished, because it's totally worth to show how people like you are so low, you don't have a point, so your point becoming attack the person who you disagree, instead of attacking their points. Moderator Action: Infraction for flaming Lantern
Fixed it for you. But seriously, why does it apply to Bob and Goyf but not for SFM and Jace.
Or Snapcaster and Lili 2.0.
Or Primetime and Spaghetti Monster.
Or Gifts Ungiven and Spell Pierce.
Or Lightning Bolt and Goblin Guide.
Or pick two cards that are played in both Modern and an eternal format...
That's the problem. Cross Format Relevance fights what they're trying to do with Modern: Give it its own Identity. If we spend all of time looking at other formats to define Modern, then we haven't defined it as a format- we have defined it as an absence of a format.
Fixed it for you. But seriously, why does it apply to Bob and Goyf but not for SFM and Jace. They can't deliver a completely balanced format when they can't ban those high priced cards. Especially when they want to wield the banhammer more often and create a format with a lower powerlevel curve. There is a reason why they are so expensive.
SFM and jace are un fun to play against, they win games all on their own. Bob is good cars advantage, but also hurts you and needs other cards/to be built around to win. Goyf is just an efficient creature, but can easily be countered with any removal or your own goyf, and is easily splashable, so he doesn't limit potential deck archetypes. That is why they aren't/won't be banned and jace/sfm are.
How people can be so narrow when it's convenient...
Fixed it for you. But seriously, why does it apply to Bob and Goyf but not for SFM and Jace.
SFM and jace are un fun to play against, they win games all on their own. Bob is good cars advantage, but also hurts you and needs other cards/to be built around to win.
And thanks Johnald for answering it for me. But its useless. They belive their concept are the only thing right. If a card they belive to not be ban worth is banned, it's illogical for people to not agree with them.
Fixed it for you. But seriously, why does it apply to Bob and Goyf but not for SFM and Jace. They can't deliver a completely balanced format when they can't ban those high priced cards.
Oh maybe because this DID happen. In fact is happening now, with you and those other guy freaking because of these bans, some even saying their already quited.
But again, with common sense: wich crwod is bigger, the "i hate jace and sfm mystic" or the crowd "i hate bob and goyf"? Only people who plays with jace and sfm likes them, they cause hate on the other half of the board. Can you say that bob and goyf cause the same? Probably you can just to try to make your point valid.
But what would cause more damage to modern? Baning two of the most loved cards, or two of the most hated?
And i'm not saying that i'm in the group that hate jace and SFM, in fact i would like to play with SFM because i like the swords =D
How people can be so narrow when it's convenient...
And thanks Johnald for answering it for me. But its useless. They belive their concept are the only thing right. If a card they belive to not be ban worth is banned, it's illogical for people to not agree with them.
Well it's unfun for me to play against Goyf and Bob every game too. It's also terribly unfun to lose and not play a tier 1 deck. It's unfun to not be able to play a deck I have built, because of a banned list that makes no sense and doesn't address the issues in the format its trying to help. "Unfun" is not a valid argument you can actually make. As bocephus was kind enough to point out- it's all relative.
Well it's unfun for me to play against Goyf and Bob every game too. It's also terribly unfun to lose and not play a tier 1 deck. It's unfun to not be able to play a deck I have built, because of a banned list that makes no sense and doesn't address the issues in the format its trying to help. "Unfun" is not a valid argument you can actually make. As bocephus was kind enough to point out- it's all relative.
And then the majority enters in the scene. Wizards will act according to the majority of players. While i can't say myself wich is the majority, i can have an idea based on wizards actions.
Wizards don't have to lie for us, wizards woudn't gain money for doing that.
So if they say people hated the meta with Jace and SFM and the attendance drop, it's probably true. Unless wizard is a stupid company that hates money, wich i suppose isn't the case.
You can always don't belive on it. You can even belive that the earth is flat, but this won't make it flat.
We have a turn 4 format. And since control has no Mox or other mana acceleration, and no decent filtering, turn 4 Jace is, oops, sorry, too late, you're dead. Thanks for playing.
SFM. Hmmm, let's see. A turn 2 1/2 tutor that pretty much dies the turn it comes out with all the removal we have in this format. So you've got a 5 drop equipment in your hand that, ooops, sorry, turn 5? Too late. You're dead. But thanks for playing our game.
These cards are far from broken or degenerate in this format. And had they NOT banned BBE, Jace would have been even weaker.
But by all means, Jace was the big bad bogeyman from Standard past when they didn't even have O-ring to deal with him, so let's keep him out of Modern just in case. No need to test him out to see if he's actually fair in this format. Let's just kill him right from the start so we don't have to worry about it.
Absolutely ridiculous. In fact, it might even be MORE ridiculous than banning Kitty.
Because at least with Kitty, you knew you'd have an aggro deck called zoo and we couldn't have that.
And people wonder why I can't take this banned list seriously?
Cool your jets guys. I have just had to deal with a ton of reports, all about flaming and spam. Once more, the topic of the banlist thread is the banlist, not each other. Lantern
And then the majority enters in the scene. Wizards will act according to the majority of players. While i can't say myself wich is the majority, i can have an idea based on wizards actions.
Wizards don't have to lie for us, wizards woudn't gain money for doing that.
So if they say people hated the meta with Jace and SFM and the attendance drop, it's probably true. Unless wizard is a stupid company that hates money, wich i suppose isn't the case.
You can always don't belive on it. You can even belive that the earth is flat, but this won't make it flat.
Sure, except I rather suspect that the 'majority' as you put it isn't really all that thrilled about getting stomped by Jund, again.
They don't need to lie to us; they make mistakes too. They've been making them for years. Cawblade's dominance is directly related to a lack of answers to planeswalkers. Jund is linked to undercosting Bloodbraid, Faeries a lack ways to interact with Bitterblossom through their counters and discard. Those three decks seem to be the big ones that stick in your craw, I used those examples. Wizards is just as capable of making mistakes as any group of human beings. We cannot help them improve if we don't A) figure out why the format is doing what its doing, and B) provide a plan to fix it.
I also recommend not making this into a matter of belief. Not only is it non-constructive, it means you don't actually have anything to convince anyone- meaning all of your points are essentially null and void.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You prefer a consistent ban list, that makes the format bad. Than a unconsistent one (not saying the current one is), that makes the format better?
Yeah, because making it consistent is more important than make the game good.
I know, you will reply with something along the lines "but the game isn't good bla bla bla", well this is just a matter of opinion.
For some it's great, and in the end what will matter is: the "happy crowd" is bigger than the "unhappy crowd"?
And this can't be seen on a single forum post. When tournament attendance drops and other negative things happens, then you can say that the "unhappy crowd" is bigger.
Also, consistency is relative. For consistency to exist, you need a reference. What is the reference you're using to claim that the current one is uncosistent? Probably one narrow factor, instead of all factors related.
You know that wizards keep feedback of players right?
They don't need to 'make a poll' for that. They already have that data. Modern popularity is high for how long it's alive, so i suppose they did exactly what the majority wanted. It just seems that the majority don't share your vision.
For now? Maybe. Let's see how popular this format is in 3 years when players start to notice that they have to keep changing their decks every 3 months because the latest "top dog" always gets banned.
Then we'll see how much the "majority" loves this format.
In the meantime, I've already been burned enough (4 decks unplayable) so I'm going to go and play something else that I know won't change with the wind.
Can you expand on what you are saying? Maybe with some examples? I don't really understand the point you are making here.
Modern:
UWUW TronUW
Legacy:
WDeath N TaxesW
CEldrazi C
If you couldn't tell I hate greedy blue decks.
Vintage
WWhite Trash
There is no such a things as "bans every 3 months in modern". The two last bans have a one year span between them.
The point is that some people says that the ban list is unconsistet.
They choose some cards banned, and claim that they should be unbaned because cards that share a feature with these cards should be banned, or that the banned should come out because of it.
Examples:
- "SMF, Vsions and Jace are banned because of Cross-format Relevance, so Bob, Lilly II, and DRS should be banned or SFM, Vsions and Jace unbanned"
- "SMF is banned because of power level, so they should ban SCM, Bob and Goyf because they have the same power level, or uban SFM"
Basically, they simply ignore the format as a whole, and use a single argument to justify their point.
This is the "consistency" they seems to want on the ban list: a "Ban all" or "Ban nothing" based on narrow points. Even it the "ban all" or "ban nothing" isn't automatically good for the format.
But wizard isn't stupid. If people raged when SS was banned, a 1$ card that don't even killed the storm.
People would totally quit Modern if Bob or Tarmogoyf were to be banned, it would have impact in more decks.
But even they being strong and staples, they're more usable outside of a single stratrgy helps the format.
If a card is strong, widely used, but not to the point of pushing other decks of the same type out (like they thought Nacatl did, for example), it probably won't be banned.
So you are saying that in the context of modern as a format it makes sense for certain things to be banned because of how strong they are in a different format. This makes sense and I can see your line of thinking. I think the logical argument to answer your point is that because many of these justifications were made before the modern format was created, its not really fair to say in the context of the format.
For example, Ancestral Visions was banned before Modern had a chance to exist and this was because it is used in legacy. However we never got a chance to see its power in the context of the modern format, which can be frustrating. I can see the argument which you are making, but you must in turn see how others can be frustrated by current ban list and Wizards explanations.
Modern:
UWUW TronUW
Legacy:
WDeath N TaxesW
CEldrazi C
If you couldn't tell I hate greedy blue decks.
Vintage
WWhite Trash
I'm glad someone at least got my reference.
I suppose it is kind of ironic that I used a quote about enforcing stricter gun control laws as a way to try reduce a banned list.
However, the "infant format" argument held water a year ago. It doesn't anymore. Between how Modern was forced into the limelight from day 1, the internet deck building Hivemind, and improved deck construction theory, Modern has had to grow up fast- and it shows. Heck, the last time we saw so many bans in a single format at once was in 1998, and technically during the formation of Legacy in 2004.
The other problem comparing the growth pattern of Modern to Legacy is that Legacy was essentially a retooling of Type 1.5, a format that had been played for quite some time, had a banned list tied to another format that helped develop our ideas about Magic strategy, and a lot of the banned cards were fairly obvious as to why they deserved to be on the list. Or at least demonstratively clear, like Flash. Due to the Forced Fruition of the format, Modern hasn't had the luxury that Legacy had- time to sort itself out before the big tournaments began using it. So basically, we need to treat Modern like its own animal.
Perhaps good and bad are too charged- shall we use Healthy/Unhealthy then instead? I was trying to keep things straightforward given how bad the conversation got.
So, there are three major rules and minor one governing banned list right now, correct? The Turn 4 Combo rule, design mistakes, the percentage of the meta rule, and then cross-format relevance rule.
So, Turn 4 combo related bans: Dark Depths, Blazing Shoal, Golgari Grave-troll, Dread Return, Hypergenesis, Glimpse of Nature, Rite of Flame, Ponder, Preordain, and finally Seething Song. Previously: Valakut. Possibly Chrome Mox?
Design Mistakes: Jace the Mindsculptor, Stoneforge Mystic, Skullclamp, the Artifact Lands, and Mental Misstep.
Percentage of the Meta: Green Sun's Zenith, Cloudpost, Punishing Fire, Wild Nacatl, and now Bloodbraid Elf.
Cross-Format Relevance: Uh... Probably Ancestral Visions, maybe Sword of the Meek, maybe Umezawa's Jitte, though it could just be a design mistake. Probably contributed to Jace and SFM's bannings as well.
Sensei's Divining Top was banned to appease the Judges, because Speed of Play is a really thorny issue if you've got Top in play.
If you look back through the thread, the two major issues have been the "Turn 4 Combo" rule and the "Cross Format Relevancy"- simply because of how poorly defined they are. How often is a combo deck allowed to win on turn 3? We don't know. Cross Format Relevancy in partiuclar doesn't seem to have any rhyme or reason applied to it. If it was strictly applied, Tarmogoyf, Snapcaster, Dark Confidant, Liliana of the Veil, Deathrite Shaman, Abrupt Decay, Delver of Secrets, Past in Flames, Lingering Souls, Emrakul, Aether Vial, Trinket Mage, and quite a lot of other cards would be illegal. So at what point are these sorts of cards banned? To what sets and formats does it even apply? We don't know. Does it apply to Vintage? Add Lodestone Golem and Blightsteel Colossus to the list. To Block Constructed? Previously, we would have needed to add Intangible Virtue. Standard? Or only Legacy?
Basically, a lot of the resentment has to do with how ill-defined the reasoning is behind the bannings. A lot deck builders I've met are turned off to the format because of how hideously narrow it is and how unstable the card pool is. They feel their decks might be banned out from under them. I've said before, there are only a precious few strategies that really work right now. URx Combo, BGx Shell, GWx Pod, URx Tempo, and as has been pointed out to me: XxTron AKA Resolving Emrakul.
Well, maybe if I rant about loud enough and long enough, somebody with connections might listen and pass along some of my better-stated ideas. Maybe it could help. I don't know, but I can hope and I can blow off steam.
This just isn't really true. It would be entirely accurate to say:
My understanding is that it self-regulates at about Turn 2-3 or so and not in a very "newbie-friendly" way, but your mileage may vary.
It just so happens that a great deal of the cards to do so are banned or made unnecessary by the banned list. For instance, Angel's Grace is utterly pointless without Belcher tearing up the format, Trickbind and Mindbreak Trap are unnecessary without Storm doing much of anything these days, Act of Aggression is hilariously good against Dark Depths, Hypergenesis is beaten by taxing effects, Trickbind, and Countermagic in general. Mental Misstep would have wrecked most of the Combo decks at Pro-tour Philly, except Twin and Infect... Heck, we're even prepared for Owling Mine's imminent return with our sick One with Nothing tech.
Yep. It is likely it won't change- especially if we just 'lie still and think of England.'
How hard is this for people to understand? The above quote is essentially what is wrong with this format.
This poster nailed it. End of story.
Maybe if WotC came out and said, this is what we're doing, this is why we're doing it and this is the reason for these particular bans but not the reason why THESE cards weren't banned, MAYBE we'd have a better understanding and MAYBE we'd be able to accept this strategy.
But right now, because of the inconsistency, it's just arbitrary crap to me and I am sure a lot of other players.
Enough players to force WotC to change their tactics?
That's to be determined in time.
What is worse for one, is better for others. Its all a matter of perspective.
If you would have bothered to read the posts I put in the other thread that got nuked, Wotc did say they spoke with many players and designed the format to what the wants of the majority of the player base wanted from what they spoke to.
I believe they have made it perfectly clear in the bullet points they have set out, it seems the problem is in agreeing with them. They have laided out why they have banned certain cards with in depth explanations. You are free to disagree with those reasons, but it doesnt change the fact they laided out what they want from the format and have been sticking to it.
Perception again. Just because some feel one way about a banning or the lack of a banning, doesnt mean everyone feels the same.
<3 Sure!
Yup. And objectively speaking, the more possible ways for a player to become interested in the format, the better for WotC. More cards means more ways for players to interact with a format, which rather directly correlates to more viable decks, which means a healthier metagame. Having a sensible plan that people are aware of probably wouldn't hurt either.
And to be perfectly frank, it's proved pretty hard to actually locate these players. I did, in fact read that thread.
Well, here I can say pretty objectively that you're incorrect. If you were correct, we wouldn't have two threads and I don't even want to think about how many posts trying to figure out what Wizards is doing, over the calm, cool, rational, logical, sensible arguments of many apologists, like our dear friend Victor Sant. Speaking of which, I have a cat to sell him. It is neither alive nor dead and is in a box. But you can't observe it, or it will go away. It is very unique though.
Very true, I know people in the same camp
Not the best quote though, although I am sure people will get it
+1 for quote, easily one of my favorites
Of the bans I do agree with Cloudpost, the card is very degenerate, even without Emrakul and the Eldrazi there are still to many Degenerate things that can be done with it, not to mention that save Crop Rotations and swapping Candelabras for Magus I can build a Legacy deck
Paper: WUR Waffle Control, RG and U Tron
MTGO: U Tron, BRG Living End, B Infect
Testing Modern on MTGO and helping to craft decks on a Budget
I stream!
Hermit Druid Combo:
Strawman argument, this is the failure of Wizards to allow the format to develop instead of forcing it to be a GP format by switching GP Philly from extended to modern 2 weeks before.
Sure, let's make a new low powered format and throw it into "Spike" snake pit and see what happens
Wanted to point out, if Wotc keeps trying to appease multiple groups of people the format is going to fail. They need to appease the group enjoying the format at the moment and let the format grow into what they are aiming for. If they continue to aim to please everyone, the format will become diluted and a big mess that will fail like many other formats they have tried and are now gone.
What? Wotc has polls on their site, they have Wotc reps out and about at larger tournaments. Not to mention the surveys sent out about magic from MTGO. Just like Modern was tested prior to its announcement, but no one will believe because they were not involved in the testing. Its happening, and I am sorry not everyone was involved in the process.
There is always 2 sides to everything. Just because we are not hearing the other side as much as the vocal unhappy, doesnt mean there isnt that other side out there. We the player base doesnt have the data that Wotc has. We are questioning things with limited information when they are looking at the whole landscape of the format and its their format to steer where they wish to.
See, I am all for bannings, but they should have banned Vesuva instead of cloudpost. 8 post decks were never a problem in the past and wouldnt have been in Modern. Now that they printed another version of Vesuva in GTC (something we the player base didnt know about) I can understand the banning of cloudpost.
AHA! The truth comes out and this is the first honest thing you had to say in this whole thread and now we can see where your biases come from.
What you are saying is that "YOU" would quit Modern if Bob or Tarmogoyf were banned.
Your arguments aren't coming from anywhere of from a place of format preservation, or format balance but simple because of your own pet cards.
Moderator Action: Warning for Flaming ~Lantern
Please read the Forum Rules
Nope. Appeasing multiple groups is basically what commercial enterprise is about. The format will fail because of a lack of money before it fails to overabundance. Look at Old Extended.
Okay, WotC's polls were more along the lines of "What do you like about Modern? Pick One:" and "Do you like Modern: Yes or Yes," than any fact finding. Unless you can produce the testing results, it's pretty hard to prove your point about Wizard's early testing of the Modern format.
Actually, we hear plenty from the Apologist standpoint as well- between you and Victor at least. It's just that a lot of your points can't be backed up properly or verified.
We know- but oddly enough, no-one here is complaining about Cloudpost. We're all mystified as why Preordain is banned, why Deathrite Shaman isn't, and numerous other things, but Cloudpost something where we have the results to say- yep, that should have been banned. There's also the issue of Primeval Titan just pulling out all four Cloudposts. Keep it up though, I might have a cat in a box for you too. We might end up with a format that needs bans every three months, or with the release of every new set, really, to keep combo down- but hey, you have your Shroedinger Award to keep you happy!
You don't know me neither cards i have or not, i don't have bobs and goyfs, and neither have plans to get them, so it's stupid to assume such thing. One of my "pet card" that i most liked was my set of Planechase BBE, it get banned, in fact i was in favor of her banning even liking her, so your point is ridiculous.
I woudn't even care if they're banned or not. But using common sense (thing that you seem to not have): if some people raged with SS ban, do you really belive that they won't go crazy if Bob and Goyf are banned? Use your brain for a change.
I'm going to report myself for this post. I don't care if i'm punished, because it's totally worth to show how people like you are so low, you don't have a point, so your point becoming attack the person who you disagree, instead of attacking their points.
Moderator Action: Infraction for flaming Lantern
Please read the Forum Rules
Or Snapcaster and Lili 2.0.
Or Primetime and Spaghetti Monster.
Or Gifts Ungiven and Spell Pierce.
Or Lightning Bolt and Goblin Guide.
Or pick two cards that are played in both Modern and an eternal format...
That's the problem. Cross Format Relevance fights what they're trying to do with Modern: Give it its own Identity. If we spend all of time looking at other formats to define Modern, then we haven't defined it as a format- we have defined it as an absence of a format.
SFM and jace are un fun to play against, they win games all on their own. Bob is good cars advantage, but also hurts you and needs other cards/to be built around to win. Goyf is just an efficient creature, but can easily be countered with any removal or your own goyf, and is easily splashable, so he doesn't limit potential deck archetypes. That is why they aren't/won't be banned and jace/sfm are.
And thanks Johnald for answering it for me. But its useless. They belive their concept are the only thing right. If a card they belive to not be ban worth is banned, it's illogical for people to not agree with them.
Oh maybe because this DID happen. In fact is happening now, with you and those other guy freaking because of these bans, some even saying their already quited.
But again, with common sense: wich crwod is bigger, the "i hate jace and sfm mystic" or the crowd "i hate bob and goyf"? Only people who plays with jace and sfm likes them, they cause hate on the other half of the board. Can you say that bob and goyf cause the same? Probably you can just to try to make your point valid.
But what would cause more damage to modern? Baning two of the most loved cards, or two of the most hated?
And i'm not saying that i'm in the group that hate jace and SFM, in fact i would like to play with SFM because i like the swords =D
Well it's unfun for me to play against Goyf and Bob every game too. It's also terribly unfun to lose and not play a tier 1 deck. It's unfun to not be able to play a deck I have built, because of a banned list that makes no sense and doesn't address the issues in the format its trying to help. "Unfun" is not a valid argument you can actually make. As bocephus was kind enough to point out- it's all relative.
And you're right, it is a useless point.
Wizards don't have to lie for us, wizards woudn't gain money for doing that.
So if they say people hated the meta with Jace and SFM and the attendance drop, it's probably true. Unless wizard is a stupid company that hates money, wich i suppose isn't the case.
You can always don't belive on it. You can even belive that the earth is flat, but this won't make it flat.
We have a turn 4 format. And since control has no Mox or other mana acceleration, and no decent filtering, turn 4 Jace is, oops, sorry, too late, you're dead. Thanks for playing.
SFM. Hmmm, let's see. A turn 2 1/2 tutor that pretty much dies the turn it comes out with all the removal we have in this format. So you've got a 5 drop equipment in your hand that, ooops, sorry, turn 5? Too late. You're dead. But thanks for playing our game.
These cards are far from broken or degenerate in this format. And had they NOT banned BBE, Jace would have been even weaker.
But by all means, Jace was the big bad bogeyman from Standard past when they didn't even have O-ring to deal with him, so let's keep him out of Modern just in case. No need to test him out to see if he's actually fair in this format. Let's just kill him right from the start so we don't have to worry about it.
Absolutely ridiculous. In fact, it might even be MORE ridiculous than banning Kitty.
Because at least with Kitty, you knew you'd have an aggro deck called zoo and we couldn't have that.
And people wonder why I can't take this banned list seriously?
Sure, except I rather suspect that the 'majority' as you put it isn't really all that thrilled about getting stomped by Jund, again.
They don't need to lie to us; they make mistakes too. They've been making them for years. Cawblade's dominance is directly related to a lack of answers to planeswalkers. Jund is linked to undercosting Bloodbraid, Faeries a lack ways to interact with Bitterblossom through their counters and discard. Those three decks seem to be the big ones that stick in your craw, I used those examples. Wizards is just as capable of making mistakes as any group of human beings. We cannot help them improve if we don't A) figure out why the format is doing what its doing, and B) provide a plan to fix it.
I also recommend not making this into a matter of belief. Not only is it non-constructive, it means you don't actually have anything to convince anyone- meaning all of your points are essentially null and void.