So I often see bans are a sign of bad game design, honestly I see the exact opposite, I somewhat regular bannings as healthy game design. Riddle me this why do bans happen?
"A deck or card is overpowered, or too strong for its cost." See Smugglar Copter espacially. Or another good example "Hinders design space." Case in point Splinter Twin or Pod. Another way I see it.
"The developers are willing to push the enevelop, experiment, try something new." If the Dev teams never tries to push something or do an interesting design, we would rarely get banning. It's too cautious. Developers aren't willing to try and experiment for new and interesting developers.
Instead just give us Generic.Big Creature 84. Thopter was a conditional looter (filter), a non-hasty two drop with no immediate Board impact. It can be used in Aggro or control effectively.
Splinter Twin, tells me that cards are 'future proof' are a card from previous sets still interact with newer cards. So I hopefully don't need to sit and twiddle my thumbs as I wait for decades to get a new card.
What I am trying to say here, is cards being banned tells me Development is just that Development. Willing to take risks, willing to draw unique and weird playable designs. No Bans tells me they wanted to play it safe were unwilling to try and push the enevelop a bit more. Experiment to make something new and improve.
The other case, for design, if no old cards are banned either tells me Power creep too strong. Or old cards are irrelevant and xenophobic or the new cards are. Telling me I shouldn't bother buying anything. Sense even if like a deck t won't A) ever get support, B) power creeped out of the game
Yes, I agree that development should take risks and explore new space, even at the risk of making a card too powerful for Standard, Modern, or even Commander. It's better than walking a straight and narrow path so nothing ban-worthy is ever made. I fear that Wizards may run out of creative space within 10 years, and that point would be reached even sooner if they restrict their gameplay or flavor options. Better to try and make some mistakes along the way.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH/Commander
UBR Sedris RG Omnath, Locus of Rage UB The Scarab God RUG Maelstrom Wanderer WU Dragonlord Ojutai
I'd say that banning a card because it's too strong can be healthy for that game, as it tests the game's limits to see what can or can't be done. The problem bannings are the recent ones in Standard (Emrakul, Looter Scooter, and Reflector Mage) where the only reason they are banned is because of the state of the game as a whole where there are no answers for anything so even stronger than average cards, but not overpowered in the least, are considered too good for the game. That I believe is where things go wrong when the bannings are from a much larger problem, rather than just an incredibly strong card.
Then people become desensitized to bans and they purposedly design OP cards to sell packs and ban them to negate your whole damn deck so that you need to buy more cards that will get banned too.
If bans are not a last resort solution to a mistake, they're a sales pitch and that's terrible for a game.
Smuggler's Copter is actually a BAD example of a card that is "too strong" , as it wasnt.
The critical bad game design wasnt the card itself, it was that they didnt include any reasonable form of removal against it, and the ironicly best way to block it, was to play one of your own, and thats just terrible.
With Abrade and friends in the format the card is not an issue at all and does nothing in any other format, as the card isnt good, as long as you have reasonable answers to it that punish the opponent for playing vehicles (a card type that is inherently terrible, as they do nothing on their own and need more creatures to work).
The format had no reasonable graveyard hate at all , which made Delirium decks perform WAAAAAAYYYYY better than they would have in any form with just 1 half decent graveyard hate available.
The Mindslaver effect together with protection from instants was also a pretty bad combination, as it would force you to play sorcery removal, which they would use to destroy your own creatures. The reasonable answer was in enchantment based "flash" removal , Stasis Snare did work, but white decks couldnt really compete against Delirium and Energy Marvel decks, as the answers could just either hit creatures, planeswalkers, or artifacts, but never solved enough problems to make a reasonable constructed deck. A lot of diverse problem cards and too limited answers produce a very hostile format in which its simply better to ignore answers and just ask questions on your own, and the one that sticks the last wins.
And together with Aetherworks Marvel in a grindy energy based deck, they simply even combined and they made terrible design choices to shape that format.
----
For almost all bannings its the same story.
They make something reasonable good, but print no answers to it in the format.
Just imagine Artifact decks and no hate against Artifacts , without a way to punish such a deck, ofcourse it would dominate.
Just imagine a Dredge deck without any graveyard hate available, OFCOURSE it would dominate.
Its really not too complicated, but if they would print reasonable answers to the cards they print, they wouldnt have that much of an impact and they BADLY wanted to have story characters be very clearly overpowered and hard to answer (hello Archangel Avacyn).
----
Gideon, Ally of Zendikar was the kind of card they SHOULD have banned in its prime time, as it was the go-to card in white, no matter what deck you wanted to play, if you have access to white mana, you MUST play that planeswalker, as the format didnt really offer good answers to it (and even then you could cash in the Emblem, so the only way is to counter the spell before it does anything).
But they did not ban the planeswalker, a choice we had to suffer for a terrible long time.
What I am trying to say here, is cards being banned tells me Development is just that Development. Willing to take risks, willing to draw unique and weird playable designs. No Bans tells me they wanted to play it safe were unwilling to try and push the enevelop a bit more. Experiment to make something new and improve.
Let's stop and look at the cards you cited and see if they actually back that up. Smuggler's Copter, while powerful, was honestly fine. The problem was lack of good answers to it in its format (that was actually a big problem for that format in general). Them having to ban it doesn't say they're willing to take risks, it shows that they somehow thought it was a good idea to print such a card but not have any good countermeasures to it other than playing it yourself.
As for Splinter Twin, what them banning it showed was that even though the card wasn't overpowered, even though the deck wasn't too good, even though pretty much no one thought it needed a banning (which was the case, despite the revisionist history many have tried to claim), they banned it just because they wanted to make the Pro Tour more exciting. That doesn't show that they're willing to take risks. That just shows that if you're a Modern player, you should constantly worry about your deck getting banned if it's seen as good.
Birthing Pod is really the only one you can point to as possibly being evidence of your claim.
The other case, for design, if no old cards are banned either tells me Power creep too strong.
How? Yu-Gi-Oh is notorious for its absurd levels of power creep, and they still ban older cards.
So to summarize what's been said in this thread thus far: Bans are OK when they're targeting genuinely busted cards in their own right, but they're an issue when they're targeting cards that wouldn't be so ridiculous if actual legit answers for them were printed.
Cards bans are the exact opposite of a healthy game. I think it's better to ban cards rather than let the game rot away but card bans clearly mean that something is not right.
Been busy with college, so let me respond to everything in turn. First the issue with Smugggler Copters, as you said it was because of the lack of answers. Riddle me this, would a 3/3 no loot, no flying, and crew 1 see play. Maybe, maybe not. Its another variant on Fleecemane Lion, and Call of the Conclave. Or Watchwolf if you want to go back that far. Is it safe? 3/3 for two even nowadays are....lackluster without another upside. But it could have been printed and no one would bat an eye.
Instead take that same card, instead of just going what is safe, you decide to push it a bit. It needs another card to activate itself, and it doesn't gain immediate value, so maybe it'll be fine? So you give it a the ability to loot. Is a 3/3 Crew One that Loots on Block or Attack, playable? Would you play a card reads "2 Mana if it attacks or blocks, draw 1 discard 1." Well how many Merfolk looters see play? Vryns Prodigy, but you know he has the upside...of being a snappy caster. Well perhaps all the various red or blue cards that often do have a form of evasion or otherwise have combat damage, draw 1 discard 1.
So you need to try and push, maybe you want something playable and similar style cards have no broken anything and this requires a creature to activate. So its...top deck ability might leave something to be desired. However it turns out evasion, the lack of effective answers or more precisely answers are too few or too slow to effective do what is needed, and looting on attack, as well blocking, was just too good. But instead we could have gotten a rare sky skiff that is just a 3/3. Now then if you always play it safe, you'll never print a broken card. And you end up with blocks and sets, which don't do anything after they rotate.
Theros, a set from the start was played completely safe from top to bottom. There are cards from it that see play, fringe to nominal, like Nykthos Shrine to Nyx, Master of Waves, Courser of Kruphix, or Thassa, God of the Sea. Sometimes a Keranos in Grixis decks. You also see Gary in some monoblock decks. Take Master, until its recent extinction by Fatal Push, one of its best aspects was not being boltable. But well, that could end poorly. Worse it might increase the number of non-games. Lets remove the protection. And push it up a mana, we don't want to accidentally allow a midrange-tempo deck, going like Azorius Familiar, Azorius Charm, D-Sphere, then flood board with Master on 4.
I could go through each card, but its easy to make card that is safe and irrelevant. Its almost impossible to find it if your not willing to experiment, or try and find it. All cards can be made useless if you want a perfectly safe and sterile environment. If you think just essentially reprinting the same cards over and over again, is sign of a good development, that is sign of no development. A development sometimes requires you to push, to make a mistake. Your accepting failure, before you even tried. If as a result of the development, you go a little too far. Maybe leaps too far, that should been blatant in hindsight. But part of development is trying to push that envelop, to make that card a bit more interesting.
Grim Flayer for example, a NotGoyf from Shadows. There are 1001 ways a 2 mana card filters deck and is good at any point in the game could well break the game. 1 Mana Deathrite is a prime example. Had Grim Flayer been pushed to 3 mana, maybe even made a 3/3 base in that case. Would it had even been notable or even cared for? But it certainly would not have broken anything at 3 mana. Now lets deal with the Twin no? There are several issues with Twin, is it the best deck? Or is not? Well maybe. But between able to threaten the win and go for the game at any stage, while playing a strong tempo game. Is that balanced? Well maybe. How would you deal with that deck. Keeping it off the combo.
Well take AV, was that unbannable with twin? It allows Twin to make up having its hand stripped by same decks. And while its best turn 1. Against certain slower decks. Playing 2-4, will not be a bad thing. As the game likely to go that long. But you know, that is fine and dandy clearly. Twin wouldn't do anything to break the game. It didn't do anything to break the game. Maybe my metagames were weird, but everyone I know was building twin. Some in part because it was "Miracles of Modern". Is that title fair? I don't know. Could Twin have stayed legal with Opt and AV now in the format?
Would Twin gone the way of GB/X and the ways of the dodos? I would personally doubt it. If Twin wasn't that good, and 'mediocre' element of the deck, that ran by tempo'ing out and not the ability threaten the combo every turn, 3 and onward, Kiki-Jiki would see more play than it does. But the fact Jiki is while similar a far worse card. Sahaali and her kitty in modern are similar. Twin existence onto itself, enable what was clearly a lackluster pile of cards to t8 regularly, become the go to deck for a plurality of metagame, shows that Twin was that good.
And finally, YGO and PowerCreep, is far more complicated than simply 'power creep'. For example, Dolls (Shaddolls for those curious), is one of the stronger archtypes and was printed four years ago. A card pre-errate, Chaos Emperor Dragon - Envoy of the End, printed over a decade ago, is the strongest single card in all of YGO. Zoodiacs, the most recent broken archetype, and their comrades True Draco, are weaker than the cards printed in the previous four years.
Additionally 8-4 Years ago, during 'Zexal', it was until year 7-8 did the cards, 'creep' older synchros. Even then, that is less creeping and more along the lines of proper answers. In fact some decks, Gadgets a notable example, often return to tier status after decades of obscurity. One archetype known as Water, came is 7-8 years old. Now are decks in YGO significantly stronger than the decks of past YGO. Yes and No. But in some ways, you cannot tell me, pre-Etch Champion Affinity and Mox Opel, without Artifact Lands are better than Modern Affinity. Or that NewUla is worse than OldUla. Its all relativeness. Its not just as simple as 'power creep'. BLS - Envoy of the Beginning, in the TCG recently move, semi (two are allowed per a deck), why? Well we have better answers than we used too first of all.
Second there are no decks currently competitive that use competitively Light and Dark attribute monsters regularly. That might change soon in the TCG, due to Spyral and Vendread Tier 1. But currently its more complicated than just "Ban and Creep". Actually a recent card banned was something known as Grandsoil. A reanimate if you reach certain conditions it was banned because of an interaction with a newer card called FireWall Dragon. They easily could have either of those cards, unable to interact with anything outside their era or made not to relevant with later cards. FireWall having a clause that says "if you do x, only activate Cyberse monsters for the rest of the turn". That kind of interaction is known as xenophobia, I was once asked why YGO players like stat based archetypes not named based.
Stat Base can sometimes result in the above interaction. But it also allows a card like Fire Formation Tenki help any Beast-Warrior deck and not just Fire Fists. My personal YGO deck, I created and have built, as well as maintained for almost 15-18 years now. Several times a year because of my deck looking for type-line for certain effects, I can get new cards or buffs. And having old cards be banned for that reason tells me the game card creation isn't xenophobic with itself. If you care for a specific MtG example. Allies and Rebels. Two highly for if they were from YGO xenophobic archtypes that can never expect much in the way of new toys to help them (at best something like CoCo).
Such xenophobia is any easy way to balance and is easier on the development side because well its xenophobic and they need not worry about unintended interactions. Its a sign to me of a partly sterile design, unwilling to risk they choose the safest method. Its a sign of a sterile development mindset. Which all brings me to my original point. Bans are good, because they demonstrate, that the developers are willing to push the envelop. To try something new or interesting. I'd rather a development team, be willing to try and experiment then run that always play it safe. The latter is unhealthy in the long term as the game simply becomes sterile.
"A deck or card is overpowered, or too strong for its cost." See Smugglar Copter espacially. Or another good example "Hinders design space." Case in point Splinter Twin or Pod. Another way I see it.
"The developers are willing to push the enevelop, experiment, try something new." If the Dev teams never tries to push something or do an interesting design, we would rarely get banning. It's too cautious. Developers aren't willing to try and experiment for new and interesting developers.
Instead just give us Generic.Big Creature 84. Thopter was a conditional looter (filter), a non-hasty two drop with no immediate Board impact. It can be used in Aggro or control effectively.
Splinter Twin, tells me that cards are 'future proof' are a card from previous sets still interact with newer cards. So I hopefully don't need to sit and twiddle my thumbs as I wait for decades to get a new card.
What I am trying to say here, is cards being banned tells me Development is just that Development. Willing to take risks, willing to draw unique and weird playable designs. No Bans tells me they wanted to play it safe were unwilling to try and push the enevelop a bit more. Experiment to make something new and improve.
The other case, for design, if no old cards are banned either tells me Power creep too strong. Or old cards are irrelevant and xenophobic or the new cards are. Telling me I shouldn't bother buying anything. Sense even if like a deck t won't A) ever get support, B) power creeped out of the game
'Prepared himself for the horde of disagreement'
CerberusJund (Modern)GRB
Sidisi, Brood Tyrant Morphentress (Commander) GUB
I also play YGO (DragunFusion) and Hearthstone (Dragon Control Warrior)
UBR Sedris
RG Omnath, Locus of Rage
UB The Scarab God
RUG Maelstrom Wanderer
WU Dragonlord Ojutai
If bans are not a last resort solution to a mistake, they're a sales pitch and that's terrible for a game.
The critical bad game design wasnt the card itself, it was that they didnt include any reasonable form of removal against it, and the ironicly best way to block it, was to play one of your own, and thats just terrible.
With Abrade and friends in the format the card is not an issue at all and does nothing in any other format, as the card isnt good, as long as you have reasonable answers to it that punish the opponent for playing vehicles (a card type that is inherently terrible, as they do nothing on their own and need more creatures to work).
----
Emrakul, the Promised End had pretty much the same issue, just on the top end.
The format had no reasonable graveyard hate at all , which made Delirium decks perform WAAAAAAYYYYY better than they would have in any form with just 1 half decent graveyard hate available.
The Mindslaver effect together with protection from instants was also a pretty bad combination, as it would force you to play sorcery removal, which they would use to destroy your own creatures. The reasonable answer was in enchantment based "flash" removal , Stasis Snare did work, but white decks couldnt really compete against Delirium and Energy Marvel decks, as the answers could just either hit creatures, planeswalkers, or artifacts, but never solved enough problems to make a reasonable constructed deck. A lot of diverse problem cards and too limited answers produce a very hostile format in which its simply better to ignore answers and just ask questions on your own, and the one that sticks the last wins.
And together with Aetherworks Marvel in a grindy energy based deck, they simply even combined and they made terrible design choices to shape that format.
----
For almost all bannings its the same story.
They make something reasonable good, but print no answers to it in the format.
Just imagine Artifact decks and no hate against Artifacts , without a way to punish such a deck, ofcourse it would dominate.
Just imagine a Dredge deck without any graveyard hate available, OFCOURSE it would dominate.
Its really not too complicated, but if they would print reasonable answers to the cards they print, they wouldnt have that much of an impact and they BADLY wanted to have story characters be very clearly overpowered and hard to answer (hello Archangel Avacyn).
----
Gideon, Ally of Zendikar was the kind of card they SHOULD have banned in its prime time, as it was the go-to card in white, no matter what deck you wanted to play, if you have access to white mana, you MUST play that planeswalker, as the format didnt really offer good answers to it (and even then you could cash in the Emblem, so the only way is to counter the spell before it does anything).
But they did not ban the planeswalker, a choice we had to suffer for a terrible long time.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
As for Splinter Twin, what them banning it showed was that even though the card wasn't overpowered, even though the deck wasn't too good, even though pretty much no one thought it needed a banning (which was the case, despite the revisionist history many have tried to claim), they banned it just because they wanted to make the Pro Tour more exciting. That doesn't show that they're willing to take risks. That just shows that if you're a Modern player, you should constantly worry about your deck getting banned if it's seen as good.
Birthing Pod is really the only one you can point to as possibly being evidence of your claim.
How? Yu-Gi-Oh is notorious for its absurd levels of power creep, and they still ban older cards.
It would be better to avoid accidents in the first place.
It's EASY to make broken cards. Cards that are interesting but not ban-worthy? That's harder, and the better goal.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Instead take that same card, instead of just going what is safe, you decide to push it a bit. It needs another card to activate itself, and it doesn't gain immediate value, so maybe it'll be fine? So you give it a the ability to loot. Is a 3/3 Crew One that Loots on Block or Attack, playable? Would you play a card reads "2 Mana if it attacks or blocks, draw 1 discard 1." Well how many Merfolk looters see play? Vryns Prodigy, but you know he has the upside...of being a snappy caster. Well perhaps all the various red or blue cards that often do have a form of evasion or otherwise have combat damage, draw 1 discard 1.
So you need to try and push, maybe you want something playable and similar style cards have no broken anything and this requires a creature to activate. So its...top deck ability might leave something to be desired. However it turns out evasion, the lack of effective answers or more precisely answers are too few or too slow to effective do what is needed, and looting on attack, as well blocking, was just too good. But instead we could have gotten a rare sky skiff that is just a 3/3. Now then if you always play it safe, you'll never print a broken card. And you end up with blocks and sets, which don't do anything after they rotate.
Theros, a set from the start was played completely safe from top to bottom. There are cards from it that see play, fringe to nominal, like Nykthos Shrine to Nyx, Master of Waves, Courser of Kruphix, or Thassa, God of the Sea. Sometimes a Keranos in Grixis decks. You also see Gary in some monoblock decks. Take Master, until its recent extinction by Fatal Push, one of its best aspects was not being boltable. But well, that could end poorly. Worse it might increase the number of non-games. Lets remove the protection. And push it up a mana, we don't want to accidentally allow a midrange-tempo deck, going like Azorius Familiar, Azorius Charm, D-Sphere, then flood board with Master on 4.
I could go through each card, but its easy to make card that is safe and irrelevant. Its almost impossible to find it if your not willing to experiment, or try and find it. All cards can be made useless if you want a perfectly safe and sterile environment. If you think just essentially reprinting the same cards over and over again, is sign of a good development, that is sign of no development. A development sometimes requires you to push, to make a mistake. Your accepting failure, before you even tried. If as a result of the development, you go a little too far. Maybe leaps too far, that should been blatant in hindsight. But part of development is trying to push that envelop, to make that card a bit more interesting.
Grim Flayer for example, a NotGoyf from Shadows. There are 1001 ways a 2 mana card filters deck and is good at any point in the game could well break the game. 1 Mana Deathrite is a prime example. Had Grim Flayer been pushed to 3 mana, maybe even made a 3/3 base in that case. Would it had even been notable or even cared for? But it certainly would not have broken anything at 3 mana. Now lets deal with the Twin no? There are several issues with Twin, is it the best deck? Or is not? Well maybe. But between able to threaten the win and go for the game at any stage, while playing a strong tempo game. Is that balanced? Well maybe. How would you deal with that deck. Keeping it off the combo.
Well take AV, was that unbannable with twin? It allows Twin to make up having its hand stripped by same decks. And while its best turn 1. Against certain slower decks. Playing 2-4, will not be a bad thing. As the game likely to go that long. But you know, that is fine and dandy clearly. Twin wouldn't do anything to break the game. It didn't do anything to break the game. Maybe my metagames were weird, but everyone I know was building twin. Some in part because it was "Miracles of Modern". Is that title fair? I don't know. Could Twin have stayed legal with Opt and AV now in the format?
Would Twin gone the way of GB/X and the ways of the dodos? I would personally doubt it. If Twin wasn't that good, and 'mediocre' element of the deck, that ran by tempo'ing out and not the ability threaten the combo every turn, 3 and onward, Kiki-Jiki would see more play than it does. But the fact Jiki is while similar a far worse card. Sahaali and her kitty in modern are similar. Twin existence onto itself, enable what was clearly a lackluster pile of cards to t8 regularly, become the go to deck for a plurality of metagame, shows that Twin was that good.
And finally, YGO and PowerCreep, is far more complicated than simply 'power creep'. For example, Dolls (Shaddolls for those curious), is one of the stronger archtypes and was printed four years ago. A card pre-errate, Chaos Emperor Dragon - Envoy of the End, printed over a decade ago, is the strongest single card in all of YGO. Zoodiacs, the most recent broken archetype, and their comrades True Draco, are weaker than the cards printed in the previous four years.
Additionally 8-4 Years ago, during 'Zexal', it was until year 7-8 did the cards, 'creep' older synchros. Even then, that is less creeping and more along the lines of proper answers. In fact some decks, Gadgets a notable example, often return to tier status after decades of obscurity. One archetype known as Water, came is 7-8 years old. Now are decks in YGO significantly stronger than the decks of past YGO. Yes and No. But in some ways, you cannot tell me, pre-Etch Champion Affinity and Mox Opel, without Artifact Lands are better than Modern Affinity. Or that NewUla is worse than OldUla. Its all relativeness. Its not just as simple as 'power creep'. BLS - Envoy of the Beginning, in the TCG recently move, semi (two are allowed per a deck), why? Well we have better answers than we used too first of all.
Second there are no decks currently competitive that use competitively Light and Dark attribute monsters regularly. That might change soon in the TCG, due to Spyral and Vendread Tier 1. But currently its more complicated than just "Ban and Creep". Actually a recent card banned was something known as Grandsoil. A reanimate if you reach certain conditions it was banned because of an interaction with a newer card called FireWall Dragon. They easily could have either of those cards, unable to interact with anything outside their era or made not to relevant with later cards. FireWall having a clause that says "if you do x, only activate Cyberse monsters for the rest of the turn". That kind of interaction is known as xenophobia, I was once asked why YGO players like stat based archetypes not named based.
Stat Base can sometimes result in the above interaction. But it also allows a card like Fire Formation Tenki help any Beast-Warrior deck and not just Fire Fists. My personal YGO deck, I created and have built, as well as maintained for almost 15-18 years now. Several times a year because of my deck looking for type-line for certain effects, I can get new cards or buffs. And having old cards be banned for that reason tells me the game card creation isn't xenophobic with itself. If you care for a specific MtG example. Allies and Rebels. Two highly for if they were from YGO xenophobic archtypes that can never expect much in the way of new toys to help them (at best something like CoCo).
Such xenophobia is any easy way to balance and is easier on the development side because well its xenophobic and they need not worry about unintended interactions. Its a sign to me of a partly sterile design, unwilling to risk they choose the safest method. Its a sign of a sterile development mindset. Which all brings me to my original point. Bans are good, because they demonstrate, that the developers are willing to push the envelop. To try something new or interesting. I'd rather a development team, be willing to try and experiment then run that always play it safe. The latter is unhealthy in the long term as the game simply becomes sterile.
CerberusJund (Modern)GRB
Sidisi, Brood Tyrant Morphentress (Commander) GUB
I also play YGO (DragunFusion) and Hearthstone (Dragon Control Warrior)