No it's not. The point of a non-rotating format is that your CARDS will always be theoretically playable, not that your particular deck or even deck archetype will be.
Cards remaining tournament playable is contingent upon the decks that make them playable remaining in the format.
This is interesting. This whole debate and the list itself. I sure wish I hadn't listened to the all those people(nearly every competitive player at my LGS) who said bitterblossom would never be unbanned. I'd have grabbed a play set a while ago. Oh well. I always thought it was a strong card, but not as strong as people let on about. We shall see how this shakes things up. Personally I have a deck that I loved in mirrodin/innistrad that bitterblossom will go quite well that I'll love to rebuild in modern if I can actually get some of them.
I always found Wild Nacatl's banning to be interesting. I sort of understood their reasoning, and hated seeing it pop up on the other side of the table, but I still wasn't sure it was all together necessary. Glad it's off the ban list. I always enjoyed the card and now that I actually have an interest in modern, I might get to play it.
Now the big one. Deathrite Shaman is an amazing card. People have listed its merits over and over again throughout this thread and so many people don't think it needs to be banned. Just because something isn't necessary doesn't mean it's not also a good thing though. Here's why I think banning DRS, while unnecessary may still be a good thing. I am by no means an experienced modern player and I always homebrew. If someone else made it, I have little interest in playing it unless it looks like a tremendous amount of fun. I have a good friend though who is experienced, has brewed his own very good decks and has done well in various tournaments. So whenever I make a new deck idea, I come to him for opinions and advice. He asks the following alot: What does your new deck have over deck X, deck Y, deck Z? Why use this card in your deck instead of card A, card B, card C? What does your deck do against strategy M, threat N, card O? (By the way, those are always good things to consider when making a new deck in any format.) Whenever DRS is brought up (or a deck that he is strong in) I rarely have an answer. Usually, I kill it, or it beats me. If the DRS can fit in my deck, then it's probably in it because there is no reason to not include him. Even if I'm in mono black or mono green I can play 4 shocklands and use fetchlands for both mana fixing and deck thinning. The fact is, he is so good that there is almost no reason not to use him.
So what does that mean? Even if you have a bunch of cards that do similar things at the one, or even two, drop slot you will use him instead because he's that good. You may use a couple copies of the other cards to add to deck consistency, but you have to have diversity too so you'll only use a couple of the other cards. What that means is that DRS is pushing a lot of other cards(current and future) out of decks because he is just better. That will always happen eventually with power creep, but the degree that he does it now, by himself it's a little stifling. So should he have been banned? Eh. Is his banning going to be a good thing in the long run. I think, probably. Is that the reason wizards gave? Not really, but maybe that was part of their thinking process. (Just trying to give them a little benefit of the doubt since I spend so much of my spare cash on their game.)
As for the people who are saying this move gives them no confidence in the format and are worried about making a strong deck because then it will get banned, there's nothing wrong with feeling that way. I think that may be a bit drastic of a response, though. Here's the thing: If any deck becomes stifling to the environment so that it's the vast majority of tournament results, something is going to happen to that deck. Period. This is true of Modern, legacy, and even standard. So if you create a powerful deck, so good that it's winning all the time, expect to get a banning. Were DRS decks doing that? Not really, but he was so consistent and good that he was pushing cards and even other decks out of the format with too much ease. This is probably more of a pre-emptive move than anything.
We'll see how this shakes up the format from here. Hopefully it will be a good thing. Or it will turn out that it was the wrong move and in April he'll be back. Everyone needs a vacation
This is interesting. This whole debate and the list itself. I sure wish I hadn't listened to the all those people(nearly every competitive player at my LGS) who said bitterblossom would never be unbanned. I'd have grabbed a play set a while ago. Oh well. I always thought it was a strong card, but not as strong as people let on about. We shall see how this shakes things up. Personally I have a deck that I loved in mirrodin/innistrad that bitterblossom will go quite well that I'll love to rebuild in modern if I can actually get some of them.
I always found Wild Nacatl's banning to be interesting. I sort of understood their reasoning, and hated seeing it pop up on the other side of the table, but I still wasn't sure it was all together necessary. Glad it's off the ban list. I always enjoyed the card and now that I actually have an interest in modern, I might get to play it.
Now the big one. Deathrite Shaman is an amazing card. People have listed its merits over and over again throughout this thread and so many people don't think it needs to be banned. Just because something isn't necessary doesn't mean it's not also a good thing though. Here's why I think banning DRS, while unnecessary may still be a good thing. I am by no means an experienced modern player and I always homebrew. If someone else made it, I have little interest in playing it unless it looks like a tremendous amount of fun. I have a good friend though who is experienced, has brewed his own very good decks and has done well in various tournaments. So whenever I make a new deck idea, I come to him for opinions and advice. He asks the following alot: What does your new deck have over deck X, deck Y, deck Z? Why use this card in your deck instead of card A, card B, card C? What does your deck do against strategy M, threat N, card O? (By the way, those are always good things to consider when making a new deck in any format.) Whenever DRS is brought up (or a deck that he is strong in) I rarely have an answer. Usually, I kill it, or it beats me. If the DRS can fit in my deck, then it's probably in it because there is no reason to not include him. Even if I'm in mono black or mono green I can play 4 shocklands and use fetchlands for both mana fixing and deck thinning. The fact is, he is so good that there is almost no reason not to use him.
So what does that mean? Even if you have a bunch of cards that do similar things at the one, or even two, drop slot you will use him instead because he's that good. You may use a couple copies of the other cards to add to deck consistency, but you have to have diversity too so you'll only use a couple of the other cards. What that means is that DRS is pushing a lot of other cards(current and future) out of decks because he is just better. That will always happen eventually with power creep, but the degree that he does it now, by himself it's a little stifling. So should he have been banned? Eh. Is his banning going to be a good thing in the long run. I think, probably. Is that the reason wizards gave? Not really, but maybe that was part of their thinking process. (Just trying to give them a little benefit of the doubt since I spend so much of my spare cash on their game.)
As for the people who are saying this move gives them no confidence in the format and are worried about making a strong deck because then it will get banned, there's nothing wrong with feeling that way. I think that may be a bit drastic of a response, though. Here's the thing: If any deck becomes stifling to the environment so that it's the vast majority of tournament results, something is going to happen to that deck. Period. This is true of Modern, legacy, and even standard. So if you create a powerful deck, so good that it's winning all the time, expect to get a banning. Were DRS decks doing that? Not really, but he was so consistent and good that he was pushing cards and even other decks out of the format with too much ease. This is probably more of a pre-emptive move than anything.
We'll see how this shakes up the format from here. Hopefully it will be a good thing. Or it will turn out that it was the wrong move and in April he'll be back. Everyone needs a vacation
I appreciate your argument. I wish this DRS ban will make Modern better than before.
This is interesting. This whole debate and the list itself. I sure wish I hadn't listened to the all those people(nearly every competitive player at my LGS) who said bitterblossom would never be unbanned. I'd have grabbed a play set a while ago. Oh well. I always thought it was a strong card, but not as strong as people let on about. We shall see how this shakes things up. Personally I have a deck that I loved in mirrodin/innistrad that bitterblossom will go quite well that I'll love to rebuild in modern if I can actually get some of them.
I always found Wild Nacatl's banning to be interesting. I sort of understood their reasoning, and hated seeing it pop up on the other side of the table, but I still wasn't sure it was all together necessary. Glad it's off the ban list. I always enjoyed the card and now that I actually have an interest in modern, I might get to play it.
Now the big one. Deathrite Shaman is an amazing card. People have listed its merits over and over again throughout this thread and so many people don't think it needs to be banned. Just because something isn't necessary doesn't mean it's not also a good thing though. Here's why I think banning DRS, while unnecessary may still be a good thing. I am by no means an experienced modern player and I always homebrew. If someone else made it, I have little interest in playing it unless it looks like a tremendous amount of fun. I have a good friend though who is experienced, has brewed his own very good decks and has done well in various tournaments. So whenever I make a new deck idea, I come to him for opinions and advice. He asks the following alot: What does your new deck have over deck X, deck Y, deck Z? Why use this card in your deck instead of card A, card B, card C? What does your deck do against strategy M, threat N, card O? (By the way, those are always good things to consider when making a new deck in any format.) Whenever DRS is brought up (or a deck that he is strong in) I rarely have an answer. Usually, I kill it, or it beats me. If the DRS can fit in my deck, then it's probably in it because there is no reason to not include him. Even if I'm in mono black or mono green I can play 4 shocklands and use fetchlands for both mana fixing and deck thinning. The fact is, he is so good that there is almost no reason not to use him.
So what does that mean? Even if you have a bunch of cards that do similar things at the one, or even two, drop slot you will use him instead because he's that good. You may use a couple copies of the other cards to add to deck consistency, but you have to have diversity too so you'll only use a couple of the other cards. What that means is that DRS is pushing a lot of other cards(current and future) out of decks because he is just better. That will always happen eventually with power creep, but the degree that he does it now, by himself it's a little stifling. So should he have been banned? Eh. Is his banning going to be a good thing in the long run. I think, probably. Is that the reason wizards gave? Not really, but maybe that was part of their thinking process. (Just trying to give them a little benefit of the doubt since I spend so much of my spare cash on their game.)
As for the people who are saying this move gives them no confidence in the format and are worried about making a strong deck because then it will get banned, there's nothing wrong with feeling that way. I think that may be a bit drastic of a response, though. Here's the thing: If any deck becomes stifling to the environment so that it's the vast majority of tournament results, something is going to happen to that deck. Period. This is true of Modern, legacy, and even standard. So if you create a powerful deck, so good that it's winning all the time, expect to get a banning. Were DRS decks doing that? Not really, but he was so consistent and good that he was pushing cards and even other decks out of the format with too much ease. This is probably more of a pre-emptive move than anything.
We'll see how this shakes up the format from here. Hopefully it will be a good thing. Or it will turn out that it was the wrong move and in April he'll be back. Everyone needs a vacation
One problem, where is the bans for mono black then? In standard it really is stifling the format, at least 50% of tables any event have one, if not 2 mono black decks
The argument about Standard does make some sense as there were also a reasonable number of pros asking the same questions. It's likely they did nothing because they are hoping BNG has enough impact on the format that bans are no needed. BNG will represent an introduction of a fair percentage of the total number of cards into Standard, so it could easily have an impact. On the other hand, new sets rarely have enough cards to seriously impact older formats, so they are quicker to ban. If mono black continues to dominate, we may see a ban after JOU, similar to the timing ofJace and Stoneforge .
I appreciate your argument. I wish this DRS ban will make Modern better than before.
That's all we really can do is hope that things like this cause changes for the better.
Quote from gcsmith »
One problem, where is the bans for mono black then? In standard it really is stifling the format, at least 50% of tables any event have one, if not 2 mono black decks
I don't know if it's really stifling the format. I don't monitor torunament results like a hawk, but isn't 2-3 top decks usually the norm for a given standard meta? Mono blue and UW control are also making constant top performances along with Mono Black. Personally I've only lost to a mono black deck once and I drew poorly(Not saying I would have won that game if I had drawn well, just so happens I also drew poorly there). Is this really a diverse format currently? Not really but with such a smaller card pool, we can only expect so many decks to do well. Since stanard is always changing because of the rotation and the new sets, they only bring the ban hammer down when something is really keeping the format from changing, like the aforementioned jace/stoneforge/etc. I'd imagine if, as a result of BNG, monoblock became 95% of tournament reporting something would happen.
I appreciate your argument. I wish this DRS ban will make Modern better than before.
That's all we really can do is hope that things like this cause changes for the better.
Quote from gcsmith »
One problem, where is the bans for mono black then? In standard it really is stifling the format, at least 50% of tables any event have one, if not 2 mono black decks
I don't know if it's really stifling the format. I don't monitor torunament results like a hawk, but isn't 2-3 top decks usually the norm for a given standard meta? Mono blue and UW control are also making constant top performances along with Mono Black. Personally I've only lost to a mono black deck once and I drew poorly(Not saying I would have won that game if I had drawn well, just so happens I also drew poorly there). Is this really a diverse format currently? Not really but with such a smaller card pool, we can only expect so many decks to do well. Since stanard is always changing because of the rotation and the new sets, they only bring the ban hammer down when something is really keeping the format from changing, like the aforementioned jace/stoneforge/etc. I'd imagine if, as a result of BNG, monoblock became 95% of tournament reporting something would happen.
Mono-Black will never become 95% because UW Control keeps it in check.
There is nothing completely dominating in Standard right now and there are 3 Tier 1 decks which are Mono-Blue, Mono-Black and UW Control or as Patrick Chapin calls them the unholy trinity of Sphinx's Revelation/Thoughseize/Thassa, God of the Sea.
It may suck for people wanting to play their green fatties deck but not everything can be viable the whole time.
I feel people call for Standard bannings literally every year. My assumption is that they have either never played in a Standard format where banning is necessary or that they've somehow completely forgotten it. Mono-black is in about the same place Delver was in Scars/Innistrad, and Delver didn't require bans. It's one of, if not the strongest deck in the format, but it isn't singlehandedly crushing any chance of playing another deck.
The LB argument is a valid response when looking at top 8s amd dominating a meta. But at the end of the day, no one can actually argue that they are on the same power level. Lightning bolt does 2 things (helps win game/removes creature), and can only do so once. Deathrite has 4 abilities that can be used repeatedly over the game, and it can't be removed at tempo parity other than Bolt. Had it even just been a 1/1 it may have been fine as something like Darkblast could have been used. If it didn't have the black ability it would also probably be fine as you wouldn't be required to remove it or die. It's the combination of all of that which makes it too good for Modern. There just aren't enough ways to remove it without putting yourself further behind in a game. It had to go for the format to grow.
Bob? Snapcaster? Both provide significant advantages for their cost, and neither is deserving of a ban. I agree that DRS was good, but I'm looking forward to seeing the decks that it kept in check. DRS was a safety valve for the format as a whole, one that I believe WotC is underestimating. It holds a similar function in the format as Force of Will holds in Legacy: a necessary evil to keep certain strategies and decks from running rampant. In 6 months, they'll be wondering where all the graveyard-based strategies came from, and why they're winning so much.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cards are game pieces, and should be treated as such, easily replaceable.
Cards are not money, investments, or a retirement fund, and should never have been treated as such.
Wizards made a mistake caving to speculators once, and we still pay for that mistake 2 decades later.
"Entitled:" the entire ad hominem fallacy condensed into a single word. It doesn't strengthen your argument to attack motivations, it just makes you look like you don't understand the argument.
Lol at the Force comparison. The only decks it may have graveyard decks, and there is still copious amounts of graveyard hate in the format. I'm sorry you will have to think a little harder about how to construct your sideboard,but DRS was too good for its cost against the fair decks of the format. Compare that to Force, which is pretty bad against the fair decks in Legacy, where it is frequently sided out.
As for Bob and Tiago, they can both be removed at tempo parity by a number of cards in the format. Snapcaster also doesn't really win the game on his own. He is a one shot spell that leaves behind a body that is easily outclassed in combat. That's not to say he's not a great card, he just doesn't actually do a lot the turn after you cast him. The main point of all of this is that DRS provided too much utility, and did it on a card that had to be removed, but couldn't be removed without losing Tempo (except Bolt). It was too good for Modern.
I'm not too sure about that. I've seen many games with t1 Thoughtseize, t2 removal, t3 Tiago, Thoughtseize and the former dealing a whole 10 damage by himself. Tiago is pretty broken too is you have all the tools in the graveyard.
He's definitely a true handyman in Modern now. You need to throw a kitchen sink like Rest in Peace (or Cage), which wastes slots in SB.
This is why I feel Tiago should be mentioned in the same breath as DRS.
I'm not too sure about that. I've seen many games with t1 Thoughtseize, t2 removal, t3 Tiago, Thoughtseize and the former dealing a whole 10 damage by himself. Tiago is pretty broken too is you have all the tools in the graveyard.
He's definitely a true handyman in Modern now. You need to throw a kitchen sink like Rest in Peace (or Cage), which wastes slots in SB.
This is why I feel Tiago should be mentioned in the same breath as DRS.
Fair enough. I may have underestimated Tiago closing out games. But he's still much less efficient at it than DRS since he has to use combat. Tiago's utility is also a one shot deal where DRS provides it throughout the game. That combined with the mana cost makes DRS bannable and Tiago just exceptionally good.
i hope people understand that this isnt a format, its an experiment. This wont be a format, in my eyes, for a LONG time, or at least till they get their ***** together. Ya know, i read someones post and they made the point that how do you expect people to get into a format, where the "format" is constantly changing to what you play? Lets take Timmy for example. Lets say Timmy goes out, and says "hm, i wanna play modern, but what is GOOD. Oh i know, i'll build Jund!". Timmy goes out, buys everything he needs, and is very happy. Then a week later, Timmy's deck is garbage and he is out the money because he cant afford to purchase new cards for a new deck. This turns Timmy off, and he says "screw this format, i'mma go back to drafting standard". So what does he do? He sells off the rest of his cards, gets half his money back, and will never touch the "format" again.
Thats is what happens, and thats what will continue to happen if they ban out specific cards not due to power level, but to make a certain deck obsolete. Its a pattern that happens, and people need to realize. Pod decks are next, and then the next big deck will get banned out, and so on, and so on. So for those of you who are upset with this ban, i kinda chuckle. You should of known from the start that this was an experiment and you shouldnt invest in something that isnt concrete.
TL;DR - Play Legacy like a real man, your cards hold value there (for the most part). Plus, its WAY more fun than this Modern garbage. Save up those extra pennies and put your big boy panties on.
Humm Modern is Just a Big Extended and they have to keep some interactions in check with new card. its easy to say that some card can come out and some in. The formart is not a "test" it just try to keep equality on powerlevels if the unbam of BB and WN don't show like a problem and graveyard interaction become a bad thing for the formart DRS could see a unbam. DRS is just too usefull and good ( and DRS will always be a legacy allstar). Jund survived a Bam before (BBE) and stayed as one of the best decks and i think it will still be there ( its not like Eggs that you could combo really easy with SS)( And Jund is a good stuff deck so if one is out other take its place...). And yes Modern and Legacy shared alot of cards ( jund legacy was jund modern with 5-10 different cards) someone that played Jund in Modern can "easily" start to play Jund Legacy.
Mono-black is in about the same place Delver was in Scars/Innistrad, and Delver didn't require bans.
I'm not advocating a banning for anything but Lol you're joking. Delver was the undisputed king until they decided to print Cavern and Thragtusk because you could barely interact with geist, snapcaster, mana leak, vapor snag, ponder outside of a well-timed whipflare. Once in a while Zombie aggro or Wolf Run (thanks to lands) would get there but Delver was -the- #1. Mono Black is not -the- #1.
DRS provides accelation/color fixing, punishing opponents for cracking their fetches, and suppreses land recursion strategies,
DRS provides constant life gain while suppressing reanimation/creature recursion strategies,
DRS provides constant, untargeted, life loss while suppressing flashback/spell recursion strategies,
DRS gives you a 1/2 body,
And it does all of that for one mana and even that 1 mana is flexible.
What other creature in the format has that many uses for such cheap costs(?!) and what other creature can hate out so many things at once?
Snapcaster Mage, Dark Confidant and Tarmogoyf sure are powerful cards and define the format. But they don't define the format by hating out and providing advantage at once.
Deathrite Shaman has not been called "the little planeswalker" for nothing.
Cult of the Succubi Eating Kitten and Brotherhood of Hamsters - Zombie One/Hulking One - Brotherhood of Hamsters disapproves of Damage on the Stack amputation, the corruption of Mythics, and the "Major changes to Extended" in July 2010. You aborted our cards., but we approve of the Modern format. Even if it doesn't ha ve Carrion Feeder or Caller of the Claw in it.
Dex: http://deckbox.org/users/Egementium_instructoid
As it stands, Snapcaster Mage is considered affordable at its current price. IMO, it's on the same level as DRS. The one saving grace that many can appreciate is he couldn't go any higher due to its rarity. I think that is a boon.
I believe if Bob and goyf weren't mythic in MM, there would be a better appreciation of the format.
Most people play formats based on its affordability, banning a card like Bloodbraid Elf is somewhat ridiculous when they should be banning the more expensive ones instead. Yes we could say that BBE had 32 copies or more in multiple GP T8s, but so are cards like Goyf.
Some people don't want goyfs to be banned because their investments would tank. But most goyfs are sitting in binders instead of deckboxes anyways. It's value should have been in the 70ish range at the most.
snapcaster mage is a one shot card advantage card (baring blinking shenanigans) with the additional cost of whatever spell you're flashing back. DRS gains value and keeps gaining value as long as he's on the board and assuming he lives for one turn.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I speak in sarcasm because calling people ******* ******** is not allowed.
People who still complain that DRS got banned do not understand why it got banned.
It is one of those cards that you always wanted to play if you were in the colour, and was a great incentive to play the colour.
It is highly flexible, hated out multiple cards in different decks (goyf, snapcaster, academy ruins, persist creatures) and sometimes an entire archetype.
Oh it was also a BoP, a win condition and a game staller.
Plus it has a 1/2 body.
And all of that for the measly cost of 1 mana, which could either be black or green.
So yeah...
That is why it got banned, and not to hate out a certain deck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Give credit, where credit is due. Give irony and sarcasm, when ignorance and stupidity is found. The whip is kept for special occasions
The Internet was a revelation to me, I never imagined there are so many idiots on this planet.
People who still complain that DRS got banned do not understand why it got banned.
Actually the point is that no one really understands why, because none of the arguments given makes any sense when put into context.
That's ultimately what's left me in the unfortunate situation of not being able to trust the format. If a card can be banned at any time for being good, as opposed to representing a threat that's too fast, too oppressive or difficult/impossible to answer, then how can I possibly be comfortable investing in the format?
After all, we tend to want to build our decks with good cards.
Personally I find the idea of grindy B/G/x midrange decks making up a notable portion of the common decks played to be a sign of a healthy format.
It's like attending a D&D roleplaying session and finding out that the most notorious powergamer in the group is playing a single-classed bard of his/her own volition. You just know there's been some pretty significant balancing work done at that point.
It was a pretty simple reason why it was banned. It was overpowered for its cost. You seem to be under the thinking that card advantage is the only thing that matters in Magic, but its not. There is something called tempo, and DRS provided far too much tempo advantage while also being a win condition. Those cards don't exist in Modern.
People who still complain that DRS got banned do not understand why it got banned.
Actually the point is that no one really understands why, because none of the arguments given makes any sense when put into context.
That's ultimately what's left me in the unfortunate situation of not being able to trust the format. If a card can be banned at any time for being good, as opposed to representing a threat that's too fast, too oppressive or difficult/impossible to answer, then how can I possibly be comfortable investing in the format?
After all, we tend to want to build our decks with good cards.
Personally I find the idea of grindy B/G/x midrange decks making up a notable portion of the common decks played to be a sign of a healthy format.
It's like attending a D&D roleplaying session and finding out that the most notorious powergamer in the group is playing a single-classed bard of his/her own volition. You just know there's been some pretty significant balancing work done at that point.
It was a pretty simple reason why it was banned. It was overpowered for its cost. You seem to be under the thinking that card advantage is the only thing that matters in Magic, but its not. There is something called tempo, and DRS provided far too much tempo advantage while also being a win condition. Those cards don't exist in Modern.
That wasn't the only reason for DRS's banning. It was also oppressive. It singlehandedly hated multiple decks out of the format.
It didn't really hate out any decks. Graveyard decks still existed if they were good enough to exist (Melira, Goryo to a certain extent), and any graveyard decks that were not good enough are still worse than the graveyard decks that are now better.
Cards remaining tournament playable is contingent upon the decks that make them playable remaining in the format.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
I always found Wild Nacatl's banning to be interesting. I sort of understood their reasoning, and hated seeing it pop up on the other side of the table, but I still wasn't sure it was all together necessary. Glad it's off the ban list. I always enjoyed the card and now that I actually have an interest in modern, I might get to play it.
Now the big one. Deathrite Shaman is an amazing card. People have listed its merits over and over again throughout this thread and so many people don't think it needs to be banned. Just because something isn't necessary doesn't mean it's not also a good thing though. Here's why I think banning DRS, while unnecessary may still be a good thing. I am by no means an experienced modern player and I always homebrew. If someone else made it, I have little interest in playing it unless it looks like a tremendous amount of fun. I have a good friend though who is experienced, has brewed his own very good decks and has done well in various tournaments. So whenever I make a new deck idea, I come to him for opinions and advice. He asks the following alot: What does your new deck have over deck X, deck Y, deck Z? Why use this card in your deck instead of card A, card B, card C? What does your deck do against strategy M, threat N, card O? (By the way, those are always good things to consider when making a new deck in any format.) Whenever DRS is brought up (or a deck that he is strong in) I rarely have an answer. Usually, I kill it, or it beats me. If the DRS can fit in my deck, then it's probably in it because there is no reason to not include him. Even if I'm in mono black or mono green I can play 4 shocklands and use fetchlands for both mana fixing and deck thinning. The fact is, he is so good that there is almost no reason not to use him.
So what does that mean? Even if you have a bunch of cards that do similar things at the one, or even two, drop slot you will use him instead because he's that good. You may use a couple copies of the other cards to add to deck consistency, but you have to have diversity too so you'll only use a couple of the other cards. What that means is that DRS is pushing a lot of other cards(current and future) out of decks because he is just better. That will always happen eventually with power creep, but the degree that he does it now, by himself it's a little stifling. So should he have been banned? Eh. Is his banning going to be a good thing in the long run. I think, probably. Is that the reason wizards gave? Not really, but maybe that was part of their thinking process. (Just trying to give them a little benefit of the doubt since I spend so much of my spare cash on their game.)
As for the people who are saying this move gives them no confidence in the format and are worried about making a strong deck because then it will get banned, there's nothing wrong with feeling that way. I think that may be a bit drastic of a response, though. Here's the thing: If any deck becomes stifling to the environment so that it's the vast majority of tournament results, something is going to happen to that deck. Period. This is true of Modern, legacy, and even standard. So if you create a powerful deck, so good that it's winning all the time, expect to get a banning. Were DRS decks doing that? Not really, but he was so consistent and good that he was pushing cards and even other decks out of the format with too much ease. This is probably more of a pre-emptive move than anything.
We'll see how this shakes up the format from here. Hopefully it will be a good thing. Or it will turn out that it was the wrong move and in April he'll be back. Everyone needs a vacation
I appreciate your argument. I wish this DRS ban will make Modern better than before.
Anything, but nothing at the moment...
Modern:
WUBRGAmulet Titan, WUBRGHuman
WUBRAd Nauseam, WBRGDeath Shadow, UBRGScapeshift, UBRGDredge
WURJeskai Nahiri, WURCheeri0s, WBGCounter Company, WRGBurn, UBRMadcap Moon, BRGJund Midrange
UBTurn,BRGriselbrand Reanimator, WGKnight Company, RGRG Tron, RGRG Ponza, XAffinity, XEldrazi Tron
One problem, where is the bans for mono black then? In standard it really is stifling the format, at least 50% of tables any event have one, if not 2 mono black decks
Check out http://www.mtgbrodeals.com/author/john-murphy/ for my EDH articles!
That's all we really can do is hope that things like this cause changes for the better.
I don't know if it's really stifling the format. I don't monitor torunament results like a hawk, but isn't 2-3 top decks usually the norm for a given standard meta? Mono blue and UW control are also making constant top performances along with Mono Black. Personally I've only lost to a mono black deck once and I drew poorly(Not saying I would have won that game if I had drawn well, just so happens I also drew poorly there). Is this really a diverse format currently? Not really but with such a smaller card pool, we can only expect so many decks to do well. Since stanard is always changing because of the rotation and the new sets, they only bring the ban hammer down when something is really keeping the format from changing, like the aforementioned jace/stoneforge/etc. I'd imagine if, as a result of BNG, monoblock became 95% of tournament reporting something would happen.
Mono-Black will never become 95% because UW Control keeps it in check.
There is nothing completely dominating in Standard right now and there are 3 Tier 1 decks which are Mono-Blue, Mono-Black and UW Control or as Patrick Chapin calls them the unholy trinity of Sphinx's Revelation/Thoughseize/Thassa, God of the Sea.
It may suck for people wanting to play their green fatties deck but not everything can be viable the whole time.
Standard: W/R Aggro
Bob? Snapcaster? Both provide significant advantages for their cost, and neither is deserving of a ban. I agree that DRS was good, but I'm looking forward to seeing the decks that it kept in check. DRS was a safety valve for the format as a whole, one that I believe WotC is underestimating. It holds a similar function in the format as Force of Will holds in Legacy: a necessary evil to keep certain strategies and decks from running rampant. In 6 months, they'll be wondering where all the graveyard-based strategies came from, and why they're winning so much.
Cards are not money, investments, or a retirement fund, and should never have been treated as such.
Wizards made a mistake caving to speculators once, and we still pay for that mistake 2 decades later.
"Entitled:" the entire ad hominem fallacy condensed into a single word. It doesn't strengthen your argument to attack motivations, it just makes you look like you don't understand the argument.
As for Bob and Tiago, they can both be removed at tempo parity by a number of cards in the format. Snapcaster also doesn't really win the game on his own. He is a one shot spell that leaves behind a body that is easily outclassed in combat. That's not to say he's not a great card, he just doesn't actually do a lot the turn after you cast him. The main point of all of this is that DRS provided too much utility, and did it on a card that had to be removed, but couldn't be removed without losing Tempo (except Bolt). It was too good for Modern.
Check out http://www.mtgbrodeals.com/author/john-murphy/ for my EDH articles!
He's definitely a true handyman in Modern now. You need to throw a kitchen sink like Rest in Peace (or Cage), which wastes slots in SB.
This is why I feel Tiago should be mentioned in the same breath as DRS.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
Fair enough. I may have underestimated Tiago closing out games. But he's still much less efficient at it than DRS since he has to use combat. Tiago's utility is also a one shot deal where DRS provides it throughout the game. That combined with the mana cost makes DRS bannable and Tiago just exceptionally good.
Check out http://www.mtgbrodeals.com/author/john-murphy/ for my EDH articles!
Thats is what happens, and thats what will continue to happen if they ban out specific cards not due to power level, but to make a certain deck obsolete. Its a pattern that happens, and people need to realize. Pod decks are next, and then the next big deck will get banned out, and so on, and so on. So for those of you who are upset with this ban, i kinda chuckle. You should of known from the start that this was an experiment and you shouldnt invest in something that isnt concrete.
TL;DR - Play Legacy like a real man, your cards hold value there (for the most part). Plus, its WAY more fun than this Modern garbage. Save up those extra pennies and put your big boy panties on.
I'm not advocating a banning for anything but Lol you're joking. Delver was the undisputed king until they decided to print Cavern and Thragtusk because you could barely interact with geist, snapcaster, mana leak, vapor snag, ponder outside of a well-timed whipflare. Once in a while Zombie aggro or Wolf Run (thanks to lands) would get there but Delver was -the- #1. Mono Black is not -the- #1.
I'll say ban Bob or Goyf because it's too expensive. But Wizards will never admit that.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
DRS provides constant life gain while suppressing reanimation/creature recursion strategies,
DRS provides constant, untargeted, life loss while suppressing flashback/spell recursion strategies,
DRS gives you a 1/2 body,
And it does all of that for one mana and even that 1 mana is flexible.
What other creature in the format has that many uses for such cheap costs(?!) and what other creature can hate out so many things at once?
Snapcaster Mage, Dark Confidant and Tarmogoyf sure are powerful cards and define the format. But they don't define the format by hating out and providing advantage at once.
Deathrite Shaman has not been called "the little planeswalker" for nothing.
Cult of the Succubi Eating Kitten and Brotherhood of Hamsters - Zombie One/Hulking One - Brotherhood of Hamsters disapproves of Damage on the Stack amputation, the corruption of Mythics,
and the "Major changes to Extended" in July 2010. You aborted our cards., but we approve of the Modern format. Even if it doesn't ha ve Carrion Feeder or Caller of the Claw in it.Dex: http://deckbox.org/users/Egementium_instructoid
I believe if Bob and goyf weren't mythic in MM, there would be a better appreciation of the format.
Most people play formats based on its affordability, banning a card like Bloodbraid Elf is somewhat ridiculous when they should be banning the more expensive ones instead. Yes we could say that BBE had 32 copies or more in multiple GP T8s, but so are cards like Goyf.
Some people don't want goyfs to be banned because their investments would tank. But most goyfs are sitting in binders instead of deckboxes anyways. It's value should have been in the 70ish range at the most.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
Check out http://www.mtgbrodeals.com/author/john-murphy/ for my EDH articles!
It is one of those cards that you always wanted to play if you were in the colour, and was a great incentive to play the colour.
It is highly flexible, hated out multiple cards in different decks (goyf, snapcaster, academy ruins, persist creatures) and sometimes an entire archetype.
Oh it was also a BoP, a win condition and a game staller.
Plus it has a 1/2 body.
And all of that for the measly cost of 1 mana, which could either be black or green.
So yeah...
That is why it got banned, and not to hate out a certain deck.
Give irony and sarcasm, when ignorance and stupidity is found.
The whip is kept for special occasions
It was a pretty simple reason why it was banned. It was overpowered for its cost. You seem to be under the thinking that card advantage is the only thing that matters in Magic, but its not. There is something called tempo, and DRS provided far too much tempo advantage while also being a win condition. Those cards don't exist in Modern.
Check out http://www.mtgbrodeals.com/author/john-murphy/ for my EDH articles!
That wasn't the only reason for DRS's banning. It was also oppressive. It singlehandedly hated multiple decks out of the format.
Check out http://www.mtgbrodeals.com/author/john-murphy/ for my EDH articles!