--Be a fun way to play Magic (first, and easy to forget, but very important!)
--Let you tap into your collection to expand upon established decks and familiar strategies from Magic's recent past
--Offer different types of decks and gameplay than what you typically see in Standard
--Not rotate, allowing you to keep a deck for a long period of time
--Consist of cards that we are willing and able to reprint
Those are the easy ones.
Points two and four are the only ones that are currently met. The first point is debateable, and the third and fifth are almost patently false. Wizards is unwilling to print a LOT of the heavily desired cards from modern, not only back into standard but also in supplemental sets because of bull***** reasons like "they constrain design space" or "It's not fun for players". In case they forgot, we had a standard format with Snapcaster Mage, Lightning Bolt, Mana Leak, and Liliana of the Veil plus all the ravnica shocklands. And it was ostensibly one of the best standard formats since RAV/TSP. It was incredibly wide-open, where the same deck rarely won back-to-back weeks, and all five flavors of deckbuilding archetypes (Aggro, Tempo, Combo, Midrange, Control) were incredibly viable.
Wizards is afraid to print cards like that now, for reasons I can't fathom. I still cringe every time I see Grasp of Darkness in an Oath pack, because it's supposed to have been Inquisition of Kozilek, and it's now too expensive to reprint safely at uncommon if they reprint it at all. And it needs to stop unless they want the game to stop.
I think the fact that some of the last sets were comparatively weak has a lot to do with wotc trying to cut down on the power creep and the fact how their distribution network is set up. Remember that players are not wotc customers, wotc don't sell their product directly to players which results in pathological situation where reprints of expensive cards inflate the price of the product for the end customer, that is us, players and wotc can do very little to mitigate this while sticking to current business model.
So, no more modern PTs. The fact that Forscythe even said that they want PTs to highlight the new sets shows that this was just a,business decision.
Selling packs is more important than supporting modern at the pro level. This is just frustrating.
Keep in mind, the sales of those packs are what fund the pro tour to happen. Wizards doesn't make money from entry fees/side events/singles sales/etc from those playing at a PT, so their only impetus to run these events is as a way to excite people about their product
Not true. If the cards become close to worthless after rotating out of standard then there is constant need to dump money into the game to keep playing standard. This disincentives players from investing and buying new packs. Not that this is the main driving force for anyone playing standard but it counts. Also selling supplemental products like MMA/MM2/EMA is not exactly loosing them money.
To be frank, I am not at all upset by the change. As a casual player (the only format I actually play is commander..), but an avid watcher of the pro tour, I very much prefer to watch the innovative standard decks pros come up with when a new set comes out.
This is a real bummer. I don't like Standard and Block Constructed. I always looked forward to the Modern Pro Tour every year.
I don't think this signals the death of the format, but it seems to be part of a larger pattern of Wizards slowly moving away from Modern support. And I feel bad for the players who don't live in an area with shops that hold Modern FNM, who are quickly losing their connection to the format.
This is a real bummer. I don't like Standard and Block Constructed. I always looked forward to the Modern Pro Tour every year.
I don't think this signals the death of the format, but it seems to be part of a larger pattern of Wizards slowly moving away from Modern support. And I feel bad for the players who don't live in an area with shops that hold Modern FNM, who are quickly losing their connection to the format.
There are Modern GPs and SCG Opens all year round. There are plenty of ways for players to enjoy watching Modern that don't result in random shake-up bans of staple decks.
The improvement of modern support from SCG has been a good thing, that makes this easier to swallow than last time.
Half the GPs have no coverage though and I pretty much have no idea when they will be on, they just aren't advertised or anything I have to accidentally find out about them.
GPs and especially SCG events are local events, I am not going to see Patrick Dickmann or Frank Kasterns Affinity vs Shoota Yasoka Tezzeret control only he can play vs Shaun Mclearen's newest Jeskai thing. Its just going to be the players from near the tournament site.
This is a real bummer. I don't like Standard and Block Constructed. I always looked forward to the Modern Pro Tour every year.
I don't think this signals the death of the format, but it seems to be part of a larger pattern of Wizards slowly moving away from Modern support. And I feel bad for the players who don't live in an area with shops that hold Modern FNM, who are quickly losing their connection to the format.
There are Modern GPs and SCG Opens all year round. There are plenty of ways for players to enjoy watching Modern that don't result in random shake-up bans of staple decks.
And that's a good thing. But I reject the notion that the Pro Tour necessitated arbitrary shake-up bans. I think Modern can easily stay fresh, provided the power level of Standard allows for a handful of interesting new cards to impact the format every season.
This is a real bummer. I don't like Standard and Block Constructed. I always looked forward to the Modern Pro Tour every year.
I don't think this signals the death of the format, but it seems to be part of a larger pattern of Wizards slowly moving away from Modern support. And I feel bad for the players who don't live in an area with shops that hold Modern FNM, who are quickly losing their connection to the format.
There are Modern GPs and SCG Opens all year round. There are plenty of ways for players to enjoy watching Modern that don't result in random shake-up bans of staple decks.
And that's a good thing. But I reject the notion that the Pro Tour necessitated arbitrary shake-up bans. I think Modern can easily stay fresh, provided the power level of Standard allows for a handful of interesting new cards to impact the format every season.
I think you should read Sheridan lardner's articles over at Modern Nexus.
He has a series called "how to fix modern" and they explain this stuff all in detail, including sources and quotes etc.
The overall gist; protours (since 2011 for sure and probably before then as well) have been designed to showcase the new set. They are timed after the release, named after the set and intended to showcase the new cards. The whole idea is to have pros playing the new cards in a format that's not established.
Modern is very established. They have gone on record in saying that having modern as a protour format has accelerated bans in an effort to keep the format from being stale or dominated by a single strategy. The bans probably would have happened anyway, but over a slower timescale otherwise.
Modern is an objectively bad format and not suitable for competitive play, which is why it was axed. Modern isn't dead because of this because its still popular. But being popular doesn't mean its any good.
You obviously have no idea what the word "objectively" means. Being popular is actually, by itself, an indication that it`s good. Or would you also argue that Tarmogoyf isn`t worth $150 just because people are willing to pay that price for it? Kind of the same princible there.
Like fghtffyrdmns two posts above me, I have a wildly different experience with the format. It`s my primary format and I love playing it, I`m always looking forward to modern events and I always have a load of fun. You are entitled to a different opinion, but please don`t throw phrases like "objectively bad format" around just to convince other people that your opinion is more valid than theirs. Just play a format you like and stop complaining about an extremely popular format that you happen to have a particular dislike for.
Lol, did someone have a bad modern experience? As for linear, there are lots of options, compare a top 32 event list between modern and standard and I think you'll see there is plenty of variety and archetypes.
Regardless, we all have our opinions and your description sounds nothing like my experience with the format, or anything like what the format really is for most of us who do play it as our primary format.
Just like my opinion that Standard is a bad format with weak spells, pushed creatures and overall terrible cards with slight twists on mechanics and flavor each block doesn't mean everyone sees it the same way. Standard felt much more forgiving and slow paced, where the ideal way to win involves turning creatures sideways and using spells to kill your opponents creatures without much interaction on the stack or sequencing by comparison. Standard feels simple and lacks complexity to me, it has fewer lines of play and options. I'm happy standard players can play their format and keep throwing boatloads of money at WotC for bad cards so that I can enjoy modern and legacy.
Playing modern doesn't reward skill. That's objectively bad for competetive play (I should have added this here to be clear) and not suitable competitive play. The only skills are basic deck selection (not playing one of the hundred unviable decks people insist upon playing), recognizing those decks when your opponent plays, mulliganing and gold fishing appropriately. This is different than "hurr durr standard has creatures, I hate creatures." (For the record, modern is also creature based, seeing as the best decks are linear aggressive decks and the best thing you're doing there is turning creatures sideways, and if you're interacting on the stack, you're probably also dieing, or playing against a deck that's also not viable). Because there is so little actual skill in the format they took it off. Because its popular, its not going to die.
Popularity does not mean its good competitively (or good in general really, that's a fallacy). That's why commander isn't a pro tour format.
Modern also doesn't do anything they want to do with the protour in terms of marketing. That's why all the modern players cry when every set has two modern playable cards in it.
I suppose I'm disappointed that WotC couldn't figure out a way to make modern pro tours profitable. Sure, modern doesn't fit with what they have designed the pro tours for, but it certainly seemed to generate a lot of excitement. In this way, rather than saying "this doesn't fit what we want the pro tour to be" they should have said "how can we capitalize on this excitement." It all just seems so rigid; this is a failing on their ability to meet the desires of their customers.
The current thinking seems to be "wonky draft sets with a small group of chase cards".
I also want to point out that this is exactly the philosophy that WotC seems to have adopted in recent years. Limited (as fun as it is) used to be an alternate mode of the game. Sure, it influenced how sets were constructed, but I think it felt less heavy-handed than it has over the last few years. Recently, it feels like limited has been more of an excuse to create mostly underpowered sets with a few high-end rares and mythics.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sig by Dark Night Cavalier at Heroes of the Plane Studios!
I suppose I'm disappointed that WotC couldn't figure out a way to make modern pro tours profitable. Sure, modern doesn't fit with what they have designed the pro tours for, but it certainly seemed to generate a lot of excitement. In this way, rather than saying "this doesn't fit what we want the pro tour to be" they should have said "how can we capitalize on this excitement." It all just seems so rigid; this is a failing on their ability to meet the desires of their customers.
The problem is the answer to that question is partially "Not with the protour, because that is designed to sell standard, which is why it happens right after a new set and is named after that set." There are other, better ways to support Modern that don't involve the protour. Faster and more reprints, FNM promos, GPTs, and PPTQs. Most of which they are doing, they just don't want Modern stepping on their 3 day standard advertisement called the protour and that's fine.
Good. I don't begrudge fans of Modern for wanting to play it in their FNM's or regional tournaments, but Modern is a terrible format. It is not interesting to watch, it is not skill-testing, and it does not belong on the pro tour.
So there is none of the new cards in the constructed rounds... so? why is that the priority? That's not why I am watching the pro tour, to see what new cards to buy? that is crazy,plus you have to buy those weeks before the pro tour or you are going to be massively out of pocket. I mean I had a tournament two weeks ago for standard I had to get my cards already.
The pro tour literally exists only to help advertise and drive interest in the new set. If you paid to watch the modern pro tour, you might have an argument.
Playing modern doesn't reward skill. That's objectively bad for competetive play (I should have added this here to be clear) and not suitable competitive play. The only skills are basic deck selection (not playing one of the hundred unviable decks people insist upon playing), recognizing those decks when your opponent plays, mulliganing and gold fishing appropriately. This is different than "hurr durr standard has creatures, I hate creatures." (For the record, modern is also creature based, seeing as the best decks are linear aggressive decks and the best thing you're doing there is turning creatures sideways, and if you're interacting on the stack, you're probably also dieing, or playing against a deck that's also not viable). Because there is so little actual skill in the format they took it off. Because its popular, its not going to die.
The idea that Modern as a format doesn't reward skill is complete and utter baloney.
Also, the deck with the highest current meta percentage in modern is... Jund! The most linear, aggressive deck out there!
I think not having a Modern PT is more of good than bad. I'm sure there're pros who have invested in one established deck (that's not banned) and are extremely good at it. When the time comes for a PT, we can more or less agree their time spent on testing is reduced. All you need to maybe take note of a few cards that might affect a Modern meta from a new set, tweaks, and voila, you're done.
However, that's not what Wizards wanted and has been stated as one their reasons. The needed a dynamic format, a shakeup. Which was why bans/unbans were one of WotC tools to shake a format up.
The best thing to come off this announcement is that we're likely to see less spikes in eternal card prices. More cards are closer to their "true value" and will remain fairly stable.
And let's not forget that people who play casually are affected by prices. And there's a whole lot more casual players than professionals/competitive players out there. There's definitely more to rejoice for them.
So why isn't it right for the Pro Tour? It comes down to our goals for the events.
Oh, this should be good.
The first is that we want to reward good drafting
Okay, you can do that with Modern Pro Tours just as well as Standard Pro Tours. They both have drafts at the start of days 1 and 2.
innovative deck building
What? In regards to professional Magic play, this is just a single facet among many. Why are they focusing so much on deckbuilding innovation in a tournament series that features the pinnacle of professional Magic? It takes more than that to win a Pro Tour. A super innovative deckbuilder can be a sub-optimal player, and vice-versa.
Besides, it's not like most Pro Tour winners developed their own deck. The most common case is that one or two players developed the deck, and then the entire team decided to run that list.
and tight gameplay
Again, you can get this in just about any format.
Even Modern.
in unestablished environments.
WHAT?!
What the hell does this have to do with anything?! Why should a player be deemed worthy of a Pro Tour title based on how well he does in an unestablished environment? Again, that's just one facet of tournament Magic. If you want to determine which players are truly deserving of a Pro Tour title, then you need to test them in established environments as well. Don't just expose them to parameters that downplay certain aspects of tournament Magic while favorably skewing others. How does that make for a balanced determination of who the best Pro Tour competitor is?
Besides, these formats are hardly unestablished for the pros by the time the Pro Tour rolls around. These guys gain early access to the set lists before previews even start, which mean they already have a huge head start in how the metagame will shape up by the time spoiler season begins for us.
The problem with defining this format by what is "fun" is that everyone seems to define fun as what they don't lose to. If you keep losing to easily answered cards, that means you should improve your deck. If you don't want to improve your deck, then you should come to peace with the idea that you are going to lose because you chose to not interact with better strategies.
Deckbuilding is an important aspect of the game, regardless of what you might think, yes good deckbuilders can be bad players but to prevail in the protour you have to be good at both, that's completely fair, and as for pros not building their deck, most pro player teams build and test their deck as a team, and usually the better player amongst them is the one that does better in the protour.
As for wanting them to prove themselves in un-stablished environments, being able to predict the metagame and adapt to it, is a fair parameter, besides it would just be boring to see the same decks you always see, that's part of the reason why they hold each protour after a set's release, the other part being, they want to highlight the new cards, which is completely fair, they are a for profit company and they are entitled to use their protour to advertise their product I don't know why all the salt is about.
Modern is fun to play, but not fun to watch, for the format to be fresh by the time the protour rolls around, it "needed" something to shake it up a little (or a lot), that something that wizards used was bannings, and that made the format unstable, and having large teams of the best players in the world, concentrated on breaking the format for 2 weeks didn't help, it precipitated the "solution" of the format, making it stale once again, for the most part, having an established metagame is not bad, just not as fun as having new decks emerge from the tournament.
Modern is gonna live through this, it's gonna be supported for a long time, it just isn't a good protour format, therefor it was removed from the protour, but it can be supported in grand prix, Regional ptq's, FNM, etc. Saying that the format is dead just because it's no longer a PT format is like saying that Commander is dead for that same reason, it's just not true.
How in satan's name this has anything to do with the coverage?
Given that it's the Pro Tour, I'd counter by asking how it is (ever) NOT about coverage. To at least partially address your point, though, I'd say that the improving the coverage will help sell the cards/sets better, regardless of the format (thereby lessening the need to eliminate a popular format from the schedule).
- The pro-tour is a publicity tool, it's supposed to help them sell their products, having the pro tour be about cards that are no longer for sell by them makes little to no sense at all.
My suggestions help to address this. Suffice to say that some of the outcomes would be thus: Standard players would see cards they'll be able to use more often, even during Modern events. And Modern players will always be able to find cards they can use, even in Standard events.
- Printing "more powerful" sets leads to power creep, set's power is fine as it is.
Power creep has primarily impacted creatures, a card type that was in sore need of it. Instants and sorceries, by contrast, were the primary indicators (and victims of) power seep. All I'm really pushing for is that WotC realize the obvious: Creatures are good at this power level, don't need to be backpedaled (and/or stagnated) into a weaker/unexciting place. And Instants/Sorceries were better at the early 2010s power level, so stop nerfing them.
Basically, I meant "more powerful" specifically in relation to our current period of power seep, not necessarily relative to the overall history of Magic. Very simple and very fair, really.
And again, just look at how popular sets like Innistrad and RTR were. Look at how fondly most players remember that era of Constructed (including/especially Standard). Why are we pretending like the current period and design philosophy does anything but pale in comparison?
- The ban hammer has been used to regulate the format because they need the format to be new and interesting when the pro tour comes around, if they didn't, you would just get the pros to "solve" the format faster, we are talking about huge teams of the best players in the world trying to crack a format here, that certainly accelerates the format into a stale metagame.
I'm sorry, but this reads like the feelings of someone who hasn't played the format (much). Have you? Have you actually played Modern at anything like a serious, consistent level? I have, from FNM to the GP circuit. The format was never solved, and the claims of it habitually getting stale are simply unfounded. Certain archetypes would raise and fall in popularity, but metagaming for each event was always a challenge. Every day I had to ask myself questions: Do I run a deck that's primarily good at beating last week's/month's winning list? Or do I play something more well-rounded? Is this the day my brew tier deck can finally crack in and surprise people? Have I managed to find undiscovered gold? How has the new set changed things? (This last one has gotten less and less relevant due to the horrible design philosophy we're currently suffering through.)
- They will reprint stuff if it makes sense, period, setting quotas for reprints is a stupid notion. MTG is an expensive hobby, deal with it, it's a collectible card game, it's the nature of the beast
It's great and all that you wanna defend the current status quo on the grounds that Constructed has no obligation to be affordable. A little exclusionary and myopic, but not unreasonable or immature. However, that's one only part the issue. There's other reasons that I (and my peers) are pushing for reprints, like the simple fact that they tend to be fun, strong cards which improve potentially dry formats like Limited, Block and Standard. Reprints also can be easy, automatic "flavor wins" that act as pay-offs for longtime fans (particularly Vorthos types). And finally, reprints actually make R&D's job easier by lessening the need for them to expend their precious "design space" in new sets.
reprinting cards that are format wrapping just to make them "more accessible" is a recipe for disaster, see thoughtseize as example, the card made a mess in standard, it wasn't mirrodin's level of a mess but a mess to be sure,
Yea...no. I remember that era in Standard. The problem wasn't Thoughtseize. The problem was that power seep was setting in from Theros, the pool of playable cards had shrunk far below what was normal for a rotational period, the two blocks didn't gel together (multicolored versus mono), and archetype diversity was dying off (the format was primarily aggro decks in each monocolor).
Oh, and we finally got a chance to see just what a line of crap the Future (Future) League is, as WotC clearly hadn't tested (enough) to see whether black's card pool was markedly better than all the other monocolor's. Thus, black decks became dominant, black cards--like 'Seize--were more heavily played, and we had that whole "we had to reprint the wrong Liliana" controversy.
But sure, just blame it all on one card. That's not reductive or wrongheaded at all.
we want them to make new mistakes (and yes, cards that are able to compete with lightning bolt in power level are mistakes, have no doubt about it), not the same ones they already did.
Wait, what? This little piece is barely coherent. All I got was some insane implication that Bolt is an example of a "mistake". Not sure if you understand the meaning of the words you're trying to use, but "mistakes" in MTG are generally understood to be broken, ban-worthy cards. Bolt has proven to be a safe, solid reprint time and time again (in all formats).
I dislike how many players here seem to think they would know they're doing, but WotC doesn't. ... Just because there are still problems doesn't mean any of WotC's recent decisions are wrong. Maybe they were the wrong decisions, but for F sake stop being so damn confident about it
Do you understand how the concept of cause and effect works? If WotC has problems, that's a result of their poor decisions. This whole thread is a reaction to what the community perceives to be a poor decision. And if their decision making doesn't improve, they'll continue to have problems. Very straightforward.
Also, paraphrasing Steve Hofstetter, I'm not a pilot, but if I saw a helicopter in a tree I should still say, "dude messed up." That's where we're at with WotC. Not to mention the fact that everyone assumes that the people in charge are dips***s when they see their favorite product/team/comic/films performing sub-optimally. And the propose suggestions. (You know you've done the same. Don't even pretend otherwise.) Are the suggestions sometimes stupid? Sure. But right now we're in a place with WotC where they barely even seem to acknowledge their own problems, let alone have good solutions.
I also hate this same attitude of as soon as there's some change which is in some way disadvantageous to a format, there's always, ALWAYS, people saying it's because they are going to kill the format.
I'll agree with you here. It's moronic, and a sign of (emotional) immaturity on those players' parts.
I reject the notion that the Pro Tour necessitated arbitrary shake-up bans. I think Modern can easily stay fresh, provided the power level of Standard allows for a handful of interesting new cards to impact the format every season.
The current thinking seems to be "wonky draft sets with a small group of chase cards".
I also want to point out that this is exactly the philosophy that WotC seems to have adopted in recent years. Limited (as fun as it is) used to be an alternate mode of the game. Sure, it influenced how sets were constructed, but I think it felt less heavy-handed than it has over the last few years. Recently, it feels like limited has been more of an excuse to create mostly underpowered sets with a few high-end rares and mythics.
Right? I often have to remind my peers that the best regarded sets in recent memory (for Limited AND Constructed) were the ones with strong card pools. Power seeping is just an excuse to justify lazy design. It takes effort (and a little bit of courage) make something like Zendikar 1, Innistrad 1, RTR, or MMA. BFZ? Not so much.
Faster and more reprints, FNM promos, GPTs, and PPTQs. Most of which they are doing
*cough*BS!*cough*
First off, WotC very clearly ISN'T doing enough reprints, thus all the complaints. Second, FNM promos are one of the worst ways to get Modern reprints out to market. They're short print, they have inflated depend (due to short printing and they're overall appearance/mystique), and they're given out primarily to stores and players who aren't involved with the format. Third, WTF do qualifier events have to do with anything? They get virtually no coverage/publicity and appeal almost exclusively to grinders and wannabes, not necessarily the average shop-goer/pack-buyer/FNMer. It's fine to have them IN ADDITION TO things like GPs and other major events, but they're impact on the format as a whole (and especially its growth/longevity) is fairly niche, IMHO.
Look, bolt is a very powerful card, and while it's not "ban worthy", it is format wrapping, every creature has to be costed to either survive bolt, give you value before it dies or be tempo neutral against it (Cost 1 mana or less), printing cards that on that power level is dangerous, and printing cards that YOU KNOW are on that power level and will wrap formats around them, is stupid, and to compound on that issue, printing them just to have them be cheap, is downright moronic.
Saying new sets don't impact modern right after cards from the last set broke modern in half... well you see my point right? And saying that the format doesn't get "solved" after the pros have a crack at it, right after the decks that broke modern came out of the protour is just deluding yourself. Yeah, you can still play the format afterwards, but the damage is done, sure you can play decks that are good metagame calls for a given tournament, but when the metagame is set, and you know what the top deck is and aim to beat that deck or decks, it's the definition of format wrapping, we just don't need a modern PT, the format is better of on it's own.
As for reprints, sure, we all want to be able to buy/trade the cards we want/need for our deck at a discount, but this game we all know and love is a trading card game, a collectible cards game, the very reason why the reserve list exists is because wizards tried to make expensive cards more affordable, tanking their prices, and I disagree with people that speculate on cards, but if you are pouring time and money on this game, it's nice to know that if at any point you want to cash out of it, the goods you bought are gonna be worth something, even if that's not the primary function of the game, so wizards have to be very careful with how they balance this, they know this, they have done this for a really long time, and they have learnt from past success and mistakes, thinking you know better than them just won't get you anywhere.
Finally, thoughtseize, sure, the issue was exacerbated by the black devotion deck, but even after it was nerfed with rotation, thoughtseize kept making our lives miserable, no it was not ban worthy, but any deck that couldn't handle having their hand shred apart by it on turn 1 or 2 was unplayable, even if it only happened once every 4 or 5 games, it still doesn't change the fact that the game is not better with it in the format, it's not fun or skill intensive. When they reprint cards that are known to be good, they have to ask themselves, is the game better with this card in this standard? More than likely the answer is no, and having to balance the whole format around that card in order to be able to reprint it, is a loosing proposition with no guarantee that the format is correctly balanced (remember, their testing can only go so far), and we get a crappy standard format as a result, sometimes it's just not worth it.
Look, bolt is a very powerful card, and while it's not "ban worthy", it is format wrapping, every creature has to be costed to either survive bolt, give you value before it dies or be tempo neutral against it (Cost 1 mana or less), printing cards that on that power level is dangerous, and printing cards that YOU KNOW are on that power level and will wrap formats around them, is stupid, and to compound on that issue, printing them just to have them be cheap, is downright moronic.
*warping (I'm sorry, but please don't misspell a word if you insist on using it all the time.)
So, Bolt is bad because it requires Constructed-worthy creatures be good?
I'm not even oversimplifying your statement here; that's literally your argument. I'm kinda at a loss for words.
You're far too worried about WotC printing "dangerous" cards. Once again, I have to ask whether you've played anything but Standard. And if so, did you at least play during the era Bolt was Standard legal? I did. People were far more concerned with what each other's finishers looked like than whether every creature in their deck passed the Bolt test. (This isn't to said Bolt wasn't a factor, just that you're overestimating its impact.)
Saying new sets don't impact modern right after cards from the last set broke modern in half...
You're referring to the fact that WotC occasionally derps into printing cards that are actually good in the format? And does so mostly through gimmicky keywords like Delve or Devoid, printed onto cards that, in a vacuum, are actually kinda lame? Yeah, I'm calling the spades as spades here. Eldrazi decks were very clearly a fluke. (That, or the more nefarious, conspiratorial angle of "WotC knew full well what would happen." I'm still betting on the former, especially given their track record.)
Outside of WotC lucking into a scenario where things like 3 CMC 2/3s with conditional haste were artificially elevated to Modern playables, tell me more about how new sets impact Modern on a regular basis. Better yet... Excepting KTK, name me any set since RTR that had more than one or two of its cards see ANY Modern play.
well you see my point right? And saying that the format doesn't get "solved" after the pros have a crack at it, right after the decks that broke modern came out of the protour is just deluding yourself.
I get why you would think this, but you're wrong. It's now understood and agreed that Eldrazi decks fueled by the land + Devoid synergy were inevitable. The PT just accelerated their debut and dominance, at best. And again, the Devoid interaction was a fluke of WotC's poor design/testing. They assumed it'd be safe, they were wrong, and then nerfed it at the first (non-emergency) opportunity. Case closed.
Had WotC just printed a new set of colored Eldrazi drones and Colorless titans/relatives, this set would have been as low impact as rest. Honestly, they probably could have printed almost the exact same cards and just skipped devoid. Modern wouldn't have even taken notice of BFZ/OGW.
And that's the problem. It takes luck and wonky keywords like Devoid or Delve for WotC's current designs to actually break into non-rotating formats (and therefore have any real kind of shelf life).
I disagree with people that speculate on cards, but if you are pouring time and money on this game, it's nice to know that if at any point you want to cash out of it, the goods you bought are gonna be worth something
Unless you play Standard, in which case your cards are on constant bubble/roller-coaster, generally fall like rocks with a faster and faster turn-around, and rarely end up being worth anything in the long run.
wizards have to be very careful with how they balance this, they know this, they have done this for a really long time, and they have learnt from past success and mistakes, thinking you know better than them just won't get you anywhere.
But that's just it. Trying to strike this unnecessary (and largely untenable) "balance" between the speculator/tertiary markets and the regular player/consumer is inherently stupid. They can't do both. They have to err on one side or the other, and these days they're erring on the side of speculators (both with regard to reprints and sealed product).
WotC isn't simply "being careful" when it puts out something like the widely decried MM2, or a Standard set with basically no meaningful reprints (like all of the current Standard sets). It's minimizing effort by not bothering to look at what players actually want and give it to them. The worst part is that they're not even really maximizing profit the way some tend to claim. By printing subpar sets back to back, they weaken interest in individuals sets. By tarnishing new and exciting brands like MM with stuff like MM2, they're lessening the likelihood of people (stores and players) running out to buy boxes of the next version.
Again, players can see the mistakes and call WotC out on them because they're actually pretty blatant. If this were just a matter of taste and business strategy, that's one thing. But everyone from the community here to MTG experts like Jon Finkel and Matt Sperling have called out WotC's illogical decisions. Whether we see any fallout is debatable, mostly because WotC has little to no meaninful competition in this space. But rest assured, this isn't just fans being cranky over cards not fitting into their ideal deck.
Finally, thoughtseize, sure, the issue was exacerbated by the black devotion deck, but even after it was nerfed with rotation, thoughtseize kept making our lives miserable, no it was not ban worthy, but any deck that couldn't handle having their hand shred apart by it on turn 1 or 2 was unplayable
Again, let's cut to chase here: Thoughtseize is bad because it forces players to play...better decks?
I mean, I could see arguments like "it requires everyone to run black" (untrue, but certainly better than what you offered) or "it makes going first too good" (also weak, but still better than the above). But you're just saying that people had to build/pilot better decks. And frankly, it reads more like your personal resentment toward the card than a reasoned assessment of its format impact.
the fact that the game is not better with it in the format
Well, that's more of an opinion actually.
it's not fun or skill intensive.
"Fun" isn't exactly a measurable metric, and numerous players would laugh at you claiming a card like 'Seize is anything BUT skill-intensive.
When they reprint cards that are known to be good, they have to ask themselves, is the game better with this card in this standard? More than likely the answer is no
Yet again your logic (or lack thereof) is incomprehensible to me. If a card is good (broadly speaking), how could its presence in a format do anything BUT make it better? Now, of course, if the power level of a card is drastically above that of all the other cards, that's different. But we're not talking putting Planeswalkers into a Peasant cube here. We're talking about printing cards like 'Seize and Bolt (utility cards, ultimately) into a format that safe housed them not all that long ago. If these are your best examples of format warping cards, I'm afraid your evaluation skills (and overall perspective) need some serious improvement.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm officially proposing we retire the word "insane" from the MtG vocabulary.
"The best way to be different is to be better" - Gene Muir
I believe the one who didn't play when bolt was around was you, cards otherwise perfectly playable were left without a home because bolt was around, you are claiming you know better than they do because of the comments you see in forums agree with you? You do know wotc does market research right? And they've been designing this game for many many years, and actually know a thing or two about game design, which you clearly know nothing about.
Thoughtseize didn't make you play better decks, you also had to take it into account when you muligan game 1, can this hand beat a thoughtseize? Even if your opponent wasn't playing black, wotc's job is to make an magic an enjoyable experience, thoughtseize doesn't help them accomplish that, it does have a place in certain formats (like modern and legacy as means to disrupt the opponent), but it's not a fun experience, and no, it's not skill intensive really, if you think choosing which card to take from your opponent's hand is skill intensive, that talks about your skill or lack of it more than about how skill intensive the card is. I've been playing for a long long time, and I have fond memories of the "good old days", but I actually understand that what I might enjoy (like trowing bolts, shredding my opponent's hand or countering spells), is more than likely not pleasant for other people (let alone my opponents).
You are confusing what you like for "a pleasant game experience", yes what one person likes can vary greatly from person to person, but in general r&d knows better than you do what a player likes and doesn't like, because they do this for a living and have done it for quite some time, and they are the ones that have brought magic to the point where practically every new set becomes the new best selling set in history, you don't know better than them period.
Warping the format around good cards is basically the definition of standard. Which is why I typically hate it, can't afford current warping card? can't play standard, especially when you'll get no value on it when it rotates.
So I would say that they can't print modern playable cards because it warps standard is not a good argument.
I suppose I'm disappointed that WotC couldn't figure out a way to make modern pro tours profitable. Sure, modern doesn't fit with what they have designed the pro tours for, but it certainly seemed to generate a lot of excitement. In this way, rather than saying "this doesn't fit what we want the pro tour to be" they should have said "how can we capitalize on this excitement." It all just seems so rigid; this is a failing on their ability to meet the desires of their customers.
This^ is what I am trying to say. People like modern they don't like how WotC treats it including pro tour bans. I am perfectly happy with a "stale" but balanced format.
The pro tour literally exists only to help advertise and drive interest in the new set. If you paid to watch the modern pro tour, you might have an argument.
Why? why is that the only reason. I am saying they should do other things with the pro tour. People are not watching the pro tour to be advertised to. What does a new player even get out of the pro tour? they don't understand the complicated meta gaming going on at the pro level.
I believe the one who didn't play when bolt was around was you, cards otherwise perfectly playable were left without a home because bolt was around
Such as...? (A glaring problem with your debate style is the gaps in your arguments.)
Thoughtseize didn't make you play better decks, you also had to take it into account when you muligan game 1, can this hand beat a thoughtseize?
You mean it required additional decision making, maybe testing of one's, say, skill?
Even if your opponent wasn't playing black
I'll be generous and assume you meant "even if you didn't know what color they were playing." Otherwise your statement, as written, makes no sense. (Nothing new there.)
wotc's job is to make an magic an enjoyable experience, thoughtseize doesn't help them accomplish that
Again, things like "fun" or "enjoyable" are subjective concepts that can't be measured or factored into qualitative issues like these. What one person considers fun, another might find obnoxious. (Just look at Commander Leagues.)
if you think choosing which card to take from your opponent's hand is skill intensive
By definition it is, even if the specific depth of skill-intensity may vary from hand to hand. And as you inadvertently noted above, Thoughtseize's presence can have a skill-testing effect on the targeted player as well. The fact that the card is also objectively powerful doesn't mean it's skill-reducing. If a card is forcing extra/new decisions, it tests one's skills. You really need to stop throwing around terms if you can't use them probably.
I've been playing for a long long time, and I have fond memories of the "good old days", but I actually understand that what I might enjoy (like trowing bolts, shredding my opponent's hand or countering spells), is more than likely not pleasant for other people (let alone my opponents).
Again, "fun" is one of the least measurable or practical metrics for card evaluation. And judging cards purely from a "will people enjoy losing to this?" perspective is another reason why the current design philosophy is so screwed up. It's one thing to decide that things like hexproof and evasion shouldn't be too prevalent, for example, as those are legitimately skill-reducing, non-interactive mechanics. But burn and discard, when done right, can be some of the most skill-intensive and interactive elements of two colors that don't normally do much beyond draw cards, play creatures and attack.
You are confusing what you like for "a pleasant game experience"
No. You're confusing "a pleasant game experience" for a concept that has any bearing on the issues we're supposed to be discussing.
in general r&d knows better than you do what a player likes and doesn't like, because they do this for a living and have done it for quite some time, and they are the ones that have brought magic to the point where practically every new set becomes the new best selling set in history, you don't know better than them period.
We're talking about company with little to no competition within they're particular product field. It's no surprise they're successful. I'll grant you the impressive fact that WotC is still able to grow its costumer base annually, and that I could probably learn a thing or two from them in this regard. But literally the only thing they (or we) have to judge MTG in 2016 against is MTG in 2016. Given that, I'm pretty confident that WotC isn't incentivized to do what's best for the game, per se. What's best for quarterly reports? Sure. But what's pushing WotC to do something that will make an overwhelming majority of players will look at and say, "well done!" rather than just "Okay"? Nothing, really.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm officially proposing we retire the word "insane" from the MtG vocabulary.
"The best way to be different is to be better" - Gene Muir
Dude you are seriously arguing that a person having to measure his hand against a card that might or might not be in his opponent's deck is a skill? Your arguments get dumber with every post...
As for bolt, just to say something random...Rafiq, mirran crusader... even knight of the reliquary had to take a back sit for some time, one would think you could get this one on your own but ohh well.
They DO have ways to measure a player's enjoyment of a format, it's called market research genius.
As for the financial side of reprints, we are not talking about collectors, we are talking about every day players like you or anyone in this forum really, we all have collections, yeah the prices vary a lot once a card rotates out of standard, but guess what? Good cards eventualy find their way into modern, legacy or EDH and become valuable (see bitterblossom for example, unplayable in modern yet 20+ usd in the market).
There are other TCG's out there, but none of them are even close to what magic the gathering has accomplished.
Yeah, I don't get this "Thoughtseize requires skill" thing. It only requires skill to go against. It requires no skill to actually use. You don't need to play a better deck to beat it. You have to play a specific kind of deck, and then hope your opening 7 is good, your 6 is great, or you lose on the spot.
And Lightning Bolt is the definition of a format warping card. While it was in standard, the only creatures seeing play were finishers. Why? Because nothing else could survive Lightning Bolt, Searing Blaze, Burst Lightning, etc. Hell, Lightning Bolt doesn't just dominate Standard. It is probably the best removal spell and burn spell printed to date. I wouldn't be surprised if Lightning Bolt has been in more winning deck lists than any other card (besides basic lands.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGSalvation; Where the whining is a time honored tradition, and enjoying the game is trolling.
Yeah, I don't get this "Thoughtseize requires skill" thing. It only requires skill to go against. It requires no skill to actually use. You don't need to play a better deck to beat it. You have to play a specific kind of deck, and then hope your opening 7 is good, your 6 is great, or you lose on the spot.
Rather than waste time explaining all the ways you're either being extremely reductive or flat-out wrong, I'll just link to Todd Anderson's article. Suffice to say, Thoughtseize not so overpowered that it wins games single-handedly. And like I stated to Tenzo, the card creates decision-points; if you can't understand the skill involved, that's reflection on you (not the card itself).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm officially proposing we retire the word "insane" from the MtG vocabulary.
"The best way to be different is to be better" - Gene Muir
I think the fact that some of the last sets were comparatively weak has a lot to do with wotc trying to cut down on the power creep and the fact how their distribution network is set up. Remember that players are not wotc customers, wotc don't sell their product directly to players which results in pathological situation where reprints of expensive cards inflate the price of the product for the end customer, that is us, players and wotc can do very little to mitigate this while sticking to current business model.
Not true. If the cards become close to worthless after rotating out of standard then there is constant need to dump money into the game to keep playing standard. This disincentives players from investing and buying new packs. Not that this is the main driving force for anyone playing standard but it counts. Also selling supplemental products like MMA/MM2/EMA is not exactly loosing them money.
But please, do more "modern festival" tournaments in MTGO!
I don't think this signals the death of the format, but it seems to be part of a larger pattern of Wizards slowly moving away from Modern support. And I feel bad for the players who don't live in an area with shops that hold Modern FNM, who are quickly losing their connection to the format.
There are Modern GPs and SCG Opens all year round. There are plenty of ways for players to enjoy watching Modern that don't result in random shake-up bans of staple decks.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Half the GPs have no coverage though and I pretty much have no idea when they will be on, they just aren't advertised or anything I have to accidentally find out about them.
GPs and especially SCG events are local events, I am not going to see Patrick Dickmann or Frank Kasterns Affinity vs Shoota Yasoka Tezzeret control only he can play vs Shaun Mclearen's newest Jeskai thing. Its just going to be the players from near the tournament site.
Pioneer:UR Pheonix
Modern:U Mono U Tron
EDH
GB Glissa, the traitor: Army of Cans
UW Dragonlord Ojutai: Dragonlord NOjutai
UWGDerevi, Empyrial Tactician "you cannot fight the storm"
R Zirilan of the claw. The solution to every problem is dragons
UB Etrata, the Silencer Cloning assassination
Peasant cube: Cards I own
And that's a good thing. But I reject the notion that the Pro Tour necessitated arbitrary shake-up bans. I think Modern can easily stay fresh, provided the power level of Standard allows for a handful of interesting new cards to impact the format every season.
I think you should read Sheridan lardner's articles over at Modern Nexus.
He has a series called "how to fix modern" and they explain this stuff all in detail, including sources and quotes etc.
The overall gist; protours (since 2011 for sure and probably before then as well) have been designed to showcase the new set. They are timed after the release, named after the set and intended to showcase the new cards. The whole idea is to have pros playing the new cards in a format that's not established.
Modern is very established. They have gone on record in saying that having modern as a protour format has accelerated bans in an effort to keep the format from being stale or dominated by a single strategy. The bans probably would have happened anyway, but over a slower timescale otherwise.
Playing modern doesn't reward skill. That's objectively bad for competetive play (I should have added this here to be clear) and not suitable competitive play. The only skills are basic deck selection (not playing one of the hundred unviable decks people insist upon playing), recognizing those decks when your opponent plays, mulliganing and gold fishing appropriately. This is different than "hurr durr standard has creatures, I hate creatures." (For the record, modern is also creature based, seeing as the best decks are linear aggressive decks and the best thing you're doing there is turning creatures sideways, and if you're interacting on the stack, you're probably also dieing, or playing against a deck that's also not viable). Because there is so little actual skill in the format they took it off. Because its popular, its not going to die.
Popularity does not mean its good competitively (or good in general really, that's a fallacy). That's why commander isn't a pro tour format.
Modern also doesn't do anything they want to do with the protour in terms of marketing. That's why all the modern players cry when every set has two modern playable cards in it.
EDIT: Owen Turtenwald's article is a nicer more fleshed-out way of saying this. http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/modern-shouldnt-be-a-pro-tour-format/
I also want to point out that this is exactly the philosophy that WotC seems to have adopted in recent years. Limited (as fun as it is) used to be an alternate mode of the game. Sure, it influenced how sets were constructed, but I think it felt less heavy-handed than it has over the last few years. Recently, it feels like limited has been more of an excuse to create mostly underpowered sets with a few high-end rares and mythics.
The pro tour literally exists only to help advertise and drive interest in the new set. If you paid to watch the modern pro tour, you might have an argument.
The idea that Modern as a format doesn't reward skill is complete and utter baloney.
Also, the deck with the highest current meta percentage in modern is... Jund! The most linear, aggressive deck out there!
However, that's not what Wizards wanted and has been stated as one their reasons. The needed a dynamic format, a shakeup. Which was why bans/unbans were one of WotC tools to shake a format up.
The best thing to come off this announcement is that we're likely to see less spikes in eternal card prices. More cards are closer to their "true value" and will remain fairly stable.
And let's not forget that people who play casually are affected by prices. And there's a whole lot more casual players than professionals/competitive players out there. There's definitely more to rejoice for them.
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
Oh, this should be good.
Okay, you can do that with Modern Pro Tours just as well as Standard Pro Tours. They both have drafts at the start of days 1 and 2.
What? In regards to professional Magic play, this is just a single facet among many. Why are they focusing so much on deckbuilding innovation in a tournament series that features the pinnacle of professional Magic? It takes more than that to win a Pro Tour. A super innovative deckbuilder can be a sub-optimal player, and vice-versa.
Besides, it's not like most Pro Tour winners developed their own deck. The most common case is that one or two players developed the deck, and then the entire team decided to run that list.
Again, you can get this in just about any format.
Even Modern.
WHAT?!
What the hell does this have to do with anything?! Why should a player be deemed worthy of a Pro Tour title based on how well he does in an unestablished environment? Again, that's just one facet of tournament Magic. If you want to determine which players are truly deserving of a Pro Tour title, then you need to test them in established environments as well. Don't just expose them to parameters that downplay certain aspects of tournament Magic while favorably skewing others. How does that make for a balanced determination of who the best Pro Tour competitor is?
Besides, these formats are hardly unestablished for the pros by the time the Pro Tour rolls around. These guys gain early access to the set lists before previews even start, which mean they already have a huge head start in how the metagame will shape up by the time spoiler season begins for us.
Oh, okay. That's all you needed to say, Wizards.
As for wanting them to prove themselves in un-stablished environments, being able to predict the metagame and adapt to it, is a fair parameter, besides it would just be boring to see the same decks you always see, that's part of the reason why they hold each protour after a set's release, the other part being, they want to highlight the new cards, which is completely fair, they are a for profit company and they are entitled to use their protour to advertise their product I don't know why all the salt is about.
Modern is fun to play, but not fun to watch, for the format to be fresh by the time the protour rolls around, it "needed" something to shake it up a little (or a lot), that something that wizards used was bannings, and that made the format unstable, and having large teams of the best players in the world, concentrated on breaking the format for 2 weeks didn't help, it precipitated the "solution" of the format, making it stale once again, for the most part, having an established metagame is not bad, just not as fun as having new decks emerge from the tournament.
Modern is gonna live through this, it's gonna be supported for a long time, it just isn't a good protour format, therefor it was removed from the protour, but it can be supported in grand prix, Regional ptq's, FNM, etc. Saying that the format is dead just because it's no longer a PT format is like saying that Commander is dead for that same reason, it's just not true.
Given that it's the Pro Tour, I'd counter by asking how it is (ever) NOT about coverage. To at least partially address your point, though, I'd say that the improving the coverage will help sell the cards/sets better, regardless of the format (thereby lessening the need to eliminate a popular format from the schedule).
My suggestions help to address this. Suffice to say that some of the outcomes would be thus: Standard players would see cards they'll be able to use more often, even during Modern events. And Modern players will always be able to find cards they can use, even in Standard events.
Power creep has primarily impacted creatures, a card type that was in sore need of it. Instants and sorceries, by contrast, were the primary indicators (and victims of) power seep. All I'm really pushing for is that WotC realize the obvious: Creatures are good at this power level, don't need to be backpedaled (and/or stagnated) into a weaker/unexciting place. And Instants/Sorceries were better at the early 2010s power level, so stop nerfing them.
Basically, I meant "more powerful" specifically in relation to our current period of power seep, not necessarily relative to the overall history of Magic. Very simple and very fair, really.
And again, just look at how popular sets like Innistrad and RTR were. Look at how fondly most players remember that era of Constructed (including/especially Standard). Why are we pretending like the current period and design philosophy does anything but pale in comparison?
I'm sorry, but this reads like the feelings of someone who hasn't played the format (much). Have you? Have you actually played Modern at anything like a serious, consistent level? I have, from FNM to the GP circuit. The format was never solved, and the claims of it habitually getting stale are simply unfounded. Certain archetypes would raise and fall in popularity, but metagaming for each event was always a challenge. Every day I had to ask myself questions: Do I run a deck that's primarily good at beating last week's/month's winning list? Or do I play something more well-rounded? Is this the day my brew tier deck can finally crack in and surprise people? Have I managed to find undiscovered gold? How has the new set changed things? (This last one has gotten less and less relevant due to the horrible design philosophy we're currently suffering through.)
It's great and all that you wanna defend the current status quo on the grounds that Constructed has no obligation to be affordable. A little exclusionary and myopic, but not unreasonable or immature. However, that's one only part the issue. There's other reasons that I (and my peers) are pushing for reprints, like the simple fact that they tend to be fun, strong cards which improve potentially dry formats like Limited, Block and Standard. Reprints also can be easy, automatic "flavor wins" that act as pay-offs for longtime fans (particularly Vorthos types). And finally, reprints actually make R&D's job easier by lessening the need for them to expend their precious "design space" in new sets.
Yea...no. I remember that era in Standard. The problem wasn't Thoughtseize. The problem was that power seep was setting in from Theros, the pool of playable cards had shrunk far below what was normal for a rotational period, the two blocks didn't gel together (multicolored versus mono), and archetype diversity was dying off (the format was primarily aggro decks in each monocolor).
Oh, and we finally got a chance to see just what a line of crap the Future (Future) League is, as WotC clearly hadn't tested (enough) to see whether black's card pool was markedly better than all the other monocolor's. Thus, black decks became dominant, black cards--like 'Seize--were more heavily played, and we had that whole "we had to reprint the wrong Liliana" controversy.
But sure, just blame it all on one card. That's not reductive or wrongheaded at all.
Wait, what? This little piece is barely coherent. All I got was some insane implication that Bolt is an example of a "mistake". Not sure if you understand the meaning of the words you're trying to use, but "mistakes" in MTG are generally understood to be broken, ban-worthy cards. Bolt has proven to be a safe, solid reprint time and time again (in all formats).
Do you understand how the concept of cause and effect works? If WotC has problems, that's a result of their poor decisions. This whole thread is a reaction to what the community perceives to be a poor decision. And if their decision making doesn't improve, they'll continue to have problems. Very straightforward.
Also, paraphrasing Steve Hofstetter, I'm not a pilot, but if I saw a helicopter in a tree I should still say, "dude messed up." That's where we're at with WotC. Not to mention the fact that everyone assumes that the people in charge are dips***s when they see their favorite product/team/comic/films performing sub-optimally. And the propose suggestions. (You know you've done the same. Don't even pretend otherwise.) Are the suggestions sometimes stupid? Sure. But right now we're in a place with WotC where they barely even seem to acknowledge their own problems, let alone have good solutions.
I'll agree with you here. It's moronic, and a sign of (emotional) immaturity on those players' parts.
Amen, brother.
Right? I often have to remind my peers that the best regarded sets in recent memory (for Limited AND Constructed) were the ones with strong card pools. Power seeping is just an excuse to justify lazy design. It takes effort (and a little bit of courage) make something like Zendikar 1, Innistrad 1, RTR, or MMA. BFZ? Not so much.
*cough*BS!*cough*
First off, WotC very clearly ISN'T doing enough reprints, thus all the complaints. Second, FNM promos are one of the worst ways to get Modern reprints out to market. They're short print, they have inflated depend (due to short printing and they're overall appearance/mystique), and they're given out primarily to stores and players who aren't involved with the format. Third, WTF do qualifier events have to do with anything? They get virtually no coverage/publicity and appeal almost exclusively to grinders and wannabes, not necessarily the average shop-goer/pack-buyer/FNMer. It's fine to have them IN ADDITION TO things like GPs and other major events, but they're impact on the format as a whole (and especially its growth/longevity) is fairly niche, IMHO.
I'm officially proposing we retire the word "insane" from the MtG vocabulary.
"The best way to be different is to be better" - Gene Muir
Cubes:
Modern Banlist Cube
Monocolor Budget Cube
Saying new sets don't impact modern right after cards from the last set broke modern in half... well you see my point right? And saying that the format doesn't get "solved" after the pros have a crack at it, right after the decks that broke modern came out of the protour is just deluding yourself. Yeah, you can still play the format afterwards, but the damage is done, sure you can play decks that are good metagame calls for a given tournament, but when the metagame is set, and you know what the top deck is and aim to beat that deck or decks, it's the definition of format wrapping, we just don't need a modern PT, the format is better of on it's own.
As for reprints, sure, we all want to be able to buy/trade the cards we want/need for our deck at a discount, but this game we all know and love is a trading card game, a collectible cards game, the very reason why the reserve list exists is because wizards tried to make expensive cards more affordable, tanking their prices, and I disagree with people that speculate on cards, but if you are pouring time and money on this game, it's nice to know that if at any point you want to cash out of it, the goods you bought are gonna be worth something, even if that's not the primary function of the game, so wizards have to be very careful with how they balance this, they know this, they have done this for a really long time, and they have learnt from past success and mistakes, thinking you know better than them just won't get you anywhere.
Finally, thoughtseize, sure, the issue was exacerbated by the black devotion deck, but even after it was nerfed with rotation, thoughtseize kept making our lives miserable, no it was not ban worthy, but any deck that couldn't handle having their hand shred apart by it on turn 1 or 2 was unplayable, even if it only happened once every 4 or 5 games, it still doesn't change the fact that the game is not better with it in the format, it's not fun or skill intensive. When they reprint cards that are known to be good, they have to ask themselves, is the game better with this card in this standard? More than likely the answer is no, and having to balance the whole format around that card in order to be able to reprint it, is a loosing proposition with no guarantee that the format is correctly balanced (remember, their testing can only go so far), and we get a crappy standard format as a result, sometimes it's just not worth it.
*warping (I'm sorry, but please don't misspell a word if you insist on using it all the time.)
So, Bolt is bad because it requires Constructed-worthy creatures be good?
I'm not even oversimplifying your statement here; that's literally your argument. I'm kinda at a loss for words.
You're far too worried about WotC printing "dangerous" cards. Once again, I have to ask whether you've played anything but Standard. And if so, did you at least play during the era Bolt was Standard legal? I did. People were far more concerned with what each other's finishers looked like than whether every creature in their deck passed the Bolt test. (This isn't to said Bolt wasn't a factor, just that you're overestimating its impact.)
You're referring to the fact that WotC occasionally derps into printing cards that are actually good in the format? And does so mostly through gimmicky keywords like Delve or Devoid, printed onto cards that, in a vacuum, are actually kinda lame? Yeah, I'm calling the spades as spades here. Eldrazi decks were very clearly a fluke. (That, or the more nefarious, conspiratorial angle of "WotC knew full well what would happen." I'm still betting on the former, especially given their track record.)
Outside of WotC lucking into a scenario where things like 3 CMC 2/3s with conditional haste were artificially elevated to Modern playables, tell me more about how new sets impact Modern on a regular basis. Better yet... Excepting KTK, name me any set since RTR that had more than one or two of its cards see ANY Modern play.
I get why you would think this, but you're wrong. It's now understood and agreed that Eldrazi decks fueled by the land + Devoid synergy were inevitable. The PT just accelerated their debut and dominance, at best. And again, the Devoid interaction was a fluke of WotC's poor design/testing. They assumed it'd be safe, they were wrong, and then nerfed it at the first (non-emergency) opportunity. Case closed.
Had WotC just printed a new set of colored Eldrazi drones and Colorless titans/relatives, this set would have been as low impact as rest. Honestly, they probably could have printed almost the exact same cards and just skipped devoid. Modern wouldn't have even taken notice of BFZ/OGW.
And that's the problem. It takes luck and wonky keywords like Devoid or Delve for WotC's current designs to actually break into non-rotating formats (and therefore have any real kind of shelf life).
Unless you play Standard, in which case your cards are on constant bubble/roller-coaster, generally fall like rocks with a faster and faster turn-around, and rarely end up being worth anything in the long run.
But that's just it. Trying to strike this unnecessary (and largely untenable) "balance" between the speculator/tertiary markets and the regular player/consumer is inherently stupid. They can't do both. They have to err on one side or the other, and these days they're erring on the side of speculators (both with regard to reprints and sealed product).
WotC isn't simply "being careful" when it puts out something like the widely decried MM2, or a Standard set with basically no meaningful reprints (like all of the current Standard sets). It's minimizing effort by not bothering to look at what players actually want and give it to them. The worst part is that they're not even really maximizing profit the way some tend to claim. By printing subpar sets back to back, they weaken interest in individuals sets. By tarnishing new and exciting brands like MM with stuff like MM2, they're lessening the likelihood of people (stores and players) running out to buy boxes of the next version.
Again, players can see the mistakes and call WotC out on them because they're actually pretty blatant. If this were just a matter of taste and business strategy, that's one thing. But everyone from the community here to MTG experts like Jon Finkel and Matt Sperling have called out WotC's illogical decisions. Whether we see any fallout is debatable, mostly because WotC has little to no meaninful competition in this space. But rest assured, this isn't just fans being cranky over cards not fitting into their ideal deck.
Again, let's cut to chase here: Thoughtseize is bad because it forces players to play...better decks?
I mean, I could see arguments like "it requires everyone to run black" (untrue, but certainly better than what you offered) or "it makes going first too good" (also weak, but still better than the above). But you're just saying that people had to build/pilot better decks. And frankly, it reads more like your personal resentment toward the card than a reasoned assessment of its format impact.
Well, that's more of an opinion actually.
"Fun" isn't exactly a measurable metric, and numerous players would laugh at you claiming a card like 'Seize is anything BUT skill-intensive.
Yet again your logic (or lack thereof) is incomprehensible to me. If a card is good (broadly speaking), how could its presence in a format do anything BUT make it better? Now, of course, if the power level of a card is drastically above that of all the other cards, that's different. But we're not talking putting Planeswalkers into a Peasant cube here. We're talking about printing cards like 'Seize and Bolt (utility cards, ultimately) into a format that safe housed them not all that long ago. If these are your best examples of format warping cards, I'm afraid your evaluation skills (and overall perspective) need some serious improvement.
I'm officially proposing we retire the word "insane" from the MtG vocabulary.
"The best way to be different is to be better" - Gene Muir
Cubes:
Modern Banlist Cube
Monocolor Budget Cube
Thoughtseize didn't make you play better decks, you also had to take it into account when you muligan game 1, can this hand beat a thoughtseize? Even if your opponent wasn't playing black, wotc's job is to make an magic an enjoyable experience, thoughtseize doesn't help them accomplish that, it does have a place in certain formats (like modern and legacy as means to disrupt the opponent), but it's not a fun experience, and no, it's not skill intensive really, if you think choosing which card to take from your opponent's hand is skill intensive, that talks about your skill or lack of it more than about how skill intensive the card is. I've been playing for a long long time, and I have fond memories of the "good old days", but I actually understand that what I might enjoy (like trowing bolts, shredding my opponent's hand or countering spells), is more than likely not pleasant for other people (let alone my opponents).
You are confusing what you like for "a pleasant game experience", yes what one person likes can vary greatly from person to person, but in general r&d knows better than you do what a player likes and doesn't like, because they do this for a living and have done it for quite some time, and they are the ones that have brought magic to the point where practically every new set becomes the new best selling set in history, you don't know better than them period.
Thragtusk *cough*,sphinx's revelation, elspeth sun's champion, den protector, I guess Jace, vryns prodigy does see some modern play in one deck.
Warping the format around good cards is basically the definition of standard. Which is why I typically hate it, can't afford current warping card? can't play standard, especially when you'll get no value on it when it rotates.
So I would say that they can't print modern playable cards because it warps standard is not a good argument.
This^ is what I am trying to say. People like modern they don't like how WotC treats it including pro tour bans. I am perfectly happy with a "stale" but balanced format.
Why? why is that the only reason. I am saying they should do other things with the pro tour. People are not watching the pro tour to be advertised to. What does a new player even get out of the pro tour? they don't understand the complicated meta gaming going on at the pro level.
Pioneer:UR Pheonix
Modern:U Mono U Tron
EDH
GB Glissa, the traitor: Army of Cans
UW Dragonlord Ojutai: Dragonlord NOjutai
UWGDerevi, Empyrial Tactician "you cannot fight the storm"
R Zirilan of the claw. The solution to every problem is dragons
UB Etrata, the Silencer Cloning assassination
Peasant cube: Cards I own
Such as...? (A glaring problem with your debate style is the gaps in your arguments.)
You mean it required additional decision making, maybe testing of one's, say, skill?
I'll be generous and assume you meant "even if you didn't know what color they were playing." Otherwise your statement, as written, makes no sense. (Nothing new there.)
Again, things like "fun" or "enjoyable" are subjective concepts that can't be measured or factored into qualitative issues like these. What one person considers fun, another might find obnoxious. (Just look at Commander Leagues.)
By definition it is, even if the specific depth of skill-intensity may vary from hand to hand. And as you inadvertently noted above, Thoughtseize's presence can have a skill-testing effect on the targeted player as well. The fact that the card is also objectively powerful doesn't mean it's skill-reducing. If a card is forcing extra/new decisions, it tests one's skills. You really need to stop throwing around terms if you can't use them probably.
Again, "fun" is one of the least measurable or practical metrics for card evaluation. And judging cards purely from a "will people enjoy losing to this?" perspective is another reason why the current design philosophy is so screwed up. It's one thing to decide that things like hexproof and evasion shouldn't be too prevalent, for example, as those are legitimately skill-reducing, non-interactive mechanics. But burn and discard, when done right, can be some of the most skill-intensive and interactive elements of two colors that don't normally do much beyond draw cards, play creatures and attack.
No. You're confusing "a pleasant game experience" for a concept that has any bearing on the issues we're supposed to be discussing.
We're talking about company with little to no competition within they're particular product field. It's no surprise they're successful. I'll grant you the impressive fact that WotC is still able to grow its costumer base annually, and that I could probably learn a thing or two from them in this regard. But literally the only thing they (or we) have to judge MTG in 2016 against is MTG in 2016. Given that, I'm pretty confident that WotC isn't incentivized to do what's best for the game, per se. What's best for quarterly reports? Sure. But what's pushing WotC to do something that will make an overwhelming majority of players will look at and say, "well done!" rather than just "Okay"? Nothing, really.
I'm officially proposing we retire the word "insane" from the MtG vocabulary.
"The best way to be different is to be better" - Gene Muir
Cubes:
Modern Banlist Cube
Monocolor Budget Cube
As for bolt, just to say something random...Rafiq, mirran crusader... even knight of the reliquary had to take a back sit for some time, one would think you could get this one on your own but ohh well.
They DO have ways to measure a player's enjoyment of a format, it's called market research genius.
As for the financial side of reprints, we are not talking about collectors, we are talking about every day players like you or anyone in this forum really, we all have collections, yeah the prices vary a lot once a card rotates out of standard, but guess what? Good cards eventualy find their way into modern, legacy or EDH and become valuable (see bitterblossom for example, unplayable in modern yet 20+ usd in the market).
There are other TCG's out there, but none of them are even close to what magic the gathering has accomplished.
And Lightning Bolt is the definition of a format warping card. While it was in standard, the only creatures seeing play were finishers. Why? Because nothing else could survive Lightning Bolt, Searing Blaze, Burst Lightning, etc. Hell, Lightning Bolt doesn't just dominate Standard. It is probably the best removal spell and burn spell printed to date. I wouldn't be surprised if Lightning Bolt has been in more winning deck lists than any other card (besides basic lands.)
Rather than waste time explaining all the ways you're either being extremely reductive or flat-out wrong, I'll just link to Todd Anderson's article. Suffice to say, Thoughtseize not so overpowered that it wins games single-handedly. And like I stated to Tenzo, the card creates decision-points; if you can't understand the skill involved, that's reflection on you (not the card itself).
I'm officially proposing we retire the word "insane" from the MtG vocabulary.
"The best way to be different is to be better" - Gene Muir
Cubes:
Modern Banlist Cube
Monocolor Budget Cube