Scooze is not the issue, DrS is by far a worse offender and I don't even think that card deserves a ban. That's where the issue lies, no card in BGx is truly banworthy but the deck/archetype itself has shown a need to be toned down. The obvious solution is to bolster other colors, decks, archetypes etc with a combination of unbanning, printing new cards that strengthen other strategies and cards that defend against or hate on the BGx archetype.
Except the meta had adjusted to DRS and the BGx shell was being kept in check by decks like Pod and RWU. Once Ooze hit the meta, it boosted the BGx shell back to T0.
The difference is, last year that January ban was leading into the Modern season, where as this year (or I should say next year) Modern season is not til the summer.
The next question would be what will they rip out of Jund? Lilly? DRS? Ooze? Abrupt decay? I doubt they will touch Bob or Goyf, but who knows.
In short, yes. But I have been asked not to talk about it in this thread so that is the last thing I am going to say about it. Like I have said, I feel the ban list should be larger, not smaller.
If you want to fix the format, its going to be because of more bans, not less. Are you willing to have the format be more to your liking through bans?
What you find problematic, some enjoy.
Infraction for violating the banlist discussion rules. Discussion about dramatically increasing the size of the banlist is not allowed.
-ktkenshinx-
So you think Llanowar Elves should be banned because it enable turn 2 Deciever Exarch and turn 3 Splinter Twin. You'd have to ban every 1-2 drop infect creature, every manadork, every ritual, and at least a hundred combo cards to stop turn 3 wins from ever possibly happening. What you are suggesting would warp the format more than eliminating the banned list entirely would. It is never going to happen. I am sorry Bocephus, but if this is how you feel, Modern is not the format for you. Either put up with the possibility that your opponent has a Melira, Kitchen Finks, and Viscera Seer in their hands and that you might not draw into any of your disruption, or quit the game. What you want is not what Wizards wants, nor is it what any other Modern players want. Accept that the format is like this and will never change, or quit the format. I really don't care which.
Scavenging ooze does NOT need to be banned. Hatebears decks that don't have access to DrS needed it. There's no reason to continue to cause collateral damage to Tier 2/3 decks by torpedoing cards in the tier 1 decks. Case in point, Seething Song. What we needed was more Storm hate and a meta adjustment (Underplayed cards like Thalia, Mindbreak Trap, Spell Pierce, Surgical Extraction, contrary to popular belief, STILL EXIST)
I will quit this format for good if any more of these ridiculous bans occur. The solution is to print cards like they used to back in Mirrodin / Ravnica blocks, with modern in mind (especially Enchantments, Artifacts, instants and sorceries which have all taken a backseat to creatures), and start taking RISKS that standard might *GASP* get a combo deck or something unexpected besides aggro and midrange!!!
I'm so pleased to see someone else say that. I get the reading-the-forums equivalent of feeling funny looks whenever I make the suggestion. Deathrite Shaman isn't the problem. All year long (since the BBE banning), DRS has been available to Jund and Jund has done absolutely nothing.
The other side is that DRS doesn't completely invalidate graveyard-based strategies while Scooze does.
Just think back to the discussion before the BBE bannings. It seemed from my point of view that while there were a lot of people advocating for BBE to get banned, DRS came up much more. They decided against DRS...and BBE went away and left Jund a very manageable shell of itself.
So it is now. After Brisbane, that's 9 GBx decks in the last two Modern GP top 8's, and unless things change in the next couple of GP's, something in Jund is begging to go. We already know that Jund isn't much even if it has DRS. We also know that there are other decks that use DRS (Melira Pod, Burn, the occasional BW Tokens deck, etc.) and that Wizards tries to respond to a single deck dominating by banning cards that only affect that deck.
Scavenging Ooze has turned a deck with no recent success back into a monster singlehandedly. It's oppressive in the metagame because it completely prevents the rise of any strategy that's based on the graveyard, given its wide main deck use. It isn't used in any other deck for any real purpose (other than the occasional one-of in a Pod list, but it was notably absent in the GP Detroit-winning list even then). Scooze has to go.
I used to believe this. But looking back, the Seething Song banned killed not just UR Storm, but also Ritual Gifts, Enduring Ideal, Hive Mind, and Dragonstorm. I think that DRS or Scooze should be banned, but if we are aiming for not killing other decks, then Liliana of the Veil or Dark Confidant would be the best choices.
I used to believe this. But looking back, the Seething Song banned killed not just UR Storm, but also Ritual Gifts, Enduring Ideal, Hive Mind, and Dragonstorm. I think that DRS or Scooze should be banned, but if we are aiming for not killing other decks, then Liliana of the Veil or Dark Confidant would be the best choices.
You are talking about fringe decks being killed, not other T1 or T1.5 decks. Its not a great loss to the format. Much rather have them sacrifice those fringe decks in a banning to reign in a powerful deck.
You are talking about fringe decks being killed, not other T1 or T1.5 decks. Its not a great loss to the format. Much rather have them sacrifice those fringe decks in a banning to reign in a powerful deck.
And tier 2 decks don't count? Merfolk, Griselbrand Reanimator, Storm, Soul Sisters, the Zoo decks, Hatebears, and Death and Taxes, among others, are tier 2. Would you ban 2 of those out of the format (using Wizard's speed reasons, not your imaginary ones) to stop Jund (ignoring the fact that you want Jund to be the best deck in the format)? People could have played Mindbreak Trap, Thalia, Leyline of Sanctity, Rule of Law, Rest in Peace, and many others, but Wizards never gave them the chance to do so after BBE was banned. They just banned 5 tier 1-2.5 decks out of the format with a single ban. That is not how it should work.
And tier 2 decks don't count? Merfolk, Griselbrand Reanimator, Storm, Soul Sisters, the Zoo decks, Hatebears, and Death and Taxes, among others, are tier 2. Would you ban 2 of those out of the format (using Wizard's speed reasons, not your imaginary ones) to stop Jund (ignoring the fact that you want Jund to be the best deck in the format)? People could have played Mindbreak Trap, Thalia, Leyline of Sanctity, Rule of Law, Rest in Peace, and many others, but Wizards never gave them the chance to do so after BBE was banned. They just banned 5 tier 1-2.5 decks out of the format with a single ban. That is not how it should work.
You miss read what I wrote, I said they didnt kill other T1.5 decks. The decks they killed were fringe decks. I wouldnt even consider the list you listed as T3. (just to be clear, this list, 'but also Ritual Gifts, Enduring Ideal, Hive Mind, and Dragonstorm'.) You rarely if ever saw them in top level competitive play.
You miss read what I wrote, I said they didnt kill other T1.5 decks. The decks they killed were fringe decks. I wouldnt even consider the list you listed as T3. (just to be clear, this list, 'but also Ritual Gifts, Enduring Ideal, Hive Mind, and Dragonstorm'.) You rarely if ever saw them in top level competitive play.
I'd say that Dragonstorm and Hive Mind were more common back then than Mono-Black Control and Grixis Control are now.
1) if you're running green (seemingly regardless of archetype) and you're not running goyf, you're seen as "doing it wrong". A legitimate modern control decklist, subbing out 'goyf for more synergistic considerations was immediately trash-talked and said to be a "budget list" and therefore not worthy of consideration. It's just a vanilla beater, but people are so brainwashed into jamming it into everything that they refuse to see good deckbuilding when it comes along. This is unhealthy for the game.
The purpose of banning is not to teach people good deck-building heuristics.
There have been some questions about why we do not allow users to discuss dramatically increasing the size of the banlist.
In the past, this has led to very spammy, unconstructive discussions that consist of 1 or 2 users defending banning cards like Fling and everyone else arguing back. To avoid this, we prohibit this kind of discussion. The OP has been updated with a few sentences to clarify this. In general, it is okay to discuss bans on...
Cards that are consistently violating the turn 4 rule in top-tier decks (e.g. Seething Song)
Cards that are part of oppressive decks (e.g. Bloodbraid Elf)
Cards that are causing logistical issues at events (e.g. Second Sunrise
Like with most MTGS rules, it just comes down to common sense and good judgment. We have tried to be a lot more lenient in the thread, but this one line of discussion is not getting allowed. If you have any questions, please feel free to message me.
You are talking about fringe decks being killed, not other T1 or T1.5 decks. Its not a great loss to the format. Much rather have them sacrifice those fringe decks in a banning to reign in a powerful deck.
If the decks were only tier 2 or worse, then they weren't really killed, were they? Being killed means the deck was made non-competitive, but if the decks weren't competitive in the first place, then they haven't really changed, have they?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Things WotC cares about:
-making certain Standard cards can be played in Modern, therefore increasing their value and increasing WotC's profit margin
Things WotC does not care about:
-keeping the ban list as short as possible
-taking chances with an entire format for the benefit of a single card
-catering to play styles that newer players generally don't like and will lose them more players than it will gain
-keeping the meta balanced between archetypes/colors/whatever
-keeping cards on the secondary market cheap (available yes, but not cheap)
-keeping the meta diverse (as long as a single deck doesn't threaten the popularity of the format)
"Tarmogoyf is too expensive" is an argument for reprinting, not banning. If Wizards banned cards for being too expensive, the secondary market would be nonexistent.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
These days, some wizards are finding they have a little too much deck left at the end of their $$$.
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
Tldr; i don't think it's too powerful. I think it's too pervasive. People have formed a weird pseudo-indoctrinated view of this card like it's the only choice if you're playing green, regardless of what deck you're building. Even where it doesn't really fit, people jam it in there and when someone decides to drop it for something more synergistic, they are berated for making "budget decisions
So you want to ban it in order to protect people from their own biased (and wrong in your opinion) views on the card? Why? If you know better than them...prove it. Use that information advantage to your advantage.
The reality is that if you are right, and it really is getting overplayed in Modern, then eventually the format will figure that out. If you are wrong, and it is getting played a ton because it is just that good...then maybe it should be banned. [/quote]
you can tell this guy already has Goyfs lol.
Posted from MTGsalvation.com App for Android
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: U Merfolk | GR Tron | WUR Jeskai Control | WBG Abzan Company
"While the rest of the format is quite diverse, the dominance of Jund is making it less so overall. The DCI looked to ban a card. We wanted a card that top players consistently played four copies of in Jund, but ideally was less played in other top Modern decks. That would give the best chance of creating a more balanced metagame. The card that best fits our criteria is Bloodbraid Elf."
I think they chose Bloodbraid Elf because of the color. Previously there is Jund and Jund splash X. No diversity in the BG shell. Now we have BG Rock, BGw Spirit Rock, Jund-ra, A-Jund-i because there is no Bloodbraid Elf demanding you to play R in BGx shell. While they are of the same BG shell, they have different playstyle and different strengths and weaknesses.
I think it's the same reasoning with the Nacatl ban. They don't want everyone playing Naya Aggro because of Nacatl's land requirements.
If the decks were only tier 2 or worse, then they weren't really killed, were they? Being killed means the deck was made non-competitive, but if the decks weren't competitive in the first place, then they haven't really changed, have they?
Could not agree more. People are upset that decks that were rarely if ever seen in competitive events were shut down because of a ban.
Tarmogoyf should not be banned. However, if Wizards really wants to make Modern the eternal format of choice, it should be reprinted in reasonable quantities to drive the price down to about $50 or so. I can certainly afford them and have owned two playsets in the past, but I refuse to play a format (except Legacy) in which the barrier to entry is so high.
Tarmogoyf is very pervasive in Top 8s, however, especially when half the decks are a Jund variant of some sort.
I could see a case for fetchlands being banned besides "I can't afford them"...
While they have gone through bannings and unbannings, there have been plenty of cards that have been banned due to the fact that they slow the progression of matches to a crawl- Sensei's Divining Top, Land Tax, Thawing Glaciers, Shahrazad.
With most "proven" decks running 8+ fetchlands, the resolution of them is enough to considerably slow down the format. (while also paradoxically speeding it up. Go figure.)
Tarmagoyf, however, doesn't even have such a point to consider. It's cheap to play and grows big and dumb. That's it.
I used to believe this. But looking back, the Seething Song banned killed not just UR Storm, but also Ritual Gifts, Enduring Ideal, Hive Mind, and Dragonstorm. I think that DRS or Scooze should be banned, but if we are aiming for not killing other decks, then Liliana of the Veil or Dark Confidant would be the best choices.
I actually changed the wording of the text you highlighted before I submitted, away from something more definitive like "Wizards only bans cards that are only used by the oppressive deck." It's clearly not the case, though I do believe that's what they try to do.
None of the decks that you listed were anywhere near top-tier at the time, and it could even be argued that Seething Song allowed decks like Hive Mind to potentially win before turn 4 as well. For that reason, particularly in light of the fact that the Seething Song ban came at the same time as the Bloodbraid Elf ban that did satisfy that stricture (and that stricture was specifically cited by Wizards as a reason why BBE in particular was banned instead of some other card), I still think my statement that they try to do it that way is accurate.
The idea of the post was to try to divine what might get banned based on Wizards' own stated intentions, and I think those intentions preclude the banning of Deathrite Shaman no matter how successful they are in actually doing it the way they say they want to.
Since the discussion is hinged on Modern, I'm going to move this thread there. Modern moderators, if there is an appropriate stickied thread covering this topic, feel free to merge/redirect/close this one.
I think more creatures should be created to compete with it in deck slots. Additionally, more maindeckable cards that hate on it in some fashion. And that's what's steadily happening.
Scavenging Ooze is an example of both. Deathrite has the hate down, and Spellskite in a Doran deck offers extra utility.
What we really need is more powerful 2 drop creatures in green. Especially a Treefolk somewhere...
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
Wizards painted themselves into a corner with tarmo in modern. I'm sure they wish it was on modern's original banlist. Now their only way out is more reprints. They're gonna keep including tarmo and bob in MM at mythic rarity till it bleeds. After all, that's what is gonna sell their MM product, right?
Instead of banning more, they should unban some cards so that the format isn't warped around GB/x good stuff. The control decks in the format are barely viable.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory." - Murray Rothbard, Cited from "War, Peace, and the State"
I agree. Before the BBE ban we had no diversity as it was BRG Jund and BRGw Jund.
Having more BGx decks is better.
However the format is still far from perfect but a ban isn't the solution IMO.
WotC should create new powerful cards not to be auto-included in Jund, such as Ux or Wx, especially 2-drop creatures as efficient as 'goyf and Scooze to give incentive to play non-green decks.
So your plan is to narrow Standard to help Modern?
The power level should not be played with until they straighten out the format. Bringing more powerful cards into a format that is having a problem now, is never the answer. Just think for a minute what the card would have to be or do that a GB shell can not take care of it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Except the meta had adjusted to DRS and the BGx shell was being kept in check by decks like Pod and RWU. Once Ooze hit the meta, it boosted the BGx shell back to T0.
So you think Llanowar Elves should be banned because it enable turn 2 Deciever Exarch and turn 3 Splinter Twin. You'd have to ban every 1-2 drop infect creature, every manadork, every ritual, and at least a hundred combo cards to stop turn 3 wins from ever possibly happening. What you are suggesting would warp the format more than eliminating the banned list entirely would. It is never going to happen. I am sorry Bocephus, but if this is how you feel, Modern is not the format for you. Either put up with the possibility that your opponent has a Melira, Kitchen Finks, and Viscera Seer in their hands and that you might not draw into any of your disruption, or quit the game. What you want is not what Wizards wants, nor is it what any other Modern players want. Accept that the format is like this and will never change, or quit the format. I really don't care which.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
I will quit this format for good if any more of these ridiculous bans occur. The solution is to print cards like they used to back in Mirrodin / Ravnica blocks, with modern in mind (especially Enchantments, Artifacts, instants and sorceries which have all taken a backseat to creatures), and start taking RISKS that standard might *GASP* get a combo deck or something unexpected besides aggro and midrange!!!
I used to believe this. But looking back, the Seething Song banned killed not just UR Storm, but also Ritual Gifts, Enduring Ideal, Hive Mind, and Dragonstorm. I think that DRS or Scooze should be banned, but if we are aiming for not killing other decks, then Liliana of the Veil or Dark Confidant would be the best choices.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
You are talking about fringe decks being killed, not other T1 or T1.5 decks. Its not a great loss to the format. Much rather have them sacrifice those fringe decks in a banning to reign in a powerful deck.
And tier 2 decks don't count? Merfolk, Griselbrand Reanimator, Storm, Soul Sisters, the Zoo decks, Hatebears, and Death and Taxes, among others, are tier 2. Would you ban 2 of those out of the format (using Wizard's speed reasons, not your imaginary ones) to stop Jund (ignoring the fact that you want Jund to be the best deck in the format)? People could have played Mindbreak Trap, Thalia, Leyline of Sanctity, Rule of Law, Rest in Peace, and many others, but Wizards never gave them the chance to do so after BBE was banned. They just banned 5 tier 1-2.5 decks out of the format with a single ban. That is not how it should work.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
You miss read what I wrote, I said they didnt kill other T1.5 decks. The decks they killed were fringe decks. I wouldnt even consider the list you listed as T3. (just to be clear, this list, 'but also Ritual Gifts, Enduring Ideal, Hive Mind, and Dragonstorm'.) You rarely if ever saw them in top level competitive play.
I'd say that Dragonstorm and Hive Mind were more common back then than Mono-Black Control and Grixis Control are now.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
The purpose of banning is not to teach people good deck-building heuristics.
In the past, this has led to very spammy, unconstructive discussions that consist of 1 or 2 users defending banning cards like Fling and everyone else arguing back. To avoid this, we prohibit this kind of discussion. The OP has been updated with a few sentences to clarify this. In general, it is okay to discuss bans on...
- Cards that are consistently violating the turn 4 rule in top-tier decks (e.g. Seething Song)
- Cards that are part of oppressive decks (e.g. Bloodbraid Elf)
- Cards that are causing logistical issues at events (e.g. Second Sunrise
And it is not okay to discuss bans on...- Cards that violate the turn 4 rule but are obviously neither consistent nor top-tier. Examples include Immolating Souleater, Assault Strobe, Tainted Strike, Freed from the Real, Archive Trap, etc.
Like with most MTGS rules, it just comes down to common sense and good judgment. We have tried to be a lot more lenient in the thread, but this one line of discussion is not getting allowed. If you have any questions, please feel free to message me.If the decks were only tier 2 or worse, then they weren't really killed, were they? Being killed means the deck was made non-competitive, but if the decks weren't competitive in the first place, then they haven't really changed, have they?
-making certain Standard cards can be played in Modern, therefore increasing their value and increasing WotC's profit margin
Things WotC does not care about:
-keeping the ban list as short as possible
-taking chances with an entire format for the benefit of a single card
-catering to play styles that newer players generally don't like and will lose them more players than it will gain
-keeping the meta balanced between archetypes/colors/whatever
-keeping cards on the secondary market cheap (available yes, but not cheap)
-keeping the meta diverse (as long as a single deck doesn't threaten the popularity of the format)
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
I think most would agree mostly because it kills alot of fun/cool decks like Gifts, Dredge and assault loam.
My trade thread: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=10853611#post10853611
So you want to ban it in order to protect people from their own biased (and wrong in your opinion) views on the card? Why? If you know better than them...prove it. Use that information advantage to your advantage.
The reality is that if you are right, and it really is getting overplayed in Modern, then eventually the format will figure that out. If you are wrong, and it is getting played a ton because it is just that good...then maybe it should be banned. [/quote]
you can tell this guy already has Goyfs lol.
Posted from MTGsalvation.com App for Android
U Merfolk | GR Tron | WUR Jeskai Control | WBG Abzan Company
EDH:
G Ezuri, Renegade Leader, Fighting for Rivendell
WU Brago, King Eternal, Long Live the King
WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon, Worship the Dragon
"While the rest of the format is quite diverse, the dominance of Jund is making it less so overall. The DCI looked to ban a card. We wanted a card that top players consistently played four copies of in Jund, but ideally was less played in other top Modern decks. That would give the best chance of creating a more balanced metagame. The card that best fits our criteria is Bloodbraid Elf."
I think they chose Bloodbraid Elf because of the color. Previously there is Jund and Jund splash X. No diversity in the BG shell. Now we have BG Rock, BGw Spirit Rock, Jund-ra, A-Jund-i because there is no Bloodbraid Elf demanding you to play R in BGx shell. While they are of the same BG shell, they have different playstyle and different strengths and weaknesses.
I think it's the same reasoning with the Nacatl ban. They don't want everyone playing Naya Aggro because of Nacatl's land requirements.
UWR Midrange
BRG Jund
BG Rock
UR Storm
The Philippine Modern Community
RGWUB MTG Modern Philippines
Could not agree more. People are upset that decks that were rarely if ever seen in competitive events were shut down because of a ban.
Tarmogoyf is very pervasive in Top 8s, however, especially when half the decks are a Jund variant of some sort.
While they have gone through bannings and unbannings, there have been plenty of cards that have been banned due to the fact that they slow the progression of matches to a crawl- Sensei's Divining Top, Land Tax, Thawing Glaciers, Shahrazad.
With most "proven" decks running 8+ fetchlands, the resolution of them is enough to considerably slow down the format. (while also paradoxically speeding it up. Go figure.)
Tarmagoyf, however, doesn't even have such a point to consider. It's cheap to play and grows big and dumb. That's it.
I actually changed the wording of the text you highlighted before I submitted, away from something more definitive like "Wizards only bans cards that are only used by the oppressive deck." It's clearly not the case, though I do believe that's what they try to do.
None of the decks that you listed were anywhere near top-tier at the time, and it could even be argued that Seething Song allowed decks like Hive Mind to potentially win before turn 4 as well. For that reason, particularly in light of the fact that the Seething Song ban came at the same time as the Bloodbraid Elf ban that did satisfy that stricture (and that stricture was specifically cited by Wizards as a reason why BBE in particular was banned instead of some other card), I still think my statement that they try to do it that way is accurate.
The idea of the post was to try to divine what might get banned based on Wizards' own stated intentions, and I think those intentions preclude the banning of Deathrite Shaman no matter how successful they are in actually doing it the way they say they want to.
GBW Melira Pod WBG
BW Tokens WB
[GTC] Gatecrash Patch for MWS (249/249)
I think more creatures should be created to compete with it in deck slots. Additionally, more maindeckable cards that hate on it in some fashion. And that's what's steadily happening.
Scavenging Ooze is an example of both. Deathrite has the hate down, and Spellskite in a Doran deck offers extra utility.
What we really need is more powerful 2 drop creatures in green. Especially a Treefolk somewhere...
"OH GOD MY BRAIN IS EXPLOADING AT HOW BAD THE ART IS ON MY OWN CARD"
-A friend's first impression of Ancestral Recall
10/10, I tapped.
Cardsphere MTG Draft Simulator
Cardsphere Blog - Original Content
So your plan is to narrow Standard to help Modern?
The power level should not be played with until they straighten out the format. Bringing more powerful cards into a format that is having a problem now, is never the answer. Just think for a minute what the card would have to be or do that a GB shell can not take care of it.