I just don't understand what is going to keep Snapcaster Mage from getting the banhammer if the DRS reasoning sticks. If you're not playing counterspells of some sort the mage is just a back breaker, causing 2 for 1's all over the place, enabling counterspells itself and effectively giving blue decks extra everything in the midgame, which is where they take over and dominate anyway.
It just doesn't make sense that you'd ban a card for the health of the meta while leaving a bunch of other cards out there that are at least as aggravating to play against if you can't specifically answer them.
So Jund was nasty but not dominant. Now UWR will be nasty and hopefully not dominant. Meddling with a meta is risky business.
I'm not entirely sure where this whole "Jund was nasty but not dominant" mentality comes from. At the time of DRS's banning, it was still the most played deck on MTGO and by far the most played deck at Grand Prix events over the last 3-4 months. Although the MTGO BGx prevalence was lower now than it was in September, the deck's overall metagame share was still quite high. Paper events weren't much better, with BGx still the clear frontrunner. Indeed, its overrepresentation in the GP T8/T16 suggests that the deck was a lot better than lots of players admitted or knew. Instead of succumbing and playing BGx, people either played other stuff willingly just out of boredom. Alternately, they might have played other stuff because they didn't realize just how good BGx was. The worry was that the pros, who are about to go into the Modern PT soon, probably did realize how good BGx was and were unlikely to play much else.
This ban is, most of all, a publicity move (or stunt, depending on how you view it). Wizards wants Modern to appear more attractive and more diverse. Most of us know that it's a great format with a lot of decks, but it has always suffered from perception issues. Yes, this is mostly because of Wizards mismanagement more than anything else, and most of it has to do with bans. But banning a card that is part of a boring, dominant shell is a good way to increase metagame diversity. Add in 2 unbans and you are on track for a format with a lot more competitive strategies. The timing around the upcoming PT is not a coincidence. If that PT has tons of awesome decks, then that's a huge public relations win for Wizards and Modern. But if it was all BGx all the time, that look just bad.
I just don't understand what is going to keep Snapcaster Mage from getting the banhammer if the DRS reasoning sticks. If you're not playing counterspells of some sort the mage is just a back breaker, causing 2 for 1's all over the place, enabling counterspells itself and effectively giving blue decks extra everything in the midgame, which is where they take over and dominate anyway.
It just doesn't make sense that you'd ban a card for the health of the meta while leaving a bunch of other cards out there that are at least as aggravating to play against if you can't specifically answer them.
So Jund was nasty but not dominant. Now UWR will be nasty and hopefully not dominant. Meddling with a meta is risky business.
I'm not entirely sure where this whole "Jund was nasty but not dominant" mentality comes from. At the time of DRS's banning, it was still the most played deck on MTGO and by far the most played deck at Grand Prix events over the last 3-4 months. Although the MTGO BGx prevalence was lower now than it was in September, the deck's overall metagame share was still quite high. Paper events weren't much better, with BGx still the clear frontrunner. Indeed, its overrepresentation in the GP T8/T16 suggests that the deck was a lot better than lots of players admitted or knew. Instead of succumbing and playing BGx, people either played other stuff willingly just out of boredom. Alternately, they might have played other stuff because they didn't realize just how good BGx was. The worry was that the pros, who are about to go into the Modern PT soon, probably did realize how good BGx was and were unlikely to play much else.
This ban is, most of all, a publicity move (or stunt, depending on how you view it). Wizards wants Modern to appear more attractive and more diverse. Most of us know that it's a great format with a lot of decks, but it has always suffered from perception issues. Yes, this is mostly because of Wizards mismanagement more than anything else, and most of it has to do with bans. But banning a card that is part of a boring, dominant shell is a good way to increase metagame diversity. Add in 2 unbans and you are on track for a format with a lot more competitive strategies. The timing around the upcoming PT is not a coincidence. If that PT has tons of awesome decks, then that's a huge public relations win for Wizards and Modern. But if it was all BGx all the time, that look just bad.
I guess that this makes sense. I don't think that DRS needed a ban, but BGx really was a boring deck that had the potential to be dominant. A Bloodbraid Elf unban would be nice, but what I really think that the format needs is either a Sword of the Meek or a Chrome Mox unban. Both of these would help contain Zoo, which is something that I think the format needs.
Ill bring this up later tonight, but I want to bring up a point right now that I am actually SHOCKED has not been brought up before, even though it is brought up TONS in legacy discussions...
Excluding cards banned for change in ownership reasons, how many creatures are banned in legacy? 3...3 creatures from all of magic, and they are: Worldgorger Dragon: A card that can cause turn 1 infinite mana, and pretty easily by turn 2... Hermit Druid: Again, can combo on turn 1, and easily by turn 2... Goblin Recruiter: Probably the least broken of the above and might have come off the banlist if it weren't for Cavern of Souls...
Now, in modern, a format that is waaaaaay slower than legacy and creature removal is used far more often than in legacy because of that slow nature, how many creatures are banned? 4...4 creatures in a format where dealing with creatures is far far far easier. It must be because they enable some ridiculous combo'ing and guaranteed wins when they hit the board. For a creature, something that can die to damage, or PtE, or black removal, or blocking, or anything, these creatures must have some insane abilities that say: You win the game...
Stoneforge Mystic: Well, it lets you get batterskull, and if they have NO removal for stoneforge mystic since you tapped out and can't counter anything then you can play the batterskull on turn 3 which will allow you to win by turn 8 by itself if they have no way to destroy artifacts. This is pretty powerful and doesn't allow for TONS of interaction I guess... Golgari Grave-Troll: This card essentially lets you dredge an extra 3 cards, which might push dredge over the top and allow them to get a bunch of Narcomoebas or creatures with Bridge from Below since Dread Return is banned. I guess that might make dredge really really good. Honestly, this guy acts more like a spell than a creature, as you can't really remove him to deal with him. Bloodbraid Elf: On turn 4, or, HOLY COW, maybe even turn 3 this card lets you swing for 3 and play a random spell form your deck for free. Most decks can't come back from a 3/2 attacker AND a bolt/blighting to the face, not to mention if they happen to flip over liliana. The real strength of this card lies in that spell you flip, but since flipping over half the cards in your deck won't be some crazy swing, don't think it is completely ridiculously overpowered. Deathrite Shaman: Now if there is a creature in modern that deserves a ban, it is clearly this guy. What most people don't realize is that if you play this guy on turn 1 with a fetchland, you get to use him to RAMP turn 2 into a Liliana 100% of the time. Even crazier, you can exile a card from your opponent's graveyard so they can't use graveyard recursion, only problem is you can't ramp when you do that, and it actually TAKES one of your mana to do it. But if your opponent can't remove this guy with literally ANY removal spell that is played in modern, he can also do 2 damage a turn to your opponent, almost like he is a creature. Totally ban worthy.
Now I get that I'm oversimplifying things, but the point I was trying to make is that creature bans should only really happen if there is no other alternative. Standard has also only ever banned 3 creatures in its history. The only time a creature sees a ban is if it can't be dealt with soon enough to the point where once it hits, you lose. DRS isn't anywhere close to that. It is lazy as can be for Wizards to ban a creature, the easiest type of card in magic to deal with, because it could do more than ramp. Not only that, but at early stages of the game, 1 or 2 of DRS abilities are turned off for lack of a spell/creature/land in the GY.
If they are resorting to banning creatures in modern, the format that is most centered around creature removal, then they are doing something wrong.
Ill bring this up later tonight, but I want to bring up a point right now that I am actually SHOCKED has not been brought up before, even though it is brought up TONS in legacy discussions...
Excluding cards banned for change in ownership reasons, how many creatures are banned in legacy? 3...3 creatures from all of magic, and they are: Worldgorger Dragon: A card that can cause turn 1 infinite mana, and pretty easily by turn 2... Hermit Druid: Again, can combo on turn 1, and easily by turn 2... Goblin Recruiter: Probably the least broken of the above and might have come off the banlist if it weren't for Cavern of Souls...
Now, in modern, a format that is waaaaaay slower than legacy and creature removal is used far more often than in legacy because of that slow nature, how many creatures are banned? 4...4 creatures in a format where dealing with creatures is far far far easier. It must be because they enable some ridiculous combo'ing and guaranteed wins when they hit the board. For a creature, something that can die to damage, or PtE, or black removal, or blocking, or anything, these creatures must have some insane abilities that say: You win the game...
Stoneforge Mystic: Well, it lets you get batterskull, and if they have NO removal for stoneforge mystic since you tapped out and can't counter anything then you can play the batterskull on turn 3 which will allow you to win by turn 8 by itself if they have no way to destroy artifacts. This is pretty powerful and doesn't allow for TONS of interaction I guess... Golgari Grave-Troll: This card essentially lets you dredge an extra 3 cards, which might push dredge over the top and allow them to get a bunch of Narcomoebas or creatures with Bridge from Below since Dread Return is banned. I guess that might make dredge really really good. Honestly, this guy acts more like a spell than a creature, as you can't really remove him to deal with him. Bloodbraid Elf: On turn 4, or, HOLY COW, maybe even turn 3 this card lets you swing for 3 and play a random spell form your deck for free. Most decks can't come back from a 3/2 attacker AND a bolt/blighting to the face, not to mention if they happen to flip over liliana. The real strength of this card lies in that spell you flip, but since flipping over half the cards in your deck won't be some crazy swing, don't think it is completely ridiculously overpowered. Deathrite Shaman: Now if there is a creature in modern that deserves a ban, it is clearly this guy. What most people don't realize is that if you play this guy on turn 1 with a fetchland, you get to use him to RAMP turn 2 into a Liliana 100% of the time. Even crazier, you can exile a card from your opponent's graveyard so they can't use graveyard recursion, only problem is you can't ramp when you do that, and it actually TAKES one of your mana to do it. But if your opponent can't remove this guy with literally ANY removal spell that is played in modern, he can also do 2 damage a turn to your opponent, almost like he is a creature. Totally ban worthy.
Now I get that I'm oversimplifying things, but the point I was trying to make is that creature bans should only really happen if there is no other alternative. Standard has also only ever banned 3 creatures in its history. The only time a creature sees a ban is if it can't be dealt with soon enough to the point where once it hits, you lose. DRS isn't anywhere close to that. It is lazy as can be for Wizards to ban a creature, the easiest type of card in magic to deal with, because it could do more than ramp. Not only that, but at early stages of the game, 1 or 2 of DRS abilities are turned off for lack of a spell/creature/land in the GY.
If they are resorting to banning creatures in modern, the format that is most centered around creature removal, then they are doing something wrong.
Because allowing Bloodbraid Elf and DRS both back into the format would be a great idea that definately wouldn't allow Jund to dominate...
Please don't imply that being a creature doesn't matter, as it completely does. Creatures that have their effects while on the battlefield can be responded to by being removed. Spells can only be countered, which requires your opponent to have mana open on your turn. For a creature to be banned, it needs to have abilities strong enough that allow your opponent to take complete control of the game within 2 turns, because otherwise, your opponent should be able to get rid of them. I think it encourages extremely lazy game play to ban a creature because it is "respond, or lose" because that is true for plenty of creatures.
Please don't imply that being a creature doesn't matter, as it completely does. Creatures that have their effects while on the battlefield can be responded to by being removed. Spells can only be countered, which requires your opponent to have mana open on your turn. For a creature to be banned, it needs to have abilities strong enough that allow your opponent to take complete control of the game within 2 turns, because otherwise, your opponent should be able to get rid of them. I think it encourages extremely lazy game play to ban a creature because it is "respond, or lose" because that is true for plenty of creatures.
So what would you have banned from Jund last year? Thoughtseize? Liliana of the Veil?
Spells can be discarded, and there is a big difference between spells and creatures, creatures are permanets and their abilities can be used more than once, spells are just one shot.
Please don't imply that being a creature doesn't matter, as it completely does. Creatures that have their effects while on the battlefield can be responded to by being removed. Spells can only be countered, which requires your opponent to have mana open on your turn. For a creature to be banned, it needs to have abilities strong enough that allow your opponent to take complete control of the game within 2 turns, because otherwise, your opponent should be able to get rid of them. I think it encourages extremely lazy game play to ban a creature because it is "respond, or lose" because that is true for plenty of creatures.
Whenever anyone makes such a blanket statement as this, I am always forced to take it to its extreme to see if it holds up. Because if you take it to the extreme, and the extreme proves false, then the premise itself is false.
If Wizards were to print a 20/2 doublestrike, trample, lifelink creature at 1cmc, you'd be okay with that being allowed in the format? It can be dealt with just as easily as DRS. All the removal that works on one would work on the other. So by your reasoning that it's a low health creature with no immediate impact on the game, it can't be a problem.
For a creature to be banned, it needs to have abilities strong enough that allow your opponent to take complete control of the game within 2 turns
.
In modern, you could argue that this is the case for Stoneforge and even, by a stretch, BBE and GGT...but definitely not DRS.
And I guess the best example to illustrate my point is: If Bitterblossom were a 2/2 creature for two mana that said "At the beginning of your upkeep, lose 1 life and put a 1/1 flying faerie rogue onto the battlefield," would anyone care? The answer is no, no one at all would care.
Sorry, what I meant by care is would decks care anymore about strategizing against it, or would it be just another card. The fact that bitterblossom is an enchantment is what makes it so powerful, that is undeniable. Take UWR midrange for example. They have 0 spells mainboard that can deal with a resolved bitterblossom. They would have 14 spells mainboard that could deal with a resolved "creature" bitterblossom. Zoo would have 12 spells mainboard. Jund would go from having 4 spells to 10 spells. Tron would go from 4 spells to 8. Delver from 0 to 7. Splinter twin from 0 to 9.
If bitterblossom were a 2/2 creature with flying and flash, it would maybe not even see play in faeries, but might be a 1 or 2 of...as it stands now, a non-creature, it is the only thing that makes the deck really work.
I can understand people wanting DRS banned, but if anyone is actually arguing that being a creature isn't a serious hindrance for a card, then that is just silly...
If Phyrexian Arena cost 1 black less, despite the fact that you could never attack with it, it would be as good, if not better (albeit very different) than Bob. That is saying a lot...
@wrduardo: Dude seriously stop making up your own arbitrary rules as to what is broken to 'prove' DRS does not break them. That is not how it works. Also in modern there is no fast combo to keep the slower creature (fair) decks in check. Therefore stronger creature decks have more room to be oppressive. Comparing the legacy and modern banlist does not work.
Just for completeness sake, Worldgorger is generally agreed to be banned due to the auto draw condition. For example reanimating a grizzlebee t1 enables a kill on the spot usually, with more redundancy.
Hermit druid is banned for being a one card combo (sort of like gasp SFM, obviously they are not on the same power level).
Recruiter is more iffy, maybe it pushes gobbos over the edge, but it also is a logistic reason.
What part of its a mana dork that is also a great top deck do you not understand? WOTC is entitled to correct their mistakes. It's not like they could foresee every implication of the card years later in Modern. Card is deemed inappropriate for the format. Get used to it.
Let's skip the fact that you don't even address my argument at all and instead reiterate what amounts to nothing beyond "get used to it."
What mistake are they exactly correcting here? BGx hasn't won a GP since before BBE was banned, and DRS was hardly warping the format, so where exactly is the justification of the ban? What, are you saying it was banned because it was popular? Care to address the points I and Koopa made in regards to the ban?
And you can drop the tough ***** attitude. It's not going to garner you anything in an argument other than the dismissal of what you would call an opinion.
If Bitterblossom were a flying flash 2/2 that still poops out tokens, it'd be the best bear ever and Faeries would spam it even more.
They (the player opposite the Faerie driver) would have to answer it on their end step or else it at least replaces itself with a token, you're overvaluing its ability to be answered.
Hell, there's a gem right there: just because it can be answered doesn't make a card safe.
Have you ever just failed to draw into removal? Sometimes it happens, it comes with the territory of card games being randomized.
Right, but the difference is, against an enchantment, you ALWAYS fail to draw into removal, versus against a creature that will happen occasionally. And it wouldn't even be close to the best bear ever, as I'd take voice over that any day as it replaces itself just as well, if not better and also hoses counter magic.
Pod would much rather Viscera Seer be a 1 mana enchantment. If Pod was a creature instead of an artifact, that deck doesn't even exist anymore. If Springleaf Drum as a creature, affinity would start running paradise mantle instead. Is that enough to show you the difference?
Again, these examples above do not mean that DRS isn't still too powerful, even though he is a creature, but holy cow if people are arguing that being a creature isn't an inherent drawback then you are just talking crazy...
Right, but the difference is, against an enchantment, you ALWAYS fail to draw into removal, versus against a creature that will happen occasionally. And it wouldn't even be close to the best bear ever, as I'd take voice over that any day as it replaces itself just as well, if not better and also hoses counter magic.
Pod would much rather Viscera Seer be a 1 mana enchantment. If Pod was a creature instead of an artifact, that deck doesn't even exist anymore. If Springleaf Drum as a creature, affinity would start running paradise mantle instead. Is that enough to show you the difference?
Again, these examples above do not mean that DRS isn't still too powerful, even though he is a creature, but holy cow if people are arguing that being a creature isn't an inherent drawback then you are just talking crazy...
Pretty sure Pod needs Viscera to be a critter otherwise it can't Pod/Chord it out.
Springleaf Drum, well you only have a point there because of summoning sickness, not fragility.
The thing is that being a creature isn't a strict positive or negative in a vacuum. Context is necessary to understand how much of an impact the critterness of a card is.
Though I think we can all agree there was no legitimate reason DRS had to be a 1/2.
You don't make a 1cmc value critter and then give it stats like that, there's a point where there's too much value and having a better-than-manadorks body is somewhere beyond that.
if DRS was a 0/1 with the same abilities, it wouldn't have been banned. i am convinced of that.
I really think "if you remove it, it has replaced itself" is a bad argument. that's what you call value, and good cards typically have that. that said, i don't want to argue this.
if bitterblossom was a sorcery speed 2/2 for 1B, it would definitely see less play. i agree with whoever said the fact it its difficult to answer is what makes it good. it also has a good effect on the meta game, because it forces a more diverse suite of cards to answer it (except for abrupt decay, because that card..). With everyone and their mom packing creature removal, its always good to see something come along that attacks on a different axis. think back to the pro tour where eggs won. the WUR control deck had almost no answers to eggs because it ran like 12+ pieces of creature removal. had it had more diverse answers, it would have been a much better match up.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I speak in sarcasm because calling people ******* ******** is not allowed.
I'm not entirely sure where this whole "Jund was nasty but not dominant" mentality comes from. At the time of DRS's banning, it was still the most played deck on MTGO and by far the most played deck at Grand Prix events over the last 3-4 months. Although the MTGO BGx prevalence was lower now than it was in September, the deck's overall metagame share was still quite high. Paper events weren't much better, with BGx still the clear frontrunner. Indeed, its overrepresentation in the GP T8/T16 suggests that the deck was a lot better than lots of players admitted or knew. Instead of succumbing and playing BGx, people either played other stuff willingly just out of boredom. Alternately, they might have played other stuff because they didn't realize just how good BGx was. The worry was that the pros, who are about to go into the Modern PT soon, probably did realize how good BGx was and were unlikely to play much else.
This ban is, most of all, a publicity move (or stunt, depending on how you view it). Wizards wants Modern to appear more attractive and more diverse. Most of us know that it's a great format with a lot of decks, but it has always suffered from perception issues. Yes, this is mostly because of Wizards mismanagement more than anything else, and most of it has to do with bans. But banning a card that is part of a boring, dominant shell is a good way to increase metagame diversity. Add in 2 unbans and you are on track for a format with a lot more competitive strategies. The timing around the upcoming PT is not a coincidence. If that PT has tons of awesome decks, then that's a huge public relations win for Wizards and Modern. But if it was all BGx all the time, that look just bad.
I guess that this makes sense. I don't think that DRS needed a ban, but BGx really was a boring deck that had the potential to be dominant. A Bloodbraid Elf unban would be nice, but what I really think that the format needs is either a Sword of the Meek or a Chrome Mox unban. Both of these would help contain Zoo, which is something that I think the format needs.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Excluding cards banned for change in ownership reasons, how many creatures are banned in legacy? 3...3 creatures from all of magic, and they are:
Worldgorger Dragon: A card that can cause turn 1 infinite mana, and pretty easily by turn 2...
Hermit Druid: Again, can combo on turn 1, and easily by turn 2...
Goblin Recruiter: Probably the least broken of the above and might have come off the banlist if it weren't for Cavern of Souls...
Now, in modern, a format that is waaaaaay slower than legacy and creature removal is used far more often than in legacy because of that slow nature, how many creatures are banned? 4...4 creatures in a format where dealing with creatures is far far far easier. It must be because they enable some ridiculous combo'ing and guaranteed wins when they hit the board. For a creature, something that can die to damage, or PtE, or black removal, or blocking, or anything, these creatures must have some insane abilities that say: You win the game...
Stoneforge Mystic: Well, it lets you get batterskull, and if they have NO removal for stoneforge mystic since you tapped out and can't counter anything then you can play the batterskull on turn 3 which will allow you to win by turn 8 by itself if they have no way to destroy artifacts. This is pretty powerful and doesn't allow for TONS of interaction I guess...
Golgari Grave-Troll: This card essentially lets you dredge an extra 3 cards, which might push dredge over the top and allow them to get a bunch of Narcomoebas or creatures with Bridge from Below since Dread Return is banned. I guess that might make dredge really really good. Honestly, this guy acts more like a spell than a creature, as you can't really remove him to deal with him.
Bloodbraid Elf: On turn 4, or, HOLY COW, maybe even turn 3 this card lets you swing for 3 and play a random spell form your deck for free. Most decks can't come back from a 3/2 attacker AND a bolt/blighting to the face, not to mention if they happen to flip over liliana. The real strength of this card lies in that spell you flip, but since flipping over half the cards in your deck won't be some crazy swing, don't think it is completely ridiculously overpowered.
Deathrite Shaman: Now if there is a creature in modern that deserves a ban, it is clearly this guy. What most people don't realize is that if you play this guy on turn 1 with a fetchland, you get to use him to RAMP turn 2 into a Liliana 100% of the time. Even crazier, you can exile a card from your opponent's graveyard so they can't use graveyard recursion, only problem is you can't ramp when you do that, and it actually TAKES one of your mana to do it. But if your opponent can't remove this guy with literally ANY removal spell that is played in modern, he can also do 2 damage a turn to your opponent, almost like he is a creature. Totally ban worthy.
Now I get that I'm oversimplifying things, but the point I was trying to make is that creature bans should only really happen if there is no other alternative. Standard has also only ever banned 3 creatures in its history. The only time a creature sees a ban is if it can't be dealt with soon enough to the point where once it hits, you lose. DRS isn't anywhere close to that. It is lazy as can be for Wizards to ban a creature, the easiest type of card in magic to deal with, because it could do more than ramp. Not only that, but at early stages of the game, 1 or 2 of DRS abilities are turned off for lack of a spell/creature/land in the GY.
If they are resorting to banning creatures in modern, the format that is most centered around creature removal, then they are doing something wrong.
Because allowing Bloodbraid Elf and DRS both back into the format would be a great idea that definately wouldn't allow Jund to dominate...
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
So what would you have banned from Jund last year? Thoughtseize? Liliana of the Veil?
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Whenever anyone makes such a blanket statement as this, I am always forced to take it to its extreme to see if it holds up. Because if you take it to the extreme, and the extreme proves false, then the premise itself is false.
If Wizards were to print a 20/2 doublestrike, trample, lifelink creature at 1cmc, you'd be okay with that being allowed in the format? It can be dealt with just as easily as DRS. All the removal that works on one would work on the other. So by your reasoning that it's a low health creature with no immediate impact on the game, it can't be a problem.
.
In modern, you could argue that this is the case for Stoneforge and even, by a stretch, BBE and GGT...but definitely not DRS.
And I guess the best example to illustrate my point is: If Bitterblossom were a 2/2 creature for two mana that said "At the beginning of your upkeep, lose 1 life and put a 1/1 flying faerie rogue onto the battlefield," would anyone care? The answer is no, no one at all would care.
1) suddenly BB is easier to turn off when necessary.
2) BB-bear swings in for damage in addition to scaling up the Faerie count
I dare say giving it legs actually opens up some interesting possibilities, even if it dies to more removal.
But the real question is:
does it have flying and flash?
If bitterblossom were a 2/2 creature with flying and flash, it would maybe not even see play in faeries, but might be a 1 or 2 of...as it stands now, a non-creature, it is the only thing that makes the deck really work.
I can understand people wanting DRS banned, but if anyone is actually arguing that being a creature isn't a serious hindrance for a card, then that is just silly...
If Phyrexian Arena cost 1 black less, despite the fact that you could never attack with it, it would be as good, if not better (albeit very different) than Bob. That is saying a lot...
Just for completeness sake, Worldgorger is generally agreed to be banned due to the auto draw condition. For example reanimating a grizzlebee t1 enables a kill on the spot usually, with more redundancy.
Hermit druid is banned for being a one card combo (sort of like gasp SFM, obviously they are not on the same power level).
Recruiter is more iffy, maybe it pushes gobbos over the edge, but it also is a logistic reason.
Let's skip the fact that you don't even address my argument at all and instead reiterate what amounts to nothing beyond "get used to it."
What mistake are they exactly correcting here? BGx hasn't won a GP since before BBE was banned, and DRS was hardly warping the format, so where exactly is the justification of the ban? What, are you saying it was banned because it was popular? Care to address the points I and Koopa made in regards to the ban?
And you can drop the tough ***** attitude. It's not going to garner you anything in an argument other than the dismissal of what you would call an opinion.
They (the player opposite the Faerie driver) would have to answer it on their end step or else it at least replaces itself with a token, you're overvaluing its ability to be answered.
Hell, there's a gem right there: just because it can be answered doesn't make a card safe.
Have you ever just failed to draw into removal? Sometimes it happens, it comes with the territory of card games being randomized.
Pod would much rather Viscera Seer be a 1 mana enchantment. If Pod was a creature instead of an artifact, that deck doesn't even exist anymore. If Springleaf Drum as a creature, affinity would start running paradise mantle instead. Is that enough to show you the difference?
Again, these examples above do not mean that DRS isn't still too powerful, even though he is a creature, but holy cow if people are arguing that being a creature isn't an inherent drawback then you are just talking crazy...
Pretty sure Pod needs Viscera to be a critter otherwise it can't Pod/Chord it out.
Springleaf Drum, well you only have a point there because of summoning sickness, not fragility.
The thing is that being a creature isn't a strict positive or negative in a vacuum. Context is necessary to understand how much of an impact the critterness of a card is.
Though I think we can all agree there was no legitimate reason DRS had to be a 1/2.
You don't make a 1cmc value critter and then give it stats like that, there's a point where there's too much value and having a better-than-manadorks body is somewhere beyond that.
That's definitely not what I was saying!
I really think "if you remove it, it has replaced itself" is a bad argument. that's what you call value, and good cards typically have that. that said, i don't want to argue this.
if bitterblossom was a sorcery speed 2/2 for 1B, it would definitely see less play. i agree with whoever said the fact it its difficult to answer is what makes it good. it also has a good effect on the meta game, because it forces a more diverse suite of cards to answer it (except for abrupt decay, because that card..). With everyone and their mom packing creature removal, its always good to see something come along that attacks on a different axis. think back to the pro tour where eggs won. the WUR control deck had almost no answers to eggs because it ran like 12+ pieces of creature removal. had it had more diverse answers, it would have been a much better match up.