Thread is too long, not reading it. Still going to give my thoughts:
Unban GGT, keep the ban on dread return
Unban Rite of Flame and Seething song, ban Pyromancer's Ascension
Unban Ancestral Visions
Unban Preordain and Ponder, ban Jeskai Ascendancy
Unban Bloodbraid Elf
That would make a format where Jund, Dredge (aggro), Combo, and Control all have the cards they need to compete with Twin, Pod, Affinity, and the rest of the field.
Also, ban Tarmogoyf. It's too strong.
Sorry but you can NOT unban preordain and ponder while leaving twin in the field..... its already got a good turn 4 kill rate, giving it two amazing dig/cantrips is insane.... plus goyf is a textless creature, its not too strong
Also, unbanning the rituals while banning Ascension keeps Ascension Storm out, but it makes every other build of Storm way faster and more consistent (especially with Ponder/Preordain back as well)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Moderator Helpdesk
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
It's easy: wizards just need to unban mental misstep. (Not trolling)
This is a banned card that has never made much sense to me. People complain about the speed of the format but yet the one card that would force the format to slow down is banned...... you want a format that has no turn 2-3 combos, unban a counter that can only target CMC 1 spells makes sense
You can have it both ways. They could have introduced a deck that isn't yet another combo deck to the format (particularly a resilient, uninteractive one) and introduced a build around non combo card such as delver instead.
As for banning wish, I don't think it's needed now, but don't think for one second that a card that gives such resiliency and consistency to a deck should NOT be something to be concerned about. The deck can kill pretty easily on turn 3, and no problem on turn 4. It's entirely reasonable for people to be asking questions, particularly when many don't understand it terribly well. I begrudgingly accept it for now, but yea no way am I happy to see another competitive combo deck in the format. I dream of the day when turn 3-4 combo kills aren't something I have to worry about so terribly much with every single deck I construct.
Banning Glittering Wish would not do anything to stop this deck.
I don't even believe the Wish build is so much better than the other builds.
In legacy wish would be the first card I would cut since you have better library manipulation and having jeskai ascendancy in hand is much more important so having 4 in the main is needed. With the Wish build you slow down your combo by having to use a turn to wish from the sideboard.
Banning Wish would only result in playing more dig, mulling more aggressively towards ascendancy and running alternative non-combat kill conditions like Brainfreeze and/or Grapeshot in the main.
Wish increases consistency but makes the deck slower. You can play this deck without Wish, no doubt about that.
This doesn't sound correct. In legaacy TES runs 4 burning wish which effectively gives the deck access to 7 maindeck infernal tutor's. How is that any different with glittering wish here? On top of that it gives you access to a bunch of wish targets. The deck loses a lot of power if it is not able to wish for help in G1 and becomes far less consistent if it's having to put hate answers in the maindeck where it only has 1 'copy' rather than 4.
If people are saying the deck violates the turn 3 rule then surely making it slower/less consitent with the removal of wish does this without killing the deck off. What alternatives are there? Banning things like treasure cruise or the mana dorks is not realistic and removing the deck completely with a ban on ascendancy is not needed. Sure some fringe decks have fun with wish but it's not like it is killing any of the top decks by doing that.
It's easy: wizards just need to unban mental misstep. (Not trolling)
This is a banned card that has never made much sense to me. People complain about the speed of the format but yet the one card that would force the format to slow down is banned...... you want a format that has no turn 2-3 combos, unban a counter that can only target CMC 1 spells makes sense
Tell me: What do the following anti-combo cards have in common?
Also, can you guess what the best way to fight MM is? You guessed it: Even MORE MM! If you want a format where everyone plays MM and where combo decks get into MM wars on turn 2, then MM is the unban for you. But if you are like me and prefer a diverse format where non-Affinity aggro decks exist and Twin doesn't have a maindeck answer to hand disruption, then MM seems like one of the worst unbans you can imagine.
It's easy: wizards just need to unban mental misstep. (Not trolling)
This is a banned card that has never made much sense to me. People complain about the speed of the format but yet the one card that would force the format to slow down is banned...... you want a format that has no turn 2-3 combos, unban a counter that can only target CMC 1 spells makes sense
Mental misstep makes 1 drops unplayable because literally every deck list from the unbanning until the end of time will start with 4 no matter what archetype you're in. It's banned in legacy for good reason and in vintage it has made ancestral recall so much weaker because every other deck you play against has 4. Hell even vintage dredge runs some number. In modern misstep would make any non affinity aggro deck abysmal because you have a high likelihood of your 1 drop monster just being a shock against every single opponent and that's to say nothing about the effect it would have on burn. Keep that nonsense out of modern.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
And on that day, Garfield said unto the world "Go ye forth and durdle!"
Look at it this way: if anyone invented a board game where each player each took turn sitting 15 minutes doing stuff with absolutely no relevance to the others, it would never sell a single copy. Why should Magic be any difference?
Have you played Dominion or any other deck building game? I love Village-Smithy strategies.
It gets even better with expansions. King's Court on Tactician FTW!
The headline is all about the potential for banning. Okay, so he wants article views. Who cares though? He's an author writing for a site, so what else can we expect? Can't fault CF for picking a catchy headline to draw in readers.
But then we actually read the article. There is 0 event data in the entire thing. No MTGO dailies, no cherrpyicked Holiday/Pardee events, no SCG events, no nothing. It's 100% theory and speculation, despite there being almost a dozen events he could have drawn on to make an argument. It's not even good theory and speculation. Woo could have talked about matchups, hate cards, deck vulnerabilities, places where the deck appears vulnerable but actually isn't, etc. He makes claims like "For one, it might actually be too fast, too good, too resilient to disruption" without actually giving evidence to support or refute it. Or he says stuff like this: "People come to Magic tournaments to play Magic. It's really not fun to sit there waiting for your opponent to kill you for 30 minutes. It's also sucks to be in that tournament waiting for the next round to start". It took me maybe two hours over a few days to break out the different times it took for Eggs, UR Storm, and Ascendancy Storm to win games and then to compare them. Why couldn't Woo have done that, or something similar, instead of making a wild exaggeration that no one wants to wait 30 minutes to get killed.
To Woo's credit, he doesn't actually pull a Chapin and call for something's banning just to further drum up hype (Pat will never live down that Manamorphose statement). It's also not entirely clear what he thought the article was supposed to be about and how CF maybe billed it on their home page. Or maybe he ran into a deadline, or life stuff came up and he ran out of time to write. Maybe CF has a well-researched article coming out later and told Woo not to worry about it because another author had it covered. I'm willing to give him some benefit of the doubt just because writing for major sites can have all sorts of challenges.
But even so, these sorts of articles do nothing good for the cards or the format. Uncritical consumers see them and just remember "PRO SAID IT NEEDS BANNING!" without remembering the slapshod quality of the argument. The good news is that the data will speak for itself, and even as these sorts of articles continue to come out, we will continue to gather the data needed to make a more accurate and critical assessment of the deck's power.
In case I didn't tell you, I don't care about your opinion I just want your facts. And not the facts that make you seem smart. I want the ones that are actual facts.
Firstly, I want to make it clear that I'm not clambering for a ban, I'm in the lets see what happens camp. However, I want to address this point and the other like it too.
Banning Glittering Wish to get at Jeskai Ascendancy is absurd. Wish by itself does not accelerate the deck and still costs two mana. That adds a turn on the clock at which point the Wish deck is still exposed to some form of interaction, whether it is a removal spell against the creature on board, disruption of the hand, or something else...
Wish is a tutor for the decks protection, engine and win condition - meaning Wish makes the deck Uber consistent. It can be argued that Wish is almost as strong as Demonic Tutor (A card that's banned in Legacy and restricted in Vintage) for the deck (better in some cases as it also allows you to ignore opponents hate cards like Slaughter Games, etc). Don't down play Wish as harmless, as any tutor is pretty dangerous in a non-rotating format, Wish is no different here - it's always going to ba a potential ticking time bomb waiting for the next over powered multicolored combo deck, even if it's done very little up until now.
Additionally, taking away Wish makes the deck significantly worse but doesn't kill the deck outright like an Ascendency ban would - this is a significant argument for the banning of Wish over Ascendency.
Again, I'm not suggesting anything requires a ban but if there is one, it'll likely be Wish that gets it over Ascendency.
I respectfully disagree. Glittering Wish in Ascendancy is perhaps slightly stronger than Peer Through Depths in Scapeshift or Ancient Stirrings in Tron. However, the difference in power levels across decks is not that much different when a search card is placed in the deck best suited for it.
Perhaps I'm biased because I used to play Glittering Wish in standard and seeing it banned would not necessarily fix the underlying issue of a storm-based deck. As I understand the deck, Glittering Wish could go for something other than Ascendancy at the beginning or the kill at the end. However, that is far and few in between, especially after sideboard where you'd rather have two Ascendancies in hand in case one dies. Going for silver bullets is always a risky proposition due to possibly having the spell negated.
Artifacts - Strong/Medium - taxing effects - Chalice of the Void for 1. Trinisphere (perhaps a tron sideboard).Thorn of Amethyst (more taxing effects). R/G tron and Affinity can do much with this.
Obviously cards can't be expected to outright win in a vacuum but these examples of hate cards, coupled with any deck, can provide the disruption to push their deck to turns 5 or 6, which is what most decks should be able to do. Remember that Ascendancy has almost no active interactions and can only react.
Anyway, if there are cards to be banned, I'd propose: Deceiver Exarch and Village Bell-Ringer. Splinter Twin still works but you don't get the luxury of 1/4 creatures in doing so. Birthing Pod should be banned but with this plethora of new cards, perhaps the deck is slightly weaker.
Firstly, I want to make it clear that I'm not clambering for a ban, I'm in the lets see what happens camp. However, I want to address this point and the other like it too.
[...]
Additionally, taking away Wish makes the deck significantly worse but doesn't kill the deck outright like an Ascendency ban would - this is a significant argument for the banning of Wish over Ascendency.
Again, I'm not suggesting anything requires a ban but if there is one, it'll likely be Wish that gets it over Ascendency.
Yeah, I agree. Banning Wish over Ascendancy makes more sense, since Wish would be just continue to be a ticking time bomb. If Wish got banned, the deck would have to play worse tutors to find the Ascendancy and it would have to give up the wish board, thus taking away free spell slots from the maindeck. The deck would be slower and less consistent, prolly a turn 5 kill deck at best. That kind of slow combo deck is what Wizards want to have in modern anyway.
It's easy: wizards just need to unban mental misstep. (Not trolling)
This is a banned card that has never made much sense to me. People complain about the speed of the format but yet the one card that would force the format to slow down is banned...... you want a format that has no turn 2-3 combos, unban a counter that can only target CMC 1 spells makes sense
Mental misstep makes 1 drops unplayable because literally every deck list from the unbanning until the end of time will start with 4 no matter what archetype you're in. It's banned in legacy for good reason and in vintage it has made ancestral recall so much weaker because every other deck you play against has 4. Hell even vintage dredge runs some number. In modern misstep would make any non affinity aggro deck abysmal because you have a high likelihood of your 1 drop monster just being a shock against every single opponent and that's to say nothing about the effect it would have on burn. Keep that nonsense out of modern.
I'm not saying it should be unbanned. I am saying if the goal of modern is no kills before turn 4, the best way to achieve that is to unban a counter that only targets CMC 1 spells (which is the main card that these decks use to go off). Yes, it would most definitely warp the format; whether this is good or bad isnt my point.
If WOTC wanted to weaken Twin, I agree that the ban should be Exarch, however Twin is not an unstoppable deck by any means, and many decks have mainboard cards that deal with it just fine.
Ugh, yeah I saw that too. At first, I didn't think it was as bad as the Woo one. Gerry's Daily Digest has a much smaller word count and he definitely can't cram in all sorts of research or in-depth analysis in there. He also doesn't write his own headlines and summaries (nor does Woo, in fact), so I can't fault him for the article's presentation on the front page. That's all SCG and all CF. And after all, isn't Gerry just presenting the deck for our education?
Well, it turns out he isn't doing that at all. He's actually just as much on the hype train as Woo. In fact, it's even worse in this case because Daily Digest is supposed to just be a deck spotlight. Instead, Gerry uses his normally neutral deck spotlight as a ban mania outburst. He has one paragraph about how the deck plays, and it would be a stretch to think you could read that paragraph and actually know how to play the deck. Most other spotlights talk a lot more about the deck itself. In this one, Gerry devotes his word count to more ban hyperbole, with such choice quotes as:
"The main issue with the deck is that it has an Eggs-level boredom factor. When combo-ing off, this deck can take a while, which can be painful for both spectators and the opponent, who has unwillingly become a spectator."
"What do y'all think? Banworthy or can we adapt? If we can, is it worth it allowing a deck like this to stay in the format?"
"What makes this deck so special? Why do people hate it existing so much? Why do people feel like it's unbeatable?"
In fact, you could quote the entire article except that second paragraph and you would just be quoting ban-mania hyperbole. He talks about an Eggs-level boredom factor without actually giving any comparison of combo turn lengths. He asks if the deck is banworthy but then gives no reasons on the "no" side, and only speculative reasons on the "yes" side. He asks questions about why it is special and unbeatable, and then doesn't even answer them. It would have taken one sentence to mention some of the deck's results, but neither Gerry nor Woo can be bothered with any modicum of evidence.
What happens in articles like this? Just see the Comments sections of both Woo's and Gerry's. They are swarming with ban maniacs, each one less critical than the last. These authors should be ashamed at their lack of objectivity and research, which just makes the format look bad, make Wizards look bad, and overall perpetuates a Modern culture that we have fought so hard to get away from in the last 2 years.
Then again, I will say that I might be too harsh on Woo and Gerry T. It is possible that they have marching orders from their sites which instruct them to be as ban crazed and uncritical as possible, or at least to do enough of that to garner views and draw site traffic. If that's the case, then I redirect my criticism of the authors to their host sites. But either way, the end result is the same.
Nothing wrong with that article. Here's what he said:
- People have been discussing whether JA deserves a ban
- The deck looks objectively powerful and is showing up a lot on MTGO
- Here's the deck
- Do you think it deserves a ban?
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
Ugh, yeah I saw that too. At first, I didn't think it was as bad as the Woo one. Gerry's Daily Digest has a much smaller word count and he definitely can't cram in all sorts of research or in-depth analysis in there. He also doesn't write his own headlines and summaries (nor does Woo, in fact), so I can't fault him for the article's presentation on the front page. That's all SCG and all CF. And after all, isn't Gerry just presenting the deck for our education?
Well, it turns out he isn't doing that at all. He's actually just as much on the hype train as Woo. In fact, it's even worse in this case because Daily Digest is supposed to just be a deck spotlight. Instead, Gerry uses his normally neutral deck spotlight as a ban mania outburst. He has one paragraph about how the deck plays, and it would be a stretch to think you could read that paragraph and actually know how to play the deck. Most other spotlights talk a lot more about the deck itself. In this one, Gerry devotes his word count to more ban hyperbole, with such choice quotes as:
"The main issue with the deck is that it has an Eggs-level boredom factor. When combo-ing off, this deck can take a while, which can be painful for both spectators and the opponent, who has unwillingly become a spectator."
"What do y'all think? Banworthy or can we adapt? If we can, is it worth it allowing a deck like this to stay in the format?"
"What makes this deck so special? Why do people hate it existing so much? Why do people feel like it's unbeatable?"
In fact, you could quote the entire article except that second paragraph and you would just be quoting ban-mania hyperbole. He talks about an Eggs-level boredom factor without actually giving any comparison of combo turn lengths. He asks if the deck is banworthy but then gives no reasons on the "no" side, and only speculative reasons on the "yes" side. He asks questions about why it is special and unbeatable, and then doesn't even answer them. It would have taken one sentence to mention some of the deck's results, but neither Gerry nor Woo can be bothered with any modicum of evidence.
What happens in articles like this? Just see the Comments sections of both Woo's and Gerry's. They are swarming with ban maniacs, each one less critical than the last. These authors should be ashamed at their lack of objectivity and research, which just makes the format look bad, make Wizards look bad, and overall perpetuates a Modern culture that we have fought so hard to get away from in the last 2 years.
Then again, I will say that I might be too harsh on Woo and Gerry T. It is possible that they have marching orders from their sites which instruct them to be as ban crazed and uncritical as possible, or at least to do enough of that to garner views and draw site traffic. If that's the case, then I redirect my criticism of the authors to their host sites. But either way, the end result is the same.
Both points are correct. Sites like SCG and CF are for-profit companies first, sources of information second. Their articles give good information but they are also designed to increase sales or to hype things that are going to make them money. How many of Woo's articles show off these "Amazing" new decks, that cause bad cards to skyrocket in price (which CF just happens to sell) and the decks never pan out (Ninja Bears is a perfect example).
It is too early to say whether the deck is good/broken/has been hated out enough yet.
Nothing wrong with that article. Here's what he said:
- People have been discussing whether JA deserves a ban
- The deck looks objectively powerful and is showing up a lot on MTGO
- Here's the deck
- Do you think it deserves a ban?
He's definitely not going "ban-crazy."
Totally disagree. What you wrote right there is way more objective and evenhanded than what Gerry wrote in that article. The big problem for me is that he gives a bunch of speculative reasons for why it should be banned (Boring, comparable to Eggs, Sam Black's article, Todd Anderson's complaints, its prevalence on MTGO queues, how easy it is to set up combo), but zero reasons why it shouldn't be banned. The only thing he says is that the deck isn't unbeatable and that there are ways to beat it that are not widely played yet. Instead of asking about 6+ rhetorical questions, he could have just given a few sentences about why the deck may NOT deserve a banning. It's this sort of one-sidedness that makes the article a problem. He can't pretend to be objectively asking "Do you think it deserves a ban" when he gives no reasons that his readers should think otherwise.
STATISTICS.
All of these "Let's eliminate bad cards" crusades are simply ignorant. And when they start to devolve into "WotC is conspiring to give us crappy cards," they just become embarrassing. MATH is conspiring to give you crappy cards.
To see how a Wish ban would affect the deck, would some like to test it? Izzetmage, I know your kind of the go to guy on the deck right now, would you mind? I would like to see at least one major paper event results before a ban, but I would also like to see some testing on banning the support cards instead of the main engine. It would be one of the more productive things this thread could do.
Nothing wrong with that article. Here's what he said:
- People have been discussing whether JA deserves a ban
- The deck looks objectively powerful and is showing up a lot on MTGO
- Here's the deck
- Do you think it deserves a ban?
He's definitely not going "ban-crazy."
Totally disagree. What you wrote right there is way more objective and evenhanded than what Gerry wrote in that article. The big problem for me is that he gives a bunch of speculative reasons for why it should be banned (Boring, comparable to Eggs, Sam Black's article, Todd Anderson's complaints, its prevalence on MTGO queues, how easy it is to set up combo), but zero reasons why it shouldn't be banned. The only thing he says is that the deck isn't unbeatable and that there are ways to beat it that are not widely played yet. Instead of asking about 6+ rhetorical questions, he could have just given a few sentences about why the deck may NOT deserve a banning. It's this sort of one-sidedness that makes the article a problem. He can't pretend to be objectively asking "Do you think it deserves a ban" when he gives no reasons that his readers should think otherwise.
Maybe he can't think of reasons why it doesn't deserve a ban?
I think of it like this-
Reasons to not ban:
- It is brand new and we don't actually know how good it is yet. We are speculating it is quite good.
- There have been no major tournaments yet to prove it is degenerate in the format
- It does have trouble with certain hate cards that many decks may already have in the SB or mainboard (Ethersworn Canonist, Eidolon of Rhetoric, Eiolon of the Great Revel, Abrupt Decay, Thoughtseize, Spell Snare, etc.)
Reasons to ban:
- It wins before turn 4 fairly consistently, based on Pardee and Holidays videos (this is a very small sample size, so take this with a grain of salt)
- Aggro completely folds to this deck, and aggro was already having some trouble hanging with Twin and Pod before (Burn was doing ok though)
- It is boring to watch. I think if Wizards takes action, this will be the biggest reason why. As many have stated, I go to FNM or a tournament to play Magic, not sit there and watch my opponent play solitaire. WOTC does not like this style of play.
So that said, do I think Ascendancy or Wish should be banned? Eh. We need a GP first before we can speculate. People will be ready for this deck when GP Madrid rolls around, so if it is still able to get several decks in the top 8/16 through all the hate, then I can see reasoning for a ban.
Apples and Oranges, TES is a compeltely different deck and can win turn 1 or turn 2.
Besides legacy storm does not play Burning Wish at all.
Um... uh... yes it does. Burning Wish is a staple of The Epic Storm in Legacy. It's true that Ad Nauseam Tendrils--the other Legacy Storm deck--doesn't play it, but if you were switching gears, you certainly gave no indication.
Now, I have no clue whether the lone guy on Ascendancy Storm ever beat any of the other 3-1's with hate, but if s/he did...
I fear this will become the typical post-KTK Daily. RG Tron, Living End, Ad Nauseam, and BGx Midrange will pop their heads in more often than this, but I suspect Bogles/Merfolk/GW Hatebears will fall off the map and all the anti-Ascendancy hate will remain and not entirely work.
(Oh yeah, there's also a Burn deck with 4 Treasure Cruise. The Draw 3 in Aggro Decks days begin.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It will hose both quickly... Especially Ascendancy. Locks it fast.
Edit: and I LOVE ascendancy. I'm a combo player at heart.
Sorry but you can NOT unban preordain and ponder while leaving twin in the field..... its already got a good turn 4 kill rate, giving it two amazing dig/cantrips is insane.... plus goyf is a textless creature, its not too strong
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffCurrently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
This is a banned card that has never made much sense to me. People complain about the speed of the format but yet the one card that would force the format to slow down is banned...... you want a format that has no turn 2-3 combos, unban a counter that can only target CMC 1 spells makes sense
As for banning wish, I don't think it's needed now, but don't think for one second that a card that gives such resiliency and consistency to a deck should NOT be something to be concerned about. The deck can kill pretty easily on turn 3, and no problem on turn 4. It's entirely reasonable for people to be asking questions, particularly when many don't understand it terribly well. I begrudgingly accept it for now, but yea no way am I happy to see another competitive combo deck in the format. I dream of the day when turn 3-4 combo kills aren't something I have to worry about so terribly much with every single deck I construct.
This doesn't sound correct. In legaacy TES runs 4 burning wish which effectively gives the deck access to 7 maindeck infernal tutor's. How is that any different with glittering wish here? On top of that it gives you access to a bunch of wish targets. The deck loses a lot of power if it is not able to wish for help in G1 and becomes far less consistent if it's having to put hate answers in the maindeck where it only has 1 'copy' rather than 4.
If people are saying the deck violates the turn 3 rule then surely making it slower/less consitent with the removal of wish does this without killing the deck off. What alternatives are there? Banning things like treasure cruise or the mana dorks is not realistic and removing the deck completely with a ban on ascendancy is not needed. Sure some fringe decks have fun with wish but it's not like it is killing any of the top decks by doing that.
Tell me: What do the following anti-combo cards have in common?
Also, can you guess what the best way to fight MM is? You guessed it: Even MORE MM! If you want a format where everyone plays MM and where combo decks get into MM wars on turn 2, then MM is the unban for you. But if you are like me and prefer a diverse format where non-Affinity aggro decks exist and Twin doesn't have a maindeck answer to hand disruption, then MM seems like one of the worst unbans you can imagine.
Mental misstep makes 1 drops unplayable because literally every deck list from the unbanning until the end of time will start with 4 no matter what archetype you're in. It's banned in legacy for good reason and in vintage it has made ancestral recall so much weaker because every other deck you play against has 4. Hell even vintage dredge runs some number. In modern misstep would make any non affinity aggro deck abysmal because you have a high likelihood of your 1 drop monster just being a shock against every single opponent and that's to say nothing about the effect it would have on burn. Keep that nonsense out of modern.
It gets even better with expansions. King's Court on Tactician FTW!
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
So am I to assume that you haven't seen this as of yet? http://www.starcitygames.com/article/29484_Daily-Digest-Banworthy.html
Cockatrice username: Blackcat77
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/modern-daily-2014-10-07
18 decks, 1 Ascendancy Storm at 3-1.
(Amusingly, he doesn't have Wear/Tear in the board. Stupid, broken MTGO client)
That brings our 4 day total in the public MTGO dataset to:
4 events, 77 decks, 1 Ascendancy Storm @ 4-0, 1 Ascendancy Storm @ 3-1
Only a few more days and we will have a full week of MTGO data, which is a lot better than some pro streams.
I respectfully disagree. Glittering Wish in Ascendancy is perhaps slightly stronger than Peer Through Depths in Scapeshift or Ancient Stirrings in Tron. However, the difference in power levels across decks is not that much different when a search card is placed in the deck best suited for it.
Perhaps I'm biased because I used to play Glittering Wish in standard and seeing it banned would not necessarily fix the underlying issue of a storm-based deck. As I understand the deck, Glittering Wish could go for something other than Ascendancy at the beginning or the kill at the end. However, that is far and few in between, especially after sideboard where you'd rather have two Ascendancies in hand in case one dies. Going for silver bullets is always a risky proposition due to possibly having the spell negated.
As for hate cards against Ascendancy, here's my list of candidates:
White - Strong - Spirit of the Labyrinth, Ethersworn Canonist (already in Affinity SB), Eidolon of Rhetoric (in Pod SB already), Medium - Thalia, Guardian of Thraben, Conditional - Silence (when they have no means of getting across by creatures), Path to Exile (limit their creatures), Angel's Grace (if they don't see it coming)
Green - Medium - Nature's Claim, Seal of Primordium, all other forms of enchantment destruction
Red - Strong - Eidolon of the Great Revel, Medium - all burn against their creatures, Pyroclasm and Anger of the Gods (kills Caryatid). Blood Moon follow-up after killing one drops will cripple the deck.
Black - Strong - All hand destruction. Darkblast against all but Sylvan Caryatid. Liliana of the Veil fits here.
Blue - Strong early - Spell Snare, Spell Pierce because of its cheap disruption.
Artifacts - Strong/Medium - taxing effects - Chalice of the Void for 1. Trinisphere (perhaps a tron sideboard).Thorn of Amethyst (more taxing effects). R/G tron and Affinity can do much with this.
Gold - Strong - Abrupt Decay, Izzet Charm.
Obviously cards can't be expected to outright win in a vacuum but these examples of hate cards, coupled with any deck, can provide the disruption to push their deck to turns 5 or 6, which is what most decks should be able to do. Remember that Ascendancy has almost no active interactions and can only react.
Anyway, if there are cards to be banned, I'd propose:
Deceiver Exarch and Village Bell-Ringer. Splinter Twin still works but you don't get the luxury of 1/4 creatures in doing so. Birthing Pod should be banned but with this plethora of new cards, perhaps the deck is slightly weaker.
Yeah, I agree. Banning Wish over Ascendancy makes more sense, since Wish would be just continue to be a ticking time bomb. If Wish got banned, the deck would have to play worse tutors to find the Ascendancy and it would have to give up the wish board, thus taking away free spell slots from the maindeck. The deck would be slower and less consistent, prolly a turn 5 kill deck at best. That kind of slow combo deck is what Wizards want to have in modern anyway.
I'm not saying it should be unbanned. I am saying if the goal of modern is no kills before turn 4, the best way to achieve that is to unban a counter that only targets CMC 1 spells (which is the main card that these decks use to go off). Yes, it would most definitely warp the format; whether this is good or bad isnt my point.
If WOTC wanted to weaken Twin, I agree that the ban should be Exarch, however Twin is not an unstoppable deck by any means, and many decks have mainboard cards that deal with it just fine.
Ugh, yeah I saw that too. At first, I didn't think it was as bad as the Woo one. Gerry's Daily Digest has a much smaller word count and he definitely can't cram in all sorts of research or in-depth analysis in there. He also doesn't write his own headlines and summaries (nor does Woo, in fact), so I can't fault him for the article's presentation on the front page. That's all SCG and all CF. And after all, isn't Gerry just presenting the deck for our education?
Well, it turns out he isn't doing that at all. He's actually just as much on the hype train as Woo. In fact, it's even worse in this case because Daily Digest is supposed to just be a deck spotlight. Instead, Gerry uses his normally neutral deck spotlight as a ban mania outburst. He has one paragraph about how the deck plays, and it would be a stretch to think you could read that paragraph and actually know how to play the deck. Most other spotlights talk a lot more about the deck itself. In this one, Gerry devotes his word count to more ban hyperbole, with such choice quotes as:
"The main issue with the deck is that it has an Eggs-level boredom factor. When combo-ing off, this deck can take a while, which can be painful for both spectators and the opponent, who has unwillingly become a spectator."
"What do y'all think? Banworthy or can we adapt? If we can, is it worth it allowing a deck like this to stay in the format?"
"What makes this deck so special? Why do people hate it existing so much? Why do people feel like it's unbeatable?"
In fact, you could quote the entire article except that second paragraph and you would just be quoting ban-mania hyperbole. He talks about an Eggs-level boredom factor without actually giving any comparison of combo turn lengths. He asks if the deck is banworthy but then gives no reasons on the "no" side, and only speculative reasons on the "yes" side. He asks questions about why it is special and unbeatable, and then doesn't even answer them. It would have taken one sentence to mention some of the deck's results, but neither Gerry nor Woo can be bothered with any modicum of evidence.
What happens in articles like this? Just see the Comments sections of both Woo's and Gerry's. They are swarming with ban maniacs, each one less critical than the last. These authors should be ashamed at their lack of objectivity and research, which just makes the format look bad, make Wizards look bad, and overall perpetuates a Modern culture that we have fought so hard to get away from in the last 2 years.
Then again, I will say that I might be too harsh on Woo and Gerry T. It is possible that they have marching orders from their sites which instruct them to be as ban crazed and uncritical as possible, or at least to do enough of that to garner views and draw site traffic. If that's the case, then I redirect my criticism of the authors to their host sites. But either way, the end result is the same.
- People have been discussing whether JA deserves a ban
- The deck looks objectively powerful and is showing up a lot on MTGO
- Here's the deck
- Do you think it deserves a ban?
He's definitely not going "ban-crazy."
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
Both points are correct. Sites like SCG and CF are for-profit companies first, sources of information second. Their articles give good information but they are also designed to increase sales or to hype things that are going to make them money. How many of Woo's articles show off these "Amazing" new decks, that cause bad cards to skyrocket in price (which CF just happens to sell) and the decks never pan out (Ninja Bears is a perfect example).
It is too early to say whether the deck is good/broken/has been hated out enough yet.
Totally disagree. What you wrote right there is way more objective and evenhanded than what Gerry wrote in that article. The big problem for me is that he gives a bunch of speculative reasons for why it should be banned (Boring, comparable to Eggs, Sam Black's article, Todd Anderson's complaints, its prevalence on MTGO queues, how easy it is to set up combo), but zero reasons why it shouldn't be banned. The only thing he says is that the deck isn't unbeatable and that there are ways to beat it that are not widely played yet. Instead of asking about 6+ rhetorical questions, he could have just given a few sentences about why the deck may NOT deserve a banning. It's this sort of one-sidedness that makes the article a problem. He can't pretend to be objectively asking "Do you think it deserves a ban" when he gives no reasons that his readers should think otherwise.
Cheeri0sXWU
Reid Duke's Level One
Who's the Beatdown
Alt+0198=Æ
Maybe he can't think of reasons why it doesn't deserve a ban?
I think of it like this-
Reasons to not ban:
- It is brand new and we don't actually know how good it is yet. We are speculating it is quite good.
- There have been no major tournaments yet to prove it is degenerate in the format
- It does have trouble with certain hate cards that many decks may already have in the SB or mainboard (Ethersworn Canonist, Eidolon of Rhetoric, Eiolon of the Great Revel, Abrupt Decay, Thoughtseize, Spell Snare, etc.)
Reasons to ban:
- It wins before turn 4 fairly consistently, based on Pardee and Holidays videos (this is a very small sample size, so take this with a grain of salt)
- Aggro completely folds to this deck, and aggro was already having some trouble hanging with Twin and Pod before (Burn was doing ok though)
- It is boring to watch. I think if Wizards takes action, this will be the biggest reason why. As many have stated, I go to FNM or a tournament to play Magic, not sit there and watch my opponent play solitaire. WOTC does not like this style of play.
So that said, do I think Ascendancy or Wish should be banned? Eh. We need a GP first before we can speculate. People will be ready for this deck when GP Madrid rolls around, so if it is still able to get several decks in the top 8/16 through all the hate, then I can see reasoning for a ban.
Look at the anti-Ascendancy Storm hate there! Maindeck Ethersworn Canonist in Pod! Maindeck Canonist in GW Hatebears! Canonist in Pod's sideboard instead of Eidolon of Rhetoric! Eidolon of the Great Revel in UR Delver's sideboard!
And Ascendancy Storm still 3-1's with a clearly suboptimal deck! (Arbor Elf instead of Noble Hierarch in a 4 Gemstone Mine build? Come on...)
Now, I have no clue whether the lone guy on Ascendancy Storm ever beat any of the other 3-1's with hate, but if s/he did...
I fear this will become the typical post-KTK Daily. RG Tron, Living End, Ad Nauseam, and BGx Midrange will pop their heads in more often than this, but I suspect Bogles/Merfolk/GW Hatebears will fall off the map and all the anti-Ascendancy hate will remain and not entirely work.
(Oh yeah, there's also a Burn deck with 4 Treasure Cruise. The Draw 3 in Aggro Decks days begin.)