i think that's more because TC lets you get more value out of swiftspear. if you can't refill your hand and are in top deck mode, a 1/2 or 2/3 isn't that scary. whereas when you cast TC, odds are you'll get maybe 1 land and 2 action cards. making swiftspear at least a 2/3 and 3 damage (or something along those lines. combinations may vary).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I speak in sarcasm because calling people ******* ******** is not allowed.
I think the answer should be at least a GP/pro-tour or two minimum--and it has to look really really bad before it merits any action.
I think you really need two. The problem with just one is that a Grand Prix is really just a collection of 8-16 decks that did the best, which is a rather small number. Based on just one specific Grand Prix Richmond) you could have argued that Melira Pod needed a banning, but the meta sorted itself out and it didn't ever manage to do that well again. A deck really needs to dominate at least two Grand Prix, like Jund did, before it can be considered a real problem.
I guess I should have been more specific, I do mean AT LEAST two, like a GP and a pro tour, or more--but I'm leaning towards 3-4.
Its unfortunate however because in the event that 3-4 events got dominated by a bannable card, for modern at least, thats a lot of time between events where something is rampant--a problem with having the spacing of big events so unevenly distributed.
Is it possible to get a % representation of caw blade before jace and stoneforge mystic got banned the 6 months before?
It is possible to replicate what WoTC might do as they waited until 1 month before banning mystic and jace, deciding they would rather wait until banning either/ and or both cards.
If the representation of U/R Delver or Burn with TC shows an upwards of 20% representation to about 50-80% representation like caw blade would, and WoTC wants to wait before banning either cards.
WoTC might as well wait until the last 2 modern events for the season before implementing a ban.
Of course standard =/= modern, but the % or # could affect how WoTC wants to go about this decision when 2 cards made a deck Tier 1.
Swiftspear/bolt and TC might be up for the final decisions.
Without TC:
Why Bolt? Swift spear with bolt is 5 damage, with guide is 5 dmg. Splash-able and staple in every deck that plays red, if you don't play bolt in red then you are considered "bad".
We can keep the swiftspear and ban the bolt, causing U/R delver and burn to go down significantly by losing 4 copies of 3 damage and subbing it for a sub optimal 2 CMC like searing spear or MB searing blaze, which is still good. It also tones down UWR delver/geist along with UWR control.
If we take out swift spear. It would tone done burn, U/R delver to the same levels pre KTK. Pod and other decks would put less defining cards to SB against said decks, format would be the same as before. Nothing really changed at all. It goes back to causing a "stale" meta with the same 70 card list, with 5 "tech" cards.
With TC:
Bolt with TC is really powerful, it does not matter if you draw into 3 lands or 3 action cards. The fact that U/R Delver and Burn HAVING the access to this spell causes a misinterpretation of power. Before, Burn was already good being able to kill you on t3-t4. Now, they have a higher % to kill you t3-t5 due to TC AND the combination of swiftspear. With bolt going, It tones down the aforementioned decks. It also brings down burn and U/R Delver with keeping the new "staple" monastery swiftspear, it just means they are trading their 1 CMC removal/kill finisher for a 1 CMC consistently good creature.
Swiftspear, Swiftspear with TC is rather.... decent? Swiftspear still has the potential to kill you by dealing 5 damage a turn with a burn spell. HOWEVER, it gives players a reaction period of PTE/ Disfigure/ 1 CMC or 2 CMC removal spell to reduce it to 3 dmg a turn. The combination of Bolt + Rift bolt/Lava Spike t2 WITH A SWIFT SPEAR is 9 DAMAGE ON T2. That is really powerful, it is consistent since they play 4 copies of everything. It can also combo with guide for 8 Dmg or Delver for 9 damage once he is flipped to a min of 7 dmg. That is powerful for T1-3 for this meta that the deck CREATED itself.
U/R Delver & Burn:
These two decks combined with TC and Swiftspear caused a shift in the meta, format warping, w/e term you want to call it. The fact is that the decks themselves CAUSED other decks to change/adjust/again use w/e term you want to shift their focus SOLELY on them. Instead of 2-4 SB cards average for burn, there is now a min. 2- max. 6 cards SOLELY for U/R Delver and Burn. It brought back aggro-type decks because they have shifted a mid-range style format that was considered "fast" to make decks that aren't keeping up with it in 3 different ways; 1. If the deck cannot go any faster, it is considered non viable and scrapped, 2. They must have a faster clock or be as fast as the 2 decks to compete with damage, 3. Adjust the mid-range style decks to a more heavy early style play and cut the mana curve at some point from: i.e. max 5-6 to a 3-5.
The two decks caused an adjustment of what creatures are used. Batterskull will see increased play due to resilience and being a 4 toughness creature WITH lifelink and vigilance. Baneslayer angel will some more play, but not as much as batterskull due to its' CC. Auriok Champion and Korfirewalkers for white will see MORE play, causing an increase due to the influence of finding early game protection against red.
The two decks caused an adjustment with how the "fast" aggro decks are already playing. Bogles will main board 2-4 copies of Unfliching courage or otherforms of lifegain. The affinity decks were SBing chalice of the void from min. 2 - max. 3 or 4.
Control decks always take time to adjust by adjusting both kills spells and counters. So, maybe control is still there. But in reality where if there is one control player to every 3-4 U/R delver or burn deck in a GP or PT. The odds of the control deck going top 8 is VERY slim as the potential of being TCed for 9 damage is always possible IN EVERY MATCH against it. if the slight off chance the control player did manage to get to top 8, that player drew godly to stop 7-9 dmg on T2-T4. There is literally no skill to try and outplay a burn deck, They just slam burn spells at you to see if you are bluffing counters. They have the back up plan to draw a TC to refill on a potential 4-9 dmg spells. U/R delver is slightly better where you can outplay their 4 extra 1 CMC creatures, but they still have the back up plan of playing burn spells and TC it back.
The combination of 3 powerful spells designed the way they are caused all of this. This is a very LARGE shift in the meta, the adjustments being made around THREE cards is very large, and the fact that those adjustments might not be able to do it in a large populated tournament was made by 3 cards.
I'm thinking we need a real GP to get a full sense of what is happening. Madrid will be interesting to see though European Magic is not quite the same as American (metas and playstyles and such). Personally I think what we are seeing with UR Delver and Burn is a couple things. First, with Delver we are finally seeing the emergence of a good stuff deck in UR. All cards in it, similar to Rock, are very good and when combined, synergistically create a very impressive and fair deck. Second, with the rise of burn we are seeing historically low levels of GB Rock, which has been the traditional police deck in modern. Rock has a pretty decent match up with UR Delver but Delver has a slightly better burn match up. On top of that, Delver and burn also received some shiny new toys, which raise their respective power levels within the format. I wonder how much of the meta shift isn't caused simply by this(new toys, cheaper newish decks,coupled with an influx of new Modern players brought by MM equals a warped format).
The question of course is will the format work its way out of it current situation or will degenerate further. Personally I think we will start seeing a rise in creature based aggro (which I think is already observable) and that those decks have a chance at evening out the meta. The various DNT decks and zoo decks should increase in prevalence along with the consistent smattering of affinity and I personally am hoping this will be enough to pull the UR Delver and burn decks back in line. If this happens we should have ourselves a neat cyclical format. If not, bannings will happen.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern GB Rock U Flooding Merfolk RUG Delver Midrange WU Monks UW Tempo Geist GW Bogle GW Liege UR Tron B Vampires
Affinity Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity EDH W Akroma GBW Ghave BRU Thrax GR Ruric I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
I find it hard to believe that people think cruise is okay when legacy players agree its too good there. its just right to splash for cruise in any deck
I find it hard to believe that people think cruise is okay when legacy players agree its too good there. its just right to splash for cruise in any deck
Well TC, among other very powerful cards, scales depending on the relative power of the format. There is a reason you don't see TC taking over standard.
I am not saying TC isn't powerful, but rather that the format comparison doesn't work.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
I find it hard to believe that people think cruise is okay when legacy players agree its too good there. its just right to splash for cruise in any deck
Well TC, among other very powerful cards, scales depending on the relative power of the format. There is a reason you don't see TC taking over standard.
I am not saying TC isn't powerful, but rather that the format comparison doesn't work.
'
it's kinda like how revoker is actually good in legacy but horrible in modern.
The same legacy players that are complaining about TC are probably the same that complained about TNN. People do not like change. No matter the format.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern GB Rock U Flooding Merfolk RUG Delver Midrange WU Monks UW Tempo Geist GW Bogle GW Liege UR Tron B Vampires
Affinity Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity EDH W Akroma GBW Ghave BRU Thrax GR Ruric I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
I guess I should have been more specific, I do mean AT LEAST two, like a GP and a pro tour, or more--but I'm leaning towards 3-4.
Its unfortunate however because in the event that 3-4 events got dominated by a bannable card, for modern at least, thats a lot of time between events where something is rampant--a problem with having the spacing of big events so unevenly distributed.
The only problem with 3 or 4 is that could mean 6 months of a screwed up meta and a release of at least one more set. The longer Wotc waits, the harder it is to pinpoint what exactly is the problem.
The same legacy players that are complaining about TC are probably the same that complained about TNN. People do not like change. No matter the format.
I know this is not a discussion about legacy but True-Name Nemesis was the last nail to the coffin of fair non-blue decks (after miracles). It also semi warped tje format by forcing GB decks to play Golgari Charm in side or main which pushes decks those are using x/1 creatures only out from the format. Only thing that Nemesis did was shrink the deck diversity even smaller.
I guess I should have been more specific, I do mean AT LEAST two, like a GP and a pro tour, or more--but I'm leaning towards 3-4.
Its unfortunate however because in the event that 3-4 events got dominated by a bannable card, for modern at least, thats a lot of time between events where something is rampant--a problem with having the spacing of big events so unevenly distributed.
The only problem with 3 or 4 is that could mean 6 months of a screwed up meta and a release of at least one more set. The longer Wotc waits, the harder it is to pinpoint what exactly is the problem.
Knowing how Wizards reacts, they probably will wait 6 months instead of 3 as long as a single deck doesn't go much over 16% of the meta. That is what happened with DRS. If Delver or Burn exceeds that and maintains an especially excessive percentage, then it might get a ban in January. However, if they stay around 15% each then I think that they will survive at least until the ban announcement after the next one (I think it is in March).
As it stands Delver is over that percentage so if it continues to hold it's position it will likely be banned.
Having a format reduced to aggressive decks isn't fun. It would be like PT Philly, everyone thought the format was too fast and games ended too quickly. No one liked it.
Personally, I feel if Wizards unbanned Deathrite Shaman then Rock would have a fighting chance. But as it stands, jund and rock are nearly non existent and when the "police" deck in a format is no longer viable, you have a large problem.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active Modern Decks
U Tron GW Bogles RG Loam UR Blue Breach RBU Grixis Goryo BRU Grixis Delver GBR Jund GBW Junk
I must have missed the quote from wizards naming B/G their official police deck of the format - the one and only for all time apparently.
B/G is not viable? The data disagrees with you. Sure, MTGO has seen it vanish, but still very much "viable" in the paper meta.
Hyperbole will be the death of us.
Oh im sorry, I guess data is just a made up thing. Check out MTG Goldfish, ill include a link even. It will show you how LITTLE Jund/Rock is being played.
I never once declared it was the official police deck but who claimed Force of Will was the official police card of Vintage and Legacy? Youre just making yourself look bad.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active Modern Decks
U Tron GW Bogles RG Loam UR Blue Breach RBU Grixis Goryo BRU Grixis Delver GBR Jund GBW Junk
According to ktkenshinx's document (linked in his sig) "MTGSalvation Modern Metagame Analysis - MTGO and Paper Data (September 2014 - January 2015)", the "Post KTK" paper meta has 4.19% Jund and 2.97% B/G rock.
Sorry if you don't think that is high enough representation, but I think that categorically disproves your assertion that it is not viable.
edit: Here's how you know your source is bad: it says burn is 4.75% of the meta. Come on, at least try to vet your data a little.
A true Jund/Junk player loves the current meta (it's fun to go oldschool with Finks). The current meta isn't as bad as people are making out. The numbers of Delver and Burn are worrying but Delver and Burn are far from unbeatable they're just efficient so people who play competitive MTG are picking them up and, as a result, the netdeckers are following suit. Metagaming for them does weaken other MUs but as there are so many Delver and Burn decks around it doesn't actually hurt you to do it.
Having said that, there is likely going to be a nerf happening. TC is over powered and easily splashable so will likely get the axe within the next 2 sets - if Wizards didn't foresee its power and print a fix in the next set or 2. DTT is more powerful but not splashable so I think they'll leave it alone and Delver will be ok even after a TC ban.
Its not about Delver or Burn being "too good" its about their affect on the format and their percentages. NO DECK should be as popular as they are AND be able to put up the results they do. And the format shouldn't devolve into just an aggro meta.
When your LGS turns into a store where 60% of the decks are Burn and Delver and MOST of them refused to play either archetype before Khans was released, you have a problem. In the case of my store, you can expect almost every other match is against them and if you go to the top tables ALL you see is Delver and Burn. Jund, Pod, Twin, Scapeshift, Affinity are all present but none of them are in the top 8 tables and haven't placed in weeks. Sure, the argument can be made its easier to metagame hate but the format should never come down to what it has in the first place.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active Modern Decks
U Tron GW Bogles RG Loam UR Blue Breach RBU Grixis Goryo BRU Grixis Delver GBR Jund GBW Junk
"Refused to play either archtype"? You asked them then, and they refused? You handed them the deck and asked for a game, and they said "no way bro"? [riiiiight]
Popularity is an interesting reason to consider a banning. You don't think it's popular because it's cheap and it's still very good, do you? Because that would imply that you want to either ban cheap decks, or good decks - and I doubt its the latter.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
A few pages back, I posted this message here in response to a post by Bocephus. Bocephus, possibly aware that his arguments were bad enough that he did not want to let other people see them, instead opted to send me a message attempting to rebut my points. I responded with the following:
Quote from Lord Seth »
Oh, wow. I knew your points of view on this were absurd, but you've gone the extra mile and made them even more silly. No reprints at all? Granted, the rest of your points are just as fallacious as they've always been for the reasons I have previously pointed out, but it seems like you're determined to be as nonsensical as possible.
If you want a more detailed reply as to why, then respond on the thread where I posted that rather than cowardly using a PM to avoid letting people other see your ignorance on this topic.
And again, not trolling you. Just pointing out your frequently poor logic.
I post this in order to ensure transparency in this matter (I will get to the message I was responding to in just a moment). But in retrospect, this message was perhaps a more insulting message than I should have sent... the curse of the "have to leave for work in about 10 minutes and want to reply anyway" situation. Regardless, I realized his response did deserve a reply, if only to show its absurdity (though to be perfectly honest, I think merely posting it without commentary would do that). I, however, have no issues with other people seeing my arguments, and thus have no issue doing it publicly. Thus, here we go.
Note that I have not edited his message in any way outside of cutting it up into several segments I can respond to specific parts specifically. Let's go:
Quote from Bocephus »
1) I have always been against reprints. There should never be any reprints, ever. Its lazy design. Yes, reprinting Giant growth umpteen times is lazy design.
And Bocephus wonders why people don't take him seriously. You heard it here, folks: All reprints are bad. Perhaps he makes an exception for sets like Modern Masters, because I certainly hope he isn't of the idea that the Reserved List should encompass every card ever printed. However, even if he's simply referring to Standard reprints, this is nonsensical. It is not "lazy design" to bring back ideas that people enjoyed.
While Standard rotation often gets rid of cards you disliked, it also has the effect of removing cards you may have liked. Reprints allow such cards to stick around for a little longer, or perhaps be brought back later when the time is right. I remember some people were quite excited when they discovered Ball Lightning was returning in Magic 2010. It always seemed to me that a key part about a game is to have things people like, and if people really liked a particular card, why not keep it around? It might not always be feasible, but there's nothing wrong with it. Unless you're bocephus, apparently.
One might as well say that Super Mario Bros. 3 was lazy design because it still had Mario jumping on enemies to defeat them. Oh no, they re-used something! The horror!
Additionally, reprints occur beside new cards (with the exception of the pre-Magic 2010 core sets, though even those were released alongside sets with new cards). So it is not like the idea of adding new cards while keeping old ones around is a contradiction.
Additionally, to what purpose would it be to make sure you don't reprint things? If anything, that would hurt the game because frequently there's no need for a new version of something. Certainly, there are a variety of Giant Growth variants, but the idea that because they printed a G Instant that gave +3/+3 until end of turn somehow means they have to do something different each time is absurd. Sometimes you just want a simple pump spell in a set.
2) If you can not understand the difference from prior to the announcement of Modern to after the announcement, that is not my problem for your obtuseness. Once Modern was announced nothing prior to 8th should be ever reprinted. I dont care if it sees play in Modern or not, it sets a precedent. Rancor and bolt were reprinted into Standard and into the MOdern era before Modern was a twinkle in anyones eye.
Exactly why the creation of Modern should make Wizards of the Coast radically change their ideas on from what time period cards can be reprinted is, as usual with these arguments of bocephus's, left unexplained. Sorry bocephus, I suppose I'm too "obtuse" to understand your completely absurd distinction. (Note: The previous sentence was sarcasm) Then again, I suppose everyone is, because I've yet to see a single person agree with you on this idea.
The claim bocephus would normally advocate would be something like "They started it at a particular point, and they should not add cards from before that point." Again, not really much of an explanation of why that should be the case, especially because Wizards of the Coast never stated such a thing. If anything, this actually contradicts his general thesis regarding reprints! After all, it adds a new card to the format! Whether it's a new card because it came from before 8th Edition or because it was never printed before doesn't change the fact it's a new card.
One could try to argue that before 8th Edition there was a different design philosophy. Indeed, design philosophy has changed through Magic's history. It's why Winter Orb is extremely unlikely to ever return to Standard. But older cards can still fit in the current design philosophy. Essentially, if they're reprinted, it means they do fit in the current design philosophy.
Basically, it's yet another claim by bocephus that something should be a certain way with no real rationale provided.
3) The ONS fetches were from before 8th edition, ONS fetches were not legal in the format, unlike the list of other cards you mentioned that were. ONS fetches were not needed in the format. They just made the mana bases easier, something a vocal minority are already complaining about.
And by your admission, they were a minority. Aren't you always going on about how Wizards of the Coast should do what the playerbase wants, not what the minority says?
But you miss something. And that's the fact that while the mana bases might have been very good, some decks were being unfairly excluded from that. If you wanted UW, you would not get a manabase as good as UR. Oddly, your manabase could be better by adding a color and going UWR.
One possibility to fix up this dissonance would be to ban the Zendikar fetchlands, but we all know that was a no-go. So to fix it, they had to bring back the Onslaught fetchlands. And let's face it. With or without Modern, those were eventually going to come back. Maybe they would've waited longer without Modern, but the fetchlands are extremely popular and would return at some point.
4) 95% of what Wotc does I understand and can get behind. I dont feel I have to keep bringing up the things I dislike every time I back their decisions.
Again, you miss the point. The problem is when they do things[deck] you do like, you use arguments that you seem to never accept when they do things you don't like. Such as this particular case.
So in short, I have hated reprints since Beta, I found it lazy design and showed they had little plan of the future of the game at the time. I believe Wotc is ruining Modern by bringing cards from outside of the time frame since the announcement of the format. I pray none of the cards in the 'please reprint these so I can play it in Modern' cards see the light of day in Modern.
I do find it highly amusing that he claims they are "ruining" Modern by bringing earlier cards into it, when any "ruining" of the format has basically been due to new cards, such as Deathrite Shaman or (arguably) Treasure Cruise. Indeed, looking at the Modern banned list, I do not believe that a single one of those cards is in a Modern-legal set because it was reprinted; their original printings were what made them Modern legal. If anything is likely to "ruin" Modern, it's a new card, not a reprint.
(to clarify this: I mean that the card was from a pre-8th Edition set, then reprinted in 8th Edition or later and is legal for that reason. For example, Lord of Atlantis or Blood Moon had their original printings be in earlier sets and were added to Modern due to their reprints. Ponder, although reprinted, would have been legal in the format even if it was only in Lorwyn, the first set it was printed in)
And lastly, I dont want a format broken, dominated by a deck type or a color, I dont want a power level closer to Legacy. Lets just agree we want different things out of the format and stop trolling me everytime I make a statement you dont like.
I am not trolling you. I am pointing out the contradiction in your "Wizards of the Coast makes the decisions" that you always pop up when they do things you don't like but how this oddly seems to not be in effect when they do things you don't. This isn't even limited to your nonsensical "ban reprints!" argument; that was just the particular example I picked because it was an especially bad case.
As it stands Delver is over that percentage so if it continues to hold it's position it will likely be banned.
Having a format reduced to aggressive decks isn't fun. It would be like PT Philly, everyone thought the format was too fast and games ended too quickly. No one liked it.
Personally, I feel if Wizards unbanned Deathrite Shaman then Rock would have a fighting chance. But as it stands, jund and rock are nearly non existent and when the "police" deck in a format is no longer viable, you have a large problem.
Unbanning Deathrite Shaman would be like cutting off an arm to cure a sprained wrist.
I think Bloodbraid Elf would be a better unban, if this was their goal. Though admittedly, it would probably force BGx into only Jund.
"I don’t want to scare anyone in case we end up not doing anything, but I mean… Jeskai Ascendancy in Modern is a big deal. Dig Through Time in all of the Eternal formats is a big deal. Treasure Cruise in all of the older formats is a big deal. So yes, they kinda set off our alarm bells, but we’re going to get more data, we’re going to do our due diligence, we’re certainly not going to overreact to a tweet, or an article, or one single event or anything."
I guess I should have been more specific, I do mean AT LEAST two, like a GP and a pro tour, or more--but I'm leaning towards 3-4.
Its unfortunate however because in the event that 3-4 events got dominated by a bannable card, for modern at least, thats a lot of time between events where something is rampant--a problem with having the spacing of big events so unevenly distributed.
The only problem with 3 or 4 is that could mean 6 months of a screwed up meta and a release of at least one more set. The longer Wotc waits, the harder it is to pinpoint what exactly is the problem.
Knowing how Wizards reacts, they probably will wait 6 months instead of 3 as long as a single deck doesn't go much over 16% of the meta. That is what happened with DRS. If Delver or Burn exceeds that and maintains an especially excessive percentage, then it might get a ban in January. However, if they stay around 15% each then I think that they will survive at least until the ban announcement after the next one (I think it is in March).
You are forgetting they banned BBE the announcement prior to the DRS one I believe. So they did take action sooner then 6 months.
"I don’t want to scare anyone in case we end up not doing anything, but I mean… Jeskai Ascendancy in Modern is a big deal. Dig Through Time in all of the Eternal formats is a big deal. Treasure Cruise in all of the older formats is a big deal. So yes, they kinda set off our alarm bells, but we’re going to get more data, we’re going to do our due diligence, we’re certainly not going to overreact to a tweet, or an article, or one single event or anything."
How? Jeskai Ascendancy has done basically nothing in the format.
How can Wizards of the Coast look at a deck that's done almost nothing and claim it's a "big deal"?
Saying Treasure Cruise is a big deal makes sense because... it is a big deal. But Jeskai Ascendancy is not. It's a much bigger deal in Standard at the moment.
Another quote from the article, in case people were wondering about their testing...
"Ten Copper: Did you suspect this would happen?
Aaron: We suspected it going in. We don’t put a lot of time and effort into testing those older formats, we just kinda let things… we’ll see what happens, and we have the banned list as a ‘catch-all’ for any problems that may arise. They’ve caught our attention, we’re going to see what happens, and use that data to make the best decision."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Its unfortunate however because in the event that 3-4 events got dominated by a bannable card, for modern at least, thats a lot of time between events where something is rampant--a problem with having the spacing of big events so unevenly distributed.
Is it possible to get a % representation of caw blade before jace and stoneforge mystic got banned the 6 months before?
It is possible to replicate what WoTC might do as they waited until 1 month before banning mystic and jace, deciding they would rather wait until banning either/ and or both cards.
If the representation of U/R Delver or Burn with TC shows an upwards of 20% representation to about 50-80% representation like caw blade would, and WoTC wants to wait before banning either cards.
WoTC might as well wait until the last 2 modern events for the season before implementing a ban.
Of course standard =/= modern, but the % or # could affect how WoTC wants to go about this decision when 2 cards made a deck Tier 1.
Swiftspear/bolt and TC might be up for the final decisions.
Without TC:
Why Bolt? Swift spear with bolt is 5 damage, with guide is 5 dmg. Splash-able and staple in every deck that plays red, if you don't play bolt in red then you are considered "bad".
We can keep the swiftspear and ban the bolt, causing U/R delver and burn to go down significantly by losing 4 copies of 3 damage and subbing it for a sub optimal 2 CMC like searing spear or MB searing blaze, which is still good. It also tones down UWR delver/geist along with UWR control.
If we take out swift spear. It would tone done burn, U/R delver to the same levels pre KTK. Pod and other decks would put less defining cards to SB against said decks, format would be the same as before. Nothing really changed at all. It goes back to causing a "stale" meta with the same 70 card list, with 5 "tech" cards.
With TC:
Bolt with TC is really powerful, it does not matter if you draw into 3 lands or 3 action cards. The fact that U/R Delver and Burn HAVING the access to this spell causes a misinterpretation of power. Before, Burn was already good being able to kill you on t3-t4. Now, they have a higher % to kill you t3-t5 due to TC AND the combination of swiftspear. With bolt going, It tones down the aforementioned decks. It also brings down burn and U/R Delver with keeping the new "staple" monastery swiftspear, it just means they are trading their 1 CMC removal/kill finisher for a 1 CMC consistently good creature.
Swiftspear, Swiftspear with TC is rather.... decent? Swiftspear still has the potential to kill you by dealing 5 damage a turn with a burn spell. HOWEVER, it gives players a reaction period of PTE/ Disfigure/ 1 CMC or 2 CMC removal spell to reduce it to 3 dmg a turn. The combination of Bolt + Rift bolt/Lava Spike t2 WITH A SWIFT SPEAR is 9 DAMAGE ON T2. That is really powerful, it is consistent since they play 4 copies of everything. It can also combo with guide for 8 Dmg or Delver for 9 damage once he is flipped to a min of 7 dmg. That is powerful for T1-3 for this meta that the deck CREATED itself.
U/R Delver & Burn:
These two decks combined with TC and Swiftspear caused a shift in the meta, format warping, w/e term you want to call it. The fact is that the decks themselves CAUSED other decks to change/adjust/again use w/e term you want to shift their focus SOLELY on them. Instead of 2-4 SB cards average for burn, there is now a min. 2- max. 6 cards SOLELY for U/R Delver and Burn. It brought back aggro-type decks because they have shifted a mid-range style format that was considered "fast" to make decks that aren't keeping up with it in 3 different ways; 1. If the deck cannot go any faster, it is considered non viable and scrapped, 2. They must have a faster clock or be as fast as the 2 decks to compete with damage, 3. Adjust the mid-range style decks to a more heavy early style play and cut the mana curve at some point from: i.e. max 5-6 to a 3-5.
The two decks caused an adjustment of what creatures are used. Batterskull will see increased play due to resilience and being a 4 toughness creature WITH lifelink and vigilance. Baneslayer angel will some more play, but not as much as batterskull due to its' CC. Auriok Champion and Korfirewalkers for white will see MORE play, causing an increase due to the influence of finding early game protection against red.
The two decks caused an adjustment with how the "fast" aggro decks are already playing. Bogles will main board 2-4 copies of Unfliching courage or otherforms of lifegain. The affinity decks were SBing chalice of the void from min. 2 - max. 3 or 4.
Control decks always take time to adjust by adjusting both kills spells and counters. So, maybe control is still there. But in reality where if there is one control player to every 3-4 U/R delver or burn deck in a GP or PT. The odds of the control deck going top 8 is VERY slim as the potential of being TCed for 9 damage is always possible IN EVERY MATCH against it. if the slight off chance the control player did manage to get to top 8, that player drew godly to stop 7-9 dmg on T2-T4. There is literally no skill to try and outplay a burn deck, They just slam burn spells at you to see if you are bluffing counters. They have the back up plan to draw a TC to refill on a potential 4-9 dmg spells. U/R delver is slightly better where you can outplay their 4 extra 1 CMC creatures, but they still have the back up plan of playing burn spells and TC it back.
The combination of 3 powerful spells designed the way they are caused all of this. This is a very LARGE shift in the meta, the adjustments being made around THREE cards is very large, and the fact that those adjustments might not be able to do it in a large populated tournament was made by 3 cards.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
The question of course is will the format work its way out of it current situation or will degenerate further. Personally I think we will start seeing a rise in creature based aggro (which I think is already observable) and that those decks have a chance at evening out the meta. The various DNT decks and zoo decks should increase in prevalence along with the consistent smattering of affinity and I personally am hoping this will be enough to pull the UR Delver and burn decks back in line. If this happens we should have ourselves a neat cyclical format. If not, bannings will happen.
GB Rock
U Flooding Merfolk
RUG Delver Midrange
WU Monks
UW Tempo Geist
GW Bogle
GW Liege
UR Tron
B Vampires
Affinity
Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity
EDH
W Akroma
GBW Ghave
BRU Thrax
GR Ruric
I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
Ah thanks, changed in post.
Well TC, among other very powerful cards, scales depending on the relative power of the format. There is a reason you don't see TC taking over standard.
I am not saying TC isn't powerful, but rather that the format comparison doesn't work.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)it's kinda like how revoker is actually good in legacy but horrible in modern.
GB Rock
U Flooding Merfolk
RUG Delver Midrange
WU Monks
UW Tempo Geist
GW Bogle
GW Liege
UR Tron
B Vampires
Affinity
Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity
EDH
W Akroma
GBW Ghave
BRU Thrax
GR Ruric
I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
The only problem with 3 or 4 is that could mean 6 months of a screwed up meta and a release of at least one more set. The longer Wotc waits, the harder it is to pinpoint what exactly is the problem.
I know this is not a discussion about legacy but True-Name Nemesis was the last nail to the coffin of fair non-blue decks (after miracles). It also semi warped tje format by forcing GB decks to play Golgari Charm in side or main which pushes decks those are using x/1 creatures only out from the format. Only thing that Nemesis did was shrink the deck diversity even smaller.
Modern
WUBRG
Knowing how Wizards reacts, they probably will wait 6 months instead of 3 as long as a single deck doesn't go much over 16% of the meta. That is what happened with DRS. If Delver or Burn exceeds that and maintains an especially excessive percentage, then it might get a ban in January. However, if they stay around 15% each then I think that they will survive at least until the ban announcement after the next one (I think it is in March).
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Having a format reduced to aggressive decks isn't fun. It would be like PT Philly, everyone thought the format was too fast and games ended too quickly. No one liked it.
Personally, I feel if Wizards unbanned Deathrite Shaman then Rock would have a fighting chance. But as it stands, jund and rock are nearly non existent and when the "police" deck in a format is no longer viable, you have a large problem.
U Tron
GW Bogles
RG Loam
UR Blue Breach
RBU Grixis Goryo
BRU Grixis Delver
GBR Jund
GBW Junk
Active Legacy Decks
BR Reanimator
B/G is not viable? The data disagrees with you. Sure, MTGO has seen it vanish, but still very much "viable" in the paper meta.
Hyperbole will be the death of us.
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
Oh im sorry, I guess data is just a made up thing. Check out MTG Goldfish, ill include a link even. It will show you how LITTLE Jund/Rock is being played.
http://www.mtggoldfish.com/metagame/modern#paper
I never once declared it was the official police deck but who claimed Force of Will was the official police card of Vintage and Legacy? Youre just making yourself look bad.
U Tron
GW Bogles
RG Loam
UR Blue Breach
RBU Grixis Goryo
BRU Grixis Delver
GBR Jund
GBW Junk
Active Legacy Decks
BR Reanimator
Sorry if you don't think that is high enough representation, but I think that categorically disproves your assertion that it is not viable.
edit: Here's how you know your source is bad: it says burn is 4.75% of the meta. Come on, at least try to vet your data a little.
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
Its not about Delver or Burn being "too good" its about their affect on the format and their percentages. NO DECK should be as popular as they are AND be able to put up the results they do. And the format shouldn't devolve into just an aggro meta.
When your LGS turns into a store where 60% of the decks are Burn and Delver and MOST of them refused to play either archetype before Khans was released, you have a problem. In the case of my store, you can expect almost every other match is against them and if you go to the top tables ALL you see is Delver and Burn. Jund, Pod, Twin, Scapeshift, Affinity are all present but none of them are in the top 8 tables and haven't placed in weeks. Sure, the argument can be made its easier to metagame hate but the format should never come down to what it has in the first place.
U Tron
GW Bogles
RG Loam
UR Blue Breach
RBU Grixis Goryo
BRU Grixis Delver
GBR Jund
GBW Junk
Active Legacy Decks
BR Reanimator
Popularity is an interesting reason to consider a banning. You don't think it's popular because it's cheap and it's still very good, do you? Because that would imply that you want to either ban cheap decks, or good decks - and I doubt its the latter.
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
I post this in order to ensure transparency in this matter (I will get to the message I was responding to in just a moment). But in retrospect, this message was perhaps a more insulting message than I should have sent... the curse of the "have to leave for work in about 10 minutes and want to reply anyway" situation. Regardless, I realized his response did deserve a reply, if only to show its absurdity (though to be perfectly honest, I think merely posting it without commentary would do that). I, however, have no issues with other people seeing my arguments, and thus have no issue doing it publicly. Thus, here we go.
Note that I have not edited his message in any way outside of cutting it up into several segments I can respond to specific parts specifically. Let's go:
And Bocephus wonders why people don't take him seriously. You heard it here, folks: All reprints are bad. Perhaps he makes an exception for sets like Modern Masters, because I certainly hope he isn't of the idea that the Reserved List should encompass every card ever printed. However, even if he's simply referring to Standard reprints, this is nonsensical. It is not "lazy design" to bring back ideas that people enjoyed.
While Standard rotation often gets rid of cards you disliked, it also has the effect of removing cards you may have liked. Reprints allow such cards to stick around for a little longer, or perhaps be brought back later when the time is right. I remember some people were quite excited when they discovered Ball Lightning was returning in Magic 2010. It always seemed to me that a key part about a game is to have things people like, and if people really liked a particular card, why not keep it around? It might not always be feasible, but there's nothing wrong with it. Unless you're bocephus, apparently.
One might as well say that Super Mario Bros. 3 was lazy design because it still had Mario jumping on enemies to defeat them. Oh no, they re-used something! The horror!
Additionally, reprints occur beside new cards (with the exception of the pre-Magic 2010 core sets, though even those were released alongside sets with new cards). So it is not like the idea of adding new cards while keeping old ones around is a contradiction.
Additionally, to what purpose would it be to make sure you don't reprint things? If anything, that would hurt the game because frequently there's no need for a new version of something. Certainly, there are a variety of Giant Growth variants, but the idea that because they printed a G Instant that gave +3/+3 until end of turn somehow means they have to do something different each time is absurd. Sometimes you just want a simple pump spell in a set.
Exactly why the creation of Modern should make Wizards of the Coast radically change their ideas on from what time period cards can be reprinted is, as usual with these arguments of bocephus's, left unexplained. Sorry bocephus, I suppose I'm too "obtuse" to understand your completely absurd distinction. (Note: The previous sentence was sarcasm) Then again, I suppose everyone is, because I've yet to see a single person agree with you on this idea.
The claim bocephus would normally advocate would be something like "They started it at a particular point, and they should not add cards from before that point." Again, not really much of an explanation of why that should be the case, especially because Wizards of the Coast never stated such a thing. If anything, this actually contradicts his general thesis regarding reprints! After all, it adds a new card to the format! Whether it's a new card because it came from before 8th Edition or because it was never printed before doesn't change the fact it's a new card.
One could try to argue that before 8th Edition there was a different design philosophy. Indeed, design philosophy has changed through Magic's history. It's why Winter Orb is extremely unlikely to ever return to Standard. But older cards can still fit in the current design philosophy. Essentially, if they're reprinted, it means they do fit in the current design philosophy.
Basically, it's yet another claim by bocephus that something should be a certain way with no real rationale provided.
And by your admission, they were a minority. Aren't you always going on about how Wizards of the Coast should do what the playerbase wants, not what the minority says?
But you miss something. And that's the fact that while the mana bases might have been very good, some decks were being unfairly excluded from that. If you wanted UW, you would not get a manabase as good as UR. Oddly, your manabase could be better by adding a color and going UWR.
One possibility to fix up this dissonance would be to ban the Zendikar fetchlands, but we all know that was a no-go. So to fix it, they had to bring back the Onslaught fetchlands. And let's face it. With or without Modern, those were eventually going to come back. Maybe they would've waited longer without Modern, but the fetchlands are extremely popular and would return at some point.
Again, you miss the point. The problem is when they do things[deck] you do like, you use arguments that you seem to never accept when they do things you don't like. Such as this particular case.
I do find it highly amusing that he claims they are "ruining" Modern by bringing earlier cards into it, when any "ruining" of the format has basically been due to new cards, such as Deathrite Shaman or (arguably) Treasure Cruise. Indeed, looking at the Modern banned list, I do not believe that a single one of those cards is in a Modern-legal set because it was reprinted; their original printings were what made them Modern legal. If anything is likely to "ruin" Modern, it's a new card, not a reprint.
(to clarify this: I mean that the card was from a pre-8th Edition set, then reprinted in 8th Edition or later and is legal for that reason. For example, Lord of Atlantis or Blood Moon had their original printings be in earlier sets and were added to Modern due to their reprints. Ponder, although reprinted, would have been legal in the format even if it was only in Lorwyn, the first set it was printed in)
I am not trolling you. I am pointing out the contradiction in your "Wizards of the Coast makes the decisions" that you always pop up when they do things you don't like but how this oddly seems to not be in effect when they do things you don't. This isn't even limited to your nonsensical "ban reprints!" argument; that was just the particular example I picked because it was an especially bad case.
To get a bit back onto the regular discussion: Unbanning Deathrite Shaman would be like cutting off an arm to cure a sprained wrist.
I think Bloodbraid Elf would be a better unban, if this was their goal. Though admittedly, it would probably force BGx into only Jund.
"I don’t want to scare anyone in case we end up not doing anything, but I mean… Jeskai Ascendancy in Modern is a big deal. Dig Through Time in all of the Eternal formats is a big deal. Treasure Cruise in all of the older formats is a big deal. So yes, they kinda set off our alarm bells, but we’re going to get more data, we’re going to do our due diligence, we’re certainly not going to overreact to a tweet, or an article, or one single event or anything."
http://tencopper.com/article/2014/11/magic-the-gathering-aaron-forsythe-interview/
You are forgetting they banned BBE the announcement prior to the DRS one I believe. So they did take action sooner then 6 months.
How can Wizards of the Coast look at a deck that's done almost nothing and claim it's a "big deal"?
Saying Treasure Cruise is a big deal makes sense because... it is a big deal. But Jeskai Ascendancy is not. It's a much bigger deal in Standard at the moment.
"Ten Copper: Did you suspect this would happen?
Aaron: We suspected it going in. We don’t put a lot of time and effort into testing those older formats, we just kinda let things… we’ll see what happens, and we have the banned list as a ‘catch-all’ for any problems that may arise. They’ve caught our attention, we’re going to see what happens, and use that data to make the best decision."
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG