A restricted list would just make the format much more swingy, and blue focused. Dredge would also be sweet, as you never really need more than one dread return.
I feel like bgx is what is keeping this format somewhat interactive. so lets leave it be. and if it gets a bit to high on meta share then print a card that makes a tier 2 deck tier 1 that can keep it in check.
While I do agree that the format is better when it finds it's own answers rather than relies on a ban to neuter a hypothetical slightly dominant deck (I don't feel any are right now), managing a format by way of printing new cards is just impossible. Last May the format was almost certainly very different than it will by the time BFZ comes out. People like to ***** about WotC's responsiveness, but there is a hard limit that defines the rate of new card printing. Add that to the fact that new cards have to be fine in Standard, and you see how it would be a terrible way to manage the Modern
I'm pretty sure that Blood Moon would be considered kosher for Standard these days, so a plains variant is probably just as unlikely.
One thing I've seen floating around idea wise on a lot of magic related forums is the idea of creating a restricted list for modern to both prevent outright banning of borderline cards (Pod, Preordain, Bloodbraid Elf, and Dig are the usual examples) but also to allow cards back in that are too powerful to be allowed as 4 ofs and to help keep the format more balanced power wise across all the colors. I don't have an opinion either way on this as I haven't played modern long enough to have bans/unbans affect me.
Restricted lists just aren't a very good idea. They make games way too swingy. They used to have restricted lists in Standard, but realized the problem and switched it to a banned list.
Now, you might say "what about Vintage, then?" Well, the point of Vintage is to be a format where no matter how crazy powerful a card is, it isn't banned, so they get restricted instead. It's that way by requirement. Also, Vintage has so many crazy powerful cards restricted that it all ends up evening out anyway because each player is going to draw at least some of those cards due to there being so many.
I feel like bgx is what is keeping this format somewhat interactive. so lets leave it be. and if it gets a bit to high on meta share then print a card that makes a tier 2 deck tier 1 that can keep it in check.
While I do agree that the format is better when it finds it's own answers rather than relies on a ban to neuter a hypothetical slightly dominant deck (I don't feel any are right now), managing a format by way of printing new cards is just impossible. Last May the format was almost certainly very different than it will by the time BFZ comes out. People like to ***** about WotC's responsiveness, but there is a hard limit that defines the rate of new card printing. Add that to the fact that new cards have to be fine in Standard, and you see how it would be a terrible way to manage the Modern
I'm pretty sure that Blood Moon would be considered kosher for Standard these days, so a plains variant is probably just as unlikely.
One thing I've seen floating around idea wise on a lot of magic related forums is the idea of creating a restricted list for modern to both prevent outright banning of borderline cards (Pod, Preordain, Bloodbraid Elf, and Dig are the usual examples) but also to allow cards back in that are too powerful to be allowed as 4 ofs and to help keep the format more balanced power wise across all the colors. I don't have an opinion either way on this as I haven't played modern long enough to have bans/unbans affect me.
Restricted lists just aren't a very good idea. They make games way too swingy. They used to have restricted lists in Standard, but realized the problem and switched it to a banned list.
Now, you might say "what about Vintage, then?" Well, the point of Vintage is to be a format where no matter how crazy powerful a card is, it isn't banned, so they get restricted instead. It's that way by requirement. Also, Vintage has so many crazy powerful cards restricted that it all ends up evening out anyway because each player is going to draw at least some of those cards due to there being so many.
Oh yeah I'm well aware of this, the other common suggestion that's been thrown around even by the pros on articles from SCG/TCG/CF/GM is that nowhere does it say sideboard size has to be the same in every format, they've suggested a couple times upping the SB size for Modern to 20 to allow more room for answers. Again IDK what I think about this, also I don't believe Standard was actually a format yet when they had the restricted list for it. I think that was actually what led to Standard being split off and the creation of the original Type 1/Type 2 format differences.
Oh yeah I'm well aware of this, the other common suggestion that's been thrown around even by the pros on articles from SCG/TCG/CF/GM is that nowhere does it say sideboard size has to be the same in every format, they've suggested a couple times upping the SB size for Modern to 20 to allow more room for answers. Again IDK what I think about this, also I don't believe Standard was actually a format yet when they had the restricted list for it. I think that was actually what led to Standard being split off and the creation of the original Type 1/Type 2 format differences.
Standard wasn't a format at the start; heck, at the start there was no Type 1, it was just Magic. Later on they developed Standard for a number of reasons (keeping the environment small made it easier to test for, rotation was a way to get rid of sets if players didn't like them, and of course it gave players a reason to keep getting those new sets without having to resort to drastic power creep). Standard originally had a restricted list, which is why if you look at really old Standard decks you'll see 1-of Strip Mine and Hymn to Tourach. Then they decided that it wasn't a good idea and moved all the restricted cards to a banned list, creating the format that we have nowadays.
Oh yeah I'm well aware of this, the other common suggestion that's been thrown around even by the pros on articles from SCG/TCG/CF/GM is that nowhere does it say sideboard size has to be the same in every format, they've suggested a couple times upping the SB size for Modern to 20 to allow more room for answers. Again IDK what I think about this, also I don't believe Standard was actually a format yet when they had the restricted list for it. I think that was actually what led to Standard being split off and the creation of the original Type 1/Type 2 format differences.
20 Card sideboard is nonsense. Where does this refusal to accept that some decks have bad match ups come from? You don't hear Legacy players asking for more sideboard slots. Modern has a big (and cyclical) meta-game. It rewards those who A)Play Modern frequently and B)Pay attention to what is popular. This is a good thing in a non-rotating format.
THIS 100X!!! If you don't agree with this then there is no amount of logic that will ever convince you that good, non-oppressive, combos should be allowed. If you don't agree with it then just don't play this game, and you certainly shouldn't feel entitled to make any comment on ban lists ever.
20 sb doesn't help. Sure this would allow you to have more specific cards against certain decks but so those decks would have wider/more options against you. Even 20 cards sideboard can't and won't help with your all bad match-ups or make them so much better that it would be worth, you can't cover everything. That said 20 cards sideboard is just fine. Modern has very diverse metagame and that's it and it's good for the format.
Yeah I'd agree with you, I just thought I'd mention this as it has come up multiple times in articles regarding modern on the major sources (SCG/TCG/CF/GM).
20 sb doesn't help. Sure this would allow you to have more specific cards against certain decks but so those decks would have wider/more options against you. Even 20 cards sideboard can't and won't help with your all bad match-ups or make them so much better that it would be worth, you can't cover everything. That said 20 cards sideboard is just fine. Modern has very diverse metagame and that's it and it's good for the format.
yes a 20 sb does help. legacy doesnt whine about sb because they have force of will a general answer to degenerate decks. modern has no such answers and there for has to hope to hit the hate card vs some matchups or lose or play bg/x... the biggest offenders of this are burn, affinity, infect, tron , bogles, living end, ect. having 5 more cards in sideboard would allow you to play more hosers against such decks. yes these decks can also run hate for your hate but I bet you your hate will win especially if their decks are very linear. going to a 5k tournament should be about skill. and its hard to win with skill when....oh damn everyones playing bogles I never expected alot of that deck cmon sideboard 1 of.....DAMN I LOSE. this is a part of modern that separates skill from rock paper scissors and a 20 card sideboard would help address this. of course there has to be a suprise to catch you off your feet. its when your ready for it and you still lose because you didnt run 3-4 cards in your sb against it....this is when I feel theres a problem....
20 sb doesn't help. Sure this would allow you to have more specific cards against certain decks but so those decks would have wider/more options against you. Even 20 cards sideboard can't and won't help with your all bad match-ups or make them so much better that it would be worth, you can't cover everything. That said 20 cards sideboard is just fine. Modern has very diverse metagame and that's it and it's good for the format.
if wizards would try this for a tournament and see how it does I bet you it wouldnt grossly skew the meta game as bad as many people think.... it would just allow more decks to be competitive.
I think a 20 card sideboard would help some decks more than others. For example, in Jund I could run 3x Sowing Salt in addition to my mages just in case I run into Tron. UWR I could keep 3x Splinter Twin, 3x Exarchs, and 3x Pestermites in the side while still keeping 11 slots open for traditional UWR sideboard fare.
Basically I think it would help the 'Goodstuff' decks more than the linear decks (Burn, Boggles, Infect, Tron).
For the past few weeks, I've been silently following along with the usual banlist cycle, but now that we are back to this suggestion I have to jump in. On what grounds do you want these cards banned? Before you, or anyone else, cites the turn four rule, remember that this rule only applies to top-tier decks. So unless you have some compelling, data-driven reason as to why Grishoalbrand is top-tier, I'm not sure where this suggestion is coming from.
If they're gonna ban something from the deck it should be Griselbrand. Goryo's Vengeance is a reasonably powerful reanimation spell, but it's not broken. Shoal gains X life for crying out loud.
Griselbrand on the other hand is just asking to be abused, it's a Bargain on a stick.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Current Modern decks BGW Junk / URB Grixis Shadow / RGB Lantern Control / WUBCBant Eldrazi
Current Legacy decks BUG Shardless BUG / UWR Predict Miracles / RUG Canadian Thresh / WRBG 4c Loam UB Reanimator
For the past few weeks, I've been silently following along with the usual banlist cycle, but now that we are back to this suggestion I have to jump in. On what grounds do you want these cards banned? Before you, or anyone else, cites the turn four rule, remember that this rule only applies to top-tier decks. So unless you have some compelling, data-driven reason as to why Grishoalbrand is top-tier, I'm not sure where this suggestion is coming from.
There's no official doctrine created by Wizards saying that the turn-four rule only applies to top tier decks (or heck, that it even exists). That has been the precedent in the past (though UR Storm was probably not a tier 1 deck) but it's not like Wizards couldn't just change their mind and start applying their turn 4 rule to tier 2 or lower decks if they decide it's a problem.
Personally I feel the format is better off without uninteractive combo decks that win before turn 3 a significant amount of time like Griselbrand, but I don't care that much one way or another. Can't say I'd mind seeing it axed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Current Modern decks BGW Junk / URB Grixis Shadow / RGB Lantern Control / WUBCBant Eldrazi
Current Legacy decks BUG Shardless BUG / UWR Predict Miracles / RUG Canadian Thresh / WRBG 4c Loam UB Reanimator
Grishoalbrand is not that good. Good heavens. It is a solid deck but if it was a God Tier deck then it would be putting up results. I have a winning record against this deck with both Junk and Grixis. It's fine. I watched it lost to Affinity and SLIVERS(!!) last week. And the Slivers match wasn't even close, Grishoalbrand got smashed.
For the past few weeks, I've been silently following along with the usual banlist cycle, but now that we are back to this suggestion I have to jump in. On what grounds do you want these cards banned? Before you, or anyone else, cites the turn four rule, remember that this rule only applies to top-tier decks. So unless you have some compelling, data-driven reason as to why Grishoalbrand is top-tier, I'm not sure where this suggestion is coming from.
There's no official doctrine created by Wizards saying that the turn-four rule only applies to top tier decks (or heck, that it even exists). That has been the precedent in the past (though UR Storm was probably not a tier 1 deck) but it's not like Wizards couldn't just change their mind and start applying their turn 4 rule to tier 2 or lower decks if they decide it's a problem.
Before Pro Tour Philadelphia, the DCI's stated guideline for the Modern format was to avoid having decks that consistently win the game on turn three. With the results of the Pro Tour in, we are tweaking that goal to not having top-tier decks that consistently win on turn three (or earlier). We also have the goal of maintaining a diverse format.
The DCI's other primary goal for Modern is to not have top tier decks that frequently win on turn three (or earlier).
Although it's true Wizards could just change their minds, they have not given any reason to suggest they have done so for the turn four rule. Players may personally feel a card should be banned (we've seen lots of those opinions in this thread...), but that's just personal preference without any official backing.
If they're gonna ban something from the deck it should be Griselbrand. Goryo's Vengeance is a reasonably powerful reanimation spell, but it's not broken. Shoal gains X life for crying out loud.
Griselbrand on the other hand is just asking to be abused, it's a Bargain on a stick.
This goes against wizards longstanding stance of going after the engine, not the win con. That's like saying storm would have been fine if we just banned grapeshot instead of fast mana.
20 sb doesn't help. Sure this would allow you to have more specific cards against certain decks but so those decks would have wider/more options against you. Even 20 cards sideboard can't and won't help with your all bad match-ups or make them so much better that it would be worth, you can't cover everything. That said 20 cards sideboard is just fine. Modern has very diverse metagame and that's it and it's good for the format.
if wizards would try this for a tournament and see how it does I bet you it wouldnt grossly skew the meta game as bad as many people think.... it would just allow more decks to be competitive.
The number of competitive decks that can win at the tournament is big enough-actually plenty of them are good (competitive) enough to win and metagame is more diverse than ever. I don't see a reason why would Wizards do this tbh.
this is exactly why I feel a bigger sideboard would be better. theres so many viable decks it would be nice to hedge against the popular linear/fringe ones that crush you rather than just playing a tier 1 deck all the time.
This goes against wizards longstanding stance of going after the engine, not the win con. That's like saying storm would have been fine if we just banned grapeshot instead of fast mana.
A Reasonable case could be made that the Yawgmoth's Bargain effect is the engine of that deck.
If they're gonna ban something from the deck it should be Griselbrand. Goryo's Vengeance is a reasonably powerful reanimation spell, but it's not broken. Shoal gains X life for crying out loud.
Griselbrand on the other hand is just asking to be abused, it's a Bargain on a stick.
This goes against wizards longstanding stance of going after the engine, not the win con. That's like saying storm would have been fine if we just banned grapeshot instead of fast mana.
Except Griselbrand is the engine. The win condition is actually Borborygmos.
If they're gonna ban something from the deck it should be Griselbrand. Goryo's Vengeance is a reasonably powerful reanimation spell, but it's not broken. Shoal gains X life for crying out loud.
Griselbrand on the other hand is just asking to be abused, it's a Bargain on a stick.
This goes against wizards longstanding stance of going after the engine, not the win con. That's like saying storm would have been fine if we just banned grapeshot instead of fast mana.
Except Griselbrand is the engine. The win condition is actually Borborygmos.
Fair point. I don't think Gris is likely to be broken though outside of efficient reanimation though. It's like one piece into another? I guess you can include it in the engine part. Weird to me though to think of the target of the reanimation like that.
In any case I don't think the deck is even remotely broken and needs no ban. It sacrifices consistency for resiliency and speed which is a fair trade off IMO.
If they're gonna ban something from the deck it should be Griselbrand. Goryo's Vengeance is a reasonably powerful reanimation spell, but it's not broken. Shoal gains X life for crying out loud.
Griselbrand on the other hand is just asking to be abused, it's a Bargain on a stick.
This goes against wizards longstanding stance of going after the engine, not the win con. That's like saying storm would have been fine if we just banned grapeshot instead of fast mana.
Except Griselbrand is the engine. The win condition is actually Borborygmos.
Fair point. I don't think Gris is likely to be broken though outside of efficient reanimation though. It's like one piece into another? I guess you can include it in the engine part. Weird to me though to think of the target of the reanimation like that.
In any case I don't think the deck is even remotely broken and needs no ban. It sacrifices consistency for resiliency and speed which is a fair trade off IMO.
Well the choice would either be to ban (i) Griselbrand (which as others have said kind of IS the engine) or to (ii) ban Goryo's AND not print/ban 2 cmc reanimation spells in the future. Option (i) doesn't limit future design space so I think it would be better.
I don't think that in general cheap reanimation is too powerful for modern. Griselbrand though is just far more broken than any other fatty, and it's unlikely that an equally broken fatty will ever be printed again. If so, it would probably have an anti-reanimation clause like Progenitus.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Current Modern decks BGW Junk / URB Grixis Shadow / RGB Lantern Control / WUBCBant Eldrazi
Current Legacy decks BUG Shardless BUG / UWR Predict Miracles / RUG Canadian Thresh / WRBG 4c Loam UB Reanimator
As Griselbrand hasn't been broken in modern yet I doubt he will be banned. Even if you ban him, any cheap reanimation will create havoc, with the likes of Iona, Elesh Norn, Atarka.... it's a really long list of things you really don't want to be sitting across from. High mana cost creatures will sweet effects are what is keeping a decent reanimation spell out of modern, but we all know wizards isn't about to stop printing these mana hungry monsters.
Well the choice would either be to ban (i) Griselbrand (which as others have said kind of IS the engine) or to (ii) ban Goryo's AND not print/ban 2 cmc reanimation spells in the future. Option (i) doesn't limit future design space so I think it would be better.
I don't see #2 as limiting design space because that's design space they've already limited themselves in regards to that. I took a look at the 2-mana reanimation spells in Modern, and Goryo's Vengeance is the only one that really works as an actual reanimation spell for anything big. The others all either will only bring back really cheap creatures (for example, Orzhov Charm) or don't work in a reanimation strategy (No Rest For the Wicked requires the creature already be in play). We're well past the days when cards like Animate Dead were considered reasonable. If they're printing 2-mana reanimation spells nowadays, you're not going to be getting anything bigger than a 2 CMC creature back with it.
All that said, if there was something to be banned from the deck (which seems dubious considering its poor meta share), I'd still go with Griselbrand because a Yawgmoth's Bargain that's also a 7/7 flying lifelinker is just waiting to be abused one way or the other.
If they're gonna ban something from the deck it should be Griselbrand. Goryo's Vengeance is a reasonably powerful reanimation spell, but it's not broken. Shoal gains X life for crying out loud.
Griselbrand on the other hand is just asking to be abused, it's a Bargain on a stick.
This goes against wizards longstanding stance of going after the engine, not the win con. That's like saying storm would have been fine if we just banned grapeshot instead of fast mana.
Except Griselbrand is the engine. The win condition is actually Borborygmos.
Fair point. I don't think Gris is likely to be broken though outside of efficient reanimation though. It's like one piece into another? I guess you can include it in the engine part. Weird to me though to think of the target of the reanimation like that.
In any case I don't think the deck is even remotely broken and needs no ban. It sacrifices consistency for resiliency and speed which is a fair trade off IMO.
Well the choice would either be to ban (i) Griselbrand (which as others have said kind of IS the engine) or to (ii) ban Goryo's AND not print/ban 2 cmc reanimation spells in the future. Option (i) doesn't limit future design space so I think it would be better.
I don't think that in general cheap reanimation is too powerful for modern. Griselbrand though is just far more broken than any other fatty, and it's unlikely that an equally broken fatty will ever be printed again. If so, it would probably have an anti-reanimation clause like Progenitus.
As others have said if it's between the high cost fatty and the reanimation spell, the reanimation spell is gonna get banned since wizards isn't gonna stop printing high cost Fattys with ridiculous effects (see the new ulamog for proof)
I seriously doubt there's any talk of banning anything in a deck as Tier 2 as Grishoalbrand, same goes with the talk on the Lantern Control page about WoTC wanting to keep prison style decks out of modern and banning Lantern of Insight just to kill off a Tier 2 deck that sees minor play. I would be more worried about Tier 1 decks that are seeing high field percentages in large events. Affinity for example was a some absurdly huge percentage of the field at the World Championship (might be mixing up recent events). It didn't win, but WoTC is much more likely to be looking at decks with that type of presence over a deck that in a large event might be 1-2% of the field. Now if Grishoalbrand, or Lantern started being 15%+ of the field and putting up regular results I'm sure WoTC would look at them and consider if a ban is called for.
Cheeri0sXWU
Reid Duke's Level One
Who's the Beatdown
Alt+0198=Æ
Now, you might say "what about Vintage, then?" Well, the point of Vintage is to be a format where no matter how crazy powerful a card is, it isn't banned, so they get restricted instead. It's that way by requirement. Also, Vintage has so many crazy powerful cards restricted that it all ends up evening out anyway because each player is going to draw at least some of those cards due to there being so many.
Oh yeah I'm well aware of this, the other common suggestion that's been thrown around even by the pros on articles from SCG/TCG/CF/GM is that nowhere does it say sideboard size has to be the same in every format, they've suggested a couple times upping the SB size for Modern to 20 to allow more room for answers. Again IDK what I think about this, also I don't believe Standard was actually a format yet when they had the restricted list for it. I think that was actually what led to Standard being split off and the creation of the original Type 1/Type 2 format differences.
20 Card sideboard is nonsense. Where does this refusal to accept that some decks have bad match ups come from? You don't hear Legacy players asking for more sideboard slots. Modern has a big (and cyclical) meta-game. It rewards those who A)Play Modern frequently and B)Pay attention to what is popular. This is a good thing in a non-rotating format.
Yeah I'd agree with you, I just thought I'd mention this as it has come up multiple times in articles regarding modern on the major sources (SCG/TCG/CF/GM).
decks playing:
none
decks playing:
none
Basically I think it would help the 'Goodstuff' decks more than the linear decks (Burn, Boggles, Infect, Tron).
Also, I think the current 15 is just fine.
For the past few weeks, I've been silently following along with the usual banlist cycle, but now that we are back to this suggestion I have to jump in. On what grounds do you want these cards banned? Before you, or anyone else, cites the turn four rule, remember that this rule only applies to top-tier decks. So unless you have some compelling, data-driven reason as to why Grishoalbrand is top-tier, I'm not sure where this suggestion is coming from.
If they're gonna ban something from the deck it should be Griselbrand. Goryo's Vengeance is a reasonably powerful reanimation spell, but it's not broken. Shoal gains X life for crying out loud.
Griselbrand on the other hand is just asking to be abused, it's a Bargain on a stick.
BGW Junk / URB Grixis Shadow / RGB Lantern Control / WUBCBant Eldrazi
Current Legacy decks
BUG Shardless BUG / UWR Predict Miracles / RUG Canadian Thresh / WRBG 4c Loam
UB Reanimator
There's no official doctrine created by Wizards saying that the turn-four rule only applies to top tier decks (or heck, that it even exists). That has been the precedent in the past (though UR Storm was probably not a tier 1 deck) but it's not like Wizards couldn't just change their mind and start applying their turn 4 rule to tier 2 or lower decks if they decide it's a problem.
Personally I feel the format is better off without uninteractive combo decks that win before turn 3 a significant amount of time like Griselbrand, but I don't care that much one way or another. Can't say I'd mind seeing it axed.
BGW Junk / URB Grixis Shadow / RGB Lantern Control / WUBCBant Eldrazi
Current Legacy decks
BUG Shardless BUG / UWR Predict Miracles / RUG Canadian Thresh / WRBG 4c Loam
UB Reanimator
That's patently untrue.
Here's the article following PT Philadelphia:
http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/161b
Here's the quote:
This policy was reiterated when Song was banned:
http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/232
Although it's true Wizards could just change their minds, they have not given any reason to suggest they have done so for the turn four rule. Players may personally feel a card should be banned (we've seen lots of those opinions in this thread...), but that's just personal preference without any official backing.
This goes against wizards longstanding stance of going after the engine, not the win con. That's like saying storm would have been fine if we just banned grapeshot instead of fast mana.
decks playing:
none
A Reasonable case could be made that the Yawgmoth's Bargain effect is the engine of that deck.
Fair point. I don't think Gris is likely to be broken though outside of efficient reanimation though. It's like one piece into another? I guess you can include it in the engine part. Weird to me though to think of the target of the reanimation like that.
In any case I don't think the deck is even remotely broken and needs no ban. It sacrifices consistency for resiliency and speed which is a fair trade off IMO.
Well the choice would either be to ban (i) Griselbrand (which as others have said kind of IS the engine) or to (ii) ban Goryo's AND not print/ban 2 cmc reanimation spells in the future. Option (i) doesn't limit future design space so I think it would be better.
I don't think that in general cheap reanimation is too powerful for modern. Griselbrand though is just far more broken than any other fatty, and it's unlikely that an equally broken fatty will ever be printed again. If so, it would probably have an anti-reanimation clause like Progenitus.
BGW Junk / URB Grixis Shadow / RGB Lantern Control / WUBCBant Eldrazi
Current Legacy decks
BUG Shardless BUG / UWR Predict Miracles / RUG Canadian Thresh / WRBG 4c Loam
UB Reanimator
Cheeri0sXWU
Reid Duke's Level One
Who's the Beatdown
Alt+0198=Æ
All that said, if there was something to be banned from the deck (which seems dubious considering its poor meta share), I'd still go with Griselbrand because a Yawgmoth's Bargain that's also a 7/7 flying lifelinker is just waiting to be abused one way or the other.
As others have said if it's between the high cost fatty and the reanimation spell, the reanimation spell is gonna get banned since wizards isn't gonna stop printing high cost Fattys with ridiculous effects (see the new ulamog for proof)