No wonder Wizards doesn't listen to the masses. (At least LSV and Gaby agreed it was unfair.)
How is it not a fair deck? It's just an aggro deck with a higher emphasis on pumping the creatures than swarming the board. It's really just a better version of Atarka Red from the previous Standard that's swapped out the tokens for the Death's Shadow synergy, and if we're going to try to claim something like Atarka Red is unfair then we might as well throw the whole definition away.
I think it's kind in between but I can get why LSV was calling that a fair deck, at least at the beggining. It's kind of (not exactly) a Zoo deck trying to pump/double strike/trample its fair creatures. Plus it's playing Bolts, Seizes, and some kind of other interaction.
On the other side, it's unfair-sh for someone to be 2bleprobed+ Baubled + Temur Battle Raged but it's those cards that made the deck too quick.
But it's a fair at its conception that added a combo/unfair element in it.
But the thing is, that was true for Atarka Red. I got hit with Become Immense+Temur Battle Rage in Standard. The deck wasn't as powerful as Suicide Zoo because it had a smaller card pool (it couldn't fill up its graveyard as quickly, its consistency wasn't as good, and it had to sort of be a split between "pump up one creature and double strike it" and "get a bunch of creatures into play and attack in a swarm" because it didn't have the cards to go fully in on the former) but really, it had the same general synergy.
I think most people refer to Unfair decks those who:
-Try to win Turn 2&3 but do it more often on 4 because of the heavy removal and inconsistency issues
-Don't care about interaction at all, and are best when the opponent doesn't interact either.
-Play cards that break the color pie(Read:Gitaxian Probe and Muta Growth)
-Play Becomme Immense which is an absurd card thanks to the delve mechanic.
If the deck meets at least 2 of this points most people call them unfair, and i can´t argue with that.
i mean if you call zoo a fair aggro deck im not gonna correct you. i think we should be calling stuff linear or non-linear; im guessing people are complaining of the linear decks
I think most people refer to Unfair decks those who:
-Try to win Turn 2&3 but do it more often on 4 because of the heavy removal and inconsistency issues
-Don't care about interaction at all, and are best when the opponent doesn't interact either.
-Play cards that break the color pie(Read:Gitaxian Probe and Muta Growth)
-Play Becomme Immense which is an absurd card thanks to the delve mechanic.
If the deck meets at least 2 of this points most people call them unfair, and i can´t argue with that.
Not a single one of those four points is in any way related to whether something is fair or unfair.
I guess someone could put forward an argument for #2 but even that's really a case by case basis.
Guys. Creatures and Pump for the win has been around forever. It is fair, because you can kill the stuff, counter the pumps, block, ect. The meta still changes. Zoo, jund and Delver all did well and they are different, relax. Member when everyone thought Dredge was OP?
I do, it was last week, and then it got hated out by the meta.
I'm not gonna dive into dark waters here, you guys have your opinion and i have mine i guess.
What i do want to say is that i'm not biased. I have played Amulet Bloom,Twin,Jund and right now i own Jeskai,Jund and DS Aggro. I really don't hate neither Probe nor Immense. In fact i like them.
What i do think is that Becomme Immense is the last Delve spell that didn't go with its brothers DTT and Cruise, and that COULD have been a mistake for the linear issues.
Also, regarding your Fair/Unfair concepts: Why is it unnatural to make infnite tokens or gain infinite life, and attacking for 22 on turn 3 isn't?.
Just asking sincerely.
This is a pretty diverse meta, but it seems like linear aggro is winning a little too often. My solution involves a certain Kor.....
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
These days, some wizards are finding they have a little too much deck left at the end of their $$$.
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
Then what do the people define as fair or unfair?. I thought those were somewhat the lines of arguement....
Well the big problem is there are three separate terms (fairness, interactivity, and linearity) with different definitions but people seem to sort of group them together.
Interactive: A deck that is out to interact with the opponent. For example, decks like Jund or Jeskai Nahiri have a lot of disruption elements to screw with the opponent’s plan.
Uninteractive: A deck that just wants to try to do its own thing and doesn’t care that much about what’s going on the other side of the board unless it’s directly affecting its plan. For example, Ad Nauseam wants to just get the mana necessary and cast its spells.
Now, sometimes decks can be more interactive even if “uninteractive.” I classify them more on intent. For example, Zoo just wants to slam the opponent into the ground, but if it’s up against an interactive deck it ends up having to be more interactive as a result because of the opponent’s interaction. You have to stop and consider your attacks more carefully against something like Jund when the opponent has cards like Tarmogoyf to deal with you.
Linear: A deck that has the same basic plan every single time. Zoo and Burn are examples. Burn just wants to slam the opponent in the face with burn spells until they go to 0 (with some backup in the form of creatures). Zoo wants to swarm the board with cheap creatures and slam down on the opponent before they want to do anything. For non-aggro versions, Scapeshift is an example because it just wants to get the Valakut triggers to kill the opponent with.
Nonlinear: A deck is more “flexible” in its plan. For example, Jund’s game plan shifts depending on what the opponent is up to. Sometimes it plays more like an aggro deck and sometimes it’s more like a control deck. Melira Pod and Splinter Twin, when they were around, were also nonlinear. Sometimes they would want to go for the combo, sometimes they would try to play the midrange or tempo plan and win that way.
Fair: A deck that wins the game “normally.” If I’m playing Zoo, I’m winning the game in a normal way; I’m casting creatures and attacking with them. Jeskai Nahiri is also fair. It doesn’t do so much in regards to creatures, but its goal is to stabilize and take control of the game, then win once that’s been established. Nahiri’s ultimate is slightly “unfair” in that it lets you cheat out an Emrakul, but ultimately I see it as the same as any planeswalker ultimate that’s generally game winning. You don’t often see someone survive a Nicol Bolas ultimate but I don’t think someone would label that as “unfair” (unless I guess you used something like Eureka to drop that Nicol Bolas into play, but that’s another thing entirely).
Unfair: A deck that eschews playing a game normally. These are generally combo decks. Attacking with infinite Pestermites? Not fair. Gaining infinite life with Archangel of Thune and Spike Feeder? Unfair. Unfair decks are generally only seen in non-Standard formats because WOTC tries to avoid combo decks in Standard—at least good ones, they’ll allow something like Harmless Offering+Demonic Pact because it’s so tricky to pull off—so unfair interactions really only happen in formats they don’t test for, such as Archangel of Thune and Spike Feeder (which never existed in the same Standard environment).
There is also a certain "spectrum" of fairness. For example, is Infect fair or unfair? It's just trying to hit the opponent for damage by casting creatures and pumping them, which is a perfectly fair strategy. On the other hand, it's also sort of "changing" the rules of the game in doing so; Infect damage doesn't stack with regular damage, poison counters can't be removed, and it's technically an alternate win condition. So does it count as fair or unfair? I can't really put it in either category clearly; it's sort of both.
For some examples of how these different categories can line up, at least in my opinion:
Can’t think of any uninteractive and nonlinear decks off the top of my head, though. That may just be a contradiction in terms.
Another word not to be confused with unfair is broken or overpowered. Now, granted, a card kind of has to be overpowered in some capacity to see play in Modern. Tarmogoyf provides way too much value for 1G, but if it didn’t no one would play it. “Broken” is when a card or deck is just so good it breaks the game and needs to be removed, though this is obviously heavily dependent on context.
But a card being well ahead of the curve in some manner isn’t unfair. Become Immense is just a pump spell; it’s no more unfair than Giant Growth. It might be a whole lot BETTER than Giant Growth, but it’s no more unfair. To take an even more extreme example, Ancestral Recall is way better than Concentrate. But while Ancestral Recall is broken, it’s still as fair as Concentrate; it's just a standard card drawing spell. Again, the card is totally broken, but it isn't doing anything inherently unfair, it's just doing it for way less than it should.
Like I said, fair/unfair are unfortunate terms to have been selected because in the vernacular they mean something totally different, and it means these things have to be explained to new people. I really wish a different term had been selected, but I guess it’s too late now.
R&D just have to figure it out, don't ask the community to do their jobs for you. I don't know if it's Twin Unban, Dark Depths, Counterspell reprint whatever it is. There has to be someway to make control decks take down big tournaments.
Why is that a desirable result?
Also, there were 3 "control" decks in the Top 8s at Lille and Guangzhou. Indy was a bit of an outlier, for whatever reason, but I can imagine that there simply weren't a whole lot of Jund/Emeria/Jeskai registered.
We also need to take into consideration attendance and locations. Different countries may have different deck preferences and the different attendance turnouts may exaggerate or diminish those preferences. Guangzhou had only about 950 players, while both Lille and Indianapolis had nearly 2,000 each. If anything, Guangzhou is the outlier (and the Top 8 decks reflect that).
Top 16-32 is more interesting where we add UW Control, two Jund, one Abzan, and some diverse Modern icons like Elves, Lantern Control, and Abzan Company. Too bad all those decks couldn't make Top 16, probably because many of them failed to reactively answer Modern's overwhelming number of proactive threats.
Top 64 is MUCH more interesting, with Merfolk, Grixis Delver, Jeskai Nahiri, Naya/Abzan Company, Ad Nauseam, Jeskai Kiki, and more UW Control, along with all the other non-interactive stuff we saw in the Top 16. Sadly, Top 32-64 is going to get way less coverage and mean much less for the format than that Top 16 and Top 8. That's why some players, myself included, are justifiably dissatisfied with the results and a bit leery of where it might head from here. It's disheartening to see diversity improve dramatically when you move from T8 to T16 to T32 to T64; it strongly suggests the diverse decks can't convert to the most important slots.
eh, guangzhou and lille look alright. lots of control floating around and jund decks everywhere. occasionally i see a mardu midrange deck too. its not any more or less interactive than we're used to. but yeah indy was bad. oh well
Go Indianapolis won by a turn 3 Burn kill!
Let me do what we always see after a big tournament.
BAN LIGHTNING BOLT! That card is way overpowerd!
To be honest, Lightning Bolt is probably way too strong. Something that can take care of Players, Creatures, and Walkers for 1 red mana is pretty dang strong. Disfigure is only a 2 damage spell for 1 black mana and can't even target Players or Walkers. There's a reason why every other burn spell from Incinerate to Shock never comes close to Bolt's power.
Go Indianapolis won by a turn 3 Burn kill!
Let me do what we always see after a big tournament.
BAN LIGHTNING BOLT! That card is way overpowerd!
To be honest, Lightning Bolt is probably way too strong. Something that can take care of Players, Creatures, and Walkers for 1 red mana is pretty dang strong. Disfigure is only a 2 damage spell for 1 black mana and can't even target Players or Walkers. There's a reason why every other burn spell from Incinerate to Shock never comes close to Bolt's power.
If Bolt hadn't been there all weekend, Indy's Top 16 would have been the Top 32 at every GP. It's one of the last generic answers Modern has left and one of the most important format regulators.
Is there a reason that we are seeing these non-linear decks make it X-1 in day one but fail to convert into the top 8 on a regular basis? Is just burn out after spending significantly more time playing that those on linear deck or is there underlying weakness of non-linear decks as they progress from the top 64 to the top 8? I have personally always felt that we lack for powerful generic answers that would help interactive decks complete the wide variety of linear decks in the format.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In play: Jund Death Shadow, Grixis Control, Eldrazi Stompy, Ponza
In the yard: RUG Delver, Kiki-Chord, Grixis Twin, Mardu Control, Smallpox, Jeskai Control, Jeskai Delver, Assault Loam, Elves, Deathcloud, Eggs, Storm
Is there a reason that we are seeing these non-linear decks make it X-1 in day one but fail to convert into the top 8 on a regular basis? Is just burn out after spending significantly more time playing that those on linear deck or is there underlying weakness of non-linear decks as they progress from the top 64 to the top 8? I have personally always felt that we lack for powerful generic answers that would help interactive decks complete the wide variety of linear decks in the format.
It's much harder to answer all of Modern's diverse threats over 15 rounds than it is to ask the same proactive question for those 15 rounds. This has always been an issue in Modern, but GP Indy really put it on display.
Go Indianapolis won by a turn 3 Burn kill!
Let me do what we always see after a big tournament.
BAN LIGHTNING BOLT! That card is way overpowerd!
To be honest, Lightning Bolt is probably way too strong. Something that can take care of Players, Creatures, and Walkers for 1 red mana is pretty dang strong. Disfigure is only a 2 damage spell for 1 black mana and can't even target Players or Walkers. There's a reason why every other burn spell from Incinerate to Shock never comes close to Bolt's power.
Ignoring the fact that it's not really fair to compare cross colors like that, Disfigure kind of sucks just on its own merits. There's a reason it sees very little play. What I mean is, saying a card is a lot better than a mediocre card doesn't mean the first one is too good; in that case, we should get rid of Path to Exile because darn it, it's so much better than Crib Swap. And Rune Snag is worse than Mana Leak! Though it is worth pointing out that Disfigure does reduce the creature's power by 2, which effectively prevents 2 damage.
Off that specific comparison, I also think it's worth pointing out that banning Lightning Bolt would probably hurt control and midrange that play Red more than aggro.
Is there a reason that we are seeing these non-linear decks make it X-1 in day one but fail to convert into the top 8 on a regular basis? Is just burn out after spending significantly more time playing that those on linear deck or is there underlying weakness of non-linear decks as they progress from the top 64 to the top 8? I have personally always felt that we lack for powerful generic answers that would help interactive decks complete the wide variety of linear decks in the format.
It's much harder to answer all of Modern's diverse threats over 15 rounds than it is to ask the same proactive question for those 15 rounds. This has always been an issue in Modern, but GP Indy really put it on display.
That sounds about right, it always makes me sad to see interesting non-linear decks like Knightfall, Blue Delver and Mardu Control do really on day one and then fail to convert it to anything meaningful on day 2. On the upside it is nice to see such a wide variety non-linear decks at that level at least.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In play: Jund Death Shadow, Grixis Control, Eldrazi Stompy, Ponza
In the yard: RUG Delver, Kiki-Chord, Grixis Twin, Mardu Control, Smallpox, Jeskai Control, Jeskai Delver, Assault Loam, Elves, Deathcloud, Eggs, Storm
Go Indianapolis won by a turn 3 Burn kill!
Let me do what we always see after a big tournament.
BAN LIGHTNING BOLT! That card is way overpowerd!
To be honest, Lightning Bolt is probably way too strong. Something that can take care of Players, Creatures, and Walkers for 1 red mana is pretty dang strong. Disfigure is only a 2 damage spell for 1 black mana and can't even target Players or Walkers. There's a reason why every other burn spell from Incinerate to Shock never comes close to Bolt's power.
I play Burn so I can only say; The more Bolts the merrier.
But like you say can take on everything for just one red mana, is it strong yes, op no way. What other card will keep modern in check for so cheap?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Reanimator
Modern - Burn
EDH - Neheb the Eternal
Go Indianapolis won by a turn 3 Burn kill!
Let me do what we always see after a big tournament.
BAN LIGHTNING BOLT! That card is way overpowerd!
To be honest, Lightning Bolt is probably way too strong. Something that can take care of Players, Creatures, and Walkers for 1 red mana is pretty dang strong. Disfigure is only a 2 damage spell for 1 black mana and can't even target Players or Walkers. There's a reason why every other burn spell from Incinerate to Shock never comes close to Bolt's power.
I play Burn so I can only say; The more Bolts the merrier.
But like you say can take on everything for just one red mana, is it strong yes, op no way. What other card will keep modern in check for so cheap?
None, I actually like Bolt in the game. It's highly needed. That said, I would probably be okay with Chain Lightning in Modern instead of Lightning Bolt.
-Try to win Turn 2&3 but do it more often on 4 because of the heavy removal and inconsistency issues
-Don't care about interaction at all, and are best when the opponent doesn't interact either.
-Play cards that break the color pie(Read:Gitaxian Probe and Muta Growth)
-Play Becomme Immense which is an absurd card thanks to the delve mechanic.
If the deck meets at least 2 of this points most people call them unfair, and i can´t argue with that.
Well in that case, the term is deeply flawed and holds no weight in a proper format with more depth than a bland Standard
I guess someone could put forward an argument for #2 but even that's really a case by case basis.
I do, it was last week, and then it got hated out by the meta.
What i do want to say is that i'm not biased. I have played Amulet Bloom,Twin,Jund and right now i own Jeskai,Jund and DS Aggro. I really don't hate neither Probe nor Immense. In fact i like them.
What i do think is that Becomme Immense is the last Delve spell that didn't go with its brothers DTT and Cruise, and that COULD have been a mistake for the linear issues.
Also, regarding your Fair/Unfair concepts: Why is it unnatural to make infnite tokens or gain infinite life, and attacking for 22 on turn 3 isn't?.
Just asking sincerely.
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
Interactive: A deck that is out to interact with the opponent. For example, decks like Jund or Jeskai Nahiri have a lot of disruption elements to screw with the opponent’s plan.
Uninteractive: A deck that just wants to try to do its own thing and doesn’t care that much about what’s going on the other side of the board unless it’s directly affecting its plan. For example, Ad Nauseam wants to just get the mana necessary and cast its spells.
Now, sometimes decks can be more interactive even if “uninteractive.” I classify them more on intent. For example, Zoo just wants to slam the opponent into the ground, but if it’s up against an interactive deck it ends up having to be more interactive as a result because of the opponent’s interaction. You have to stop and consider your attacks more carefully against something like Jund when the opponent has cards like Tarmogoyf to deal with you.
Linear: A deck that has the same basic plan every single time. Zoo and Burn are examples. Burn just wants to slam the opponent in the face with burn spells until they go to 0 (with some backup in the form of creatures). Zoo wants to swarm the board with cheap creatures and slam down on the opponent before they want to do anything. For non-aggro versions, Scapeshift is an example because it just wants to get the Valakut triggers to kill the opponent with.
Nonlinear: A deck is more “flexible” in its plan. For example, Jund’s game plan shifts depending on what the opponent is up to. Sometimes it plays more like an aggro deck and sometimes it’s more like a control deck. Melira Pod and Splinter Twin, when they were around, were also nonlinear. Sometimes they would want to go for the combo, sometimes they would try to play the midrange or tempo plan and win that way.
Fair: A deck that wins the game “normally.” If I’m playing Zoo, I’m winning the game in a normal way; I’m casting creatures and attacking with them. Jeskai Nahiri is also fair. It doesn’t do so much in regards to creatures, but its goal is to stabilize and take control of the game, then win once that’s been established. Nahiri’s ultimate is slightly “unfair” in that it lets you cheat out an Emrakul, but ultimately I see it as the same as any planeswalker ultimate that’s generally game winning. You don’t often see someone survive a Nicol Bolas ultimate but I don’t think someone would label that as “unfair” (unless I guess you used something like Eureka to drop that Nicol Bolas into play, but that’s another thing entirely).
Unfair: A deck that eschews playing a game normally. These are generally combo decks. Attacking with infinite Pestermites? Not fair. Gaining infinite life with Archangel of Thune and Spike Feeder? Unfair. Unfair decks are generally only seen in non-Standard formats because WOTC tries to avoid combo decks in Standard—at least good ones, they’ll allow something like Harmless Offering+Demonic Pact because it’s so tricky to pull off—so unfair interactions really only happen in formats they don’t test for, such as Archangel of Thune and Spike Feeder (which never existed in the same Standard environment).
There is also a certain "spectrum" of fairness. For example, is Infect fair or unfair? It's just trying to hit the opponent for damage by casting creatures and pumping them, which is a perfectly fair strategy. On the other hand, it's also sort of "changing" the rules of the game in doing so; Infect damage doesn't stack with regular damage, poison counters can't be removed, and it's technically an alternate win condition. So does it count as fair or unfair? I can't really put it in either category clearly; it's sort of both.
For some examples of how these different categories can line up, at least in my opinion:
Interactive, Linear, Fair: Faeries
Interactive, Linear, Unfair: RUG Scapeshift
Interactive, Nonlinear, Fair: Jund
Interactive, Nonlinear, Unfair: Splinter Twin
Uninteractive, Linear, Fair: Zoo
Uninteractive, Linear, Unfair: Ad Nauseam
Can’t think of any uninteractive and nonlinear decks off the top of my head, though. That may just be a contradiction in terms.
Another word not to be confused with unfair is broken or overpowered. Now, granted, a card kind of has to be overpowered in some capacity to see play in Modern. Tarmogoyf provides way too much value for 1G, but if it didn’t no one would play it. “Broken” is when a card or deck is just so good it breaks the game and needs to be removed, though this is obviously heavily dependent on context.
But a card being well ahead of the curve in some manner isn’t unfair. Become Immense is just a pump spell; it’s no more unfair than Giant Growth. It might be a whole lot BETTER than Giant Growth, but it’s no more unfair. To take an even more extreme example, Ancestral Recall is way better than Concentrate. But while Ancestral Recall is broken, it’s still as fair as Concentrate; it's just a standard card drawing spell. Again, the card is totally broken, but it isn't doing anything inherently unfair, it's just doing it for way less than it should.
Like I said, fair/unfair are unfortunate terms to have been selected because in the vernacular they mean something totally different, and it means these things have to be explained to new people. I really wish a different term had been selected, but I guess it’s too late now.
We also need to take into consideration attendance and locations. Different countries may have different deck preferences and the different attendance turnouts may exaggerate or diminish those preferences. Guangzhou had only about 950 players, while both Lille and Indianapolis had nearly 2,000 each. If anything, Guangzhou is the outlier (and the Top 8 decks reflect that).
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Indy's was horrible from a top deck perspective. I was writing this up for something else so I can just paste it in:
1. Naya Burn
2. Valakut Breach
3. Valakut Breach
4. GW Death and Taxes
5. Affinity
6. Death's Shadow Zoo
7. Affinity
8. Bant Eldrazi
9. Naya Burn
10. Death's Shadow Zoo
11. Bant Eldrazi
12. Bant Eldrazi
13. Dredge
14. Living End
15. Abzan
16. Affinity
So we're at Top 16 and we have ONE Midrange deck, ZERO control decks, and nothing else but aggro and ramp. Ugly. How about Top 32?
17. RG Tron
18. Affinity
19. UW Control
20. Naya Burn
21. Affinity
22. Bant Eldrazi
23. Jund
24. Lantern Control
25. Naya Burn
26. Jund
27. Bant Eldrazi
28. Abzan
29. Infect
30. Abzan Company
31. Naya Burn
32. Elves
Top 16-32 is more interesting where we add UW Control, two Jund, one Abzan, and some diverse Modern icons like Elves, Lantern Control, and Abzan Company. Too bad all those decks couldn't make Top 16, probably because many of them failed to reactively answer Modern's overwhelming number of proactive threats.
Top 64 is MUCH more interesting, with Merfolk, Grixis Delver, Jeskai Nahiri, Naya/Abzan Company, Ad Nauseam, Jeskai Kiki, and more UW Control, along with all the other non-interactive stuff we saw in the Top 16. Sadly, Top 32-64 is going to get way less coverage and mean much less for the format than that Top 16 and Top 8. That's why some players, myself included, are justifiably dissatisfied with the results and a bit leery of where it might head from here. It's disheartening to see diversity improve dramatically when you move from T8 to T16 to T32 to T64; it strongly suggests the diverse decks can't convert to the most important slots.
RGTron
UGInfect
URStorm
WUBRAd Nauseam
BRGrishoalbrand
URGScapeshift
WBGAbzan Company
WUBRGAmulet Titan
BRGLiving End
WGBogles
Let me do what we always see after a big tournament.
BAN LIGHTNING BOLT! That card is way overpowerd!
Modern - Burn
EDH - Neheb the Eternal
To be honest, Lightning Bolt is probably way too strong. Something that can take care of Players, Creatures, and Walkers for 1 red mana is pretty dang strong. Disfigure is only a 2 damage spell for 1 black mana and can't even target Players or Walkers. There's a reason why every other burn spell from Incinerate to Shock never comes close to Bolt's power.
Modern Tallowisp Spirits - A Modern Tallowisp Deck UW
Eldrazi Ninjas - Summoning Octopus Jutsu YYYYAAAHHHH!
STANDARD
Naban Wizards
If Bolt hadn't been there all weekend, Indy's Top 16 would have been the Top 32 at every GP. It's one of the last generic answers Modern has left and one of the most important format regulators.
In the yard: RUG Delver, Kiki-Chord, Grixis Twin, Mardu Control, Smallpox, Jeskai Control, Jeskai Delver, Assault Loam, Elves, Deathcloud, Eggs, Storm
It's much harder to answer all of Modern's diverse threats over 15 rounds than it is to ask the same proactive question for those 15 rounds. This has always been an issue in Modern, but GP Indy really put it on display.
Off that specific comparison, I also think it's worth pointing out that banning Lightning Bolt would probably hurt control and midrange that play Red more than aggro.
In the yard: RUG Delver, Kiki-Chord, Grixis Twin, Mardu Control, Smallpox, Jeskai Control, Jeskai Delver, Assault Loam, Elves, Deathcloud, Eggs, Storm
I play Burn so I can only say; The more Bolts the merrier.
But like you say can take on everything for just one red mana, is it strong yes, op no way. What other card will keep modern in check for so cheap?
Modern - Burn
EDH - Neheb the Eternal
None, I actually like Bolt in the game. It's highly needed. That said, I would probably be okay with Chain Lightning in Modern instead of Lightning Bolt.
Modern Tallowisp Spirits - A Modern Tallowisp Deck UW
Eldrazi Ninjas - Summoning Octopus Jutsu YYYYAAAHHHH!
STANDARD
Naban Wizards