I am now starting to doubt my purchasing of many copies of Preordain. I just talked with a guy at my LGS who grinds Storm for 20 matches per week online and he said that Preordain makes Storm too good. I doubted it, especially when presented with seemingly valid arguments here on mtgs. But I have to really take his word for it since he plays Storm a LOT and has tested with Preordain recently.
I am going to put Preordain at 50/50 to come off the ban list at Aether Revolt. I was pretty sure otherwise.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
If they ban something from Dregde, i believe Infect's share will decrease too due to more interactive decks showing up again. As a result, i dont think any actions should be taken against Infect before Dredge's numbers either start decreasing or it finally gets something banned as a last resort.
I share this opinion. The success of Infect is the result of an uninteractive metagame. Infect folds to BGx/Jeskai and once the conditions are more friendly for fair decks Infect's shares will decline naturally. However, I suspect that a ban of a Dredge card will simply make room for Bant Eldrazi again, as they get smashed by Dredge as well. They both have the role of the predator for fair decks, Dredge is just better at it currently.
I really hope for a (re-)print of cards like Containment Priest and Baleful Strix instead of any bans...that would greatly help with both matchups.
i think that infect's success comes from modern being not interactive. Infect preys on decks trying to do unfair things, if control (and midrange) and tempo get a boost, infect will be hurt
I am now starting to doubt my purchasing of many copies of Preordain. I just talked with a guy at my LGS who grinds Storm for 20 matches per week online and he said that Preordain makes Storm too good. I doubted it, especially when presented with seemingly valid arguments here on mtgs. But I have to really take his word for it since he plays Storm a LOT and has tested with Preordain recently.
I am going to put Preordain at 50/50 to come off the ban list at Aether Revolt. I was pretty sure otherwise.
How many times have we heard about Insert_Tier3-4_Deck_Here getting a new card, whether from a new set or a banlist update, and risking a Tier 1-2 run? I hear this every time any new content gets released into Modern and it almost never materializes. Key exceptions don't even apply to Preordain. One exception was Dredge and GGT, but that was less GGT and more SOI, plus Cathartic Reunion, plus the initial GGT unban. Another exception was Valakut, but that was a deck not existing at all and then becoming viable after its pillar card was unbanned. History suggests we shouldn't be worried about Storm and Preordain. That said, I do see why Wizards would want to be cautious with that dual consistency package in the format, even if I disagree with the rationale underlying that caution: card selection would help a lot of format issues.
the problem with storm is not the lack of consistency, is that every good ritual is banned in modern
And the problem with Wizards is they usually don't want to do anything to help decks like Storm, and in fact actively ban things from them whenever they are remotely good.
Preordain will do little to nothing to help fair decks and do a LOT to help uninteractive combo decks. Whether or not Preordain is unbanned will have everything to do with whether or not Wizards is OK with giving a boost to the kinds of decks they have historically always hated being in Modern.
Whatever actual impact the card would have on deck X or deck Y is almost completely irrelevant. Wizards has demonstrated (and stated) that they make banning and unbanning decisions mostly on feelings and assessments from pros. So the reality is that it doesn't matter what the true impact is as long as Wizards FEELS that the impact would be there. They have mentioned minimal testing moving forward, but I highly doubt it would be an extensive process at all (or any good, if the FFL is any indication...).
yeah, but why? i mean, aggro decks run rampant, and combo decks are mostly non existent. preordain would give them a boost withouth breaking this kind of strategy
What numbers are you referring to specifically? The only one that really stands out is 6 Jund/T32 at GP Singapore, but that's easily written off as a spike when you consider the 6 other GPs between PT Fate Reforged and PT Oath having more reasonable Jund presence.
Top 8s since eye ban:
Gp LA: 1 Jund, 0 infect
Gp charlotte: 2 jund, 0 infect
Gp Guangzhou: 1 Jund, 0 infect
Gp indy: 0 jund, 0 infect
Gp lille: 1 Jund, 1 infect
Gp dallas: 0 jund, 3 infect
Jund: 5/48 top 8 slots since eye ban, 10%
Infect: 4/48 top 8 slots since eye ban, 8.3%
Infect has put up less top 8 results since the eye ban than jund. In addition, neither of these decks are anywhere close to moderns historic metagame share bans, the lowest in history was twin at 19%. Banning infect on meta share would be hard to justify with jund having a higher one. In addition, almost all of infect's results come from recent events, where jund and URx have been on an extreme downtick due to dredge. I've played the URx vs infect w/blossoming defense matchup thoroughly, it doesn't feel any different from before and feels very in URxs favor, numbers back this up, and my jund friends echo the same resentments. When bolt decks are low, infect gets to thrive. Dredge and eldrazi make bolt decks bad. Therefore infect does well.
After reading through the arguments I agree that a dredge ban would be better for modern than an infect ban. For banning we should look for a card that will not have much use outside of the archetype. Possible solutions are cards that dredge large amounts: Grave-Troll and Stinkweed Imp, and creatures that come out of the graveyard for "free": Bloodghast, Narcomoeba, and Prized Amalgam. The red card draw spells have too many other applications outside of this type of strategy so I will not consider them in banning.
It might make the most sense to hit the dredgers themself as it would slow the deck down considerably. By hitting both Grave-Troll and Stinkweed Imp we are left with Golgari Thug as the highest dredger, with a dredge count of 4. It is not too likely that either of these cards would have a use outside of the archetype, although stinkweed was played somewhat in the "Zombardment" strategy, which was arguably just a control deck. It was not essential to this deck however.
Another option is to hit the "free" creatures, the win conditions of the dredge deck. I do not think Narcomoeba has ever been played in a fair deck before or ever will. I also have doubts that Prized Amalgam would ever be played in anything other than the dredge strategy, but I think it has a higher chance than Narcomoeba. Bloodghast has the most likelihood of being used in other strategies such as Smallpox and other attrition based decks as a resilient win condition.
Therefore, I would say either the two big dredgers or Narcomoeba and Prized Amalgam are the correct bans in dredge, depending on which route wizards wishes to take. Wizards has admitted time and time again that the dredge mechanic is broken, but playing cards for "free" can also be broken which is what the creatures here do.
To sum it up, I think Prized Amalgam is the card we should be taking a closer look at if we want to gut the deck. An army of 2/1s and 1/1s is not quite the same without an army of 3/3s next to them. Are we potentially depriving a fair deck of getting to use the Amalgam? I would say the chances of this being true are quite slim.
Become Immense isn't the issue, Mutagenic Growth is. We have seen two new decks emerge just because of how busted Mutagenic growth is. Become immense would become substantially worse if growth was banned, growth gives a giant growth for free to prowess creatures, it causes tons of turn 2/3 wins from suicide zoo/infect/bloo. I think it's the real issue and not become immense. As for dredge I would just ban troll and call it a day.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
On mtgsalvation people don't want to discuss ideas, so I give people something else to discuss: my controversial opinions.
This will sound a bit out there, but I'd rather see Narcomoeba eat a ban over Prized Amalgam. Taking out Prized Amalgam will likely hurt the deck a bit too much (I will fully acknowledge that some people want exactly that). If you take out Narcomoeba, Prized Amalgam becomes worse thanks to the dredge player only being able to trigger its ability with Bloodghast requiring that they have a land drop / use resources to do so. Would WotC approach a potential ban this way? No idea, but I think it is worth consideration even if a 1/1 flyer seems a bit ridiculous on the ban list.
This will sound a bit out there, but I'd rather see Narcomoeba eat a ban over Prized Amalgam. Taking out Prized Amalgam will likely hurt the deck a bit too much (I will fully acknowledge that some people want exactly that). If you take out Narcomoeba, Prized Amalgam becomes worse thanks to the dredge player only being able to trigger its ability with Bloodghast requiring that they have a land drop / use resources to do so. Would WotC approach a potential ban this way? No idea, but I think it is worth consideration even if a 1/1 flyer seems a bit ridiculous on the ban list.
I do like this idea because Narcomoeba sees no play in any other decktype. However, would it be enough to slow dredge down? If so, it would be the ideal ban. If not, it should be the Amalgam
I'd argue the most busted starts come from dredging a narc or two plus a few Amalgams. It is the difference between 7-ish power on T1 (loot / neonate, dredge, hit 1 or 2 amalgams and 1 or 2 Narcomoeba) that can swing on T2 vs T3 if those narcomoeba was replaced by bloodghast and that is assuming you have a second land to trigger the bloodghast on T2. Additionally, it makes Amalgam less reliable since you'd only have 4 efficient cards capable of triggering it rather than 8 (other options require resources, which is fine IMO).
Infect has put up less top 8 results since the eye ban than jund.
That's one metric which Jund has Infect beat. Infect beats Jund on # of GP wins 1-0, and # of T32s/64s 32-23.
jund and URx have been on an extreme downtick due to dredge.
I find that hard to believe. Maybe on MTGO that's the case, but Infect has Dredge beat in terms of # of decks in Day 2 for the last 4 GPs, based on coverage figures (either out of all Day 2 participants, or top 100).
Guangzhou: 23 Infect-11 Dredge
Lille: 5-3
Indianapolis: 6-2
DFW: 11-8
Unless there's some other confounding variable, you're more likely to play against Infect than Dredge if you make it to Day 2 of a GP. I don't doubt that Bolt decks have it easy against Infect, but to say that the Bolt decks can't make it because of Dredge is puzzling when they're more likely to face Infect than Dredge.
I'd argue the most busted starts come from dredging a narc or two plus a few Amalgams. It is the difference between 7-ish power on T1 (loot / neonate, dredge, hit 1 or 2 amalgams and 1 or 2 Narcomoeba) that can swing on T2 vs T3 if those narcomoeba was replaced by bloodghast and that is assuming you have a second land to trigger the bloodghast on T2. Additionally, it makes Amalgam less reliable since you'd only have 4 cards capable of triggering it rather than 8.
You'd still have 8, just that they cost mana to ETB. Something like Scrapheap Scrounger or Haunted Dead would replace Narcomoeba, maybe even Dregscape Zombie since it's the cheapest to bring back.
I don't think they do half measures any more, after BBE. Every card banned since then has been the strongest card in their respective decks.
Even still, all of those are significantly worse at recurring Prized Amalgam and require using resources which tames the deck significantly and would allow slower / more fair decks a little more time to interact and develop their own board.
I'm doing a bit of goldfishing to see how well Dredge does without certain cards. My initial guess was that Amalgam was the strongest card, but I find that the deck is still pretty fearsome without it.
Bridge from Below is another one of those cards that gives you creatures for no mana. It combos with Gargadon, and is especially ridiculous with multiple Bloodghasts and fetchlands. Playing Gargadon also provides extra food for Scrapheap Scrounger, if you don't draw Gargadon in your starting hand but end up milling it.
This deck could probably work even without Narcomoeba, but you'd end up losing to aggro more often because you don't flip over a free chump blocker while setting up with Reunion/Looting.
Despite being a totally irrelevant and inbred meta, aren't all these decks also forced to follow rules of team unified (may only use one set of a card in one deck)?
Kind of cool lists, but they don't really mean anything.
Although Simian Spirit Guide isn't an issue metagame-wise, it is one of the most unfair cards in Modern. Not many decks stand a chance staring down a turn 1 Blood Moon (please don't say run more basics because most every deck runs fetches). Chalice for 1 or 2 on turn 1 is pretty broken too. Why it's possible to cast 3,4, and 5 drops in Modern on turn 1 is beyond me.
So, how about an SSG ban, and a Preordain unban? Some combo decks would benefit, and others would lose some speed but gain some consistency. Turn 1 Blood Moons would no longer be possible, and Blue based control and tempo decks would get a boost.
They could also try printing a sorcery for U that reads, "Scry 1, draw a card, scry 1." That would be a strict upgrade from Serum Visions, and a notch below Preordain.
Although Simian Spirit Guide isn't an issue metagame-wise, it is one of the most unfair cards in Modern. Not many decks stand a chance staring down a turn 1 Blood Moon (please don't say run more basics because most every deck runs fetches). Chalice for 1 or 2 on turn 1 is pretty broken too. Why it's possible to cast 3,4, and 5 drops in Modern on turn 1 is beyond me.
So, how about an SSG ban, and a Preordain unban? Some combo decks would benefit, and others would lose some speed but gain some consistency. Turn 1 Blood Moons would no longer be possible, and Blue based control and tempo decks would get a boost.
They could also try printing a sorcery for U that reads, "Scry 1, draw a card, scry 1." That would be a strict upgrade from Serum Visions, and a notch below Preordain.
If you are talking about double SSG into Blood Moon, there's a 6.3 in 100 chance of getting 2 apes in your starting hand, and doing 2xSSG+Moon is 2.52%. I'm not worried about it.
Chalice for 1 is only broken if your opponent is trying to do unfair things. Imagine CotV at 1 vs Jeskai/Grixis/Jund/Abzan, it does hurt those decks but is not the end of the world. It deactivates Bolts and Paths (good vs nonchalice decks, usually), discard and cantrips.
I may be missing something, but who's casting 4 and 5 drops in modern on turn 1? o.O
Regarding Preordain, would be Opt ok in the format?
The problem with dredge is the lack of possible maindeck answers to it, and the fact that it dodges most of the things being thrown to the other Modern offenders. As izzetmage pointed out, it could probably survive a ban... but I think its popularity would drop more than its power.
I believe WoTC's new policy is to make sure that every color can enjoy the exciting gameplay mechanic of making undercosted dudes and then turning them sideways. Clearly the future of magic.
Quote from "Kakaroto" »
Quote from "Disco Stu" »
Podríamos hacer un topic donde marquemos los peores horrores de ortografía.
Yup... That is exactly why it is currently wrecking the format, dominating top 8/16/64s at large events, and is the most played deck. /sarcasm
Using a tier 3 or below deck as a supportive argument on why a card should be banned is just poor reasoning. The deck in question has put up 1 result (a 1 5-0 league result by SaffronOlive) at the beginning of November and that is it. Nothing about it is even close to meeting the ban list criteria.
That's All in Red (AIR), has been around since 1973. Used to run Chrome Mox, Rite of Flame and Seething Song back then, and it was a legit deck. It won Koth and maybe Chandra, I don't get all the fuzz about it. Doing SSG+Ritual+Moon is rougly 12%. I played it back in extended, and played against it. It's a nice deck, but it loses to itself a lot and you can hate it out with Fetchlands (good against Deus when it was played, and Moon effects)
I believe WoTC's new policy is to make sure that every color can enjoy the exciting gameplay mechanic of making undercosted dudes and then turning them sideways. Clearly the future of magic.
Quote from "Kakaroto" »
Quote from "Disco Stu" »
Podríamos hacer un topic donde marquemos los peores horrores de ortografía.
Spirit Guide seems good when its powering out blood moons and Chalices.
But what if you draw the blood moon without the guide, or the guide without the moon? It's just too inconsistent which is why the deck isn't dominant. Even the premier Blood Moon decks don't play SSG (Skred and Blue Moon)
When judging which card to ban it is important to evaluate the consequences for the deck. WotC usually banned to cards to weaken the deck, but keep it in the format. There are sad cases where the opposite happened, especially Birthing Pod and Splinter Twin, but in most cases the aim was to hit cards that were strong, but not vital to the strategy. For the Eldrazi ban, Wizards specifically stated that they want to keep the strategy viable and the same was the case for every Jund ban yet.
Another factor is the number of decks that are affected by the ban. The more specific the card is to the deck, the better.
The last factor I deem relevant is the likelihood that this ban will have a long term effect. Are similar cards printed often? If so, the card is a rather bad ban target.
So I would say the general guidelines are
1. Not to kill the deck completely
2. To weaken the deck in
- consistency
- and/or power
3. To affect as few other decks as possible
4. To have a long term effect in weakening the deck
When applying these criteria to the afforementioned 5 cards I would predict the following:
Banning GGT would not kill the deck. This ban does hit the dredge engine, but there are several other dredgers out there that can take its place, namely Golgari Thug. Milling 33% less cards is a notable decrease in both speed and consistency and would give the opponent more time to build up their defenses (or offense). It also affects the decks alternate win con, beating down with huge Trolls is no longer an option and the Thug is far less intimidating. GGT is played in very few other strategies (Dredgevine) and can usually be replaced as well. Currently Dredge as an ability is a solid 9 on the Storm Scale and will likely never see play in Standard again. Chances that an equal replacement is printed are therefore very slim.
A Narco ban would have a greater effect on the deck. Narcomoeba as a free flying blocker adds to the resilience against early aggression. The deck remains resilient against non-exiling effects, but especially extraction effects become more powerful if the only free way to get creatures on the board is Bloodghast. There is no other card that can trigger the Amalgams immediately so the explosiveness is greatly decreased. Bloodghast requires a land drop, so the Amalgams can start entering the battlefield at the end of T2 at the earliest if the Dredge player has a dredger and Insolent Neonate or Faithless Looting in hand T1. This is a full turn slower and should give players more time to defend themselves. It also increases the effectiveness of non-T0 gravehate, which is significant as well. Notable replacements inlcude Haunted Dead and Scrapheap Scrounger, both of which actually require the Dredge player to invest ressources, which further slows down the deck. Narcomoeba is played in no other deck and is the only card with this ability in over 20 years of Magic.
This is the card that actually made Dredge a viable strategy again in the first place. Without it the deck would likely not exist. Greater Gargadon + Bridge from Below is an alternative, but the deck is only good if you actually have the Gargadon on turn 1 or 2. Recurring a Ghast or Scrounger alone is not enough payoff to make this deck competitive. Even Cathartic Reunion can't change that, if there is nothing powerful that could happen even when dredging 30 cards at once. It's Gargadon or bust. In my opinion this ban would decrease the power and consistency too far to keep Dredge as a viable strategy in the format. Amalgam is also used in several Zombie Tribal decks, although Dredge is the only tiered deck that uses it. Similar cards may be printed in every Block with a graveyard theme.
I think this is a very harsh ban and should only be considered if you want to kill the deck.
Banning Reunion from the deck would decrease the explosiveness of the deck by a margin and return the deck to its powerlevel before Kaladesh happened. The deck would stay viable and competitive. However, Wizards has printed many similar cards with this effect in quick succession and it is very likely that a similar card will be printed soon. A longterm effect of this ban is therfore questionable.
Bloodghast is a more essential part of the dredge engine. It serves as discard fodder, Amalgam recursion engine and wincon in itself. Banning it would lead to a far less resilient and consistent deck as each Narcomoeba can bring back Amalgams only once at best. Scrapheap Scrounger and Haunted Dead require serious payments to bring Amalgams back up, the Scrounger will have to start nibbling on the dredgers once the deceased Neonates and Narcomoebas are digested and Haunted Dead will put a lot of pressure on Loam to use reliably. It also uses the same resources as Conflagrate which is another problem. Bloodghast is unable to block and can itself be blocked more easily than Narcomoeba. Stalling the board with bigger creatures becomes a real thing, especially if the explosiveness and evasiveness of Narcomoeba dredges are missing. To sum it up, I think banning Bloodghast would hit the deck hard and take away a lot of the resilience and lategame power. Bloodghast is a popular casual card and is played in many Vampire Tribal and Sacrifice decks, and is also used by some other tier 3 decks (Dredgevine).
I think banning Bloodghast would be okayish if you don't mind the risk of killing the deck entirely and making casuals angry.
All in all, I would suggest either GGT or Narcomoeba as ban targets IF something needs a ban. The first would put a hard limit on the speed and consistency of the deck even if another good recursion target is printed. Narcomoeba would make Dredge at least a turn slower, more vulnerable to creature aggression and would force Dredge to invest mana and other resources to get creatures back from their graveyard. Banning either would keep the deck competitive and have a long term effect on the deck. GGT also has use in other decks, although I don't know how bad a banning would be for Dredgevine. Narcomoeba would hit Dredge only.
Would be great to hear from a Dredge player if they agree with my evaluations.
I am going to put Preordain at 50/50 to come off the ban list at Aether Revolt. I was pretty sure otherwise.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)I share this opinion. The success of Infect is the result of an uninteractive metagame. Infect folds to BGx/Jeskai and once the conditions are more friendly for fair decks Infect's shares will decline naturally. However, I suspect that a ban of a Dredge card will simply make room for Bant Eldrazi again, as they get smashed by Dredge as well. They both have the role of the predator for fair decks, Dredge is just better at it currently.
I really hope for a (re-)print of cards like Containment Priest and Baleful Strix instead of any bans...that would greatly help with both matchups.
My Modern Decks:
BGWAbzan MidrangeWGB
UWRJeskai NahiriRWU
BRUGrixis ControlURB
How many times have we heard about Insert_Tier3-4_Deck_Here getting a new card, whether from a new set or a banlist update, and risking a Tier 1-2 run? I hear this every time any new content gets released into Modern and it almost never materializes. Key exceptions don't even apply to Preordain. One exception was Dredge and GGT, but that was less GGT and more SOI, plus Cathartic Reunion, plus the initial GGT unban. Another exception was Valakut, but that was a deck not existing at all and then becoming viable after its pillar card was unbanned. History suggests we shouldn't be worried about Storm and Preordain. That said, I do see why Wizards would want to be cautious with that dual consistency package in the format, even if I disagree with the rationale underlying that caution: card selection would help a lot of format issues.
And the problem with Wizards is they usually don't want to do anything to help decks like Storm, and in fact actively ban things from them whenever they are remotely good.
Preordain will do little to nothing to help fair decks and do a LOT to help uninteractive combo decks. Whether or not Preordain is unbanned will have everything to do with whether or not Wizards is OK with giving a boost to the kinds of decks they have historically always hated being in Modern.
Whatever actual impact the card would have on deck X or deck Y is almost completely irrelevant. Wizards has demonstrated (and stated) that they make banning and unbanning decisions mostly on feelings and assessments from pros. So the reality is that it doesn't matter what the true impact is as long as Wizards FEELS that the impact would be there. They have mentioned minimal testing moving forward, but I highly doubt it would be an extensive process at all (or any good, if the FFL is any indication...).
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Top 8s since eye ban:
Gp LA: 1 Jund, 0 infect
Gp charlotte: 2 jund, 0 infect
Gp Guangzhou: 1 Jund, 0 infect
Gp indy: 0 jund, 0 infect
Gp lille: 1 Jund, 1 infect
Gp dallas: 0 jund, 3 infect
Jund: 5/48 top 8 slots since eye ban, 10%
Infect: 4/48 top 8 slots since eye ban, 8.3%
Infect has put up less top 8 results since the eye ban than jund. In addition, neither of these decks are anywhere close to moderns historic metagame share bans, the lowest in history was twin at 19%. Banning infect on meta share would be hard to justify with jund having a higher one. In addition, almost all of infect's results come from recent events, where jund and URx have been on an extreme downtick due to dredge. I've played the URx vs infect w/blossoming defense matchup thoroughly, it doesn't feel any different from before and feels very in URxs favor, numbers back this up, and my jund friends echo the same resentments. When bolt decks are low, infect gets to thrive. Dredge and eldrazi make bolt decks bad. Therefore infect does well.
UWRjeskai nahiri UWR
UBRgrixis titi UBR
UBRgrixis delverUBR
UR ur kikimite UR
EDH
RUG Riku of Two Reflections RUG
UBR Marchesa, the Black Rose UBR
UBRGYidris, Maelstrom Wielder UBRG
UBRJeleva, Nephalia's ScourgeUBR
It might make the most sense to hit the dredgers themself as it would slow the deck down considerably. By hitting both Grave-Troll and Stinkweed Imp we are left with Golgari Thug as the highest dredger, with a dredge count of 4. It is not too likely that either of these cards would have a use outside of the archetype, although stinkweed was played somewhat in the "Zombardment" strategy, which was arguably just a control deck. It was not essential to this deck however.
Another option is to hit the "free" creatures, the win conditions of the dredge deck. I do not think Narcomoeba has ever been played in a fair deck before or ever will. I also have doubts that Prized Amalgam would ever be played in anything other than the dredge strategy, but I think it has a higher chance than Narcomoeba. Bloodghast has the most likelihood of being used in other strategies such as Smallpox and other attrition based decks as a resilient win condition.
Therefore, I would say either the two big dredgers or Narcomoeba and Prized Amalgam are the correct bans in dredge, depending on which route wizards wishes to take. Wizards has admitted time and time again that the dredge mechanic is broken, but playing cards for "free" can also be broken which is what the creatures here do.
To sum it up, I think Prized Amalgam is the card we should be taking a closer look at if we want to gut the deck. An army of 2/1s and 1/1s is not quite the same without an army of 3/3s next to them. Are we potentially depriving a fair deck of getting to use the Amalgam? I would say the chances of this being true are quite slim.
Decks I'm playing in Modern right now:
URB Grixis Reveler (http://www.mtgvault.com/supast4r7/decks/modern-grixis-reveler/)
UB Faeries (http://www.mtgvault.com/supast4r7/decks/ub-fae-2/)
UW Azorious Control (http://www.mtgvault.com/supast4r7/decks/modern-ojutai-control-2/)
reban Golgari Grave Troll.
I do like this idea because Narcomoeba sees no play in any other decktype. However, would it be enough to slow dredge down? If so, it would be the ideal ban. If not, it should be the Amalgam
I find that hard to believe. Maybe on MTGO that's the case, but Infect has Dredge beat in terms of # of decks in Day 2 for the last 4 GPs, based on coverage figures (either out of all Day 2 participants, or top 100).
Guangzhou: 23 Infect-11 Dredge
Lille: 5-3
Indianapolis: 6-2
DFW: 11-8
Unless there's some other confounding variable, you're more likely to play against Infect than Dredge if you make it to Day 2 of a GP. I don't doubt that Bolt decks have it easy against Infect, but to say that the Bolt decks can't make it because of Dredge is puzzling when they're more likely to face Infect than Dredge.
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
I don't think they do half measures any more, after BBE. Every card banned since then has been the strongest card in their respective decks.
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
4 Wooded Foothills
2 Mountain
2 Blood Crypt
2 Stomping Ground
4 Blackcleave Cliffs
2 Dakmor Salvage
4 Faithless Looting
4 Greater Gargadon
4 Cathartic Reunion
4 Bloodghast
4 Narcomoeba
4 Scrapheap Scrounger
4 Golgari Grave-Troll
3 Bridge from Below
1 Darkblast
This deck could probably work even without Narcomoeba, but you'd end up losing to aggro more often because you don't flip over a free chump blocker while setting up with Reunion/Looting.
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
Kind of cool lists, but they don't really mean anything.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
So, how about an SSG ban, and a Preordain unban? Some combo decks would benefit, and others would lose some speed but gain some consistency. Turn 1 Blood Moons would no longer be possible, and Blue based control and tempo decks would get a boost.
They could also try printing a sorcery for U that reads, "Scry 1, draw a card, scry 1." That would be a strict upgrade from Serum Visions, and a notch below Preordain.
If you are talking about double SSG into Blood Moon, there's a 6.3 in 100 chance of getting 2 apes in your starting hand, and doing 2xSSG+Moon is 2.52%. I'm not worried about it.
Chalice for 1 is only broken if your opponent is trying to do unfair things. Imagine CotV at 1 vs Jeskai/Grixis/Jund/Abzan, it does hurt those decks but is not the end of the world. It deactivates Bolts and Paths (good vs nonchalice decks, usually), discard and cantrips.
I may be missing something, but who's casting 4 and 5 drops in modern on turn 1? o.O
Regarding Preordain, would be Opt ok in the format?
The problem with dredge is the lack of possible maindeck answers to it, and the fact that it dodges most of the things being thrown to the other Modern offenders. As izzetmage pointed out, it could probably survive a ban... but I think its popularity would drop more than its power.
Yup... That is exactly why it is currently wrecking the format, dominating top 8/16/64s at large events, and is the most played deck. /sarcasm
Using a tier 3 or below deck as a supportive argument on why a card should be banned is just poor reasoning. The deck in question has put up 1 result (a 1 5-0 league result by SaffronOlive) at the beginning of November and that is it. Nothing about it is even close to meeting the ban list criteria.
But what if you draw the blood moon without the guide, or the guide without the moon? It's just too inconsistent which is why the deck isn't dominant. Even the premier Blood Moon decks don't play SSG (Skred and Blue Moon)
1. Golgari Grave-Troll
2. Narcomoeba
3. Prized Amalgam
4. Cathartic Reunion
5. Bloodghast
When judging which card to ban it is important to evaluate the consequences for the deck. WotC usually banned to cards to weaken the deck, but keep it in the format. There are sad cases where the opposite happened, especially Birthing Pod and Splinter Twin, but in most cases the aim was to hit cards that were strong, but not vital to the strategy. For the Eldrazi ban, Wizards specifically stated that they want to keep the strategy viable and the same was the case for every Jund ban yet.
Another factor is the number of decks that are affected by the ban. The more specific the card is to the deck, the better.
The last factor I deem relevant is the likelihood that this ban will have a long term effect. Are similar cards printed often? If so, the card is a rather bad ban target.
So I would say the general guidelines are
1. Not to kill the deck completely
2. To weaken the deck in
- consistency
- and/or power
3. To affect as few other decks as possible
4. To have a long term effect in weakening the deck
When applying these criteria to the afforementioned 5 cards I would predict the following:
1. If you ban Golgari Grave-Troll:
Banning GGT would not kill the deck. This ban does hit the dredge engine, but there are several other dredgers out there that can take its place, namely Golgari Thug. Milling 33% less cards is a notable decrease in both speed and consistency and would give the opponent more time to build up their defenses (or offense). It also affects the decks alternate win con, beating down with huge Trolls is no longer an option and the Thug is far less intimidating. GGT is played in very few other strategies (Dredgevine) and can usually be replaced as well. Currently Dredge as an ability is a solid 9 on the Storm Scale and will likely never see play in Standard again. Chances that an equal replacement is printed are therefore very slim.
I think GGT is a good target.
2. If you banNarcomoeba
A Narco ban would have a greater effect on the deck. Narcomoeba as a free flying blocker adds to the resilience against early aggression. The deck remains resilient against non-exiling effects, but especially extraction effects become more powerful if the only free way to get creatures on the board is Bloodghast. There is no other card that can trigger the Amalgams immediately so the explosiveness is greatly decreased. Bloodghast requires a land drop, so the Amalgams can start entering the battlefield at the end of T2 at the earliest if the Dredge player has a dredger and Insolent Neonate or Faithless Looting in hand T1. This is a full turn slower and should give players more time to defend themselves. It also increases the effectiveness of non-T0 gravehate, which is significant as well. Notable replacements inlcude Haunted Dead and Scrapheap Scrounger, both of which actually require the Dredge player to invest ressources, which further slows down the deck. Narcomoeba is played in no other deck and is the only card with this ability in over 20 years of Magic.
In my opinion a good target.
3. If you banPrized Amalgam
This is the card that actually made Dredge a viable strategy again in the first place. Without it the deck would likely not exist. Greater Gargadon + Bridge from Below is an alternative, but the deck is only good if you actually have the Gargadon on turn 1 or 2. Recurring a Ghast or Scrounger alone is not enough payoff to make this deck competitive. Even Cathartic Reunion can't change that, if there is nothing powerful that could happen even when dredging 30 cards at once. It's Gargadon or bust. In my opinion this ban would decrease the power and consistency too far to keep Dredge as a viable strategy in the format. Amalgam is also used in several Zombie Tribal decks, although Dredge is the only tiered deck that uses it. Similar cards may be printed in every Block with a graveyard theme.
I think this is a very harsh ban and should only be considered if you want to kill the deck.
4. If you banCathartic Reunion
Banning Reunion from the deck would decrease the explosiveness of the deck by a margin and return the deck to its powerlevel before Kaladesh happened. The deck would stay viable and competitive. However, Wizards has printed many similar cards with this effect in quick succession and it is very likely that a similar card will be printed soon. A longterm effect of this ban is therfore questionable.
I think this would be very bad ban target.
5. If you banBloodghast
Bloodghast is a more essential part of the dredge engine. It serves as discard fodder, Amalgam recursion engine and wincon in itself. Banning it would lead to a far less resilient and consistent deck as each Narcomoeba can bring back Amalgams only once at best. Scrapheap Scrounger and Haunted Dead require serious payments to bring Amalgams back up, the Scrounger will have to start nibbling on the dredgers once the deceased Neonates and Narcomoebas are digested and Haunted Dead will put a lot of pressure on Loam to use reliably. It also uses the same resources as Conflagrate which is another problem. Bloodghast is unable to block and can itself be blocked more easily than Narcomoeba. Stalling the board with bigger creatures becomes a real thing, especially if the explosiveness and evasiveness of Narcomoeba dredges are missing. To sum it up, I think banning Bloodghast would hit the deck hard and take away a lot of the resilience and lategame power. Bloodghast is a popular casual card and is played in many Vampire Tribal and Sacrifice decks, and is also used by some other tier 3 decks (Dredgevine).
I think banning Bloodghast would be okayish if you don't mind the risk of killing the deck entirely and making casuals angry.
All in all, I would suggest either GGT or Narcomoeba as ban targets IF something needs a ban. The first would put a hard limit on the speed and consistency of the deck even if another good recursion target is printed. Narcomoeba would make Dredge at least a turn slower, more vulnerable to creature aggression and would force Dredge to invest mana and other resources to get creatures back from their graveyard. Banning either would keep the deck competitive and have a long term effect on the deck. GGT also has use in other decks, although I don't know how bad a banning would be for Dredgevine. Narcomoeba would hit Dredge only.
Would be great to hear from a Dredge player if they agree with my evaluations.
My Modern Decks:
BGWAbzan MidrangeWGB
UWRJeskai NahiriRWU
BRUGrixis ControlURB