Edit: Burden of proof is on those who make the claim. People here who say Abzan would be too good need to provide some evidence other than anecdotal evidence.
Again, no. This is wrong.
When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.
We, naysayers, did not say anything. We just say Stoneforge Mystic can stay for ever in the Banlist. You are the one who is claiming it has to be legal. So, the burden of proof falls on you to provide some hard data from testing. Until then, SFM can stay banned. Listen, I know that the meta is different and SFM is a little bit safer than it was in 2015, but still I am unsure it's totally safe. Modern nexus provided some hard data HERE and the final statement is this:
Based on the results of my testing Stoneforge Mystic in Junk Abzan I recommend against unbanning. My results partially prove the hypothesis true, but analysis of the impact suggests that over the long term it will have the opposite effect.
While its power is manageable and it would give players more reason to play white, its impact would not be positive. It negatively impacts the viability of fair aggro decks and non-Stoneforge midrange decks, while having a negligible impact on the less fair decks. The likely outcome would be a shift to more unfair decks and the speed of the format increasing to try to ignore and invalidate Batterskull and Swords. Therefore there is no reason to unban Stoneforge Mystic.
So, until further notice I am going with this one and not by your hypothetical belief.
Greetings, gkourou
Edit: Burden of proof is on those who make the claim. People here who say Abzan would be too good need to provide some evidence other than anecdotal evidence.
Again, no. This is wrong.
When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.
We, naysayers, did not say anything. We just say Stoneforge Mystic can stay for ever in the Banlist. You are the one who is claiming it has to be legal. So, the burden of proof falls on you to provide some hard data from testing. Until then, SFM can stay banned. Listen, I know that the meta is different and SFM is a little bit safer than it was in 2015, but still I am unsure it's totally safe. Modern nexus provided some hard data HERE and the final statement is this:
Based on the results of my testing Stoneforge Mystic in Junk Abzan I recommend against unbanning. My results partially prove the hypothesis true, but analysis of the impact suggests that over the long term it will have the opposite effect.
While its power is manageable and it would give players more reason to play white, its impact would not be positive. It negatively impacts the viability of fair aggro decks and non-Stoneforge midrange decks, while having a negligible impact on the less fair decks. The likely outcome would be a shift to more unfair decks and the speed of the format increasing to try to ignore and invalidate Batterskull and Swords. Therefore there is no reason to unban Stoneforge Mystic.
So, until further notice I am going with this one and not by your hypothetical belief.
Greetings, gkourou
His conclusion made absolutely no sense, he claimed it would hurt other fair midrange decks but he did no tedting against other midrange decks. If anything, his testing proved this statement false since the testing vs jeskai nahiri (without sfm) showed that it improved the matchup 2%.yea, it went from a 50/50 to a 52/48 matchup, that is far from suppressing jeskai. If jeskai isn't hurt by abzan mystic, why would the k command decks be hurt? Serious question, why?
In addition, his testing showed that sfm had hsrdly any impact on any matchup except burn. This to me says the cards power level is greatly exaggerated. If all it does is make abzan favorable vs burn, and doesnt even hurt jeskai, how is it a bad unban?
I don't get all these swap ban arguments. People are like "I think we should re-enable a degenerate combo but ban the part of the combo that hasn't actually done anything wrong, which means we can never print an effect like that again."
It's the same kind of people who are like "Let's ban Batterskull, a card that has never done anything wrong and isn't even that good in the format right now, and unban Stoneforge Mystic, a card that warps formats and forces Wizards to never push equipment again."
I just don't see the point to any of these, nor do I see them as a healthy use of the banlist.
I agree that is not a healthy use of the banlist. However your assumption that SFM is format warping goes against all testing that has taken place to date.
That's true, though I would argue that there hasn't been terribly much testing done (though big props to the guys at Modern Nexus for their work with testing Mystic).
The main point is that it's like banning Siege Rhino and unbanning Birthing Pod (which I have also seen argued). By keeping the enabler in the format you limit what else can be done when it's much more logical to remove the enabler which allows a more free design space. You're either playing whack-a-mole with cards that suddenly become broken or you can get rid of it and never run into that problem again.
Agreed and your logic is sound. The only reason i feel SFM is an exception to this arguement is that wizards feels printing equipment as powerful as batterskull and swords was a mistake and they already intend to never do that again. Pod was different because they cannot just stop printing powerful creatures.
Swap bans are mostly just a thought experiment and go against Wizards' typical MO of banning the enabler. Usually I relegate those arguments to same side of banning fetchlands.
However Batterskull is the only card anyone is saying is broken with SFM as we don't get jitte. So if you unban SFM and that is a problem now you're cutting equipment altogether out of modern basically rather than just the one broken equipment.
Yes, but we are dealing with R&D and Aaron Forsythe, a man who thought Sword of the Meek would be too annoying in Lantern. I wouldn't trust R&D with my turkey sandwich but you need to go by their logic, which is always banning the enabler.
Banning a deck because it makes people feel bad sets an awful precedent. If that were the case Lantern and Infect should eat a ban.
I agree, but they will probably articulate it in a different way. They could either revive the old "Dredge subgame" argument that got GGT preemptively banned, talk about how other GY-based decks (Gifts decks, Sword decks, Living End, Abzan Company, etc.) are virtually nonexistent in this new environment, or focus on its MTGO share as reducing MTGO diversity. They certainly won't cite a "feels bad" reason directly. Those example justifications aren't great ones but they all have some baseline merit, which is why I'd bet on Wizards banning a Dredge card even if I agree that it isn't a good precedent. It also doesn't fix any of Modern's problems; Dredge is a problem because it requires more decks to run more specialized answers that turn games into roulette rounds. The fixes to this are in the realm of generic answers, but the only card on the banlist that really addresses this need is Preordain, which is still a gamble and still not very likely.
Banning a deck because it makes people feel bad sets an awful precedent. If that were the case Lantern and Infect should eat a ban.
I agree. I don't think something from Dredge needs a banning. I have seen players take measure locally to beat or hang wiwth Dredge. In fact, I saw 0 Dredge decks and only a few that lose to Dredge badly (Jund) last night at FNM out of 34 players. Now I can imagine some places where Dredge is still the deck to beat, but often I see players globally take measure to stay solid against expected Tier 1 decks.
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)
And Lantern will be banned as well, if its meta continues rising in the future and if need be.
You can apply this logic to literally any deck though. I don't think Wizards particularly cares if Lantern is a top deck until it gets up to double digits percentage of the meta.
If people find Lantern boring may I suggest bringing a book? I sometimes come up with my best thoughts on philosophy as a stare into space while
my opponent sits across the table playing with himself in public.
SFM is one of those cards that shouldn't come off and I don't think people suggesting her unban are aware of her power.
This is exactly the kind of hyperbole that my post was referencing. Yes, SFM is a good card but it is a one off card advantage then it is a 1/2. i am fully aware of "her power" of cheating equipment into play but the only equipment that is even relevant to that discussion is a 4/4 lifelink vigilance which is SMALLER than the green 2 drop tarmogoyf. Seriously, the idea that she is somehow way more powerful than anything this format is already doing is just hyperbole. If the discussion boils down to whether she reduces deck diversity rather than increasing deck diversity then that is a fine discussion but trying to pretend she is over the top powerful is not a profitable discussion because she clearly is not.
Just from reading your comment I'm guessing you've never played with or against SFM. Sure, it's not quite as broken as in Legacy since you can't tutor for Jitte, but turn-3 Batterskull is a game-winning play in Modern most of the time. Even if they kill SFM before it can be activated, it's still a Steelshaper's Gift that takes out a removal spell. And you can't compare Batterskull to Tarmogoyf - most creatures that are played in Modern are smaller than Tarmogoyf, and this one has two relevant abilities. Now, I don't necessarily think that SFM shouldn't EVER come off, but it's definitely one of the stronger cards on the banned list, and I don't think it should get unbanned right now or for the foreseeable future.
I have not only played with and against her but i have done some testing with my brother in law in current modern and your statement is at best ignorant and at worst damaging to intelligent discourse.
I am listing what she actually does as a card and speaking from VERY recent experience decking 2 equipment is a very real cost. Drawing either the sword or the skull requires 5 mana investment to see any benefit and it is actively bad in a number of matchups. Particularly in abzan which is a very tight list with precious few slots to cut you are often in a situation where you need an answer and draw a SFM or equipment, and along with that you regularly would rather have tarmogoyf than SFM when you pull it off the top of the deck. (It is most often better than tarmogoyf on exactly turn 2 but not even always then.)
Also, she is only as good as the equipment you can get with her. So saying she is not as good in modern where you cannot get jitte is a GROSS understatement jitte is often whoever gets it first wins and that is just not the case for batterskull or swords in modern
In and of itself, the lack of Jitte makes SFM miles worse. But I'm also accounting for the fact that Legacy has a lot more unfair decks/cards than Modern, which makes Stoneforge into Batterskull or a Sword a much better play than it is in Legacy.
Besides, you have to consider the impact of the card outside of Abzan. You're absolutely right that it wouldn't be at its best there, but what about, say, white midrange decks, or Delver? SFM gives those decks another angle of attack that it's really hard for most decks to defend themselves from with the removal available in Modern.
Besides, you have to consider the impact of the card outside of Abzan. You're absolutely right that it wouldn't be at its best there, but what about, say, white midrange decks, or Delver? SFM gives those decks another angle of attack that it's really hard for most decks to defend themselves from with the removal available in Modern.
Is there a single deck in modern that can't defend itself from an artifact on turn 4 (especially post board)?
Besides, you have to consider the impact of the card outside of Abzan. You're absolutely right that it wouldn't be at its best there, but what about, say, white midrange decks, or Delver? SFM gives those decks another angle of attack that it's really hard for most decks to defend themselves from with the removal available in Modern.
Is there a single deck in modern that can't defend itself from an artifact on turn 4 (especially post board)?
No, but what happens if they don't draw the removal, or it's preboard, or they have otherwise good removal like Bolt that doesn't hit Batterskull? Even if it does get answered game 1, in most cases it'll just take over the game anyway if the game goes long enough. And it's not like SFM would see play in decks where you answer one card and they lose. My point isn't that it's impossible to answer Batterskull or SoFaI or whatever else pops out of a turn 2 SFM, but that it's hard enough that it runs the risk of warping the format.
And Lantern will be banned as well, if its meta continues rising in the future and if need be.
You can apply this logic to literally any deck though. I don't think Wizards particularly cares if Lantern is a top deck until it gets up to double digits percentage of the meta.
I agree. Lantern was just an underplayed deck that people started now playing more of due to watching recent Pros play the deck and the meta being so fast (so trying to quickly Prison them out).
I believe that Mono Black Rack is in a similar situation. The deck is underplayed. Maybe I've seen the best draws from them, but the deck can be very strong. Now, I've played Lantern a little and Loam Pox (similar to Black Rack) and I do think that Lantern is better overall, but Mono Black Rack is an underplayed deck.
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)
Besides, you have to consider the impact of the card outside of Abzan. You're absolutely right that it wouldn't be at its best there, but what about, say, white midrange decks, or Delver? SFM gives those decks another angle of attack that it's really hard for most decks to defend themselves from with the removal available in Modern.
Is there a single deck in modern that can't defend itself from an artifact on turn 4 (especially post board)?
No, but what happens if they don't draw the removal, or it's preboard, or they have otherwise good removal like Bolt that doesn't hit Batterskull? Even if it does get answered game 1, in most cases it'll just take over the game anyway if the game goes long enough. And it's not like SFM would see play in decks where you answer one card and they lose. My point isn't that it's impossible to answer Batterskull or SoFaI or whatever else pops out of a turn 2 SFM, but that it's hard enough that it runs the risk of warping the format.
You essentially just described a game of magic. One player plays a threat, the other player answers. Player 1 plays threat, player 2 plays a bigger threat, etc etc. The game goes until one player drops a threat the other cant answer, either from lack of resources or just not having access, and cant respond with a bigger threat of their own.
Arguing for or against sfm in this way is a fruitless endeavor, no party is right or wrong, and you are not attacking what really matters: does the card create new, interesting strategies or bolster underplayed ones? Does it fit into an existing tier 1 deck? Does it break the t4 rule? Do the original reasons the card was banned still apply? All of these are what we need to answer in regards to finding good, safe unbans, not whether or not an unanswered threat wins the game
After seeing dredge win through turn 2 Rest in peace as well as turn 1 Grafdigger's Cage I believe it is fair to say that it is at about the same level of busted-ness that Amulet Bloom was.
I expect one ban from dredge to slow the deck down to a manageable level as well as a couple of unbans to shake the format up somewhat, similar to what happened when they took out Eye of Ugin.
After seeing dredge win through turn 2 Rest in peace as well as turn 1 Grafdigger's Cage I believe it is fair to say that it is at about the same level of busted-ness that Amulet Bloom was.
I expect one ban from dredge to slow the deck down to a manageable level as well as a couple of unbans to shake the format up somewhat, similar to what happened when they took out Eye of Ugin.
Except when it wins those games it's because the other decks fall on thier face. If you do nothing for a lot of turns yeah you'll still lose. Reunion is the card that enables the extremely busted digging as well as banning it keeps the deck good enough to still be a thing IMO.
After seeing dredge win through turn 2 Rest in peace as well as turn 1 Grafdigger's Cage I believe it is fair to say that it is at about the same level of busted-ness that Amulet Bloom was.
I expect one ban from dredge to slow the deck down to a manageable level as well as a couple of unbans to shake the format up somewhat, similar to what happened when they took out Eye of Ugin.
Except when it wins those games it's because the other decks fall on thier face. If you do nothing for a lot of turns yeah you'll still lose. Reunion is the card that enables the extremely busted digging as well as banning it keeps the deck good enough to still be a thing IMO.
Sorry but the other deck "falling on their face" is an exact result of Dredge being too hard to handle, and mulliganing or keeping bad hands because you have Graveyard hate.
In my opinion, that's a deck that is just too good for the format, the only thing keeping WOTC of entering "DEFCON 1" is purely the fact that Dredge loses to itself most of the time it loses.
After seeing dredge win through turn 2 Rest in peace as well as turn 1 Grafdigger's Cage I believe it is fair to say that it is at about the same level of busted-ness that Amulet Bloom was.
Affinity wins through Stony Silence and we aren't clamoring a ban on them. I felt that this Dredge is the exact power level we want all Modern decks to be. Again, I feel this is the best opportunity for unbans compared to actual bans.
After seeing dredge win through turn 2 Rest in peace as well as turn 1 Grafdigger's Cage I believe it is fair to say that it is at about the same level of busted-ness that Amulet Bloom was.
Affinity wins through Stony Silence and we aren't clamoring a ban on them. I felt that this Dredge is the exact power level we want all Modern decks to be. Again, I feel this is the best opportunity for unbans compared to actual bans.
Sure, but most decks have interaction for affinity since all of your general creature kill cards work fine against the deck. You can't really say the same with dredge - everything you kill just comes back.
There is a reason why one deck is generally hated by many modern players and the other one accepted as just a very good explosive aggressive deck
After seeing dredge win through turn 2 Rest in peace as well as turn 1 Grafdigger's Cage I believe it is fair to say that it is at about the same level of busted-ness that Amulet Bloom was.
Affinity wins through Stony Silence and we aren't clamoring a ban on them. I felt that this Dredge is the exact power level we want all Modern decks to be. Again, I feel this is the best opportunity for unbans compared to actual bans.
Sure, but most decks have interaction for affinity since all of your general creature kill cards work fine against the deck. You can't really say the same with dredge - everything you kill just comes back.
There is a reason why one deck is generally hated by many modern players and the other one accepted as just a very good explosive aggressive deck
I simply believe that the feeling people get from one deck compared to the other is because it's new. I would claim Affinity is often more powerful and doesn't get completely hosed by cards like Anger of the Gods. Having graveyard hate is one thing, but the resilience of the deck comes in the form of Prized Amalgam. I don't think we can claim that this card is ban-worthy, although it would be the best ban target.
I think we need to seriously look at the banned list, and start removing cards aggressively from it. If we start banning cards like Grave-Troll again, we might as well scrap this format. The banned list would only increase over time compared to simply being smaller.
SFM is one of those cards that shouldn't come off and I don't think people suggesting her unban are aware of her power.
This is exactly the kind of hyperbole that my post was referencing. Yes, SFM is a good card but it is a one off card advantage then it is a 1/2. i am fully aware of "her power" of cheating equipment into play but the only equipment that is even relevant to that discussion is a 4/4 lifelink vigilance which is SMALLER than the green 2 drop tarmogoyf. Seriously, the idea that she is somehow way more powerful than anything this format is already doing is just hyperbole. If the discussion boils down to whether she reduces deck diversity rather than increasing deck diversity then that is a fine discussion but trying to pretend she is over the top powerful is not a profitable discussion because she clearly is not.
Just from reading your comment I'm guessing you've never played with or against SFM. Sure, it's not quite as broken as in Legacy since you can't tutor for Jitte, but turn-3 Batterskull is a game-winning play in Modern most of the time. Even if they kill SFM before it can be activated, it's still a Steelshaper's Gift that takes out a removal spell. And you can't compare Batterskull to Tarmogoyf - most creatures that are played in Modern are smaller than Tarmogoyf, and this one has two relevant abilities. Now, I don't necessarily think that SFM shouldn't EVER come off, but it's definitely one of the stronger cards on the banned list, and I don't think it should get unbanned right now or for the foreseeable future.
I have not only played with and against her but i have done some testing with my brother in law in current modern and your statement is at best ignorant and at worst damaging to intelligent discourse.
I am listing what she actually does as a card and speaking from VERY recent experience decking 2 equipment is a very real cost. Drawing either the sword or the skull requires 5 mana investment to see any benefit and it is actively bad in a number of matchups. Particularly in abzan which is a very tight list with precious few slots to cut you are often in a situation where you need an answer and draw a SFM or equipment, and along with that you regularly would rather have tarmogoyf than SFM when you pull it off the top of the deck. (It is most often better than tarmogoyf on exactly turn 2 but not even always then.)
Also, she is only as good as the equipment you can get with her. So saying she is not as good in modern where you cannot get jitte is a GROSS understatement jitte is often whoever gets it first wins and that is just not the case for batterskull or swords in modern
In and of itself, the lack of Jitte makes SFM miles worse. But I'm also accounting for the fact that Legacy has a lot more unfair decks/cards than Modern, which makes Stoneforge into Batterskull or a Sword a much better play than it is in Legacy.
But you also have to account for the fact that Batterskull is usually the biggest creature on the board in Legacy (except for stray Goyfs) and equipping a TNN with either Jitte or Skull is lights out either way. That makes it a lot stronger in Legacy. In Modern, creatures are oftenbiggerthan Skull and there is no TNN to create an invincible threat. Kolaghan's Command is a thing and at least Abzan can't retrieve a destroyed Skull or Sword. SFM becomes a dead draw at that point and the best she could do then is crew a copter. A Goyf with Skull is a beating, but that won't happen until turn 5 anyway and at 5 mana powerful stuff is allowed to happen.
I honestly think there is already enough stuff being played right now that will easily keep SFM + Skull in check. If you can't answer it you will probably be punished, but then therearemanycardslikethis.
After seeing dredge win through turn 2 Rest in peace as well as turn 1 Grafdigger's Cage I believe it is fair to say that it is at about the same level of busted-ness that Amulet Bloom was.
Affinity wins through Stony Silence and we aren't clamoring a ban on them. I felt that this Dredge is the exact power level we want all Modern decks to be. Again, I feel this is the best opportunity for unbans compared to actual bans.
Sure, but most decks have interaction for affinity since all of your general creature kill cards work fine against the deck. You can't really say the same with dredge - everything you kill just comes back.
There is a reason why one deck is generally hated by many modern players and the other one accepted as just a very good explosive aggressive deck
This was exactly my point the decks that got beat with their sb cards did nothing to interact. A couple removal spells and dredge was dead but instead they durdled and made land drops. Don't go off the couple games you see on streams at large events. You could argue that dredge requiring so many sb slots is a good thing. It makes sure people tune and retune and can't cover every dack.
I predict Bloodghast will be banned if they decide that Dredge is too much. Virtually every Dredge deck, even those before GGT and Amalgam, played it. Even Dredgevine did, and Bloodghast is a nonbo with Vengevine. That's how good it is. It's probably the best card in the deck, even better than Amalgam, despite Dredge only becoming "a deck" when Amalgam was printed.
I'm operating on the assumption that they will choose to ban the best card in Dredge.
Why not _____?
Cathartic Reunion: doesn't make sense. That card is giant counterspell bait and looks totally out of place on the ban list. I mean, say what you will about Preordain looking out of place on the ban list, but twocantrips are as close as you can get to banned in Vintage, so the precedent is there.
Narcomoeba: it's not actually that strong. You need 4 so that you can mill into one relatively consistently, but 4 gives you the max chance of drawing one in your opener, where it's useless. If you draw a Bloodghast or Amalgam you can pitch it to Looting/Reunion/Conflagrate and still have it be useful. Not so with Narcomoeba.
Amalgam: This might be a contentious one, since it was what made Dredge "a deck". The reason I don't believe it will be banned is that an Amalgam-less deck is still capable of some ridiculous things with Bridge from Below and Greater Gargadon (sample deck here). Play land, get Bloodghast(s), sac to Gargadon, get Zombie(s), repeat. Bloodghast is the real culprit here.
Golgari Grave-Troll: This is another contentious one. I feel like a lot of people who think GGT should be banned rationalize it with "dredge is a busted mechanic". But what does that really mean? Have you ever thought hard about that?
The truth is that dredge is only as busted as the cards that you can mill into. What does the dredge mechanic do? It lets you mill yourself. If dredge didn't exist, could you still mill yourself? Yes, of course - Shriekhorn, Tome Scour and Glimpse the Unthinkable do that, and Hedron Crab is close to a repeatable mill 6 every turn (if a bit squishy). T1 Insolent Neonate, sac, discard Stinkweed Imp, dredge Stinkweed Imp mills just as much as a Tome Scour. In Legacy the "All Spells" deck wins by milling itself and flashing back Dread Return, without a single dredge card. Of course it gets some help from rituals, which are busted in their own way, but my point is that if the payoff for filling your graveyard exists, you don't necessarily need dredge cards to get there.
Why are the cards that Dredge mills into busted? Because they don't cost mana to cast, trigger or activate. Bloodghast, Narcomoeba and Amalgam are all guilty of this. So is Bridge from Below, and other things that you won't find in Modern, like Dread Return, Ichorid, Nether Shadow and Cabal Therapy. There is a reason it's possible to build a manaless Dredge deck in Legacy: because there is so much stuff that doesn't require mana.
Do you see anyone complaining about Lingering Souls, Haunted Dead or Scrapheap Scrounger? Of course not. These cards are balanced, despite being potential targets to mill into. Why? Because they cost mana.
How about some hypothetical counterarguments then?
"Dredge is busted because it provides too much CA. Mill 6 = 6 extra cards, since your cards work from the graveyard". This one holds some truth to it, because Dredge recovers from mulligans better than perhaps any other deck in the format - all you need to do is hit a good dredge off land + Looting. However I believe the bigger problem is free creatures. Dredge can get back in the game after a mull to 5 because all the relevant creatures ETB at the drop of a hat. If it didn't have any free creatures, it would go T1 loot, T2 loot, T3 Souls/Haunted Dead/Scrapheap Scrounger at best and promptly die. With free creatures, you can have them ETB as early as turn 1 (if you used Neonate to loot into Narcomoeba), or have four guys on turn 3 instead of just two dinky Spirits.
"They're going to keep printing better creatures that work from the graveyard anyway, might as well ban the dredgers instead". If there were that many good creatures that worked from the graveyard, I could just build a deck with Crab, Shriekhorn, etc and mill into them without dredgers. Problem not solved. Besides, they are also aware that not putting mana costs on activated abilities is dangerous (which, as I mentioned, is the reason dredge payoff cards are busted), so at least give them the benefit of doubt, that they can design balanced graveyard monsters without screwing up Modern.
I predict Bloodghast will be banned if they decide that Dredge is too much. Virtually every Dredge deck, even those before GGT and Amalgam, played it. Even Dredgevine did, and Bloodghast is a nonbo with Vengevine. That's how good it is. It's probably the best card in the deck, even better than Amalgam, despite Dredge only becoming "a deck" when Amalgam was printed.
I'm operating on the assumption that they will choose to ban the best card in Dredge.
Why not _____?
Cathartic Reunion: doesn't make sense. That card is giant counterspell bait and looks totally out of place on the ban list. I mean, say what you will about Preordain looking out of place on the ban list, but twocantrips are as close as you can get to banned in Vintage, so the precedent is there.
Narcomoeba: it's not actually that strong. You need 4 so that you can mill into one relatively consistently, but 4 gives you the max chance of drawing one in your opener, where it's useless. If you draw a Bloodghast or Amalgam you can pitch it to Looting/Reunion/Conflagrate and still have it be useful. Not so with Narcomoeba.
Amalgam: This might be a contentious one, since it was what made Dredge "a deck". The reason I don't believe it will be banned is that an Amalgam-less deck is still capable of some ridiculous things with Bridge from Below and Greater Gargadon (sample deck here). Play land, get Bloodghast(s), sac to Gargadon, get Zombie(s), repeat. Bloodghast is the real culprit here.
Golgari Grave-Troll: This is another contentious one. I feel like a lot of people who think GGT should be banned rationalize it with "dredge is a busted mechanic". But what does that really mean? Have you ever thought hard about that?
The truth is that dredge is only as busted as the cards that you can mill into. What does the dredge mechanic do? It lets you mill yourself. If dredge didn't exist, could you still mill yourself? Yes, of course - Shriekhorn, Tome Scour and Glimpse the Unthinkable do that, and Hedron Crab is close to a repeatable mill 6 every turn (if a bit squishy). T1 Insolent Neonate, sac, discard Stinkweed Imp, dredge Stinkweed Imp mills just as much as a Tome Scour. In Legacy the "All Spells" deck wins by milling itself and flashing back Dread Return, without a single dredge card. Of course it gets some help from rituals, which are busted in their own way, but my point is that if the payoff for filling your graveyard exists, you don't necessarily need dredge cards to get there.
Why are the cards that Dredge mills into busted? Because they don't cost mana to cast, trigger or activate. Bloodghast, Narcomoeba and Amalgam are all guilty of this. So is Bridge from Below, and other things that you won't find in Modern, like Dread Return, Ichorid, Nether Shadow and Cabal Therapy. There is a reason it's possible to build a manaless Dredge deck in Legacy: because there is so much stuff that doesn't require mana.
Do you see anyone complaining about Lingering Souls, Haunted Dead or Scrapheap Scrounger? Of course not. These cards are balanced, despite being potential targets to mill into. Why? Because they cost mana.
How about some hypothetical counterarguments then?
"Dredge is busted because it provides too much CA. Mill 6 = 6 extra cards, since your cards work from the graveyard". This one holds some truth to it, because Dredge recovers from mulligans better than perhaps any other deck in the format - all you need to do is hit a good dredge off land + Looting. However I believe the bigger problem is free creatures. Dredge can get back in the game after a mull to 5 because all the relevant creatures ETB at the drop of a hat. If it didn't have any free creatures, it would go T1 loot, T2 loot, T3 Souls/Haunted Dead/Scrapheap Scrounger at best and promptly die. With free creatures, you can have them ETB as early as turn 1 (if you used Neonate to loot into Narcomoeba), or have four guys on turn 3 instead of just two dinky Spirits.
"They're going to keep printing better creatures that work from the graveyard anyway, might as well ban the dredgers instead". If there were that many good creatures that worked from the graveyard, I could just build a deck with Crab, Shriekhorn, etc and mill into them without dredgers. Problem not solved. Besides, they are also aware that not putting mana costs on activated abilities is dangerous (which, as I mentioned, is the reason dredge payoff cards are busted), so at least give them the benefit of doubt, that they can design balanced graveyard monsters without screwing up Modern.
TL;DR read the first sentence
Then again hitting Narcomoeba + Prized Amalgam create the most explosive starts because Narcomoeba comes directly into play and brings the Amalgams with it. I'd say it is the better ban target and is also played in no other deck.
Looking at Mtg top 8 and my local meta I don't see a need for a drastic change to dredge. If we aren't changing infect/affinity there isn't a need to push the deck out at all. Reunion is the only card that I can see as busted and it's because countering it does nothing as well as it dredging possibly 18 if you don't. Just my personal feelings but no need to ban ghast as it's never been a problem before so it's clearly not the enabler now.
You ban dredge completely then abzan company comes back and you still have to run your yard hate anyway or they combo you off t3/4 and everyone crys again about what needs to be banned. We need to stop banning cards and start adding to the deck diversity. That's why randomish decks spike top 8's and some win. Looking at Skred, adnausium, spirits, and lantern (more popular now) all within dredge being viable. Dredge isn't eldrazi aggro and they didn't even drop eldrazi out of tiers so I see no reason to kill it completely.
His conclusion made absolutely no sense, he claimed it would hurt other fair midrange decks but he did no tedting against other midrange decks. If anything, his testing proved this statement false since the testing vs jeskai nahiri (without sfm) showed that it improved the matchup 2%.yea, it went from a 50/50 to a 52/48 matchup, that is far from suppressing jeskai. If jeskai isn't hurt by abzan mystic, why would the k command decks be hurt? Serious question, why?
In addition, his testing showed that sfm had hsrdly any impact on any matchup except burn. This to me says the cards power level is greatly exaggerated. If all it does is make abzan favorable vs burn, and doesnt even hurt jeskai, how is it a bad unban?
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
Agreed and your logic is sound. The only reason i feel SFM is an exception to this arguement is that wizards feels printing equipment as powerful as batterskull and swords was a mistake and they already intend to never do that again. Pod was different because they cannot just stop printing powerful creatures.
However Batterskull is the only card anyone is saying is broken with SFM as we don't get jitte. So if you unban SFM and that is a problem now you're cutting equipment altogether out of modern basically rather than just the one broken equipment.
I agree, but they will probably articulate it in a different way. They could either revive the old "Dredge subgame" argument that got GGT preemptively banned, talk about how other GY-based decks (Gifts decks, Sword decks, Living End, Abzan Company, etc.) are virtually nonexistent in this new environment, or focus on its MTGO share as reducing MTGO diversity. They certainly won't cite a "feels bad" reason directly. Those example justifications aren't great ones but they all have some baseline merit, which is why I'd bet on Wizards banning a Dredge card even if I agree that it isn't a good precedent. It also doesn't fix any of Modern's problems; Dredge is a problem because it requires more decks to run more specialized answers that turn games into roulette rounds. The fixes to this are in the realm of generic answers, but the only card on the banlist that really addresses this need is Preordain, which is still a gamble and still not very likely.
I agree. I don't think something from Dredge needs a banning. I have seen players take measure locally to beat or hang wiwth Dredge. In fact, I saw 0 Dredge decks and only a few that lose to Dredge badly (Jund) last night at FNM out of 34 players. Now I can imagine some places where Dredge is still the deck to beat, but often I see players globally take measure to stay solid against expected Tier 1 decks.
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)You can apply this logic to literally any deck though. I don't think Wizards particularly cares if Lantern is a top deck until it gets up to double digits percentage of the meta.
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
If people find Lantern boring may I suggest bringing a book? I sometimes come up with my best thoughts on philosophy as a stare into space while
my opponent sits across the table playing with himself in public.
In and of itself, the lack of Jitte makes SFM miles worse. But I'm also accounting for the fact that Legacy has a lot more unfair decks/cards than Modern, which makes Stoneforge into Batterskull or a Sword a much better play than it is in Legacy.
Besides, you have to consider the impact of the card outside of Abzan. You're absolutely right that it wouldn't be at its best there, but what about, say, white midrange decks, or Delver? SFM gives those decks another angle of attack that it's really hard for most decks to defend themselves from with the removal available in Modern.
Is there a single deck in modern that can't defend itself from an artifact on turn 4 (especially post board)?
No, but what happens if they don't draw the removal, or it's preboard, or they have otherwise good removal like Bolt that doesn't hit Batterskull? Even if it does get answered game 1, in most cases it'll just take over the game anyway if the game goes long enough. And it's not like SFM would see play in decks where you answer one card and they lose. My point isn't that it's impossible to answer Batterskull or SoFaI or whatever else pops out of a turn 2 SFM, but that it's hard enough that it runs the risk of warping the format.
I agree. Lantern was just an underplayed deck that people started now playing more of due to watching recent Pros play the deck and the meta being so fast (so trying to quickly Prison them out).
I believe that Mono Black Rack is in a similar situation. The deck is underplayed. Maybe I've seen the best draws from them, but the deck can be very strong. Now, I've played Lantern a little and Loam Pox (similar to Black Rack) and I do think that Lantern is better overall, but Mono Black Rack is an underplayed deck.
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)You essentially just described a game of magic. One player plays a threat, the other player answers. Player 1 plays threat, player 2 plays a bigger threat, etc etc. The game goes until one player drops a threat the other cant answer, either from lack of resources or just not having access, and cant respond with a bigger threat of their own.
Arguing for or against sfm in this way is a fruitless endeavor, no party is right or wrong, and you are not attacking what really matters: does the card create new, interesting strategies or bolster underplayed ones? Does it fit into an existing tier 1 deck? Does it break the t4 rule? Do the original reasons the card was banned still apply? All of these are what we need to answer in regards to finding good, safe unbans, not whether or not an unanswered threat wins the game
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
I expect one ban from dredge to slow the deck down to a manageable level as well as a couple of unbans to shake the format up somewhat, similar to what happened when they took out Eye of Ugin.
Except when it wins those games it's because the other decks fall on thier face. If you do nothing for a lot of turns yeah you'll still lose. Reunion is the card that enables the extremely busted digging as well as banning it keeps the deck good enough to still be a thing IMO.
Sorry but the other deck "falling on their face" is an exact result of Dredge being too hard to handle, and mulliganing or keeping bad hands because you have Graveyard hate.
In my opinion, that's a deck that is just too good for the format, the only thing keeping WOTC of entering "DEFCON 1" is purely the fact that Dredge loses to itself most of the time it loses.
Affinity wins through Stony Silence and we aren't clamoring a ban on them. I felt that this Dredge is the exact power level we want all Modern decks to be. Again, I feel this is the best opportunity for unbans compared to actual bans.
Sure, but most decks have interaction for affinity since all of your general creature kill cards work fine against the deck. You can't really say the same with dredge - everything you kill just comes back.
There is a reason why one deck is generally hated by many modern players and the other one accepted as just a very good explosive aggressive deck
I simply believe that the feeling people get from one deck compared to the other is because it's new. I would claim Affinity is often more powerful and doesn't get completely hosed by cards like Anger of the Gods. Having graveyard hate is one thing, but the resilience of the deck comes in the form of Prized Amalgam. I don't think we can claim that this card is ban-worthy, although it would be the best ban target.
I think we need to seriously look at the banned list, and start removing cards aggressively from it. If we start banning cards like Grave-Troll again, we might as well scrap this format. The banned list would only increase over time compared to simply being smaller.
But you also have to account for the fact that Batterskull is usually the biggest creature on the board in Legacy (except for stray Goyfs) and equipping a TNN with either Jitte or Skull is lights out either way. That makes it a lot stronger in Legacy. In Modern, creatures are often bigger than Skull and there is no TNN to create an invincible threat. Kolaghan's Command is a thing and at least Abzan can't retrieve a destroyed Skull or Sword. SFM becomes a dead draw at that point and the best she could do then is crew a copter. A Goyf with Skull is a beating, but that won't happen until turn 5 anyway and at 5 mana powerful stuff is allowed to happen.
I honestly think there is already enough stuff being played right now that will easily keep SFM + Skull in check. If you can't answer it you will probably be punished, but then there are many cards like this.
My Modern Decks:
BGWAbzan MidrangeWGB
UWRJeskai NahiriRWU
BRUGrixis ControlURB
This was exactly my point the decks that got beat with their sb cards did nothing to interact. A couple removal spells and dredge was dead but instead they durdled and made land drops. Don't go off the couple games you see on streams at large events. You could argue that dredge requiring so many sb slots is a good thing. It makes sure people tune and retune and can't cover every dack.
I'm operating on the assumption that they will choose to ban the best card in Dredge.
Why not _____?
Cathartic Reunion: doesn't make sense. That card is giant counterspell bait and looks totally out of place on the ban list. I mean, say what you will about Preordain looking out of place on the ban list, but two cantrips are as close as you can get to banned in Vintage, so the precedent is there.
Narcomoeba: it's not actually that strong. You need 4 so that you can mill into one relatively consistently, but 4 gives you the max chance of drawing one in your opener, where it's useless. If you draw a Bloodghast or Amalgam you can pitch it to Looting/Reunion/Conflagrate and still have it be useful. Not so with Narcomoeba.
Amalgam: This might be a contentious one, since it was what made Dredge "a deck". The reason I don't believe it will be banned is that an Amalgam-less deck is still capable of some ridiculous things with Bridge from Below and Greater Gargadon (sample deck here). Play land, get Bloodghast(s), sac to Gargadon, get Zombie(s), repeat. Bloodghast is the real culprit here.
Golgari Grave-Troll: This is another contentious one. I feel like a lot of people who think GGT should be banned rationalize it with "dredge is a busted mechanic". But what does that really mean? Have you ever thought hard about that?
The truth is that dredge is only as busted as the cards that you can mill into. What does the dredge mechanic do? It lets you mill yourself. If dredge didn't exist, could you still mill yourself? Yes, of course - Shriekhorn, Tome Scour and Glimpse the Unthinkable do that, and Hedron Crab is close to a repeatable mill 6 every turn (if a bit squishy). T1 Insolent Neonate, sac, discard Stinkweed Imp, dredge Stinkweed Imp mills just as much as a Tome Scour. In Legacy the "All Spells" deck wins by milling itself and flashing back Dread Return, without a single dredge card. Of course it gets some help from rituals, which are busted in their own way, but my point is that if the payoff for filling your graveyard exists, you don't necessarily need dredge cards to get there.
Why are the cards that Dredge mills into busted? Because they don't cost mana to cast, trigger or activate. Bloodghast, Narcomoeba and Amalgam are all guilty of this. So is Bridge from Below, and other things that you won't find in Modern, like Dread Return, Ichorid, Nether Shadow and Cabal Therapy. There is a reason it's possible to build a manaless Dredge deck in Legacy: because there is so much stuff that doesn't require mana.
Do you see anyone complaining about Lingering Souls, Haunted Dead or Scrapheap Scrounger? Of course not. These cards are balanced, despite being potential targets to mill into. Why? Because they cost mana.
How about some hypothetical counterarguments then?
"Dredge is busted because it provides too much CA. Mill 6 = 6 extra cards, since your cards work from the graveyard". This one holds some truth to it, because Dredge recovers from mulligans better than perhaps any other deck in the format - all you need to do is hit a good dredge off land + Looting. However I believe the bigger problem is free creatures. Dredge can get back in the game after a mull to 5 because all the relevant creatures ETB at the drop of a hat. If it didn't have any free creatures, it would go T1 loot, T2 loot, T3 Souls/Haunted Dead/Scrapheap Scrounger at best and promptly die. With free creatures, you can have them ETB as early as turn 1 (if you used Neonate to loot into Narcomoeba), or have four guys on turn 3 instead of just two dinky Spirits.
"They're going to keep printing better creatures that work from the graveyard anyway, might as well ban the dredgers instead". If there were that many good creatures that worked from the graveyard, I could just build a deck with Crab, Shriekhorn, etc and mill into them without dredgers. Problem not solved. Besides, they are also aware that not putting mana costs on activated abilities is dangerous (which, as I mentioned, is the reason dredge payoff cards are busted), so at least give them the benefit of doubt, that they can design balanced graveyard monsters without screwing up Modern.
TL;DR read the first sentence
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
Then again hitting Narcomoeba + Prized Amalgam create the most explosive starts because Narcomoeba comes directly into play and brings the Amalgams with it. I'd say it is the better ban target and is also played in no other deck.
My Modern Decks:
BGWAbzan MidrangeWGB
UWRJeskai NahiriRWU
BRUGrixis ControlURB
You ban dredge completely then abzan company comes back and you still have to run your yard hate anyway or they combo you off t3/4 and everyone crys again about what needs to be banned. We need to stop banning cards and start adding to the deck diversity. That's why randomish decks spike top 8's and some win. Looking at Skred, adnausium, spirits, and lantern (more popular now) all within dredge being viable. Dredge isn't eldrazi aggro and they didn't even drop eldrazi out of tiers so I see no reason to kill it completely.