Twin would slow down the formar by forcing everyone to run interaction again, which would make other blue decks actually playable. Remember that grixis control once was a tier 1 deck?
We also need to remember, though, that Affinity, Infect, and Burn were all Tier 1 at various points while Twin was still legal. Those are the exact "hyper linear" decks people are currently complaining about. So how, exactly, does Twin fix this, when we have actual evidence that it won't?
Twin would slow down the formar by forcing everyone to run interaction again, which would make other blue decks actually playable. Remember that grixis control once was a tier 1 deck?
We also need to remember, though, that Affinity, Infect, and Burn were all Tier 1 at various points while Twin was still legal. Those are the exact "hyper linear" decks people are currently complaining about. So how, exactly, does Twin fix this, when we have actual evidence that it won't?
Exactly!!! Those kinds of hyper linear fast decks were still able to exist (even successfully!), but they were not so oppressive that they pushed out almost all other strategies from Tier 1. Twin did not suppress these decks, Twin simply helped keep them from completely overwhelming the format (like they are now). Without the need to run interaction, we have the Modern format we see today.
I'm at the point where I'm in for Twin coming back and also unbanning either SFM or Jace so that other blue decks can have a reason to exist without needing to run the Twin combo.
That part of the equation I still agree with - it was completely depressing to just see all twin lists and barely any other sort of relevance. But compared to what we've seen for the last year, I don't think Twin has done anything worse than what we've experienced since Eldrazi winter - not by a mile.
Twin would slow down the formar by forcing everyone to run interaction again, which would make other blue decks actually playable. Remember that grixis control once was a tier 1 deck?
We also need to remember, though, that Affinity, Infect, and Burn were all Tier 1 at various points while Twin was still legal. Those are the exact "hyper linear" decks people are currently complaining about. So how, exactly, does Twin fix this, when we have actual evidence that it won't?
Exactly!!! Those kinds of hyper linear fast decks were still able to exist (even successfully!), but they were not so oppressive that they pushed out almost all other strategies from Tier 1. Twin did not suppress these decks, Twin simply helped keep them from completely overwhelming the format (like they are now). Without the need to run interaction, we have the Modern format we see today.
So how have Infect, Affinity, and Burn lists changed since Twin's ban? What pieces of interaction did they run then that they're not running now?
I'm it sure twin help the format, it's just another angle you're gonna combo out and win with. I mean how do you protect against:
1. Nahiri ripping an emrakul out ahead of curve
2. Through the breach dumping a Geiselbrand or emrakul ahead of curve
3. Infect punching through for lethal on T3
4. Dredge/Abzan coco attacking from the yard
5. Affinity's lightning fast hands
6. Jund's attrition game
7. TRON's absurd threat suite once they have assembled the mana
8. Combo like ad naus going off at any time
9. Creature based strats that go tall like death's shadow aggro
10. creature strats that go wide like elves/tokens
11. Land based kills with valakut
12. Burn and super redundant
13. Misc. decks like mill/pox l or other decks I didn't mention
Do we really need a T4 enchantment for infinite damage on that list? We need broad answers. We need a card that is good against 1 creature or 4 creatures. We need a counterspell that actually feels relevant aside from manaleak. Remand is garbage when you need to ANSWER the card not delay it until you finish doing your own degenerate thing. The answers, if wide, could cost a lot of resources upfront and slowly refund a portion over time. This way you don't have combo decks scrambling for things like the pact counterspell because the upfront cost is too high. However it rewards control decks that want to go longer.
Something like RU and exile an instant or sorcery card from your hand: counter Target spell, at the beginning of the next turn you may choose 1: scry 2 or return target sorcery from your graveyard to your hand.
2 mana and 2 cards against 1 for your opponents is a terrible rate, but if you get to untap with it you get a little bit of dig or return a piece of interaction. Sure tweak the numbers and cmc, I'm just tossing out an idea. Cards with high upfront costs, powerful and interactive effects, and a refund later in the game provides plenty of space for design to come up with the tools we need to pull control into the format a bit more. Cards that reward you for making it later in the game like suspend. I don't want slam dunk 4 of hard counters, just interactive stuff that fights multiple strats and rewards you for making it later in the game where you can start to take over with card quality or advantage.
Twin would slow down the formar by forcing everyone to run interaction again, which would make other blue decks actually playable. Remember that grixis control once was a tier 1 deck?
We also need to remember, though, that Affinity, Infect, and Burn were all Tier 1 at various points while Twin was still legal. Those are the exact "hyper linear" decks people are currently complaining about. So how, exactly, does Twin fix this, when we have actual evidence that it won't?
Exactly!!! Those kinds of hyper linear fast decks were still able to exist (even successfully!), but they were not so oppressive that they pushed out almost all other strategies from Tier 1. Twin did not suppress these decks, Twin simply helped keep them from completely overwhelming the format (like they are now). Without the need to run interaction, we have the Modern format we see today.
So how have Infect, Affinity, and Burn lists changed since Twin's ban? What pieces of interaction did they run then that they're not running now?
What does that have to do with the point of my post? Linear decks were still powerful but not overwhelming. They are currently overwhelming due to a combination of lack of interaction in the format as a whole and due to the weaknesses faced by interactive decks (especially U-based ones). The overrun of linear decks we have now is likely a direct or indirect result of removing Twin from the format (which includes the domino effect of removing the only top tier control deck with no real replacement).
Twin would slow down the formar by forcing everyone to run interaction again, which would make other blue decks actually playable. Remember that grixis control once was a tier 1 deck?
We also need to remember, though, that Affinity, Infect, and Burn were all Tier 1 at various points while Twin was still legal. Those are the exact "hyper linear" decks people are currently complaining about. So how, exactly, does Twin fix this, when we have actual evidence that it won't?
Exactly!!! Those kinds of hyper linear fast decks were still able to exist (even successfully!), but they were not so oppressive that they pushed out almost all other strategies from Tier 1. Twin did not suppress these decks, Twin simply helped keep them from completely overwhelming the format (like they are now). Without the need to run interaction, we have the Modern format we see today.
So how have Infect, Affinity, and Burn lists changed since Twin's ban? What pieces of interaction did they run then that they're not running now?
What does that have to do with the point of my post? Linear decks were still powerful but not overwhelming. They are currently overwhelming due to a combination of lack of interaction in the format as a whole and due to the weaknesses faced by interactive decks (especially U-based ones). The overrun of linear decks we have now is likely a direct or indirect result of removing Twin from the format (which includes the domino effect of removing the only top tier control deck with no real replacement).
but twin just puts a bandaid on a severed artery here, as do other unbans. I'm not against a twin unban. But bans seems to be the only real way to fix this, because we know for sure wizards isn't compromising standard prints for better modern answers.
Twin would slow down the formar by forcing everyone to run interaction again, which would make other blue decks actually playable. Remember that grixis control once was a tier 1 deck?
We also need to remember, though, that Affinity, Infect, and Burn were all Tier 1 at various points while Twin was still legal. Those are the exact "hyper linear" decks people are currently complaining about. So how, exactly, does Twin fix this, when we have actual evidence that it won't?
Exactly!!! Those kinds of hyper linear fast decks were still able to exist (even successfully!), but they were not so oppressive that they pushed out almost all other strategies from Tier 1. Twin did not suppress these decks, Twin simply helped keep them from completely overwhelming the format (like they are now). Without the need to run interaction, we have the Modern format we see today.
So how have Infect, Affinity, and Burn lists changed since Twin's ban? What pieces of interaction did they run then that they're not running now?
What does that have to do with the point of my post? Linear decks were still powerful but not overwhelming. They are currently overwhelming due to a combination of lack of interaction in the format as a whole and due to the weaknesses faced by interactive decks (especially U-based ones). The overrun of linear decks we have now is likely a direct or indirect result of removing Twin from the format (which includes the domino effect of removing the only top tier control deck with no real replacement).
You responded to my post. My point is that unbanning Twin would not only be wrong, but more importantly it would be utterly pointless. Those decks didn't run interaction when Twin was around, but they were still Tier 1. That means they were designed to run underneath Twin and win with speed, just like they're doing now. Unbanning Twin will not change that.
We also need to remember, though, that Affinity, Infect, and Burn were all Tier 1 at various points while Twin was still legal. Those are the exact "hyper linear" decks people are currently complaining about. So how, exactly, does Twin fix this, when we have actual evidence that it won't?
Exactly!!! Those kinds of hyper linear fast decks were still able to exist (even successfully!), but they were not so oppressive that they pushed out almost all other strategies from Tier 1. Twin did not suppress these decks, Twin simply helped keep them from completely overwhelming the format (like they are now). Without the need to run interaction, we have the Modern format we see today.
So how have Infect, Affinity, and Burn lists changed since Twin's ban? What pieces of interaction did they run then that they're not running now?
What does that have to do with the point of my post? Linear decks were still powerful but not overwhelming. They are currently overwhelming due to a combination of lack of interaction in the format as a whole and due to the weaknesses faced by interactive decks (especially U-based ones). The overrun of linear decks we have now is likely a direct or indirect result of removing Twin from the format (which includes the domino effect of removing the only top tier control deck with no real replacement).
but twin just puts a bandaid on a severed artery here, as do other unbans. I'm not against a twin unban. But bans seems to be the only real way to fix this, because we know for sure wizards isn't compromising standard prints for better modern answers.
I just don't like this solution whatsoever. Banning more decks just creates more instability and upset players. I would much rather find a solution that creates balance without invalidating thousands or players' decks, especially since no one, single deck is enough of a problem to justify a ban. The problem is a collection of lots of linear fast decks attacking from different angles. That's not going to be fixed unless you systematically ban all of them. And that's not good at all for format health or player confidence.
but twin just puts a bandaid on a severed artery here, as do other unbans. I'm not against a twin unban. But bans seems to be the only real way to fix this, because we know for sure wizards isn't compromising standard prints for better modern answers.
I just don't like this solution whatsoever. Banning more decks just creates more instability and upset players. I would much rather find a solution that creates balance without invalidating thousands or players' decks, especially since no one, single deck is enough of a problem to justify a ban. The problem is a collection of lots of linear fast decks attacking from different angles. That's not going to be fixed unless you systematically ban all of them. And that's not good at all for format health or player confidence.
I fully agree with this. We see the same problem and want to avoid the same pitfall, but we go about it with very different solutions. At least there's more common ground than most arguments
but twin just puts a bandaid on a severed artery here, as do other unbans. I'm not against a twin unban. But bans seems to be the only real way to fix this, because we know for sure wizards isn't compromising standard prints for better modern answers.
I just don't like this solution whatsoever. Banning more decks just creates more instability and upset players. I would much rather find a solution that creates balance without invalidating thousands or players' decks, especially since no one, single deck is enough of a problem to justify a ban. The problem is a collection of lots of linear fast decks attacking from different angles. That's not going to be fixed unless you systematically ban all of them. And that's not good at all for format health or player confidence.
I fully agree with this. We see the same problem and want to avoid the same pitfall, but we go about it with very different solutions. At least there's more common ground than most arguments
So our only hope is unbanning a few cards (Preordain and maaaaybe SFM) and printing new, powerful defensive cards (something WoTC hasn't really done in a long time). I don't like my odds man. =/
Exactly!!! Those kinds of hyper linear fast decks were still able to exist (even successfully!), but they were not so oppressive that they pushed out almost all other strategies from Tier 1. Twin did not suppress these decks, Twin simply helped keep them from completely overwhelming the format (like they are now). Without the need to run interaction, we have the Modern format we see today.
So how have Infect, Affinity, and Burn lists changed since Twin's ban? What pieces of interaction did they run then that they're not running now?
What does that have to do with the point of my post? Linear decks were still powerful but not overwhelming. They are currently overwhelming due to a combination of lack of interaction in the format as a whole and due to the weaknesses faced by interactive decks (especially U-based ones). The overrun of linear decks we have now is likely a direct or indirect result of removing Twin from the format (which includes the domino effect of removing the only top tier control deck with no real replacement).
but twin just puts a bandaid on a severed artery here, as do other unbans. I'm not against a twin unban. But bans seems to be the only real way to fix this, because we know for sure wizards isn't compromising standard prints for better modern answers.
I just don't like this solution whatsoever. Banning more decks just creates more instability and upset players. I would much rather find a solution that creates balance without invalidating thousands or players' decks, especially since no one, single deck is enough of a problem to justify a ban. The problem is a collection of lots of linear fast decks attacking from different angles. That's not going to be fixed unless you systematically ban all of them. And that's not good at all for format health or player confidence.
You only need to hit like 5-7 cards,Players investments should not be considered when balancing the format. Look at hearthstone they nerf multiple cards all the time and it works....
For bans I feel a dredge card, mox opal, become immense, eldrazi temple,valakut land, Ssg should be banned.
That's a 6 card solution to restructure a format that isn't getting format changing generic answers anytime soon.
For people who think preordain is going to fix this entire format... As if
nah man, there's no way that banning cards is the correct long-term answer for this format. modern's draw is stability and the ability to invest into an archetype (or multiple archetypes) that appeals to you, then master it. people play modern on an FNM level (which is 99% of the format) because they get to play their pet deck. upsetting thousands of people, for some far-flung potential gain that you can't possibly quantify, seems like a bad call. you can't know the effects of banning these cards, it's at best an educated guess, and at worst a biased gut feeling. neither is really worth the gamble.
we have seen how modern and the playerbase corrects itself after significant bans - it's not good. the community is hurt by the removal of cards people enjoy, and the detractors of those cards descend into ban-fever, with a witch-hunt style rhetoric becoming very clear after these events take place. it then becomes a discussion of "who's next" with an ever present fear on the horizon, driving people away from the format.
this is the reality. we can't let that sort of rhetoric and malaise drive the format into the future. it *has* to be an exciting, inviting format that gets people interested and willing to invest. otherwise, there's no point in Modern even existing. your solution drives modern down a bad road, and is just in-the-moment, knee-jerk damage control, rather than whole-format long term management. the latter is what we need, so I'm glad you aren't calling the shots, frankly.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: G Tron, Vannifar, Jund, Druid/Vizier combo, Humans, Eldrazi Stompy (Serum Powder), Amulet, Grishoalbrand, Breach Titan, Turns, Eternal Command, As Foretold Living End, Elves, Cheerios, RUG Scapeshift
Unbanning Twin does nothing to hurt infect. Pod decks kept Infect in check not Twin. After Pod was banned you see a trend of Infect putting up better and better results. Infect simply runs under Twin, the deck has no tools available to it that don't still exist regarding being able to beat infect other than the best most reliable "oops I win" combo the format ever had.
I predict No bans, No unbans unless the sets between now and then add some new element to the meta game that pushes a deck into T0 realm.
Dredge is strong but fragile, similar to Affinity in that way. I don't believe that dredge is resilient enough against hate to make a banning a good option. I think people are getting punished a bit here for relying on Lightning Bolt as the removal of choice to some degree. Dredge is really just punishing Lightning Bolt and rewarding Path to exile in the meta right now. I think this is a situation where people can adapt if they want to. If you expect to interact with Lightning Bolt, you are going to be vulnerable to dredge. I don't think that is a banlist issue.
edit: I've lost count of the number of times people make a strawman along these lines: 'Those who think that preordain is going to fix the format are crazy'. Well no one is saying that, no one thinks it. Without exception, those who want preordain unbanned think it will offer some minimal amount of help with no risk. Stop saying people think it will fix the format - no one said that.
nah man, there's no way that banning cards is the correct long-term answer for this format. modern's draw is stability and the ability to invest into an archetype (or multiple archetypes) that appeals to you, then master it. people play modern on an FNM level (which is 99% of the format) because they get to play their pet deck. upsetting thousands of people, for some far-flung potential gain that you can't possibly quantify, seems like a bad call. you can't know the effects of banning these cards, it's at best an educated guess, and at worst a biased gut feeling. neither is really worth the gamble.
we have seen how modern and the playerbase corrects itself after significant bans - it's not good. the community is hurt by the removal of cards people enjoy, and the detractors of those cards descend into ban-fever, with a witch-hunt style rhetoric becoming very clear after these events take place. it then becomes a discussion of "who's next" with an ever present fear on the horizon, driving people away from the format.
this is the reality. we can't let that sort of rhetoric and malaise drive the format into the future. it *has* to be an exciting, inviting format that gets people interested and willing to invest. otherwise, there's no point in Modern even existing. your solution drives modern down a bad road, and is just in-the-moment, knee-jerk damage control, rather than whole-format long term management. the latter is what we need, so I'm glad you aren't calling the shots, frankly.
of course there is no evidence that what I suggested would work, however it has with hearthstone( multiple bans) and hasn't hurt player confidence. because in the long term its better for a game to be balanced and not soo linear.
1. all in all I feel our ban criteria is flawed, especially if saviors to this format have to enter through standard. unless one feels this linearity imbalance is in fact fine ( I don't)
2. and then what unbans solve this?
3. after unbans we are left with 1 option if we want change: Bans
the scary word who people's wallet's hate, but a necessary evil for balance, if all else fails.
1. all in all I feel our ban criteria is flawed, especially if saviors to this format have to enter through standard. unless one feels this linearity imbalance is in fact fine ( I don't)
Yeah, I don't feel like the imbalance is great. I don't think it's making the format unplayable, but it's still not ideal.
2. and then what unbans solve this?
Blow out the midrange decks by giving them SFM, Jace, BBE, Twin (maybe) and Preordain. The format can then absorb some of the power from whatever new linear decks spring up over the next few years.
3. after unbans we are left with 1 option if we want change: Bans
the scary word who people's wallet's hate, but a necessary evil for balance, if all else fails.
You keep mentioning hearthstone but Magic is MUCH MUCH MUCH more expensive than Hearthstone. Much more. Financially devastating players isn't an option.
Dredge is strong but fragile, similar to Affinity in that way. I don't believe that dredge is resilient enough against hate to make a banning a good option.
IMO Dredge is far, far more polarizing than affinity or any other deck when it comes to Sideboard hate lottery. So far based on the recent SCG event as well as online results, Dredge is definitely more resilient to hate than some give it credit for.
Path to exile is barely a speed bump considering how many more cards the dredge player sees and has access to compared to the PTE deck.
The printing of cathartic reunion also enabled dredge the possibility to power out massive board states even before the hate is active.
Guys please opinions on japanese cards. Lost a 3/3 creature against Japan celestial colonade. This guy played all creatures and spells in english cards, but some cards in his manabase was japanese. I dont registrated this really ( my brain say its all fine and all english to me lets attack his empty board)...and i am sure it is a Kind of legal cheating. It is not ok, but i know legal. I Hate such people. I never forget colonade normally, but with this Tricks it can happen one time in 3 years and such people take advantage of this
If I am a customer spending premium amount of dollars, I expect a premium service. Jund falls into the category of a premium deck costing more dollars than a majority of the rest of the format. I'm not getting the desired performance ratio per dollars spent out of the Jund deck because WOTC decided to make the format more diverse.
1. all in all I feel our ban criteria is flawed, especially if saviors to this format have to enter through standard. unless one feels this linearity imbalance is in fact fine ( I don't)
Yeah, I don't feel like the imbalance is great. I don't think it's making the format unplayable, but it's still not ideal.
2. and then what unbans solve this?
Blow out the midrange decks by giving them SFM, Jace, BBE, Twin (maybe) and Preordain. The format can then absorb some of the power from whatever new linear decks spring up over the next few years.
3. after unbans we are left with 1 option if we want change: Bans
the scary word who people's wallet's hate, but a necessary evil for balance, if all else fails.
You keep mentioning hearthstone but Magic is MUCH MUCH MUCH more expensive than Hearthstone. Much more. Financially devastating players isn't an option.
1. agreed
2. possibly, yet somehow I feel some already top linear decks could ignore these cards
3. how do you think I feel about losing drs, pod, and twin 3 years in a row? I was fine with it ( xcept twin ). its a competative game, competative games need to be balanced, price should not be considered in balancing a game.
unlikely scenario: If they ever banned goyf I would understand as long as they provided good reason
1. all in all I feel our ban criteria is flawed, especially if saviors to this format have to enter through standard. unless one feels this linearity imbalance is in fact fine ( I don't)
Yeah, I don't feel like the imbalance is great. I don't think it's making the format unplayable, but it's still not ideal.
2. and then what unbans solve this?
Blow out the midrange decks by giving them SFM, Jace, BBE, Twin (maybe) and Preordain. The format can then absorb some of the power from whatever new linear decks spring up over the next few years.
3. after unbans we are left with 1 option if we want change: Bans
the scary word who people's wallet's hate, but a necessary evil for balance, if all else fails.
You keep mentioning hearthstone but Magic is MUCH MUCH MUCH more expensive than Hearthstone. Much more. Financially devastating players isn't an option.
1. agreed
2. possibly, yet somehow I feel some already top linear decks could ignore these cards
3. how do you think I feel about losing drs, pod, and twin 3 years in a row? I was fine with it ( xcept twin ). its a competative game, competative games need to be balanced, price should not be considered in balancing a game.
unlikely scenario: If they ever banned goyf I would understand as long as they provided good reason
On number 2 - there are *always* going to be linear decks that can outspeed other decks to some degree and that's ok.
On number 3 - Honestly? This format isn't that competitive. It is, yes, in a general sense, but this format is more about giving players a post-standard home (or a post-legacy if your meta is dead). With that, I think we need a balance between balances for purely competitive purposes (this is important!) and balances that don't screw over players who have invested a significant amount of money into the format. If this format was a pro tour format and pushed as the primary means of competitive magic then a LOT more would need to change than just the banlist. If you're going to continually ban things out of the format then you need to increase the amount of staples and lower prices - doing both seems extremely wrong though.
of course there is no evidence that what I suggested would work, however it has with hearthstone( multiple bans) and hasn't hurt player confidence. because in the long term its better for a game to be balanced and not soo linear.
Hearthstone is not a proper comparison for MTG. Hearthstone is brand new, with only a few expansion sets released. Hearthstone is digital only, no paper cards. Hearthstone is not billed as a collectible trading card game the way MTG is. MTG needs to be much more careful with players' views of the value of their cards because of the paper scene.
Battle for zendikar - BW Ingest Eldrazi, oh cool a sweet new deck strong but not overpowered and interesting.
Oath of the Gatewatch - OMG! What have you done?? you broke the format!...Banned.
Shadows over innstrad - ooh nice dredge is playable in modern again, I mean this deck is coming at me at a difficult axis but its not like we don't already have that in modern. *puts grave hate in the side*
Kaladesh - OMG what have you done... it's so hard to stop now!
They just push interesting decks over the edge over and over.
Some of the "answers" people want can be just as bad and the threats. versitility is important in modern, so Kolighan's command is one of the perfect modern cards... ceremonious rejection is a good answer card you shove in a sideboard hit two decks.
The grave hate in modern is actually good ,all the grave hate in legacy is also in modern, which is why dredge is such a problem right now because the grave hate doesn't stop them.
Battle for zendikar - BW Ingest Eldrazi, oh cool a sweet new deck strong but not overpowered and interesting.
Oath of the Gatewatch - OMG! What have you done?? you broke the format!...Banned.
Shadows over innstrad - ooh nice dredge is playable in modern again, I mean this deck is coming at me at a difficult axis but its not like we don't already have that in modern. *puts grave hate in the side*
Kaladesh - OMG what have you done... it's so hard to stop now!
They just push interesting decks over the edge over and over.
Some of the "answers" people want can be just as bad and the threats. versitility is important in modern, so Kolighan's command is one of the perfect modern cards... ceremonious rejection is a good answer card you shove in a sideboard hit two decks.
The grave hate in modern is actually good ,all the grave hate in legacy is also in modern, which is why dredge is such a problem right now because the grave hate doesn't stop them.
The difference is that in Legacy you have good card filtering to find hate, so you don't have to mull down to 5 cards to find your hate. In modern, card filtering is crap - which incentivizes mulling. If Modern had good card filtering in control decks, dredge wouldn't be an issue which is why I advocate for a Preordain unban and the printing of powerful defensive cards as the answer to Modern's problems. Banning decks isn't good for the health of the format, nor is it good for player confidence.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
Exactly!!! Those kinds of hyper linear fast decks were still able to exist (even successfully!), but they were not so oppressive that they pushed out almost all other strategies from Tier 1. Twin did not suppress these decks, Twin simply helped keep them from completely overwhelming the format (like they are now). Without the need to run interaction, we have the Modern format we see today.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
That part of the equation I still agree with - it was completely depressing to just see all twin lists and barely any other sort of relevance. But compared to what we've seen for the last year, I don't think Twin has done anything worse than what we've experienced since Eldrazi winter - not by a mile.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
1. Nahiri ripping an emrakul out ahead of curve
2. Through the breach dumping a Geiselbrand or emrakul ahead of curve
3. Infect punching through for lethal on T3
4. Dredge/Abzan coco attacking from the yard
5. Affinity's lightning fast hands
6. Jund's attrition game
7. TRON's absurd threat suite once they have assembled the mana
8. Combo like ad naus going off at any time
9. Creature based strats that go tall like death's shadow aggro
10. creature strats that go wide like elves/tokens
11. Land based kills with valakut
12. Burn and super redundant
13. Misc. decks like mill/pox l or other decks I didn't mention
Do we really need a T4 enchantment for infinite damage on that list? We need broad answers. We need a card that is good against 1 creature or 4 creatures. We need a counterspell that actually feels relevant aside from manaleak. Remand is garbage when you need to ANSWER the card not delay it until you finish doing your own degenerate thing. The answers, if wide, could cost a lot of resources upfront and slowly refund a portion over time. This way you don't have combo decks scrambling for things like the pact counterspell because the upfront cost is too high. However it rewards control decks that want to go longer.
Something like RU and exile an instant or sorcery card from your hand: counter Target spell, at the beginning of the next turn you may choose 1: scry 2 or return target sorcery from your graveyard to your hand.
2 mana and 2 cards against 1 for your opponents is a terrible rate, but if you get to untap with it you get a little bit of dig or return a piece of interaction. Sure tweak the numbers and cmc, I'm just tossing out an idea. Cards with high upfront costs, powerful and interactive effects, and a refund later in the game provides plenty of space for design to come up with the tools we need to pull control into the format a bit more. Cards that reward you for making it later in the game like suspend. I don't want slam dunk 4 of hard counters, just interactive stuff that fights multiple strats and rewards you for making it later in the game where you can start to take over with card quality or advantage.
What does that have to do with the point of my post? Linear decks were still powerful but not overwhelming. They are currently overwhelming due to a combination of lack of interaction in the format as a whole and due to the weaknesses faced by interactive decks (especially U-based ones). The overrun of linear decks we have now is likely a direct or indirect result of removing Twin from the format (which includes the domino effect of removing the only top tier control deck with no real replacement).
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
decks playing:
none
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
I just don't like this solution whatsoever. Banning more decks just creates more instability and upset players. I would much rather find a solution that creates balance without invalidating thousands or players' decks, especially since no one, single deck is enough of a problem to justify a ban. The problem is a collection of lots of linear fast decks attacking from different angles. That's not going to be fixed unless you systematically ban all of them. And that's not good at all for format health or player confidence.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
So our only hope is unbanning a few cards (Preordain and maaaaybe SFM) and printing new, powerful defensive cards (something WoTC hasn't really done in a long time). I don't like my odds man. =/
You only need to hit like 5-7 cards,Players investments should not be considered when balancing the format. Look at hearthstone they nerf multiple cards all the time and it works....
For bans I feel a dredge card, mox opal, become immense, eldrazi temple,valakut land, Ssg should be banned.
That's a 6 card solution to restructure a format that isn't getting format changing generic answers anytime soon.
For people who think preordain is going to fix this entire format... As if
decks playing:
none
we have seen how modern and the playerbase corrects itself after significant bans - it's not good. the community is hurt by the removal of cards people enjoy, and the detractors of those cards descend into ban-fever, with a witch-hunt style rhetoric becoming very clear after these events take place. it then becomes a discussion of "who's next" with an ever present fear on the horizon, driving people away from the format.
this is the reality. we can't let that sort of rhetoric and malaise drive the format into the future. it *has* to be an exciting, inviting format that gets people interested and willing to invest. otherwise, there's no point in Modern even existing. your solution drives modern down a bad road, and is just in-the-moment, knee-jerk damage control, rather than whole-format long term management. the latter is what we need, so I'm glad you aren't calling the shots, frankly.
I predict No bans, No unbans unless the sets between now and then add some new element to the meta game that pushes a deck into T0 realm.
edit: I've lost count of the number of times people make a strawman along these lines: 'Those who think that preordain is going to fix the format are crazy'. Well no one is saying that, no one thinks it. Without exception, those who want preordain unbanned think it will offer some minimal amount of help with no risk. Stop saying people think it will fix the format - no one said that.
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
1. all in all I feel our ban criteria is flawed, especially if saviors to this format have to enter through standard. unless one feels this linearity imbalance is in fact fine ( I don't)
2. and then what unbans solve this?
3. after unbans we are left with 1 option if we want change: Bans
the scary word who people's wallet's hate, but a necessary evil for balance, if all else fails.
decks playing:
none
Yeah, I don't feel like the imbalance is great. I don't think it's making the format unplayable, but it's still not ideal.
Blow out the midrange decks by giving them SFM, Jace, BBE, Twin (maybe) and Preordain. The format can then absorb some of the power from whatever new linear decks spring up over the next few years.
You keep mentioning hearthstone but Magic is MUCH MUCH MUCH more expensive than Hearthstone. Much more. Financially devastating players isn't an option.
IMO Dredge is far, far more polarizing than affinity or any other deck when it comes to Sideboard hate lottery. So far based on the recent SCG event as well as online results, Dredge is definitely more resilient to hate than some give it credit for.
Path to exile is barely a speed bump considering how many more cards the dredge player sees and has access to compared to the PTE deck.
The printing of cathartic reunion also enabled dredge the possibility to power out massive board states even before the hate is active.
1. agreed
2. possibly, yet somehow I feel some already top linear decks could ignore these cards
3. how do you think I feel about losing drs, pod, and twin 3 years in a row? I was fine with it ( xcept twin ). its a competative game, competative games need to be balanced, price should not be considered in balancing a game.
unlikely scenario: If they ever banned goyf I would understand as long as they provided good reason
decks playing:
none
On number 2 - there are *always* going to be linear decks that can outspeed other decks to some degree and that's ok.
On number 3 - Honestly? This format isn't that competitive. It is, yes, in a general sense, but this format is more about giving players a post-standard home (or a post-legacy if your meta is dead). With that, I think we need a balance between balances for purely competitive purposes (this is important!) and balances that don't screw over players who have invested a significant amount of money into the format. If this format was a pro tour format and pushed as the primary means of competitive magic then a LOT more would need to change than just the banlist. If you're going to continually ban things out of the format then you need to increase the amount of staples and lower prices - doing both seems extremely wrong though.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
It's gonna be 3 long months....
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Battle for zendikar - BW Ingest Eldrazi, oh cool a sweet new deck strong but not overpowered and interesting.
Oath of the Gatewatch - OMG! What have you done?? you broke the format!...Banned.
Shadows over innstrad - ooh nice dredge is playable in modern again, I mean this deck is coming at me at a difficult axis but its not like we don't already have that in modern. *puts grave hate in the side*
Kaladesh - OMG what have you done... it's so hard to stop now!
I mean cathatic reunion doesn't even see play in standard.
They just push interesting decks over the edge over and over.
Some of the "answers" people want can be just as bad and the threats. versitility is important in modern, so Kolighan's command is one of the perfect modern cards... ceremonious rejection is a good answer card you shove in a sideboard hit two decks.
The grave hate in modern is actually good ,all the grave hate in legacy is also in modern, which is why dredge is such a problem right now because the grave hate doesn't stop them.
Pioneer:UR Pheonix
Modern:U Mono U Tron
EDH
GB Glissa, the traitor: Army of Cans
UW Dragonlord Ojutai: Dragonlord NOjutai
UWGDerevi, Empyrial Tactician "you cannot fight the storm"
R Zirilan of the claw. The solution to every problem is dragons
UB Etrata, the Silencer Cloning assassination
Peasant cube: Cards I own
The difference is that in Legacy you have good card filtering to find hate, so you don't have to mull down to 5 cards to find your hate. In modern, card filtering is crap - which incentivizes mulling. If Modern had good card filtering in control decks, dredge wouldn't be an issue which is why I advocate for a Preordain unban and the printing of powerful defensive cards as the answer to Modern's problems. Banning decks isn't good for the health of the format, nor is it good for player confidence.