So is the consensus that Lantern is NOT a control deck? Because prison =/= control?
I don't understand the people who want a no-wincondition draw-go control deck, but complain about lantern.
Sun/Moon has also started to become a meta deck, and I think it's just a matter of people learning it for it to become a strong deck. Whether you call that midrange or control is up to the player, I guess, but it's certainly not agro/combo.
Prison decks put into place a series of lock pieces that prevent the opponent from doing things. Usually these are static or repeatable effects and they seek advantage by not allowing the opponent to do anything. Control decks use cards from their hand to interact directly with the stack or the battlefield. Because they have to use individual cards for this, it seeks to maintain parity or get ahead through card advantage, recursion, or 2-for-1s. The main difference I see is that one philosophy seeks to maintain a high amount of interactivity by relying on answers, which makes for interesting and dynamic gameplay. The other philosophy seeks to make sure no Magic is actually played at all. I'm sure there are people that find Lantern and RW Prison exciting and fun, but I know I'm not one of them, and I'm sure very few opponents are thrilled to see it.
Prison decks put into place a series of lock pieces that prevent the opponent from doing things. Usually these are static or repeatable effects and they seek advantage by not allowing the opponent to do anything. Control decks use cards from their hand to interact directly with the stack or the battlefield. Because they have to use individual cards for this, it seeks to maintain parity or get ahead through card advantage, recursion, or 2-for-1s. The main difference I see is that one philosophy seeks to maintain a high amount of interactivity by relying on answers, which makes for interesting and dynamic gameplay. The other philosophy seeks to make sure no Magic is actually played at all. I'm sure there are people that find Lantern and RW Prison exciting and fun, but I know I'm not one of them, and I'm sure very few opponents are thrilled to see it.
So by this argument Legacy Miracles is a prison deck?
While I understand the desire to play such a deck, is there ANY non-standard format where a "pure control" style is viable? Certainly not Vintage. Certainly not Legacy. All of the legacy "control" decks have some sort of creature tempo package, or a counter-top style lock.
I just want us to be realistic here, and acnowledge that DEATH AND TAXES is defined as a "control" deck by the legacy community.
Are you comparing it to standard that only has 2 deck?
with the price of entry beginning to near Legacy, it's hard to justify playing it over Legacy.
That's a joke, right? Did you ever care to look how much a legacy deck costs? The only modern deck that is more expensive than the cheapest legacy deck is BGx, the rest costs around 500 to 2800 $ less then a legacy deck. A legacy landbase costs a fortune and with shocklands it you basically don't have a chance.
It is sad that Modern isn't played much in your area. Maybe it's time to move
I'm not speaking as a whole. Typically, of the few Legacy decks I've used, they cost around 2 grand to build. And a lot of the decks in Modern are starting to raise to those sorts of levels. Perhaps I used the wrong words. I instead more so mean that the format is *on it's way* to costing Legacy prices. I'll continue believing this until I see Wizards print Modern staples at higher rates than just annual MM releases (which in some cases, barely make a dent in some cards).
And sure, I'll just move my entire lively hood to play with cardboard.
Legacy miracles is a prison deck.
It has some actual "answers" in terminus, force, counterspell, and swords to plowshares, but at heart, counter top, and karakas + venser (for legends) are prison locks.
There is no format outside of standard in which a "true" draw-go deck is viable/top tier.
Its only just now that one has even been viable/top tier in standard, which hasn't really been true since RtR was legal.
Death and Taxes is a control deck, but a much softer one. Its reliant on using wasteland/port, along with revoker, thalias, prelate, and other hatebears to heavily interfere with an opponents plan. That these effects are also creatures is relevant, allowing the deck to change gears similar to how jund does in modern. At its heart, jund is a deck that wants to control the game. Jund wants to get the game into a topdeck war where it has a liliana and bob in play (and thus control of the board) because it generally topdecks better than most opponents. However, dark confidant being a creature, liliana being more of a threat than necrogen mists, and the ability to play bolts and tarmogoyfs lets jund switch gears as well.
Theres nothing wrong with this. Its clearly an effective strategy, but there are plenty of people out there that don't want to play this way. They don't want to have a gearbox on hand. They'd rather just play answers. Such strategies have been viable in the past, but those days are fairly long gone.
While I understand that many newer player are turned off of the game because they view draw-go styled decks as boring, I can't help but feel that prison is even worse, and prison remains a fairly reasonable strategy in non rotating formats.
That being said, there is no reason that wizards should stymie the reactive elements of this format as much as they, on top of greatly increasing the threat quality. Whether or not a purely reactive deck is ever tier one or not, every little bit helps, and having powerful reactive elements in the format that the proactive decks have to respect, in my mind, makes the format lead to more interesting games of magic for everyone.
I don't think anyone is asking for a top tier draw-go or traditional control deck. Just one that is actually *good*. One that can at least put up a fight against the other tiered decks reasonably well, without all of the hellish uphill battles.
Here's my take on Modern. Let's say the format represents an ice cream parlor. It's got tons of flavors. Probably more than any other in town. Problem is, they are all just variations of chocolate and vanilla.
I'd just like to say that killing the banlist discussion thread is probably the best thing the mods have done all year. I'm so glad that monstrosity is dead for good.
But to be more productive, I'm very interested in this coming ban announcement, since I think it will set a precedent on the part of Wizards. If they ban something from, say, Dredge, when it hasn't put up a ton of results in high level tournaments recently, it implies that they're more interested in the total meta and the "type" of decks in Modern, which could lead to more decks that "don't play Magic" being scrutinized more heavily than "regular" decks.
If they don't ban anything, then I think it shows that they're more interested in high level events and total tournament placements than a total meta percentage or whether a deck is "plays Magic" or not.
Either way, I'm very interested to see how much Wizards views the current meta as positive or negative and to see if they make any changes in response.
I would be surprised is Dredge got a ban strictly because it hasn't put up any wins. In nearly all of their ban announcements they site disproportionate top 8s in addition to meta game share. If the player base chooses to play a deck that doesn't win, that's fine. That means that players are having fun doing new things and it isn't basing the health of the format.
To the control deck discussion, Grixis is far from terrible, and is the closest thing to a traditional control deck in modern. Since the opportunity cost from fetches and shocks is the same for 2 or 3 colors, grixis control is essentially a UR control deck with a cruel side.
The cost of modern? Sure. Tarmogoyf is now $100. That's great because it means that the trickling in of cards through MM and EMN is working. It's not tanking the market, while slowly making it more accessible. The thing those sets do isn't drop the prices suddenly (which would cause a horrible response from the player base that invested heavily over the years), but they keep the prices from rising too steeply as interest in the format goes up.
I'd just like to say that killing the banlist discussion thread is probably the best thing the mods have done all year. I'm so glad that monstrosity is dead for good.
But to be more productive, I'm very interested in this coming ban announcement, since I think it will set a precedent on the part of Wizards. If they ban something from, say, Dredge, when it hasn't put up a ton of results in high level tournaments recently, it implies that they're more interested in the total meta and the "type" of decks in Modern, which could lead to more decks that "don't play Magic" being scrutinized more heavily than "regular" decks.
If they don't ban anything, then I think it shows that they're more interested in high level events and total tournament placements than a total meta percentage or whether a deck is "plays Magic" or not.
Either way, I'm very interested to see how much Wizards views the current meta as positive or negative and to see if they make any changes in response.
I would be very interested in the reactions a Dredge ban would evoke. As you said, Dredge didn't do anything wrong besides being the ugly duckling of the format and often frustrating to play against. I think a large portion of the playerbase would be pleased to see it go, but I also think it would send a troublesome message to a similarly large group. Justifying a ban with "not fun" seems very much arbitrary because you force your own subjective definition of what is fun on everyone. However, many people enjoy playing linear aggressive decks a lot and why should their enjoyment be worth less than that of anyone else?
What you consider being fun probably comes down to what deck you play and what your deck is good against. I would doubt that the majority of Jund players would deem Tron to be a lot of fun, and Tron players probably don't like Infect, a matchup that is a lot more enjoyable for Jund players. I regularly play Grixis Control on Xmage and I when playing against players piloting their brews I often hear stuff like "Why do you have to kill all my stuff, just let me play my deck!!!", followed by insults. These guys would certainly ban my deck to infinity and beyond. Therefore, basing the ban list on any one's definition of fun Magic is very problematic, it would always discriminate against players that enjoy specific playstyles and would likely lead to these players losing faith and fun in Magic.
Therefore, if WotC decides to ban Dredge they should be prepared to give very good reasons (attendance, virtual pre T4 wins...). If they say it's just "not fun", then they should at least have the guts to ban it for good, which would mean GGT, Stinkweed Imp and Golgari Thug have to get the axe. I would also expect an apology for ever creating the dredge mechanic in the first place and a garantee that this would be an exceptional ban that does not reflect Wizard's usual ban policy and will not happen again.
If Twin was a controversial ban, I would expect this to be even more so. If they do have good reasons for the ban they should ban a card that keeps the deck in the format.
I'd just like to say that killing the banlist discussion thread is probably the best thing the mods have done all year. I'm so glad that monstrosity is dead for good.
The plan is to replace it with a version of this thread, to encourage more open-ended discussion about Modern's various overlapping and intersecting issues. It will still be the place for banlist discussion (i.e. that topic won't be totally dead), but other conversations will happen there too. We're also hammering out a clearer set of rules for that new thread. Stay tuned! Also, if anyone has any suggestions for the new thread, please PM the staff and/or reply to this post.
If they don't ban anything, then I think it shows that they're more interested in high level events and total tournament placements than a total meta percentage or whether a deck is "plays Magic" or not.
Either way, I'm very interested to see how much Wizards views the current meta as positive or negative and to see if they make any changes in response.
I thought they demonstrated that philosophy a year ago when they banned Twin for no other reason than GP/PT Top 8 placements.
But yeah, I am equally interested in what they will do next.
I'd just like to say that killing the banlist discussion thread is probably the best thing the mods have done all year. I'm so glad that monstrosity is dead for good.
The plan is to replace it with a version of this thread, to encourage more open-ended discussion about Modern's various overlapping and intersecting issues. It will still be the place for banlist discussion (i.e. that topic won't be totally dead), but other conversations will happen there too. We're also hammering out a clearer set of rules for that new thread. Stay tuned! Also, if anyone has any suggestions for the new thread, please PM the staff and/or reply to this post.
Which I'm totally fine with. The banlist thread it its last iteration was kind of a cesspool, so anything you guys can do to make it better is alright with me.
I'd just like to say that killing the banlist discussion thread is probably the best thing the mods have done all year. I'm so glad that monstrosity is dead for good.
The plan is to replace it with a version of this thread, to encourage more open-ended discussion about Modern's various overlapping and intersecting issues. It will still be the place for banlist discussion (i.e. that topic won't be totally dead), but other conversations will happen there too. We're also hammering out a clearer set of rules for that new thread. Stay tuned! Also, if anyone has any suggestions for the new thread, please PM the staff and/or reply to this post.
Plz consider mirroring the ban thread in the edh subforum! Having separate threads for individual cards is great! Its really hard to have meaningful discussions about individual cards when every other post is someone asking for fetchland bans and derailing the thread
I'd just like to say that killing the banlist discussion thread is probably the best thing the mods have done all year. I'm so glad that monstrosity is dead for good.
The plan is to replace it with a version of this thread, to encourage more open-ended discussion about Modern's various overlapping and intersecting issues. It will still be the place for banlist discussion (i.e. that topic won't be totally dead), but other conversations will happen there too. We're also hammering out a clearer set of rules for that new thread. Stay tuned! Also, if anyone has any suggestions for the new thread, please PM the staff and/or reply to this post.
Plz consider mirroring the ban thread in the edh subforum! Having separate threads for individual cards is great! Its really hard to have meaningful discussions about individual cards when every other post is someone asking for fetchland bans and derailing the thread
It's not on the table because most banlist discussion, even discussion about single cards, dovetails with other items on the banlist. That discussion also intersects with all the other topics we want to allow in the thread, which in turn inform further unban/ban discussion. Dividing discussion between threads and subforums is rarely good for users, and this thread will take the opposite approach.
I'd just like to say that killing the banlist discussion thread is probably the best thing the mods have done all year. I'm so glad that monstrosity is dead for good.
The plan is to replace it with a version of this thread, to encourage more open-ended discussion about Modern's various overlapping and intersecting issues. It will still be the place for banlist discussion (i.e. that topic won't be totally dead), but other conversations will happen there too. We're also hammering out a clearer set of rules for that new thread. Stay tuned! Also, if anyone has any suggestions for the new thread, please PM the staff and/or reply to this post.
Plz consider mirroring the ban thread in the edh subforum! Having separate threads for individual cards is great! Its really hard to have meaningful discussions about individual cards when every other post is someone asking for fetchland bans and derailing the thread
It's not on the table because most banlist discussion, even discussion about single cards, dovetails with other items on the banlist. That discussion also intersects with all the other topics we want to allow in the thread, which in turn inform further unban/ban discussion. Dividing discussion between threads and subforums is rarely good for users, and this thread will take the opposite approach.
I agree, you have to be able to bounce cards off on another when discussing bans. The last thread that got closed was good for awhile from what I read and only derailed once people made huge list of changing the entire format into what they felt it should be rather than looking at cards that they felt should be allowed to come and go. I think people have a right to discuss cards like chord being banned because not everyone has played the format as long or understands how the bans work. When I look at a lot of people on this site that post they are generally only 1-3 year users (that's a short time in the history of magic) and may not have lived through some of the stuff others of us have.
I'd just like to say that killing the banlist discussion thread is probably the best thing the mods have done all year. I'm so glad that monstrosity is dead for good.
The plan is to replace it with a version of this thread, to encourage more open-ended discussion about Modern's various overlapping and intersecting issues. It will still be the place for banlist discussion (i.e. that topic won't be totally dead), but other conversations will happen there too. We're also hammering out a clearer set of rules for that new thread. Stay tuned! Also, if anyone has any suggestions for the new thread, please PM the staff and/or reply to this post.
Plz consider mirroring the ban thread in the edh subforum! Having separate threads for individual cards is great! Its really hard to have meaningful discussions about individual cards when every other post is someone asking for fetchland bans and derailing the thread
It's not on the table because most banlist discussion, even discussion about single cards, dovetails with other items on the banlist. That discussion also intersects with all the other topics we want to allow in the thread, which in turn inform further unban/ban discussion. Dividing discussion between threads and subforums is rarely good for users, and this thread will take the opposite approach.
I agree, you have to be able to bounce cards off on another when discussing bans. The last thread that got closed was good for awhile from what I read and only derailed once people made huge list of changing the entire format into what they felt it should be rather than looking at cards that they felt should be allowed to come and go. I think people have a right to discuss cards like chord being banned because not everyone has played the format as long or understands how the bans work. When I look at a lot of people on this site that post they are generally only 1-3 year users (that's a short time in the history of magic) and may not have lived through some of the stuff others of us have.
This includes me. I only started back in Summer 2014 after a 14 year gap, and Modern in summer of 2015. I can analyze past data all I want, but I didn't live through any of it.
Very few cards need actual banning in Modern, to keep the format healthy.
The real issue is that there is no consensus on what is deemed "Healthy".
For me, apart from some minor issues that can be resolved with a banning, the format itself is fine. What it really needs is new tools given to it, not old ones taken away.
Degenerate cards like SSG are what should be eyed for banning. But even then, SSG only really posts results with with Ad Nauseum. All the other decks using SSG cause havoc at some LGSs, but they rarely make dents in higher level play. And at the end of the day, WOTC should be focusing on higher level play (GPs, Protours, Worlds, etc...)
Too many people will face a card that seems (or is) unfair, and immediately jump on the banwagon.
Blood Moon is another good example, and one I brought up on the Ban Discussion thread right before it was closed (its a conspiracy!). BM in no way is on the chopping block for banning. In fact, banning BM would be a huge mistake on WOTCs part. BM does so much to control the format, even though its not played that heavily. The fact that it exists means certain decks need to revise how they pick their mana, which invariably dictates which spells they will use. Eldrazi winter would have almost certainly been much worse if BM was not in the format. Anyone who has any extensive experience with BM (like me) will know that it really isnt the end-all be-all card. It irks me when salty players call it the insta-win card. If it was the insta-win card, then we would see it in most decks that could play it.
Banning choke, Chord, etc... is also nonesense. None of these cards are opressive, and they all can be interacted with. Who thinks banning Dispel is a good idea? Yeesh.
The point is, the format is healthy. Dredge is different because its not interacted with in the traditional ways. Decks can make room to deal with it, though. Im 50/50 on it being banned, or at least nerfed.
For me, SSG is far closer to the ban hammer than anything else. Fast, free mana, that cant be interacted with (easily) makes for degenerate plays.
For me, the fact that you can sleeve up most anything and post some results in Modern, means we are on the right track.
A year out, WOTCs ban of Twin, regardless of their reasoning, has worked out quite well. Not only can blue decks use different strategies, now (it didnt make sense to play blue before without Twin, which limited blue ultimately) but we can also have a format that has room for more strategies.
Yes, the format has a lot of linear decks, but that wont last forever. Over-abundance of linear decks will force deck builders to build counter-strategies. Its only a matter of time. I feel net-decking has a lot to do with how much linear decks we see. Too many lazy magic players
One final note: Infect. Yes, it is currently the best deck in Modern. Prior to the printing of Blossoming Defense, the deck was difficult to beat, but not impossible. Kill one or two infect creatures and its usually game over. With the printing of blossoming defense, Infect has been pushed close to the oppressive category. Nonetheless, it is nowhere close to as bad as Eldrazi was during Eldrazi winter, or Twin prior to the banning. It can still be defeated, and it does not warp the format. No one needs to make SB space JUST for infect, whereas Twin definitly had people making special spots in their SB just for Twin.
A year out, WOTCs ban of Twin, regardless of their reasoning, has worked out quite well. Not only can blue decks use different strategies, now (it didnt make sense to play blue before without Twin, which limited blue ultimately) but we can also have a format that has room for more strategies.
I'd like to point out that both Grixis Delver and Grixis Control are about half (or less) the meta share now than they were in the back half of 2015, Jeskai Nahiri has done nothing but fall since its first breakout weekend, and no other Uxx deck has held more than a 1% share.
You also said it didn't make sense to play other blue decks with Twin around, and I say it still doesn't make sense to play them TODAY. Unless you are heavily vested in the color(s) and just passionately like those colors, in no way could I recommend a reactive Snapcaster deck to anyone who wants to be consistently competitively successful.
So while there may be a perceived increase in variety, they're all mostly worse.
Hmmm, I disagree. Part of my comment mentioned getting new tools. Blue needs new tools. It shouldnt be Twin. With Twin around, none of the decks you mentioned would make sense to even flirt with unless they included Twin. At least now they are an option. If blue got some useful, but non-warping tools (which is inevitable) then it will become a more viable option. We seem to think we only have to think about what we currently have. Whereas a more workable option would be to wait and see (or ask and see) WOTC print something that can push Blue into higher tiers.
Jeskai Control is still top 10 of the current Meta. All it takes is one new card to push blue up. We already know what a meta with Twin looks like, so I dont think its something we will go back to.
I also feel too many magic players gave up on blue when twin was banned. Since everyone net-decks, they saw no other blue options. There definitly is a winnable strategy in blue, and I invest quite heavily in finding it (or at least having some fun).
Hmmm, I disagree. Part of my comment mentioned getting new tools. Blue needs new tools.
I agree. I also do not trust Wizards to make this happen, especially with their focus on New World Order, where creature combat is more important than stack manipulation. They want to compete with Hearthstone, and their last several sets showcase this move in philosophy.
With Twin around, none of the decks you mentioned would make sense to even flirt with unless they included Twin.
But that's the thing! MORE people were playing Non-Twin Grixis decks when Twin was legal than they are now! Jeskai had moved up initially, but then had 6 months of falling numbers.
At least now they are an option. If blue got some useful, but non-warping tools (which is inevitable) then it will become a more viable option. We seem to think we only have to think about what we currently have. Whereas a more workable option would be to wait and see (or ask and see) WOTC print something that can push Blue into higher tiers.
Again, I do not trust them to do this whatsoever. Especially considering that the sets coming out now were designed 2+ years ago, and finalized and printed at least a year ago.
Jeskai Control is still top 10 of the current Meta.
Which is weird since it's had no notable success for most of the year. I played several iterations myself and hated it. Maybe it will get better? It needs a lot of help to be a Tier 1 deck.
We already know what a meta with Twin looks like, so I dont think its something we will go back to.
Why? It used to look great, look healthy, and was full of diversity.
I also feel too many magic players gave up on blue when twin was banned. Since everyone net-decks, they saw noi other blue options. There definitly is a winnable strategy in blue, and I ivest quite heavily in finding it (or at least having some fun).
I've been playing Grixis Delver for most of the year with dablings in Nahiri and several other brews. Delver is a fun deck (and probably the best of them) but has unwinnable matchups against many current top decks. To do well you really need to dodge these matchups or get really, really lucky with your draws/variance.
I give you that much, my opinion is based on WOTC printing new tools, either deliberately, or accidentally. Seeing as Standard is not doing so well, NWO might have to re-think their strategy. Best thing we can hope for.
Very few cards need actual banning in Modern, to keep the format healthy.
The real issue is that there is no consensus on what is deemed "Healthy".
For me, apart from some minor issues that can be resolved with a banning, the format itself is fine. What it really needs is new tools given to it, not old ones taken away.
Degenerate cards like SSG are what should be eyed for banning. But even then, SSG only really posts results with with Ad Nauseum. All the other decks using SSG cause havoc at some LGSs, but they rarely make dents in higher level play. And at the end of the day, WOTC should be focusing on higher level play (GPs, Protours, Worlds, etc...)
Too many people will face a card that seems (or is) unfair, and immediately jump on the banwagon.
Blood Moon is another good example, and one I brought up on the Ban Discussion thread right before it was closed (its a conspiracy!). BM in no way is on the chopping block for banning. In fact, banning BM would be a huge mistake on WOTCs part. BM does so much to control the format, even though its not played that heavily. The fact that it exists means certain decks need to revise how they pick their mana, which invariably dictates which spells they will use. Eldrazi winter would have almost certainly been much worse if BM was not in the format. Anyone who has any extensive experience with BM (like me) will know that it really isnt the end-all be-all card. It irks me when salty players call it the insta-win card. If it was the insta-win card, then we would see it in most decks that could play it.
Banning choke, Chord, etc... is also nonesense. None of these cards are opressive, and they all can be interacted with. Who thinks banning Dispel is a good idea? Yeesh.
The point is, the format is healthy. Dredge is different because its not interacted with in the traditional ways. Decks can make room to deal with it, though. Im 50/50 on it being banned, or at least nerfed.
For me, SSG is far closer to the ban hammer than anything else. Fast, free mana, that cant be interacted with (easily) makes for degenerate plays.
For me, the fact that you can sleeve up most anything and post some results in Modern, means we are on the right track.
A year out, WOTCs ban of Twin, regardless of their reasoning, has worked out quite well. Not only can blue decks use different strategies, now (it didnt make sense to play blue before without Twin, which limited blue ultimately) but we can also have a format that has room for more strategies.
Yes, the format has a lot of linear decks, but that wont last forever. Over-abundance of linear decks will force deck builders to build counter-strategies. Its only a matter of time. I feel net-decking has a lot to do with how much linear decks we see. Too many lazy magic players
One final note: Infect. Yes, it is currently the best deck in Modern. Prior to the printing of Blossoming Defense, the deck was difficult to beat, but not impossible. Kill one or two infect creatures and its usually game over. With the printing of blossoming defense, Infect has been pushed close to the oppressive category. Nonetheless, it is nowhere close to as bad as Eldrazi was during Eldrazi winter, or Twin prior to the banning. It can still be defeated, and it does not warp the format. No one needs to make SB space JUST for infect, whereas Twin definitly had people making special spots in their SB just for Twin.
My 4 cents.
I think it simply boils down to what people find enjoyable and healthy.
I think a lot of people suggest all sorts of bannings because they're unhappy with what we currently have, and they just want to change things.
I won't lie, I think banning blood moon, ssg, choke, boil, flashfires, gitaxian probe, become immense, eldrazi temple, cavern of souls, grave troll, stinkweed imp, mox opal, etc, etc, would lead to a format that I would be much happier playing, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Whether or not wizards should, or will do that is a different topic entirely.
While you could suggest that printing new tools could help, and I'm sure you'd be right, 1) the old banlist thread was the banlist thread, not the "what do you want printed" thread, and 2)wizards is clearly not feeling much pressure to print these potential tools.
Basically every card that people have asked for for years have yet to materialize, even ones (such as opt) that are very unlikely to be particularly powerful.
I'd love as much as the next person for wizards to not ban any of these cards, and instead print things to force the format in a direction I'd like, but they've clearly been much more willing to do controversial things in relation to bans and unbans, and not in regards to standard printings.
As for the twin talk, there is much data that suggests blue decks that didn't play twin were at their strongest when twin was legal.
As a general rule, a deck like grixis has a miserable matchup vs burn, but strong combo matchup (like twin). Twin on the other hand had a much better matchup vs burn, but struggled against grixis (or other control decks.)
While twin is now banned, you no longer have to play twin to win in blue, instead you just win with blue, barring the occasional result.
I suspect that not any single card would significantly change blue's presence. Even counterspell right now is quite lackluster against decks like dredge or infect, and wizards is hesitant to print counterspell, much less anything better.
I think plenty of people still play blue. The reason it looks like everyone has given up on it is because none of them are winning, none of them have had any tournament placings.
I have no doubt that you much plenty of effort into finding that winning blue strategy, but plenty of pro players have much love for the color blue, and none of them seemed to have found it.
As for variety, you can argue all you want that suicide zoo, infect, and suicide bloo are all different decks, but they basically do the same thing.
While twin was legal, maybe you'd only have seen infect and not the other two, but banning 1 deck to make 2 more playable doesn't significantly increase diversity when all these decks play on nearly the same axis.
On one last note, I firmly believe that if you took modern right before battle to zendikar was printed, and froze it there, making no more changes (with the possible exception of amulet/bloom ban), the format would be so vastly superior than anything we've seen since.
The cards WOTC has made since the twin ban haven't been seen yet so we have no way of knowing if they have or haven't listened. The last years worth of sets have brought so much to modern that they had no way of knowing what it'd look like today.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"Are you serious?" Chandra replied.
Prison decks put into place a series of lock pieces that prevent the opponent from doing things. Usually these are static or repeatable effects and they seek advantage by not allowing the opponent to do anything. Control decks use cards from their hand to interact directly with the stack or the battlefield. Because they have to use individual cards for this, it seeks to maintain parity or get ahead through card advantage, recursion, or 2-for-1s. The main difference I see is that one philosophy seeks to maintain a high amount of interactivity by relying on answers, which makes for interesting and dynamic gameplay. The other philosophy seeks to make sure no Magic is actually played at all. I'm sure there are people that find Lantern and RW Prison exciting and fun, but I know I'm not one of them, and I'm sure very few opponents are thrilled to see it.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
So by this argument Legacy Miracles is a prison deck?
While I understand the desire to play such a deck, is there ANY non-standard format where a "pure control" style is viable? Certainly not Vintage. Certainly not Legacy. All of the legacy "control" decks have some sort of creature tempo package, or a counter-top style lock.
I just want us to be realistic here, and acnowledge that DEATH AND TAXES is defined as a "control" deck by the legacy community.
I'm not speaking as a whole. Typically, of the few Legacy decks I've used, they cost around 2 grand to build. And a lot of the decks in Modern are starting to raise to those sorts of levels. Perhaps I used the wrong words. I instead more so mean that the format is *on it's way* to costing Legacy prices. I'll continue believing this until I see Wizards print Modern staples at higher rates than just annual MM releases (which in some cases, barely make a dent in some cards).
And sure, I'll just move my entire lively hood to play with cardboard.
It has some actual "answers" in terminus, force, counterspell, and swords to plowshares, but at heart, counter top, and karakas + venser (for legends) are prison locks.
There is no format outside of standard in which a "true" draw-go deck is viable/top tier.
Its only just now that one has even been viable/top tier in standard, which hasn't really been true since RtR was legal.
Death and Taxes is a control deck, but a much softer one. Its reliant on using wasteland/port, along with revoker, thalias, prelate, and other hatebears to heavily interfere with an opponents plan. That these effects are also creatures is relevant, allowing the deck to change gears similar to how jund does in modern. At its heart, jund is a deck that wants to control the game. Jund wants to get the game into a topdeck war where it has a liliana and bob in play (and thus control of the board) because it generally topdecks better than most opponents. However, dark confidant being a creature, liliana being more of a threat than necrogen mists, and the ability to play bolts and tarmogoyfs lets jund switch gears as well.
Theres nothing wrong with this. Its clearly an effective strategy, but there are plenty of people out there that don't want to play this way. They don't want to have a gearbox on hand. They'd rather just play answers. Such strategies have been viable in the past, but those days are fairly long gone.
While I understand that many newer player are turned off of the game because they view draw-go styled decks as boring, I can't help but feel that prison is even worse, and prison remains a fairly reasonable strategy in non rotating formats.
That being said, there is no reason that wizards should stymie the reactive elements of this format as much as they, on top of greatly increasing the threat quality. Whether or not a purely reactive deck is ever tier one or not, every little bit helps, and having powerful reactive elements in the format that the proactive decks have to respect, in my mind, makes the format lead to more interesting games of magic for everyone.
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
But to be more productive, I'm very interested in this coming ban announcement, since I think it will set a precedent on the part of Wizards. If they ban something from, say, Dredge, when it hasn't put up a ton of results in high level tournaments recently, it implies that they're more interested in the total meta and the "type" of decks in Modern, which could lead to more decks that "don't play Magic" being scrutinized more heavily than "regular" decks.
If they don't ban anything, then I think it shows that they're more interested in high level events and total tournament placements than a total meta percentage or whether a deck is "plays Magic" or not.
Either way, I'm very interested to see how much Wizards views the current meta as positive or negative and to see if they make any changes in response.
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
To the control deck discussion, Grixis is far from terrible, and is the closest thing to a traditional control deck in modern. Since the opportunity cost from fetches and shocks is the same for 2 or 3 colors, grixis control is essentially a UR control deck with a cruel side.
The cost of modern? Sure. Tarmogoyf is now $100. That's great because it means that the trickling in of cards through MM and EMN is working. It's not tanking the market, while slowly making it more accessible. The thing those sets do isn't drop the prices suddenly (which would cause a horrible response from the player base that invested heavily over the years), but they keep the prices from rising too steeply as interest in the format goes up.
Modern: Bogles // 8-Whack/Goblins // UW Titan // Hollow One // Affinity // Dredge
EDH: Nissa, Vastwood Seer // Atraxa, Praetor's Voice // Meren of Clan Nel Toth
I would be very interested in the reactions a Dredge ban would evoke. As you said, Dredge didn't do anything wrong besides being the ugly duckling of the format and often frustrating to play against. I think a large portion of the playerbase would be pleased to see it go, but I also think it would send a troublesome message to a similarly large group. Justifying a ban with "not fun" seems very much arbitrary because you force your own subjective definition of what is fun on everyone. However, many people enjoy playing linear aggressive decks a lot and why should their enjoyment be worth less than that of anyone else?
What you consider being fun probably comes down to what deck you play and what your deck is good against. I would doubt that the majority of Jund players would deem Tron to be a lot of fun, and Tron players probably don't like Infect, a matchup that is a lot more enjoyable for Jund players. I regularly play Grixis Control on Xmage and I when playing against players piloting their brews I often hear stuff like "Why do you have to kill all my stuff, just let me play my deck!!!", followed by insults. These guys would certainly ban my deck to infinity and beyond. Therefore, basing the ban list on any one's definition of fun Magic is very problematic, it would always discriminate against players that enjoy specific playstyles and would likely lead to these players losing faith and fun in Magic.
Therefore, if WotC decides to ban Dredge they should be prepared to give very good reasons (attendance, virtual pre T4 wins...). If they say it's just "not fun", then they should at least have the guts to ban it for good, which would mean GGT, Stinkweed Imp and Golgari Thug have to get the axe. I would also expect an apology for ever creating the dredge mechanic in the first place and a garantee that this would be an exceptional ban that does not reflect Wizard's usual ban policy and will not happen again.
If Twin was a controversial ban, I would expect this to be even more so. If they do have good reasons for the ban they should ban a card that keeps the deck in the format.
My Modern Decks:
BGWAbzan MidrangeWGB
UWRJeskai NahiriRWU
BRUGrixis ControlURB
The plan is to replace it with a version of this thread, to encourage more open-ended discussion about Modern's various overlapping and intersecting issues. It will still be the place for banlist discussion (i.e. that topic won't be totally dead), but other conversations will happen there too. We're also hammering out a clearer set of rules for that new thread. Stay tuned! Also, if anyone has any suggestions for the new thread, please PM the staff and/or reply to this post.
I thought they demonstrated that philosophy a year ago when they banned Twin for no other reason than GP/PT Top 8 placements.
But yeah, I am equally interested in what they will do next.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Which I'm totally fine with. The banlist thread it its last iteration was kind of a cesspool, so anything you guys can do to make it better is alright with me.
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
Plz consider mirroring the ban thread in the edh subforum! Having separate threads for individual cards is great! Its really hard to have meaningful discussions about individual cards when every other post is someone asking for fetchland bans and derailing the thread
UWRjeskai nahiri UWR
UBRgrixis titi UBR
UBRgrixis delverUBR
UR ur kikimite UR
EDH
RUG Riku of Two Reflections RUG
UBR Marchesa, the Black Rose UBR
UBRGYidris, Maelstrom Wielder UBRG
UBRJeleva, Nephalia's ScourgeUBR
It's not on the table because most banlist discussion, even discussion about single cards, dovetails with other items on the banlist. That discussion also intersects with all the other topics we want to allow in the thread, which in turn inform further unban/ban discussion. Dividing discussion between threads and subforums is rarely good for users, and this thread will take the opposite approach.
I agree, you have to be able to bounce cards off on another when discussing bans. The last thread that got closed was good for awhile from what I read and only derailed once people made huge list of changing the entire format into what they felt it should be rather than looking at cards that they felt should be allowed to come and go. I think people have a right to discuss cards like chord being banned because not everyone has played the format as long or understands how the bans work. When I look at a lot of people on this site that post they are generally only 1-3 year users (that's a short time in the history of magic) and may not have lived through some of the stuff others of us have.
This includes me. I only started back in Summer 2014 after a 14 year gap, and Modern in summer of 2015. I can analyze past data all I want, but I didn't live through any of it.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
The real issue is that there is no consensus on what is deemed "Healthy".
For me, apart from some minor issues that can be resolved with a banning, the format itself is fine. What it really needs is new tools given to it, not old ones taken away.
Degenerate cards like SSG are what should be eyed for banning. But even then, SSG only really posts results with with Ad Nauseum. All the other decks using SSG cause havoc at some LGSs, but they rarely make dents in higher level play. And at the end of the day, WOTC should be focusing on higher level play (GPs, Protours, Worlds, etc...)
Too many people will face a card that seems (or is) unfair, and immediately jump on the banwagon.
Blood Moon is another good example, and one I brought up on the Ban Discussion thread right before it was closed (its a conspiracy!). BM in no way is on the chopping block for banning. In fact, banning BM would be a huge mistake on WOTCs part. BM does so much to control the format, even though its not played that heavily. The fact that it exists means certain decks need to revise how they pick their mana, which invariably dictates which spells they will use. Eldrazi winter would have almost certainly been much worse if BM was not in the format. Anyone who has any extensive experience with BM (like me) will know that it really isnt the end-all be-all card. It irks me when salty players call it the insta-win card. If it was the insta-win card, then we would see it in most decks that could play it.
Banning choke, Chord, etc... is also nonesense. None of these cards are opressive, and they all can be interacted with. Who thinks banning Dispel is a good idea? Yeesh.
The point is, the format is healthy. Dredge is different because its not interacted with in the traditional ways. Decks can make room to deal with it, though. Im 50/50 on it being banned, or at least nerfed.
For me, SSG is far closer to the ban hammer than anything else. Fast, free mana, that cant be interacted with (easily) makes for degenerate plays.
For me, the fact that you can sleeve up most anything and post some results in Modern, means we are on the right track.
A year out, WOTCs ban of Twin, regardless of their reasoning, has worked out quite well. Not only can blue decks use different strategies, now (it didnt make sense to play blue before without Twin, which limited blue ultimately) but we can also have a format that has room for more strategies.
Yes, the format has a lot of linear decks, but that wont last forever. Over-abundance of linear decks will force deck builders to build counter-strategies. Its only a matter of time. I feel net-decking has a lot to do with how much linear decks we see. Too many lazy magic players
One final note: Infect. Yes, it is currently the best deck in Modern. Prior to the printing of Blossoming Defense, the deck was difficult to beat, but not impossible. Kill one or two infect creatures and its usually game over. With the printing of blossoming defense, Infect has been pushed close to the oppressive category. Nonetheless, it is nowhere close to as bad as Eldrazi was during Eldrazi winter, or Twin prior to the banning. It can still be defeated, and it does not warp the format. No one needs to make SB space JUST for infect, whereas Twin definitly had people making special spots in their SB just for Twin.
My 4 cents.
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver
I'd like to point out that both Grixis Delver and Grixis Control are about half (or less) the meta share now than they were in the back half of 2015, Jeskai Nahiri has done nothing but fall since its first breakout weekend, and no other Uxx deck has held more than a 1% share.
You also said it didn't make sense to play other blue decks with Twin around, and I say it still doesn't make sense to play them TODAY. Unless you are heavily vested in the color(s) and just passionately like those colors, in no way could I recommend a reactive Snapcaster deck to anyone who wants to be consistently competitively successful.
So while there may be a perceived increase in variety, they're all mostly worse.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Jeskai Control is still top 10 of the current Meta. All it takes is one new card to push blue up. We already know what a meta with Twin looks like, so I dont think its something we will go back to.
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver
I agree. I also do not trust Wizards to make this happen, especially with their focus on New World Order, where creature combat is more important than stack manipulation. They want to compete with Hearthstone, and their last several sets showcase this move in philosophy.
But that's the thing! MORE people were playing Non-Twin Grixis decks when Twin was legal than they are now! Jeskai had moved up initially, but then had 6 months of falling numbers.
Again, I do not trust them to do this whatsoever. Especially considering that the sets coming out now were designed 2+ years ago, and finalized and printed at least a year ago.
Which is weird since it's had no notable success for most of the year. I played several iterations myself and hated it. Maybe it will get better? It needs a lot of help to be a Tier 1 deck.
Why? It used to look great, look healthy, and was full of diversity.
I've been playing Grixis Delver for most of the year with dablings in Nahiri and several other brews. Delver is a fun deck (and probably the best of them) but has unwinnable matchups against many current top decks. To do well you really need to dodge these matchups or get really, really lucky with your draws/variance.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver
I think it simply boils down to what people find enjoyable and healthy.
I think a lot of people suggest all sorts of bannings because they're unhappy with what we currently have, and they just want to change things.
I won't lie, I think banning blood moon, ssg, choke, boil, flashfires, gitaxian probe, become immense, eldrazi temple, cavern of souls, grave troll, stinkweed imp, mox opal, etc, etc, would lead to a format that I would be much happier playing, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Whether or not wizards should, or will do that is a different topic entirely.
While you could suggest that printing new tools could help, and I'm sure you'd be right, 1) the old banlist thread was the banlist thread, not the "what do you want printed" thread, and 2)wizards is clearly not feeling much pressure to print these potential tools.
Basically every card that people have asked for for years have yet to materialize, even ones (such as opt) that are very unlikely to be particularly powerful.
I'd love as much as the next person for wizards to not ban any of these cards, and instead print things to force the format in a direction I'd like, but they've clearly been much more willing to do controversial things in relation to bans and unbans, and not in regards to standard printings.
As for the twin talk, there is much data that suggests blue decks that didn't play twin were at their strongest when twin was legal.
As a general rule, a deck like grixis has a miserable matchup vs burn, but strong combo matchup (like twin). Twin on the other hand had a much better matchup vs burn, but struggled against grixis (or other control decks.)
While twin is now banned, you no longer have to play twin to win in blue, instead you just win with blue, barring the occasional result.
I suspect that not any single card would significantly change blue's presence. Even counterspell right now is quite lackluster against decks like dredge or infect, and wizards is hesitant to print counterspell, much less anything better.
I think plenty of people still play blue. The reason it looks like everyone has given up on it is because none of them are winning, none of them have had any tournament placings.
I have no doubt that you much plenty of effort into finding that winning blue strategy, but plenty of pro players have much love for the color blue, and none of them seemed to have found it.
As for variety, you can argue all you want that suicide zoo, infect, and suicide bloo are all different decks, but they basically do the same thing.
While twin was legal, maybe you'd only have seen infect and not the other two, but banning 1 deck to make 2 more playable doesn't significantly increase diversity when all these decks play on nearly the same axis.
On one last note, I firmly believe that if you took modern right before battle to zendikar was printed, and froze it there, making no more changes (with the possible exception of amulet/bloom ban), the format would be so vastly superior than anything we've seen since.