Well from the UR Prowess perspective, Preordain would be a huge upgrade. But it wouldn't make it faster, I mean, there are no possible lines enabled by Preordain that make it faster in any way. Not even Brainstorm would. Well, maybe Brainstorm would because of the potential of turning a crappy hand into a good one, but you get the point.
What it would certainly make it is more consistent and resilient.
It is the difference between drawing the TBR you need to win now or next turn, it is deceptive how much better preordain is than serum visions.
Well from the UR Prowess perspective, Preordain would be a huge upgrade. But it wouldn't make it faster, I mean, there are no possible lines enabled by Preordain that make it faster in any way. Not even Brainstorm would. Well, maybe Brainstorm would because of the potential of turning a crappy hand into a good one, but you get the point.
What it would certainly make it is more consistent and resilient.
Thing is they didn't nerf pump decks because of T4 rule violation, but because they were too strong in their eyes. This is why this debate is strange. I would not mind taking Preordain and slotting it into all of my decks though!
While this is true, unbanning a card that helps the pump decks but helps Control and Tempo decks that are good against those decks even more shouldn't make the pump decks too strong.
control tempo decks were already doing well against those decks. It was slower attrition decks and big mana decks that they preyed on
Exactly. Preordain would make aggro/combo decks better, but it would improve the decks that prey on them even more, which means that they would likely get weaker in the context of the overall meta.
Well from the UR Prowess perspective, Preordain would be a huge upgrade. But it wouldn't make it faster, I mean, there are no possible lines enabled by Preordain that make it faster in any way. Not even Brainstorm would. Well, maybe Brainstorm would because of the potential of turning a crappy hand into a good one, but you get the point.
What it would certainly make it is more consistent and resilient.
Thing is they didn't nerf pump decks because of T4 rule violation, but because they were too strong in their eyes. This is why this debate is strange. I would not mind taking Preordain and slotting it into all of my decks though!
While this is true, unbanning a card that helps the pump decks but helps Control and Tempo decks that are good against those decks even more shouldn't make the pump decks too strong.
control tempo decks were already doing well against those decks. It was slower attrition decks and big mana decks that they preyed on
Exactly. Preordain would make aggro/combo decks better, but it would improve the decks that prey on them even more, which means that they would likely get weaker in the context of the overall meta.
it would really just promote a similar format to one we had when they deemed Probe worthy of a banning. Aggro-combo was already getting preyed on by Grixis/Abzan/Jund which leads to a heavy move towards Tron etc... it just makes the Aggro-combo decks more capable of drawing out of mid-range/control decks removal.
I'd also point out that the Probe ban explicitly mentions three reasons:
Enabling turn-3 kills, both by speeding up the decks running it and by showing them what they had to play around
Hurting the chances of interactive decks against aggressive decks
Doing this for zero mana (and usually for zero relevant resources whatsoever)
Applying this to Preordain just seems so off to me because their language is so specific. They didn't come out and say "Aggro is too consistent." They said "Aggro is winning before turn 3; Probe lets it happen in these specific ways and does it for free." That's all totally irrelevant to Preordain. In fact, everything about this signals to me that they're evaluating the impact of the changes to see if it's time to unban it.
you like to change things people say, you did it with when you quoted me earlier also which is misrepresentation.
Infect, DSZ, and URprowess are all aggro-combo decks and would all be sped up by preordain which is the exact justification that WotC gave for banning it in the first place to slow down the format.
I'll say it again, maybe you'll hear it this time: Infect and DSZ wouldn't play Preordain.
Now that we have that out of the way, UR Prowess was mid-Tier 2 in December with Probe. Preordain would make it better than what it currently is, but I'm not confident that it would be better than the Probe version, so it's probably still mid tier 2. Ad Nauseum was bottom tier 2 and would definitely play Preordain. It wouldn't speed the deck up at all, it would just make them more consistent. Would that be enough to bump them to Tier 1? I strongly doubt it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern UBR Grixis Shadow UBR UR Izzet Phoenix UR UW UW Control UW GB GB Rock GB
Commander BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
I'll say it again, maybe you'll hear it this time: Infect and DSZ wouldn't play Preordain.
Now that we have that out of the way, UR Prowess was mid-Tier 2 in December with Probe. Preordain would make it better than what it currently is, but I'm not confident that it would be better than the Probe version, so it's probably still mid tier 2. Ad Nauseum was bottom tier 2 and would definitely play Preordain. It wouldn't speed the deck up at all, it would just make them more consistent. Would that be enough to bump them to Tier 1? I strongly doubt it.
If infect has to become more of a glass cannon build lacking probe it would almost certainly want to run Preordain given that it would want to draw the specific card needed when going off. The idea that it would become some kind of a more grindy deck would just make it worse against the mid-range decks in the format which it already is weak to. It is more likely if Infect players don't decide to run peek as a eot set up for potential all in turns will have to simply try to force the combo and preordain would aide it in this respect. They will need to find a higher density of pump/protection spells.
You keep asserting that it would never, disregarding the fact that when it was a much more all in deck in the past it did run it precisely because it needed to find its all in turn pieces fast. It is more likely to become a more all in deck once again making preordain a even more powerful and needed card to ensure that the all in turn goes as well as possible. It isn't going to have the luxury of knowing it can simply ping for 1 or 2 infect over the course of multiple turns it will need to accumulate the better spells for the match up, more hexproof granting spells against BGx or Grixis and BI over those types of affects against faster aggro decks and Tron type decks. Preordain would almost certainly slide right into the deck.
I never said that I thought it would go into DSZ I simply pointed out that it is also a aggro-combo deck.
You can assert whatever you want but the reality is that preordain has always been used by decks like Infect and URprowess would certainly run it and would likely still be a competitive deck if it gained access to that type of card selection.
edit: laughing as a went to read what infect players are actually talking about, adding serum visions lol. Tom Ross has a list floating around that is running serum visions which is not near as good as Preordain. But they would never...jahahaha...
I'll say it again, maybe you'll hear it this time: Infect and DSZ wouldn't play Preordain.
Now that we have that out of the way, UR Prowess was mid-Tier 2 in December with Probe. Preordain would make it better than what it currently is, but I'm not confident that it would be better than the Probe version, so it's probably still mid tier 2. Ad Nauseum was bottom tier 2 and would definitely play Preordain. It wouldn't speed the deck up at all, it would just make them more consistent. Would that be enough to bump them to Tier 1? I strongly doubt it.
I 'll try to stick with this Avatar just for you my friend, but it will be hard. I agree that DSZ would not play Preordain. They would just swap into the Bloo version of the deck with Delve fatties(although a somewhat weaker version). About Infect it's complicated. I again agree in that it's not the type of card that the deck needs that much as it forces the deck to be much slower.
UR Kiln Fiend(sshh..don't tell h0lydiva I called the deck like this) will be smiling for a whole month if Preordain gets unbanned. Again, it wont make the deck quicker, as @h0lydiva said, but it will probably make it stronger and consistent.
Ur Prowess being a Tier 2 deck was just an illusion. Deck was due to becoming a true tier 1 deck if it wasn't for the Probe ban and WOTC know this. This is why they are careful about Preordain. Ultimately, it will happen though, I believe.
Funny that high level infect players like Tom Ross are advocating running serum visions. but infect would never want those types of affects.
While this is obviously Hilariously untrue, i interestingly enough have something like a 75% mwr against tron with an incredibly small sample size of like 8ish matches, so i can see a world where he forms that opinion
I'll say it again, maybe you'll hear it this time: Infect and DSZ wouldn't play Preordain.
Now that we have that out of the way, UR Prowess was mid-Tier 2 in December with Probe. Preordain would make it better than what it currently is, but I'm not confident that it would be better than the Probe version, so it's probably still mid tier 2. Ad Nauseum was bottom tier 2 and would definitely play Preordain. It wouldn't speed the deck up at all, it would just make them more consistent. Would that be enough to bump them to Tier 1? I strongly doubt it.
I 'll try to stick with this Avatar just for you my friend, but it will be hard. I agree that DSZ would not play Preordain. They would just swap into the Bloo version of the deck with Delve fatties(although a somewhat weaker version). About Infect it's complicated. I again agree in that it's not the type of card that the deck needs that much as it forces the deck to be much slower.
UR Kiln Fiend(sshh..don't tell h0lydiva I called the deck like this) will be smiling for a whole month if Preordain gets unbanned. Again, it wont make the deck quicker, as @h0lydiva said, but it will probably make it stronger and consistent.
Ur Prowess being a Tier 2 deck was just an illusion. Deck was due to becoming a true tier 1 deck if it wasn't for the Probe ban and WOTC know this. This is why they are careful about Preordain. Ultimately, it will happen though, I believe.
Funny that high level infect players like Tom Ross are advocating running serum visions. but infect would never want those types of affects.
Prior to the probe ban this was most certainly true, infect didn't want this type of effect. In fact, they still don't, they want an effect that says "draw a card, look at your opponents hand" for 0 mana. They don't have that effect anymore, so naturally people running the deck are looking for replacements in the sub-optimal division. Would infect run Preordain now? Probably, but it is tough to argue that before any new list has put up any results, for all we know infect could settle into more pump spells/apostles blessing instead. The question we need to be asking ourselves are "would wotc unban Preordain into infect" and "would Preordain make infect too good if they did run it". I think the answers to that are yes, they would personally and also no, it wouldn't, but it is certainly up for debate
I just don't understand how some people on this forum are claiming the notion that since Dredge got nerfed, the lack of Graveyard hate was also reduced.
No, just no. This isn't the case.
Want to know what's already happening?
Here it is; you just slowed down all the fastest decks in the format - except Dredge. That's what just happened, and that's why the Golgari Grave-Troll ban is a complete mistake. Dredge 18 just became Dredge 15. That's all that you did to this deck. In Theory, you reduced it's bonkers draws by 17% percent, by reducing the cards they draw from Cathartic Reunion. I won't deny Dredge is really a bull***** mechanic at the end of the day, but having a 3/3 that comes into play for free, and can consistently return from the graveyard makes Frogmite look like more of a joke than it already is.
You still need serious graveyard hate. Dredge is the same 95% of the time, Infect got slightly worse, UR Prowess took a huge hit, and Suicide Zoo I haven't seen.
Stop nerfing decks. The banned list for a paper game shouldn't be taken the way it currently is. This isn't the game where you can use your stencil, it's either an axe or nothing.
Wizards own admittance is that don't want to kill decks but rather nerf them. Infect I find now is a whole turn slower and Dredge is less consistent. However, I'm in no way confident in this assessment as it's too early to tell. The only thing I'm sure of is that removing Prized Amalgam would definitely remove Dredge as a legitimate threat and relegate it to dumpster tier.
Here it is; you just slowed down all the fastest decks in the format - except Dredge. That's what just happened, and that's why the Golgari Grave-Troll ban is a complete mistake. Dredge 18 just became Dredge 15. That's all that you did to this deck. In Theory, you reduced it's bonkers draws by 17% percent, by reducing the cards they draw from Cathartic Reunion.
I don't understand why people are so disingenuous about this. Were the dredge decks you saw not playing stinkweed imp before? Most dredge players I know already had stinky in the deck, and had to swap in Golgari Thug for Golgari Grave-troll, reducing Cathartic Reunion from dredge 18 to dredge 12 from that card slot.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
Interestingly enough amulet bloom has had great success on leagues since the ban, putting up at least one 5-0 a day. Is this because people are hyped for some new card for the deck, or because the bans pushed it? Or is it just coincidence?
Here it is; you just slowed down all the fastest decks in the format - except Dredge. That's what just happened, and that's why the Golgari Grave-Troll ban is a complete mistake. Dredge 18 just became Dredge 15. That's all that you did to this deck. In Theory, you reduced it's bonkers draws by 17% percent, by reducing the cards they draw from Cathartic Reunion.
I don't understand why people are so disingenuous about this. Were the dredge decks you saw not playing stinkweed imp before? Most dredge players I know already had stinky in the deck, and had to swap in Golgari Thug for Golgari Grave-troll, reducing Cathartic Reunion from dredge 18 to dredge 12 from that card slot.
From what others said, our dredge consistancy rate went down from 79% to around 64%... that on its own is huge. The fact is, dredge is replacing those 4 cards with 4 worse ones to get 64%, then 2 more slots to bring it to 70%.
People belittling this nerf have no clue what they're talking about. We lost 9% of consistency and 2 flex spots (meaning I lose 2 sideboard slots mind you). I also lose a win con, and a way to beat cage easily, making cage, super splashable hate card that also hates on other decks beside me, more or less unwinnable for me.
The deck was nerfed by a ton. Are we still tier 1? Likely if you dont pack grave hate, and/or dont draw it. But if you do were not playable. Just like in legacy.
Also you should be playing grave hate. Seriously, count the decks that use the grave (and library, thanks cage).
I very much agree the banlist should not be the policeman of the meta game, but people are writing off the dredge ban like it was nothing. And if we still do maintain enough % to be a tier 1 deck (which is also dependent on people not being dumb and taking out grave hate from their sides) we'll have to worry about another ban because people simply don't like dredge.
Flat out, the ban makes dredge fairer, in sameish way as affinity. We are slower, can be dealt with easily by grave hate from the side, and we can lose to ourselves very easily. If dredge is tier 1 still, its because its a good deck, not because its broken.
Interestingly enough amulet bloom has had great success on leagues since the ban, putting up at least one 5-0 a day. Is this because people are hyped for some new card for the deck, or because the bans pushed it? Or is it just coincidence?
I think amulet titan had been on an upswing before the ban announcement. Likely just a continuation of that trend, but certainly a metagame trend to keep an eye on (you know, for metagaming purposes and not ban purposes).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
It doesn't seem to have done anything to stifle Dredge; it's still #1 on MTG Goldfish.
I'm pretty sure it's only #1 still because it's including the tournaments prior to the GGT ban (which is why it also says that 94% of all the decks run 4 GGT). As far as I can tell, there only noteworthy tournament that's been held since the ban is 1 Competitive Modern League since the banning, which is hardly enough to determine whether the deck's still going to be one of the top 3 T1 decks.
EDIT: Just realized they hold those tournaments daily, so it's actually about 5 tournaments, though I'm pretty sure my point still stands
It doesn't seem to have done anything to stifle Dredge; it's still #1 on MTG Goldfish.
Because Goldfish's metagame data uses the last 30 days worth of events, mostly online competitive leagues, but only the 5 days are relevant. For reference: last year Dredge was 13% in October, 10% in November and 7% in December. Until the ban was effective online, Dredge was 11% and now that GGT is no longer legal, Dredge is only 4% (5 last leagues). Small n and all you want, but at least try and look at the relevant numbers please. We'll see how it plays out, but I'm confident the ban will translate in a lower metagame share.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern:WU WU Control | WBG Abzan Company Frontier:UBR Grixis Control | BRG Jund Delirium
Think about what they're saying with Cloudpost banning and Eye of Ugin. Ramp that strong shouldn't be there. So why is tron?
Asking "if Cloudpost is too strong, why isn't Tron too strong?" is akin to asking "if Deathrite Shaman is too strong, why isn't Noble Hierarch too strong?" In both cases, the answer is obvious: The latter is quite a bit weaker than the former. 12-Post is quite a bit stronger than Urzatron is. It ramps more effectively, it's thwarted less by land destruction, and it staves off aggro better thanks to Glimmerpost gaining life.
In regards to Eye of Ugin vs. Tron, you ignore the fact that Eye of Ugin starts the ramp (for Eldrazi) on turn 1, whereas Tron can't get any ramp until the third turn (well I guess with a crazy good hand you can get 3 mana off an Urza's Tower on the second turn if you're running Explore, but almost all Tron builds have dropped that card). There's a big difference between a card that instantly gives you 2 mana versus one that can't give you that ramp until the third turn and requires you to assemble two other specific lands.
Basically, Eye of Ugin and Cloudpost ramp way better than Tron. So wondering why Tron is okay but those aren't is like asking why Time Warp isn't banned when one considers how amazing Time Walk is.
You literally took what I said, quoted it, then changed the wording and meaning of the quote in your first sentence, and somehow missed the point at the same time. What I was saying with all of those examples is WotC has yet to clearly define what they want this format to look like. They do have a problem with Ramp in the Cloudpost form and the nuisance that Eldrazi was thanks to Eye of Ugin, yet the 'feel-bads' about Tron has been allowed to stay, albeit begrudgingly. Tron can still, even now, clean up in g1, then take g2 before the 3 and 4cc hate cards remove their primary strategy. Now, that's not to say that Tron should be banned, as a matter of fact I'm 100% opposed to banning based on words like 'feeling' and 'dislike' as opposed to 'format-warping', 'stifling', 'difficult to answer' or 'over-represented'.
I hope I clarified my position better, because that one line was not only taken out of context but you answered a question/argument I never asked.
Here it is; you just slowed down all the fastest decks in the format - except Dredge. That's what just happened, and that's why the Golgari Grave-Troll ban is a complete mistake. Dredge 18 just became Dredge 15. That's all that you did to this deck. In Theory, you reduced it's bonkers draws by 17% percent, by reducing the cards they draw from Cathartic Reunion.
I don't understand why people are so disingenuous about this. Were the dredge decks you saw not playing stinkweed imp before? Most dredge players I know already had stinky in the deck, and had to swap in Golgari Thug for Golgari Grave-troll, reducing Cathartic Reunion from dredge 18 to dredge 12 from that card slot.
From what others said, our dredge consistancy rate went down from 79% to around 64%... that on its own is huge. The fact is, dredge is replacing those 4 cards with 4 worse ones to get 64%, then 2 more slots to bring it to 70%.
People belittling this nerf have no clue what they're talking about. We lost 9% of consistency and 2 flex spots (meaning I lose 2 sideboard slots mind you). I also lose a win con, and a way to beat cage easily, making cage, super splashable hate card that also hates on other decks beside me, more or less unwinnable for me.
The deck was nerfed by a ton. Are we still tier 1? Likely if you dont pack grave hate, and/or dont draw it. But if you do were not playable. Just like in legacy.
Also you should be playing grave hate. Seriously, count the decks that use the grave (and library, thanks cage).
I very much agree the banlist should not be the policeman of the meta game, but people are writing off the dredge ban like it was nothing. And if we still do maintain enough % to be a tier 1 deck (which is also dependent on people not being dumb and taking out grave hate from their sides) we'll have to worry about another ban because people simply don't like dredge.
Flat out, the ban makes dredge fairer, in sameish way as affinity. We are slower, can be dealt with easily by grave hate from the side, and we can lose to ourselves very easily. If dredge is tier 1 still, its because its a good deck, not because its broken.
Here is the exact quote from the announcement
Quote from Wizards »
Golgari Grave-Troll —Dredge, the mechanic and the deck, has a negative impact on Modern by pushing the format too far toward a battle of sideboards. With the printing of Cathartic Reunion and Prized Amalgam, the deck once again became unhealthy for the format. While those cards were discussed, the real offender always has been the dredge mechanic itself.
I completely understand what you are saying Lantern, my large issue at hand is that it's a deck that has just received a ban in light of violations, and it's still succeeding in those violations noted. You still need probably the same amount of Graveyard hate to stop the ridiculous turn 2-3 situations. It's just that turn 10 you may not need more tools to recover. So let's be honest, Dredge hasn't slown down at all, it's just less consistent. Are you willing to gamble? Probably not. So the situation ends up the same, you still pack a tremendous amount of Graveyard hate.
So we are back at a standstill, does Wizards intentionally lie to us? or are they just that stupid?
I completely understand what you are saying Lantern, my large issue at hand is that it's a deck that has just received a ban in light of violations, and it's still succeeding in those violations noted. You still need probably the same amount of Graveyard hate to stop the ridiculous turn 2-3 situations.
Isn't it a little early to say if the deck is still succeeding?
So let's be honest, Dredge hasn't slown down at all, it's just less consistent. Are you willing to gamble? Probably not. So the situation ends up the same, you still pack a tremendous amount of Graveyard hate.
Your claim that it hasn't been slowed down has been refuted. Dredge is certainly slower now, and only time will tell if it slow enough to ease the SB tension.
I really don't understand how one can make the claims of the sort you are making, especially after they have been demonstrated to be either flat-out wrong, or without evidence.
Dredge is slowed down, and WotC and many players hope this will ease the SB tension created by the deck while it is in the top tiers. No one knows if this was enough, but we need evidence to determine that - which will be forthcoming if you could only stop the sky is falling rhetoric for a few weeks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
Also, 4C Zooicide Zoo has evolved into Jund Shadow and is still doing pretty good in the competitive leagues. combining the midrange elements with Battle Rage, Bauble, Tarfire and Traverse. Then again, Fatal Push still isn't legal. We'll see how that goes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern:WU WU Control | WBG Abzan Company Frontier:UBR Grixis Control | BRG Jund Delirium
Your claim that it hasn't been slowed down has been refuted. Dredge is certainly slower now, and only time will tell if it slow enough to ease the SB tension.
No they are not, the new leagues are up, it doesn't take a statistician to look at the latest daily results and see Dredge still getting turn 3 kills.
I'm not considered old and outdated data, I'm looking at the deck in its current form.
It's not slower, it's less consistent, different issues.
Think about what they're saying with Cloudpost banning and Eye of Ugin. Ramp that strong shouldn't be there. So why is tron?
Asking "if Cloudpost is too strong, why isn't Tron too strong?" is akin to asking "if Deathrite Shaman is too strong, why isn't Noble Hierarch too strong?" In both cases, the answer is obvious: The latter is quite a bit weaker than the former. 12-Post is quite a bit stronger than Urzatron is. It ramps more effectively, it's thwarted less by land destruction, and it staves off aggro better thanks to Glimmerpost gaining life.
In regards to Eye of Ugin vs. Tron, you ignore the fact that Eye of Ugin starts the ramp (for Eldrazi) on turn 1, whereas Tron can't get any ramp until the third turn (well I guess with a crazy good hand you can get 3 mana off an Urza's Tower on the second turn if you're running Explore, but almost all Tron builds have dropped that card). There's a big difference between a card that instantly gives you 2 mana versus one that can't give you that ramp until the third turn and requires you to assemble two other specific lands.
Basically, Eye of Ugin and Cloudpost ramp way better than Tron. So wondering why Tron is okay but those aren't is like asking why Time Warp isn't banned when one considers how amazing Time Walk is.
You literally took what I said, quoted it, then changed the wording and meaning of the quote in your first sentence, and somehow missed the point at the same time. What I was saying with all of those examples is WotC has yet to clearly define what they want this format to look like. They do have a problem with Ramp in the Cloudpost form and the nuisance that Eldrazi was thanks to Eye of Ugin, yet the 'feel-bads' about Tron has been allowed to stay, albeit begrudgingly. Tron can still, even now, clean up in g1, then take g2 before the 3 and 4cc hate cards remove their primary strategy. Now, that's not to say that Tron should be banned, as a matter of fact I'm 100% opposed to banning based on words like 'feeling' and 'dislike' as opposed to 'format-warping', 'stifling', 'difficult to answer' or 'over-represented'.
I hope I clarified my position better, because that one line was not only taken out of context but you answered a question/argument I never asked.
But my post does answer your question. 12-Post gets banned because it's too powerful. Tron, which is not anywhere near as powerful, is spared. Trying to claim they have "yet to clearly define what they want this format to look like" (at least in regards to this specific case) is silly because 12-Post got banned because it was too good at what it did. Tron, which is not as powerful, is apparently at an acceptable power level.
As for the Eldrazi, comparing the single most dominant deck in the format's history with a deck that tends to be in the 3-5% area is just plain silly.
There are certainly a number of criticisms that one can aim at Wizards of the Coast in regards to their handling of the Modern banned list as well as alleged dissonances in what's banned or what isn't banned, but this is not one of them. There is no disconnect or dissonance or additional need to "define" things in regards to 12-Post and Eldrazi being banned but Tron not being banned. The first two are significantly more powerful than the latter, so it makes perfect sense for them to get bans while Tron doesn't.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It is the difference between drawing the TBR you need to win now or next turn, it is deceptive how much better preordain is than serum visions.
Exactly. Preordain would make aggro/combo decks better, but it would improve the decks that prey on them even more, which means that they would likely get weaker in the context of the overall meta.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
it would really just promote a similar format to one we had when they deemed Probe worthy of a banning. Aggro-combo was already getting preyed on by Grixis/Abzan/Jund which leads to a heavy move towards Tron etc... it just makes the Aggro-combo decks more capable of drawing out of mid-range/control decks removal.
The didn't say "aggro is winning before turn 3
"Gitaxian Probe increased the number of third-turn kills in a few ways"
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/january-9-2017-banned-and-restricted-announcement-2017-01-09
you like to change things people say, you did it with when you quoted me earlier also which is misrepresentation.
Infect, DSZ, and URprowess are all aggro-combo decks and would all be sped up by preordain which is the exact justification that WotC gave for banning it in the first place to slow down the format.
Now that we have that out of the way, UR Prowess was mid-Tier 2 in December with Probe. Preordain would make it better than what it currently is, but I'm not confident that it would be better than the Probe version, so it's probably still mid tier 2. Ad Nauseum was bottom tier 2 and would definitely play Preordain. It wouldn't speed the deck up at all, it would just make them more consistent. Would that be enough to bump them to Tier 1? I strongly doubt it.
UBR Grixis Shadow UBR
UR Izzet Phoenix UR
UW UW Control UW
GB GB Rock GB
Commander
BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG
BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
If infect has to become more of a glass cannon build lacking probe it would almost certainly want to run Preordain given that it would want to draw the specific card needed when going off. The idea that it would become some kind of a more grindy deck would just make it worse against the mid-range decks in the format which it already is weak to. It is more likely if Infect players don't decide to run peek as a eot set up for potential all in turns will have to simply try to force the combo and preordain would aide it in this respect. They will need to find a higher density of pump/protection spells.
You keep asserting that it would never, disregarding the fact that when it was a much more all in deck in the past it did run it precisely because it needed to find its all in turn pieces fast. It is more likely to become a more all in deck once again making preordain a even more powerful and needed card to ensure that the all in turn goes as well as possible. It isn't going to have the luxury of knowing it can simply ping for 1 or 2 infect over the course of multiple turns it will need to accumulate the better spells for the match up, more hexproof granting spells against BGx or Grixis and BI over those types of affects against faster aggro decks and Tron type decks. Preordain would almost certainly slide right into the deck.
I never said that I thought it would go into DSZ I simply pointed out that it is also a aggro-combo deck.
You can assert whatever you want but the reality is that preordain has always been used by decks like Infect and URprowess would certainly run it and would likely still be a competitive deck if it gained access to that type of card selection.
edit: laughing as a went to read what infect players are actually talking about, adding serum visions lol. Tom Ross has a list floating around that is running serum visions which is not near as good as Preordain. But they would never...jahahaha...
Funny that high level infect players like Tom Ross are advocating running serum visions. but infect would never want those types of affects.
While this is obviously Hilariously untrue, i interestingly enough have something like a 75% mwr against tron with an incredibly small sample size of like 8ish matches, so i can see a world where he forms that opinion
Prior to the probe ban this was most certainly true, infect didn't want this type of effect. In fact, they still don't, they want an effect that says "draw a card, look at your opponents hand" for 0 mana. They don't have that effect anymore, so naturally people running the deck are looking for replacements in the sub-optimal division. Would infect run Preordain now? Probably, but it is tough to argue that before any new list has put up any results, for all we know infect could settle into more pump spells/apostles blessing instead. The question we need to be asking ourselves are "would wotc unban Preordain into infect" and "would Preordain make infect too good if they did run it". I think the answers to that are yes, they would personally and also no, it wouldn't, but it is certainly up for debate
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
No, just no. This isn't the case.
Want to know what's already happening?
Here it is; you just slowed down all the fastest decks in the format - except Dredge. That's what just happened, and that's why the Golgari Grave-Troll ban is a complete mistake. Dredge 18 just became Dredge 15. That's all that you did to this deck. In Theory, you reduced it's bonkers draws by 17% percent, by reducing the cards they draw from Cathartic Reunion. I won't deny Dredge is really a bull***** mechanic at the end of the day, but having a 3/3 that comes into play for free, and can consistently return from the graveyard makes Frogmite look like more of a joke than it already is.
You still need serious graveyard hate. Dredge is the same 95% of the time, Infect got slightly worse, UR Prowess took a huge hit, and Suicide Zoo I haven't seen.
Stop nerfing decks. The banned list for a paper game shouldn't be taken the way it currently is. This isn't the game where you can use your stencil, it's either an axe or nothing.
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Sure.
As far as I can tell, some players are just salty that dredge is still permitted to exist at all.
edit: funny that I decided to remove everyone from ignore and the very first post effected reaffirms the need for the ignore list.
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
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
From what others said, our dredge consistancy rate went down from 79% to around 64%... that on its own is huge. The fact is, dredge is replacing those 4 cards with 4 worse ones to get 64%, then 2 more slots to bring it to 70%.
People belittling this nerf have no clue what they're talking about. We lost 9% of consistency and 2 flex spots (meaning I lose 2 sideboard slots mind you). I also lose a win con, and a way to beat cage easily, making cage, super splashable hate card that also hates on other decks beside me, more or less unwinnable for me.
The deck was nerfed by a ton. Are we still tier 1? Likely if you dont pack grave hate, and/or dont draw it. But if you do were not playable. Just like in legacy.
Also you should be playing grave hate. Seriously, count the decks that use the grave (and library, thanks cage).
I very much agree the banlist should not be the policeman of the meta game, but people are writing off the dredge ban like it was nothing. And if we still do maintain enough % to be a tier 1 deck (which is also dependent on people not being dumb and taking out grave hate from their sides) we'll have to worry about another ban because people simply don't like dredge.
Flat out, the ban makes dredge fairer, in sameish way as affinity. We are slower, can be dealt with easily by grave hate from the side, and we can lose to ourselves very easily. If dredge is tier 1 still, its because its a good deck, not because its broken.
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
EDIT: Just realized they hold those tournaments daily, so it's actually about 5 tournaments, though I'm pretty sure my point still stands
Modern:
UWUW Control
UBRGrixis Shadow
URIzzet Phoenix
Frontier: UBR Grixis Control | BRG Jund Delirium
You literally took what I said, quoted it, then changed the wording and meaning of the quote in your first sentence, and somehow missed the point at the same time. What I was saying with all of those examples is WotC has yet to clearly define what they want this format to look like. They do have a problem with Ramp in the Cloudpost form and the nuisance that Eldrazi was thanks to Eye of Ugin, yet the 'feel-bads' about Tron has been allowed to stay, albeit begrudgingly. Tron can still, even now, clean up in g1, then take g2 before the 3 and 4cc hate cards remove their primary strategy. Now, that's not to say that Tron should be banned, as a matter of fact I'm 100% opposed to banning based on words like 'feeling' and 'dislike' as opposed to 'format-warping', 'stifling', 'difficult to answer' or 'over-represented'.
I hope I clarified my position better, because that one line was not only taken out of context but you answered a question/argument I never asked.
Here is the exact quote from the announcement
I completely understand what you are saying Lantern, my large issue at hand is that it's a deck that has just received a ban in light of violations, and it's still succeeding in those violations noted. You still need probably the same amount of Graveyard hate to stop the ridiculous turn 2-3 situations. It's just that turn 10 you may not need more tools to recover. So let's be honest, Dredge hasn't slown down at all, it's just less consistent. Are you willing to gamble? Probably not. So the situation ends up the same, you still pack a tremendous amount of Graveyard hate.
So we are back at a standstill, does Wizards intentionally lie to us? or are they just that stupid?
Your claim that it hasn't been slowed down has been refuted. Dredge is certainly slower now, and only time will tell if it slow enough to ease the SB tension.
I really don't understand how one can make the claims of the sort you are making, especially after they have been demonstrated to be either flat-out wrong, or without evidence.
Dredge is slowed down, and WotC and many players hope this will ease the SB tension created by the deck while it is in the top tiers. No one knows if this was enough, but we need evidence to determine that - which will be forthcoming if you could only stop the sky is falling rhetoric for a few weeks.
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
UBR Grixis Shadow UBR
UR Izzet Phoenix UR
UW UW Control UW
GB GB Rock GB
Commander
BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG
BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
Frontier: UBR Grixis Control | BRG Jund Delirium
No they are not, the new leagues are up, it doesn't take a statistician to look at the latest daily results and see Dredge still getting turn 3 kills.
I'm not considered old and outdated data, I'm looking at the deck in its current form.
It's not slower, it's less consistent, different issues.
But my post does answer your question. 12-Post gets banned because it's too powerful. Tron, which is not anywhere near as powerful, is spared. Trying to claim they have "yet to clearly define what they want this format to look like" (at least in regards to this specific case) is silly because 12-Post got banned because it was too good at what it did. Tron, which is not as powerful, is apparently at an acceptable power level.
As for the Eldrazi, comparing the single most dominant deck in the format's history with a deck that tends to be in the 3-5% area is just plain silly.
There are certainly a number of criticisms that one can aim at Wizards of the Coast in regards to their handling of the Modern banned list as well as alleged dissonances in what's banned or what isn't banned, but this is not one of them. There is no disconnect or dissonance or additional need to "define" things in regards to 12-Post and Eldrazi being banned but Tron not being banned. The first two are significantly more powerful than the latter, so it makes perfect sense for them to get bans while Tron doesn't.