if death shadow eats a ban, i think that it would be the last nail in the coffin, i mean, i see shadow jund like bant eldrazi, they are really efficient "midrange" decks that can race non interactive decks with raw power (a common complain about modern is the power of non interactive strategies). You just cant ban things because they are good decks. It's like the old cardboard crack comic when the people were cheering for their deck to lose at the pro tour afraid of bannings
If DS Jund sustained a 20% share across the format, that would be Pod, TC Delver, and DRS BGx territory and it would eat a ban. I guess I'm comfortable with that if it was over a long period of time. The big issue is that Legacy has a very similar deck consistently pushing 15%-20% (Miracles), and Wizards never touches it. Modern would be better off with this kind of hands-off approach to bans.
If Wizards is going to keep banning cards, I hope they are small cuts like Probe/GGT and not archetype-killers like Twin, or thinking about current cards people want banned in this thread, Opal, SSG, Death's Shadow/Traverse, Temple, etc. And honestly, it would be so much better from a marketing and management perspective to ADD to the format rather than subtract. People get super excited about unbans, reprints, and new cards. Bans just lead to the Cardboard Crack scenario in event after event; it's not sustainable for non-rotating formats.
Legacy and Modern are two very different formats. One is founded on the assumption that it will always be accessible. Modern prices skyrocket and create a barrier to entry? Wizards pulls the trigger on fetchlands AT RARE in MMA. They can do that! And they have just shown us that they are willing to. Compare this policy with the reserved list in Legacy, which is literally the opposite idea and prevents them from doting on the format like they do on Modern.
Wizards just doesn't seem to care about what happens in Legacy much. By this I mean they are indifferent about decks sustaining 15% shares over there, or a lack of color diversity. A format like Legacy is full of terrible decks, but people play what they like, so players are forced to respect the bad decks as well. That's what keeps Legacy as diverse as it is. Miracles is the best deck, followed by Shardless BUG and some combo strategies. Realistically, there are only ~6 viable/optimized decks in the format. But Legacy will never "solve" itself to that totality for the reason that Wizards doesn't showcase it on the big stage. There's no incentive to break Legacy, or to accentuate its growth.
There's a bigger incentive to break Modern, which is what we just saw Josh & co. do at GP Vancouver. Before that weekend, Death's Shadow Jund had a paltry 2% share (or something), even though the deck was tearing it up online. The pros tried the deck in the first place because they saw it perform so well online. Now that it's higher-profile, the format's growth has been sped up. "Here's a deck that's better than most of the field. We could have made last month, but just didn't know about it." Well, now that everyone does, Modern is a much faster format and the metagame has shifted radically.
If Wizards is going to take care of Modern and make sure it keeps growing and holding on to players, they can't be as laissez-faire as they are with Legacy. They need to sustain format interest and address player needs directly. That's why they have different guidelines for Modern than they do for Legacy, including one that appears to be to promptly remove decks that violate diversity issues via bans, the fastest and most reliable way to nerf a deck and "reset" the format so that it must be broken again.
Their problem IMO is that there is a little bit too much incentive, still, to break Modern. For one, it's supported a good deal more than Legacy at the tournament scene, even with Wizards' recently-announced changes. Pros and format connoisseurs have a large and accessible stage on which to discover and showcase Modern's blind spots. Second, Modern is just crazy fun. People love it. It has more players than any other format and that's not even close. It's growing in size. That means more third-party tournaments on the horizon, more pros dedicating time to figuring out Modern, more players grinding online leagues and solving the format in the most efficient way possible (with raw, plentiful data).
Given this issue, unless Wizards changes the way they do things, there will be more bans. Lots more bans. Allowing the format to smooth itself out just doesn't jive with their goal for Modern, though. Personally, I'm glad they're considering alternatives to all the bans, including making MTGO data private. I agree that this would go a long way towards slowing down how fast Modern can be solved, even if it may be unfortunate for you to have a little less data to tinker around with. To that I say the same thing I say to the guy with the foil Grave-Trolls: it's for the greater good of the format.
Two quick notes on unbans. First: Wizards turns to bans because, again, they provide the most efficient way of resetting a format. There's a very strong chance that with a deck hovering around 14% (i.e. DSJ, Dredge), unbanning a card like Jace or SFM just won't do anything. And then they'll have to step in and ban something anyway to stop the problem they meant to address. And now suddenly Jace/SFM is legal in this new, post-ban format and things could turn out badly, which would be a PR nightmare. It's not worth it for them to take the risk.
Second: Modern is a place for Standard cards and strategies to migrate after rotation (Where Modern Goes from Here). It's tough for, say, blue planeswalkers to make it to Modern from Standard if JTMS is legal. That goal is better served by leaving the most powerful cards on the banlist and then using the design space opened up to produce interesting cards in Standard, some of which will shine in Modern and end up altering the format (Fatal Push, Traverse) and some of which, of course, won't (Rending Volley).
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
I am a Jund player through and through, I was casting Spiritmonger and Pernicious Deed in tournaments before you all bought your first booster pack, so take it from me; Modern won't be healthy until Jund is Tier 2. The reason Jund has always stayed near Tier 1, is because of it's efficient creatures and efficient removal. Thoughtseize is great, but you can't claim that most decks don't care about facing Lightning Bolt, Tarmogoyf, & Terminate. Blue isn't the only color that needs desperate help, the entire Sorcery and Instant category of the Modern format needs help.
When all you people who claim Jund needs to be the defining feature and pillar of the format for comparison. When that goes away, you will realize the fundamental problems Modern has. You will then realize why cards like Seat of the Synod, Bloodbraid Elf, and Stoneforge Mystic being on the banned list is a complete joke.
When you all stop thinking Jund needs to be king, and how Jund reacts compared to everything in sight, that's when Modern will finally get fixed.
Well Jund needs to be king because the deck costs the most dollars. Why do you think people want Blue to be a good color? 3 of the Power 9 are Blue cards. None of them are Red, Black, White or Green. Blue has a precedent of "must be good" because of the price tag on cards associated with that color.
You've yet to answer or justify any of your rationale or argument that Sheridan asked you to clarify. You're not fostering discussion, it sounds like ultimatums.
I have aswered all of his points several times before. why dont you ask me some arguments? ill gladly dispute them
You have dodged my main argument (and several other arguments) multiple times. Let's focus on the main one: The only deck that has a legitimately bad big mana matchup is reactive blue. It's close to 35-65 or 40-60. The historic underdog to big mana, BGx, manages to keep this matchup closer to 45-55 or even 50-50. Given this situation, why on earth would you focus on big mana being the problem? If your goal is to reduce the number of swingy matchups, why not improve blue so it can get closer to the 45-55 matchup that BGx enjoys? Banning big mana just means BGx loses its natural predator and becomes a 50-50 or better deck across the format. Improving blue means that BGx keeps its natural predator and now reactive blue can compete alongside it.
Well Jund needs to be king because the deck costs the most dollars. Why do you think people want Blue to be a good color? 3 of the Power 9 are Blue cards. None of them are Red, Black, White or Green. Blue has a precedent of "must be good" because of the price tag on cards associated with that color.
I can't tell if you're serious. If serious, your assertion that "people want Blue to be a good [...] because of the price tag on cards" is somewhat offensive and totally out to lunch. Please provide evidence of this claim or retract it.
I like the colour blue because I like the play patterns - I'd prefer if the cards were cheaper so I didn't have to spend as much for the playstyle that I prefer.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
Well Jund needs to be king because the deck costs the most dollars. Why do you think people want Blue to be a good color? 3 of the Power 9 are Blue cards. None of them are Red, Black, White or Green. Blue has a precedent of "must be good" because of the price tag on cards associated with that color.
I can't tell if you're serious. If serious, your assertion that "people want Blue to be a good [...] because of the price tag on cards" is somewhat offensive and totally out to lunch. Please provide evidence of this claim or retract it.
I like the colour blue because I like the play patterns - I'd prefer if the cards were cheaper so I didn't have to spend as much for the playstyle that I prefer.
Don't respond to him. Trolls win when you respond. Just ignore him until he either gets bored or they finally boot him forever
Public Mod Note
(ktkenshinx):
Infraction for trolling -ktkenshinx-
I actually do want to play modern fyi. this game could use alot of improvement however.
I believe, 'this game could use a lot of improvement' is an opinion.
I further believe if you where honest with yourself you would see that...no you dont want to play Modern. You want to play Modern within your own self constructed framework of what is, and is not, fair or the 'right kind of fun'.
You want certain portions of Modern to die, so you can have what you want. Thats not wanting to play Modern.
or maybe you need to raise your bar of your expectations. as your opinion on the format being fine is also an opinion.
Well, my opinion has some basis in reality.
Is the meta in paper diverse? Yeah.
Is the format able to pull viewers over any other? Yeah.
Other than reactive blue (that I've campaigned for to help via twin, Jace, preordained) there are no fundamental issues in the format.
Fast combo is possible, but not stable, mid-range thrives, aggro thrives, big mana thrives.
We have decks that are unique, that depend on, yes, broken cards. To remove those cards to cultivate the format in our favour is wrong.
I just tire Grishoalbrand together again on MTGO, it's hilarious. Draw your deck and some the guy with lands.
Why not?!?
Play the format, enjoy it if you can, but there are fundamentally broken mechanics that are not overpowering, and those are part of the format.
"my opinion has some basis in reality."
linear decks dominate this game
polarizing decks in top tiers vs entire archtypes is toxic to a skillful metagame
blue reactive decks need huge help right now and twin is our best bet.
big mana/fast mana decks stifle fair decks
The only thing I can agree with is that big mana dumps all over us as reactive blue.
It's a horrible match up, I'm close to just giving up on.
Fast mana, is not an issue I find, neither are linear decks.
Wasteland needs to be printed in a Standard legal set. Maindecking Pithing Needle (naming Wasteland) should be the price to pay for cheating mana in a format like Modern. Land hate in Modern has so much drawback or it's not effective at all.
You've yet to answer or justify any of your rationale or argument that Sheridan asked you to clarify. You're not fostering discussion, it sounds like ultimatums.
I have aswered all of his points several times before. why dont you ask me some arguments? ill gladly dispute them
You have dodged my main argument (and several other arguments) multiple times. Let's focus on the main one: The only deck that has a legitimately bad big mana matchup is reactive blue. It's close to 35-65 or 40-60. The historic underdog to big mana, BGx, manages to keep this matchup closer to 45-55 or even 50-50. Given this situation, why on earth would you focus on big mana being the problem? If your goal is to reduce the number of swingy matchups, why not improve blue so it can get closer to the 45-55 matchup that BGx enjoys? Banning big mana just means BGx loses its natural predator and becomes a 50-50 or better deck across the format. Improving blue means that BGx keeps its natural predator and now reactive blue can compete alongside it.
"The only deck that has a legitimately bad big mana matchup is reactive blue"
this is where I disagree, I actually think abzan coco is another good example of a deck that has tier 1 potential, yet not in this big mana meta game.
"The historic underdog to big mana, BGx, manages to keep this matchup closer to 45-55 or even 50-50"
I disagree with these numbers, do you have winrate stats your not sharing maybe?
also, I dislike the comparison of 2 completely different decks/archtypes, blue reactive decks simply are not as proactive.
"If your goal is to reduce the number of swingy matchups, why not improve blue so it can get closer to the 45-55 matchup that BGx enjoys"
but what helps blue in these swingy matchups? I doubt preordain jace, or even sfm are going to bode well vs valakut, tron, or eldrazi.
"Banning big mana just means BGx loses its natural predator and becomes a 50-50 or better deck across the format"
ive got a grixis av deck that says otherwise, as well as an abzan coco deck. id be happy with bg/x as the best deck in modern( coming from a blue player)
Wasteland needs to be printed in a Standard legal set. Maindecking Pithing Needle (naming Wasteland) should be the price to pay for cheating mana in a format like Modern. Land hate in Modern has so much drawback or it's not effective at all.
If not straight up wasteland, something like a either a waste that has an activation cost of 1, or one that draws your opponent a card when you use it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy
Death and Taxes Pauper
UB Teachings
Tortured Existence
Murasa Tron Modern
Pod (RIP)
Bloom(RIP)
Merfolk
Interestingly, the MTGO league results were not published to its usual spot today. Nevertheless, if you use the previous day's article's url and substitute feb 28 for feb 27, the article does exist.
Maybe this happens from time to time, but I wonder if not publishing any results for Feb 28 is intentional - this move was recently signaled, after all.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
From a gameplay perspective, I don't really care that the colors are represented evenly across the best decks. The important part is that enough interactive elements exist for good games to occur that do not just involve non-interactive decks racing each other to the finish.
Are these elements currently available? Yes. Discard, creature removal, artifact, enchantment, and land removal, prison and taxing effects. It just so happens that the best cards in this category happen to be in colors other than blue. Blue has counterspells, tapping down effects, and bouncing effects, but these tend to be weaker or less efficient in modern than other forms of interaction the other colors have.
All we really need is one very good counterspell to be introduced into modern and that should incentivize the draw-go counterspell strategy to be strong. Yes I know this is something wizards has stated that newer players do not particularly enjoy playing against, but the reaction to this statement from blue control lovers has been strong enough that they are likely willing to reconsider.
Expect to see a strong counterspell in the near future in the same way that we got Fatal Push: good enough for standard, but especially powerful in modern. Maybe a converted mana cost matters stipulation since modern tends to have a much lower overall curve. Maybe they decide Counterspell is fine in standard after all and that happens to be enough to help out the strategy. I don't know. But looking at the data, yes blue-based control decks similar to legacy Miracles has historically been very weak in modern and I do believe they have something in store for us counterspell lovers. Expect it soon, following on the coattails of fatal push
RE Land Destruction:
We all know that Wasteland has 0% chance to be printed in standard due to mana screw issues and new players hating that. How about a Wasteland that enters the battlefield tapped? Still too strong? Significantly fewer decks would want to splash for that card, but it seems like it could be effective against big mana. How about a wasteland that has the Battleland restriction: requiring you to control 2 or more basic lands? Could enough decks use that to make it relevant?
WOTC were absolute fools for not making the counterspell version of Fatal push
Something along the lines of a 2 mana spell, "counter target spell that cmc cost is 2 or less. If a permanent left the battlefield this turn, counter that target spell instead"
I have no clue how WOTC didn't catch this, it completely negates standard from having a reliable and powerful catch all while improving modern. Wasted opportunity
WOTC were absolute fools for not making the counterspell version of Fatal push
Something along the lines of a 2 mana spell, "counter target spell that cmc cost is 2 or less. If a permanent left the battlefield this turn, counter that target spell instead"
I have no clue how WOTC didn't catch this, it completely negates standard from having a reliable and powerful catch all while improving modern. Wasted opportunity
UU
Counter a non-something spell could work, as a strictly worse counterspell.
If we return to a multicolored block, it could be "non-multicolored" which would include all monocolored spells as well as colorless.
If we return to an enchantment block, it could be "non-enchantment" spell.
Other examples: "non-legendary", "non-planeswalker"
Many options which would be perfectly acceptable given the block it is printed in and which would be very close in power level to counterspell to be modern playable.
What if we have a negate that checks lands or available mana and if your opponent has more than you it becomes counterspell?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern GB Rock U Flooding Merfolk RUG Delver Midrange WU Monks UW Tempo Geist GW Bogle GW Liege UR Tron B Vampires
Affinity Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity EDH W Akroma GBW Ghave BRU Thrax GR Ruric I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
I have no clue how WOTC didn't catch this, it completely negates standard from having a reliable and powerful catch all while improving modern. Wasted opportunity
Remember, this is the same design, R&D, and testing team that didn't catch Saheeli Rai + Felidar Guardian...
WOTC were absolute fools for not making the counterspell version of Fatal push
Something along the lines of a 2 mana spell, "counter target spell that cmc cost is 2 or less. If a permanent left the battlefield this turn, counter that target spell instead"
I have no clue how WOTC didn't catch this, it completely negates standard from having a reliable and powerful catch all while improving modern. Wasted opportunity
I agree and said that from day one when push was spoiled. I'd prefer the regular counter be at 3cmc though so when you're on the draw it is still useful.
Wasteland needs to be printed in a Standard legal set. Maindecking Pithing Needle (naming Wasteland) should be the price to pay for cheating mana in a format like Modern. Land hate in Modern has so much drawback or it's not effective at all.
Good luck with that. Wizards HATES land removal in the current day and age. They don't even print stone rains anymore. Land hate has been reduced to cards like Crumble to dust.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
On mtgsalvation people don't want to discuss ideas, so I give people something else to discuss: my controversial opinions.
if death shadow eats a ban, i think that it would be the last nail in the coffin, i mean, i see shadow jund like bant eldrazi, they are really efficient "midrange" decks that can race non interactive decks with raw power (a common complain about modern is the power of non interactive strategies). You just cant ban things because they are good decks. It's like the old cardboard crack comic when the people were cheering for their deck to lose at the pro tour afraid of bannings
If DS Jund sustained a 20% share across the format, that would be Pod, TC Delver, and DRS BGx territory and it would eat a ban. I guess I'm comfortable with that if it was over a long period of time. The big issue is that Legacy has a very similar deck consistently pushing 15%-20% (Miracles), and Wizards never touches it. Modern would be better off with this kind of hands-off approach to bans.
If Wizards is going to keep banning cards, I hope they are small cuts like Probe/GGT and not archetype-killers like Twin, or thinking about current cards people want banned in this thread, Opal, SSG, Death's Shadow/Traverse, Temple, etc. And honestly, it would be so much better from a marketing and management perspective to ADD to the format rather than subtract. People get super excited about unbans, reprints, and new cards. Bans just lead to the Cardboard Crack scenario in event after event; it's not sustainable for non-rotating formats.
Legacy and Modern are two very different formats. One is founded on the assumption that it will always be accessible. Modern prices skyrocket and create a barrier to entry? Wizards pulls the trigger on fetchlands AT RARE in MMA. They can do that! And they have just shown us that they are willing to. Compare this policy with the reserved list in Legacy, which is literally the opposite idea and prevents them from doting on the format like they do on Modern.
Wizards just doesn't seem to care about what happens in Legacy much. By this I mean they are indifferent about decks sustaining 15% shares over there, or a lack of color diversity. A format like Legacy is full of terrible decks, but people play what they like, so players are forced to respect the bad decks as well. That's what keeps Legacy as diverse as it is. Miracles is the best deck, followed by Shardless BUG and some combo strategies. Realistically, there are only ~6 viable/optimized decks in the format. But Legacy will never "solve" itself to that totality for the reason that Wizards doesn't showcase it on the big stage. There's no incentive to break Legacy, or to accentuate its growth.
There's a bigger incentive to break Modern, which is what we just saw Josh & co. do at GP Vancouver. Before that weekend, Death's Shadow Jund had a paltry 2% share (or something), even though the deck was tearing it up online. The pros tried the deck in the first place because they saw it perform so well online. Now that it's higher-profile, the format's growth has been sped up. "Here's a deck that's better than most of the field. We could have made last month, but just didn't know about it." Well, now that everyone does, Modern is a much faster format and the metagame has shifted radically.
If Wizards is going to take care of Modern and make sure it keeps growing and holding on to players, they can't be as laissez-faire as they are with Legacy. They need to sustain format interest and address player needs directly. That's why they have different guidelines for Modern than they do for Legacy, including one that appears to be to promptly remove decks that violate diversity issues via bans, the fastest and most reliable way to nerf a deck and "reset" the format so that it must be broken again.
Their problem IMO is that there is a little bit too much incentive, still, to break Modern. For one, it's supported a good deal more than Legacy at the tournament scene, even with Wizards' recently-announced changes. Pros and format connoisseurs have a large and accessible stage on which to discover and showcase Modern's blind spots. Second, Modern is just crazy fun. People love it. It has more players than any other format and that's not even close. It's growing in size. That means more third-party tournaments on the horizon, more pros dedicating time to figuring out Modern, more players grinding online leagues and solving the format in the most efficient way possible (with raw, plentiful data).
Given this issue, unless Wizards changes the way they do things, there will be more bans. Lots more bans. Allowing the format to smooth itself out just doesn't jive with their goal for Modern, though. Personally, I'm glad they're considering alternatives to all the bans, including making MTGO data private. I agree that this would go a long way towards slowing down how fast Modern can be solved, even if it may be unfortunate for you to have a little less data to tinker around with. To that I say the same thing I say to the guy with the foil Grave-Trolls: it's for the greater good of the format.
Two quick notes on unbans. First: Wizards turns to bans because, again, they provide the most efficient way of resetting a format. There's a very strong chance that with a deck hovering around 14% (i.e. DSJ, Dredge), unbanning a card like Jace or SFM just won't do anything. And then they'll have to step in and ban something anyway to stop the problem they meant to address. And now suddenly Jace/SFM is legal in this new, post-ban format and things could turn out badly, which would be a PR nightmare. It's not worth it for them to take the risk.
Second: Modern is a place for Standard cards and strategies to migrate after rotation (Where Modern Goes from Here). It's tough for, say, blue planeswalkers to make it to Modern from Standard if JTMS is legal. That goal is better served by leaving the most powerful cards on the banlist and then using the design space opened up to produce interesting cards in Standard, some of which will shine in Modern and end up altering the format (Fatal Push, Traverse) and some of which, of course, won't (Rending Volley).
That really isn't a good argument against unbanning Jace. What blue planeswalkers other than Jace, Vryn's Prodigy (which would have been viable even with jace in the format and sees little play today) and Jace, Architect of Thought (which sees barely any play) are even remotely playable in Modern? in fact, what planeswalkers see a significant amount of play in Modern other than Liliana of the Veil and Karn Liberated?
Please don't take what I said out of context. I'm not arguing against a Jace unban. My post merely explains why I believe Wizards goes first to bans to fix Modern and not to unbans, and why they actually only unban cards in times of relative stability. Whether you agree with them, or agree with me about what I perceive their thought process to be, is another issue.
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
Please don't take what I said out of context. I'm not arguing against a Jace unban. My post merely explains why I believe Wizards goes first to bans to fix Modern and not to unbans, and why they actually only unban cards in times of relative stability. Whether you agree with them, or agree with me about what I perceive their thought process to be, is another issue.
Sorry, I didn't mean to take your post out of context.
its not just jund in which i am talking about. there are lof of fair decks that cannot beat the current big/fast mana strategies in this format.
You present an extreme bias against these strategies in this thread. It's so extreme that many people believe you are just trying to improve your own strategies (those in your signature) at the expense of other strategies you personally dislike. Generally speaking, people that rail against big mana decks don't even consider how many other players play and enjoy these four major top-tier options: RG Valakut variants, Gx Tron variants, Bant Eldrazi, and Eldrazi Tron. Add Eldrazi and Taxes to that list, if we're talking about Temple decks. A good chunk of Modern plays these strategies and enjoys them, so the burden for killing any number of these decks to hypothetically open space to other strategies is very high.
Historically, when you kill a top-tier deck to open up space, only a few of the "opened" decks actually excel. See the Twin ban, which opened up a lot of space in theory, but in practice just allowed a few decks to rise to the top (Infect, DSZ, and Dredge). All the other decks which many said were suppressed by Twin were still bad in the post-Twin metagame.
Posts like yours represent a classic level of ban mania. You have invented an issue (a wide range of fair decks struggle) and then invented a solution that is ban-related (ban the decks that beat your preferred strategies). Even if this was an issue, which I'm not convinced it is, there are many non-ban ways to solve and address it. By immediately turning to bans and by building the issue in a ban context, you're perpetuating the same kind of ban mania which pushes many away from the format and leads to an overall hostile Modern climate.
Just to illustrate this point further, please list the fair strategies you think will suddenly excel in a post-big mana Modern.
"A good chunk of Modern plays these strategies and enjoys them, so the burden for killing any number of these decks to hypothetically open space to other strategies is very high."
wasn't the pod ban to open up more creature strategies?
"You have invented an issue (a wide range of fair decks struggle)
did i though? am i not right?
there is too much "rock" in this rock paper scissors meta game imo
Scissors, is that you?
A big mana ban is not going to help the format. BGx is doing fine and we're one counterspell variant away from blue control being a consistently strong contender. Modern is doing great right now and is only going to get better (unless WotC decides to bring out the band-aids for the perceived bullet wound in Blue).
Wizards just doesn't seem to care about what happens in Legacy much. By this I mean they are indifferent about decks sustaining 15% shares over there, or a lack of color diversity. A format like Legacy is full of terrible decks, but people play what they like, so players are forced to respect the bad decks as well. That's what keeps Legacy as diverse as it is. Miracles is the best deck, followed by Shardless BUG and some combo strategies. Realistically, there are only ~6 viable/optimized decks in the format. But Legacy will never "solve" itself to that totality for the reason that Wizards doesn't showcase it on the big stage. There's no incentive to break Legacy, or to accentuate its growth.
There's a bigger incentive to break Modern, which is what we just saw Josh & co. do at GP Vancouver. Before that weekend, Death's Shadow Jund had a paltry 2% share (or something), even though the deck was tearing it up online. The pros tried the deck in the first place because they saw it perform so well online. Now that it's higher-profile, the format's growth has been sped up. "Here's a deck that's better than most of the field. We could have made last month, but just didn't know about it." Well, now that everyone does, Modern is a much faster format and the metagame has shifted radically.
If Wizards is going to take care of Modern and make sure it keeps growing and holding on to players, they can't be as laissez-faire as they are with Legacy. They need to sustain format interest and address player needs directly. That's why they have different guidelines for Modern than they do for Legacy, including one that appears to be to promptly remove decks that violate diversity issues via bans, the fastest and most reliable way to nerf a deck and "reset" the format so that it must be broken again.
Their problem IMO is that there is a little bit too much incentive, still, to break Modern. For one, it's supported a good deal more than Legacy at the tournament scene, even with Wizards' recently-announced changes. Pros and format connoisseurs have a large and accessible stage on which to discover and showcase Modern's blind spots. Second, Modern is just crazy fun. People love it. It has more players than any other format and that's not even close. It's growing in size. That means more third-party tournaments on the horizon, more pros dedicating time to figuring out Modern, more players grinding online leagues and solving the format in the most efficient way possible (with raw, plentiful data).
Given this issue, unless Wizards changes the way they do things, there will be more bans. Lots more bans. Allowing the format to smooth itself out just doesn't jive with their goal for Modern, though. Personally, I'm glad they're considering alternatives to all the bans, including making MTGO data private. I agree that this would go a long way towards slowing down how fast Modern can be solved, even if it may be unfortunate for you to have a little less data to tinker around with. To that I say the same thing I say to the guy with the foil Grave-Trolls: it's for the greater good of the format.
Two quick notes on unbans. First: Wizards turns to bans because, again, they provide the most efficient way of resetting a format. There's a very strong chance that with a deck hovering around 14% (i.e. DSJ, Dredge), unbanning a card like Jace or SFM just won't do anything. And then they'll have to step in and ban something anyway to stop the problem they meant to address. And now suddenly Jace/SFM is legal in this new, post-ban format and things could turn out badly, which would be a PR nightmare. It's not worth it for them to take the risk.
Second: Modern is a place for Standard cards and strategies to migrate after rotation (Where Modern Goes from Here). It's tough for, say, blue planeswalkers to make it to Modern from Standard if JTMS is legal. That goal is better served by leaving the most powerful cards on the banlist and then using the design space opened up to produce interesting cards in Standard, some of which will shine in Modern and end up altering the format (Fatal Push, Traverse) and some of which, of course, won't (Rending Volley).
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
Well Jund needs to be king because the deck costs the most dollars. Why do you think people want Blue to be a good color? 3 of the Power 9 are Blue cards. None of them are Red, Black, White or Green. Blue has a precedent of "must be good" because of the price tag on cards associated with that color.
again, you dont ask questons yourself
decks playing:
none
Let's try this again.
I like the colour blue because I like the play patterns - I'd prefer if the cards were cheaper so I didn't have to spend as much for the playstyle that I prefer.
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
Don't respond to him. Trolls win when you respond. Just ignore him until he either gets bored or they finally boot him forever
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
The only thing I can agree with is that big mana dumps all over us as reactive blue.
It's a horrible match up, I'm close to just giving up on.
Fast mana, is not an issue I find, neither are linear decks.
Tron though, is hell to me.
Spirits
DSJund, Jund, Abzan, Company, Bant Eldrazi, and Eldrazi Tron are not "linear" decks, and they are pretty relevant in the current metagame.
"The only deck that has a legitimately bad big mana matchup is reactive blue"
this is where I disagree, I actually think abzan coco is another good example of a deck that has tier 1 potential, yet not in this big mana meta game.
"The historic underdog to big mana, BGx, manages to keep this matchup closer to 45-55 or even 50-50"
I disagree with these numbers, do you have winrate stats your not sharing maybe?
also, I dislike the comparison of 2 completely different decks/archtypes, blue reactive decks simply are not as proactive.
"If your goal is to reduce the number of swingy matchups, why not improve blue so it can get closer to the 45-55 matchup that BGx enjoys"
but what helps blue in these swingy matchups? I doubt preordain jace, or even sfm are going to bode well vs valakut, tron, or eldrazi.
"Banning big mana just means BGx loses its natural predator and becomes a 50-50 or better deck across the format"
ive got a grixis av deck that says otherwise, as well as an abzan coco deck. id be happy with bg/x as the best deck in modern( coming from a blue player)
decks playing:
none
look at the big picture and you will see this game is 2/3 linear atm
decks playing:
none
If not straight up wasteland, something like a either a waste that has an activation cost of 1, or one that draws your opponent a card when you use it.
Death and Taxes
Pauper
UB Teachings
Tortured Existence
Murasa Tron
Modern
Pod (RIP)
Bloom(RIP)
Merfolk
Maybe this happens from time to time, but I wonder if not publishing any results for Feb 28 is intentional - this move was recently signaled, after all.
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
From a gameplay perspective, I don't really care that the colors are represented evenly across the best decks. The important part is that enough interactive elements exist for good games to occur that do not just involve non-interactive decks racing each other to the finish.
Are these elements currently available? Yes. Discard, creature removal, artifact, enchantment, and land removal, prison and taxing effects. It just so happens that the best cards in this category happen to be in colors other than blue. Blue has counterspells, tapping down effects, and bouncing effects, but these tend to be weaker or less efficient in modern than other forms of interaction the other colors have.
All we really need is one very good counterspell to be introduced into modern and that should incentivize the draw-go counterspell strategy to be strong. Yes I know this is something wizards has stated that newer players do not particularly enjoy playing against, but the reaction to this statement from blue control lovers has been strong enough that they are likely willing to reconsider.
Expect to see a strong counterspell in the near future in the same way that we got Fatal Push: good enough for standard, but especially powerful in modern. Maybe a converted mana cost matters stipulation since modern tends to have a much lower overall curve. Maybe they decide Counterspell is fine in standard after all and that happens to be enough to help out the strategy. I don't know. But looking at the data, yes blue-based control decks similar to legacy Miracles has historically been very weak in modern and I do believe they have something in store for us counterspell lovers. Expect it soon, following on the coattails of fatal push
RE Land Destruction:
We all know that Wasteland has 0% chance to be printed in standard due to mana screw issues and new players hating that. How about a Wasteland that enters the battlefield tapped? Still too strong? Significantly fewer decks would want to splash for that card, but it seems like it could be effective against big mana. How about a wasteland that has the Battleland restriction: requiring you to control 2 or more basic lands? Could enough decks use that to make it relevant?
Something along the lines of a 2 mana spell, "counter target spell that cmc cost is 2 or less. If a permanent left the battlefield this turn, counter that target spell instead"
I have no clue how WOTC didn't catch this, it completely negates standard from having a reliable and powerful catch all while improving modern. Wasted opportunity
UU
Counter a non-something spell could work, as a strictly worse counterspell.
If we return to a multicolored block, it could be "non-multicolored" which would include all monocolored spells as well as colorless.
If we return to an enchantment block, it could be "non-enchantment" spell.
Other examples: "non-legendary", "non-planeswalker"
Many options which would be perfectly acceptable given the block it is printed in and which would be very close in power level to counterspell to be modern playable.
GB Rock
U Flooding Merfolk
RUG Delver Midrange
WU Monks
UW Tempo Geist
GW Bogle
GW Liege
UR Tron
B Vampires
Affinity
Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity
EDH
W Akroma
GBW Ghave
BRU Thrax
GR Ruric
I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
Remember, this is the same design, R&D, and testing team that didn't catch Saheeli Rai + Felidar Guardian...
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I agree and said that from day one when push was spoiled. I'd prefer the regular counter be at 3cmc though so when you're on the draw it is still useful.
Good luck with that. Wizards HATES land removal in the current day and age. They don't even print stone rains anymore. Land hate has been reduced to cards like Crumble to dust.
Decks I'm playing in Modern right now:
URB Grixis Reveler (http://www.mtgvault.com/supast4r7/decks/modern-grixis-reveler/)
UB Faeries (http://www.mtgvault.com/supast4r7/decks/ub-fae-2/)
UW Azorious Control (http://www.mtgvault.com/supast4r7/decks/modern-ojutai-control-2/)
Love it. A counterspell that becomes stronger on the draw than the play is exactly what modern needs.
There's a lot of design space around this sort of stipulation which we need to see more of
That really isn't a good argument against unbanning Jace. What blue planeswalkers other than Jace, Vryn's Prodigy (which would have been viable even with jace in the format and sees little play today) and Jace, Architect of Thought (which sees barely any play) are even remotely playable in Modern? in fact, what planeswalkers see a significant amount of play in Modern other than Liliana of the Veil and Karn Liberated?
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
Sorry, I didn't mean to take your post out of context.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Scissors, is that you?
A big mana ban is not going to help the format. BGx is doing fine and we're one counterspell variant away from blue control being a consistently strong contender. Modern is doing great right now and is only going to get better (unless WotC decides to bring out the band-aids for the perceived bullet wound in Blue).