1. No Changes (most likely)
Wizards has been figuring out Standard and hasn't had time to jump into Modern. The format is mostly fine so they have dedicated resources to the Standard ban, not fixing one element of an otherwise great format. If we get "No changes" today, we'll get an unban by July.
2. Unban JTMS (possible, but not probable)
JTMS directly slots into controlling blue decks while also passing the common sense unbanning test. In limited testing, this card would not look very strong, which is the kind of testing Wizards does.
3. Unban Preordain (great idea, but not even likely)
Preordain helps the widest range of blue decks and addresses all of blue's issues including inability to find answers and inability to close out a game quickly. That said, I don't think Preordain fits the common sense, gut instinct unbanning test, especially with Ad Nauseam performing well in recent events.
WOTC had decided that Counterspell is bad for the game long before Modern was a thing. Which is a good thing -- you know how Modern was widely considered a "bolt format" to the extent that most top decks are pidgeonholed into red? Counterspell Standard/Extended were like this, except ten times worse.
For the benefit of post year 2000 players, I do not agree with the bolded part. I played during Counterspell Standard and Extended and there were plenty of non-blue decks. It does matter which Standard you think back to however. If you're remembering Urza's block, blue decks were some of the strongest but it wasn't Counterspell's doing. It was because cards like Mind Over Matter and Tolarian Academy are broken beyond belief.
Think back to Onslaught standard for example. This format was much healthier and included Counterspell. There were many non-blue strategies that were dominant, many archetypes represented and gameplay varied from game to game very well.
My memory of Counterspell in Standard and Extended is that it was merely a fine answer to any kind of threat as a reactive control deck, which helps you exist because otherwise it's hard to deal with a multitude of card types. It isn't free either. You have to hold double blue up and if something resolves while your shields are down, you risk drawing into reactive countermagic instead of hard answers. Counterspell wasn't so strong that it was play it or bust.
The real reason Counterspell is not in Modern is because 8th edition was chosen as the starting point and WotC's current design philosophy for Standard makes Counterspell look like a piece of Power. The formats Counterspell was legal in were more powerful than the new-player friendly Standards of today so Counterspell merely became an answer card alongside the likes of Terror, Wrath of God and Smother.
WOTC had decided that Counterspell is bad for the game long before Modern was a thing. Which is a good thing -- you know how Modern was widely considered a "bolt format" to the extent that most top decks are pidgeonholed into red? Counterspell Standard/Extended were like this, except ten times worse.
For the benefit of post year 2000 players, I do not agree with the bolded part. I played during Counterspell Standard and Extended and there were plenty of non-blue decks. It does matter which Standard you think back to however. If you're remembering Urza's block, blue decks were some of the strongest but it wasn't Counterspell's doing. It was because cards like Mind Over Matter and Tolarian Academy are broken beyond belief.
Think back to Onslaught standard for example. This format was much healthier and included Counterspell. There were many non-blue strategies that were dominant, many archetypes represented and gameplay varied from game to game very well.
My memory of Counterspell in Standard and Extended is that it was merely a fine answer to any kind of threat as a reactive control deck, which helps you exist because otherwise it's hard to deal with a multitude of card types. It isn't free either. You have to hold double blue up and if something resolves while your shields are down, you risk drawing into reactive countermagic instead of hard answers. Counterspell wasn't so strong that it was play it or bust.
The real reason Counterspell is not in Modern is because 8th edition was chosen as the starting point and WotC's current design philosophy for Standard makes Counterspell look like a piece of Power. The formats Counterspell was legal in were more powerful than the new-player friendly Standards of today so Counterspell merely became an answer card alongside the likes of Terror, Wrath of God and Smother.
The reason counterspell isnt in Modern is because they dont wish for any 2 cmc counters to come without any draw back. Double blue really isnt the drawback it use to be, especially in Modern. Look at all the 2 cmc counter in the format and they have a draw back of some type. They only hit creatures, or only non creature spells, or you have to return a land to your hand, or you need to control 3 or more artifacts.
Wotc doesnt want catch all counters without any drawbacks in the format. They dont want them in Standard anymore either. So old timers (I am one too) that wish to play that style of deck can play other older formats.
I caveat this as a thought experiment those pushing for Twin back and/or Jace; when GB/X decks were going the way of Dodo because of Dig, Cruise, Pod with Rhino, and then followed by Eldrazi Winter, if a GB/X players argued for a return of Elf (Deathrite and BloodBraid), GSZ or depending how you wanted to stretched it Punishing Fire. So they would get their proper meta share back. Would you have said "No to strong (Deathrite)", "Remove/Weaken X Archtype (Fire)" or "Homogenize Green Decks (GSZ)".
While admittedly GB/X never fell as low (hovering around 7-8 percent if you combined Abzan and Jund) as (Reactive/'Control') U/X is now (which is I believe noted earlier to be around 4-6 percent depending on catorgization. More if we count Delver, the statistics I saw (believe) quoted only include the Explicit Control decks and excluded Delver/Flash). To avoid a constant ramble, if the position was reverse and you were in GB/X or DS Jund (which was quoted (Deathshadow) at being around 20% two week ago, but earlier this week it was mentioned to have fallen to 11%, and but has cannablize more traditional GB/X Decks), and they asked you "Can we unban Deathrite? It dies to removal, does nothing vs fast aggro that kills on turn 3, worst it could do is power out T2 Veil, which is only good vs decks that are only one creature on board, and makes it boltable. In addition you have to fetch to ramp, you need a proper card type in graveyard, requiring setup. But it could really help GB/X because it can help us speed up to keep pace with Zoo, Affinity etc, it's a win condition that we don't need to swing so we can win on stall board states."
The comparison is off because Jace is attackable and three more Mana. However he also has instant board impact (bounce), filters in two different ways, and his Win Condition is harder to reverse once setup. But the arguments and card itself is very similar, and is honestly almost akin to Deathrite + Veil Package (two turns different, but one is two cards and other is one card. And nominally Mana intensity but DS makes Veil effectively only 2B in this circumstance)
If you heard the following argument "Our deck has to many 'narrow' removal, with Rhinos, Tasigurs and Drazi's running around Abrupt and IoK not very reliable. And our unconditional other two mana removal forces us into red or to give them a Mana. Thoughtseize only fills their grave faster, or prevents us building a board so we don't die. We need a card that can let us search, our few creatures earlier and fast, I mean it can't be Pod, that is too slow, and requires a board. How about GSZ? It can fix consistency issues, search out silver bullets!" Now the difference this and Twin is Twin as stated with Jace v Deathrite, 4 Mana to 1 Mana. However Twin provides a more immediate clock (well it ends the game then). However like GSZ it homogenized Green decks to a certain setup. And prevents in a Deck Out. For all that matters
Punishing Fire kills an archetype (tribal aggro decks cited in particular), and would power up GB/X (Jund especially) vs Aggro (also Grove vs DS Jund sounds funny to me going on). Unbanning Mystic would fall into this same potential category. I have not discussed her in particular given she fits in U/X and Abzan style decks. And is similar to Deathrite (Deathrite - Veil), Twin (Having to hold up Mana once she drops turn 3 onwards if you don't remove her on spot), as well Twin/GSZ (Homogenizes Deck Construction), and shuts down certain archetypes (Aggro, K-Commandless midrange that cannot discord Batterskull for whatever reason), and is two Mana (more expensive than Deathrite but cheaper than Jace/Twin. And is good top deck like GSZ).
The full thought question for those arguing for Return of Twin/Giving Jace a Chance. How would you argue this scenerio is fundmentally different than Cruise/Eldrazi was for GB/X decks or is it not, and then how are Jace/Twin different than Deathrite/GSZ are or they the same?
And if the answer to the above they are the same, GB/X got better overtime until it has evolved into Death Shadow Jund with 11% of the Metagame and why will U/X decks not in time do the same?
1. No Changes (most likely)
Wizards has been figuring out Standard and hasn't had time to jump into Modern. The format is mostly fine so they have dedicated resources to the Standard ban, not fixing one element of an otherwise great format. If we get "No changes" today, we'll get an unban by July.
2. Unban JTMS (possible, but not probable)
JTMS directly slots into controlling blue decks while also passing the common sense unbanning test. In limited testing, this card would not look very strong, which is the kind of testing Wizards does.
3. Unban Preordain (great idea, but not even likely)
Preordain helps the widest range of blue decks and addresses all of blue's issues including inability to find answers and inability to close out a game quickly. That said, I don't think Preordain fits the common sense, gut instinct unbanning test, especially with Ad Nauseam performing well in recent events.
Oh well, was hoping to see a preordain/SFM unban, but that's not looking like the case.
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/march-13-2017-banned-and-restricted-announcement-2017-03-13
Thread locked. Please continue the discussion in the temporary thread:
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/772419-temporary-3-13-2017-banlist-update-discussion
For the benefit of post year 2000 players, I do not agree with the bolded part. I played during Counterspell Standard and Extended and there were plenty of non-blue decks. It does matter which Standard you think back to however. If you're remembering Urza's block, blue decks were some of the strongest but it wasn't Counterspell's doing. It was because cards like Mind Over Matter and Tolarian Academy are broken beyond belief.
Think back to Onslaught standard for example. This format was much healthier and included Counterspell. There were many non-blue strategies that were dominant, many archetypes represented and gameplay varied from game to game very well.
My memory of Counterspell in Standard and Extended is that it was merely a fine answer to any kind of threat as a reactive control deck, which helps you exist because otherwise it's hard to deal with a multitude of card types. It isn't free either. You have to hold double blue up and if something resolves while your shields are down, you risk drawing into reactive countermagic instead of hard answers. Counterspell wasn't so strong that it was play it or bust.
The real reason Counterspell is not in Modern is because 8th edition was chosen as the starting point and WotC's current design philosophy for Standard makes Counterspell look like a piece of Power. The formats Counterspell was legal in were more powerful than the new-player friendly Standards of today so Counterspell merely became an answer card alongside the likes of Terror, Wrath of God and Smother.
UBRGrixis Kiki Control
BGUSultai Shadow
GWRBushwhacker Zoo
EDH:
BGU Sidisi, Brood Tyrant
UBR Marchesa, the Black Rose
GWU Roon of the Hidden Realm
The reason counterspell isnt in Modern is because they dont wish for any 2 cmc counters to come without any draw back. Double blue really isnt the drawback it use to be, especially in Modern. Look at all the 2 cmc counter in the format and they have a draw back of some type. They only hit creatures, or only non creature spells, or you have to return a land to your hand, or you need to control 3 or more artifacts.
Wotc doesnt want catch all counters without any drawbacks in the format. They dont want them in Standard anymore either. So old timers (I am one too) that wish to play that style of deck can play other older formats.
While admittedly GB/X never fell as low (hovering around 7-8 percent if you combined Abzan and Jund) as (Reactive/'Control') U/X is now (which is I believe noted earlier to be around 4-6 percent depending on catorgization. More if we count Delver, the statistics I saw (believe) quoted only include the Explicit Control decks and excluded Delver/Flash). To avoid a constant ramble, if the position was reverse and you were in GB/X or DS Jund (which was quoted (Deathshadow) at being around 20% two week ago, but earlier this week it was mentioned to have fallen to 11%, and but has cannablize more traditional GB/X Decks), and they asked you "Can we unban Deathrite? It dies to removal, does nothing vs fast aggro that kills on turn 3, worst it could do is power out T2 Veil, which is only good vs decks that are only one creature on board, and makes it boltable. In addition you have to fetch to ramp, you need a proper card type in graveyard, requiring setup. But it could really help GB/X because it can help us speed up to keep pace with Zoo, Affinity etc, it's a win condition that we don't need to swing so we can win on stall board states."
The comparison is off because Jace is attackable and three more Mana. However he also has instant board impact (bounce), filters in two different ways, and his Win Condition is harder to reverse once setup. But the arguments and card itself is very similar, and is honestly almost akin to Deathrite + Veil Package (two turns different, but one is two cards and other is one card. And nominally Mana intensity but DS makes Veil effectively only 2B in this circumstance)
If you heard the following argument "Our deck has to many 'narrow' removal, with Rhinos, Tasigurs and Drazi's running around Abrupt and IoK not very reliable. And our unconditional other two mana removal forces us into red or to give them a Mana. Thoughtseize only fills their grave faster, or prevents us building a board so we don't die. We need a card that can let us search, our few creatures earlier and fast, I mean it can't be Pod, that is too slow, and requires a board. How about GSZ? It can fix consistency issues, search out silver bullets!" Now the difference this and Twin is Twin as stated with Jace v Deathrite, 4 Mana to 1 Mana. However Twin provides a more immediate clock (well it ends the game then). However like GSZ it homogenized Green decks to a certain setup. And prevents in a Deck Out. For all that matters
Punishing Fire kills an archetype (tribal aggro decks cited in particular), and would power up GB/X (Jund especially) vs Aggro (also Grove vs DS Jund sounds funny to me going on). Unbanning Mystic would fall into this same potential category. I have not discussed her in particular given she fits in U/X and Abzan style decks. And is similar to Deathrite (Deathrite - Veil), Twin (Having to hold up Mana once she drops turn 3 onwards if you don't remove her on spot), as well Twin/GSZ (Homogenizes Deck Construction), and shuts down certain archetypes (Aggro, K-Commandless midrange that cannot discord Batterskull for whatever reason), and is two Mana (more expensive than Deathrite but cheaper than Jace/Twin. And is good top deck like GSZ).
The full thought question for those arguing for Return of Twin/Giving Jace a Chance. How would you argue this scenerio is fundmentally different than Cruise/Eldrazi was for GB/X decks or is it not, and then how are Jace/Twin different than Deathrite/GSZ are or they the same?
And if the answer to the above they are the same, GB/X got better overtime until it has evolved into Death Shadow Jund with 11% of the Metagame and why will U/X decks not in time do the same?
CerberusJund (Modern)GRB
Sidisi, Brood Tyrant Morphentress (Commander) GUB
I also play YGO (DragunFusion) and Hearthstone (Dragon Control Warrior)