No matter how you feel about the bans or lack of unbans, or standard, or ... 3 set blocks (?) - can we please turn down the melodrama? Some of you act like Wizards' has personally torn your cards up.
With that, I'm assuming that the additional b/r announcements per year will cause them to be a little more experimental with bans/unbans as their effective timeframe is much smaller at a minimum. Something is a dramatic failure? Reverse it.
As for the tools we need - they're not going to come. Yeah, they missed an opportunity for a 'push' styled counterspell but that's not even really what we need. We need the next level of answers - non basic land hate. We need Wasteland. Miracles can exist in Legacy as a control deck because Cloudpost can't go nuts because so many decks have answers for it - so the top end is relatively capped which means the bottom of the format is looking to just outrace the top like we have here. Everyone is concerned about a swing back of Tron and Valakut decks and possibly rightly so as we don't *really* have the answers to fight them effectively. Banning pieces from them is an *awful* solution, but allowing them to stay stretches us into a strange uncanny valley where you're up a creek if you can't close out a game quickly.
Well, you just technically justified some of the panic of the Standard Bans - the answers we want. To put it bluntly, if Fatal Push was printed because of Copter and now Copter got hit harder then that, it doesn't bode well for the future - either the power level swings back downwards and Modern will literally almost get no good toys, let alone answers, or they decided that banning in Standard is now their answer... which is as unfortunate as it is to say, the current band-aid for Modern. If Standard adopts the same band-aid, then we suffer even more (except that Standard suffers along with us).
Yes, ultimately I don't have the thought processes behind the whole thing, but the lack of "justification" behind the Standard Bans this round as opposed to the last two times it happens is worrying enough for me to consider the above situation a possibility. Standard has always had the threshold of "attendance-warping" to ban a card and if that is removed, it has implications on a lot of parts in the game.
Their reason for banning probe was as succinct and to the point as it gets...and correct. I don't see how tournament reports are necessary when they are addressing how the card influences gameplay.
You mentioned the Delver deck above. It runs 17 lands and essentially 56 cards b/c Probe enables such a composition to be viable when normally it would not.
This rationale is arbitrary and applies to dozens of cards in the format. Gameplay reasons are all subjective. That is why we should prefer objective reasons like T4 rule violations and format diversity violations. Name a Tier 1 staple in Modern and I'm sure half a dozen people in this thread could knit together a rhetorical argument about why that card is busted because it is too strong in gameplay. We cannot have Wizards start banning cards for those reasons because it's completely unpredictable and doesn't necessarily improve the format.
This post is not directed at ktkenshinx, I'm just using it because it's well written and succinct.
I don't normally bite into banlist discussion, but I agree with Lilijuana. Not everything needs to be objective, not everything needs to be supported by data. The reasons WOTC gave were adequate and completely understandable. "Predictable?" maybe not (that's a subjective point of view, to me this is an entirely predictable ban given which decks are currently T1 and what Wizard's general idea of a healthy meta is), but data is not predictable either: E.g. even if a ban claim is supported by data, the interpretation of data itself is subjective- how many times in this or past threads have people debated what percent of the meta is too much, how consistently a deck needs to T3 before its too fast, what level of play needs to be seen by a card before it becomes oppressive? Can Wizards act prospectively, or does a banlist have to be retrospective? etc., etc., etc....
I think the real reason people are upset is because Wizards didn't (un)ban what they wanted (un)banned. Nothing will solve that problem, people will always be upset when others don't behave exactly the way that person wants them to. People *wanted* a preordain unban and started to make arguments and see trends in support of that position. Imagine their disappointment when Wizards didn't see the same trends and arguments.
I see it all the time, even in many non-MTG contexts: people over-analyse [policy documents] or past statements by [company here]'s employees and treat them as if they are gospel laws written by professional drafters and interpreted by machines with statistical ratios and weightings that automatically demand responses at particular threshold levels, with references to clearly defined samples and the absolute exclusion of all other data.
Then they hype themselves up on the mere possibility that something might happen and get upset when their expectations are wrong. Honestly, its impossible for any company to avoid such criticism, its just more acute in MTG since there's so much money riding on the cards.
For example, there are many people in this thread who are already saying that this is a gearing up to an unban: to that, I say "sure, maybe you're right" but also "maybe means maybe. Not definitely. Don't get too disappointed if you are wrong.".
That said, I think the two bans are almost no-brainers and entirely consistent with the spirit of the ban list. I barely blinked when I heard the news. I'm not saying "I told you so" since I certainly did not predict the ban, but I am not surprised by it. I'm also not saying whether or not the bans are healthy, I don't know whether or not they are. Time will tell.
Here's the Probe rationale I would have written, assuming I had their data:
"Looking at the results of Modern games on MTGO, we found that no single top-tier deck was consistently winning before turn four and violating the turn four rule. That said, many players complained about how fast the format was. We did a deeper dive and also found that too many overall games were ending before turn four as a result of numerous fast, linear, aggressive strategies, although no single deck was to blame. Rather than ban individual cards from each of these decks (no one of which was alone in violation), we looked at cards shared between all of them to decrease the overall number of games won before turn four. Probe was the most offensive of those shared cards, appearing in the greatest percentage of pre-turn four wins relative to any other shared card.
This finding is supported by Probe's gameplay: it gives perfect information, draws a card, fuels delve, and even pumps creatures for basically no investment. Although it is unfortunate other decks will suffer from Probe's removal (e.g. Delver, U/R Storm), we believe Probe's banning will have a net positive on the format as it overall decreases the chance of fast, top-tier decks winning before turn four. Those decks will likely also find replacements and stay viable. In the interest of the turn four rule, Gitaxian Probe is banned."
This took me ten minutes to write and probably summarizes Wizards' analysis of the card. It also would have preemptively addressed most of the anger around the ban.
I honestly don't think this kind of post would placate people. People might say *oh what a great post, if Wizards said that, there'd be no haters*, and maybe they're right. Or maybe the've got a case of 20-20 hindsight and really have no idea what their reaction would be if they saw this post on wizard's homepage.
For example, I can easily image a world where people try and over-analyse what is meant by "too many overall games were ending before turn four". People would debate the data on exactly how many T4 losses were actually occurring, how many of those involve GP, and debate what threshold levels had to be reached until "too many" T4 games had been breached. Then they'd argue that this isn't the normal T4 rule they'd see, and that it represents a pardigm shift from Wizard's usual policy. Other People would argue over whether GP really was the "most offensive" card, as compared to become immense, etc.
Having said all that, I can see one way Wizards can avoid alot of criticism on banlist discussions: have a periodic, rapid (say, monthly or fortnightly) post of "caution cards"- cards that are on their radar. Post a "format health update" regularly and keep people in the loop. Then people will know at least that what they are buying into is risky- which is really what alot of the anger is about. People will also know more about the thought mentality of WOTC and wouldn't need to over-analyse static documents like banlist rules threads and old AMAs. This doesn't stop the criticism, it just helps people make better investment choices, which takes some (but not all) of the sting out.
The longer WOTC leaves between banlist updates (or, rather, commentary), the more the community has an opportunity to set itself up with unreasonable and impossible expectations that are doomed to failure. I think banlist updates are too far between, and gives people way too long to mull over them (by updates I don't mean changes, I mean general discussion or news articles. Changes should be few and far between).
This of course would require active resourcing by Wizards, and represents a fundamental cultural shift on the company's part, so is of course unlikely. More likely? They don't give a stuff about complaints unless sales are affected. Though I'm without data, I don't think I'd be sticking my neck out to say that Modern is not a huge sales area.
TL;DR: the real culprit here is long periods of non-communication. Neither the bans themselves nor the reasoning would ever not be controversial (with narrow exceptions like Eldrazi winter).
Their reason for banning probe was as succinct and to the point as it gets...and correct. I don't see how tournament reports are necessary when they are addressing how the card influences gameplay.
You mentioned the Delver deck above. It runs 17 lands and essentially 56 cards b/c Probe enables such a composition to be viable when normally it would not.
This rationale is arbitrary and applies to dozens of cards in the format. Gameplay reasons are all subjective. That is why we should prefer objective reasons like T4 rule violations and format diversity violations. Name a Tier 1 staple in Modern and I'm sure half a dozen people in this thread could knit together a rhetorical argument about why that card is busted because it is too strong in gameplay. We cannot have Wizards start banning cards for those reasons because it's completely unpredictable and doesn't necessarily improve the format.
This post is not directed at ktkenshinx, I'm just using it because it's well written and succinct.
I don't normally bite into banlist discussion, but I agree with Lilijuana. Not everything needs to be objective, not everything needs to be supported by data. The reasons WOTC gave were adequate and completely understandable. "Predictable?" maybe not (that's a subjective point of view, to me this is an entirely predictable ban given which decks are currently T1 and what Wizard's general idea of a healthy meta is), but data is not predictable either: E.g. even if a ban claim is supported by data, the interpretation of data itself is subjective- how many times in this or past threads have people debated what percent of the meta is too much, how consistently a deck needs to T3 before its too fast, what level of play needs to be seen by a card before it becomes oppressive? Can Wizards act prospectively, or does a banlist have to be retrospective? etc., etc., etc....
I think the real reason people are upset is because Wizards didn't (un)ban what they wanted (un)banned. Nothing will solve that problem, people will always be upset when others don't behave exactly the way that person wants them to. People *wanted* a preordain unban and started to make arguments and see trends in support of that position. Imagine their disappointment when Wizards didn't see the same trends and arguments.
I see it all the time, even in many non-MTG contexts: people over-analyse [policy documents] or past statements by [company here]'s employees and treat them as if they are gospel laws written by professional drafters and interpreted by machines with statistical ratios and weightings that automatically demand responses at particular threshold levels, with references to clearly defined samples and the absolute exclusion of all other data.
Then they hype themselves up on the mere possibility that something might happen and get upset when their expectations are wrong. Honestly, its impossible for any company to avoid such criticism, its just more acute in MTG since there's so much money riding on the cards.
For example, there are many people in this thread who are already saying that this is a gearing up to an unban: to that, I say "sure, maybe you're right" but also "maybe means maybe. Not definitely. Don't get too disappointed if you are wrong.".
That said, I think the two bans are almost no-brainers and entirely consistent with the spirit of the ban list. I barely blinked when I heard the news. I'm not saying "I told you so" since I certainly did not predict the ban, but I am not surprised by it. I'm also not saying whether or not the bans are healthy, I don't know whether or not they are. Time will tell.
Here's the Probe rationale I would have written, assuming I had their data:
"Looking at the results of Modern games on MTGO, we found that no single top-tier deck was consistently winning before turn four and violating the turn four rule. That said, many players complained about how fast the format was. We did a deeper dive and also found that too many overall games were ending before turn four as a result of numerous fast, linear, aggressive strategies, although no single deck was to blame. Rather than ban individual cards from each of these decks (no one of which was alone in violation), we looked at cards shared between all of them to decrease the overall number of games won before turn four. Probe was the most offensive of those shared cards, appearing in the greatest percentage of pre-turn four wins relative to any other shared card.
This finding is supported by Probe's gameplay: it gives perfect information, draws a card, fuels delve, and even pumps creatures for basically no investment. Although it is unfortunate other decks will suffer from Probe's removal (e.g. Delver, U/R Storm), we believe Probe's banning will have a net positive on the format as it overall decreases the chance of fast, top-tier decks winning before turn four. Those decks will likely also find replacements and stay viable. In the interest of the turn four rule, Gitaxian Probe is banned."
This took me ten minutes to write and probably summarizes Wizards' analysis of the card. It also would have preemptively addressed most of the anger around the ban.
I honestly don't think this kind of post would placate people. People might say *oh what a great post, if Wizards said that, there'd be no haters*, and maybe they're right. Or maybe the've got a case of 20-20 hindsight and really have no idea what their reaction would be if they saw this post on wizard's homepage.
For example, I can easily image a world where people try and over-analyse what is meant by "too many overall games were ending before turn four". People would debate the data on exactly how many T4 losses were actually occurring, how many of those involve GP, and debate what threshold levels had to be reached until "too many" T4 games had been breached. Then they'd argue that this isn't the normal T4 rule they'd see, and that it represents a pardigm shift from Wizard's usual policy. Other People would argue over whether GP really was the "most offensive" card, as compared to become immense, etc.
Having said all that, I can see one way Wizards can avoid alot of criticism on banlist discussions: have a periodic, rapid (say, monthly or fortnightly) post of "caution cards"- cards that are on their radar. Post a "format health update" regularly and keep people in the loop. Then people will know at least that what they are buying into is risky- which is really what alot of the anger is about. People will also know more about the thought mentality of WOTC and wouldn't need to over-analyse static documents like banlist rules threads and old AMAs. This doesn't stop the criticism, it just helps people make better investment choices, which takes some (but not all) of the sting out.
The longer WOTC leaves between banlist updates (or, rather, commentary), the more the community has an opportunity to set itself up with unreasonable and impossible expectations that are doomed to failure. I think banlist updates are too far between, and gives people way too long to mull over them (by updates I don't mean changes, I mean general discussion or news articles. Changes should be few and far between).
This of course would require active resourcing by Wizards, and represents a fundamental cultural shift on the company's part, so is of course unlikely. More likely? They don't give a stuff about complaints unless sales are affected. Though I'm without data, I don't think I'd be sticking my neck out to say that Modern is not a huge sales area.
TL;DR: the real culprit here is long periods of non-communication. Neither the bans themselves nor the reasoning would ever not be controversial (with narrow exceptions like Eldrazi winter).
This is the post I came to write! Thanks for saving me the time.
Having said all that, I can see one way Wizards can avoid alot of criticism on banlist discussions: have a periodic, rapid (say, monthly or fortnightly) post of "caution cards"- cards that are on their radar. Post a "format health update" regularly and keep people in the loop. Then people will know at least that what they are buying into is risky- which is really what alot of the anger is about. People will also know more about the thought mentality of WOTC and wouldn't need to over-analyse static documents like banlist rules threads and old AMAs. This doesn't stop the criticism, it just helps people make better investment choices, which takes some (but not all) of the sting out.
The longer WOTC leaves between banlist updates (or, rather, commentary), the more the community has an opportunity to set itself up with unreasonable and impossible expectations that are doomed to failure. I think banlist updates are too far between, and gives people way too long to mull over them (by updates I don't mean changes, I mean general discussion or news articles. Changes should be few and far between).
This of course would require active resourcing by Wizards, and represents a fundamental cultural shift on the company's part, so is of course unlikely. More likely? They don't give a stuff about complaints unless sales are affected. Though I'm without data, I don't think I'd be sticking my neck out to say that Modern is not a huge sales area.
TL;DR: the real culprit here is long periods of non-communication. Neither the bans themselves nor the reasoning would ever not be controversial (with narrow exceptions like Eldrazi winter).
The idea sounds all nice and friendly, but firstly while WotC does actually take note of the Secondary Market (and sometimes take it into account), they aren't interested in meddling with it at all unless its using it to boost sales of their Primary Market (they didn't really put Goyf in MM to lower its price, it's more of they used Goyf's high prices to sell MM and since they are the ones who decide reprints, their POV is technically the "correct" one, we just benefited from the sides).
They won't do the "caution cards" for the same reason the RC in EDH doesn't do a "Watch List" for cards - it creates expectation and eventually ends up as nothing but the announcement itself. The power vacuum will still be there (if anything Saheeli Rai proved its that the market is very volatile) and the only awkward thing is that people with those cards will just continue playing with them (price drops will happen immediately, so people will have less incentive to both buy and sell) and if those numbers actually manage to keep the deck reasonable then you're in a deadlock where the only right decision is to ban (since not banning recreates the resurgence). Moderating the number of people playing a certain deck is what the List accomplishes in the end and that is a waste of time, you can't keep that moderation forever. The volatile market still reacts fast and investments still don't actually hold.
As an example, if GGT/Probe was announced as "caution cards" today, the numbers of those affected decks would drop (or at least stop growing) but they would still have to be banned at the end of the day. The prices, however, still pretty much follow the same pattern except people are less likely to buy (because of high chance of banning) and less likely to sell (less people buying means prices drop, less incentive to sell and since they can still play the deck as well, why sell?) There isn't going to be this "imaginary period" where you can dispose of the deck at its pre-caution prices because the market is just that fast. With a caution list, it's going to be the first hour or 2 of its announcement, which is pretty much the same as with the Banned List.
about gitaxian probe i don't really understand what people want.
in the last months i saw many players complaining about modern being a format dominated by unfair and non interactive decks.
now that wizzy hit all those decks without killing them and ban a card crearly overpowered ( do you really think that a free spell that make you draw and reveal opponents cards is ok? ) i saw people complaining about the ban
Probe is a near broken card, I don`t think anybody is arguing against that. But people have decks that rely on it, so banning it should not be taken lightly because taking people`s deck away from them hurts a lot, both in terms of economy and trust, and it punishes decks that don`t deserve it. Personally, I`m salty about the ban because it hit my competitive tier 4 deck* harder than the tier 1 decks that have other overpowered cards that see less play in other decks, which if banned would cause little to no collateral damage. Yes, Probe is good. But did Jeskai Ascension need to be nerfed? Did UR Prowess? Or UR Storm, or Grixis Delver? Or my beloved Temur Tempo deck that I was planning on sticking with for years to come? Clearly the answer is no. So that deck diversity they keep bragging about, that took a huge hit today.
* I`m completely serious. First place at a local open a month ago, 4-0 at FNM last weekend, and it didn`t make the Tier 3 list on Nexus.
Edit: @Lilijuana, who told me that I shouldn`t be allowed to run a 17 land deck because it violates the fundamental rules of the game: So does Tron, and Affinity, and Dredge, even after this ban. And Infect, even after this ban. And Ad Nauseam. Simian Spirit Guide is legal, Mutagenic Growth is legal, Mox Opal is legal, Ancient Stirrings is legal, Eldrazi Temple is legal. A lot of unbanned things are broken, and it has been that way forever. Also, the archetype you`re criticising has been around for twenty years, so don`t you pull the veteran card on me.
I agree that Probe created an issue. Free information allowed unfair decks to go all out and decks were using it for strategies that just needed cards in the yard or a free spell to cantrip. If we're completely honest with ourselves we know this to be true and it's not a healthy interaction.
Probe getting banned is a little ridiculous but I can see why. It makes any strategy left with delve cards that much worse. I'm not even sure I want to try grixis delver anymore it relied on that card to get an early gurmag angler and I feel like that was already a tier 1.5 deck anyway, there's no way it's getting better, right?
No revolt mechanic counterspell feels like a wasted opportunity.
It's such an elegant design. The power level scales perfectly from format to format.
I gotta quit thinking about this because it could have been a slam dunk.
Revolting Dismissal - UU
Instant
Counter target spell with converted mana cost 3 or less. Revolt - Counter that spell if a permanent you controlled left the battlefield this turn.
WHY WIZARDS?!?! THIS CARD WAS SO OBVIOUS!!!!!
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 agree that Probe created an issue. Free information allowed unfair decks to go all out and decks were using it for strategies that just needed cards in the yard or a free spell to cantrip. If we're completely honest with ourselves we know this to be true and it's not a healthy interaction.
IMO Mutagenic Growth is probably a far worse offender since the +2/+2 is often more important than a blind off the top draw + information. The idea that decks that relied on it to fill the yard are taking some major hit is I think over blown. If that is the case then they could just run Street Wrath and still get the -2 life draw a card put one in the yard BI your dead.
Fast linear aggro-combo will still be prevalent given it is the best non-"if you can't beat them join them" option in the format against BGx decks that doesn't rhyme with prawn.
I'm clearly bias about Troll, so I wont defend it. The only thing I will say is legacy deals with a much more powerful version of dredge with the same hate we have here, and does perfectly fine, and the data has shown that prepared modern decks do the same.
That's why they banned it: "prepared" decks means it becomes a sideboard fight, as they explained in the reasons.
I'm clearly bias about Troll, so I wont defend it. The only thing I will say is legacy deals with a much more powerful version of dredge with the same hate we have here, and does perfectly fine, and the data has shown that prepared modern decks do the same.
That's why they banned it: "prepared" decks means it becomes a sideboard fight, as they explained in the reasons.
That "reason" is a big issue. If the only decks allowed to be good must be interacted with maindeckable creature removal, that is the sign of a sickly format. Preparing your deck for an event is absolutely a necessary player requirement for playing big formats.
THIS 100X!!! If you don't agree with this then there is no amount of logic that will ever convince you that good, non-oppressive, combos should be allowed. If you don't agree with it then just don't play this game, and you certainly shouldn't feel entitled to make any comment on ban lists ever.
Thanks goodness. It's a relief that no cards from Affinity and Eldrazi got banned.. I was worried about Mox Opal and Eldrazi Temple.
Even if the ban article was horrible, I still believe bans are results-driven and not totally arbitrary and alarmist as many have alleged. Sadly, because Wizards sucked at articulating this, we'll get more undue ban mania and ban fear where there is no need for it. It will also be harder to argue against this mania and fear because Wizards hasn't given us the tools to cite their rationale.
Although I didn't expect Gitaxian probe ban I must say I'm really happy with this update. Probe was an issue since it gave information about opponent's hand which is a big advantage and it gives you a card all that for free.
This is hilarious coming from a BGx player. I guess black should have access to hand information in a profitable way, but other colors shouldn`t?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When I hit my 3000 post mark, I'm gone for good.
Stay reasonable, be mindful of your expectations and don't feed the trolls.
Probe was problematic because it did not cost any mana in most cases, it replaced itself, fueled Delve and gave All-In-Decks important information.
Extraction, Peek and discard all lack one of those abilities.
Although I didn't expect Gitaxian probe ban I must say I'm really happy with this update. Probe was an issue since it gave information about opponent's hand which is a big advantage and it gives you a card all that for free.
This is hilarious coming from a BGx player. I guess black should have access to hand information in a profitable way, but other colors shouldn`t?
Again, this underscores the problems with the announcement itself. Probe was not a problem because of its gameplay, even if Wizards' bad writing pinned that as a main reason. It was a problem overwhelmingly because it contributed to a variety of T4 rule violators and Wizards wanted to slow these decks down without gutting them. Black discard spells don't remotely fit this mold. A better update would have resolved these misconceptions and improved format confidence both now and in the future. The poor writing and explanation, however, leaves far too much to interpretation.
Although I didn't expect Gitaxian probe ban I must say I'm really happy with this update. Probe was an issue since it gave information about opponent's hand which is a big advantage and it gives you a card all that for free.
This is hilarious coming from a BGx player. I guess black should have access to hand information in a profitable way, but other colors shouldn`t?
Again, this underscores the problems with the announcement itself. Probe was not a problem because of its gameplay, even if Wizards' bad writing pinned that as a main reason. It was a problem overwhelmingly because it contributed to a variety of T4 rule violators and Wizards wanted to slow these decks down without gutting them. Black discard spells don't remotely fit this mold. A better update would have resolved these misconceptions and improved format confidence both now and in the future. The poor writing and explanation, however, leaves far too much to interpretation.
If the real reasoning behind the ban was to reduce consistency of a few top decks, notably Infect and DSA, I still maintain that it was a bad pick because it hurt too many other non-threatening decks. I see people over in the Jeskai Ascension thread giving up their deck, UR Delver players are forced into Grixis, Suicide Blue players won`t be able to flip their Things soon enough... These decks did nothing to deserve a ban, and players are left without a deck to play and without confidence that whatever they pick up next will be safe.
When players get hit by a ban, whey will often ask themselves: "Should I pick up some other deck, or is this a convenient time to quit?". This should happen to as few players as absolutely possible to keep the format healthy. I propose that they failed at doing that this time.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When I hit my 3000 post mark, I'm gone for good.
Stay reasonable, be mindful of your expectations and don't feed the trolls.
well, my list of banned decks keeps growing, storm, eggs, bloom, twin, infect, death's shadow, bloo, pyro ascension and jeskai ascendancy. I guess it's my fault for not liking bg/x decks
Although I didn't expect Gitaxian probe ban I must say I'm really happy with this update. Probe was an issue since it gave information about opponent's hand which is a big advantage and it gives you a card all that for free.
This is hilarious coming from a BGx player. I guess black should have access to hand information in a profitable way, but other colors shouldn`t?
Oh, which one, the one that does 2 damage to take a card, or the one that takes 3 mana less?
Weird, I didn't know those cards could be casted for free, cantrip a card in our hand, and basically make our deck 56 cards. Hm
Although I didn't expect Gitaxian probe ban I must say I'm really happy with this update. Probe was an issue since it gave information about opponent's hand which is a big advantage and it gives you a card all that for free.
This is hilarious coming from a BGx player. I guess black should have access to hand information in a profitable way, but other colors shouldn`t?
Oh, which one, the one that does 2 damage to take a card, or the one that takes 3 mana less?
Weird, I didn't know those cards could be casted for free, cantrip a card in our hand, and basically make our deck 56 cards. Hm
Casting IoK/TS for free and drawing a card would be a lot to ask for when you get to take a card out of your opponent`s hand. We`re obviously comparing apples and oranges here, but for the sake of discussion, let`s attempt to compare: We both get hand information. In addition, you take a card and I draw a card. Taking your opponent`s best card is more valuable than drawing a random one, so you have to pay one mana for it. It seems reasonable to me.
Look, we`re both Jund players, we both know that the hand information you get from targeted discard represent a significant fraction of the value you get out of those cards. Now maybe I misinterpreted you, but I read your post as stating that you think that gaining hand information is problematic, and I found that pretty hypocritical coming from someone who plays a deck - from now on almost the only deck - that lets you do just that. As if it`s not okay when other people get to look at your hand, but it`s okay when you do. See what I mean?
For the sake of our surroundings I`m not going to follow this up any further.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When I hit my 3000 post mark, I'm gone for good.
Stay reasonable, be mindful of your expectations and don't feed the trolls.
People bashing wizards saying "sorry for not playing Jund" forget that Jund has already received 2 very important bans Bloodbraid Elf and Deathrite Shaman. None of the actual control decks (unless you consider Grixis Delver a control deck) was playing Gitaxian Probe, it's not like blue based decks got hit, on the contrary, now I can finally bluff a T3 counter/removal against infest/zooicide etc and not have them look at my hand, draw an extra pump spell and get 1 mana for only 2 life.
I have infect on the side, it's not like I didn't take a hit either
The card did too much for free.
Let's not pretend we've had those games where we drew just an inkmoth, but we're on the draw, play 2 probes in a row, draw that land, and win on turn 3 (Not that this is super common)
Probe did too much for 0 mana. And let's not give that, "but you do 2 damage to yourself and that makes aggro!"
It allowed you to play with 56 cards essentially
Zoo/UR/infect don't care about that, they either have it or they don't
I don't particularly feel bad for zoo players, I've had my share of games where I was on the draw
Turn 1: discard
Turn 2: Play Goyf
Turn 3: I'm tapped out and dead to Death Shadow+BI+Temur Battlerage
I've also been on the other side on infect and cycling through my probes and winning turn 3 with BI+Mutagenic Growth+Random pump spell+Noble Hierarch buff
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I mean, it's an MTGS ban thread. I think we all know the answer to this question.
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
Well, you just technically justified some of the panic of the Standard Bans - the answers we want. To put it bluntly, if Fatal Push was printed because of Copter and now Copter got hit harder then that, it doesn't bode well for the future - either the power level swings back downwards and Modern will literally almost get no good toys, let alone answers, or they decided that banning in Standard is now their answer... which is as unfortunate as it is to say, the current band-aid for Modern. If Standard adopts the same band-aid, then we suffer even more (except that Standard suffers along with us).
Yes, ultimately I don't have the thought processes behind the whole thing, but the lack of "justification" behind the Standard Bans this round as opposed to the last two times it happens is worrying enough for me to consider the above situation a possibility. Standard has always had the threshold of "attendance-warping" to ban a card and if that is removed, it has implications on a lot of parts in the game.
OH GOD WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO MODERN IS DEAD AND WIZARDS SHREDDED MY CARDS AND MADE THEM INTO TOILET PAPER WHICH THEY THEN USED
This post is not directed at ktkenshinx, I'm just using it because it's well written and succinct.
I don't normally bite into banlist discussion, but I agree with Lilijuana. Not everything needs to be objective, not everything needs to be supported by data. The reasons WOTC gave were adequate and completely understandable. "Predictable?" maybe not (that's a subjective point of view, to me this is an entirely predictable ban given which decks are currently T1 and what Wizard's general idea of a healthy meta is), but data is not predictable either: E.g. even if a ban claim is supported by data, the interpretation of data itself is subjective- how many times in this or past threads have people debated what percent of the meta is too much, how consistently a deck needs to T3 before its too fast, what level of play needs to be seen by a card before it becomes oppressive? Can Wizards act prospectively, or does a banlist have to be retrospective? etc., etc., etc....
I think the real reason people are upset is because Wizards didn't (un)ban what they wanted (un)banned. Nothing will solve that problem, people will always be upset when others don't behave exactly the way that person wants them to. People *wanted* a preordain unban and started to make arguments and see trends in support of that position. Imagine their disappointment when Wizards didn't see the same trends and arguments.
I see it all the time, even in many non-MTG contexts: people over-analyse [policy documents] or past statements by [company here]'s employees and treat them as if they are gospel laws written by professional drafters and interpreted by machines with statistical ratios and weightings that automatically demand responses at particular threshold levels, with references to clearly defined samples and the absolute exclusion of all other data.
Then they hype themselves up on the mere possibility that something might happen and get upset when their expectations are wrong. Honestly, its impossible for any company to avoid such criticism, its just more acute in MTG since there's so much money riding on the cards.
For example, there are many people in this thread who are already saying that this is a gearing up to an unban: to that, I say "sure, maybe you're right" but also "maybe means maybe. Not definitely. Don't get too disappointed if you are wrong.".
That said, I think the two bans are almost no-brainers and entirely consistent with the spirit of the ban list. I barely blinked when I heard the news. I'm not saying "I told you so" since I certainly did not predict the ban, but I am not surprised by it. I'm also not saying whether or not the bans are healthy, I don't know whether or not they are. Time will tell.
I honestly don't think this kind of post would placate people. People might say *oh what a great post, if Wizards said that, there'd be no haters*, and maybe they're right. Or maybe the've got a case of 20-20 hindsight and really have no idea what their reaction would be if they saw this post on wizard's homepage.
For example, I can easily image a world where people try and over-analyse what is meant by "too many overall games were ending before turn four". People would debate the data on exactly how many T4 losses were actually occurring, how many of those involve GP, and debate what threshold levels had to be reached until "too many" T4 games had been breached. Then they'd argue that this isn't the normal T4 rule they'd see, and that it represents a pardigm shift from Wizard's usual policy. Other People would argue over whether GP really was the "most offensive" card, as compared to become immense, etc.
Having said all that, I can see one way Wizards can avoid alot of criticism on banlist discussions: have a periodic, rapid (say, monthly or fortnightly) post of "caution cards"- cards that are on their radar. Post a "format health update" regularly and keep people in the loop. Then people will know at least that what they are buying into is risky- which is really what alot of the anger is about. People will also know more about the thought mentality of WOTC and wouldn't need to over-analyse static documents like banlist rules threads and old AMAs. This doesn't stop the criticism, it just helps people make better investment choices, which takes some (but not all) of the sting out.
The longer WOTC leaves between banlist updates (or, rather, commentary), the more the community has an opportunity to set itself up with unreasonable and impossible expectations that are doomed to failure. I think banlist updates are too far between, and gives people way too long to mull over them (by updates I don't mean changes, I mean general discussion or news articles. Changes should be few and far between).
This of course would require active resourcing by Wizards, and represents a fundamental cultural shift on the company's part, so is of course unlikely. More likely? They don't give a stuff about complaints unless sales are affected. Though I'm without data, I don't think I'd be sticking my neck out to say that Modern is not a huge sales area.
TL;DR: the real culprit here is long periods of non-communication. Neither the bans themselves nor the reasoning would ever not be controversial (with narrow exceptions like Eldrazi winter).
Long live Remand
The idea sounds all nice and friendly, but firstly while WotC does actually take note of the Secondary Market (and sometimes take it into account), they aren't interested in meddling with it at all unless its using it to boost sales of their Primary Market (they didn't really put Goyf in MM to lower its price, it's more of they used Goyf's high prices to sell MM and since they are the ones who decide reprints, their POV is technically the "correct" one, we just benefited from the sides).
They won't do the "caution cards" for the same reason the RC in EDH doesn't do a "Watch List" for cards - it creates expectation and eventually ends up as nothing but the announcement itself. The power vacuum will still be there (if anything Saheeli Rai proved its that the market is very volatile) and the only awkward thing is that people with those cards will just continue playing with them (price drops will happen immediately, so people will have less incentive to both buy and sell) and if those numbers actually manage to keep the deck reasonable then you're in a deadlock where the only right decision is to ban (since not banning recreates the resurgence). Moderating the number of people playing a certain deck is what the List accomplishes in the end and that is a waste of time, you can't keep that moderation forever. The volatile market still reacts fast and investments still don't actually hold.
As an example, if GGT/Probe was announced as "caution cards" today, the numbers of those affected decks would drop (or at least stop growing) but they would still have to be banned at the end of the day. The prices, however, still pretty much follow the same pattern except people are less likely to buy (because of high chance of banning) and less likely to sell (less people buying means prices drop, less incentive to sell and since they can still play the deck as well, why sell?) There isn't going to be this "imaginary period" where you can dispose of the deck at its pre-caution prices because the market is just that fast. With a caution list, it's going to be the first hour or 2 of its announcement, which is pretty much the same as with the Banned List.
* I`m completely serious. First place at a local open a month ago, 4-0 at FNM last weekend, and it didn`t make the Tier 3 list on Nexus.
Edit: @Lilijuana, who told me that I shouldn`t be allowed to run a 17 land deck because it violates the fundamental rules of the game: So does Tron, and Affinity, and Dredge, even after this ban. And Infect, even after this ban. And Ad Nauseam. Simian Spirit Guide is legal, Mutagenic Growth is legal, Mox Opal is legal, Ancient Stirrings is legal, Eldrazi Temple is legal. A lot of unbanned things are broken, and it has been that way forever. Also, the archetype you`re criticising has been around for twenty years, so don`t you pull the veteran card on me.
Stay reasonable, be mindful of your expectations and don't feed the trolls.
Doomsdayin'
next Mutagenic Growth and surgical extraction please.
RG Titan Scapeshift GR
UBWAd Nauseam WBU
CEldrazi TronC
Nexus MTG News // Nexus - Magic Art Gallery // MTG Dual Land Color Ratios Analyzer // MTG Card Drawing Odds Calculator
Want to play a UW control deck in modern, but don't have jace or snaps?
Please come visit us at the Emeria Titan control thread
Revolting Dismissal - UU
Instant
Counter target spell with converted mana cost 3 or less.
Revolt - Counter that spell if a permanent you controlled left the battlefield this turn.
WHY WIZARDS?!?! THIS CARD WAS SO OBVIOUS!!!!!
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
IMO Mutagenic Growth is probably a far worse offender since the +2/+2 is often more important than a blind off the top draw + information. The idea that decks that relied on it to fill the yard are taking some major hit is I think over blown. If that is the case then they could just run Street Wrath and still get the -2 life draw a card put one in the yard BI your dead.
Fast linear aggro-combo will still be prevalent given it is the best non-"if you can't beat them join them" option in the format against BGx decks that doesn't rhyme with prawn.
That "reason" is a big issue. If the only decks allowed to be good must be interacted with maindeckable creature removal, that is the sign of a sickly format. Preparing your deck for an event is absolutely a necessary player requirement for playing big formats.
Even if the ban article was horrible, I still believe bans are results-driven and not totally arbitrary and alarmist as many have alleged. Sadly, because Wizards sucked at articulating this, we'll get more undue ban mania and ban fear where there is no need for it. It will also be harder to argue against this mania and fear because Wizards hasn't given us the tools to cite their rationale.
Stay reasonable, be mindful of your expectations and don't feed the trolls.
Doomsdayin'
Extraction, Peek and discard all lack one of those abilities.
Legacy: UWR Miracles [https://deckstats.net/decks/44442/1092831-uwr-miracles-2]
Again, this underscores the problems with the announcement itself. Probe was not a problem because of its gameplay, even if Wizards' bad writing pinned that as a main reason. It was a problem overwhelmingly because it contributed to a variety of T4 rule violators and Wizards wanted to slow these decks down without gutting them. Black discard spells don't remotely fit this mold. A better update would have resolved these misconceptions and improved format confidence both now and in the future. The poor writing and explanation, however, leaves far too much to interpretation.
When players get hit by a ban, whey will often ask themselves: "Should I pick up some other deck, or is this a convenient time to quit?". This should happen to as few players as absolutely possible to keep the format healthy. I propose that they failed at doing that this time.
Stay reasonable, be mindful of your expectations and don't feed the trolls.
Doomsdayin'
Oh, which one, the one that does 2 damage to take a card, or the one that takes 3 mana less?
Weird, I didn't know those cards could be casted for free, cantrip a card in our hand, and basically make our deck 56 cards. Hm
Look, we`re both Jund players, we both know that the hand information you get from targeted discard represent a significant fraction of the value you get out of those cards. Now maybe I misinterpreted you, but I read your post as stating that you think that gaining hand information is problematic, and I found that pretty hypocritical coming from someone who plays a deck - from now on almost the only deck - that lets you do just that. As if it`s not okay when other people get to look at your hand, but it`s okay when you do. See what I mean?
For the sake of our surroundings I`m not going to follow this up any further.
Stay reasonable, be mindful of your expectations and don't feed the trolls.
Doomsdayin'
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
The card did too much for free.
Let's not pretend we've had those games where we drew just an inkmoth, but we're on the draw, play 2 probes in a row, draw that land, and win on turn 3 (Not that this is super common)
Probe did too much for 0 mana. And let's not give that, "but you do 2 damage to yourself and that makes aggro!"
It allowed you to play with 56 cards essentially
Zoo/UR/infect don't care about that, they either have it or they don't
I don't particularly feel bad for zoo players, I've had my share of games where I was on the draw
Turn 1: discard
Turn 2: Play Goyf
Turn 3: I'm tapped out and dead to Death Shadow+BI+Temur Battlerage
I've also been on the other side on infect and cycling through my probes and winning turn 3 with BI+Mutagenic Growth+Random pump spell+Noble Hierarch buff