I'll remember that claim about eating your Foils Spsiegel. :]
UR twin was the better twin already, I'm not sure you fit Kommand, Push, and AV into that shell without wrecking the elegance of the UR deck. Twin could come off, it really could.
You stated in the other thread that because Aaron Forscythe said a while back SFM is in the ban graveyard that it had no chance, and Sheridan pointed out that the format changed drastically since then when he made that statement
So no, I can't call you on THIS post, but you definitely wrote it elsewhere
Not sure which thread you are referring to. Personally, I don't think SFM promotes a healthy meta. And based on previous statements from WOTC they seem to agree. I think it's possible though there is absolutely ZERO reason to believe they will. It doesn't solve any perceived problems at the moment and could be a potential nightmare.
I'll remember that claim about eating your Foils Spsiegel. :]
UR twin was the better twin already, I'm not sure you fit Kommand, Push, and AV into that shell without wrecking the elegance of the UR deck. Twin could come off, it really could.
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
bg/x decks have also received multiple bans.
I was just thinking...that guy sure does like degenerate decks. Eggs? Bloom? Those decks were just dumb and enabled either 30 min turns or turn 1/2 kills (might not be dead but you might as well when they turn 1 titan in bloom). You could still play those decks but at a more reasonable rate, however, I feel you don't like fair magic and just want to kill the opponent without needing to react if you can avoid it. Might I suggest solitaire ?
I enjoy playing cheerios and such combo decks but I've never been a fan of decks that just win. Its that reason I don't play infinite combo in EDH. I just try to win and have fun. That's what makes magic great, right?
I'll remember that claim about eating your Foils Spsiegel. :]
UR twin was the better twin already, I'm not sure you fit Kommand, Push, and AV into that shell without wrecking the elegance of the UR deck. Twin could come off, it really could.
Anything could come off... twin will not come off this year tho. Every combo deck needed to be evaluated through the lense of but why not just play twin then. The combo was to perfect. EOT deceiver to tap down protection mana into twin with backup was just so much better than what other combo decks were doing on their combo.
Given enough time sure it can come off but it is not the actual power level that is keeping twin on the ban list this year.
I'll remember that claim about eating your Foils Spsiegel. :]
UR twin was the better twin already, I'm not sure you fit Kommand, Push, and AV into that shell without wrecking the elegance of the UR deck. Twin could come off, it really could.
UR Twin was the better deck, but I absolutely do not see how fatal push doesn't not sway twin to Grixis colors now, killing goys was always its bane. Push and Tasigur's avoidance of it would absolutely make it the new 0 tier deck
I'll remember that claim about eating your Foils Spsiegel. :]
UR twin was the better twin already, I'm not sure you fit Kommand, Push, and AV into that shell without wrecking the elegance of the UR deck. Twin could come off, it really could.
I disagree, I think Grixis Twin would be a jund deck without all the weaknesses with a combo deck that could beat ramp decks, and race combo decks
I think AV would be a sideboard card for fair decks, it would just drown out fair decks
I guess we could have janky decks and BW tokens to combat Twin
I think one of the most important things to remember is that bans effectively 'give us back' more cards than we lose. If Dredge isn't a constant tier 1 threat then perhaps we get back Abzan company *as an entire deck*. That's a huuuuge positive for the format I think and for as many people cry about their investments being banned out, many other investments are 'soft banned' because of format mismanagement.
I'm pretty happy about selling out of mtg about a month ago. One of the most frustrating things I have seen is Wizards almost relentless push to make modern ridiculously expensive at a competitive level. UR Kiln, (about half a year ago) Zooicide, and dredge were both affordable tier 1 decks, that were nowhere near dominating the meta. I don't see UR Kiln or Zooicide surviving this ban, in conjunction with printing of push. Either way, like I said, I am pretty stoked about selling out of MTG. I will continue to play on cockatrice, but I don't feel comfortable spending money on this.
As I said earlier and will keep arguing, the problem with the update was not the bans. It was the communication. It CONTINUES to be the communication, or lack thereof, at the core of almost all Standard and Modern issues. Especially Modern issues. Because Wizards is so insistent on opaque format management, players have no idea what to expect. Of course, bans are the primary problem on everyone's minds. Looking over this thread, I've seen ban suggestions for most top and low tier decks with previously reasonable users plunging into Wizards-induced ban mania. If Wizards gave better information about bans, Modern direction, their view of format health, etc., then this would be mitigated.
Instead, the last major format update/article we got was last April. It was a good article, yes, but it's inexcusable that Magic's second largest constructed format has gone without a public health check-in since April 2016. This is also to say nothing of Wizards' inability to get generic answers into the format so we can internally regulate instead of depending on bans. But regular communication would presumably address even that. Of course, communication isn't the only problem with Modern. It just starts there. Ban policy, reprint policy, testing policy, etc. are all major, ongoing problems too.
My personal, non-alarmist promise is that I'm done with Modern if we get to 2018 and 2 of the following 4 scenarios have happened:
1. Another ban due to bad internal policing cards.
2. No unbans.
3. Failure to publish at least two articles on the format's overall health, direction, and regulation.
4. Failure to print or reprint at least one more Modern answer like Push.
If Wizards does any 2 of those 4 things by 2018, let alone 3 or 4, it just means thr format isn't for me and I can't have confidence in it. Maybe it's still good for others, but I couldn't enjoy a format that was handled in those regards.
I think one of the most important things to remember is that bans effectively 'give us back' more cards than we lose. If Dredge isn't a constant tier 1 threat then perhaps we get back Abzan company *as an entire deck*. That's a huuuuge positive for the format I think and for as many people cry about their investments being banned out, many other investments are 'soft banned' because of format mismanagement.
Problem is that next time, they'll ban something out of that "new" Abzan for reasons that don't really make sense.
As I said earlier and will keep arguing, the problem with the update was not the bans. It was the communication. It CONTINUES to be the communication, or lack thereof, at the core of almost all Standard and Modern issues. Especially Modern issues. Because Wizards is so insistent on opaque format management, players have no idea what to expect. Of course, bans are the primary problem on everyone's minds. Looking over this thread, I've seen ban suggestions for most top and low tier decks with previously reasonable users plunging into Wizards-induced ban mania. If Wizards gave better information about bans, Modern direction, their view of format health, etc., then this would be mitigated.
I'm willing to bet that the communication is nonexistent and that it seems opaque because it is not really an ongoing process for them. Here, it is actively discussed by a ton of people. At headquarters, modern banlist might be a monthly hour long meeting between 4 guys, or just even a quick update memo about MTGO's stats.
I wonder if there isn't a conflict of interest internal to WotC that results in the mishandling of modern as we experience:
P1: Standard is the cash cow of WotC
P2: Modern is the most popular format (for those with the option to play either)
C: Positive actions which increase the popularity of modern risk sales for standard
Eg: if you have an unpopular standard environment, perhaps the thought is that unbanning a popular modern card risks reducing standard sales by taking focus from standard and putting it on modern.
Do others agree that WotC has a conflict of interest with respect to administration of the modern format?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
Stirrings is not a stupid suggestion or an unlikely one
No offense, but you were way off the mark about WOTC's mindset and all of your posts in the other topic were pretty far off
I don't mean it an insult, or an attack on you, it's more that you seem HEAVILY biased towards the combo aspect, and you're out of touch with WOTC's rationale
Until preordain is unbanned, WOTC is clearly showing they don't want cantrips stronger than serum visions, they want serum visions to be the ultimate cantrip in modern
I don't take it as an insult, but out of touch with whom? There's a tendency around here to pretend this forum represents a consensus about what is right for Modern, but as soon as I log off, most of the attitudes around here go away. There are plenty of players who don't waste time complaining about whether or not some decks can or cannot be interacted with reasonably, but just change their gameplan and try to increase their win percentage. There are plenty of players who don't hold "interaction" up as the end-all, be-all of every single game of Magic. There are plenty of players who understand that to call Tron "uninteractive" is reductive and silly, as there are a billion different builds of Tron and they run the gamut from very goldfishy to very controlly. There are plenty of players who see this:
I believe that as of late at least those cards should be up for consideration for a banning.
Fast Mana
- Mox Opal
- Simian Spirit Guide
- Tronlands
Creatures cheating mechanisms
- Dredge or Amalgams/Ghasts/etc(DONE)
A Phyrexian Spell
- Done
as definitively not Modern. A lot of these players have invested time and money but would be unwilling to do so if the new normal was "be ready to put a bunch of money down, because in order to compete you want the same sets of Lilis and Snapcasters and Goyfs that everybody else does, because WotC and a small faction of midrange players have decided that other options are not in the best interests of game balance." That's not an environment that encourages new blood and continuing competition. That's a perfectly balanced, but bland and stale game. And I want no part of it.
Not to disrespect or knock anyone's right to express their vision for the format, but the idea that it's a consensus or doesn't come with its inherent problems is just not true. To me, comparing Ancient Stirrings to Serum Visions shows a great deal of bias towards three-color midrange decks. Because to say "Ancient Stirrings digs deeper than Serum Visions" is to ignore the very real deckbuilding cost of even using Ancient Stirrings in the first place. It only gets colorless cards, which greatly limits the options of every deck that uses it. Serum Visions can go in any deck that has enough blue sources. Sure, Ancient Stirrings looks at more cards within a particular game of Magic, but the sheer number of cards Serum Visions can draw is much higher. There should be a place in Magic for skimping on card quality in exchange for exploiting powerful synergies. Otherwise everything is just good-stuff decks and there aren't any decks that have a strange and new line of attack that requires people to put more thought into both construction and play.
Now I'm not blind: I see that cards like Urza's Tower and Simian Spirit Guide would never be printed today, because they are relics of an age where Wizards was a lot more fast and lose with game balance (frankly, the reason I play Tron is that I'm nostalgic for the 90s and am not about to go back and rebuy all my Legacy pieces at 5x what I sold them for). I'd be fine if there were a new format that started late enough (Say, Lorywn/2010 Core Set) to kick out Time Spiral, Mirrodin, 8th/9th Ed, and Ravnica, because those sets, while fun, are full of the sort of problems that just don't come up anymore. That's a radically new format, but so was Modern when it started, right? It's cleaner and less disruptive than just putting a bunch of bandages on everything with a more aggressive banlist. I don't want to play in the Banned Age.
Now you're probably right, and Wizards probably doesn't want the Modern that I enjoy playing, but that doesn't mean that I'm clueless or that I'm all alone. Leaving Modern alone would not be the end of the world, especially since there's no Modern Pro Tour so there really are no stakes, and all the quirky fringe decks that people are saying are due for a ban are also the kind of thing that draws a lot of people to Modern. For me personally, if Wizards continues banning and nerfing decks I want to play, that basically does just leave Grixis and Jund. I'm not buying into Grixis and Jund. Not on a freelance artist's salary. So a Mox Opal ban would probably be the end of me attempting to play Constructed for a long time to come. If Wizards really does have it out for Lantern Control, Wizards has it out for the format I thought I was playing.
As I said earlier and will keep arguing, the problem with the update was not the bans. It was the communication. It CONTINUES to be the communication, or lack thereof, at the core of almost all Standard and Modern issues. Especially Modern issues. Because Wizards is so insistent on opaque format management, players have no idea what to expect. Of course, bans are the primary problem on everyone's minds. Looking over this thread, I've seen ban suggestions for most top and low tier decks with previously reasonable users plunging into Wizards-induced ban mania. If Wizards gave better information about bans, Modern direction, their view of format health, etc., then this would be mitigated.
Instead, the last major format update/article we got was last April. It was a good article, yes, but it's inexcusable that Magic's second largest constructed format has gone without a public health check-in since April 2016. This is also to say nothing of Wizards' inability to get generic answers into the format so we can internally regulate instead of depending on bans. But regular communication would presumably address even that. Of course, communication isn't the only problem with Modern. It just starts there. Ban policy, reprint policy, testing policy, etc. are all major, ongoing problems too.
My personal, non-alarmist promise is that I'm done with Modern if we get to 2018 and 2 of the following 4 scenarios have happened:
1. Another ban due to bad internal policing cards.
2. No unbans.
3. Failure to publish at least two articles on the format's overall health, direction, and regulation.
4. Failure to print or reprint at least one more Modern answer like Push.
If Wizards does any 2 of those 4 things by 2018, let alone 3 or 4, it just means thr format isn't for me and I can't have confidence in it. Maybe it's still good for others, but I couldn't enjoy a format that was handled in those regards.
Careful, sheridan, living under an ultimatum is a terrible way to operate, and a slippery slope for many reasons.
It can lead to you trying to find reasons for something not working out, and undermining your enjoyment.
With a game that's changing and evolving, it can put you in tough spots where the situation moves beyond your current assessment and you still love it, but the criteria of your ultimatum are still fulfilled, so people expect you to act on it.
It can force you down a path of denial or overthinking an aspect of the game in order to break or fulfil the criteria.
To be glib, being a part of a game like magic is a little akin to being in a relationship. It's always bad to give ultimatums in a relationship context (it's a trap) so I'd extend that thought here as well. Don't box yourself into a binary situation which might bite you in the ass later on.
You should not be able to look at your opponents hand for zero mana.
You shouldn't be able to generate an additional mana every turn by an artifact that costs 0.
You shouldn't be able to generate mana through an uncounterable abiity of a card, at instant speed.
You shouldn't be able to generate 2 mana off a land for a creature type.
You shouldn't be able to generate 7 mana on turn 3 and escalating towards 10 from that point.
There's a lot of thing wrong in this format. The fact is that WOTC pays attention to what they want, and lack transparency. Probe is broken, so are other 10 cards in the format. Banning cards can be dangerous and it can sprial down very fast.
This is such a true statement. I think if wizards would have cut alot of the mana ramp cards from being created the speed of the game would have been preserved.
You should not be able to look at your opponents hand for zero mana.
You shouldn't be able to generate an additional mana every turn by an artifact that costs 0.
You shouldn't be able to generate mana through an uncounterable abiity of a card, at instant speed.
You shouldn't be able to generate 2 mana off a land for a creature type.
You shouldn't be able to generate 7 mana on turn 3 and escalating towards 10 from that point.
There's a lot of thing wrong in this format. The fact is that WOTC pays attention to what they want, and lack transparency. Probe is broken, so are other 10 cards in the format. Banning cards can be dangerous and it can sprial down very fast.
This is such a true statement. I think if wizards would have cut alot of the mana ramp cards from being created the speed of the game would have been preserved.
I don't understand this sentiment. If you want slower "fair" games (usually) both limited and standard offer this in spades, so why wouldn't you just stick to the formats that are dominated by the playstyles you prefer?
You should not be able to look at your opponents hand for zero mana.
You shouldn't be able to generate an additional mana every turn by an artifact that costs 0.
You shouldn't be able to generate mana through an uncounterable abiity of a card, at instant speed.
You shouldn't be able to generate 2 mana off a land for a creature type.
You shouldn't be able to generate 7 mana on turn 3 and escalating towards 10 from that point.
There's a lot of thing wrong in this format. The fact is that WOTC pays attention to what they want, and lack transparency. Probe is broken, so are other 10 cards in the format. Banning cards can be dangerous and it can sprial down very fast.
This is such a true statement. I think if wizards would have cut alot of the mana ramp cards from being created the speed of the game would have been preserved. [/quote]
no argument 100% true. The speed of the game would be static if mana ramp was not a thing.
The only counter point is that the game is stale and boring. I do not fault wizards for taking chances and making broken cards. Some of the cards we all know and love can fit into that broken card criteria if looked at in a vacuum.
However, my point stands. You should not be able to look at your opponents hand for zero mana. Just because other cards are powerful or even broken does not make that point any less true.
If further bans are needed then so be it. However, decks like tron are always supposed to take over and never do. I just resist the idea that the sky is falling from every announcement.
A lot of people seem to be confused about what people are arguing here.
On one side people are saying "Modern format was bad and needed these bans!"
The other side is saying "The modern format was bad BECAUSE IT CAN'T POLICE ITSELF and thus wizards keeps having to ban stuff, and we dont like that ban everything mentality."
A lot of people seem to be confused about what people are arguing here.
On one side people are saying "Modern format was bad and needed these bans!"
The other side is saying "The modern format was bad BECAUSE IT CAN'T POLICE ITSELF and thus wizards keeps having to ban stuff, and we dont like that ban everything mentality."
This, the fact the format cannot police itself, and the lack of communication are the 2 critical failures on Wizards part. Unless we want to continually ban cards, things which could counter the things being banned must be UNBANNED, or further answers provided, and we need communication in regards to the format itself.
A lot of people seem to be confused about what people are arguing here.
On one side people are saying "Modern format was bad and needed these bans!"
The other side is saying "The modern format was bad BECAUSE IT CAN'T POLICE ITSELF and thus wizards keeps having to ban stuff, and we dont like that ban everything mentality."
There are more than two sides. "The Modern format can police itself just fine, and bans for decks that aren't particularly dominant set a dangerous precedent" is a side. It may be underrepresented on this forum, but that doesn't mean it's not a valid perspective.
For dredge, people are underestimating the impact that losing consistency will have on the deck. It will still be a powerful deck that can destroy an unsuspecting FNM event, sure, but during long tournaments it will still run into enough graveyard hate to knock it out of the tournament. It'll have less hands capable of racing RiP, it'll have less ability to recover from relic, and there'll always be that one person who thinks surgical is the coolest sideboard tech, no matter the metagame. Dredge will still be a strong deck capable of sneaking in high profile wins but its overall metagame share will drop drastically, especially on the gp level.
As for probe I'm a little annoyed that it hits so many decks but I do think its a good choice overall
1) Delver will be fine, the deck was considering cutting probe anyway
2) infect will be fine. It cuts a BI, add some pumps and maybe serum visions an extra land/infect creature to make up for the loss of a 56 card deck and it'll be good to go. It doesn't loose a huge amount of power but becomes more skill intensive to play, which is a net gain for the format
3) I feel bad DSA and kiln fiend decks, but at the end of the loosing them was a good thing. They are basically the same exact deck as infect (think of how close infect and double strike are), and when you're in a format where you can play infect, Jund shifted infect, and Ur infect in addition to several other aggro decks there's probably something wrong in the format
3) I feel bad for storm players and other storm like decks, but this ban wasn't directed at them, and now there's no reason to keep preordain banned at least
A lot of people seem to be confused about what people are arguing here.
On one side people are saying "Modern format was bad and needed these bans!"
The other side is saying "The modern format was bad BECAUSE IT CAN'T POLICE ITSELF and thus wizards keeps having to ban stuff, and we dont like that ban everything mentality."
Yes, and I've heard those "police" people complaining for a long time and keep asking them what is this special card (or cards) that they want wizards to make or insert into the card pool. No takers on what that card is exactly. Just random complaining that the police cards aren't there. Tell us what they are and perhaps we can discuss them?
It's not like Counterspell would have policed these decks. Mana Leak is countering all the same cards at an easier mana cost on T2-T3 so it wouldn't be policing any of these fast kills.
Preytell what are these specific police cards that would have stopped the T2-4 kill decks?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
UR twin was the better twin already, I'm not sure you fit Kommand, Push, and AV into that shell without wrecking the elegance of the UR deck. Twin could come off, it really could.
Spirits
Not sure which thread you are referring to. Personally, I don't think SFM promotes a healthy meta. And based on previous statements from WOTC they seem to agree. I think it's possible though there is absolutely ZERO reason to believe they will. It doesn't solve any perceived problems at the moment and could be a potential nightmare.
Jeskai Twin was the best at the end IMHO.
I was just thinking...that guy sure does like degenerate decks. Eggs? Bloom? Those decks were just dumb and enabled either 30 min turns or turn 1/2 kills (might not be dead but you might as well when they turn 1 titan in bloom). You could still play those decks but at a more reasonable rate, however, I feel you don't like fair magic and just want to kill the opponent without needing to react if you can avoid it. Might I suggest solitaire ?
I enjoy playing cheerios and such combo decks but I've never been a fan of decks that just win. Its that reason I don't play infinite combo in EDH. I just try to win and have fun. That's what makes magic great, right?
Anything could come off... twin will not come off this year tho. Every combo deck needed to be evaluated through the lense of but why not just play twin then. The combo was to perfect. EOT deceiver to tap down protection mana into twin with backup was just so much better than what other combo decks were doing on their combo.
Given enough time sure it can come off but it is not the actual power level that is keeping twin on the ban list this year.
UR Twin was the better deck, but I absolutely do not see how fatal push doesn't not sway twin to Grixis colors now, killing goys was always its bane. Push and Tasigur's avoidance of it would absolutely make it the new 0 tier deck
Plenty of options out there. I recommend brewing.
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver
I disagree, I think Grixis Twin would be a jund deck without all the weaknesses with a combo deck that could beat ramp decks, and race combo decks
I think AV would be a sideboard card for fair decks, it would just drown out fair decks
I guess we could have janky decks and BW tokens to combat Twin
My H/W list
Instead, the last major format update/article we got was last April. It was a good article, yes, but it's inexcusable that Magic's second largest constructed format has gone without a public health check-in since April 2016. This is also to say nothing of Wizards' inability to get generic answers into the format so we can internally regulate instead of depending on bans. But regular communication would presumably address even that. Of course, communication isn't the only problem with Modern. It just starts there. Ban policy, reprint policy, testing policy, etc. are all major, ongoing problems too.
My personal, non-alarmist promise is that I'm done with Modern if we get to 2018 and 2 of the following 4 scenarios have happened:
1. Another ban due to bad internal policing cards.
2. No unbans.
3. Failure to publish at least two articles on the format's overall health, direction, and regulation.
4. Failure to print or reprint at least one more Modern answer like Push.
If Wizards does any 2 of those 4 things by 2018, let alone 3 or 4, it just means thr format isn't for me and I can't have confidence in it. Maybe it's still good for others, but I couldn't enjoy a format that was handled in those regards.
Problem is that next time, they'll ban something out of that "new" Abzan for reasons that don't really make sense.
I'm willing to bet that the communication is nonexistent and that it seems opaque because it is not really an ongoing process for them. Here, it is actively discussed by a ton of people. At headquarters, modern banlist might be a monthly hour long meeting between 4 guys, or just even a quick update memo about MTGO's stats.
P1: Standard is the cash cow of WotC
P2: Modern is the most popular format (for those with the option to play either)
C: Positive actions which increase the popularity of modern risk sales for standard
Eg: if you have an unpopular standard environment, perhaps the thought is that unbanning a popular modern card risks reducing standard sales by taking focus from standard and putting it on modern.
Do others agree that WotC has a conflict of interest with respect to administration of the modern format?
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
I don't take it as an insult, but out of touch with whom? There's a tendency around here to pretend this forum represents a consensus about what is right for Modern, but as soon as I log off, most of the attitudes around here go away. There are plenty of players who don't waste time complaining about whether or not some decks can or cannot be interacted with reasonably, but just change their gameplan and try to increase their win percentage. There are plenty of players who don't hold "interaction" up as the end-all, be-all of every single game of Magic. There are plenty of players who understand that to call Tron "uninteractive" is reductive and silly, as there are a billion different builds of Tron and they run the gamut from very goldfishy to very controlly. There are plenty of players who see this:
as definitively not Modern. A lot of these players have invested time and money but would be unwilling to do so if the new normal was "be ready to put a bunch of money down, because in order to compete you want the same sets of Lilis and Snapcasters and Goyfs that everybody else does, because WotC and a small faction of midrange players have decided that other options are not in the best interests of game balance." That's not an environment that encourages new blood and continuing competition. That's a perfectly balanced, but bland and stale game. And I want no part of it.
Not to disrespect or knock anyone's right to express their vision for the format, but the idea that it's a consensus or doesn't come with its inherent problems is just not true. To me, comparing Ancient Stirrings to Serum Visions shows a great deal of bias towards three-color midrange decks. Because to say "Ancient Stirrings digs deeper than Serum Visions" is to ignore the very real deckbuilding cost of even using Ancient Stirrings in the first place. It only gets colorless cards, which greatly limits the options of every deck that uses it. Serum Visions can go in any deck that has enough blue sources. Sure, Ancient Stirrings looks at more cards within a particular game of Magic, but the sheer number of cards Serum Visions can draw is much higher. There should be a place in Magic for skimping on card quality in exchange for exploiting powerful synergies. Otherwise everything is just good-stuff decks and there aren't any decks that have a strange and new line of attack that requires people to put more thought into both construction and play.
Now I'm not blind: I see that cards like Urza's Tower and Simian Spirit Guide would never be printed today, because they are relics of an age where Wizards was a lot more fast and lose with game balance (frankly, the reason I play Tron is that I'm nostalgic for the 90s and am not about to go back and rebuy all my Legacy pieces at 5x what I sold them for). I'd be fine if there were a new format that started late enough (Say, Lorywn/2010 Core Set) to kick out Time Spiral, Mirrodin, 8th/9th Ed, and Ravnica, because those sets, while fun, are full of the sort of problems that just don't come up anymore. That's a radically new format, but so was Modern when it started, right? It's cleaner and less disruptive than just putting a bunch of bandages on everything with a more aggressive banlist. I don't want to play in the Banned Age.
Now you're probably right, and Wizards probably doesn't want the Modern that I enjoy playing, but that doesn't mean that I'm clueless or that I'm all alone. Leaving Modern alone would not be the end of the world, especially since there's no Modern Pro Tour so there really are no stakes, and all the quirky fringe decks that people are saying are due for a ban are also the kind of thing that draws a lot of people to Modern. For me personally, if Wizards continues banning and nerfing decks I want to play, that basically does just leave Grixis and Jund. I'm not buying into Grixis and Jund. Not on a freelance artist's salary. So a Mox Opal ban would probably be the end of me attempting to play Constructed for a long time to come. If Wizards really does have it out for Lantern Control, Wizards has it out for the format I thought I was playing.
Careful, sheridan, living under an ultimatum is a terrible way to operate, and a slippery slope for many reasons.
It can lead to you trying to find reasons for something not working out, and undermining your enjoyment.
With a game that's changing and evolving, it can put you in tough spots where the situation moves beyond your current assessment and you still love it, but the criteria of your ultimatum are still fulfilled, so people expect you to act on it.
It can force you down a path of denial or overthinking an aspect of the game in order to break or fulfil the criteria.
To be glib, being a part of a game like magic is a little akin to being in a relationship. It's always bad to give ultimatums in a relationship context (it's a trap) so I'd extend that thought here as well. Don't box yourself into a binary situation which might bite you in the ass later on.
This is such a true statement. I think if wizards would have cut alot of the mana ramp cards from being created the speed of the game would have been preserved.
I don't understand this sentiment. If you want slower "fair" games (usually) both limited and standard offer this in spades, so why wouldn't you just stick to the formats that are dominated by the playstyles you prefer?
My H/W list
This is such a true statement. I think if wizards would have cut alot of the mana ramp cards from being created the speed of the game would have been preserved. [/quote]
no argument 100% true. The speed of the game would be static if mana ramp was not a thing.
The only counter point is that the game is stale and boring. I do not fault wizards for taking chances and making broken cards. Some of the cards we all know and love can fit into that broken card criteria if looked at in a vacuum.
However, my point stands. You should not be able to look at your opponents hand for zero mana. Just because other cards are powerful or even broken does not make that point any less true.
If further bans are needed then so be it. However, decks like tron are always supposed to take over and never do. I just resist the idea that the sky is falling from every announcement.
On one side people are saying "Modern format was bad and needed these bans!"
The other side is saying "The modern format was bad BECAUSE IT CAN'T POLICE ITSELF and thus wizards keeps having to ban stuff, and we dont like that ban everything mentality."
This, the fact the format cannot police itself, and the lack of communication are the 2 critical failures on Wizards part. Unless we want to continually ban cards, things which could counter the things being banned must be UNBANNED, or further answers provided, and we need communication in regards to the format itself.
Spirits
There are more than two sides. "The Modern format can police itself just fine, and bans for decks that aren't particularly dominant set a dangerous precedent" is a side. It may be underrepresented on this forum, but that doesn't mean it's not a valid perspective.
Dredge
Infect
Deaths shadow aggro
Ur kiln fiend
Delver decks
Storm decks/thing ascension
For dredge, people are underestimating the impact that losing consistency will have on the deck. It will still be a powerful deck that can destroy an unsuspecting FNM event, sure, but during long tournaments it will still run into enough graveyard hate to knock it out of the tournament. It'll have less hands capable of racing RiP, it'll have less ability to recover from relic, and there'll always be that one person who thinks surgical is the coolest sideboard tech, no matter the metagame. Dredge will still be a strong deck capable of sneaking in high profile wins but its overall metagame share will drop drastically, especially on the gp level.
As for probe I'm a little annoyed that it hits so many decks but I do think its a good choice overall
1) Delver will be fine, the deck was considering cutting probe anyway
2) infect will be fine. It cuts a BI, add some pumps and maybe serum visions an extra land/infect creature to make up for the loss of a 56 card deck and it'll be good to go. It doesn't loose a huge amount of power but becomes more skill intensive to play, which is a net gain for the format
3) I feel bad DSA and kiln fiend decks, but at the end of the loosing them was a good thing. They are basically the same exact deck as infect (think of how close infect and double strike are), and when you're in a format where you can play infect, Jund shifted infect, and Ur infect in addition to several other aggro decks there's probably something wrong in the format
3) I feel bad for storm players and other storm like decks, but this ban wasn't directed at them, and now there's no reason to keep preordain banned at least
Yes, and I've heard those "police" people complaining for a long time and keep asking them what is this special card (or cards) that they want wizards to make or insert into the card pool. No takers on what that card is exactly. Just random complaining that the police cards aren't there. Tell us what they are and perhaps we can discuss them?
It's not like Counterspell would have policed these decks. Mana Leak is countering all the same cards at an easier mana cost on T2-T3 so it wouldn't be policing any of these fast kills.
Preytell what are these specific police cards that would have stopped the T2-4 kill decks?