You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. And no one cares what you think "bad magic" is if you think all planeswalkers are bad magic.
Planeswalkers, since their inception, have signal a shift in design that I am not okay with. No one cares what you think "bad magic" is you think SSG should get banned. See how that works? The difference I support my argument with actual facts and statistics. You spouted *****.
The fact remains that you're pushing an agenda without factual basis other than what you think, which was the whole purpose of my post, top notch comprehension skills.
I did support it with facts. Perhaps you should read before making yourself look foolish?
What facts? I see zero facts. Sure, it enables Blood Moon and Chalice and Ad Nauseam and Griselbrand and Through the Breach one turn earlier. Sure, you may not like any of that. No one cares what you like. I don't like being Thoughtseized. I don't like planeswalkers. I'm not rallying for their bans. And further on SSG, How frequently do those things happen? How prevalent are those decks? Are they winning? If so, what percentage of the time? On what turn? Are their answers to the things they are trying to do? What percentage of the meta are SSG decks collectively? Are they stifling format diversity? What design space do you claim SSG is limiting? In what way? Where is your evidence as such?
Banning things based on what anyone considers to be "fun" or "fair" or "bad magic" is the stupidest pile of garbage I've ever heard. So go on kid, I'll refute you at every turn because you only have nonsense.
I'll lay it out easy for you, pay attention.
Decks that play SSG: Ad Nauseam, sometimes Valakut, sometimes Skred, sometimes Griselbrand.
% of meta those decks occupy: approximately equal or less than 6% according to MTGTOP8.
Do they win events? Much less than non SSG decks.
How frequently? Griselbrand won one major event in Unified Modern. Skred won a GP. The other on record wins are MTGO leagues and locals.
Can they win before turn 4? Griselbrand varients and Ad Nauseam can, infrequently. Other two, no.
Are they stifling format diversity? 6% meta occupation of four different decks does not a stifling create.
Are their answers to what they are trying to do? Yes.
Do they violate turn 4 with frequency or consistency? No.
What design space is SSG limiting? I don't have a god damn clue.
So now what? You have something else to say? I don't think you do. I think you will try to tell me that Griselbrand is more consistent than it is, so I'll save myself the trouble and direct you to its tier 3 status. I think you'll spout more garbage about Blood Moon and Chalice being "bad magic" (still a stupid term), I'll raise you that Blood Moon and Chalice are both meta calls and necessary things to have in this format to combat the likes of Tron/Infect.
Go on dude. Keep trying.
Wow, wish you would actually use FACTS to justify your opinion, like I did.
No one cares if you don't like getting thoughtseized or don't like planeswalkers. And your reasoning is absurdly lacking any logical consistancy. Please cease and desist your passive aggressive attacks. No need to reply to me. I am here for LOGICAL conversation and discussion. Not flaming and pushy opinions. Have a nice day.
I think you are entirely mistaken. I am not being passive aggressive. I am being aggressive. I dropped all the stats on you last post. I refuted your claim of "SSG is a broken enabler of "bad magic" with meta and win percentages. I refuted your claim that SSG is enabling anything remotely oppressive. I gave you proof that the things you cite as "bad magic" exists outside the sphere of SSG. I implored you to explain what you meant by limiting design space, to which you've failed, twice now.
No care cares if you don't like SSG. That does not entitle you to claim it is worthy of a ban, especially when your supporting evidence has been shown farcical by statistical analysis.
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.
I want to highlight this post because its the perfect example of why constant banning is bad:
Yes people are talking about valakut being banned. Why not? If it does well, it could be. That is Ban mania. Also assuming Spirit Guide, a card that sees less than 4 total percent in the meta should be banned... IS ALSO BAN MANIA
And your not to blame! Wizards has set the precedent. If its good, we will ban it.
Talk of banning Spirit Guide CERTAINLY isn't banmania. It makes no difference what it's metashare is. It's an instant speed, uncounterable (red) lotus petal. It's always involved with decks trying to do unfair and often unfun things like cheap out blood moon or cheap out chalice of the void, play an early reanimate of griselbrand, etc, etc.
The card is an enabler of bad magic and therefore is always the subject of this kind of discussion because it really limits design space.
I'm a little confused. I certainly see you're argument for the first paragraph but how does Simian Spirit Guide limit design space? What do you mean by that?
Because the mana cost on cards are often the only thing that constrains them from doing things that destroy a format. Some cards become much more powerful then they were intended if mana costs are altered even a little. It's an enabler of the type of problems we try to avoid.
And since Force of Will is not a modern card there isn't nearly as much "all-in" punishment as there would be in other formats.
Many, many pros have discussed the idea of removing SSG from the meta for a long time. It's not a new idea. Nor is it extreme.
I want to highlight this post because its the perfect example of why constant banning is bad:
Yes people are talking about valakut being banned. Why not? If it does well, it could be. That is Ban mania. Also assuming Spirit Guide, a card that sees less than 4 total percent in the meta should be banned... IS ALSO BAN MANIA
And your not to blame! Wizards has set the precedent. If its good, we will ban it.
Talk of banning Spirit Guide CERTAINLY isn't banmania. It makes no difference what it's metashare is. It's an instant speed, uncounterable (red) lotus petal. It's always involved with decks trying to do unfair and often unfun things like cheap out blood moon or cheap out chalice of the void, play an early reanimate of griselbrand, etc, etc.
The card is an enabler of bad magic and therefore is always the subject of this kind of discussion because it really limits design space.
I'm a little confused. I certainly see you're argument for the first paragraph but how does Simian Spirit Guide limit design space? What do you mean by that?
Because the mana cost on cards are often the only thing that constrains them from doing things that destroy a format. Some cards become much more powerful then they were intended if mana costs are altered even a little. It's an enabler of the type of problems we try to avoid.
And since Force of Will is not a modern card there isn't nearly as much "all-in" punishment as there would be in other formats.
Many, many pros have discussed the idea of removing SSG from the meta for a long time. It's not a new idea. Nor is it extreme.
All right I never claimed it was a new idea or extreme i was just curious as to why you thought it restricted design space. I feel as though by that logic we should be looking at banning all ramp cards as well as they effectively reduce the mana costs of cards in the same way don't they?
Just for clarification, is the argument here against SSG specifically or any kind of Mana ramp/cheat? I ask because while SSG is very much a way to cheat Mana, I have yet to see any indication that it is harming Modern. Tron is an entire deck built around cheating mana, and as much as I hate playing against it, I wouldn't argue that it is harmful to Modern either. Ask me again a few months from now and I may have a different answer, but for now neither SSG or Tron are sending. Up red flags.
Just for clarification, is the argument here against SSG specifically or any kind of Mana ramp/cheat? I ask because while SSG is very much a way to cheat Mana, I have yet to see any indication that it is harming Modern. Tron is an entire deck built around cheating mana, and as much as I hate playing against it, I wouldn't argue that it is harmful to Modern either. Ask me again a few months from now and I may have a different answer, but for now neither SSG or Tron are sending. Up red flags.
People like to use one ban as an excuse to push through other, agendized bans with weak or faulty analysis. This attitude is not acceptable to our community and we should fight it at every turn. The argument that "X was ban worthy, Y is also broken, lets get all of them!" is very very poor and should not be tolerated.
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.
Fast mana is one of the most easily things to break because of the way the game itself is structured. Add in the format's lack of good answers against that and the potential problem seems more prominent. But that's all there is - potential. Banning cards cannot follow potential, otherwise we could also argue that since there's likely to be a new card type in the future, Tarmogoyf should just get the boot now. Being the traditionally more easy to break aspect of the game doesn't mean the format shouldn't give it the chance that it gives to all other mechanics/archetypes.
Banning cards should almost always be based on statistics and the only time that "potential" can be used is as a supporting reason, such as for Pod's ban (they had the statistics and it was less so of potential then R&D telling us creatures are just going to get better under them). This is why the increased B&R announcement rate is a good thing for Modern - we know they don't test for Modern, so by having more frequent announcements means the format can react faster to any of these "potentials" breaking on the spot, rather than banning them too early or too late. It's the Standard bans that make the announcement unnerving, because unlike Modern, they test for Standard and I have the expectation that it's a "Vacuum Space" R&D has mastery over, the announcement also feels like they're announcing "Standard is now free-roaming like Modern", which is terrible for that format. What's really unnerving was the announcement was just there with no specific reasoning and I have no idea whether it was for the benefit of Modern or the detriment of Standard.
I wouldn't take anything the dredge guy says too seriously, he said something along the lines of FOW not being a police card in legacy because it forces people to play it in their decks so that he can't play busted Magic : /
He also agreed with a guy saying that dredge was a police deck because it forced them to side in 3 to 6 GY hate cards in the SB to allow decks like GW Tron to flourish. I think he meant the idea of "warped" confused, and a police deck confused for a parameter deck (To be fair, I confused that with infect).
Don't respond to him, he's going to keep insulting you when you bring up things like turn 3 aggro/combos winning and responding with things like, "but I don't like thoughtseizing destroying my combo, your idea of fun is subjective!"
It's not worth it
Public Mod Note
(amalek0):
user infracted for flaming.
Talk of banning SSG is absolutely banmania and the worst part about this last B&R update is the fact that WotC has stoked the flames once again by poorly communicating why cards were banned (lack of numbers for T4 violations, tournament finishes, day 2 meta %, etc). Going after Tier 2/3 strategies is not a healthy way to manage the format. IF a SSG based deck climbs into T1 and proves to be oppressive in some way, then sure... we can start to talk about if SSG is the card to hit, but without that data, suggesting a ban is absurd and rightfully called out.
SSG always pops up around slightly degenerate strategies that people may find problematic. It was used in Bloom Titan, it's currently used in Grishoalbrand/Goryo'd Breach type decks, it popped a bit in some of the Eldrazi decks before the Eye ban to drop early Chalices.
Does this mean it needs to be banned? Not necessarily, but it's not an innocuous or innocent card.
i just dont get the problem with "broken" cards if they are not creating problems in the format. All non rotating formats are build on broken cards or interactions. That's the beauty of them. Standard is for people wanting to play "fair" magic. SSG (and valakut, and goryo's vengeance and mox opal and so on) is not creating problems.
I understand the desire of bg mirrors all day, taking little advantages over turns to triumph as a powerfull and intelligent mage, but there should be another way to play magic in formats with more than 10000 cards
Not to be overly nitpicky, but SSG wasn't really a part of the bloom deck when it was banned. The most notable version of the deck that did run SSG was piloted by a cheater who was palming the perfect 7 (which included SSG). I wasn't a bloom pilot, so someone can correct me if they'd like, but SSG was dropped fairly early in its rise is to T1 (as far as I can remember, again a bloom pilot can correct me).
The colorless Eldrazi build was the worst version of the deck during eldrazi winter. It was absolutely a meta call for PT OGW where the field was expected to be heavily slanted towards Burn, Infect, Zoo, and Jund. Turns out chalice on 1 is great against decks full of 1 cmc plays. I understand that is frustrating, but the deck does need to be looked at in context to the meta it was preparing for. Chalice decks really aren't that big of an issue in the format overall.
So could a day rise where SSG is a problem? Yes. It is possible. Is that time now? Not even close.
I'm just not seeing the SSG or Opal ban. SSG isn't part of any top-tier decks. The highest tier deck it is part of, Ad Nauseam, doesn't win consistently before T4 and has never really risen above 3%-4% (being generous) of the format. Probe, another T4 violator, was banned for participating in two Tier 1 decks (DSZ and Infect) and a Tier 2 deck (Bloo/Prowess). SSG just isn't there at all.
Opal also doesn't cut it. The SB subgame for Dredge justified a GGT rebanning because that subgame is way more slot and card intensive than the SB subgame for Affinity. This makes sense from a gameplay perspective; you can meaningfully interact with Affinity using basic removal. Dredge is MUCH more resilient to Bolt, Decay, Terminate, etc. than Affinity, forcing more SB cards. I'll investigate this in a future article, but I expect the "GGT is to Dredge as Opal is to Affinity" banlist argument won't hold water.
The can has opened. Simian Spirit Guide and Mox Opal, along with some Big mana decks tonedown should be under consideration. I reckon that this should be the point soon enough.
Not a personal opinion, just WOTC's one.
I do not agree with this line of reasoning. YET. As far as im concerned Git probe+serum visions+preordain was too much consistency in WOTC's eyes. While the rationale behind the banning certainly boils down to slowing aggrocombo down, i do not think wizards was going to give us additional consistency tools with it in the format. IMO Git Probe was the perfect ban because it both slows down aggrocombo and reduces consistency. While the latter is certainly less preferred I'm convinced we will now get to have preordain.
Now if wizards still refuses to give us preordain then i agree that i am just reading to much into it.
If that comment was not about git probe but rather GGT i just don't understand your platform of logic. GGT served as a way of winning through hate specifically designed to turn dredge off. Hitting this was the most gentle ban that this deck could endure (that would have any appreciable effect at all)
(for the record i am operating under the assumption that they will continue printing good graveyard cards and the best way to prevent the constant need for bans is to get the enablers)
I want to highlight this post because its the perfect example of why constant banning is bad:
Yes people are talking about valakut being banned. Why not? If it does well, it could be. That is Ban mania. Also assuming Spirit Guide, a card that sees less than 4 total percent in the meta should be banned... IS ALSO BAN MANIA
And your not to blame! Wizards has set the precedent. If its good, we will ban it.
Talk of banning Spirit Guide CERTAINLY isn't banmania. It makes no difference what it's metashare is. It's an instant speed, uncounterable (red) lotus petal. It's always involved with decks trying to do unfair and often unfun things like cheap out blood moon or cheap out chalice of the void, play an early reanimate of griselbrand, etc, etc.
The card is an enabler of bad magic and therefore is always the subject of this kind of discussion because it really limits design space.
I'm a little confused. I certainly see you're argument for the first paragraph but how does Simian Spirit Guide limit design space? What do you mean by that?
Because the mana cost on cards are often the only thing that constrains them from doing things that destroy a format. Some cards become much more powerful then they were intended if mana costs are altered even a little. It's an enabler of the type of problems we try to avoid.
And since Force of Will is not a modern card there isn't nearly as much "all-in" punishment as there would be in other formats.
Many, many pros have discussed the idea of removing SSG from the meta for a long time. It's not a new idea. Nor is it extreme.
All right I never claimed it was a new idea or extreme i was just curious as to why you thought it restricted design space. I feel as though by that logic we should be looking at banning all ramp cards as well as they effectively reduce the mana costs of cards in the same way don't they?
Most of those things can be either countered or killed. SSG can be exiled anytime you have priority. Mana dorks have summoning sickness, artifact ramp tends to have an upfornt card or a restriction (like Mox Opal-Legendary+metalcraft).
I wouldn't take anything the dredge guy says too seriously, he said something along the lines of FOW not being a police card in legacy because it forces people to play it in their decks so that he can't play busted Magic : /
He also agreed with a guy saying that dredge was a police deck because it forced them to side in 3 to 6 GY hate cards in the SB to allow decks like GW Tron to flourish. I think he meant the idea of "warped" confused, and a police deck confused for a parameter deck (To be fair, I confused that with infect).
Don't respond to him, he's going to keep insulting you when you bring up things like turn 3 aggro/combos winning and responding with things like, "but I don't like thoughtseizing destroying my combo, your idea of fun is subjective!"
It's not worth it
Never, anywhere, did I say that dredge was a police deck. I was responding to your idea that having to use X card because of Y deck is format warping. It sure is. Packing Rest in Peace is akin to packing Force of Will. You do it because you don't want lose to Belcher. Does that mean Belcher is format warping? Maybe, but Legacy is better for both Belcher and Force. Do you grudgingly play Force like you grudgingly play Rest in Peace? I am vehemently opposed to the idea that every deck that is allowed to be good must be interacted with by creature removal. That is what Standard has become and look how much it has tanked recently.
Talk of banning SSG is absolutely banmania and the worst part about this last B&R update is the fact that WotC has stoked the flames once again by poorly communicating why cards were banned (lack of numbers for T4 violations, tournament finishes, day 2 meta %, etc). Going after Tier 2/3 strategies is not a healthy way to manage the format. IF a SSG based deck climbs into T1 and proves to be oppressive in some way, then sure... we can start to talk about if SSG is the card to hit, but without that data, suggesting a ban is absurd and rightfully called out.
Thanks! It gets to be a bit absurd around here how much garbage is allowed to be spoken.
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.
Standard is having problems because they're printing big, dumb creatures with no good answers for them. Standard's become creature oriented with board stalls until a planeswalker can shift the tides. There was nothing in standard to answer Emerakul efficiently
I'm glad this is happening in standard, they've been pandering to super casual players who feel bad about counters or having their awesome 8/8 trample creature dying to a 3 mana black spell.
Standard is having problems because they're printing big, dumb creatures with no good answers for them. Standard's because creature oriented with board stalls until a planeswalker can shift the tides. There was nothing in standard to answer Emerakul efficiently
I'm glad this is happening in standard, they've been pandering to super casual players who feel bad about counters or having their awesome 8/8 trample creature dying to a 3 mana black spell.
And meanwhile, two-thirds of the MTGsalvation Modern community responded they'd like to play against more traditional control decks.
(I know, I know, small N, selection bias, nonrepresentitive sample, yeah, all that. Just sayin'.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing UX Mana Denial until Modern gets the answers it needs.
WUBRG Humans BRW Mardu Pyromancer UW UW "Control" UR Blue Moon
The can has opened. Simian Spirit Guide and Mox Opal, along with some Big mana decks tonedown should be under consideration. I reckon that this should be the point soon enough.
Not a personal opinion, just WOTC's one.
This part sort of blows my mind.
As an ex Twin/Bloom, current infect player, how can you point the finger at Mox Opal? Mox Opal is used in two decks. If Lantern, for some weird reason, ever became god tier 1, they'd ban ensnaring bridge (not that I'm predicting or demanding for a ban like that)
If you ban Affinity, you're literally killing the deck
Affinity can be interacted with removal, and removal is very meaningful. I've had near god hands crippled from just 2x lightning bolts in the first 3 turns.
I actually think Affinity is healthy for the format, it usually doesn't quite have the speed to kill on turn 3, and if it does, it's because there was zero interaction.
Combo decks can definitely out-race Affinity
Tron has a 50/50 matchup
Jund/Junk have maybe a slight favorable matchup
I don't really see Affinity violating the format rules. It has the most crippling hate against it in the entire format. Stony Silence, Shatterstorm, anger of the gods, EE, ancient grudge, Supreme Verdict, NOSB, lingering souls, Kataki, Linvala
Affinity, through a very skilled pilot, can struggle and limp to the victory finish line through something like Stony Silence, but it's incredible difficult and unlikely. A full-board wipe going all in is devastating, because the deck top decks like complete crap. Affinity has no answers to hate except playing 2 of thoughtseizes, or a 2 of spell pierce
I just don't see it. Unless Affinity becomes oppressive and the meta can't adjust to it without shoving 6 Affinity specific hate cards
Affinity is different than Dredge, Affinity doesn't kick out other aggro/combo decks from the metas.
Things like burn, infect, zoo decks, Elves, (esh, maybe not Merfolk in a dominant Affinity meta), Death Shadow, and whatever semi popular aggro decks, they all did fine. Affinity doesn't really have splash damage to other decks outside of Lantern and a very horrible SOTM deck that was hurt more from GY decks. If anything, Sword hate was hurting Affinity.
Dredge, on the hand, kinda invalidated GY decks. Even an amazing deck like Abzan Company was kicked to low tier 2 (after people were crying about collected company!)
This is honestly why I think Mox Opal would be a very, very stupid ban. As long as GBx alone exists, I don't see how Affinity could ever become oppressively good
Standard is having problems because they're printing big, dumb creatures with no good answers for them. Standard's because creature oriented with board stalls until a planeswalker can shift the tides. There was nothing in standard to answer Emerakul efficiently
I'm glad this is happening in standard, they've been pandering to super casual players who feel bad about counters or having their awesome 8/8 trample creature dying to a 3 mana black spell.
And meanwhile, two-thirds of the MTGsalvation Modern community responded they'd like to play against more traditional control decks.
(I know, I know, small N, selection bias, nonrepresentitive sample, yeah, all that. Just sayin'.)
I sure as hell don't want a bunch of GBx mirror matches. Jund v Jund feels awful, it's all luck and no skill.
I know I'm always like, "but what about GBx or Blue!"
I don't want aggro and combo decks to not exist, let alone be kicked out of tier 1. I want a healthy meta full of everything. I don't want a bunch of Jund v Jund matchups, but I sure as hell don't want a bunch of decks ignoring one another and winning without interaction on a daily basis
My dream scenario would be
25% midrange
25% control
25% aggro
25% combo
That won't happen, but it's the kind of thing I want
I also love degenerate decks like Infect, Affinity, Ad Naseum, or prison decks like W/R Prison
I love seeing things like Elves as a bunch of 6/6 tramplers from Elzuri. I love the cool, degenerate things that can be done in this format. I want diversity and every deck to feel playable without being oppressive
I don't modern to be just fair Magic
All I want is diversity and games not ending on turn 3 solitaire on a daily basis
Golgari Grave-Troll—Dredge, the mechanic and the deck, has a negative impact on Modern by pushing the format too far toward a battle of sideboards. With the printing of Cathartic Reunion and Prized Amalgam, the deck once again became unhealthy for the format. While those cards were discussed, the real offender always has been the dredge mechanic itself.
If one wanted to apply the GGT ban to another deck (e.g. Affinity), one would need to prove that this other deck also pushes Modern "too far toward a battle of sideboards." Although I also believe Dredge pushed out other GY-based decks, that reason wasn't stated as part of the ban so we shouldn't consider it. We need to figure out what a "battle of sideboards" means and if other decks cause that.
I personally dislike this rationale because it seems extremely subjective in a format that is already defined by sideboards. I wish Wizards would have worded it better or more clearly explained what a "battle of sideboards" means to them. Players are justifiably uneasy about the implications of that ban because many decks (Affinity, Tron/Valakut, Ad Nauseam, Burn, etc.) can lend themselves towards sideboard-heavy answers and matchups.
Talk of banning Spirit Guide CERTAINLY isn't banmania. It makes no difference what it's metashare is. It's an instant speed, uncounterable (red) lotus petal. It's always involved with decks trying to do unfair and often unfun things like cheap out blood moon or cheap out chalice of the void, play an early reanimate of griselbrand, etc, etc.
The card is an enabler of bad magic and therefore is always the subject of this kind of discussion because it really limits design space.
I'm a little confused. I certainly see you're argument for the first paragraph but how does Simian Spirit Guide limit design space? What do you mean by that?
Because the mana cost on cards are often the only thing that constrains them from doing things that destroy a format. Some cards become much more powerful then they were intended if mana costs are altered even a little. It's an enabler of the type of problems we try to avoid.
And since Force of Will is not a modern card there isn't nearly as much "all-in" punishment as there would be in other formats.
Many, many pros have discussed the idea of removing SSG from the meta for a long time. It's not a new idea. Nor is it extreme.
All right I never claimed it was a new idea or extreme i was just curious as to why you thought it restricted design space. I feel as though by that logic we should be looking at banning all ramp cards as well as they effectively reduce the mana costs of cards in the same way don't they?
Most of those things can be either countered or killed. SSG can be exiled anytime you have priority. Mana dorks have summoning sickness, artifact ramp tends to have an upfornt card or a restriction (like Mox Opal-Legendary+metalcraft).
sure but i think that's a little disingenious and not really an answer. just because something can be countered or dies to doomblade doesn't mean it always will and to believe otherwise seems a little foolish. Tron is a whole different beast as the decks is filled with redundant ways to consistently find their "ramp spells" so having 1 or even 2 ways to kill a land in modern is often not enough to stop tron.
To be clear I'm fine with all of these cards existing in modern (however much i might dislike tron and valakut strategies) I just don't see the argument for SSG right now other than it's unfun to play against and it's often used to try to do degenerate things and those two things aren't enough for it to warrant a ban yet.
Golgari Grave-Troll—Dredge, the mechanic and the deck, has a negative impact on Modern by pushing the format too far toward a battle of sideboards. With the printing of Cathartic Reunion and Prized Amalgam, the deck once again became unhealthy for the format. While those cards were discussed, the real offender always has been the dredge mechanic itself.
If one wanted to apply the GGT ban to another deck (e.g. Affinity), one would need to prove that this other deck also pushes Modern "too far toward a battle of sideboards." Although I also believe Dredge pushed out other GY-based decks, that reason wasn't stated as part of the ban so we shouldn't consider it. We need to figure out what a "battle of sideboards" means and if other decks cause that.
I personally dislike this rationale because it seems extremely subjective in a format that is already defined by sideboards. I wish Wizards would have worded it better or more clearly explained what a "battle of sideboards" means to them. Players are justifiably uneasy about the implications of that ban because many decks (Affinity, Tron/Valakut, Ad Nauseam, Burn, etc.) can lend themselves towards sideboard-heavy answers and matchups.
I agree with them about the sideboard explanation, but I really wish they would have said it was pushing out GY cards
Before dredge, you'd see tons of articles saying, "You need at least 3 sideboard hate cards against Affinity to not lose, 4 just to feel safe"
And that was for an interactive deck, by Duke Reid
So, yes, you're right, that explanation is very scary and if someone asked me, "do you think Affinity is safe to invest in?" I would have to tell them no, banmania or not. WOTC has not been transparent enough for me
Tron can be beaten with speed and fast combos. If you want to say "A battle of sideboard" That's absolutely all it comes down to against fair decks
I really dislike that flimsy explanation they gave
I'm a little confused. I certainly see you're argument for the first paragraph but how does Simian Spirit Guide limit design space? What do you mean by that?
Because the mana cost on cards are often the only thing that constrains them from doing things that destroy a format. Some cards become much more powerful then they were intended if mana costs are altered even a little. It's an enabler of the type of problems we try to avoid.
And since Force of Will is not a modern card there isn't nearly as much "all-in" punishment as there would be in other formats.
Many, many pros have discussed the idea of removing SSG from the meta for a long time. It's not a new idea. Nor is it extreme.
All right I never claimed it was a new idea or extreme i was just curious as to why you thought it restricted design space. I feel as though by that logic we should be looking at banning all ramp cards as well as they effectively reduce the mana costs of cards in the same way don't they?
Most of those things can be either countered or killed. SSG can be exiled anytime you have priority. Mana dorks have summoning sickness, artifact ramp tends to have an upfornt card or a restriction (like Mox Opal-Legendary+metalcraft).
sure but i think that's a little disingenious and not really an answer. just because something can be countered or dies to doomblade doesn't mean it always will and to believe otherwise seems a little foolish. Tron is a whole different beast as the decks is filled with redundant ways to consistently find their "ramp spells" so having 1 or even 2 ways to kill a land in modern is often not enough to stop tron.
To be clear I'm fine with all of these cards existing in modern (however much i might dislike tron and valakut strategies) I just don't see the argument for SSG right now other than it's unfun to play against and it's often used to try to do degenerate things and those two things aren't enough for it to warrant a ban yet.
You and ktkenshinx have much different ideas on what warrants a ban than wizards does. Wizards has banned cards like Dig Through Time with close to zero competitive play, and many cards never saw the light of day in modern and saw preemptive bans.
I'm not asking for it to be banned NOW. I've always said it doesn't belong in modern and today is no different then 2 years ago as far as SSG goes. It's an unsafe enabler that's always seeming to show up in decks that are on watch list as problem deck and or Blood Moon/Chalice decks which are historically polled as being "unfun cards", not my opinion but a mass opinion.
Why is it disingenuous to pointout the shortcomings of mana dorks and artifact ramp? You asked the question and I gave you the literal answer to your question. They are worse because they have costs and/summoning sickness, and/or can be destroyed.
On the topic of SSG vs Opal, people are REALLY underestimating how much stronger guide is than opal in a vacuum. Mox Opal isn't T; Get one of any color. It's T: Get one of any color if you have metal craft. You have to build around it and if you want it to be first turn active, you need at least 2 more zero cost cards (potentially a single one drop), for it to go active. It's not an auto include if you want fast mana because you have to invest into an artifact heavy strat. Also, can still be countered since you're still casting it, and can be hit with removal. It's powerful, no duh, but the ways to deal with it are legion.
I can't say the same about Guide.
Simian Spirit Guide only requires it be in your hand and you exile it to get that one red mana. No set up, no work, just have it in your hand and exile it when you need the mana. No set up except your combo in hand; and bam, stuff comes out a turn early or they have enough mana to combo off.
If you want to ban a card: ban it because it's an enabler, not because it's powerful. That's dumb.
A lot of new player seem to be stuck on the idea that powerful=broken. This is not the case; powerful cards are not broken unless 1) They are very hard, if not impossible to answer. (See: True Name Nemesis) 2) Offer immense reward for little effort given. (ANY of the original Moxen) 3)Requires you to deal with it or you loose.
A good example of this was the Twin and Summer Bloom Bans. Twin was an example of a card that was not broken, but very powerful in combination with certain cards. On it's own, it's 1)Very answerable, removal and various hate. 2)Requires a lot of effort to set up (you need at least Exarch or Pestermite to go off, and even counter magic to ensure it went off safely),and 3) Was only answer or die if you had the Pestermite/Exarch ready.
Summer Bloom, on the other hand, is much more powerful on it's own because it ENABLED Amulet Bloom to go nutter. 1)The spell itself can only be answered by counter magic, and modern does not have instant speed destroy three lands. 2) Even without Amulet and the Karoo lands, it still put you ahead three lands for two mana. 3) Lead to moments where you had to answer the Primeval Titan/Hive Mind or die horribly.
tl;dr? If you wanna something, don't ban something because it is powerful, ban something because it ENABLES DEGENERACY
On the topic of SSG vs Opal, people are REALLY underestimating how much stronger guide is than opal in a vacuum. Mox Opal isn't T; Get one of any color. It's T: Get one of any color if you have metal craft. You have to build around it and if you want it to be first turn active, you need at least 2 more zero cost cards (potentially a single one drop), for it to go active. It's not an auto include if you want fast mana because you have to invest into an artifact heavy strat. Also, can still be countered since you're still casting it, and can be hit with removal. It's powerful, no duh, but the ways to deal with it are legion.
I can't say the same about Guide.
Simian Spirit Guide only requires it be in your hand and you exile it to get that one red mana. No set up, no work, just have it in your hand and exile it when you need the mana. No set up except your combo in hand; and bam, stuff comes out a turn early or they have enough mana to combo off.
I'm not disagreeing with your Bloom analysis, but the SSG analysis misses a key point: it is not a part of consistent, top-tier T4 rule violators. As long as that's the case, the card is totally safe under the T4 rule.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think you are entirely mistaken. I am not being passive aggressive. I am being aggressive. I dropped all the stats on you last post. I refuted your claim of "SSG is a broken enabler of "bad magic" with meta and win percentages. I refuted your claim that SSG is enabling anything remotely oppressive. I gave you proof that the things you cite as "bad magic" exists outside the sphere of SSG. I implored you to explain what you meant by limiting design space, to which you've failed, twice now.
No care cares if you don't like SSG. That does not entitle you to claim it is worthy of a ban, especially when your supporting evidence has been shown farcical by statistical analysis.
Because the mana cost on cards are often the only thing that constrains them from doing things that destroy a format. Some cards become much more powerful then they were intended if mana costs are altered even a little. It's an enabler of the type of problems we try to avoid.
And since Force of Will is not a modern card there isn't nearly as much "all-in" punishment as there would be in other formats.
Many, many pros have discussed the idea of removing SSG from the meta for a long time. It's not a new idea. Nor is it extreme.
All right I never claimed it was a new idea or extreme i was just curious as to why you thought it restricted design space. I feel as though by that logic we should be looking at banning all ramp cards as well as they effectively reduce the mana costs of cards in the same way don't they?
People like to use one ban as an excuse to push through other, agendized bans with weak or faulty analysis. This attitude is not acceptable to our community and we should fight it at every turn. The argument that "X was ban worthy, Y is also broken, lets get all of them!" is very very poor and should not be tolerated.
Banning cards should almost always be based on statistics and the only time that "potential" can be used is as a supporting reason, such as for Pod's ban (they had the statistics and it was less so of potential then R&D telling us creatures are just going to get better under them). This is why the increased B&R announcement rate is a good thing for Modern - we know they don't test for Modern, so by having more frequent announcements means the format can react faster to any of these "potentials" breaking on the spot, rather than banning them too early or too late. It's the Standard bans that make the announcement unnerving, because unlike Modern, they test for Standard and I have the expectation that it's a "Vacuum Space" R&D has mastery over, the announcement also feels like they're announcing "Standard is now free-roaming like Modern", which is terrible for that format. What's really unnerving was the announcement was just there with no specific reasoning and I have no idea whether it was for the benefit of Modern or the detriment of Standard.
He also agreed with a guy saying that dredge was a police deck because it forced them to side in 3 to 6 GY hate cards in the SB to allow decks like GW Tron to flourish. I think he meant the idea of "warped" confused, and a police deck confused for a parameter deck (To be fair, I confused that with infect).
Don't respond to him, he's going to keep insulting you when you bring up things like turn 3 aggro/combos winning and responding with things like, "but I don't like thoughtseizing destroying my combo, your idea of fun is subjective!"
It's not worth it
Does this mean it needs to be banned? Not necessarily, but it's not an innocuous or innocent card.
I understand the desire of bg mirrors all day, taking little advantages over turns to triumph as a powerfull and intelligent mage, but there should be another way to play magic in formats with more than 10000 cards
The colorless Eldrazi build was the worst version of the deck during eldrazi winter. It was absolutely a meta call for PT OGW where the field was expected to be heavily slanted towards Burn, Infect, Zoo, and Jund. Turns out chalice on 1 is great against decks full of 1 cmc plays. I understand that is frustrating, but the deck does need to be looked at in context to the meta it was preparing for. Chalice decks really aren't that big of an issue in the format overall.
So could a day rise where SSG is a problem? Yes. It is possible. Is that time now? Not even close.
Opal also doesn't cut it. The SB subgame for Dredge justified a GGT rebanning because that subgame is way more slot and card intensive than the SB subgame for Affinity. This makes sense from a gameplay perspective; you can meaningfully interact with Affinity using basic removal. Dredge is MUCH more resilient to Bolt, Decay, Terminate, etc. than Affinity, forcing more SB cards. I'll investigate this in a future article, but I expect the "GGT is to Dredge as Opal is to Affinity" banlist argument won't hold water.
I do not agree with this line of reasoning. YET. As far as im concerned Git probe+serum visions+preordain was too much consistency in WOTC's eyes. While the rationale behind the banning certainly boils down to slowing aggrocombo down, i do not think wizards was going to give us additional consistency tools with it in the format. IMO Git Probe was the perfect ban because it both slows down aggrocombo and reduces consistency. While the latter is certainly less preferred I'm convinced we will now get to have preordain.
Now if wizards still refuses to give us preordain then i agree that i am just reading to much into it.
If that comment was not about git probe but rather GGT i just don't understand your platform of logic. GGT served as a way of winning through hate specifically designed to turn dredge off. Hitting this was the most gentle ban that this deck could endure (that would have any appreciable effect at all)
(for the record i am operating under the assumption that they will continue printing good graveyard cards and the best way to prevent the constant need for bans is to get the enablers)
Most of those things can be either countered or killed. SSG can be exiled anytime you have priority. Mana dorks have summoning sickness, artifact ramp tends to have an upfornt card or a restriction (like Mox Opal-Legendary+metalcraft).
Never, anywhere, did I say that dredge was a police deck. I was responding to your idea that having to use X card because of Y deck is format warping. It sure is. Packing Rest in Peace is akin to packing Force of Will. You do it because you don't want lose to Belcher. Does that mean Belcher is format warping? Maybe, but Legacy is better for both Belcher and Force. Do you grudgingly play Force like you grudgingly play Rest in Peace? I am vehemently opposed to the idea that every deck that is allowed to be good must be interacted with by creature removal. That is what Standard has become and look how much it has tanked recently.
Thanks! It gets to be a bit absurd around here how much garbage is allowed to be spoken.
Standard is having problems because they're printing big, dumb creatures with no good answers for them. Standard's become creature oriented with board stalls until a planeswalker can shift the tides. There was nothing in standard to answer Emerakul efficiently
I'm glad this is happening in standard, they've been pandering to super casual players who feel bad about counters or having their awesome 8/8 trample creature dying to a 3 mana black spell.
And meanwhile, two-thirds of the MTGsalvation Modern community responded they'd like to play against more traditional control decks.
(I know, I know, small N, selection bias, nonrepresentitive sample, yeah, all that. Just sayin'.)
WUBRG Humans
BRW Mardu Pyromancer
UW UW "Control"
UR Blue Moon
This part sort of blows my mind.
As an ex Twin/Bloom, current infect player, how can you point the finger at Mox Opal? Mox Opal is used in two decks. If Lantern, for some weird reason, ever became god tier 1, they'd ban ensnaring bridge (not that I'm predicting or demanding for a ban like that)
If you ban Affinity, you're literally killing the deck
Affinity can be interacted with removal, and removal is very meaningful. I've had near god hands crippled from just 2x lightning bolts in the first 3 turns.
I actually think Affinity is healthy for the format, it usually doesn't quite have the speed to kill on turn 3, and if it does, it's because there was zero interaction.
Combo decks can definitely out-race Affinity
Tron has a 50/50 matchup
Jund/Junk have maybe a slight favorable matchup
I don't really see Affinity violating the format rules. It has the most crippling hate against it in the entire format. Stony Silence, Shatterstorm, anger of the gods, EE, ancient grudge, Supreme Verdict, NOSB, lingering souls, Kataki, Linvala
Affinity, through a very skilled pilot, can struggle and limp to the victory finish line through something like Stony Silence, but it's incredible difficult and unlikely. A full-board wipe going all in is devastating, because the deck top decks like complete crap. Affinity has no answers to hate except playing 2 of thoughtseizes, or a 2 of spell pierce
I just don't see it. Unless Affinity becomes oppressive and the meta can't adjust to it without shoving 6 Affinity specific hate cards
Affinity is different than Dredge, Affinity doesn't kick out other aggro/combo decks from the metas.
Things like burn, infect, zoo decks, Elves, (esh, maybe not Merfolk in a dominant Affinity meta), Death Shadow, and whatever semi popular aggro decks, they all did fine. Affinity doesn't really have splash damage to other decks outside of Lantern and a very horrible SOTM deck that was hurt more from GY decks. If anything, Sword hate was hurting Affinity.
Dredge, on the hand, kinda invalidated GY decks. Even an amazing deck like Abzan Company was kicked to low tier 2 (after people were crying about collected company!)
This is honestly why I think Mox Opal would be a very, very stupid ban. As long as GBx alone exists, I don't see how Affinity could ever become oppressively good
I sure as hell don't want a bunch of GBx mirror matches. Jund v Jund feels awful, it's all luck and no skill.
I know I'm always like, "but what about GBx or Blue!"
I don't want aggro and combo decks to not exist, let alone be kicked out of tier 1. I want a healthy meta full of everything. I don't want a bunch of Jund v Jund matchups, but I sure as hell don't want a bunch of decks ignoring one another and winning without interaction on a daily basis
My dream scenario would be
25% midrange
25% control
25% aggro
25% combo
That won't happen, but it's the kind of thing I want
I also love degenerate decks like Infect, Affinity, Ad Naseum, or prison decks like W/R Prison
I love seeing things like Elves as a bunch of 6/6 tramplers from Elzuri. I love the cool, degenerate things that can be done in this format. I want diversity and every deck to feel playable without being oppressive
I don't modern to be just fair Magic
All I want is diversity and games not ending on turn 3 solitaire on a daily basis
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/january-9-2017-banned-and-restricted-announcement-2017-01-09
If one wanted to apply the GGT ban to another deck (e.g. Affinity), one would need to prove that this other deck also pushes Modern "too far toward a battle of sideboards." Although I also believe Dredge pushed out other GY-based decks, that reason wasn't stated as part of the ban so we shouldn't consider it. We need to figure out what a "battle of sideboards" means and if other decks cause that.
I personally dislike this rationale because it seems extremely subjective in a format that is already defined by sideboards. I wish Wizards would have worded it better or more clearly explained what a "battle of sideboards" means to them. Players are justifiably uneasy about the implications of that ban because many decks (Affinity, Tron/Valakut, Ad Nauseam, Burn, etc.) can lend themselves towards sideboard-heavy answers and matchups.
sure but i think that's a little disingenious and not really an answer. just because something can be countered or dies to doomblade doesn't mean it always will and to believe otherwise seems a little foolish. Tron is a whole different beast as the decks is filled with redundant ways to consistently find their "ramp spells" so having 1 or even 2 ways to kill a land in modern is often not enough to stop tron.
To be clear I'm fine with all of these cards existing in modern (however much i might dislike tron and valakut strategies) I just don't see the argument for SSG right now other than it's unfun to play against and it's often used to try to do degenerate things and those two things aren't enough for it to warrant a ban yet.
I agree with them about the sideboard explanation, but I really wish they would have said it was pushing out GY cards
Before dredge, you'd see tons of articles saying, "You need at least 3 sideboard hate cards against Affinity to not lose, 4 just to feel safe"
And that was for an interactive deck, by Duke Reid
So, yes, you're right, that explanation is very scary and if someone asked me, "do you think Affinity is safe to invest in?" I would have to tell them no, banmania or not. WOTC has not been transparent enough for me
Tron can be beaten with speed and fast combos. If you want to say "A battle of sideboard" That's absolutely all it comes down to against fair decks
I really dislike that flimsy explanation they gave
You and ktkenshinx have much different ideas on what warrants a ban than wizards does. Wizards has banned cards like Dig Through Time with close to zero competitive play, and many cards never saw the light of day in modern and saw preemptive bans.
I'm not asking for it to be banned NOW. I've always said it doesn't belong in modern and today is no different then 2 years ago as far as SSG goes. It's an unsafe enabler that's always seeming to show up in decks that are on watch list as problem deck and or Blood Moon/Chalice decks which are historically polled as being "unfun cards", not my opinion but a mass opinion.
Why is it disingenuous to pointout the shortcomings of mana dorks and artifact ramp? You asked the question and I gave you the literal answer to your question. They are worse because they have costs and/summoning sickness, and/or can be destroyed.
I can't say the same about Guide.
Simian Spirit Guide only requires it be in your hand and you exile it to get that one red mana. No set up, no work, just have it in your hand and exile it when you need the mana. No set up except your combo in hand; and bam, stuff comes out a turn early or they have enough mana to combo off.
If you want to ban a card: ban it because it's an enabler, not because it's powerful. That's dumb.
A lot of new player seem to be stuck on the idea that powerful=broken. This is not the case; powerful cards are not broken unless 1) They are very hard, if not impossible to answer. (See: True Name Nemesis) 2) Offer immense reward for little effort given. (ANY of the original Moxen) 3)Requires you to deal with it or you loose.
A good example of this was the Twin and Summer Bloom Bans. Twin was an example of a card that was not broken, but very powerful in combination with certain cards. On it's own, it's 1)Very answerable, removal and various hate. 2)Requires a lot of effort to set up (you need at least Exarch or Pestermite to go off, and even counter magic to ensure it went off safely),and 3) Was only answer or die if you had the Pestermite/Exarch ready.
Summer Bloom, on the other hand, is much more powerful on it's own because it ENABLED Amulet Bloom to go nutter. 1)The spell itself can only be answered by counter magic, and modern does not have instant speed destroy three lands. 2) Even without Amulet and the Karoo lands, it still put you ahead three lands for two mana. 3) Lead to moments where you had to answer the Primeval Titan/Hive Mind or die horribly.
tl;dr? If you wanna something, don't ban something because it is powerful, ban something because it ENABLES DEGENERACY
RWGisela, Blade of Explosions
I'm not disagreeing with your Bloom analysis, but the SSG analysis misses a key point: it is not a part of consistent, top-tier T4 rule violators. As long as that's the case, the card is totally safe under the T4 rule.