Well, I don't know Tom LaPille from a whole in the ground. I just know that they really could have started modern anywhere and they chose to start it in the first core without counterspell ever. I mean you realize counterspell was in like every core set up until 8th edition right? Further, the modern stipulation that any card entering modern must go through standard seems a little arbitrary doesn't it? I mean why does it need to go through standard? Why couldn't it be in a supplementary set? I just think it all seems awfully convenient. Nah, I think its pretty evident that modern was meant to be a blue light format. Yeah its conjecture, but its conjecture based on first hand knowledge of how much people hated blue leading up to modern. Again though, that is demographics. Some people loved blue. It's a troll deck though and it doesn't hurt my feelings it is gone.
I do appreciated the response though.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern GB Rock U Flooding Merfolk RUG Delver Midrange WU Monks UW Tempo Geist GW Bogle GW Liege UR Tron B Vampires
Affinity Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity EDH W Akroma GBW Ghave BRU Thrax GR Ruric I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
Jace is probably not too strong for Modern. However it is a midgrange(goodstuff) card by nature. If i had to bet my money on an outcome, it would be that Jace would be a reason to play Sultai Midrange. Thoughtseize it's still the best interaction spell in the format, Goyf the best efficient threat, Decay the best catch-all and Liliana of the Veil the best planeswalker. Counterspells still suck in Modern, whether they die in the late game or are just too narrow.
That's why we shouldn't be cheering for WOTC to unban Jace if we want the 'Reactive' spectrum to catch up with the rest of the format. I just think that if banlist is the topic, Dig Through Time is a much better card for test. There are a plenty of reasons to belive that DTT would empower blue reactive decks more than anything else, and not break the format in a haf.
Last but not least, Stoneforge Mystic doens't accomplish what we are trying to do. It fits into TWO Tier 1 strategies, and it isn't even a blue card, which leads into Mystic empowering a much shorter spectrum of blue decks as you take Sultai and Grixis out of the equation.
In conclusion, we all know blue pretty much sucks in contrast to BG/x. I would leave the banlist untouched and bring the heat with future sets, including Amonkhet.
Mostly agreed, except I don't have as much faith as you do that Standard alone will bring the changes a lot of us are hoping for in Modern. I do think "No Changes" was the right call for Modern yesterday, but I'd still rather see some format tweaks via both unbannings and Standard in the coming months.
Either way, the next block will probably be a good gauge of whether the new direction Stoddard outlined will bear fruit for this format.
Jace is probably not too strong for Modern. However it is a midgrange(goodstuff) card by nature. If i had to bet my money on an outcome, it would be that Jace would be a reason to play Sultai Midrange. Thoughtseize it's still the best interaction spell in the format, Goyf the best efficient threat, Decay the best catch-all and Liliana of the Veil the best planeswalker. Counterspells still suck in Modern, whether they die in the late game or are just too narrow.
That's why we shouldn't be cheering for WOTC to unban Jace if we want the 'Reactive' spectrum to catch up with the rest of the format. I just think that if banlist is the topic, Dig Through Time is a much better card for test. There are a plenty of reasons to belive that DTT would empower blue reactive decks more than anything else, and not break the format in a haf.
Last but not least, Stoneforge Mystic doens't accomplish what we are trying to do. It fits into TWO Tier 1 strategies, and it isn't even a blue card, which leads into Mystic empowering a much shorter spectrum of blue decks as you take Sultai and Grixis out of the equation.
In conclusion, we all know blue pretty much sucks in contrast to BG/x. I would leave the banlist untouched and bring the heat with future sets, including Amonkhet.
Well if your saying that SFM wont help blue since it isn't a blue card, we can now safely put the twin debate to bed correct? I do agree with a DTT unban though, it was simply a case of being guilty until proven innocent without being given a chance to prove its innocence.
@Rogue: I think we are one 'Blue Fatal Push' away from being a good competitive choice. This could be a counterspell or card advantage spell, etc. I actually think Push is making a lot of good to this format, just that it targets decks and a colour that didn't need that much help.
@gkourou: Preordain is definitely 100% a no go. Yes, it empowers blue reactive decks, but i think it targets Combo decks much more. I just think it would be plain wrong to unban this.
Splinter Twin could have never been unbanned and we would be in a good shape IMO. Now that it's ban was well over a year ago and player base had the time to think about it and put it on perspective i think all blue players would go for that. It's a fear of the deck that was artifically incepted by WOTC. When we had it, i didn't even play it, although i was about to buy into it about 3 times. I knew the deck was good but it had it weaknesses that you couldn't mitigate by being utterly-fast like Bloom and Dredge. Right now i play Grixis Delver, and i have a few friend that also play UR/x and we all agree that if unbanned, we would all jump on that ship. I think WOTC acknowledges that.
@deadmarmon: The critical difference is that Twin and Mystic are very different cards in terms of deckbuilding. One is a midrange card and the other one is part of a combo. Splinter Twin being red is purely trivial if we are talking about cards that can help 'Reactive Blue' as an archetype.
@Rogue: I think we are one 'Blue Fatal Push' away from being a good competitive choice. This could be a counterspell or card advantage spell, etc. I actually think Push is making a lot of good to this format, just that it targets decks and a colour that didn't need that much help.
@gkourou: Preordain is definitely 100% a no go. Yes, it empowers blue reactive decks, but i think it targets Combo decks much more. I just think it would be plain wrong to unban this.
Splinter Twin could have never been unbanned and we would be in a good shape IMO. Now that it's ban was well over a year ago and player base had the time to think about it and put it on perspective i think all blue players would go for that. It's a fear of the deck that was artifically incepted by WOTC. When we had it, i didn't even play it, although i was about to buy into it about 3 times. I knew the deck was good but it had it weaknesses that you couldn't mitigate by being utterly-fast like Bloom and Dredge. Right now i play Grixis Delver, and i have a few friend that also play UR/x and we all agree that if unbanned, we would all jump on that ship. I think WOTC acknowledges that.
@deadmarmon: The critical difference is that Twin and Mystic are very different cards in terms of deckbuilding. One is a midrange card and the other one is part of a combo. Splinter Twin being red is purely trivial if we are talking about cards that can help 'Reactive Blue' as an archetype.
"Blue Fatal Push" is basically what blue needs at the moment. I'm not sure what form it would have to take, but I've said before that wizards doesn't want better one mana card draw cantrips than Ancestral Vision and Serum Visions, and they dislike making strong counterspells, with Aether Revolt being a unique exception. However, even Disallow is not super strong compared to Counterspell, which we will never see in standard. That means we basically are left with a stronger blue bounce spell. The two options I can see they can do with that is a one mana effect similar to Reflector Mage, or an effect that puts a permanent on top of the opponents library, forcing them to draw the same card again.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Then we have Stoneforge Mystic and Bloodbraid Elf banned. How the hell can we justify these two on the banned list when Thought-Knot Seer is the 4th most common creature in the format? Aren't we being a little cynical? You guys realize we can't play Bloodbraid Elf on turn two right?
@Rogue: I think we are one 'Blue Fatal Push' away from being a good competitive choice. This could be a counterspell or card advantage spell, etc. I actually think Push is making a lot of good to this format, just that it targets decks and a colour that didn't need that much help.
@gkourou: Preordain is definitely 100% a no go. Yes, it empowers blue reactive decks, but i think it targets Combo decks much more. I just think it would be plain wrong to unban this.
Splinter Twin could have never been unbanned and we would be in a good shape IMO. Now that it's ban was well over a year ago and player base had the time to think about it and put it on perspective i think all blue players would go for that. It's a fear of the deck that was artifically incepted by WOTC. When we had it, i didn't even play it, although i was about to buy into it about 3 times. I knew the deck was good but it had it weaknesses that you couldn't mitigate by being utterly-fast like Bloom and Dredge. Right now i play Grixis Delver, and i have a few friend that also play UR/x and we all agree that if unbanned, we would all jump on that ship. I think WOTC acknowledges that.
@deadmarmon: The critical difference is that Twin and Mystic are very different cards in terms of deckbuilding. One is a midrange card and the other one is part of a combo. Splinter Twin being red is purely trivial if we are talking about cards that can help 'Reactive Blue' as an archetype.
"Blue Fatal Push" is basically what blue needs at the moment. I'm not sure what form it would have to take, but I've said before that wizards doesn't want better one mana card draw cantrips than Ancestral Vision and Serum Visions, and they dislike making strong counterspells, with Aether Revolt being a unique exception. However, even Disallow is not super strong compared to Counterspell, which we will never see in standard. That means we basically are left with a stronger blue bounce spell. The two options I can see they can do with that is a one mana effect similar to Reflector Mage, or an effect that puts a permanent on top of the opponents library, forcing them to draw the same card again.
Its been said before but I think it bears repeating, I think Memory Lapse may be a very good addition to modern, its not an absolute answer like literally counterspell is which means Wotc's pseudo counterpsell balance in Modern is maintained while also giving blue access to a very real tempo answer that can mess people up a lot.
That being said, Discard is important to combat combo and other gofish strategies. So Im not sure what to say. But its interesting to see people completely give a pass to strong discard (which is just proactive permission), and yet think counterspell is too strong.
Yeah, it's pretty hypocritical. The problem is that too many people get salty about counterspells, and WotC listened to those people and started dumbing them down, but kept making strong removal and discard, which is not really any different than permission. And now we have the mess of current Standard because people started complaining about removal and discard, so WotC dumbed those down too.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern UBR Grixis Shadow UBR UR Izzet Phoenix UR UW UW Control UW GB GB Rock GB
Commander BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
I dont think anyone questions if Countespell is too strong, it isnt. What is questioned, is will Counterspell ever go into Standard, with their failed design and development framework.
That being said, Discard is important to combat combo and other gofish strategies. So Im not sure what to say. But its interesting to see people completely give a pass to strong discard (which is just proactive permission), and yet think counterspell is too strong.
Yeah, it's pretty hypocritical. The problem is that too many people get salty about counterspells, and WotC listened to those people and started dumbing them down, but kept making strong removal and discard, which is not really any different than permission. And now we have the mess of current Standard because people started complaining about removal and discard, so WotC dumbed those down too.
Real question here, just a thought experiment really, but if counterspell was put into modern, would any other counterspell in the format outside of cryptic even remotely make any deck list? Right now, whether we agree with it or not, the current state of counterspell balance in Modern seems fairly good, we have a lot of choices we can use, they include (but are not limited to):
These plus some other notables as well, right now we have legitimate choices, lets say in a hypothetical perfectly balanced format with equal parts aggro, midrange, control, combo, and tempo, is 4 x counterspell not simply always the best choice in a vacuum? Honest question since I have been thinking about it but I'm not 100% sure, if that is the case would that not result in massive deck building diversity lost? Is it bad if that happens? Just trying to think things through from Wotc's perspective.
stifle would be a good blue card to help ux strategies. it wouldn't push the control end of the blue spectrum, but it'd greatly help the tempo strategies.
the only card that's on the ban list that'll help permission blue control is top. and that brings up another batch of issues that wizards probably doesn't want to deal with in modern.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I speak in sarcasm because calling people ******* ******** is not allowed.
That being said, Discard is important to combat combo and other gofish strategies. So Im not sure what to say. But its interesting to see people completely give a pass to strong discard (which is just proactive permission), and yet think counterspell is too strong.
Yeah, it's pretty hypocritical. The problem is that too many people get salty about counterspells, and WotC listened to those people and started dumbing them down, but kept making strong removal and discard, which is not really any different than permission. And now we have the mess of current Standard because people started complaining about removal and discard, so WotC dumbed those down too.
I think this is a pretty common misconception; "dumbing them down" has nothing to do with power. Counterspell is about the most "dumbed down" version of the effect, but it is clearly more powerful. The problem is not the simplifying of removal and discard; WotC has been depowering answers and powering up threats. This has led to a state of the game where the threats have gotten too good relative to the answers, but this has absolutely nothing to do with simplicity vs. complexity; contrary to popular belief, the simplest version is often the more powerful, all else being equal. I don't think that anyone would argue "destroy target creature" is both more "dumbed down" and more powerful than "destroy target creature with converted mana cost 2 or less." The problem here is not reduction in complexity; it is reduction in the power of answers relative to threats.
I don't think Counterspell will ever be allowed in standard, but if reactive decks are to have a hope of survival in modern, we need something similar in functionality and power.
That being said, Discard is important to combat combo and other gofish strategies. So Im not sure what to say. But its interesting to see people completely give a pass to strong discard (which is just proactive permission), and yet think counterspell is too strong.
Yeah, it's pretty hypocritical. The problem is that too many people get salty about counterspells, and WotC listened to those people and started dumbing them down, but kept making strong removal and discard, which is not really any different than permission. And now we have the mess of current Standard because people started complaining about removal and discard, so WotC dumbed those down too.
Real question here, just a thought experiment really, but if counterspell was put into modern, would any other counterspell in the format outside of cryptic even remotely make any deck list? Right now, whether we agree with it or not, the current state of counterspell balance in Modern seems fairly good, we have a lot of choices we can use, they include (but are not limited to):
These plus some other notables as well, right now we have legitimate choices, lets say in a hypothetical perfectly balanced format with equal parts aggro, midrange, control, combo, and tempo, is 4 x counterspell not simply always the best choice in a vacuum? Honest question since I have been thinking about it but I'm not 100% sure, if that is the case would that not result in massive deck building diversity lost? Is it bad if that happens? Just trying to think things through from Wotc's perspective.
So you feel that Thoughtseize and IOK need to go for the sake of deck building diversity?
Like, Shock is not a viable option just because it exists, yet do we wring our hands over Bolt?
Lets not even bother with Green's dig/tutors.
Lets simply admit that there is a bias against blue, and what blue does.
That being said, Discard is important to combat combo and other gofish strategies. So Im not sure what to say. But its interesting to see people completely give a pass to strong discard (which is just proactive permission), and yet think counterspell is too strong.
Yeah, it's pretty hypocritical. The problem is that too many people get salty about counterspells, and WotC listened to those people and started dumbing them down, but kept making strong removal and discard, which is not really any different than permission. And now we have the mess of current Standard because people started complaining about removal and discard, so WotC dumbed those down too.
Real question here, just a thought experiment really, but if counterspell was put into modern, would any other counterspell in the format outside of cryptic even remotely make any deck list? Right now, whether we agree with it or not, the current state of counterspell balance in Modern seems fairly good, we have a lot of choices we can use, they include (but are not limited to):
These plus some other notables as well, right now we have legitimate choices, lets say in a hypothetical perfectly balanced format with equal parts aggro, midrange, control, combo, and tempo, is 4 x counterspell not simply always the best choice in a vacuum? Honest question since I have been thinking about it but I'm not 100% sure, if that is the case would that not result in massive deck building diversity lost? Is it bad if that happens? Just trying to think things through from Wotc's perspective.
You still can only play 4 in a deck. It'll replace Remand, Deprive, Negate or Mana Leak in the 2 mana slot. And dont forget UU is a thing.
2) in a format with very poor mana fixing that makes achieving UU difficult in a serious deck, preferably with some strong aggressive decks.
I expect they will come full circle on counterspell once they realize that all the threats are 2 or 3-for-1s now and counterspell honestly is not all that good. That point is probably a couple years out but I think it'll happen. The time is long past when counterspell would be oppressive in most standards now.
That being said, Discard is important to combat combo and other gofish strategies. So Im not sure what to say. But its interesting to see people completely give a pass to strong discard (which is just proactive permission), and yet think counterspell is too strong.
Yeah, it's pretty hypocritical. The problem is that too many people get salty about counterspells, and WotC listened to those people and started dumbing them down, but kept making strong removal and discard, which is not really any different than permission. And now we have the mess of current Standard because people started complaining about removal and discard, so WotC dumbed those down too.
Real question here, just a thought experiment really, but if counterspell was put into modern, would any other counterspell in the format outside of cryptic even remotely make any deck list? Right now, whether we agree with it or not, the current state of counterspell balance in Modern seems fairly good, we have a lot of choices we can use, they include (but are not limited to):
These plus some other notables as well, right now we have legitimate choices, lets say in a hypothetical perfectly balanced format with equal parts aggro, midrange, control, combo, and tempo, is 4 x counterspell not simply always the best choice in a vacuum? Honest question since I have been thinking about it but I'm not 100% sure, if that is the case would that not result in massive deck building diversity lost? Is it bad if that happens? Just trying to think things through from Wotc's perspective.
In legacy, they have counterspell, they have force of will, and you still see diversity in counters. Sure counterspell is a catch all, but sometimes it's important that it costs 1 instead of two. Spell Snare being able to hit most of the best cards in the format on the draw makes it irreplaceable. In legacy, you see force, daze, stifle, Flusterstorm, and spell pierce all played. Why? Because the cost of the catch - all counters are just too high sometimes, and the cheaper, situational counters Bridge that gap. Sure, mana leak would go extinct but the whole premise to this argument basically comes down to how terrible mana leak is in the first place
Real question here, just a thought experiment really, but if counterspell was put into modern, would any other counterspell in the format outside of cryptic even remotely make any deck list? Right now, whether we agree with it or not, the current state of counterspell balance in Modern seems fairly good, we have a lot of choices we can use, they include (but are not limited to):
These plus some other notables as well, right now we have legitimate choices, lets say in a hypothetical perfectly balanced format with equal parts aggro, midrange, control, combo, and tempo, is 4 x counterspell not simply always the best choice in a vacuum? Honest question since I have been thinking about it but I'm not 100% sure, if that is the case would that not result in massive deck building diversity lost? Is it bad if that happens? Just trying to think things through from Wotc's perspective.
Mana Leak would be obsolete, and good riddance. Spell Snare, Dispel, Negate, Countersquall, Remand, and Cryptic Command would all still see play in different decks. Spell Pierce, Deprive, and Disallow are already seeing almost no play, so I don't see why that would change much.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern UBR Grixis Shadow UBR UR Izzet Phoenix UR UW UW Control UW GB GB Rock GB
Commander BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
stifle would be a good blue card to help ux strategies. it wouldn't push the control end of the blue spectrum, but it'd greatly help the tempo strategies.
the only card that's on the ban list that'll help permission blue control is top. and that brings up another batch of issues that wizards probably doesn't want to deal with in modern.
The argument against most blue cards and cheap costed cards in general is "well doesn't annoying combo/hyper aggro deck just play x card also". This can been seen clearly in the current standard, fatal push goes into the decks it is best against also.
Think infect and death's shadow are annoying now, wait until they can also counter your lands.
What modern really needs is high powered blue cards that don't fix into low to the ground aggro strategies or into combo, but that are costed cheap enough that they can be effective against those strategies.
That being said, Discard is important to combat combo and other gofish strategies. So Im not sure what to say. But its interesting to see people completely give a pass to strong discard (which is just proactive permission), and yet think counterspell is too strong.
Yeah, it's pretty hypocritical. The problem is that too many people get salty about counterspells, and WotC listened to those people and started dumbing them down, but kept making strong removal and discard, which is not really any different than permission. And now we have the mess of current Standard because people started complaining about removal and discard, so WotC dumbed those down too.
Real question here, just a thought experiment really, but if counterspell was put into modern, would any other counterspell in the format outside of cryptic even remotely make any deck list? Right now, whether we agree with it or not, the current state of counterspell balance in Modern seems fairly good, we have a lot of choices we can use, they include (but are not limited to):
These plus some other notables as well, right now we have legitimate choices, lets say in a hypothetical perfectly balanced format with equal parts aggro, midrange, control, combo, and tempo, is 4 x counterspell not simply always the best choice in a vacuum? Honest question since I have been thinking about it but I'm not 100% sure, if that is the case would that not result in massive deck building diversity lost? Is it bad if that happens? Just trying to think things through from Wotc's perspective.
Here's the problem with that line of thought: "counterspell diversity" is a meaningless concept if none of them see any real play due to being too weak. If Counterspell sees extensive play in blue reactive decks, that's a net gain in diversity, since reactive decks are generally weak right now and do not see extensive play. If you're arguing that pushing out all of those counters reduces diversity in non-reactive decks, my counterargument is that there is already incredible diversity in non-reactive decks, with or without counters. Counterspell would not cause a significant decrease in deck diversity for proactive decks. I don't know if it alone would make reactive decks viable again, but if it did, that's an entire array of archetypes that did not exist before. In a perfectly balanced format, sure, we can look at whether counterspell diversity should matter; however, in a format with very few reactive options, a powerful reactive card does more to open up new archetypes than to stifle diversity.
Well, I don't know Tom LaPille from a whole in the ground. I just know that they really could have started modern anywhere and they chose to start it in the first core without counterspell ever. I mean you realize counterspell was in like every core set up until 8th edition right?
And if the desire was to avoid Counterspell, there was nothing stopping the starting point from being Odyssey or Onslaught. You avoid Counterspell just as well.
Like was stated, basically any choice would be arbitrary based on what it includes or excludes, so they ended up just choosing a starting point that managed to be the least arbitrary because it had nothing to do with the actual sets or cards.
Further, the modern stipulation that any card entering modern must go through standard seems a little arbitrary doesn't it? I mean why does it need to go through standard? Why couldn't it be in a supplementary set?
While I'm not really in agreement with the "Standard only" rule, there are a number of reasons:
1) This is how it always was for Extended, which Modern was essentially the replacement for.
2) Supplemental sets often bring in some pretty powerful reprints, and then you're faced with the question of what to do about them. Obviously, the really egregious cases like Necropotence can be pre-emptively banned, but what about when there's something like Show and Tell? In Legacy the card is already legal but what about when it's introduced into a lower power format? Pre-emptive bannings annoy players but so does letting it become legal and then having to ban it anyway. Now I do think eventually all these would raise the power level to the point that like Legacy you can kind of let it take care of itself, but that could take a while and the format would be extremely tumultuous until that point.
Well, I don't know Tom LaPille from a whole in the ground. I just know that they really could have started modern anywhere and they chose to start it in the first core without counterspell ever. I mean you realize counterspell was in like every core set up until 8th edition right? Further, the modern stipulation that any card entering modern must go through standard seems a little arbitrary doesn't it? I mean why does it need to go through standard? Why couldn't it be in a supplementary set? I just think it all seems awfully convenient. Nah, I think its pretty evident that modern was meant to be a blue light format. Yeah its conjecture, but its conjecture based on first hand knowledge of how much people hated blue leading up to modern. Again though, that is demographics. Some people loved blue. It's a troll deck though and it doesn't hurt my feelings it is gone.
I do appreciated the response though.
Reactive blue decks being a troll deck is just subjective. Why is it trolling to interact with your opponent in a reactive way. In fact is hatdly any different than removal heavy decks vs creature decks. You play your thing and it gets reacted to and the game continues. Yea sure counterspells stop more stuff but they are also very timming sensitive and skilled opponents can play around them.
stifle would be a good blue card to help ux strategies. it wouldn't push the control end of the blue spectrum, but it'd greatly help the tempo strategies.
the only card that's on the ban list that'll help permission blue control is top. and that brings up another batch of issues that wizards probably doesn't want to deal with in modern.
The argument against most blue cards and cheap costed cards in general is "well doesn't annoying combo/hyper aggro deck just play x card also". This can been seen clearly in the current standard, fatal push goes into the decks it is best against also.
Stifle is pretty lousy in combo, though, as well as "hyper aggro." It's a tempo card through and through, and tempo kinda is bad right now.
Think infect and death's shadow are annoying now, wait until they can also counter your lands.
I doubt either deck would play it. Stifle requires you to just hold up Blue for when your opponent uses their fetchland, and that means you're not actually advancing your board state, which is antithetical to Death's Shadow. The strength of discard for that deck is that it can cast it and know they'll be getting something out of it, whereas Stifle you just awkwardly sit there and might not get anything and waste your turn.
Stifle is almost as laughable in Infect. Infect wants only three things in its deck: Infect creatures, ways to pump those creatures, and cards to protect the creatures with. Stifle doesn't manage to handle any of that. And again, it requires the Infect player to slow down which is the exact opposite of what the deck wants to do. If you decide to hold up mana to hope you get lucky with a Stifle, that means you didn't cast a Glistener Elf or Noble Hierarch and thus you're behind. Infect might play it as a 1-of but that'd be it.
Stifle works best in decks where you can leave that mana open and potentially have something to do with it if the opponent doesn't give you an opportunity to use Stifle, like cast a counterspell or do an end of turn Thought Scour. That's not the case for Death's Shadow or Infect. It's a tempo card, not an aggro/combo one. It'd slot well into Delver decks but probably not anywhere else.
What modern really needs is high powered blue cards that don't fix into low to the ground aggro strategies or into combo, but that are costed cheap enough that they can be effective against those strategies.
Good point. Then let's reprint Stifle!
(I'd still prefer Counterspell though)
Counterspell would do to countering spells what lightning bolt does to burning things. It is clearly the flag bearer, but there are several other role players and that is fine.
stifle would be a good blue card to help ux strategies. it wouldn't push the control end of the blue spectrum, but it'd greatly help the tempo strategies.
the only card that's on the ban list that'll help permission blue control is top. and that brings up another batch of issues that wizards probably doesn't want to deal with in modern.
The argument against most blue cards and cheap costed cards in general is "well doesn't annoying combo/hyper aggro deck just play x card also". This can been seen clearly in the current standard, fatal push goes into the decks it is best against also.
Think infect and death's shadow are annoying now, wait until they can also counter your lands.
What modern really needs is high powered blue cards that don't fix into low to the ground aggro strategies or into combo, but that are costed cheap enough that they can be effective against those strategies.
No way stifle is fitting into infect or anything like that. Infect exists in legacy as a competitive deck and it does not use cards like stifle. Infect is a linear deck that relies on redundency in pump and pfotection. The only reason that hardcore tempo cards do not exist in modern is because of how bad new players would feel to get their fetches denied and lands wastelanded while the opponent can still play all their stuff. The old school of magic did not allow big spells that some players like to be remltely viable. Stifle will only fit into delver but delver would push some players away because they feel they are not eing allosed to play.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I do appreciated the response though.
GB Rock
U Flooding Merfolk
RUG Delver Midrange
WU Monks
UW Tempo Geist
GW Bogle
GW Liege
UR Tron
B Vampires
Affinity
Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity
EDH
W Akroma
GBW Ghave
BRU Thrax
GR Ruric
I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
Mostly agreed, except I don't have as much faith as you do that Standard alone will bring the changes a lot of us are hoping for in Modern. I do think "No Changes" was the right call for Modern yesterday, but I'd still rather see some format tweaks via both unbannings and Standard in the coming months.
Either way, the next block will probably be a good gauge of whether the new direction Stoddard outlined will bear fruit for this format.
And very agreed on Dig.
WUBRG Humans
BRW Mardu Pyromancer
UW UW "Control"
UR Blue Moon
Well if your saying that SFM wont help blue since it isn't a blue card, we can now safely put the twin debate to bed correct? I do agree with a DTT unban though, it was simply a case of being guilty until proven innocent without being given a chance to prove its innocence.
@gkourou: Preordain is definitely 100% a no go. Yes, it empowers blue reactive decks, but i think it targets Combo decks much more. I just think it would be plain wrong to unban this.
Splinter Twin could have never been unbanned and we would be in a good shape IMO. Now that it's ban was well over a year ago and player base had the time to think about it and put it on perspective i think all blue players would go for that. It's a fear of the deck that was artifically incepted by WOTC. When we had it, i didn't even play it, although i was about to buy into it about 3 times. I knew the deck was good but it had it weaknesses that you couldn't mitigate by being utterly-fast like Bloom and Dredge. Right now i play Grixis Delver, and i have a few friend that also play UR/x and we all agree that if unbanned, we would all jump on that ship. I think WOTC acknowledges that.
@deadmarmon: The critical difference is that Twin and Mystic are very different cards in terms of deckbuilding. One is a midrange card and the other one is part of a combo. Splinter Twin being red is purely trivial if we are talking about cards that can help 'Reactive Blue' as an archetype.
Lol,
Of course Splinter Twin is the exception, because of some arbitrary reason.
"Blue Fatal Push" is basically what blue needs at the moment. I'm not sure what form it would have to take, but I've said before that wizards doesn't want better one mana card draw cantrips than Ancestral Vision and Serum Visions, and they dislike making strong counterspells, with Aether Revolt being a unique exception. However, even Disallow is not super strong compared to Counterspell, which we will never see in standard. That means we basically are left with a stronger blue bounce spell. The two options I can see they can do with that is a one mana effect similar to Reflector Mage, or an effect that puts a permanent on top of the opponents library, forcing them to draw the same card again.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Then we have Stoneforge Mystic and Bloodbraid Elf banned. How the hell can we justify these two on the banned list when Thought-Knot Seer is the 4th most common creature in the format? Aren't we being a little cynical? You guys realize we can't play Bloodbraid Elf on turn two right?
Its been said before but I think it bears repeating, I think Memory Lapse may be a very good addition to modern, its not an absolute answer like literally counterspell is which means Wotc's pseudo counterpsell balance in Modern is maintained while also giving blue access to a very real tempo answer that can mess people up a lot.
Yeah, it's pretty hypocritical. The problem is that too many people get salty about counterspells, and WotC listened to those people and started dumbing them down, but kept making strong removal and discard, which is not really any different than permission. And now we have the mess of current Standard because people started complaining about removal and discard, so WotC dumbed those down too.
UBR Grixis Shadow UBR
UR Izzet Phoenix UR
UW UW Control UW
GB GB Rock GB
Commander
BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG
BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
Spirits
Real question here, just a thought experiment really, but if counterspell was put into modern, would any other counterspell in the format outside of cryptic even remotely make any deck list? Right now, whether we agree with it or not, the current state of counterspell balance in Modern seems fairly good, we have a lot of choices we can use, they include (but are not limited to):
Mana Leak,
Cryptic Command,
Spell Pierce,
Dispel,
Remand,
Countersquall,
Deprive,
Spell Snare,
Disallow?
These plus some other notables as well, right now we have legitimate choices, lets say in a hypothetical perfectly balanced format with equal parts aggro, midrange, control, combo, and tempo, is 4 x counterspell not simply always the best choice in a vacuum? Honest question since I have been thinking about it but I'm not 100% sure, if that is the case would that not result in massive deck building diversity lost? Is it bad if that happens? Just trying to think things through from Wotc's perspective.
the only card that's on the ban list that'll help permission blue control is top. and that brings up another batch of issues that wizards probably doesn't want to deal with in modern.
I think this is a pretty common misconception; "dumbing them down" has nothing to do with power. Counterspell is about the most "dumbed down" version of the effect, but it is clearly more powerful. The problem is not the simplifying of removal and discard; WotC has been depowering answers and powering up threats. This has led to a state of the game where the threats have gotten too good relative to the answers, but this has absolutely nothing to do with simplicity vs. complexity; contrary to popular belief, the simplest version is often the more powerful, all else being equal. I don't think that anyone would argue "destroy target creature" is both more "dumbed down" and more powerful than "destroy target creature with converted mana cost 2 or less." The problem here is not reduction in complexity; it is reduction in the power of answers relative to threats.
I don't think Counterspell will ever be allowed in standard, but if reactive decks are to have a hope of survival in modern, we need something similar in functionality and power.
So you feel that Thoughtseize and IOK need to go for the sake of deck building diversity?
Like, Shock is not a viable option just because it exists, yet do we wring our hands over Bolt?
Lets not even bother with Green's dig/tutors.
Lets simply admit that there is a bias against blue, and what blue does.
Spirits
You still can only play 4 in a deck. It'll replace Remand, Deprive, Negate or Mana Leak in the 2 mana slot. And dont forget UU is a thing.
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver
1) in a tribal standard format with cavern of souls
2) in a format with very poor mana fixing that makes achieving UU difficult in a serious deck, preferably with some strong aggressive decks.
I expect they will come full circle on counterspell once they realize that all the threats are 2 or 3-for-1s now and counterspell honestly is not all that good. That point is probably a couple years out but I think it'll happen. The time is long past when counterspell would be oppressive in most standards now.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
In legacy, they have counterspell, they have force of will, and you still see diversity in counters. Sure counterspell is a catch all, but sometimes it's important that it costs 1 instead of two. Spell Snare being able to hit most of the best cards in the format on the draw makes it irreplaceable. In legacy, you see force, daze, stifle, Flusterstorm, and spell pierce all played. Why? Because the cost of the catch - all counters are just too high sometimes, and the cheaper, situational counters Bridge that gap. Sure, mana leak would go extinct but the whole premise to this argument basically comes down to how terrible mana leak is in the first place
UWRjeskai nahiri UWR
UBRgrixis titi UBR
UBRgrixis delverUBR
UR ur kikimite UR
EDH
RUG Riku of Two Reflections RUG
UBR Marchesa, the Black Rose UBR
UBRGYidris, Maelstrom Wielder UBRG
UBRJeleva, Nephalia's ScourgeUBR
Mana Leak would be obsolete, and good riddance. Spell Snare, Dispel, Negate, Countersquall, Remand, and Cryptic Command would all still see play in different decks. Spell Pierce, Deprive, and Disallow are already seeing almost no play, so I don't see why that would change much.
UBR Grixis Shadow UBR
UR Izzet Phoenix UR
UW UW Control UW
GB GB Rock GB
Commander
BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG
BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
The argument against most blue cards and cheap costed cards in general is "well doesn't annoying combo/hyper aggro deck just play x card also". This can been seen clearly in the current standard, fatal push goes into the decks it is best against also.
Think infect and death's shadow are annoying now, wait until they can also counter your lands.
What modern really needs is high powered blue cards that don't fix into low to the ground aggro strategies or into combo, but that are costed cheap enough that they can be effective against those strategies.
Here's the problem with that line of thought: "counterspell diversity" is a meaningless concept if none of them see any real play due to being too weak. If Counterspell sees extensive play in blue reactive decks, that's a net gain in diversity, since reactive decks are generally weak right now and do not see extensive play. If you're arguing that pushing out all of those counters reduces diversity in non-reactive decks, my counterargument is that there is already incredible diversity in non-reactive decks, with or without counters. Counterspell would not cause a significant decrease in deck diversity for proactive decks. I don't know if it alone would make reactive decks viable again, but if it did, that's an entire array of archetypes that did not exist before. In a perfectly balanced format, sure, we can look at whether counterspell diversity should matter; however, in a format with very few reactive options, a powerful reactive card does more to open up new archetypes than to stifle diversity.
Elvish Archers, Shanodan Dryads, Soul Net, Meekstone, Orcish Oriflamme, Howl From Beyond, and Wild Growth are other cards that were in every core set up until 8th Edition.
And if the desire was to avoid Counterspell, there was nothing stopping the starting point from being Odyssey or Onslaught. You avoid Counterspell just as well.
Like was stated, basically any choice would be arbitrary based on what it includes or excludes, so they ended up just choosing a starting point that managed to be the least arbitrary because it had nothing to do with the actual sets or cards.
While I'm not really in agreement with the "Standard only" rule, there are a number of reasons:
1) This is how it always was for Extended, which Modern was essentially the replacement for.
2) Supplemental sets often bring in some pretty powerful reprints, and then you're faced with the question of what to do about them. Obviously, the really egregious cases like Necropotence can be pre-emptively banned, but what about when there's something like Show and Tell? In Legacy the card is already legal but what about when it's introduced into a lower power format? Pre-emptive bannings annoy players but so does letting it become legal and then having to ban it anyway. Now I do think eventually all these would raise the power level to the point that like Legacy you can kind of let it take care of itself, but that could take a while and the format would be extremely tumultuous until that point.
Reactive blue decks being a troll deck is just subjective. Why is it trolling to interact with your opponent in a reactive way. In fact is hatdly any different than removal heavy decks vs creature decks. You play your thing and it gets reacted to and the game continues. Yea sure counterspells stop more stuff but they are also very timming sensitive and skilled opponents can play around them.
I doubt either deck would play it. Stifle requires you to just hold up Blue for when your opponent uses their fetchland, and that means you're not actually advancing your board state, which is antithetical to Death's Shadow. The strength of discard for that deck is that it can cast it and know they'll be getting something out of it, whereas Stifle you just awkwardly sit there and might not get anything and waste your turn.
Stifle is almost as laughable in Infect. Infect wants only three things in its deck: Infect creatures, ways to pump those creatures, and cards to protect the creatures with. Stifle doesn't manage to handle any of that. And again, it requires the Infect player to slow down which is the exact opposite of what the deck wants to do. If you decide to hold up mana to hope you get lucky with a Stifle, that means you didn't cast a Glistener Elf or Noble Hierarch and thus you're behind. Infect might play it as a 1-of but that'd be it.
Stifle works best in decks where you can leave that mana open and potentially have something to do with it if the opponent doesn't give you an opportunity to use Stifle, like cast a counterspell or do an end of turn Thought Scour. That's not the case for Death's Shadow or Infect. It's a tempo card, not an aggro/combo one. It'd slot well into Delver decks but probably not anywhere else.
Good point. Then let's reprint Stifle!
(I'd still prefer Counterspell though)
No way stifle is fitting into infect or anything like that. Infect exists in legacy as a competitive deck and it does not use cards like stifle. Infect is a linear deck that relies on redundency in pump and pfotection. The only reason that hardcore tempo cards do not exist in modern is because of how bad new players would feel to get their fetches denied and lands wastelanded while the opponent can still play all their stuff. The old school of magic did not allow big spells that some players like to be remltely viable. Stifle will only fit into delver but delver would push some players away because they feel they are not eing allosed to play.