Yea it took me about 3 total games to pick up on how to efficiently shorrtcut with fetches,and pretty much every opponent I play against uses similar shortcuts. The largest appeal to modern vs standard to me at this point is having a near perfect manabase, I don't want to lose some percentage of my games due to color screw because I didn't draw the right lands, that just doesn't lend itself to fun magic to me
It really hurts the game itself with how modern is getting support. I agree with a lot of people that they need another way to legalize cards for the modern format. Well, that and fetch lands are an abomination that need to be exiled from all formats and not just modern. The later looks like I'll just have to begrudgingly deal with, though.
Fetchlands are iconic and critical Modern cards. See their inclusion in MM3 at rare. Fetches also don't create any shuffling problems online, which is probably where a lot of coverage is going in the future as Magic moves to an e-sports model. This bodes well for Modern, a high-power and diverse format that already draws lots of views on Twitch.
My response to people who don't like Modern fetches is similar to my response when people don't like Goyf, Snapcaster, Lily, Bolt, etc. If those cards are too powerful or create a play experience you fundamentally dislike, then this might not be the best format for you. Those cards (moreso, what those cards represent) are just so integral to Modern's identity.
It really hurts the game itself with how modern is getting support. I agree with a lot of people that they need another way to legalize cards for the modern format. Well, that and fetch lands are an abomination that need to be exiled from all formats and not just modern. The later looks like I'll just have to begrudgingly deal with, though.
All i see that doing is making the game more luck based. Sure fetches allow for good stuff decks but land disrution already punishes that kind of stuff. Also with shocks being one of the main things to fetch for that puts a real price for having good mana. Burn was a really good deck for a long time just because of how much damage people deal to themselves with fetches and the occasional shock. Richard Garfield himself hates the land system and if he were to start from scratch he would have gotten rid of it for something else that leads to less variance. Fetches alleviate the problems with the land system by allowing you to find your colors more readily while also making sure you draw more action later on. Besides that all of players like consistency. Look at legacy that format is loved by many players just because of brainstorm. Most legacy players I know say they would quit legacy if brainstorm was not in the format and I feel the same would be for fetchless modern.
The largest appeal to modern vs standard to me at this point is having a near perfect manabase, I don't want to lose some percentage of my games due to color screw because I didn't draw the right lands, that just doesn't lend itself to fun magic to me
As an extension to that, I would say that WotC's current stance on the blue cantrips is an area where they're failing in this regard. They say they don't like so much draw manipulation because "it makes games play out the same." If you watch Legacy, though, you quickly see the consequences of this decision. In Legacy, both players usually get to play their game. Variance mostly gets squashed by Ponder and Brainstorm, so you have more games where both decks are operating at near 100%, resulting in a lot of close back-and-forth games where you can't always even tell who's winning until the last couple turns. In Modern we have a lot of non-games where one person's deck doesn't cooperate and the other person runs away with a quick victory. I kinda wish they would get over this idea that lower variance in games is a bad thing.
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 feel the whole point of modern is the legacy lite. removed most of the most powerful cards from the playing field, and we are using more modern card design where ideally we would have less color bleed. at the moment blue.. is weak on a couple of fronts. mono decks generally can't compete with 2-3 color good stuff. and the format is diverse enough that no control deck can emerge, because of how diverse it is.
in standard a control deck can emerge anytime decent control cards get printed, and midrange and aggro are the primary contenders. the issue becomes when aggro and midrange become too efficient that control never emerges, which is most of what standard is now.. just a creature war.
It really hurts the game itself with how modern is getting support. I agree with a lot of people that they need another way to legalize cards for the modern format. Well, that and fetch lands are an abomination that need to be exiled from all formats and not just modern. The later looks like I'll just have to begrudgingly deal with, though.
Don't worry Colt, I'm with you. Fetchlands are terrible for Modern and Legacy, and banning them would make both formats better.
For those people asking, fetchlands reduce variance. A reduction in variance is not equivalent to a reduction in skill; it's simply a change in the way skill manifests itself in the game. The problem isn't just shuffling time; it's that manabases in Modern are largely idiot-proof. If Modern didn't have fetchlands, small problems with your manabase would become readily apparent, because you would lose a lot of games. With fetchlands, small problems with your manabase go largely unnoticed, costing you a few life over the course of a full tournament.
Fetchlands also enable "goodstuff" decks, because if you need black mana, you can use your Wooded Foothills to go get a Blood Crypt or an Overgrown Tomb. When this happens, the range of playable cards for a given function narrows, thus reducing card diversity in the format. For those of you who haven't played Legacy, there's a joke about Tarmogoyf being the best blue creature ever printed; the reason for that is the blue decks that play it both enable Tarmogoyf quickly and they largely aren't penalized for playing a green creature in a blue deck. The same thing happens in Modern. The most powerful spells see play in decks that are able to easily splash for them, and eliminating fetchlands in the format would go a long way to curbing greedy manabases.
Incidentally, fetchlands are one of the primary reasons that burn is a police deck in Modern (it's a police deck in Legacy too, but for different reasons). Burn is a lot less effective at taking an opponent from 20 to 0 than it is taking an opponent from 15 to 0. The greedier your manabase gets, the better burn becomes.
And before all of you complain, I understand that 3-color decks are hallmarks of the Modern format. So was Splinter Twin, frankly. And I have no faith that WotC will ever ban the fetchlands from Modern. But like Colt, I do believe that Modern would be a better place without them. There would be fewer greedy manabases. There would be a wider range of playable cards. There would be more skill (and higher variance) in building a consistent manabase. And of course, there would be less shuffling.
Playing millions of cards every turn... Slowly and systematically obliterating any chance my opponent has of winning... Clicking the multitude of locking mechanisms into place... Not even trying to win myself until turn 10+ once I have nigh absolute control... Watching my opponent desperately trying to navigate the labyrinthine prison that I've constructed... Seeing the light of hope fade and ultimately extinguished in an excruciatingly slow manner... THAT'S fun Magic.
We have 2-3 users that are dramatically making this thread incomprehensible and non-productive for anyone else to possibly join in the discussion. This needs to change.
Every time I see [ktkenshinx] post in here, I get the impression of a stern dad walking in on a bunch of kids trying to do something dumb and just shaking his head in disappointment.
Near Mint: The same as Slightly Played, but we threw some Altoids in the box we stored it in to cover up the scent of dead mice. Slightly Played: The base condition for all MTG cards. This card looks OK, but there’s one minor annoying ding in it that will always irritate and distract you whenever you draw it. Moderately Played: This card looks like it survived the Tet Offensive tucked inside the waistband of GI underwear. It may smell like it, too. Heavily Played: This card looks like the remains of Mohammed Atta’s passport after 9/11. It may be playable if you double-sleeve it to stop the chunks from falling out. The condition formerly known as "Washing Machine Grade" Damaged: This card is the unfortunate victim of a Mirrorweave/March of the Machines/Chaos Confetti/Mindslaver combo.
[M]aking counterfeit cards is the absolute height of dishonesty. Ask yourself this question: Since most people...are totally cool with the use of proxies...what purpose do [high] quality counterfeit cards serve?
I would be SO curious to learn if mr. Aaron Forsythe and mr. Sam Stoddart are aware of the issues all of the Blue based control/attrition decks are facing at the moment. If they don't think they are facing any problems, I believe we would like to know as well.
Where do they stand on blue based control/attrition decks in Modern? Do they think those decks need help or not?
Is there a chance an incoming unban is to come to help them out?
What do they believe about the Splinter Twin banning? Did it fail/did it succeed?
I was trying to reach mr. Forsythe on Twitter(well, the same question was asked by a lot of users), but he did't answer us up to now.
I believe it's crucial to collectively ask him alltogether. At least us blue mages. Please try to contact him @ twitter if you would like to.
It appears Forsythe is aware, but they're unable to commit to official statements or articles yet. I expect a Stoddard piece soon.
I would be SO curious to learn if mr. Aaron Forsythe and mr. Sam Stoddart are aware of the issues all of the Blue based control/attrition decks are facing at the moment. If they don't think they are facing any problems, I believe we would like to know as well.
Where do they stand on blue based control/attrition decks in Modern? Do they think those decks need help or not?
Is there a chance an incoming unban is to come to help them out?
What do they believe about the Splinter Twin banning? Did it fail/did it succeed?
I was trying to reach mr. Forsythe on Twitter(well, the same question was asked by a lot of users), but he did't answer us up to now.
I believe it's crucial to collectively ask him alltogether. At least us blue mages. Please try to contact him @ twitter if you would like to.
It appears Forsythe is aware, but they're unable to commit to official statements or articles yet. I expect a Stoddard piece soon.
Well, that response is encouraging, insofar as it's the most one could hope for at this point (of course he can't comment on potential incoming help). As I said earlier in this thread, with this B&R announcement so close to the next one, it seems totally reasonable to wait 6 weeks to make any decisions.
It really hurts the game itself with how modern is getting support. I agree with a lot of people that they need another way to legalize cards for the modern format. Well, that and fetch lands are an abomination that need to be exiled from all formats and not just modern. The later looks like I'll just have to begrudgingly deal with, though.
Don't worry Colt, I'm with you. Fetchlands are terrible for Modern and Legacy, and banning them would make both formats better.
For those people asking, fetchlands reduce variance. A reduction in variance is not equivalent to a reduction in skill; it's simply a change in the way skill manifests itself in the game. The problem isn't just shuffling time; it's that manabases in Modern are largely idiot-proof. If Modern didn't have fetchlands, small problems with your manabase would become readily apparent, because you would lose a lot of games. With fetchlands, small problems with your manabase go largely unnoticed, costing you a few life over the course of a full tournament.
Fetchlands also enable "goodstuff" decks, because if you need black mana, you can use your Wooded Foothills to go get a Blood Crypt or an Overgrown Tomb. When this happens, the range of playable cards for a given function narrows, thus reducing card diversity in the format. For those of you who haven't played Legacy, there's a joke about Tarmogoyf being the best blue creature ever printed; the reason for that is the blue decks that play it both enable Tarmogoyf quickly and they largely aren't penalized for playing a green creature in a blue deck. The same thing happens in Modern. The most powerful spells see play in decks that are able to easily splash for them, and eliminating fetchlands in the format would go a long way to curbing greedy manabases.
Incidentally, fetchlands are one of the primary reasons that burn is a police deck in Modern (it's a police deck in Legacy too, but for different reasons). Burn is a lot less effective at taking an opponent from 20 to 0 than it is taking an opponent from 15 to 0. The greedier your manabase gets, the better burn becomes.
And before all of you complain, I understand that 3-color decks are hallmarks of the Modern format. So was Splinter Twin, frankly. And I have no faith that WotC will ever ban the fetchlands from Modern. But like Colt, I do believe that Modern would be a better place without them. There would be fewer greedy manabases. There would be a wider range of playable cards. There would be more skill (and higher variance) in building a consistent manabase. And of course, there would be less shuffling.
Your arguments aren't necessarily wrong, but they also aren't necessarily examples of skill. Building a good manabase is absolutely a skill, but it's not a skill I care about watching at high level events. I want a deck's resources to run smoothly so I can see them play spells and interact. I suspect most viewers and players are the same. I'll also add that even a no-fetchland manabase would quickly be solved through Magic's wealth of informative sources, so this skill wouldn't even be very impressive. There are plenty of rules and resources for players to tune manabases and between theory articles, netdecking, and testing you would still figure out the manabases even without fetches. As a result, this skill would quickly fade from interest (and it probably isn't very interesting to begin with for many).
Moreover, who cares if goodstuff cards are being played? Modern has a crazy number of Tier 1 and Tier 2 playable decks with a variety of different creatures. There are very few non-negotiable goodstuff cards and plenty of diversity. Most of the top decks aren't even goodstuff decks to begin with. For instance, take Tarmogoyf. There are plenty of green decks, aggro decks, and midrange decks that don't play Goyf even if they could easily splash for it. I struggle to think of Tier 1 or Tier 2 decks that use greedy manabases to splash for a certain goodstuff card they wouldn't otherwise play in their strategy. It's not like Merfolk, Affinity, and Burn play Goyf. This is also true of other so-called goodstuff/powerful cards.
The shuffling issue is annoying in paper. But it's not an issue online and, from a viewership perspective, it doesn't seem to hurt Modern views. So all in all, fetches are fine.
I would be SO curious to learn if mr. Aaron Forsythe and mr. Sam Stoddart are aware of the issues all of the Blue based control/attrition decks are facing at the moment. If they don't think they are facing any problems, I believe we would like to know as well.
Where do they stand on blue based control/attrition decks in Modern? Do they think those decks need help or not?
Is there a chance an incoming unban is to come to help them out?
What do they believe about the Splinter Twin banning? Did it fail/did it succeed?
I was trying to reach mr. Forsythe on Twitter(well, the same question was asked by a lot of users), but he did't answer us up to now.
I believe it's crucial to collectively ask him alltogether. At least us blue mages. Please try to contact him @ twitter if you would like to.
It appears Forsythe is aware, but they're unable to commit to official statements or articles yet. I expect a Stoddard piece soon.
Great to hear. That makes me want to hold off on my article until I hear his statement; that context might be critical.
Great to hear. That makes me want to hold off on my article until I hear his statement; that context might be critical.
Depending on how we read into that tweet, another official statement may not come out until near the B&R announcement (perhaps AFTER they have committed to a decision). It may be beneficial to provide a critical article to show an "outsider" perspective to staff that live inside the WOTC internal bubble. So many of their decisions are incredibly secretive, so they simply cannot ask questions or bounce ideas off the community.
That statement by Forsythe has a couple of reads for sure. I hope even if they don't explicity unban something, they adress our issues and thoughts so we can avoid wasting our time speculating.
Especial thanks to @gkourou and @cfusionpm for reaching out to him. At least we know they hear the voice of the people that plays their format almost exclusively.
Your arguments aren't necessarily wrong, but they also aren't necessarily examples of skill. Building a good manabase is absolutely a skill, but it's not a skill I care about watching at high level events. I want a deck's resources to run smoothly so I can see them play spells and interact. I suspect most viewers and players are the same. I'll also add that even a no-fetchland manabase would quickly be solved through Magic's wealth of informative sources, so this skill wouldn't even be very impressive. There are plenty of rules and resources for players to tune manabases and between theory articles, netdecking, and testing you would still figure out the manabases even without fetches. As a result, this skill would quickly fade from interest (and it probably isn't very interesting to begin with for many).
Isn't the logical extension of this to simply eliminate manabases entirely and do something similar to Hearthstone? Giving each player "guaranteed" mana every turn but fixing the rate at which it appears in your pool?
I guess I just disagree with you about wanting to watch manabase design at high-level events. Admittedly, it's not a part of the game that's going to please the average viewer, and new players are going to find it boring. But I would argue that having to design a manabase is an integral part of Magic gameplay, and anybody that doesn't feel like watching it should just go watch a different game (probably Hearthstone) instead.
Moreover, who cares if goodstuff cards are being played? Modern has a crazy number of Tier 1 and Tier 2 playable decks with a variety of different creatures. There are very few non-negotiable goodstuff cards and plenty of diversity. Most of the top decks aren't even goodstuff decks to begin with. For instance, take Tarmogoyf. There are plenty of green decks, aggro decks, and midrange decks that don't play Goyf even if they could easily splash for it. I struggle to think of Tier 1 or Tier 2 decks that use greedy manabases to splash for a certain goodstuff card they wouldn't otherwise play in their strategy. It's not like Merfolk, Affinity, and Burn play Goyf. This is also true of other so-called goodstuff/powerful cards.
This also isn't wrong, but you've cherry-picked your examples. For example, it's hard to deny that Legacy is a Brainstorm-dominated format, and yet Legacy Merfolk, Affinity, and Burn don't run it, despite all of them being competitive strategies.
My argument isn't that Modern is made up exclusively of "goodstuff" decks; it's that fetchlands needlessly enable goodstuff decks in the same sense that fetchlands needlessly enable Brainstorm strategies in Legacy. Sure, there are other powerful things you can be doing in the format, but aren't you just ignoring the elephant in the room?
The shuffling issue is annoying in paper. But it's not an issue online and, from a viewership perspective, it doesn't seem to hurt Modern views. So all in all, fetches are fine.
I mostly agree with this. I don't think that shuffling issues are the primary driver for wanting fetchlands banned in Modern. However, your exact argument could also be made for Sensei's Divining Top, which I'm hoping that we can both agree should never be let out of its cage in Modern.
Playing millions of cards every turn... Slowly and systematically obliterating any chance my opponent has of winning... Clicking the multitude of locking mechanisms into place... Not even trying to win myself until turn 10+ once I have nigh absolute control... Watching my opponent desperately trying to navigate the labyrinthine prison that I've constructed... Seeing the light of hope fade and ultimately extinguished in an excruciatingly slow manner... THAT'S fun Magic.
We have 2-3 users that are dramatically making this thread incomprehensible and non-productive for anyone else to possibly join in the discussion. This needs to change.
Every time I see [ktkenshinx] post in here, I get the impression of a stern dad walking in on a bunch of kids trying to do something dumb and just shaking his head in disappointment.
Near Mint: The same as Slightly Played, but we threw some Altoids in the box we stored it in to cover up the scent of dead mice. Slightly Played: The base condition for all MTG cards. This card looks OK, but there’s one minor annoying ding in it that will always irritate and distract you whenever you draw it. Moderately Played: This card looks like it survived the Tet Offensive tucked inside the waistband of GI underwear. It may smell like it, too. Heavily Played: This card looks like the remains of Mohammed Atta’s passport after 9/11. It may be playable if you double-sleeve it to stop the chunks from falling out. The condition formerly known as "Washing Machine Grade" Damaged: This card is the unfortunate victim of a Mirrorweave/March of the Machines/Chaos Confetti/Mindslaver combo.
[M]aking counterfeit cards is the absolute height of dishonesty. Ask yourself this question: Since most people...are totally cool with the use of proxies...what purpose do [high] quality counterfeit cards serve?
Isn't the logical extension of this to simply eliminate manabases entirely and do something similar to Hearthstone? Giving each player "guaranteed" mana every turn but fixing the rate at which it appears in your pool?
Or we could just take the middle ground: fetchland manabases are a good mix of some skill without making mana decisions a big deal. I enjoy seeing small changes in manabases, like deciding whether to add a 4th Temple Garden or a Tomb, Horizon Canopy, or Wildwood. Or swapping a Swamp for an Urborg. Most players probably enjoy that too. But we obviously don't need to take that to the extreme and remove all manabase construction just to make an absurd argument. I'll also emphasize that a post-fetchland manabase would still be "solved" by the massive MTG community and would ultimately be no more/less skill-testing than the current fetchland manabase. The format, however, would lose access to a lot of decks with no certain end. Why would anyone take that big risk for a problem that many don't care about or even acknowledge as a problem?
This also isn't wrong, but you've cherry-picked your examples. For example, it's hard to deny that Legacy is a Brainstorm-dominated format, and yet Legacy Merfolk, Affinity, and Burn don't run it, despite all of them being competitive strategies.
I don't care about Legacy. I care about Modern and am talking about Modern. In Modern, this Brainstorm/Tarmogoyf effect doesn't really happen. There are many decks that share colors and strategic orientations that don't splash just for a goodstuff card because fetchlands let them. There are plenty of non-goodstuff decks using fetchlands in Modern, and plenty of non-fetchlands decks doing non-goodstuff things in Modern. This argument appears to invent a diversity problem that doesn't exist.
I mostly agree with this. I don't think that shuffling issues are the primary driver for wanting fetchlands banned in Modern. However, your exact argument could also be made for Sensei's Divining Top, which I'm hoping that we can both agree should never be let out of its cage in Modern.
You're making the same style of argument you made above. I rarely, if ever, mention logical fallacies (it's generally annoying on forums), but this is the second instance of reducto ad absurdum in the same post.
Fetches takes less time than Top, so they are fine. Top almost necessarily takes much more time than fetches because they are often used in tandem with the fetchlands. That means you spend some amount of time on fetches (which is the same amount of time you use in a fetchland world sans Top), but then you add the before-and-after Top activation. Plus all the Top activations when fetchlands aren't even at play. Clearly, this takes way more time and that's why Top is a problem and fetches aren't.
Isn't the logical extension of this to simply eliminate manabases entirely and do something similar to Hearthstone? Giving each player "guaranteed" mana every turn but fixing the rate at which it appears in your pool?
Or we could just take the middle ground: fetchland manabases are a good mix of some skill without making mana decisions a big deal. I enjoy seeing small changes in manabases, like deciding whether to add a 4th Temple Garden or a Tomb, Horizon Canopy, or Wildwood. Or swapping a Swamp for an Urborg. Most players probably enjoy that too. But we obviously don't need to take that to the extreme and remove all manabase construction just to make an absurd argument. I'll also emphasize that a post-fetchland manabase would still be "solved" by the massive MTG community and would ultimately be no more/less skill-testing than the current fetchland manabase. The format, however, would lose access to a lot of decks with no certain end. Why would anyone take that big risk for a problem that many don't care about or even acknowledge as a problem?
This also isn't wrong, but you've cherry-picked your examples. For example, it's hard to deny that Legacy is a Brainstorm-dominated format, and yet Legacy Merfolk, Affinity, and Burn don't run it, despite all of them being competitive strategies.
I don't care about Legacy. I care about Modern and am talking about Modern. In Modern, this Brainstorm/Tarmogoyf effect doesn't really happen. There are many decks that share colors and strategic orientations that don't splash just for a goodstuff card because fetchlands let them. There are plenty of non-goodstuff decks using fetchlands in Modern, and plenty of non-fetchlands decks doing non-goodstuff things in Modern. This argument appears to invent a diversity problem that doesn't exist.
I mostly agree with this. I don't think that shuffling issues are the primary driver for wanting fetchlands banned in Modern. However, your exact argument could also be made for Sensei's Divining Top, which I'm hoping that we can both agree should never be let out of its cage in Modern.
You're making the same style of argument you made above. I rarely, if ever, mention logical fallacies (it's generally annoying on forums), but this is the second instance of reducto ad absurdum in the same post.
Fetches takes less time than Top, so they are fine. Top almost necessarily takes much more time than fetches because they are often used in tandem with the fetchlands. That means you spend some amount of time on fetches (which is the same amount of time you use in a fetchland world sans Top), but then you add the before-and-after Top activation. Plus all the Top activations when fetchlands aren't even at play. Clearly, this takes way more time and that's why Top is a problem and fetches aren't.
This and to add on top requires some thinking. Slower players or those new to top decks or a format with top have to evaluate the cards on top of their deck each time.
Or we could just take the middle ground: fetchland manabases are a good mix of some skill without making mana decisions a big deal. I enjoy seeing small changes in manabases, like deciding whether to add a 4th Temple Garden or a Tomb, Horizon Canopy, or Wildwood. Or swapping a Swamp for an Urborg. Most players probably enjoy that too. But we obviously don't need to take that to the extreme and remove all manabase construction just to make an absurd argument. I'll also emphasize that a post-fetchland manabase would still be "solved" by the massive MTG community and would ultimately be no more/less skill-testing than the current fetchland manabase. The format, however, would lose access to a lot of decks with no certain end. Why would anyone take that big risk for a problem that many don't care about or even acknowledge as a problem?
I don't disagree about wanting a middle ground, although I disagree with where that middle ground should be. I actually want to see manabase innovation; small changes in manabases tend to not interest me because they have a low impact on the average development of a boardstate.
I also disagree about "solved" manabases being the same outcome without fetchlands. Yes, the same probability and statistics that make manabases optimal now will also be used to make them optimal in the future. But I think that increasing the variance in the manabases gives more types of lands an opportunity to be relevant, instead of just having the fetch-shock system that exists in Modern today. It makes the manabases more interesting and nuanced. So yes, they manabases in the abstract may still be "solved", but the solutions will look very different, and I think there would be more room for innovation.
I don't care about Legacy. I care about Modern and am talking about Modern. In Modern, this Brainstorm/Tarmogoyf effect doesn't really happen. There are many decks that share colors and strategic orientations that don't splash just for a goodstuff card because fetchlands let them. There are plenty of non-goodstuff decks using fetchlands in Modern, and plenty of non-fetchlands decks doing non-goodstuff things in Modern. This argument appears to invent a diversity problem that doesn't exist.
The Brainstorm/Tarmogoyf effect absolutely happens in Modern. Tarmogoyf is an expensive card because it's functionally irreplaceable and readily splashable. Yes, I concede to you that there are more than just goodstuff decks in Modern. But you're intentionally ignoring the negative impact that goodstuff cards can have on a format. If Tarmogoyf cost GG instead of 1G, it wouldn't be played as often, nor would it command a $100 price tag. It would also help distinguish green's color identity from the other colors in the pie.
I'm not inventing a diversity problem. I'm suggesting that the fetchlands narrow the range of playable cards, which they absolutely do.
You're making the same style of argument you made above. I rarely, if ever, mention logical fallacies (it's generally annoying on forums), but this is the second instance of reducto ad absurdum in the same post.
Fetches takes less time than Top, so they are fine. Top almost necessarily takes much more time than fetches because they are often used in tandem with the fetchlands. That means you spend some amount of time on fetches (which is the same amount of time you use in a fetchland world sans Top), but then you add the before-and-after Top activation. Plus all the Top activations when fetchlands aren't even at play. Clearly, this takes way more time and that's why Top is a problem and fetches aren't.
You may not like reductio ad absurdum, but it's philosophically important. When there is no discernible endpoint to the logic that you're employing, you end up with unintentional consequences. If your goal is minimize the influence from manabase variance, eliminating the variance through rules changes seems like a more effective way to implement that goal than functionally requiring everyone to play fetchlands. And if your goal is to optimize play and viewership for MTGO, SDT is also probably fine, because MTGO uses a clock; SDT is notoriously bad for coverage, but it's much less bad on MTGO because of reduced manual dexterity and the implementation of the clock. Again, reductio ad absurdum is a valid way of pointing out the consequences of the logic you used. I'm not here to misrepresent your viewpoint, but I am here to challenge it.
Playing millions of cards every turn... Slowly and systematically obliterating any chance my opponent has of winning... Clicking the multitude of locking mechanisms into place... Not even trying to win myself until turn 10+ once I have nigh absolute control... Watching my opponent desperately trying to navigate the labyrinthine prison that I've constructed... Seeing the light of hope fade and ultimately extinguished in an excruciatingly slow manner... THAT'S fun Magic.
We have 2-3 users that are dramatically making this thread incomprehensible and non-productive for anyone else to possibly join in the discussion. This needs to change.
Every time I see [ktkenshinx] post in here, I get the impression of a stern dad walking in on a bunch of kids trying to do something dumb and just shaking his head in disappointment.
Near Mint: The same as Slightly Played, but we threw some Altoids in the box we stored it in to cover up the scent of dead mice. Slightly Played: The base condition for all MTG cards. This card looks OK, but there’s one minor annoying ding in it that will always irritate and distract you whenever you draw it. Moderately Played: This card looks like it survived the Tet Offensive tucked inside the waistband of GI underwear. It may smell like it, too. Heavily Played: This card looks like the remains of Mohammed Atta’s passport after 9/11. It may be playable if you double-sleeve it to stop the chunks from falling out. The condition formerly known as "Washing Machine Grade" Damaged: This card is the unfortunate victim of a Mirrorweave/March of the Machines/Chaos Confetti/Mindslaver combo.
[M]aking counterfeit cards is the absolute height of dishonesty. Ask yourself this question: Since most people...are totally cool with the use of proxies...what purpose do [high] quality counterfeit cards serve?
My only issue w/ fetchlands is how expensive they are, but more reprints will help with this. The mana system is one of the most unique aspects about mtg and I think including it in the game has helped with its nuance and longevity. I like fetches as they allow players who want to up the consistency of their deck to do so. However, if WOTC ever wanted to spam print fetches to the point where they were around $10 each I'd have no problem w/ that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Decks:
UG Merfolk RG 8-Whack BWG Abzan midrange GRB Living End UWB Spirit Control
GU Kruphix's "Hug Assassin" RW Kalemne's "Play Fatties and Hope for the Best!" BUGW Atraxa's "All counters, all the time"
I don't disagree about wanting a middle ground, although I disagree with where that middle ground should be. I actually want to see manabase innovation; small changes in manabases tend to not interest me because they have a low impact on the average development of a boardstate.
That's just personal preference then. I'll only say that the current manabase status quo in Modern seems to be working just fine, so I would argue that the burden of proof falls overwhelmingly on those that want it changed. The format is diverse and popular and there's significant strategic and color diversity.
The Brainstorm/Tarmogoyf effect absolutely happens in Modern. Tarmogoyf is an expensive card because it's functionally irreplaceable and readily splashable. Yes, I concede to you that there are more than just goodstuff decks in Modern. But you're intentionally ignoring the negative impact that goodstuff cards can have on a format. If Tarmogoyf cost GG instead of 1G, it wouldn't be played as often, nor would it command a $100 price tag. It would also help distinguish green's color identity from the other colors in the pie.
I'm not inventing a diversity problem. I'm suggesting that the fetchlands narrow the range of playable cards, which they absolutely do.
Please give an example of where the goodstuff problem is a problem in Modern. Tarmogoyf absolutely doesn't count. You can play green without Goyf (Tron and Titan Valakut), you can play aggro without Goyf (Burn, Affinity), you can play green creature decks without Goyf (Company decks), and you can play midrange, even green-based midrange, without Goyf (Bant Eldrazi). All of those decks could easily add Goyf but they don't, underscoring how this goodstuff problem isn't real when it comes to Goyf.
Who cares if powerful cards or fetchlands narrow the range of playable cards? Modern has tons of playable cards! The problem of "not enough playable cards" isn't one many are claiming. That's doubly true in Modern right now, which many regard as extremely diverse and enjoyable. You can always increase the range of playable cards by removing the more powerful options. That doesn't necessarily make a format more diverse, more skill-testing, or more enjoyable. Indeed, it often has the opposite effect.
You may not like reductio ad absurdum, but it's philosophically important. When there is no discernible endpoint to the logic that you're employing, you end up with unintentional consequences. If your goal is minimize the influence from manabase variance, eliminating the variance through rules changes seems like a more effective way to implement that goal than functionally requiring everyone to play fetchlands.
I did define an endpoint. Fetchlands reduce variance but don't homogenize manabases and still allow for some manabase differences. That's a good middleground for me, even if you personally disagree with it. Similarly, fetchlands add a little time but SDT adds much more. The added fetch time is fine and doesn't seem to affect tournament logistics. The added SDT time was so problematic it got SDT preemptively banned.
That approach is also a bad one with most arguments. For instance, I could easily take your idea about removing fetches to diversify manabases and apply it to other cards. Removing Bolt to open up other removal. Removing TS to open up other discard. This isn't actually productive and doesn't lead us anywhere helpful. I've explicitly defined endpoints to avoid this. I've also interpreted your endpoints so I know your fetchland argument probably doesn't apply to TS/Bolt/other cards.
Something I've had on my mind for a long time is that the difference between modern and legacy can actually be heavily linked to the interesting way shocks+Fetches interact vs. duals+fetches.
While the exceptional filtering spells (brainstorm, particularly) are great I am regularly struck while playing legacy how the tempo of the game is impacted by people striving to hold their fetches as functional draw-2s or to protect critical duals against wasteland.
In modern the decisionmaking of getting basics vs. shocks, getting tapped shocks vs. untapped shocks, building manabases with cores that can support creature and buddy and fastlands, creates its own dynamic that is interesting.
The way manabases are constructed in the two formats really is a huge distinction and in many ways I find modern manabases much more interesting, even though it tends to drive a more proactive style of play (combined with discard being the main control element vs. countermagic in legacy).
Anyway, to anyone who thinks fetches are not interesting, I disagree and would say Modern's balance if shocks+Fetches is one of the things that really makes the format. It took me quite a while of playing legacy to come to this, mind you, as little as a year or two ago I might have said something quite different.
That's just personal preference then. I'll only say that the current manabase status quo in Modern seems to be working just fine, so I would argue that the burden of proof falls overwhelmingly on those that want it changed. The format is diverse and popular and there's significant strategic and color diversity.
We've just read through pages of discussion about how underpowered blue and white are in the format. And certain strategies (like permission) are nowhere to be seen.
Please give an example of where the goodstuff problem is a problem in Modern. Tarmogoyf absolutely doesn't count. You can play green without Goyf (Tron and Titan Valakut), you can play aggro without Goyf (Burn, Affinity), you can play green creature decks without Goyf (Company decks), and you can play midrange, even green-based midrange, without Goyf (Bant Eldrazi). All of those decks could easily add Goyf but they don't, underscoring how this goodstuff problem isn't real when it comes to Goyf.
Goyf slots into Jund, Abzan, Death's Shadow, Zoo, Temur Delver, and fringe Sultai builds. Some of those are aggro decks. Some are tempo decks. Some are midrange decks. But all of them use Goyf as a beatstick of choice. There's no denying that Goyf is the most efficient green creature ever printed, so it's hard to deny that decks have incentive to play it whenever they need an aggressive creature. I'm not sure how to make my point any differently; they're all different strategies with different lines of play, but they all opt to use Goyf. Why would anyone use anything else?
Who cares if powerful cards or fetchlands narrow the range of playable cards? Modern has tons of playable cards! The problem of "not enough playable cards" isn't one many are claiming. That's doubly true in Modern right now, which many regard as extremely diverse and enjoyable. You can always increase the range of playable cards by removing the more powerful options. That doesn't necessarily make a format more diverse, more skill-testing, or more enjoyable. Indeed, it often has the opposite effect.
I bolded the part of this that I really like, and I'm absolutely going to agree with it. But people have been making that claim about Brainstorm in Legacy for years, and it's still been a source of never-ending debate.
Here's my take: not all sources of variance reduction are skill-intensive. Brainstorm does both. Cabal Therapy does both. Gifts Ungiven does both. Fetchlands only do the former. Mishra's Bauble only does the former. Gitaxian Probe only did the former.
I did define an endpoint. Fetchlands reduce variance but don't homogenize manabases and still allow for some manabase differences. That's a good middleground for me, even if you personally disagree with it.
Let's go back to calling this one a preference. 1-2 flex slots in 3-color manabases feels pretty homogeneous to me.
That approach is also a bad one with most arguments. For instance, I could easily take your idea about removing fetches to diversify manabases and apply it to other cards. Removing Bolt to open up other removal. Removing TS to open up other discard. This isn't actually productive and doesn't lead us anywhere helpful. I've explicitly defined endpoints to avoid this. I've also interpreted your endpoints so I know your fetchland argument probably doesn't apply to TS/Bolt/other cards.
While you're technically correct, you're actually talking to the wrong person about this. I think both Bolt and TS narrow the range of playable cards like Tarmogoyf, and I wouldn't miss them if they were gone. I'm not going to advocate for their ban, but they are the best possible options at performing their respective functions, and it's boring to see them in every game of Modern that I play.
Playing millions of cards every turn... Slowly and systematically obliterating any chance my opponent has of winning... Clicking the multitude of locking mechanisms into place... Not even trying to win myself until turn 10+ once I have nigh absolute control... Watching my opponent desperately trying to navigate the labyrinthine prison that I've constructed... Seeing the light of hope fade and ultimately extinguished in an excruciatingly slow manner... THAT'S fun Magic.
We have 2-3 users that are dramatically making this thread incomprehensible and non-productive for anyone else to possibly join in the discussion. This needs to change.
Every time I see [ktkenshinx] post in here, I get the impression of a stern dad walking in on a bunch of kids trying to do something dumb and just shaking his head in disappointment.
Near Mint: The same as Slightly Played, but we threw some Altoids in the box we stored it in to cover up the scent of dead mice. Slightly Played: The base condition for all MTG cards. This card looks OK, but there’s one minor annoying ding in it that will always irritate and distract you whenever you draw it. Moderately Played: This card looks like it survived the Tet Offensive tucked inside the waistband of GI underwear. It may smell like it, too. Heavily Played: This card looks like the remains of Mohammed Atta’s passport after 9/11. It may be playable if you double-sleeve it to stop the chunks from falling out. The condition formerly known as "Washing Machine Grade" Damaged: This card is the unfortunate victim of a Mirrorweave/March of the Machines/Chaos Confetti/Mindslaver combo.
[M]aking counterfeit cards is the absolute height of dishonesty. Ask yourself this question: Since most people...are totally cool with the use of proxies...what purpose do [high] quality counterfeit cards serve?
We've just read through pages of discussion about how underpowered blue and white are in the format. And certain strategies (like permission) are nowhere to be seen.
The blue/white issues has absolutely nothing to do with fetchlands. Nor does the permission issue. Those are definitely problems, but they aren't at all related to the problem you are talking about here. In fact, they'd probably be in bigger trouble without fetchlands.
There's no denying that Goyf is the most efficient green creature ever printed, so it's hard to deny that decks have incentive to play it whenever they need an aggressive creature. I'm not sure how to make my point any differently; they're all different strategies with different lines of play, but they all opt to use Goyf. Why would anyone use anything else?
I don't care if it's efficient. Bolt is efficient. Snapcaster is efficient. TS, IoK, Path, Decay, etc. are all efficient. This is a powerful format, so efficiency alone doesn't matter. What does matter is that many other decks could use Goyf and don't. So your question of "Why would anyone use anything else?" actually has plenty of answers. I just listed a number of green decks, green aggro decks, green midrange decks, and green value decks that choose not to use Goyf even if they could. So again, Goyf isn't the problem you make it out to be.
Re: removing powerful cards to free up other options
I'm not going to touch the whole removing Bolt/IoK/other_powerful_card argument because so few people make it and there are more pressing Modern issues worth discussing. Wizards also doesn't give that line of argument any credence. Not even the most ardent Modern opponents bring this one up on any regular basis. So we'll just chalk that up to personal disagreement.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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
Fetchlands are iconic and critical Modern cards. See their inclusion in MM3 at rare. Fetches also don't create any shuffling problems online, which is probably where a lot of coverage is going in the future as Magic moves to an e-sports model. This bodes well for Modern, a high-power and diverse format that already draws lots of views on Twitch.
My response to people who don't like Modern fetches is similar to my response when people don't like Goyf, Snapcaster, Lily, Bolt, etc. If those cards are too powerful or create a play experience you fundamentally dislike, then this might not be the best format for you. Those cards (moreso, what those cards represent) are just so integral to Modern's identity.
All i see that doing is making the game more luck based. Sure fetches allow for good stuff decks but land disrution already punishes that kind of stuff. Also with shocks being one of the main things to fetch for that puts a real price for having good mana. Burn was a really good deck for a long time just because of how much damage people deal to themselves with fetches and the occasional shock. Richard Garfield himself hates the land system and if he were to start from scratch he would have gotten rid of it for something else that leads to less variance. Fetches alleviate the problems with the land system by allowing you to find your colors more readily while also making sure you draw more action later on. Besides that all of players like consistency. Look at legacy that format is loved by many players just because of brainstorm. Most legacy players I know say they would quit legacy if brainstorm was not in the format and I feel the same would be for fetchless modern.
Without them, this game would be even more luck based, a ton of decks wouldn't be able to exist without them.
If fetches were for some reason banned, I'd quit MTG entirely and sell everything for half it's price
As an extension to that, I would say that WotC's current stance on the blue cantrips is an area where they're failing in this regard. They say they don't like so much draw manipulation because "it makes games play out the same." If you watch Legacy, though, you quickly see the consequences of this decision. In Legacy, both players usually get to play their game. Variance mostly gets squashed by Ponder and Brainstorm, so you have more games where both decks are operating at near 100%, resulting in a lot of close back-and-forth games where you can't always even tell who's winning until the last couple turns. In Modern we have a lot of non-games where one person's deck doesn't cooperate and the other person runs away with a quick victory. I kinda wish they would get over this idea that lower variance in games is a bad thing.
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
in standard a control deck can emerge anytime decent control cards get printed, and midrange and aggro are the primary contenders. the issue becomes when aggro and midrange become too efficient that control never emerges, which is most of what standard is now.. just a creature war.
I think most would disagree with you. Modern was made to be a non-rotating format with a lower barrier to entry than Legacy. That's about it.
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
For those people asking, fetchlands reduce variance. A reduction in variance is not equivalent to a reduction in skill; it's simply a change in the way skill manifests itself in the game. The problem isn't just shuffling time; it's that manabases in Modern are largely idiot-proof. If Modern didn't have fetchlands, small problems with your manabase would become readily apparent, because you would lose a lot of games. With fetchlands, small problems with your manabase go largely unnoticed, costing you a few life over the course of a full tournament.
Fetchlands also enable "goodstuff" decks, because if you need black mana, you can use your Wooded Foothills to go get a Blood Crypt or an Overgrown Tomb. When this happens, the range of playable cards for a given function narrows, thus reducing card diversity in the format. For those of you who haven't played Legacy, there's a joke about Tarmogoyf being the best blue creature ever printed; the reason for that is the blue decks that play it both enable Tarmogoyf quickly and they largely aren't penalized for playing a green creature in a blue deck. The same thing happens in Modern. The most powerful spells see play in decks that are able to easily splash for them, and eliminating fetchlands in the format would go a long way to curbing greedy manabases.
Incidentally, fetchlands are one of the primary reasons that burn is a police deck in Modern (it's a police deck in Legacy too, but for different reasons). Burn is a lot less effective at taking an opponent from 20 to 0 than it is taking an opponent from 15 to 0. The greedier your manabase gets, the better burn becomes.
And before all of you complain, I understand that 3-color decks are hallmarks of the Modern format. So was Splinter Twin, frankly. And I have no faith that WotC will ever ban the fetchlands from Modern. But like Colt, I do believe that Modern would be a better place without them. There would be fewer greedy manabases. There would be a wider range of playable cards. There would be more skill (and higher variance) in building a consistent manabase. And of course, there would be less shuffling.
WUDeath&TaxesWG
Legacy
UBRGDredgeUBRG
UHigh TideU
URGLandsURG
WR Card Choice List
WUR American D&T
WUB Esper D&T
The Reserved List
Heat Maps
It appears Forsythe is aware, but they're unable to commit to official statements or articles yet. I expect a Stoddard piece soon.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Well, that response is encouraging, insofar as it's the most one could hope for at this point (of course he can't comment on potential incoming help). As I said earlier in this thread, with this B&R announcement so close to the next one, it seems totally reasonable to wait 6 weeks to make any decisions.
Your arguments aren't necessarily wrong, but they also aren't necessarily examples of skill. Building a good manabase is absolutely a skill, but it's not a skill I care about watching at high level events. I want a deck's resources to run smoothly so I can see them play spells and interact. I suspect most viewers and players are the same. I'll also add that even a no-fetchland manabase would quickly be solved through Magic's wealth of informative sources, so this skill wouldn't even be very impressive. There are plenty of rules and resources for players to tune manabases and between theory articles, netdecking, and testing you would still figure out the manabases even without fetches. As a result, this skill would quickly fade from interest (and it probably isn't very interesting to begin with for many).
Moreover, who cares if goodstuff cards are being played? Modern has a crazy number of Tier 1 and Tier 2 playable decks with a variety of different creatures. There are very few non-negotiable goodstuff cards and plenty of diversity. Most of the top decks aren't even goodstuff decks to begin with. For instance, take Tarmogoyf. There are plenty of green decks, aggro decks, and midrange decks that don't play Goyf even if they could easily splash for it. I struggle to think of Tier 1 or Tier 2 decks that use greedy manabases to splash for a certain goodstuff card they wouldn't otherwise play in their strategy. It's not like Merfolk, Affinity, and Burn play Goyf. This is also true of other so-called goodstuff/powerful cards.
The shuffling issue is annoying in paper. But it's not an issue online and, from a viewership perspective, it doesn't seem to hurt Modern views. So all in all, fetches are fine.
Great to hear. That makes me want to hold off on my article until I hear his statement; that context might be critical.
Depending on how we read into that tweet, another official statement may not come out until near the B&R announcement (perhaps AFTER they have committed to a decision). It may be beneficial to provide a critical article to show an "outsider" perspective to staff that live inside the WOTC internal bubble. So many of their decisions are incredibly secretive, so they simply cannot ask questions or bounce ideas off the community.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Especial thanks to @gkourou and @cfusionpm for reaching out to him. At least we know they hear the voice of the people that plays their format almost exclusively.
I guess I just disagree with you about wanting to watch manabase design at high-level events. Admittedly, it's not a part of the game that's going to please the average viewer, and new players are going to find it boring. But I would argue that having to design a manabase is an integral part of Magic gameplay, and anybody that doesn't feel like watching it should just go watch a different game (probably Hearthstone) instead.
This also isn't wrong, but you've cherry-picked your examples. For example, it's hard to deny that Legacy is a Brainstorm-dominated format, and yet Legacy Merfolk, Affinity, and Burn don't run it, despite all of them being competitive strategies.
My argument isn't that Modern is made up exclusively of "goodstuff" decks; it's that fetchlands needlessly enable goodstuff decks in the same sense that fetchlands needlessly enable Brainstorm strategies in Legacy. Sure, there are other powerful things you can be doing in the format, but aren't you just ignoring the elephant in the room?
I mostly agree with this. I don't think that shuffling issues are the primary driver for wanting fetchlands banned in Modern. However, your exact argument could also be made for Sensei's Divining Top, which I'm hoping that we can both agree should never be let out of its cage in Modern.
WUDeath&TaxesWG
Legacy
UBRGDredgeUBRG
UHigh TideU
URGLandsURG
WR Card Choice List
WUR American D&T
WUB Esper D&T
The Reserved List
Heat Maps
Or we could just take the middle ground: fetchland manabases are a good mix of some skill without making mana decisions a big deal. I enjoy seeing small changes in manabases, like deciding whether to add a 4th Temple Garden or a Tomb, Horizon Canopy, or Wildwood. Or swapping a Swamp for an Urborg. Most players probably enjoy that too. But we obviously don't need to take that to the extreme and remove all manabase construction just to make an absurd argument. I'll also emphasize that a post-fetchland manabase would still be "solved" by the massive MTG community and would ultimately be no more/less skill-testing than the current fetchland manabase. The format, however, would lose access to a lot of decks with no certain end. Why would anyone take that big risk for a problem that many don't care about or even acknowledge as a problem?
I don't care about Legacy. I care about Modern and am talking about Modern. In Modern, this Brainstorm/Tarmogoyf effect doesn't really happen. There are many decks that share colors and strategic orientations that don't splash just for a goodstuff card because fetchlands let them. There are plenty of non-goodstuff decks using fetchlands in Modern, and plenty of non-fetchlands decks doing non-goodstuff things in Modern. This argument appears to invent a diversity problem that doesn't exist.
You're making the same style of argument you made above. I rarely, if ever, mention logical fallacies (it's generally annoying on forums), but this is the second instance of reducto ad absurdum in the same post.
Fetches takes less time than Top, so they are fine. Top almost necessarily takes much more time than fetches because they are often used in tandem with the fetchlands. That means you spend some amount of time on fetches (which is the same amount of time you use in a fetchland world sans Top), but then you add the before-and-after Top activation. Plus all the Top activations when fetchlands aren't even at play. Clearly, this takes way more time and that's why Top is a problem and fetches aren't.
This and to add on top requires some thinking. Slower players or those new to top decks or a format with top have to evaluate the cards on top of their deck each time.
I also disagree about "solved" manabases being the same outcome without fetchlands. Yes, the same probability and statistics that make manabases optimal now will also be used to make them optimal in the future. But I think that increasing the variance in the manabases gives more types of lands an opportunity to be relevant, instead of just having the fetch-shock system that exists in Modern today. It makes the manabases more interesting and nuanced. So yes, they manabases in the abstract may still be "solved", but the solutions will look very different, and I think there would be more room for innovation.
The Brainstorm/Tarmogoyf effect absolutely happens in Modern. Tarmogoyf is an expensive card because it's functionally irreplaceable and readily splashable. Yes, I concede to you that there are more than just goodstuff decks in Modern. But you're intentionally ignoring the negative impact that goodstuff cards can have on a format. If Tarmogoyf cost GG instead of 1G, it wouldn't be played as often, nor would it command a $100 price tag. It would also help distinguish green's color identity from the other colors in the pie.
I'm not inventing a diversity problem. I'm suggesting that the fetchlands narrow the range of playable cards, which they absolutely do.
You may not like reductio ad absurdum, but it's philosophically important. When there is no discernible endpoint to the logic that you're employing, you end up with unintentional consequences. If your goal is minimize the influence from manabase variance, eliminating the variance through rules changes seems like a more effective way to implement that goal than functionally requiring everyone to play fetchlands. And if your goal is to optimize play and viewership for MTGO, SDT is also probably fine, because MTGO uses a clock; SDT is notoriously bad for coverage, but it's much less bad on MTGO because of reduced manual dexterity and the implementation of the clock. Again, reductio ad absurdum is a valid way of pointing out the consequences of the logic you used. I'm not here to misrepresent your viewpoint, but I am here to challenge it.
WUDeath&TaxesWG
Legacy
UBRGDredgeUBRG
UHigh TideU
URGLandsURG
WR Card Choice List
WUR American D&T
WUB Esper D&T
The Reserved List
Heat Maps
RG 8-Whack
BWG Abzan midrange
GRB Living End
UWB Spirit Control
GU Kruphix's "Hug Assassin"
RW Kalemne's "Play Fatties and Hope for the Best!"
BUGW Atraxa's "All counters, all the time"
That's just personal preference then. I'll only say that the current manabase status quo in Modern seems to be working just fine, so I would argue that the burden of proof falls overwhelmingly on those that want it changed. The format is diverse and popular and there's significant strategic and color diversity.
Please give an example of where the goodstuff problem is a problem in Modern. Tarmogoyf absolutely doesn't count. You can play green without Goyf (Tron and Titan Valakut), you can play aggro without Goyf (Burn, Affinity), you can play green creature decks without Goyf (Company decks), and you can play midrange, even green-based midrange, without Goyf (Bant Eldrazi). All of those decks could easily add Goyf but they don't, underscoring how this goodstuff problem isn't real when it comes to Goyf.
Who cares if powerful cards or fetchlands narrow the range of playable cards? Modern has tons of playable cards! The problem of "not enough playable cards" isn't one many are claiming. That's doubly true in Modern right now, which many regard as extremely diverse and enjoyable. You can always increase the range of playable cards by removing the more powerful options. That doesn't necessarily make a format more diverse, more skill-testing, or more enjoyable. Indeed, it often has the opposite effect.
I did define an endpoint. Fetchlands reduce variance but don't homogenize manabases and still allow for some manabase differences. That's a good middleground for me, even if you personally disagree with it. Similarly, fetchlands add a little time but SDT adds much more. The added fetch time is fine and doesn't seem to affect tournament logistics. The added SDT time was so problematic it got SDT preemptively banned.
That approach is also a bad one with most arguments. For instance, I could easily take your idea about removing fetches to diversify manabases and apply it to other cards. Removing Bolt to open up other removal. Removing TS to open up other discard. This isn't actually productive and doesn't lead us anywhere helpful. I've explicitly defined endpoints to avoid this. I've also interpreted your endpoints so I know your fetchland argument probably doesn't apply to TS/Bolt/other cards.
Something I've had on my mind for a long time is that the difference between modern and legacy can actually be heavily linked to the interesting way shocks+Fetches interact vs. duals+fetches.
While the exceptional filtering spells (brainstorm, particularly) are great I am regularly struck while playing legacy how the tempo of the game is impacted by people striving to hold their fetches as functional draw-2s or to protect critical duals against wasteland.
In modern the decisionmaking of getting basics vs. shocks, getting tapped shocks vs. untapped shocks, building manabases with cores that can support creature and buddy and fastlands, creates its own dynamic that is interesting.
The way manabases are constructed in the two formats really is a huge distinction and in many ways I find modern manabases much more interesting, even though it tends to drive a more proactive style of play (combined with discard being the main control element vs. countermagic in legacy).
Anyway, to anyone who thinks fetches are not interesting, I disagree and would say Modern's balance if shocks+Fetches is one of the things that really makes the format. It took me quite a while of playing legacy to come to this, mind you, as little as a year or two ago I might have said something quite different.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Goyf slots into Jund, Abzan, Death's Shadow, Zoo, Temur Delver, and fringe Sultai builds. Some of those are aggro decks. Some are tempo decks. Some are midrange decks. But all of them use Goyf as a beatstick of choice. There's no denying that Goyf is the most efficient green creature ever printed, so it's hard to deny that decks have incentive to play it whenever they need an aggressive creature. I'm not sure how to make my point any differently; they're all different strategies with different lines of play, but they all opt to use Goyf. Why would anyone use anything else?
I bolded the part of this that I really like, and I'm absolutely going to agree with it. But people have been making that claim about Brainstorm in Legacy for years, and it's still been a source of never-ending debate.
Here's my take: not all sources of variance reduction are skill-intensive. Brainstorm does both. Cabal Therapy does both. Gifts Ungiven does both. Fetchlands only do the former. Mishra's Bauble only does the former. Gitaxian Probe only did the former.
Let's go back to calling this one a preference. 1-2 flex slots in 3-color manabases feels pretty homogeneous to me.
While you're technically correct, you're actually talking to the wrong person about this. I think both Bolt and TS narrow the range of playable cards like Tarmogoyf, and I wouldn't miss them if they were gone. I'm not going to advocate for their ban, but they are the best possible options at performing their respective functions, and it's boring to see them in every game of Modern that I play.
WUDeath&TaxesWG
Legacy
UBRGDredgeUBRG
UHigh TideU
URGLandsURG
WR Card Choice List
WUR American D&T
WUB Esper D&T
The Reserved List
Heat Maps
The blue/white issues has absolutely nothing to do with fetchlands. Nor does the permission issue. Those are definitely problems, but they aren't at all related to the problem you are talking about here. In fact, they'd probably be in bigger trouble without fetchlands.
I don't care if it's efficient. Bolt is efficient. Snapcaster is efficient. TS, IoK, Path, Decay, etc. are all efficient. This is a powerful format, so efficiency alone doesn't matter. What does matter is that many other decks could use Goyf and don't. So your question of "Why would anyone use anything else?" actually has plenty of answers. I just listed a number of green decks, green aggro decks, green midrange decks, and green value decks that choose not to use Goyf even if they could. So again, Goyf isn't the problem you make it out to be.
Re: removing powerful cards to free up other options
I'm not going to touch the whole removing Bolt/IoK/other_powerful_card argument because so few people make it and there are more pressing Modern issues worth discussing. Wizards also doesn't give that line of argument any credence. Not even the most ardent Modern opponents bring this one up on any regular basis. So we'll just chalk that up to personal disagreement.