Seriously this is ridiculous. There's nothing stopping them from banning anything they want anytime as an "addendum" to a previous announcement.
There was nothing stopping them from doing so before this, as they did it before: Memory Jar. That was the exact same situation as this. They made their banning announcement, realized "hrm, maybe we should add this card" in between the announcement and the time of actual banning, added the card, and then it got banned with everything else.
We also understand we shouldn't let combos like Saheeli-Felidar get out the door in the first place. For that we take ownership and are making changes to try to prevent this from happening again.
My instinct says Splinter Twin does have a grave for itself concerning Modern.
Topic Locked.
Sigh. Wizards of the Coast--at least publicly--takes the wrong lesson. Sure, combos like that should be avoided. But, let's be honest, that kind of stuff will happen, not every single interaction can be caught in testing. What Wizards of the Coast really goofed up was removing all the safety valve cards that help prevent unseen interactions like that from taking over the format. Such cards were what kept ExarchTwin from dominating Standard when it was legal (well, after they finally banned Mystic and Jace). Dismember was a great piece of removal, as was Dispatch (in the right decks). Or for cards that aren't explicit removal, Mana Leak.
But there were also what I am going to refer to as "incidental answers." What I mean is, things that answer some subset of things, which may or may not be worth playing. Torpor Orb. Combust. Spellskite. These were all legal with Splinter Twin, and all were good against the deck. They weren't designed to stop the combo, but having an anti-ETB effect or a good anti-Blue/white card like Combust meant that if such a thing happened that was really good, there was an answer. In this current Standard, Pithing Needle could have worked as an "incidental answer" to the combo. It wasn't printed to deal with it, but if anything is problematic with activated abilities, Pithing Needle can shut it down (it'd also beat Vehicles). Lack of cards like that are another issue. The so-called "safety valves" are gone.
Granted, this was also the era where Caw-Blade ruled until it was banned, so there were issues of their own, but the point is that a combo similar to CopyCat was legal but not an issue. Some might say "well it was only legal for half a year" to which I say "well, it still wasn't anything more than a good deck, so I don't think it would have gotten banned had it been legal for longer unless it got some kind of big boost." Quite ironically, though, Caw-Blade's dominance also came from lack of good answers to it; Oblivion Ring or Pithing Needle would've worked as pretty good answers to it, but unfortunately they weren't legal at the time.
And, of course, let's remember that CopyCat was no more dominant than Mardu Vehicles was. It might have gotten all the attention because it was a more obvious development flub, but it's not like this was just one missed interaction that was hurting Standard. Speaking of Mardu Vehicles, the lack of a banning for that deck seems questionable to me. It seems like that could rise up and dominate the entire metagame without CopyCat around.
People have been telling Wizards for years that this was going to happen. Rather than use card slots in sets on putting in ample safety valves though, they started cutting the amount of metagame information players could get, while scheduling PT's and now ban announcements to create the maximum level of change in the meta so that players would never solve things to the point that they could use those answer cards.
It's horrible design. About time it bit them in the ass.
Remember Innistrad Standard with the GY theme? Leading into it there was Tormod's Crypt, Surgical Extraction, and Nihil Spellbomb. In the set was Grafdiggers Cage and lots of exile based removal (Pillar of Flame, Sever the Bloodline, etc). After the set was Ground Seal, Rest in Peace, Deathrite Shaman, and Scavenging Ooze.
That's a lot of safety valves. These days they don't even print Shatter in an artifact block.
Wizards will eventually realize their mistake with removal, and start printing better answers again (Push not withstanding). At which point Twin will definitely be safe.
They banned Saheeli in Standard, Twin in Modern, Miracles in Legacy, and Mentor in Legacy. Wizards hates spells, hates control, hates blue cards, and hates combos. In their perfect world, we would have big dumb creatures smashing into each other turn after turn, just like Hearthstone.
It seriously seems disingenuous to make any correlation between the recent bans and Wizard's stance on Control. CopyCat was literally ruining Standard, which can be measured through its metagame numbers and tournament success, and Miracles has been eating up about 14-15% of the meta for over a year. If these were aggro decks eating crippling bans, can you say in good faith that you'd claim that these bans were unjustified based on metagame shares and tournament success?
People need to stop assuming that these recent bans have anything to do with some secret anti-Control agenda. Both decks were pulling meta shares that for their respective formats was simply too high. Getting rid of Copy Cat is the first step to making Standard playable, and if you want to play control in Legacy, both Sultai Control and 4 Color Control are very strong decks that are completely untouched by this ban. This isn't WotC secretly plotting control, this is Wizards improving diversity in one format and fixing a blatant mistake in another
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks
Modern: UWUW Control UBRGrixis Shadow URIzzet Phoenix
Keep the posts about bans and modern. Anything thats like "Wizards sux" is getting infracted.
To clarify, if you wanna talk about how this emergency ban effects in modern, feel free. Anything thats like "Wizards obviously doesn't know what they are doing" will get an infraction. It needs to be about modern in the modern sub.
I said it was a combo deck, you said no it was a control deck first and combo deck second which would mean that a less focused combo element would be the fair comparison. You literally said in the same post I responded to that It started out as a more control oriented deck which no it didn't
and again all of the snapcaster beats that we got in with the deck was only possible because of the combo. Do you really think that your opponent with like 5 cards in hand can't handle a snapcaster? of course they can, its the risk of losing the game because you attempted to interact with the opponent that bought you the time that those types of wins needed, so even when you didn't stick the combo the esoteric nature of combo still winning you the game.
You really seem to enjoy arguing with imaginary strawmen in your mind. Yes, that's how the tempo aspect of the deck worked, I've said this many times in these threads.
The deck actually stifled interaction because whatever spell you might be casting probably doesn't win you the game on the spot which the Twin player might do in response to anything you attempt to do from T3 onward.
If it stifled interaction, why were interactive decks its worst matchups and uninteractive decks its best?
I had a poster telling me that essentially only a stupid person would dare tap for a IoK on T3 because the Twin player had 3 open mana, and this is probably true but also why the deck was toxic. A player cannot even play a 1.c.c. interactive spell without the risk of just losing the game on the spot for nearly the entire mid-range of the game T3-T6 that is not a healthy affect for a deck to have on the format.
Oh my! You mean playing against Twin actually required you to use your brain?! How awful! The reason IoK wasn't the best there is that they can flash in the creature in response and IoK doesn't hit Twin. Playing Thoughtseize, on the other hand, would be a very good play, as you can strip their Twin.
Yes the deck evolved but it was always first and foremost a combo deck, sticking 3 snapcasters and 2 cliques dosn't suddenly mean that the other 10 cards your running are plan b in fact it was the opposite snap and clique are plan b and the combo gets you more wins.
I wont argue about the 60-70 percent creature beatdown win you are claiming as that seems like a number you are pulling out of the aether and I'm rather sure that it is a unknowable number to all but perhaps WotC. I know in my experience I won more frequently with the combo
Well, your experience is not the most common one. The rest of us won the majority of our games through beatdown and bolts.
The Twin combo is fundamentally unfair, it is why it was so good for so long in format with so many unfair decks it was the best for the longest period of time. Trying to say that it got more fair over time is actually why the combo was busted
I'm saying the deck itself got more fair. Yes, the Twin combo is an unfair win condition that you can put in a fair deck. So is Nahiri + Emrakul. That's because Modern requires you to be able to close a game quickly. Durdle control decks have historically not been very successful in Modern, so the Twin combo gave control shells a fast win condition.
so your snarky attempt to "prove me wrong" actually only shows how correct I am as that deck wouldn't see play if it required you to play 12-16 other cards on top of the 8 for the combo, its an okay deck because it gets to be a watered down version of the Twin combo and is again 100% sorcery speed.
No, you actually proved yourself wrong with everything you said about Knightfall and Saheeli combo. Your premise was that Twin was the strongest combo deck because it only took up 10 slots in its deck, so the rest could be a control shell. That's clearly incorrect because Saheeli and Knightfall take up even fewer slots in their deck, and yet they aren't as successful as Twin was. So the success of a combo is not directly correlated to the number of slots it takes up in its deck. There are other reasons why Saheeli and Knightfall aren't as good as Twin, which you so kindly laid out.
You'll notice that in Paul's first list from January, he's still running Kiki-Jiki in the maindeck. Paul obviously leaned more towards the combo, which isn't surprising because he had been playing it for a long time and that's how the deck originally had worked. The deck had evolved to where the combo was not generally plan A against an unknown opponent, especially in the Grixis and Temur versions. It could become plan A against certain decks like other combo or aggro decks, but that wasn't generally true.
How about you just do everyone in these threads a favor and stop talking about Twin. Every other week you come in here and start spreading your misinformation, then a few others and I correct your incorrect statements and claims, and you just double down on your misinformation and the posts spiral out of control as the rest of the thread gets annoyed. Seriously, stop it. I don't even want to talk about Twin anymore. Next time you have something to say about Twin, just write it in Notepad, and then hit the delete button. Do us all a huge favor.
Copy-Cat and Knightfall are not instant win, they have a delay(unless you wait until T6-7 for copy cat)and both decks are good but the lack of a combo piece with flash makes them much slower.
How is an opponent using their brain by not playing the game and just hitting land drops until they actually cast a spell without losing on the spot.
I never said that the only quality of Twin that made it strong was that it took up minimal space in the deck it was that plus the fact that it wins the instant you have the combo and Knightfall and Copy-Cat have to assemble theirs over the course of a few turns giving the opponent the chance to interact in a reasonable way.
Its pretty hilarious that the first part of your post claims I'm making up that you said the combo was plan b not plan a, then your last statement goes on to say that the combo "was not generally plan A". It was always plan A but like Paul pointed out it had a very strong Plan B. But I'm sure you have pro points to back up your assertion that he is wrong.
Modern was for the first years a Combo format, Twin and Pod defined the format as such. It is a far better format for more players than it was before.
I come in here and point out that Twin was justifiably banned. because people like to claim that it was something other than a Combo deck and good to see WotC ban Copy-Cat out of standard as that is likely just another nail in the coffin of Twin. I'll stop bringing up reality when people stop insisting on living in a fantasy, you don't want to think it was a combo deck so its not.
People have been telling Wizards for years that this was going to happen. Rather than use card slots in sets on putting in ample safety valves though, they started cutting the amount of metagame information players could get, while scheduling PT's and now ban announcements to create the maximum level of change in the meta so that players would never solve things to the point that they could use those answer cards.
It's horrible design. About time it bit them in the ass.
Remember Innistrad Standard with the GY theme? Leading into it there was Tormod's Crypt, Surgical Extraction, and Nihil Spellbomb. In the set was Grafdiggers Cage and lots of exile based removal (Pillar of Flame, Sever the Bloodline, etc). After the set was Ground Seal, Rest in Peace, Deathrite Shaman, and Scavenging Ooze.
That's a lot of safety valves. These days they don't even print Shatter in an artifact block.
WotC needs to bring back Core sets and stop trying to make them draft formats. Design the Core set with only Constructed play in mind.
...banning thoughtseize...i guess is wizard's fault if the banmania is running rampant...if they have to ban thoughtseize is better to ban the format itself, banning an answer card?? Lets ban also bolt and path while we are at it...i'm speechless!
Well TS isn't really a answer its disruption. Answers are cards that deal with threats presented by the opponent. Disruption is more like a preemptive permission spell.
Still shouldn't be banned
How about they print a card that is helps diminish the value of discard spells? They did it for counters with Caverns. Maybe a cycle of cards that have a ability like "if a spell or ability would cause you to reveal your hand to a opponent you may discard this card, if you do you and your opponent may draw a card". The land they made that puts it on top of your deck is rather poor since it sets you back a draw step.
Unfortunately, them saying that they lack time because other formats are more pressing, dissapoints me a lot. Standard is due to 2 bannings the next time(and I believe it will happen), so I could see them go like: "Again, we had no time to dedicate into Modern".
So, I think the next update will be: "No changes" as well. This, I can't quite understand. I don't think it takes that much time to think about and evalate about such an OK card as Preordain is.
When they double ban Standard, they will think about Preordain and Stoneforge Mystic. Meaning in two announcements.
unless some new unnoticed combo deck comes up out of some interaction with a new card and a old card. No bans no unbans would be my guess.
U needs better permission spells and better card draw. Why does black have better card draw than blue? Probably will never happen since good card draw makes jund slightly worse unless you have to wait 5 turns to draw.
I think that Nephalia Academy is a decent card for the effect you're looking for (to have generically on a land).
Is there actually value to printing more cards that disincentivize disruption/interaction? Does that lead to a healthier modern? In my opinion, the biggest cry out for modern isn't from players asking for more non-interactive deck choices or more threats, it's the opposite. People want to be able to play better answers. Wizards has said the pendulum is swinging back towards better answers relative to threats. I strongly believe that as more powerful answers are printed, the format as a whole can be changed in excellent ways. Fatal Push is a great example of this. The format has become very interesting and deck design has been impacted by the new Modern staple. More of this leads to a healthier metagame (my opinion).
Wizards will eventually realize their mistake with removal, and start printing better answers again (Push not withstanding). At which point Twin will definitely be safe.
They banned Saheeli in Standard, Twin in Modern, Miracles in Legacy, and Mentor in Legacy. Wizards hates spells, hates control, hates blue cards, and hates combos. In their perfect world, we would have big dumb creatures smashing into each other turn after turn, just like Hearthstone.
It seriously seems disingenuous to make any correlation between the recent bans and Wizard's stance on Control. CopyCat was literally ruining Standard, which can be measured through its metagame numbers and tournament success, and Miracles has been eating up about 14-15% of the meta for over a year. If these were aggro decks eating crippling bans, can you say in good faith that you'd claim that these bans were unjustified based on metagame shares and tournament success?
People need to stop assuming that these recent bans have anything to do with some secret anti-Control agenda. Both decks were pulling meta shares that for their respective formats was simply too high. Getting rid of Copy Cat is the first step to making Standard playable, and if you want to play control in Legacy, both Sultai Control and 4 Color Control are very strong decks that are completely untouched by this ban. This isn't WotC secretly plotting control, this is Wizards improving diversity in one format and fixing a blatant mistake in another
I don't actually disagree with the copycat ban. I think it will do good things for the format... unless Mardu Vehicles simply fills the vaccuum. I don't play standard though. Speaking of things I don't play, Legacy is one of those too. But from what I read, banning Top hurts lots and lots of non-Miracles decks that don't have access to Brainstorm, and that banning Terminus would have been a much better solution to hurt a powerful tier 1 deck without killing it entirely. I also don't play Vintage, but found it odd reading about how Mentor was apparently the second best deck behind Shops.... so... banning key cards from... the second best deck... makes the first best deck.... worse?
There are certain decks that have eaten bans in Modern and have been able to survive, because they were specifically targeted to weaken the decks without killing them. However, it's apparent that when they don't like a deck, they don't really care about keeping it in the format and have absolutely no issues nuking it from existence. This irony gets stronger and stronger with every nuked deck after AF's comments about not wanting to "nuke" Eldrazi (Remember, Bant Eldrazi is still a strong Tier 1 deck...).
It's about priorities and communication. Never mind their ineptitudes in R&D for Standard, mistakes happen. But WOTC has just demonstrated today that, beyond a year+ worth of strange and questionable business choices, they have no issue springing a surprise ban on people two days AFTER the "official" ban announcement. This is terrifying for the future of any format, but especially the ban-magnet Modern. Nothing is safe. And anything Wizards doesn't like, they will find a reason to ban, whether it makes sense or not.
I think that Nephalia Academy is a decent card for the effect you're looking for (to have generically on a land).
Is there actually value to printing more cards that disincentivize disruption/interaction? Does that lead to a healthier modern? In my opinion, the biggest cry out for modern isn't from players asking for more non-interactive deck choices or more threats, it's the opposite. People want to be able to play better answers. Wizards has said the pendulum is swinging back towards better answers relative to threats. I strongly believe that as more powerful answers are printed, the format as a whole can be changed in excellent ways. Fatal Push is a great example of this. The format has become very interesting and deck design has been impacted by the new Modern staple. More of this leads to a healthier metagame (my opinion).
Yeah that land is terrible, to I lose the best card in my hand or do I lose a draw card and a draw step. If it was nearly as affect as cavern it would see wider play outside of combo decks(ive only ever seen it in ad naus)
How does a affect that is only a interactive affect hurt interaction? Stick the affect on a vanilla card in each color as a cycle and it provides a interaction that actually would help move the format away from having players rely on highly redundant fast aggro decks.
The very types of non-interactive decks that people claim to hate are actually made better options than 20/20/20 creature/spell/land fair decks because they are less vulnerable to having their hand completely wrecked by discard spells. If targeted discard doesn't get some type of fair interaction to help play around it we will continue to have non-interactive decks be a great option.
Okay you want to play better answers? So do I but one of the major problems for non-black fair decks is that actually having removal in your hand is nearly impossible often. I was playing a match earlier and I had a opener with push,push, Terminate and had not a single one in my hand when I drew on T3 without casting a single one, I had answers I just had them removed from my hand.
Modern actually has very powerful answers to most things, its keeping them in hand or finding them in time to be useful that are actually problematic. Im not saying I wouldn't like to see more good answers but what good are they if you can simply strip my hand of anything useful before you play your threat? This is just driving the format into one in which you have to play discard just to remove your opponents discard and this is the exact type of criticism people lob at Mental Misstep "it is its own best answer" well that is where we are with targeted discard and WotC should print actual answers to it like they have for counterspells.
I don't think that a interaction like I proposed would mitigate the amount of targeted discard spells played it would just give decks a way to interact with it. This is the same type of stuff people said about AV coming off the banned list "jund is dead, draw three makes discard unplayable" but it didn't because discard is still way strong.
With all the deceptions and complete non-sensical management of the game, i think Hour of Devastation will be on the best sets ever. It will bring much needed answers, and finally the game will be more lean towards interaction and powerful policing spells rather than big dumb B/G/W creatures/PW which is what they have been doing so far.
Regarding Modern, i think Death's Shadow won't need a ban, since Hour will warp Modern at the level of Khans of Tarkir for example(but in a Fatal Push way). It will bring a Blue a tool that will make it a solid Tier 1.5-2.
Regarding Banlist, my consequent reaction is that most cards have a grave until the natural power of the format rises so much that the cards seem nothing short of underwpowered in contrast with the format. One could argue that Stoneforge is reaching that level with so much removal and Kolaghan's Command running around, but still then, they are so short-sighted that they won't take such risk, at least now. That's fine by me because in reality, i don't want Stonforge in Modern, neither Jace nor Preordain. I prefer Modern to shape as a completly different format to what Legacy is and future Standard sets are what i'm aiming for.
Finally, i think it's well past time for them to put some Pro's and smart guys taking big decisions. Guys that actually play and feel the same way as the player base. More importantly, guys who can handle making cards and not screwing things up and blowing up the game for everyone.
Discard is interaction just as permission and removal are interaction.
Paying mana and a card to strip away resources and gain information is interacting. You appear to be claiming that the presence of discard spells pushes people to be less interactive. I do not believe that to be true. Your example above illustrates this. You opponent spent 2 turns playing discard spells to take the of your cards. You had 2 turns to develop your board while they attacked your hand. What did you do with the mana and time?
I know discard can be frustrating to play against. The same is true of removal and permission. These tools keep opponents honest and interrupt the gameplan.
Asking for a new card that is so good that it invalidates one form of interaction is unreasonable. Academy lets you draw the card you need if they try and take it. They still have to pay mana and spend a card.
Discard is interaction just as permission and removal are interaction.
Paying mana and a card to strip away resources and gain information is interacting. You appear to be claiming that the presence of discard spells pushes people to be less interactive. I do not believe that to be true. Your example above illustrates this. You opponent spent 2 turns playing discard spells to take the of your cards. You had 2 turns to develop your board while they attacked your hand. What did you do with the mana and time?
I know discard can be frustrating to play against. The same is true of removal and permission. These tools keep opponents honest and interrupt the gameplan.
Asking for a new card that is so good that it invalidates one form of interaction is unreasonable. Academy lets you draw the card you need if they try and take it. They still have to pay mana and spend a card.
I didn't say it wasn't interaction. I said that it would be healthy to have a way to interact with discard spells. I don't think a affect like the one I put would invalidate discard anymore than AV did. This type of interaction would be similar to the the Trap cards that are strong against counters. I specifically said that it should be attached to very vanilla cards so that it would have a draw back, am I going to play a more powerful/affect card or am I going to play the slightly worse general option with a upside against discard. That kind of affect would only be good in interactive decks and would slow down any aggro deck or combo deck trying to run it to much. Your essentially arguing that this form of interaction should have no counter method of interaction.
I'm not saying its frustrating but it like anything else has a affect on the meta-game. The affect that targeted discard has is that it is great against other fair decks not really that great against redundant non-interactive aggro. So we have more players going towards fast non-interactive decks because it is better against targeted discard. This is the trend that we have seen in the meta-game since the banning of Pod, Pod was the best deck at keeping people off of fast aggro-combo decks because those strategies are laughably bad in the face of T3 infinite life gain. My example actually showcased why it pushes players towards super redundant aggro-combo decks than interactive decks, is it better to have a mix of interactive spells and threats with varying value or to have 12 copies of the exact same affect? Just look at the other decks rising to the top of the meta-game with the only functioning fair decks being Bxx DS discard heavy decks, affinity highly redundant fast aggro, Dredge naturally strong against discard, Burn highly redundant fast aggro, Gifts Storm highly redundant fast combo(https://www.mtggoldfish.com/metagame/modern#online) while these decks are good in their own right they are made even better by the fact that their highly redundant builds are less impacted by targeted discard. If I TS my opponent and they have 6-7 cards in hand and say they have 2 lands, if the other 4-5 cards are a mix of spells and or creature in a deck that is looking to play a fair game the TS will be very good, if the 4-5 cards are all functionally the same then the TS was not that impactful as the cards my opponent has are functionally the same. This is why those strategies are good, because the non-black fair decks that would have better match ups against them cannot play a fair interactive game against such efficient disruption. 1c.c. mana cost for a perfect information of the opponents hand and removing the best card is likely under costed as WotC has moved toward 2c.c. for that type of affect give 1c.c. to more conditional "discard a creature or a planeswalker" or "discard a non-creature spell" for standard and I'm again in no way advocating that it shouldn't exist but it is under costed and a method for non-black fair decks to interact with it would be healthy.
Academy, is bad for multiple reasons, 1st it sets you back further as you actually lose a card and a draw step it essentially is a card that lets you Time Ebb yourself setting you back a draw step. 2nd It is a colorless land, if it had a city of brass type fixing affect it could be playable but in the turns that matter in modern I have to risk mana screwing myself to have a again very self punishing slight measure of protection from targeted discard? It is played in decks like ad naus because the early turns of the game are not as important as they are to fair decks and they only care about 2 cards being in hand or 1 in hand and one on board way into the mid-range of the game.
I'll ask you this, if Academy is good then why does it see no play in non-black fair decks? because its bad that is why.
bizzycola That's actually an interesting thought how about a land that protects you from discard.
Land
This land enters the battlefield tapped
Tap this land: add 1 mana of any colour to your mana pool
As long as this land remains untapped spells and abilities your opponents control cannot force you to discard cards.
(could obviously be changed doesn't enter tapped but pay 1 and tap for the mana of any colour)
Would be a great protection to prevent Bxx from getting too out of control when 8x discard spells is so prevalent. Wouldn't want that land all the time due to tapped or pay but could be good in scenarios like a heavy DSJ meta.
I think the effect on the land is actually quite good. The problem is not the weak effect, you are trading a drawstep for your "best" card, which is above average and if not you don't put it back on top it's that simple. The problem is that the land is often not going to be in play when hit with the discard spell. You are on the draw and get turn 1 TS'ed? Well the land certainly doesn't do anything there. Even on the play there is a cost for playing a turn 1 colorless land. I think if I could reveal this land instead from my hand too in order to gain the effect, I might actually be playing it in Affinity.
And do you guys realize what decks would use a land like that? Difficult to interact with combo decks. Good luck ever beating Ad Nauseam again if they printed something like that. It's hard enough to beat them when they open with a Leyline of Sanctity unless you're playing a deck that can race. This is the exact same thinking that went into cards like Cavern of Souls, which is part of the reason why counterspells are just invalid against some decks. Wizards printed a great answer to colorless cards, Ceremonious Rejection, and it sees very little play because one of the main decks you would want it against in Modern, Bant Eldrazi, plays 4 Caverns.
We don't need more ways to stifle interaction in Modern. If you want to see less discard, then make the counterspells better so that discard isn't far and away the best way to interact in Modern.
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
...banning thoughtseize...i guess is wizard's fault if the banmania is running rampant...if they have to ban thoughtseize is better to ban the format itself, banning an answer card?? Lets ban also bolt and path while we are at it...i'm speechless!
Thoughtseize is not an answer card. Thoughtseize is a preemptive destruction of potential resources. It is B, pay 2 life, review your hand and discard whichever non-land resource I can't answer. Thoughtseize is why you can run fewer answers.
Thoughseize is clearly the best sorcery or instant in the format right? Really nothing else comes close, and Inquisition isn't too far down the list. That doesn't mean it should be banned, but when we can't have good mana disruption or counterspells better than Mana Leak, having all of the best disruption be hand destruction at least begs the question. And really I am thinking about what Wizards said about color diversity. It is definitely fighting uphill to be deckbuilding in Modern and be doing something other than being very linear/fast or playing hand destruction.
It used to be, decks played hand destruction Duress to clear the path through counter walls, it was there to fight blue. Now our hand destruction is so good, it obviates the need for blue entirely. We just Thoughtseize and proceed with our gameplan rather than hold up mana with counterspells. It is a lot less interesting gameplay than manuevering the game to resolve key spells used to be.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If there was any questions before over just how out of touch they are in their testing EVEN IN STANDARD.
Well, forget it. A complete disgrace, frankly a total embarrassment.
And you guys (if there even are any) think they know Modern?
I quite literally roared in laughter when I saw that announcement.
They are way behind, not a clue of what they are doing, period.
Forget Jace, Preordain, lol and Twin?
Never.
Tomorrow, I'm selling a lot of cards, and keeping Turns, there is no point in trusting Wizards to make a reasonable and considered unban in Modern..
Spirits
One could say, a cat-astrophe.
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver
But there were also what I am going to refer to as "incidental answers." What I mean is, things that answer some subset of things, which may or may not be worth playing. Torpor Orb. Combust. Spellskite. These were all legal with Splinter Twin, and all were good against the deck. They weren't designed to stop the combo, but having an anti-ETB effect or a good anti-Blue/white card like Combust meant that if such a thing happened that was really good, there was an answer. In this current Standard, Pithing Needle could have worked as an "incidental answer" to the combo. It wasn't printed to deal with it, but if anything is problematic with activated abilities, Pithing Needle can shut it down (it'd also beat Vehicles). Lack of cards like that are another issue. The so-called "safety valves" are gone.
Granted, this was also the era where Caw-Blade ruled until it was banned, so there were issues of their own, but the point is that a combo similar to CopyCat was legal but not an issue. Some might say "well it was only legal for half a year" to which I say "well, it still wasn't anything more than a good deck, so I don't think it would have gotten banned had it been legal for longer unless it got some kind of big boost." Quite ironically, though, Caw-Blade's dominance also came from lack of good answers to it; Oblivion Ring or Pithing Needle would've worked as pretty good answers to it, but unfortunately they weren't legal at the time.
And, of course, let's remember that CopyCat was no more dominant than Mardu Vehicles was. It might have gotten all the attention because it was a more obvious development flub, but it's not like this was just one missed interaction that was hurting Standard. Speaking of Mardu Vehicles, the lack of a banning for that deck seems questionable to me. It seems like that could rise up and dominate the entire metagame without CopyCat around.
People have been telling Wizards for years that this was going to happen. Rather than use card slots in sets on putting in ample safety valves though, they started cutting the amount of metagame information players could get, while scheduling PT's and now ban announcements to create the maximum level of change in the meta so that players would never solve things to the point that they could use those answer cards.
It's horrible design. About time it bit them in the ass.
Remember Innistrad Standard with the GY theme? Leading into it there was Tormod's Crypt, Surgical Extraction, and Nihil Spellbomb. In the set was Grafdiggers Cage and lots of exile based removal (Pillar of Flame, Sever the Bloodline, etc). After the set was Ground Seal, Rest in Peace, Deathrite Shaman, and Scavenging Ooze.
That's a lot of safety valves. These days they don't even print Shatter in an artifact block.
People need to stop assuming that these recent bans have anything to do with some secret anti-Control agenda. Both decks were pulling meta shares that for their respective formats was simply too high. Getting rid of Copy Cat is the first step to making Standard playable, and if you want to play control in Legacy, both Sultai Control and 4 Color Control are very strong decks that are completely untouched by this ban. This isn't WotC secretly plotting control, this is Wizards improving diversity in one format and fixing a blatant mistake in another
Modern:
UWUW Control
UBRGrixis Shadow
URIzzet Phoenix
To clarify, if you wanna talk about how this emergency ban effects in modern, feel free. Anything thats like "Wizards obviously doesn't know what they are doing" will get an infraction. It needs to be about modern in the modern sub.
Copy-Cat and Knightfall are not instant win, they have a delay(unless you wait until T6-7 for copy cat)and both decks are good but the lack of a combo piece with flash makes them much slower.
How is an opponent using their brain by not playing the game and just hitting land drops until they actually cast a spell without losing on the spot.
I never said that the only quality of Twin that made it strong was that it took up minimal space in the deck it was that plus the fact that it wins the instant you have the combo and Knightfall and Copy-Cat have to assemble theirs over the course of a few turns giving the opponent the chance to interact in a reasonable way.
Its pretty hilarious that the first part of your post claims I'm making up that you said the combo was plan b not plan a, then your last statement goes on to say that the combo "was not generally plan A". It was always plan A but like Paul pointed out it had a very strong Plan B. But I'm sure you have pro points to back up your assertion that he is wrong.
Modern was for the first years a Combo format, Twin and Pod defined the format as such. It is a far better format for more players than it was before.
I come in here and point out that Twin was justifiably banned. because people like to claim that it was something other than a Combo deck and good to see WotC ban Copy-Cat out of standard as that is likely just another nail in the coffin of Twin. I'll stop bringing up reality when people stop insisting on living in a fantasy, you don't want to think it was a combo deck so its not.
WotC needs to bring back Core sets and stop trying to make them draft formats. Design the Core set with only Constructed play in mind.
Well TS isn't really a answer its disruption. Answers are cards that deal with threats presented by the opponent. Disruption is more like a preemptive permission spell.
Still shouldn't be banned
How about they print a card that is helps diminish the value of discard spells? They did it for counters with Caverns. Maybe a cycle of cards that have a ability like "if a spell or ability would cause you to reveal your hand to a opponent you may discard this card, if you do you and your opponent may draw a card". The land they made that puts it on top of your deck is rather poor since it sets you back a draw step.
unless some new unnoticed combo deck comes up out of some interaction with a new card and a old card. No bans no unbans would be my guess.
U needs better permission spells and better card draw. Why does black have better card draw than blue? Probably will never happen since good card draw makes jund slightly worse unless you have to wait 5 turns to draw.
Is there actually value to printing more cards that disincentivize disruption/interaction? Does that lead to a healthier modern? In my opinion, the biggest cry out for modern isn't from players asking for more non-interactive deck choices or more threats, it's the opposite. People want to be able to play better answers. Wizards has said the pendulum is swinging back towards better answers relative to threats. I strongly believe that as more powerful answers are printed, the format as a whole can be changed in excellent ways. Fatal Push is a great example of this. The format has become very interesting and deck design has been impacted by the new Modern staple. More of this leads to a healthier metagame (my opinion).
Why is preordain still banned in modern?
I know it was banned for making combo too consistant...
specifically twin and storm.
but twin is now dead, and storm has been neutered so hard that a preordain unban would probably make the deck barely tier 2
there aren't really any other combo decks in modern that would be broken by a preordain unban
preordain would also help decks such as grixis control, and delver.
what decks would preordain make overpowered in modern?
I can't think of anything
if it won't break anything, then why hasn't it been unbanned?
am I missing something?
I don't actually disagree with the copycat ban. I think it will do good things for the format... unless Mardu Vehicles simply fills the vaccuum. I don't play standard though. Speaking of things I don't play, Legacy is one of those too. But from what I read, banning Top hurts lots and lots of non-Miracles decks that don't have access to Brainstorm, and that banning Terminus would have been a much better solution to hurt a powerful tier 1 deck without killing it entirely. I also don't play Vintage, but found it odd reading about how Mentor was apparently the second best deck behind Shops.... so... banning key cards from... the second best deck... makes the first best deck.... worse?
There are certain decks that have eaten bans in Modern and have been able to survive, because they were specifically targeted to weaken the decks without killing them. However, it's apparent that when they don't like a deck, they don't really care about keeping it in the format and have absolutely no issues nuking it from existence. This irony gets stronger and stronger with every nuked deck after AF's comments about not wanting to "nuke" Eldrazi (Remember, Bant Eldrazi is still a strong Tier 1 deck...).
It's about priorities and communication. Never mind their ineptitudes in R&D for Standard, mistakes happen. But WOTC has just demonstrated today that, beyond a year+ worth of strange and questionable business choices, they have no issue springing a surprise ban on people two days AFTER the "official" ban announcement. This is terrifying for the future of any format, but especially the ban-magnet Modern. Nothing is safe. And anything Wizards doesn't like, they will find a reason to ban, whether it makes sense or not.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Yeah that land is terrible, to I lose the best card in my hand or do I lose a draw card and a draw step. If it was nearly as affect as cavern it would see wider play outside of combo decks(ive only ever seen it in ad naus)
How does a affect that is only a interactive affect hurt interaction? Stick the affect on a vanilla card in each color as a cycle and it provides a interaction that actually would help move the format away from having players rely on highly redundant fast aggro decks.
The very types of non-interactive decks that people claim to hate are actually made better options than 20/20/20 creature/spell/land fair decks because they are less vulnerable to having their hand completely wrecked by discard spells. If targeted discard doesn't get some type of fair interaction to help play around it we will continue to have non-interactive decks be a great option.
Okay you want to play better answers? So do I but one of the major problems for non-black fair decks is that actually having removal in your hand is nearly impossible often. I was playing a match earlier and I had a opener with push,push, Terminate and had not a single one in my hand when I drew on T3 without casting a single one, I had answers I just had them removed from my hand.
Modern actually has very powerful answers to most things, its keeping them in hand or finding them in time to be useful that are actually problematic. Im not saying I wouldn't like to see more good answers but what good are they if you can simply strip my hand of anything useful before you play your threat? This is just driving the format into one in which you have to play discard just to remove your opponents discard and this is the exact type of criticism people lob at Mental Misstep "it is its own best answer" well that is where we are with targeted discard and WotC should print actual answers to it like they have for counterspells.
I don't think that a interaction like I proposed would mitigate the amount of targeted discard spells played it would just give decks a way to interact with it. This is the same type of stuff people said about AV coming off the banned list "jund is dead, draw three makes discard unplayable" but it didn't because discard is still way strong.
Regarding Modern, i think Death's Shadow won't need a ban, since Hour will warp Modern at the level of Khans of Tarkir for example(but in a Fatal Push way). It will bring a Blue a tool that will make it a solid Tier 1.5-2.
Regarding Banlist, my consequent reaction is that most cards have a grave until the natural power of the format rises so much that the cards seem nothing short of underwpowered in contrast with the format. One could argue that Stoneforge is reaching that level with so much removal and Kolaghan's Command running around, but still then, they are so short-sighted that they won't take such risk, at least now. That's fine by me because in reality, i don't want Stonforge in Modern, neither Jace nor Preordain. I prefer Modern to shape as a completly different format to what Legacy is and future Standard sets are what i'm aiming for.
Finally, i think it's well past time for them to put some Pro's and smart guys taking big decisions. Guys that actually play and feel the same way as the player base. More importantly, guys who can handle making cards and not screwing things up and blowing up the game for everyone.
Because WotC doesn't want card filtering to be to good because it makes games play out the same way over and over. I agree with you but WotC doesn't.
Discard is interaction just as permission and removal are interaction.
Paying mana and a card to strip away resources and gain information is interacting. You appear to be claiming that the presence of discard spells pushes people to be less interactive. I do not believe that to be true. Your example above illustrates this. You opponent spent 2 turns playing discard spells to take the of your cards. You had 2 turns to develop your board while they attacked your hand. What did you do with the mana and time?
I know discard can be frustrating to play against. The same is true of removal and permission. These tools keep opponents honest and interrupt the gameplan.
Asking for a new card that is so good that it invalidates one form of interaction is unreasonable. Academy lets you draw the card you need if they try and take it. They still have to pay mana and spend a card.
Storm is already Tier 2.
RGTron
UGInfect
URStorm
WUBRAd Nauseam
BRGrishoalbrand
URGScapeshift
WBGAbzan Company
WUBRGAmulet Titan
BRGLiving End
WGBogles
I didn't say it wasn't interaction. I said that it would be healthy to have a way to interact with discard spells. I don't think a affect like the one I put would invalidate discard anymore than AV did. This type of interaction would be similar to the the Trap cards that are strong against counters. I specifically said that it should be attached to very vanilla cards so that it would have a draw back, am I going to play a more powerful/affect card or am I going to play the slightly worse general option with a upside against discard. That kind of affect would only be good in interactive decks and would slow down any aggro deck or combo deck trying to run it to much. Your essentially arguing that this form of interaction should have no counter method of interaction.
I'm not saying its frustrating but it like anything else has a affect on the meta-game. The affect that targeted discard has is that it is great against other fair decks not really that great against redundant non-interactive aggro. So we have more players going towards fast non-interactive decks because it is better against targeted discard. This is the trend that we have seen in the meta-game since the banning of Pod, Pod was the best deck at keeping people off of fast aggro-combo decks because those strategies are laughably bad in the face of T3 infinite life gain. My example actually showcased why it pushes players towards super redundant aggro-combo decks than interactive decks, is it better to have a mix of interactive spells and threats with varying value or to have 12 copies of the exact same affect? Just look at the other decks rising to the top of the meta-game with the only functioning fair decks being Bxx DS discard heavy decks, affinity highly redundant fast aggro, Dredge naturally strong against discard, Burn highly redundant fast aggro, Gifts Storm highly redundant fast combo(https://www.mtggoldfish.com/metagame/modern#online) while these decks are good in their own right they are made even better by the fact that their highly redundant builds are less impacted by targeted discard. If I TS my opponent and they have 6-7 cards in hand and say they have 2 lands, if the other 4-5 cards are a mix of spells and or creature in a deck that is looking to play a fair game the TS will be very good, if the 4-5 cards are all functionally the same then the TS was not that impactful as the cards my opponent has are functionally the same. This is why those strategies are good, because the non-black fair decks that would have better match ups against them cannot play a fair interactive game against such efficient disruption. 1c.c. mana cost for a perfect information of the opponents hand and removing the best card is likely under costed as WotC has moved toward 2c.c. for that type of affect give 1c.c. to more conditional "discard a creature or a planeswalker" or "discard a non-creature spell" for standard and I'm again in no way advocating that it shouldn't exist but it is under costed and a method for non-black fair decks to interact with it would be healthy.
Academy, is bad for multiple reasons, 1st it sets you back further as you actually lose a card and a draw step it essentially is a card that lets you Time Ebb yourself setting you back a draw step. 2nd It is a colorless land, if it had a city of brass type fixing affect it could be playable but in the turns that matter in modern I have to risk mana screwing myself to have a again very self punishing slight measure of protection from targeted discard? It is played in decks like ad naus because the early turns of the game are not as important as they are to fair decks and they only care about 2 cards being in hand or 1 in hand and one on board way into the mid-range of the game.
I'll ask you this, if Academy is good then why does it see no play in non-black fair decks? because its bad that is why.
Land
This land enters the battlefield tapped
Tap this land: add 1 mana of any colour to your mana pool
As long as this land remains untapped spells and abilities your opponents control cannot force you to discard cards.
(could obviously be changed doesn't enter tapped but pay 1 and tap for the mana of any colour)
Would be a great protection to prevent Bxx from getting too out of control when 8x discard spells is so prevalent. Wouldn't want that land all the time due to tapped or pay but could be good in scenarios like a heavy DSJ meta.
We don't need more ways to stifle interaction in Modern. If you want to see less discard, then make the counterspells better so that discard isn't far and away the best way to interact in 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
Thoughtseize is not an answer card. Thoughtseize is a preemptive destruction of potential resources. It is B, pay 2 life, review your hand and discard whichever non-land resource I can't answer. Thoughtseize is why you can run fewer answers.
Thoughseize is clearly the best sorcery or instant in the format right? Really nothing else comes close, and Inquisition isn't too far down the list. That doesn't mean it should be banned, but when we can't have good mana disruption or counterspells better than Mana Leak, having all of the best disruption be hand destruction at least begs the question. And really I am thinking about what Wizards said about color diversity. It is definitely fighting uphill to be deckbuilding in Modern and be doing something other than being very linear/fast or playing hand destruction.
It used to be, decks played hand destruction Duress to clear the path through counter walls, it was there to fight blue. Now our hand destruction is so good, it obviates the need for blue entirely. We just Thoughtseize and proceed with our gameplan rather than hold up mana with counterspells. It is a lot less interesting gameplay than manuevering the game to resolve key spells used to be.