I've never had problems with Affinity, as its gotta be one of the most hate-able decks in the format. Its always 'good' if people forget the hate, but it can be completely demolished as well.
Thats always been my issue with Eldrazi, and less so Titanshift, where is the hate?
Here's the real fallacy in this nuclear option: thinking that terminating the top five decks would do nothing but equally distribute their meta shares to the rest of the current field or play out in a similar manner. Odds are another group of four or five would rise to the top and be better than the rest, because once the card pool is known it becomes easy to figure out the optimal combinations of those cards. Then everyone complains about those decks unless it happens to contain one of your favorites. Then we get a rotating eternal format, with a constantly shifting banlist, then modern isn't modern.
Screw it I'm gonna fire a grapeshot at something now.
Within the context of the navel gazing we are doing, that is the point. We are talking about banning decks not because they are overpowered, but because they are a tier higher than what a better (arguable, for the intents of this discussion) set of decks would provide.
Its not about power level, or being OP, its about 'would a meta without most of the current tier 1 be more fun to play in'. That is all. :]
Second, the bans lead to more bans is just false no matter how you slice it. The last bans in Standard left a format that is fine and doesn't need any more bans.
In the context of this discussion, "needs bans" is a subjective observation. I believe his point would be better stated as: banning cards leads to further calls to ban more cards by people who support banning cards as a solution.
As an example, in Modern, when it came to Birthing Pod, there were those who supported banning it and those who did not. In general, you will find correlation among those who supported or did not support the bannings of Birthing Pod and Splinter Twin, and likely among those who will support or not support a future ban as a solution to a perceived problem in the Modern metagame. I'll put it this way. Let's go back in time to when Birthing Pod was still legal. Those who were okay with it might have made an argument similar to gkourou's, which is that we don't need to ban Birthing Pod, and that banning it will just lead to another deck rising to become oppressive in its place, and then another ban. But the views of those players were disregarded and Birthing Pod was banned, and Splinter Twin eventually took up the mantle as the oppressive deck of the format. Then came calls to ban Splinter Twin, and another subset of players (which, I venture, overlap considerably with the previous subset) made the argument that banning it would just be a continuation of the cycle of knocking off the top deck leading to another deck becoming oppressive in its place. Then we had the banning of Summer Bloom to kill the Amulet Bloom deck that became oppressive, then Gitaxian Probe (although that's less to do with a specific oppressive deck), and now you hear new calls for things like Chalice of the Void, Eldrazi Temple, Death's Shadow, Street Wraith, etc...
Gkourou's position is consistent because he is describing the desires of the group of players who frequently call for bans as a solution, not the actual state of whether or not the ban happens. He, perhaps (I don't want to speak for him), has been opposed to previous bans as well.
I agree, this is just a thought experiment that doesn't have any chance of ever being implemented. For multiple reasons, including the one you mention.
What I would like, though, is that people that could be interested in offering their thoughts, addressed how they believe the format would be better or worse. Not in the form of general things that are obvious and irrelevant, like the fact that we would have a new tier 1. Or things that are demonstrably false by looking at reality, like the idea that bans have to bring more bans.
No, I would like to read opinions like I don't think the format would be more fun or enjoyable or interesting because:
- Jund would become king and that would be very boring
- The format would get filled with aggro and GW CoCo decks and that would honestly suck
- Lantern Control would dominate the format and reach a 40% share which would be miserable and demand bans and everything would be a disaster
- I don't see how Ad Nauseam wouldn't just murder the format
- Etc etc
I have to go back to work, but I'll for sure write up a longer response later this afternoon. I'll go from a 'nuke em' perspective of.
Top Offenders
ETron - Temple Ban - Deck exists as a Tron deck after and settle's into Tier 2 based on the power of the busted Eldrazi creatures anyway.
GDS - Deaths Shadow Ban - Deck would morph back into a Delve/Grixis Tempo/Midrange type deck, easily Tier 2, or just go back to what it was, Grixis Control with Opt.
Middle Offenders
Storm and TitanShift - I dont know how you hit these, especially TitanShift, without killing them dead, and I feel that both are managable in a format more friendly to UW and UWR Control.
Titanshift - I would hit Prime Time, and make them go back to RUG or Bring to Light Scapeshift.
Storm - I would hit Baral, not Grapeshot. Taking away Grapeshot gives them one real way to win, and that seems wrong. Take away Baral, and they go back to Ascension perhaps.
That said, I think in a world where Jund is not Tier 2 (and it would be part of the new Tier 1, with UW Control and UWR Control) I think that meta is aggressive enough in hating out things like Shift, and Storm, and Affinity, that the issues would not be presented.
More thoughts on this later, but its a neat topic to explore. :]
Second, the bans lead to more bans is just false no matter how you slice it. The last bans in Standard left a format that is fine and doesn't need any more bans.
In the context of this discussion, "needs bans" is a subjective observation. I believe his point would be better stated as: banning cards leads to further calls to ban more cards by people who support banning cards as a solution.
As an example, in Modern, when it came to Birthing Pod, there were those who supported banning it and those who did not. In general, you will find correlation among those who supported or did not support the bannings of Birthing Pod and Splinter Twin, and likely among those who will support or not support a future ban as a solution to a perceived problem in the Modern metagame. I'll put it this way. Let's go back in time to when Birthing Pod was still legal. Those who were okay with it might have made an argument similar to gkourou's, which is that we don't need to ban Birthing Pod, and that banning it will just lead to another deck rising to become oppressive in its place, and then another ban. But the views of those players were disregarded and Birthing Pod was banned, and Splinter Twin eventually took up the mantle as the oppressive deck of the format. Then came calls to ban Splinter Twin, and another subset of players (which, I venture, overlap considerably with the previous subset) made the argument that banning it would just be a continuation of the cycle of knocking off the top deck leading to another deck becoming oppressive in its place. Then we had the banning of Summer Bloom to kill the Amulet Bloom deck that became oppressive, then Gitaxian Probe (although that's less to do with a specific oppressive deck), and now you hear new calls for things like Chalice of the Void, Eldrazi Temple, Death's Shadow, Street Wraith, etc...
Gkourou's position is consistent because he is describing the desires of the group of players who frequently call for bans as a solution, not the actual state of whether or not the ban happens. He, perhaps (I don't want to speak for him), has been opposed to previous bans as well.
Well put. "Bans inevitably lead to more bans" is really more like shorthand for "using bans as a tool to curate the top decks, inevitably leads to a metagame where further bans are the easiest way to continue curating the top decks". Plus it undermines consumer confidence in their purchases, etc. Better design should be the solution, not artificial rotation through bans. Print cards that "hate" on those decks so that players can more efficiently respond to a metagame like this; then you get more of the rock-paper-scissors dynamic naturally and minimize the continuous cycles of people calling for bans and further bans and further further bans.
In any case, the notion that when there are bans there's always a group of players asking for more bans is also instantly destroyed by the reality of this current Standard.
This assertion lacks context on the Standard bans.
Bans were highly abnormal in Standard up until the Copter/Emrakul/Mage bans. The format had devolved greatly into an Emrakul format. After that, the further bans devolved into "play Vehicles" because it's the only thing that has a good enough matchup against Saheeli combo, which basically smashes anything else in the format. Then, similarly, Marvel became the problem, where it made little sense to play a deck beside the one that could essentially "just win" out of nowhere by turn 3/4. So, bans, lead to bans, lead to no bans because the format was finally stable and not suppressed by a single, or duo of decks.
Right now, we have at least 5 "Tier 1" decks, with plenty of lower tier decks breaking into the Top 8 in many events. If banning one, or all of them leads to a more problematic meta, then yes, it will lead to more bans. It's a different climate to apply to Modern. The fact that Standard had multiple rounds of bannings also doesn't prove that "Bans lead to more bans" since it's a rather isolated incident in Magic's history.
The problem with bans is the raving "ban-mania" that seems to infect the Modern community. Any time a deck top 8's a couple of high-level tournaments, we have people clamoring for a ban on the deck.
This isnt about ban mania, saying 'omg Storm will be out of control with OPT!!!" is ban mania.
This is 'would Modern be improved if these X decks got knocked down a few pegs to play with the Tier 2 decks we have right now'.
Thats all. Its a question on playablility, its a question on not format health or 'metrics for ban's' but a question of if the gameplay patterns are better with decks A, B and C, instead of X, Y, Z.
There is certainly no need for people to be up in arms over a theoretical.
The raving ban-mania is completely irrelevant to everything. What we are trying to discuss here is what would happen in the hypothetical scenario I described. The ban-mania is unrelated to the game, it doesn't affect what happens in the games or the health of the format in any way. I can't care less if 3 or 300 or 300 million people want bans or don't want them.
I care about the format and the games played in it.
What you describe is the reality that at times bans lead to bans and other times bans don't lead to bans period
Raving ban-mania is not a problem to me or anything even remotely close to a problem, it's completely irrelevant to what I'm talking about.
No, no it's not. WoTC reacts to consumer sentiment. It was explicitly mentioned in their rationale for banning Marvel in Standard. If 300 million people want something it will drastically change WoTC's business practices. You should probably care about that.
I followed your hypothetical (and it's an interesting one). I'm a huge fan of thought experiments. I'd love to hear more people discuss it. It's the tangential comments you threw in that are getting a reaction and you're trying to hand-wave them away . If those points weren't relevant to your main point, don't make them in the first place; otherwise acknowledge that you were off-base and the conversation can gravitate back to your much more interesting topic.
If I want people to know ice cream shouldn't be eaten by the lactose intolerant but at some point I unnecessarily sneak in a comment that chocolate is the worst flavor... Well, I shouldn't be surprised if people challenge that.
I'm not sure that I missed the point, actually, I just didn't comment on the rest of it. I don't think that Standard's current situation is proof that bans don't lead to more bans and decided to comment about that. I think a claim like that needs more context. The ban-mania comment I made was merely addressing a problem that the community has in general. If you propose banning a card from each of the top decks to create a more interesting environment, it's an not attitude that we can ignore, really.
I see where you're coming from, though, H0lyDiva. The problem I have with this line of thinking, is how do you measure "interesting"? If we hit a card from each of the 5 or so top decks and some of the current Tier 2 decks move up to Tier 1 (which I'm not entirely sure I believe would happen), how can we measure how "interesting" the dynamic is? It's subjective. Everyone is going to have a different opinion. How do you measure "stale"?
WotC has attendance data, pack sales and survey results to measure how players feel. It might not be perfect, but it's a little less subjective. But us? We just have "feels". Those in and of themselves really don't provide compelling reasons.
To be honest, I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of the format artificially rotating through periodic bans to keep the format interesting, but it's hard to roll something like that into the format as it stands.
I think Eldrazi Tron is what's keeping people from playing less traditional Tron. Less Traditional Tron means more midrange, even if Scapeshift is still around.
I liked your analysis overall
I don't imagine chalice is going anywhere. I do believe Eldrazi Temple could eat a ban in the next few years.
I don't think UW Control is a good deck. I've seen it a ton around in paper at my FNM, it's just too slow, too grindy and too fatiguing in a long tournament. It always looks bad on camera and only seems to thrive on MTGO
I don't believe with moderns tools that you can be that reactive. I think Jeskai is better, the burn plan along with tempo creatures is so much more proactive
I think UW control is capable on going 5-0 on mtgo and maybe winning a GP, but overall, I think it's a bad deck, being that reactive will never be better than a proactive plan in this current format.
I agree with most of this, but I have to say that running Midrange right now is a death sentence. You simply aren't beating Valakut strategies, not to mention Eldrazi Tron. I think I have just gotten lucky, but honestly I'm something like 27-2 vs. BGx Midrange strategies with Titanshift. A few of these were at the 9 PPTQs and 1 GP that I ran it in, although most of those players avoided it. It's to the point where I am a bit cocky about the matchup; I won't lie. Even the discard, 2 drop, LotV hand really needs Tarmogoyf + discard on turn 4 to have a chance IMO.
But, this is Modern (THIS IZ SPARTA!). Despite the meta not really being much "fun," there is a real rock/paper/scissors thing going on. No one can hope to dodge all the decks that beat them. Luck is a HUGE part, so I shouldn't really go around telling people not to play a particular deck, even if I truly believe it.
For the sake of argument I would say we go full NUKE: Death's Shadow, Eldrazi Temple, Grapeshot and Valakut. This assuming Affinity can be reasonably controlled.
You'll notice that gkourou didn't even list Affinity in his long post, and there's a reason for that. I believe that the only reason Affinity is still considered Tier 1 is because it's one of the oldest good Modern decks and it feels wrong to demote it. As an Affinity player, I can say that Modern is a pretty treacherous place for the deck these days. Chalice and Stony Silence are basically game over and those two cards are everywhere now. Ultimately, I would say that Affinity has failed the test of Tier 1 for quite a long time. When is the last time Affinity has won a major event (PT, SCG Open, Grand Prix, I'll even give RPTQ as valid for a major event, but not PPTQ)? When is the last time it has had a dominating presence in the top 8 or top 16 of such an event? I thought these were the criteria for determining which decks are Tier 1.
It hasn't happened in a long time. The deck is Tier 2, maybe Tier 1.5. Definitely not Tier 1 anymore.
I should defer to you since you are an Affinity player, but I think that Affinity is ripe to be constantly underestimated. I see few Affinity pilots. Most players don't have the guts, myself included. But they usually seem to do well, although many run into the gauntlet of hate and do poorly as well. High variance deck, but I'd rather 13-2 and 3-6 two GPs than 11-4 two GPs. That's just me.
Affinity beats 2 of the top 3 decks. It annihilates E Tron. It beats Titanshift. And I believe that a good pilot goes wide on Shadow too, although this one is nearly 50/50 in my opinion. I feel like it beats Burn and Affinity is one of those decks that can just WIN, despite a matchup being terrible, just by virtue of having the right combination of cards suuuuuper early in the game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
Well thank you. I was more interested in finding out what people think the meta would look like in the scenario I described, but thank you anyway.
Like I said before, I think your hypothetical is interesting. Initially, we'd see the murkiest metagame (perhaps ever) with 5 top tier decks and highly restricted information from MTGO. There'd be a gravitation to the remaining T1/2 decks, but control decks become a poorer choice given the unknown. We'd likely see people pushing Affinity, BGx, and a few of the "classics" to see if anything sticks. My guess is proactive midrange decks are the first to find some traction, then enabling a wave of more aggro strategies to go under them. The format speeds up significantly without the critical density of "over the top" decks. Merfolk bounces into T1, D&T drops like a rock, Counter Company sees a brief resurgence. Then somebody exploits the hole in the new meta with something like Cheerios or Amulet Titan and we end up back with at least a few of the decks you (and I) dislike as T1.
Of course that's all just a best guess. A bit like trying to forecast what would happen if a hurricane appeared in the midwest US.
Understood, at least by me. That was a tongue in cheek comment -- they're not decks I'd want to personally play because they're highly uninteractive (outside GDS). But on top of being generally against all but the most obvious bans, I see their value in the ecosystem.
Like, imagine the Tier 1 of Modern in some alternate universe was: Jund, Bant Eldrazi, RG Tron, Cheeri0s and Burn. Does that sound like a nice, balanced, fun, cool, interesting tier 1? Does it sound like the matchups between those decks are overall fun and interesting? Because, to me, it sounds like that Tier 1 freaking sucks and it's a disaster. And that tier 1 is about equivalent to the one we have right now.
It's funny you mention that. I was just thinking about the new tier 1 to arise from your hypothetical bannings and this is the exact meta that I think would replace it.
I agree with most of this, but I have to say that running Midrange right now is a death sentence. You simply aren't beating Valakut strategies, not to mention Eldrazi Tron. I think I have just gotten lucky, but honestly I'm something like 27-2 vs. BGx Midrange strategies with Titanshift. A few of these were at the 9 PPTQs and 1 GP that I ran it in, although most of those players avoided it. It's to the point where I am a bit cocky about the matchup; I won't lie. Even the discard, 2 drop, LotV hand really needs Tarmogoyf + discard on turn 4 to have a chance IMO.
I think all big mana is just bad for BGx. I've got a horrible Titanshift matchup, and you would think I would be decent against it. I play pure BG with 2 Ghost Quarters and 3 Fulminators MB. I still have a bad matchup.
It could happen, right? And it would suck. So this a scenario in which things would go badly because we would be creating a lot of chaos to achieve essentially nothing. I doubt it would happen though because decks like Jund and Jeskai can do a number on Cheeri0s, which is a bad deck for starters. And if we wanted to really nuke Eldrazi Tron we would be more or less forced to make choices that would either kill Bant Eldrazi or Tron with it.
But yes, there's always a chance that we end up with a tier 1 that also sucks badly.
So what do you think it would take to topple the current tier 1 stagnation without replacing it with the exact same thing? Obviously new printings help, but do you see any specific unbans that could achieve the same goal?
Gitaxian Probe, a card that has been "powerful but fair" for the entirety of its life in Modern.
Not sure if Gitaxian Probe was a good ban or not(since it killed various Temur tempo decks + killed infect together with Push).
But to say Gitaxian Probe, a card that Peek'd, redraw, filled the yard, was a tempo positive card was fair is a totally biased and outrageous claim. This card symbolizes one of the most unfair things in the history of Modern, since it eliminates the bluff element and does a lot of other things. Also, even if you banned Become Immense that stupid UR Kiln Fiend deck would abuse it even if it had to fight Fatal Push. Gitaxian Probe was 101% unfair in Infect, UR Kiln Fiend Deck, DS Zoo deck, etc, even if it was relatively fair in Grixis Delver and Temur tempo deck(even in those decks it wasn't totally fair).
It gave us a fair version of DS Zoo in Grixis Shadow though, and that's a net positive.
There are various things to say about the card. It being fair even 1 year ago is not one of them.
Didn't get a chance to respond to this till now. I'd like to point out a couple of things:
Infect was NEVER a problem in the format. It never won too much, was never oppressive, and never began winning too quickly and too consistently until it started maindecking four Become Immense (never mind that control didn't exist at the time). Probe allowed Infect to function as a deck because all of the creatures it plays are incredibly fragile and die to a light sneeze (or have to waste a pump/protection spell). Regardless of your thoughts of Infect, Probe was not what made the deck "too good" or it would have been banned years earlier. Killing quickly with +6/+6 for 1 mana, when you only have to deal 10 is probably why it was targeted.
DS Zoo would also be fine with Probe and without Become Immense. Without that magic +6/+6, they have to either rely on weaker pump spells or deal MASSIVE amounts of damage to themselves, making them vulnerable to crack backs or burn spells.
UR Kiln Fiend may act like Infect, but unlike Infect, it has to deal a full 20 points of damage. While I personally had a ton of success with it, all those successes came against decks that A) played little to no removal B) played little to no hand disruption and C) played little to no counterspells. So as a goldfish deck, it's king, but it falls to literally every form of interaction.
Then you get to Fatal Push, a card that has single-handedly become the go-to removal spell for the format. A card that takes care of literally every creature in every one of these decks, regardless of their toughness, with zero drawbacks, and in the same colors that can run Thoughtseize and Inquisition of Kozilek. It would have been nice to at least recognize the impact Push would have on the format, and especially in dealing with these decks specifically, before banning a card like Probe. If they must insist on banning something, it should have been Become Immense, which was the card responsible for facilitating nearly all turn 2 and 3 kills.
Claiming it was somehow broken is asinine. It had been in Modern since literally the beginning of the format and had done nothing broken or busted in any deck prior. It's not until specifically these exact pump aggro decks began abusing a number of cards, as well as taking advantage of a meta dominated by linear goldfish decks not interacting with each other, that we saw it as a "problem." But even then, the problem wasn't Probe itself, but those decks in general. Those decks needed a hit and Wizards chose Probe because they hate cheap, efficient cantrips.
With the combination of banning Probe and printing Push, all of those decks (and at least two additional decks) were "nuked from orbit." Seems like a pretty awful thing to totally destroy half a dozen decks, when reducing the power and keeping them around could have been an option.
But sure, Probe was a fine target to ban and had no bad consequences and couldn't have been handled better than it was. Wizards always makes the best and most informed decisions when it comes to bans.
As a card, I still think Probe was a design mistake and was a reasonable ban even if it wasn't a key part in any particularly dominant deck at the time it was banned. Losing it did impact some decks I legitimately liked and enjoyed, like RUG Delver and Bloo/Kiln Fiend, but Probe was a swiss army knife that was a good card in so many different ways that I'm happy it was banned.
For very little opportunity cost, Probe was a redraw and a look at the opponent's hand for -2 life. It was also a spell for flipping Delvers, an extra Storm count, a convenient way to lower your life total if you needed too, extra delve fodder, and allowed decks to break the colour pie without . Peek is obviously a bad card - it was only ever played in Modern as a 1-of in Twin lists. But being able to Peek (although at sorcery speed) for no mana and only a small loss of life made a card that I think is a severe design mistake and just edging over the "too good" line.
It's worth noting that while I am mostly passive with regards to the banlist, it doesn't mean I'm not critical of it. There are cards that I personally think shouldn't be on the banned list - BBE, SFM, even JTMS as well as cards whose presence on the banlist I am utterly indifferent too (Splinter Twin is an example of this - I really don't care if they keep it banned or unban it, although it being unbanned might lead to a resurgence of one of my favourite decks); my approach is and has always been that I will play with the cards that they give me. Just because I'm willing to play the format does not mean that I'm 100% happy with how they've been managing it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Well, I can saw a woman in two, but you won't wanna look in the box when I'm through.
1) one of the two best decks(Grixis Shadow) would 100% play Gitaxian Probe and would be 100% get the card banned again.
2) THERE IS NO CHANCE IN HELL THAT THIS CURRENT STORM DECK WOULD NOT GET GITAXIAN PROBE BANNED! The current Storm deck would be totally busted if you did say to Caleb Sherer or other Storm players, you know what? Stop playing Peek(which he does play), and you have to peek for free now. Multiple times even with Past In Flames. Also, I did ask Caleb what would Storm be like with Probe legal atm, and he was laughing for 10 seconds. He responed to me saying : "The deck would be busted". And he is totally right.
1) The way things evolved, it probably would be too much for Death's Shadow. Unless they swapped it for Street Wraith, a card with more upside (instant speed, becomes a body and a threat late game, can be bought back with K Command, etc), and smaller collateral damage.
2) Storm is a deck because of Baral. If storm needs a hit, it's Baral, a card that sees no play in any other deck. Storm with Probe (but without Baral) was barely Tier 2, and not even on the radar.
I am not advocating for a Probe unban (because as mentioned before, our comments here have zero impact on anything that actually happens). I'm defending my stance that banning Probe was the wrong decisions (among several wrong decisions). It was a lazy, ham-fisted attempt to hit some decks they didn't like, and was justified with vague, disconnected reasoning. Rather than look critically at the nuances of each individual deck and how they could target them with as little collateral damage as possible, they just went for Probe. And they did so because they have a long history of hating cheap efficient cantrips. Outside of these specific decks, Probe itself has never been a problem in anything in the history of Modern as a format. That tells us the problem lay with those decks, as they were constructed, and not specifically the card Gitaxian Probe. Why not look at what's new? What's different? What had changed in those decks? In the meta? If they took a look at all those factors and then decided that a card that, which had been run for years in decks like those without problem, should be the target, then their judgement and analysis of deck construction is highly questionable.
We will apparently never agree on this though, so I will try to minimize my replies moving forward.
I agree with most of this, but I have to say that running Midrange right now is a death sentence. You simply aren't beating Valakut strategies, not to mention Eldrazi Tron. I think I have just gotten lucky, but honestly I'm something like 27-2 vs. BGx Midrange strategies with Titanshift. A few of these were at the 9 PPTQs and 1 GP that I ran it in, although most of those players avoided it. It's to the point where I am a bit cocky about the matchup; I won't lie. Even the discard, 2 drop, LotV hand really needs Tarmogoyf + discard on turn 4 to have a chance IMO.
But, this is Modern (THIS IZ SPARTA!). Despite the meta not really being much "fun," there is a real rock/paper/scissors thing going on. No one can hope to dodge all the decks that beat them. Luck is a HUGE part, so I shouldn't really go around telling people not to play a particular deck, even if I truly believe it.
So are you going to join me in the journey to unban Bloodbraid Elf?
I'm of the (admittedly extreme) opinion that any and all phyrexian mana cards can be examined for banning. Yeah, dismember, gut shot, noxious revival - the lot of them. Phyrexian mana has been panned near universally as a design mistake. Sure, some cards (mental misstep) may be more clearly busted than others (gitaxian probe), but the near-0 cost of playing them in any color deck is crazy. It's not even a spirit guide or FoW situation where you're using card disadvantage for overall advantage, it's just a poorly thought out design concept.
Probe was most certainly the right card to ban, and has been one of the smarter moves on wizard's behalf in recent memory (IMO). It would be absolutely busted in two of the top decks right now in storm and GDS while promoting other solitaire-esque decks people love to hate like U/R aggro and infect. The bump it would give non-shadow grixis control is too insignificant compared to what it would be adding to current tier 1 decks.
I'm not too enthusiastic about this recent discussion.
For starter, like many, I think the speculation of what would happen without the current tier-1 is both mostly hot air and entirely pointless. It's not that I mind people shooting from the hip and giving their opinion, but that I find the discussion to be a symptom of a lack of mental rigor. Any meta has a tier one, every tier set will have its detractor, every deck has its lover and hater. You'd replace one set of dissatisfied players with another. I'd rather read people discuss how to make some decks better than how to destroy the ones that exist. I find the current displayed hate for the existing tier-1 a bit tasteless.
Furthermore, the discussion seems to take for granted two things. One, that the current tier-1 suite is dominating. It's not true. Multiple recent results have shown other decks taking the crown in a given tournament. There is no huge gulf between tier-1 and tier-2. So why want to change the tier-1? It does not extinguish variety, that's just not true. Two, history bears this out, a single new card can push tier-2 deck into tier-1. Look at Baral making storm better for example. So, I would much prefer to see people speculating on new cards (even made up ones) that would help change the meta rather than bashing tier-1 decks you think are no-fun.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Thats always been my issue with Eldrazi, and less so Titanshift, where is the hate?
Spirits
Somehow I missed that one. I stand corrected.
Screw it I'm gonna fire a grapeshot at something now.
Its not about power level, or being OP, its about 'would a meta without most of the current tier 1 be more fun to play in'. That is all. :]
Spirits
In the context of this discussion, "needs bans" is a subjective observation. I believe his point would be better stated as: banning cards leads to further calls to ban more cards by people who support banning cards as a solution.
As an example, in Modern, when it came to Birthing Pod, there were those who supported banning it and those who did not. In general, you will find correlation among those who supported or did not support the bannings of Birthing Pod and Splinter Twin, and likely among those who will support or not support a future ban as a solution to a perceived problem in the Modern metagame. I'll put it this way. Let's go back in time to when Birthing Pod was still legal. Those who were okay with it might have made an argument similar to gkourou's, which is that we don't need to ban Birthing Pod, and that banning it will just lead to another deck rising to become oppressive in its place, and then another ban. But the views of those players were disregarded and Birthing Pod was banned, and Splinter Twin eventually took up the mantle as the oppressive deck of the format. Then came calls to ban Splinter Twin, and another subset of players (which, I venture, overlap considerably with the previous subset) made the argument that banning it would just be a continuation of the cycle of knocking off the top deck leading to another deck becoming oppressive in its place. Then we had the banning of Summer Bloom to kill the Amulet Bloom deck that became oppressive, then Gitaxian Probe (although that's less to do with a specific oppressive deck), and now you hear new calls for things like Chalice of the Void, Eldrazi Temple, Death's Shadow, Street Wraith, etc...
Gkourou's position is consistent because he is describing the desires of the group of players who frequently call for bans as a solution, not the actual state of whether or not the ban happens. He, perhaps (I don't want to speak for him), has been opposed to previous bans as well.
I have to go back to work, but I'll for sure write up a longer response later this afternoon. I'll go from a 'nuke em' perspective of.
Top Offenders
ETron - Temple Ban - Deck exists as a Tron deck after and settle's into Tier 2 based on the power of the busted Eldrazi creatures anyway.
GDS - Deaths Shadow Ban - Deck would morph back into a Delve/Grixis Tempo/Midrange type deck, easily Tier 2, or just go back to what it was, Grixis Control with Opt.
Middle Offenders
Storm and TitanShift - I dont know how you hit these, especially TitanShift, without killing them dead, and I feel that both are managable in a format more friendly to UW and UWR Control.
Titanshift - I would hit Prime Time, and make them go back to RUG or Bring to Light Scapeshift.
Storm - I would hit Baral, not Grapeshot. Taking away Grapeshot gives them one real way to win, and that seems wrong. Take away Baral, and they go back to Ascension perhaps.
That said, I think in a world where Jund is not Tier 2 (and it would be part of the new Tier 1, with UW Control and UWR Control) I think that meta is aggressive enough in hating out things like Shift, and Storm, and Affinity, that the issues would not be presented.
More thoughts on this later, but its a neat topic to explore. :]
Spirits
Well put. "Bans inevitably lead to more bans" is really more like shorthand for "using bans as a tool to curate the top decks, inevitably leads to a metagame where further bans are the easiest way to continue curating the top decks". Plus it undermines consumer confidence in their purchases, etc. Better design should be the solution, not artificial rotation through bans. Print cards that "hate" on those decks so that players can more efficiently respond to a metagame like this; then you get more of the rock-paper-scissors dynamic naturally and minimize the continuous cycles of people calling for bans and further bans and further further bans.
This assertion lacks context on the Standard bans.
Bans were highly abnormal in Standard up until the Copter/Emrakul/Mage bans. The format had devolved greatly into an Emrakul format. After that, the further bans devolved into "play Vehicles" because it's the only thing that has a good enough matchup against Saheeli combo, which basically smashes anything else in the format. Then, similarly, Marvel became the problem, where it made little sense to play a deck beside the one that could essentially "just win" out of nowhere by turn 3/4. So, bans, lead to bans, lead to no bans because the format was finally stable and not suppressed by a single, or duo of decks.
Right now, we have at least 5 "Tier 1" decks, with plenty of lower tier decks breaking into the Top 8 in many events. If banning one, or all of them leads to a more problematic meta, then yes, it will lead to more bans. It's a different climate to apply to Modern. The fact that Standard had multiple rounds of bannings also doesn't prove that "Bans lead to more bans" since it's a rather isolated incident in Magic's history.
The problem with bans is the raving "ban-mania" that seems to infect the Modern community. Any time a deck top 8's a couple of high-level tournaments, we have people clamoring for a ban on the deck.
This isnt about ban mania, saying 'omg Storm will be out of control with OPT!!!" is ban mania.
This is 'would Modern be improved if these X decks got knocked down a few pegs to play with the Tier 2 decks we have right now'.
Thats all. Its a question on playablility, its a question on not format health or 'metrics for ban's' but a question of if the gameplay patterns are better with decks A, B and C, instead of X, Y, Z.
There is certainly no need for people to be up in arms over a theoretical.
Spirits
No, no it's not. WoTC reacts to consumer sentiment. It was explicitly mentioned in their rationale for banning Marvel in Standard. If 300 million people want something it will drastically change WoTC's business practices. You should probably care about that.
I followed your hypothetical (and it's an interesting one). I'm a huge fan of thought experiments. I'd love to hear more people discuss it. It's the tangential comments you threw in that are getting a reaction and you're trying to hand-wave them away . If those points weren't relevant to your main point, don't make them in the first place; otherwise acknowledge that you were off-base and the conversation can gravitate back to your much more interesting topic.
If I want people to know ice cream shouldn't be eaten by the lactose intolerant but at some point I unnecessarily sneak in a comment that chocolate is the worst flavor... Well, I shouldn't be surprised if people challenge that.
I see where you're coming from, though, H0lyDiva. The problem I have with this line of thinking, is how do you measure "interesting"? If we hit a card from each of the 5 or so top decks and some of the current Tier 2 decks move up to Tier 1 (which I'm not entirely sure I believe would happen), how can we measure how "interesting" the dynamic is? It's subjective. Everyone is going to have a different opinion. How do you measure "stale"?
WotC has attendance data, pack sales and survey results to measure how players feel. It might not be perfect, but it's a little less subjective. But us? We just have "feels". Those in and of themselves really don't provide compelling reasons.
To be honest, I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of the format artificially rotating through periodic bans to keep the format interesting, but it's hard to roll something like that into the format as it stands.
I agree with most of this, but I have to say that running Midrange right now is a death sentence. You simply aren't beating Valakut strategies, not to mention Eldrazi Tron. I think I have just gotten lucky, but honestly I'm something like 27-2 vs. BGx Midrange strategies with Titanshift. A few of these were at the 9 PPTQs and 1 GP that I ran it in, although most of those players avoided it. It's to the point where I am a bit cocky about the matchup; I won't lie. Even the discard, 2 drop, LotV hand really needs Tarmogoyf + discard on turn 4 to have a chance IMO.
But, this is Modern (THIS IZ SPARTA!). Despite the meta not really being much "fun," there is a real rock/paper/scissors thing going on. No one can hope to dodge all the decks that beat them. Luck is a HUGE part, so I shouldn't really go around telling people not to play a particular deck, even if I truly believe it.
I should defer to you since you are an Affinity player, but I think that Affinity is ripe to be constantly underestimated. I see few Affinity pilots. Most players don't have the guts, myself included. But they usually seem to do well, although many run into the gauntlet of hate and do poorly as well. High variance deck, but I'd rather 13-2 and 3-6 two GPs than 11-4 two GPs. That's just me.
Affinity beats 2 of the top 3 decks. It annihilates E Tron. It beats Titanshift. And I believe that a good pilot goes wide on Shadow too, although this one is nearly 50/50 in my opinion. I feel like it beats Burn and Affinity is one of those decks that can just WIN, despite a matchup being terrible, just by virtue of having the right combination of cards suuuuuper early in the game.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)Like I said before, I think your hypothetical is interesting. Initially, we'd see the murkiest metagame (perhaps ever) with 5 top tier decks and highly restricted information from MTGO. There'd be a gravitation to the remaining T1/2 decks, but control decks become a poorer choice given the unknown. We'd likely see people pushing Affinity, BGx, and a few of the "classics" to see if anything sticks. My guess is proactive midrange decks are the first to find some traction, then enabling a wave of more aggro strategies to go under them. The format speeds up significantly without the critical density of "over the top" decks. Merfolk bounces into T1, D&T drops like a rock, Counter Company sees a brief resurgence. Then somebody exploits the hole in the new meta with something like Cheerios or Amulet Titan and we end up back with at least a few of the decks you (and I) dislike as T1.
Of course that's all just a best guess. A bit like trying to forecast what would happen if a hurricane appeared in the midwest US.
It's funny you mention that. I was just thinking about the new tier 1 to arise from your hypothetical bannings and this is the exact meta that I think would replace it.
I think all big mana is just bad for BGx. I've got a horrible Titanshift matchup, and you would think I would be decent against it. I play pure BG with 2 Ghost Quarters and 3 Fulminators MB. I still have a bad matchup.
So what do you think it would take to topple the current tier 1 stagnation without replacing it with the exact same thing? Obviously new printings help, but do you see any specific unbans that could achieve the same goal?
Didn't get a chance to respond to this till now. I'd like to point out a couple of things:
Infect was NEVER a problem in the format. It never won too much, was never oppressive, and never began winning too quickly and too consistently until it started maindecking four Become Immense (never mind that control didn't exist at the time). Probe allowed Infect to function as a deck because all of the creatures it plays are incredibly fragile and die to a light sneeze (or have to waste a pump/protection spell). Regardless of your thoughts of Infect, Probe was not what made the deck "too good" or it would have been banned years earlier. Killing quickly with +6/+6 for 1 mana, when you only have to deal 10 is probably why it was targeted.
DS Zoo would also be fine with Probe and without Become Immense. Without that magic +6/+6, they have to either rely on weaker pump spells or deal MASSIVE amounts of damage to themselves, making them vulnerable to crack backs or burn spells.
UR Kiln Fiend may act like Infect, but unlike Infect, it has to deal a full 20 points of damage. While I personally had a ton of success with it, all those successes came against decks that A) played little to no removal B) played little to no hand disruption and C) played little to no counterspells. So as a goldfish deck, it's king, but it falls to literally every form of interaction.
Then you get to Fatal Push, a card that has single-handedly become the go-to removal spell for the format. A card that takes care of literally every creature in every one of these decks, regardless of their toughness, with zero drawbacks, and in the same colors that can run Thoughtseize and Inquisition of Kozilek. It would have been nice to at least recognize the impact Push would have on the format, and especially in dealing with these decks specifically, before banning a card like Probe. If they must insist on banning something, it should have been Become Immense, which was the card responsible for facilitating nearly all turn 2 and 3 kills.
Claiming it was somehow broken is asinine. It had been in Modern since literally the beginning of the format and had done nothing broken or busted in any deck prior. It's not until specifically these exact pump aggro decks began abusing a number of cards, as well as taking advantage of a meta dominated by linear goldfish decks not interacting with each other, that we saw it as a "problem." But even then, the problem wasn't Probe itself, but those decks in general. Those decks needed a hit and Wizards chose Probe because they hate cheap, efficient cantrips.
With the combination of banning Probe and printing Push, all of those decks (and at least two additional decks) were "nuked from orbit." Seems like a pretty awful thing to totally destroy half a dozen decks, when reducing the power and keeping them around could have been an option.
But sure, Probe was a fine target to ban and had no bad consequences and couldn't have been handled better than it was. Wizards always makes the best and most informed decisions when it comes to bans.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
For very little opportunity cost, Probe was a redraw and a look at the opponent's hand for -2 life. It was also a spell for flipping Delvers, an extra Storm count, a convenient way to lower your life total if you needed too, extra delve fodder, and allowed decks to break the colour pie without . Peek is obviously a bad card - it was only ever played in Modern as a 1-of in Twin lists. But being able to Peek (although at sorcery speed) for no mana and only a small loss of life made a card that I think is a severe design mistake and just edging over the "too good" line.
It's worth noting that while I am mostly passive with regards to the banlist, it doesn't mean I'm not critical of it. There are cards that I personally think shouldn't be on the banned list - BBE, SFM, even JTMS as well as cards whose presence on the banlist I am utterly indifferent too (Splinter Twin is an example of this - I really don't care if they keep it banned or unban it, although it being unbanned might lead to a resurgence of one of my favourite decks); my approach is and has always been that I will play with the cards that they give me. Just because I'm willing to play the format does not mean that I'm 100% happy with how they've been managing it.
1) The way things evolved, it probably would be too much for Death's Shadow. Unless they swapped it for Street Wraith, a card with more upside (instant speed, becomes a body and a threat late game, can be bought back with K Command, etc), and smaller collateral damage.
2) Storm is a deck because of Baral. If storm needs a hit, it's Baral, a card that sees no play in any other deck. Storm with Probe (but without Baral) was barely Tier 2, and not even on the radar.
I am not advocating for a Probe unban (because as mentioned before, our comments here have zero impact on anything that actually happens). I'm defending my stance that banning Probe was the wrong decisions (among several wrong decisions). It was a lazy, ham-fisted attempt to hit some decks they didn't like, and was justified with vague, disconnected reasoning. Rather than look critically at the nuances of each individual deck and how they could target them with as little collateral damage as possible, they just went for Probe. And they did so because they have a long history of hating cheap efficient cantrips. Outside of these specific decks, Probe itself has never been a problem in anything in the history of Modern as a format. That tells us the problem lay with those decks, as they were constructed, and not specifically the card Gitaxian Probe. Why not look at what's new? What's different? What had changed in those decks? In the meta? If they took a look at all those factors and then decided that a card that, which had been run for years in decks like those without problem, should be the target, then their judgement and analysis of deck construction is highly questionable.
We will apparently never agree on this though, so I will try to minimize my replies moving forward.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
So are you going to join me in the journey to unban Bloodbraid Elf?
Probe was most certainly the right card to ban, and has been one of the smarter moves on wizard's behalf in recent memory (IMO). It would be absolutely busted in two of the top decks right now in storm and GDS while promoting other solitaire-esque decks people love to hate like U/R aggro and infect. The bump it would give non-shadow grixis control is too insignificant compared to what it would be adding to current tier 1 decks.
Affinity
Death & Taxes
Mardu Nahiri
Forcing people to merge with twitch is stupid
Crickey.
No.
I have better things to do then the Top time sink. Like, you know, watching paint dry.
Modern: Storm
Legacy: ANT
For starter, like many, I think the speculation of what would happen without the current tier-1 is both mostly hot air and entirely pointless. It's not that I mind people shooting from the hip and giving their opinion, but that I find the discussion to be a symptom of a lack of mental rigor. Any meta has a tier one, every tier set will have its detractor, every deck has its lover and hater. You'd replace one set of dissatisfied players with another. I'd rather read people discuss how to make some decks better than how to destroy the ones that exist. I find the current displayed hate for the existing tier-1 a bit tasteless.
Furthermore, the discussion seems to take for granted two things. One, that the current tier-1 suite is dominating. It's not true. Multiple recent results have shown other decks taking the crown in a given tournament. There is no huge gulf between tier-1 and tier-2. So why want to change the tier-1? It does not extinguish variety, that's just not true. Two, history bears this out, a single new card can push tier-2 deck into tier-1. Look at Baral making storm better for example. So, I would much prefer to see people speculating on new cards (even made up ones) that would help change the meta rather than bashing tier-1 decks you think are no-fun.