A lot of control players, including to an extent me, dislike Cavern of Souls because "muh interactin' on the stack!" Unfortunately, you can't play that style of Magic any more. You can't jam a deck with counterspells, one win condition, and expect to win.
I'll be honest, what annoys me more than Cavern of Souls is on-cast triggers like on Ulamog, especially since there are not very many good ways to actually interact with them.
I get that, especially the on-cast triggers. I'm not sure what kind of standard environment would be able to produce a Stifle reprint, especially considering the closest thing they've done is Disallow. Then again, Stifle in modern would hose an insane amount of stuff, and I'm not sure the impact on the meta would be altogether positive.
The format would be a lot better if we had Counterspell and Fact or Fiction. The former we're never going to get because "standard" and "unfun", and the latter I don't see as well because of all the "fixed" versions of the card they've tried over the years. They just seem reluctant to ever bring it back, and it's probably a no-go so long as Gearhulk is in the format. It's a sad day when Glimmer of Genius is one of the better draw spells in the format. Having an actual good control deck would do a lot to decrease the amount of shenanigans. Daze would be interesting, but I think GDS beats up on the unfair decks enough as is. Also, **** Cavern of Souls - that card should not exist.
LOL to anyone who thought WoTC would unban anything.
Well now...your post reminds me of one of the ETron players I encounter at my LGS, except his stance is the complete opposite of yours. However, you both present your arguments in a rather hostile format which makes it difficult to take seriously. So let's go over your points, because I'm trying to understand where you're coming from.
1) Counterspell and FoF in modern seems like overkill. I love blue as a color, but there is no way in hell we'd get both of those cards. The power level of standard would have to be through the roof to allow either one of those in, let alone both. Some players, myself included, love to play draw-go magic, but that's not what standard has been about for a long time.
2) Glimmer of Genius is good in standard, but to call that a good draw spell in modern is laughable.
3) Not certain how you define a good control deck. What's your ideal version, and how would that reduce shenanigans in Modern?
4) Cavern of Souls is pretty much a pillar in any tribal deck, and no tribe save Eldrazi is remotely close to needing the axe that badly. Why does that card grind your gears?
5) No unbans yet, but the fact that they said publicly they're discussing unbans for February is good news. We'll have to see how the Pro Tour goes.
1) I'm not saying we have to get them at the same time, but one or the other would be nice - preferably Counterspell because that is the weakest part of the deck which does need to be addressed. I mean, it doesn't even have to be Counterspell, but something close (1U - Counter target spell with CMC 4 or less) would be acceptable. Also, if we can't get good strong control cards through standard, then what's the point? If counterspells and card draw - two very important parts of a control deck - are off limits for modern power-level, then I guess the game has left me by. I came for the chess-like gameplay, and if WoTC rams down linear dog*****, I'm just going to go elsewhere (I heard GWENT was pretty good in that department).
2) Of course it's laughable - that's the power-level of card draw in Modern outside of Esper Charm. It's garbage.
3) A good control deck can police the degenerate decks. It's been that way traditionally. Apparently, now-a-days, all WoTC knows how to do is print a decent removal spell every 2-3 years. Which means the only good control cards tend to be them and not counters, hence, Modern control decks being much better against aggro decks than the degenerate decks - a fact mind you, that only holds true in Modern. In every other format including Standard, Control is weak to aggro, but strong against degenerate decks. This needs to change imho. Control should be weak to aggro, as it's meant to police the format, and keep things on the straight and narrow.
4) Because a card that has such low opportunity cost as that should not invalidate an entire spectra of interaction. Would you be *****ing and moaning if there was a 5 color tribal land that gave creatures hexproof? It also contributes to the lack of control decks doing well in large tournaments. Over 15-rounds you're bound to lose at least 1 round to Cavern (perhaps more). It was a stupid card specifically made to deal with Delver decks - it's a pox on format health imho.
Grixis Shadow and Burn are tier one decks that are rough matchups for Storm. There literally are already police decks...
@Aegraen
Fatal Push got printed, a control card, a great solution to small powerful creatures like Confidant and Goyf arrives, and now the control players are complaining that they don't have answers to ramp. Look, midrange and control isn't supposed to be good against the entire field.
Let me ask you this, what decks is Cavern of Souls empowering to the point of degeneracy? I'm coming up blank. As to whether or not I'd be pissed at a Cavern type card that gave creatures hexproof, of course I would. Being hexproof vs being unable to be countered are two wildly different things. You mentioned that Cavern invalidates one avenue of interaction, but hexproof goes way beyond that. I find it difficult to believe that Cavern is a big factor in control decks not doing well when there are many others.
2) Of course it's laughable - that's the power-level of card draw in Modern outside of Esper Charm. It's garbage.
And ever notice that even Esper Charm sees practically no play? The problem with Modern card draw isn't that the spells are bad, it's that card draw is bad.
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
It's the fact there are very few free wins for a fair deck.
Let's be honest combo/aggro players--there's a handful of free wins you get, especially in big tournaments. Your deck plays itself sometimes, you jam it with reasonable sequence and win without mentally burning yourself out
There isn't really any of that with fair midrange and control decks. It's a bunch of 50/50s, with mixes of 45/55 and 55/45s. Jund's versatile sideboard, touted in 2015, was the deck that could have a decent to good matchup against nearly anything.
That can't happen in 2017. Modern is too open now. Decks like Jund and Junk can choose which archetype to completely fold to, and what to have a 55/45 game 2. The meta is honestly too stretched thin at this point, and while you can meta at a small FNM, you need to be extremely lucky that your sideboard aligns with your pairing lottery.
Why do this in 2017 when you can jam a proactive deck? Decks like Titanshift, Affinity, Storm slightly dilutes their decks game 2 and 3, but only a little. If I'm a junk player, who kept a reasonable hand of removal and 1 threat, and end up playing a combo deck, I've drawn the wrong half of my deck and assured myself a game 1 loss. If I keep a reasonable hand of creatures and light on spot removal, and have an elf drop on turn 1, I'm probably going to lose, I can't race them.
Proactive decks don't have that issue. Oh, cool, I have a turn 3 Smasher.
I can make 12 goblin tokens at the end of my opponents second turn?
I have a bolt and a turn 4 Scapeshift? Cool.
People are confusing midrange players being entitled with...well, I'm not really sure nowadays. I think players are so quick to say things like, "you're just mad your expensive deck isn't on top anymore". I feel like it's safe enough to say that people who paid 2,000 for their jund deck can afford that 600 dollar affinity deck (well, more often than not, I'd say).
I don't think GBx are good decks anymore, they're certainly viable. Junk is in my opinion a 2.5 tier deck, and jund is a decidedly tier 3 deck, in my opinion.
I think a lot of GBx players have moved on to other decks
I couldn't justify playing GBx over Eldrazi Tron as a midrange deck of choice. The deck can straight up win for free sometimes
As much as people make fun of Eldrazi Tron, there is a surprising amount of interaction. It's not a hard deck to pilot, but it's definitely not a solitaire deck.
I really think if competitive modern players want to play midrange, they should pick Jeskai Geist or Eldrazi Tron, because I think GBx are definitely lukewarm decks right now
I'm not sure what kind of standard environment would be able to produce a Stifle reprint, especially considering the closest thing they've done is Disallow. Then again, Stifle in modern would hose an insane amount of stuff, and I'm not sure the impact on the meta would be altogether positive.
They printed nimble obstructionist, and I have to say I'm sad it did not see play. 3 flash evasive power with the ability to stifle while drawing a card for 3 mana. (And the stifle is not counterable without another stifle.) I honestly thought jeskai control would pick it up. I guess it had to be a 2/1 for 2 with 2 mana cycling to see play?
(I did buy a playset recently, just in case it picks up steam.)
And my stance is that that is completely fine. No deck should be viable vs the entire field. When I play storm and see turn one monastery swiftspear, I know odds are against me. I don't resent the format, I don't hate the burn player. It is what it is. If I wanted to play a format with four viable decks to have any chance of even 4-0'ing an FNM, I would play standard.
I was originally interested in Nimble Obstructionist, but it's just too slow/clunky. It would be marginally better if it stifled both when it ETB or cycled. As is, its an over costed Squelch on the cycle, and a flash 3/1 for 3CMC as a creature. On both modes it doesn't really have a mana-advantageous payoff, which, even Clique hasn't been strong enough to warrant a main deck slots in many of the decks that would want the Obstructionist.
And my stance is that that is completely fine. No deck should be viable vs the entire field. When I play storm and see turn one monastery swiftspear, I know odds are against me. I don't resent the format, I don't hate the burn player. It is what it is. If I wanted to play a format with four viable decks to have any chance of even 4-0'ing an FNM, I would play standard.
I think a lot of people misunderstand his point. Across the full set of match-ups, a deck like Storm or Scapeshift has a number of 65/35s and 35/65s because of the mostly linear nature of the deck. Either the strategy works versus a particular opponent or doesn't. You'll win some of those matches by just getting out of bed in the morning (and likewise lose some). It can still make sense to play one of those decks when you see a net positive across the expected meta.
Midrange match-ups aren't typically so polarizing; there are much more 55/45s and 45/55s depending on how interaction lines up with an opponent's plan. By the nature of a deck like BGx, there aren't very many "I win" matches. It can still make sense to play one of those decks when you see a net positive across the expected meta. But if you introduce a couple of bad (and popular) 35/65 match-ups without any corresponding 65/35s, suddenly midrange becomes a terrible proposition. I think that's why you hear so many midrange players complaining about a specific match-up where they're significant underdogs. It's not that specific opponent's deck so much as that for midrange to be competitive it needs to have a chance even when it's unfavored. Otherwise you're playing a deck with a large downside risk and little upside. That can kill large swathes of a vast, popular archetype.
You're free to feel unmoved by their complaints; that's the motivation though. Most reasonable midrange players don't want to be favored in every match-up, they just want it to be mostly even-ish so that midrange remains a competitive choice. At this point, I wouldn't recommend anyone play midrange (like BGx). Either do something broken or play another archetype.
*Note -- I'm using 'midrange' here to mean 'fair midrange' since we're talking about BGx-like decks. I recognize there are other types within the spectrum.
And my stance is that that is completely fine. No deck should be viable vs the entire field. When I play storm and see turn one monastery swiftspear, I know odds are against me. I don't resent the format, I don't hate the burn player. It is what it is. If I wanted to play a format with four viable decks to have any chance of even 4-0'ing an FNM, I would play standard.
I think a lot of people misunderstand his point. Across the full set of match-ups, a deck like Storm or Scapeshift has a number of 65/35s and 35/65s because of the mostly linear nature of the deck. Either the strategy works versus a particular opponent or doesn't. You'll win some of those matches by just getting out of bed in the morning (and likewise lose some). It can still make sense to play one of those decks when you see a net positive across the expected meta.
Midrange match-ups aren't typically so polarizing; there are much more 55/45s and 45/55s depending on how interaction lines up with an opponent's plan. By the nature of a deck like BGx, there aren't very many "I win" matches. It can still make sense to play one of those decks when you see a net positive across the expected meta. But if you introduce a couple of bad (and popular) 35/65 match-ups without any corresponding 65/35s, suddenly midrange becomes a terrible proposition. I think that's why you hear so many midrange players complaining about a specific match-up where they're significant underdogs. It's not that specific opponent's deck so much as that for midrange to be competitive it needs to have a chance even when it's unfavored. Otherwise you're playing a deck with a large downside risk and little upside. That can kill large swathes of a vast, popular archetype.
You're free to feel unmoved by their complaints; that's the motivation though. Most reasonable midrange players don't want to be favored in every match-up, they just want it to be mostly even-ish so that midrange remains a competitive choice. At this point, I wouldn't recommend anyone play midrange (like BGx). Either do something broken or play another archetype.
*Note -- I'm using 'midrange' here to mean 'fair midrange' since we're talking about BGx-like decks. I recognize there are other types within the spectrum.
To a large extent, this is just me ranting about a deck I hate. I know that. I hate the premise of a deck with zero bad matchups. In fact, jund has always had a bad tron matchup. That seemed acceptable - close or favorable vs the field and bad against one style in ramp strategies. Fatal Push altered the meta enough that several of jund's better matchups are gone, replaced by ramp decks that lost to those vanishing archetypes (mainly infect). I am highly competitive, and the grinder, expected value mentality favors something like BGx. Hell, my local meta has tons of BGx, Grixis Delver or Shadow, and other fair decks for that very reason. They want minimal risk to that prize payout. However, funny enough that's why major tournaments always end up being won by Affinity, Eldrazi etc - the conservative field of midrange gets pwned.
Honestly I'm getting interested in this UWR flash deck. I know Storm will have a target on its back simply by WOTC's opinion of the mechanic, and it really sucks having a competitive deck and feeling the urge of needing to buy another to avoid a two month hiatus via banhammer like I had to endure last year with Kiln Fiend.
To a large extent, this is just me ranting about a deck I hate. I know that. I hate the premise of a deck with zero bad matchups. In fact, jund has always had a bad tron matchup. That seemed acceptable - close or favorable vs the field and bad against one style in ramp strategies. Fatal Push altered the meta enough that several of jund's better matchups are gone, replaced by ramp decks that lost to those vanishing archetypes (mainly infect). I am highly competitive, and the grinder, expected value mentality favors something like BGx. Hell, my local meta has tons of BGx, Grixis Delver or Shadow, and other fair decks for that very reason. They want minimal risk to that prize payout. However, funny enough that's why major tournaments always end up being won by Affinity, Eldrazi etc - the conservative field of midrange gets pwned.
Honestly I'm getting interested in this UWR flash deck. I know Storm will have a target on its back simply by WOTC's opinion of the mechanic, and it really sucks having a competitive deck and feeling the urge of needing to buy another to avoid a two month hiatus via banhammer like I had to endure last year with Kiln Fiend.
I agree with the person you replied to, and given what you said here, I think I agree with you too. Fair Midrange survives by having close to even matchups across the board, and using player skill to bring matchups to 50/50 or better. If a deck itself actually was 55/45 against the field, the meta would adapt, or everyone would play it (and then the meta would probably adapt).
Every deck should have bad matchups. That's how metas work. But, to be fair, fair Midrange has a really bad ramp matchup. Of course, if you can figure out a deck that goes 55/45 against everything else, I won't feel too bad for Midrange players.
I don't think Midrange should have a good ramp matchup, but I do think it should have the tools to fight ramp. I am a fan of using Blood Moon and pressure to pick apart land strategies. Or Spreading Seas to hit key lands. Having tools doesn't make the matchup good, but it does help the matchup not be 70/30, and I think that's good for the meta.
On Jeskai, I'm really hoping it becomes the new Midrange deck of the format. It can play Control, but can also put up a clock to fight ramp. Basically, a lot like what Shadow has been doing.
RG Scapeshift as a deck has only really existed for two years, mainly because while Twin was around, it was incredibly terrible; once Twin disappeared, we could drop the blue from RUG Scapeshift and focus on being more all-in.
This statement is exactly why I spent nearly two years complaining about the Twin ban. It was likely the single largest contributing factor to the exponential increase of all-in, linear strategies. So much so that even after multiple other bans (Probe, GGT), it's STILL a problem because no reactive/control/tempo deck can deal with so many different levels of linear degeneracy as efficiently as Twin (and do so without ever holding an oppressive share of the meta).
We all assume nothing will change until after the PT. Hopefully then they will realize how much they have F'd Modern and give us Twin back at that point. Hopefully along with other cards that have no business being banned like BBE and SFM.
I agree entirely and I think that twin should be unbanned. But to have a completely realistic conversation what is being said here is that twin limited diversity by limiting the success rates of several tier 2-3 decks at that time. Some people say it delt with liniar degeneracy while others call that limiting diversity. That is the core of the twin ban communication problem we have on this board.
Billiondegree wanted a list of decks. That's a list of decks. I basically just combed through the Tier 1, Tier 2, and Developing Competitive lists and figured out which ones play a surplus of creatures with 2 toughness or less. If you have a problem with the decks on the list, take it up with the Modern metagame, not me. Just because a deck has a small metagame share doesn't mean the deck doesn't exist.
And those decks would continue to exist, even if they were made worse, after a Punishing Fire unban. You can't pull the "well, they exist, even if they're barely played!" which is countered by the fact that if anyone plays them, they still exist. People still play decks that have never even Day 2's a Grand Prix in Modern's history, so they clearly exist.
But by what do you decree that those decks (at least the ones that are decent) would disappear? Most of them are "swarm" aggro decks which spot removal is often not that amazing against because you kill one threat and they have a lot left. Sure, Punishing Fire can recur and hit more things (if you have it and Grove of the Burnwillows in play), but it's slow at doing so. Now, someone might claim they weren't that big when Punishing Fire was around, but that ignores the various upgrades many have gotten; Faeries didn't have Bitterblossom, and Merfolk was missing Master of the Pearl Trident (making buffing easier and Punishing Fire worse). Elves didn't have Collected Company, which is key to its grinding gameplan that allows is to deal with removal. It also ignores several things in some of the decks that give it an edge: Death & Taxes's land destruction makes Grove of the Burnwillows a lot worse, Soul Sisters benefits from lifegain.
Counters Company would definitely be much weaker, though. Its grinding plan is a lot worse than previous Collected Company decks and is mostly just hoping to get the combo out, which Punishing Fire is very effective at thwarting.
I do find your assertion that Affinity would be invalidated amusing, however, as it was Tier 1 while Punishing Fire was in the format (and Zoo was something like Tier 0.5).
Punishing Fire was banned in December 2011. Modern first became a format in June 2011 during the Community Cup. Modern's initial ban list was in June and it was subsequently updated in August and September.
Which brings us back to your point: is your contention that Affinity would be okay because it was viable between October and December of 2011?
Not just viable, but Tier 1. Is there any particular reason to believe it wouldn't be still be Tier 1 with Punishing Fire back in the format? While the format has gone through a number of changes, I don't see anything that makes Affinity weaker against Punishing Fire. Also, the update was September, not October.
I also notice you completely ignored my mention of how amazing Zoo was when Punishing Fire was around. If anything, the worry regarding Punishing Fire is not that it'll invalidate creature decks, but that it'll make one creature deck in particular (Zoo) way too good, which was really the problem with it back then. It's why Wild Nacatl was unfairly banned, Zoo was so good and they wanted to hit a card directly from the deck, probably worrying that hitting the card indirectly responsible for its rise wouldn't do the trick.
As for the others, good ol' Pyroclasm is generally better than Punishing Fire against them, though admittedly Punishing Fire does have more general utility.
Oh yeah. While we're at it, let's pretend that Anger of the Gods is more oppressive than PunishingGrove. Seems reasonable. [/quote]Missing the point. Punishing Fire does what Pyroclasm does, but only to one creature at a time, whereas Pyroclasm hits all of them at once. So, assuming you do have Grove of the Burnwillows, you spend 2 mana on turn two and 3 mana on turn three just to accomplish potentially less than Pyroclasm did for 2 mana on turn two.
Similarly, Anger of the Gods hits for more damage and for less mana than Punishing Fire does. It takes a while for Punishing Fire to get better than those cards, and if you survive that long against an aggro deck then the game is probably yours anyway.
I am not much of an Aggro player, but the only way I would advocate for a Punishing Fire unban ever is if Aggro got way to high in numbers in Modern. Hurting Aggro that much is important for the balance of Modern.
And I am not speaking out of my ass. I'll leave with 1 example of balance in Modern. A player known to loan out 2-3 extra Tron decks, while playing one himself (he's a vendor) was banned from our shop for purchasing cards within the shop to a shop employee. So, basically, 3-4 Tron decks left our 40 person meta. The next week, I saw literally 5 Jeskai Nahiri decks. It wasn't even so much that it was a rough matchup, but that our meta was pretty messed up. As much as I despise Tron a bit, I learned to appreciate it a bit more in the next few weeks.
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)
Billiondegree wanted a list of decks. That's a list of decks. I basically just combed through the Tier 1, Tier 2, and Developing Competitive lists and figured out which ones play a surplus of creatures with 2 toughness or less. If you have a problem with the decks on the list, take it up with the Modern metagame, not me. Just because a deck has a small metagame share doesn't mean the deck doesn't exist.
And those decks would continue to exist, even if they were made worse, after a Punishing Fire unban. You can't pull the "well, they exist, even if they're barely played!" which is countered by the fact that if anyone plays them, they still exist. People still play decks that have never even Day 2's a Grand Prix in Modern's history, so they clearly exist.
But by what do you decree that those decks (at least the ones that are decent) would disappear? Most of them are "swarm" aggro decks which spot removal is often not that amazing against because you kill one threat and they have a lot left. Sure, Punishing Fire can recur and hit more things (if you have it and Grove of the Burnwillows in play), but it's slow at doing so. Now, someone might claim they weren't that big when Punishing Fire was around, but that ignores the various upgrades many have gotten; Faeries didn't have Bitterblossom, and Merfolk was missing Master of the Pearl Trident (making buffing easier and Punishing Fire worse). Elves didn't have Collected Company, which is key to its grinding gameplan that allows is to deal with removal. It also ignores several things in some of the decks that give it an edge: Death & Taxes's land destruction makes Grove of the Burnwillows a lot worse, Soul Sisters benefits from lifegain.
Counters Company would definitely be much weaker, though. Its grinding plan is a lot worse than previous Collected Company decks and is mostly just hoping to get the combo out, which Punishing Fire is very effective at thwarting.
I have a strong desire to go reductio ad absurdum on this, because your claim is equally valid for a lot of things on the ban list. Lots of new cards exist today that didn't exist in 2011. That doesn't mean we're unbanning Skullclamp and just waiting for the dust to settle.
But in attempt to dialogue with you, I just don't think you realize how oppressive Punishing Grove can be. It doesn't just deal two damage at a time to creatures. It's excellent in multiples and can be used against players (one damage at a time). Even a single copy of Punishing Fire can be used twice in the same turn on an individual creature, provided the spell started the turn in your hand. And as an avid D&T player, and I'm telling you that the land destruction route is an extremely unreliable way to deal with the problem.
I do find your assertion that Affinity would be invalidated amusing, however, as it was Tier 1 while Punishing Fire was in the format (and Zoo was something like Tier 0.5).
Punishing Fire was banned in December 2011. Modern first became a format in June 2011 during the Community Cup. Modern's initial ban list was in June and it was subsequently updated in August and September.
Which brings us back to your point: is your contention that Affinity would be okay because it was viable between October and December of 2011?
Not just viable, but Tier 1. Is there any particular reason to believe it wouldn't be still be Tier 1 with Punishing Fire back in the format? While the format has gone through a number of changes, I don't see anything that makes Affinity weaker against Punishing Fire. Also, the update was September, not October.
I also notice you completely ignored my mention of how amazing Zoo was when Punishing Fire was around. If anything, the worry regarding Punishing Fire is not that it'll invalidate creature decks, but that it'll make one creature deck in particular (Zoo) way too good, which was really the problem with it back then. It's why Wild Nacatl was unfairly banned, Zoo was so good and they wanted to hit a card directly from the deck, probably worrying that hitting the card indirectly responsible for its rise wouldn't do the trick.
I ignored the Zoo comment because it's irrelevant. That's like saying the second-best deck during Eldrazi Winter wasn't invalidated by the Eldrazi decks.
Furthermore, I don't think you can treat anything from 2011 as reliable data points about the format. The format was new and the dust was still settling. Fire and Nacatl were the last two cards banned before nine months of no changes to the ban list. Nacatl was splash damage from Fire, just like BBE is still splash damage from Deathrite Shaman. You shouldn't use a period of sweeping changes to the format as evidence that an individual card should be unbanned.
As for the others, good ol' Pyroclasm is generally better than Punishing Fire against them, though admittedly Punishing Fire does have more general utility.
Missing the point. Punishing Fire does what Pyroclasm does, but only to one creature at a time, whereas Pyroclasm hits all of them at once. So, assuming you do have Grove of the Burnwillows, you spend 2 mana on turn two and 3 mana on turn three just to accomplish potentially less than Pyroclasm did for 2 mana on turn two.
Similarly, Anger of the Gods hits for more damage and for less mana than Punishing Fire does. It takes a while for Punishing Fire to get better than those cards, and if you survive that long against an aggro deck then the game is probably yours anyway.
This is probably your worst set of points. The oppressiveness of Punishing Grove comes from its versatility, including its ability to hit players. It's a Swiss-Army knife for an aggro deck; it removes blockers, it hits players, it acts as a fantastic mana sink, and it's reusable. If you can't tell the difference between Punishing Grove and Pyroclasm or Anger of the Gods, I don't know how to help you.
Playing millions of cards every turn... Slowly and systematically obliterating any chance my opponent has of winning... Clicking the multitude of locking mechanisms into place... Not even trying to win myself until turn 10+ once I have nigh absolute control... Watching my opponent desperately trying to navigate the labyrinthine prison that I've constructed... Seeing the light of hope fade and ultimately extinguished in an excruciatingly slow manner... THAT'S fun Magic.
We have 2-3 users that are dramatically making this thread incomprehensible and non-productive for anyone else to possibly join in the discussion. This needs to change.
Every time I see [ktkenshinx] post in here, I get the impression of a stern dad walking in on a bunch of kids trying to do something dumb and just shaking his head in disappointment.
Near Mint: The same as Slightly Played, but we threw some Altoids in the box we stored it in to cover up the scent of dead mice. Slightly Played: The base condition for all MTG cards. This card looks OK, but there’s one minor annoying ding in it that will always irritate and distract you whenever you draw it. Moderately Played: This card looks like it survived the Tet Offensive tucked inside the waistband of GI underwear. It may smell like it, too. Heavily Played: This card looks like the remains of Mohammed Atta’s passport after 9/11. It may be playable if you double-sleeve it to stop the chunks from falling out. The condition formerly known as "Washing Machine Grade" Damaged: This card is the unfortunate victim of a Mirrorweave/March of the Machines/Chaos Confetti/Mindslaver combo.
[M]aking counterfeit cards is the absolute height of dishonesty. Ask yourself this question: Since most people...are totally cool with the use of proxies...what purpose do [high] quality counterfeit cards serve?
It's surprising to me to see a bunch of people who were around when Punishing Fire was legal advocating for its unbanning. You saw it in action, and you still think it's ok? I sure don't.
RG Scapeshift as a deck has only really existed for two years, mainly because while Twin was around, it was incredibly terrible; once Twin disappeared, we could drop the blue from RUG Scapeshift and focus on being more all-in.
This statement is exactly why I spent nearly two years complaining about the Twin ban. It was likely the single largest contributing factor to the exponential increase of all-in, linear strategies. So much so that even after multiple other bans (Probe, GGT), it's STILL a problem because no reactive/control/tempo deck can deal with so many different levels of linear degeneracy as efficiently as Twin (and do so without ever holding an oppressive share of the meta).
We all assume nothing will change until after the PT. Hopefully then they will realize how much they have F'd Modern and give us Twin back at that point. Hopefully along with other cards that have no business being banned like BBE and SFM.
I agree entirely and I think that twin should be unbanned. But to have a completely realistic conversation what is being said here is that twin limited diversity by limiting the success rates of several tier 2-3 decks at that time. Some people say it delt with linear degeneracy while others call that limiting diversity. That is the core of the twin ban communication problem we have on this board.
The claim that competitive diversity was hurt is categorically and numerically untrue if the metric we judge this by is variety of different decks that make Top 8/26/32/Day 2/etc. Sure, it wasn't the super high-variance mess* it is now, but there was MASSIVE diversity among winners and Top X decks at all high level paper events when Twin was legal.
Twin was able to "deal" with linear degeneracy by not letting it get to the levels it was in 2016 (or are right now) because it either forced them to cut speed for interaction or have them risk losing turn 4. It never crushed any of them out of the format (Affinity, Burn, Infect were all T1) and lower T2 decks had several shining points in multiple big paper tournaments. This trend to obnoxious degeneracy happened when Twin was removed and absolutely no respectable tempo/control/reactive deck took its place. Until a deck like that returns, the best options in Modern will be to do something fast, powerful, and hard to hate out. Then cross your fingers and hope you don't get that one guy who built his deck with all the silver bullets for your narrow deck. That is a miserable way to play the game, IMO.
*the claim that it's an utter mess is my opinion, but the fact it's high variance is not.
I have a strong desire to go reductio ad absurdum on this, because your claim is equally valid for a lot of things on the ban list. Lots of new cards exist today that didn't exist in 2011. That doesn't mean we're unbanning Skullclamp and just waiting for the dust to settle.
The argument was about how Punishing Fire makes creature decks invalid. I pointed to several creature decks that were great while Punishing Fire was around, and then was countering the claim that "but these other creature decks weren't around when Punishing Fire was!" by pointing out factors that have made those decks better than then. Heck, look at the decks you listed again: "Affinity, Death and Taxes, Elves, Merfolk, Counters Company, Humans, Faeries, Soul Sisters, and to a lesser extent Burn." I've already explained how Affinity was great when Punishing Fire was around (and it remained good after its banning). But if the argument is that it was Punishing Fire keeping all those creature decks down, we would've seen a big increase in them, right? Not really. Faeries was decent for a while then dropped off really hard until Bitterblossom was unbanned. Soul Sisters did manage a respectful 2nd place at a Grand Prix, but then did basically nothing afterwards, indicating it chanced upon a favorable metagame for its finish (it is a bit questionable how effective Punishing Fire would have been against it anyway, as it feeds directly into its lifegain plan). The rest were fairly fringe, if they were around at all. Merfolk and Elves did eventually become really good, but this happened was years after Punishing Fire was banned and thus is ascribed more due to cards like Master of the Pearl Trident or Collected Company giving them a boost than Punishing Fire being banned.
There really wasn't an appreciable increase in creature decks after Punishing Fire got banned. Birthing Pod was good, but it was decent while Punishing Fire was around. Weirdly, the deck that got the most benefit from the Punishing Fire ban was Jund, which suddenly rose to become one of the best decks in the format--although, admittedly, the banning of Wild Nacatl could have had a lot to do with that also.
As for the Skullclamp example, that misses a key difference between the cards: Skullclamp doesn't "invalidate" anything, at least not directly. It isn't a card that's just so darn good against a particular kind of deck that that kind of deck can't compete; it's a card that's just insanely good, as is true for most cards on the banned list. Ancestral Recall isn't overpowered because it's so effective against any particular kind of deck, it's just such an astoundingly overpowered card that it's banned for that reason. Come to think of it, Punishing Fire is a bit of an anomaly on the banned list in that it's primarily an answer card. The only other cards like that that are banned or restricted in the major formats would seem to be Jace and (in Vintage) Trinisphere.
But in attempt to dialogue with you, I just don't think you realize how oppressive Punishing Grove can be. It doesn't just deal two damage at a time to creatures. It's excellent in multiples and can be used against players (one damage at a time). Even a single copy of Punishing Fire can be used twice in the same turn on an individual creature, provided the spell started the turn in your hand. And as an avid D&T player, and I'm telling you that the land destruction route is an extremely unreliable way to deal with the problem.
Punishing Fire can be used against players but it's very ineffective and slow at doing so--granted, it can add up, but that's more for grinding against midrange or control rather than something to deal with decks heavily based around creatures. However, let's again look at what you stated. "Even a single copy of Punishing Fire can be used twice in the same turn on an individual creature." Sure, you can do that on one creature. It also means you spent 5 mana (2 to cast Punishing Fire, 1 to get it back, 2 to cast it again) to deal four damage to a creature. You could've done that for 1 mana with Flame Slash.
True, the point is that Punishing Fire can recur and do it over and over again whereas Flame Slash is a one-shot thing. But it takes time for Punishing Fire to be able to add up to be better than other cards, which is usually not all that impressive against creature decks which aim to defeat the opponent quickly.
On Death & Taxes, it is true that land destruction is unreliable, but my point was that it's still a strategy that can be utilized to an extent many can't.
Not just viable, but Tier 1. Is there any particular reason to believe it wouldn't be still be Tier 1 with Punishing Fire back in the format? While the format has gone through a number of changes, I don't see anything that makes Affinity weaker against Punishing Fire. Also, the update was September, not October.
I also notice you completely ignored my mention of how amazing Zoo was when Punishing Fire was around. If anything, the worry regarding Punishing Fire is not that it'll invalidate creature decks, but that it'll make one creature deck in particular (Zoo) way too good, which was really the problem with it back then. It's why Wild Nacatl was unfairly banned, Zoo was so good and they wanted to hit a card directly from the deck, probably worrying that hitting the card indirectly responsible for its rise wouldn't do the trick.
I ignored the Zoo comment because it's irrelevant. That's like saying the second-best deck during Eldrazi Winter wasn't invalidated by the Eldrazi decks.
How is it irrelevant? Let's look back at your comment:
I don't think Punishing Fire is that great. What creature decks does it invalidate exactly?
All of them.
Zoo is a creature deck. If it isn't invalidated (and history indicates that far from being invalidated, it would become the best deck in the format with Punishing Fire legal), then that clearly disproves your claim that all of them would.
Furthermore, I don't think you can treat anything from 2011 as reliable data points about the format. The format was new and the dust was still settling. Fire and Nacatl were the last two cards banned before nine months of no changes to the ban list. Nacatl was splash damage from Fire, just like BBE is still splash damage from Deathrite Shaman. You shouldn't use a period of sweeping changes to the format as evidence that an individual card should be unbanned.
Hrm, when did I ever argue Punishing Fire should be unbanned? I was pointing out how completely ridiculous your claim that it would invalidate all creature decks by pointing out creature decks it didn't invalidate as well as the fact that the creature decks someone could point to as having been invalidated didn't seem to be all that helped by its banning. Considerably better arguments against Punishing Fire than the claim it invalidates creature decks would be that it might make Zoo insanely good like it did before or that it would be problematically pervasive.
As for the claim of "dust settling" I don't see how that disproves my points regarding Zoo and Affinity. Punishing Fire was very popular, and those decks were able to thrive in a format where it was widely played. If anything, "dust settling" seems like it would likely to see a reduction in Punishing Fire as people attempt to better deal with the decks that aren't all that impressed by it.
Missing the point. Punishing Fire does what Pyroclasm does, but only to one creature at a time, whereas Pyroclasm hits all of them at once. So, assuming you do have Grove of the Burnwillows, you spend 2 mana on turn two and 3 mana on turn three just to accomplish potentially less than Pyroclasm did for 2 mana on turn two.
Similarly, Anger of the Gods hits for more damage and for less mana than Punishing Fire does. It takes a while for Punishing Fire to get better than those cards, and if you survive that long against an aggro deck then the game is probably yours anyway.
This is probably your worst set of points. The oppressiveness of Punishing Grove comes from its versatility, including its ability to hit players. It's a Swiss-Army knife for an aggro deck; it removes blockers, it hits players, it acts as a fantastic mana sink, and it's reusable. If you can't tell the difference between Punishing Grove and Pyroclasm or Anger of the Gods, I don't know how to help you.
Of course a strength of it is its ability to hurt players. The point was that against decks heavily based on creatures, including the ones you mentioned, that "versatility" is actually weaker than cards already legal in the format. Its strength (compared to those cards) is more that it's decent against decks that don't care about Pyroclasm, but that doesn't explain how it invalidates creature decks.
Also, I'm very confused by your statement that it's "a Swiss-Army knife for an aggro deck" indicating it's great for an aggro deck, but this is to try to back up your claim that it invalidates all the creature decks? How does that work, for the card to be at its best in the decks it supposedly invalidates?
Just answering the last question: Think of mental misstep.
The decks that it trips up the hardest will also play it. In fact, every magic player and his mother will be forced to play it.
Punishing fire has a color requirement, so it won't be as bad, but every red magic player? definitely. It'll be like 2 creature decks at it with Jitte unbanned; the one who draws jitte first will win. Likewise, in an aggro mirror, the one who draws punishing fire will win.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
I have a strong desire to go reductio ad absurdum on this, because your claim is equally valid for a lot of things on the ban list. Lots of new cards exist today that didn't exist in 2011. That doesn't mean we're unbanning Skullclamp and just waiting for the dust to settle.
The argument was about how Punishing Fire makes creature decks invalid. I pointed to several creature decks that were great while Punishing Fire was around, and then was countering the claim that "but these other creature decks weren't around when Punishing Fire was!" by pointing out factors that have made those decks better than then. Heck, look at the decks you listed again: "Affinity, Death and Taxes, Elves, Merfolk, Counters Company, Humans, Faeries, Soul Sisters, and to a lesser extent Burn." I've already explained how Affinity was great when Punishing Fire was around (and it remained good after its banning). But if the argument is that it was Punishing Fire keeping all those creature decks down, we would've seen a big increase in them, right? Not really. Faeries was decent for a while then dropped off really hard until Bitterblossom was unbanned. Soul Sisters did manage a respectful 2nd place at a Grand Prix, but then did basically nothing afterwards, indicating it chanced upon a favorable metagame for its finish (it is a bit questionable how effective Punishing Fire would have been against it anyway, as it feeds directly into its lifegain plan). The rest were fairly fringe, if they were around at all. Merfolk and Elves did eventually become really good, but this happened was years after Punishing Fire was banned and thus is ascribed more due to cards like Master of the Pearl Trident or Collected Company giving them a boost than Punishing Fire being banned.
There really wasn't an appreciable increase in creature decks after Punishing Fire got banned. Birthing Pod was good, but it was decent while Punishing Fire was around. Weirdly, the deck that got the most benefit from the Punishing Fire ban was Jund, which suddenly rose to become one of the best decks in the format--although, admittedly, the banning of Wild Nacatl could have had a lot to do with that also.
As for the Skullclamp example, that misses a key difference between the cards: Skullclamp doesn't "invalidate" anything, at least not directly. It isn't a card that's just so darn good against a particular kind of deck that that kind of deck can't compete; it's a card that's just insanely good, as is true for most cards on the banned list. Ancestral Recall isn't overpowered because it's so effective against any particular kind of deck, it's just such an astoundingly overpowered card that it's banned for that reason. Come to think of it, Punishing Fire is a bit of an anomaly on the banned list in that it's primarily an answer card. The only other cards like that that are banned or restricted in the major formats would seem to be Jace and (in Vintage) Trinisphere.
But in attempt to dialogue with you, I just don't think you realize how oppressive Punishing Grove can be. It doesn't just deal two damage at a time to creatures. It's excellent in multiples and can be used against players (one damage at a time). Even a single copy of Punishing Fire can be used twice in the same turn on an individual creature, provided the spell started the turn in your hand. And as an avid D&T player, and I'm telling you that the land destruction route is an extremely unreliable way to deal with the problem.
Punishing Fire can be used against players but it's very ineffective and slow at doing so--granted, it can add up, but that's more for grinding against midrange or control rather than something to deal with decks heavily based around creatures. However, let's again look at what you stated. "Even a single copy of Punishing Fire can be used twice in the same turn on an individual creature." Sure, you can do that on one creature. It also means you spent 5 mana (2 to cast Punishing Fire, 1 to get it back, 2 to cast it again) to deal four damage to a creature. You could've done that for 1 mana with Flame Slash.
True, the point is that Punishing Fire can recur and do it over and over again whereas Flame Slash is a one-shot thing. But it takes time for Punishing Fire to be able to add up to be better than other cards, which is usually not all that impressive against creature decks which aim to defeat the opponent quickly.
On Death & Taxes, it is true that land destruction is unreliable, but my point was that it's still a strategy that can be utilized to an extent many can't.
Not just viable, but Tier 1. Is there any particular reason to believe it wouldn't be still be Tier 1 with Punishing Fire back in the format? While the format has gone through a number of changes, I don't see anything that makes Affinity weaker against Punishing Fire. Also, the update was September, not October.
I also notice you completely ignored my mention of how amazing Zoo was when Punishing Fire was around. If anything, the worry regarding Punishing Fire is not that it'll invalidate creature decks, but that it'll make one creature deck in particular (Zoo) way too good, which was really the problem with it back then. It's why Wild Nacatl was unfairly banned, Zoo was so good and they wanted to hit a card directly from the deck, probably worrying that hitting the card indirectly responsible for its rise wouldn't do the trick.
I ignored the Zoo comment because it's irrelevant. That's like saying the second-best deck during Eldrazi Winter wasn't invalidated by the Eldrazi decks.
How is it irrelevant? Let's look back at your comment:
I don't think Punishing Fire is that great. What creature decks does it invalidate exactly?
All of them.
Zoo is a creature deck. If it isn't invalidated (and history indicates that far from being invalidated, it would become the best deck in the format with Punishing Fire legal), then that clearly disproves your claim that all of them would.
Furthermore, I don't think you can treat anything from 2011 as reliable data points about the format. The format was new and the dust was still settling. Fire and Nacatl were the last two cards banned before nine months of no changes to the ban list. Nacatl was splash damage from Fire, just like BBE is still splash damage from Deathrite Shaman. You shouldn't use a period of sweeping changes to the format as evidence that an individual card should be unbanned.
Hrm, when did I ever argue Punishing Fire should be unbanned? I was pointing out how completely ridiculous your claim that it would invalidate all creature decks by pointing out creature decks it didn't invalidate as well as the fact that the creature decks someone could point to as having been invalidated didn't seem to be all that helped by its banning. Considerably better arguments against Punishing Fire than the claim it invalidates creature decks would be that it might make Zoo insanely good like it did before or that it would be problematically pervasive.
As for the claim of "dust settling" I don't see how that disproves my points regarding Zoo and Affinity. Punishing Fire was very popular, and those decks were able to thrive in a format where it was widely played. If anything, "dust settling" seems like it would likely to see a reduction in Punishing Fire as people attempt to better deal with the decks that aren't all that impressed by it.
Missing the point. Punishing Fire does what Pyroclasm does, but only to one creature at a time, whereas Pyroclasm hits all of them at once. So, assuming you do have Grove of the Burnwillows, you spend 2 mana on turn two and 3 mana on turn three just to accomplish potentially less than Pyroclasm did for 2 mana on turn two.
Similarly, Anger of the Gods hits for more damage and for less mana than Punishing Fire does. It takes a while for Punishing Fire to get better than those cards, and if you survive that long against an aggro deck then the game is probably yours anyway.
This is probably your worst set of points. The oppressiveness of Punishing Grove comes from its versatility, including its ability to hit players. It's a Swiss-Army knife for an aggro deck; it removes blockers, it hits players, it acts as a fantastic mana sink, and it's reusable. If you can't tell the difference between Punishing Grove and Pyroclasm or Anger of the Gods, I don't know how to help you.
Of course a strength of it is its ability to hurt players. The point was that against decks heavily based on creatures, including the ones you mentioned, that "versatility" is actually weaker than cards already legal in the format. Its strength (compared to those cards) is more that it's decent against decks that don't care about Pyroclasm, but that doesn't explain how it invalidates creature decks.
Also, I'm very confused by your statement that it's "a Swiss-Army knife for an aggro deck" indicating it's great for an aggro deck, but this is to try to back up your claim that it invalidates all the creature decks? How does that work, for the card to be at its best in the decks it supposedly invalidates?
Look, I extended an olive branch trying to dialogue about this.
In exchange, you've returned with:
1) CharonsObol says Punishing Fire invalidates creature decks
2) Zoo is a creature deck that uses Punishing Fire
3) Therefore, CharonsObol is wrong
Even though this is the internet, I'm pretty sure that most readers are capable of discerning that this response...
I don't think Punishing Fire is that great. What creature decks does it invalidate exactly?
All of them.
...is using sarcasm to prove a point. I can't believe I have to spell this out explicitly, but I didn't mean that literally every deck running creatures can no longer win games of Magic.
From the original 2011 B&R Announcement Explanations:
Punishing Fire, when combined with Grove of the Burnwillows, gives a repeatable 2 damage for 3 mana. This pair of cards is commonly used, and is devastating to creature decks relying on creatures with less than 2 toughness. It also is a very slow and reliable win condition, netting 1 life for 3 mana. Tribal decks relying on 2 toughness "lords" see very little play, and this is a major barrier to their success.
More or less, I've repeated this justification using different words. You've chosen to argue with me about it. I'm not sure why you've chosen to argue with me - especially since you conceded that you're not necessarily advocating its unbanning - but here we are. You don't have to take it from me that Punishing Fire reduces deck diversity by crippling small creature decks; you can literally take it from WotC instead. WotC was pretty clear about it. I've been pretty clear about it. And your only response has been that the prevalence of Zoo and Affinity between October and December of 2011 is proof that creature decks will still exist.
I don't know what to tell you.
I'm just going to be over here playing Modern without Punishing Fire. You can be over there doing whatever you want.
Playing millions of cards every turn... Slowly and systematically obliterating any chance my opponent has of winning... Clicking the multitude of locking mechanisms into place... Not even trying to win myself until turn 10+ once I have nigh absolute control... Watching my opponent desperately trying to navigate the labyrinthine prison that I've constructed... Seeing the light of hope fade and ultimately extinguished in an excruciatingly slow manner... THAT'S fun Magic.
We have 2-3 users that are dramatically making this thread incomprehensible and non-productive for anyone else to possibly join in the discussion. This needs to change.
Every time I see [ktkenshinx] post in here, I get the impression of a stern dad walking in on a bunch of kids trying to do something dumb and just shaking his head in disappointment.
Near Mint: The same as Slightly Played, but we threw some Altoids in the box we stored it in to cover up the scent of dead mice. Slightly Played: The base condition for all MTG cards. This card looks OK, but there’s one minor annoying ding in it that will always irritate and distract you whenever you draw it. Moderately Played: This card looks like it survived the Tet Offensive tucked inside the waistband of GI underwear. It may smell like it, too. Heavily Played: This card looks like the remains of Mohammed Atta’s passport after 9/11. It may be playable if you double-sleeve it to stop the chunks from falling out. The condition formerly known as "Washing Machine Grade" Damaged: This card is the unfortunate victim of a Mirrorweave/March of the Machines/Chaos Confetti/Mindslaver combo.
[M]aking counterfeit cards is the absolute height of dishonesty. Ask yourself this question: Since most people...are totally cool with the use of proxies...what purpose do [high] quality counterfeit cards serve?
I have to say, maybe I am underestimating the value of Punishing Grove as a removal combo, but I don't think I am. Current top tier decks won't care if you have a repeatable shock. Punishing does best to out grind an opponent, and decks like storm, Titanshift, even Eldrazi Tron would laugh it off.
On top of this modern does have tools to limit the effects of this card, Relic of Progenitus being one, and a popular one at that, and to lesser extent, Nihil Spellbomb, Exterpate, Rest in Peace, and even Spell Queller. Plus add in the normal fear of Storms graveyard synergy...
I don't think Burn would want this, even in mirror. Why? Some people think of it as anti life gain. But really any life gain over 2 they fall behind on each casting. Maybe creature removal, but burn doesn't care about small creatures, and can play Path in Naya or Boros.
I can understand Zoo or Shamanism wanting to play this as their clock isn't primarily burn, just supported by it.
Does it pose a risk? Yeah I can see small creature decks fearing this, but this meta doesn't seem to be small creature friendly.
Edit: I haven't taken into account of many tier 2 decks, but we can bring this up in further posts.
Its entirely possible that punishing fire is another thopter foundry - outclassed by the current meta and overestimated.
But its easy to point out the decks it would cripple - like merfolk and elves. Darkblast is already horrible to play against for elves, i can't imagine if the repeatable spell was for 2.
So yea, saying the top tier decks won't care about it doesn't help the unbanning case. You have to look at the decks it will destroy - it will just mean already tier 2 or lower decks will be further pushed into oblivion. It would be even worse if the top tier decks were able to incorporate this into their sideboards to further dominate.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
Punishing Fire is definitely best in a metagame that is slow and grindy, which the current Modern metagame is not. I don't think it would be a problem immediately, but I do think it's possible that it could be in the future; my favourite Legacy decks are all Loam/Punishing Fire decks, and the engine is certainly good enough there, although it is also missing a lot of pieces in Modern.
Would Punishing Fire be too good for Modern? I don't know. Certainly not right now, I don't think, but I haven't tested and can't make any statements without doing so.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I get that, especially the on-cast triggers. I'm not sure what kind of standard environment would be able to produce a Stifle reprint, especially considering the closest thing they've done is Disallow. Then again, Stifle in modern would hose an insane amount of stuff, and I'm not sure the impact on the meta would be altogether positive.
1) I'm not saying we have to get them at the same time, but one or the other would be nice - preferably Counterspell because that is the weakest part of the deck which does need to be addressed. I mean, it doesn't even have to be Counterspell, but something close (1U - Counter target spell with CMC 4 or less) would be acceptable. Also, if we can't get good strong control cards through standard, then what's the point? If counterspells and card draw - two very important parts of a control deck - are off limits for modern power-level, then I guess the game has left me by. I came for the chess-like gameplay, and if WoTC rams down linear dog*****, I'm just going to go elsewhere (I heard GWENT was pretty good in that department).
2) Of course it's laughable - that's the power-level of card draw in Modern outside of Esper Charm. It's garbage.
3) A good control deck can police the degenerate decks. It's been that way traditionally. Apparently, now-a-days, all WoTC knows how to do is print a decent removal spell every 2-3 years. Which means the only good control cards tend to be them and not counters, hence, Modern control decks being much better against aggro decks than the degenerate decks - a fact mind you, that only holds true in Modern. In every other format including Standard, Control is weak to aggro, but strong against degenerate decks. This needs to change imho. Control should be weak to aggro, as it's meant to police the format, and keep things on the straight and narrow.
4) Because a card that has such low opportunity cost as that should not invalidate an entire spectra of interaction. Would you be *****ing and moaning if there was a 5 color tribal land that gave creatures hexproof? It also contributes to the lack of control decks doing well in large tournaments. Over 15-rounds you're bound to lose at least 1 round to Cavern (perhaps more). It was a stupid card specifically made to deal with Delver decks - it's a pox on format health imho.
Grixis Shadow and Burn are tier one decks that are rough matchups for Storm. There literally are already police decks...
@Aegraen
Fatal Push got printed, a control card, a great solution to small powerful creatures like Confidant and Goyf arrives, and now the control players are complaining that they don't have answers to ramp. Look, midrange and control isn't supposed to be good against the entire field.
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
It's the fact there are very few free wins for a fair deck.
Let's be honest combo/aggro players--there's a handful of free wins you get, especially in big tournaments. Your deck plays itself sometimes, you jam it with reasonable sequence and win without mentally burning yourself out
There isn't really any of that with fair midrange and control decks. It's a bunch of 50/50s, with mixes of 45/55 and 55/45s. Jund's versatile sideboard, touted in 2015, was the deck that could have a decent to good matchup against nearly anything.
That can't happen in 2017. Modern is too open now. Decks like Jund and Junk can choose which archetype to completely fold to, and what to have a 55/45 game 2. The meta is honestly too stretched thin at this point, and while you can meta at a small FNM, you need to be extremely lucky that your sideboard aligns with your pairing lottery.
Why do this in 2017 when you can jam a proactive deck? Decks like Titanshift, Affinity, Storm slightly dilutes their decks game 2 and 3, but only a little. If I'm a junk player, who kept a reasonable hand of removal and 1 threat, and end up playing a combo deck, I've drawn the wrong half of my deck and assured myself a game 1 loss. If I keep a reasonable hand of creatures and light on spot removal, and have an elf drop on turn 1, I'm probably going to lose, I can't race them.
Proactive decks don't have that issue. Oh, cool, I have a turn 3 Smasher.
I can make 12 goblin tokens at the end of my opponents second turn?
I have a bolt and a turn 4 Scapeshift? Cool.
People are confusing midrange players being entitled with...well, I'm not really sure nowadays. I think players are so quick to say things like, "you're just mad your expensive deck isn't on top anymore". I feel like it's safe enough to say that people who paid 2,000 for their jund deck can afford that 600 dollar affinity deck (well, more often than not, I'd say).
I don't think GBx are good decks anymore, they're certainly viable. Junk is in my opinion a 2.5 tier deck, and jund is a decidedly tier 3 deck, in my opinion.
I think a lot of GBx players have moved on to other decks
I couldn't justify playing GBx over Eldrazi Tron as a midrange deck of choice. The deck can straight up win for free sometimes
As much as people make fun of Eldrazi Tron, there is a surprising amount of interaction. It's not a hard deck to pilot, but it's definitely not a solitaire deck.
I really think if competitive modern players want to play midrange, they should pick Jeskai Geist or Eldrazi Tron, because I think GBx are definitely lukewarm decks right now
They printed nimble obstructionist, and I have to say I'm sad it did not see play. 3 flash evasive power with the ability to stifle while drawing a card for 3 mana. (And the stifle is not counterable without another stifle.) I honestly thought jeskai control would pick it up. I guess it had to be a 2/1 for 2 with 2 mana cycling to see play?
(I did buy a playset recently, just in case it picks up steam.)
I think a lot of people misunderstand his point. Across the full set of match-ups, a deck like Storm or Scapeshift has a number of 65/35s and 35/65s because of the mostly linear nature of the deck. Either the strategy works versus a particular opponent or doesn't. You'll win some of those matches by just getting out of bed in the morning (and likewise lose some). It can still make sense to play one of those decks when you see a net positive across the expected meta.
Midrange match-ups aren't typically so polarizing; there are much more 55/45s and 45/55s depending on how interaction lines up with an opponent's plan. By the nature of a deck like BGx, there aren't very many "I win" matches. It can still make sense to play one of those decks when you see a net positive across the expected meta. But if you introduce a couple of bad (and popular) 35/65 match-ups without any corresponding 65/35s, suddenly midrange becomes a terrible proposition. I think that's why you hear so many midrange players complaining about a specific match-up where they're significant underdogs. It's not that specific opponent's deck so much as that for midrange to be competitive it needs to have a chance even when it's unfavored. Otherwise you're playing a deck with a large downside risk and little upside. That can kill large swathes of a vast, popular archetype.
You're free to feel unmoved by their complaints; that's the motivation though. Most reasonable midrange players don't want to be favored in every match-up, they just want it to be mostly even-ish so that midrange remains a competitive choice. At this point, I wouldn't recommend anyone play midrange (like BGx). Either do something broken or play another archetype.
*Note -- I'm using 'midrange' here to mean 'fair midrange' since we're talking about BGx-like decks. I recognize there are other types within the spectrum.
To a large extent, this is just me ranting about a deck I hate. I know that. I hate the premise of a deck with zero bad matchups. In fact, jund has always had a bad tron matchup. That seemed acceptable - close or favorable vs the field and bad against one style in ramp strategies. Fatal Push altered the meta enough that several of jund's better matchups are gone, replaced by ramp decks that lost to those vanishing archetypes (mainly infect). I am highly competitive, and the grinder, expected value mentality favors something like BGx. Hell, my local meta has tons of BGx, Grixis Delver or Shadow, and other fair decks for that very reason. They want minimal risk to that prize payout. However, funny enough that's why major tournaments always end up being won by Affinity, Eldrazi etc - the conservative field of midrange gets pwned.
Honestly I'm getting interested in this UWR flash deck. I know Storm will have a target on its back simply by WOTC's opinion of the mechanic, and it really sucks having a competitive deck and feeling the urge of needing to buy another to avoid a two month hiatus via banhammer like I had to endure last year with Kiln Fiend.
I agree with the person you replied to, and given what you said here, I think I agree with you too. Fair Midrange survives by having close to even matchups across the board, and using player skill to bring matchups to 50/50 or better. If a deck itself actually was 55/45 against the field, the meta would adapt, or everyone would play it (and then the meta would probably adapt).
Every deck should have bad matchups. That's how metas work. But, to be fair, fair Midrange has a really bad ramp matchup. Of course, if you can figure out a deck that goes 55/45 against everything else, I won't feel too bad for Midrange players.
I don't think Midrange should have a good ramp matchup, but I do think it should have the tools to fight ramp. I am a fan of using Blood Moon and pressure to pick apart land strategies. Or Spreading Seas to hit key lands. Having tools doesn't make the matchup good, but it does help the matchup not be 70/30, and I think that's good for the meta.
On Jeskai, I'm really hoping it becomes the new Midrange deck of the format. It can play Control, but can also put up a clock to fight ramp. Basically, a lot like what Shadow has been doing.
Interested in RUG (Temur) Delver in Modern? Find gameplay with live commentary at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8UcKe8jVh1e2N4CHbd3fhg
I agree entirely and I think that twin should be unbanned. But to have a completely realistic conversation what is being said here is that twin limited diversity by limiting the success rates of several tier 2-3 decks at that time. Some people say it delt with liniar degeneracy while others call that limiting diversity. That is the core of the twin ban communication problem we have on this board.
But by what do you decree that those decks (at least the ones that are decent) would disappear? Most of them are "swarm" aggro decks which spot removal is often not that amazing against because you kill one threat and they have a lot left. Sure, Punishing Fire can recur and hit more things (if you have it and Grove of the Burnwillows in play), but it's slow at doing so. Now, someone might claim they weren't that big when Punishing Fire was around, but that ignores the various upgrades many have gotten; Faeries didn't have Bitterblossom, and Merfolk was missing Master of the Pearl Trident (making buffing easier and Punishing Fire worse). Elves didn't have Collected Company, which is key to its grinding gameplan that allows is to deal with removal. It also ignores several things in some of the decks that give it an edge: Death & Taxes's land destruction makes Grove of the Burnwillows a lot worse, Soul Sisters benefits from lifegain.
Counters Company would definitely be much weaker, though. Its grinding plan is a lot worse than previous Collected Company decks and is mostly just hoping to get the combo out, which Punishing Fire is very effective at thwarting.
Not just viable, but Tier 1. Is there any particular reason to believe it wouldn't be still be Tier 1 with Punishing Fire back in the format? While the format has gone through a number of changes, I don't see anything that makes Affinity weaker against Punishing Fire. Also, the update was September, not October.
I also notice you completely ignored my mention of how amazing Zoo was when Punishing Fire was around. If anything, the worry regarding Punishing Fire is not that it'll invalidate creature decks, but that it'll make one creature deck in particular (Zoo) way too good, which was really the problem with it back then. It's why Wild Nacatl was unfairly banned, Zoo was so good and they wanted to hit a card directly from the deck, probably worrying that hitting the card indirectly responsible for its rise wouldn't do the trick.
Oh yeah. While we're at it, let's pretend that Anger of the Gods is more oppressive than Punishing Grove. Seems reasonable. [/quote]Missing the point. Punishing Fire does what Pyroclasm does, but only to one creature at a time, whereas Pyroclasm hits all of them at once. So, assuming you do have Grove of the Burnwillows, you spend 2 mana on turn two and 3 mana on turn three just to accomplish potentially less than Pyroclasm did for 2 mana on turn two.
Similarly, Anger of the Gods hits for more damage and for less mana than Punishing Fire does. It takes a while for Punishing Fire to get better than those cards, and if you survive that long against an aggro deck then the game is probably yours anyway.
And I am not speaking out of my ass. I'll leave with 1 example of balance in Modern. A player known to loan out 2-3 extra Tron decks, while playing one himself (he's a vendor) was banned from our shop for purchasing cards within the shop to a shop employee. So, basically, 3-4 Tron decks left our 40 person meta. The next week, I saw literally 5 Jeskai Nahiri decks. It wasn't even so much that it was a rough matchup, but that our meta was pretty messed up. As much as I despise Tron a bit, I learned to appreciate it a bit more in the next few weeks.
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)But in attempt to dialogue with you, I just don't think you realize how oppressive Punishing Grove can be. It doesn't just deal two damage at a time to creatures. It's excellent in multiples and can be used against players (one damage at a time). Even a single copy of Punishing Fire can be used twice in the same turn on an individual creature, provided the spell started the turn in your hand. And as an avid D&T player, and I'm telling you that the land destruction route is an extremely unreliable way to deal with the problem.
I ignored the Zoo comment because it's irrelevant. That's like saying the second-best deck during Eldrazi Winter wasn't invalidated by the Eldrazi decks.
Furthermore, I don't think you can treat anything from 2011 as reliable data points about the format. The format was new and the dust was still settling. Fire and Nacatl were the last two cards banned before nine months of no changes to the ban list. Nacatl was splash damage from Fire, just like BBE is still splash damage from Deathrite Shaman. You shouldn't use a period of sweeping changes to the format as evidence that an individual card should be unbanned.
This is probably your worst set of points. The oppressiveness of Punishing Grove comes from its versatility, including its ability to hit players. It's a Swiss-Army knife for an aggro deck; it removes blockers, it hits players, it acts as a fantastic mana sink, and it's reusable. If you can't tell the difference between Punishing Grove and Pyroclasm or Anger of the Gods, I don't know how to help you.
WUDeath&TaxesWG
Legacy
UBRGDredgeUBRG
UHigh TideU
URGLandsURG
WR Card Choice List
WUR American D&T
WUB Esper D&T
The Reserved List
Heat Maps
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
CG
The claim that competitive diversity was hurt is categorically and numerically untrue if the metric we judge this by is variety of different decks that make Top 8/26/32/Day 2/etc. Sure, it wasn't the super high-variance mess* it is now, but there was MASSIVE diversity among winners and Top X decks at all high level paper events when Twin was legal.
Twin was able to "deal" with linear degeneracy by not letting it get to the levels it was in 2016 (or are right now) because it either forced them to cut speed for interaction or have them risk losing turn 4. It never crushed any of them out of the format (Affinity, Burn, Infect were all T1) and lower T2 decks had several shining points in multiple big paper tournaments. This trend to obnoxious degeneracy happened when Twin was removed and absolutely no respectable tempo/control/reactive deck took its place. Until a deck like that returns, the best options in Modern will be to do something fast, powerful, and hard to hate out. Then cross your fingers and hope you don't get that one guy who built his deck with all the silver bullets for your narrow deck. That is a miserable way to play the game, IMO.
*the claim that it's an utter mess is my opinion, but the fact it's high variance is not.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
There really wasn't an appreciable increase in creature decks after Punishing Fire got banned. Birthing Pod was good, but it was decent while Punishing Fire was around. Weirdly, the deck that got the most benefit from the Punishing Fire ban was Jund, which suddenly rose to become one of the best decks in the format--although, admittedly, the banning of Wild Nacatl could have had a lot to do with that also.
As for the Skullclamp example, that misses a key difference between the cards: Skullclamp doesn't "invalidate" anything, at least not directly. It isn't a card that's just so darn good against a particular kind of deck that that kind of deck can't compete; it's a card that's just insanely good, as is true for most cards on the banned list. Ancestral Recall isn't overpowered because it's so effective against any particular kind of deck, it's just such an astoundingly overpowered card that it's banned for that reason. Come to think of it, Punishing Fire is a bit of an anomaly on the banned list in that it's primarily an answer card. The only other cards like that that are banned or restricted in the major formats would seem to be Jace and (in Vintage) Trinisphere.
Punishing Fire can be used against players but it's very ineffective and slow at doing so--granted, it can add up, but that's more for grinding against midrange or control rather than something to deal with decks heavily based around creatures. However, let's again look at what you stated. "Even a single copy of Punishing Fire can be used twice in the same turn on an individual creature." Sure, you can do that on one creature. It also means you spent 5 mana (2 to cast Punishing Fire, 1 to get it back, 2 to cast it again) to deal four damage to a creature. You could've done that for 1 mana with Flame Slash.
True, the point is that Punishing Fire can recur and do it over and over again whereas Flame Slash is a one-shot thing. But it takes time for Punishing Fire to be able to add up to be better than other cards, which is usually not all that impressive against creature decks which aim to defeat the opponent quickly.
On Death & Taxes, it is true that land destruction is unreliable, but my point was that it's still a strategy that can be utilized to an extent many can't.
How is it irrelevant? Let's look back at your comment: Zoo is a creature deck. If it isn't invalidated (and history indicates that far from being invalidated, it would become the best deck in the format with Punishing Fire legal), then that clearly disproves your claim that all of them would.
Hrm, when did I ever argue Punishing Fire should be unbanned? I was pointing out how completely ridiculous your claim that it would invalidate all creature decks by pointing out creature decks it didn't invalidate as well as the fact that the creature decks someone could point to as having been invalidated didn't seem to be all that helped by its banning. Considerably better arguments against Punishing Fire than the claim it invalidates creature decks would be that it might make Zoo insanely good like it did before or that it would be problematically pervasive.
As for the claim of "dust settling" I don't see how that disproves my points regarding Zoo and Affinity. Punishing Fire was very popular, and those decks were able to thrive in a format where it was widely played. If anything, "dust settling" seems like it would likely to see a reduction in Punishing Fire as people attempt to better deal with the decks that aren't all that impressed by it.
Of course a strength of it is its ability to hurt players. The point was that against decks heavily based on creatures, including the ones you mentioned, that "versatility" is actually weaker than cards already legal in the format. Its strength (compared to those cards) is more that it's decent against decks that don't care about Pyroclasm, but that doesn't explain how it invalidates creature decks.
Also, I'm very confused by your statement that it's "a Swiss-Army knife for an aggro deck" indicating it's great for an aggro deck, but this is to try to back up your claim that it invalidates all the creature decks? How does that work, for the card to be at its best in the decks it supposedly invalidates?
The decks that it trips up the hardest will also play it. In fact, every magic player and his mother will be forced to play it.
Punishing fire has a color requirement, so it won't be as bad, but every red magic player? definitely. It'll be like 2 creature decks at it with Jitte unbanned; the one who draws jitte first will win. Likewise, in an aggro mirror, the one who draws punishing fire will win.
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
In exchange, you've returned with:
1) CharonsObol says Punishing Fire invalidates creature decks
2) Zoo is a creature deck that uses Punishing Fire
3) Therefore, CharonsObol is wrong
Even though this is the internet, I'm pretty sure that most readers are capable of discerning that this response...
...is using sarcasm to prove a point. I can't believe I have to spell this out explicitly, but I didn't mean that literally every deck running creatures can no longer win games of Magic.
From the original 2011 B&R Announcement Explanations: More or less, I've repeated this justification using different words. You've chosen to argue with me about it. I'm not sure why you've chosen to argue with me - especially since you conceded that you're not necessarily advocating its unbanning - but here we are. You don't have to take it from me that Punishing Fire reduces deck diversity by crippling small creature decks; you can literally take it from WotC instead. WotC was pretty clear about it. I've been pretty clear about it. And your only response has been that the prevalence of Zoo and Affinity between October and December of 2011 is proof that creature decks will still exist.
I don't know what to tell you.
I'm just going to be over here playing Modern without Punishing Fire. You can be over there doing whatever you want.
WUDeath&TaxesWG
Legacy
UBRGDredgeUBRG
UHigh TideU
URGLandsURG
WR Card Choice List
WUR American D&T
WUB Esper D&T
The Reserved List
Heat Maps
On top of this modern does have tools to limit the effects of this card, Relic of Progenitus being one, and a popular one at that, and to lesser extent, Nihil Spellbomb, Exterpate, Rest in Peace, and even Spell Queller. Plus add in the normal fear of Storms graveyard synergy...
I don't think Burn would want this, even in mirror. Why? Some people think of it as anti life gain. But really any life gain over 2 they fall behind on each casting. Maybe creature removal, but burn doesn't care about small creatures, and can play Path in Naya or Boros.
I can understand Zoo or Shamanism wanting to play this as their clock isn't primarily burn, just supported by it.
Does it pose a risk? Yeah I can see small creature decks fearing this, but this meta doesn't seem to be small creature friendly.
Edit: I haven't taken into account of many tier 2 decks, but we can bring this up in further posts.
Thanks to Heroes of the Plane Studios for the sigpic.
Spider-Man Mafia 3 (Off-Site: NGA)
Metroid Mafia (Off-Site: Mafia Universe)
But its easy to point out the decks it would cripple - like merfolk and elves. Darkblast is already horrible to play against for elves, i can't imagine if the repeatable spell was for 2.
So yea, saying the top tier decks won't care about it doesn't help the unbanning case. You have to look at the decks it will destroy - it will just mean already tier 2 or lower decks will be further pushed into oblivion. It would be even worse if the top tier decks were able to incorporate this into their sideboards to further dominate.
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
Would Punishing Fire be too good for Modern? I don't know. Certainly not right now, I don't think, but I haven't tested and can't make any statements without doing so.