Also, I don't want to deal with Grixis Shadow that can play Probe.
EDIT: I've got the Mardu list built - while I'm still learning the ins and outs of the deck, it feels very legit. Bedlam Reveller and K-Command are a very powerful synergy and when you need to fill your bin with spells anyway, Young Pyro becomes really powerful, too. Also, while Selfeisek has far and away the most 5-0s with the deck, a lot of other players are putting up 5-0s with the list occasionally too; feels like it really has legs. Especially since Selfeisek's list has stayed unchanged for months now.
I'm beginning to think that the Gitaxian Probe ban was a bit premature
Hear me out:
Sure, infect/zoo shadow/Bloo could kill consistently on turn 3, and sometimes even turn 2 if you got lucky. BUT, each of these decks could be kept in check by decks packing plenty of removal: jeskai, grixis delver, jund ect ect
Not only that, but fatal push was RIGHT around the corner, providing yet another foil to each of these probe-using archetypes.
Bloo is dead. Bloo remains dead. And we have killed him.
Let's face it. All of the probe decks increased the necessity for interaction, leading to altogether better gameplay. Grixis Delver was quite well positioned in the infect era.
But wait - there's more.
Enter: BIG MANA
Probe decks were the natural foil to Tron and Valakut, hereby collectively named "big mana"
The cycle was thus perfect. Probe aggro lost to interactive decks, which lost to big mana, which in turn lost to probe aggro.
Now, the cycle has been broken
Big mana once again reigns supreme. How did this happen? It all harkens back to the Probe banning.
The consequences will never be the same
There was another card around the corner too, Baral. I do on occasion still play storm (I find the gifts version less interesting to play than the ascension version) probe probably went when it did with WoTC knowing that card was coming, in addition to the speed of the bloo decks. As much as it made storm players angry at the time probe is probably a correct ban at the correct time (sadly)
I dont think that they do bans with future cards in mind. At the time of Probe, I'm pretty sure Storm was still using Pyromancer Ascension, aka the much worse version. Not only was Baral, Chief of Compliance huge, but also Pieces of the Puzzle, which enables a non reliance on actual permanents to win.
So I think that Probe ban is warranted now that we saw Baral and Pieces printed after the bans, but at the time of the ban Storm didn't look that scary and I would have been arguing that the Probe ban was way too premature
Normally I would agree but IMO they were after a ban which harmed certain decks. The majority of the community expected a become immense ban, what we got was probe and in this case I think (no evidence WoTC just hates storm) they picked the card that was 2nd in line because knew Baral was due.
Either way at this point Baral or probe would need to be banned due to the power of storm now so as angry as the probe ban made me at the time I'm (sort of) glad it happened when it did.
On a different subject, here's Jeff Hoogland with a "nuclear solution" to Modern. Which obviously is even more impossible than my own "nuclear solution" I discussed time ago.
But what I found interesting is I asked myself: "Would Modern be more fun and interesting if they went nuclear the way Jeff proposes?"
And my answer was: "Hell yeah, 1000 times more, like there's 0 doubt"
Banning Power Plant and Grapeshot in that metagame reeks of bias. In fact, all of the proposed bans do. You'd just see a handful of extremely powerful midrange decks with basically no checks on them. The format would be significantly less diverse, although the handful of top decks duking it out would probably be more interactive. But that's Legacy gameplay where there are just a handful of contenders. It's not Modern.
Keep Ponder and DTT banned. Don't ban ANY of his ridiculous suggestions. Then unban all the other cards he mentioned. THAT would be an exciting and diverse Modern.
On a different subject, here's Jeff Hoogland with a "nuclear solution" to Modern. Which obviously is even more impossible than my own "nuclear solution" I discussed time ago.
But what I found interesting is I asked myself: "Would Modern be more fun and interesting if they went nuclear the way Jeff proposes?"
And my answer was: "Hell yeah, 1000 times more, like there's 0 doubt"
Banning Power Plant and Grapeshot in that metagame reeks of bias. In fact, all of the proposed bans do. You'd just see a handful of extremely powerful midrange decks with basically no checks on them. The format would be significantly less diverse, although the handful of top decks duking it out would probably be more interactive. But that's Legacy gameplay where there are just a handful of contenders. It's not Modern.
Keep Ponder and DTT banned. Don't ban ANY of his ridiculous suggestions. Then unban all the other cards he mentioned. THAT would be an exciting and diverse Modern.
I don't think I dislike a magic 'pro' and their opinions more than Jeff Hoogland. If you cant see how banning mox opal kills affinity, or how Chrome mox is different from a Lotus petal you can't save him!
I actually like a lot of his unban choices. I just don't think something has to be banned along with those. I honestly do think that Bloodbraid Elf, Stoneforge Mystic, Jace, the Mind Sculptor, Preordain (not Ponder), Green Sun's Zenith, and possibly Dig Through Time would be all right. But why would you need to do bans? I kind of like Tron being around, especially if fair Midrange decks get powered up. It's a check, just like when Deathrite Shaman was legal, most Tron players that I knew still had their way with the deck. They could care less.
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)
I swear to god though, after having Eye of Ugin ban, then my brain in the jar rules-****ed, if they ban Ancient Stirrings or Mox Opal I'm done with Modern. I'll save a singleton Karn, Opal, Ugin, Bridge for EDH and start drafting.
I've been killed on T3 by burn or Affinity more times than I can remember, but T3 Karn is a bridge too far for people?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: -UBG Lantern Control-GW or RG or R Tron - G Stompy - C KCI Combo-
EDH: -UG Ezuri-UGZegana-BRMogis-WUBRGRamos-WBREdgar-URLocust God-WUBRBreya-BMacar-WUBrago-WEvra-
I see basically zero reason for GSZ, bloodbraid, jace, or stoneforge to be on any ban list, especially without a record behind them. GSZ was never really *that* dominant, it just "reduced diversity" or whatever bullcrap.
I'd like to see all the fair cards come off at once and then assess them all together over a year or two and see what should go.
I really do not want to play with Jace to be honest, but it's a card that should have to prove itself a problem -- there're so many cheap answers to it in modern.
I don't always agree with Hoogland, but at least most of his ideas are consistent. If fast mana is bad then get rid of all the fast mana. If t4 is the gate then get rid of things that give you pre t4 kills even if they aren't reliable. He even runs GB Tron a lot in modern because if you think something is broken enough that it should be banned then, surprise, you should probably be running it then.
The number of other people who think a t3 Karn 25% of the time is too much, but for storm/counters company to actually win the game on t3 20% of the time is far too high.
So here are my two cents on Hoogland's article. I'm going to address thoughts as they come to me.
Ban List Inconsistencies Fast Mana (Chrome Mox & Rite of Flame VS Mox Opal & Simian Spirit Guide)
I am glad he started with this because it made me stop for a moment and simply ask, "Are you F%$&ing kidding me?" Wizards doesn't want all fast mana banned from Modern. That's why we still have Pyretic Ritual, Desperate Ritual, Opal, and SSG. But Wizards DOES want the completely overpowered ones out of the format. I mean lets compare Chrome Mox to Mox Opal. Chrome Mox requires you to have a coloured card in your hand in order to use it. That's it. Sure it only makes a specified range of coloured mana for you, but you get to dictate what those colours are. Add to the fact that it isn't legendary, and oh boy do you have some fun mana acceleration in there. I mean hell let's go outside the scope of combo decks for a minute. I think I could reasonably see even decks like Jund slotting 3-4 Chrome Mox into their decks if it were legal. I mean *****, turn 1 Liliana of the Veil and I have enough mana to play anything else I draw the rest of the game? SIGN ME UP. Compare that to Mox Opal that while it isn't limited in what colours of mana it can make, but rather the type of deck it can be played in. Having enough artifacts in your decks to consistently have Metalcraft on to make Opal fast mana is no easy take. There's a reason that the only decks that utilize Opal are Robots, Lantern, and KCI-Combo. All of those decks are centered around artifacts, so they can make Opal into a good source of quick mana. But outside of those decks, Opal does a good Darksteel Relic impersonation, only without the indestructible. The difference between Chrome Mox and Opal is simply that Opal has a restriction which allow it to only be played in specific decks, whereas Chrome Mox can literally be played in almost every deck. Funnily enough, the decks that utilize Opal, would most likely be unable to use Chrome Mox as they couldn't reliably have a card to imprint for it.
And if we compare Rite of Flame to Desperate/Pyretic Ritual, the numbers are just stupid. Let's assume you can 4 Rites. In total you have spent 4 mana and gotten a return of 14. Now let's compare that to the Rituals. If you use 4 of either Ritual in a game (assuming no Splicing with Desperate) you are spending 8 mana to get a total of 12 mana. Now lets compare these numbers. 4->14 VS 8->12. If you cannot see how much more immensely powerful Rite of Flame is (and thus why it is banned) then I can't help you. Getting back than more than triple the mana you have put in is completely ludicrous.
Fast Combo Kills (Summer Bloom VS Goryo's Vengeance)
I think the biggest difference between these cards is simply the rather of interaction available to counteract the strategy trying to be pulled off. With Summer Bloom, your goal is to get a bunch of mana through playing lands with an Amulet of Vigor in play, then slam down Primeval Titan and ta-da! You win! Don't have a Titan in hand? No problem, Summoner's Pact has you covered. Don't have a Pact? No problem! Tolaria West has you covered! Hell even if you didn't have Summer Bloom that was fine. You also ran some Azusa, Lost but Seekings to help with those too. On top of which you also have access to Serum Visions and Ancient Stirrings to help find you whatever the hell you need essentially. The deck is way too many pieces working to make a deck way too consistent. Now compare that with Vengeance decks. You have to get lucky to draw your Griselbrand since Modern doesn't have anything like Entomb or Buried Alive. Sure you could run Summoner's pact to find your Griselbrand, but you need to make sure you win that turn, or else, you essentially lose the game. While the Vengeance decks can be good, and definitely do have the potential to kill on turn 2, they are nowhere near as consistent. The difference in why one card is banned here, and another is unbanned is basically down to how consistent the deck either card was in happened to be. If Vengeance decks had the consistency of Amulet Bloom, I have no doubts what so ever that the card would be on the chopping block.
Cantrips (Ponder VS Ancient Stirrings)
The issue here is basically like a combination of the two I previously mentioned. Ponder has a wider array of use than Stirrings does, but Stirrings can offer more consistency than Ponder. However I think people believe Stirrings is better than it actually is. Don't get me wrong, I play Lantern, and honestly Stirrings is one of the biggest reasons to keep green in the deck. However it is not the end-all, be-all consistency engine that allows every colourless deck to suddenly be super godlike amazing. These are just my personal thoughts on the matter, but if Stirrings were THAT good, Eldrazi Tron would be running it. There are more than enough lands which produced colourless and green mana in Modern that it wouldn't be that difficult for them to add the card to the deck. But who knows, maybe I'm completely wrong on this one.
Big Mana (Cloudpost VS UrzaTronLands)
This one I actually kind of agree with Hoogland on. While I don't think the tron lands are bad enough for Modern to deserve a ban, it does look odd when you compare the Tron lands to Cloudpost. However if you look at the progression of Tron lands VS Posts, the math is a little more skewed towards one than the other. With tron the progression is 1->2->7. Let's assume an average case with Cloudpost is to have 2 of them on turn 3 with a Glimmerpost. Essentially the progression for mana in that instance is 1->4->7. Obviously this ignores that the Posts enter the battlefield tapped. If we assume that 3 posts will be in play on turn 3 though the progression is 1->4->9, which is much steeper. But who knows. Perhaps the answer to the 'tron problem' is to ban the tron lands but unban Cloudpost. Hell at least I feel like that would be something interesting to look into.
That's all I can type out for now, maybe I'll throw more opinions in later.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks: UBG Lantern Control GBU BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
On a different subject, here's Jeff Hoogland with a "nuclear solution" to Modern. Which obviously is even more impossible than my own "nuclear solution" I discussed time ago.
But what I found interesting is I asked myself: "Would Modern be more fun and interesting if they went nuclear the way Jeff proposes?"
And my answer was: "Hell yeah, 1000 times more, like there's 0 doubt"
Hoogland is a tool. He's working on the assumption that the ban list has to have consistency, which just isn't true. The ban list should have offenders on it, not offenders and all things like them. Consider Legacy. Black Lotus is banned for being the fastest of mana, but Dark Ritual is completely fine. We know certain mechanics are ban worthy in Magic, but it's a spectrum, not a definitive line.
Quote from Skitzafreak »
Stuff
You can't summoner's pact for Griselbrand. See Summoner's Pact. Tron lets you play Karn on turn 3. Cloudpost lets you play Emrakul the Aeons Torn on turn 4. Big difference. You're not accounting for Vesuva. t1 Cloudpost, t2 Cloudpost, play G signet/talisman/expedition map. t3 Play Vesuva, Scrying/Map for Cloudpost. T4 Emrakul, is not even a difficult line to imagine.
THIS 100X!!! If you don't agree with this then there is no amount of logic that will ever convince you that good, non-oppressive, combos should be allowed. If you don't agree with it then just don't play this game, and you certainly shouldn't feel entitled to make any comment on ban lists ever.
You can't summoner's pact for Griselbrand. See Summoner's Pact. Tron lets you play Karn on turn 3. Cloudpost lets you play Emrakul the Aeons Torn on turn 4. Big difference. You're not accounting for Vesuva. t1 Cloudpost, t2 Cloudpost, play G signet/talisman/expedition map. t3 Play Vesuva, Scrying/Map for Cloudpost. T4 Emrakul, is not even a difficult line to imagine.
I wish there was a Pact that searched for any creature, not just Green ones, as not finding Griselbrand is the #1 way the deck loses.
If someone playing Cloudpost can consistently draw and play the card Cloudpost consistently by turn 2, have all of that other stuff, and find Emrakul, the Aeon's Torn without having games that are Emrakul flooded as well, they certainly deserve to win. Saying that it is "not that hard to imagine" for that scenario is akin to people who say that Tron gets Karn Liberated on turn 3 and Ulamog, the Ceaseless Hunger on turn 4 in 50% of their matches. It just doesn't or wouldn't happen. Cloudpost comes into play tapped, which is a HUGE strike against it. The only reason I personally am not completely sure it's fine is Glimmerpost, which potentially gives it game vs. the (non-Infect) Aggro decks that normally tear these Big Mana strategies apart.
Hoogland may be a tool. But he is a player who loves Modern more than any other format and it's not close. This is despite a lot of things really not going his way in the format. Look, who ever expected Hoogland to be running GB Tron? for months?
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)
You can't summoner's pact for Griselbrand. See Summoner's Pact. Tron lets you play Karn on turn 3. Cloudpost lets you play Emrakul the Aeons Torn on turn 4. Big difference. You're not accounting for Vesuva. t1 Cloudpost, t2 Cloudpost, play G signet/talisman/expedition map. t3 Play Vesuva, Scrying/Map for Cloudpost. T4 Emrakul, is not even a difficult line to imagine.
I wish there was a Pact that searched for any creature, not just Green ones, as not finding Griselbrand is the #1 way the deck loses.
If someone playing Cloudpost can consistently draw and play the card Cloudpost consistently by turn 2, have all of that other stuff, and find Emrakul, the Aeon's Torn without having games that are Emrakul flooded as well, they certainly deserve to win. Saying that it is "not that hard to imagine" for that scenario is akin to people who say that Tron gets Karn Liberated on turn 3 and Ulamog, the Ceaseless Hunger on turn 4 in 50% of their matches. It just doesn't or wouldn't happen. Cloudpost comes into play tapped, which is a HUGE strike against it. The only reason I personally am not completely sure it's fine is Glimmerpost, which potentially gives it game vs. the (non-Infect) Aggro decks that normally tear these Big Mana strategies apart.
Hoogland may be a tool. But he is a player who loves Modern more than any other format and it's not close. This is despite a lot of things really not going his way in the format. Look, who ever expected Hoogland to be running GB Tron? for months?
Breachpost was a real deck in modern at one point. I think Hampton played it at PT Philly? You could look it up. We've also gotten more ridiculous spaghetti monsters since then. Emrakul 2 and Ulamog 2 are both game ending too, and cheaper to cast since the original.
THIS 100X!!! If you don't agree with this then there is no amount of logic that will ever convince you that good, non-oppressive, combos should be allowed. If you don't agree with it then just don't play this game, and you certainly shouldn't feel entitled to make any comment on ban lists ever.
Read Hoogland's article. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that he's provided zero games of playtesting with the proposed adjusted format, just conjecture on what he thinks it would look like. Noted, moving on then...
Name calling doesn't help your argument whatsoever. Truth is, I bet he is 1000x the Magic player you are. So let's not dive into semantics because you disagree with someone.
He's working on the assumption that the ban list has to have consistency, which just isn't true. The ban list should have offenders on it, not offenders and all things like them. Consider Legacy. Black Lotus is banned for being the fastest of mana, but Dark Ritual is completely fine. We know certain mechanics are ban worthy in Magic, but it's a spectrum, not a definitive line.
This is the correct method of thinking, unfortunately the problem is where do you place cards like Collected Company, a card that can instantly win the game, Siege Rhino, and Bloodbraid Elf which both can only do in specific situations? Deck building restrictions are also a factor, but I've said this about Collected Company before - having value 3 drops isn't a deck building restriction, it's a puzzle of optimization. The most consistent argument of Bloodbraid Elf and optimization was this imaginary format in Extended that never existed in any tournament setting where Bloodbraid Elf hits Ancestral Vision
So if cards that are less offensive banned, and cards more offensive on the spectrum legal in the format. Then yes, I think there is a logical inconsistency, and with most fair cards on the banned list, that's the exact case.
This is the correct method of thinking, unfortunately the problem is where do you place cards like Collected Company, a card that can instantly win the game, Siege Rhino, and Bloodbraid Elf which both can only do in specific situations? Deck building restrictions are also a factor, but I've said this about Collected Company before - having value 3 drops isn't a deck building restriction, it's a puzzle of optimization. The most consistent argument of Bloodbraid Elf and optimization was this imaginary format in Extended that never existed in any tournament setting where Bloodbraid Elf hits Ancestral Vision
So if cards that are less offensive banned, and cards more offensive on the spectrum legal in the format. Then yes, I think there is a logical inconsistency, and with most fair cards on the banned list, that's the exact case.
I think I see where the disagreement is here and I think you might actually agree.
Hoogland's logic when applied to his suggested BANS is horrible. Ban all fast mana? Ban all decks that can theoretically win before T4? These sorts of suggestions get the full absurdity bingo on logical fallacies, lack of data, lack of dialogue with Wizards' stated goals for Modern, blindness to different player types, and general bias about the format.
But Hoogland's logic when applied to certain UNBANS is actually fine. It's also the same logic that basically everyone uses when talking about many unbans. Why is BBE banned when Company is not? More importantly, why is BBE banned when Jund is Tier 3 at best? These are legitimate arguments. Then again, these types of arguments don't to his other suggestions such as Ponder or DTT or Pod or GSZ etc. etc. This is probably why the thread itself with the article has like 30 upvotes on Reddit, almost 200 comments, and the top comment itself (which tears the article apart) is nearing 300 upvotes. At least my hope in the Modern community is preserved.
Overall, Hoogland's suggestions represent this sort of selective all-or-nothing thinking that is neither supported by large N data like metagame/attendance/tournament analysis, or even small N data like playtesting or personal results. Like another user stated earlier, the bar for Modern writing is often very low. This allows many authors to state opinions as facts without any evidence other than "it's what I believe" and then tryto make critics feel bad for attacking their so-called opinion piece because "it's just my opinion."
My guess is that many people here agree on some of the unbans and bans but disagree on the indefensible method that Hoogland used to arrive at some of his ideas.
This is the correct method of thinking, unfortunately the problem is where do you place cards like Collected Company, a card that can instantly win the game, Siege Rhino, and Bloodbraid Elf which both can only do in specific situations? Deck building restrictions are also a factor, but I've said this about Collected Company before - having value 3 drops isn't a deck building restriction, it's a puzzle of optimization. The most consistent argument of Bloodbraid Elf and optimization was this imaginary format in Extended that never existed in any tournament setting where Bloodbraid Elf hits Ancestral Vision
So if cards that are less offensive banned, and cards more offensive on the spectrum legal in the format. Then yes, I think there is a logical inconsistency, and with most fair cards on the banned list, that's the exact case.
I think I see where the disagreement is here and I think you might actually agree.
Hoogland's logic when applied to his suggested BANS is horrible. Ban all fast mana? Ban all decks that can theoretically win before T4? These sorts of suggestions get the full absurdity bingo on logical fallacies, lack of data, lack of dialogue with Wizards' stated goals for Modern, blindness to different player types, and general bias about the format.
But Hoogland's logic when applied to certain UNBANS is actually fine. It's also the same logic that basically everyone uses when talking about many unbans. Why is BBE banned when Company is not? More importantly, why is BBE banned when Jund is Tier 3 at best? These are legitimate arguments. Then again, these types of arguments don't to his other suggestions such as Ponder or DTT or Pod or GSZ etc. etc. This is probably why the thread itself with the article has like 30 upvotes on Reddit, almost 200 comments, and the top comment itself (which tears the article apart) is nearing 300 upvotes. At least my hope in the Modern community is preserved.
Overall, Hoogland's suggestions represent this sort of selective all-or-nothing thinking that is neither supported by large N data like metagame/attendance/tournament analysis, or even small N data like playtesting or personal results. Like another user stated earlier, the bar for Modern writing is often very low. This allows many authors to state opinions as facts without any evidence other than "it's what I believe" and then tryto make critics feel bad for attacking their so-called opinion piece because "it's just my opinion."
My guess is that many people here agree on some of the unbans and bans but disagree on the indefensible method that Hoogland used to arrive at some of his ideas.
I completely agree with you ktkenshinx, and I also agree that my faith in the Modern community is actually stronger based on that Reddit Thread. I'd like to point out that I believe it's a simple philosophical dilemma, we have a potentially true conclusion, but it's covered in false premises. The character writing this article is very headstrong and mathematically inclined, and since it's 2017 and we still cannot properly put most decks on some type of weird Venn Diagram based on levels of interaction, it's not difficult to see why Magic is hard to classify or even much less justify in specific areas as to what's "good" or "bad" for a format.
I'm just glad people are talking, because the biggest mistake this year was Wizards declaring they didn't want to change the format before the Pro Tour, hopefully the community puts the sock in Wizards mouth, and just actually gives us our fair cards back in the Pro Tour spotlight.
Name calling doesn't help your argument whatsoever. Truth is, I bet he is 1000x the Magic player you are. So let's not dive into semantics because you disagree with someone.
He's working on the assumption that the ban list has to have consistency, which just isn't true. The ban list should have offenders on it, not offenders and all things like them. Consider Legacy. Black Lotus is banned for being the fastest of mana, but Dark Ritual is completely fine. We know certain mechanics are ban worthy in Magic, but it's a spectrum, not a definitive line.
This is the correct method of thinking, unfortunately the problem is where do you place cards like Collected Company, a card that can instantly win the game, Siege Rhino, and Bloodbraid Elf which both can only do in specific situations? Deck building restrictions are also a factor, but I've said this about Collected Company before - having value 3 drops isn't a deck building restriction, it's a puzzle of optimization. The most consistent argument of Bloodbraid Elf and optimization was this imaginary format in Extended that never existed in any tournament setting where Bloodbraid Elf hits Ancestral Vision
So if cards that are less offensive banned, and cards more offensive on the spectrum legal in the format. Then yes, I think there is a logical inconsistency, and with most fair cards on the banned list, that's the exact case.
Just because he's a decent Magic player doesn't necessarily mean that his opinions on the banned list - or the way he conducts himself in the community - aren't worth criticizing.
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.
I swear to god though, after having Eye of Ugin ban, then my brain in the jar rules-****ed, if they ban Ancient Stirrings or Mox Opal I'm done with Modern. I'll save a singleton Karn, Opal, Ugin, Bridge for EDH and start drafting.
I've been killed on T3 by burn or Affinity more times than I can remember, but T3 Karn is a bridge too far for people?
I'm commenting with a very obvious personal bias; I'm a control/combo control player at heart. Most of Tron's threats aren't really issues. My big issues with Tron at this point are the on cast triggers on Worldbreaker and Ulamog. Ugin, Karn, Wurmcoil Engine, Reality Smasher, and Thought-Knot Seer are mostly fine cards that while strong aren't huge issues. We have the ability to interact with said cards either on the stack or in our opponents hand. Even a hardcast Emmy was never an issue in my mind. On cast triggers are bull***** though because I don't have good enough interaction to fight them. Even if I counter a worldbreaker or Ulamog the damage is typically done (especially if you get 2-3 cast triggers off over the course of a game).
Also cavern of souls is a very dumb card (more directed at E Tron and tribal decks) with no real downside (outside of being turned off by blood moon I guess). I really wish cavern of souls was balanced in some way like having a cipt clause or costing life to cast through it or something of the sort.
It's funny to me that the worst mana bases you can be playing in modern is arguably a fetch/shock base (this might be a slight overstatement, not sure how others feel about it). I'd love to get to run more colorless utility lands without being punished by my mana base.
I believe that Hoogland was really onto something with many of the unbans that he proposed. Those could possibly get fair decks a chance in Modern. But...on the other hand, he wanted so many cards banned as well. I don't like the thought of fair decks being powered up so much, yet, their natural predators in Tron and E Tron both being taken out. That just reeks of bias, but honestly I feel a lot of people that like to play fair Magic may feel that it is the only real option to get us there. They may even be right about this. A Bloodbraid Elf, Jace, the Mind Sculptor, and Stoneforge Mystic unbans don't seemingly have much of an impact if done. I could be wrong. It seems like there would be a lot of excitement; possibly a Masters set sold for the Jace Lottery. But I don't think those cards would slot into Tier 1 Modern decks. I don't know if that's a good thing or not.
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)
Jace and Stoneforge pretty obviously slot into tier 1 strategies from what we've seen in Jeskai control and Jeskai Geist/Queller. We haven't seen a ton of it, but we've seen a little bit of spellqueller in legacy stoneblade decks. BBE is pretty much a fine unban at this point.
GBx vs UWr a matchup which has been history pretty close to 50/50 (probably slightly in favor of jeskai) has started to feel noticeably lopsided with the printing of search for azcanta.
I believe that Hoogland was really onto something with many of the unbans that he proposed. Those could possibly get fair decks a chance in Modern. But...on the other hand, he wanted so many cards banned as well. I don't like the thought of fair decks being powered up so much, yet, their natural predators in Tron and E Tron both being taken out. That just reeks of bias, but honestly I feel a lot of people that like to play fair Magic may feel that it is the only real option to get us there. They may even be right about this. A Bloodbraid Elf, Jace, the Mind Sculptor, and Stoneforge Mystic unbans don't seemingly have much of an impact if done. I could be wrong. It seems like there would be a lot of excitement; possibly a Masters set sold for the Jace Lottery. But I don't think those cards would slot into Tier 1 Modern decks. I don't know if that's a good thing or not.
he is right that we need huge changes like he mentioned if we want to reach a more interactive grindy format.
This is the correct method of thinking, unfortunately the problem is where do you place cards like Collected Company, a card that can instantly win the game, Siege Rhino, and Bloodbraid Elf which both can only do in specific situations? Deck building restrictions are also a factor, but I've said this about Collected Company before - having value 3 drops isn't a deck building restriction, it's a puzzle of optimization. The most consistent argument of Bloodbraid Elf and optimization was this imaginary format in Extended that never existed in any tournament setting where Bloodbraid Elf hits Ancestral Vision
So if cards that are less offensive banned, and cards more offensive on the spectrum legal in the format. Then yes, I think there is a logical inconsistency, and with most fair cards on the banned list, that's the exact case.
I think I see where the disagreement is here and I think you might actually agree.
Hoogland's logic when applied to his suggested BANS is horrible. Ban all fast mana? Ban all decks that can theoretically win before T4? These sorts of suggestions get the full absurdity bingo on logical fallacies, lack of data, lack of dialogue with Wizards' stated goals for Modern, blindness to different player types, and general bias about the format.
But Hoogland's logic when applied to certain UNBANS is actually fine. It's also the same logic that basically everyone uses when talking about many unbans. Why is BBE banned when Company is not? More importantly, why is BBE banned when Jund is Tier 3 at best? These are legitimate arguments. Then again, these types of arguments don't to his other suggestions such as Ponder or DTT or Pod or GSZ etc. etc. This is probably why the thread itself with the article has like 30 upvotes on Reddit, almost 200 comments, and the top comment itself (which tears the article apart) is nearing 300 upvotes. At least my hope in the Modern community is preserved.
Overall, Hoogland's suggestions represent this sort of selective all-or-nothing thinking that is neither supported by large N data like metagame/attendance/tournament analysis, or even small N data like playtesting or personal results. Like another user stated earlier, the bar for Modern writing is often very low. This allows many authors to state opinions as facts without any evidence other than "it's what I believe" and then tryto make critics feel bad for attacking their so-called opinion piece because "it's just my opinion."
My guess is that many people here agree on some of the unbans and bans but disagree on the indefensible method that Hoogland used to arrive at some of his ideas.
How do you know his bans wouldn't make modern any better?
Just because you don't like his suggestions doesn't mean he's wrong.
Hes way more of a modern player than you are. And his feelings are that if the format where to be changed the most broken cards are the first culprits.
Hes spittballing and he knows it. He even admits he's alright with the format atm. It's just what he thinks would need to be changed if people wanted longer more skill intense back and forth.
Name calling doesn't help your argument whatsoever. Truth is, I bet he is 1000x the Magic player you are. So let's not dive into semantics because you disagree with someone.
He's working on the assumption that the ban list has to have consistency, which just isn't true. The ban list should have offenders on it, not offenders and all things like them. Consider Legacy. Black Lotus is banned for being the fastest of mana, but Dark Ritual is completely fine. We know certain mechanics are ban worthy in Magic, but it's a spectrum, not a definitive line.
This is the correct method of thinking, unfortunately the problem is where do you place cards like Collected Company, a card that can instantly win the game, Siege Rhino, and Bloodbraid Elf which both can only do in specific situations? Deck building restrictions are also a factor, but I've said this about Collected Company before - having value 3 drops isn't a deck building restriction, it's a puzzle of optimization. The most consistent argument of Bloodbraid Elf and optimization was this imaginary format in Extended that never existed in any tournament setting where Bloodbraid Elf hits Ancestral Vision
So if cards that are less offensive banned, and cards more offensive on the spectrum legal in the format. Then yes, I think there is a logical inconsistency, and with most fair cards on the banned list, that's the exact case.
Just because he's a decent Magic player doesn't necessarily mean that his opinions on the banned list - or the way he conducts himself in the community - aren't worth criticizing.
but when people here call him an idiot. When basically noone on this forum is a pro modern enthusiast. Shows ignorance.
Even if his bans and unbans seem Foolish,doesn't mean they have no merit or no place in modern discussion. Especially when he's offering a good solution(Imo) to making modern less linear and more grindy. Even if it's an extreme solution and probably won't happen, Those are the most likely cards to get banned One day in modern Because they are broken.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
EDIT: I've got the Mardu list built - while I'm still learning the ins and outs of the deck, it feels very legit. Bedlam Reveller and K-Command are a very powerful synergy and when you need to fill your bin with spells anyway, Young Pyro becomes really powerful, too. Also, while Selfeisek has far and away the most 5-0s with the deck, a lot of other players are putting up 5-0s with the list occasionally too; feels like it really has legs. Especially since Selfeisek's list has stayed unchanged for months now.
I dont think that they do bans with future cards in mind. At the time of Probe, I'm pretty sure Storm was still using Pyromancer Ascension, aka the much worse version. Not only was Baral, Chief of Compliance huge, but also Pieces of the Puzzle, which enables a non reliance on actual permanents to win.
So I think that Probe ban is warranted now that we saw Baral and Pieces printed after the bans, but at the time of the ban Storm didn't look that scary and I would have been arguing that the Probe ban was way too premature
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
Either way at this point Baral or probe would need to be banned due to the power of storm now so as angry as the probe ban made me at the time I'm (sort of) glad it happened when it did.
Legacy - LED Dredge, ANT & WDnT
Banning Power Plant and Grapeshot in that metagame reeks of bias. In fact, all of the proposed bans do. You'd just see a handful of extremely powerful midrange decks with basically no checks on them. The format would be significantly less diverse, although the handful of top decks duking it out would probably be more interactive. But that's Legacy gameplay where there are just a handful of contenders. It's not Modern.
Keep Ponder and DTT banned. Don't ban ANY of his ridiculous suggestions. Then unban all the other cards he mentioned. THAT would be an exciting and diverse Modern.
The unbanning of dtt is just an atrocious one
Sheridan, hoogland plays a lot of tron actually.
I don't particularly hate his ban suggestions, but I don't advocate them.
I don't think I dislike a magic 'pro' and their opinions more than Jeff Hoogland. If you cant see how banning mox opal kills affinity, or how Chrome mox is different from a Lotus petal you can't save him!
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)I've been killed on T3 by burn or Affinity more times than I can remember, but T3 Karn is a bridge too far for people?
EDH: -UG Ezuri-UGZegana-BRMogis-WUBRGRamos-WBREdgar-URLocust God-WUBRBreya-BMacar-WUBrago-WEvra-
I'd like to see all the fair cards come off at once and then assess them all together over a year or two and see what should go.
I really do not want to play with Jace to be honest, but it's a card that should have to prove itself a problem -- there're so many cheap answers to it in modern.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
The number of other people who think a t3 Karn 25% of the time is too much, but for storm/counters company to actually win the game on t3 20% of the time is far too high.
Ban List Inconsistencies
Fast Mana (Chrome Mox & Rite of Flame VS Mox Opal & Simian Spirit Guide)
I am glad he started with this because it made me stop for a moment and simply ask, "Are you F%$&ing kidding me?" Wizards doesn't want all fast mana banned from Modern. That's why we still have Pyretic Ritual, Desperate Ritual, Opal, and SSG. But Wizards DOES want the completely overpowered ones out of the format. I mean lets compare Chrome Mox to Mox Opal. Chrome Mox requires you to have a coloured card in your hand in order to use it. That's it. Sure it only makes a specified range of coloured mana for you, but you get to dictate what those colours are. Add to the fact that it isn't legendary, and oh boy do you have some fun mana acceleration in there. I mean hell let's go outside the scope of combo decks for a minute. I think I could reasonably see even decks like Jund slotting 3-4 Chrome Mox into their decks if it were legal. I mean *****, turn 1 Liliana of the Veil and I have enough mana to play anything else I draw the rest of the game? SIGN ME UP. Compare that to Mox Opal that while it isn't limited in what colours of mana it can make, but rather the type of deck it can be played in. Having enough artifacts in your decks to consistently have Metalcraft on to make Opal fast mana is no easy take. There's a reason that the only decks that utilize Opal are Robots, Lantern, and KCI-Combo. All of those decks are centered around artifacts, so they can make Opal into a good source of quick mana. But outside of those decks, Opal does a good Darksteel Relic impersonation, only without the indestructible. The difference between Chrome Mox and Opal is simply that Opal has a restriction which allow it to only be played in specific decks, whereas Chrome Mox can literally be played in almost every deck. Funnily enough, the decks that utilize Opal, would most likely be unable to use Chrome Mox as they couldn't reliably have a card to imprint for it.
And if we compare Rite of Flame to Desperate/Pyretic Ritual, the numbers are just stupid. Let's assume you can 4 Rites. In total you have spent 4 mana and gotten a return of 14. Now let's compare that to the Rituals. If you use 4 of either Ritual in a game (assuming no Splicing with Desperate) you are spending 8 mana to get a total of 12 mana. Now lets compare these numbers. 4->14 VS 8->12. If you cannot see how much more immensely powerful Rite of Flame is (and thus why it is banned) then I can't help you. Getting back than more than triple the mana you have put in is completely ludicrous.
Fast Combo Kills (Summer Bloom VS Goryo's Vengeance)
I think the biggest difference between these cards is simply the rather of interaction available to counteract the strategy trying to be pulled off. With Summer Bloom, your goal is to get a bunch of mana through playing lands with an Amulet of Vigor in play, then slam down Primeval Titan and ta-da! You win! Don't have a Titan in hand? No problem, Summoner's Pact has you covered. Don't have a Pact? No problem! Tolaria West has you covered! Hell even if you didn't have Summer Bloom that was fine. You also ran some Azusa, Lost but Seekings to help with those too. On top of which you also have access to Serum Visions and Ancient Stirrings to help find you whatever the hell you need essentially. The deck is way too many pieces working to make a deck way too consistent. Now compare that with Vengeance decks. You have to get lucky to draw your Griselbrand since Modern doesn't have anything like Entomb or Buried Alive. Sure you could run Summoner's pact to find your Griselbrand, but you need to make sure you win that turn, or else, you essentially lose the game. While the Vengeance decks can be good, and definitely do have the potential to kill on turn 2, they are nowhere near as consistent. The difference in why one card is banned here, and another is unbanned is basically down to how consistent the deck either card was in happened to be. If Vengeance decks had the consistency of Amulet Bloom, I have no doubts what so ever that the card would be on the chopping block.
Cantrips (Ponder VS Ancient Stirrings)
The issue here is basically like a combination of the two I previously mentioned. Ponder has a wider array of use than Stirrings does, but Stirrings can offer more consistency than Ponder. However I think people believe Stirrings is better than it actually is. Don't get me wrong, I play Lantern, and honestly Stirrings is one of the biggest reasons to keep green in the deck. However it is not the end-all, be-all consistency engine that allows every colourless deck to suddenly be super godlike amazing. These are just my personal thoughts on the matter, but if Stirrings were THAT good, Eldrazi Tron would be running it. There are more than enough lands which produced colourless and green mana in Modern that it wouldn't be that difficult for them to add the card to the deck. But who knows, maybe I'm completely wrong on this one.
Big Mana (Cloudpost VS Urza Tron Lands)
This one I actually kind of agree with Hoogland on. While I don't think the tron lands are bad enough for Modern to deserve a ban, it does look odd when you compare the Tron lands to Cloudpost. However if you look at the progression of Tron lands VS Posts, the math is a little more skewed towards one than the other. With tron the progression is 1->2->7. Let's assume an average case with Cloudpost is to have 2 of them on turn 3 with a Glimmerpost. Essentially the progression for mana in that instance is 1->4->7. Obviously this ignores that the Posts enter the battlefield tapped. If we assume that 3 posts will be in play on turn 3 though the progression is 1->4->9, which is much steeper. But who knows. Perhaps the answer to the 'tron problem' is to ban the tron lands but unban Cloudpost. Hell at least I feel like that would be something interesting to look into.
That's all I can type out for now, maybe I'll throw more opinions in later.
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
Hoogland is a tool. He's working on the assumption that the ban list has to have consistency, which just isn't true. The ban list should have offenders on it, not offenders and all things like them. Consider Legacy. Black Lotus is banned for being the fastest of mana, but Dark Ritual is completely fine. We know certain mechanics are ban worthy in Magic, but it's a spectrum, not a definitive line.
You can't summoner's pact for Griselbrand. See Summoner's Pact. Tron lets you play Karn on turn 3. Cloudpost lets you play Emrakul the Aeons Torn on turn 4. Big difference. You're not accounting for Vesuva. t1 Cloudpost, t2 Cloudpost, play G signet/talisman/expedition map. t3 Play Vesuva, Scrying/Map for Cloudpost. T4 Emrakul, is not even a difficult line to imagine.
I wish there was a Pact that searched for any creature, not just Green ones, as not finding Griselbrand is the #1 way the deck loses.
If someone playing Cloudpost can consistently draw and play the card Cloudpost consistently by turn 2, have all of that other stuff, and find Emrakul, the Aeon's Torn without having games that are Emrakul flooded as well, they certainly deserve to win. Saying that it is "not that hard to imagine" for that scenario is akin to people who say that Tron gets Karn Liberated on turn 3 and Ulamog, the Ceaseless Hunger on turn 4 in 50% of their matches. It just doesn't or wouldn't happen. Cloudpost comes into play tapped, which is a HUGE strike against it. The only reason I personally am not completely sure it's fine is Glimmerpost, which potentially gives it game vs. the (non-Infect) Aggro decks that normally tear these Big Mana strategies apart.
Hoogland may be a tool. But he is a player who loves Modern more than any other format and it's not close. This is despite a lot of things really not going his way in the format. Look, who ever expected Hoogland to be running GB Tron? for months?
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)Breachpost was a real deck in modern at one point. I think Hampton played it at PT Philly? You could look it up. We've also gotten more ridiculous spaghetti monsters since then. Emrakul 2 and Ulamog 2 are both game ending too, and cheaper to cast since the original.
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
Name calling doesn't help your argument whatsoever. Truth is, I bet he is 1000x the Magic player you are. So let's not dive into semantics because you disagree with someone.
This is the correct method of thinking, unfortunately the problem is where do you place cards like Collected Company, a card that can instantly win the game, Siege Rhino, and Bloodbraid Elf which both can only do in specific situations? Deck building restrictions are also a factor, but I've said this about Collected Company before - having value 3 drops isn't a deck building restriction, it's a puzzle of optimization. The most consistent argument of Bloodbraid Elf and optimization was this imaginary format in Extended that never existed in any tournament setting where Bloodbraid Elf hits Ancestral Vision
So if cards that are less offensive banned, and cards more offensive on the spectrum legal in the format. Then yes, I think there is a logical inconsistency, and with most fair cards on the banned list, that's the exact case.
I think I see where the disagreement is here and I think you might actually agree.
Hoogland's logic when applied to his suggested BANS is horrible. Ban all fast mana? Ban all decks that can theoretically win before T4? These sorts of suggestions get the full absurdity bingo on logical fallacies, lack of data, lack of dialogue with Wizards' stated goals for Modern, blindness to different player types, and general bias about the format.
But Hoogland's logic when applied to certain UNBANS is actually fine. It's also the same logic that basically everyone uses when talking about many unbans. Why is BBE banned when Company is not? More importantly, why is BBE banned when Jund is Tier 3 at best? These are legitimate arguments. Then again, these types of arguments don't to his other suggestions such as Ponder or DTT or Pod or GSZ etc. etc. This is probably why the thread itself with the article has like 30 upvotes on Reddit, almost 200 comments, and the top comment itself (which tears the article apart) is nearing 300 upvotes. At least my hope in the Modern community is preserved.
Overall, Hoogland's suggestions represent this sort of selective all-or-nothing thinking that is neither supported by large N data like metagame/attendance/tournament analysis, or even small N data like playtesting or personal results. Like another user stated earlier, the bar for Modern writing is often very low. This allows many authors to state opinions as facts without any evidence other than "it's what I believe" and then tryto make critics feel bad for attacking their so-called opinion piece because "it's just my opinion."
My guess is that many people here agree on some of the unbans and bans but disagree on the indefensible method that Hoogland used to arrive at some of his ideas.
I completely agree with you ktkenshinx, and I also agree that my faith in the Modern community is actually stronger based on that Reddit Thread. I'd like to point out that I believe it's a simple philosophical dilemma, we have a potentially true conclusion, but it's covered in false premises. The character writing this article is very headstrong and mathematically inclined, and since it's 2017 and we still cannot properly put most decks on some type of weird Venn Diagram based on levels of interaction, it's not difficult to see why Magic is hard to classify or even much less justify in specific areas as to what's "good" or "bad" for a format.
I'm just glad people are talking, because the biggest mistake this year was Wizards declaring they didn't want to change the format before the Pro Tour, hopefully the community puts the sock in Wizards mouth, and just actually gives us our fair cards back in the Pro Tour spotlight.
Just because he's a decent Magic player doesn't necessarily mean that his opinions on the banned list - or the way he conducts himself in the community - aren't worth criticizing.
I'm commenting with a very obvious personal bias; I'm a control/combo control player at heart. Most of Tron's threats aren't really issues. My big issues with Tron at this point are the on cast triggers on Worldbreaker and Ulamog. Ugin, Karn, Wurmcoil Engine, Reality Smasher, and Thought-Knot Seer are mostly fine cards that while strong aren't huge issues. We have the ability to interact with said cards either on the stack or in our opponents hand. Even a hardcast Emmy was never an issue in my mind. On cast triggers are bull***** though because I don't have good enough interaction to fight them. Even if I counter a worldbreaker or Ulamog the damage is typically done (especially if you get 2-3 cast triggers off over the course of a game).
Also cavern of souls is a very dumb card (more directed at E Tron and tribal decks) with no real downside (outside of being turned off by blood moon I guess). I really wish cavern of souls was balanced in some way like having a cipt clause or costing life to cast through it or something of the sort.
It's funny to me that the worst mana bases you can be playing in modern is arguably a fetch/shock base (this might be a slight overstatement, not sure how others feel about it). I'd love to get to run more colorless utility lands without being punished by my mana base.
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)GBx vs UWr a matchup which has been history pretty close to 50/50 (probably slightly in favor of jeskai) has started to feel noticeably lopsided with the printing of search for azcanta.
How do you know his bans wouldn't make modern any better?
Just because you don't like his suggestions doesn't mean he's wrong.
Hes way more of a modern player than you are. And his feelings are that if the format where to be changed the most broken cards are the first culprits.
Hes spittballing and he knows it. He even admits he's alright with the format atm. It's just what he thinks would need to be changed if people wanted longer more skill intense back and forth.
Even if his bans and unbans seem Foolish,doesn't mean they have no merit or no place in modern discussion. Especially when he's offering a good solution(Imo) to making modern less linear and more grindy. Even if it's an extreme solution and probably won't happen, Those are the most likely cards to get banned One day in modern Because they are broken.