A dude plays Lantern at my LGS and does really well. THing is, in that LGS, there isn't much BGx and its more of a casual LGS. At the more competitive LGSs i go to, literally no one plays it and the people who did dont anymore. Deck just isnt good anymore. Abrade in every SB, and Trophy as a 4x in pretty much every BGx makes it close to unplayable.
A dude plays it at my LGS and does really well. THing is, in that LGS, there isn't much BGx and its more of a casual LGS. At the more competitive LGSs i go to, literally no one plays it and the people who did dont anymore. Deck just isnt good anymore. Abrade in every SB, and Trophy as a 4x in pretty much every BGx makes it close to unplayable
Im assuming you are talking lantern?
But yea I have seen little lantern and affinity due to the threat of dredge which the threat of dredge is always greater than the acutal damage dredge causes to LGS and other non national metas it seems.
They would most likely play more serum visions because flint nest crane sucks. Lantern and KCI would take a giant hit, lantern becoming close to unplayable. Tron would take a huge hit as well. Amulet would probably survive but be forever stuck to tier 2
I've never seen KCI lists that played Serum Visions, but I've seen lists play Crane in the past. Maybe they would actually switch over to Faithless Looting.
Lantern, Tron, KCI taking a hit - this is a good thing. It's better when these sort of decks are at the fringes of the metagame, not in the forefront.
I actually think Amulet is hurt the most because it will have a more difficult time digging for its namesake card. Serum Visions is a huge downgrade, and Impulse does not grab it.
They would most likely play more serum visions because flint nest crane sucks. Lantern and KCI would take a giant hit, lantern becoming close to unplayable. Tron would take a huge hit as well. Amulet would probably survive but be forever stuck to tier 2
I've never seen KCI lists that played Serum Visions, but I've seen lists play Crane in the past. Maybe they would actually switch over to Faithless Looting.
Lantern, Tron, KCI taking a hit - this is a good thing. It's better when these sort of decks are at the fringes of the metagame, not in the forefront.
I actually think Amulet is hurt the most because it will have a more difficult time digging for its namesake card. Serum Visions is a huge downgrade, and Impulse does not grab it.
Thing is, I think hitting Stirrings would be so big that they might not be able to recover. Imo its not he raw power level of these decks that are creating this linear meta, its dredge creating the incentive to play them. KCI and Tron were pretty comfortable in tier 2, and after the initial boom, KCI fell pretty hard. Lantern is almost non existent. My stance on this fact is that combo should exist with diversity within its own macro archetype just as all the other archetypes exist, and Stirrings ban has a chance to really hurt these decks. I really think Dredge is the problem. Its at the level of "must draw sideboard" deck or lose
Calm down. This is not remotely close to strawmanning and I have no idea why you are alleging that. I'm literally quoting you because you literally call Moon "bad gameplay" three times over two separate posts. The most direct of those quotes is one where you explicitly cite Moon as an explicit example of "Bad gameplay" and then say the format would be "better" with it removed: (https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/799362-the-state-of-modern-thread-b-r-01-10-2018?page=34#c853).
When Blood Moon works, one person doesn't get to play Magic anymore. How can you say it's subjective whether or not that is bad gameplay? One player being locked out of playing the game is bad gameplay, objectively. And there are a ton of cards in Modern that do things like that. Does that mean they should all get banned? No, not necessarily. But you can't honestly tell me that the format wouldn't be objectively more fun if you removed all these cards that lock people out of playing the game. It would be better.
Given your post, I am totally puzzled why my quote is a strawman ("On the last page or so, Wraith talked about how the format would be "better" if "bad gameplay" cards like Moon were banned."). I'm just summarizing your exact words by using your exact words. The "straw man" allegation is often a red flag for me when I'm reading a rebuttal, and I just do not understand how you can reasonably claim this here.
It's a strawman argument because I was saying that Blood Moon creates bad gameplay because it locks one player out of playing the game when it works, but I never argued that it should be banned.
And again, as both I and at least two other users have stated, there is nothing objectively "better" about a Modern format that was crafted with "heavy-handed" bans. You stating it's "absolutely true" does not make it true. It might be a better experience for a subset of players who enjoy a certain kind of Magic/gameplay experience, but there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that this is a plurality of players or that the pros would outweigh the cons. That is at the very least an open question that would need extensive debate to parse through. At most, it is a biased perspective based on a personal preference that is not shared by others.
How can you honestly tell me that you don't believe that taking out all the cards that are responsible for the most non-games of Magic in Modern would improve the overall gameplay in the format? And again, before you misrepresent what I'm saying again, I'm not suggesting this should actually be done. I just find it pretty hilarious that you're arguing that removing those types of cards wouldn't clearly make for better gameplay in the format as a whole.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern UBR Grixis Shadow UBR UR Izzet Phoenix UR UW UW Control UW GB GB Rock GB
Commander BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
How can you honestly tell me that you don't believe that taking out all the cards that are responsible for the most non-games of Magic in Modern would improve the overall gameplay in the format? And again, before you misrepresent what I'm saying again, I'm not suggesting this should actually be done. I just find it pretty hilarious that you're arguing that removing those types of cards wouldn't clearly make for better gameplay in the format as a whole.
1. Subjective list.
2. Unknown Meta.
3. System is too complex to predict the result.
Tell you what, list the cards and I will give you reasons why they shouldnt be banned.
“Better” and “Fun” are too subjective for my liking.
I hate playing against Tron. I don’t find it “fun” to play against. I think the format would be “better” if it was gone from the format, because it mostly just punishes opponents for not choosing a fast, linear deck.
My opinion is biased and unfair. Plenty of people like playing Tron. Plenty of people enjoy playing against Tron (I know a few Infect players who LOVE staring down an Urza’s Mine on turn 1). So, it seems rather unfair for me to impose my view of what Modern is supposed to be by moving a list of cards to the banlist for encouraging "unfun" gameplay.
Now, if the format was younger and WotC had presented a more detailed vision of what they wanted to the format to be, then I could see implementing more radical bans without date-based justifications… but as is, Modern has been a living, breathing format for too long to just go at it with a hacksaw.
yeah the cards have been in the format for too long to justify banning them now. the same goes for a lot of cards that decks are built around.
i will say though that people are mistaking 'subjective' with 'not important or valid'. opinions matter too, especially when crafting an experience to be enjoyed by a large set of people.
for instance if 'someone finds it fun'; then why did wotc move away from certain things such as prison or lock elements? because they recognize that, though even subjective, the entire purpose of their product is entertainment; which is built on subjectivity.
consider if you were a game developer. you dont just randomly add features because 'well someone might find this fun therefore its just as relevant as everything else'.
modern just happens to be a place that is meant to be an outlet for stuff you normally dont see elsewhere. therefore there is more latitude in what should be 'allowed'. because if its not here; then its legacy and vintage - and with the reserved list in place it isnt feasible to ask that of people.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
I need modern, not another standard. Take my moon and i loose one deck, take chalice away and i loose another, take away bridge and i loose my deck number 3, take my Tempel and bye my eldrazi. Thats not funny to me and not a better format for everyone if me and a lot of others kicked out and mardu vs jund vs grixis all day long. Really fun? Modern is full of such cards and if you move them away, you kill 70% of playerbase...how is this a better feel format?
How can you honestly tell me that you don't believe that taking out all the cards that are responsible for the most non-games of Magic in Modern would improve the overall gameplay in the format? And again, before you misrepresent what I'm saying again, I'm not suggesting this should actually be done. I just find it pretty hilarious that you're arguing that removing those types of cards wouldn't clearly make for better gameplay in the format as a whole.
Even though I don't generally play these cards, I appreciate their existence in the format. I believe they are a net-benefit to Modern, and not even remotely a detriment.
1. They are not played in oppressive numbers. If they were, we'd have meta-representation numbers that would support ban arguments. In other words, they have no negative impact on format diversity.
2. They are often played to bolster weaker decks, such as 8-Rack or Ponza or Skred/Dragons. This is a net-benefit for format diversity.
3. When they are the linchpins of more unfair decks, such as Bridge in Lantern or EE in KCI, the format easily adapts
4. Such adaptation, and the existence of these cards in general, makes for interesting meta-game decisions and in-game decisions
5. Each of the cards - Bridge, EE, Chalice, Choke, Moon, etc. - provides a unique safety valve against specific things which themselves can become degenerate without a proper check and balance
Not only do none of those cards deserve a ban (which I understand you're not arguing for), but I firmly believe Modern is better off for having them in the format.
Your comments are all illustrating my point. Even if we could craft a better format by banning like 20 of the most obnoxious cards, people would not necessarily like it more because we all hate bans, and some people really like playing with some of the obnoxious cards. That's the point I'm trying to make. We all accept some level of rancid gameplay in the format because the alternative is a bunch of bans, which nobody wants.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern UBR Grixis Shadow UBR UR Izzet Phoenix UR UW UW Control UW GB GB Rock GB
Commander BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
2. They are often played to bolster weaker decks, such as 8-Rack or Ponza or Skred/Dragons. This is a net-benefit for format diversity.
3. When they are the linchpins of more unfair decks, such as Bridge in Lantern or EE in KCI, the format easily adapts
Not only do none of those cards deserve a ban (which I understand you're not arguing for), but I firmly believe Modern is better off for having them in the format.
So true... without the mana denial of Moon, Ponza is just a bad big zoo with 10 ramp spells. We need that card.
Your comments are all illustrating my point. Even if we could craft a better format by banning like 20 of the most obnoxious cards, people would not necessarily like it more because we all hate bans, and some people really like playing with some of the obnoxious cards. That's the point I'm trying to make. We all accept some level of rancid gameplay in the format because the alternative is a bunch of bans, which nobody wants.
"obnoxious". "obnoxious". "rancid".
These are the words I'm arguing against. I find them wholly inapplicable to these cards.
Calm down. This is not remotely close to strawmanning and I have no idea why you are alleging that. I'm literally quoting you because you literally call Moon "bad gameplay" three times over two separate posts. The most direct of those quotes is one where you explicitly cite Moon as an explicit example of "Bad gameplay" and then say the format would be "better" with it removed: (https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/799362-the-state-of-modern-thread-b-r-01-10-2018?page=34#c853).
When Blood Moon works, one person doesn't get to play Magic anymore. How can you say it's subjective whether or not that is bad gameplay? One player being locked out of playing the game is bad gameplay, objectively. And there are a ton of cards in Modern that do things like that. Does that mean they should all get banned? No, not necessarily. But you can't honestly tell me that the format wouldn't be objectively more fun if you removed all these cards that lock people out of playing the game. It would be better.
Given your post, I am totally puzzled why my quote is a strawman ("On the last page or so, Wraith talked about how the format would be "better" if "bad gameplay" cards like Moon were banned."). I'm just summarizing your exact words by using your exact words. The "straw man" allegation is often a red flag for me when I'm reading a rebuttal, and I just do not understand how you can reasonably claim this here.
It's a strawman argument because I was saying that Blood Moon creates bad gameplay because it locks one player out of playing the game when it works, but I never argued that it should be banned.
Stop with the straw man accusations. Read your post. You literally stated "if you removed" (I.e. banned) "all these cards that lock people out of playing the game." (E.g. Moon) "It would be better." There is no other interpretation of "removed", especially in light of your previous posts that talk about pros arguing to "get rid of 8th and 9th editions" and cards like Moon and Bridge. Or Hoogland's argument to "remove", i.e. ban, such cards. If you didn't intend to talk about banning cards, you need to use clearer terms than "removed" and "get rid of."
Your comments are all illustrating my point. Even if we could craft a better format by banning like 20 of the most obnoxious cards, people would not necessarily like it more because we all hate bans, and some people really like playing with some of the obnoxious cards. That's the point I'm trying to make. We all accept some level of rancid gameplay in the format because the alternative is a bunch of bans, which nobody wants.
The issue here is that just like all decks are unfair to someone, there is something rancid about everything.
That is Modern. Terminus is bull*****, it really is.
There is literally not a single real Modern deck that isn't doing questionable things.
Stop with the straw man accusations. Read your post. You literally stated "if you removed" (I.e. banned) "all these cards that lock people out of playing the game." (E.g. Moon) "It would be better." There is no other interpretation of "removed", especially in light of your previous posts that talk about pros arguing to "get rid of 8th and 9th editions" and cards like Moon and Bridge. Or Hoogland's argument to "remove", i.e. ban, such cards. If you didn't intend to talk about banning cards, you need to use clearer terms than "removed" and "get rid of."
Yes, I was saying that hypothetically you could craft a format with higher quality game play overall with a heavy-handed approach to the ban list, but I never said that I think this should actually be done, and that's why you've been strawmanning my argument. I'm not saying we should ban those cards. My point is that we all accept having some things in Modern that lead to bad gameplay for us because we want to keep playing with the cards we personally like that other people think are bad gameplay. The point is that us as Modern players are happier with an 80% ideal format where we get to play with as many cards as possible than we would be with a 100% ideal format where all our favorite cards are banned.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern UBR Grixis Shadow UBR UR Izzet Phoenix UR UW UW Control UW GB GB Rock GB
Commander BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
Here's an observation: the next ban update is Nov 26th. UMA drops Dec 7, with the spoilers coming a week prior. I wouldn't be surprised if stoneforge mystic gets unbanned in the next update. Obviously this is baseless speculation and i have no information supporting my claim but i dont think you need to be a psychic to see that move coming. Just like you didn't need to be one when jace was unbanned.
That would be both super dirty and extremely transparent.
Though I could totally see that, after the "oh THAT card is in here too?" comments from the stream.
Hell, I wonder if Splinter Twin is in there too...
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Stop with the straw man accusations. Read your post. You literally stated "if you removed" (I.e. banned) "all these cards that lock people out of playing the game." (E.g. Moon) "It would be better." There is no other interpretation of "removed", especially in light of your previous posts that talk about pros arguing to "get rid of 8th and 9th editions" and cards like Moon and Bridge. Or Hoogland's argument to "remove", i.e. ban, such cards. If you didn't intend to talk about banning cards, you need to use clearer terms than "removed" and "get rid of."
Yes, I was saying that hypothetically you could craft a format with higher quality game play overall with a heavy-handed approach to the ban list, but I never said that I think this should actually be done, and that's why you've been strawmanning my argument. I'm not saying we should ban those cards. My point is that we all accept having some things in Modern that lead to bad gameplay for us because we want to keep playing with the cards we personally like that other people think are bad gameplay. The point is that us as Modern players are happier with an 80% ideal format where we get to play with as many cards as possible than we would be with a 100% ideal format where all our favorite cards are banned.
Just stop. I never said you argued for a ban. Re-read my post, which is something I've said multiple times because I just don't understand how you have misinterpreted such a short statement. I alleged that you said the format would be better with Moon banned: "On the last page or so, Wraith talked about how the format would be "better" if "bad gameplay" cards like Moon were banned." I did not say you wanted Moon banned. Then I quoted you literally saying the format would be better with Moon, and other cards like Moon, banned. You are either misreading my post multiple times in a row or yourself strawmanning me, as I never alleged you wanted Moon banned.
Stop with the straw man accusations. Read your post. You literally stated "if you removed" (I.e. banned) "all these cards that lock people out of playing the game." (E.g. Moon) "It would be better." There is no other interpretation of "removed", especially in light of your previous posts that talk about pros arguing to "get rid of 8th and 9th editions" and cards like Moon and Bridge. Or Hoogland's argument to "remove", i.e. ban, such cards. If you didn't intend to talk about banning cards, you need to use clearer terms than "removed" and "get rid of."
Yes, I was saying that hypothetically you could craft a format with higher quality game play overall with a heavy-handed approach to the ban list, but I never said that I think this should actually be done, and that's why you've been strawmanning my argument. I'm not saying we should ban those cards. My point is that we all accept having some things in Modern that lead to bad gameplay for us because we want to keep playing with the cards we personally like that other people think are bad gameplay. The point is that us as Modern players are happier with an 80% ideal format where we get to play with as many cards as possible than we would be with a 100% ideal format where all our favorite cards are banned.
whats the sence of talking about theory, if you know what will happen in reality? Makes no sense to me talking about. It is like:" hey, lets take away weapons of cops all around the world, because guns are Bad". What will happen in reality is the important point. You understand it how i mean?
Guys please opinions on japanese cards. Lost a 3/3 creature against Japan celestial colonade. This guy played all creatures and spells in english cards, but some cards in his manabase was japanese. I dont registrated this really ( my brain say its all fine and all english to me lets attack his empty board)...and i am sure it is a Kind of legal cheating. It is not ok, but i know legal. I Hate such people. I never forget colonade normally, but with this Tricks it can happen one time in 3 years and such people take advantage of this
If I am a customer spending premium amount of dollars, I expect a premium service. Jund falls into the category of a premium deck costing more dollars than a majority of the rest of the format. I'm not getting the desired performance ratio per dollars spent out of the Jund deck because WOTC decided to make the format more diverse.
I think I'm more on the train that dif through time is getting unbanned. The face card of UMA arguably looks a lot like dtt. Ya dig could be in the set and still not get unbanned but why commission a new art for card that's banned in modern and legacy? With twin out of the format dtt doesn't seem to be nearly as powerful. Its probably to slow for the combo shells to want it so the only decka that would probably jam it are the uw(x) onea. Maybe im wrong dig ia super powerful but ia it better than scapeshift or w/e trons casting on t3.
That is quite the interesting theory. I don't know what their justification for new arts is, but with the next announcement on the 26th, and this set being rushed for a December release, it is suspicious. I was more thinking SFM might be the big-ticket-item, as DTT isn't really worth much. SFM still isn't quite JtMS, but it at least has some secondary market value. I don't think unbanning DTT would boost sales as much as the JtMS unban did, but maybe Hasbro can't quite figure that out?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I've played against it, but Abrade, Knight of Autumn, and Jace, all make things more painful for Lantern and all can be main decked...
Spirits
Edit: Lantern
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
Im assuming you are talking lantern?
But yea I have seen little lantern and affinity due to the threat of dredge which the threat of dredge is always greater than the acutal damage dredge causes to LGS and other non national metas it seems.
I've never seen KCI lists that played Serum Visions, but I've seen lists play Crane in the past. Maybe they would actually switch over to Faithless Looting.
Lantern, Tron, KCI taking a hit - this is a good thing. It's better when these sort of decks are at the fringes of the metagame, not in the forefront.
I actually think Amulet is hurt the most because it will have a more difficult time digging for its namesake card. Serum Visions is a huge downgrade, and Impulse does not grab it.
Thing is, I think hitting Stirrings would be so big that they might not be able to recover. Imo its not he raw power level of these decks that are creating this linear meta, its dredge creating the incentive to play them. KCI and Tron were pretty comfortable in tier 2, and after the initial boom, KCI fell pretty hard. Lantern is almost non existent. My stance on this fact is that combo should exist with diversity within its own macro archetype just as all the other archetypes exist, and Stirrings ban has a chance to really hurt these decks. I really think Dredge is the problem. Its at the level of "must draw sideboard" deck or lose
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
Spirits
How can you honestly tell me that you don't believe that taking out all the cards that are responsible for the most non-games of Magic in Modern would improve the overall gameplay in the format? And again, before you misrepresent what I'm saying again, I'm not suggesting this should actually be done. I just find it pretty hilarious that you're arguing that removing those types of cards wouldn't clearly make for better gameplay in the format as a whole.
UBR Grixis Shadow UBR
UR Izzet Phoenix UR
UW UW Control UW
GB GB Rock GB
Commander
BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG
BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
1. Subjective list.
2. Unknown Meta.
3. System is too complex to predict the result.
Tell you what, list the cards and I will give you reasons why they shouldnt be banned.
Spirits
I hate playing against Tron. I don’t find it “fun” to play against. I think the format would be “better” if it was gone from the format, because it mostly just punishes opponents for not choosing a fast, linear deck.
My opinion is biased and unfair. Plenty of people like playing Tron. Plenty of people enjoy playing against Tron (I know a few Infect players who LOVE staring down an Urza’s Mine on turn 1). So, it seems rather unfair for me to impose my view of what Modern is supposed to be by moving a list of cards to the banlist for encouraging "unfun" gameplay.
Now, if the format was younger and WotC had presented a more detailed vision of what they wanted to the format to be, then I could see implementing more radical bans without date-based justifications… but as is, Modern has been a living, breathing format for too long to just go at it with a hacksaw.
i will say though that people are mistaking 'subjective' with 'not important or valid'. opinions matter too, especially when crafting an experience to be enjoyed by a large set of people.
for instance if 'someone finds it fun'; then why did wotc move away from certain things such as prison or lock elements? because they recognize that, though even subjective, the entire purpose of their product is entertainment; which is built on subjectivity.
consider if you were a game developer. you dont just randomly add features because 'well someone might find this fun therefore its just as relevant as everything else'.
modern just happens to be a place that is meant to be an outlet for stuff you normally dont see elsewhere. therefore there is more latitude in what should be 'allowed'. because if its not here; then its legacy and vintage - and with the reserved list in place it isnt feasible to ask that of people.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)I've already seen some amulet lists running adventurous impulse but that's probably more as an extra ancient stirrings effect rather than replacing it
1. They are not played in oppressive numbers. If they were, we'd have meta-representation numbers that would support ban arguments. In other words, they have no negative impact on format diversity.
2. They are often played to bolster weaker decks, such as 8-Rack or Ponza or Skred/Dragons. This is a net-benefit for format diversity.
3. When they are the linchpins of more unfair decks, such as Bridge in Lantern or EE in KCI, the format easily adapts
4. Such adaptation, and the existence of these cards in general, makes for interesting meta-game decisions and in-game decisions
5. Each of the cards - Bridge, EE, Chalice, Choke, Moon, etc. - provides a unique safety valve against specific things which themselves can become degenerate without a proper check and balance
Not only do none of those cards deserve a ban (which I understand you're not arguing for), but I firmly believe Modern is better off for having them in the format.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
UBR Grixis Shadow UBR
UR Izzet Phoenix UR
UW UW Control UW
GB GB Rock GB
Commander
BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG
BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
So true... without the mana denial of Moon, Ponza is just a bad big zoo with 10 ramp spells. We need that card.
Nexus MTG News // Nexus - Magic Art Gallery // MTG Dual Land Color Ratios Analyzer // MTG Card Drawing Odds Calculator
Want to play a UW control deck in modern, but don't have jace or snaps?
Please come visit us at the Emeria Titan control thread
These are the words I'm arguing against. I find them wholly inapplicable to these cards.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
Stop with the straw man accusations. Read your post. You literally stated "if you removed" (I.e. banned) "all these cards that lock people out of playing the game." (E.g. Moon) "It would be better." There is no other interpretation of "removed", especially in light of your previous posts that talk about pros arguing to "get rid of 8th and 9th editions" and cards like Moon and Bridge. Or Hoogland's argument to "remove", i.e. ban, such cards. If you didn't intend to talk about banning cards, you need to use clearer terms than "removed" and "get rid of."
The issue here is that just like all decks are unfair to someone, there is something rancid about everything.
That is Modern. Terminus is bull*****, it really is.
There is literally not a single real Modern deck that isn't doing questionable things.
Spirits
UBR Grixis Shadow UBR
UR Izzet Phoenix UR
UW UW Control UW
GB GB Rock GB
Commander
BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG
BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
The themes are not matching up to see something like SFM in the set. The themes suggest cards like Safehold Elite, Glen Elendra Archmage, Gurmag Angler, etc. We might see Gravecrawler since there will be a strong persist and undying theme in the set. Quickling works well with snapcaster mage and Scion of Oona is possible thanks to the tribal being implied. Maybe we will see Vesuva again given the fast mana and Faithless looting has to be in the set.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Just stop. I never said you argued for a ban. Re-read my post, which is something I've said multiple times because I just don't understand how you have misinterpreted such a short statement. I alleged that you said the format would be better with Moon banned: "On the last page or so, Wraith talked about how the format would be "better" if "bad gameplay" cards like Moon were banned." I did not say you wanted Moon banned. Then I quoted you literally saying the format would be better with Moon, and other cards like Moon, banned. You are either misreading my post multiple times in a row or yourself strawmanning me, as I never alleged you wanted Moon banned.
Infraction issued for trolling. --CavalryWolfPack