I feel like there's significantly better hate for Ensnaring Bridge in modern than there would be for Chalice in vintage, such as Kholagan's command, or Abrupt Decay. I remember somebody running an odd burn deck against me using Bridge (The person clearly didn't know how to make a burn deck, since I saw several shocks, no goblin guides, and no real relevant burn threats. This was before Eidolon and Swiftspear, but still) and I, on Junk midrange, simply didn't care that it was there.
We have the experience of so many past players for that.
About a year ago, maybe more, Kt tested Dredge with Dread Return and in the end the argument went from if it was powerful and consistent (which it was found to be) to what was the best build. I think it was 'going off' before turn 4 around 30% of the time, but not sure of the exact percentage.
Quote from ktkenshinx »
What do you think about this quote?
I think it will become very relevant in Modern as we move forward. If they are noticing the effects of this in an eternal format that has very little support from Wotc, I think Wotc will think the same way for a format they are supporting and pushing. Does that mean they hit Lantern or Bloom in January? This could be setting up the reasoning for it, but only time will tell.
About 3: I was thinking about Amulet Bloom yesterday. Has it ever occurred to you(us) that maybe the reason that players won't play Amulet Bloom/Shoal and more on that, Lantern Control deck because they want the format to move away from those decks? I am not saying, they just do not like it. I am saying that maybe they are trying (on a secret) to embargo it.
If players did like Shoal/Bloom/Lantern Control and those decks occupied a meta analogous to their power level alone(which is SOLID tier 1 for Bloom and Lantern as well) and Modern was not supposed to be "battles around creatures" how do you think the format was going to be like? I say it would be a worse one. This thing proves argument number 2 as well, that the "point of Modern" is to attack with creatures. At least, that the majority of the players think this way.
I don't players are secretly or subconsciously trying to shape the meta a certain way.
The more likely explanation is, that the mentioned decks, Amulet and Lantern especially, are rather hard to play and master.
I for example would like to play Amulet, but tbh..I cba to learn it, so I don't.
Similarly, I adore Lantern's whole concept and slow controlling mill strategy, but just don't enjoy playing the deck myself. It's pretty taxing, and even though I know most decks in the meta relatively well, when I get home after a day of work and want to play some Modo to relax, playing Lantern isn't the first thing that comes to mind. ;>
Yes, that is just me and anecdotal evidence, but this line of thinking seems a lot more likely than people secretly trying to steer the meta in a certain direction.
Plus Lantern is a pretty weird and recent deck, so a lot of people don't take it for full yet, I imagine.
I don't see Modern as "the creature" format.
That's Standard.
Modern, to me, is somewhere in between the turn one kill combos of Vintage and Legacy and the super "turn creatures sideways" game of Standard.
It has some combo decks, Grishoalbrand, Amulet, Twin, but mostly Midrange or Aggro decks.
But that's only the top decks, and below are a vast amount of somewhat decent (rogue) decks, that do all sorts of things.
So, yes, creatures are more prevalent and important in most decks, even if they are combo decks, because most strong spells aren't in the format or banned.
But that doesn't make Modern a "only creature combat allowed" format.
Additionally, Modern is rather expensive. Not quite as much as Legacy/Vintage decks that need blue duals, but there's not much price difference between a Modern Jund deck and e.g. Legacy MUD.
So, switching decks can be a hassle too, even more so when niche cards for specific decks are sometimes very expensive and don't offer much overlap with other decks.
Switching between Twin variants is obviously a lot easier than going from Burn to Lantern, requiring a heap of relatively expensive things like Glimmervoid or Mox Opal.
It's a bit easier (on the wallet) online, in most cases, but in paper I can understand someone not changing to e.g. Amulet simply because of it's prize, deck-specific cards and learning curve, even though the deck's results or playstyle might interest the person.
So, overall, it's a lot more complex than "people don't want X deck in the format, so they don't play it and hope it fades away". (If anything, they should ALL play it, do very good at it and get it banned. :P)
Tired of losing to natural Tron or getting turn 2'd by Infect?
Standard infinite combos giving you a headache and the opponent always has Force of Will?
No matter the issue, there is one simple trick to solve all of your Magic problems!!
~~~To get in on the secret to eternal luck, skill and victory, just follow this link!!~~~
...I'm a Dredge pilot. I play it in Legacy. I know the differences between LED Dredge, Manaless Dredge, and Quadlaser Dredge. I've also piloted it in Modern. I have experience building versions of Modern Dredge, Dredgevine, and Crypt Dredge. Unless this conversation starts turning toward Vintage, you're safe to assume that I understand this deck. I know how it works. I understand the nuts and bolts. I know the good hands from the bad. I can play through hate. And yes, you can assume that if a classic, non-Dredgevine variant of Dredge were remotely playable in Modern, that I would be playing it.
Moving the topic away from nonsense like Dread Return, I was struck by a particular quote from Wizards' banlist explanation on Monday. Some reddit users also highlighted it, specifically in reference to Lantern Control and Ensnaring Bridge:
However, too many games are effectively decided by the first player's first turn. A major problem is that a turn-one Chalice of the Void for 0 deprives the opponent an opportunity to put Moxen on the battlefield. While players can adapt by not playing Moxen, the point of the format is to provide a place to play those cards.
Some users have argued that this could apply to Modern, Modern prison decks, and to Bridge. I personally don't buy it. Chalice is a major problem on turn-one. Bridge isn't a problem until turn three, giving an opponent much more time to deal with it. I also don't know if the "point of Modern" is to attack with creatures (an analog to Vintage's point being "playing Moxen"), so it's unclear to me that Bridge actually shuts down the format's main premise. And, of course, there's also the suggestion that the deck in question needs to be tier 1, and Lantern Control is very far from that at the moment.
What do you think about this quote? Could it apply to Bridge/Lantern Control in the future? If not, where does the logic break down? Interested on hearing your responses to this framework Wizards introduced.
I just want to take this time and say I really appreciate the work you've been doing, and think you are a large reason the modern community on this forum has been growing. Thank you for all your effort and time!
Thanks! It's a great community and a great format, and I'm happy to play a small part in helping those out.
Its not the same I dont think. Vintage was literally created for people to play "OP" cards. If you didnt want to play with the banlist, youd play legacy. Modern was created to dance around the Reserved List. The two dont connect.
Moving the topic away from nonsense like Dread Return, I was struck by a particular quote from Wizards' banlist explanation on Monday. Some reddit users also highlighted it, specifically in reference to Lantern Control and Ensnaring Bridge:
However, too many games are effectively decided by the first player's first turn. A major problem is that a turn-one Chalice of the Void for 0 deprives the opponent an opportunity to put Moxen on the battlefield. While players can adapt by not playing Moxen, the point of the format is to provide a place to play those cards.
Some users have argued that this could apply to Modern, Modern prison decks, and to Bridge. I personally don't buy it. Chalice is a major problem on turn-one. Bridge isn't a problem until turn three, giving an opponent much more time to deal with it. I also don't know if the "point of Modern" is to attack with creatures (an analog to Vintage's point being "playing Moxen"), so it's unclear to me that Bridge actually shuts down the format's main premise. And, of course, there's also the suggestion that the deck in question needs to be tier 1, and Lantern Control is very far from that at the moment.
What do you think about this quote? Could it apply to Bridge/Lantern Control in the future? If not, where does the logic break down? Interested on hearing your responses to this framework Wizards introduced.
I just want to take this time and say I really appreciate the work you've been doing, and think you are a large reason the modern community on this forum has been growing. Thank you for all your effort and time!
Thanks! It's a great community and a great format, and I'm happy to play a small part in helping those out.
Its not the same I dont think. Vintage was literally created for people to play "OP" cards. If you didnt want to play with the banlist, youd play legacy. Modern was created to dance around the Reserved List. The two dont connect.
It's a much different scenario with Vintage. There's no "you should play this card in every deck" type of card in Modern, those don't exist. Most Vintage decks (if not all) play Moxes and Lotus. And there's another thing, it's the only format you get to play with them. The format is literally designed so cards like that can see play. Look at Power 9, 6 of them are Moxes/Lotus. In a format where you're forced to play them, but have a card that just completely stops them, it's a little much.
If you try applying their logic elsewhere, you get into a scenario where any hate card can fall under the category. Leyline needs to be banned because Burn can't cast half their deck. Ensnaring Bridge needs to get banned because creature decks can't beat it. You have to think of it by the numbers, when you've got them in 95% of decks versus these prison cards in 2% or 5% of decks, it's a much different story. We're okay with things interacting with cards that see small amounts of play. Sowing Salt destroys Tron, but it's a risk you take as a RG Tron player.
However, too many games are effectively decided by the first player's first turn. A major problem is that a turn-one Chalice of the Void for 0 deprives the opponent an opportunity to put Moxen on the battlefield. While players can adapt by not playing Moxen, the point of the format is to provide a place to play those cards.
What do you think about this quote? Could it apply to Bridge/Lantern Control in the future? If not, where does the logic break down? Interested on hearing your responses to this framework Wizards introduced.
I don't think it applies to Lantern Control really.
The issue with Chalice is it allows one person to play their Moxen while the other person can't. Since it is a given Moxen are supposed to be legal in Vintage and they are amazing, allowing one person to have them and the other not is too swingy. I haven't played Vintage in 10 years, but I'm shocked Chalice wasn't restricted before now. Honestly, Wizards may be in trouble eventually even with this restriction, because of redundant effects. Trinisphere is essentially restricted for the same reason Chalice is, a turn 1 Trinisphere shuts down many Vintage decks and makes you feel like you're not playing Vintage. With Chalice and Trinisphere, Wizards only needs to print a couple more similar effects and even with restrictions you'll be able to play a critical mass of them.
Lantern Control on the other hand at least gives you a couple of turns to play your game. While its true that a Lantern god-hand could be extremely disruptive and give a player not much chance of having a way out of the box before they are locked down, god-hands exist in other Modern decks also. With all of that said, I'm not a fan of the Lantern deck, but it is very cleverly designed and not a problem in Modern at the moment.
In my opinion people are looking at the quote wrong. In essence the quote is saying both sides of the table should be able to play the match/game. If a certain card stops one side form doing such, they are going to ban it. The question is does bridge or the Lantern deck do those things in Modern? I think the mentality is the same for all formats, at least I would hope.
Moving the topic away from nonsense like Dread Return, I was struck by a particular quote from Wizards' banlist explanation on Monday. Some reddit users also highlighted it, specifically in reference to Lantern Control and Ensnaring Bridge:
However, too many games are effectively decided by the first player's first turn. A major problem is that a turn-one Chalice of the Void for 0 deprives the opponent an opportunity to put Moxen on the battlefield. While players can adapt by not playing Moxen, the point of the format is to provide a place to play those cards.
Some users have argued that this could apply to Modern, Modern prison decks, and to Bridge. I personally don't buy it. Chalice is a major problem on turn-one. Bridge isn't a problem until turn three, giving an opponent much more time to deal with it. I also don't know if the "point of Modern" is to attack with creatures (an analog to Vintage's point being "playing Moxen"), so it's unclear to me that Bridge actually shuts down the format's main premise. And, of course, there's also the suggestion that the deck in question needs to be tier 1, and Lantern Control is very far from that at the moment.
What do you think about this quote? Could it apply to Bridge/Lantern Control in the future? If not, where does the logic break down? Interested on hearing your responses to this framework Wizards introduced.
I just want to take this time and say I really appreciate the work you've been doing, and think you are a large reason the modern community on this forum has been growing. Thank you for all your effort and time!
Thanks! It's a great community and a great format, and I'm happy to play a small part in helping those out.
I don't think that it means anything, the restriction happened because Workshop was overpowered, I highly doubt that they would otherwise care much about the "unfun" aspect of a Vintage deck..
In my opinion people are looking at the quote wrong. In essence the quote is saying both sides of the table should be able to play the match/game. If a certain card stops one side form doing such, they are going to ban it. The question is does bridge or the Lantern deck do those things in Modern? I think the mentality is the same for all formats, at least I would hope.
The main reason for the restriction is that Workshop was just overpowered, Lantern control is not even close to tier 1 let alone overpowered, so in my opinion it's definitely not comparable.
In my opinion people are looking at the quote wrong. In essence the quote is saying both sides of the table should be able to play the match/game. If a certain card stops one side form doing such, they are going to ban it. The question is does bridge or the Lantern deck do those things in Modern? I think the mentality is the same for all formats, at least I would hope.
Actually, the quote saying:
"However, too many games are effectively decided by the first player's first turn."
That, is the problem. The cause is:
"A major problem is that a turn-one Chalice of the Void for 0 deprives the opponent an opportunity to put Moxen on the battlefield."
This is bad because:
"While players can adapt by not playing Moxen, the point of the format is to provide a place to play those cards."
So, as much as I want Lantern banned (due to brewer's pride), the rule cannot be applied to Lantern Control.
1. Games are not decided by Lantern's first turn.
2. Ensnaring Bridge does not deprive the opponent from "playing" their cards.
3. The point of Modern is not to turn creatures sideways. Then again, thats my opinion since wizards have never stated what the point of Modern is. But I do agree with this about it:
Quote from Djoron »
I don't see Modern as "the creature" format.
That's Standard.
Modern, to me, is somewhere in between the turn one kill combos of Vintage and Legacy and the super "turn creatures sideways" game of Standard.
It has some combo decks, Grishoalbrand, Amulet, Twin, but mostly Midrange or Aggro decks.
But that's only the top decks, and below are a vast amount of somewhat decent (rogue) decks, that do all sorts of things.
So, yes, creatures are more prevalent and important in most decks, even if they are combo decks, because most strong spells aren't in the format or banned.
But that doesn't make Modern a "only creature combat allowed" format.
That said... please continue with the Lantern ban talks, its interesting.
Its not really for any one of us to decide what stops another player to play the game/match. That is left to Wotc. Even in Vintage there are these things called lands and cards to destroy said artifact so play can go on. But Wotc felt turn zero chalice shut down enough players to warrant a ban. All I am saying is Wotc could see the same in Modern with any card they feel is stopping your opponent from playing the game/match. I do not know if they feel that way or not. I just hope they have the same attitude for all formats. I have always said for the game to grow and bring in more players, both sides of the table have to enjoy the match/game.
2. Ensnaring Bridge does not deprive the opponent from "playing" their cards.
It doesn't, but the rest of the deck is designed so that you get to draw very little that you can actually play. 75% of the cards you're going to get for the rest of the game that's going to go 30 turns start in your opening hand.
I keep going back and forth in my opinion of if this is a problem though. Is not being able to play your cards because they're all countered really any different than not being able to play your cards because they're all discarded or all countered or even because all of your creatures get killed? When I think about it in these terms the deck seems perfectly fine, but then when I actually play against it the feeling is just much different.
The way I personally came around to it, is like the T2 Amulet Primeval Titan. Once its down, are you essentially dead? Yes. Or when you are tapped out, and Deceiver Exarch is dropped, are you essentially dead? Yes.
So when Lantern assembles its combo (board state, whatever you want to call it) and you can essentially count your outs on 1 hand, are you dead? Yes.
Its just that with Lantern, people are not yet aware of when that lock is made on the game. At that point, its not 30 turns. Its 'yep, Turn 3 kill, gg' which makes it feel a WHOLE lot better. :]
The largest problem with chalice was that it invalidated its own best answers. steel sabotage and nature's claim became unplayable. When the strongest artifact hate in the format with the largest card pool is ingot chewer you have a problem.
If the real concern had been workshops power level they should have hit lodestone golem. The issue was the card, not the deck.
Not this again. We are not playing the "turn they gain board advantage" as turn they win again. Turn 2 titan has answers. It's your fault for tapping out into a turn 3 deceiver or pestermite. Lantern is a fair enough deck, it just aims for 70-30 and 30-70 match ups rather than striving for the 50-50 dream. It's like tron like that. A perfectly healthy piece of the meta.
The largest problem with chalice was that it invalidated its own best answers. steel sabotage and nature's claim became unplayable. When the strongest artifact hate in the format with the largest card pool is ingot chewer you have a problem.
If the real concern had been workshops power level they should have hit lodestone golem. The issue was the card, not the deck.
To be fair, the card was a major part of the deck.
Its not really for any one of us to decide what stops another player to play the game/match. That is left to Wotc. Even in Vintage there are these things called lands and cards to destroy said artifact so play can go on. But Wotc felt turn zero chalice shut down enough players to warrant a ban. All I am saying is Wotc could see the same in Modern with any card they feel is stopping your opponent from playing the game/match. I do not know if they feel that way or not. I just hope they have the same attitude for all formats. I have always said for the game to grow and bring in more players, both sides of the table have to enjoy the match/game.
Maybe I'm reading you wrong here, but I think you are confused why Chalice got restricted in Vintage.
Chalice was not restricted because it prevented any player from playing the game:
"While players can adapt by not playing Moxen,"
Chalice was restricted because Vintage is a format meant to use Moxen, it incentivizes the use of Moxen, and Chalice on turn 1 defeats the whole point by preventing players from playing Moxen:
"the point of the format is to provide a place to play those cards."
I'm not a Vintage player, but from this announcement I can only assume that in Vintage 90%+ of decks play both Moxen and Chalice. The problem that this creates is that most matches are decided on a coin flip, because whoever wins that flip will most probably win games 1 & 3 on the back of a turn 1 Chalice. The opponent can still play the game, they are just at a near impossible to come back disadvantage from the start, due to a coin flip. There is no luck or skill involved in the games, its all decided on a 50/50 coin flip and the games are just a formality.
This has no relation to how matches go down against Lantern Control. The deck is very powerful and something will get banned sooner or later as the meta share keeps increasing, like you said, WotC is the entity that decides what gets played and what gets cut. They can bring up any metric, known or unknown so far, to judge Lantern and ban something from it or ban it altogether. But it won't be because its turn 1 plays are broken or because its turn 1 plays are preventing players from playing cards meant to be played in modern. There is not a single line of play with Lantern that can seal a game on turn 1 like Chalice can seal a game on turn 1 in Vintage, trust me I've played Lantern basically on a daily basis since inception. Lantern's godhand is not even possible with current lists, it needs: (1) Lantern, (1) Mill rock, (2) Lands, (1) Bridge, (1) Mox & (1) non-Mox 0cmc artifact. That godhand allows for a turn 1 Lantern+mill rock and turn 2 Bridge with a 0-1 card hand. Even on that godhand, notice the Lantern player lacks discard spells, so ANY hate card the opponent has is good enough to break through. This is why during deck design we moved away from trying to get this godhand and prefered to have a more consistent and solid lock by turns 3-4 than an inconsistent and weak lock in turns 1-2.
However, and I'm playing devil's advocate once again, looking at modern's preban announcement of Dread Return I wouldn't be surprised if WotC really were to ban a deck on "unfun" arguments:
"The last turn-three deck that remained was Dredge. While Golgari Grave-Troll was banned, we found that Dredge was still very capable of turn-three kills. On top of this, Dredge is not known for being fun to have around. Although games against it are often interesting, the larger game of deciding whether to dedicate enough sideboard slots to defeat it or ignore it completely and hope not to play against it is one that is not very satisfying for most tournament players. We chose to ban the most explosive graveyard card rather than leave that subgame present."
Notice that Dread Return was banned because it could kill turn 3. But Dredge being an "unfun" mechanic, though not the reason to ban it, was apparently a factor WotC took into account when selecting Dread Return for a ban.
So yeah, I've been laughing pretty hard at people's arguments about banning it for not being fun, and LSV commented in his test videos that being fun is not a requirement for a deck, but in the end WotC could indeed ban it on those grounds if they truly want it gone and find no other solid reasons to do so. The problem with that is that it opens the gate for mob-rule as it is pretty hard to establish the line between fun and unfun. The player base then could mob out any deck simply by ganging up all over the place with comments on how unfun "X" deck is.
Personally I don't think the deck needs a huge meta share for WotC to notice something needs to be done. The deck is very hard to pilot and very mentally exhausting, which will keep its meta share low, but its a powerful enough deck that even at a low meta share it will be problematic because a good pilot will always do great with it. Case in point, Zac went Top 16 in his first GP playing it (which he claims he didn't win because he punted 2 games) and then he won the next GP (and he called it not once but twice) . So as more players begin to pilot it efficiently, even at a low meta share we could start seeing multiple Lantern decks consistently getting into Top 8/16s. But we'll have to wait and see what happens about that, its just a hunch of my own.
I understand exactly why Chalice was restricted in Vintage, and I understand Vintage and Modern are 2 different formats. All I am trying to say is, if Wotc is going to restrict a card in a format they more or less have given up on in Vintage because of limiting game play of one of the players at the table, I would hope that Wotc has that same mentality for all formats and would do the same for all formats.
I have not said anything needs to be banned. That is up to Wotc to decide. Ill be honest and say I am not a fan of ensnaring bridge or prison type decks in any format. It wouldnt hurt my feelings if all prison decks in all formats were banned from competitive play. But again, that is not my place, that falls on Wotc.
I am a firm believer both sides of the table have to enjoy the experience for the game to grow. Once we have upset or disgruntled players because they are not enjoying the experience, the game is in trouble. And before anyone says it, you dont have to win every match up to be enjoying the experience. You can lose and enjoy the experience and feel you had a shot at the game or match. I also understand that is different to different players. Thats why its up to Wotc to recognize if a deck is effecting the game in a negative way, no matter how the vocal player base feels.
Is not being able to play your cards because they're all countered (think he meant to say milled here) really any different than not being able to play your cards because they're all discarded or all countered or even because all of your creatures get killed?
Is not being able to play your cards because they're all countered (think he meant to say milled here) really any different than not being able to play your cards because they're all discarded or all countered or even because all of your creatures get killed?
I guess only time will answer that question.
Yes sorry, is it any different that you can't play your cards because anything useful is milled compared to the other types of denial out there.
Is not being able to play your cards because they're all countered (think he meant to say milled here) really any different than not being able to play your cards because they're all discarded or all countered or even because all of your creatures get killed?
I guess only time will answer that question.
It comes down to if the deck is effecting the format in a negative way. Are less players showing up to events because the deck is being played? (and can be directly pointed to the deck) Are there logistic issues with the deck at these events? Are there enough players actually playing the deck to cause problems?
Like you said, time will tell.
One thing I do know, people are effected differently by counters, discard, land destruction, and mill. What is fine for one, may not be for another. Wotc has found certain things hurt the game in a negative way and has tried to shift game design away form those mechanics. I am mildly surprised a deck like Lantern control has popped up in Modern since Wotc has shied away form decks like that being competitive. Then I looked at the number of sets it took to put the deck together and figured it was inevitable, and I expect to see more like it in the future with more sets coming out.
Is not being able to play your cards because they're all countered (think he meant to say milled here) really any different than not being able to play your cards because they're all discarded or all countered or even because all of your creatures get killed?
I guess only time will answer that question.
It comes down to if the deck is effecting the format in a negative way. Are less players showing up to events because the deck is being played? (and can be directly pointed to the deck) Are there logistic issues with the deck at these events? Are there enough players actually playing the deck to cause problems?
Like you said, time will tell.
One thing I do know, people are effected differently by counters, discard, land destruction, and mill. What is fine for one, may not be for another. Wotc has found certain things hurt the game in a negative way and has tried to shift game design away form those mechanics. I am mildly surprised a deck like Lantern control has popped up in Modern since Wotc has shied away form decks like that being competitive. Then I looked at the number of sets it took to put the deck together and figured it was inevitable, and I expect to see more like it in the future with more sets coming out.
IMO, time isn't going to tell. Nothing is going to get banned from lantern and this discussion could feasibly all end for everyone else's benefit.
1. Not enough people enjoy this strategy for it to ever get a big meta share.
2. even a semi-competent pilot can close out a game with this deck after a little bit of practice. There is no ban chance because the deck goes to time.
3. Ensnaring bridge can be answered--in every other deck it is a trap card that occasionally cheeses wins, but isn't unbeatable.
4. The lock after a few turns is pretty solid--but takes a few turns to get fully online (equivalent of other modern insta-win combo turns, if not later).
5. When the deck loses, it loses quickly--we're not grinding out miserable wins against it when we are going to win.
6. It is meta-gamable as a safety gap, the answers for it are in the format. It doesn't create another unhealthy meta-game deck--the hate is more or less the same as against affinity (a clearly accepted by WOTC mini-game deck).
7. The wins we're seeing are by a single, very dedicated, very talented pilot who's been working on this creation forever--a player is taking a format by storm, not a deck or archetype.
8. Wizards is smarter than players who want pieces of this deck banned.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
About a year ago, maybe more, Kt tested Dredge with Dread Return and in the end the argument went from if it was powerful and consistent (which it was found to be) to what was the best build. I think it was 'going off' before turn 4 around 30% of the time, but not sure of the exact percentage.
I think it will become very relevant in Modern as we move forward. If they are noticing the effects of this in an eternal format that has very little support from Wotc, I think Wotc will think the same way for a format they are supporting and pushing. Does that mean they hit Lantern or Bloom in January? This could be setting up the reasoning for it, but only time will tell.
I don't players are secretly or subconsciously trying to shape the meta a certain way.
The more likely explanation is, that the mentioned decks, Amulet and Lantern especially, are rather hard to play and master.
I for example would like to play Amulet, but tbh..I cba to learn it, so I don't.
Similarly, I adore Lantern's whole concept and slow controlling mill strategy, but just don't enjoy playing the deck myself. It's pretty taxing, and even though I know most decks in the meta relatively well, when I get home after a day of work and want to play some Modo to relax, playing Lantern isn't the first thing that comes to mind. ;>
Yes, that is just me and anecdotal evidence, but this line of thinking seems a lot more likely than people secretly trying to steer the meta in a certain direction.
Plus Lantern is a pretty weird and recent deck, so a lot of people don't take it for full yet, I imagine.
I don't see Modern as "the creature" format.
That's Standard.
Modern, to me, is somewhere in between the turn one kill combos of Vintage and Legacy and the super "turn creatures sideways" game of Standard.
It has some combo decks, Grishoalbrand, Amulet, Twin, but mostly Midrange or Aggro decks.
But that's only the top decks, and below are a vast amount of somewhat decent (rogue) decks, that do all sorts of things.
So, yes, creatures are more prevalent and important in most decks, even if they are combo decks, because most strong spells aren't in the format or banned.
But that doesn't make Modern a "only creature combat allowed" format.
Additionally, Modern is rather expensive. Not quite as much as Legacy/Vintage decks that need blue duals, but there's not much price difference between a Modern Jund deck and e.g. Legacy MUD.
So, switching decks can be a hassle too, even more so when niche cards for specific decks are sometimes very expensive and don't offer much overlap with other decks.
Switching between Twin variants is obviously a lot easier than going from Burn to Lantern, requiring a heap of relatively expensive things like Glimmervoid or Mox Opal.
It's a bit easier (on the wallet) online, in most cases, but in paper I can understand someone not changing to e.g. Amulet simply because of it's prize, deck-specific cards and learning curve, even though the deck's results or playstyle might interest the person.
So, overall, it's a lot more complex than "people don't want X deck in the format, so they don't play it and hope it fades away". (If anything, they should ALL play it, do very good at it and get it banned. :P)
In the end...people are going to complain about any deck anyway, no matter if it's reasonable.
And fun for your opponent is by no means a requirement in (competitive) Magic.
Standard infinite combos giving you a headache and the opponent always has Force of Will?
No matter the issue, there is one simple trick to solve all of your Magic problems!!
~~~To get in on the secret to eternal luck, skill and victory, just follow this link!!~~~
Twitch: gamerchamp
Modern: UGrand Architect, UBTezzeret Control, UBWRG Bridge From Below (Dredge)
Legacy: UWGTrue-Name Bant
Its not the same I dont think. Vintage was literally created for people to play "OP" cards. If you didnt want to play with the banlist, youd play legacy. Modern was created to dance around the Reserved List. The two dont connect.
If you try applying their logic elsewhere, you get into a scenario where any hate card can fall under the category. Leyline needs to be banned because Burn can't cast half their deck. Ensnaring Bridge needs to get banned because creature decks can't beat it. You have to think of it by the numbers, when you've got them in 95% of decks versus these prison cards in 2% or 5% of decks, it's a much different story. We're okay with things interacting with cards that see small amounts of play. Sowing Salt destroys Tron, but it's a risk you take as a RG Tron player.
Grixis Death's Shadow, Jund, UW Tron, Jeskai Control, Storm, Counters Company, Eldrazi Tron, Affinity, Living End, Infect, Merfolk, Dredge, Ad Nauseam, Amulet, Bogles, Eldrazi Tron, Mono U Tron, Lantern, Mardu Pyromancer
I don't think it applies to Lantern Control really.
The issue with Chalice is it allows one person to play their Moxen while the other person can't. Since it is a given Moxen are supposed to be legal in Vintage and they are amazing, allowing one person to have them and the other not is too swingy. I haven't played Vintage in 10 years, but I'm shocked Chalice wasn't restricted before now. Honestly, Wizards may be in trouble eventually even with this restriction, because of redundant effects. Trinisphere is essentially restricted for the same reason Chalice is, a turn 1 Trinisphere shuts down many Vintage decks and makes you feel like you're not playing Vintage. With Chalice and Trinisphere, Wizards only needs to print a couple more similar effects and even with restrictions you'll be able to play a critical mass of them.
Lantern Control on the other hand at least gives you a couple of turns to play your game. While its true that a Lantern god-hand could be extremely disruptive and give a player not much chance of having a way out of the box before they are locked down, god-hands exist in other Modern decks also. With all of that said, I'm not a fan of the Lantern deck, but it is very cleverly designed and not a problem in Modern at the moment.
I don't think that it means anything, the restriction happened because Workshop was overpowered, I highly doubt that they would otherwise care much about the "unfun" aspect of a Vintage deck..
The main reason for the restriction is that Workshop was just overpowered, Lantern control is not even close to tier 1 let alone overpowered, so in my opinion it's definitely not comparable.
Actually, the quote saying:
"However, too many games are effectively decided by the first player's first turn."
That, is the problem. The cause is:
"A major problem is that a turn-one Chalice of the Void for 0 deprives the opponent an opportunity to put Moxen on the battlefield."
This is bad because:
"While players can adapt by not playing Moxen, the point of the format is to provide a place to play those cards."
So, as much as I want Lantern banned (due to brewer's pride), the rule cannot be applied to Lantern Control.
1. Games are not decided by Lantern's first turn.
2. Ensnaring Bridge does not deprive the opponent from "playing" their cards.
3. The point of Modern is not to turn creatures sideways. Then again, thats my opinion since wizards have never stated what the point of Modern is. But I do agree with this about it:
That said... please continue with the Lantern ban talks, its interesting.
"When you get your opponent down to 0 sanity, you win the game!"
It doesn't, but the rest of the deck is designed so that you get to draw very little that you can actually play. 75% of the cards you're going to get for the rest of the game that's going to go 30 turns start in your opening hand.
I keep going back and forth in my opinion of if this is a problem though. Is not being able to play your cards because they're all countered really any different than not being able to play your cards because they're all discarded or all countered or even because all of your creatures get killed? When I think about it in these terms the deck seems perfectly fine, but then when I actually play against it the feeling is just much different.
So when Lantern assembles its combo (board state, whatever you want to call it) and you can essentially count your outs on 1 hand, are you dead? Yes.
Its just that with Lantern, people are not yet aware of when that lock is made on the game. At that point, its not 30 turns. Its 'yep, Turn 3 kill, gg' which makes it feel a WHOLE lot better. :]
Spirits
If the real concern had been workshops power level they should have hit lodestone golem. The issue was the card, not the deck.
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
Lantern absolutely needs no kinda ban whatsoever
Spirits
Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed.
Maybe I'm reading you wrong here, but I think you are confused why Chalice got restricted in Vintage.
Chalice was not restricted because it prevented any player from playing the game:
"While players can adapt by not playing Moxen,"
Chalice was restricted because Vintage is a format meant to use Moxen, it incentivizes the use of Moxen, and Chalice on turn 1 defeats the whole point by preventing players from playing Moxen:
"the point of the format is to provide a place to play those cards."
I'm not a Vintage player, but from this announcement I can only assume that in Vintage 90%+ of decks play both Moxen and Chalice. The problem that this creates is that most matches are decided on a coin flip, because whoever wins that flip will most probably win games 1 & 3 on the back of a turn 1 Chalice. The opponent can still play the game, they are just at a near impossible to come back disadvantage from the start, due to a coin flip. There is no luck or skill involved in the games, its all decided on a 50/50 coin flip and the games are just a formality.
This has no relation to how matches go down against Lantern Control. The deck is very powerful and something will get banned sooner or later as the meta share keeps increasing, like you said, WotC is the entity that decides what gets played and what gets cut. They can bring up any metric, known or unknown so far, to judge Lantern and ban something from it or ban it altogether. But it won't be because its turn 1 plays are broken or because its turn 1 plays are preventing players from playing cards meant to be played in modern. There is not a single line of play with Lantern that can seal a game on turn 1 like Chalice can seal a game on turn 1 in Vintage, trust me I've played Lantern basically on a daily basis since inception. Lantern's godhand is not even possible with current lists, it needs: (1) Lantern, (1) Mill rock, (2) Lands, (1) Bridge, (1) Mox & (1) non-Mox 0cmc artifact. That godhand allows for a turn 1 Lantern+mill rock and turn 2 Bridge with a 0-1 card hand. Even on that godhand, notice the Lantern player lacks discard spells, so ANY hate card the opponent has is good enough to break through. This is why during deck design we moved away from trying to get this godhand and prefered to have a more consistent and solid lock by turns 3-4 than an inconsistent and weak lock in turns 1-2.
However, and I'm playing devil's advocate once again, looking at modern's preban announcement of Dread Return I wouldn't be surprised if WotC really were to ban a deck on "unfun" arguments:
"The last turn-three deck that remained was Dredge. While Golgari Grave-Troll was banned, we found that Dredge was still very capable of turn-three kills. On top of this, Dredge is not known for being fun to have around. Although games against it are often interesting, the larger game of deciding whether to dedicate enough sideboard slots to defeat it or ignore it completely and hope not to play against it is one that is not very satisfying for most tournament players. We chose to ban the most explosive graveyard card rather than leave that subgame present."
Notice that Dread Return was banned because it could kill turn 3. But Dredge being an "unfun" mechanic, though not the reason to ban it, was apparently a factor WotC took into account when selecting Dread Return for a ban.
So yeah, I've been laughing pretty hard at people's arguments about banning it for not being fun, and LSV commented in his test videos that being fun is not a requirement for a deck, but in the end WotC could indeed ban it on those grounds if they truly want it gone and find no other solid reasons to do so. The problem with that is that it opens the gate for mob-rule as it is pretty hard to establish the line between fun and unfun. The player base then could mob out any deck simply by ganging up all over the place with comments on how unfun "X" deck is.
Personally I don't think the deck needs a huge meta share for WotC to notice something needs to be done. The deck is very hard to pilot and very mentally exhausting, which will keep its meta share low, but its a powerful enough deck that even at a low meta share it will be problematic because a good pilot will always do great with it. Case in point, Zac went Top 16 in his first GP playing it (which he claims he didn't win because he punted 2 games) and then he won the next GP (and he called it not once but twice) . So as more players begin to pilot it efficiently, even at a low meta share we could start seeing multiple Lantern decks consistently getting into Top 8/16s. But we'll have to wait and see what happens about that, its just a hunch of my own.
"When you get your opponent down to 0 sanity, you win the game!"
I have not said anything needs to be banned. That is up to Wotc to decide. Ill be honest and say I am not a fan of ensnaring bridge or prison type decks in any format. It wouldnt hurt my feelings if all prison decks in all formats were banned from competitive play. But again, that is not my place, that falls on Wotc.
I am a firm believer both sides of the table have to enjoy the experience for the game to grow. Once we have upset or disgruntled players because they are not enjoying the experience, the game is in trouble. And before anyone says it, you dont have to win every match up to be enjoying the experience. You can lose and enjoy the experience and feel you had a shot at the game or match. I also understand that is different to different players. Thats why its up to Wotc to recognize if a deck is effecting the game in a negative way, no matter how the vocal player base feels.
I guess only time will answer that question.
"When you get your opponent down to 0 sanity, you win the game!"
Yes sorry, is it any different that you can't play your cards because anything useful is milled compared to the other types of denial out there.
It comes down to if the deck is effecting the format in a negative way. Are less players showing up to events because the deck is being played? (and can be directly pointed to the deck) Are there logistic issues with the deck at these events? Are there enough players actually playing the deck to cause problems?
Like you said, time will tell.
One thing I do know, people are effected differently by counters, discard, land destruction, and mill. What is fine for one, may not be for another. Wotc has found certain things hurt the game in a negative way and has tried to shift game design away form those mechanics. I am mildly surprised a deck like Lantern control has popped up in Modern since Wotc has shied away form decks like that being competitive. Then I looked at the number of sets it took to put the deck together and figured it was inevitable, and I expect to see more like it in the future with more sets coming out.
Twitch: gamerchamp
Modern: UGrand Architect, UBTezzeret Control, UBWRG Bridge From Below (Dredge)
Legacy: UWGTrue-Name Bant
IMO, time isn't going to tell. Nothing is going to get banned from lantern and this discussion could feasibly all end for everyone else's benefit.
1. Not enough people enjoy this strategy for it to ever get a big meta share.
2. even a semi-competent pilot can close out a game with this deck after a little bit of practice. There is no ban chance because the deck goes to time.
3. Ensnaring bridge can be answered--in every other deck it is a trap card that occasionally cheeses wins, but isn't unbeatable.
4. The lock after a few turns is pretty solid--but takes a few turns to get fully online (equivalent of other modern insta-win combo turns, if not later).
5. When the deck loses, it loses quickly--we're not grinding out miserable wins against it when we are going to win.
6. It is meta-gamable as a safety gap, the answers for it are in the format. It doesn't create another unhealthy meta-game deck--the hate is more or less the same as against affinity (a clearly accepted by WOTC mini-game deck).
7. The wins we're seeing are by a single, very dedicated, very talented pilot who's been working on this creation forever--a player is taking a format by storm, not a deck or archetype.
8. Wizards is smarter than players who want pieces of this deck banned.