The issue, to me, is that there simply is no mitigation to Big Mana for a Control player. Without Twin, (or a Twin like effect) the match up just seems too tilted, there is no reason to play Control when such a bad matchup exists, and your other match up's are not tilted in your favour.
I dont want big mana banned, but if we are going to have such lopsided percentages, I dont know that that is good either.
I often laugh when I hear people say"every deck/archtype needs a weakness"... as they play their lopsided matchups with their linear deck. Not realizing that in fact some decks have to work hard to squeeze in EVERY win. And that these very decks actually DO NOT need any more 30/70 matchups added to their competition as all it does is stifle thier existence slowly from the meta.
Yes, poor BG/x, which only makes up 11% of the metagame! Let us weep because it has to deal with those pesky ramp decks that it can't just have a 50/50 matchup against! It truly is one of the tragedies of the world.
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 just clearly stated that we have to work hard for our wins didn't I? Valakut tron and Eldrazi arguably suppress 2 non bgx archtypes in both control and midrange.
Can't we have more midrange than jund? Where did tokens, coco ,dnt, hate bears go?
If aggro is suppressing fast mana/ramp than why is it currently 20%+?
Actually with tight play blue can barely squeeze in wins vs most decks except the ramp/fast mana ones. I doubt blue control would be oppressive without those decks around.
Look at the top decks on mtg goldfish and tell me if my ban suggestions dont the fix blue controls issues lol
Midrange already is the best with bgx...
Blue control in top tier would alleviate a bit of weight bgx is pulling currently in this linear game. So yea I do want them to be the best in the game but not by much, why? Less bans , less linear, more fun
The issue, to me, is that there simply is no mitigation to Big Mana for a Control player. Without Twin, (or a Twin like effect) the match up just seems too tilted, there is no reason to play Control when such a bad matchup exists, and your other match up's are not tilted in your favour.
I dont want big mana banned, but if we are going to have such lopsided percentages, I dont know that that is good either.
I totally agree. I really do want blue decks to get better tools and improve their metagame share. That said, banning more cards (especially the absurd suggestion of banning FIVE cards) is not one such solution. That just creates new problems, like basically every metagame diversity ban to-date.
It's just really puzzling why people think bans are the answer after years of bans failing to positively shape Modern. Now we can add to that a series of bans that abjectly failed at their intent in Standard (diversifying the format, depowering vehicle decks). Bans are not the solution. I'd go so far as to say they were never the solution, at least not to most (minus things like Eldrazi) of the metagame diversity issues. The issue has always been more answers and better answers. Hopefully with Standard looking the way it is and Stoddard's recent announcement about design issues, we can start to see those answers.
Blue control in top tier would alleviate a bit of weight bgx is pulling currently in this linear game. So yea I do want them to be the best in the game but not by much, why? Less bans , less linear, more fun
I'm glad you've made this admission and that it's out there in the thread. You want to be playing the "best" deck and have all the bad matchups banned out. This is clearly what is driving your banlist suggestions and, thankfully, is totally antithetical to every format management decision Wizards has ever made.
I'm also baffled how you think that banning FIVE MORE CARDS means "less bans." It doesn't even mean "more fun;" it will inevitably create even more issues and problems like basically every other banlist change to-date.
Preordain was a card i was expecting to potentially be unbanned in April after the Probe and Troll bans. My reasoning was that they seem to keep trying to help reactive/control strategies and they keep failing because of Standard's inherent low power level in comparison to Modern. A Preordain unban would incentivize Modern's player base to keep playing despite the constant bannings and metagame fiascos. It would basically stop the loud outcry.
I said this many months ago and still think it apllies beyond recent card pool changes. Preordain is not as safe a unban as some may think. Modern is so volatile that a cantrip with the power level of Serum Visions(potentially better than Visions) could warp the hell out of the metagame. My initial reaction would be that Ad Nauseam would become a much better deck than it is right now. Sleight is basically nerfed-Preordain. It would still be a Turn 4 safe combo. The issue is the critical mass of deck manipulating cantrips. I don't even need to make reference to why Preordain was banned, they explicity said that too many cantrips make games go too similar to each other.
Not that Preordain is far from Serum Visions, they are certainly fine without each other(Preordain could be Modern's cantrip if Visions didn't exist and we would be fine probably).
Also, i don't see an actual Control deck not playing Serum Visions adding Preordain. Blue control decks don't need card selection, they need card advantage. Corey Burkhart seems to hit the button with his 22-land build of Grixis. He plays 8 1 mana cantrips and Ancestral Vision for CA. It more of a velocity deck than a Draw-go style of control.
I think Blue control issues could be even fixed by something like an instant-speed Compulsive Research.
Ultimately, i hate Tron,Valakut,Blood Moon and Bridge. That doensn't mean i want them banned. I would prefer to compete with them than having them on the banlist. I do not wish for anyone to see their deck go unless it's Cruise/Eldrazi Winter eras.
The issue, to me, is that there simply is no mitigation to Big Mana for a Control player. Without Twin, (or a Twin like effect) the match up just seems too tilted, there is no reason to play Control when such a bad matchup exists, and your other match up's are not tilted in your favour.
I dont want big mana banned, but if we are going to have such lopsided percentages, I dont know that that is good either.
those lopsided games are horrible for the game why not just flip a coin? Shouldn't this game be about skill?
I often laugh when I hear people say"every deck/archtype needs a weakness"... as they play their lopsided matchups with their linear deck. Not realizing that in fact some decks have to work hard to squeeze in EVERY win. And that these very decks actually DO NOT need any more 30/70 matchups added to their competition as all it does is stifle thier existence slowly from the meta.
Yes, poor BG/x, which only makes up 11% of the metagame! Let us weep because it has to deal with those pesky ramp decks that it can't just have a 50/50 matchup against! It truly is one of the tragedies of the world.
it's actually the splash damage to other fair strategies that is what I'm frustrated about. Other strategies that could all exist in this game with decent prevalence if not for a hand full of top 1-2 tier decks atm
The issue, to me, is that there simply is no mitigation to Big Mana for a Control player. Without Twin, (or a Twin like effect) the match up just seems too tilted, there is no reason to play Control when such a bad matchup exists, and your other match up's are not tilted in your favour.
I dont want big mana banned, but if we are going to have such lopsided percentages, I dont know that that is good either.
I totally agree. I really do want blue decks to get better tools and improve their metagame share. That said, banning more cards (especially the absurd suggestion of banning FIVE cards) is not one such solution. That just creates new problems, like basically every metagame diversity ban to-date.
It's just really puzzling why people think bans are the answer after years of bans failing to positively shape Modern. Now we can add to that a series of bans that abjectly failed at their intent in Standard (diversifying the format, depowering vehicle decks). Bans are not the solution. I'd go so far as to say they were never the solution, at least not to most (minus things like Eldrazi) of the metagame diversity issues. The issue has always been more answers and better answers. Hopefully with Standard looking the way it is and Stoddard's recent announcement about design issues, we can start to see those answers.
Blue control in top tier would alleviate a bit of weight bgx is pulling currently in this linear game. So yea I do want them to be the best in the game but not by much, why? Less bans , less linear, more fun
I'm glad you've made this admission and that it's out there in the thread. You want to be playing the "best" deck and have all the bad matchups banned out. This is clearly what is driving your banlist suggestions and, thankfully, is totally antithetical to every format management decision Wizards has ever made.
I'm also baffled how you think that banning FIVE MORE CARDS means "less bans." It doesn't even mean "more fun;" it will inevitably create even more issues and problems like basically every other banlist change to-date.
on answers:we've been waiting for years....
Bans actually have been good for the most part for this game.
What makes you think hitting those 5 cards wouldn't make control and non bgx midrange better?
The issue, to me, is that there simply is no mitigation to Big Mana for a Control player. Without Twin, (or a Twin like effect) the match up just seems too tilted, there is no reason to play Control when such a bad matchup exists, and your other match up's are not tilted in your favour.
I dont want big mana banned, but if we are going to have such lopsided percentages, I dont know that that is good either.
I totally agree. I really do want blue decks to get better tools and improve their metagame share. That said, banning more cards (especially the absurd suggestion of banning FIVE cards) is not one such solution. That just creates new problems, like basically every metagame diversity ban to-date.
It's just really puzzling why people think bans are the answer after years of bans failing to positively shape Modern. Now we can add to that a series of bans that abjectly failed at their intent in Standard (diversifying the format, depowering vehicle decks). Bans are not the solution. I'd go so far as to say they were never the solution, at least not to most (minus things like Eldrazi) of the metagame diversity issues. The issue has always been more answers and better answers. Hopefully with Standard looking the way it is and Stoddard's recent announcement about design issues, we can start to see those answers.
Blue control in top tier would alleviate a bit of weight bgx is pulling currently in this linear game. So yea I do want them to be the best in the game but not by much, why? Less bans , less linear, more fun
I'm glad you've made this admission and that it's out there in the thread. You want to be playing the "best" deck and have all the bad matchups banned out. This is clearly what is driving your banlist suggestions and, thankfully, is totally antithetical to every format management decision Wizards has ever made.
I'm also baffled how you think that banning FIVE MORE CARDS means "less bans." It doesn't even mean "more fun;" it will inevitably create even more issues and problems like basically every other banlist change to-date.
who doesn't want to play the best decks? Doesn't everyone?. Have the worst matchups banned out eh? Even though I never mentioned beatable yet tough matchups that blue control has. But that's just it, beatable, not 30/70** if you think someone wanting blue control to be as strong as bgx is someone who wants zero bad matchups.than you need to play several hundred games of grixis control on MTGO and see what I'm talking about when I say we don't have many good matchups.
If I was burn complaining about kitchen finks that's one thing, but this is a completely different angle I'm coming from.
You play ad nauseum and probably crush alot of fair decks all the time, we are all a little biased Sheridian.
Sometimes you have to make more bans now so ull need less bans later. Bans are inevitable in eternal TCGs no matter how good the answers.
I never said RANDOM(SOME) PROS should balance the format. This is just Lord_Seth and his cherrypicking into which I am not going to delve more, because he has proven to all of us that his arguments lack the most basics of logic. Eg, he just said Karn is not a problem, because ehm, its happening on turn 3. So, what's the point of even answering to a guy who thinks Karn on Turn 3 is OK? Everybody has his opinion, I am sorry about his.
>Accuses me of cherrypicking.
>Immediately cherrypicks a statement I made.
Seems legit.
The "it's not until turn 3" was in comparison to lockout things you could do on the first and second turn, whereas Karn lands on the third turn at the earliest. My point was that lumping in Karn with those sort of things was silly because of it coming later. A turn 1 Chalice can be a lockout against certain decks before they have the opportunity to do anythnig, but Karn can't do his thing until turn 3. Trying to claim my argument was "Karn is not a problem, because ehm, its happening on turn 3" is disingenuous and the exact cherrypicking you accuse me of doing.
If you wanted an explanation as to why the possibility of a turn 3 Karn is not a real issue, you could have asked about that more specifically, but apparently I'm supposed to respond to arguments you didn't actually make. At any rate, as others have pointed out, turn 3 Karn is not instantly gamewinning, requires Tron bend over backwards to even make it a possibility, can be thwarted by many pieces of disruption (did discard spells and counterspells suddenly stop existing when I wasn't looking?*), and finally, usually doesn't happen. In a pure goldfish scenario (i.e. zero disruption), Tron doesn't get turn 3 Urzatron most of the time. And if it doesn't get Urzatron assembled most of the time, it's getting out that Karn on the third turn even less frequently.
The rest of your message is about the pros, which some others have already responded to, so I will skip that over.
*If the counterargument is that counterspells are too weak, then the answer is to reprint Counterspell as I've argued for frequently.
We just got Fatal Push which was explicitly aimed at Modern. We also just got Stoddard's article publicly admitting to the flaw in the "threats-stronger-than-answers" design mentality. We owe it to Wizards and the format to allow those answers to come and the new philosophy to kick in.
What makes you think hitting those 5 cards wouldn't make control and non bgx midrange better?
You'd have a format which was entirely control and midrange. Eventually, 1-2 decks would emerge as the best and then it would be like many of the worst Standard seasons of the past years. Aggro and combo would be Tier 2 at best and ramp would be dead. This sounds entirely different than the diverse Modern Wizards is trying to push. Sure, it sounds much more like your own personal vision of a format you would enjoy, but that's not the Modern Wizards cares to create. I've also seen no evidence to suggest it's the kind of Modern most players want. It's not even an imitation of Legacy. It would just be unhealthy and stagnant, even if the individual games of the 1-2 best decks might be skill-testing. The thing is, the vast majority of people (Wizards included) don't want skill-testing Caw Blade mirrors.
I just clearly stated that we have to work hard for our wins didn't I? Valakut tron and Eldrazi arguably suppress 2 non bgx archtypes in both control and midrange.
Can't we have more midrange than jund? Where did tokens, coco ,dnt, hate bears go?
If aggro is suppressing fast mana/ramp than why is it currently 20%+?
Actually with tight play blue can barely squeeze in wins vs most decks except the ramp/fast mana ones. I doubt blue control would be oppressive without those decks around.
Look at the top decks on mtg goldfish and tell me if my ban suggestions dont the fix blue controls issues lol
Midrange already is the best with bgx...
Blue control in top tier would alleviate a bit of weight bgx is pulling currently in this linear game. So yea I do want them to be the best in the game but not by much, why? Less bans , less linear, more fun
Can't speak for the other decks, but I played hatebears for quite a while, and it's fair game gets you run over by goyfs, and the most unfair thing it can do isn't even that powerful. It lacks a clock and real disruption.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy
Death and Taxes Pauper
UB Teachings
Tortured Existence
Murasa Tron Modern
Pod (RIP)
Bloom(RIP)
Merfolk
Except it wouldn't be. Top 2 tiers would probably look something like:
BGx urx burn abzan coco merfolk dredge bogles elves 8 rack zoo blood moon prison death and taxes.......
With bgx and urx not necessarally at the top
I could go on....
I just clearly stated that we have to work hard for our wins didn't I? Valakut tron and Eldrazi arguably suppress 2 non bgx archtypes in both control and midrange.
Can't we have more midrange than jund? Where did tokens, coco ,dnt, hate bears go?
If aggro is suppressing fast mana/ramp than why is it currently 20%+?
Actually with tight play blue can barely squeeze in wins vs most decks except the ramp/fast mana ones. I doubt blue control would be oppressive without those decks around.
Look at the top decks on mtg goldfish and tell me if my ban suggestions dont the fix blue controls issues lol
Midrange already is the best with bgx...
Blue control in top tier would alleviate a bit of weight bgx is pulling currently in this linear game. So yea I do want them to be the best in the game but not by much, why? Less bans , less linear, more fun
Can't speak for the other decks, but I played hatebears for quite a while, and it's fair game gets you run over by goyfs, and the most unfair thing it can do isn't even that powerful. It lacks a clock and real disruption.
why not add black for thoughtsieze? And maybe a sfm unban?
The issue, to me, is that there simply is no mitigation to Big Mana for a Control player. Without Twin, (or a Twin like effect) the match up just seems too tilted, there is no reason to play Control when such a bad matchup exists, and your other match up's are not tilted in your favour.
I dont want big mana banned, but if we are going to have such lopsided percentages, I dont know that that is good either.
Big Mana decks have not, and have never been, the reason control has issues in Modern. Sure, they're not great matchups. But the problem isn't Tron, which is something like 3-5% of the format. It's the rest of the format. You don't blame the deck you play once every 20 rounds, it's the decks you play the other 19 rounds that are critical to your success or failure.
BGx does fine in spite of Tron because the deck is good. Its answers are decent and it has some aggression to help it out. Control, naturally lacking the aggression, should be able to make up for that by having better answers... but it doesn't.
Tribal Spiders has a pretty terrible Tron matchup. But somehow, I don't think Tron is the reason that deck doesn't put up results.
The answer to control's woes was, is, and will always be: Have there be actually good control cards. Counterspell is a great card for such decks. In regards to card advantage, I think Fact or Fiction (EOTFOFYL) could be a powerful card advantage card for control decks; it wouldn't go into combo decks and unlike Ancestral Vision, isn't reliant on being in your opening hand. But both of these cards predate 8th Edition and aren't legal in Modern as a result.
For quite some time, I've been saying Modern should've started earlier. But they didn't, and it seems unlikely for them to move it back, so the solution would seem to be to try to get some of those pre-8th Edition cards to help fix the format up.
As a twin player I agree that the Twin combo had too many good matchups.
But now urx has a Crapton of bad ones like you said. Hopefully wizards meets us in the middle somewhere.
I've also only played twin in 10 percent of my games because I own most decks and I enjoy variety .so the wake up to reality segment of your comment is moot.
I'm fine with ramp/big-mana strategies being powerful and having a good Ux control MU. It's supposed to be that way. The problem is Ux control is too weak in general so it doesn't have as good of MU's against the other archetypes in the format that you'd need/want for it to have a place. We all pile on about Counterspell, but that is one direction that helps. Accumulated Knowledge would probably be our most consistent and powerful CA avenue, while at the same time having a GY weakness. The other alternative is them unbanning JTMS so that he can become the main win-con of the deck while also fulfilling other roles, but we'd also need better general answers at the same time.
The point I'm making is not that the Trons and Valakuts of the world are keeping control back (when those archetypes barely make 15% of the meta, it's silly to suggest they do), but the general weakness of the reactive cards in the format that is. The easiest parallel is to look at Miracles in Legacy. It's still one of the best decks in the format while there are still powerful big mana foils to the deck. Miracles is the appropriate powerlevel that a control deck needs to be T1 in Legacy. The same cannot be said for Modern's control decks. The CA tools are either inconsistent (AV), put you into a specific 3 color combination (Esper Charm), or are very inefficient (TT/Glimmer of Genius/etc.), the counterspells are in the same boat. Mana Leak is a fine card for delver decks - not control decks. The best alternative options - cards like Logic Knot, Deprive, Negate, etc. all have pretty severe drawbacks (Logic Knot being by far the best of them). Cryptic Command is powerful yes, but also 4 mana and being UUU is not exactly the easiest to count on (it has its own set of deckbuilding restrictions and weaknesses to LD/Blood Moon/etc.). The filter cards/consistency tools in a format where your SB is extremely important are severely lacking. The only real option is Serum Visions and even that is pretty pathetic on an objective power-level. Since the other options are even worse (think, Sleight of Hand), it means that you really only have 1 option for this effect whereas in Legacy you have Ponder, Preordain, and Brainstorm. You have Predict as a 2 mana draw 2 most of the time.
The power-level of Miracles compared to modern Control decks is like comparing Michael Jordan to your 10 year old nephew playing basketball in his back-yard. Yet, that is what is needed to have a T1 Control deck in Legacy, however, the power-level between Legacy and Modern does not have a gulf that wide. Modern's power-level is MUCH closer to Legacy than Miracles is to Modern control decks. Modern control decks are woefully UP compared to the format. That's the issue - not Tron, not Valakut, not Eldrazi, etc.
A better counterspell (it doesn't have to be counterspell, but something in the ballpark), a better consistent CA engine (think AK power-level or Fact or Fiction), a better removal/general answer (even a 2 mana Swords to Plowshares would be fantastic), & good filtering (Preordain unban or Opt reprint). I'm cautiously optimistic given WoTC's recent statements and the ridiculousness of the last few Pro Tours/Standards and their health, that maybe we'll get something good. The answer isn't bans.
I just clearly stated that we have to work hard for our wins didn't I? Valakut tron and Eldrazi arguably suppress 2 non bgx archtypes in both control and midrange.
Can't we have more midrange than jund? Where did tokens, coco ,dnt, hate bears go?
If aggro is suppressing fast mana/ramp than why is it currently 20%+?
Actually with tight play blue can barely squeeze in wins vs most decks except the ramp/fast mana ones. I doubt blue control would be oppressive without those decks around.
Look at the top decks on mtg goldfish and tell me if my ban suggestions dont the fix blue controls issues lol
Midrange already is the best with bgx...
Blue control in top tier would alleviate a bit of weight bgx is pulling currently in this linear game. So yea I do want them to be the best in the game but not by much, why? Less bans , less linear, more fun
Can't speak for the other decks, but I played hatebears for quite a while, and it's fair game gets you run over by goyfs, and the most unfair thing it can do isn't even that powerful. It lacks a clock and real disruption.
why not add black for thoughtsieze? And maybe a sfm unban?
I mean, in modern, mana denial just doesn't exist, and that makes it really hard to play an aether vial deck.Vial is probally the straight up strongest card in the deck, but there's this lack of cards to abuse it with. Merfolk doesn't really count, vial in that deck is just an accelerant. It also doesn't help that Thalia is pretty bad in modern,thanks to the lack of ubiquitous one mana cantrips and most of the sweet tricks you can do with vial aren't really in, or all that relevant in the format. Vial Arbiter+GQ is cute, but both those cards are really bad on their own. It really does stem back to the complete lack of mana denial in the format.
The problem with adding thoughtseize means you need fetches, and at that point you might as well drop the arbiters and just play straight up BGX, where you have disruption, staying power, and a 2 mana 3/4.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy
Death and Taxes Pauper
UB Teachings
Tortured Existence
Murasa Tron Modern
Pod (RIP)
Bloom(RIP)
Merfolk
And it goes on and on and on. We/They were so used in not having no bad matchups and life's hard out of a sudden now. Welcome to the real life, where fair control decks that try to win with a Tasigur, per say, must hit the opponent 5 times in the face to win.
To give some merit to the URx players(and to try to understand xxhellfire a bit) that had enough, the number of bad matchups that fair URx control decks have is FREAKING HUGE HUGE HUGE. There really are some number of decks aiming just to beat those decks. There really is NO REASON TO PLAY URX decks nowadays. Decks are just bad. We play them because we like them. But we know they are barely competitive, at least comparing to what Splinter Twin was.
It's not just that the bad matchups are incredibly bad, but the good matchups aren't even all that good.
It's not even like they're bad compared to Splinter Twin, they're just bad in general.
On another note, they also have this weird bonus of also having positive matchups against Splinter Twin.
There are 3 good cards on the banlist that would help Control - Preordain, JTMS, and Dig Through Time (this more than the others I'd wager) - well....and Sensei's Top, but that is probably the least likely (CounterTop would be fantastic). I'm hoping we'll get one of these next unban and maybe two. Preordain and DTT would be fantastic imho helping out 2 of the big problem areas for control decks. With WoTC on about printing better answers that would be a good direction. If they're afraid of DTT in Ad Naus, then you can hit that deck. Control and the format at large shouldn't needlessly suffer because of 1 or 2 combo decks imho.
Of course, when you are signing up for Modern, that's what you're signing up for! We want to be doing powerful stuff, and this is the reason we are not playing Standard.
Actually, when I "signed up for Modern," I spent well over $1,000 buying into a deck and set of staples I assumed would be fine in a format that was supposed to be "eternal." Modern is now officially a format where "doing powerful stuff" means your deck will see a ban. Are they just banning every deck until the power level of threats matches the power level of answers? If so, that means many more bannings, and many more potential future bannings with every new set release.
You address the systemic problem in Modern: the answers we have don't effectively deal with the broken things Modern can do. You then say that this isn't the answers' fault, it's the fault of these broken decks, but then say that these broken decks shouldn't be banned. So how do we fix the situation?
"Supposed to be" according to whom? Where did you come up with this idea that Modern is "eternal?" Care to link us to the article or post from Wizards that said Modern is supposed to be "eternal" (your quotation marks, not mine)?
Because the colloquial use of the word eternal implies that it will be there for eternity; "lasting or existing forever." By contrast, this is not what Wizards means when they say "eternal," so it's probably not the best word. However, they did state that Modern should be a format that does not rotate, meaning your cards should "last and exist forever" once entered, which meets the literal definition of "eternal." Semantics be semantics. Point was that they enforce a lack of "eternalness" by introducing systemic bans every year, creating what is basically an artificial rotation schedule. I used to think decks that didn't break any clearly defined rules were safe, but the best decks have "rotated out" through banning every year since the beginning of Modern. The pattern wasn't as obvious until Twin, but it's absolutely crystal clear today. This cyclical problem will continue indefinitely as long as threats outpace answers. Removing the PT really did nothing to reduce their bans or increase their unbans. It just slowed the time between them because pros are less focused on trying to break the format.
It's not merely "semantics," it's a different word. Words have meanings that vary between contexts, and we are specifically talking about Magic. When you say a format "was supposed to be" a certain way, it's not a huge leap for us to think you are referring to WotC's intentions for the format. When you then misuse a word that they created while talking about formats they created and cry "semantics," it calls the validity and honesty of your entire argument into question.
Tron is not my only problem. Never said that. Blood Moon, Chalice Of The Void, Choke plus other cards from those sets make this format unfun and kind of bad. Those cards are suppressing Modern by making it less skill based than it is.
I am playing Burn and I lose the coin toss. I have a Goblin Guide, Monastery Swiftspear, Lightning Bolt, Boros Charm, lands hand, and I keep it. My opponent goes land+exiles Simian Spirit Guide into Chalice of the Void for one. What's up? I saw this play recently in a stream. This is accumulative(do you want me to give you 10 examples? I really can and will if you want- T3 karn, t1-2-3 Blood Moon, Chokes, etc. I have seen and am seeing a lot of crazy stuff that add up all together and disturb the balance and feels good of this format.
Yes, I want all of those cards off the map. But this is not the only reason. Modern already has problems, pros have abandoned that, PT is in Modern Constructed no more, etc. Kill those sets, remove those cards that make skill a tier 2 factor when playing. If WOTC does not, I feel Modern will bend under the pressure of infinite sets. And those sets(7th-8th) are badly designed sets and we know it. Chalice of The Voids or tronlike or choke like cards are not coming back).
Checks like turn one Chalice have a positive impact on the metagame as long as they are not oppressive. We can just check that with numbers. There aren't any oppressive Guide + Chalice decks right now. In Wizards' eyes, then, those decks represent a good thing: a unique, viable way to play among Modern's many others. We could make the argument that without Guide + Chalice, Burn/Infect/etc. would be too strong, but there's just too much conjecturing to be done at that level and too many other factors we'd need to bring in. So let's leave that alone and focus on what matters to Wizards most: diversity.
To you, Chalice, Moon, and Choke are unfun and make the format "kind of bad." Well, guess what? I love those cards! I've brewed dozens of Moon decks (some even featuringChoke) and have tried to include Chalice in a competitive Modern shell for years. I was even the first to advocate for Chalices in Eldrazi when the OGW creatures were spoiled. I had an awesome time at Regionals on Saturday in no small part because I resolved something like 10 turn-one Chalices.
In relation to the banlist though, it doesn't matter if you and I disagree about what's "fun;" all that matters is how Wizards interprets that disagreement. Wizards is aware that players like me exist and they want those players to get their kicks. The company's goal is for such players to have a deck to play that gives them the experience they crave from Magic but that doesn't oppress the format. Again, so far there are zero oppressive Blood Moon decks, Chalice decks, or Choke decks, so Wizards wants to keep these cards in the format if possible.
As for your own definition of fun: correct me if I'm wrong, but you would love it if there were a viable blue-based control deck for you to play, right? Either way, Wizards is aware that many players do want that from Modern, and I don't doubt that they're already thinking of ways to get that kind of strategy online, as printings like Fatal Push indicate. But I'm still not sure those strategies aren't viable as-is. Modern is about playing what you love enough that you know it, and its relation to the format, like the palm of your hand. A buddy of mine at Regionals was undefeated with Jeskai Control (feat. Resto Angel, Logic Knot, and Geist) until round seven. Wafo-Tapa himself was crushing leagues with Esper Control before Push was even announced. You just gotta play, man.
Quote from GK (cont"d) »
What decks will be control/midrange's bad matchups? Well, many.
Tokens
Boggles(for URx Control decks)
Bant Eldrazi
Ancestral Vision decks(for Bgx decks)
Dredge
Valakut decks
Living End
maybe Burn
If Big mana decks are too strong, @Sheridan, there is a HUGE THOUGHT PROCESS that should take place behind it. I can't solve it nor now or never at a truly big rate. I do believe that Hall Of Famers (who play Modern a lot) like LSV, Chapin, Kartsten, William Jensen ARE the superminds that can solve this. Mainly people who already do some kind of work for WOTC. Not on day 1, but soon enough they shall solve it.
If people's confidence is the problem, it's really not. If WOTC could do an announcement like this, they would chop Frontier hopes off. People would be ECSTATIC of trying this Modern V2.0 format. The format really stays kind of the same, except of some sets + 2 up to 5 cards banned.
That's my opinion. It's not off topic. I am expressing it. You are welcome to disagree, but please do not troll(this is for everybody). I am stating this, because this kind of thinking is kind of revolutionary.
There's actually nothing revolutionary about saying Moon, SSG, Chalice, Choke, 8th edition, etc. should not be in Modern. Pros have been doing it forever and those cards/sets still exist. And still aren't oppressive. And still aren't going anywhere. It jives with Wizards' stated goals for the format for those cards/sets to stay legal and clashes with their goals to ban them. Your idea that the playerbase would welcome radical changes to Modern's foundation with welcome arms is completely unjustified. I and others I know who have also studied the format and love it dearly would be heartbroken.
Wizards has a vision for Modern, which they have shared with us (most recent link), and personally I think that vision sounds pretty good. I think their stated vision represents an ideal, though, that they will never hit, even if it lasts for a format or two. A non-rotating format that allows players to constantly port cards from Standard while at the same time not being oppressed by any one strategy and allow players to keep their decks for years? Yeah, sounds too good to be true. And in its perfect execution, it is. But Wizards tries to the best of their ability to get close to that perfect format with Modern, even though they will never reach it 100%. Them trying has, for me at least, yielded the most fun and dynamic format I have ever played, and I hope they keep literally reaching for the stars and don't decide to throw the playbook into the fire.
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
There are 3 good cards on the banlist that would help Control - Preordain, JTMS, and Dig Through Time (this more than the others I'd wager) - well....and Sensei's Top, but that is probably the least likely (CounterTop would be fantastic). I'm hoping we'll get one of these next unban and maybe two. Preordain and DTT would be fantastic imho helping out 2 of the big problem areas for control decks. With WoTC on about printing better answers that would be a good direction. If they're afraid of DTT in Ad Naus, then you can hit that deck. Control and the format at large shouldn't needlessly suffer because of 1 or 2 combo decks imho.
Of those three cards, DTT is the most busted by quite a long shot. It's pretty much always 7 cards deep at instant speed for UU. And even more egregiously, it doesn't even draw the cards, it just puts em right in your hand.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy
Death and Taxes Pauper
UB Teachings
Tortured Existence
Murasa Tron Modern
Pod (RIP)
Bloom(RIP)
Merfolk
Of course, when you are signing up for Modern, that's what you're signing up for! We want to be doing powerful stuff, and this is the reason we are not playing Standard.
Actually, when I "signed up for Modern," I spent well over $1,000 buying into a deck and set of staples I assumed would be fine in a format that was supposed to be "eternal." Modern is now officially a format where "doing powerful stuff" means your deck will see a ban. Are they just banning every deck until the power level of threats matches the power level of answers? If so, that means many more bannings, and many more potential future bannings with every new set release.
You address the systemic problem in Modern: the answers we have don't effectively deal with the broken things Modern can do. You then say that this isn't the answers' fault, it's the fault of these broken decks, but then say that these broken decks shouldn't be banned. So how do we fix the situation?
"Supposed to be" according to whom? Where did you come up with this idea that Modern is "eternal?" Care to link us to the article or post from Wizards that said Modern is supposed to be "eternal" (your quotation marks, not mine)?
Because the colloquial use of the word eternal implies that it will be there for eternity; "lasting or existing forever." By contrast, this is not what Wizards means when they say "eternal," so it's probably not the best word. However, they did state that Modern should be a format that does not rotate, meaning your cards should "last and exist forever" once entered, which meets the literal definition of "eternal." Semantics be semantics. Point was that they enforce a lack of "eternalness" by introducing systemic bans every year, creating what is basically an artificial rotation schedule. I used to think decks that didn't break any clearly defined rules were safe, but the best decks have "rotated out" through banning every year since the beginning of Modern. The pattern wasn't as obvious until Twin, but it's absolutely crystal clear today. This cyclical problem will continue indefinitely as long as threats outpace answers. Removing the PT really did nothing to reduce their bans or increase their unbans. It just slowed the time between them because pros are less focused on trying to break the format.
It's not merely "semantics," it's a different word. Words have meanings that vary between contexts, and we are specifically talking about Magic. When you say a format "was supposed to be" a certain way, it's not a huge leap for us to think you are referring to WotC's intentions for the format. When you then misuse a word that they created while talking about formats they created and cry "semantics," it calls the validity and honesty of your entire argument into question.
If you want to argue a point, argue a point. Don't sit there and complain about word choice when the intention and the point was clearly articulated (as well as the word clearly defined as used). I'll just assume you agree then? That the unofficial "rotations" in a yearly ban cycle systemically removed the best deck(s) in the format? In the words of Aaron Forsythe, Modern should "not rotate, allowing you to keep a deck for a long period of time." Do you feel the consistent removal of top decks every year aligns with this mantra? Or do we interpret "a long period of time" as being "until we feel like you shouldn't have that deck"?
There are 3 good cards on the banlist that would help Control - Preordain, JTMS, and Dig Through Time (this more than the others I'd wager) - well....and Sensei's Top, but that is probably the least likely (CounterTop would be fantastic). I'm hoping we'll get one of these next unban and maybe two. Preordain and DTT would be fantastic imho helping out 2 of the big problem areas for control decks. With WoTC on about printing better answers that would be a good direction. If they're afraid of DTT in Ad Naus, then you can hit that deck. Control and the format at large shouldn't needlessly suffer because of 1 or 2 combo decks imho.
Of those three cards, DTT is the most busted by quite a long shot. It's pretty much always 7 cards deep at instant speed for UU. And even more egregiously, it doesn't even draw the cards, it just puts em right in your hand.
I don't think Fact or Fiction is the answer for control. It is close, certainly, but the choices it forces may not be good for control, especially when it isn't sure to get you 3 cards if you want worthwhile ones.
I think control needs something brand new in the 4 cmc slot, and probably needs some options in the 3 cmc slot outside of Esper colors (Esper Charm being the only thing really efficient enough and properly placed in what it does for control's drawing needs at that cmc). The 4 cmc slot would need to be something instant speed that draws 3 cards, but it could get away with a much tougher casting cost than the 3 generic one blue of FoF, given that blue using control is already putting in the effort to get Cryptic Command mana. It can have a drawback, but should much more reliably get 3 semi-decent cards.
One potential drawback I could see being fair for control would be inspired by FoF, something along the lines of revealing the top four cards of the library to the opponent, they pick _one_ that you don't get from among those, and you shuffle that one back into your library. That way you get a sure 3 cards, and it plays better with having a Rest in Peace in play post-board when you are up against graveyard based combo (I never liked the idea of running delve based control because it potentially weakens your options against graveyard based combo, and control's primary purpose is to fight combo).
I'll reiterate the need for Counterspell or something close enough for control's purposes. It can't 'fall off' in effectiveness late game like Remand and Mana Leak do, those are really closer to midrange or tempo cards. It could get away with being 'abrupt' in that it only affects cmc 3 or less, although plain old counterspell would be better, and, I think, fair, possibly even with Snapcaster Mage in the format.
I think one of the big complaints about good control cards, where people are afraid of Snapcaster abuse, actually hints to me that Snapcaster Mage is the problem card, and that rather than holding back (in theory, we know WotC generally doesn't work that way) from printing good snappable things, they should ban snapcaster mage once enough good snappable things are printed that the mage becomes a problem. We might need it right now because the decks it is in tend to suck despite it, but in the long run, I suspect it's a card that screws up things for other cards that would otherwise be fair and needed for a long-term healthy format.
A better consistency tool at 2 cmc I'd prefer to Snapcaster Mage would be Impulse reprint, no Anticipate isn't good enough for Modern, IMO. A scry-based alternative that digs sufficiently would also be acceptable, so long as it is still instant speed and such, but I think Impulse is right around the power level that is needed and safe for Modern in the long run.
I think Opt reprint is better than a Preordain unbanning. I don't think 1 cmc dig needs to be quite that deep as Preordain allows for, and being sorcery speed and deeper digging favors combo over control, so Opt, at instant speed and less deep digging probably is what would best help control, since they can instead hold up the mana for instant speed removal or counters or the like, or just for intimidation purposes while waiting to Opt.
I agree with whoever earlier spoke of a 2 cmc version of Swords to Plowshares. That would be great for control, although similar sorts of options would work as well, and even without it if we got some of the card advantage and Counterspell, I think Esper control might stand a chance.
For 3 cmc counterspells, if WotC wants us to actually have ones playable in Modern, the only existing ones I'm aware of that would really work out properly are probably Absorb or Undermine out of existing cards, at least outside of sideboard stuff. I could imagine a mono-blue one that generates a weak defensive token perhaps being viable. 3 cmc isn't really a spot Modern needs or can effectively use counterpsells, due to the 'turn 4 rule' and general speed of Modern decks means it's often barely able to stop something if you get lucky, rather than able to effectively stymie opponents like a proper 2 cmc control counter would be.
If WotC wants to avoid counters, and have discard be control's primary method, shifting focus from blue to black, they pretty much would have to ban burn into oblivion, and relegate it to a t3 or worse deck that hardly turns up and isn't very good, in order to make Toughtseize better. I don't think that is a good way to handle things, I think Modern having T1 burn is cool and not broken, this idea just seems like stupid meta manipulation. I guess it might be possible for a full control relevant discard suite to exist, but I'm not sure what form it would take.
Modern control isn't really starved for finisher options, it's issues are more surviving long enough to play them and being reliable enough late-game to actually use them, rather than just get killed. Modern control's problems are generally rooted in it's answers not being good enough for the questions, and it's card advantage options not fitting the format and card pool well, nor quite fitting control's game plan, rather than other deck archetype game-plans. Other deck archetypes actually have some potentially ban-worthy level card advantage options, like Ancient Stirrings (based on the fact that Preordain is banned).
Control could also perhaps use some better options against land-based combo that is modern playable, it doesn't have to lastingly get rid of lands, it just has to not cost control their own lands, not be overly burdensome to use, and could do something like let the opponent search up a tapped basic to replace the removed land with, similar to Ghost Quarter, although it probably should exile the hated on land, rather than just destroy it, since some land based strategies involve graveyard shenanigans, and it probably shouldn't get control to have mana fixing issues. I think Wasteland is the wrong kind of thing, both possibly too powerful for Modern, and not the best sort of setup for control, which tends to have more color fixing concerns in Modern's metagame, making it's useage easier in other archetypes as incedental hate, which could even harm control, which is reliant on lots of color fixing lands, and would rather not have both players' mana slowed down, like burn or some other aggro-ish decks might enjoy (and are already strong against control). I think a 2 cmc sorcery that exiles a land and replaces it with a tapped basic would be about what would suit control the best as a sideboard option against land-based combo, perhaps make it scry or cantrip as well in order to justify using a turn on it better early game, since the deck you are playing it against could just play something similar the next turn when you don't have mana held open for counters (I think this effect would probably be too powerful at instant speed for a 2 cmc thing).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I dont want big mana banned, but if we are going to have such lopsided percentages, I dont know that that is good either.
Spirits
Yes, poor BG/x, which only makes up 11% of the metagame! Let us weep because it has to deal with those pesky ramp decks that it can't just have a 50/50 matchup against! It truly is one of the tragedies of the world.
Can't we have more midrange than jund? Where did tokens, coco ,dnt, hate bears go?
If aggro is suppressing fast mana/ramp than why is it currently 20%+?
Actually with tight play blue can barely squeeze in wins vs most decks except the ramp/fast mana ones. I doubt blue control would be oppressive without those decks around.
Look at the top decks on mtg goldfish and tell me if my ban suggestions dont the fix blue controls issues lol
Midrange already is the best with bgx...
Blue control in top tier would alleviate a bit of weight bgx is pulling currently in this linear game. So yea I do want them to be the best in the game but not by much, why? Less bans , less linear, more fun
decks playing:
none
I totally agree. I really do want blue decks to get better tools and improve their metagame share. That said, banning more cards (especially the absurd suggestion of banning FIVE cards) is not one such solution. That just creates new problems, like basically every metagame diversity ban to-date.
It's just really puzzling why people think bans are the answer after years of bans failing to positively shape Modern. Now we can add to that a series of bans that abjectly failed at their intent in Standard (diversifying the format, depowering vehicle decks). Bans are not the solution. I'd go so far as to say they were never the solution, at least not to most (minus things like Eldrazi) of the metagame diversity issues. The issue has always been more answers and better answers. Hopefully with Standard looking the way it is and Stoddard's recent announcement about design issues, we can start to see those answers.
I'm glad you've made this admission and that it's out there in the thread. You want to be playing the "best" deck and have all the bad matchups banned out. This is clearly what is driving your banlist suggestions and, thankfully, is totally antithetical to every format management decision Wizards has ever made.
I'm also baffled how you think that banning FIVE MORE CARDS means "less bans." It doesn't even mean "more fun;" it will inevitably create even more issues and problems like basically every other banlist change to-date.
I said this many months ago and still think it apllies beyond recent card pool changes. Preordain is not as safe a unban as some may think. Modern is so volatile that a cantrip with the power level of Serum Visions(potentially better than Visions) could warp the hell out of the metagame. My initial reaction would be that Ad Nauseam would become a much better deck than it is right now. Sleight is basically nerfed-Preordain. It would still be a Turn 4 safe combo. The issue is the critical mass of deck manipulating cantrips. I don't even need to make reference to why Preordain was banned, they explicity said that too many cantrips make games go too similar to each other.
Not that Preordain is far from Serum Visions, they are certainly fine without each other(Preordain could be Modern's cantrip if Visions didn't exist and we would be fine probably).
Also, i don't see an actual Control deck not playing Serum Visions adding Preordain. Blue control decks don't need card selection, they need card advantage. Corey Burkhart seems to hit the button with his 22-land build of Grixis. He plays 8 1 mana cantrips and Ancestral Vision for CA. It more of a velocity deck than a Draw-go style of control.
I think Blue control issues could be even fixed by something like an instant-speed Compulsive Research.
Ultimately, i hate Tron,Valakut,Blood Moon and Bridge. That doensn't mean i want them banned. I would prefer to compete with them than having them on the banlist. I do not wish for anyone to see their deck go unless it's Cruise/Eldrazi Winter eras.
those lopsided games are horrible for the game why not just flip a coin? Shouldn't this game be about skill?
it's actually the splash damage to other fair strategies that is what I'm frustrated about. Other strategies that could all exist in this game with decent prevalence if not for a hand full of top 1-2 tier decks atm
decks playing:
none
Bans actually have been good for the most part for this game.
What makes you think hitting those 5 cards wouldn't make control and non bgx midrange better?
decks playing:
none
If I was burn complaining about kitchen finks that's one thing, but this is a completely different angle I'm coming from.
You play ad nauseum and probably crush alot of fair decks all the time, we are all a little biased Sheridian.
Sometimes you have to make more bans now so ull need less bans later. Bans are inevitable in eternal TCGs no matter how good the answers.
decks playing:
none
>Accuses me of cherrypicking.
>Immediately cherrypicks a statement I made.
Seems legit.
The "it's not until turn 3" was in comparison to lockout things you could do on the first and second turn, whereas Karn lands on the third turn at the earliest. My point was that lumping in Karn with those sort of things was silly because of it coming later. A turn 1 Chalice can be a lockout against certain decks before they have the opportunity to do anythnig, but Karn can't do his thing until turn 3. Trying to claim my argument was "Karn is not a problem, because ehm, its happening on turn 3" is disingenuous and the exact cherrypicking you accuse me of doing.
If you wanted an explanation as to why the possibility of a turn 3 Karn is not a real issue, you could have asked about that more specifically, but apparently I'm supposed to respond to arguments you didn't actually make. At any rate, as others have pointed out, turn 3 Karn is not instantly gamewinning, requires Tron bend over backwards to even make it a possibility, can be thwarted by many pieces of disruption (did discard spells and counterspells suddenly stop existing when I wasn't looking?*), and finally, usually doesn't happen. In a pure goldfish scenario (i.e. zero disruption), Tron doesn't get turn 3 Urzatron most of the time. And if it doesn't get Urzatron assembled most of the time, it's getting out that Karn on the third turn even less frequently.
The rest of your message is about the pros, which some others have already responded to, so I will skip that over.
*If the counterargument is that counterspells are too weak, then the answer is to reprint Counterspell as I've argued for frequently.
We just got Fatal Push which was explicitly aimed at Modern. We also just got Stoddard's article publicly admitting to the flaw in the "threats-stronger-than-answers" design mentality. We owe it to Wizards and the format to allow those answers to come and the new philosophy to kick in.
You'd have a format which was entirely control and midrange. Eventually, 1-2 decks would emerge as the best and then it would be like many of the worst Standard seasons of the past years. Aggro and combo would be Tier 2 at best and ramp would be dead. This sounds entirely different than the diverse Modern Wizards is trying to push. Sure, it sounds much more like your own personal vision of a format you would enjoy, but that's not the Modern Wizards cares to create. I've also seen no evidence to suggest it's the kind of Modern most players want. It's not even an imitation of Legacy. It would just be unhealthy and stagnant, even if the individual games of the 1-2 best decks might be skill-testing. The thing is, the vast majority of people (Wizards included) don't want skill-testing Caw Blade mirrors.
Can't speak for the other decks, but I played hatebears for quite a while, and it's fair game gets you run over by goyfs, and the most unfair thing it can do isn't even that powerful. It lacks a clock and real disruption.
Death and Taxes
Pauper
UB Teachings
Tortured Existence
Murasa Tron
Modern
Pod (RIP)
Bloom(RIP)
Merfolk
BGx urx burn abzan coco merfolk dredge bogles elves 8 rack zoo blood moon prison death and taxes.......
With bgx and urx not necessarally at the top
I could go on....
decks playing:
none
decks playing:
none
BGx does fine in spite of Tron because the deck is good. Its answers are decent and it has some aggression to help it out. Control, naturally lacking the aggression, should be able to make up for that by having better answers... but it doesn't.
Tribal Spiders has a pretty terrible Tron matchup. But somehow, I don't think Tron is the reason that deck doesn't put up results.
The answer to control's woes was, is, and will always be: Have there be actually good control cards. Counterspell is a great card for such decks. In regards to card advantage, I think Fact or Fiction (EOTFOFYL) could be a powerful card advantage card for control decks; it wouldn't go into combo decks and unlike Ancestral Vision, isn't reliant on being in your opening hand. But both of these cards predate 8th Edition and aren't legal in Modern as a result.
For quite some time, I've been saying Modern should've started earlier. But they didn't, and it seems unlikely for them to move it back, so the solution would seem to be to try to get some of those pre-8th Edition cards to help fix the format up.
But now urx has a Crapton of bad ones like you said. Hopefully wizards meets us in the middle somewhere.
I've also only played twin in 10 percent of my games because I own most decks and I enjoy variety .so the wake up to reality segment of your comment is moot.
decks playing:
none
The point I'm making is not that the Trons and Valakuts of the world are keeping control back (when those archetypes barely make 15% of the meta, it's silly to suggest they do), but the general weakness of the reactive cards in the format that is. The easiest parallel is to look at Miracles in Legacy. It's still one of the best decks in the format while there are still powerful big mana foils to the deck. Miracles is the appropriate powerlevel that a control deck needs to be T1 in Legacy. The same cannot be said for Modern's control decks. The CA tools are either inconsistent (AV), put you into a specific 3 color combination (Esper Charm), or are very inefficient (TT/Glimmer of Genius/etc.), the counterspells are in the same boat. Mana Leak is a fine card for delver decks - not control decks. The best alternative options - cards like Logic Knot, Deprive, Negate, etc. all have pretty severe drawbacks (Logic Knot being by far the best of them). Cryptic Command is powerful yes, but also 4 mana and being UUU is not exactly the easiest to count on (it has its own set of deckbuilding restrictions and weaknesses to LD/Blood Moon/etc.). The filter cards/consistency tools in a format where your SB is extremely important are severely lacking. The only real option is Serum Visions and even that is pretty pathetic on an objective power-level. Since the other options are even worse (think, Sleight of Hand), it means that you really only have 1 option for this effect whereas in Legacy you have Ponder, Preordain, and Brainstorm. You have Predict as a 2 mana draw 2 most of the time.
The power-level of Miracles compared to modern Control decks is like comparing Michael Jordan to your 10 year old nephew playing basketball in his back-yard. Yet, that is what is needed to have a T1 Control deck in Legacy, however, the power-level between Legacy and Modern does not have a gulf that wide. Modern's power-level is MUCH closer to Legacy than Miracles is to Modern control decks. Modern control decks are woefully UP compared to the format. That's the issue - not Tron, not Valakut, not Eldrazi, etc.
A better counterspell (it doesn't have to be counterspell, but something in the ballpark), a better consistent CA engine (think AK power-level or Fact or Fiction), a better removal/general answer (even a 2 mana Swords to Plowshares would be fantastic), & good filtering (Preordain unban or Opt reprint). I'm cautiously optimistic given WoTC's recent statements and the ridiculousness of the last few Pro Tours/Standards and their health, that maybe we'll get something good. The answer isn't bans.
I mean, in modern, mana denial just doesn't exist, and that makes it really hard to play an aether vial deck.Vial is probally the straight up strongest card in the deck, but there's this lack of cards to abuse it with. Merfolk doesn't really count, vial in that deck is just an accelerant. It also doesn't help that Thalia is pretty bad in modern,thanks to the lack of ubiquitous one mana cantrips and most of the sweet tricks you can do with vial aren't really in, or all that relevant in the format. Vial Arbiter+GQ is cute, but both those cards are really bad on their own. It really does stem back to the complete lack of mana denial in the format.
The problem with adding thoughtseize means you need fetches, and at that point you might as well drop the arbiters and just play straight up BGX, where you have disruption, staying power, and a 2 mana 3/4.
Death and Taxes
Pauper
UB Teachings
Tortured Existence
Murasa Tron
Modern
Pod (RIP)
Bloom(RIP)
Merfolk
It's not just that the bad matchups are incredibly bad, but the good matchups aren't even all that good.
It's not even like they're bad compared to Splinter Twin, they're just bad in general.
On another note, they also have this weird bonus of also having positive matchups against Splinter Twin.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Spirits
To you, Chalice, Moon, and Choke are unfun and make the format "kind of bad." Well, guess what? I love those cards! I've brewed dozens of Moon decks (some even featuring Choke) and have tried to include Chalice in a competitive Modern shell for years. I was even the first to advocate for Chalices in Eldrazi when the OGW creatures were spoiled. I had an awesome time at Regionals on Saturday in no small part because I resolved something like 10 turn-one Chalices.
In relation to the banlist though, it doesn't matter if you and I disagree about what's "fun;" all that matters is how Wizards interprets that disagreement. Wizards is aware that players like me exist and they want those players to get their kicks. The company's goal is for such players to have a deck to play that gives them the experience they crave from Magic but that doesn't oppress the format. Again, so far there are zero oppressive Blood Moon decks, Chalice decks, or Choke decks, so Wizards wants to keep these cards in the format if possible.
As for your own definition of fun: correct me if I'm wrong, but you would love it if there were a viable blue-based control deck for you to play, right? Either way, Wizards is aware that many players do want that from Modern, and I don't doubt that they're already thinking of ways to get that kind of strategy online, as printings like Fatal Push indicate. But I'm still not sure those strategies aren't viable as-is. Modern is about playing what you love enough that you know it, and its relation to the format, like the palm of your hand. A buddy of mine at Regionals was undefeated with Jeskai Control (feat. Resto Angel, Logic Knot, and Geist) until round seven. Wafo-Tapa himself was crushing leagues with Esper Control before Push was even announced. You just gotta play, man. There's actually nothing revolutionary about saying Moon, SSG, Chalice, Choke, 8th edition, etc. should not be in Modern. Pros have been doing it forever and those cards/sets still exist. And still aren't oppressive. And still aren't going anywhere. It jives with Wizards' stated goals for the format for those cards/sets to stay legal and clashes with their goals to ban them. Your idea that the playerbase would welcome radical changes to Modern's foundation with welcome arms is completely unjustified. I and others I know who have also studied the format and love it dearly would be heartbroken.
Wizards has a vision for Modern, which they have shared with us (most recent link), and personally I think that vision sounds pretty good. I think their stated vision represents an ideal, though, that they will never hit, even if it lasts for a format or two. A non-rotating format that allows players to constantly port cards from Standard while at the same time not being oppressed by any one strategy and allow players to keep their decks for years? Yeah, sounds too good to be true. And in its perfect execution, it is. But Wizards tries to the best of their ability to get close to that perfect format with Modern, even though they will never reach it 100%. Them trying has, for me at least, yielded the most fun and dynamic format I have ever played, and I hope they keep literally reaching for the stars and don't decide to throw the playbook into the fire.
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
Of those three cards, DTT is the most busted by quite a long shot. It's pretty much always 7 cards deep at instant speed for UU. And even more egregiously, it doesn't even draw the cards, it just puts em right in your hand.
Death and Taxes
Pauper
UB Teachings
Tortured Existence
Murasa Tron
Modern
Pod (RIP)
Bloom(RIP)
Merfolk
If you want to argue a point, argue a point. Don't sit there and complain about word choice when the intention and the point was clearly articulated (as well as the word clearly defined as used). I'll just assume you agree then? That the unofficial "rotations" in a yearly ban cycle systemically removed the best deck(s) in the format? In the words of Aaron Forsythe, Modern should "not rotate, allowing you to keep a deck for a long period of time." Do you feel the consistent removal of top decks every year aligns with this mantra? Or do we interpret "a long period of time" as being "until we feel like you shouldn't have that deck"?
And yet, green gets Ancient Stirrings and Collected Company. I would love a comparable blue card ANY DAY.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I think control needs something brand new in the 4 cmc slot, and probably needs some options in the 3 cmc slot outside of Esper colors (Esper Charm being the only thing really efficient enough and properly placed in what it does for control's drawing needs at that cmc). The 4 cmc slot would need to be something instant speed that draws 3 cards, but it could get away with a much tougher casting cost than the 3 generic one blue of FoF, given that blue using control is already putting in the effort to get Cryptic Command mana. It can have a drawback, but should much more reliably get 3 semi-decent cards.
One potential drawback I could see being fair for control would be inspired by FoF, something along the lines of revealing the top four cards of the library to the opponent, they pick _one_ that you don't get from among those, and you shuffle that one back into your library. That way you get a sure 3 cards, and it plays better with having a Rest in Peace in play post-board when you are up against graveyard based combo (I never liked the idea of running delve based control because it potentially weakens your options against graveyard based combo, and control's primary purpose is to fight combo).
I'll reiterate the need for Counterspell or something close enough for control's purposes. It can't 'fall off' in effectiveness late game like Remand and Mana Leak do, those are really closer to midrange or tempo cards. It could get away with being 'abrupt' in that it only affects cmc 3 or less, although plain old counterspell would be better, and, I think, fair, possibly even with Snapcaster Mage in the format.
I think one of the big complaints about good control cards, where people are afraid of Snapcaster abuse, actually hints to me that Snapcaster Mage is the problem card, and that rather than holding back (in theory, we know WotC generally doesn't work that way) from printing good snappable things, they should ban snapcaster mage once enough good snappable things are printed that the mage becomes a problem. We might need it right now because the decks it is in tend to suck despite it, but in the long run, I suspect it's a card that screws up things for other cards that would otherwise be fair and needed for a long-term healthy format.
A better consistency tool at 2 cmc I'd prefer to Snapcaster Mage would be Impulse reprint, no Anticipate isn't good enough for Modern, IMO. A scry-based alternative that digs sufficiently would also be acceptable, so long as it is still instant speed and such, but I think Impulse is right around the power level that is needed and safe for Modern in the long run.
I think Opt reprint is better than a Preordain unbanning. I don't think 1 cmc dig needs to be quite that deep as Preordain allows for, and being sorcery speed and deeper digging favors combo over control, so Opt, at instant speed and less deep digging probably is what would best help control, since they can instead hold up the mana for instant speed removal or counters or the like, or just for intimidation purposes while waiting to Opt.
I agree with whoever earlier spoke of a 2 cmc version of Swords to Plowshares. That would be great for control, although similar sorts of options would work as well, and even without it if we got some of the card advantage and Counterspell, I think Esper control might stand a chance.
For 3 cmc counterspells, if WotC wants us to actually have ones playable in Modern, the only existing ones I'm aware of that would really work out properly are probably Absorb or Undermine out of existing cards, at least outside of sideboard stuff. I could imagine a mono-blue one that generates a weak defensive token perhaps being viable. 3 cmc isn't really a spot Modern needs or can effectively use counterpsells, due to the 'turn 4 rule' and general speed of Modern decks means it's often barely able to stop something if you get lucky, rather than able to effectively stymie opponents like a proper 2 cmc control counter would be.
If WotC wants to avoid counters, and have discard be control's primary method, shifting focus from blue to black, they pretty much would have to ban burn into oblivion, and relegate it to a t3 or worse deck that hardly turns up and isn't very good, in order to make Toughtseize better. I don't think that is a good way to handle things, I think Modern having T1 burn is cool and not broken, this idea just seems like stupid meta manipulation. I guess it might be possible for a full control relevant discard suite to exist, but I'm not sure what form it would take.
Modern control isn't really starved for finisher options, it's issues are more surviving long enough to play them and being reliable enough late-game to actually use them, rather than just get killed. Modern control's problems are generally rooted in it's answers not being good enough for the questions, and it's card advantage options not fitting the format and card pool well, nor quite fitting control's game plan, rather than other deck archetype game-plans. Other deck archetypes actually have some potentially ban-worthy level card advantage options, like Ancient Stirrings (based on the fact that Preordain is banned).
Control could also perhaps use some better options against land-based combo that is modern playable, it doesn't have to lastingly get rid of lands, it just has to not cost control their own lands, not be overly burdensome to use, and could do something like let the opponent search up a tapped basic to replace the removed land with, similar to Ghost Quarter, although it probably should exile the hated on land, rather than just destroy it, since some land based strategies involve graveyard shenanigans, and it probably shouldn't get control to have mana fixing issues. I think Wasteland is the wrong kind of thing, both possibly too powerful for Modern, and not the best sort of setup for control, which tends to have more color fixing concerns in Modern's metagame, making it's useage easier in other archetypes as incedental hate, which could even harm control, which is reliant on lots of color fixing lands, and would rather not have both players' mana slowed down, like burn or some other aggro-ish decks might enjoy (and are already strong against control). I think a 2 cmc sorcery that exiles a land and replaces it with a tapped basic would be about what would suit control the best as a sideboard option against land-based combo, perhaps make it scry or cantrip as well in order to justify using a turn on it better early game, since the deck you are playing it against could just play something similar the next turn when you don't have mana held open for counters (I think this effect would probably be too powerful at instant speed for a 2 cmc thing).