Can we just get Seething Song back so I can play all my favorite decks again?
All the top decks win t3-4 now anyway. Modern has gotten so fast, and we have so much new hate, I don't see how storm could be an issue at all.
Suicide Zoo, Infect, Affinity, Burn, Dredge, Thing Ascension, etc, etc. All these decks are BLAZINGLY fast.
Now add in decks that are capable of super fast wins, that aren't "top" decks, but still common decks; Griselbrand Reanimator, Ascension Storm, Bubble Hulk, Elemental Shotgun, Amulet Titan, Combo Elves, can all win as early as turn 3.
Unbanning Seething Song opens up, and brings back so many decks; UR Storm, Epic Storm, Ritual Gifts, Possibility Storm, Hivemind, Enduring Ideal, Through the Breach... That's 7 decks already just off the top of my head that can come back with a Song unbanning.
I have been trying to convince others that Seething Song has been safe to unban for around 2 years now. Caleb Durward even did a banned series video with Seething Song and as much as he wanted it unbanned as well, he said that it wasn't safe at that time. But times have changed. I think it has been over a year since his videos.
Here's where I'm at now. Obviously I wouldn't mind it right now (I love the card), I think unbans right now are going to lean toward trying to slow the format down - not having yet another deck that races Suicide Zoo/Bloo/Infect. Many players don't see the format as Combo is hurting. They only recognize Midrange and Control decks are hurting. Often Aggro is lumped in the Combo archetype since Combo has really been nerfed in recent years, especially "creature less" Combo. Many players don't want to see something to make Through the Breach quicker - Simian Spirit Guide and ramp is "bad" enough for them. For this reason, I doubt that Seething Song will be unbanned. I do believe that it should be up for consideration soon though. We shouldn't forget it while other cards are coming off, but first we have to see those cards come off.
Those decks are fun and I enjoy them as well. I would like to test Dragonstorm and All In Red as well. (I'm sure there's more.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
I do believe that Twin was a healthy ban, regardless of the current state of the meta
How is it considered a healthy ban if the meta is not healthy? Or do you consider this current state healthy? If so, at what point did you consider this year "healthy"?
You're right, there's no way of reconciling the idea that the Twin ban was OK and the current meta isn't OK. As long as we decide that it was Twin getting banned that made Dredge good and not the fact that a full fifth of the deck is now comprised of cards printed in or later than April 2016 (Prized Amalgam, Insolent Neonate, Cathartic Reunion). Or that Dredge has nothing to do with the way the meta has changed.
Would the meta have changed differently if Twin were around. Certainly. Is the post you quoted as nonsense as you made it out to be? Lord no.
Also, dented42ford, excellent writeup on the status of Dredge and its effect on the format. Like Spsiegel1987, I also disagree on your ban suggestions, but even so I'd say that was one of the best posts on this forum in a while.
Dredge is just a piece of the format. So is Eldrazi, Infect, Death's Shadow, and many other fast linear decks.
It makes no sense to call a ban healthy when the format has been nothing but unhealthy since the ban happened. If someone would like to explain this disconnect without sarcasm, I'm all ears. As far as I can tell, banning Twin has done nothing to make the format "healthier." And if it didn't directly have an impact on the format's health, and it was entirety other things, than banning it was completely pointless anyway.
I didnt know 3 out of 8 equals 100%. Let me know if the decks I use Probe in fit in your "degenerate" and "unfair" definition.
Id like to be able to use the tools at my disposal without rash bannings. But like I said, they'll ban Goyf before they ban Probe (that is to say, never).
I totally disagree with this and actually think a Probe ban is high on their list if they want to directly hit linear decks. Probe is a usual suspect and crucial enabler in every pump deck (Infect, DSA, UR) as well as certain spell-based combo decks (Storm which isn't anywhere but Wizards definitely hates it).* The premier fair deck that used Probe, Grixis Delver, doesn't usually run it anymore in excess of two, so a Probe ban would hardly weaken that strategy. (It would definitely hurt Temur Delver, although I'd argue a Preordain unban would help us out even more.)
*I agree that the best way to hit these linear decks is with a blow to Dredge or Eldrazi (preferably the former since Eldrazi has had a piece banned already and Dredge is more oppressive right now by just about any metric), which would give the interactive decks that punish linear aggro a little more breathing room.
I highly disagree and think that Gitaxian Probe does not come anywhere near to their watchlist. On top of that, it would kill all of the flip Thing In The Ice decks for sure, it would have a devastating effect in UR Prowess decks and it would mean the end of Infect's tier 1 position. It would badly hurt Zooicide as well. None of those decks would come near to being tier 1 again, although this ban hurts them in different degrees. Another problem is that it severely hurts some fair decks in Temur Delver and slightly weakens Grixis Delver, although Preordain would help them out but things is it's highly possible they have Preordain next to Ponder in their "tombstone" territory.
I agree as well that the best way to hit these linear decks is with a blow to Dredge or Eldrazi
Hey man, I hope you're right! I exclusively play fair decks in Modern and Probe & Muta are two of my favorite cards in the format. They just seem very strong and ubiquitous to me.
I agree that the best way to hit these linear decks is with a blow to Dredge or Eldrazi (preferably the former since Eldrazi has had a piece banned already and Dredge is more oppressive right now by just about any metric), which would give the interactive decks that punish linear aggro a little more breathing room.
I'm curious which metric you have access to which shows that Dredge is indeed oppressive/dominant on the level of past dominance bans such as Eye of Ugin Eldrazi, Splinter twin, pod, cruise, DRS/BBE. I'm not aware of the data which shows its dominance and have the impression that it is not dominant in such a manner. What'cha got?
P.S. While I don't find Gitaxian probe to be a particularly likely ban, I could understand why if it was banned. I think a swap with Preordain would be an interesting idea if WotC is concerned about a critical mass of good cantrips. I think that would help control while slowing down these aggro/combo decks. I think that might be too much of a designer change for WotC to implement, imo.
Dredge is not even close to as dominant as actually any deck that has been banned. I'm just saying it's more oppressive than Bant Eldrazi is currently by just about any metric---requires specific sideboard cards from nearly everybody (including police decks like Infect, which can now be found packing Cages/Rav. Traps) to beat consistently, puts up better numbers than Bant and Eldrazi Tron combined, etc.
How about instead of talking about the merits of banning probe we all come back to planet earth for a second. Why not ban the cards that actually facilitate the turn 2/turn 3 wins instead of a card like probe which for the most part doesn't really do any of those things.
Probe does do those things. It lets Infect and other pump decks know if the coast is clear for those turn 2/3 wins at no mana cost, and allows many cards in those decks to present lethal damage that early (BI/delve spells, TiTI, Kiln Fiend, Death's Shadow/Swiftspear + TBR, etc.).
How about instead of talking about the merits of banning probe we all come back to planet earth for a second. Why not ban the cards that actually facilitate the turn 2/turn 3 wins instead of a card like probe which for the most part doesn't really do any of those things.
People are currently upset about the format. As in the past when this has happened, the reaction is to start jumping on obscure, "creative," or plain outrageous ban targets. Thankfully, or not thankfully depending on your perspective, Wizards has always gone for the bigger, obvious targets when banning something in Modern.
Personally, I'm going to lose a lot of faith in Wizards if anything gets banned. Except if it's something from Dredge, in which case I'll entertain their explanation before maybe losing only a little faith. But if it's something else, then the PT changes last year might as well not have happened and it will be clear that Wizards has no plans other than to ban their way out of Modern problems.
Why would you entertain a ban from Dredge, exactly? Is it for the same reasons I've given (indirectly give a boost to interactive decks that naturally prey upon linear aggro)?
By the way, the discussion of probe being banned is stupid
Why not just ban Become Immense instead if you guys want to target infect and Shadow without hurting other decks? It would cut down on stupid turn 3 kills with infect's stuff and that stupid ass turn 3 Temur battle-rage+become immense
Probe banning would kill some innocent decks and possibly ban some strategies to tier 3. Relax a little, bro's
Because BI isn't run in UR Prowess, which has pretty much taken over DSA's meta shares as the non-Infect pump strategy of choice. But I agree with you and with ktken that it would be out of character for Wizards to ban an enabler rather than an obvious archetype poster-boy (BI is a better candidate here). I also agree a Probe hit is not ideal for the reasons you mentioned---in fact, those Tier 3 decks are some of the only ones I play, and it's obvious to me that Temur Delver & co. are not the problem with Modern.
Outside of faster combo's, the deck requires seeing hate cards, or cards unusual and unreasonable for an average deck in the format to run. Didn't WOTC say they don't want decks to exist that really only lose from drawing a mega hate card? Something like a lightning bolt can interact with Affinity, something like bolt rarely even slows dredge down, and like you said, dredge can present an unbeatable board state by turn 3, effectively locking the game outside of a combo losing it for them.
WOTC has also said they VERY much regret the dredge mechanics, and see it as one of their largest mistakes in the game---would that really make you lose faith?
I'm with you in that we need to start unbanning things or introducing some modern only cards, but I won't lose faith in a dredge mechanic related card ban, I don't think it's healthy for the format
Dredge is a pretty widely hated deck that doesn't really break format rules. I'm curious to see what justification they cobble together to legitimize its banning. My guess is that they decide to reban GGT and then cite all the other GY strategies that Dredge hate has pushed out.
I'd argue that most of the reason it doesn't break the format rules (specifically, the representation/winningest [if applicable] rules) is because savvier players have started to run 3-5 pieces of dedicated interaction for the deck (Trap, Extraction, Cage, Anger) in their sideboards. While this is a good example of Modern policing itself when left untouched, it also further polarizes the metagame by making it difficult for weaker decks to survive, the ones that can't afford the sideboard space needed to beat Dredge. That goes against one of Wizards' main goals for Modern, which is to have as many viable decks at a given time as they can.
It's also possible that Wizards' data (which far outreaches mine) doesn't agree with these claims, doesn't see the same issues I do, or identifies problems I'm not aware of. I don't think they've ever swung the hammer clumsily, the exception being with the Nacatl ban (I thought axing Punishing Fire was enough to allow non-Cat x/2 combat creatures back into the format), which was corrected. I'm hoping they either ban Amalgam or Grave Troll (which would require dipping into new reasoning that have never been used to defend a ban before, but if it's in line with their shifting and evolving vision of Modern, I'm all for it) or nothing (which I agree with many here is the most logical announcement given Wizards' previous banlist guidelines). But I think the former is more likely. Wizards can smell the playerbase's frustration right now and really hates Dredge in general, plus we can make a case for a Dredge hit given the literature Wizards has already released about Modern (as I have above).
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.
@AK
I agree Dredge doesn't really violate format rules. That said, I personally dislike it because I've noticed a marked decrease in non-Dredge GY strategies because there is so much GY hate out there. But since I'm not doing the MN updates anymore, I'm not sure about this on a metagame wide scale. It's just a personal feeling as a player and from more anecdotal observations.
- Lantern Control
- Ad Nauseam
- WR Prison
- Eldrazi Tron
- Bant Eldrazi
That's the top 15 decks. There are 3 interactive decks there, 20%. If you add all the other interactive decks past that their meta shares add up about 20% of the full format. Now, what's the reason that means "unhealthy" metagame? Why 40% of interactive decks would mean "healthy"?
There are 6 decks there that more or less try to kill you fast at all costs, twice as many as interactive decks. Then 2 ramp decks, a classic combo deck, a "cheating" midrange deck, a prison deck and a prison/control one.
I don't see the world ending or anything. You like interaction, play it, it's really good vs many of the top decks. It has bad matchups too. Just like everyone else.
Here is the inherent issue with that argument, when i look at that list i see 7 interactive decks, with 1 more id consider 50-50. The next person to look at that list will see 10, the person after that will say none of them are since none of them are draw-go control. Basing arguments on whether the meta is healthy or not on our own personal opinion of what an interactive deck is gets us nowhere. It leads to people arguing semantics instead of having healthy discussion. Using this type of argument also inserts your own personal definition of a healthy metagame as the truth, when it is in fact an opinion. Im sure there are people out there who believe combo winter was healthy, and i know for a fact there are people in this thread who wont be happy until we have a format that looks like last standard, with bgx/urx leading the helm in bant companies place. These people are obviously exaggerations, but they are only meant to show the point. The fact of the matter is that arguing for/against bans/unbans based on our own definition of healthy leads to nothing but biased, flawed arguments. What we need to focus on are the following
-metagame shares (with huge emphasis on t8's)
-t4 violators (actual, not "i got t3'd at fnm)
-overall deck diversity (aka is there plenty of options/is each archetype putting up some results)
When we look at it in these eyes, the eyes that wizards uses when viewing the format, an entirely different story is told. The supposed "turn 3" decks are not truly turn 3 decks, no deck is taking up an unusual amoint of the meta, nor are they taking up too many top 8 spots, and tons of decks are represented, along with ample representation of each archetype. Mtgtop8 shows a 45/30/24% split between aggro/control/combo. Looking closer, they place jund in aggro, while in truth it is much closer to control, so the split is more like 38/37/24. So yes, not perfect in this regard but only in need of SLIGHT adjustments to the meta, not taking sledgehammers to the meta. This thread does a very good job of turning itself into a hyperbolic echo chamber.
Note: I realize you weren't arguing this, your last paragraph explained that very well. The first half of this post is just the perfect example for this post
It makes no sense to call a ban healthy when the format has been nothing but unhealthy since the ban happened. If someone would like to explain this disconnect without sarcasm, I'm all ears. As far as I can tell, banning Twin has done nothing to make the format "healthier." And if it didn't directly have an impact on the format's health, and it was entirety other things, than banning it was completely pointless anyway.
Happily. So, right after the twin ban, they printed cards that created the most broken deck in the history of modern. This has nothing to do with twin being banned, new cards wrecked the format. Later, new cards were printed yet again that created dredge as we know it, while the previous new cards that caused the eye of ugin bans are still in the meta, just in less powerful shells. The result of this is a dramatic shift in what strategies are viable in the format, and unfortunately for you, you consider the changes "unhealthy". What this means is that decks that are strong against the established strong interactive decks was printed that created strategies strong against those decks, meaning they stole part of the metashares of the decks you consider healthy for the meta.
Now, we had a period of time in between the eldrazi ban and the amalgam printing. During this time, we even had events.
Top 8s of gp charlotte and LA looked fantastic, the day 2 metas looked equally fantastic
So, in summary, we had 2 series of new printings that altered the meta extremely after the twin banning. We only have a brief look into a period without twin and without any warping new printings, and they looked great. The only logical conclusion to come to is that the current state of the meta has everything to do with new cards and nothing to do with twin being gone
I didnt know 3 out of 8 equals 100%. Let me know if the decks I use Probe in fit in your "degenerate" and "unfair" definition.
Id like to be able to use the tools at my disposal without rash bannings. But like I said, they'll ban Goyf before they ban Probe (that is to say, never).
I totally disagree with this and actually think a Probe ban is high on their list if they want to directly hit linear decks. Probe is a usual suspect and crucial enabler in every pump deck (Infect, DSA, UR) as well as certain spell-based combo decks (Storm which isn't anywhere but Wizards definitely hates it).* The premier fair deck that used Probe, Grixis Delver, doesn't usually run it anymore in excess of two, so a Probe ban would hardly weaken that strategy. (It would definitely hurt Temur Delver, although I'd argue a Preordain unban would help us out even more.)
*I agree that the best way to hit these linear decks is with a blow to Dredge or Eldrazi (preferably the former since Eldrazi has had a piece banned already and Dredge is more oppressive right now by just about any metric), which would give the interactive decks that punish linear aggro a little more breathing room.
I highly disagree and think that Gitaxian Probe does not come anywhere near to their watchlist. On top of that, it would kill all of the flip Thing In The Ice decks for sure, it would have a devastating effect in UR Prowess decks and it would mean the end of Infect's tier 1 position. It would badly hurt Zooicide as well. None of those decks would come near to being tier 1 again, although this ban hurts them in different degrees. Another problem is that it severely hurts some fair decks in Temur Delver and slightly weakens Grixis Delver, although Preordain would help them out but things is it's highly possible they have Preordain next to Ponder in their "tombstone" territory.
I agree as well that the best way to hit these linear decks is with a blow to Dredge or Eldrazi
Hey man, I hope you're right! I exclusively play fair decks in Modern and Probe & Muta are two of my favorite cards in the format. They just seem very strong and ubiquitous to me.
I agree that the best way to hit these linear decks is with a blow to Dredge or Eldrazi (preferably the former since Eldrazi has had a piece banned already and Dredge is more oppressive right now by just about any metric), which would give the interactive decks that punish linear aggro a little more breathing room.
I'm curious which metric you have access to which shows that Dredge is indeed oppressive/dominant on the level of past dominance bans such as Eye of Ugin Eldrazi, Splinter twin, pod, cruise, DRS/BBE. I'm not aware of the data which shows its dominance and have the impression that it is not dominant in such a manner. What'cha got?
P.S. While I don't find Gitaxian probe to be a particularly likely ban, I could understand why if it was banned. I think a swap with Preordain would be an interesting idea if WotC is concerned about a critical mass of good cantrips. I think that would help control while slowing down these aggro/combo decks. I think that might be too much of a designer change for WotC to implement, imo.
Dredge is not even close to as dominant as actually any deck that has been banned. I'm just saying it's more oppressive than Bant Eldrazi is currently by just about any metric---requires specific sideboard cards from nearly everybody (including police decks like Infect, which can now be found packing Cages/Rav. Traps) to beat consistently, puts up better numbers than Bant and Eldrazi Tron combined, etc.
How about instead of talking about the merits of banning probe we all come back to planet earth for a second. Why not ban the cards that actually facilitate the turn 2/turn 3 wins instead of a card like probe which for the most part doesn't really do any of those things.
Probe does do those things. It lets Infect and other pump decks know if the coast is clear for those turn 2/3 wins at no mana cost, and allows many cards in those decks to present lethal damage that early (BI/delve spells, TiTI, Kiln Fiend, Death's Shadow/Swiftspear + TBR, etc.).
How about instead of talking about the merits of banning probe we all come back to planet earth for a second. Why not ban the cards that actually facilitate the turn 2/turn 3 wins instead of a card like probe which for the most part doesn't really do any of those things.
People are currently upset about the format. As in the past when this has happened, the reaction is to start jumping on obscure, "creative," or plain outrageous ban targets. Thankfully, or not thankfully depending on your perspective, Wizards has always gone for the bigger, obvious targets when banning something in Modern.
Personally, I'm going to lose a lot of faith in Wizards if anything gets banned. Except if it's something from Dredge, in which case I'll entertain their explanation before maybe losing only a little faith. But if it's something else, then the PT changes last year might as well not have happened and it will be clear that Wizards has no plans other than to ban their way out of Modern problems.
Why would you entertain a ban from Dredge, exactly? Is it for the same reasons I've given (indirectly give a boost to interactive decks that naturally prey upon linear aggro)?
By the way, the discussion of probe being banned is stupid
Why not just ban Become Immense instead if you guys want to target infect and Shadow without hurting other decks? It would cut down on stupid turn 3 kills with infect's stuff and that stupid ass turn 3 Temur battle-rage+become immense
Probe banning would kill some innocent decks and possibly ban some strategies to tier 3. Relax a little, bro's
Because BI isn't run in UR Prowess, which has pretty much taken over DSA's meta shares as the non-Infect pump strategy of choice. But I agree with you and with ktken that it would be out of character for Wizards to ban an enabler rather than an obvious archetype poster-boy (BI is a better candidate here). I also agree a Probe hit is not ideal for the reasons you mentioned---in fact, those Tier 3 decks are some of the only ones I play, and it's obvious to me that Temur Delver & co. are not the problem with Modern.
Outside of faster combo's, the deck requires seeing hate cards, or cards unusual and unreasonable for an average deck in the format to run. Didn't WOTC say they don't want decks to exist that really only lose from drawing a mega hate card? Something like a lightning bolt can interact with Affinity, something like bolt rarely even slows dredge down, and like you said, dredge can present an unbeatable board state by turn 3, effectively locking the game outside of a combo losing it for them.
WOTC has also said they VERY much regret the dredge mechanics, and see it as one of their largest mistakes in the game---would that really make you lose faith?
I'm with you in that we need to start unbanning things or introducing some modern only cards, but I won't lose faith in a dredge mechanic related card ban, I don't think it's healthy for the format
Dredge is a pretty widely hated deck that doesn't really break format rules. I'm curious to see what justification they cobble together to legitimize its banning. My guess is that they decide to reban GGT and then cite all the other GY strategies that Dredge hate has pushed out.
I'd argue that most of the reason it doesn't break the format rules (specifically, the representation/winningest [if applicable] rules) is because savvier players have started to run 3-5 pieces of dedicated interaction for the deck (Trap, Extraction, Cage, Anger) in their sideboards. While this is a good example of Modern policing itself when left untouched, it also further polarizes the metagame by making it difficult for weaker decks to survive, the ones that can't afford the sideboard space needed to beat Dredge. That goes against one of Wizards' main goals for Modern, which is to have as many viable decks at a given time as they can.
It's also possible that Wizards' data (which far outreaches mine) doesn't agree with these claims, doesn't see the same issues I do, or identifies problems I'm not aware of. I don't think they've ever swung the hammer clumsily, the exception being with the Nacatl ban (I thought axing Punishing Fire was enough to allow non-Cat x/2 combat creatures back into the format), which was corrected. I'm hoping they either ban Amalgam or Grave Troll (which would require dipping into new reasoning that have never been used to defend a ban before, but if it's in line with their shifting and evolving vision of Modern, I'm all for it) or nothing (which I agree with many here is the most logical announcement given Wizards' previous banlist guidelines). But I think the former is more likely. Wizards can smell the playerbase's frustration right now and really hates Dredge in general, plus we can make a case for a Dredge hit given the literature Wizards has already released about Modern (as I have above).
I'm honestly shocked how many different voices from all over the spectrum have come into alignment with this take on Dredge. There was nowhere near this level of agreement over the Bloom ban, and that was a much more cut-and-dry case.
Which personally I think is great. A lot of ban sentiment is knee-jerk reactionism towards one's pet peeve decks or decks that beat whatever one likes to play. So to see so much popular sentiment line up with what IMO is a solid meta call is a nice break.
@AK
I agree Dredge doesn't really violate format rules. That said, I personally dislike it because I've noticed a marked decrease in non-Dredge GY strategies because there is so much GY hate out there. But since I'm not doing the MN updates anymore, I'm not sure about this on a metagame wide scale. It's just a personal feeling as a player and from more anecdotal observations.
This is spot on. I play graveyard strategies. In fact Grishoalbrand is my favorite Modern deck. But right now, I wouldn't touch any graveyard strategies with a 10 foot pole, other than Dredge. There just is no reason to run inferior "graveyard-based" built decks. Yes, even with Through the Breach in Grishoalbrand, I won't try it. Dredge is a deck that can be too fast for graveyard hate, has 7-9 cards SB to kill it, or can dodge it. This makes it the perfect deck to be successful with, when compared to other graveyard based decks.
A really good player at my LGS (9th place at the most recent Los Angeles Modern GP) ran Living End last FNM. I should say that he doesn't care much about Modern right now and hates it, but it's better than Standard by a small bit right now. He went 3-0 to start, but lost the last 2 rounds. This is just anecdotal evidence on a really tiny scale that other graveyard decks are probably not viable right now.
People at my LGS hate Dredge. Even though they are packing the hate, they still HATE Dredge, despite the fact that only 3 players at the most run it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
I do believe that Twin was a healthy ban, regardless of the current state of the meta
How is it considered a healthy ban if the meta is not healthy? Or do you consider this current state healthy? If so, at what point did you consider this year "healthy"?
Willfully missing my point, or just cluelessly repeating the same logical fallacy over and over again? I’m not sure which, but it is one of them…
My point was that a ban can be healthy even if the following format is unhealthy. They really aren’t connected in that way. Twin was an unhealthy strategy for a number of reasons, and needed to go, regardless of the effect on the format. They didn’t ban it to “cure the format”, they banned it because it was a problem, and would continue to be so for the rest of the [non-rotating] format’s existence.
As to the current state, I think it is in transition. If things keep going the way they have been trending, it will be decidedly unhealthy in competitive environments very soon. Right now it is ok, to a point, but it is definitely on a precipice.
This year was really just the past six months, due to the obvious warping of the first six. In fact, the current metagame seems to be a direct result of Eldrazi Winter - the best way to fight Eldrazi was through super-linearity, leading to the sharp rise of DSA and Infect, and after the ban things have continued to evolve in that direction, helped along with the printing of Amalgam and Reunion.
Is it healthy now? At a competitive level, not really - it is effectively mutual solitaire in a disturbing number of matches. What could make it healthier? Reducing the viability of the super-linear strategies, with a particular emphasis on the one that ignores the cards that interact with the others (removal).
Artifact lands produce another turn 4 rule violator Chrome Mox produces another turn 1 "lock you out of the game" effect at best or another strong uninteractive deck that potentially breaks turn 4 rule at worst
Those are cards that won't ever be unbanned.
Artifact lands don’t produce T4 rule violators. Really, they don’t. What deck are you referring to? All-in AtogFling Affinity? Still a T4 deck. Eggs? Wouldn’t speed it up. Seriously, I have no idea what deck you are referring to there.
Chrome Mox is mainly a problem because Chalice of the Void and Blood Moon are still around. Outside of those two cards, both of which are problematic in their own right, it isn’t a problem. It is actively bad in most combo decks and wouldn’t actually speed up the one combo deck that could effectively run it at all (Ad Naus). Chrome Mox is worse than a ritual effect due to its inherent card disadvantage - it is rarely used in combos for that reason, even in formats where it is or was legal. Lotus Petal would be much worse for enabling combo decks…
Look, we all have cards we want banned(Personally i think Bant Eldrazi is too good). But in the end of the day, MODERN NEEDS NO BANS(Dredge being the exception) But UNBANS!
I am still baffled - utterly flummoxed, in fact - by your intense hatred of Ancient Stirrings. Those decks aren’t unfair in any sense of the word, with the possible exception of Lantern, which is a “glass cannon” design in any case, more like a combo deck than anything else.
I think the format needs some work to keep it from getting even more linear as time goes forward. A few bans could help with that. A few unbans are in order, as well, but not necessarily the ones you seem to advocate without much argument - JtMS has his own issues, for instance, and Twin is a no-go. On the other hand,Preordain is almost certainly OK, given the bans of Twin and Seething Song…
Can we just get Seething Song back so I can play all my favorite decks again?
I get ripped to shreds for suggesting Chrome Mox, yet someone comes on and suggests Seething Song and few protest. Typical…
Seething Song is just too dangerous. Ritual effects are like that - they look innocuous enough, but they lead to general degeneracy in ways that more disadvantageous ramp (situational moxen, for instance) do not. Song, in particular, is really dangerous with both Through the Breach and Grapeshot in the format. As much as I’d like to agree with you that it is harmless, it really doesn’t seem to be the case - two mana for one card has always been dangerous when a critical mass is possible.
Dent, I thought you did a great job explaining why dredge was unhealthy
Thanks, I try. I don’t think many people really think through what makes a deck healthy or unhealthy beyond either “I hate playing against that” or “is it broken”. The truth is far more nuanced, in my experience - Dredge isn’t broken, but it is unfair, and its presence in its current form is unhealthy. It is like Twin, in that way - not broken, a bit unfair (only mana-efficient 2-card “I Win” combo in the format), totally unhealthy.
Blood moon ensures mana bases don't get even more greedy. It can be a very annoying card, but I think it's good for the format in the grand scheme of things
I disagree, because it doesn’t actually do that. Blood Moon is more ubiquitous right now than it has ever been before in Modern, mainly because it is a one-card “I Win” in a lot of matchups. If it were “ensuring mana bases don’t get too greedy”, then that simply wouldn’t be the case - if it were doing its supposed job, people would be building mana bases that aren’t weak to it as it gets more popular. They aren’t. Why not?
Because they can’t afford to. The format’s power level is too high to both have a consistent mana base and play the cards necessary to keep up with the rest of the format. It isn’t just that these decks are being “greedy” by splashing for Path or Stony Silence or what have you, it is that they have no choice if they are to be powerful enough to compete. You only see 10-12 cards in your average game of Modern, barring cantrip effects (a tempo loss in and of themselves), which means you have to have very consistent lands (as you can’t afford to draw single-color sources too often), which means lots of duals and other multi-lands. That isn’t "greed”, that is necessity.
Blood Moon craps on that, by allowing a weak deck to run a single-card strategy to prevent their opponent from even playing the game. It is an enchantment that makes all non-basic lands produce one color of mana that simply cannot deal with enchantments - if it made them all Plains or Forests, it wouldn’t be so bad, but it doesn’t.
It is a one-card “I win combo” far too often, and unhealthy in the extreme. Do you know when Old Extended really started to get bad? I mean, before the DDT disaster. When All-In-Red popped up, and Blood Moon Affinity became common. Blood Moon is a great bellwether card for the health of large formats - if it is getting really good, the format is in trouble. The solution is to either fix the format - something that I don’t think is really possible with Modern, which is largely defined by its mana bases - or to get rid of the card.
Banning inkmoth would kill infect in modern. Infect is a very healthy deck for modern, believe it or not. It's the combo deck that preys upon other combo decks that don't interact. I think regulating infect to tier 3 would actually make the format more linear, as ironic as that sounds.
Yes, banning Inkmoth would kill Infect as it is now, reducing it to another variation on Kiln Fiend Aggro. Is that really such a bad thing? The UR pump deck is just as good at abusing non-interactive combos as a less-busted (minus Become Immense or Mutagenic Growth) Infect deck would be, just without the immunity to sorcery-speed interaction (and Abrupt Decay) that Inkmoth gives Infect…
I dunno. I think the card is a problem, because it makes Infect the hands-down best of the “Stompy” decks in the format, because it gets a manland. I also really don’t like how the card operates in Affinity. That being said, it may be a step too far to ban it, if some other step is taken against Infect instead.
I want to make it clear that I think that taking out both Muta/BI and Inkmoth is probably a step too far, but either would be a way to target Infect.
Growth isn't broken, I see no reason to ban this right now, the format isn't calling for this
Growth is the lynchpin that holds together the entire “stompy” set of decks - Infect, UR Pump, Death’s Shadow. It isn’t broken, it is just the enabler for everything else they are trying to do. Without it, none of those decks is nearly as strong.
Just like Summer Bloom, it is a card they could target to weaken the deck(s) significantly without outright neutering them. It isn’t that it is the most broken thing - in fact, quite the opposite - it is that it is what lets the broken things really work. They didn’t ban Amulet or Prime Time, they banned Summer Bloom. They won’t ban infect creatures (minus the very-far-outside-possibility of Nexus) or TITI, they’ll target one of the enablers. Growth just happens to be one of the two that would be the obvious ones to target, along with Become Immense.
Unbanning chrome would be insane. We don't need more fast mana for more linear decks
There we disagree vehemently. For one thing, the format has very little actual fast mana at the moment - a couple of rituals, SSG, and Mox Opal, along with the usual assortment of Mana Dude and Mana Rock varieties. The worst “fast mana” offender is actually a deck that spends very little - Dredge - because it cheats rather than actually spending mana.
Chrome Mox is pretty bad, in general, in fast combo decks. Go try to find a historical fast combo deck that uses it in a relevant format, like Old Extended. You’ll find that there aren’t many (DDT being the major exception). There is a good reason for that - it is far better in decks that can recover from the extreme negative card advantage than it is in decks trying to accelerate for immediate kills.
Do you know what decks do historically use the card? Prison decks and midrange decks. The former I will grant you could be a problem, as long as Blood Moon and Chalice are still around - I personally would love to see those two go and Chrome Mox come back, but I’d be willing to live through a format with all for a while just to see what really happens. The midrange decks that could use it would be the kind that simply do not compete right now - namely things like Faeries and Nahiri variants.
This is all colored by my opinion/perception that fast mana in and of itself isn’t a problem, as long as it has a sufficient drawback. I feel that Chrome Mox’s drawback - far more significant than the ones on the currently available fast mana cards - will keep it from being a problem, especially as long as a BGX deck is a major player in the format (discard and Decay are the card’s mortal enemy). Feel free to disagree, as I don’t think there’s much of a chance of them unbanning it - but to say that, say, Seething Song isn’t a problem and Chrome Mox is one is to fundamentally misunderstand how those cards actually act in real formats.
You know what decks historically beat linear aggro? fast combo. You know what decks aren't in modern?
This is actually a good point, but the truth is that the “linear aggro decks” you speak of in Modern are really combo decks. They assemble three or so cards, cast them in a particular order, and win. Just because they do it by attacking rather than playing 20 spells doesn’t make them any less combo decks!
Also, dented42ford, excellent writeup on the status of Dredge and its effect on the format. Like Spsiegel1987, I also disagree on your ban suggestions, but even so I'd say that was one of the best posts on this forum in a while.
Dredge is just a piece of the format. So is Eldrazi, Infect, Death's Shadow, and many other fast linear decks.
It makes no sense to call a ban healthy when the format has been nothing but unhealthy since the ban happened. If someone would like to explain this disconnect without sarcasm, I'm all ears. As far as I can tell, banning Twin has done nothing to make the format "healthier." And if it didn't directly have an impact on the format's health, and it was entirety other things, than banning it was completely pointless anyway.
I was going to try to respond to this, but the complete lack of sense makes that too trying…
Suffice it to say that cfusionpm doesn’t understand that there is a distinction between “a healthy ban” and “a healthy format after a ban”. As long as he doesn’t see that distinction, he will not and can not be reasoned with. It simply isn’t worth the effort, as the goalposts will just keep moving…
I often find myself waffling on twins banning, everything from they hate banned it so eldrazi would shine to the opposite end of the spectrum of it was suppressing format diversity. All the way back to control was more playable when twin existed then it is now, and back to the format is to hostile and more polarized then whatever twin created. :/ The fact is wizards has there own long term goals for the format that we can only interpret through a very small lens that we see. What I gathered from the banning of twin and the subsequent unbanning of ancestral vision is they believed that any good blue card that was printed or came off the banned list was automatically added to twin so it had to go to promoted diversity as it was the best blue aggro/control/combo deck at all times. As it's unbanning hasn't really solved any of moderns glaring issues of an imbalance of control and combo in modern and namely blue based. My best guess is we see more blue unbans I.e. preordain that gradually reshape the format and bring it back to a critical balance:) please respond to any points.
I do believe that Twin was a healthy ban, regardless of the current state of the meta
How is it considered a healthy ban if the meta is not healthy? Or do you consider this current state healthy? If so, at what point did you consider this year "healthy"?
Willfully missing my point, or just cluelessly repeating the same logical fallacy over and over again? I’m not sure which, but it is one of them…
My point was that a ban can be healthy even if the following format is unhealthy. They really aren’t connected in that way. Twin was an unhealthy strategy for a number of reasons, and needed to go, regardless of the effect on the format. They didn’t ban it to “cure the format”, they banned it because it was a problem, and would continue to be so for the rest of the [non-rotating] format’s existence.
As to the current state, I think it is in transition. If things keep going the way they have been trending, it will be decidedly unhealthy in competitive environments very soon. Right now it is ok, to a point, but it is definitely on a precipice.
This year was really just the past six months, due to the obvious warping of the first six. In fact, the current metagame seems to be a direct result of Eldrazi Winter - the best way to fight Eldrazi was through super-linearity, leading to the sharp rise of DSA and Infect, and after the ban things have continued to evolve in that direction, helped along with the printing of Amalgam and Reunion.
Is it healthy now? At a competitive level, not really - it is effectively mutual solitaire in a disturbing number of matches. What could make it healthier? Reducing the viability of the super-linear strategies, with a particular emphasis on the one that ignores the cards that interact with the others (removal).
The smoke and mirrors style of argument here is extremely weak. "I can't be bothered to explain" is a poor and ineffective tactic.
Suffice it to say that cfusionpm doesn’t understand that there is a distinction between “a healthy ban” and “a healthy format after a ban”. As long as he doesn’t see that distinction, he will not and can not be reasoned with. It simply isn’t worth the effort, as the goalposts will just keep moving…
Clearly I have not, as you have yet to explain how it makes sense for a ban to be healthy when the resultant format is not healthy. Very strange set of logic to me.
You say that it was "an unhealthy strategy for a number of reasons," but then never actually list these reasons.
Then you openly admit to how unhealthy the current format is.
Then say that it is trending in a direction which is even more unhealthy!
And finally, conclude that the Twin ban was healthy! Implying that it was good for the format?
This is a logical disconnect like I have not seen in a loooong time. Please try and compose your arguments the next time you post here.
Like I said, I don't agree with a lot of what you say but at least it's well thought out and logically laid out.
I don't think banning something like Chalice to test out Mox is ok though.
Mutagenic Growth is very good, but I believe it is significantly better if BI becomes banned, it's powerful because growth, probe and fetches can lead to a near game winning scenario on it's own by turn 3. Until infect becomes a very huge issue, I'm not advocating for a BI ban. I feel like a healthy amount of players know this card may be a real problem down the road though, but it isn't warping the meta right now.
I'm fine with Affinity, I think it's somewhat healthy for the meta, it's basically the priemere creature swarm deck. Affinity top decks like ***** though, and is suspetible to removal and boardwipes, and is massively hated out by stony silences and shatterstorm.
The reason no one got angry about seething song unban suggestion is because it was a bad post and it wasn't worth the energy explaining why, same with the guy telling us to bugger off about dredge and something about modern being standard-lite.
You were completely right about some of these creature combos basically being the same as linear combos; just because it's not slinging 20 spells together doesn't make it less of a combo.
Twin was a healthy ban, and the fact was brought up that new cards wrecked modern this year---and it's kind of true. This happens less in legacy though, and it's obvious why, they have more answers. We need broad answers.
I believe all deck types should exist, but It'd be nice if there was at least a GBx and URx control deck in tier 1 or high tier 2 at all times, it helps balance everything out (I'm not a blue player outside of playing some novice-skilled Twin, I just want to see it on top).
I do believe that Twin was a healthy ban, regardless of the current state of the meta
How is it considered a healthy ban if the meta is not healthy? Or do you consider this current state healthy? If so, at what point did you consider this year "healthy"?
Willfully missing my point, or just cluelessly repeating the same logical fallacy over and over again? I’m not sure which, but it is one of them…
My point was that a ban can be healthy even if the following format is unhealthy. They really aren’t connected in that way. Twin was an unhealthy strategy for a number of reasons, and needed to go, regardless of the effect on the format. They didn’t ban it to “cure the format”, they banned it because it was a problem, and would continue to be so for the rest of the [non-rotating] format’s existence.
As to the current state, I think it is in transition. If things keep going the way they have been trending, it will be decidedly unhealthy in competitive environments very soon. Right now it is ok, to a point, but it is definitely on a precipice.
This year was really just the past six months, due to the obvious warping of the first six. In fact, the current metagame seems to be a direct result of Eldrazi Winter - the best way to fight Eldrazi was through super-linearity, leading to the sharp rise of DSA and Infect, and after the ban things have continued to evolve in that direction, helped along with the printing of Amalgam and Reunion.
Is it healthy now? At a competitive level, not really - it is effectively mutual solitaire in a disturbing number of matches. What could make it healthier? Reducing the viability of the super-linear strategies, with a particular emphasis on the one that ignores the cards that interact with the others (removal).
The smoke and mirrors style of argument here is extremely weak. "I can't be bothered to explain" is a poor and ineffective tactic.
Suffice it to say that cfusionpm doesn’t understand that there is a distinction between “a healthy ban” and “a healthy format after a ban”. As long as he doesn’t see that distinction, he will not and can not be reasoned with. It simply isn’t worth the effort, as the goalposts will just keep moving…
Clearly I have not, as you have yet to explain how it makes sense for a ban to be healthy when the resultant format is not healthy. Very strange set of logic to me.
You say that it was "an unhealthy strategy for a number of reasons," but then never actually list these reasons.
Then you openly admit to how unhealthy the current format is.
Then say that it is trending in a direction which is even more unhealthy!
And finally, conclude that the Twin ban was healthy! Implying that it was good for the format?
This is a logical disconnect like I have not seen in a loooong time. Please try and compose your arguments the next time you post here.
You ever stop to think people don't bother giving you the full argument anymore because your mind cannot and will not be changed by anything short of the divine hand of Jesus Christ almighty (His Kingdom come, His will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven, amen. It is the holidays after all)?
You have posted for Twin's unbanning since the day it was banned, almost one year ago. Over 1,000 posts dedicated towards its cause. You proved far and away long ago that no evidence, no argument, no amount of talk or discussion has any remote hope of EVER changing your mind. So why do you expect people to rehash the exact same arguments (strengthened over time) when you have no intention of debating them in an honest manner? If the evidence contradicts your narrative, you will ignore it. If an argument defeats a post of yours, you move the goalposts back.
Why should anyone bother explaining to you when it has been explained to you FOR TWELVE MONTHS STRAIGHT!?!?!?!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
I sort feel the same way as I can take up either side of the argument anytime and play devil's advocate for the other side...
This makes me feel even more sure that even though you say your not sure how banning twin could be the right call if the overall health of the format seams lower because of it.
I believe that is because it was a ban made with long term goals in mind that will have short term consequences I.e. linear decks rising up to unhealthy %
They probably could have unbanned more when it was banned to mitigate this but watching things play out and banning/unbanning in small more precise doses helps prevent making to many wrong moves
I did explain, at length. You ignored, ad infinitum.
Clearly I have not, as you have yet to explain how it makes sense for a ban to be healthy when the resultant format is not healthy. Very strange set of logic to me.
Cognitive disconnect of the highest order. The two simply do not relate. An unhealthy format can occur after the banning of a card without the banning being the cause of the unhealthy format. This is basic cause and correlation stuff, grade-school logic. The ban was healthy. The format changed in an unhealthy direction. That doesn't make the ban unhealthy.
You say that it was "an unhealthy strategy for a number of reasons," but then never actually list these reasons.
I did in the other thread, but haven't here. It was unhealthy primarily because it was the best 2-card combo in the format, and always would be (barring another design f'up). It forced the question, "why aren't you just playing Twin". You simply couldn't play any other tempo-combo deck, because there was no way there would ever be one that was more efficient. It was by far the best thing UR could do, and would forever be unless they messed up with something worse. It also won too much at a high level, relative to its share of the metagame.
Then you openly admit to how unhealthy the current format is.
It isn't really that unhealthy yet, but it is rapidly approaching mutual solitaire. I didn't say what you are accusing me of saying.
Then say that it is trending in a direction which is even more unhealthy!
Indeed I did. This tracks from the previous actual statement. I think the format is in transition - of course I'm not going to make a concrete statement about its current health!
And finally, conclude that the Twin ban was healthy! Implying that it was good for the format?
There's that disconnect again - the Twin ban was healthy. The format is not going that way. These things are correlated, but there is no causation. Basic logical reasoning.
This is a logical disconnect like I have not seen in a loooong time. Please try and compose your arguments the next time you post here.
You need some schoolin' in logic, if you think I am the one with issues in my argument. You are trying to force a causative link that I didn't state the basis of your sorry excuse for an "argument", of which there is none. The Twin ban and the health of the format are simply different things. There is no causative link. As you can't seem to get that through your thick skull, I'll repeat what I said before: It simply isn’t worth the effort, as the goalposts will just keep moving…
I do believe that Twin was a healthy ban, regardless of the current state of the meta
How is it considered a healthy ban if the meta is not healthy? Or do you consider this current state healthy? If so, at what point did you consider this year "healthy"?
Willfully missing my point, or just cluelessly repeating the same logical fallacy over and over again? I’m not sure which, but it is one of them…
My point was that a ban can be healthy even if the following format is unhealthy. They really aren’t connected in that way. Twin was an unhealthy strategy for a number of reasons, and needed to go, regardless of the effect on the format. They didn’t ban it to “cure the format”, they banned it because it was a problem, and would continue to be so for the rest of the [non-rotating] format’s existence.
As to the current state, I think it is in transition. If things keep going the way they have been trending, it will be decidedly unhealthy in competitive environments very soon. Right now it is ok, to a point, but it is definitely on a precipice.
This year was really just the past six months, due to the obvious warping of the first six. In fact, the current metagame seems to be a direct result of Eldrazi Winter - the best way to fight Eldrazi was through super-linearity, leading to the sharp rise of DSA and Infect, and after the ban things have continued to evolve in that direction, helped along with the printing of Amalgam and Reunion.
Is it healthy now? At a competitive level, not really - it is effectively mutual solitaire in a disturbing number of matches. What could make it healthier? Reducing the viability of the super-linear strategies, with a particular emphasis on the one that ignores the cards that interact with the others (removal).
The smoke and mirrors style of argument here is extremely weak. "I can't be bothered to explain" is a poor and ineffective tactic.
Suffice it to say that cfusionpm doesn’t understand that there is a distinction between “a healthy ban” and “a healthy format after a ban”. As long as he doesn’t see that distinction, he will not and can not be reasoned with. It simply isn’t worth the effort, as the goalposts will just keep moving…
Clearly I have not, as you have yet to explain how it makes sense for a ban to be healthy when the resultant format is not healthy. Very strange set of logic to me.
You say that it was "an unhealthy strategy for a number of reasons," but then never actually list these reasons.
Then you openly admit to how unhealthy the current format is.
Then say that it is trending in a direction which is even more unhealthy!
And finally, conclude that the Twin ban was healthy! Implying that it was good for the format?
This is a logical disconnect like I have not seen in a loooong time. Please try and compose your arguments the next time you post here.
You ever stop to think people don't bother giving you the full argument anymore because your mind cannot and will not be changed by anything short of the divine hand of Jesus Christ almighty (His Kingdom come, His will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven, amen. It is the holidays after all)?
You have posted for Twin's unbanning since the day it was banned, almost one year ago. Over 1,000 posts dedicated towards its cause. You proved far and away long ago that no evidence, no argument, no amount of talk or discussion has any remote hope of EVER changing your mind. So why do you expect people to rehash the exact same arguments (strengthened over time) when you have no intention of debating them in an honest manner? If the evidence contradicts your narrative, you will ignore it. If an argument defeats a post of yours, you move the goalposts back.
Why should anyone bother explaining to you when it has been explained to you FOR TWELVE MONTHS STRAIGHT!?!?!?!
Because empty claims with no evidence aren't exactly convincing. Sorry. There are plenty of completely valid arguments worth discussing, but Mr. Ford here is making none of them. For someone with such a passionate stance on something, you'd imagine it'd be based on several levels of explanation. Instead, it's a tired retread of circular logic that is completely disconnected and incapable of answering simple questions. I'm all for productive discussions with people I disagree with, but this is just a tirade fuled by emotion that has yet to address even the most basic questions about their stance.
Turns out SCG put out a video today of Infect vs Grixis Delver feat. Brad Nelson and Ross Merriam. Towards the end of the video after the rounds conclude, they discuss their opinions on Gitaxian Probe and what it is fueling in Modern. Pretty good listen if you have the time.
I feel the need to preface this with this caution as everytime i make a post someone gets huffy puffy. I like Gitaxian Probe. I do think it adds an unhealthy element to the format. I do think it should be banned but now might not be the best time for that. In my opinion, Dredge and Bant Eldrazi are where the focus should be in regards to the format's health. But this offers insight to the other side of the argument and with some sound reason.
What bad does Bant Eldrazi do to format health? I'm sorry, but does ANY deck that beats Jund and URx automatically represent a threat to format health?
It might be too good against aggro -- functionally being better than jund at midranging, while also beating jund. My thinking is it's not proven itself to be enough of a problem yet. For a while everyone was singing Jund's death dirge but folks appear to be adjusting.
Turns out SCG put out a video today of Infect vs Grixis Delver feat. Brad Nelson and Ross Merriam. Towards the end of the video after the rounds conclude, they discuss their opinions on Gitaxian Probe and what it is fueling in Modern. Pretty good listen if you have the time.
I feel the need to preface this with this caution as everytime i make a post someone gets huffy puffy. I like Gitaxian Probe. I do think it adds an unhealthy element to the format. I do think it should be banned but now might not be the best time for that. In my opinion, Dredge and Bant Eldrazi are where the focus should be in regards to the format's health. But this offers insight to the other side of the argument and with some sound reason.
Mutagenic growth is A LOT worse than probe will ever be for modern. Probe has spawned two tier 1 infect look a like decks because people just now figured out that the card is broken.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
On mtgsalvation people don't want to discuss ideas, so I give people something else to discuss: my controversial opinions.
What bad does Bant Eldrazi do to format health? I'm sorry, but does ANY deck that beats Jund and URx automatically represent a threat to format health?
It might be too good against aggro -- functionally being better than jund at midranging, while also beating jund. My thinking is it's not proven itself to be enough of a problem yet. For a while everyone was singing Jund's death dirge but folks appear to be adjusting.
Mmmh now I admit I'm talking a bit from ignorance here, but don't most aggro decks have good matchups vs Bant Eldrazi?
Yeah they do b/c eldrazi only plays path/explosives for removal which is not the best against aggro.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
On mtgsalvation people don't want to discuss ideas, so I give people something else to discuss: my controversial opinions.
Turns out SCG put out a video today of Infect vs Grixis Delver feat. Brad Nelson and Ross Merriam. Towards the end of the video after the rounds conclude, they discuss their opinions on Gitaxian Probe and what it is fueling in Modern. Pretty good listen if you have the time.
I feel the need to preface this with this caution as everytime i make a post someone gets huffy puffy. I like Gitaxian Probe. I do think it adds an unhealthy element to the format. I do think it should be banned but now might not be the best time for that. In my opinion, Dredge and Bant Eldrazi are where the focus should be in regards to the format's health. But this offers insight to the other side of the argument and with some sound reason.
For those interested, the Probe discussion starts at the 45 minute mark.
tl;dw: Brad Nelson likes the "dance" of not knowing and dislikes that Probe removes it. He also thinks Probe "feels" broken. No mention of metagame share or other measurable metrics that we know Wizards uses. Also no mention of discard spells, which remove the "dance" as well.
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.
Turns out SCG put out a video today of Infect vs Grixis Delver feat. Brad Nelson and Ross Merriam. Towards the end of the video after the rounds conclude, they discuss their opinions on Gitaxian Probe and what it is fueling in Modern. Pretty good listen if you have the time.
I feel the need to preface this with this caution as everytime i make a post someone gets huffy puffy. I like Gitaxian Probe. I do think it adds an unhealthy element to the format. I do think it should be banned but now might not be the best time for that. In my opinion, Dredge and Bant Eldrazi are where the focus should be in regards to the format's health. But this offers insight to the other side of the argument and with some sound reason.
Mutagenic growth is A LOT worse than probe will ever be for modern. Probe has spawned two tier 1 infect look a like decks because people just now figured out that the card is broken.
Debatable. Probe is what checks to see if the coast is clear. It looks to see what your deck has to play around to get in the 1 hit you need. It cantrips, provides incredible information, fuels Delve, and has virtually no cost in deck building. It is all upside and no downside. It removes the "what if" feeling when playing the pump spell decks against decks with removal and interaction. You dont have to play around that counter they dont have or you gotta play around a pair of Bolts, that kind of information for those strategies is what is broken about the card. Probe seems like a fine card on its own but its purpose in these linear decks is to see if the coast is clear for that early kill. People underestimate the power of the information it gives, its primarily the reason it is played. Cantripping and fueling Delve is the cherry and icing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active Modern Decks
U Tron GW Bogles RG Loam UR Blue Breach RBU Grixis Goryo BRU Grixis Delver GBR Jund GBW Junk
Stoneforge Mystic is part of that group of cards that ended up being way too good at all points in the game much like Umezawa's Jitte and Deathrite Shaman. As much as a lot of equipment deck folks want it unbanned, I think it would cause more problems eventually than it would fix since they wouldn't be able to print strong equipment. Speaking of which, they haven't printed strong equipment in quite a while outside of the reprinting of swords as master pieces so why is that argument point even valid? I'm pretty sure that it was a design article somewhere that WoTC published that even mentioned that detail about equipment, and now they are printing arguably the two strongest artifact pseudo equipment cards they've ever printed in a very long time with Smuggler's Copter and Heart of Kiran instead.
Well if you mean by "a long time" the last Artifact centered block then yes its been awhile. I know they didn't consider printing many if any good equipment cards this go around because of the design needing to allow Vehicles to shine. Honestly this line of thought is to say every instance of wizards of the cost having a set which featured strong equipment cards has produced a OP'ed or busted equipment card, hence it is unlikely to occur again. I mean really they are 0-2 on doing the equipment matters sets and not producing broken interactions.
The point you made about her value I generally agree with. Just a value card that helps grindy decks out grind other grindy decks.
we are in an artifact themed block right now...
I also pointed out how this set is actually a vehicle set primarily which is going to eat up the design space for things like equipment or non-vehicle artifacts. So I didn't see why you doubled on a point I actually made. Regardless the idea that WotC will not print more busted equipment cards simply because they won't make the same unintended mistakes as before is not in keeping with the long held tradition of WotC always making design mistakes from time to time. Not to mention the reality that they do not test for Modern or care about the potential known risks of new cards on eternal formats.
The only busted equipment they have ever made is skullclamp. Otherwise none of the equipment that they have ever made hasn't been broken without some kind of enabler. And even then, it's arguable that SFM + Skull/Sword were even overpowered for their time in extended compared to everything else that you could be doing. In Standard, if you aren't a creature/planeswalker or an instant/sorcery that powers up a creature/planeswalker, you are going to be a garbage card. That's wizard's new design philosophy.
Skullclamp and Umezawa's Jitte and I disagree with your exclusion of other card types that bolster creatures. Enchantments Equipment etc... all falls right in line with the WotC Creatures/spells design philosophy and I find it odd that you would specifically point out how WotC is only interested in Creatures or Planeswalker card types and spells that power them up when that is exactly the only thing equipment does by design.
Hasn't been that great in my experience. Watched infect get boned by main deck spellskite and displacer lock regularly for example. It's definitely close at least for burn and infect. The sideboard pool is also rather deep in white.
I expect zoo type decks have a rough time of it due to how fat eldrazi are.
Merfolk and elves are miserable from what I've seen, but substantially less common.
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.
I have been trying to convince others that Seething Song has been safe to unban for around 2 years now. Caleb Durward even did a banned series video with Seething Song and as much as he wanted it unbanned as well, he said that it wasn't safe at that time. But times have changed. I think it has been over a year since his videos.
Here's where I'm at now. Obviously I wouldn't mind it right now (I love the card), I think unbans right now are going to lean toward trying to slow the format down - not having yet another deck that races Suicide Zoo/Bloo/Infect. Many players don't see the format as Combo is hurting. They only recognize Midrange and Control decks are hurting. Often Aggro is lumped in the Combo archetype since Combo has really been nerfed in recent years, especially "creature less" Combo. Many players don't want to see something to make Through the Breach quicker - Simian Spirit Guide and ramp is "bad" enough for them. For this reason, I doubt that Seething Song will be unbanned. I do believe that it should be up for consideration soon though. We shouldn't forget it while other cards are coming off, but first we have to see those cards come off.
Those decks are fun and I enjoy them as well. I would like to test Dragonstorm and All In Red as well. (I'm sure there's more.)
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)Dredge is just a piece of the format. So is Eldrazi, Infect, Death's Shadow, and many other fast linear decks.
It makes no sense to call a ban healthy when the format has been nothing but unhealthy since the ban happened. If someone would like to explain this disconnect without sarcasm, I'm all ears. As far as I can tell, banning Twin has done nothing to make the format "healthier." And if it didn't directly have an impact on the format's health, and it was entirety other things, than banning it was completely pointless anyway.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
It's also possible that Wizards' data (which far outreaches mine) doesn't agree with these claims, doesn't see the same issues I do, or identifies problems I'm not aware of. I don't think they've ever swung the hammer clumsily, the exception being with the Nacatl ban (I thought axing Punishing Fire was enough to allow non-Cat x/2 combat creatures back into the format), which was corrected. I'm hoping they either ban Amalgam or Grave Troll (which would require dipping into new reasoning that have never been used to defend a ban before, but if it's in line with their shifting and evolving vision of Modern, I'm all for it) or nothing (which I agree with many here is the most logical announcement given Wizards' previous banlist guidelines). But I think the former is more likely. Wizards can smell the playerbase's frustration right now and really hates Dredge in general, plus we can make a case for a Dredge hit given the literature Wizards has already released about Modern (as I have above).
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
I agree Dredge doesn't really violate format rules. That said, I personally dislike it because I've noticed a marked decrease in non-Dredge GY strategies because there is so much GY hate out there. But since I'm not doing the MN updates anymore, I'm not sure about this on a metagame wide scale. It's just a personal feeling as a player and from more anecdotal observations.
Here is the inherent issue with that argument, when i look at that list i see 7 interactive decks, with 1 more id consider 50-50. The next person to look at that list will see 10, the person after that will say none of them are since none of them are draw-go control. Basing arguments on whether the meta is healthy or not on our own personal opinion of what an interactive deck is gets us nowhere. It leads to people arguing semantics instead of having healthy discussion. Using this type of argument also inserts your own personal definition of a healthy metagame as the truth, when it is in fact an opinion. Im sure there are people out there who believe combo winter was healthy, and i know for a fact there are people in this thread who wont be happy until we have a format that looks like last standard, with bgx/urx leading the helm in bant companies place. These people are obviously exaggerations, but they are only meant to show the point. The fact of the matter is that arguing for/against bans/unbans based on our own definition of healthy leads to nothing but biased, flawed arguments. What we need to focus on are the following
-metagame shares (with huge emphasis on t8's)
-t4 violators (actual, not "i got t3'd at fnm)
-overall deck diversity (aka is there plenty of options/is each archetype putting up some results)
When we look at it in these eyes, the eyes that wizards uses when viewing the format, an entirely different story is told. The supposed "turn 3" decks are not truly turn 3 decks, no deck is taking up an unusual amoint of the meta, nor are they taking up too many top 8 spots, and tons of decks are represented, along with ample representation of each archetype. Mtgtop8 shows a 45/30/24% split between aggro/control/combo. Looking closer, they place jund in aggro, while in truth it is much closer to control, so the split is more like 38/37/24. So yes, not perfect in this regard but only in need of SLIGHT adjustments to the meta, not taking sledgehammers to the meta. This thread does a very good job of turning itself into a hyperbolic echo chamber.
Note: I realize you weren't arguing this, your last paragraph explained that very well. The first half of this post is just the perfect example for this post
Happily. So, right after the twin ban, they printed cards that created the most broken deck in the history of modern. This has nothing to do with twin being banned, new cards wrecked the format. Later, new cards were printed yet again that created dredge as we know it, while the previous new cards that caused the eye of ugin bans are still in the meta, just in less powerful shells. The result of this is a dramatic shift in what strategies are viable in the format, and unfortunately for you, you consider the changes "unhealthy". What this means is that decks that are strong against the established strong interactive decks was printed that created strategies strong against those decks, meaning they stole part of the metashares of the decks you consider healthy for the meta.
Now, we had a period of time in between the eldrazi ban and the amalgam printing. During this time, we even had events.
http://magic.wizards.com/en/events/coverage/gpla16/top-8-decklists-2016-05-22
http://magic.wizards.com/en/events/coverage/gpcha16/top-8-decklists-2016-05-22
Top 8s of gp charlotte and LA looked fantastic, the day 2 metas looked equally fantastic
So, in summary, we had 2 series of new printings that altered the meta extremely after the twin banning. We only have a brief look into a period without twin and without any warping new printings, and they looked great. The only logical conclusion to come to is that the current state of the meta has everything to do with new cards and nothing to do with twin being gone
UWRjeskai nahiri UWR
UBRgrixis titi UBR
UBRgrixis delverUBR
UR ur kikimite UR
EDH
RUG Riku of Two Reflections RUG
UBR Marchesa, the Black Rose UBR
UBRGYidris, Maelstrom Wielder UBRG
UBRJeleva, Nephalia's ScourgeUBR
Which personally I think is great. A lot of ban sentiment is knee-jerk reactionism towards one's pet peeve decks or decks that beat whatever one likes to play. So to see so much popular sentiment line up with what IMO is a solid meta call is a nice break.
Obligatory Preordain mention goes here.
WUBRG Humans
BRW Mardu Pyromancer
UW UW "Control"
UR Blue Moon
This is spot on. I play graveyard strategies. In fact Grishoalbrand is my favorite Modern deck. But right now, I wouldn't touch any graveyard strategies with a 10 foot pole, other than Dredge. There just is no reason to run inferior "graveyard-based" built decks. Yes, even with Through the Breach in Grishoalbrand, I won't try it. Dredge is a deck that can be too fast for graveyard hate, has 7-9 cards SB to kill it, or can dodge it. This makes it the perfect deck to be successful with, when compared to other graveyard based decks.
A really good player at my LGS (9th place at the most recent Los Angeles Modern GP) ran Living End last FNM. I should say that he doesn't care much about Modern right now and hates it, but it's better than Standard by a small bit right now. He went 3-0 to start, but lost the last 2 rounds. This is just anecdotal evidence on a really tiny scale that other graveyard decks are probably not viable right now.
People at my LGS hate Dredge. Even though they are packing the hate, they still HATE Dredge, despite the fact that only 3 players at the most run it.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)Willfully missing my point, or just cluelessly repeating the same logical fallacy over and over again? I’m not sure which, but it is one of them…
My point was that a ban can be healthy even if the following format is unhealthy. They really aren’t connected in that way. Twin was an unhealthy strategy for a number of reasons, and needed to go, regardless of the effect on the format. They didn’t ban it to “cure the format”, they banned it because it was a problem, and would continue to be so for the rest of the [non-rotating] format’s existence.
As to the current state, I think it is in transition. If things keep going the way they have been trending, it will be decidedly unhealthy in competitive environments very soon. Right now it is ok, to a point, but it is definitely on a precipice.
This year was really just the past six months, due to the obvious warping of the first six. In fact, the current metagame seems to be a direct result of Eldrazi Winter - the best way to fight Eldrazi was through super-linearity, leading to the sharp rise of DSA and Infect, and after the ban things have continued to evolve in that direction, helped along with the printing of Amalgam and Reunion.
Is it healthy now? At a competitive level, not really - it is effectively mutual solitaire in a disturbing number of matches. What could make it healthier? Reducing the viability of the super-linear strategies, with a particular emphasis on the one that ignores the cards that interact with the others (removal).
I still don’t see an argument. I see a ton of outrage and flat denials, but no arguments…
Artifact lands don’t produce T4 rule violators. Really, they don’t. What deck are you referring to? All-in Atog Fling Affinity? Still a T4 deck. Eggs? Wouldn’t speed it up. Seriously, I have no idea what deck you are referring to there.
Chrome Mox is mainly a problem because Chalice of the Void and Blood Moon are still around. Outside of those two cards, both of which are problematic in their own right, it isn’t a problem. It is actively bad in most combo decks and wouldn’t actually speed up the one combo deck that could effectively run it at all (Ad Naus). Chrome Mox is worse than a ritual effect due to its inherent card disadvantage - it is rarely used in combos for that reason, even in formats where it is or was legal. Lotus Petal would be much worse for enabling combo decks…
I am still baffled - utterly flummoxed, in fact - by your intense hatred of Ancient Stirrings. Those decks aren’t unfair in any sense of the word, with the possible exception of Lantern, which is a “glass cannon” design in any case, more like a combo deck than anything else.
I think the format needs some work to keep it from getting even more linear as time goes forward. A few bans could help with that. A few unbans are in order, as well, but not necessarily the ones you seem to advocate without much argument - JtMS has his own issues, for instance, and Twin is a no-go. On the other hand,Preordain is almost certainly OK, given the bans of Twin and Seething Song…
I get ripped to shreds for suggesting Chrome Mox, yet someone comes on and suggests Seething Song and few protest. Typical…
Seething Song is just too dangerous. Ritual effects are like that - they look innocuous enough, but they lead to general degeneracy in ways that more disadvantageous ramp (situational moxen, for instance) do not. Song, in particular, is really dangerous with both Through the Breach and Grapeshot in the format. As much as I’d like to agree with you that it is harmless, it really doesn’t seem to be the case - two mana for one card has always been dangerous when a critical mass is possible.
Thanks, I try. I don’t think many people really think through what makes a deck healthy or unhealthy beyond either “I hate playing against that” or “is it broken”. The truth is far more nuanced, in my experience - Dredge isn’t broken, but it is unfair, and its presence in its current form is unhealthy. It is like Twin, in that way - not broken, a bit unfair (only mana-efficient 2-card “I Win” combo in the format), totally unhealthy.
Fair enough, and I did say it was my opinion! That being said, I do have arguments for each - whether they are good arguments is up for debate…
I disagree, because it doesn’t actually do that. Blood Moon is more ubiquitous right now than it has ever been before in Modern, mainly because it is a one-card “I Win” in a lot of matchups. If it were “ensuring mana bases don’t get too greedy”, then that simply wouldn’t be the case - if it were doing its supposed job, people would be building mana bases that aren’t weak to it as it gets more popular. They aren’t. Why not?
Because they can’t afford to. The format’s power level is too high to both have a consistent mana base and play the cards necessary to keep up with the rest of the format. It isn’t just that these decks are being “greedy” by splashing for Path or Stony Silence or what have you, it is that they have no choice if they are to be powerful enough to compete. You only see 10-12 cards in your average game of Modern, barring cantrip effects (a tempo loss in and of themselves), which means you have to have very consistent lands (as you can’t afford to draw single-color sources too often), which means lots of duals and other multi-lands. That isn’t "greed”, that is necessity.
Blood Moon craps on that, by allowing a weak deck to run a single-card strategy to prevent their opponent from even playing the game. It is an enchantment that makes all non-basic lands produce one color of mana that simply cannot deal with enchantments - if it made them all Plains or Forests, it wouldn’t be so bad, but it doesn’t.
It is a one-card “I win combo” far too often, and unhealthy in the extreme. Do you know when Old Extended really started to get bad? I mean, before the DDT disaster. When All-In-Red popped up, and Blood Moon Affinity became common. Blood Moon is a great bellwether card for the health of large formats - if it is getting really good, the format is in trouble. The solution is to either fix the format - something that I don’t think is really possible with Modern, which is largely defined by its mana bases - or to get rid of the card.
Yes, banning Inkmoth would kill Infect as it is now, reducing it to another variation on Kiln Fiend Aggro. Is that really such a bad thing? The UR pump deck is just as good at abusing non-interactive combos as a less-busted (minus Become Immense or Mutagenic Growth) Infect deck would be, just without the immunity to sorcery-speed interaction (and Abrupt Decay) that Inkmoth gives Infect…
I dunno. I think the card is a problem, because it makes Infect the hands-down best of the “Stompy” decks in the format, because it gets a manland. I also really don’t like how the card operates in Affinity. That being said, it may be a step too far to ban it, if some other step is taken against Infect instead.
I want to make it clear that I think that taking out both Muta/BI and Inkmoth is probably a step too far, but either would be a way to target Infect.
Growth is the lynchpin that holds together the entire “stompy” set of decks - Infect, UR Pump, Death’s Shadow. It isn’t broken, it is just the enabler for everything else they are trying to do. Without it, none of those decks is nearly as strong.
Just like Summer Bloom, it is a card they could target to weaken the deck(s) significantly without outright neutering them. It isn’t that it is the most broken thing - in fact, quite the opposite - it is that it is what lets the broken things really work. They didn’t ban Amulet or Prime Time, they banned Summer Bloom. They won’t ban infect creatures (minus the very-far-outside-possibility of Nexus) or TITI, they’ll target one of the enablers. Growth just happens to be one of the two that would be the obvious ones to target, along with Become Immense.
There we disagree vehemently. For one thing, the format has very little actual fast mana at the moment - a couple of rituals, SSG, and Mox Opal, along with the usual assortment of Mana Dude and Mana Rock varieties. The worst “fast mana” offender is actually a deck that spends very little - Dredge - because it cheats rather than actually spending mana.
Chrome Mox is pretty bad, in general, in fast combo decks. Go try to find a historical fast combo deck that uses it in a relevant format, like Old Extended. You’ll find that there aren’t many (DDT being the major exception). There is a good reason for that - it is far better in decks that can recover from the extreme negative card advantage than it is in decks trying to accelerate for immediate kills.
Do you know what decks do historically use the card? Prison decks and midrange decks. The former I will grant you could be a problem, as long as Blood Moon and Chalice are still around - I personally would love to see those two go and Chrome Mox come back, but I’d be willing to live through a format with all for a while just to see what really happens. The midrange decks that could use it would be the kind that simply do not compete right now - namely things like Faeries and Nahiri variants.
This is all colored by my opinion/perception that fast mana in and of itself isn’t a problem, as long as it has a sufficient drawback. I feel that Chrome Mox’s drawback - far more significant than the ones on the currently available fast mana cards - will keep it from being a problem, especially as long as a BGX deck is a major player in the format (discard and Decay are the card’s mortal enemy). Feel free to disagree, as I don’t think there’s much of a chance of them unbanning it - but to say that, say, Seething Song isn’t a problem and Chrome Mox is one is to fundamentally misunderstand how those cards actually act in real formats.
On that we are in agreement.
This is actually a good point, but the truth is that the “linear aggro decks” you speak of in Modern are really combo decks. They assemble three or so cards, cast them in a particular order, and win. Just because they do it by attacking rather than playing 20 spells doesn’t make them any less combo decks!
Thanks for the kind words!
I was going to try to respond to this, but the complete lack of sense makes that too trying…
Suffice it to say that cfusionpm doesn’t understand that there is a distinction between “a healthy ban” and “a healthy format after a ban”. As long as he doesn’t see that distinction, he will not and can not be reasoned with. It simply isn’t worth the effort, as the goalposts will just keep moving…
The smoke and mirrors style of argument here is extremely weak. "I can't be bothered to explain" is a poor and ineffective tactic.
Clearly I have not, as you have yet to explain how it makes sense for a ban to be healthy when the resultant format is not healthy. Very strange set of logic to me.
You say that it was "an unhealthy strategy for a number of reasons," but then never actually list these reasons.
Then you openly admit to how unhealthy the current format is.
Then say that it is trending in a direction which is even more unhealthy!
And finally, conclude that the Twin ban was healthy! Implying that it was good for the format?
This is a logical disconnect like I have not seen in a loooong time. Please try and compose your arguments the next time you post here.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I don't think banning something like Chalice to test out Mox is ok though.
Mutagenic Growth is very good, but I believe it is significantly better if BI becomes banned, it's powerful because growth, probe and fetches can lead to a near game winning scenario on it's own by turn 3. Until infect becomes a very huge issue, I'm not advocating for a BI ban. I feel like a healthy amount of players know this card may be a real problem down the road though, but it isn't warping the meta right now.
I'm fine with Affinity, I think it's somewhat healthy for the meta, it's basically the priemere creature swarm deck. Affinity top decks like ***** though, and is suspetible to removal and boardwipes, and is massively hated out by stony silences and shatterstorm.
The reason no one got angry about seething song unban suggestion is because it was a bad post and it wasn't worth the energy explaining why, same with the guy telling us to bugger off about dredge and something about modern being standard-lite.
You were completely right about some of these creature combos basically being the same as linear combos; just because it's not slinging 20 spells together doesn't make it less of a combo.
Twin was a healthy ban, and the fact was brought up that new cards wrecked modern this year---and it's kind of true. This happens less in legacy though, and it's obvious why, they have more answers. We need broad answers.
I believe all deck types should exist, but It'd be nice if there was at least a GBx and URx control deck in tier 1 or high tier 2 at all times, it helps balance everything out (I'm not a blue player outside of playing some novice-skilled Twin, I just want to see it on top).
You ever stop to think people don't bother giving you the full argument anymore because your mind cannot and will not be changed by anything short of the divine hand of Jesus Christ almighty (His Kingdom come, His will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven, amen. It is the holidays after all)?
You have posted for Twin's unbanning since the day it was banned, almost one year ago. Over 1,000 posts dedicated towards its cause. You proved far and away long ago that no evidence, no argument, no amount of talk or discussion has any remote hope of EVER changing your mind. So why do you expect people to rehash the exact same arguments (strengthened over time) when you have no intention of debating them in an honest manner? If the evidence contradicts your narrative, you will ignore it. If an argument defeats a post of yours, you move the goalposts back.
Why should anyone bother explaining to you when it has been explained to you FOR TWELVE MONTHS STRAIGHT!?!?!?!
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
I sort feel the same way as I can take up either side of the argument anytime and play devil's advocate for the other side...
This makes me feel even more sure that even though you say your not sure how banning twin could be the right call if the overall health of the format seams lower because of it.
I believe that is because it was a ban made with long term goals in mind that will have short term consequences I.e. linear decks rising up to unhealthy %
They probably could have unbanned more when it was banned to mitigate this but watching things play out and banning/unbanning in small more precise doses helps prevent making to many wrong moves
Cognitive disconnect of the highest order. The two simply do not relate. An unhealthy format can occur after the banning of a card without the banning being the cause of the unhealthy format. This is basic cause and correlation stuff, grade-school logic. The ban was healthy. The format changed in an unhealthy direction. That doesn't make the ban unhealthy.
I did in the other thread, but haven't here. It was unhealthy primarily because it was the best 2-card combo in the format, and always would be (barring another design f'up). It forced the question, "why aren't you just playing Twin". You simply couldn't play any other tempo-combo deck, because there was no way there would ever be one that was more efficient. It was by far the best thing UR could do, and would forever be unless they messed up with something worse. It also won too much at a high level, relative to its share of the metagame.
It isn't really that unhealthy yet, but it is rapidly approaching mutual solitaire. I didn't say what you are accusing me of saying.
Indeed I did. This tracks from the previous actual statement. I think the format is in transition - of course I'm not going to make a concrete statement about its current health!
There's that disconnect again - the Twin ban was healthy. The format is not going that way. These things are correlated, but there is no causation. Basic logical reasoning.
You need some schoolin' in logic, if you think I am the one with issues in my argument. You are trying to force a causative link that I didn't state the basis of your sorry excuse for an "argument", of which there is none. The Twin ban and the health of the format are simply different things. There is no causative link. As you can't seem to get that through your thick skull, I'll repeat what I said before: It simply isn’t worth the effort, as the goalposts will just keep moving…
Because empty claims with no evidence aren't exactly convincing. Sorry. There are plenty of completely valid arguments worth discussing, but Mr. Ford here is making none of them. For someone with such a passionate stance on something, you'd imagine it'd be based on several levels of explanation. Instead, it's a tired retread of circular logic that is completely disconnected and incapable of answering simple questions. I'm all for productive discussions with people I disagree with, but this is just a tirade fuled by emotion that has yet to address even the most basic questions about their stance.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I feel the need to preface this with this caution as everytime i make a post someone gets huffy puffy. I like Gitaxian Probe. I do think it adds an unhealthy element to the format. I do think it should be banned but now might not be the best time for that. In my opinion, Dredge and Bant Eldrazi are where the focus should be in regards to the format's health. But this offers insight to the other side of the argument and with some sound reason.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2aAqMP0zos&feature=youtu.be
U Tron
GW Bogles
RG Loam
UR Blue Breach
RBU Grixis Goryo
BRU Grixis Delver
GBR Jund
GBW Junk
Active Legacy Decks
BR Reanimator
It might be too good against aggro -- functionally being better than jund at midranging, while also beating jund. My thinking is it's not proven itself to be enough of a problem yet. For a while everyone was singing Jund's death dirge but folks appear to be adjusting.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Mutagenic growth is A LOT worse than probe will ever be for modern. Probe has spawned two tier 1 infect look a like decks because people just now figured out that the card is broken.
Decks I'm playing in Modern right now:
URB Grixis Reveler (http://www.mtgvault.com/supast4r7/decks/modern-grixis-reveler/)
UB Faeries (http://www.mtgvault.com/supast4r7/decks/ub-fae-2/)
UW Azorious Control (http://www.mtgvault.com/supast4r7/decks/modern-ojutai-control-2/)
Yeah they do b/c eldrazi only plays path/explosives for removal which is not the best against aggro.
Decks I'm playing in Modern right now:
URB Grixis Reveler (http://www.mtgvault.com/supast4r7/decks/modern-grixis-reveler/)
UB Faeries (http://www.mtgvault.com/supast4r7/decks/ub-fae-2/)
UW Azorious Control (http://www.mtgvault.com/supast4r7/decks/modern-ojutai-control-2/)
tl;dw: Brad Nelson likes the "dance" of not knowing and dislikes that Probe removes it. He also thinks Probe "feels" broken. No mention of metagame share or other measurable metrics that we know Wizards uses. Also no mention of discard spells, which remove the "dance" as well.
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
Debatable. Probe is what checks to see if the coast is clear. It looks to see what your deck has to play around to get in the 1 hit you need. It cantrips, provides incredible information, fuels Delve, and has virtually no cost in deck building. It is all upside and no downside. It removes the "what if" feeling when playing the pump spell decks against decks with removal and interaction. You dont have to play around that counter they dont have or you gotta play around a pair of Bolts, that kind of information for those strategies is what is broken about the card. Probe seems like a fine card on its own but its purpose in these linear decks is to see if the coast is clear for that early kill. People underestimate the power of the information it gives, its primarily the reason it is played. Cantripping and fueling Delve is the cherry and icing.
U Tron
GW Bogles
RG Loam
UR Blue Breach
RBU Grixis Goryo
BRU Grixis Delver
GBR Jund
GBW Junk
Active Legacy Decks
BR Reanimator
Skullclamp and Umezawa's Jitte and I disagree with your exclusion of other card types that bolster creatures. Enchantments Equipment etc... all falls right in line with the WotC Creatures/spells design philosophy and I find it odd that you would specifically point out how WotC is only interested in Creatures or Planeswalker card types and spells that power them up when that is exactly the only thing equipment does by design.
Unbanning a card and then having to reban it again is a great way to completely wipe out consumer confidence in Modern.
I expect zoo type decks have a rough time of it due to how fat eldrazi are.
Merfolk and elves are miserable from what I've seen, but substantially less common.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy