Perfect balance is an unachievable goal. That does not make its pursuit devoid of value - like all ideals, moving towards it (as a mathematical limit) is the desired action. From this perspective, not unleashing banned cards as the format evolves to handle them is a failure - you stop moving towards the ideal. Now that doesn't necessarily make a bad format. Modern is great, but we have cards available that would make it better. That is what most are arguing, as far as I can tell.
They would cite UW Control preying on Shadow decks, and probably reason that now Grixis Shadow exists, therefore blue is just fine
The bomb in all of this is Sensei's Divining Top being banned, this says that no matter how huge of a pillar a deck is in a format, that it is never safe.
To be fair miracles deserved it. Splinter Twin was better than anything when it got banned but not by the massive margin that miracles has been in legacy for such a long time. My impression of the top ban is "what took you gugs so long to do something".
If people are so pissed off about twin being discussed all the time then blame Wizards. (I didn't like twin and didn't play it. I tried it but it was more on the slow/controlly side of tempo while I was looking for something a little more prowessy)
We only have this discussion over and over because Wizards refuses to test for modern. Hire a team of 4-8 people and have them test these changes, or at the very least take into account the testing others like MN are doing. They are so ridiculously cryptic about everything they do and say it is impossible to hold them to any of it, especially when they can literally always say "well let's see how the new cards shake things up". When those new cards continue to be censor and kefnet the mindful level cards we already know it isn't going to shake a damn thing up.
The only thing we can really hold them to, and the ONE THING all of us should agree on is that they need to have a dedicated testing group for modern. I for one refuse to accept that they didn't have time to look at the format because they were considering other formats for 4 months straight. If they expect me to continue to buy new cards and shell out ridiculous tournament costs then they better show me my money is going to actually improving the game instead of lining some rich guys wallet.
Seriously, test for the format or just stop pretending to regulate it at all.
I just cannot believe their arrogance. "We don't have time for modern right now because other formats are more pressing." Well then I am sorry, I don't have any money for you because other games are better managed and their employees aren't cryptic arrogant a-holes.
Wizards is not here spamming the thread with Twin stuff.
No, but it is only still being discussed because it was handled so badly and without any data to support it. It was clearly a GP shakeup; if I was a twin player, or wanted to be in the future (wasn't and don't) I would be adamant that testing be implemented into the format. Testing would've shown that banning twin would've had the opposite effect as intended and it would likely still be in the format. I didn't really care at the time it was banned, and I still don't really care if it comes back, just showing my support for their frustration.
Honestly I wasn't talking about twin to begin with and people kept responding to my posts with anti-twin sentiments so the people coming here demanding we stop talking about twin are just as guilty because, you know, they are talking about twin.
Sure, it costs money to test, but there is a cost associated with doing business. If they can't afford to hire a dedicated team of even TWO people plus using legit resources like online numbers and MN data then they shouldn't have the format at all.
If you can't support modern then just say so. We as a community would likely do a much better job regulating it ourselves anyway.
I'm not even saying the no changes was the worst thing in the world. It was a far better alternative to any bannings, but their wording is what infuriates me so much.
And for those saying modern doesn't support Wizards; I am a modern player mostly, but I love draft, I love prereleases, I don't even hate standard. I buy modern masters boxes, and I go to tournaments and FNMs. I am certainly a paying customer that is paying less and less because of how they are handling modern. I may not matter to them (I actually don't), but there is some number of people that think like me that combined does effect them and it is in their best interest to appeal to us as well.
EDIT: What is the "the game is growing" rate actually referring to? Profits? Tournament sizes? Packs sold? There are a lot of ways you could say the game is growing without meaning it is getting better or even more appealing.
It is easier to convince a balance and design team to ban something than unban because it is easier to predict the results of taking something away over adding something. Most digital games balance in this way from other card games to video games like starcraft. I read some time ago that game designers sometimes purposely push stats on units, cards, chacters, or whatever to see how much to tone it down while buffing something or adding a new element to the game is something they rather not do. When it comes to physical card games you do not have the option to tone dlwn something or power it up you can just add a card or take a card away and usually taking a card away is easier to predict an outcome. The problem is that this pieces of cardboard have value and no matter what you do someone will lose money but unbannjng something to later reban it will be much more disastorous than just banning something.
I completely agree with your point about rebanning cards. (I'm only going to address SFM since the cost on Preordain is so low)
I honestly cannot see SFM causing any harm to the format.
Compare SFM to Snappy, Goyf, Eidolon and Bob she probably sits in the middle to lower end of power here.
And since the printing of the excellent kolaghan's command there doesn't seem a good reason to keep it on the banned list.
Perfect balance is an unachievable goal. That does not make its pursuit devoid of value - like all ideals, moving towards it (as a mathematical limit) is the desired action. From this perspective, not unleashing banned cards as the format evolves to handle them is a failure - you stop moving towards the ideal. Now that doesn't necessarily make a bad format. Modern is great, but we have cards available that would make it better. That is what most are arguing, as far as I can tell.
Thank you, I know we don't always agree but this is a terrific post. I actually like modern, I look forward to brewing BW aristocrats with bontu the glorified. It will probably be good enough to spike an FNM because of the surprise factor but I doubt I'll win a GP with it and that's fine.
Just the tone coming from Wizards seems so smug like they can't be bothered with this silly modern format when they have more pressing issues (like that ridiculously popular vintage, right?) and I feel they have all but given up on actually trying to work toward the best possible format and are more than willing to settle for whatever takes them the least amount of work. Sometimes that will make a good format (like now for the most part) but I don't trust it to stay that way because of how they view the format.
Perfect balance is an unachievable goal. That does not make its pursuit devoid of value - like all ideals, moving towards it (as a mathematical limit) is the desired action. From this perspective, not unleashing banned cards as the format evolves to handle them is a failure - you stop moving towards the ideal. Now that doesn't necessarily make a bad format. Modern is great, but we have cards available that would make it better. That is what most are arguing, as far as I can tell.
But, if what I'm seeing from Modern Nexus is true, then we are slowly moving towards that ideal. I get that it's not happening at the rate most people would like given that Control is not a tier 1 archetype. But it's a far cry from arguing that Wizards has abandoned the format or some of the other histrionics we see in this thread.
And the truth regarding unbanning is that we don't know how those cards would perform regarding deck diversity. I wish we had better metrics to work with, but it seems we only have heuristics, which is to say that we basically assume preordain or Stone Forge Mystic would help those colors without pushing things over the edge.
And hey, maybe they won't. Maybe they are tepid at best. But I know that if I was trying to be as unbiased as possible, and honestly looking at the format, I would take a wait and see approach because right now the format seems to be moving in a positive direction. I would not want to upset that.
Why is it that every single time there is a new ban list thread up, Splinter Twin always dominates the thread? Seriously, its been over a year, get over it. I am so sick of reading the same freaking thing over and over about Twin.
Anyways, no bans is the best thing they could have done. The format is in a good place right now. I wouldn't expect any unbans or bans anytime soon unless something ridiculous gets printed.
Would people say the format is healthy if aggro decks were 5% of the meta? If mid-range decks were 5%? Sure, the format has a plethora of aggro and big-mana decks, but mid-range is getting bumped down and control is irrelevant. That's an issue. It's not Eldrazi Winter, but let's stop pretending everything is hunky-dory.
I see alot of different and unique decks that are viable right now. Too me, that is a healthy format. I would rather have 10 aggro decks, 1 control deck, and 1 combo deck than 1 aggro deck, 1 control deck, and 1 combo deck(kind of like what standard is now). I don't care whether the 3 styles of decks are equally represented.
It's always the same in these ban related topics.
I come to see if I can catch something useful but before I know it the only thing being discussed is the Twin ban and how bad blue is.
Come on guys come up with something original because this is taking the piss.
Thank you. I read these forums to read other peoples perspectives on Modern. It gets really tiring of reading about twin, and its not even different people complaining about it. Its the same freaking people saying the same thing over, and over again.
People complain about color balance, but that's an impossibility for the most part. Legacy has one of the most healthy and interesting metagames there is, but color balance in Legacy is even worse than Modern!
That's not to say that Modern doesn't have issues and could stand to be better. But by all accounts - attendance is up, the format seems to be adapting to Death's Shadow, and archetype balance is trending towards better parity (even if it's not ideal). That suggests positive tweaks are needed; it does not indicate that the format is abysmal.
A measured, thoughtful, realistic post. How unnerving.
Please use this list of tips that I just came up with for posting in this thread:
-Complain about something.
-Think of a card that you hate/love and give poorly thought out but strongly worded reasons why it should be banned/unbanned.
-Claim that the format is failing because of something you don't like.
-Wildly exaggerate.
-Suggest banning a card from a competitive new deck.
-Argue about categorizations (such as deck archetypes) that can't be clearly defined.
-Ignore other posters' points.
-Repeat something you've said previously in the thread multiple times.
-State that card prices are too high.
-Point out the incompetence of Aaron Forsythe, Mark Rosewater, or Wizards of the Coast.
-Suggest that you are or will be 'done' with Modern or Magic in general.
-Use statistics but only if you can interpret them to strongly support your point.
-Talk about unrelated formats.
-Make a stupid list.
-Most importantly, be creative! Use any or all of the above suggested posting tips and if you think of something that's not listed above, give it a shot!
Follow these simple guidelines and you too can be a bona fide MTGS Modern banlist thread poster!
People complain about color balance, but that's an impossibility for the most part. Legacy has one of the most healthy and interesting metagames there is, but color balance in Legacy is even worse than Modern!
That's not to say that Modern doesn't have issues and could stand to be better. But by all accounts - attendance is up, the format seems to be adapting to Death's Shadow, and archetype balance is trending towards better parity (even if it's not ideal). That suggests positive tweaks are needed; it does not indicate that the format is abysmal.
A measured, thoughtful, realistic post. How unnerving.
Please use this list of tips that I just came up with for posting in this thread:
-Complain about something.
-Think of a card that you hate/love and give poorly thought out but strongly worded reasons why it should be banned/unbanned.
-Claim that the format is failing because of something you don't like.
-Wildly exaggerate.
-Suggest banning a card from a competitive new deck.
-Argue about categorizations (such as deck archetypes) that can't be clearly defined.
-Ignore other posters' points.
-Repeat something you've said previously in the thread multiple times.
-State that card prices are too high.
-Point out the incompetence of Aaron Forsythe, Mark Rosewater, or Wizards of the Coast.
-Suggest that you are or will be 'done' with Modern or Magic in general.
-Use statistics but only if you can interpret them to strongly support your point.
-Talk about unrelated formats.
-Make a stupid list.
-Most importantly, be creative! Use any or all of the above suggested posting tips and if you think of something that's not listed above, give it a shot!
Follow these simple guidelines and you too can be a bona fide MTGS Modern banlist thread poster!
So true. Each new banlist thread becomes a parody of itself even quicker than the last.
Perfect balance is an unachievable goal. That does not make its pursuit devoid of value - like all ideals, moving towards it (as a mathematical limit) is the desired action. From this perspective, not unleashing banned cards as the format evolves to handle them is a failure - you stop moving towards the ideal. Now that doesn't necessarily make a bad format. Modern is great, but we have cards available that would make it better. That is what most are arguing, as far as I can tell.
But, if what I'm seeing from Modern Nexus is true, then we are slowly moving towards that ideal. I get that it's not happening at the rate most people would like given that Control is not a tier 1 archetype. But it's a far cry from arguing that Wizards has abandoned the format or some of the other histrionics we see in this thread.
And the truth regarding unbanning is that we don't know how those cards would perform regarding deck diversity. I wish we had better metrics to work with, but it seems we only have heuristics, which is to say that we basically assume preordain or Stone Forge Mystic would help those colors without pushing things over the edge.
And hey, maybe they won't. Maybe they are tepid at best. But I know that if I was trying to be as unbiased as possible, and honestly looking at the format, I would take a wait and see approach because right now the format seems to be moving in a positive direction. I would not want to upset that.
I'm worried because how else are we supposed to know if it is safe without testing? Say they unban something and then have to reban it like GGT. Now they have just cost their customers money because of the companies lack of preparation. If they had even TWO testers that knew the cards from the new sets they would've seen reunion and amalgam and known GGT wasn't necessary at the time and saved a bunch of heartache.
I think the format would probably be better off in the long run without them, but I don't want them banned right now because they are not causing a problem and a banning would cause unintended or seen consequences (as it always does). the SLIGHT possible improvement to the format isn't worth the potential backlash they would get from players; both for killing their decks unnecessarily, but also for hurting the image of modern with more bannings.
I think they are annoying to play against and wouldn't miss them but I don't think they need to go anywhere for at least awhile.
I understand the inherent crappiness of not being able to attack through bridge, but is it big enough of a problem to ban? I feel like if wizards were to go the way of banning prison hosers like that, they'd have to do blood moon simultaneously; if only for the fact they can explain it as "unfun cards hurting player enjoyment" or something to that effect.
SSG is a bit of a different case. Like with opal, it's "breaking" the fast mana "rule", only quoted because those are both pretty subjective as far as WOTC goes. But like opal, i don't think they are being abused to the point of actually being a concern - at least not yet. Being fast mana, there is an exceedingly likely chance that as more sets come out, wizards will accidentally print some crazy enabler. But as of right now, SSG is being used in decks that are either unsuccessful/ unrepresented on a large scale (sun & moon, grishoalbrand, living end) or basically ad nauseam, which is slaughtered by some of the most prevalent decks in the meta (jund/junk/DS variants).
As of now IMO, ensnaring bridge, SSG, and by proxy opal, are all pretty safe right now.
Yea, thats fair. SSG in particular, though, is a problem. I know Ad Nauseum needs it to win, but chalice on 1 turn 1 is essentially a pre-turn 4 kill more 99% of the decks in the format. I play Blood Moon and even I think Blood Moon cast ahead of its intended curve is a little too oppressive. SSG allows for these degenerate plays. So, although there is no oppressive deck right now running SSG, I wonder if it needs to leave simply from the stand point that it allows for too many non-games with prison decks, as well as tron, and skred.
I dont think Im gung-ho about banning it, but it must be at least on a watch list. Fast mana is always a problem. Tron lands have a similar effect. WOTC never intended for turn-4 Ulamogs (especially ones that stick past the end step).
I said it was a combo deck, you said no it was a control deck first and combo deck second which would mean that a less focused combo element would be the fair comparison. You literally said in the same post I responded to that It started out as a more control oriented deck which no it didn't
and again all of the snapcaster beats that we got in with the deck was only possible because of the combo. Do you really think that your opponent with like 5 cards in hand can't handle a snapcaster? of course they can, its the risk of losing the game because you attempted to interact with the opponent that bought you the time that those types of wins needed, so even when you didn't stick the combo the esoteric nature of combo still winning you the game.
You really seem to enjoy arguing with imaginary strawmen in your mind. Yes, that's how the tempo aspect of the deck worked, I've said this many times in these threads.
The deck actually stifled interaction because whatever spell you might be casting probably doesn't win you the game on the spot which the Twin player might do in response to anything you attempt to do from T3 onward.
If it stifled interaction, why were interactive decks its worst matchups and uninteractive decks its best?
I had a poster telling me that essentially only a stupid person would dare tap for a IoK on T3 because the Twin player had 3 open mana, and this is probably true but also why the deck was toxic. A player cannot even play a 1.c.c. interactive spell without the risk of just losing the game on the spot for nearly the entire mid-range of the game T3-T6 that is not a healthy affect for a deck to have on the format.
Oh my! You mean playing against Twin actually required you to use your brain?! How awful! The reason IoK wasn't the best there is that they can flash in the creature in response and IoK doesn't hit Twin. Playing Thoughtseize, on the other hand, would be a very good play, as you can strip their Twin.
Yes the deck evolved but it was always first and foremost a combo deck, sticking 3 snapcasters and 2 cliques dosn't suddenly mean that the other 10 cards your running are plan b in fact it was the opposite snap and clique are plan b and the combo gets you more wins.
I wont argue about the 60-70 percent creature beatdown win you are claiming as that seems like a number you are pulling out of the aether and I'm rather sure that it is a unknowable number to all but perhaps WotC. I know in my experience I won more frequently with the combo
Well, your experience is not the most common one. The rest of us won the majority of our games through beatdown and bolts.
The Twin combo is fundamentally unfair, it is why it was so good for so long in format with so many unfair decks it was the best for the longest period of time. Trying to say that it got more fair over time is actually why the combo was busted
I'm saying the deck itself got more fair. Yes, the Twin combo is an unfair win condition that you can put in a fair deck. So is Nahiri + Emrakul. That's because Modern requires you to be able to close a game quickly. Durdle control decks have historically not been very successful in Modern, so the Twin combo gave control shells a fast win condition.
so your snarky attempt to "prove me wrong" actually only shows how correct I am as that deck wouldn't see play if it required you to play 12-16 other cards on top of the 8 for the combo, its an okay deck because it gets to be a watered down version of the Twin combo and is again 100% sorcery speed.
No, you actually proved yourself wrong with everything you said about Knightfall and Saheeli combo. Your premise was that Twin was the strongest combo deck because it only took up 10 slots in its deck, so the rest could be a control shell. That's clearly incorrect because Saheeli and Knightfall take up even fewer slots in their deck, and yet they aren't as successful as Twin was. So the success of a combo is not directly correlated to the number of slots it takes up in its deck. There are other reasons why Saheeli and Knightfall aren't as good as Twin, which you so kindly laid out.
You'll notice that in Paul's first list from January, he's still running Kiki-Jiki in the maindeck. Paul obviously leaned more towards the combo, which isn't surprising because he had been playing it for a long time and that's how the deck originally had worked. The deck had evolved to where the combo was not generally plan A against an unknown opponent, especially in the Grixis and Temur versions. It could become plan A against certain decks like other combo or aggro decks, but that wasn't generally true.
How about you just do everyone in these threads a favor and stop talking about Twin. Every other week you come in here and start spreading your misinformation, then a few others and I correct your incorrect statements and claims, and you just double down on your misinformation and the posts spiral out of control as the rest of the thread gets annoyed. Seriously, stop it. I don't even want to talk about Twin anymore. Next time you have something to say about Twin, just write it in Notepad, and then hit the delete button. Do us all a huge favor.
Yea, thats fair. SSG in particular, though, is a problem. I know Ad Nauseum needs it to win, but chalice on 1 turn 1 is essentially a pre-turn 4 kill more 99% of the decks in the format. I play Blood Moon and even I think Blood Moon cast ahead of its intended curve is a little too oppressive. SSG allows for these degenerate plays. So, although there is no oppressive deck right now running SSG, I wonder if it needs to leave simply from the stand point that it allows for too many non-games with prison decks, as well as tron, and skred.
I dont think Im gung-ho about banning it, but it must be at least on a watch list. Fast mana is always a problem. Tron lands have a similar effect. WOTC never intended for turn-4 Ulamogs (especially ones that stick past the end step).
I think that is both the strongest, and incidentally the weakest argument for SSG banning, which isn't a knock on you at all. I 100% agree that cheating out chalice and blood moon pre-turn 3 is far and away the most degenerate thing SSG does. My problem/question is at what clip are A.) people playing cheat out chalice/BM decks, B.) of the people playing those decks, what percentage of their starting hands enable them to cheat out and early chalice/BM, and C.) are they then winning the games in which they are cheating out early hosers or just slowing their demise, as the rest of their deck is by and large weaker?
I definitely don't know those numbers, but from a look at top 8's, gp coverage and the like, it certainly doesn't look to be oppressive or statistically significant percentages. Then again, we don't get full data sets or GP attendance decks from WOTC, but if cheating out BM/Chalice was both that easy and that much of a hoser, I believe a significantly larger amount of people would be playing those decks. All that said, I still agree that SSG should continue to be watched (saying as an ad naus. player), but as of right now, the cost of banning it outweighs the reward.
Yea, thats fair. SSG in particular, though, is a problem. I know Ad Nauseum needs it to win, but chalice on 1 turn 1 is essentially a pre-turn 4 kill more 99% of the decks in the format. I play Blood Moon and even I think Blood Moon cast ahead of its intended curve is a little too oppressive. SSG allows for these degenerate plays. So, although there is no oppressive deck right now running SSG, I wonder if it needs to leave simply from the stand point that it allows for too many non-games with prison decks, as well as tron, and skred.
I dont think Im gung-ho about banning it, but it must be at least on a watch list. Fast mana is always a problem. Tron lands have a similar effect. WOTC never intended for turn-4 Ulamogs (especially ones that stick past the end step).
I think that is both the strongest, and incidentally the weakest argument for SSG banning, which isn't a knock on you at all. I 100% agree that cheating out chalice and blood moon pre-turn 3 is far and away the most degenerate thing SSG does. My problem/question is at what clip are A.) people playing cheat out chalice/BM decks, B.) of the people playing those decks, what percentage of their starting hands enable them to cheat out and early chalice/BM, and C.) are they then winning the games in which they are cheating out early hosers or just slowing their demise, as the rest of their deck is by and large weaker?
I definitely don't know those numbers, but from a look at top 8's, gp coverage and the like, it certainly doesn't look to be oppressive or statistically significant percentages. Then again, we don't get full data sets or GP attendance decks from WOTC, but if cheating out BM/Chalice was both that easy and that much of a hoser, I believe a significantly larger amount of people would be playing those decks. All that said, I still agree that SSG should continue to be watched (saying as an ad naus. player), but as of right now, the cost of banning it outweighs the reward.
Yea, I hear you. That's why I cant commit to really calling for a ban. But Tron, which is Tier 1, does have colorless variants that run chalice MB, and some variants also run SSG to get the chalice rolling early on.
But yea, that is not strong enough to get a ban. I just dislike the damn Ape. And this comes from a guy who plays Mandrills and Ape Creator.
ok, so you should babn all the rituals, and all the mana dorks, cause they can power up blood moon and chalice faster than normal. Look at rg ponza. Turn 1 utopia sprawl, turn 2 blood moon, or, on the same deck, you can change the utopia with birds of paradise, or arbor elf
Or in storm, turn 2 ritual into blood moon
This kind of thinking is just so empty of real analysis...
The issue with banning cards like Ensnaring Bridge is where do you draw the line. Bridge and Blood Moon people point at as obvious ones. But Choke and Boil can be even more brutal because they are one sided. Then what about Grafdiggers Cage or Rest in Peace which hose decks. Hate cards exist and part of Modern's appeal should be that you have to know about and plan for these cards.
I'm alarmed, but not particularly surprised, that most of the conversation focuses on so much rehashed speculation and not new information. In addition to the B&R update content, Forsythe published a few relevant Tweets in the past few days. Modern-related gems include:
So much to discuss here! And so much better to speculate about actual statements from the R&D man himself, rather than speculate on the same old tired speculations we've been speculating on for years. I believe some users mentioned these quotes, but the conversation would really be elevated if more people stayed in dialogue with interesting statements like these and the actual content of the B&R update.
ok, so you should babn all the rituals, and all the mana dorks, cause they can power up blood moon and chalice faster than normal. Look at rg ponza. Turn 1 utopia sprawl, turn 2 blood moon, or, on the same deck, you can change the utopia with birds of paradise, or arbor elf
Or in storm, turn 2 ritual into blood moon
This kind of thinking is just so empty of real analysis...
Can you respond to Mana dorks, sprawl, and other ramp spells? The easy answer is, yes. You cannot respond to SSG in any meaningful way.
This kind of response is just so empty of critical thinking.
ok, so you should babn all the rituals, and all the mana dorks, cause they can power up blood moon and chalice faster than normal. Look at rg ponza. Turn 1 utopia sprawl, turn 2 blood moon, or, on the same deck, you can change the utopia with birds of paradise, or arbor elf
Or in storm, turn 2 ritual into blood moon
This kind of thinking is just so empty of real analysis...
I don't believe anyone was advocating for a mana dork or ritual bans. The issue we were discussing was SSG's ability to pump out turn 1 chalice and blood moon, something that dorks can't do, and the fact that you'd need multiple rituals for it (at least for BM). In fact, we both, after discussion, stated that it shouldn't be banned right now. With all due respect, you ignoring the entire discussion to make a different argument altogether is the only thing devoid of analysis.
I'm alarmed, but not particularly surprised, that most of the conversation focuses on so much rehashed speculation and not new information. In addition to the B&R update content, Forsythe published a few relevant Tweets in the past few days. Modern-related gems include:
So much to discuss here! And so much better to speculate about actual statements from the R&D man himself, rather than speculate on the same old tired speculations we've been speculating on for years. I believe some users mentioned these quotes, but the conversation would really be elevated if more people stayed in dialogue with interesting statements like these and the actual content of the B&R update.
People probably are harder on R&D, here, than they should be.
That being said, I still believe they have no real clue on what they are doing. Missing something as obvious as the Cat combo really shows me that they mostly just take shots in the dark, and hope they didnt miss anything.
ok, so you should babn all the rituals, and all the mana dorks, cause they can power up blood moon and chalice faster than normal. Look at rg ponza. Turn 1 utopia sprawl, turn 2 blood moon, or, on the same deck, you can change the utopia with birds of paradise, or arbor elf
Or in storm, turn 2 ritual into blood moon
This kind of thinking is just so empty of real analysis...
Can you respond to Mana dorks, sprawl, and other ramp spells? The easy answer is, yes. You cannot respond to SSG in any meaningful way.
This kind of response is just so empty of critical thinking.
Especially because it's a mana ability and those are even harder to interact with. I can shoot your dork on turn one. Unless I spell pierce turn one I am left with a manabase that doesn't function.
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
Damn lazy gugs.
No, but it is only still being discussed because it was handled so badly and without any data to support it. It was clearly a GP shakeup; if I was a twin player, or wanted to be in the future (wasn't and don't) I would be adamant that testing be implemented into the format. Testing would've shown that banning twin would've had the opposite effect as intended and it would likely still be in the format. I didn't really care at the time it was banned, and I still don't really care if it comes back, just showing my support for their frustration.
Honestly I wasn't talking about twin to begin with and people kept responding to my posts with anti-twin sentiments so the people coming here demanding we stop talking about twin are just as guilty because, you know, they are talking about twin.
Sure, it costs money to test, but there is a cost associated with doing business. If they can't afford to hire a dedicated team of even TWO people plus using legit resources like online numbers and MN data then they shouldn't have the format at all.
If you can't support modern then just say so. We as a community would likely do a much better job regulating it ourselves anyway.
I'm not even saying the no changes was the worst thing in the world. It was a far better alternative to any bannings, but their wording is what infuriates me so much.
And for those saying modern doesn't support Wizards; I am a modern player mostly, but I love draft, I love prereleases, I don't even hate standard. I buy modern masters boxes, and I go to tournaments and FNMs. I am certainly a paying customer that is paying less and less because of how they are handling modern. I may not matter to them (I actually don't), but there is some number of people that think like me that combined does effect them and it is in their best interest to appeal to us as well.
EDIT: What is the "the game is growing" rate actually referring to? Profits? Tournament sizes? Packs sold? There are a lot of ways you could say the game is growing without meaning it is getting better or even more appealing.
I completely agree with your point about rebanning cards. (I'm only going to address SFM since the cost on Preordain is so low)
I honestly cannot see SFM causing any harm to the format.
Compare SFM to Snappy, Goyf, Eidolon and Bob she probably sits in the middle to lower end of power here.
And since the printing of the excellent kolaghan's command there doesn't seem a good reason to keep it on the banned list.
Legacy - LED Dredge, ANT & WDnT
Thank you, I know we don't always agree but this is a terrific post. I actually like modern, I look forward to brewing BW aristocrats with bontu the glorified. It will probably be good enough to spike an FNM because of the surprise factor but I doubt I'll win a GP with it and that's fine.
Just the tone coming from Wizards seems so smug like they can't be bothered with this silly modern format when they have more pressing issues (like that ridiculously popular vintage, right?) and I feel they have all but given up on actually trying to work toward the best possible format and are more than willing to settle for whatever takes them the least amount of work. Sometimes that will make a good format (like now for the most part) but I don't trust it to stay that way because of how they view the format.
But, if what I'm seeing from Modern Nexus is true, then we are slowly moving towards that ideal. I get that it's not happening at the rate most people would like given that Control is not a tier 1 archetype. But it's a far cry from arguing that Wizards has abandoned the format or some of the other histrionics we see in this thread.
And the truth regarding unbanning is that we don't know how those cards would perform regarding deck diversity. I wish we had better metrics to work with, but it seems we only have heuristics, which is to say that we basically assume preordain or Stone Forge Mystic would help those colors without pushing things over the edge.
And hey, maybe they won't. Maybe they are tepid at best. But I know that if I was trying to be as unbiased as possible, and honestly looking at the format, I would take a wait and see approach because right now the format seems to be moving in a positive direction. I would not want to upset that.
I see alot of different and unique decks that are viable right now. Too me, that is a healthy format. I would rather have 10 aggro decks, 1 control deck, and 1 combo deck than 1 aggro deck, 1 control deck, and 1 combo deck(kind of like what standard is now). I don't care whether the 3 styles of decks are equally represented.
Thank you. I read these forums to read other peoples perspectives on Modern. It gets really tiring of reading about twin, and its not even different people complaining about it. Its the same freaking people saying the same thing over, and over again.
A measured, thoughtful, realistic post. How unnerving.
Please use this list of tips that I just came up with for posting in this thread:
-Complain about something.
-Think of a card that you hate/love and give poorly thought out but strongly worded reasons why it should be banned/unbanned.
-Claim that the format is failing because of something you don't like.
-Wildly exaggerate.
-Suggest banning a card from a competitive new deck.
-Argue about categorizations (such as deck archetypes) that can't be clearly defined.
-Ignore other posters' points.
-Repeat something you've said previously in the thread multiple times.
-State that card prices are too high.
-Point out the incompetence of Aaron Forsythe, Mark Rosewater, or Wizards of the Coast.
-Suggest that you are or will be 'done' with Modern or Magic in general.
-Use statistics but only if you can interpret them to strongly support your point.
-Talk about unrelated formats.
-Make a stupid list.
-Most importantly, be creative! Use any or all of the above suggested posting tips and if you think of something that's not listed above, give it a shot!
Follow these simple guidelines and you too can be a bona fide MTGS Modern banlist thread poster!
So true. Each new banlist thread becomes a parody of itself even quicker than the last.
Affinity
Death & Taxes
Mardu Nahiri
Forcing people to merge with twitch is stupid
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver
I'm worried because how else are we supposed to know if it is safe without testing? Say they unban something and then have to reban it like GGT. Now they have just cost their customers money because of the companies lack of preparation. If they had even TWO testers that knew the cards from the new sets they would've seen reunion and amalgam and known GGT wasn't necessary at the time and saved a bunch of heartache.
EDIT:
I think the format would probably be better off in the long run without them, but I don't want them banned right now because they are not causing a problem and a banning would cause unintended or seen consequences (as it always does). the SLIGHT possible improvement to the format isn't worth the potential backlash they would get from players; both for killing their decks unnecessarily, but also for hurting the image of modern with more bannings.
I think they are annoying to play against and wouldn't miss them but I don't think they need to go anywhere for at least awhile.
I understand the inherent crappiness of not being able to attack through bridge, but is it big enough of a problem to ban? I feel like if wizards were to go the way of banning prison hosers like that, they'd have to do blood moon simultaneously; if only for the fact they can explain it as "unfun cards hurting player enjoyment" or something to that effect.
SSG is a bit of a different case. Like with opal, it's "breaking" the fast mana "rule", only quoted because those are both pretty subjective as far as WOTC goes. But like opal, i don't think they are being abused to the point of actually being a concern - at least not yet. Being fast mana, there is an exceedingly likely chance that as more sets come out, wizards will accidentally print some crazy enabler. But as of right now, SSG is being used in decks that are either unsuccessful/ unrepresented on a large scale (sun & moon, grishoalbrand, living end) or basically ad nauseam, which is slaughtered by some of the most prevalent decks in the meta (jund/junk/DS variants).
As of now IMO, ensnaring bridge, SSG, and by proxy opal, are all pretty safe right now.
Affinity
Death & Taxes
Mardu Nahiri
Forcing people to merge with twitch is stupid
I dont think Im gung-ho about banning it, but it must be at least on a watch list. Fast mana is always a problem. Tron lands have a similar effect. WOTC never intended for turn-4 Ulamogs (especially ones that stick past the end step).
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver
I never said that, stop making ***** up.
You really seem to enjoy arguing with imaginary strawmen in your mind. Yes, that's how the tempo aspect of the deck worked, I've said this many times in these threads.
If it stifled interaction, why were interactive decks its worst matchups and uninteractive decks its best?
Oh my! You mean playing against Twin actually required you to use your brain?! How awful! The reason IoK wasn't the best there is that they can flash in the creature in response and IoK doesn't hit Twin. Playing Thoughtseize, on the other hand, would be a very good play, as you can strip their Twin.
Well, your experience is not the most common one. The rest of us won the majority of our games through beatdown and bolts.
I'm saying the deck itself got more fair. Yes, the Twin combo is an unfair win condition that you can put in a fair deck. So is Nahiri + Emrakul. That's because Modern requires you to be able to close a game quickly. Durdle control decks have historically not been very successful in Modern, so the Twin combo gave control shells a fast win condition.
Yep. So I guess a lower number of slots taken up by a combo in a deck doesn't automatically equate to power, huh?
No, you actually proved yourself wrong with everything you said about Knightfall and Saheeli combo. Your premise was that Twin was the strongest combo deck because it only took up 10 slots in its deck, so the rest could be a control shell. That's clearly incorrect because Saheeli and Knightfall take up even fewer slots in their deck, and yet they aren't as successful as Twin was. So the success of a combo is not directly correlated to the number of slots it takes up in its deck. There are other reasons why Saheeli and Knightfall aren't as good as Twin, which you so kindly laid out.
You'll notice that in Paul's first list from January, he's still running Kiki-Jiki in the maindeck. Paul obviously leaned more towards the combo, which isn't surprising because he had been playing it for a long time and that's how the deck originally had worked. The deck had evolved to where the combo was not generally plan A against an unknown opponent, especially in the Grixis and Temur versions. It could become plan A against certain decks like other combo or aggro decks, but that wasn't generally true.
How about you just do everyone in these threads a favor and stop talking about Twin. Every other week you come in here and start spreading your misinformation, then a few others and I correct your incorrect statements and claims, and you just double down on your misinformation and the posts spiral out of control as the rest of the thread gets annoyed. Seriously, stop it. I don't even want to talk about Twin anymore. Next time you have something to say about Twin, just write it in Notepad, and then hit the delete button. Do us all a huge favor.
UBR Grixis Shadow UBR
UR Izzet Phoenix UR
UW UW Control UW
GB GB Rock GB
Commander
BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG
BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
I think that is both the strongest, and incidentally the weakest argument for SSG banning, which isn't a knock on you at all. I 100% agree that cheating out chalice and blood moon pre-turn 3 is far and away the most degenerate thing SSG does. My problem/question is at what clip are A.) people playing cheat out chalice/BM decks, B.) of the people playing those decks, what percentage of their starting hands enable them to cheat out and early chalice/BM, and C.) are they then winning the games in which they are cheating out early hosers or just slowing their demise, as the rest of their deck is by and large weaker?
I definitely don't know those numbers, but from a look at top 8's, gp coverage and the like, it certainly doesn't look to be oppressive or statistically significant percentages. Then again, we don't get full data sets or GP attendance decks from WOTC, but if cheating out BM/Chalice was both that easy and that much of a hoser, I believe a significantly larger amount of people would be playing those decks. All that said, I still agree that SSG should continue to be watched (saying as an ad naus. player), but as of right now, the cost of banning it outweighs the reward.
Affinity
Death & Taxes
Mardu Nahiri
Forcing people to merge with twitch is stupid
Yea, I hear you. That's why I cant commit to really calling for a ban. But Tron, which is Tier 1, does have colorless variants that run chalice MB, and some variants also run SSG to get the chalice rolling early on.
But yea, that is not strong enough to get a ban. I just dislike the damn Ape. And this comes from a guy who plays Mandrills and Ape Creator.
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver
Or in storm, turn 2 ritual into blood moon
This kind of thinking is just so empty of real analysis...
https://twitter.com/mtgaaron/status/856588517887008769
"The pre-PT B&R announcement was instituted mostly for Modern Pro Tours, where we expected changes there to outweigh impact of new sets."
https://twitter.com/mtgaaron/status/856590909349089281
"The catalyst for B&R changes to ANY format is player feedback (then we go to data, design theory, & testing). So thank you for all feedback!"
https://twitter.com/mtgaaron/status/856594683849433090
"Gitaxian Probe isn't just a 0-mana draw. It creates an information imbalance that crushes certain strategies. Wraith/Bauble aren't that."
https://twitter.com/mtgaaron/status/856599877496692736
"There is no symbolism here. The impact of banning cards, especially repeatedly, is real and costly."
https://twitter.com/mtgaaron/status/856705049203884032
(in reference to the new B&R frequency) "We're reassessing that as well."
So much to discuss here! And so much better to speculate about actual statements from the R&D man himself, rather than speculate on the same old tired speculations we've been speculating on for years. I believe some users mentioned these quotes, but the conversation would really be elevated if more people stayed in dialogue with interesting statements like these and the actual content of the B&R update.
Can you respond to Mana dorks, sprawl, and other ramp spells? The easy answer is, yes. You cannot respond to SSG in any meaningful way.
This kind of response is just so empty of critical thinking.
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver
I don't believe anyone was advocating for a mana dork or ritual bans. The issue we were discussing was SSG's ability to pump out turn 1 chalice and blood moon, something that dorks can't do, and the fact that you'd need multiple rituals for it (at least for BM). In fact, we both, after discussion, stated that it shouldn't be banned right now. With all due respect, you ignoring the entire discussion to make a different argument altogether is the only thing devoid of analysis.
Edit: Typo
Affinity
Death & Taxes
Mardu Nahiri
Forcing people to merge with twitch is stupid
People probably are harder on R&D, here, than they should be.
That being said, I still believe they have no real clue on what they are doing. Missing something as obvious as the Cat combo really shows me that they mostly just take shots in the dark, and hope they didnt miss anything.
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver
Especially because it's a mana ability and those are even harder to interact with. I can shoot your dork on turn one. Unless I spell pierce turn one I am left with a manabase that doesn't function.
Please read the mini discussion that stemmed from that response. Thanks!
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver