Does anyone know how many players are in those MTGO Modern Challenges? Looks like a much bigger tournament than the small five round "competitive" leagues.
Do not Unban:
1) Jace, the Mind Sculptor:
- I strongly disagree with this card's unban. Jace is a bit too slow in a format full of affinity, burn and dredge, but the issue with Jace is when this card is unbanned, every single blue deck from Blue based Tempo, such as Grixis Shadow or blue based control such as Grixis Control, UWx Control or even blue based combo deck such as Storm and Grixis reanimator will play this card as an alternative win-con or card advantage engine.
There will be no reason to play cards like Keranos, Elspeth, Painful Truths etc...
Cards to Ban:
1)Ancient Stirrings:
This card is a a huge color pie offender. Green should not have the best card filter in the format. I think this card was fine without the Eldrazi, but this is extremely unfair with the Eldrazi in the format.
2) Cavern of Souls:
(I mentioned in the forum above). I think this card was fair without the Eldrazi, but this land can produce colorless and all your colors plus making your guy uncounterable at no drawback is way too unfair. I personally don't think Wizards will do anything about this card, and I don't think its that big of an issue in the format, but this is a card I personally would consider tackling.
Cards to Unban:
1) Dig Through Time:
(I mentioned this earlier in the forum) I think this card is safe to unban. The Jeskai Ascendancy deck list lost gitixian probe and there are alot more rest in peace to hold this card down. As a blue player, I can tell you Dig through time's delve cost isn't free. You really need to build your deck to support the delve, (not to mention rest in peace is a pretty good foil to the strategy).
The issue is there really isn't a reason to play blue in the format anymore outside of snapcaster mage. Blue decks just don't have the filter, finishers or answers compared to legacy counterparts.
Cards I think may get unbanned, but I wouldn;t advocate or vote against:
1) BloodBraid Elf:
I think this card is alot safer without the broken cascade mechanic. In their original ban, Wizards did state this ban was to weaken the Jund deck (But the real offender was Deathrite Shaman not the elf).
I would argue this card might restrict card diversity, but then again, we do have collected company in this format.
I'm actively maintaining a comprehensive article to help explain to new cube players how some complex vintage level cards work in a cube environment. Vintage Cube Cards Explained
Cards to Ban:
1)Ancient Stirrings:
This card is a a huge color pie offender. Green should not have the best card filter in the format. I think this card was fine without the Eldrazi, but this is extremely unfair with the Eldrazi in the format.
That's interesting, because the card is basically a non-factor in the meta. The decks that run it (Bant Eldrazi, Gx Tron, Lantern Control, Amulet Titan) are all competitive but also tier 2 or lower. "Extremely unfair" is a bit strong of an assessment. Let's see some tournament wins or at least consistent Top 8s from the card.
Cards to Ban:
1)Ancient Stirrings:
This card is a a huge color pie offender. Green should not have the best card filter in the format. I think this card was fine without the Eldrazi, but this is extremely unfair with the Eldrazi in the format.
That's interesting, because the card is basically a non-factor in the meta. The decks that run it (Bant Eldrazi, Gx Tron, Lantern Control, Amulet Titan) are all competitive but also tier 2 or lower. "Extremely unfair" is a bit strong of an assessment. Let's see some tournament wins or at least consistent Top 8s from the card.
Not to mention after saying it needs a ban wanting to unban dtt negating the argument for its ban.
Looking at those MTGO and SCG Classic standings, I really struggle to think of banlist changes which would improve the format. Or, more importantly, ones Wizards would reasonably make. Barring a major problem at the GP, I see a "No Changes" future for multiple updates to come.
Looking at those MTGO and SCG Classic standings, I really struggle to think of banlist changes which would improve the format. Or, more importantly, ones Wizards would reasonably make. Barring a major problem at the GP, I see a "No Changes" future for multiple updates to come.
Isn't white the least represented color lately? Wouldn't a Stoneforge Mystic unban clearly help that color balance?
Do not Unban:
1) Jace, the Mind Sculptor:
- I strongly disagree with this card's unban. Jace is a bit too slow in a format full of affinity, burn and dredge, but the issue with Jace is when this card is unbanned, every single blue deck from Blue based Tempo, such as Grixis Shadow or blue based control such as Grixis Control, UWx Control or even blue based combo deck such as Storm and Grixis reanimator will play this card as an alternative win-con or card advantage engine.
There will be no reason to play cards like Keranos, Elspeth, Painful Truths etc...
There's little reason to play them now. "Jace might push out cards that are barely seeing play as is!" seems a very weak argument.
Also, the idea of Jace seeing play in decks like Storm is utterly laughable. Reminds me of when people were claiming that Ancestral Vision was so darn amazing that Merfolk and Delver would run it.
Cards to Ban:
1)Ancient Stirrings:
This card is a a huge color pie offender. Green should not have the best card filter in the format. I think this card was fine without the Eldrazi, but this is extremely unfair with the Eldrazi in the format.
"Color pie offender" is not a suitable reason to ban a card.
Also, the most popular versions of Eldrazi don't run Ancient Stirrings. Like I said before, this is like saying that back when Infect was huge, Plague Stinger needed a ban... the problem is that while it did see some play in Infect, the most popular builds weren't running that card anyway.
2) Cavern of Souls:
(I mentioned in the forum above). I think this card was fair without the Eldrazi, but this land can produce colorless and all your colors plus making your guy uncounterable at no drawback is way too unfair. I personally don't think Wizards will do anything about this card, and I don't think its that big of an issue in the format, but this is a card I personally would consider tackling.
"I don't think its (sic) that big of an issue in the format" but you want it banned? If something isn't a big issue, why in the world should it be banned? Bans are supposed to be for big issues. You're essentially saying "I don't think that it should be banned, but I personally think it should be banned."
Looking at those MTGO and SCG Classic standings, I really struggle to think of banlist changes which would improve the format. Or, more importantly, ones Wizards would reasonably make. Barring a major problem at the GP, I see a "No Changes" future for multiple updates to come.
So then if the format is "fine", we get no unbans. If the format is "in flux", we get no unbans. If the format is ignored because another is on fire, we get no unbans. So... under what circumstances do we get unbans? It seems in the entirety of Modern, the only time a card is unbanned is with an accompanying ban; usually a highly predictable, super obvious one. With DRS, we got back Bitterblossom and Wild Nacatl, with TC/DTT/Pod, we got GGT, With Eye of Ugin, we got AV/SOTM. So I think that, other than the weird one-off of Valakut in September of 2012, all the unbans accompany a hugely obvious and predictable ban. And it seems as if these are offered as a consolation or apology for banning a deck that SO MANY people are playing. With this in mind, it really seems the case that, for almost the entirety of Modern's history, nearly every unban (and ALL of the most recent) have not come alone. So... what, if anything gives them any reason to unban anything in the future, without a boogieman deck to ban out first? This seems like a genuine concern, as they have had ample opportunity to unban a number of cards over the past year and a half, and have instead sat on their hands and done nothing.
Looking at those MTGO and SCG Classic standings, I really struggle to think of banlist changes which would improve the format. Or, more importantly, ones Wizards would reasonably make. Barring a major problem at the GP, I see a "No Changes" future for multiple updates to come.
So then if the format is "fine", we get no unbans. If the format is "in flux", we get no unbans. If the format is ignored because another is on fire, we get no unbans. So... under what circumstances do we get unbans? It seems in the entirety of Modern, the only time a card is unbanned is with an accompanying ban; usually a highly predictable, super obvious one. With DRS, we got back Bitterblossom and Wild Nacatl, with TC/DTT/Pod, we got GGT, With Eye of Ugin, we got AV/SOTM. So I think that, other than the weird one-off of Valakut in September of 2012, all the unbans accompany a hugely obvious and predictable ban. And it seems as if these are offered as a consolation or apology for banning a deck that SO MANY people are playing. With this in mind, it really seems the case that, for almost the entirety of Modern's history, nearly every unban (and ALL of the most recent) have not come alone. So... what, if anything gives them any reason to unban anything in the future, without a boogieman deck to ban out first? This seems like a genuine concern, as they have had ample opportunity to unban a number of cards over the past year and a half, and have instead sat on their hands and done nothing.
Why is it so important to you that 1 of the 35 banned cards be added to Modern? You want new cards to be legal in the format? We get 200 of them every few months. It's far more important to Wizards (and to many players, including myself) that the format be diverse and have something for everyone, and that's where Modern's currently at. New sets can potentially shake that up; there's little incentive for Wizards to try to shake things up even more.
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.
Looking at those MTGO and SCG Classic standings, I really struggle to think of banlist changes which would improve the format. Or, more importantly, ones Wizards would reasonably make. Barring a major problem at the GP, I see a "No Changes" future for multiple updates to come.
So then if the format is "fine", we get no unbans. If the format is "in flux", we get no unbans. If the format is ignored because another is on fire, we get no unbans. So... under what circumstances do we get unbans? It seems in the entirety of Modern, the only time a card is unbanned is with an accompanying ban; usually a highly predictable, super obvious one. With DRS, we got back Bitterblossom and Wild Nacatl, with TC/DTT/Pod, we got GGT, With Eye of Ugin, we got AV/SOTM. So I think that, other than the weird one-off of Valakut in September of 2012, all the unbans accompany a hugely obvious and predictable ban. And it seems as if these are offered as a consolation or apology for banning a deck that SO MANY people are playing. With this in mind, it really seems the case that, for almost the entirety of Modern's history, nearly every unban (and ALL of the most recent) have not come alone. So... what, if anything gives them any reason to unban anything in the future, without a boogieman deck to ban out first? This seems like a genuine concern, as they have had ample opportunity to unban a number of cards over the past year and a half, and have instead sat on their hands and done nothing.
Why is it so important to you that 1 of the 35 banned cards be added to Modern? You want new cards to be legal in the format? We get 200 of them every few months. It's far more important to Wizards (and to many players, including myself) that the format be diverse and have something for everyone, and that's where Modern's currently at. New sets can potentially shake that up; there's little incentive for Wizards to try to shake things up even more.
That's great and all but an argument could be made that equipment isn't playable and neither is combo control.
Looking at those MTGO and SCG Classic standings, I really struggle to think of banlist changes which would improve the format. Or, more importantly, ones Wizards would reasonably make. Barring a major problem at the GP, I see a "No Changes" future for multiple updates to come.
So then if the format is "fine", we get no unbans. If the format is "in flux", we get no unbans. If the format is ignored because another is on fire, we get no unbans. So... under what circumstances do we get unbans? It seems in the entirety of Modern, the only time a card is unbanned is with an accompanying ban; usually a highly predictable, super obvious one. With DRS, we got back Bitterblossom and Wild Nacatl, with TC/DTT/Pod, we got GGT, With Eye of Ugin, we got AV/SOTM. So I think that, other than the weird one-off of Valakut in September of 2012, all the unbans accompany a hugely obvious and predictable ban. And it seems as if these are offered as a consolation or apology for banning a deck that SO MANY people are playing. With this in mind, it really seems the case that, for almost the entirety of Modern's history, nearly every unban (and ALL of the most recent) have not come alone. So... what, if anything gives them any reason to unban anything in the future, without a boogieman deck to ban out first? This seems like a genuine concern, as they have had ample opportunity to unban a number of cards over the past year and a half, and have instead sat on their hands and done nothing.
Why is it so important to you that 1 of the 35 banned cards be added to Modern? You want new cards to be legal in the format? We get 200 of them every few months. It's far more important to Wizards (and to many players, including myself) that the format be diverse and have something for everyone, and that's where Modern's currently at. New sets can potentially shake that up; there's little incentive for Wizards to try to shake things up even more.
I think you completely understand the point he is trying to make while you mask it with numbers.
Claiming that 200 new cards comes in every few months is blatantly false. At most we get 2-5 playable cards in each Block, let alone per set. When professional limited players claim half of any set is chaff we can't directly claim that Modern has access to more in a constructed sense.
Having a minimal banned list, in every format should be everyone's priority. That goal doesn't contradict any philosophy or paradigm I've read on this forum in nearly 10 years.
That's great and all but an argument could be made that equipment isn't playable and neither is combo control.
I agree with the above... SFM should be unbanned. It would give white a stronger presence and also bring some equipment into play. Plus I just don't think the power level of the card is too high for Modern. It would be a good, playable Modern card IMHO.
To be clear, I think SFM would be fine in Modern and I'd love to see it unbanned. I just think Wizards prefers to play things safe and make no changes as a general rule. They tend to pair unbans with bans, at least historically, but that was also because they wanted changes timed before a PT. Maybe that will happen again and they will unban SFM just to keep the PT fresh. Or after to shake things up. Or, the safest bet, "no changes" because they are very risk averse and don't want to reduce Modern diversity.
If I was on R&D, I'd push to get SFM unbanned. But I think it's more likely Wizards looks at the format, sees UW Control doing well, and D&T winning big events, and then does nothing.
Looking at those MTGO and SCG Classic standings, I really struggle to think of banlist changes which would improve the format. Or, more importantly, ones Wizards would reasonably make. Barring a major problem at the GP, I see a "No Changes" future for multiple updates to come.
So then if the format is "fine", we get no unbans. If the format is "in flux", we get no unbans. If the format is ignored because another is on fire, we get no unbans. So... under what circumstances do we get unbans? It seems in the entirety of Modern, the only time a card is unbanned is with an accompanying ban; usually a highly predictable, super obvious one. With DRS, we got back Bitterblossom and Wild Nacatl, with TC/DTT/Pod, we got GGT, With Eye of Ugin, we got AV/SOTM. So I think that, other than the weird one-off of Valakut in September of 2012, all the unbans accompany a hugely obvious and predictable ban. And it seems as if these are offered as a consolation or apology for banning a deck that SO MANY people are playing. With this in mind, it really seems the case that, for almost the entirety of Modern's history, nearly every unban (and ALL of the most recent) have not come alone. So... what, if anything gives them any reason to unban anything in the future, without a boogieman deck to ban out first? This seems like a genuine concern, as they have had ample opportunity to unban a number of cards over the past year and a half, and have instead sat on their hands and done nothing.
Why is it so important to you that 1 of the 35 banned cards be added to Modern? You want new cards to be legal in the format? We get 200 of them every few months. It's far more important to Wizards (and to many players, including myself) that the format be diverse and have something for everyone, and that's where Modern's currently at. New sets can potentially shake that up; there's little incentive for Wizards to try to shake things up even more.
I think you completely understand the point he is trying to make while you mask it with numbers.
Claiming that 200 new cards comes in every few months is blatantly false. At most we get 2-5 playable cards in each Block, let alone per set. When professional limited players claim half of any set is chaff we can't directly claim that Modern has access to more in a constructed sense.
Having a minimal banned list, in every format should be everyone's priority. That goal doesn't contradict any philosophy or paradigm I've read on this forum in nearly 10 years.
2-5 is still more than we'd get in an unban. But either way, that number is grossly conservative. And I actually have data to back up this claim. Let's look at the sets from the last block that's been legal long enough for another block to release (and therefore for many of the playables to be identified), Kaladesh. Here are the Modern-played cards from KLD and AER:
You can search up any of these 46 (!!!) cards on mtgtop8 and be met with decklists containing them.
There are in fact more than 5 cards (the higher end of your "2-5" estimate) in this list that regularly find themselves in TOP-TIER Modern decks, let alone Modern decks at all. But we are talking about playability, which blows that number out of the water.
Remember when Ancestral Visions was unbanned? Or Bitterblossom? Or even Wild Nacatl? These cards saw very little play, and continue to see far less play than cards like Walking Ballista, Fatal Push, Ceremonious Rejection, etc. Contrary to what you implied in your post, having a card be on the banned list does not guarantee it will be played in Modern. The numbers strongly indicate that you're much likelier to have cards enter the format and be played there via Standard sets than via unbans, not to mention the sheer difference in volume.
"Having a minimal banned list" is indeed one of Wizards's goals, but it's obviously not as important to them as DIVERSITY, as they have stated what seems like thousands of times. Not just in writing, but through their actions, i.e. by not making any unbans for months on end. Perhaps it's one of your goals, but that's different; in no way "should" this contextually arbitrary notion "be everyone's priority." You, the person who said this, have also just demonstrated an inability to even look at a set list and verify your own false claim, so it might actually be for the best that Wizards is the one managing Modern.
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.
Looking at those MTGO and SCG Classic standings, I really struggle to think of banlist changes which would improve the format. Or, more importantly, ones Wizards would reasonably make. Barring a major problem at the GP, I see a "No Changes" future for multiple updates to come.
So then if the format is "fine", we get no unbans. If the format is "in flux", we get no unbans. If the format is ignored because another is on fire, we get no unbans. So... under what circumstances do we get unbans? It seems in the entirety of Modern, the only time a card is unbanned is with an accompanying ban; usually a highly predictable, super obvious one. With DRS, we got back Bitterblossom and Wild Nacatl, with TC/DTT/Pod, we got GGT, With Eye of Ugin, we got AV/SOTM. So I think that, other than the weird one-off of Valakut in September of 2012, all the unbans accompany a hugely obvious and predictable ban. And it seems as if these are offered as a consolation or apology for banning a deck that SO MANY people are playing. With this in mind, it really seems the case that, for almost the entirety of Modern's history, nearly every unban (and ALL of the most recent) have not come alone. So... what, if anything gives them any reason to unban anything in the future, without a boogieman deck to ban out first? This seems like a genuine concern, as they have had ample opportunity to unban a number of cards over the past year and a half, and have instead sat on their hands and done nothing.
Why is it so important to you that 1 of the 35 banned cards be added to Modern? You want new cards to be legal in the format? We get 200 of them every few months. It's far more important to Wizards (and to many players, including myself) that the format be diverse and have something for everyone, and that's where Modern's currently at. New sets can potentially shake that up; there's little incentive for Wizards to try to shake things up even more.
I think you completely understand the point he is trying to make while you mask it with numbers.
Claiming that 200 new cards comes in every few months is blatantly false. At most we get 2-5 playable cards in each Block, let alone per set. When professional limited players claim half of any set is chaff we can't directly claim that Modern has access to more in a constructed sense.
Having a minimal banned list, in every format should be everyone's priority. That goal doesn't contradict any philosophy or paradigm I've read on this forum in nearly 10 years.
2-5 is still more than we'd get in an unban. But either way, that number is grossly conservative. And I actually have data to back up this claim. Let's look at the sets from the last block that's been legal long enough for another block to release (and therefore for many of the playables to be identified), Kaladesh. Here are the Modern-played cards from KLD and AER:
You can search up any of these 46 (!!!) cards on mtgtop8 and be met with decklists containing them.
There are in fact more than 5 cards (the higher end of your "2-5" estimate) in this list that regularly find themselves in TOP-TIER Modern decks, let alone Modern decks at all. But we are talking about playability, which blows that number out of the water.
Remember when Ancestral Visions was unbanned? Or Bitterblossom? Or even Wild Nacatl? These cards saw very little play, and continue to see far less play than cards like Walking Ballista, Fatal Push, Ceremonious Rejection, etc. Contrary to what you implied in your post, having a card be on the banned list does not guarantee it will be played in Modern. The numbers strongly indicate that you're much likelier to have cards enter the format and be played there via Standard sets than via unbans, not to mention the sheer difference in volume.
"Having a minimal banned list" is indeed one of Wizards's goals, but it's obviously not as important to them as DIVERSITY, as they have stated what seems like thousands of times. Not just in writing, but through their actions, i.e. by not making any unbans for months on end. Perhaps it's one of your goals, but that's different; in no way "should" this contextually arbitrary notion "be everyone's priority." You, the person who said this, have also just demonstrated an inability to even look at a set list and verify your own false claim, so it might actually be for the best that Wizards is the one managing Modern.
And none of that is relevant to the question at hand, which has to do with bannings and unbannings. Moving forward, do you (or anyone) actually think Wizards will unban anything under any circumstances, if it is not accompanying an obvious and oppresive ban target? And if not, under what criteria DOES or SHOULD they unban something? Because we've run the gamut of scenarios, and each of them come up "no need to unban anything." If that's the case, what makes them decide to unban something? Because you bet your bottom dollar there are plenty of totally safe choices on the list to release, and yet they remain on that list for some unknown arbitrary reason (which is even more frustrating since they do not test for bans/unbans and make all their decisions based on image, perception, feeling, and internal discussions).
If WotC is going to unban anything, I'm almost certain that they'll wait until the new Modern PT comes around to do it. They do love shaking things up, and while they've said in a way that's quite accountable that there won't be shake-up bans, I wouldn't be surprised if there's some shake-up unbans instead.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Well, I can saw a woman in two, but you won't wanna look in the box when I'm through.
I'd like to point something out very abruptly before we continute this conversation.
Look at the top spells and creatures played in Modern please. Do not show me results of a deck that's 0.005% of a metagame and claim that a new set has added a format staple.
I'd like to point something out very abruptly before we continute this conversation.
Look at the top spells and creatures played in Modern please. Do not show me results of a deck that's 0.005% of a metagame and claim that a new set has added a format staple.
That is very par for 2-5 per block. Don't ******* tell me Disallow is a ******* format staple in Modern.
never did; read my post
JW, what is the ******* for? Am I supposed to take your not reading my post more seriously if you are pretending to curse at me?
Here are your more-than-5 top-tier cards though, since you're insisting on my holding your hand through this:
- Fatal Push
- Ceremonious Rejection
- Walking Ballista
- Spire of Industry
- Cathartic Reunion
- Blossoming Defense
The first card has radically reshaped the format as we know it, arguably having more an impact in Modern than anything since Treasure Cruise. The last two cards made a pair of archetypes oppressive and powerful enough for Wizards to ban them.
And all this is still ignoring the facts that unbans happen less frequently than Standard sets come out, 2-5 is more than 1-2, 2-5 is still a conservative estimate, and we are still talking about playability, not top-tier playability. There's very little reason to continue this discussion if you're unwilling or unable to address the points I have made and are always going to start a nitpick instead (and one that's easily dispelled, at that!).
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'd like to point something out very abruptly before we continute this conversation.
Look at the top spells and creatures played in Modern please. Do not show me results of a deck that's 0.005% of a metagame and claim that a new set has added a format staple.
That is very par for 2-5 per block. Don't ******* tell me Disallow is a ******* format staple in Modern.
Playable cards =/= format staple all stars. Not every card has to as powerful as Fatal Push to be considered a playable card. That's a ridiculous standard.
For example, Cathartic Reunion/Insolent Neonate miss the top 50 in both lists, but are extremely relevant cards that make Dredge tick. These, by definition, are playable cards. The same is true of many cards that enter the format.
All Modern is really missing is a few generic answers. Barring that, most new cards that enter the format would be better off either supporting underdeveloped archetypes or new build arounds.
And for the record on bans, we don't need any bans and don't need any unbans. I'm against Stoneforge Mystic not because of her power, but the fact that she homogenizes every white/white splashing deck to look the same. She has the hidden cost of being a card that takes up 7+ slots. I'd rather white be shored up another way.
I'd like to point something out very abruptly before we continute this conversation.
Look at the top spells and creatures played in Modern please. Do not show me results of a deck that's 0.005% of a metagame and claim that a new set has added a format staple.
That is very par for 2-5 per block. Don't ******* tell me Disallow is a ******* format staple in Modern.
Playable cards =/= format staple all stars. Not every card has to as powerful as Fatal Push to be considered a playable card. That's a ridiculous standard.
For example, Cathartic Reunion/Insolent Neonate miss the top 50 in both lists, but are extremely relevant cards that make Dredge tick. These, by definition, are playable cards. The same is true of many cards that enter the format.
All Modern is really missing is a few generic answers. Barring that, most new cards that enter the format would be better off either supporting underdeveloped archetypes or new build arounds.
And for the record on bans, we don't need any bans and don't need any unbans. I'm against Stoneforge Mystic not because of her power, but the fact that she homogenizes every white/white splashing deck to look the same. She has the hidden cost of being a card that takes up 7+ slots. I'd rather white be shored up another way.
How could you possibly know what she does to the format? She's not legal lol. Are you also under the belief that all green decks run goyf?
Do not Unban:
1) Jace, the Mind Sculptor:
- I strongly disagree with this card's unban. Jace is a bit too slow in a format full of affinity, burn and dredge, but the issue with Jace is when this card is unbanned, every single blue deck from Blue based Tempo, such as Grixis Shadow or blue based control such as Grixis Control, UWx Control or even blue based combo deck such as Storm and Grixis reanimator will play this card as an alternative win-con or card advantage engine.
There will be no reason to play cards like Keranos, Elspeth, Painful Truths etc...
Cards to Ban:
1)Ancient Stirrings:
This card is a a huge color pie offender. Green should not have the best card filter in the format. I think this card was fine without the Eldrazi, but this is extremely unfair with the Eldrazi in the format.
2) Cavern of Souls:
(I mentioned in the forum above). I think this card was fair without the Eldrazi, but this land can produce colorless and all your colors plus making your guy uncounterable at no drawback is way too unfair. I personally don't think Wizards will do anything about this card, and I don't think its that big of an issue in the format, but this is a card I personally would consider tackling.
Cards to Unban:
1) Dig Through Time:
(I mentioned this earlier in the forum) I think this card is safe to unban. The Jeskai Ascendancy deck list lost gitixian probe and there are alot more rest in peace to hold this card down. As a blue player, I can tell you Dig through time's delve cost isn't free. You really need to build your deck to support the delve, (not to mention rest in peace is a pretty good foil to the strategy).
The issue is there really isn't a reason to play blue in the format anymore outside of snapcaster mage. Blue decks just don't have the filter, finishers or answers compared to legacy counterparts.
Cards I think may get unbanned, but I wouldn;t advocate or vote against:
1) BloodBraid Elf:
I think this card is alot safer without the broken cascade mechanic. In their original ban, Wizards did state this ban was to weaken the Jund deck (But the real offender was Deathrite Shaman not the elf).
I would argue this card might restrict card diversity, but then again, we do have collected company in this format.
Unban dig through time when Grixis Shadow is the top dog. Think about this for just a second..........
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.
Do not Unban:
1) Jace, the Mind Sculptor:
- I strongly disagree with this card's unban. Jace is a bit too slow in a format full of affinity, burn and dredge, but the issue with Jace is when this card is unbanned, every single blue deck from Blue based Tempo, such as Grixis Shadow or blue based control such as Grixis Control, UWx Control or even blue based combo deck such as Storm and Grixis reanimator will play this card as an alternative win-con or card advantage engine.
There will be no reason to play cards like Keranos, Elspeth, Painful Truths etc...
Cards to Ban:
1)Ancient Stirrings:
This card is a a huge color pie offender. Green should not have the best card filter in the format. I think this card was fine without the Eldrazi, but this is extremely unfair with the Eldrazi in the format.
2) Cavern of Souls:
(I mentioned in the forum above). I think this card was fair without the Eldrazi, but this land can produce colorless and all your colors plus making your guy uncounterable at no drawback is way too unfair. I personally don't think Wizards will do anything about this card, and I don't think its that big of an issue in the format, but this is a card I personally would consider tackling.
Cards to Unban:
1) Dig Through Time:
(I mentioned this earlier in the forum) I think this card is safe to unban. The Jeskai Ascendancy deck list lost gitixian probe and there are alot more rest in peace to hold this card down. As a blue player, I can tell you Dig through time's delve cost isn't free. You really need to build your deck to support the delve, (not to mention rest in peace is a pretty good foil to the strategy).
The issue is there really isn't a reason to play blue in the format anymore outside of snapcaster mage. Blue decks just don't have the filter, finishers or answers compared to legacy counterparts.
Cards I think may get unbanned, but I wouldn;t advocate or vote against:
1) BloodBraid Elf:
I think this card is alot safer without the broken cascade mechanic. In their original ban, Wizards did state this ban was to weaken the Jund deck (But the real offender was Deathrite Shaman not the elf).
I would argue this card might restrict card diversity, but then again, we do have collected company in this format.
Unban dig through time when Grixis Shadow is the top dog. Think about this for just a second..........
What does that do for Shadow? I mean, sure, it's a good card, but the kind of deck playing this card is either going to be a control deck looking for their narrow answers or a combo deck looking to kill you immediately. GDS is a grindy value deck, and at best it finds you... a kill spell? a creature? But at the cost of your graveyard, which means you may not even be able to cast that creature... I mean, I'm sure Dig will never come off anyway, but of the kinds of decks that would break the card, it seems GDS would be fairly low on that list.
If WotC is going to unban anything, I'm almost certain that they'll wait until the new Modern PT comes around to do it. They do love shaking things up, and while they've said in a way that's quite accountable that there won't be shake-up bans, I wouldn't be surprised if there's some shake-up unbans instead.
I certainly hope so. There are plenty of extremely safe cards on the banned list that really have no business being there. But it looks like it will take an "event" of some kind (massive banning or PT shake-up) in order to let them see the light of day (or see the light of day again).
Snip... unbans happen less frequently than Standard sets come out, 2-5 is more than 1-2, 2-5 is still a conservative estimate, and we are still talking about playability, not top-tier playability.
I think this is the right argument. The only issue is that not all sets/blocks/whatever will produce as well as the example. That's not a call to prove every single set, that would be ridiculous. I'm just saying that the number of cards injected into Modern's playability, from top-tier to passable, will vary from high to low changing the weight of one side of the argument to the other and back. So given time, we're all wrong, we're all right.
I think a few in this vein of discussion here have forgotten the "When Cards Go Bad" articles (second one here). Specifically, "all the cards cannot be good". It is outlined that in a pool of the top 1500 cards (chosen by pros or god or whatever), only 400ish would be played and heralded as part of the tier one decks. Relate that to Modern where we have 11084 cards currently legal. While I can't tell you how big the "playable" pool is, I think I can safely state that it is less than Rosewater's example of 400ish out of 1500 or, more what I'm getting at, 26% of the pool (2881). Realistically, if you want to see the other 8202 (11084-26%) cards in the format there will probably have to be more bans. Unbans certainly won't do this. There is also little outcry for this type of increasing the card pool, and when this does happen there is huge outcry against it as to say people are actively against bans as also described by "minimal ban list" goals.
I think a good question to ask is "what is the average number of cards brought into playability by banning, unbanning, or being newly released?" And I don't just mean the specific card that had one of those, I mean the idea that Devoted Druid is now Modern playable due to Vizier of Remedies being released. Isn't that +2 to the format even though one has been here since Modern's birth? I don't think a realistic answer can be had on the average cards brought into playability by another, but it might be good to reflect on when asking for something like SFM or JtMS.
There's a lot of squabbling over the difference between 1-2 and 2-5 cards per X amount of time. If you want a huge swath of new cards every year, standard is one forum up. You don't have to scroll as far to get there and apart from this year it barely has bans. This is an eternal format. Chill, we'll be here awhile.
-----
As for the actual format; I think it is incredibly healthy. Grix Shadow and Drazi Tron are not the insane format heralds that people once thought, and no other deck is even getting enough notoriety on the subject be considered unfair. If no deck is clogging the meta, how can we call the format unhealthy? There are a ton of options right now.
Snip... unbans happen less frequently than Standard sets come out, 2-5 is more than 1-2, 2-5 is still a conservative estimate, and we are still talking about playability, not top-tier playability.
I think this is the right argument. The only issue is that not all sets/blocks/whatever will produce as well as the example. That's not a call to prove every single set, that would be ridiculous. I'm just saying that the number of cards injected into Modern's playability, from top-tier to passable, will vary from high to low changing the weight of one side of the argument to the other and back. So given time, we're all wrong, we're all right.
I think a few in this vein of discussion here have forgotten the "When Cards Go Bad" articles (second one here). Specifically, "all the cards cannot be good". It is outlined that in a pool of the top 1500 cards (chosen by pros or god or whatever), only 400ish would be played and heralded as part of the tier one decks. Relate that to Modern where we have 11084 cards currently legal. While I can't tell you how big the "playable" pool is, I think I can safely state that it is less than Rosewater's example of 400ish out of 1500 or, more what I'm getting at, 26% of the pool (2881). Realistically, if you want to see the other 8202 (11084-26%) cards in the format there will probably have to be more bans. Unbans certainly won't do this. There is also little outcry for this type of increasing the card pool, and when this does happen there is huge outcry against it as to say people are actively against bans as also described by "minimal ban list" goals.
I think a good question to ask is "what is the average number of cards brought into playability by banning, unbanning, or being newly released?" And I don't just mean the specific card that had one of those, I mean the idea that Devoted Druid is now Modern playable due to Vizier of Remedies being released. Isn't that +2 to the format even though one has been here since Modern's birth? I don't think a realistic answer can be had on the average cards brought into playability by another, but it might be good to reflect on when asking for something like SFM or JtMS.
There's a lot of squabbling over the difference between 1-2 and 2-5 cards per X amount of time. If you want a huge swath of new cards every year, standard is one forum up. You don't have to scroll as far to get there and apart from this year it barely has bans. This is an eternal format. Chill, we'll be here awhile.
-----
As for the actual format; I think it is incredibly healthy. Grix Shadow and Drazi Tron are not the insane format heralds that people once thought, and no other deck is even getting enough notoriety on the subject be considered unfair. If no deck is clogging the meta, how can we call the format unhealthy? There are a ton of options right now.
Top tier decks, whether they are oppressive or not, have a huge effect on what's playable in the format competitively. As you know you'll at least run into them enough it will affect your deck choices if the matchups are just too polarized.
Grixis Shadow punishes linear decks and in such a linear format I think it's fine at its current representation. However, trondrazi and valakut punish interactive and grindy decks, and encourage linear and/or fast decks. Something we dont need in this format right now as it is already linear enough as is.
hoping they unban:
BBE
Jace
And sfm
To put more incentive on non shadow urx and bgx decks.
Edit: even still the format seems to be moving in a decent direction here's to hoping it stays on course.
Edit: I found this article, which says the Challenges happen every weekend and can have 8-672 players.
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/magic-online/magic-online-format-challenges-2017-05-04
I would guess they must draw at least a few hundred, right? I'll probably start rolling these into my meta analysis. More data is better!
Do not Unban:
1) Jace, the Mind Sculptor:
- I strongly disagree with this card's unban. Jace is a bit too slow in a format full of affinity, burn and dredge, but the issue with Jace is when this card is unbanned, every single blue deck from Blue based Tempo, such as Grixis Shadow or blue based control such as Grixis Control, UWx Control or even blue based combo deck such as Storm and Grixis reanimator will play this card as an alternative win-con or card advantage engine.
There will be no reason to play cards like Keranos, Elspeth, Painful Truths etc...
Cards to Ban:
1)Ancient Stirrings:
This card is a a huge color pie offender. Green should not have the best card filter in the format. I think this card was fine without the Eldrazi, but this is extremely unfair with the Eldrazi in the format.
2) Cavern of Souls:
(I mentioned in the forum above). I think this card was fair without the Eldrazi, but this land can produce colorless and all your colors plus making your guy uncounterable at no drawback is way too unfair. I personally don't think Wizards will do anything about this card, and I don't think its that big of an issue in the format, but this is a card I personally would consider tackling.
Cards to Unban:
1) Dig Through Time:
(I mentioned this earlier in the forum) I think this card is safe to unban. The Jeskai Ascendancy deck list lost gitixian probe and there are alot more rest in peace to hold this card down. As a blue player, I can tell you Dig through time's delve cost isn't free. You really need to build your deck to support the delve, (not to mention rest in peace is a pretty good foil to the strategy).
The issue is there really isn't a reason to play blue in the format anymore outside of snapcaster mage. Blue decks just don't have the filter, finishers or answers compared to legacy counterparts.
Cards I think may get unbanned, but I wouldn;t advocate or vote against:
1) BloodBraid Elf:
I think this card is alot safer without the broken cascade mechanic. In their original ban, Wizards did state this ban was to weaken the Jund deck (But the real offender was Deathrite Shaman not the elf).
I would argue this card might restrict card diversity, but then again, we do have collected company in this format.
Vintage Cube Cards Explained
Here are some other articles I've written about fine tuning your cube:
1. Minimum Archetype Support
2. Improving Green Archetypes
3. Improving White Archetypes
4. Matchup Analysis
5. Cube Combos (Work in Progress)
Draft my Cube - https://cubecobra.com/cube/overview/d8i
That's interesting, because the card is basically a non-factor in the meta. The decks that run it (Bant Eldrazi, Gx Tron, Lantern Control, Amulet Titan) are all competitive but also tier 2 or lower. "Extremely unfair" is a bit strong of an assessment. Let's see some tournament wins or at least consistent Top 8s from the card.
Not to mention after saying it needs a ban wanting to unban dtt negating the argument for its ban.
Isn't white the least represented color lately? Wouldn't a Stoneforge Mystic unban clearly help that color balance?
Also, the idea of Jace seeing play in decks like Storm is utterly laughable. Reminds me of when people were claiming that Ancestral Vision was so darn amazing that Merfolk and Delver would run it.
"Color pie offender" is not a suitable reason to ban a card.
Also, the most popular versions of Eldrazi don't run Ancient Stirrings. Like I said before, this is like saying that back when Infect was huge, Plague Stinger needed a ban... the problem is that while it did see some play in Infect, the most popular builds weren't running that card anyway.
"I don't think its (sic) that big of an issue in the format" but you want it banned? If something isn't a big issue, why in the world should it be banned? Bans are supposed to be for big issues. You're essentially saying "I don't think that it should be banned, but I personally think it should be banned."
So then if the format is "fine", we get no unbans. If the format is "in flux", we get no unbans. If the format is ignored because another is on fire, we get no unbans. So... under what circumstances do we get unbans? It seems in the entirety of Modern, the only time a card is unbanned is with an accompanying ban; usually a highly predictable, super obvious one. With DRS, we got back Bitterblossom and Wild Nacatl, with TC/DTT/Pod, we got GGT, With Eye of Ugin, we got AV/SOTM. So I think that, other than the weird one-off of Valakut in September of 2012, all the unbans accompany a hugely obvious and predictable ban. And it seems as if these are offered as a consolation or apology for banning a deck that SO MANY people are playing. With this in mind, it really seems the case that, for almost the entirety of Modern's history, nearly every unban (and ALL of the most recent) have not come alone. So... what, if anything gives them any reason to unban anything in the future, without a boogieman deck to ban out first? This seems like a genuine concern, as they have had ample opportunity to unban a number of cards over the past year and a half, and have instead sat on their hands and done nothing.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
That's great and all but an argument could be made that equipment isn't playable and neither is combo control.
I think you completely understand the point he is trying to make while you mask it with numbers.
Claiming that 200 new cards comes in every few months is blatantly false. At most we get 2-5 playable cards in each Block, let alone per set. When professional limited players claim half of any set is chaff we can't directly claim that Modern has access to more in a constructed sense.
Having a minimal banned list, in every format should be everyone's priority. That goal doesn't contradict any philosophy or paradigm I've read on this forum in nearly 10 years.
I agree with the above... SFM should be unbanned. It would give white a stronger presence and also bring some equipment into play. Plus I just don't think the power level of the card is too high for Modern. It would be a good, playable Modern card IMHO.
If I was on R&D, I'd push to get SFM unbanned. But I think it's more likely Wizards looks at the format, sees UW Control doing well, and D&T winning big events, and then does nothing.
KLD (24)
- Bomat Courier
- Glint-Nest Crane
- Filigree Familiar
- Kambal, Consul of Allocation
- Torrential Gearhulk
- Ceremonious Rejection
- Paradoxical Outcome
- Blossoming Defense
- Spirebluff Canal
- Blooming Marsh
- Inventors' Fair
- Concealed Courtyard
- Botanical Sanctum
- Inspiring Vantage
- Aether Hub
- Saheeli Rai
- Chandra, Torch of Defiance
- Fragmentize
- Madcap Experiment
- Lost Legacy
- Dubious Challenge
- Cathartic Reunion
- Ceremonious Rejection
- Smuggler's Copter
AER (22)
- Spire of Industry
- Walking Ballista
- Fatal Push
- Narnam Renegade
- Heroic Intervention
- Hidden Herbalists
- Greenwheel Liberator
- Baral, Chief of Compliance
- Sram, Senior Edificer
- Heart of Kiran
- Gifted Aetherborn
- Winding Constrictor
- Renegade Rallier
- Kari Zev's Expertise
- Disallow
- Scrap Trawler
- Whir of Invention
- Yaheeni's Expertise
- Sram's Expertise
- Felidar Guardian
- Planar Bridge
- Hope of Ghirapur
You can search up any of these 46 (!!!) cards on mtgtop8 and be met with decklists containing them.
There are in fact more than 5 cards (the higher end of your "2-5" estimate) in this list that regularly find themselves in TOP-TIER Modern decks, let alone Modern decks at all. But we are talking about playability, which blows that number out of the water.
Remember when Ancestral Visions was unbanned? Or Bitterblossom? Or even Wild Nacatl? These cards saw very little play, and continue to see far less play than cards like Walking Ballista, Fatal Push, Ceremonious Rejection, etc. Contrary to what you implied in your post, having a card be on the banned list does not guarantee it will be played in Modern. The numbers strongly indicate that you're much likelier to have cards enter the format and be played there via Standard sets than via unbans, not to mention the sheer difference in volume.
"Having a minimal banned list" is indeed one of Wizards's goals, but it's obviously not as important to them as DIVERSITY, as they have stated what seems like thousands of times. Not just in writing, but through their actions, i.e. by not making any unbans for months on end. Perhaps it's one of your goals, but that's different; in no way "should" this contextually arbitrary notion "be everyone's priority." You, the person who said this, have also just demonstrated an inability to even look at a set list and verify your own false claim, so it might actually be for the best that Wizards is the one managing Modern.
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
And none of that is relevant to the question at hand, which has to do with bannings and unbannings. Moving forward, do you (or anyone) actually think Wizards will unban anything under any circumstances, if it is not accompanying an obvious and oppresive ban target? And if not, under what criteria DOES or SHOULD they unban something? Because we've run the gamut of scenarios, and each of them come up "no need to unban anything." If that's the case, what makes them decide to unban something? Because you bet your bottom dollar there are plenty of totally safe choices on the list to release, and yet they remain on that list for some unknown arbitrary reason (which is even more frustrating since they do not test for bans/unbans and make all their decisions based on image, perception, feeling, and internal discussions).
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Look at the top spells and creatures played in Modern please. Do not show me results of a deck that's 0.005% of a metagame and claim that a new set has added a format staple.
Here are the links.
https://www.mtggoldfish.com/format-staples/modern/full/creatures
https://www.mtggoldfish.com/format-staples/modern/full/spells
Recently, we got Fatal Push, Ceremonious Rejection, Walking Balista, Collective Brutality, Baral, Vizier of Remedies, and Tireless Tracker as recent additions.
That is very par for 2-5 per block. Don't ******* tell me Disallow is a ******* format staple in Modern.
JW, what is the ******* for? Am I supposed to take your not reading my post more seriously if you are pretending to curse at me?
Here are your more-than-5 top-tier cards though, since you're insisting on my holding your hand through this:
- Fatal Push
- Ceremonious Rejection
- Walking Ballista
- Spire of Industry
- Cathartic Reunion
- Blossoming Defense
The first card has radically reshaped the format as we know it, arguably having more an impact in Modern than anything since Treasure Cruise. The last two cards made a pair of archetypes oppressive and powerful enough for Wizards to ban them.
And all this is still ignoring the facts that unbans happen less frequently than Standard sets come out, 2-5 is more than 1-2, 2-5 is still a conservative estimate, and we are still talking about playability, not top-tier playability. There's very little reason to continue this discussion if you're unwilling or unable to address the points I have made and are always going to start a nitpick instead (and one that's easily dispelled, at that!).
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
Playable cards =/= format staple all stars. Not every card has to as powerful as Fatal Push to be considered a playable card. That's a ridiculous standard.
For example, Cathartic Reunion/Insolent Neonate miss the top 50 in both lists, but are extremely relevant cards that make Dredge tick. These, by definition, are playable cards. The same is true of many cards that enter the format.
All Modern is really missing is a few generic answers. Barring that, most new cards that enter the format would be better off either supporting underdeveloped archetypes or new build arounds.
And for the record on bans, we don't need any bans and don't need any unbans. I'm against Stoneforge Mystic not because of her power, but the fact that she homogenizes every white/white splashing deck to look the same. She has the hidden cost of being a card that takes up 7+ slots. I'd rather white be shored up another way.
How could you possibly know what she does to the format? She's not legal lol. Are you also under the belief that all green decks run goyf?
Unban dig through time when Grixis Shadow is the top dog. Think about this for just a second..........
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/)
What does that do for Shadow? I mean, sure, it's a good card, but the kind of deck playing this card is either going to be a control deck looking for their narrow answers or a combo deck looking to kill you immediately. GDS is a grindy value deck, and at best it finds you... a kill spell? a creature? But at the cost of your graveyard, which means you may not even be able to cast that creature... I mean, I'm sure Dig will never come off anyway, but of the kinds of decks that would break the card, it seems GDS would be fairly low on that list.
I certainly hope so. There are plenty of extremely safe cards on the banned list that really have no business being there. But it looks like it will take an "event" of some kind (massive banning or PT shake-up) in order to let them see the light of day (or see the light of day again).
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I think a few in this vein of discussion here have forgotten the "When Cards Go Bad" articles (second one here). Specifically, "all the cards cannot be good". It is outlined that in a pool of the top 1500 cards (chosen by pros or god or whatever), only 400ish would be played and heralded as part of the tier one decks. Relate that to Modern where we have 11084 cards currently legal. While I can't tell you how big the "playable" pool is, I think I can safely state that it is less than Rosewater's example of 400ish out of 1500 or, more what I'm getting at, 26% of the pool (2881). Realistically, if you want to see the other 8202 (11084-26%) cards in the format there will probably have to be more bans. Unbans certainly won't do this. There is also little outcry for this type of increasing the card pool, and when this does happen there is huge outcry against it as to say people are actively against bans as also described by "minimal ban list" goals.
I think a good question to ask is "what is the average number of cards brought into playability by banning, unbanning, or being newly released?" And I don't just mean the specific card that had one of those, I mean the idea that Devoted Druid is now Modern playable due to Vizier of Remedies being released. Isn't that +2 to the format even though one has been here since Modern's birth? I don't think a realistic answer can be had on the average cards brought into playability by another, but it might be good to reflect on when asking for something like SFM or JtMS.
There's a lot of squabbling over the difference between 1-2 and 2-5 cards per X amount of time. If you want a huge swath of new cards every year, standard is one forum up. You don't have to scroll as far to get there and apart from this year it barely has bans. This is an eternal format. Chill, we'll be here awhile.
-----
As for the actual format; I think it is incredibly healthy. Grix Shadow and Drazi Tron are not the insane format heralds that people once thought, and no other deck is even getting enough notoriety on the subject be considered unfair. If no deck is clogging the meta, how can we call the format unhealthy? There are a ton of options right now.
"Reveal a Dragon"
Relatively interactable, grindable meta.
decks playing:
none
Top tier decks, whether they are oppressive or not, have a huge effect on what's playable in the format competitively. As you know you'll at least run into them enough it will affect your deck choices if the matchups are just too polarized.
Grixis Shadow punishes linear decks and in such a linear format I think it's fine at its current representation. However, trondrazi and valakut punish interactive and grindy decks, and encourage linear and/or fast decks. Something we dont need in this format right now as it is already linear enough as is.
hoping they unban:
BBE
Jace
And sfm
To put more incentive on non shadow urx and bgx decks.
Edit: even still the format seems to be moving in a decent direction here's to hoping it stays on course.
decks playing:
none