Brainstorm, Wasteland and Daze are the three Legacy cards that musts never be introduced to Modern.
On the surface, Wasteland appears to encourage modesty on the manabases, but truth is that playing 2-3 colors is still strictly better than restricting to basics so the reaction would be for most decks to lower their curves. If anything, it punishes lands with abilities and makes 3-4 mana costs even less playable than they are now; besides, when mana denial matters, Wasteland just introduces variance in the sensse both decks waste each other lands and proceed to go into topdeck mode to see which one find their lands first. This is the situation where a deck with Brainstorms is miles away from a deck without them so everything non blue becomes niche. Daze adds insult to the injury by making so you can't resolve your 1-2 mana spells on curve even if they tap out. Legacy can have that until the end of time but keep it out of modern meanwhile.
Brainstorm, Wasteland and Daze are the three Legacy cards that musts never be introduced to Modern.
On the surface, Wasteland appears to encourage modesty on the manabases, but truth is that playing 2-3 colors is still strictly better than restricting to basics so the reaction would be for most decks to lower their curves. If anything, it punishes lands with abilities and makes 3-4 mana costs even less playable than they are now; besides, when mana denial matters, Wasteland just introduces variance in the sensse both decks waste each other lands and proceed to go into topdeck mode to see which one find their lands first. This is the situation where a deck with Brainstorms is miles away from a deck without them so everything non blue becomes niche. Daze adds insult to the injury by making so you can't resolve your 1-2 mana spells on curve even if they tap out. Legacy can have that until the end of time but keep it out of modern meanwhile.
Back to Basics would be pretty interesting to see in the modern meta of today. It's kind of slow, but if it gets online it's pretty devastating.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Brainstorm, Wasteland and Daze are the three Legacy cards that musts never be introduced to Modern.
On the surface, Wasteland appears to encourage modesty on the manabases, but truth is that playing 2-3 colors is still strictly better than restricting to basics so the reaction would be for most decks to lower their curves. If anything, it punishes lands with abilities and makes 3-4 mana costs even less playable than they are now; besides, when mana denial matters, Wasteland just introduces variance in the sensse both decks waste each other lands and proceed to go into topdeck mode to see which one find their lands first. This is the situation where a deck with Brainstorms is miles away from a deck without them so everything non blue becomes niche. Daze adds insult to the injury by making so you can't resolve your 1-2 mana spells on curve even if they tap out. Legacy can have that until the end of time but keep it out of modern meanwhile.
I will agree Brainstorm and Wasteland should not be Modern legal (in fact, I'd argue that Brainstorm shouldn't be legal in Legacy), but I don't think Daze is anywhere near as problematic as you're making it out to be. The only potential problem I can see with it is Death's Shadow getting too good (the other decks that might play it are pretty bad right now and could use a boost), particularly because the drawback it has with shocklands (which isn't true in Legacy) is actually great for Death's Shadow. Then again, Death's Shadow has, that Grand Prix Top 8 notwithstanding, fallen off, so perhaps it would be okay with Daze. Or maybe the deck wouldn't even play it, its discard seems more effective.
Wait, Back to Basics wouldn't have miserable consequences? Back to Basics is everything miserable about Blood Moon only made worse because at least you can still get mana off your lands under Blood Moon. I think a Back to Basics that allows your opponents (but not you, keep the drawback on yourself) to untap one nonbasic land per turn would be fine, though.
As for Price of Progress, I don't think that card has any real impact on suppressing nonbasic lands. It just has the effect of making Burn way, way better. A hate card isn't particularly effective if there's only one deck in the format that can actually play it.
Mind you, all this is assuming that Modern needs more nonbasic land hate that is that powerful, which I don't think is really the case.
For the record, the reason Dwarven Miner isn't legal in Modern is because Blood Moon beat it out in "Selecting Eighth Edition" (it's also why Ensnaring Bridge is legal and not Static Orb). You know, I really wish they did those votes again where players could decide some of the cards that went into the core set...
That dwarf is looking for some action if you ask me. Reprint him and keep the art.
They won't keep it even if they do reprint it (unlikely to happen considering their Standard philosophy, but maybe after all these awful Standards that occurred due to that philosophy they might reconsider). For the earlier years of the game, their artist contracts gave the artists royalties for their art, including using the art on on future reprints. I think that practice came about because at the start of the game, they didn't have the money to pay much for the art, so they promised the artists royalties to make up for that, and they just kept up with that for quite a while because that's what they had always done. Anyway, they don't do that anymore (understandably preferring one-and-done payments), so older art sold to them under those contracts isn't used in favor of art that they just pay once for and then don't have to worry about giving the artist more money for it.
I'm not sure exactly when they changed it (as that would be the "cutoff" point for art they wouldn't re-use), but I assume it was sometime around 7th Edition because that was the set where they abruptly went with new art for a huge number of cards that previously they had constantly used the same art for.
The biggest problem when talking about Stirrings ban is that, imo, people are underestimating the damage it will do to the decks that play it.
That's not a good argument, IMHO. A ban can open up the possibility for decks to evolve into a different direction. For instance, the Gitaxian Probe ban caused Shadow Zoo to evolve into Jund Shadow and Grixis Shadow. So, we simply don't know what Lantern would evolve into if one of it's biggest incentive to run green was gone. The Modern card pool is vast and there are plenty of cards that could twist existing decks in new and interesting ways because they are not a 1 for 1 replacement.
that is just calling 'damage' something nicer. stirrings is an absurdly powerful effect, the void it would leave isnt easily replaced. some are fine with that, but it doesnt change the fact that the decks would be taking a blow or have to retool so extensively that they are functionally different decks.
the evolution of death shadow decks is a unique case, because it was a new deck type that was being iterated on. you cant attribute grixis DS or traverse DS to the probe ban, because who is to say they wouldnt have reached that point regardless (with probe to boot). its not like suicide zoo was especially good; infect was the 'problem' deck.
i do agree that powerful cards and interactions blind us to innovation or discovery. if death shadow is an example of anything, it is that. however that is more a product of how deck information is disseminated and used in the current era of competitive magic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
I think it's comparable. Lantern is not the strongest Ancient Stirrings deck, just like Shadow Zoo was not the strongest Gitaxian Probe deck. I know a thing or two about decks built around Death's Shadow, as I have played those decks for several years by now. I'm confident to state that the probe ban was a decisive factor in pushing Shadow-based decks from aggro into midrange. One thing of note is that the Probe ban also made Stubborn Denial a better card than before.
yeah but pushing decks isnt the same as causality. its possible death shadow decks would have moved that direction, but just take longer. for example fatal push and the probe ban happened at the same time. push could have easily played as big, if not bigger, role in deciding best direction for the decks.
also lantern is only 1 of the stirrings decks, and arguably the worst at the moment. lantern, kci, and even Gx eldrazi are relatively newer decks. tron is an established deck that has been around so long and been iterated on so much that some version coming to light without stirrings that is nearly as good is extremely unlikely. likewise amulet has been around a little longer, but has only more recently regained most of its footing.
the net effect of stirrings being gone is difficult to predict. maybe a few of the decks could bounce back, and others wouldnt. even among the decks that play it, its effectiveness/usefulness varies. my issue with the ban talk is that all of these decks are being hit for crimes not one of decks is committing on its own. i get that most bans are like this, but even when there is collateral damage there should at least be one deck we can point to and say 'yeah. that isnt alright'.
the ONLY ban within that time period that didnt have a specific deck, or very close variations, associated with it was dig through time. maybe GSZ and punishing fire set a precedent im not thinking of though.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
We don’t need a stirrings ban because we don’t need more people losing their decks of choice. Twin players know that pain all too well sadly. So if we ban stirrings and most artifact deck lovers all move to affinity what does that help. We get more and more cards added to modern every set and with unbans the format hasn’t been getting stale at all. Everything is viable (I’d argue except control) at the moment so just leave it alone.
Also the shadow lists post probe ban were already being played and talked about. It just forced people to change over instantly. 2 guys already had great results with it and as far as I remember it wasn’t really a secret.
I am leaning further towards keeping stirrings and unbanning preordain than a ban. Also, I think it is flawed to lump colorless decks together that operate on entirely different wavelengths.
Tron =/= KCI =/= Lantern =/= Eldrazi
To be clear, in my opinion Tron had a good showing by the presence of mardu and jeskai builds geared towards beating humans. It was almost inevitable, given how much hype pros have been giving humans over the past two or three months. So some people opted to metagame against the humans counters. They were rewarded. It happens like once or twice a year - Tron gets huge representation at a GP, is great for a month or so, then drops. I'm not particularly scared. Meanwhile, KCI gets stopped cold by stony silence, which decks should start running in conjunction with or in place of wear/tear or other sb cards that are more specific. Same goes for lantern. Eldrazi has barely been a factor, I just added it due to green builds including stirrings.
That's what we all don't potentially get. Now, let's assume for a second that
A: Wizards Of the Coast think blue is fine.
B: Wizards Of the Coast think Preordain is entirely out of question, because it slots in combo decks or for some other reason.
C: Preordain will stay banned.
Now, I know that all are hypothesis, but let's assume that A or B are true.
If ( A or B ) then (C = true)
Besides that, even if Wizards think A=false, there might be a case that they think B=true, meaning that they might think Preordain is used for combo decks except of control decks.
How do we know this? From THIS article.
thats just an argument for not unbanning preordain. its not a card without risks, and they may decide they arent worth taking. however, does choosing not to unban preordain qualify as an argument to ban stirrings? based on the information we have, including the precedents set with their previous decisions; it isnt. however that doesnt mean that wizards couldnt do something offbeat, they dont need to follow a set of rules because they are the ones who make them.
with that being said, the gameplay considerations that come along with more consistency tools are based around one thing - making the format more enjoyable. their previous statements are built on the assumption that the format had enough of the elements spoken about in that article to strike the balance they were looking for. however that article was also written almost 3 years ago. so much has changed in that time; including the largest mistake in the formats history, the most controversial ban in the formats history, the removal of modern as a pro-tour format, and its reinstatement. not to mention that opening of the article includes this statement:
Our goal for Standard is only having to ban a card in Standard about once every ten years. It's not a zero percentage chance, but it's pretty low.
which is just comical. this rocky track record, and more recent indicators that they are trying to course correct with design adjustments includes the possibility of them challenging their previous assumptions; including the 'balance' they believe they may have struck in their previous vision of the modern format. therefore preordain may now be on the table when they previously didnt consider it an option, similar to their (hopefully) move away from bannings.
tldr: that sam stoddard article is from 3 years ago. the format has changed, and wizards has changed. we cannot assume what was said back then holds true now. especially when the format just continues to grow in power, meaning they can either knock a bunch of decks down a peg or attempt to lifts others up.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
I am leaning further towards keeping stirrings and unbanning preordain than a ban. Also, I think it is flawed to lump colorless decks together that operate on entirely different wavelengths.
Tron =/= KCI =/= Lantern =/= Eldrazi
They all get to benefit from by far and away the best cantip available in Modern with no real or tangible drawback. They also all have strong GP results and are (or recently have been) strong, high tier decks. Given the consistent bans and mostly bad new cards they give to blue players, I would not lose any sleep whatsoever if Stirrings was removed from the format and all of these take a hit.
I am leaning further towards keeping stirrings and unbanning preordain than a ban. Also, I think it is flawed to lump colorless decks together that operate on entirely different wavelengths.
Tron =/= KCI =/= Lantern =/= Eldrazi
They all get to benefit from by far and away the best cantip available in Modern with no real or tangible drawback. They also all have strong GP results and are (or recently have been) strong, high tier decks. Given the consistent bans and mostly bad new cards they give to blue players, I would not lose any sleep whatsoever if Stirrings was removed from the format and all of these take a hit.
Now that's just petty. Jace gets unbanned, Search for Azcanta appears, and Teferi gets printed, but oh yeah blue players are constantly getting poked in the eye by WOTC. Here's the GP numbers for 2018 discounting the team event
Toronto top 32
Tron: 3
Lantern: 0
Eldrazi: 0 (with stirrings, there was a taxes build)
KCI: 0
Lyon top 32
Tron: 6 (4 in top 8)
Lantern: 0
Eldrazi: 1 (winner)
KCI: 0
Phoenix top 32
Tron: 2 (1 in top 8)
Lantern: 0
Eldrazi: 1 (top 8)
KCI: 1 (top 4)
Hartford top 16 all that's available on mtggoldfish
Tron: 0
Lantern: 0
Eldrazi: 0
KCI: 1 (winner)
Vegas top 32
Tron: 8 (2 top 8, 4 more top 16)
Lantern: 0
Eldrazi: 0
KCI: 5 (winner, 1 more top 8, 1 more top 16)
So of the ancient stirrings decks, only on three crosspoints of data has a deck put more than 4 into top 32. That happened twice at vegas with KCI and Tron, which makes it appear worse. Tron has had two good showings months apart followed by far less success in the following events.
I'm totally fine with a preordain unban on a test run. I'm far less okay with being vindictive over one ban to a point where you want to see everyone else's deck ruined. And for the record, I have never played a deck that can or would run stirrings. I have no dog in this fight.
Now that's just petty. Jace gets unbanned, Search for Azcanta appears, and Teferi gets printed, but oh yeah blue players are constantly getting poked in the eye by WOTC. Here's the GP numbers for 2018 discounting the team event
Either the blue cantrips and Stirrings are both OK or neither of them are OK. The double-standard of hating blue cards is real, and KT spent many more words explaining it better than I could (below). But yes, colorless decks have had vastly more success compared to "blue decks" (however you want to interpret that) and EVEN WITH Jace and Azcanta and Teferi, it still had virtually no representation in Vegas's T32 (and little success at all outside of SCG's self-perpetuating meta). Never mind that Jace is actually pretty bad and most people are cutting them from their decks anyway...
ktkenshinx(link here): The Preordain/Stirrings contradiction has been a popular topic of Modern commentators for years. But for years, it wasn't an accurate comparison. Although Stirrings digs deeper, it operated as a fairly niche enabler for a fairly niche subset of decks over the years. By contrast, Preordain had the risk of going into all blue decks, particularly T3 combo decks, and improving their consistency with a catch-all cantrip. Modern pundits often did not appreciate this difference in metagame context, which resulted in lots of pithy articles comparing the cards but no action on Wizards' part, nor no widespread call for change.
Recent metagame developments have showed that Stirrings is no longer just a niche enabler. This card has powered up a host of top-tier colorless decks: KCI, Lantern, Gx Tron, and Amulet Titan. We can no longer say it's a limited enabler when it is a core engine of all of these powerful, consistent performers. Meanwhile, blue decks are stuck with Serum Visions and consistently have lower shares and lower overall performances than these top decks. This is particularly true at the GP and PT level, and likely true of MTGO, which is where Wizards derives their ban data from more than anywhere else.
If colorless decks are allowed to get their Preordain, blue decks need to be allowed to get their actual Preordain back. Alternately, Wizards needs to decide that Preordain style effects are not okay in Modern and remove Stirrings instead. Either of these solutions would be fair, but a Preordain unban would be better as it shortens the banlist, improves lagging archetypes, and improves access to universal answers (especially in early turns). Of course, the danger of a Preordain unban is that many of the Stirrings decks (KCI, Lantern, Amulet) could all ultimately shift towards Preordain if Stirrings ever got the axe. This is why it might just be safer, and the risk-averse Wizards' solution, to ban Stirrings and call it a day. Stirrings is also an appealing ban because it hits multiple decks while not destroying any one of them, so if Wizards wants to trim their power (not saying they do, but IF they do), it's an ideal target. This is in contrast to deck-killing, splash-damage heavy bans like Opal, KCI, or Bridge.
All of this is to say that there has never been a better time to have a reasonable conversation about Stirrings and Preordain. It wasn't justified before now. It is justified today. Note that this development does not mean it was justified 1.5 years ago. Hindsight bias won't play here. But now that the numbers actually support some of these arguments, it's a legitimate topic of conversation.
Actually, for Tron and Eldrazi decks we have weaker replacement - Nissa's Oath.
Lantern and KCI still have Blue Cord and Fair for tutoring their stuff.
I see the ban of Ansient Stirring real but not sure it will happen.
Also I would like to see Stoneforge unbanned - this card is just too slow and vulnarable for superagressive and toxic format as Modern.
stirrings is a reaaally powerful card, but i think that it would be a lot better to reduce the banlist with preordain (and even ponder, that, to me, has the same power level as stirrings, but anyway)
with humans being such a powerful deck, jeskai rises, so tron and such emerges to prey those kind of decks
Do you Remember when a lot of people were crying for a ban on death's shadow? what happened? nothing, the deck is fine, and valakut? and eldrazi temple? and grapeshot?
WOTC should stop banning and testing unbans and more universal answers
stirrings is a reaaally powerful card, but i think that it would be a lot better to reduce the banlist with preordain (and even ponder, that, to me, has the same power level as stirrings, but anyway)
with humans being such a powerful deck, jeskai rises, so tron and such emerges to prey those kind of decks
Do you Remember when a lot of people were crying for a ban on death's shadow? what happened? nothing, the deck is fine, and valakut? and eldrazi temple? and grapeshot?
WOTC should stop banning and testing unbans and more universal answers
This. Better to lift other decks up than to topple some over.
admittedly this situation differs because we are discussing a powerful enabler, and not a specific deck and or a finisher that defines a specific deck.
people are talking about a certain class of effects, and their impact on decks that play them. which is quite different than calling for a DS ban because its a one mana 5/5 or whatever. i think the most recent analog would be when people were pushing for a probe ban, but that also had infect doing its thing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
admittedly this situation differs because we are discussing a powerful enabler, and not a specific deck and or a finisher that defines a specific deck.
people are talking about a certain class of effects, and their impact on decks that play them. which is quite different than calling for a DS ban because its a one mana 5/5 or whatever. i think the most recent analog would be when people were pushing for a probe ban, but that also had infect doing its thing.
You're not too far off, though WOTC went into great detail on the probe ban to explain that the problem came from fast wins off of what would normally be risky plays due to gaining perfect information for that meager cost of two life. It took the risk/reward prospect of an all-in combo deck, removed the risk aspect, and combined with a decent turn 3 win rate it broke one of the cardinal rules. None of the stirrings decks have that. Tron doesn't win turn 3, KCI isn't nearly as consistent with it, and lantern gets complaints for the exact opposite. In fact, all-in turn 4 and occasionally earlier is a title which belongs to the decks that can beat those three. It is why I defend storm despite the same people who complain about tron often complaining about storm. I mean...now that I think about it there does appear to be a contingent of people who want everything gone but the 2015 "pillars."
WOTC even admitted in the eye of ugin ban, though, that they knew it was going to weaken tron decks, which came into play while debating which sol land to remove from the eldrazi aggro decks of old. WOTC isn't morally opposed to this deck existing - that title belongs to control and midrange players who want to have solid matchups against an entire field.
stirrings is a reaaally powerful card, but i think that it would be a lot better to reduce the banlist with preordain (and even ponder, that, to me, has the same power level as stirrings, but anyway)
with humans being such a powerful deck, jeskai rises, so tron and such emerges to prey those kind of decks
Do you Remember when a lot of people were crying for a ban on death's shadow? what happened? nothing, the deck is fine, and valakut? and eldrazi temple? and grapeshot?
WOTC should stop banning and testing unbans and more universal answers
I agree with this message except for two points. First, I think Ponder is a whole lot better than Ancient Stirrings; it's not for nothing that the card is restricted in Vintage and is in nearly half of all Legacy decks while Ancient Stirrings is basically a nonentity in both. Ponder might be on par with Ancient Stirrings if not for fetchlands, but we do have fetchlands and that catapults Ponder ahead.
Second, when were people calling on a ban for Valakut? I can't remember that ever happening. Yeah, there were a few wackos who did, but there are a few wackos who advocate bans for Thalia. It was never a common position. This doesn't really hurt your point, as the other things you mentioned are great examples, but I don't remember Valakut ever being a target of banmania.
I don't see as looking at 5 cards conditionally being a problem. And therefor I do not see Stirring being a problem. But then again, I'd like to see Twin, Pod, Green Sun's Zenith and Stoneforge Mystic all unbanned within a reasonable time period, so my format tastes are a bit different than most. Currently modern is in a good place diversity-wise, and I don't think someone can disagree there. Although, from a brewer's eyes I'd rather if the gatekeepers were more along the lines of Storm or KCI or Devoted Company or whathaveyou straightforward deck than Humans and Hollow One. When I first got into the format I thought Twin was oppressive because you had to be able to beat it, but it turned up that that wasn't so hard to tune for, but these new decks ask even more for a deck to be able to come up ahead, you can't just slot in some hate, because there is no hate for Thalia and Meddling Mage, you just have to either be faster or play a control deck, and that's strangling slower aggro-tempo decks out (ie. Merfolk can never beat Humans).
It would be interesting to see what happens if they unban so many cards at once. Birthing Pod is another card that is just sort of sitting there and people are scared of it like Jace, the Mind Sculptor. It was originally banned mostly because the deck was everywhere more than it was an unbeatable match up, so it died for the same excuse that some other cards did. Plus, if I had to put pod on the mistake list next to energy, DRS, Skullclamp, etc, it is far from being broken.
But again, that wont stop people from asking "what would prey upon pod decks?" and what not. The answer to that question is nobody knows because the card is banned and therefore no one is brewing to play against it. Without derailing this into too much of a rut, part of me does want to see cards like Birthing Pod, Splinter Twin, and others get a shot in the light again. It's been four years for Pod and three years for twin, with a lot of new sets out now and most likely even more powerful strategies in the format.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Comparing Pod to Jace is...nonsense. Pod hit 20% of the meta did it not? Jace was a 'maybe' (to reasonable people) in a world where games can and do end on Turn 3, Bolt is everywhere, haste creatures are all over the place, and 'free' counters are narrow and not good enough.
I played against a lot of Pod. I've done a lot of grinding since the unban (and I cling to a miser's copy in my main deck) and its simply not comparable.
Comparing Pod to Jace is...nonsense. Pod hit 20% of the meta did it not? Jace was a 'maybe' (to reasonable people) in a world where games can and do end on Turn 3, Bolt is everywhere, haste creatures are all over the place, and 'free' counters are narrow and not good enough.
I played against a lot of Pod. I've done a lot of grinding since the unban (and I cling to a miser's copy in my main deck) and its simply not comparable.
I'm comparing reputation, not mechanical aspects or interactions. Also, we've got Fatal push, K-Command, CoCo, and whole lot of stuff that wasn't around four years ago. Honestly, I'd rather see something unbanned, watch what happens, and then just ban it than bother with hypotheticals. Not throwing any fire your way with this, just sometimes it pays to take a risk.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
On the surface, Wasteland appears to encourage modesty on the manabases, but truth is that playing 2-3 colors is still strictly better than restricting to basics so the reaction would be for most decks to lower their curves. If anything, it punishes lands with abilities and makes 3-4 mana costs even less playable than they are now; besides, when mana denial matters, Wasteland just introduces variance in the sensse both decks waste each other lands and proceed to go into topdeck mode to see which one find their lands first. This is the situation where a deck with Brainstorms is miles away from a deck without them so everything non blue becomes niche. Daze adds insult to the injury by making so you can't resolve your 1-2 mana spells on curve even if they tap out. Legacy can have that until the end of time but keep it out of modern meanwhile.
Back to basics or Price of progress wouldn't have such miserable consequences. Hell, maybe Dwarven Miner could work for Mardu/Jund.
Back to Basics would be pretty interesting to see in the modern meta of today. It's kind of slow, but if it gets online it's pretty devastating.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Modern - Cheeri0s (building), Belcher (building), Lantern (building), UW Control (building)
RIP Magic Duels. Wizards will regret what they did to you.
Wait, Back to Basics wouldn't have miserable consequences? Back to Basics is everything miserable about Blood Moon only made worse because at least you can still get mana off your lands under Blood Moon. I think a Back to Basics that allows your opponents (but not you, keep the drawback on yourself) to untap one nonbasic land per turn would be fine, though.
As for Price of Progress, I don't think that card has any real impact on suppressing nonbasic lands. It just has the effect of making Burn way, way better. A hate card isn't particularly effective if there's only one deck in the format that can actually play it.
Mind you, all this is assuming that Modern needs more nonbasic land hate that is that powerful, which I don't think is really the case.
For the record, the reason Dwarven Miner isn't legal in Modern is because Blood Moon beat it out in "Selecting Eighth Edition" (it's also why Ensnaring Bridge is legal and not Static Orb). You know, I really wish they did those votes again where players could decide some of the cards that went into the core set...
I'm not sure exactly when they changed it (as that would be the "cutoff" point for art they wouldn't re-use), but I assume it was sometime around 7th Edition because that was the set where they abruptly went with new art for a huge number of cards that previously they had constantly used the same art for.
the evolution of death shadow decks is a unique case, because it was a new deck type that was being iterated on. you cant attribute grixis DS or traverse DS to the probe ban, because who is to say they wouldnt have reached that point regardless (with probe to boot). its not like suicide zoo was especially good; infect was the 'problem' deck.
i do agree that powerful cards and interactions blind us to innovation or discovery. if death shadow is an example of anything, it is that. however that is more a product of how deck information is disseminated and used in the current era of competitive magic.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)also lantern is only 1 of the stirrings decks, and arguably the worst at the moment. lantern, kci, and even Gx eldrazi are relatively newer decks. tron is an established deck that has been around so long and been iterated on so much that some version coming to light without stirrings that is nearly as good is extremely unlikely. likewise amulet has been around a little longer, but has only more recently regained most of its footing.
the net effect of stirrings being gone is difficult to predict. maybe a few of the decks could bounce back, and others wouldnt. even among the decks that play it, its effectiveness/usefulness varies. my issue with the ban talk is that all of these decks are being hit for crimes not one of decks is committing on its own. i get that most bans are like this, but even when there is collateral damage there should at least be one deck we can point to and say 'yeah. that isnt alright'.
second sunrise (eggs)
drs (jund)
treasure cruise (ur delver)
birthing pod (melira/rhino/angel pod)
splinter twin (ur twin)
summer bloom (amulet bloom)
eye of ugin (colorless/UW eldrazi)
gitaxian probe (infect)
GGT (dredge)
the ONLY ban within that time period that didnt have a specific deck, or very close variations, associated with it was dig through time. maybe GSZ and punishing fire set a precedent im not thinking of though.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Also the shadow lists post probe ban were already being played and talked about. It just forced people to change over instantly. 2 guys already had great results with it and as far as I remember it wasn’t really a secret.
Tron =/= KCI =/= Lantern =/= Eldrazi
To be clear, in my opinion Tron had a good showing by the presence of mardu and jeskai builds geared towards beating humans. It was almost inevitable, given how much hype pros have been giving humans over the past two or three months. So some people opted to metagame against the humans counters. They were rewarded. It happens like once or twice a year - Tron gets huge representation at a GP, is great for a month or so, then drops. I'm not particularly scared. Meanwhile, KCI gets stopped cold by stony silence, which decks should start running in conjunction with or in place of wear/tear or other sb cards that are more specific. Same goes for lantern. Eldrazi has barely been a factor, I just added it due to green builds including stirrings.
thats just an argument for not unbanning preordain. its not a card without risks, and they may decide they arent worth taking. however, does choosing not to unban preordain qualify as an argument to ban stirrings? based on the information we have, including the precedents set with their previous decisions; it isnt. however that doesnt mean that wizards couldnt do something offbeat, they dont need to follow a set of rules because they are the ones who make them.
with that being said, the gameplay considerations that come along with more consistency tools are based around one thing - making the format more enjoyable. their previous statements are built on the assumption that the format had enough of the elements spoken about in that article to strike the balance they were looking for. however that article was also written almost 3 years ago. so much has changed in that time; including the largest mistake in the formats history, the most controversial ban in the formats history, the removal of modern as a pro-tour format, and its reinstatement. not to mention that opening of the article includes this statement:
Our goal for Standard is only having to ban a card in Standard about once every ten years. It's not a zero percentage chance, but it's pretty low.
which is just comical. this rocky track record, and more recent indicators that they are trying to course correct with design adjustments includes the possibility of them challenging their previous assumptions; including the 'balance' they believe they may have struck in their previous vision of the modern format. therefore preordain may now be on the table when they previously didnt consider it an option, similar to their (hopefully) move away from bannings.
tldr: that sam stoddard article is from 3 years ago. the format has changed, and wizards has changed. we cannot assume what was said back then holds true now. especially when the format just continues to grow in power, meaning they can either knock a bunch of decks down a peg or attempt to lifts others up.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)They all get to benefit from by far and away the best cantip available in Modern with no real or tangible drawback. They also all have strong GP results and are (or recently have been) strong, high tier decks. Given the consistent bans and mostly bad new cards they give to blue players, I would not lose any sleep whatsoever if Stirrings was removed from the format and all of these take a hit.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Now that's just petty. Jace gets unbanned, Search for Azcanta appears, and Teferi gets printed, but oh yeah blue players are constantly getting poked in the eye by WOTC. Here's the GP numbers for 2018 discounting the team event
Toronto top 32
Tron: 3
Lantern: 0
Eldrazi: 0 (with stirrings, there was a taxes build)
KCI: 0
Lyon top 32
Tron: 6 (4 in top 8)
Lantern: 0
Eldrazi: 1 (winner)
KCI: 0
Phoenix top 32
Tron: 2 (1 in top 8)
Lantern: 0
Eldrazi: 1 (top 8)
KCI: 1 (top 4)
Hartford top 16 all that's available on mtggoldfish
Tron: 0
Lantern: 0
Eldrazi: 0
KCI: 1 (winner)
Vegas top 32
Tron: 8 (2 top 8, 4 more top 16)
Lantern: 0
Eldrazi: 0
KCI: 5 (winner, 1 more top 8, 1 more top 16)
So of the ancient stirrings decks, only on three crosspoints of data has a deck put more than 4 into top 32. That happened twice at vegas with KCI and Tron, which makes it appear worse. Tron has had two good showings months apart followed by far less success in the following events.
I'm totally fine with a preordain unban on a test run. I'm far less okay with being vindictive over one ban to a point where you want to see everyone else's deck ruined. And for the record, I have never played a deck that can or would run stirrings. I have no dog in this fight.
Either the blue cantrips and Stirrings are both OK or neither of them are OK. The double-standard of hating blue cards is real, and KT spent many more words explaining it better than I could (below). But yes, colorless decks have had vastly more success compared to "blue decks" (however you want to interpret that) and EVEN WITH Jace and Azcanta and Teferi, it still had virtually no representation in Vegas's T32 (and little success at all outside of SCG's self-perpetuating meta). Never mind that Jace is actually pretty bad and most people are cutting them from their decks anyway...
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Lantern and KCI still have Blue Cord and Fair for tutoring their stuff.
I see the ban of Ansient Stirring real but not sure it will happen.
Also I would like to see Stoneforge unbanned - this card is just too slow and vulnarable for superagressive and toxic format as Modern.
with humans being such a powerful deck, jeskai rises, so tron and such emerges to prey those kind of decks
Do you Remember when a lot of people were crying for a ban on death's shadow? what happened? nothing, the deck is fine, and valakut? and eldrazi temple? and grapeshot?
WOTC should stop banning and testing unbans and more universal answers
This. Better to lift other decks up than to topple some over.
people are talking about a certain class of effects, and their impact on decks that play them. which is quite different than calling for a DS ban because its a one mana 5/5 or whatever. i think the most recent analog would be when people were pushing for a probe ban, but that also had infect doing its thing.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)You're not too far off, though WOTC went into great detail on the probe ban to explain that the problem came from fast wins off of what would normally be risky plays due to gaining perfect information for that meager cost of two life. It took the risk/reward prospect of an all-in combo deck, removed the risk aspect, and combined with a decent turn 3 win rate it broke one of the cardinal rules. None of the stirrings decks have that. Tron doesn't win turn 3, KCI isn't nearly as consistent with it, and lantern gets complaints for the exact opposite. In fact, all-in turn 4 and occasionally earlier is a title which belongs to the decks that can beat those three. It is why I defend storm despite the same people who complain about tron often complaining about storm. I mean...now that I think about it there does appear to be a contingent of people who want everything gone but the 2015 "pillars."
WOTC even admitted in the eye of ugin ban, though, that they knew it was going to weaken tron decks, which came into play while debating which sol land to remove from the eldrazi aggro decks of old. WOTC isn't morally opposed to this deck existing - that title belongs to control and midrange players who want to have solid matchups against an entire field.
Second, when were people calling on a ban for Valakut? I can't remember that ever happening. Yeah, there were a few wackos who did, but there are a few wackos who advocate bans for Thalia. It was never a common position. This doesn't really hurt your point, as the other things you mentioned are great examples, but I don't remember Valakut ever being a target of banmania.
It would be interesting to see what happens if they unban so many cards at once. Birthing Pod is another card that is just sort of sitting there and people are scared of it like Jace, the Mind Sculptor. It was originally banned mostly because the deck was everywhere more than it was an unbeatable match up, so it died for the same excuse that some other cards did. Plus, if I had to put pod on the mistake list next to energy, DRS, Skullclamp, etc, it is far from being broken.
But again, that wont stop people from asking "what would prey upon pod decks?" and what not. The answer to that question is nobody knows because the card is banned and therefore no one is brewing to play against it. Without derailing this into too much of a rut, part of me does want to see cards like Birthing Pod, Splinter Twin, and others get a shot in the light again. It's been four years for Pod and three years for twin, with a lot of new sets out now and most likely even more powerful strategies in the format.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
I played against a lot of Pod. I've done a lot of grinding since the unban (and I cling to a miser's copy in my main deck) and its simply not comparable.
Spirits
I'm comparing reputation, not mechanical aspects or interactions. Also, we've got Fatal push, K-Command, CoCo, and whole lot of stuff that wasn't around four years ago. Honestly, I'd rather see something unbanned, watch what happens, and then just ban it than bother with hypotheticals. Not throwing any fire your way with this, just sometimes it pays to take a risk.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!