To be fair there are very few decks in modern that aren't running white. Twin can run white but its better imo when it doesn't (plus it doesn't have a terrible mu vs burn). Affinity can use white mana but already has a good burn mu. Scapeshift is the only t1 deck I'm aware of that doesn't run white and is a dog to burn.
Other than delver, which leads me to this conclusion: those who are concerned only about burn here are delver players, those concerned about burn and delver are BG players. And BG players merely have some thinking or waiting to do, depending on your level of creativity. In the meantime I'll keep casting DTT. Card's awesome.
Edit: in conclusion, play a white deck, twin or affinity. Or lose to burn. (Or brew)
In fact, there are much more non-white decks than you think in Modern.
Jund, Twin, RG TRon, U Tron, Fish, Affinity, Infect, Living End, Scapeshift, Glass Cannon Vengeance, Faeries, Delver, Blue Moon
Allow me to explain simply why Treasure Cruise is broken
Ascendancy Storm decks can cast Ancestral Recall on turn 3-4, drawing into more cantrips to fill up the graveyard, drawing more ancestral recalls to keep the process going infinitely until they grapeshot you or kill you with a 30/31 birds of paradise
You might claim that Ascendancy Storm decks are powerful enough in Modern. But it does not imply that Treasure Cruise itself is broken.
Treasure Cruise is just one piece of the Ascendancy Storm combo.
I think Treasure Cruise is not as broken as snapcaster in Modern.
None of those cards you listed are legacy staples. They are combo pieces in very specific decks. That would be like saying Farseek is a staple of the modern format because it sees play in Scapeshift. Cruise will definitely see a lot of play in legacy (and modern). Go try it out if you don't believe it. You don't have to force bad cards like mental note or hedron crab into decks, or remove good cards like Deathrite or Snapcaster, to make it work. Its good in just normal decks that are already casting good spells and cracking fetchlands.
My friend, I am confused by your statement.
You said that staples means that those cards are generic and can be easily put into several kinds of decks. Correct?
According to your definition, {Omniscience, Entreat the Angels, Bridge from Below} are not staples, but only combo pieces in very specific decks.
Then how can you define that {Young Pyromancer,Delver of Secrets} are staples but not combo pieces in MODERN?
To me, both Young Pyromancer and Delver of Secrets need a specific deck building in order to make them work.
Furthermore, {Thought Scour, Gitaxian Probe} and {Farseek} you listed are not staples in MODERN either, by your definition.
Not all blue Tier 1,2 decks in MODERN running {Thought Scour, Gitaxian Probe}. Only very few Tier 1,2 green decks in MODERN running {Farseek}
I am not sure what the confusion is. If it is a niche card that basically just in 1 deck its not a staple, you listed a bunch of niche cards. If it's card that is frequently used in many popular decks it is a staple (it holds the format together). Pyromancer and Delver of secrets are not a modern staples, they are basically only played in UR burn as far as I can tell. Delver is obviously a staple in legacy, it is an essential card to at least 6 different tempo decks. Pyromancer basically just sees play in UR and BURg in legacy. Hes a good card, but I wouldn't really say hes a staple.
Staples are the stuff that are used in many different decks: brainstorm, green sun's zenith, wasteland, stoneforge mystic, Swords to plowshares, lightning bolt, lion's eye diamond, cabal therapy, sensei's divining top, hymn to tourach, and soon treasure cruise.
Not staples are the stuff that only really is used in one deck: terminus, infernal tutor, sneak attack, tombstalker, veteran explorer, etc.
Please go back to #280, which is source of my original reply.
"...Thought Scour, Gitaxian Probe, Young Pyromancer, Lightning Bolt, Delver of Secrets are all modern legal already"
He lists a lots of cards as staples in both Legacy and Modern. I just raise a question about his argument.
None of those cards you listed are legacy staples. They are combo pieces in very specific decks. That would be like saying Farseek is a staple of the modern format because it sees play in Scapeshift. Cruise will definitely see a lot of play in legacy (and modern). Go try it out if you don't believe it. You don't have to force bad cards like mental note or hedron crab into decks, or remove good cards like Deathrite or Snapcaster, to make it work. Its good in just normal decks that are already casting good spells and cracking fetchlands.
My friend, I am confused by your statement.
You said that staples means that those cards are generic and can be easily put into several kinds of decks. Correct?
According to your definition, {Omniscience, Entreat the Angels, Bridge from Below} are not staples, but only combo pieces in very specific decks.
Then how can you define that {Young Pyromancer,Delver of Secrets} are staples but not combo pieces in MODERN?
To me, both Young Pyromancer and Delver of Secrets need a specific deck building in order to make them work.
Furthermore, {Thought Scour, Gitaxian Probe} and {Farseek} you listed are not staples in MODERN either, by your definition.
Not all blue Tier 1,2 decks in MODERN running {Thought Scour, Gitaxian Probe}. Only very few Tier 1,2 green decks in MODERN running {Farseek}
Yet none of the cards you mentioned aside from some Clique, see play in legacy. Treasure Cruise will be a legacy staple.
It is only a matter of time until it becomes a modern staple if that time is not already upon us anyway since Thought Scour, Gitaxian Probe, Young Pyromancer, Lightning Bolt, Delver of Secrets are all modern legal already.
Your point is not always true. Legacy staple does not necessary to be modern staple. The META, the card pool, and the ban list are totally different.
I can show you some examples:
Omniscience, Entreat the Angels, Bridge from Below.
After seeing the spoilers so far I started to think that they added fetchlands in the last minute after figuring entire set is crap, and full of overcosted cards that don't do anything.
Starting to look that way. I think all the power might be in the uncommons. The one charm we've seen spoiled is quite powerful and the other 4 are being closely guarded.
I agree. It looks like a good limited set, but it doesn't seem to shake up standard or modern much.
I agree the current cards spoiled may not shake the Modern much, except for the fetch lands. However, it will shake the Standard for sure, since KTK comes with the rotation of Standard.
I know this will probably get a ton of hate but I really want to voice my opinion on the subject of Tarmogoyf.
I think its fine where it is price wise and availability wise. Of the 15 people I usually play magic with, 14 of us don't own Goyfs. But every single one of us would totally play them in decks if we had them. For us, its not about the price. Most of us can afford them but we choose not to spend that amount. Now, my playgroup is a mix of both casual players and a few who go to PTQ's and GPT's at EVERY chance they get. Now, assume most play groups know about the Modern format and the price Goyf is at. If, suddenly, every player obtained a set then what is going to stop them from trying to play it in every deck or effectively reduce the meta/format to X Deck with 4 Goyf in the main. Hell, if I had them id run them in Pod even if it doesn't seem like a good idea, they are ******* Tarmogoyfs!
I do think that people should have access to cards and cheap cards are always cool but I feel if Goyfs were easier to get then it would be bad for the format.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting that the price/availability of cards should be used to balance the game? This seems like a bad idea. Let me see if I follow your logic.
1) You assert that if everyone had access to as many Goyfs as they'd like for dirt cheap, everyone would use Goyfs without question.
2) The game is more fun when there is a more diverse meta so everyone running 4x Goyfs in every deck wouldn't be fun.
3) The fact that Goyf is rare/expensive keeps your meta from devolving into Goyf all day every day.
So, if Goyf is so powerful that everyone would use it given the opportunity but not everyone can afford it then it's difficulty to obtain seems like a bandaid solution to a larger issue of balance. Powerful enough to warp a meta and practically be an auto include in every deck that could possibly support it BUT only available to those willing to shell out around $800 for a playset? Reeks of "pay to win" to me and general poor game design.
The above logic hinges on the notion that Goyf is powerful enough that everyone would in fact use a playset of it if they had it, always. At the highest levels of play that doesn't seem to be the case thankfully. My point is that balancing through rarity/cost in a constructed environment almost always flies too close to "pay to win" and is detrimental to balance and the health of the game.
You hit the nail on the head there. I just asked 3 of my closest friends who all go to Modern FNM's with me weekly.
M: Plays Fish.
B: Plays Pod.
J: Played Hatebears.
Them, myself included, all agreed if we all had access to cheaper Goyfs we would play them in our decks or make new deck to accommodate the newly acquired Goyf. Obviously this isn't enough proof to show that it would actually warp the meta and be bad for the format as a whole, but if you can honestly say you wouldn't play your Goyfs if you had them is a damn lie.
I bought a playset of Goyfs when MMA was released. However, I have never played them and they sit in my card binder for more than a year. I have several other good Modern decks to play with, and I do not need to build a BGx. My point is, you do not need to own Goyfs in order to enjoy Modern. There are so many other T1, T2 Modern decks that are worth playing. And each deck will take you a while if you want to master it.
I completely agree. And everyone needs to keep the development cycle in mind. This product was probably being put together around the time Modern Masters was launched. Last summer Remand was ~$5. Cryptic command dropped below $20, and Clique hit $30 with Modern Masters. Bitterblossom was down to close to $10 last summer. There has been a huge run on modern staples as supply is drying up for all the new Modern/Alt Format demand.
There was also a lot of complaining about certain cards being left out of Modern Masters, but we are now see some of them trickle out as they had bigger plans. This modern event deck, the next dual deck, and the next couple blocks were all in development ready to accept reprints. The big missing items that I remember were:
1. Thoughtsieze - Created the biggest fuss, but Wizards put it in Theros to actually get enough copies out to satisfy demand.
2. Mutavault - Another miss in Modern Masters, but it is the core set and commands $35, another good move wizards
3. Remand - Price tripled not being in Modern masters, I really don't see them wanting this is standard ever, a great fit for the J vs V
4. Fetches - People were disappointed they were not in modern masters but there was not enough product for a reprint here to be useful, I expect somewhere bigger, core or fall set at least for this.
5. Daybreak Coronet - Knowing an enchantment block was coming I assumed the were holding it for Theros block. I still expect it for JiN but it might be too powerful with Ethereal Armor and company.
6. Noble Hierarch - Having just done exalted in a core set this card is the most likely for a FTV, Event deck, Commander or something. I expect it any time and a Pod deck with this is my number two guess for the event deck after faeries.
* Bitterblossom - banned at the time of Modern Masters but they probably knew the Unban was coming, and they probably knew they would have to reprint it to keep it from getting too insane. Maybe they will wait until they are sure they don't need a reban, but this has to be coming, and it be coming to standard.
Last summer when Modern Masters was launched, Remand was $10, Cryptic command was just above $20, Clique was between $35 to $40. I am sure for the price because I got these cards at that time from eBay.
The way for WOTC to solve the price issue is:
Set up the target price for certain popular staple considering the 2nd market price. For example, Tarmogoyf: $80. Let people be able to buy it directly from WOTC.
Therefore, the 2nd market price is guaranteed not to exceed $80 forever. This is much easier for WOTC to control the 2nd market price without doing any reprint via a product (set, precon, etc).
This is interesting. This whole debate and the list itself. I sure wish I hadn't listened to the all those people(nearly every competitive player at my LGS) who said bitterblossom would never be unbanned. I'd have grabbed a play set a while ago. Oh well. I always thought it was a strong card, but not as strong as people let on about. We shall see how this shakes things up. Personally I have a deck that I loved in mirrodin/innistrad that bitterblossom will go quite well that I'll love to rebuild in modern if I can actually get some of them.
I always found Wild Nacatl's banning to be interesting. I sort of understood their reasoning, and hated seeing it pop up on the other side of the table, but I still wasn't sure it was all together necessary. Glad it's off the ban list. I always enjoyed the card and now that I actually have an interest in modern, I might get to play it.
Now the big one. Deathrite Shaman is an amazing card. People have listed its merits over and over again throughout this thread and so many people don't think it needs to be banned. Just because something isn't necessary doesn't mean it's not also a good thing though. Here's why I think banning DRS, while unnecessary may still be a good thing. I am by no means an experienced modern player and I always homebrew. If someone else made it, I have little interest in playing it unless it looks like a tremendous amount of fun. I have a good friend though who is experienced, has brewed his own very good decks and has done well in various tournaments. So whenever I make a new deck idea, I come to him for opinions and advice. He asks the following alot: What does your new deck have over deck X, deck Y, deck Z? Why use this card in your deck instead of card A, card B, card C? What does your deck do against strategy M, threat N, card O? (By the way, those are always good things to consider when making a new deck in any format.) Whenever DRS is brought up (or a deck that he is strong in) I rarely have an answer. Usually, I kill it, or it beats me. If the DRS can fit in my deck, then it's probably in it because there is no reason to not include him. Even if I'm in mono black or mono green I can play 4 shocklands and use fetchlands for both mana fixing and deck thinning. The fact is, he is so good that there is almost no reason not to use him.
So what does that mean? Even if you have a bunch of cards that do similar things at the one, or even two, drop slot you will use him instead because he's that good. You may use a couple copies of the other cards to add to deck consistency, but you have to have diversity too so you'll only use a couple of the other cards. What that means is that DRS is pushing a lot of other cards(current and future) out of decks because he is just better. That will always happen eventually with power creep, but the degree that he does it now, by himself it's a little stifling. So should he have been banned? Eh. Is his banning going to be a good thing in the long run. I think, probably. Is that the reason wizards gave? Not really, but maybe that was part of their thinking process. (Just trying to give them a little benefit of the doubt since I spend so much of my spare cash on their game.)
As for the people who are saying this move gives them no confidence in the format and are worried about making a strong deck because then it will get banned, there's nothing wrong with feeling that way. I think that may be a bit drastic of a response, though. Here's the thing: If any deck becomes stifling to the environment so that it's the vast majority of tournament results, something is going to happen to that deck. Period. This is true of Modern, legacy, and even standard. So if you create a powerful deck, so good that it's winning all the time, expect to get a banning. Were DRS decks doing that? Not really, but he was so consistent and good that he was pushing cards and even other decks out of the format with too much ease. This is probably more of a pre-emptive move than anything.
We'll see how this shakes up the format from here. Hopefully it will be a good thing. Or it will turn out that it was the wrong move and in April he'll be back. Everyone needs a vacation
I appreciate your argument. I wish this DRS ban will make Modern better than before.
The LB argument is a valid response when looking at top 8s amd dominating a meta. But at the end of the day, no one can actually argue that they are on the same power level. Lightning bolt does 2 things (helps win game/removes creature), and can only do so once. Deathrite has 4 abilities that can be used repeatedly over the game, and it can't be removed at tempo parity other than Bolt. Had it even just been a 1/1 it may have been fine as something like Darkblast could have been used. If it didn't have the black ability it would also probably be fine as you wouldn't be required to remove it or die. It's the combination of all of that which makes it too good for Modern. There just aren't enough ways to remove it without putting yourself further behind in a game. It had to go for the format to grow.
Actually, I can accept the result that DRS is banned. My other GY based decks can work better. I just cannot accept the reason that DRS is banned. There is no way I can interpret this banning decision from the past ban list. If there is no logic behind, this gives me an uncertainty which powerful card is going to be banned next?
Basically what I want to say has been addressed by these two people: Koopa, and eflin
This is such a non-sense banning decision on DRS, because of the following reason stated by WOTC:
"Deathrite Shaman, however, is powerful at all stages of the game. Having a strong attrition-based deck as a large portion of the metagame makes it difficult for decks that are based on synergies between cards instead of individually powerful cards. We believe that removing Deathrite Shaman from the format will leave more room for future innovation. "
Non of the previous banning decision is based on the power of the staple card itself. They all belong to certain categories: such of breaking the turn-4 rule, make a big contribution on the dominant deck in the META (reduce the deck diversity), time-consuming issue.
DRS does not fit into any of those categories, but banned due to the stupid reason : "leave more room for future innovation"?
There is no logic behind...
The logic is right there, you just refuse to see it. Let me formalize the argument for you:
1) Wizards bans cards in modern based on the stated reason, among others, of (quoting you) "make a big contribution on the dominant deck in the META (reduce the deck diversity)"
2) Wizards believes Deathrite Shaman reduces format diversity by hating on synergy-based decks (quoting Wizards)
3) More synergy-based decks in addition to preexisting decks based on individually powerful cards increases format diversity (self-evident)
Conclusion) Deathrite Shaman should be banned in modern (from 1, 2, 3)
Now, the argument is logically valid, so if you disagree with the ban it means that you disagree with one of more of the premises, which is totally fine and up for debate. But your other point about "no other banning decision is based on the power of the staple card itself" is laughably false. Look at Mental Misstep, Skullclamp, Jace, Jitte, or Green Sun's Zenith. All of those cards support multiple distinct archetypes or deck types, don't break the turn 4 or time constraints rule, and yet they are banned because wizards believes they are too powerful on their own. Those cards might enable a variety of decks if they were legal, so it's not even the "deck diversity" argument, it's that these cards are believed to be powerful enough to have a centralizing presence no matter how many decks are viable. And DRS definitely falls into the same category.
Sorry I do not get your point. How Deathrite Shaman reduces format diversity by hating on synergy-based decks?
Can you give an example for that statement?
Regarding the point of banning Mental Misstep, Skullclamp, Jace, Jitte, or Green Sun's Zenith, those cards (except for GSE) has demonstrated their capability of dominate other format (standard, extend, legacy), thus they are banned at very beginning of the Modern. Well, it is arguable if those cards will also dominate Modern as they did in other format (and then deserve a ban). But how it implies to the Deathrite Shaman case? Does Deathrite Shaman demonstrate any capability of dominate ANY format?
DRS has dominated the Modern format. Half of the moat recent GPS top 8 was populated by DRS. 4 GPs ago 7 of the 8 decks ran 4 DRS. Only 1 of the last 4 GPs has not been dominated by DRS. It has proven the ability to dominate a format. The fact that it will still be one of the top 2 or 3 creatures (TNN and Stoneforge being the others, also not legal in Modern) in Legacy only helps prove that it is too powerful for Modern.
Comparing Deathrite Shaman (DRS) with Lightning Bolt, the amount of the cards shown in the past 4 Modern GP, top-8 deck:
Grand Prix Prague
DRS:
4x4=16
Lightning Bolt:
6x4=25
Grand Prix Antwerp
DRS:
1x4=4
Lightning Bolt:
3x4=12
Grand Prix Detroit
DRS:
(1x3)+(6x4)=27
Lightning Bolt:
4x4=26
Grand Prix Kansas City
DRS:
2x3=5
Lightning Bolt:
(1x3)+(2x4)=11
------------------------
How can you conlcude that DRS has dominated the META? Just becasue of the GP Detroit?
Besdies, doesn't Lightning Bolt more dominate the META than DRS, by comparing the amount of cards shown in the deck lists? Should we also ban Lightning Bolt as well?
Does Lightning Bolt stick around once you played it and ramps you, fixes your mana, gains you life and damages your opponent and being conveniently graveyard hate all at the same time?
These two cards are used for different purpose. Why a card can do the things you listed deserve a ban?
But another card with the same mana cost that shut up so many creatures with toughness less than 4 dose not deserve a ban?
This is my question.
I am not saying that that card is NOT powerful. I just cannot realize why a powerful card that does not dominate the META, does not break the turn-4 rule, does not give a time-consuming issue has to be banned.
Basically what I want to say has been addressed by these two people: Koopa, and eflin
This is such a non-sense banning decision on DRS, because of the following reason stated by WOTC:
"Deathrite Shaman, however, is powerful at all stages of the game. Having a strong attrition-based deck as a large portion of the metagame makes it difficult for decks that are based on synergies between cards instead of individually powerful cards. We believe that removing Deathrite Shaman from the format will leave more room for future innovation. "
Non of the previous banning decision is based on the power of the staple card itself. They all belong to certain categories: such of breaking the turn-4 rule, make a big contribution on the dominant deck in the META (reduce the deck diversity), time-consuming issue.
DRS does not fit into any of those categories, but banned due to the stupid reason : "leave more room for future innovation"?
There is no logic behind...
The logic is right there, you just refuse to see it. Let me formalize the argument for you:
1) Wizards bans cards in modern based on the stated reason, among others, of (quoting you) "make a big contribution on the dominant deck in the META (reduce the deck diversity)"
2) Wizards believes Deathrite Shaman reduces format diversity by hating on synergy-based decks (quoting Wizards)
3) More synergy-based decks in addition to preexisting decks based on individually powerful cards increases format diversity (self-evident)
Conclusion) Deathrite Shaman should be banned in modern (from 1, 2, 3)
Now, the argument is logically valid, so if you disagree with the ban it means that you disagree with one of more of the premises, which is totally fine and up for debate. But your other point about "no other banning decision is based on the power of the staple card itself" is laughably false. Look at Mental Misstep, Skullclamp, Jace, Jitte, or Green Sun's Zenith. All of those cards support multiple distinct archetypes or deck types, don't break the turn 4 or time constraints rule, and yet they are banned because wizards believes they are too powerful on their own. Those cards might enable a variety of decks if they were legal, so it's not even the "deck diversity" argument, it's that these cards are believed to be powerful enough to have a centralizing presence no matter how many decks are viable. And DRS definitely falls into the same category.
Sorry I do not get your point. How Deathrite Shaman reduces format diversity by hating on synergy-based decks?
Can you give an example for that statement?
Regarding the point of banning Mental Misstep, Skullclamp, Jace, Jitte, or Green Sun's Zenith, those cards (except for GSE) has demonstrated their capability of dominate other format (standard, extend, legacy), thus they are banned at very beginning of the Modern. Well, it is arguable if those cards will also dominate Modern as they did in other format (and then deserve a ban). But how it implies to the Deathrite Shaman case? Does Deathrite Shaman demonstrate any capability of dominate ANY format?
DRS has dominated the Modern format. Half of the moat recent GPS top 8 was populated by DRS. 4 GPs ago 7 of the 8 decks ran 4 DRS. Only 1 of the last 4 GPs has not been dominated by DRS. It has proven the ability to dominate a format. The fact that it will still be one of the top 2 or 3 creatures (TNN and Stoneforge being the others, also not legal in Modern) in Legacy only helps prove that it is too powerful for Modern.
Comparing Deathrite Shaman (DRS) with Lightning Bolt, the amount of the cards shown in the past 4 Modern GP, top-8 deck:
Grand Prix Prague
DRS:
4x4=16
Lightning Bolt:
6x4=25
Grand Prix Antwerp
DRS:
1x4=4
Lightning Bolt:
3x4=12
Grand Prix Detroit
DRS:
(1x3)+(6x4)=27
Lightning Bolt:
4x4=26
Grand Prix Kansas City
DRS:
2x3=5
Lightning Bolt:
(1x3)+(2x4)=11
------------------------
How can you conlcude that DRS has dominated the META? Just becasue of the GP Detroit?
Besdies, doesn't Lightning Bolt more dominate the META than DRS, by comparing the amount of cards shown in the deck lists? Should we also ban Lightning Bolt as well?
Basically what I want to say has been addressed by these two people: Koopa, and eflin
This is such a non-sense banning decision on DRS, because of the following reason stated by WOTC:
"Deathrite Shaman, however, is powerful at all stages of the game. Having a strong attrition-based deck as a large portion of the metagame makes it difficult for decks that are based on synergies between cards instead of individually powerful cards. We believe that removing Deathrite Shaman from the format will leave more room for future innovation. "
Non of the previous banning decision is based on the power of the staple card itself. They all belong to certain categories: such of breaking the turn-4 rule, make a big contribution on the dominant deck in the META (reduce the deck diversity), time-consuming issue.
DRS does not fit into any of those categories, but banned due to the stupid reason : "leave more room for future innovation"?
There is no logic behind...
The logic is right there, you just refuse to see it. Let me formalize the argument for you:
1) Wizards bans cards in modern based on the stated reason, among others, of (quoting you) "make a big contribution on the dominant deck in the META (reduce the deck diversity)"
2) Wizards believes Deathrite Shaman reduces format diversity by hating on synergy-based decks (quoting Wizards)
3) More synergy-based decks in addition to preexisting decks based on individually powerful cards increases format diversity (self-evident)
Conclusion) Deathrite Shaman should be banned in modern (from 1, 2, 3)
Now, the argument is logically valid, so if you disagree with the ban it means that you disagree with one of more of the premises, which is totally fine and up for debate. But your other point about "no other banning decision is based on the power of the staple card itself" is laughably false. Look at Mental Misstep, Skullclamp, Jace, Jitte, or Green Sun's Zenith. All of those cards support multiple distinct archetypes or deck types, don't break the turn 4 or time constraints rule, and yet they are banned because wizards believes they are too powerful on their own. Those cards might enable a variety of decks if they were legal, so it's not even the "deck diversity" argument, it's that these cards are believed to be powerful enough to have a centralizing presence no matter how many decks are viable. And DRS definitely falls into the same category.
Sorry I do not get your point. How Deathrite Shaman reduces format diversity by hating on synergy-based decks?
Can you give an example for that statement?
Regarding the point of banning Mental Misstep, Skullclamp, Jace, Jitte, or Green Sun's Zenith, those cards (except for GSE) has demonstrated their capability of dominate other format (standard, extend, legacy), thus they are banned at very beginning of the Modern. Well, it is arguable if those cards will also dominate Modern as they did in other format (and then deserve a ban). But how it implies to the Deathrite Shaman case? Does Deathrite Shaman demonstrate any capability of dominate ANY format?
In fact, there are much more non-white decks than you think in Modern.
Jund, Twin, RG TRon, U Tron, Fish, Affinity, Infect, Living End, Scapeshift, Glass Cannon Vengeance, Faeries, Delver, Blue Moon
You might claim that Ascendancy Storm decks are powerful enough in Modern. But it does not imply that Treasure Cruise itself is broken.
Treasure Cruise is just one piece of the Ascendancy Storm combo.
I think Treasure Cruise is not as broken as snapcaster in Modern.
Please go back to #280, which is source of my original reply.
"...Thought Scour, Gitaxian Probe, Young Pyromancer, Lightning Bolt, Delver of Secrets are all modern legal already"
He lists a lots of cards as staples in both Legacy and Modern. I just raise a question about his argument.
My friend, I am confused by your statement.
You said that staples means that those cards are generic and can be easily put into several kinds of decks. Correct?
According to your definition, {Omniscience, Entreat the Angels, Bridge from Below} are not staples, but only combo pieces in very specific decks.
Then how can you define that {Young Pyromancer,Delver of Secrets} are staples but not combo pieces in MODERN?
To me, both Young Pyromancer and Delver of Secrets need a specific deck building in order to make them work.
Furthermore, {Thought Scour, Gitaxian Probe} and {Farseek} you listed are not staples in MODERN either, by your definition.
Not all blue Tier 1,2 decks in MODERN running {Thought Scour, Gitaxian Probe}. Only very few Tier 1,2 green decks in MODERN running {Farseek}
Your point is not always true. Legacy staple does not necessary to be modern staple. The META, the card pool, and the ban list are totally different.
I can show you some examples:
Omniscience, Entreat the Angels, Bridge from Below.
I agree the current cards spoiled may not shake the Modern much, except for the fetch lands. However, it will shake the Standard for sure, since KTK comes with the rotation of Standard.
I bought a playset of Goyfs when MMA was released. However, I have never played them and they sit in my card binder for more than a year. I have several other good Modern decks to play with, and I do not need to build a BGx. My point is, you do not need to own Goyfs in order to enjoy Modern. There are so many other T1, T2 Modern decks that are worth playing. And each deck will take you a while if you want to master it.
Last summer when Modern Masters was launched, Remand was $10, Cryptic command was just above $20, Clique was between $35 to $40. I am sure for the price because I got these cards at that time from eBay.
I have no idea where you get the price...
Set up the target price for certain popular staple considering the 2nd market price. For example, Tarmogoyf: $80.
Let people be able to buy it directly from WOTC.
Therefore, the 2nd market price is guaranteed not to exceed $80 forever. This is much easier for WOTC to control the 2nd market price without doing any reprint via a product (set, precon, etc).
I appreciate your argument. I wish this DRS ban will make Modern better than before.
Actually, I can accept the result that DRS is banned. My other GY based decks can work better. I just cannot accept the reason that DRS is banned. There is no way I can interpret this banning decision from the past ban list. If there is no logic behind, this gives me an uncertainty which powerful card is going to be banned next?
That's all what I want to say...
These two cards are used for different purpose. Why a card can do the things you listed deserve a ban?
But another card with the same mana cost that shut up so many creatures with toughness less than 4 dose not deserve a ban?
This is my question.
I am not saying that that card is NOT powerful. I just cannot realize why a powerful card that does not dominate the META, does not break the turn-4 rule, does not give a time-consuming issue has to be banned.
Comparing Deathrite Shaman (DRS) with Lightning Bolt, the amount of the cards shown in the past 4 Modern GP, top-8 deck:
Grand Prix Prague
DRS:
4x4=16
Lightning Bolt:
6x4=25
Grand Prix Antwerp
DRS:
1x4=4
Lightning Bolt:
3x4=12
Grand Prix Detroit
DRS:
(1x3)+(6x4)=27
Lightning Bolt:
4x4=26
Grand Prix Kansas City
DRS:
2x3=5
Lightning Bolt:
(1x3)+(2x4)=11
------------------------
How can you conlcude that DRS has dominated the META? Just becasue of the GP Detroit?
Besdies, doesn't Lightning Bolt more dominate the META than DRS, by comparing the amount of cards shown in the deck lists? Should we also ban Lightning Bolt as well?
Sorry I do not get your point. How Deathrite Shaman reduces format diversity by hating on synergy-based decks?
Can you give an example for that statement?
Regarding the point of banning Mental Misstep, Skullclamp, Jace, Jitte, or Green Sun's Zenith, those cards (except for GSE) has demonstrated their capability of dominate other format (standard, extend, legacy), thus they are banned at very beginning of the Modern. Well, it is arguable if those cards will also dominate Modern as they did in other format (and then deserve a ban). But how it implies to the Deathrite Shaman case? Does Deathrite Shaman demonstrate any capability of dominate ANY format?