• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Next
  • 3

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, reprints, new cards, and more!
    Quote from Shmanka »
    The problem I have with everyone listing "Here are the criteria" is that each and everytime we do this, Wizards releases something new and different. It's never been the same criteria, they just make new criteria with each and every ban. Not only does this compound the level of mass confusion, but it detriments me from suggesting Modern as a format to a player who is interested. I can't ever be confident in my explanation of the parameters.

    I don't agree. Probe and Bloom were banned for a known criterion. So was Eye. Twin was also banned for being a diversity violator; we just measured the metagame differently than Wizards did to determine bans. The only new criterion was GGT's "sideboard battle" rationale, which wasn't really new so much as it was a return to the pre-PT Philly criterion that got GGT banned in the first place.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 1

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, reprints, new cards, and more!
    Quote from gkourou »

    IMO, this is the mistake you are making more often than not, @KT. I hope you understood your mistake with the Splinter Twin banning, but IMO you did not. Don't get me wrong, I used to do the same mistake as you. You did have Splinter Twin ban during December 2015 but it was one of the last ones and it was reading:

    Wizards clearly explained why the card got banned. Probe was banned because it "increased the number of third-turn kills in a few ways." That's it. Anything beyond that is conjecture and speculation on your side without any Wizards backing. I'm totally willing to consider alternate explanations, and if you have any formal Wizards citations you want to bring in I'd love to see them.

    I don't know why you are saying I didn't learn from the Twin ban. It's off-base and not really on topic. Up until the Twin ban, most people (myself included) thought that cards really only got banned for being metagame diversity violators, T4 rule violators, or causing logistical problems. We were wrong and learned. After the Twin ban, and now after the GGT ban, we've added more criteria: Wizards' threshold for metagame diversity violators is different than we thought, decks shouldn't supplant similar decks, the format shouldn't become a sideboard battle, and decks that don't have bad matchups are problematic. This doesn't mean the system I was working from is wrong. It means it was incomplete and now it is more complete.

    In the case of the Probe ban, Wizards gave a reason it was banned. Until Wizards says otherwise, or until we can find persuasive evidence to suggest they (un)intentionally omitted a reason for its banning, that is the explanation we must go with.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, reprints, new cards, and more!
    Quote from gkourou »
    According to Wizards, Probe decks broke the rule of being BY FAR the best choice when someone wanted to WIN a major event. When a deck is the BEST BY FAR(with Dredge) choice to help you win a major event, this deck will get banned.

    That seems like a misreading of their explanation:
    http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/january-9-2017-banned-and-restricted-announcement-2017-01-09
    Quote from Wizards »
    Gitaxian Probe increased the number of third-turn kills in a few ways, but particularly by giving perfect information (and a card) to decks that often have to make strategic decisions about going "all-in." This hurt the ability of reactive decks to effectively bluff or for the aggressive deck to miss-sequence their turn. Ultimately, the card did too much for too little cost.

    It's pretty clear it was banned because it "increased the number of third-turn kills in a few ways," not because it was "BY FAR the best choice when someone wanted to WIN a major event." There are a lot of jumps you have to make to get from the Wizards quote to your interpretation. That's particularly problematic because they don't even talk about Infect, Bloo, or DSZ being best decks. It's just about fast decks winning on T3. so I think we should just stick with the given reason: "Gitaxian Probe increased the number of third-turn kills in a few ways."

    Cards are banned because they are in the best deck, but not every ban boils down to a "best deck" ban. This was not one such ban.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, reprints, new cards, and more!
    Quote from h0lydiva »
    But that's not the case for the Probe decks. They all had bad matchups.

    According to Wizards, Probe decks broke this rule:
    http://magic.wizards.com/en/events/coverage/ptsoi/where-modern-goes-from-here-2016-04-24
    Not be dominated by fast, non-interactive decks (consistent kills before turn four are a red flag)

    We might disagree that this was the case with the Probe decks, but we have much less data than they do. Because of that, any challenge to Wizards' data has a high burden of evidence, and I at least still haven't seen anything that meets that bar. Otherwise, the ban made sense with their format vision.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, reprints, new cards, and more!
    I'm not sure where all this speculation about ban criteria is coming from. As far as I'm concerned, Wizards only has one current vision statement for Modern:
    http://magic.wizards.com/en/events/coverage/ptsoi/where-modern-goes-from-here-2016-04-24

    Here, Forsythe explains Modern's nine qualities. According to him, "Modern should..."

    1. Be a fun way to play Magic (first, and easy to forget, but very important!)
    2. Let you tap into your collection to expand upon established decks and familiar strategies from Magic's recent past
    3. Offer different types of decks and gameplay than what you typically see in Standard
    4. Not rotate, allowing you to keep a deck for a long period of time
    5. Consist of cards that we are willing and able to reprint
    6. Have a diverse top-tier metagame featuring over a dozen archetypes
    7. Not be dominated by fast, non-interactive decks (consistent kills before turn four are a red flag)
    8. Be at a power level that allows some newly printed Standard cards to affect the format (we don't have other ways to introduce cards into the format, and we like it when cards or decks can transition)
    9. Have as small a banned list as possible that accomplishes all the previous goals
    That's it! Everything beyond that, including discussion of "Tier 1" vs. "Tier 0.x" is all speculation and our attempts at filling in Wizards gaps.

    I'll also add that R&D cares a lot about matchup data from MTGO Leagues. Stoddard discussed this in his recent banning article and talked about it extensively on Twitter. See some quotes below:

    http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/latest-developments/standard-2017-01-13
    Quote from Sam Stoddard »
    If there is one deck with no bad matchups, everyone will just trend toward either playing that deck or not playing.

    Quote from Sam Stoddard »
    When we looked at the Magic Online metagame data from Competitive Leagues, it was clear that White-Blue Flash was the strongest deck in Standard; it only had one bad matchup to a tier 2 deck (Black-Red Vampires), which it was only a one-percent underdog to.

    Quote from Sam Stoddard »
    Now, Flash didn't dominate everything, but it didn't have anything else that was a losing matchup.

    https://twitter.com/samstod/status/818541652004388864
    Quote from Sam Stoddard »
    UW Flash was the strongest deck in Standard, and by our data had only one sub-50% matchup - BR Aggro, which was 49%. #WOTCstaff

    https://twitter.com/samstod/status/819956388361170944
    Quote from Sam Stoddard »
    @BraunDuinIt we don't ignore paper events, but not really able to incorporate them into matchup win% data. #WOTCstaff

    In short, matchups and win-rate matters. It actually matters more than just the deck's dominance (see Reflector Mage) because Wizards wants to get ahead of a deck like this before it becomes a dominant deck.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, reprints, new cards, and more!
    Quote from cfusionpm »
    Quote from ktkenshinx »
    You've read this thread. The community has been totally ban-wacky since the announcement. Remember what ban mania is. It's when you make an issue about bans when there's no evidence to support that connection.

    This is the fault of Wizards, not the community. They could very well communicate their clear intentions and put the players' minds at ease. But instead they throw curve ball after curve ball, causing all of us to scramble and figure out what the heck is going on and what might happen next. It isn't so bad if all their actions line up based on similar criteria, so we can make relatively accurate and level-headed predictions. But when they appear to throw darts at a board for ban announcements, this is the kind of hysteria that results.

    Both the community and Wizards are to blame, and I indicated as much in a post on the last page. Wizards is at fault for opaque reasoning and poor communication around their frequent bans. The community is at fault because, instead of demanding better communication and challenging Wizards' management, they embrace bans as a solution and push the issue. I haven't crunched the numbers, but I'm confident the number of Modern articles in 2016 suggesting bans was an all-time high, especially across the major content providers. That attitude, although certainly started and sustained by Wizards, is also promoted by the community and is a problem for Modern's longevity.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, reprints, new cards, and more!
    Quote from gkourou »

    So, my post has to be a post filled with banmania just because I asked a legit question after pages and pages of banmania? I am sorry, but it's not my job to get down with the whole quality of this thread. We, users, are here just to comment on various topics and ask legit questions like:
    In what X% of the meta share does a deck becomes vulnerable to banning?Does Wizards have a X% on this? Or is it just intuitional?

    That is a very legitimate question. The ways you phrased the posts I initially replied to, however, were not framed in this manner.
    It's not like I am trying to argue about a Twin or Bloom unbanning. If you think those are questions a user should not be making and instead he should be talking about Fatal Push and other possible answers that are about to come after this user(me) having talked so much about it with legit arguments and our post were lost in Bloom's/Twin's noise, it's ok.
    Using guidelines as a user/moderator is a nice thing to be doing and I like it, when someone is completely out of topic("Bloom was not a T4 rule violator/Twin should come back"). But when someone is asking a legit question, that feels bad and unjustified. You can't set guidelines on users talking ONLY about the new, hot subject. Users are supposed to comment on everything they want.

    No one is setting guidelines. I'm pushing back against ban mania, which I've done since joining the forum and done in basically the same way. The questions you ask below are not even remotely ban mania. They are solid, reasonable, interesting points of discussion:
    In the end, my question has further implications:
    • Does BGx's rise mean Bloodbraid Elf is completely off limits as Tanukimo suggested?
    • What do we expect from the coming meta?
    • What do we want it to be, so it can be in a healthy state?

    Unfortunately, the post I initially responded to had none of those questions and only talked about "GODLY results" and asked about those results becoming a problem. The follow-up post then asked about ban pressure. That line of inquiry fits in ban mania, and I'll push back against it as I always have. These questions quoted above, however, are very good ones we should all be considering.
    Quote from rayo »
    I think a much more fruitful topic would be discussing the possible answers Wizards might bring to Standard and, by extension, Modern. Push was a good step, but what comes next?

    Does that mean we can propose cards Wizards should print to help modern here? There kind of is a thread for that already so I'm just asking to make sure. As long as the proposed cards are directly linked to modern format health it's ok I guess?

    It's totally in the thread's topic! See the green "allowed topics" in the first post.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on Modern Cheeri0s - Puresteel Equipment Storm
    Quote from jenncertainty »
    I'm a long time advocate-not-player of this deck and when Sram was spoiled, I knew it was finally time to buy into my favorite deck I don't actually play. The only thing holding me back is Mox Opal. I own one, but I don't think I want to drop the cash on three more just yet. Obviously it is far from ideal, but has anyone tried out Simian Spirit Guide? From my goldfishing, the red mana monkey seems to be an alright replacement for the Opal (especially having at least one Opal).

    SSG is problematic for a number of reasons. First, it doesn't cast Paladin at all. Second, it doesn't cast Retract at all. Third, it doesn't cast whatever cantrips or dig you are using at all. Finally, it's another do-nothing slot that only works if we already have a Sram (not Paladin) in hand plus the lands to naturally cast Retract. I don't want to build in more dead slots and mini synergies on top of a deck that already depends on drawing an engine plus combo pieces.

    Re: testing
    I finished my G1 Burn tests against the GP Indy winning list. I used a 7 cantrip Cheeri0s list with 14 lands, 20 equipment, and 1 NR. The end result was a 43% win-rate in G1 over 40 test games: 50% on the play, 35% on the draw. I'll run the G2-G3 matchups next to see how this can improve. Here's my current SB:



    In lieu of Leyline, I'm trying the "threat-heavy" approach to the BGx matchup. This imitates the BGx mirror strategy of boarding out some degree of discard and trying to go heavier on threats than one-for-one answers. I'm not sold on Grid yet but am also not testing a matchup where it will shine, so I'm leaving those slots as-is for now.

    For G2-G3, I'm going to board out my Sleights (3 slots) for the Paths. Eidolon is by far the biggest problem in Burn and I need an answer to it. I expect Burn to add in a little more removal to handle engines, so I'm also going to add Inventor over a NR.
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Modern)
  • 0

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, reprints, new cards, and more!
    Quote from gkourou »
    Quote from ktkenshinx »
    Quote from gkourou »
    Jund + Junk putting GODLY results in the recent MODO comp leagues. They are sitting in 7.3% + 7% meta share(=14.3%), and trending upwards. If. by any means, they reach 9+9 would they be in problem?

    PS: Of course I am not advocating any bans, just wanting opinions.

    This thread and Modern generally are totally gripped by ban mania. By ban fever at this point. Just a few pages back, GK you yourself wanted/predicted a ramp deck banning because all the fast aggro couldn't police it. Now its Jund and Abzan? We have people claiming Dredge is still totally broken, people claiming Bloo is still broken, and now people worrying about BGx's share. People need to calm down, take deep breaths, and get some perspective. I know Wizards is partially to blame for this with its incessant and opaque bannings, but we have to take responsibility and stay rational.

    Give the metagame time. Let's at least wait for a real tournament to start panicking about the bannability of these decks,

    I think a much more fruitful topic would be discussing the possible answers Wizards might bring to Standard and, by extension, Modern. Push was a good step, but what comes next?


    I did not advocate a Jund and Abzan ban. I specifically said " I am not advocating any bans, only wanting opinions ". I am not sure what else should I write to make myself clear on me don't wanting any bans. Hell, I even was OK with a "No bans" during previous weekend. Just asking from what % and onwards could the BGx feel the pressure. Will it be 10 + 10? 12 + 12?
    It's really sad that most things one can ask on this thread can be perceived as banmania posts, even if you clarify it's not for that...

    Next time I will try and clarify that I DONT WANT ANY BANS FOR THE REST OF THE YEAR twice!

    The thing is, when someone says they don't want any bans in a post-script sentence, but then talk about a deck's "GODLY results" in an earlier sentence and ask if it will soon be "a problem," AND they do that in the thread where ban talk has been happening nonstop for pages, of course it's perceived as part of the ban mania. What other way are we to interpret "a problem" in this context? You even confirm that connection in this recent post, asking "from what % and onwards could the BGx feel the pressure." Here, "the pressure" is clearly ban pressure, again underscoring a connection between a perception of BGx's current meta performance and fear of bans.

    You've read this thread. The community has been totally ban-wacky since the announcement. Remember what ban mania is. It's when you make an issue about bans when there's no evidence to support that connection. Accusing a deck of putting up "GODLY results" and asking about its potential to become "a problem" at this time is itself very problematic and is clearly linked to ban dialogue. So is asking "from what % and onwards could the BGx feel the pressure." We're one week out from the ban, less than a week into AER for paper events, and NOT into AER at all for MTGO events. Those "GODLY results" are curiosities at best and meaningless/misleading at worst.

    We need to back off this ban fear and allow the metagame to settle. We can certainly make informed predictions about where it will head in the first month or so, but immediately tying that to bans is a disservice to the community and the format.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 3

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, reprints, new cards, and more!
    Quote from gkourou »
    Jund + Junk putting GODLY results in the recent MODO comp leagues. They are sitting in 7.3% + 7% meta share(=14.3%), and trending upwards. If. by any means, they reach 9+9 would they be in problem?

    PS: Of course I am not advocating any bans, just wanting opinions.

    This thread and Modern generally are totally gripped by ban mania. By ban fever at this point. Just a few pages back, GK you yourself wanted/predicted a ramp deck banning because all the fast aggro couldn't police it. Now its Jund and Abzan? We have people claiming Dredge is still totally broken, people claiming Bloo is still broken, and now people worrying about BGx's share. People need to calm down, take deep breaths, and get some perspective. I know Wizards is partially to blame for this with its incessant and opaque bannings, but we have to take responsibility and stay rational.

    Give the metagame time. Let's at least wait for a real tournament to start panicking about the bannability of these decks,

    I think a much more fruitful topic would be discussing the possible answers Wizards might bring to Standard and, by extension, Modern. Push was a good step, but what comes next?
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on Modern Cheeri0s - Puresteel Equipment Storm
    Quote from Luke71 »
    Quote from ktkenshinx »

    Quote from Luke71 »
    Why isn't this deck even Developing Competitive? What problems does it have?

    The deck has basically zero results and DC is reserved for decks with a Tier 3 baseline of results. If we get there, we'll move up.
    Great answer... The question is: why doesn't the deck win?

    The deck was inconsistent and fragile with just 4 Paladins, so it was bad. Now that we've added 4 Sram, it's a totally new beast. AER wasn't even legal in Modern until this weekend, so there has been no time to see if the new 8 engine version has what it takes to succeed in competitive Modern. Time will tell! We'll just keep trying to optimize versions until we get something that works the best.
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Modern)
  • 0

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, reprints, new cards, and more!
    Quote from bizzycola »
    Quote from Billiondegree »
    I wonder if Wizards actually has unbans planned for March, or that announcement is solely for the purpose of banning the CopyCat combo out of standard if it proves too dominant in the weeks following the Pro Tour.

    I am guessing the latter, but we can still hope.


    I think the new B&R schedule is due to the fact that they planned on having a faster standard rotation and have been developing new sets with the cycle in mind and the new B&R schedule offset the rather abrupt and unexpected 180 against it. So now they don't have to go back and redesign sets which might have more powerful cards in them that where originally intended for the shorter lived standard cycle.

    Unless a real oppressive deck still remains intact(cough dredge cough) I expect no bans or unbans.

    Disagree that we won't see unbans, although it might take until April. If Modern's top-tier decks remain relatively similar to their current composition, Wizards will notice the prominent lack of top-tier reactive blue decks. This should lead them to consider unbannings which will help those decks, just like they did a year ago.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on Modern Cheeri0s - Puresteel Equipment Storm
    Quote from slax01 »

    Re: Stony silence:
    What I meant to say was that I don't see this as being a particularly bad (good?) hate card, i.e. not one that really hoses us. The equip-blocking makes bolt a smidge better, but is otherwise inconsequential, except in aggro builds. The mana block from mox is a bit of an issue, but doesn't really cause too many problems if you think about it: A T2 Stony Silence means they're tapped out- this means we drop a paladin and draw a bunch of cards. Even if we don't combo off, that can give us fuel and sculpt our hand to go off next turn, not necessarily a loss. Note also this means that they have to remove the paladin in their turn, reducing their T3 plays. If they T3 s.silence, holding up removal, that means we can T2 combo, but also means that they've slowed themselves down when they could've been doing something productive on T3- again, not necessarily a bad outcome. And if you consider that we have up to 3 or 4 lands to play with, this isn't a terrible outcome either. Now to go a step further, consider what boarding in Stony Silence means- what have they taken out? Did they mulligan to get it? both of these can be a positive for us as we die to simpler strategies than stony silence. Put another way: stony silence is among the hate cards that people can throw at us, but is almost certainly at the low-end of the hate list. Compare Eidolon or chalice, which simply shuts us down the moment it hits the board. In any event, I'm not telling people not to board in cards to take out stony silence, since it doesn't require a taxing sideboard (and since the paladin draw engine still works, so we have good odds of actually getting the silver bullet), just curious that so many people are throwing it up as a hate card.

    Silence is going to stop the combo on T2 in all cases. It will also stop the combo on T3 in most cases. Assuming three lands in play, you will need to hit a lethal storm count on just a single Retract; you'll need the other two mana to cast Grapeshot. This means you can't cast a second engine to dig deeper, can't cast any dig at all during the combo, and need a critical mass of equipment such that one Retract gets the job done. It also means if your Paladin died between T2 and T3, you can't combo out at all on T3 because you'll need all three mana for the engine and the Retract. Silence will also stop the combo on T4 if you need to cast an engine and try to combo out on the same turn (no mana for Grapeshot). That's pretty costly, especially because most of the decks playing Silence are running serious removal, countermagic, or a clock of their own.
    My testing was vs Jund (old builds, not sure what the new fatal push meta will look like, but probably even worse). Personally, I found jund unwinnable. Between discard and removal, there was no way to consistently win. Random wins? Sure, but consistent wins? None. Like 80-20 or some such nonsense. Burn was easily winnable with the right sideboard, although the matchup was much more borderline preboard in the pure cantrip version, I would say less than 50-50, but it depends on the opponent's list, as some burn is actually not necessarily that removal heavy.

    Jund feels like it will be rough, but I expect it to be no worse than 30-70 in G1 and 40-60 in G2/G3. Jund misses on removal more than people give it credit, and in G2/G3 we should be able to either address some of that removal with protection, or (my preferred route) flood them with threats.
    Quote from Luke71 »
    Why isn't this deck even Developing Competitive? What problems does it have?

    The deck has basically zero results and DC is reserved for decks with a Tier 3 baseline of results. If we get there, we'll move up.
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Modern)
  • 0

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, reprints, new cards, and more!
    Quote from bl4ckb1rd90 »
    Hello everybody Smile

    I just read the latest "Latest Developments" - article by Sam Stoddard and found it to be very interesting
    and despite talking mostly about standard, it addresses a lot of points the modern community regularly discusses too.

    To the mods: I'm not sure where to post this. It just seems too interesting to just post it in
    the "state of modern" - thread. If it's the wrong place I apologise and would ask you to just move it where it belongs Smile

    Link:
    http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/latest-developments/standard-2017-01-13

    Especially the topics of "lack of good answers" and "what to ban" seemed very relevant !

    This was discussed in the ban thread that was open for a week, and the discussion has now moved to the State of Modern thread. Merging this thread there.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 2

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, reprints, new cards, and more!
    Re: Cloudpost comparison to ramp decks
    As amalek0 suggested, it's off base. Here's the actual explanation from the announcement itself (emphasis added):
    http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/explanation-september-2011-br-changes-2011-09-20-0
    Cloudpost
    The threat of facing decks which could generate fifteen or more mana each turn starting on turn four kept a lot of different decks out of the tournament, greatly reducing the diversity. There are alternatives for people who wish to play mana-ramp decks, but they do not appear to be as crushing.

    12Post wasn't a T4 rule violator. 12Post wasn't even bad because it was a ramp deck. 12Post was problematic because it reduced diversity. This is not the case with Tron, which has never sustained more than a 6%-8% meta share for more than a month or two and is frequently much lower. Tron also coexists with Titan Valakut decks, so it's not even monopolizing ramp strategies. Midrange players love to complain about Tron keeping their decks down, but this has never held up in practice. Especially not in 2016, where Jund was the most-played or second most-played deck since April despite Tron being Tier 1 in a number of those months.

    I agree that Modern needs better nonbasic land safety valves, although Wasteland is too strong. That said, this doesn't mean the current ramp strategies are oppressive, and it definitely doesn't mean they need banning. Control and midrange players should stop blaming this small segment of the metagame for their challenges. Every deck has challenging matchups in this format. As control players, that is your challenging matchup, just like a combo player might struggle against Jund.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on Modern Cheeri0s - Puresteel Equipment Storm
    Quote from slax01 »
    There are some things in this thread which are confusing me:
    Why are people concerned about stony silence? What games do we actually win by equipping, especially given that none of the decks above are running aggro cards? Is it really hurting the moxes *that* badly?

    It's impossible to combo out on T2 with Silence active. It shuts down Moxes and prevents us from Retracting Moxes to stay mana neutral. It also really hurts our ability to do a T3 combo unless we untap with the engine already in play.
    Why do people run leylines? While I accept that they protect against discard, they are card disadvantage, can't be reliably cast, and don't offer on-board protection. Has anyone done the math on how many games you'll actually draw leyline and paladin in the opening hand?

    It's about 15% assuming an otherwise playable hand. I'm not 100% sold on Leyline because we already have mulligan issues, but I do recognize its power in this kind of deck and loved it in the slower/different Ad Nauseam. We do need some kind of answer to discard, so whether that is Leyline, Revival, redundant threats, or something else just remains to be seen.
    Re: Gemstone caverns: from past testing I've played many games where I've depleted these lands (cantrip, paladin, cantrip). Noxious revival gets them back, sure, but that's some bad card disadvantage.

    Gemstone Mine (not Caverns) is good in Ad Nauseam which has a higher fundamental turn and more drops than we do. It would be very rare to play T1 cantrip, T2 engine, and then T3 cantrip on the one counter Mine; you should have at least one other mana source and maybe two. Depending on how the life totals shake out in testing, I might prefer the life to the mana resilience.
    The cantrip-heavy build is reliable and fast. However, I can't see how it can also sport protection without becoming too dilute. Basically, I see it as a sideboardless deck. Its success will rise and fall with the amount of removal in the meta. In a removal heavy-meta (and vs opponents who know what they are doing), it should never, or rarely, win. Vs Aggro and combo, it will perform fine.

    I've been testing vs. Burn (about 25 games done, 50/50 overall) and the cantrip version is just fine at handling removal. Eidolon is still a nightmare, but removal is manageable. If the % dips too heavily in later tests, especially against Jund/Abzan, I think we have flex to go -2 cantrips and +2 protection in the main. You have a surprising degree of resilience with 8 engines, 1 NR, and 7 cantrips to dig for more engines, so I'm not worried too much.
    Quote from Be_lakor »
    Hellow fellow Puresteel players! With the new wave of interested people I have to update the primer. In the last few pages I saw a lot of cardscoming up, that weren't discussed that often before. I feel that Defense Grid and Pact of Negation deserve an entry in our mentionable/playable cards database. Also I'd like to post a streamlined example of the deck for it then to be discussed.

    Agree with an entry on the Grid nonbo and Pact.
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Modern)
  • 1

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, reprints, new cards, and more!
    Reminder to everyone that requesting content behind a paywall is against the site rules and is grounds for immediate suspension. Here's the relevant excerpt of the rule:
    Promotion of illegal activity... including but not limited to...copyright infringement (this includes...copyrighted material being distributed without permission of the copyright holder [such as premium articles]...)... is strictly prohibited. Please note that in the case of premium articles, sharing a decklist for the purposes of discussing is acceptable, but requesting decklists solely available in a premium article is not.

    Please PM me if you have any questions about this rule.


    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on [Primer] UR Storm
    Quote from Lord Hazanko »
    Quote from ktkenshinx »
    Quote from Lord Hazanko »
    Been trying to tell people how powerful gifts is in storm for yeeaars.

    Reminder to all, but specifically in reference to this post.

    On the one hand, it's good to see a new version of Storm doing well. On the other hand, we all need to remember that posts in this thread still need to be constructive and on-topic. It's totally fine to talk about the merits of Gifts Storm and where it might shine. It's not okay to make "bragposts" or "told you so" posts that don't advance the thread discussion. Let's just keep it on deck development and the cards.

    Carry on with the deck talk!


    Sorry bud but thats not a brag post. As usual this entire site has it out for me.

    All im saying is. "I have years of experience with Gifts, and yes, after all those years I can form an honest, formulated, tested opinion." What im saying is that storm isnt dead, and dont over react over the Probe ban because Gifts gives storm life.

    The site doesn't have it out for you; you'll notice this was a reminder and not an actual warning/infraction. If you want to discuss any other warnings, infractions, or instances in which you think you have been treated unfairly, please PM me, the other Modern staff, and/or the admins to discuss it. Threads are not appropriate contexts in which to discuss those issues.

    That all said, this post is not constructive which is why we are reminding users to avoid posts like it:

    Been trying to tell people how powerful gifts is in storm for yeeaars.

    On the other hand, this post you just wrote is much more constructive and would be totally okay.
    I have years of experience with Gifts, and yes, after all those years I can form an honest, formulated, tested opinion. What im saying is that storm isnt dead, and dont over react over the Probe ban because Gifts gives storm life.

    As long as users stick with constructive posts more like the latter rather than the former, this thread and deck will be on a good course.
    Posted in: Developing Competitive (Modern)
  • 0

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, reprints, new cards, and more!
    Many players in this thread are underestimating the ability of Affinity, Burn, and even a slightly nerfed Infect to regulate big mana decks. My suspicion is that no one is actually testing these decks and is just theorycrafting. I'm running a few decks through Tier 1 gauntlets right now, and the new Tom Ross Infect, not to mention classic Naya Burn and Affinity, are still formidable forces the big mana decks will continue to struggle with. Between these three decks (which will still be Tier 1) and the unknown prevalence of DSZ and UR Prowess (probably Tier 2 but still probably 4%-5% collectively of the meta), there is still a significant top-tier aggro presence which will likely regulate ramp decks.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, reprints, new cards, and more!
    Quote from bill_zagoudis »
    As the title suggests this is a post about the concept of power level and magic formats with emphasis on Modern, a variety of topics overlap with this including banlist policies, printing policies, format starting points, supplementary products even in some cases in game rulings, therefore i felt more comfortable creating a new topic other than posting in an existing thread.

    The term power level refers to the overall effectiveness of a card, which is essentially the impact of the said card compared to it's cost (both in mana and in other resources). We could say that the overall power level of all magic cards approaches normal distribution, with one major difference: cards that are considerably strong are much more rare than cards that are considerably weak. So if we could have a graph it would look like two pyramids with their bottoms connected except that the pyramid on top (which contains the more powerful cards) would be a lot 'sharper' as cards that are dramatically strong are also exceedingly rare, while the bottom pyramid would look a bit 'leveled', as the weakest cards in magic are closer to the average power level than the strongest are.


    Before that oddball pyramid comparison starts making sense i'll also say what may seem obvious: in constructed formats what's playable is defined and restricted by what is available. Playability is not determined in abstract but in comparison to other cards because deck building in competitive formats is about maximizing effectiveness and not settling down with merely ok solutions. For example in abstract Shock is not a bad card in modern, it provides a reasonable flexibility and can take down a large number of key targets including all infecters, all burn creatures (even a T1 nacatl), all affinity creatures other than their 3 drops, mana dorks,
    Dark Confidant, Delver of Secrets, the combo elements of green toolbox decks etc. It can also hit the opponent for 10% of his starting life total. But Shock despite being a good card is unplayable in Modern, because a superior alternative exists in Lightning Bolt. It's a buyer's market really, and Shock is offering less 'product' (aka damage) at the same price, so none picks it.


    So what is playable? outside of synergies, cards can only deviate as far as a number S in power level from the top tier meta.If a deck builder decides to go lower he simply gets outgunned by top tier decks and ends up with poor MUs everywhere therefore no competitive reason to pick his deck/cards. But there are also synergies: cards with a sum greater than their parts, that can compete with the best cards available (in some cases even outright smash them in degenerate ways) creating diversity and alternative ways to play this game other than simply playing the best threats/answers available. Without synergies a format inevitably ends up 'Midrange the Gathering', something that often describes Standard metas and is definately what Frontier is right now, because due to the smaller card pool of those formats there are not enough synergies available. On the opposite side of the spectrum Modern,Legacy and Vintage have some insanely powerful synergies that need to be kept in check with bans in order to allow simpler and fairer strategies like aggro and midrange to exist.


    So what happens when we artificially alter the powerlevel of a format by adding or removing cards from it? Back to our pyramids, increasing the power level further extends the sharper top of the pyramid, therefore dragging the 'S' window of playability to the narrow neck of our top pyramid, effectvely reducing the amount of cards and decks that can compete in the new T1 meta, while on the other hand trimming the pyramid's top (aka baning cards) creates a new T1 meta closer to it's base therefore cards in average power level increase in playability and so is the format's diversity.


    The above statement is true for both decks and individual cards: for instance when Eldrazi got introduced a whole number of decks that used to be competitive like Jund and Burn instantly became obsolete, another less obvious case is Jeskai Midrange: as more and more cards kept crawling into the format it became increasingly difficult for this deck to answer the newly introduced angles of attack added in the format while it's once scary wincon in Geist of Saint Traft got less and less scary every block. When power level is too high, tapping out becomes too risky therefore reactive strategies are forced to look for instant speed win cons or just play Inquisition of Kozilek which once again limits diversity.


    Now on to power level and gameplay, before i proceed i'll make some basic cases of what's good and what's poor gameplay (yeah, that's painfully obvious but better not to skip it)

    now what's a bad game of magic? it's a game when a player had no real chance to win, so he just feels cheated out of the game, while the victor deserves no credit as he merely did what his deck does, this can be the result of either:

    a)crazy power level, if a format is too strong winning the dice and opening with a solid 7 hand are often enough to completely overwhelm someone, see linear godhands, how fun can a game that ended T2-3 be?

    b)games decided on variance, mana screws, mulls to oblivion etc unfortunately this is core to the game due to the mana system and lands, probably far too late to change this and i won't be expanding on this

    c)exceedingly unfair games, be it degenerate combo/ramp/gy/lockdown decks etc, i'll be blunt here, despite those archetypes being really fun (ok save lockdown which is the opposite of fun unless you're a sadist or something) in a casual level by doing crazy stuff and breaking all the fundamental rules of magic, they generate absurd amounts of mana, they draw their entire libraries, they can do 30+ damage to the other guy while he's trying to deploy 2 and 3 cmc creatures and so on, breaking the rules is fun but not for the wounded party, those archetypes mostly promote terrible gameplay

    d)SB lottery games, games which the victor is determined by the pressence of an overwhelming hate card, again a by product of high power level and poor printing policies

    if they stopped printing busted artifact synergies there would be no need for Stony Silence, if they stopped printing busted lands no need for Blood Moon, if they stopped printing busted graveyard synergies no need for Ravenous Trap and so on

    what's a good game of magic? it's a game in which both players had a chance to win and it was their combined decisions that lead to whatever outcome, ideally the game was interactive, therefore it was more about outplaying each other and not just a solitaire display of mulligan and sequencing skills


    A very popular opinion is to have a modern more powerful and balanced by either unbaning a bunch of cards and/or introducing cards via supplementary products. Let's just stop removing threats and keep empowering answers, new toys for everyone! While it makes sense, or at least it seems to (and i agree that some generic answers need to be introduced in Modern) it's also flawed because it misses the point about how high power level plays out:

    a very common thing in this game is the so called mismatch: when you do have some answers in your hand but not the exact answer you need for the threat you're facing, in a lower power level format not only you will have many opportunities to correct this mismatch (as the game will be longer and you'll get to untap and draw more times) but there's less likely to be angles of attack that totally ignore most forms of interaction and no matter how many generic answers we create this is inevitable in a diverse format, this is a format with Cavern of Souls Eldrazi, Tron, Dredge, RG Valakut, Infect, zooicide, affinity even Lantern control, no matter how broad an answer is it can't cover you from all those decks, not to mention that the broader an answer gets the more it's mana cost increases, therefore it's easier for fast decks to get under it). The result of this high power level and it's mismatches is that it makes the opening hand more important than in game decisions and turns games into a question of whether you have a specific answer card on hand or not: do you have bolt against their T1 Glistener Elf or not? can you destroy Ensnaring Bridge or not? do you have Ravenous Trap against Dredge or not?

    the way mismatch works in modern is also the reason why the format favours so strongly proactivity over reactive strategies and why the popular concept of 'policing' cards and decks would not work in any way other than making the format look better to outsiders (but not play better for the actual players)


    Essentially Modern as a format has been determined by specific key points:

    a)a poor decision to the format's starting point which was based on card frames instead of context, cards and gameplay and left the format stuck with degenerate ramp strategies like Bloom and Tron, degenerate lockdown strategies like Lantern Control or lockdown cards like Blood Moon and needless color hate like Choke

    b)other mistakes of the developers immature past: Dredge,Storm,phyrexian mana, SSG, Ancient Stirrings and other beauties that promote non-games and take the format further towards a degenerate direction

    c)TERRIBLE new printings that were either moving the format towards a more degenerate direction or straight up breaking it: TC/DTT, Eldrazi, Amalgam and so on..

    d)bans which often makes wotc appear as if they suffer from bipolar disorder: they make bad prints, they ban something again and again,just like now: they buff dredge, they ban dredge, they buff infect, they ban infect, thought to be fair they openly stated that modern does not dictate what they can print or not the BL can adress this

    that said despite being a bit hard to sell to inexperienced players their bans always had one single purprose: to improve the overall gameplay of the format, of course to the said inexperienced players they make no sense as they cannot see what's their effect and turn to conspiracy theories about how wotc randomly bans cards before the pro tour (see the Twin), how wotc hates certain archetypes and other similar superstitions, after every BL update i'm increasingly convinced that they actually plan to get rid of most/all degenerate stuff in modern they just do it in a step by step basis with as little casualties and colateral damage as possible, so no wotc is not stupid, it's actually pretty smart but focuses elsewhere and views modern as a secondary development goal, for instance today modern is better than it was yesterday, Infect stops being busted (and becomes more skill intensive on top) while the obviously degenerate dredge gets weaker (and our sideboards stronger), if anything it's a petty they didn't also hit imp while at it but anyways, let's see how that goes, in the future it's also very likely that there will be some bans targeted at ramp strategies and that lantern control will wear out it's welcome as it rises in share, this will lead to more interactive and fair games overall.


    The way Modern's power level is handled is directly related to what happens to other non-rotating formats: when Modern gets too high in powerlevel a newer format will take it's place (frontier is a start but that format is not playable with fetchlands, it is however an interesting experiment) to facilitate the need and demand for a non-degenerate and non-rotating format but it seems we have a minimum of 5 years before this happens, the newly failed standard greatly delays this because i assume they wouldn't want their new format to be defined by T4 Emrakuls, I won't lie: yesterday there was no constructed format to play some fair and slow magic, Modern was plagued by dredge and the infect 'family' of T3 decks, standard was a format that apart from the obviously degenerate Emrakul had no answer to his top threat, while Legacy is an exotic fruit... and i wasn't really bothering with this game, today i almost feel renewed and optimist again (till they push the next degenerate deck with their prints and my optimism gets replaced with anger again, my money is on lantern)...

    So Modern continues to be the top magic format but it will now face competition from frontier which may win the hearts of those who want to play some fair and interactive magic, that can lead to either wotc adopting frontier(sans fetches or from an even later starting point) and letting modern move to legacy directions or to modern becoming a better and more diverse version of frontier which will be forgotten as the idea of some retailers that never took off.

    now i'm going to make a snowman and ponder on how to attack the new meta, thanks for reading this overly long and not that well written post that happens to include some of my most important thoughts in the format!

    ps: now that it's apparent that even without a PT we do have bans can we get it back? that would be a great day for this format

    The "On formats and power level: a case for a lower power Modern" thread, and all its replies, have been merged with the "State of Modern" thread.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on Modern Cheeri0s - Puresteel Equipment Storm
    Quote from Dralin619 »
    The mana base seems interesting but is it worth not thinning the deck out to take slightly less damage from the mana base?

    I think the thinning element of fetches is generally pretty small and mostly not worth the life loss. Lots of authors and players have written on this, and I encourage people to just Google it to see what others have to say.

    That said, I don't run fetches for the thinning. I run them because of the synergy with Noxious Revival (NR then becomes land 14.5/15.5 while also being engine 8.5 and Retract 4.5) and because they are a reliable way to get either U on turn one for cantrips or R on turns 1-3 for some SB cards I'm running: Grid and potentially Wear // Tear. If I stop running Grid in the SB as my Stony Silence trump, and if I ditch Wear/Tear for bounce, I'd definitely switch away from fetches.

    For reference, my manabase:



    This trimmed 1 land for 1 equipment. In the 15 land version, it's +1 Heath or +1 Fountain. The other option is -4 fetches, +4 Gemstone Mine (then with +1 fetch for 15 lands):



    +1 Strand goes into the 15 land version. I'm a little nervous about this configuration with my maindeck NR because it's harder to treat NR as a virtual land with only 1-2 fetches. But I also appreciate this version is less painful against something like Burn, which is already a troubled matchup.
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Modern)
  • 0

    posted a message on [Primer] UR Storm
    Quote from Lord Hazanko »
    Been trying to tell people how powerful gifts is in storm for yeeaars.

    Reminder to all, but specifically in reference to this post.

    On the one hand, it's good to see a new version of Storm doing well. On the other hand, we all need to remember that posts in this thread still need to be constructive and on-topic. It's totally fine to talk about the merits of Gifts Storm and where it might shine. It's not okay to make "bragposts" or "told you so" posts that don't advance the thread discussion. Let's just keep it on deck development and the cards.

    Carry on with the deck talk!
    Posted in: Developing Competitive (Modern)
  • 0

    posted a message on Modern Cheeri0s - Puresteel Equipment Storm
    Quote from shadowgripper »
    @ktkenshinx, thanks for the feedback on the sideboard cards. I completely skipped the conflict between Defense Grid and Retract. I'll look into getting Silences.

    Concerning the mana, I feel like I'll lose more games from being forced to fetch -> shock than I would using my current manabase and hitting that uncommon opening hand with serum + plains only. I will test more and we will see. I'm also not sold on Noxious. I understand it has many uses, including keeping a 1 lander to draw more, or reusing retract, or buying back paladin, or even getting grapeshot for a quick kill. I don't think it's as necessary as it is useful. More testing will tell.

    Yeah, I'm only at 1 NR and treat it as engine 8.5, Retract 4.5, and land 15.5, but agree it's probably not critical. It's also much better in real games than goldfishes where I appreciate its recovery power much more.

    I can see an argument for dropping 4 fetches in favor of 4 Gemstones. I love GC in Ad Naus so can see it finding a home here too.
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Modern)
  • 0

    posted a message on Modern Cheeri0s - Puresteel Equipment Storm
    Quote from walachh »
    Fetches are still good


    Do you think that still holds if we're playing 4 serum visions ?

    For the SB, I'm definitely on board with Leylines.


    Something that is still mysterious to me, is what do you take out when you side in 4-6 cards ? The deck seems so tight as it is ...

    Re: fetches
    Yes, because there aren't too many times when you SV, keep a card, and then fetch after. Most of those scenarios are bad sequencing, or the rare case when you play a T2 cantrip, draw/have a fetch, keep cards on top, and then still have another cantrip you need to cast. Those scenarios are rarer than the times you have an NR and put a fetch on top, or need to fetch for red if you're running red cards out of the board. I run Grid, for instance.

    Re:leylines
    Assuming 8 flex slots split between cantrips, NR, protection, dig, etc., I ditch 4 and keep the SVs. If you only have 7, I would ditch an equipment too.

    Re: Silence
    Still my favorite protection spell. Stops basically everything and lets you combo on T3. I do like Song for being better against permanents like Chalice and Silence, but don't like that it can't stop Decay and that many decks run redundant removal.
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Modern)
  • 2

    posted a message on Banlist change for 1/9/2017
    Quote from Earthbound21 »
    Quote from Kathal »
    Btw, just to correct something. Storm COULD be faster than the UR Twin version (not the URg All in version with Birds) but realistically it was a consistent Turn 4.5 deck. Winning on Turn 3 requires basically the nut hand with Mancer + not a single interaction from the opponent.

    Greetings,
    Kathal


    Depends on which Storm deck your talking about. The version of Storm that got Ponder and Preordain banned didn't waste their time playing crappy goblin and could definitely win on turn 3. Storm without Rite of Flame and Cantrips could still win on Turn 3 with the Goblin + Seething Song albeit, much rarer than the original Storm.

    Song Storm was banned for violating the T4 rule, winning too consistently on T2 and T3. Whatever its win % was, it was higher than Infect's in 2015 (which wasn't banned in 2016) and was high enough to be banned. Unless we are accusing Wizards of lying about the win %, or claiming we have better/more accurate info than they did, we must concede that the deck legitimately won too consistently on T2 and T3.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on Modern Cheeri0s - Puresteel Equipment Storm
    Quote from gilfhouse »

    Quote from ktkenshinx »
    Quote from shadowgripper »
    I think this deck now has great potential for taking over Modern and/or forcing a shift in the meta. It's way too consistent. It feels like twin in that, you can pass with two lands up and if the opponent taps out they just lose.

    Here's what I'm currently testing.



    I would like to find room for the fourth Serum Visions, but that will have to wait until I put more games in with the deck. The Swan Song main works similar to how a lot of twin lists ran Dispel, except it catches more things. Dispel was good in twin because games could go long or grindy. Cheeri0s won't have grindy games where you gain advantage via cards, so giving them a swan is acceptable. Spell Pierce is not good enough, as being on the draw means they will be able to pay for bolt, path, push on your turn 3.

    Defense Grid is a clever answer to any removal or countermagic, forcing them to be worthless until turn 4. Leyline of Sanctity is necessary for decks with early hand disruption. The other slots are flex for the time being. Wear // Tear hits red Eidolon, Stony Silence, opposing Leylines and Chalice of the Void. Void Snare is the most efficient answer to any of the previously mentioned cards.

    I don't think this deck is very fair, especially when taking it to a tournament where most competitors won't know what you are doing until they tap out t3, and then they're dead.

    I'd run fetches if you're running Noxious (fetches are also just good in decks that have a turn two WW play). Speaking of white mana, I'd be nervous about playing three Plains with SV, especially if you want to go up to 4 copies. That will lead to some pitched opening hands that would have been good if you had different mana in those slots.

    Avoid Grid. It's a major nonbo with Retract and you'll lose engines when Grid bounces. I've run Silence for a similar effect (also stops Decay) and those work quite well.


    Im pretty sure @shadowgripper is Zac elsik FWIW.

    I know who he is. Fetches are still good and Grid is still a nonbo with Retract no matter who is playing the deck.

    For the SB, I'm definitely on board with Leylines. I love them in Ad Naus and this deck is similar enough that they also shine here. Some decks get away with 3 but we feel like a 4 Leyline deck. An alternative to Leyline is Noxious, which is more useful in some respects (don't need it in opener, helps the combo), but less useful in others (opens us to GY hate, card disadvantage). Curious to see what people settle on!
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Modern)
  • 1

    posted a message on Modern Cheeri0s - Puresteel Equipment Storm
    Quote from shadowgripper »
    I think this deck now has great potential for taking over Modern and/or forcing a shift in the meta. It's way too consistent. It feels like twin in that, you can pass with two lands up and if the opponent taps out they just lose.

    Here's what I'm currently testing.



    I would like to find room for the fourth Serum Visions, but that will have to wait until I put more games in with the deck. The Swan Song main works similar to how a lot of twin lists ran Dispel, except it catches more things. Dispel was good in twin because games could go long or grindy. Cheeri0s won't have grindy games where you gain advantage via cards, so giving them a swan is acceptable. Spell Pierce is not good enough, as being on the draw means they will be able to pay for bolt, path, push on your turn 3.

    Defense Grid is a clever answer to any removal or countermagic, forcing them to be worthless until turn 4. Leyline of Sanctity is necessary for decks with early hand disruption. The other slots are flex for the time being. Wear // Tear hits red Eidolon, Stony Silence, opposing Leylines and Chalice of the Void. Void Snare is the most efficient answer to any of the previously mentioned cards.

    I don't think this deck is very fair, especially when taking it to a tournament where most competitors won't know what you are doing until they tap out t3, and then they're dead.

    I'd run fetches if you're running Noxious (fetches are also just good in decks that have a turn two WW play). Speaking of white mana, I'd be nervous about playing three Plains with SV, especially if you want to go up to 4 copies. That will lead to some pitched opening hands that would have been good if you had different mana in those slots.

    Avoid Grid. It's a major nonbo with Retract and you'll lose engines when Grid bounces. I've run Silence for a similar effect (also stops Decay) and those work quite well.
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Modern)
  • 1

    posted a message on Banlist change for 1/9/2017
    Wizards shouldn't touch the Twin ban right now. URx (Jeskai) was solidly Tier 1 in May, June, and July, dipping in August (but staying Tier 1) and falling out after. So we had a Tier 1 blue deck in four of the nine post-Eldrazi months of 2016. Unfortunately, many of those later 2016 months were heavily influenced by fast decks using Probe and by Dredge, two sets of decks that caused format problems and were hit by bans. Based on those bans and the new Modern going ahead, I'm not willing to write off non-Twin URx decks just yet. We don't know what the post-Probe/GGT meta will look like, and as much as people want to panicmonger about big mana decks, we really don't know what will happen.

    Before returning to the 2015 Twin baseline, Wizards should see what URx can do in the new meta. If it's still struggling by April, Wizards should unban something to boost reactive decks: Preordain is a strong option. If URx still sucks by 2018, then it's time to revisit Twin. If that means rebanning Preordain to unban Twin or swap-ban Twin with Exarch, then so be it; two years is more than enough time to see if URx can cut it without Twin. Nacatl waited three years for its unban, but that was probably one year too long and it could've been safely unbanned in 2014 instead of 2015. The demand for Modern change is also greater now than in 2014-2015, further justifying an expedited schedule. I'd follow a similar pattern with Twin/Exarch in 2018.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 5

    posted a message on Banlist change for 1/9/2017
    Quote from xBattleSpawnx »
    ^This. I don't disagree that Exarch would have been enough to make twin more manageable and possibly the better ban, but Exarch on the banlist is just laughable.

    Like AK said, who cares if it's laughable on the list if the replacement makes the format better? If the format improves because Jeskai and Temur Twin are viable decks, it shouldn't matter if a "silly" card is on the banlist. Especially if Wizards is already resigned to banning something from Twin; why not make it the card that does the least damage? Eldrazi lived after the Eye ban, and that deck was in an entirely different league of brokenness than Twin. If Eldrazi got just an Eye ban, it feels pretty unfair that Twin got the deck-killer ban instead of just a limited Exarch ban.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 6

    posted a message on Banlist change for 1/9/2017
    Some interesting insights in Stoddard's article today. It's about Standard but the following quotes clearly pertain to Modern.
    http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/latest-developments/standard-2017-01-13
    We are very data-driven when working with banning decisions, and we have found time and time again after looking at our data that metagames do tend to play out toward the types of outcomes that game theory predicts.

    If there is one deck with no bad matchups, everyone will just trend toward either playing that deck or not playing.

    Matchups and metagame diversity matter! This is actually the second time Wizards mentioned matchups this week. The first was in regard to UW decks with Reflector Mage. This emphasizes the importance of MTGO data, where Wizards can analyze large datasets to find trends. On that note...
    When we looked at the Magic Online metagame data from Competitive Leagues, it was clear that White-Blue Flash was the strongest deck in Standard; it only had one bad matchup to a tier 2 deck (Black-Red Vampires), which it was only a one-percent underdog to.

    Now, Flash didn't dominate everything, but it didn't have anything else that was a losing matchup.

    A few things here. First, Leagues are an important source of data. This doesn't mean that practice room games aren't considered, but Leagues got called out and other MTGO options did not. Second, Stoddard defnined UW decks as tier 1 and BR Vampires as tier 2. This shows that Wizards has a conception of tiers like we do, even if we don't know their numbers. Finally, we see that metagame dominance isn't the only factor at play. Positive matchups matter just as much if not more.
    One of our goals for bans like this is to not totally eliminate decks from the metagame. We are aware that it can take a lot of time to get all the cards together for a deck, and a ban that invalidates every card that you have collected is incredibly frustrating. If possible, we always like to ban in such a way that the cards you own for a deck still have a ton of utility.

    In Modern especially, we often attempt to weaken decks in a way that doesn't remove the deck entirely from the metagame, if we can help it. While Splinter Twin didn't have any other good options, bannings of cards like Eye of Ugin, Deathrite Shaman, Bloodbraid Elf, and Cloudpost did pretty good jobs of leaving behind decks that were still competitive, but not nearly as powerful as they were before.

    Wizards doesn't like killing decks. This suggests they will pick ban targets that limit a deck's power but don't kill it outright. But that isn't always the case: see Twin, which Wizards explicitly mentions.

    Finally, on the answer topic that AK and CO were discussing. This is a CRITICAL piece of the article for Modern players who get cards through Standard:
    We're also having a lot of very serious discussions about hate cards and powerful answers. As you have noticed with Fatal Push, we are not totally against printing very powerful answers in Standard, but we need to up that number. The pendulum of threats versus answers has swung too far toward the threats, and that has caused problems with our metagame. Our decision to not print enough answer cards also has shown to be a real problem.

    Wizards is aware that answers suck, and they will be printing better answers in the future. This bodes well for Modern, which depends on getting answers through Standard.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on Modern Cheeri0s - Puresteel Equipment Storm
    Quote from Dralin619 »
    Yeah that was one of the ideas but it's too good so 4 may be the way to go. I'm just trying between the 2 alot ATM.

    Also for those who are running/ were running cavern of souls how awkward was the mana base? I'm thinking of adding some number in but I'm curious to see how it worked out for others.

    I don't run Caverns maindeck anymore. For one, there isn't nearly enough maindeck countermagic in top-tier Modern to justfiy it. Two, if you're running Aid or cantrips, Cavern can really mess up your hand and force a mulligan on an otherwise playable grip. If we had lots of countermagic to beat in G1, I would reconsider this position, but because we don't, the benefits of Cavern don't remotely outweigh the costs.
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Modern)
  • 2

    posted a message on Banlist change for 1/9/2017
    Quote from xxhellfirexx3 »

    couple questions ive been pondering:

    If dredge was hit to avoid "sideboard battles" than isnt tron a possible target one day?

    dont alot of fair decks lose to tron just like they did to dredge before its nerf?

    does tron get better in modern now with infect nerfed?

    is tron going to be accepted by wizards as a large contribution to rock paper scissors modern, and sideboard lottery?

    a small example: 3-4 fulmis in grix and bg/x ie: "sideboard battles"

    This just underscores the problems of the announcement: we have no clue what "sideboard battles" means. I'm analyzing sideboards to try and figure out what the heck that meant with Dredge and how it was different from Affinity, another deck that demands sideboard slots but has never been banned for creating "sideboard battles." All of this would be unnecessary if Wizards was more transparent in its definitions, but that's a topic for another time.
    Is there a reason they can't just restrict cards? Like instead on banning GGT, they just restrict it to one or two or three copies per deck.

    It increases variance and makes games even more dependent on drawing or tutoring for certain bombs. Never going to happen in Modern and it wouldn't really help address the main complaints.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 3

    posted a message on Banlist change for 1/9/2017
    Quote from knto »

    On gitaxian probe, I was sad to see it banned. I'm sure it was aimed at deathshadow zoo and infect, but many other decks including "fair" ones were caught in the bann. I would have much prefered a Simian Spirit Guide bann. In fact I have been advocating that one for a while. I think others have outlined pretty thoroughly why it needs to happen.

    Why does it need to happen? SSG isn't in any top-tier, consistent violators of the T4 rule. An SSG ban also would not have addressed either Infect or DSZ, which Wizards identified as collectively infringing on the T4 rule.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on Modern Cheeri0s - Puresteel Equipment Storm
    Quote from Dralin619 »
    @Dralin619 So beforehand you stated that protection is better than cantrips and now starting to test it? - maybe you should think about your sequencing...


    That is still my opinion. I am currently trying to see if i can find a balance between the optimal protection mainboard and some card draw or cantrips to find paladins. Im still running protection mainboard though i'm testing between serum visions and RE.

    A balance between the two is totally fine. I'm also curious to hear what balance you decide on. I just wouldn't want you to spend valuable time and energy testing a deck with no dig spells and exclusively protection in the dig slots. The chance of that actually working in real events is so low that I don't think it's a good way to spend your tests. In an ideal world, we'd have infinite time to test every permutation of the deck. But because we don't have that, we need to make smart testing choices, and testing all protection and no dig is not a smart choice.

    That said, I 100% believe there's a balance between dig and protection which works in the maindeck. I'd be very interested in seeing what that balance is and what cards are good in those slots.
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Modern)
  • 3

    posted a message on Banlist change for 1/9/2017
    The argument against Cathartic is that these rummage effects will keep coming back. Dredge won't.

    I expect the next ban would be Stinkweed Imp, if Dredge needed one. This keeps the deck's core engine but again reduces your average dredge value and the power of your rummagers.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on Banlist change for 1/9/2017
    Quote from RoadGGG »
    On the topic of SSG vs Opal, people are REALLY underestimating how much stronger guide is than opal in a vacuum. Mox Opal isn't T; Get one of any color. It's T: Get one of any color if you have metal craft. You have to build around it and if you want it to be first turn active, you need at least 2 more zero cost cards (potentially a single one drop), for it to go active. It's not an auto include if you want fast mana because you have to invest into an artifact heavy strat. Also, can still be countered since you're still casting it, and can be hit with removal. It's powerful, no duh, but the ways to deal with it are legion.

    I can't say the same about Guide.

    Simian Spirit Guide only requires it be in your hand and you exile it to get that one red mana. No set up, no work, just have it in your hand and exile it when you need the mana. No set up except your combo in hand; and bam, stuff comes out a turn early or they have enough mana to combo off.

    I'm not disagreeing with your Bloom analysis, but the SSG analysis misses a key point: it is not a part of consistent, top-tier T4 rule violators. As long as that's the case, the card is totally safe under the T4 rule.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on Modern Cheeri0s - Puresteel Equipment Storm
    Quote from Wuzlking »
    Quote from Dralin619 »


    We dont really need cantrips we should be running protection like sigardas aid or pact or negation instead.



    @Dralin619 So beforehand you stated that protection is better than cantrips and now starting to test it? - maybe you should think about your sequencing...

    Again, this notion of protection before dig doesn't make mathematical or gameplay sense. Protection increases variance by filling slots with cards that are neither engines, fuel, nor dig spells for engines/fuel. This increases the number of bad draws and bad mulligans at all points of the game. It also forces our deck to depend on more combo interactions. Pact and Aid are only good if you already have an engine out. So now instead of only banking on the N% chance of drawing an engine, we now have a bunch of cards in that deck that only function with that engine out AND don't actually win the game.

    I 100% hear the argument that cantrips aren't necessarily the best dig option, even if I will argue that they are better than Muddle, RE, TS, etc. But I strongly disagree with the idea that we should include protection before filling out the dig suite. No other combo deck does this in the history of successful Magic combo decks, particularly in Legacy and Modern.
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Modern)
  • 2

    posted a message on Banlist change for 1/9/2017
    Let's be careful about inventing reasons Dredge got hit with a GGT ban. Here's exactly what Wizards said (emphasis added):
    http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/january-9-2017-banned-and-restricted-announcement-2017-01-09
    Golgari Grave-Troll—Dredge, the mechanic and the deck, has a negative impact on Modern by pushing the format too far toward a battle of sideboards. With the printing of Cathartic Reunion and Prized Amalgam, the deck once again became unhealthy for the format. While those cards were discussed, the real offender always has been the dredge mechanic itself.

    If one wanted to apply the GGT ban to another deck (e.g. Affinity), one would need to prove that this other deck also pushes Modern "too far toward a battle of sideboards." Although I also believe Dredge pushed out other GY-based decks, that reason wasn't stated as part of the ban so we shouldn't consider it. We need to figure out what a "battle of sideboards" means and if other decks cause that.

    I personally dislike this rationale because it seems extremely subjective in a format that is already defined by sideboards. I wish Wizards would have worded it better or more clearly explained what a "battle of sideboards" means to them. Players are justifiably uneasy about the implications of that ban because many decks (Affinity, Tron/Valakut, Ad Nauseam, Burn, etc.) can lend themselves towards sideboard-heavy answers and matchups.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 3

    posted a message on Banlist change for 1/9/2017
    I'm just not seeing the SSG or Opal ban. SSG isn't part of any top-tier decks. The highest tier deck it is part of, Ad Nauseam, doesn't win consistently before T4 and has never really risen above 3%-4% (being generous) of the format. Probe, another T4 violator, was banned for participating in two Tier 1 decks (DSZ and Infect) and a Tier 2 deck (Bloo/Prowess). SSG just isn't there at all.

    Opal also doesn't cut it. The SB subgame for Dredge justified a GGT rebanning because that subgame is way more slot and card intensive than the SB subgame for Affinity. This makes sense from a gameplay perspective; you can meaningfully interact with Affinity using basic removal. Dredge is MUCH more resilient to Bolt, Decay, Terminate, etc. than Affinity, forcing more SB cards. I'll investigate this in a future article, but I expect the "GGT is to Dredge as Opal is to Affinity" banlist argument won't hold water.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 1

    posted a message on Banlist change for 1/9/2017
    Quote from iTaLenTZ_27 »
    Quote from Lilijuana »
    [quote from="Wraithpk »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/767510-banlist-change-for-1-9-2017?comment=589"]What we need to do now is improve the matchup for the fair decks against the anti-fair decks. Sure, you can do that by banning stuff from Tron and Valakut, but I don't like doing that. The fair decks need better answers to these strategies. We want to shoot to get the matchup averages between the super-archetypes to be around 55-60%, so you're not blowing out your good matchups, but also not being blown-out by your bad ones. Doing this eliminates the non-games where you just lose because of who you got paired against, which isn't fun for anyone.

    So how do we do this? As I said before, better answers for the fair decks to help them hang in against the anti-fair decks. A lot of these decks are based around lands, which fair decks have a hard time interacting with. Maybe we need Wasteland in Modern. Tectonic Edge and Crumble to Dust are just too slow against decks like Tron. Ghost Quarter is just not that great to play, since it's card disadvantage for you as long as your opponent has a basic to search up. This could also have the added benefit of helping the tempo decks play a mana denial strategy like they do in Legacy, which has never really worked in Modern. This is the type of policing card we need. Maybe it's not exactly Wasteland we need, but something that accomplishes a similar outcome.

    The other thing is to power up the fair decks in general. I've said it before, but I'm talking unban SFM, Preordain, BBE, and Jace. Print counterspells that are better than Mana Leak, like actual Counterspell. Fatal Push is a great step along this path. I think Wizards needs to push the fair decks. If any of those super-archetypes has to be a little stronger than the others (since it's probably impossible to perfectly balance them all), it should be the fair decks. Fair decks being strong means more interactive gameplay, and the fair decks don't suppress other archetypes. I strongly feel this is the direction Modern needs to go for its future health.


    I fully agree with this. Modern lacks efficient anti-land cards. It also helps vs busted things affinity can do with Cranial or Ravager + Inkmoth. But again I don't see how SFM is going to help the fair decks vs RG Ramp, Tron and Bant Eldrazi. They don't care about a 4/4/ lifelink on turn 3. It doesn't interact with them. If you can't slow them down with Wasteland you should speed up the fair decks so they can't go 3 turns uncontested. Unban DRS and Preordain. It solves all the problems in the format.
    </blockquote>
    Preordain would help a lot.

    DRS would not. It would just dramatically shift the format towards BGx as the best deck by a mile with everyone else competing behind it. I really never see that card coming off the Modern banlist; it was a demonstrable offender as opposed to even SFM or JTMS. Even Preordain, another proven offender, got banned under very different circumstances than exist now. Back then, UR combo was dominant. Now it's nonexistent. By contrast, DRS was banned for being too powerful in BGx, and BGx (specifically, Jund) has been the most-played or second most-played deck all year.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on Banlist change for 1/9/2017
    Quote from Lilijuana »

    I don't mind the constructive pushback. That's great it's what makes for fair conversation. I don't like the notion that I cannot criticize WotC for what I see as failings in their company and their product. If people disagree with me, that's fine. My experience is my experience and theirs is theirs. Other players can make up their own minds about what I have to say.

    Also, let's not forget that you, as a moderator on this website and apparently a well known personage in the Magic community, just published in this very thread a list of criteria that WotC needs to meet in your mind for you to continue playing in the Modern format. I think what YOU say carries far more weight in this community than what I will bring to the table, since I'm an unknown nobody to everybody here.

    For what it's worth, your contributions have been constructive, engaging, and helpful so far, and I think I speak for the MTGS community in welcoming you aboard.
    I agree w/ idSurge this thread has probably run its course b/c we're talking well beyond the ban discussion anymore, so you can have the last word. Peace.

    We'll keep the thread open until, likely, Friday. Then we'll lock it down and switch everything over to the State of Modern thread:
    http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/764899-state-of-modern-thread-bans-format-health-reprints

    Until then, everyone feel free to keep posting reactions and feedback (within the rules) here.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 1

    posted a message on Banlist change for 1/9/2017
    Quote from Lilijuana »

    The evidence is in their handling of the format and others. They just had three huge bans in the Standard format, including poster child of the Eldritch Moon set. Not only did Emrakul sell them packs, she cost a lot of players their own hard-earned money and time for putting together decks to play her in. Why are we not allowed to criticize WotC here? Does WotC run or profit from this website?

    It is more likely that this handling is just a corporate error than a secret plot to undermine Modern. I'm a big occam's razor believer, and it often helps explain most shortcomings by large organizations. You are absolutely allowed to constructively criticize Wizards here and there is no Wizards/MTGS conflict of interest I am aware of. I'm simply pushing back at unsubstantiated claims because other players/posters read them. It's a discussion forum; you're allowed to constructive argue a point and I'm allowed to constructively point out its holes and alternate explanations.
    I can look at the fact that in my 20 years of playing Magic and purchasing products from WotC the value of their primary product, the booster pack, has steadily declined over time. You used to get 15 cards for your money, now you get 14, and a land or whatever. The mythic rare invention has made cards scarcer and devalued booster packs overall. I can say that WotC has an issue in that their primary product now is stressed too thin in how many formats of this game are played. Boosters now have to cater to Limited players, Standard, EDH, Modern, Legacy, Pauper, maybe even Frontier (I doubt it), and of course the kitchen table crowd. The fault that WotC cannot handle these things is not my fault as a customer, it's their fault for taking on so much and not effectively managing all of it. When a company makes "opaque and bad decisions" I as a customer have a right to question and criticize them for doing so, b/c it devalues their product to me and by extension makes their product a BAD experience. I should be able to share that experience. Why can I not share that here? As you pointed out, despite all of this loss of value to me, they are profiting from the game, still, and I am not here as a customer, NONE of us are, just to be profit bags for a company like WotC.

    Share away! But on issues like this, many users (myself included) will push back against extreme claims that have a high burden of evidence. I do not feel that burden has been at all met, so I am going to offer alternate explanations and show where the argument falls short.
    You yourself complained about their lack of decent explanations for the recent bans, and said that their reasons looked like they were thrown together in a manner of minutes. You can say such a thing (speculation) but I cannot?

    Again, you can constructively speculate all you want. But if I or others don't think the evidence points to a certain conclusion, or if the evidence is just lacking, then there's going to be some constructive pushback. That is also true of you pushing back against other posts you think are worth arguing against.

    I argued that the article was thrown together because its Modern rationale is much shorter and generally less helpful than previous articles. The simplest explanation for that, as someone who works in an organization where written communication sometimes gets thrown together, is that they didn't spend enough time on it. Or that they didn't clearly communicate all the reasons they came up with internally.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on Banlist change for 1/9/2017
    Quote from Lilijuana »
    Quote from bizzycola »
    Quote from rogue_LOVE »
    Quote from Lilijuana »
    Wizards could introduce news cards to Modern w/o passing them through Standard. All they have to do is change the rules. It's their format they can do it if they want. I doubt the community of Modern players would be upset w/ that in the slightest, especially if they were able to introduce some good, needed cards that way that they don't want in Standard.

    They absolutely could. However, I'm not terribly hopeful that they will. Maybe a little, but not very much. :p


    Yeah given that WotC has dismissed this idea multiple times leads me to believe it will not happen anytime with in the next 5 years.


    Well they did just unban and ban GGT and they reversed their silly change of the Standard rotation...but, yeah, they seem to really dislike Modern and even dealing with it anymore. They should try it though. At the end of the next ban announcement just tack on a sentence at the end saying. "Lastly, Counterspell is now legal in Modern." See where it goes, just like they did w/ the GGT unban.

    Let's avoid comments like "they seem to really dislike Modern and even dealing with it anymore." They're clearly dealing with it, profiting from it, and making some kind of effort with it. Unless you have specific evidence supporting that claim, not just subjective interpretations of things the community perceives as shortcomings, you really shouldn't be making that kind of claim. It's far more likely that Wizards, like many large organizations, is just making opaque and bad decisions, not that Wizards is trying to kill or jettison Modern. '

    I imagine Wizards just has a lot of simultaneous projects and interests and is struggling to manage some of them effectively. See MTGO issues, pro reward programs, coverage failures, Modern's handling, Pro Tour changes, and a variety of other actions and shakeups over the past 2 years.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 1

    posted a message on Banlist change for 1/9/2017
    Quote from rogue_LOVE »
    Quote from Lilijuana »
    Wizards could introduce news cards to Modern w/o passing them through Standard. All they have to do is change the rules. It's their format they can do it if they want. I doubt the community of Modern players would be upset w/ that in the slightest, especially if they were able to introduce some good, needed cards that way that they don't want in Standard.

    They absolutely could. However, I'm not terribly hopeful that they will. Maybe a little, but not very much. :p

    I'll also add that Wizards does introduce new cards to STANDARD, their simplest, entry-level Constructed format, through supplemental products. If that's not complicated enough for Standard, it's definitely not complicated enough for Modern: just put stuff in Modern Masters and call it a day. I'm aware Wizards has other reasons for not doing this (Stoddard spoke about it last year), but the precedent is at least there.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on Modern Cheeri0s - Puresteel Equipment Storm
    Quote from the_falsehate »
    I've been doing some refreshing in the old thread and I'm moving Sigil of Distinction back into my Cheeri0s pool to make the engines more threatening when I need to go fast.

    I also keep Saws and Sigils for exactly that reason. Some decks really struggle to beat a 5/11 vanilla creature!

    My equipment list is:

    4 Accorder's Shield
    4 Paradise Mantle
    3 Spidersilk Net
    3 Sigil of Distinction
    3-4 Bone Saw
    1-2 Cathar's Shield

    I'm still bouncing around between 19-20 equipment (18 felt low). I'm -1 on Spidersilk Net because Affinity isn't that big now and Infect just took a little hit with Probe. That might go +1 if the meta shifts.
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Modern)
  • 1

    posted a message on Banlist change for 1/9/2017
    Quote from Lilijuana »
    Why do people think that Fatal Push coming into the format is suddenly going to fix the problem of degenerate early game plays made possible by Probe? The plays are still there. If you don't have the Push, like not having the Bolt, the Path, or the Terminate, whatever, you are going to lose when they Probe your hand, for 0 mana investment, and see that the way is clear to alpha strike win. There is no connection between these two cards so why do people keep making it???

    As far as Affinity and Mox Opal, Affinity wants to go all in, every game, on turn one, blindly, and thus throws itself out on a very shaky limb that is easy to knock out from under them, at which point their entire deck and game plan fall into the toilet. Affinity only truly hurts decks with its explosive starts that don't play any interaction at all. If you run interaction, Affinity is not difficult to play against, or deal with, and it's actually quite fun to play against, just like Infect can be fun to play against when they don't draw Probe enabling their early broken plays.

    Sphynx what kind of deck do you play that you are so afraid of Mox Opal in Affinity?

    Push would have improved it. Legacy is proof positive that that strong generic answers played by top-tier decks are more than enough to reign in fast, degenerate, non-interactive combo decks. I'm not saying we should be Legacy or even adopt their answers. It just shows that generic answers can regulate a format and ensure top-tier decks are not consistently winning before the format's parameters allow. Push would certainly have decreased the number of T2-T3 wins from Probe decks, but by an uncertain margin. Wizards probably thought it was better to ban Probe and then see how Push played out. Maybe we can eventually get the combo cards back but we need more answers before then.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on Modern Cheeri0s - Puresteel Equipment Storm
    First, remember that Spellskite and Defense Grid are big nonbos. Sometimes I accidentally bring them up and I always try to go back and correct that. Don't play them; you'll regret it during a combo turn.

    Against removal, I really think the best reactive answer is Silence. It stops even Abrupt Decay and oddballs like Sudden Shock. It also stops countermagic. All that for one mana and just 3-4 slots in the SB: sign me up. I suspect this card will be even better post-Push. The other option to beat removal is pack in threats: Mentor and Geist stand out here.

    I don't want to dedicate specific cards for Eidolon, because Burn is unlikely to ever sustain 10%+ of the format. It generally hovers no higher than 6%-8% in all but the most warped or unstable formats. I really can't condone running anti-Eidolon tech based on that, unless I knew my local metagame was Burn infested. Because of that, I want to stick with the usual generic answers like Echoing Truth, Repeal, and Path to Exile. Those cards are relevant in other matchups while also helping against Burn, and if there's anything Modern has taught me it is sideboard efficiency, and these cards embody that approach. More specialized Burn answers include Angel's Grace, Kor Firewalker, and Timely Reinforcements.
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Modern)
  • 0

    posted a message on Banlist change for 1/9/2017
    Quote from Horacus »
    Well, Matt Sperling said in his article about the banning at Channel Fireball this about the troll ban:

    "
    The Dredge deck gets weakened here, not killed, and that’s a good thing. This card was recently taken off the banned list and it was done so on a trial-and-error basis. Modern Dredge became such a consistent and resilient weapon that it made players feel like they had to have a sideboard with plenty of graveyard hate in order to keep up. This is different than Affinity because ____________ (which brings me to….)"

    And I have to agree with him totally.

    Here's a link to the article: http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/matt-sperling/emrakul-copter-reflector-mage-grave-troll-probe-banned/

    My guess is that the raw number of Dredge hate cards was higher than the raw number of Affinity hate cards. This would be true both as an average % of sideboards, and also in total copies of cards across all sideboards. Speaking of percentages, there is a non-zero percentage I write an article about that difference at some point to see if it's real or not. This is yet another reason Wizards needs better communication around such issues. If I played Affinity, I would very justifiably be worried at the Dredge ban's rationale and Wizards' failure to address the similarities.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 5

    posted a message on Banlist change for 1/9/2017
    Interesting tidbit from today's Daily MTG update:
    http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/daily-magic-update/update-2017-01-10

    Blake highlighted Sperling's CF article first:
    http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/matt-sperling/emrakul-copter-reflector-mage-grave-troll-probe-banned/

    He also had this to say about the article (emphasis added):
    Sperling was the first to have an article with a take on the Banned and Restricted announcement. His take is relatively accurate with regards to R&D's decision. The thinking didn't match up perfectly, but it's close enough that reading this should give you a good snapshot of some of the best reasons for the decision.

    On the one hand, at least we get to hear something from Wizards about the rationale.

    On the other hand, why the heck can't Wizards just give us the rationale directly instead of Blake citing some third-party article that is only partially correct? Sperling makes all sorts of claims in that article and we have no clue which are accurate, which are a little off, which are totally off-base, etc. I'm holding out hope that Wizards releases an actual explanation in the next few weeks, but this update just underscores some of the more ridiculous gaps in their Modern communication.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on Modern Cheeri0s - Puresteel Equipment Storm
    I've been doing some testing against actual opponents (still goldfishing to figure out optimal ratios too), and I'm increasingly convinced that Burn is basically unwinnable if they know our deck. Sure, they can misplay, but if they are basically competent we're screwed in G1 and mostly screwed in G2-G3. I am also leaning heavily towards not caring; I think the number of slots and cards we'd have to play with to improve that matchup is excessive.
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Modern)
  • 4

    posted a message on Banlist change for 1/9/2017
    Quote from Lilijuana »
    • Modern is expensive and has supply issues, which drives away players.
    • Standard has rotation, which is expensive and drives away players.
    • These cards are cheap and have no supply issues, so deck building and upkeep will be easy.

    source: https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/54jyvl/postmodern_has_begun_hareruya_and_bigmagic_team/

    Note the third bullet point.

    This is a major reason why I can't get behind Frontier. That third bulletpoint only holds water so long as the format isn't popular. Remember Jace hitting $90+ on Standard demand? That supply hasn't increased, and Wizards is no more/less likely or able to reprint any Frontier staple than any Modern staple. Some Frontier players acknowledge this fundamental problem, but others do not, either ignoring it outright, dismissing it, or lying about it.

    Frontier's only selling point is a different (lower, for the most part) power level than exists in Modern. Unfortunately, the format looks like it will be overwhelmingly defined by Khans cards, which Wizards probably wouldn't include in a post-Modern format anyway. Either way, I'm not a fan and hold out hope for Modern this next year.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 4

    posted a message on Banlist change for 1/9/2017
    Quote from purklefluff »
    Quote from ktkenshinx »
    As I said earlier and will keep arguing, the problem with the update was not the bans. It was the communication. It CONTINUES to be the communication, or lack thereof, at the core of almost all Standard and Modern issues. Especially Modern issues. Because Wizards is so insistent on opaque format management, players have no idea what to expect. Of course, bans are the primary problem on everyone's minds. Looking over this thread, I've seen ban suggestions for most top and low tier decks with previously reasonable users plunging into Wizards-induced ban mania. If Wizards gave better information about bans, Modern direction, their view of format health, etc., then this would be mitigated.

    Instead, the last major format update/article we got was last April. It was a good article, yes, but it's inexcusable that Magic's second largest constructed format has gone without a public health check-in since April 2016. This is also to say nothing of Wizards' inability to get generic answers into the format so we can internally regulate instead of depending on bans. But regular communication would presumably address even that. Of course, communication isn't the only problem with Modern. It just starts there. Ban policy, reprint policy, testing policy, etc. are all major, ongoing problems too.

    My personal, non-alarmist promise is that I'm done with Modern if we get to 2018 and 2 of the following 4 scenarios have happened:
    1. Another ban due to bad internal policing cards.
    2. No unbans.
    3. Failure to publish at least two articles on the format's overall health, direction, and regulation.
    4. Failure to print or reprint at least one more Modern answer like Push.

    If Wizards does any 2 of those 4 things by 2018, let alone 3 or 4, it just means thr format isn't for me and I can't have confidence in it. Maybe it's still good for others, but I couldn't enjoy a format that was handled in those regards.


    Careful, sheridan, living under an ultimatum is a terrible way to operate, and a slippery slope for many reasons.

    It can lead to you trying to find reasons for something not working out, and undermining your enjoyment.
    With a game that's changing and evolving, it can put you in tough spots where the situation moves beyond your current assessment and you still love it, but the criteria of your ultimatum are still fulfilled, so people expect you to act on it.
    It can force you down a path of denial or overthinking an aspect of the game in order to break or fulfil the criteria.

    To be glib, being a part of a game like magic is a little akin to being in a relationship. It's always bad to give ultimatums in a relationship context (it's a trap) so I'd extend that thought here as well. Don't box yourself into a binary situation which might bite you in the ass later on.

    I definitely agree that ultimatums are bad in relationships. That said, my relationship to Modern is a different kind of relationship than the one you are talking about. It's much more instrumental because Modern is just a preferred format in a hobby; if anything, the real relationship (as you define) I have is with Magic as a game, not Modern as a format. Having played Modern since 2011, been a mod since 2014, and done Nexus since 2015, I now know what I like and dislike about Modern and what attracts me and pushes me away from the format. Those four criteria represent the four major issues I have with the format and I can't enjoy myself in a format where those continue to be problems. None of those things would push me away from Magic, an enjoyable game I still recommend to anyone interested in a gaming hobby. They would just reduce my interest in the Modern format enough to find Magic enjoyment elsewhere.

    I'm hoping for at least some explanation of these updates this coming Friday. Or even next week. That would be a good start to repairing some of the damage done in the announcement, and sets us of on a good foot for the rest of the year.
    Quote from MrM0nd4y »
    My personal, non-alarmist promise is that I'm done with Modern if we get to 2018 and 2 of the following 4 scenarios have happened:
    1. Another ban due to bad internal policing cards.
    2. No unbans.
    3. Failure to publish at least two articles on the format's overall health, direction, and regulation.
    4. Failure to print or reprint at least one more Modern answer like Push.

    If Wizards does any 2 of those 4 things by 2018, let alone 3 or 4, it just means thr format isn't for me and I can't have confidence in it. Maybe it's still good for others, but I couldn't enjoy a format that was handled in those regards.



    Out of curiosity, where would you go, if that were the case? Legacy? Or more of an "I'm out, screw Magic" kinda thing?

    Likely Legacy. Or some grassroots foray into a post-Modern "Origins" format. I can't get behind Frontier because the cutoff doesn't make sense to me (Khans is almost certainly more powerful than what Wizards would want the successor to be). Also, the format has too much private, secondary-market interest in its creation.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 3

    posted a message on Banlist change for 1/9/2017
    As I said earlier and will keep arguing, the problem with the update was not the bans. It was the communication. It CONTINUES to be the communication, or lack thereof, at the core of almost all Standard and Modern issues. Especially Modern issues. Because Wizards is so insistent on opaque format management, players have no idea what to expect. Of course, bans are the primary problem on everyone's minds. Looking over this thread, I've seen ban suggestions for most top and low tier decks with previously reasonable users plunging into Wizards-induced ban mania. If Wizards gave better information about bans, Modern direction, their view of format health, etc., then this would be mitigated.

    Instead, the last major format update/article we got was last April. It was a good article, yes, but it's inexcusable that Magic's second largest constructed format has gone without a public health check-in since April 2016. This is also to say nothing of Wizards' inability to get generic answers into the format so we can internally regulate instead of depending on bans. But regular communication would presumably address even that. Of course, communication isn't the only problem with Modern. It just starts there. Ban policy, reprint policy, testing policy, etc. are all major, ongoing problems too.

    My personal, non-alarmist promise is that I'm done with Modern if we get to 2018 and 2 of the following 4 scenarios have happened:
    1. Another ban due to bad internal policing cards.
    2. No unbans.
    3. Failure to publish at least two articles on the format's overall health, direction, and regulation.
    4. Failure to print or reprint at least one more Modern answer like Push.

    If Wizards does any 2 of those 4 things by 2018, let alone 3 or 4, it just means thr format isn't for me and I can't have confidence in it. Maybe it's still good for others, but I couldn't enjoy a format that was handled in those regards.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 2

    posted a message on Banlist change for 1/9/2017
    Quote from Havrekjex »
    Quote from Ayiluss »
    Although I didn't expect Gitaxian probe ban I must say I'm really happy with this update. Probe was an issue since it gave information about opponent's hand which is a big advantage and it gives you a card all that for free.
    This is hilarious coming from a BGx player. I guess black should have access to hand information in a profitable way, but other colors shouldn`t?

    Again, this underscores the problems with the announcement itself. Probe was not a problem because of its gameplay, even if Wizards' bad writing pinned that as a main reason. It was a problem overwhelmingly because it contributed to a variety of T4 rule violators and Wizards wanted to slow these decks down without gutting them. Black discard spells don't remotely fit this mold. A better update would have resolved these misconceptions and improved format confidence both now and in the future. The poor writing and explanation, however, leaves far too much to interpretation.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 3

    posted a message on Banlist change for 1/9/2017
    Quote from The Fluff »
    Thanks goodness. It's a relief that no cards from Affinity and Eldrazi got banned.. I was worried about Mox Opal and Eldrazi Temple.

    Even if the ban article was horrible, I still believe bans are results-driven and not totally arbitrary and alarmist as many have alleged. Sadly, because Wizards sucked at articulating this, we'll get more undue ban mania and ban fear where there is no need for it. It will also be harder to argue against this mania and fear because Wizards hasn't given us the tools to cite their rationale.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 22

    posted a message on Banlist change for 1/9/2017
    Quote from Lilijuana »

    Their reason for banning probe was as succinct and to the point as it gets...and correct. I don't see how tournament reports are necessary when they are addressing how the card influences gameplay.

    You mentioned the Delver deck above. It runs 17 lands and essentially 56 cards b/c Probe enables such a composition to be viable when normally it would not.

    This rationale is arbitrary and applies to dozens of cards in the format. Gameplay reasons are all subjective. That is why we should prefer objective reasons like T4 rule violations and format diversity violations. Name a Tier 1 staple in Modern and I'm sure half a dozen people in this thread could knit together a rhetorical argument about why that card is busted because it is too strong in gameplay. We cannot have Wizards start banning cards for those reasons because it's completely unpredictable and doesn't necessarily improve the format.

    Here's the Probe rationale I would have written, assuming I had their data:

    "Looking at the results of Modern games on MTGO, we found that no single top-tier deck was consistently winning before turn four and violating the turn four rule. That said, many players complained about how fast the format was. We did a deeper dive and also found that too many overall games were ending before turn four as a result of numerous fast, linear, aggressive strategies, although no single deck was to blame. Rather than ban individual cards from each of these decks (no one of which was alone in violation), we looked at cards shared between all of them to decrease the overall number of games won before turn four. Probe was the most offensive of those shared cards, appearing in the greatest percentage of pre-turn four wins relative to any other shared card.

    This finding is supported by Probe's gameplay: it gives perfect information, draws a card, fuels delve, and even pumps creatures for basically no investment. Although it is unfortunate other decks will suffer from Probe's removal (e.g. Delver, U/R Storm), we believe Probe's banning will have a net positive on the format as it overall decreases the chance of fast, top-tier decks winning before turn four. Those decks will likely also find replacements and stay viable. In the interest of the turn four rule, Gitaxian Probe is banned."


    This took me ten minutes to write and probably summarizes Wizards' analysis of the card. It also would have preemptively addressed most of the anger around the ban.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on Modern Cheeri0s - Puresteel Equipment Storm
    Keep banlist talk out of this thread. The forum rules are very clear that it is not allowed in deck discussion threads.

    Re: Probe
    This shouldn't be a problem for anyone. GP was almost certainly worse in our deck than any of the other dig options. We just can't use the card like other decks (DSZ for lifeloss, Infect for delve, Infect to know how to sequence pump, etc.). We're all-in, all the time to begin with.

    Today's changes hit Infect, Death's Shadow Zoo, Dredge, and Prowess. This means the premier aggro decks should shift to Burn and Affinity: prepare accordingly. Affinity isn't tough for us because it doesn't run enough removal. We should often race Affinity. Burn, however, is a nightmare matchup. Between Burn's probable rise and Push coming to the format, we will either need redundant win conditions in the maindeck and/or additional protection. Aid looks more attractive if everyone is running removal, which I fully expect in the post-update metagame.
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Modern)
  • 2

    posted a message on Banlist change for 1/9/2017
    Quote from Tanukimo »
    Quote from ktkenshinx »
    The anger at this announcement is unusually overblown and unwarranted, even considering the general Modern outcry at such changes. Although there are definitely some legitimately scary elements of the ban update, most people are complaining about elements that are totally fine, or even heartening.

    The GGT ban is perfectly fine. It keeps the deck a top-tier contender without leaving it a Tier 1 mainstay. This lets other GY decks return (remember old faithful Abzan Company?) and lets everyone free up SB slots to fight other decks. The "scary" part about this ban is that it's a reversal of a previous ban, which is unprecedented but not really that scary. I'm fine with companies and organizations changing their minds based on new realities. In these regards, the GGT ban gets top marks from me.

    Probe ban gets a B-. Yes, it's effective at taking a little bit off the top of most fast decks without killing any of them outright. In that regard, it's a solid A. Unfortunately, it does this at the expense of very fair Delver decks, which were great for format health. That's C-, unintended consequence ban territory. More importantly, these kinds of silly bans just underscore Modern's problems: WHERE THE HECK ARE OUR GENERIC ANSWERS AND POLICING CARDS/STRATEGIES?? You don't see these absurd bans in Legacy because the format has internal regulation from cards, not external regulations from bans.


    What about the Gitaxian Probe ban? They didn't even pay lip service to killing off lower-tier decks with the banning. And their reasoning for all of the bans was really weak compared to previous bans.

    Sorry, the post wasn't finished when you quoted it. Had some posting issues; the final version talks about the weak reasoning.

    I'm less concerned about Wizards failing to address Probe's impact on decks like Storm. I can't expect them to test a ban's impact on every Tier 3 or lower deck, and I think some of those "killed decks" aren't as killed as many believe. But I can definitely expect them to articulate their reasoning at all. The article totally failed to draw on tournament finishes, format guidelines, ban policies, etc. It didn't address possible fears and didn't mention other Modern articles and updates to that time. It just reads like it was thrown together in the hour before publication, and that frightens me as a Modern player. Something so important needs more thought and effort put into its release and publication.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 14

    posted a message on Banlist change for 1/9/2017
    The anger at this announcement is unusually overblown and unwarranted, even considering the general Modern outcry at such changes. Although there are definitely some legitimately scary elements of the ban update, most people are complaining about elements that are totally fine, or even heartening.

    The GGT ban is perfectly fine. It keeps the deck a top-tier contender without leaving it a Tier 1 mainstay. This lets other GY decks return (remember old faithful Abzan Company?) and lets everyone free up SB slots to fight other decks. The "scary" part about this ban is that it's a reversal of a previous ban, which is unprecedented but not really that scary. I'm fine with companies and organizations changing their minds based on new realities. In these regards, the GGT ban gets top marks from me.

    Probe ban gets a B-. Yes, it's effective at taking a little bit off the top of most fast decks without killing any of them outright. In that regard, it's a solid A. Unfortunately, it does this at the expense of very fair Delver decks, which were great for format health. That's C-, unintended consequence ban territory. More importantly, these kinds of silly bans just underscore Modern's problems: WHERE THE HECK ARE OUR GENERIC ANSWERS AND POLICING CARDS/STRATEGIES?? You don't see these absurd bans in Legacy because the format has internal regulation from cards, not external regulations from bans. I'm not saying we need Legacy's exact answers, but we do need answers and we needed them a year ago. Push is a good step in the right direction, but it can't be the final step. If we don't get these kinds of cards, we'll keep stomaching more corner-case bans like Probe and keep inciting even more ban mania and format instability.

    So, if the bans themselves aren't that terrible, what's the real problem?

    The problem is the update itself. It doesn't cite tournament finishes, doesn't refer back to format guidelines and rules, doesn't anticipate objections to the bans, and overall doesn't build format confidence. It looked like the article was thrown together in less than an hour, when I'm sure Wizards did mountains of testing and analysis before deciding on some of those bans. If Wizards communicated this to their audience, people wouldn't be so up in arms about these changes. Especially if they threw us a bone about how they want to see how the new format shakes out before deciding on possible unbans. That would have been great! Instead, we got a very elementary update with extremely basic reasons. No wonder people are upset: Wizards hasn't done anything to try and build confidence after a big banlist shakeup.

    I hope we get some clarification in the coming weeks. I'm sick and tired of delving through AMAs and Twitter posts to figure out Wizards' banlist policy and process. This lack of transparency makes it very difficult to advocate on behalf of the format and entice players to join. With ban mania everywhere, it's hard to stay evidence-based and level-headed, particularly when Wizards doesn't give us any tools to help that fight.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 4

    posted a message on [[Official]] Modern Metagame Discussion Thread (Updated 6/12/2016)
    Quote from Tanukimo »
    I don't see the point of updating the metagame the day of a major metagame shift.
    Quote from Spsiegel1987 »
    Agreed, whats the owner of MN doing? It's all invalid now

    As a content producer, I will tell you how problematic and unfair this kind of attitude is. I know the author, Jason, has been working very hard to get this out, entering and reviewing December data, writing an article, and pushing to get it published ASAP this week after numerous requests. Although he should definitely have published the October and November ones earlier (his fault and I'm not defending that), he cannot now be faulted for producing this analysis on schedule and as requested and then getting sideswiped (like everyone else) by a surprise Wizards unbanning. Even when I did the updates, we NEVER published a metagame update earlier than the second week of the following month.

    The update will still be valuable because it shows what the format looked like before the changes. This is the starting point for the post-update metagame, which has always been valuable even in the face of major changes.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 9

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, reprints, new cards, and more!
    Bans are individually okay (GGT is good, Probe is dubious), but the overall banbanban direction is bad. This announcement will just create more ban mania and format instability, further perpetuating the myth (now increasingly a reality) that Modern is a ban format where nothing is safe. It will be very hard to argue otherwise: the format averages 1-2 bans per year, all aimed at top-tier decks. This makes it hard for Modern supporters like myself to defend the format with a straight face.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 3

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, reprints, new cards, and more!
    And I'm frustrated by the lack of Unbans again >.<

    They'll unban something in April if necessary. I'm personally fine with Wizards making these changes and waiting to see what happens. I also appreciate the restraint on the Probe banning, hitting multiple fast decks without really hurting any of their core identities.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, reprints, new cards, and more!
    Holy *****.

    Standard
    Emrakul, Copter, and Reflector Mage are banned

    Modern
    Gitaxian Probe (!!!) and Golgari Grave-Troll are banned
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, reprints, new cards, and more!
    Quote from Tanukimo »
    I thought this was the Modern thread so why are people talking about an Emrakul ban in Standard?

    Many are explaining the context around an unprecedented bumped ban update, which is certainly relevant to Modern players who are all waiting anxiously for 2 more hours to see what happens. It's also relevant because, as purkle said, an Emrakul ban in Standard would underscore how broken Standard cards may suck in Modern. That helps us revisit old bans like SFM and JTMS, amongst others. Finally, it's possible (but unlikely) that Wizards would link an Emrakul ban to a Modern unban for PR reasons. I don't find that likely but I can see why one would speculate about it.

    As long as people aren't debating Standard ban rationales and link their content back to Modern within the thread rules, the topic is fine.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, reprints, new cards, and more!
    Quote from Shmanka »
    I honestly believe that there will.be a ban towards the new infinite combo in standard as well. But let's hope for Modern news!

    I doubt it. I think R&D knows pre-bans/emergency bans need to be reserved for serious problems. They also know how much they make players unhappy:
    http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/latest-developments/modern-musings-2016-06-03
    We could've pre-banned Eye of Ugin or Eldrazi Temple, but I think that would've also made people pretty unhappy.

    Likeliest scenario is an Emrakul unban announced early to give PT players time to prepare. It's also possible they are trying to get ahead of a potential beta leak, which has definitely happened before.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 1

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, reprints, new cards, and more!
    Quote from Spsiegel1987 »
    It could also be that there's the beta leak and it always spoils things before they announce it anyway, that's what happened with Twin and Bloom last year

    Something Emrakul related is getting banned in standard, I think, the format is doing very poorly and has come down to cheating Emrakul or dropping Gideon down. I imagine WOTC is unhappy reading all these articles about what a slump their most focused format is performing


    Nightmare scenario, they didn't realize a twin combo would happen for standard and they're preemptively banning something. That's more a lolidoubt it scenario though.

    I hope modern changes are being announced, I'll be very sad if no changes are announced

    There's no way they are preemptively banning something in Standard. Stoddard recently (last 6 months) talked about how preemptive bans make people really upset. This ban is 80% going to be Emrakul in Standard, 15% Marvelworks in Standard, and 5% "No changes" in Standard. Regardless of the outcome, they are announcing it today instead of next week so pros don't have it hanging over their head and affecting their preparations.

    The only question is if they'll do the Modern announcement too. I think they will do it for all formats to avoid more mania over the next week.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 1

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, reprints, new cards, and more!
    There will be a Standard ban for sure. Timing probably moved up so PT players have more time to prepare for a new format. In fact, I'd bet Wizards cites that extra time as the reason for moving up the update.

    Hopefully we get the Modern news too!
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, reprints, new cards, and more!
    Quote from Teysa_Karlov »
    Fine.

    I'm not sure how much of an impact Fatal Push is going to have. The fact that it is currently pre-ordering for a larger price than six mythics and all but two rares is pretty darn funny though.

    But is the four life difference (or in black, sometimes 2 life) over Dismember going to change the landscape? Dismember hits everything Push does except a super pumped 5/6 or greater Goyf.

    I see it as a strong addition to the modern removal suite, but I don't think it's gonna alter the landscape and shouldn't factor heavily into bans or unbans.

    On the one hand, the four life difference is huge. You can't just throw away four life against the premier aggressive decks in Modern: Affinity, DSZ, Dredge, and Burn. That's particularly true against something like Goblin Guide or an early Signal Pest. The difference between -5/-5 and unconditional removal is also key against Infect and DSZ, where BI stops Dismember and keeps the Blighted Agent/Swiftspear around for the turn, where Steppe Lynx plus Mutagenic survives Dismember, and where Death's Shadow just doesn't die. All of these situations underscore Push's major upsids over Dismember.

    On the other hand, I do think many people are overblowing just how good the card is. It's a really good removal spell but it won't fundamentally change Modern. I expect the post-Push Tier 1 and Tier 2 landscape to look pretty similar to the pre-Push one, except with different decks on top (Abzan, Grixis) and others a little lower (Jund, Infect).
    Posted in: Modern
  • 5

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, reprints, new cards, and more!
    Now I'm speaking as staff. The report inbox is blowing up right now and it's all from this thread. I understand tempers are running hot and multiple users are posting borderline flaming, trolling, spamming, and generally problematic comments. Keep things constructive, respectful, and civil. Talk about Modern issues; don't get in "who said what" exchanges. Criticize arguments; do NOT insult users.

    Posts after this post violating these rules will be warned or infracted accordingly.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 7

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, reprints, new cards, and more!
    Quote from Teysa_Karlov »
    Quote from ktkenshinx »
    Quote from Teysa_Karlov »
    Quote from ktkenshinx »
    Quote from Spsiegel1987 »
    I think it's serious and discrediting that you're kind of calling WOTC liars about their hard facts and findings

    You're also discrediting Sheridan, who had very similar numbers to WOTC's


    Don't engage Bloom defenders. Just ignore anything about Bloom and stick with more relevant and interesting conversation.

    I'm personally comfortable with no unbans in this update, just to see what Push accomplishes and how a (potential) Dredge ban plays out. This would also allow Wizards to make a hyped unban in April just before MM2017 released.

    Re: Rhino and Push
    Whoops, meant Tasigur, not Rhino. Tas is much better in Abzan than in Jund.


    Wow... this kind of elitist attitude from a moderator.

    I didn't realize that gave you all knowing power to discuss relevant bans and unbans. Or are people only allowed to debate banned cards if you personally grace them with your almighty decisions from atop Mount Olympus?

    You have the attitude of a child.

    Again, calm down. You are very close to trolling and/or flaming in this post and others. Take a breather and tone it down.

    At no point did I say the topic isn't allowed. I just think there are more interesting and open topics that aren't closed books. I'm trying to steer the conversation to those exciting topics instead.


    Except that's not what you said. You explicitly told them to ignore any and all conversation about the topic. As a representative of this website no less.

    I get that you agree with the banning of Bloom 10000%. But using your power to silence dissension on the topic (since people are supposed to listen to the mods) is complete horse crap.

    Staff are allowed to express their opinions as users, not as staff. This means they can't redtext opinions, can't use site punishments outside of the rules, can't use site powers to punish disagreeing users, etc. As users, staff members (and non-staff posters) are allowed to encourage or discourage any topic of discussion as long as they criticize arguments and do not insult other users. That is what I was doing and that is what any staff member (or user) is allowed to do. I believe that a discussion of Bloom distracts from more interesting topics, is exclusive, isn't what most people want to discuss, gets tempers running hot, and is a Wizards nonstarter. I am allowed to believe all those things, to express those beliefs, and to encourage other users to ignore Bloom-based posts to keep the thread running smoothly. I am not allowed to insult others, break forum rules, or use mod powers to promote my beliefs. Because neither this post nor other posts did that, there was no abuse of power to discuss.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, reprints, new cards, and more!
    Quote from Teysa_Karlov »
    Quote from ktkenshinx »
    Quote from Spsiegel1987 »
    I think it's serious and discrediting that you're kind of calling WOTC liars about their hard facts and findings

    You're also discrediting Sheridan, who had very similar numbers to WOTC's


    Don't engage Bloom defenders. Just ignore anything about Bloom and stick with more relevant and interesting conversation.

    I'm personally comfortable with no unbans in this update, just to see what Push accomplishes and how a (potential) Dredge ban plays out. This would also allow Wizards to make a hyped unban in April just before MM2017 released.

    Re: Rhino and Push
    Whoops, meant Tasigur, not Rhino. Tas is much better in Abzan than in Jund.


    Wow... this kind of elitist attitude from a moderator.

    I didn't realize that gave you all knowing power to discuss relevant bans and unbans. Or are people only allowed to debate banned cards if you personally grace them with your almighty decisions from atop Mount Olympus?

    You have the attitude of a child.

    Again, calm down. You are very close to trolling and/or flaming in this post and others. Take a breather and tone it down.

    At no point did I say the topic isn't allowed. I just think there are more interesting and open topics that aren't closed books. I'm trying to steer the conversation to those exciting topics instead.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, reprints, new cards, and more!
    Quote from Spsiegel1987 »
    I think it's serious and discrediting that you're kind of calling WOTC liars about their hard facts and findings

    You're also discrediting Sheridan, who had very similar numbers to WOTC's


    Don't engage Bloom defenders. Just ignore anything about Bloom and stick with more relevant and interesting conversation.

    I'm personally comfortable with no unbans in this update, just to see what Push accomplishes and how a (potential) Dredge ban plays out. This would also allow Wizards to make a hyped unban in April just before MM2017 released.

    Re: Rhino and Push
    Whoops, meant Tasigur, not Rhino. Tas is much better in Abzan than in Jund.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, reprints, new cards, and more!
    Quote from Spsiegel1987 »
    Junk receiving the new fastlands was a breathe of fresh air for the deck. Push becoming the black lightning bolt certainly helps. I imagine 1 path will be cut, and the average deck will play 3, even 4 since it functions like bolt (not that I'm claiming it's better than bolt).

    Flayer synergies well with souls, but maybe if junk lowers it's curve we could see Bob back in junk. Or siege rhino becomes bad and we see some Mish mash of Bob and flayer

    Jund will stay tier 1, but I really think junks going to become the better Gbx deck until a new card is introduced for jund

    I wouldn't bother practicing with the junk builds using noble, she's definitely getting removed in favor of push.

    If Push becomes big and the format really embraces spot removal, Abzan definitely supplants Jund on just Souls. Let alone the Push and Bolt-proof Tasigur (EDIT)! As you said, Hierarch is probably not where you want to be in that removal-heavy format. All told, I also expect Abzan to take a midrange lead by April.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on Modern Cheeri0s - Puresteel Equipment Storm
    Quote from slax01 »
    I'll just add some context to my original post where I said reverse engineer was a good card (note: in my opinion, not as a 4-of). I was running alongside 4 bastion inventor. No need to combo off on T2 when you can use 4/4 hexproofers to stabilise the board and combo later. Also why I haven't posted a decklist- getting exactly the right amount of improvise cards so that they don't cannibalise each other will take lots of testing.

    This also covers why I'm running sigarda's aid- aid is necessary to equip accorder's shield to the bastion inventor since I don't want to pay 3-cost equip costs but I really want that vigilance. Flash is just gravy.

    How are you fitting 4 Inventors, some number of Aids, and some number of REs?

    Re: Aid
    I'd only run Aid in a metagame where all but one Tier 1 deck is running (on average) 8+ removal spells. Given that Infect and Dredge run 0 removal, Bant Eldrazi just runs 4, and Affinity runs 3-4, Aid is a dead card in too many matchups. If we get to a Tier 1 where Dredge is gone, Jund stays on top, and a URx deck returns to the mix, then Aid gets a lot better because the card is dead in far fewer matchups.
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Modern)
  • 0

    posted a message on State of Modern Thread: bans, format health, reprints, new cards, and more!
    Quote from Spsiegel1987 »
    As long as daze, counterspell, prohibit, fow, wasteland are not in the format, we will never be close to legacy in power level


    Prohibit is a very odd choice on this list. That card would be totally fine for Modern. Revolt Prohibit would have really rocked.

    Honestly, I think JTMS passes the Stoddard unban test more handily than SFM, but I also don't know if they'd look at JTMS at all. He's not really a solution to fast, linear, non-interactive decks. SFM at least addresses that issue, even if she might end up being too strong.
    Posted in: Modern
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.