We're talking about it because unbanning Ponder and/or Preordain would make Storm better than it is now.
And if Storm is
Then making it better with Ponder and/or Preordain means that some concession might need to be made.
No one is saying to ban grapeshot on its own, they are saying if banning grapeshot is the cost to unbanning Ponder and/or Preordain, its a cost we're willing to pay.
the real problem of u/r storm right now is the lack of mana rituals, not the lack of good cantrips
Then don't say something else. There were bans that weren't obvious and I have currently no clue if something from pod would be hit. Furthermore I can't know if there is something in the next set that makes WotC think that it's good to ban something from a deck I own and make it worse than it was before the printing. How can I tell if people complain about Soul Sisters because it will place better with Archangel of Thune? And gaining life isn't very interactive and lock some decks out of the game and you need specific answers which will need SB slots (basicly something you say all the time).
But as soon as those cards are revealed, many know what decks will become broken because of it. If something is strong right now, and it is going to be able to cherry pick top creatures form the next sets, its pretty easy to figure out pod is going to get better, not worse. What more can you print to hose pod? We already have artifact kill, and that doesnt stop it.
Quote from germanturkey »
so why is scapeshift placing well? because we're in a counterspell meta. what would solve this problem? unbanning bitterblossom!
No it wouldnt. All BB would do is put you on a faster clock. You can not counter lands.
But as soon as those cards are revealed, many know what decks will become broken because of it. If something is strong right now, and it is going to be able to cherry pick top creatures form the next sets, its pretty easy to figure out pod is going to get better, not worse. What more can you print to hose pod? We already have artifact kill, and that doesnt stop it.
No it wouldnt. All BB would do is put you on a faster clock. You can not counter lands.
Pod and scapeshift dominated that GP because people were thinking that blue tron jund and uwr would continue their dominance like usual. Eggs got hit with a ban people felt that they could relax on combo hate and thus combo decks had a good time. melira is strong against blue tron variants and even at least against midrange decks that don't have much hate in the board. This does not mean that pod is overpowered or scapeshift is overpowered.
Pod and scapeshift dominated that GP because people were thinking that blue tron jund and uwr would continue their dominance like usual. Eggs got hit with a ban people felt that they could relax on combo hate and thus combo decks had a good time. melira is strong against blue tron variants and even at least against midrange decks that don't have much hate in the board. This does not mean that pod is overpowered or scapeshift is overpowered.
Scapeshift has been putting up good finishes the last few larger tournaments.
No card in a vacuum is over powered, but you have to look at the interactions that card has with other cards in the format.
so why is scapeshift placing well? because we're in a counterspell meta. what would solve this problem? unbanning bitterblossom!
Actually, it's entirely the opposite. The decks that try to play the control game are overloading on creature removal spells to gain advantage and relying less on counterspells to get there. Scapeshift is immune to creature removal, blanking large parts of the control decks that would otherwise be its natural foil.
And to the thread at large: you know what's so great about metagames? They evolve naturally! The Modern card pool is large enough to allow for shifts between the decks that you see at the top tables. Who cares if Melira Pod got 3/8 slots in the top 8 at this GP? If there was another Modern GP in two weeks, there's no reason to think the results would be the same.
If we had weekly notable tournaments for Modern (a la the SCG Opens), I think we would see a widely varied metagame that shifted from week to week.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's not your job to win games of Magic where you're mana screwed.
It's your job win every game of Magic where you're not.
And to the thread at large: you know what's so great about metagames? They evolve naturally! The Modern card pool is large enough to allow for shifts between the decks that you see at the top tables. Who cares if Melira Pod got 3/8 slots in the top 8 at this GP? If there was another Modern GP in two weeks, there's no reason to think the results would be the same.
If we had weekly notable tournaments for Modern (a la the SCG Opens), I think we would see a widely varied metagame that shifted from week to week.
..and a much more vigilant ban list. Wotc has said if the SCG tournaments were around back during Fae and such, we would have seen many more bannings in Standard.
I dont believe the cards are in the format to self regulate as you are saying.
Quote from Ignithas »
Who thought that DRS would be so succesfull in Modern and Legacy? I personally not.
I would say your card evaluation skills are lacking then. Anyone and everyone knew DRS was going to see play in more then just Standard. At least in my area they did.
So if modern continues as it is right now, we can expect at least ~20 bannings withing the next 10 Blocks at the current banning pace (there will be new error cards, some cards will be to good, some will enable combos, and some will break older cards)
Is this really the format that we want?
We just wait how long it takes before a deck is to good and pushes the limits?
Decks won't become weaker over time so by keeping the old strong decks out you just make it easier for the new strong decks. It just doesn't make sense ...
Why do we have an non-rotating Format in the first place then?
Or do the people that are in favour of aggresive banning expect the format to be replaced in 5 years at most anyway?
Everyone always talks about Legacy, and how it took time to evolve.
That's just wrong.
If the legacy bannedlist would have been handeled like the modern bannedlist Standstill and some goblin cards wouldn't have survived the first few months (i barely followed that format, but as far as i remember those two decks were all over the place)
A lot of moderns bannedlist came into place like the t1.5 bannedlist, which was basically garbage ...
the thing that makes legacy what it is, is a working metagame, a thing which modern lacks, despite crying desperatly for it.
If legacy was handled like modern delver would have been banned last year along side show and tell.
So if modern continues as it is right now, we can expect at least ~20 bannings withing the next 10 Blocks at the current banning pace (there will be new error cards, some cards will be to good, some will enable combos, and some will break older cards)
Is this really the format that we want?
We just wait how long it takes before a deck is to good and pushes the limits?
Decks won't become weaker over time so by keeping the old strong decks out you just make it easier for the new strong decks. It just doesn't make sense ...
Why do we have an non-rotating Format in the first place then?
Or do the people that are in favour of aggresive banning expect the format to be replaced in 5 years at most anyway?
Everyone always talks about Legacy, and how it took time to evolve.
That's just wrong.
If the legacy bannedlist would have been handeled like the modern bannedlist Standstill and some goblin cards wouldn't have survived the first few months (i barely followed that format, but as far as i remember those two decks were all over the place)
A lot of moderns bannedlist came into place like the t1.5 bannedlist, which was basically garbage ...
the thing that makes legacy what it is, is a working metagame, a thing which modern lacks, despite crying desperatly for it.
My first question to you would be who is 'we'? If you are unhappy with Modern now, why are you still playing?
Comparing Modern to Legacy is just wrong. Different times, different power levels of cards, different ideas of what a non-rotating format should be.
Wotc has said if SCG type tournaments were around earlier in Legacys life there would be many more bannings.
I personally have no problem with the direction of the format and how its playing out right now. If Wotc has to ban 50 more cards in the next 10 sets, so be it.
Quote from Ignithas »
I didn't say that I didn't think DRS wouldn't see play. I thought it would see play, but not that it will be under the 3 most played creatures on both formats and make BBE banned (and I'm sure you either). My card evaluation skills aren't lacking, but your reading comprehension it seems is.
Quote from Ignithas »
Who thought that DRS would be so succesfull in Modern and Legacy? I personally not.
I have no problem reading. I was responding to what you wrote.
Just currious, looking at the current ban list, is there a reason that Kiki isn't banned yet? I thought WOTC looked to prevent the type of combo play that he can lead to.
to me, drs was the card that make jund so overpowered
Jund was simply a matter of its sum being greater than its parts. Take a P9 deck. Any one of those cards in a deck makes the deck better but not broken. Not even Lotus. But put them all together and you have a monster.
That's what Jund was. Of course now, with BBE gone, well, you saw the results at GP Portland. So WotC accomplished what it wanted to do by banning BBE. Jund is much weaker and probably dead.
And the reason I say probably dead is not so much because the deck in actuality is dead but because after the hive mind looks at GP Portland's results and sees how poorly represented Jund was in the top 16, a good many of them will simply stop playing the deck and pick up something like Pod or Scapeshift.
That's how the hive mind works. So while Jund may very well still be playable and even capable of winning, the deck will absolutely fall out of favor.
So WotC kills yet another deck because of players constant need to play the "best" deck. That's why trying to maintain a turn 4 format by upping the banned card count is futile.
There will always be a best deck that will end up on the chopping block.
Jund is far from dead you drama queen, it, like many other things, just needs to sit back and adapt mildly to the new meta.
Oh excuse me, did I miss my close up? I'll have to scold the director for that.
As for adapting, we'll see. I don't think a lot of players are going to bother. It'll just be a whole lot easier to pick up Pod or Scapeshift since it's proven.
By playing this tier 1 deck I recognise that in the future the deck may recieve a banning to limit the deck if it becomes overtly powerful or disruptive to that meta.
I am fine with that, that's what comes with playing a very powerful deck.
And yet that does not come with playing a powerful deck in other formats. I can play a Tier 1 deck in Standard and be pretty confident it won't get banned. I can play a Tier 1 deck in Legacy and be pretty confident it won't get banned. I can play a Tier 1 deck in Vintage and be pretty confident it won't get some Restriction that makes it unplayable. I shouldn't have to choose between playing a strong deck and risk it getting banned and playing a weaker deck that has almost no chance of a ban.
B= Who thought that DRS would be so succesfull in Modern and Legacy? I personally not.
I did. But I also think Blood Scrivener is nutzo too.
On topic: Now that Scavanging Ooze is coming into the format, can Golgari Grave Troll FINALLY come off the list?
It and Deathrite Shaman are both Main-deck caliber graveyard hate.
Is that a serious question? Really? Do you honestly think that a metagame is healthy when players are afraid to play a deck for fear of seeing it banned? I would normally report a post that consisted of just "LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL", but in this case, Sabertooth gets a pass because his reaction is just too appropriate.
There is no innovation in a format where players are afraid to play and design strong decks. There is no emotional investment either, because no one wants to commit to a deck only to see it banned into oblivion. And of course, there is no financial investment in the format's staples, because bannings might cause cards to devalue overnight.
Now, I understand that Modern is going to have some growing pains, and I understand that its banlist will necessarily be conservative and longer at the beginning. But until the format can find some stability, it is going to continue to be a "Detour" (as Mike Flores so snarkily put it last night) and not a destination.
Tell me, how many fair decks that didn't break the turn 4 rule or extended tournaments far past their alloted time period have been banned into oblivion?
Wild Nacatl.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
Tell me, how many fair decks that didn't break the turn 4 rule or extended tournaments far past their alloted time period have been banned into oblivion?
The problem is that this turn 4 rule is currently arbitrary. Infect has had no bans aimed at it, even though it can easily win on turn 2-3. But it hasn't performed well at major events, so Wizards has spared it the banhammer. All that means is that Infect players are probably afraid to play the deck, knowing that a GP win would just see it banned. The same goes for decks using Griselbrand. That deck also has turn 2-3 wins, but with no events to back it up. Anyone who wants to play this deck, or UR Storm, or cheeri0s, or any other fast combo deck, has zero long-term incentive to pilot their decks at big events.
Moreover, the problem isn't just with decks. It's with cards. Wild Nacatl, Bloodbraid Elf, and Punishing Fire were all victims of their own success. And two of those bans (Nacatl + BBE) gutted their respective decks (Zoo + Jund). Fire too, but that card saw play across a wide range of archetypes. But in all cases, players used them effectively, put up numbers with the decks, and then saw them banned away. You don't see this in other formats to the same extent as you do in Modern.
Wizards needs to let the players and the metagame adapt to decks, not just ban them outright. Some things are obviously too broken, like Blazing Shoal. But Wild Nacatl? Seriously? Those cards should never be on the same banlist.
Also, anyone who thinks that a deck is good enough to win a tournament and then chooses not to play it are being kinda dumb. If I am going to a modern grand prix and I think that infect is the best bet for me to win, I will play it. Who cares if they ban it after I won with it? Also, it isn't like infect is expensive to build.
Isn't a better idea to print cards that help against that deck in future sets instead of just banning everything. Not to beat a dead horse but when a legacy deck gets too big for the meta the meta shifts to counter the deck. Thresh was too dominant so Maverick arose to beat it back down Maverick was too strong Miracles came around Show and Tell getting too good Thresh and Stoneblade are around to keep it in check. Health metas adapt to keep the strongest decks in check. When you ban every good card in a format that isn't degenerate because lets be frank cards like AV Nacatyl GSZ Bitterblossom even Jace and Stoneforge aren't truly degenerate cards when in a equally powerful enviroment, the format can't self regulate.
The problem here is:
1) we want and Eternal Format
2) we rather have a larger banned list, than "too strong" decks
This two statements kinda condradict each other ...
Yet somehow wotc trys to unify them with modern, and some players pretend that they are succeding.
The thing about eternal formats is that cards in eternal formats remain untouched until their objective power level goes up too far. The most common examples are tutors which were narrow but eventually devolved into broken (Mystical tutor with the printing of ad naus, and unbanning of entomb, and survival vengvine.) In this vein GSZ ban makes sense as it's a highly powerful do everything tutor for either 1 or 0 mana.
Modern is not an eternal format and as such is only changing via the banned list. I theorize that they're trying out a new shifting sands format where the banned list is constantly changing in order to disrupt pro's play testing of the format and lengthen it's life.
Why? For the sake of fairness and equality.
Banning something from everything leaves only the best good stuff deck which is miserable to play and play against in addition to just being the most expensive deck.
Also, anyone who thinks that a deck is good enough to win a tournament and then chooses not to play it are being kinda dumb. If I am going to a modern grand prix and I think that infect is the best bet for me to win, I will play it. Who cares if they ban it after I won with it? Also, it isn't like infect is expensive to build.
And yet, on this forum alone, we constantly see players who ask what to invest in and receive advice that they should wait until Modern stabilizes. We see it in local metagames as well, with people reporting that they would rather just play Legacy where they know a deck will be viable and legal two years from now. Attendance at Modern events is neither declining nor booming, but players are definitely worried to invest in such an unstable format. I admit that (hopefully) this will improve with time. But until it does, format investment will remain very low.
The reason why infect and griselbrand decks don't win gp's is that they are easily disrupted glass cannons.
So if that ever changes, they can be banned at any moment? If another fast deck arises, it can be banned too? I know you are just going to answer "yes", but I want you to consider what that means for deckbuilders and for metagames. It discourages innovation and it discourages diversity. That's terrible for any format, let alone a non-rotating one. Other nonrotating formats allow for metagame adaption to keep "Broken" decks in line. For the most part, it succeeds, and when it doesn't succeed, Wizards intervenes months and months later. Modern has a ban first, ask questions later policy, and it's terrible for our format's publicity.
As for the cards listed above, 1, they are cards and not decks.
Wizards doesn't ban decks. It bans cards. The only exception to this in Magic's history was Affinity in Standard and Block, when multiple cards got banned from the same deck so as to constitute a "deck" banning. But in every other case, cards get banned, not decks.
2: Kitty: Zoo still VERY playable.
BBE: Jund still tier 1
GSZ: still tier 1
Cloudpost: Became Tron, still tier 1-1.5
1. Zoo is fine as a deck, we can agree on that.
2. Jund got rocked at GP Portland, and will likely be continually rocked at future events. UWR is just a better deck.
3. The Punishing Fire ban, which I notice you didn't address, took out a whole chunk of Grixis and RUG control decks that lost their best way of dealing with aggro.
4. Not addressing GSZ or Cloudpost because I didn't mention those cards, and I really hated Twelvepost.
Truth is, if a deck's good, it could end up being nerfed.
Why? For the sake of fairness and equality.
What parallel universe are you living in? Nonrotating formats do not thrive on this kind of instability. Here's the goal of the format in LaPille's own words: "...many of you have called for a non-rotating format that doesn't have the card availability problems of Legacy. We propose Modern as that format."
This format is supposed to be an inheritor of Legacy, a successor and supplement that players can enjoy. But the ban policy of Modern is far more aggressive than that of Legacy, so the intended comparison just doesn't hold up under scrutiny. We want a non-rotating format with long term stability. Until Wizards relents on it ban policy and bannings, that stability is not going to happen, and Modern is not going to be such a format.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
the real problem of u/r storm right now is the lack of mana rituals, not the lack of good cantrips
But as soon as those cards are revealed, many know what decks will become broken because of it. If something is strong right now, and it is going to be able to cherry pick top creatures form the next sets, its pretty easy to figure out pod is going to get better, not worse. What more can you print to hose pod? We already have artifact kill, and that doesnt stop it.
No it wouldnt. All BB would do is put you on a faster clock. You can not counter lands.
Pod and scapeshift dominated that GP because people were thinking that blue tron jund and uwr would continue their dominance like usual. Eggs got hit with a ban people felt that they could relax on combo hate and thus combo decks had a good time. melira is strong against blue tron variants and even at least against midrange decks that don't have much hate in the board. This does not mean that pod is overpowered or scapeshift is overpowered.
Scapeshift has been putting up good finishes the last few larger tournaments.
No card in a vacuum is over powered, but you have to look at the interactions that card has with other cards in the format.
Actually, it's entirely the opposite. The decks that try to play the control game are overloading on creature removal spells to gain advantage and relying less on counterspells to get there. Scapeshift is immune to creature removal, blanking large parts of the control decks that would otherwise be its natural foil.
And to the thread at large: you know what's so great about metagames? They evolve naturally! The Modern card pool is large enough to allow for shifts between the decks that you see at the top tables. Who cares if Melira Pod got 3/8 slots in the top 8 at this GP? If there was another Modern GP in two weeks, there's no reason to think the results would be the same.
If we had weekly notable tournaments for Modern (a la the SCG Opens), I think we would see a widely varied metagame that shifted from week to week.
It's your job win every game of Magic where you're not.
..and a much more vigilant ban list. Wotc has said if the SCG tournaments were around back during Fae and such, we would have seen many more bannings in Standard.
I dont believe the cards are in the format to self regulate as you are saying.
I would say your card evaluation skills are lacking then. Anyone and everyone knew DRS was going to see play in more then just Standard. At least in my area they did.
If legacy was handled like modern delver would have been banned last year along side show and tell.
My first question to you would be who is 'we'? If you are unhappy with Modern now, why are you still playing?
Comparing Modern to Legacy is just wrong. Different times, different power levels of cards, different ideas of what a non-rotating format should be.
Wotc has said if SCG type tournaments were around earlier in Legacys life there would be many more bannings.
I personally have no problem with the direction of the format and how its playing out right now. If Wotc has to ban 50 more cards in the next 10 sets, so be it.
I have no problem reading. I was responding to what you wrote.
Jund was simply a matter of its sum being greater than its parts. Take a P9 deck. Any one of those cards in a deck makes the deck better but not broken. Not even Lotus. But put them all together and you have a monster.
That's what Jund was. Of course now, with BBE gone, well, you saw the results at GP Portland. So WotC accomplished what it wanted to do by banning BBE. Jund is much weaker and probably dead.
And the reason I say probably dead is not so much because the deck in actuality is dead but because after the hive mind looks at GP Portland's results and sees how poorly represented Jund was in the top 16, a good many of them will simply stop playing the deck and pick up something like Pod or Scapeshift.
That's how the hive mind works. So while Jund may very well still be playable and even capable of winning, the deck will absolutely fall out of favor.
So WotC kills yet another deck because of players constant need to play the "best" deck. That's why trying to maintain a turn 4 format by upping the banned card count is futile.
There will always be a best deck that will end up on the chopping block.
Mark my words. Pod is next.
And when it happens, don't be surprised.
I sure as hell won't be.
Oh excuse me, did I miss my close up? I'll have to scold the director for that.
As for adapting, we'll see. I don't think a lot of players are going to bother. It'll just be a whole lot easier to pick up Pod or Scapeshift since it's proven.
No?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
I did. But I also think Blood Scrivener is nutzo too.
On topic: Now that Scavanging Ooze is coming into the format, can Golgari Grave Troll FINALLY come off the list?
It and Deathrite Shaman are both Main-deck caliber graveyard hate.
Modern: the format where players are discouraged from building good decks.
Is that a serious question? Really? Do you honestly think that a metagame is healthy when players are afraid to play a deck for fear of seeing it banned? I would normally report a post that consisted of just "LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL", but in this case, Sabertooth gets a pass because his reaction is just too appropriate.
There is no innovation in a format where players are afraid to play and design strong decks. There is no emotional investment either, because no one wants to commit to a deck only to see it banned into oblivion. And of course, there is no financial investment in the format's staples, because bannings might cause cards to devalue overnight.
Now, I understand that Modern is going to have some growing pains, and I understand that its banlist will necessarily be conservative and longer at the beginning. But until the format can find some stability, it is going to continue to be a "Detour" (as Mike Flores so snarkily put it last night) and not a destination.
Wild Nacatl.
The problem is that this turn 4 rule is currently arbitrary. Infect has had no bans aimed at it, even though it can easily win on turn 2-3. But it hasn't performed well at major events, so Wizards has spared it the banhammer. All that means is that Infect players are probably afraid to play the deck, knowing that a GP win would just see it banned. The same goes for decks using Griselbrand. That deck also has turn 2-3 wins, but with no events to back it up. Anyone who wants to play this deck, or UR Storm, or cheeri0s, or any other fast combo deck, has zero long-term incentive to pilot their decks at big events.
Moreover, the problem isn't just with decks. It's with cards. Wild Nacatl, Bloodbraid Elf, and Punishing Fire were all victims of their own success. And two of those bans (Nacatl + BBE) gutted their respective decks (Zoo + Jund). Fire too, but that card saw play across a wide range of archetypes. But in all cases, players used them effectively, put up numbers with the decks, and then saw them banned away. You don't see this in other formats to the same extent as you do in Modern.
Wizards needs to let the players and the metagame adapt to decks, not just ban them outright. Some things are obviously too broken, like Blazing Shoal. But Wild Nacatl? Seriously? Those cards should never be on the same banlist.
And BBE, GSZ, Cloudpost, etc.
I'm...I'm sorry, but is this a serious question?
The thing about eternal formats is that cards in eternal formats remain untouched until their objective power level goes up too far. The most common examples are tutors which were narrow but eventually devolved into broken (Mystical tutor with the printing of ad naus, and unbanning of entomb, and survival vengvine.) In this vein GSZ ban makes sense as it's a highly powerful do everything tutor for either 1 or 0 mana.
Modern is not an eternal format and as such is only changing via the banned list. I theorize that they're trying out a new shifting sands format where the banned list is constantly changing in order to disrupt pro's play testing of the format and lengthen it's life.
Banning something from everything leaves only the best good stuff deck which is miserable to play and play against in addition to just being the most expensive deck.
Wizards in relation to modern.
"The bannings will continue until attendance improves."
Not sure if trolling or just very stupid.:fry:
And yet, on this forum alone, we constantly see players who ask what to invest in and receive advice that they should wait until Modern stabilizes. We see it in local metagames as well, with people reporting that they would rather just play Legacy where they know a deck will be viable and legal two years from now. Attendance at Modern events is neither declining nor booming, but players are definitely worried to invest in such an unstable format. I admit that (hopefully) this will improve with time. But until it does, format investment will remain very low.
So if that ever changes, they can be banned at any moment? If another fast deck arises, it can be banned too? I know you are just going to answer "yes", but I want you to consider what that means for deckbuilders and for metagames. It discourages innovation and it discourages diversity. That's terrible for any format, let alone a non-rotating one. Other nonrotating formats allow for metagame adaption to keep "Broken" decks in line. For the most part, it succeeds, and when it doesn't succeed, Wizards intervenes months and months later. Modern has a ban first, ask questions later policy, and it's terrible for our format's publicity.
Wizards doesn't ban decks. It bans cards. The only exception to this in Magic's history was Affinity in Standard and Block, when multiple cards got banned from the same deck so as to constitute a "deck" banning. But in every other case, cards get banned, not decks.
1. Zoo is fine as a deck, we can agree on that.
2. Jund got rocked at GP Portland, and will likely be continually rocked at future events. UWR is just a better deck.
3. The Punishing Fire ban, which I notice you didn't address, took out a whole chunk of Grixis and RUG control decks that lost their best way of dealing with aggro.
4. Not addressing GSZ or Cloudpost because I didn't mention those cards, and I really hated Twelvepost.
What parallel universe are you living in? Nonrotating formats do not thrive on this kind of instability. Here's the goal of the format in LaPille's own words: "...many of you have called for a non-rotating format that doesn't have the card availability problems of Legacy. We propose Modern as that format."
This format is supposed to be an inheritor of Legacy, a successor and supplement that players can enjoy. But the ban policy of Modern is far more aggressive than that of Legacy, so the intended comparison just doesn't hold up under scrutiny. We want a non-rotating format with long term stability. Until Wizards relents on it ban policy and bannings, that stability is not going to happen, and Modern is not going to be such a format.