Actually, my point is just the opposite: the B/G/x decks don't want it. The shells we tested with Bitterblossom performed worse overall than those without. It had quite a bit of value as a sideboard card against affinity, but that was about it. I know a fair amount about Faeries and I like to think that I'm fairly skilled (and I know the rest of my team is). Barring some significant modification in playstyle or other card choices, I really can't see any way Bitterblossom is tier 1, much less banworthy. We would never have played a deck with the results we got out of our Bitterblossom testing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Go to my blog, Musings of the False God, for in-depth guides playing the game, from the building blocks of deck design to deceiving your opponent through clever game play!
You may also know me as the guy in the art of Dark Confidant. No, not Bob Maher, the OTHER one.
As for the cards you mention being unbanned, kitty, GSZ, BBE and song probably are not coming off any time soon. All of those have been banned in the past 2 years. I doubt Wotc has seen enough growth or change in the format to unban them now.
If this mattered then we'd never have seen valakut unbanned. You are aware that the whole format is two years old?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
If this mattered then we'd never have seen valakut unbanned. You are aware that the whole format is two years old?
Valakut was an original ban. (an unban I still feel was at the wrong time because people have been second guessing them ever since) Unbanning something they have banned the past 2 years is saying they were wrong and some would not let them forget it. It would get really ugly.
Hence, why I feel there will be no changes for a while. Better to see if the format straightens itself out (which over tie and adding more sets it should) then admit they were wrong and have that whole fire storm come down on them.
Valakut was an original ban. (an unban I still feel was at the wrong time because people have been second guessing them ever since) Unbanning something they have banned the past 2 years is saying they were wrong and some would not let them forget it. It would get really ugly.
Hence, why I feel there will be no changes for a while. Better to see if the format straightens itself out (which over tie and adding more sets it should) then admit they were wrong and have that whole fire storm come down on them.
There have been 4 sets since Return to Ravnica, which is when I believe Modern fell apart. If the format is going to correct itself, it should have done it by now. And everyone knows that Wizards was wrong and banned several cards that didn't need to be unbanned (even you agree that Golgari Grave-Troll, Bitterblossom, and Preordain weren't needed and I think I remember you saying that Ancestral Vision could be unbanned too). Saying that cards that were on the banned list for no reason shouldn't happen just because it would make Wizards look like they didn't know what they were doing is ridiculous. I don't care if they didn't know what they are doing. What I care about is that them not unbanning cards is making them look like they still don't know what they are doing. Not unbanning cards like GGT makes them look more ridiculous than taking them off would.
Whoa, I said the only reason BB could be unbanned now is because of decay. I believe we should keep BB on the list and ban decay. I understand why GGT is on the list, Wotc hates Dredge. I have never said AV should come off. All I have ever said about preordain is they shouldnt have banned both P&P at the same time.
I hate to sound like a broken record but Wotc has the data. We as the player base are asking for unbans because of the small amount of exposure we get.
Whoa, I said the only reason BB could be unbanned now is because of decay. I believe we should keep BB on the list and ban decay. I understand why GGT is on the list, Wotc hates Dredge. I have never said AV should come off. All I have ever said about preordain is they shouldnt have banned both P&P at the same time.
I hate to sound like a broken record but Wotc has the data. We as the player base are asking for unbans because of the small amount of exposure we get.
If the majority of the playerbase wants an unban, then Wizards should give it to them. And I believe that the majority of the playerbase does want unbans (You yourself just said "the playerbase", which means that you admit that most people want unbans, not more bans). If there is a problem after the unban (which is unlikely, considering that the first cards off would be the weaker ones like Preordain), Wizards can just ban it again and the playerbase will have to shut up about unbans for a while, because they will remember what happened the last time there was an unban. If unbanning Bitterblossom broke the format, people would point to it and realize that there shouldn't large amounts of unbans yet, the same way that people point to Valakut right now and say that it didn't break the format so unbans should happen. And as for the Wizards has the data argument, do you remember the extensive Bitterblossom testing that happened? I also believe that Wizards couldn't have done the testing correctly, otherwise they wouldn't view an incredibly slow token generator, a 1 mana card that digs 2 cards deep, a self mill card for a weak deck that is stopped by huge amounts of hate, a turn 5 draw 3 that is a useless topdeck, and a turn 2 vanilla 3/3 beater as broken. The banned list has problems, and saying that "Wizards knows all, and they haven't unbanned anything, so every card on the banned list would break the format!" is a ridiculous argument that is only used to circumvent all reasonable debate on unbans. When people talk about banning the fetchlands or other ridiculous bans, I don't say "Wizards knows all, and they didn't ban the fetchlands, so they don't need a ban!" I argue the merits of banning them and keeping them unbanned, which is something that you need to do if you want to contribute to this discussion.
I just want to say that wizards' data can only be in the form of Future Future League style testing. Bitterblossom,Golgari Grave-Troll,Ancestral Vision, Chrome Mox, and other cards have never been on the online modern metagame, and as such cannot have large amounts of player data available. So, it's incorrect to say "Wizards has the data" in a lot of these cases. In fact, thanks to my testing of Bitterblossom and Grave-troll, we have some data too. Not great data, but enough nonetheless to suggest that there are some cards that really can be taken off the banned list without fear.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Go to my blog, Musings of the False God, for in-depth guides playing the game, from the building blocks of deck design to deceiving your opponent through clever game play!
You may also know me as the guy in the art of Dark Confidant. No, not Bob Maher, the OTHER one.
If there is a problem after the unban (which is unlikely, considering that the first cards off would be the weaker ones like Preordain), Wizards can just ban it again and the playerbase will have to shut up about unbans for a while, because they will remember what happened the last time there was an unban.
It is not that simple. If wizards unban something juts to ban it again, it will have a huge impact on the trust toward Wizards ability to maintain the ban list, wich is already very frail. In busines, trust is something very valuable and as a big company wizards can't simply play with the ban list.
I also believe that Wizards couldn't have done the testing correctly, otherwise they wouldn't view an incredibly slow token generator, a 1 mana card that digs 2 cards deep, a self mill card for a weak deck that is stopped by huge amounts of hate, a turn 5 draw 3 that is a useless topdeck, and a turn 2 vanilla 3/3 beater as broken.
Wizards is really over protective and scared of taking risks, but don't try to insinuate those cards are not powerful. On the right enviroment they are totally banable. Yes, modern enviroment is strong enough to deal with them and wizard is really understimating modern power level, but this don't make those cards weak as you trying them to look.
If the majority of the playerbase wants an unban, then Wizards should give it to them. And I believe that the majority of the playerbase does want unbans (You yourself just said "the playerbase", which means that you admit that most people want unbans, not more bans). If there is a problem after the unban (which is unlikely, considering that the first cards off would be the weaker ones like Preordain), Wizards can just ban it again and the playerbase will have to shut up about unbans for a while, because they will remember what happened the last time there was an unban. If unbanning Bitterblossom broke the format, people would point to it and realize that there shouldn't large amounts of unbans yet, the same way that people point to Valakut right now and say that it didn't break the format so unbans should happen. And as for the Wizards has the data argument, do you remember the extensive Bitterblossom testing that happened? I also believe that Wizards couldn't have done the testing correctly, otherwise they wouldn't view an incredibly slow token generator, a 1 mana card that digs 2 cards deep, a self mill card for a weak deck that is stopped by huge amounts of hate, a turn 5 draw 3 that is a useless topdeck, and a turn 2 vanilla 3/3 beater as broken. The banned list has problems, and saying that "Wizards knows all, and they haven't unbanned anything, so every card on the banned list would break the format!" is a ridiculous argument that is only used to circumvent all reasonable debate on unbans. When people talk about banning the fetchlands or other ridiculous bans, I don't say "Wizards knows all, and they didn't ban the fetchlands, so they don't need a ban!" I argue the merits of banning them and keeping them unbanned, which is something that you need to do if you want to contribute to this discussion.
You dont know if its the majority of the player base. Just because a couple dozen people on here say they want 'X' unbanned, does not constitute a majority.
I have not said Wotc knows all, I have said they have volumes more data then any one calling for unbans. Huge difference. They are making decisions off data, the player base are making decisions off emotions, desires, and opinions. The small sample size play testing is a rain drop in a bucket compared to the data Wotc has.
Again it is Wotcs format to do as they feel. We, the players choose what we wish to play, if at all.
You dont know if its the majority of the player base. Just because a couple dozen people on here say they want 'X' unbanned, does not constitute a majority.
I have not said Wotc knows all, I have said they have volumes more data then any one calling for unbans. Huge difference. They are making decisions off data, the player base are making decisions off emotions, desires, and opinions. The small sample size play testing is a rain drop in a bucket compared to the data Wotc has.
Again it is Wotcs format to do as they feel. We, the players choose what we wish to play, if at all.
And if enough people complain, even if it is just a vocal minority, Wizards will respond to them. Stop with the "Wizards is in charge, so they can do whatever they want and if you don't like it stop playing" argument. We are having a discussion on the merits of cards being unbanned or banned, and resorting to "Wizards has the data and if they though that something needed to be unbanned they would unban it" and "If you don't like the format, sucks to be you, go play a different format" does not contribute to the discussion. And you don't know that the majority of players don't like unbans either, so stop acting like they don't. Players like being able to play with more cards. If the strategies with those cards were beatable and enjoyable to play against, the players would support the unbans. This is why I do not see why you think most players would quit playing the format if Ponder/Ancestral Visions/Wild Nacatl were unbanned. And really, the you can choose to play or not play Modern argument is simply infuriating. Look at the formats from my point of view.
Vintage: No one plays this, too many broken cards, way too expensive
Legacy: Too expensive, too many broken cards (I hate it how some Game 1s can be decided by whether Force of Will is in your opening hand [yes, I realize that this is rare, but it is still annoying that it can happen regularly with some decks])
Modern: Only 3 playable control decks, no playable prison decks, only 1 tier 1 aggro deck, no playable spell-based combo decks
Standard: Money drain, stale meta
Limited: Money drain, I prefer actually knowing what my deck is going to be
Sealed: See limited
Block Constructed: No one plays this, money drain, stale meta
Pauper: Doesn't exist in paper, only commons misses out on lots of strategies that I like
Commander: Expensive, the only reason the format still exists is because people don't build the insanely powerful decks that win on turn 1 and would be banned if it had a reasonable banned list
So, unless if Modern gets its act together, I have no format to play Magic in. I can't just go play a different format like you are suggesting, I'd have to quit Magic altogether. And even if everyone else like everything the way that it is, that doesn't change the fact that there is nowhere for me. This may be selfish, but I will argue for the changes that I feel would make Modern a better format until those changes are made or I quit the game.
It is not that simple. If wizards unban something juts to ban it again, it will have a huge impact on the trust toward Wizards ability to maintain the ban list, wich is already very frail. In busines, trust is something very valuable and as a big company wizards can't simply play with the ban list.
I personally think that Wizards trying out unbanning cards and being proven right or wrong wouldn't do any more damage to their reputation than them refusing to unban anything and restricting format diversity just because they are afraid of taking risks.
Wizards is really over protective and scared of taking risks, but don't try to insinuate those cards are not powerful. On the right enviroment they are totally banable. Yes, modern enviroment is strong enough to deal with them and wizard is really understimating modern power level, but this don't make those cards weak as you trying them to look.
They may not be as weak as I am making them look, but look at the cards in Modern. Are they stronger than DRS, Goyf, or Bob? Are they stronger than Past in Flames, Pyromancer Ascension, and Goblin Electromancer? Are they stronger than Birthing Pod and Chord of Calling? Are they stronger than Wurmcoil Engine, the Urza lands, and Emrakul? Are they stronger than Arcbound Ravager, Inkmoth Nexus, Cranial Plating, and Mox Opal? Are they stronger than Griselbrand, Goryo's Vengeance, and Fury of the Horde? The list continues to go on and on, and most of the cards that I am naming are stronger than Preordain, especially in a meta without tempo or spell-based combo.
They may not be as weak as I am making them look, but look at the cards in Modern. Are they stronger than DRS, Goyf, or Bob? Are they stronger than Past in Flames, Pyromancer Ascension, and Goblin Electromancer? Are they stronger than Birthing Pod and Chord of Calling? Are they stronger than Wurmcoil Engine, the Urza lands, and Emrakul? Are they stronger than Arcbound Ravager, Inkmoth Nexus, Cranial Plating, and Mox Opal? Are they stronger than Griselbrand, Goryo's Vengeance, and Fury of the Horde? The list continues to go on and on, and most of the cards that I am naming are stronger than Preordain, especially in a meta without tempo or spell-based combo.
Remember that power level alone is not what makes cards banable. Comparing only one variable will never give a satisfatory answer.
Punishing Fire is a good example, it is not a poweful card... unless combined specifically with Grove of the Burnwillows.
Or Blazing Shoal, that is a very bad card, but due to the infect mechanic, can lead to very fast kills.
Would you say that Punishing Fire and Blazing Shoal are not banable on modern? They aren't that powerful, but allows some interactions that aren't good for modern.
You can't say that cards like BB, AV, Nacatl shouldn't be banned because they are weaker than cards like Bob, Goyf, DRS, Ravager, because if you that they aren't banable only because of power, you should also say that Cards like punishing fire and Shoal aren't also banable, because they ARE weaker than those cards.
It is not about raw power, but about the effect it have on the meta.
Even bad cards such as Punishing Fire, Sword of the Meek, Dark Depths, Blazing Shoal (cards that are very weak alone) can have a negative because you know, a deck is composed by 60 cards at last, and even some no-so-strong-cards can have a very negative effect in the right shell.
And don't take me wrong, i'm all in for unbaning BB, AV, SotM, Preordain and/or Ponder, but i think that we should give proper reasoning to support it.
Remember that power level alone is not what makes cards banable. Comparing only one variable will never give a satisfatory answer.
Punishing Fire is a good example, it is not a poweful card... unless combined specifically with Grove of the Burnwillows.
Or Blazing Shoal, that is a very bad card, but due to the infect mechanic, can lead to very fast kills.
Would you say that Punishing Fire and Blazing Shoal are not banable on modern? They aren't that powerful, but allows some interactions that aren't good for modern.
You can't say that cards like BB, AV, Nacatl shouldn't be banned because they are weaker than cards like Bob, Goyf, DRS, Ravager, because if you that they aren't banable only because of power, you should also say that Cards like punishing fire and Shoal aren't also banable, because they ARE weaker than those cards.
It is not about raw power, but about the effect it have on the meta.
Even bad cards such as Punishing Fire, Sword of the Meek, Dark Depths, Blazing Shoal (cards that are very weak alone) can have a negative because you know, a deck is composed by 60 cards at last, and even some no-so-strong-cards can have a very negative effect in the right shell.
And don't take me wrong, i'm all in for unbaning BB, AV, SotM, Preordain and/or Ponder, but i think that we should give proper reasoning to support it.
I agree, but since we've already done that and Bocephus still believes "It is only your opinion, Wizards has more data than you could possibly imagine and would have already done your requested unbans if they thought that it would be good for the format" I thought that I might as well go for it.
I really don't buy into the idea that Wizards has this mysterious collection of data that justifies their ban list.
I agree. Most of the stuff on the BL that wasn't ridiculous combo stuff like Glimpse of Nature, Hypergenesis, etc. were justified through mostly conjecture. I'm talking about the 'Welcome to the Modern World' article (https://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/155).
There's basically no data behind Bitterblossom, SFM, Jace, Wild Nacatl, etc. being banned - mostly just assertions that the cards would be 'dominating', 'format warping', etc.
The only time in my recent memory that data definitively killed a deck was Storm's ridiculous Modo results - which certainly justified a ban of some kind. Goldfishing turn 3 wins with a deck that has the 'game 1 advantage' in that it takes specific hate to interact with (rather than, say, creature removal) was ridiculous. But there really wasn't anything to axe there that would have satisfied anyone, and they ended up choosing Seething Song - which ended up taking not only my Storm deck (which I was ambivalent about), but my Enduring Ideal deck AND my Hivemind brew with it...
I don't really know what the right solution was there. But I hope that WOTC, in the future, continues to use SOME kind of data when they take actions in the format.
I really don't buy into the idea that Wizards has this mysterious collection of data that justifies their ban list.
Sure they do. They have access to every sanctioned Modern event. They have representatives at all large events watching games (and talking to the players). They have all the MTGO data. They have tons of data.
Would trading grapeshot for seething song be a reasonable thing to do? I mean, even if it would make storm potentially even worse than now, it would at least help out 4 or 5 other decks to be playable again.
You'll notice that we haven't touched a blue card yet. When we got to this point and realized that blue was escaping unscathed, we knew we had to ban something, or a very powerful blue control deck would likely be the best thing left. We had a large number of choices, but we chose to take our cues from Legacy, as an excellent way to measure objective card power is to see what cards are played in Magic's most powerful high-level tournament format.
Sure they do. They have access to every sanctioned Modern event. They have representatives at all large events watching games (and talking to the players). They have all the MTGO data. They have tons of data.
Yes, but that doesn't mean they have sufficient data to say that certain cards should stay banned. I doubt that they have really had any real testing potential unbans.
It seems that the only bans they have made that have had extensive testing are BBE, Seething Song, and Second Sunrise. All others have been based on past formats (like BB, SotM, Valakut) or have been knee-jerk reactions (Like P&P, Wild Nacatl, GSZ).
i honestly think they should unban JTMS. if they worry about caw-blade dominating the format just leave stoneforge mystic on the BL, how is a 4-cmc planeswalker going to break the format that has turn 3 karns?
Sure they do. They have access to every sanctioned Modern event. They have representatives at all large events watching games (and talking to the players). They have all the MTGO data. They have tons of data.
Except they openly stated they banned Bitterblossom only because of it's unpopularity (The only data substantiate claim)
After everything I've just told you about choosing to ban, the last obvious deck that we haven't hit is Faeries, which was almost certainly the best deck in four-year Extended the last time we ran it. While Faeries does not currently have as much enmity from players as Stoneforge Mystic decks do, its historical popularity is not very high. We would rather remove it than risk a Faeries-dominated Pro Tour.
Actually re-reading the article, Valakut was pretty much banned for the same non data reasons.
which cards would you take out for snapcasters? flashing tiago shrinks your goyf, and your JTMS is a 4 mana permanent, you will add at least 3 in the deck for consistency, in which case u will have issues controlling your life total with dark confidant and fetch/shock manabase. you already have CA engine in dark confidant, adding in snappy and JTMS will shift the BGx shell to a more controlling BUG shell, making it slower and less mana-efficient in terms of racing(now you can forget the bolts). it then becomes a different strategy
Just because you dont agree with what they did with the data, doesnt mean they dont have mountains more data then we the player base have.
And just because they have data, does not mean that it is particularly useful data.
I support what they have done with bans for the most part. I think that if a few of the cards got banned didn't strictly need to be, they are acceptable casualties for the time being.
But what they were* doing was was sculpting to a vision, not some perfect mathematical equation of mountains of data equals X needs to be banned.
*
They seem to have stopped in the path they were on, and haven't moved further along that path or turned back yet. We reached a point where they are comfortable enough with how things work that they are seemingly not willing to stomach the discomfort of more bans or unbans.
As much as people complain when they do either of those things, I find it hard to blame them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I support WotC's goal of shaping Modern in favor of diversity.
I ran a thought experiment on my blog Modern in a Nuclear Wasteland
of an extreme case of banning 20 more cards to make sure they get everything, then scaling back where appropriate. WotC seems to be on a slowly build up approach. Both ways probably reach similar end points.
The post Gatecrash metagame is proving to be closer to the endpoint than I estimated, so its very possible that few (if any) more cards need to be banned.
Give me JTMS and i will build a BUG deck that completely warps the format. JTMS is a completely broken card and he will never come off the banned list.
Yeah....I don't think BUG with Jace is warping this format or coming anywhere close to it. Jace would still be the strongest card in the format, but I doubt it's breaking anything.
You may also know me as the guy in the art of Dark Confidant. No, not Bob Maher, the OTHER one.
If this mattered then we'd never have seen valakut unbanned. You are aware that the whole format is two years old?
Valakut was an original ban. (an unban I still feel was at the wrong time because people have been second guessing them ever since) Unbanning something they have banned the past 2 years is saying they were wrong and some would not let them forget it. It would get really ugly.
Hence, why I feel there will be no changes for a while. Better to see if the format straightens itself out (which over tie and adding more sets it should) then admit they were wrong and have that whole fire storm come down on them.
There have been 4 sets since Return to Ravnica, which is when I believe Modern fell apart. If the format is going to correct itself, it should have done it by now. And everyone knows that Wizards was wrong and banned several cards that didn't need to be unbanned (even you agree that Golgari Grave-Troll, Bitterblossom, and Preordain weren't needed and I think I remember you saying that Ancestral Vision could be unbanned too). Saying that cards that were on the banned list for no reason shouldn't happen just because it would make Wizards look like they didn't know what they were doing is ridiculous. I don't care if they didn't know what they are doing. What I care about is that them not unbanning cards is making them look like they still don't know what they are doing. Not unbanning cards like GGT makes them look more ridiculous than taking them off would.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
I hate to sound like a broken record but Wotc has the data. We as the player base are asking for unbans because of the small amount of exposure we get.
If the majority of the playerbase wants an unban, then Wizards should give it to them. And I believe that the majority of the playerbase does want unbans (You yourself just said "the playerbase", which means that you admit that most people want unbans, not more bans). If there is a problem after the unban (which is unlikely, considering that the first cards off would be the weaker ones like Preordain), Wizards can just ban it again and the playerbase will have to shut up about unbans for a while, because they will remember what happened the last time there was an unban. If unbanning Bitterblossom broke the format, people would point to it and realize that there shouldn't large amounts of unbans yet, the same way that people point to Valakut right now and say that it didn't break the format so unbans should happen. And as for the Wizards has the data argument, do you remember the extensive Bitterblossom testing that happened? I also believe that Wizards couldn't have done the testing correctly, otherwise they wouldn't view an incredibly slow token generator, a 1 mana card that digs 2 cards deep, a self mill card for a weak deck that is stopped by huge amounts of hate, a turn 5 draw 3 that is a useless topdeck, and a turn 2 vanilla 3/3 beater as broken. The banned list has problems, and saying that "Wizards knows all, and they haven't unbanned anything, so every card on the banned list would break the format!" is a ridiculous argument that is only used to circumvent all reasonable debate on unbans. When people talk about banning the fetchlands or other ridiculous bans, I don't say "Wizards knows all, and they didn't ban the fetchlands, so they don't need a ban!" I argue the merits of banning them and keeping them unbanned, which is something that you need to do if you want to contribute to this discussion.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
You may also know me as the guy in the art of Dark Confidant. No, not Bob Maher, the OTHER one.
Wizards is really over protective and scared of taking risks, but don't try to insinuate those cards are not powerful. On the right enviroment they are totally banable. Yes, modern enviroment is strong enough to deal with them and wizard is really understimating modern power level, but this don't make those cards weak as you trying them to look.
You dont know if its the majority of the player base. Just because a couple dozen people on here say they want 'X' unbanned, does not constitute a majority.
I have not said Wotc knows all, I have said they have volumes more data then any one calling for unbans. Huge difference. They are making decisions off data, the player base are making decisions off emotions, desires, and opinions. The small sample size play testing is a rain drop in a bucket compared to the data Wotc has.
Again it is Wotcs format to do as they feel. We, the players choose what we wish to play, if at all.
And if enough people complain, even if it is just a vocal minority, Wizards will respond to them. Stop with the "Wizards is in charge, so they can do whatever they want and if you don't like it stop playing" argument. We are having a discussion on the merits of cards being unbanned or banned, and resorting to "Wizards has the data and if they though that something needed to be unbanned they would unban it" and "If you don't like the format, sucks to be you, go play a different format" does not contribute to the discussion. And you don't know that the majority of players don't like unbans either, so stop acting like they don't. Players like being able to play with more cards. If the strategies with those cards were beatable and enjoyable to play against, the players would support the unbans. This is why I do not see why you think most players would quit playing the format if Ponder/Ancestral Visions/Wild Nacatl were unbanned. And really, the you can choose to play or not play Modern argument is simply infuriating. Look at the formats from my point of view.
Vintage: No one plays this, too many broken cards, way too expensive
Legacy: Too expensive, too many broken cards (I hate it how some Game 1s can be decided by whether Force of Will is in your opening hand [yes, I realize that this is rare, but it is still annoying that it can happen regularly with some decks])
Modern: Only 3 playable control decks, no playable prison decks, only 1 tier 1 aggro deck, no playable spell-based combo decks
Standard: Money drain, stale meta
Limited: Money drain, I prefer actually knowing what my deck is going to be
Sealed: See limited
Block Constructed: No one plays this, money drain, stale meta
Pauper: Doesn't exist in paper, only commons misses out on lots of strategies that I like
Commander: Expensive, the only reason the format still exists is because people don't build the insanely powerful decks that win on turn 1 and would be banned if it had a reasonable banned list
So, unless if Modern gets its act together, I have no format to play Magic in. I can't just go play a different format like you are suggesting, I'd have to quit Magic altogether. And even if everyone else like everything the way that it is, that doesn't change the fact that there is nowhere for me. This may be selfish, but I will argue for the changes that I feel would make Modern a better format until those changes are made or I quit the game.
I personally think that Wizards trying out unbanning cards and being proven right or wrong wouldn't do any more damage to their reputation than them refusing to unban anything and restricting format diversity just because they are afraid of taking risks.
They may not be as weak as I am making them look, but look at the cards in Modern. Are they stronger than DRS, Goyf, or Bob? Are they stronger than Past in Flames, Pyromancer Ascension, and Goblin Electromancer? Are they stronger than Birthing Pod and Chord of Calling? Are they stronger than Wurmcoil Engine, the Urza lands, and Emrakul? Are they stronger than Arcbound Ravager, Inkmoth Nexus, Cranial Plating, and Mox Opal? Are they stronger than Griselbrand, Goryo's Vengeance, and Fury of the Horde? The list continues to go on and on, and most of the cards that I am naming are stronger than Preordain, especially in a meta without tempo or spell-based combo.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Punishing Fire is a good example, it is not a poweful card... unless combined specifically with Grove of the Burnwillows.
Or Blazing Shoal, that is a very bad card, but due to the infect mechanic, can lead to very fast kills.
Would you say that Punishing Fire and Blazing Shoal are not banable on modern? They aren't that powerful, but allows some interactions that aren't good for modern.
You can't say that cards like BB, AV, Nacatl shouldn't be banned because they are weaker than cards like Bob, Goyf, DRS, Ravager, because if you that they aren't banable only because of power, you should also say that Cards like punishing fire and Shoal aren't also banable, because they ARE weaker than those cards.
It is not about raw power, but about the effect it have on the meta.
Even bad cards such as Punishing Fire, Sword of the Meek, Dark Depths, Blazing Shoal (cards that are very weak alone) can have a negative because you know, a deck is composed by 60 cards at last, and even some no-so-strong-cards can have a very negative effect in the right shell.
And don't take me wrong, i'm all in for unbaning BB, AV, SotM, Preordain and/or Ponder, but i think that we should give proper reasoning to support it.
I agree, but since we've already done that and Bocephus still believes "It is only your opinion, Wizards has more data than you could possibly imagine and would have already done your requested unbans if they thought that it would be good for the format" I thought that I might as well go for it.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
I agree. Most of the stuff on the BL that wasn't ridiculous combo stuff like Glimpse of Nature, Hypergenesis, etc. were justified through mostly conjecture. I'm talking about the 'Welcome to the Modern World' article (https://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/155).
There's basically no data behind Bitterblossom, SFM, Jace, Wild Nacatl, etc. being banned - mostly just assertions that the cards would be 'dominating', 'format warping', etc.
The only time in my recent memory that data definitively killed a deck was Storm's ridiculous Modo results - which certainly justified a ban of some kind. Goldfishing turn 3 wins with a deck that has the 'game 1 advantage' in that it takes specific hate to interact with (rather than, say, creature removal) was ridiculous. But there really wasn't anything to axe there that would have satisfied anyone, and they ended up choosing Seething Song - which ended up taking not only my Storm deck (which I was ambivalent about), but my Enduring Ideal deck AND my Hivemind brew with it...
I don't really know what the right solution was there. But I hope that WOTC, in the future, continues to use SOME kind of data when they take actions in the format.
Sure they do. They have access to every sanctioned Modern event. They have representatives at all large events watching games (and talking to the players). They have all the MTGO data. They have tons of data.
Totally seems data driven to me
Yes, but that doesn't mean they have sufficient data to say that certain cards should stay banned. I doubt that they have really had any real testing potential unbans.
It seems that the only bans they have made that have had extensive testing are BBE, Seething Song, and Second Sunrise. All others have been based on past formats (like BB, SotM, Valakut) or have been knee-jerk reactions (Like P&P, Wild Nacatl, GSZ).
UBRGrixis ControlUBR | URPhoenixUR | UWMiraclesUW |GBRJundGBR | UBFaeriesUB | UBWAd NauseumUBW |GBRWBlueless ShadowGBRW |
MTGA
UBRGrixis ControlUBR | UTempoU
That'd make for a rough deck to play against (I would build it in a heart beat)
Except they openly stated they banned Bitterblossom only because of it's unpopularity (The only data substantiate claim)
Actually re-reading the article, Valakut was pretty much banned for the same non data reasons.
Come join us in the MTGSalvation chat ||| My trade thread. ||| My Personal Modern Blog: The Fetchlands
UBRGrixis ControlUBR | URPhoenixUR | UWMiraclesUW |GBRJundGBR | UBFaeriesUB | UBWAd NauseumUBW |GBRWBlueless ShadowGBRW |
MTGA
UBRGrixis ControlUBR | UTempoU
And just because they have data, does not mean that it is particularly useful data.
I support what they have done with bans for the most part. I think that if a few of the cards got banned didn't strictly need to be, they are acceptable casualties for the time being.
But what they were* doing was was sculpting to a vision, not some perfect mathematical equation of mountains of data equals X needs to be banned.
*
As much as people complain when they do either of those things, I find it hard to blame them.
I ran a thought experiment on my blog
Modern in a Nuclear Wasteland
of an extreme case of banning 20 more cards to make sure they get everything, then scaling back where appropriate. WotC seems to be on a slowly build up approach. Both ways probably reach similar end points.
The post Gatecrash metagame is proving to be closer to the endpoint than I estimated, so its very possible that few (if any) more cards need to be banned.
Yeah....I don't think BUG with Jace is warping this format or coming anywhere close to it. Jace would still be the strongest card in the format, but I doubt it's breaking anything.