well you gotta ask yourself why wizards would care about adding more powerful 0-1 cmc cards to the format. its the speed of games that they worry about.
the thing with preordain is that 1 mana blue cantrips are already seeing plenty of play, so preordain would just be a swap. even a deck like storm, which overloads on cantrips, is already playing the max number of that type of effect. any more would require them to cut rituals, mana creatures, or gifts.
so would preordain result in a faster format? it would marginally increase the consistency of combo decks like storm and ad nauseam; however it wouldnt allow them to go off any sooner like another enabler would.
are there any blue decks right now that play no cantrips that would go out of their way for preordain? maybe merfolk or infect
if preordain never sees an unban i would think its because they drew a line in the sand at serum visions being the best cantrip in the format, and just dont care to look further than that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
Given this, I don't understand why we always fixate on GP vs. SCG Open. I often read in this an assumption that GP are the gold standard of Modern viability, when the vast majority of players don't play in GP for the vast majority of their games. At least h0lydiva has her venue clearly picked as MTGO. I feel a lot of other people, particularly those who complain about certain decks sucking/being too strong, are stuck on GP results. This is fine if you are gunning for GP wins. But I'm pretty sure most of us aren't doing that, so why aren't we focusing on all the other event levels instead?
Given this, I don't understand why we always fixate on GP vs. SCG Open. I often read in this an assumption that GP are the gold standard of Modern viability, when the vast majority of players don't play in GP for the vast majority of their games. At least h0lydiva has her venue clearly picked as MTGO. I feel a lot of other people, particularly those who complain about certain decks sucking/being too strong, are stuck on GP results. This is fine if you are gunning for GP wins. But I'm pretty sure most of us aren't doing that, so why aren't we focusing on all the other event levels instead?
Because, it is GP's upon which ban's are decided.
PTs and MTGO also drive bans, so even that's not totally accurate. Moreover, people don't just refer to GP in regards to bans. They do it in regards to most aspects of Modern health, stability, and deck viability. Again, I don't think there's anything wrong with this if your primary goal is to win GP. I just am seriously skeptical that most Modern players have that goal and attend that many GP, especially on forums like this one and Reddit. I think players are much more concerned with the perception of a deck's GP viability than the actual viability of a deck at the level they are playing. Especially pro perception of a deck's GP viability. This just doesn't make a lot of sense if most of us are MTGO grinders, FNM player, regional event aspirants, etc.
I've read several opinions that counterspell would be too powerful for modern, and while I don't think that's the case I get the concern. I do agree that something like innocent blood would do wonders for the format.
If you want ancard that is purely reactionary as a counterspell, just add a rider that stops you from casting spells for the rest of the turn if it resolves. Combo decks wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole and it gives control a shot in the arm to deal with them. The issue is that control is already running plenty of stuff to answer these decks already, it's the hyperaggresive creature decks that give them fits because recursive and sizable threats are coming down so early in modern. Dredge, hollow, affinity, elves, 8 whack and more all spit out a huge board presence very quickly by t2 most games. It's either wide or tall, but that's the issue imo.
That being said I think a modal spell that's cheap and effective against wide and tall strats that's cmc 2 or less would be too powerful. I also agree that force would cause Ux decks to get too much protection with just one card. Turns would be all over it in an instant and I'm sure there's even more degenerate stuff then that. Not sure what the answer is, but true combo decks don't actually look all that powerful imo right now. Aside from storm and recently KCI, nothing else is putting up notable results.
Given this, I don't understand why we always fixate on GP vs. SCG Open. I often read in this an assumption that GP are the gold standard of Modern viability, when the vast majority of players don't play in GP for the vast majority of their games. At least h0lydiva has her venue clearly picked as MTGO. I feel a lot of other people, particularly those who complain about certain decks sucking/being too strong, are stuck on GP results. This is fine if you are gunning for GP wins. But I'm pretty sure most of us aren't doing that, so why aren't we focusing on all the other event levels instead?
well you gotta ask yourself why wizards would care about adding more powerful 0-1 cmc cards to the format. its the speed of games that they worry about.
the thing with preordain is that 1 mana blue cantrips are already seeing plenty of play, so preordain would just be a swap. even a deck like storm, which overloads on cantrips, is already playing the max number of that type of effect. any more would require them to cut rituals, mana creatures, or gifts.
so would preordain result in a faster format? it would marginally increase the consistency of combo decks like storm and ad nauseam; however it wouldnt allow them to go off any sooner like another enabler would.
are there any blue decks right now that play no cantrips that would go out of their way for preordain? maybe merfolk or infect
if preordain never sees an unban i would think its because they drew a line in the sand at serum visions being the best cantrip in the format, and just dont care to look further than that.
There needs to be sufficient reason why someone would draw the line in the sand on Serum Visions being the best cantrip in the format. The reason why Preordain would make Modern better if it was unbanned because there's a chance that it would make it more of an interactive format. I'm not saying the format is super uninteractive as some people believe, but I think that it would be more enjoyabe with Preordain here, and hopefully Wotc will see the same. If they dont show that they have any really good reason why they chose Serum Visons as the best cantrip, then we need to call them out on it as a community.
I think there should be someone working for Wizards dedicated to discussing eternal formats more than just a few times a year when it comes to the B&R updates. When Fatal Push was designed, was there a void it needed to fill in Modern? Was the format asking it to arrive to improve the quality of it? Ot was it just deigned for Standard with implications for Modern? In the case for Preordain, I believe, there is an actual call for it to be unbanned.
The splinter twin ban had "number of GP placings" as a reference point, IIRC. But that's largely it that I can think of.
I am not saying GPs are not considered, of course they are. But GPs are definitely not the deciding factor for ban decisions.
I fail to see how it can be much other than that, and yes Pokken mentions what I'm thinking about.
Pro Tour, well that certainly has an impact, if you know what I mean.
MTGO Numbers? 100% if there is an underlying issue, that we can never KNOW since they hide the data now...thats going to be an issue.
GP's would be the prime source of 'do we have an issue here' that I can think of.
The splinter twin ban had "number of GP placings" as a reference point, IIRC. But that's largely it that I can think of.
I am not saying GPs are not considered, of course they are. But GPs are definitely not the deciding factor for ban decisions.
I fail to see how it can be much other than that, and yes Pokken mentions what I'm thinking about.
Pro Tour, well that certainly has an impact, if you know what I mean.
MTGO Numbers? 100% if there is an underlying issue, that we can never KNOW since they hide the data now...thats going to be an issue.
GP's would be the prime source of 'do we have an issue here' that I can think of.
Yeah but that is the case for us maybe, and even we have SCG data and other tournaments.
Wizards has access to all data and they have shown in the standard bannings that they DO take into account MTGO data. They also said before the last B&R announcement that they waited until after the pro tour for a decision, showing that, even if PTs don't dictate the timing of the decision any more, they DO in fact play an important role in the decision. And of course, GPs are a good source of data for widespread success, but it is only one of the parameters.
I think using the Pro Tour is completely bogus data, as its not even a pure event.
I think using MTGO is extremely smart, because it iterates faster, allows for more testing, and has dedicated grinders doing the testing for Wizards.
I think after those first 2 points however, the final litmus test, is the GP. Its larger, has more at stake, and is more 'important' in the eyes of the community, as a benchmark for what is happening in the format.
To be completely transparent, I feel using the Pro Tour as anything but a scapegoat is a joke. MTGO (as its digital and iterative) and GP's should carry by far the most weight.
IMO they should all be weighted evenly (MTGO Qualifiers, MTGO Leagues, GP, SCG) except for PTs, which shouldn't count for anything. The most important factor is the sample size, which of course, MTGO has the most of.
Wotc needs to be 100% transparent with the mtgo data.
Its hard to even speculate about the importance of MTGO data without actually seeing it. Each different type of game is important (league vs qualifiers vs queues, etc)
IMO they should all be weighted evenly (MTGO Qualifiers, MTGO Leagues, GP, SCG) except for PTs, which shouldn't count for anything. The most important factor is the sample size, which of course, MTGO has the most of.
Wotc needs to be 100% transparent with the mtgo data.
Its hard to even speculate about the importance of MTGO data without actually seeing it. Each different type of game is important (league vs qualifiers vs queues, etc)
Bingo, brother!
I am torn a bit on Pro Tour information. On one hand, Pros are trying to find the best deck. They are better at figuring out what is the best deck in Modern. On the other hand, they may just need the "best deck" for that one tournament. It may not even be that good a deck outside of the Pro Tour as long as it lines up well with what they perceive will be played. Sometimes, something is found like UR or Colorless Eldrazi and it TAKES OVER a format. Other times, something like Bogles, that never will be the best deck, ends up crushing. So, I understand why it's incredibly hard for us to take Pro Tour information into account.
But then...there are external factors in any given tournament. People come to beat Tron. Tron doesn't do well. People come to slow Aggro. Tron does well. And on and on and on.......
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
Honestly, I enjoy modern, but it is making me cynical. Outside of loving my GBx decks/staples, I think I'm done trying to play fair or reactive in modern. I'm definitely selling off a lot of my blue staples (minus snaps and tarns), because it's just a handicap.
It's just flat out better to be aggressive in some form, either by aggro creatures or combo. Your deck naturally doing it's own thing is better than hoping for your answers to line up with your opponents threats.
I look at the UWx topics on here, reddit and Facebook---and they all seem lost.
Standard has a focus on midrange archetypes, and Legacy has tools to play fair (although pigeonholes you into blue).
Blue has weak counters, spells that are too conditional, no true, fast threat, and having to contend with Vial and Caverns, along with ramp decks with poor answers to land destruction.
Seriously, outside of playing for fun, you should play a proactive deck that only wants to disrupt enough to win. That's why Humans is working, and thats why Shadow decks dominated for all of 2017.
Blue decks now have damping sphere to deal with ramp decks. Has anyone here playtested Blue-Red Wizards with Wizard’s Retort? It gives blue a proactive deck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern
JundBGR
RW Blood MoonRW
Pauper
Delver U
Elves G
Control B
Commander
Edgar Markov BRW
Captain Sisay GW
Niv-Mizzet, Parun UR
Tymna and Ravos WB
IMO Prohibit wouldn't be the next Fatal Push. It would be the Opt: kind of neat I guess, but a sidegrade at best and not really enough to do anything.
The permission the format needs most is reliably countering turn-3 spells on the draw (Blood Moon, Liliana, Storm chain if possible, TKS or Smasher if they go nuts on the Sol Lands, etc.). That's why Logic Knot is run at 3+ in a lot of lists even though frankly it's a meh card that's terrible in multiples and has anti-synergy with the best Blue card in the format.
Prohibit does zilch for that. By the time you have mana to counter the format's game-ending 3- and 4-drops, they've already curved out over you. You'll be able to hit something eventually, but that's just not enough. And if overpaying for counters (which you do often with Prohibit) were good, Syncopate would be playable.
I can see getting a new 2CMC counter that does good things for the format (not to mention just Counterspell), but Prohibit is IMO just not one of them.
I’m not against counterspell being in modern; I’d just like to see if Wizard’s retort can do anything in modern first.
I'd be really surprised if Wizard's Retort were what Delver needed to claw its way up from ~Tier 3, especially since a flipped Delver loses its Wizard subtype.
Apart from Delver, I can't see a deck being improved by jamming a bunch of Wizards in the hope of getting off a Turn-2 Counterspell (which, let's face it, isn't anything more than "just good" to begin with). Or the nonexistent wizards.dec becoming viable for that reason.
Impossible to say for sure of course, but for me personally Retort is a huge yuck. Wizards might be pretty good in Standard though, so this is all just in terms of Modern.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing UX Mana Denial until Modern gets the answers it needs.
WUBRG Humans BRW Mardu Pyromancer UW UW "Control" UR Blue Moon
Honestly, I enjoy modern, but it is making me cynical. Outside of loving my GBx decks/staples, I think I'm done trying to play fair or reactive in modern. I'm definitely selling off a lot of my blue staples (minus snaps and tarns), because it's just a handicap.
It's just flat out better to be aggressive in some form, either by aggro creatures or combo. Your deck naturally doing it's own thing is better than hoping for your answers to line up with your opponents threats.
I look at the UWx topics on here, reddit and Facebook---and they all seem lost.
Standard has a focus on midrange archetypes, and Legacy has tools to play fair (although pigeonholes you into blue).
Blue has weak counters, spells that are too conditional, no true, fast threat, and having to contend with Vial and Caverns, along with ramp decks with poor answers to land destruction.
Seriously, outside of playing for fun, you should play a proactive deck that only wants to disrupt enough to win. That's why Humans is working, and thats why Shadow decks dominated for all of 2017.
Blue decks now have damping sphere to deal with ramp decks.
Blue decks often want to play multiple spells in a turn, not the least of which is cantrip + any spell, or Snapcaster. I personally have very little interest in playing the card myself.
Well, I’d love counterspell for modern but for it to not be too powerful in standard maybe they’d maybe have to reprint Cavern of Souls and give uncounterable spells for the guilds in gatecrash, which I would also be for.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern
JundBGR
RW Blood MoonRW
Pauper
Delver U
Elves G
Control B
Commander
Edgar Markov BRW
Captain Sisay GW
Niv-Mizzet, Parun UR
Tymna and Ravos WB
I’m not against counterspell being in modern; I’d just like to see if Wizard’s retort can do anything in modern first.
I'd be really surprised if Wizard's Retort were what Delver needed to claw its way up from ~Tier 3, especially since a flipped Delver loses its Wizard subtype.
Apart from Delver, I can't see a deck being improved by jamming a bunch of Wizards in the hope of getting off a Turn-2 Counterspell (which, let's face it, isn't anything more than "just good" to begin with). Or the nonexistent wizards.dec becoming viable for that reason.
Impossible to say for sure of course, but for me personally Retort is a huge yuck. Wizards might be pretty good in Standard though, so this is all just in terms of Modern.
Wizard's Retort is getting a tad bit misunderstood here. People seem to think it is supposed to be played early and have lots of aggressive small wizards to synergize with. The card is really more of a mid to late game card that helps keep your mana open if a wizard is in play at that point. Wizards aren't really about clogging the board with aggressive small creatures, they are support cards that help other strategies work. Snapcaster Mage is one of the best wizards of all time, if not the best, and he is extremely underwhelming as a body on the field. What gives him teeth is his ability to give spells in the graveyard flash. vendilion clique is another example of a really good wizard, and he's played mostly to forcefully cycle a needed card from the opponents hand.
When I play wizards I look for added value, and that is what [card}Wizard's Retort[/card] gives. It lets me counter something for cheap in the mid game while keeping more resources open. Does that mean it is the best card to play with wizards? Well, the floor is a Cancel and the ceiling is a Counterspell. Against a lot of the more low to the ground and aggressive decks a Mana Leak can be more effective, or even just playing something like Censor. Unfortunately, we're talking modern here and not standard, though. This is really more of a "they did it again" Cancel with an upside. You really have to ask yourself if you expect that wizard to stay on the field long enough to even get a payoff on the counter, and right now I'd say against a lot of decks that wizard on the field isn't going to stick. If this was something like Hexproof Spirit tribal, where spot removal is just horrible, than I'd say Wizard's Retort is good.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
From what I've seen, you play Wizards closer to Bloo. There is no Wizard that is a pay off right now sitting on the field and then trying to 'get there' holding up Retort that I can think of...
I don't know that purely Wizard tribal can cut it, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Fish give Wizards Retort a try. A lot of merfolk have the wizard typing already, so it could possibly have a home there. Otherwise, there may be some kind of combo deck that could benefit having a Wizard tribe creature suite, but I don't know what it would be.
Honestly, I enjoy modern, but it is making me cynical. Outside of loving my GBx decks/staples, I think I'm done trying to play fair or reactive in modern. I'm definitely selling off a lot of my blue staples (minus snaps and tarns), because it's just a handicap.
It's just flat out better to be aggressive in some form, either by aggro creatures or combo. Your deck naturally doing it's own thing is better than hoping for your answers to line up with your opponents threats.
I look at the UWx topics on here, reddit and Facebook---and they all seem lost.
Standard has a focus on midrange archetypes, and Legacy has tools to play fair (although pigeonholes you into blue).
Blue has weak counters, spells that are too conditional, no true, fast threat, and having to contend with Vial and Caverns, along with ramp decks with poor answers to land destruction.
Seriously, outside of playing for fun, you should play a proactive deck that only wants to disrupt enough to win. That's why Humans is working, and thats why Shadow decks dominated for all of 2017.
Blue decks now have damping sphere to deal with ramp decks.
Blue decks often want to play multiple spells in a turn, not the least of which is cantrip + any spell, or Snapcaster. I personally have very little interest in playing the card myself.
Its a good sideboard card against decks that wont be playing multiple cards a turn either. Tron is usually really bad matchup for Blue Control decks, and it will only help the control deck significantly. Against other ramp decks it will help a lot too except Valakut which is just a bad matchup and sometimes you just have to live with that.
Vial and Cavern really aren't the linchpin of Humans. Most control decks have a ton of removal, and really shouldn't be complaining about those cards. Yeah they help Humans against counter spells, but counterpells are weak in the first place. I don't play control, but I really think that a deck like Jeskai is actually very good against the top 2 decks in the format. The big problem is that you need to win against other decks as well, which I think Dampening Sphere helps a lot when it comes to actual matchup spread.
Honestly, I enjoy modern, but it is making me cynical. Outside of loving my GBx decks/staples, I think I'm done trying to play fair or reactive in modern. I'm definitely selling off a lot of my blue staples (minus snaps and tarns), because it's just a handicap.
It's just flat out better to be aggressive in some form, either by aggro creatures or combo. Your deck naturally doing it's own thing is better than hoping for your answers to line up with your opponents threats.
I look at the UWx topics on here, reddit and Facebook---and they all seem lost.
Standard has a focus on midrange archetypes, and Legacy has tools to play fair (although pigeonholes you into blue).
Blue has weak counters, spells that are too conditional, no true, fast threat, and having to contend with Vial and Caverns, along with ramp decks with poor answers to land destruction.
Seriously, outside of playing for fun, you should play a proactive deck that only wants to disrupt enough to win. That's why Humans is working, and thats why Shadow decks dominated for all of 2017.
Blue decks now have damping sphere to deal with ramp decks.
Blue decks often want to play multiple spells in a turn, not the least of which is cantrip + any spell, or Snapcaster. I personally have very little interest in playing the card myself.
True, but blue decks can often times play 1 spell during their turn and 1 spell during their opponent’s turn.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern
JundBGR
RW Blood MoonRW
Pauper
Delver U
Elves G
Control B
Commander
Edgar Markov BRW
Captain Sisay GW
Niv-Mizzet, Parun UR
Tymna and Ravos WB
Honestly, I enjoy modern, but it is making me cynical. Outside of loving my GBx decks/staples, I think I'm done trying to play fair or reactive in modern. I'm definitely selling off a lot of my blue staples (minus snaps and tarns), because it's just a handicap.
It's just flat out better to be aggressive in some form, either by aggro creatures or combo. Your deck naturally doing it's own thing is better than hoping for your answers to line up with your opponents threats.
I look at the UWx topics on here, reddit and Facebook---and they all seem lost.
Standard has a focus on midrange archetypes, and Legacy has tools to play fair (although pigeonholes you into blue).
Blue has weak counters, spells that are too conditional, no true, fast threat, and having to contend with Vial and Caverns, along with ramp decks with poor answers to land destruction.
Seriously, outside of playing for fun, you should play a proactive deck that only wants to disrupt enough to win. That's why Humans is working, and thats why Shadow decks dominated for all of 2017.
Blue decks now have damping sphere to deal with ramp decks.
Blue decks often want to play multiple spells in a turn, not the least of which is cantrip + any spell, or Snapcaster. I personally have very little interest in playing the card myself.
Its a good sideboard card against decks that wont be playing multiple cards a turn either. Tron is usually really bad matchup for Blue Control decks, and it will only help the control deck significantly. Against other ramp decks it will help a lot too except Valakut which is just a bad matchup and sometimes you just have to live with that.
Considering the "best" version of blue decks are currently Blue Moon, it doesn't have much of an advantage over Blood Moon itself. Tron still gets to tap its lands for mana and will still eventually cast big scary things if it's not facing significant pressure (something "blue" decks frankly suck at). As mentioned, it also does nothing to Valakut, and blue decks are already normally pretty good against Storm.
My take is that each card is a trade off:
Blood Moon:
Pros:
Stops lands from tapping for 2+
Stops land activated/triggered abilities
Randomly hoses greedy manabases/Can get "free wins"
Cons:
Heavily restricts your own manabase
Can be completely dead/do nothing
Damping Sphere:
Pros:
Stops lands from tapping for 2+
Cheaper cost (2cmc)
Generic mana (can go in any deck/minimal deck building restrictions)
Randomly hoses Storm and other multi-spell decks
Cons:
Restricts own ability to cast multiple spells
Does not affect land abilities
Can be completely dead/do nothing
So they both have trade-offs, and for me personally, I much prefer the random free wins and stopping land abilities over a cheaper cost, generic mana, and Storm-hosing. But I could see the value of playing it in a 3-color shell or something that doesn't have the core of its strategy based around casting multiple spells a turn.
the thing with preordain is that 1 mana blue cantrips are already seeing plenty of play, so preordain would just be a swap. even a deck like storm, which overloads on cantrips, is already playing the max number of that type of effect. any more would require them to cut rituals, mana creatures, or gifts.
so would preordain result in a faster format? it would marginally increase the consistency of combo decks like storm and ad nauseam; however it wouldnt allow them to go off any sooner like another enabler would.
are there any blue decks right now that play no cantrips that would go out of their way for preordain? maybe merfolk or infect
if preordain never sees an unban i would think its because they drew a line in the sand at serum visions being the best cantrip in the format, and just dont care to look further than that.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Because, it is GP's upon which ban's are decided.
Spirits
PTs and MTGO also drive bans, so even that's not totally accurate. Moreover, people don't just refer to GP in regards to bans. They do it in regards to most aspects of Modern health, stability, and deck viability. Again, I don't think there's anything wrong with this if your primary goal is to win GP. I just am seriously skeptical that most Modern players have that goal and attend that many GP, especially on forums like this one and Reddit. I think players are much more concerned with the perception of a deck's GP viability than the actual viability of a deck at the level they are playing. Especially pro perception of a deck's GP viability. This just doesn't make a lot of sense if most of us are MTGO grinders, FNM player, regional event aspirants, etc.
If you want ancard that is purely reactionary as a counterspell, just add a rider that stops you from casting spells for the rest of the turn if it resolves. Combo decks wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole and it gives control a shot in the arm to deal with them. The issue is that control is already running plenty of stuff to answer these decks already, it's the hyperaggresive creature decks that give them fits because recursive and sizable threats are coming down so early in modern. Dredge, hollow, affinity, elves, 8 whack and more all spit out a huge board presence very quickly by t2 most games. It's either wide or tall, but that's the issue imo.
That being said I think a modal spell that's cheap and effective against wide and tall strats that's cmc 2 or less would be too powerful. I also agree that force would cause Ux decks to get too much protection with just one card. Turns would be all over it in an instant and I'm sure there's even more degenerate stuff then that. Not sure what the answer is, but true combo decks don't actually look all that powerful imo right now. Aside from storm and recently KCI, nothing else is putting up notable results.
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
There needs to be sufficient reason why someone would draw the line in the sand on Serum Visions being the best cantrip in the format. The reason why Preordain would make Modern better if it was unbanned because there's a chance that it would make it more of an interactive format. I'm not saying the format is super uninteractive as some people believe, but I think that it would be more enjoyabe with Preordain here, and hopefully Wotc will see the same. If they dont show that they have any really good reason why they chose Serum Visons as the best cantrip, then we need to call them out on it as a community.
I think there should be someone working for Wizards dedicated to discussing eternal formats more than just a few times a year when it comes to the B&R updates. When Fatal Push was designed, was there a void it needed to fill in Modern? Was the format asking it to arrive to improve the quality of it? Ot was it just deigned for Standard with implications for Modern? In the case for Preordain, I believe, there is an actual call for it to be unbanned.
I really like Prohibit. It looks kind of like Blue's Fatal Push
It would? With Humans as the best deck in the format? What about Death's Shadow?
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
I fail to see how it can be much other than that, and yes Pokken mentions what I'm thinking about.
Pro Tour, well that certainly has an impact, if you know what I mean.
MTGO Numbers? 100% if there is an underlying issue, that we can never KNOW since they hide the data now...thats going to be an issue.
GP's would be the prime source of 'do we have an issue here' that I can think of.
Spirits
Wizards has access to all data and they have shown in the standard bannings that they DO take into account MTGO data. They also said before the last B&R announcement that they waited until after the pro tour for a decision, showing that, even if PTs don't dictate the timing of the decision any more, they DO in fact play an important role in the decision. And of course, GPs are a good source of data for widespread success, but it is only one of the parameters.
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
I think using the Pro Tour is completely bogus data, as its not even a pure event.
I think using MTGO is extremely smart, because it iterates faster, allows for more testing, and has dedicated grinders doing the testing for Wizards.
I think after those first 2 points however, the final litmus test, is the GP. Its larger, has more at stake, and is more 'important' in the eyes of the community, as a benchmark for what is happening in the format.
To be completely transparent, I feel using the Pro Tour as anything but a scapegoat is a joke. MTGO (as its digital and iterative) and GP's should carry by far the most weight.
Spirits
Wotc needs to be 100% transparent with the mtgo data.
Its hard to even speculate about the importance of MTGO data without actually seeing it. Each different type of game is important (league vs qualifiers vs queues, etc)
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
Bingo, brother!
I am torn a bit on Pro Tour information. On one hand, Pros are trying to find the best deck. They are better at figuring out what is the best deck in Modern. On the other hand, they may just need the "best deck" for that one tournament. It may not even be that good a deck outside of the Pro Tour as long as it lines up well with what they perceive will be played. Sometimes, something is found like UR or Colorless Eldrazi and it TAKES OVER a format. Other times, something like Bogles, that never will be the best deck, ends up crushing. So, I understand why it's incredibly hard for us to take Pro Tour information into account.
But then...there are external factors in any given tournament. People come to beat Tron. Tron doesn't do well. People come to slow Aggro. Tron does well. And on and on and on.......
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)Blue decks now have damping sphere to deal with ramp decks. Has anyone here playtested Blue-Red Wizards with Wizard’s Retort? It gives blue a proactive deck.
JundBGR
RW Blood MoonRW
Pauper
Delver U
Elves G
Control B
Commander
Edgar Markov BRW
Captain Sisay GW
Niv-Mizzet, Parun UR
Tymna and Ravos WB
The permission the format needs most is reliably countering turn-3 spells on the draw (Blood Moon, Liliana, Storm chain if possible, TKS or Smasher if they go nuts on the Sol Lands, etc.). That's why Logic Knot is run at 3+ in a lot of lists even though frankly it's a meh card that's terrible in multiples and has anti-synergy with the best Blue card in the format.
Prohibit does zilch for that. By the time you have mana to counter the format's game-ending 3- and 4-drops, they've already curved out over you. You'll be able to hit something eventually, but that's just not enough. And if overpaying for counters (which you do often with Prohibit) were good, Syncopate would be playable.
I can see getting a new 2CMC counter that does good things for the format (not to mention just Counterspell), but Prohibit is IMO just not one of them.
Edit: Neither is Wizards' Retort.
WUBRG Humans
BRW Mardu Pyromancer
UW UW "Control"
UR Blue Moon
I’m not against counterspell being in modern; I’d just like to see if Wizard’s retort can do anything in modern first.
JundBGR
RW Blood MoonRW
Pauper
Delver U
Elves G
Control B
Commander
Edgar Markov BRW
Captain Sisay GW
Niv-Mizzet, Parun UR
Tymna and Ravos WB
I'd be really surprised if Wizard's Retort were what Delver needed to claw its way up from ~Tier 3, especially since a flipped Delver loses its Wizard subtype.
Apart from Delver, I can't see a deck being improved by jamming a bunch of Wizards in the hope of getting off a Turn-2 Counterspell (which, let's face it, isn't anything more than "just good" to begin with). Or the nonexistent wizards.dec becoming viable for that reason.
Impossible to say for sure of course, but for me personally Retort is a huge yuck. Wizards might be pretty good in Standard though, so this is all just in terms of Modern.
WUBRG Humans
BRW Mardu Pyromancer
UW UW "Control"
UR Blue Moon
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
JundBGR
RW Blood MoonRW
Pauper
Delver U
Elves G
Control B
Commander
Edgar Markov BRW
Captain Sisay GW
Niv-Mizzet, Parun UR
Tymna and Ravos WB
Wizard's Retort is getting a tad bit misunderstood here. People seem to think it is supposed to be played early and have lots of aggressive small wizards to synergize with. The card is really more of a mid to late game card that helps keep your mana open if a wizard is in play at that point. Wizards aren't really about clogging the board with aggressive small creatures, they are support cards that help other strategies work. Snapcaster Mage is one of the best wizards of all time, if not the best, and he is extremely underwhelming as a body on the field. What gives him teeth is his ability to give spells in the graveyard flash. vendilion clique is another example of a really good wizard, and he's played mostly to forcefully cycle a needed card from the opponents hand.
When I play wizards I look for added value, and that is what [card}Wizard's Retort[/card] gives. It lets me counter something for cheap in the mid game while keeping more resources open. Does that mean it is the best card to play with wizards? Well, the floor is a Cancel and the ceiling is a Counterspell. Against a lot of the more low to the ground and aggressive decks a Mana Leak can be more effective, or even just playing something like Censor. Unfortunately, we're talking modern here and not standard, though. This is really more of a "they did it again" Cancel with an upside. You really have to ask yourself if you expect that wizard to stay on the field long enough to even get a payoff on the counter, and right now I'd say against a lot of decks that wizard on the field isn't going to stick. If this was something like Hexproof Spirit tribal, where spot removal is just horrible, than I'd say Wizard's Retort is good.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Spirits
Its a good sideboard card against decks that wont be playing multiple cards a turn either. Tron is usually really bad matchup for Blue Control decks, and it will only help the control deck significantly. Against other ramp decks it will help a lot too except Valakut which is just a bad matchup and sometimes you just have to live with that.
Vial and Cavern really aren't the linchpin of Humans. Most control decks have a ton of removal, and really shouldn't be complaining about those cards. Yeah they help Humans against counter spells, but counterpells are weak in the first place. I don't play control, but I really think that a deck like Jeskai is actually very good against the top 2 decks in the format. The big problem is that you need to win against other decks as well, which I think Dampening Sphere helps a lot when it comes to actual matchup spread.
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
True, but blue decks can often times play 1 spell during their turn and 1 spell during their opponent’s turn.
JundBGR
RW Blood MoonRW
Pauper
Delver U
Elves G
Control B
Commander
Edgar Markov BRW
Captain Sisay GW
Niv-Mizzet, Parun UR
Tymna and Ravos WB
Considering the "best" version of blue decks are currently Blue Moon, it doesn't have much of an advantage over Blood Moon itself. Tron still gets to tap its lands for mana and will still eventually cast big scary things if it's not facing significant pressure (something "blue" decks frankly suck at). As mentioned, it also does nothing to Valakut, and blue decks are already normally pretty good against Storm.
My take is that each card is a trade off:
Blood Moon:
Pros:
Stops lands from tapping for 2+
Stops land activated/triggered abilities
Randomly hoses greedy manabases/Can get "free wins"
Cons:
Heavily restricts your own manabase
Can be completely dead/do nothing
Damping Sphere:
Pros:
Stops lands from tapping for 2+
Cheaper cost (2cmc)
Generic mana (can go in any deck/minimal deck building restrictions)
Randomly hoses Storm and other multi-spell decks
Cons:
Restricts own ability to cast multiple spells
Does not affect land abilities
Can be completely dead/do nothing
So they both have trade-offs, and for me personally, I much prefer the random free wins and stopping land abilities over a cheaper cost, generic mana, and Storm-hosing. But I could see the value of playing it in a 3-color shell or something that doesn't have the core of its strategy based around casting multiple spells a turn.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate