wizards specifically said they don't want decks to be able to consistently win on turn 4. these bannings address that.. not sure why with green sun's zenith though.. probably like others said, it's far too ubiquitous and versatile of a card.
Honestly it really depends on the meta. As far as I can tell people are so freaked out by the combo bans that they can't use their heads. If this is the case then I expect tons of zoo and affinity. Both decks(sometimes zoo less so) are pretty weak to Punishing fire. A big zoo deck like the one that kibler piloted in PT Austin could be the best deck in the format if zoo and affinity are both big.
i'll try it with punishing fire,and kavu predator,:)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MY DECKS
thanks to DNC of Heroes of the Plane Studios for the coolest sig
vintage-WBdark timesBW
legacy-BGRJund-51/60BGR RBBob Sligh 48/60BR GRone land belcherRG URBTES-54/60URB
Fun deck-BBBBKobolds stormBBBB
To people who want Ancestral Visions unbanned: You're crazy. That card completely kills aggro by itself.
There are three ways to avoid losing to Ancestral Visions:
1. Play your own Visions.
2. Kill them before it unsuspends.
3. Counter it.
Aggro decks can't do 1 or 3, so if you want to play aggro in a format with visions you have to make it a really vulnerable balls-out suicide deck of probably all one-drops and 1-2 mana burn spells. That makes them ridiculously easy to answer with cards like Engineered Explosives. You can't play for the midgame with aggro because if you stagger your casting costs you can't kill the control player before visions goes off and kills you.
I lol'd. You just described zoo to a tee.
Their curve is something like ~22x 1-drops, ~12x 2-drops, and maybe ~4x 3+ drops. The deck isn't played for the midgame, it expects to kill on or before turn 5 (about when a Turn 1 vision would go off). Also Vial is not banned, so they have access to uncountable dudes if/when control becomes a thing.
So 'forcing' aggro decks to be aggro decks is bad? Or are you getting confused and calling midrange 'aggro'?
GSZ ban is good. A consistent turn 1 Exploration and 5 of sideboarded singletons is just to slick. Making a deck have 8 Gofys which get +1ed for tutoring...
They need to machine gun bans, they can't roll one card one week and another the next. Do it now, get it done. Move on. Evaluate.
Given up magic because a)its a waste of money b)it sucks the joy out of life c)im doing more interesting things than tapping pieces of plastic that have no intrinsic value.
I encourage you to do the same. Instead of FNM try Friday Night Something Spontaneous. Instead of thousands of hours and dollars on plastic imagine it with a significant other or friends sharing something meaningful. I randomly typed a new password, so bon voyage itches i encourage you to follow suit! Cheers
The only thing that I can tell is that I feel sorry for those who bought Blazing Shoal at 60$ for playset. It still costs 10$, but it's only purpose is to play in Modern, as Legacy infect can do without it. It was a good card, too good and that is why it was banned. it's a good decision.
I don't know why the needed to ban Rite of Flame. You hardly can get extra mana and to get RR from one R isn't such a big deal.
I can't say anything about banning Preordain and Ponder, but I feel like they ban all popular cards. Valacut was banned initially, now they ban Cloudpost. That means Eldrazi locus deck will not be played. Cloudpost was not so nasty to play against as Grapeshot + Pyromanser's swath combo.
I am already beyond sick of counterspells. Nothing takes the fun out of the game more than "No, you can't play your cards."
For those curious, Living End is a worthless deck now.
Learn to play magic better? Honestly I would think that anyone who considers themselves a competitive player in a format would know how to work with with/against counterspells. To me counterspells are inherently a part of blue magic and belong in every format there is to magic.
"I observe the slights and degradations cast by arrogant persons upon
laborers, the poor, and upon negroes, and the like;
All these--all the meanness and agony without end I sitting look out upon,
See, hear, and am silent."
Define "lategame" when Affinity is killing you on turn 3-4. By all means, tap out to do absolutely nothing at Sorcery speed on your turn!
Why would you tap out to do this?
You're trying to make the card look bad by making the format look more unreasonable than it really is.
You're also asking why I would use a card when I wouldn't use it. Which is a bizarre argument that doesn't actually advance your position at all. It's some sort of odd fallacy that users continue to use against this card, and I can't figure out why you think it means anything.
At any rate, a more appropriate use of the card would be post-Wrath. Any player worth half his salt should know how to play against Affinity, especially this far into the life of the format, where Affinity has been a consistently top tier threat. Although there are times when things go horribly wrong. Affinity has god hands like any deck (I'd imagine it would probably involve a turn one Ravager or Atog and a bunch of Memnites).
However, it is not at all unreasonable to use a Mystic Speculation post-Wrath to filter the top three cards of your deck. Against a deck like Affinity it's imperative that you get the jump on them as soon as you've worn them down (be it with a Wrath or what have you) and Speculation can help you do that. And repeatedly to boot.
(Note: I do not advocate playing Speculation immediately after the Wrath. Try to find something else to back it up before you Wrath, and then use Speculation to back that up. You shouldn't give Affinity any more turns than absolutely necessary.)
I also like it as a card that can give you a leg-up in top deck wars.
Like I said, it's a late game card. Post-stabilization of board state. Two to three copies main, tops. Perhaps two main, one board, so you can side in a third if you're facing a deck that you need to win top deck wars against. It's like a dollar store Sensei's Diving Top. You use it to make sure you don't draw anything you don't want.
It'd be nice to just use Preordain, but I can't. It's gone. I have to keep an open mind as to methods of card advantage/card filtering/whatever. I realize that you people hate it when people are open-minded, but it's not something that you can just ignore. In this situation you have no choice. Even if it's something as mundane as Sleight of Hand.
If they were really concerned about the acceleration then ban Dryad Arbor. That's the card breaking fundamental rules.
What the heck is wrong with "toolbox" type control decks. I tutor up Gaddock Teeg because you're playing some spell I don't like (like GSZ ;))
Since when is that a "banned" approach. If thats the case put the hammer down on KotR for "tutoring" up toolbox lands.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
Perhaps people missed it, but Erik Lauer of Wizards posted a brief explanation alongside the banned cards. Given that no one has talked about it as far as I can tell using the search function, it really is time that we try and examine the Wizards official position on these bannings.
I am just going to quote from the article and quickly address each of Lauer's points in turn.
Before Pro Tour Philadelphia, the DCI's stated guideline for the Modern format was to avoid having decks that consistently win the game on turn three. With the results of the Pro Tour in, we are tweaking that goal to not having top-tier decks that consistently win on turn three (or earlier). We also have the goal of maintaining a diverse format.
So turn 4 is no longer the gold standard. The problem is just when the TOP decks are winning on turn 3 or earlier. So when Pump Infect, Breach Hulk, Kitties, and Storm randomly pull out turn 2 wins, that's not a problem, so long as they aren't doing it at the widespread Top 8 professional level. Wizards also commits to deck diversity in this format, which means archetype (control, aggro, combo) diversity.
Blazing Shoal
Blazing Shoal decks exile cards with converted mana cost of at least 9 to deliver turn-two and turn-three kills using the infect mechanic (usually with Inkmoth Nexus or Blighted Agent). While this is exciting the first time, Blazing Shoal delivers that same quick kill too consistently.
Yeah, this deck is a little too consistent. The only way to beat it reliably is to run Sudden Shock in the sideboard or maindeck, or to get lucky off of a turn 1 discard spell. Even the former plan is not foolproof, given that Infect Shoal runs Disrupting Shoal as a quasi Force of Will. The well-kept secret of Blazing Shoal was that the deck was a lot more consistent in practice than it appeared on paper. That made it terrifying, and that's why Blazing is gone.
Rite of Flame
This was primarily used in combination decks to deliver very quick wins. While Jeremy Neeman did not make the Top 8 of the tournament, his Modern deck won nine out of ten matches, and did so with some extremely quick kills.
It looks like Wizards had two options here. They could either ban storm cards like Grapeshot, Ignite Memories, Empty the Warrens, and/or Pyromancer's Swath. OR, they could ban one ritual to slow down the deck but preserve its win conditions. Turn 2 wins off of a Rite-powered storm deck were the norm at PT Philly (just read the reports), and that deck was definitely a top contender. Sadly, its pilots sucked at draft which means we did not see storm wrecking the Top 8. In the choice between storm kill cards and one ritual, we should be relieved to just see the ritual go.
Ponder and Preordain
A large number of blue-red combination decks kept the field less diverse. One thing that made them so efficient was the cards that would find their combinations. Ponder and Preordain were the most widely used of those cards. Banning these should make those combination decks somewhat less efficient without removing the possibility of playing them.
That last line is really important. "Without removing the possibility of playing them". Wizards was really looking out for players on this one, allowing you to still play the core win cards of the deck but getting rid of the consistent hand sculpting effects that pushed these decks over the top. Combo was most out of control in its consistency and ability to recover after getting stopped, and Ponder/Preordain are the main culprits in that regard. By banning these cards, Wizards depowers combo BUT preserves the archetype and its win conditions.
Cloudpost
The threat of facing decks which could generate fifteen or more mana each turn starting on turn four kept a lot of different decks out of the tournament, greatly reducing the diversity. There are alternatives for people who wish to play mana-ramp decks, but they do not appear to be as crushing.
"Kept a lot of different decks out of the tournament, greatly reducing the diversity". SOUNDS LIKE CONTROL TO ME. Given that I made a Cloudpost Ban a personal crusade on this forum, and in emails sent to Wizards, I am so happy that this ban came down. Given the widespread player support for this ban, Wizards really did a good job in listening to its player base. Modern will be better off because of it.
Green Sun's Zenith
On turn one, this can give the acceleration of a Llanowar Elves by getting a Dryad Arbor. On later turns, it can get a large creature or a one-of "toolbox" creature such as Gaddock Teeg. While this is interesting, it is also too efficient. If one intends to build a deck that has turn-one accelerants, Green Sun's Zenith is a great choice. If one wants to more access to utility green creatures, Green Sun's Zenith is a great choice. If one wants to more reliably get a large green creature, such as a Primeval Titan, onto the battlefield, Green Sun's Zenith is a great choice. However, this ends up with fewer different decks being played in practice, as Green Sun's Zenith is such a good choice that there are fewer green decks that do anything else. The DCI hopes that banning Green Sun's Zenith increases diversity among Modern green decks.
I have emphasized a few reasons for GSZ's banning, because these are the core reasons that the card got banned. Apparently, GSZ limits what green-based decks get played, as only decks running GSZ become viable. I am not sure that this is good logic on the DCI's part. Red decks basically all run Lightning Bolt, just as white decks all run Path to Exile. That said, GSZ does dictate, in a sense, what type of deck you are playing. If you run GSZ, then you are probably running a toolbox based green deck, and I can understand if R&D had a problem with that.
Overall, I am totally on board with all the bannings EXCEPT GSZ. Now that we have seen the "official" reason for its banning, however, we can discuss it with more clarity and precision. What do people think about the official GSZ stance, or any of the other stances for that matter?
You're trying to make the card look bad by making the format look more unreasonable than it really is.
Serious question, what do you think the average clock of the top tier decks are? You saying that turn 4 wins are "unreasonable," but I would argue that they are incredibly common. Play an Affinity deck with Atog and Fling. Play a Zoo deck. Play an Eggs or Melira deck. Turn 4 wins are much consistent than you think. People who think that Storm decks are dead are in for a rude awakening. They won't kill you on turn 2 any more, but you'd be amazed at how consistent the deck can still be (especially Empty the Warrens variants).
You're also asking why I would use a card when I wouldn't use it. Which is a bizarre argument that doesn't actually advance your position at all. It's some sort of odd fallacy that users continue to use against this card, and I can't figure out why you think it means anything.
Asking you a question isn't an argument, it's a question. This isn't a formal debate buddy, this is an Internet forum designated to discuss a children's card game. We think the card is bad and we want to know why you're making a case for it. You can't just say "oh I would never use that card, quit committing logical fallacies" to avoid answering. Normally when people make a case for a card it's because they like it and would use it. You're just arguing for a card that you've never tried, never tested, and never used, and are acting like you have so much insight as to how powerful the card can be. You're making baseless claims that this card is a lategame powerhouse that will enable you to control your draws and ultimately outmaneuver and outplay your opponent. I don't know how you could possibly boast such feats if you've never actually used the card, nor have any intention to.
At any rate, a more appropriate use of the card would be post-Wrath...
List me one top tier deck that runs Wrath of God. Honestly, any deck at all. I have no idea what format you're playing where control decks who maindeck *** run rampart. You're talking about decks that don't exist which run cards that aren't ran. Show me your top tier deck with Wrath of God and Mystic Speculation. I know that you're just going to say something dumb like "oh I wouldn't use it in a deck so I don't actually have one, and you're committing a logical fallacy by asking me to." Oh well, at least I'm not the one using imaginary decks to support my arguments.
However, it is not at all unreasonable to use a Mystic Speculation post-Wrath to filter the top three cards of your deck. Against a deck like Affinity it's imperative that you get the jump on them as soon as you've worn them down (be it with a Wrath or what have you) and Speculation can help you do that. And repeatedly to boot.
Like I said, it's a late game card. Post-stabilization of board state. Two to three copies main, tops. Perhaps two main, one board, so you can side in a third if you're facing a deck that you need to win top deck wars against. It's like a dollar store Sensei's Diving Top. You use it to make sure you don't draw anything you don't want.
I realize that you people hate it when people are open-minded, but it's not something that you can just ignore. In this situation you have no choice. Even if it's something as mundane as Sleight of Hand.
I like how you entire argument is based around control decks always stabilizing against Affinity (or any combo/aggro deck for that matter). What happens when they kill you on turn 3? You seem to be ignoring the fact that this card is ONLY useful lategame and it doesn't help you get to the lategame because it doesn't get you what you need, when you need it. If it's just going to sit in your hand until turn 5 or later, then you're basically down a card for most of the game. If you do use it early, it's strict card disadvantage. Yes, it can help you control your next few plays, but it doesn't draw you a land if you need one on turn 2 (like other dig spells can), and it won't get you that Wrath of God RIGHT NOW if you need it RIGHT NOW. This isn't just about Affinity either, but any combo and aggro deck. They are going to be pressuring you and killing you in 3-4 turns if you let them. I wouldn't play a card that is only good "lategame" when the format is defined by early game decks. That's what we're asking you, why are trying to defend a slow card in a fast format? I don't care if you're not going to play the card yourself, that has nothing to do with anything. You think that a slow, lategame card is well-poised in a fast meta. Why?
1. Green suns zenith made goyf better than it already was. If you could run 8 copies of tarmogoyf and could afford to you would. This is essentially that.
Its getting kind of silly seeing this point over and over again. What GSZ allowed us to do was run singleton copie sof toolbox creatures. Its what allowed Catfish (or Countercat or whatever you want to call it) to be an aggro-control deck instead of just another aggro deck. It was rarely used to drop extra Goyfs. Hell, it made Goyf a less useful addition to the deck, because suddenly, vanilla fat isnt good enough. I wanted value creatures that contributed to the board meaningfully. Losing GSZ means losing the more interesting and creative aspects of the decks it was in, which is why it pisses me off so much. Banning it will lead to less diversity, not more, as it will be harder to experiment so everyone will just go back to 4 ofs.
“My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.” - Jack Layton, RIP
wizards specifically said they don't want decks to be able to consistently win on turn 4. these bannings address that.. not sure why with green sun's zenith though.. probably like others said, it's far too ubiquitous and versatile of a card.
Aaaaaaand Affinity still can lol. Not complaining though, I love my artifacts. I'm still upset they banned Rite of Flame
It was a really good ritual for red that wasn't broken imo. It completely screws over AiR decks (All in Red), which had a pretty strong early game being able to pull out Deus of Calamity, Demigod of Revenge, or even Koth of the Hammer on turn 1 if not turn 2. Now,after removing Rite of Flame, I can get turn 1 board advantage every once in awhile, but its usually turn 2 or 3 now =/
Its getting kind of silly seeing this point over and over again. What GSZ allowed us to do was run singleton copie sof toolbox creatures. Its what allowed Catfish (or Countercat or whatever you want to call it) to be an aggro-control deck instead of just another aggro deck. It was rarely used to drop extra Goyfs. Hell, it made Goyf a less useful addition to the deck, because suddenly, vanilla fat isnt good enough. I wanted value creatures that contributed to the board meaningfully. Losing GSZ means losing the more interesting and creative aspects of the decks it was in, which is why it pisses me off so much. Banning it will lead to less diversity, not more, as it will be harder to experiment so everyone will just go back to 4 ofs.
BOO who zoo is now the best deck and you crying because you have to run a more developed sideboard like the rest of us. The card also effected other decks, not just zoo, but it was too go in zoo because it was like running 10 more creatures for 4 cards.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In life all we can do is try to make things better. Sitting lost in old ways and fearing change only makes us outdated and ignorant.
Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.
Albert Einstein
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
Wizards doesn't seem to care about balance here, as they're more interested in pruning the format until it is to their liking, though what exactly that is...who the hell knows? And that's not really fun for players or prospective players. Too much uncertainty.
Balance is arbitrary in itself; as you said earlier, throwing 'broken' things around is just fine if you're competing with a reasonably diverse field of other 'broken' things. One has to pick some kind of benchmark to balance around.
Wizards picked "turn 4." Why? I can only speculate, but it's no more arbitrary than saying "turn 3 is fine."
Its getting kind of silly seeing this point over and over again. What GSZ allowed us to do was run singleton copie sof toolbox creatures. Its what allowed Catfish (or Countercat or whatever you want to call it) to be an aggro-control deck instead of just another aggro deck. It was rarely used to drop extra Goyfs. Hell, it made Goyf a less useful addition to the deck, because suddenly, vanilla fat isnt good enough. I wanted value creatures that contributed to the board meaningfully. Losing GSZ means losing the more interesting and creative aspects of the decks it was in, which is why it pisses me off so much. Banning it will lead to less diversity, not more, as it will be harder to experiment so everyone will just go back to 4 ofs.
I knew I shouldn't have posted this on the previous page at the very end, because now it is lost in the stream of argument. Wizards posted justifications for its Modern bannings, and with the exception of my post, no one has actually talked about those reasons at all. It's stupid to speculate on reasons for Wizards' bans when we actually have the reasons up front. Here is the quotation of my post, which includes the Wizards stance on GSZ and why it got banned: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=7341659&postcount=120
Perhaps people missed it, but Erik Lauer of Wizards posted a brief explanation alongside the banned cards. Given that no one has talked about it as far as I can tell using the search function, it really is time that we try and examine the Wizards official position on these bannings.
I am just going to quote from the article and quickly address each of Lauer's points in turn.
So turn 4 is no longer the gold standard. The problem is just when the TOP decks are winning on turn 3 or earlier. So when Pump Infect, Breach Hulk, Kitties, and Storm randomly pull out turn 2 wins, that's not a problem, so long as they aren't doing it at the widespread Top 8 professional level. Wizards also commits to deck diversity in this format, which means archetype (control, aggro, combo) diversity.
Yeah, this deck is a little too consistent. The only way to beat it reliably is to run Sudden Shock in the sideboard or maindeck, or to get lucky off of a turn 1 discard spell. Even the former plan is not foolproof, given that Infect Shoal runs Disrupting Shoal as a quasi Force of Will. The well-kept secret of Blazing Shoal was that the deck was a lot more consistent in practice than it appeared on paper. That made it terrifying, and that's why Blazing is gone.
It looks like Wizards had two options here. They could either ban storm cards like Grapeshot, Ignite Memories, Empty the Warrens, and/or Pyromancer's Swath. OR, they could ban one ritual to slow down the deck but preserve its win conditions. Turn 2 wins off of a Rite-powered storm deck were the norm at PT Philly (just read the reports), and that deck was definitely a top contender. Sadly, its pilots sucked at draft which means we did not see storm wrecking the Top 8. In the choice between storm kill cards and one ritual, we should be relieved to just see the ritual go.
That last line is really important. "Without removing the possibility of playing them". Wizards was really looking out for players on this one, allowing you to still play the core win cards of the deck but getting rid of the consistent hand sculpting effects that pushed these decks over the top. Combo was most out of control in its consistency and ability to recover after getting stopped, and Ponder/Preordain are the main culprits in that regard. By banning these cards, Wizards depowers combo BUT preserves the archetype and its win conditions.
"Kept a lot of different decks out of the tournament, greatly reducing the diversity". SOUNDS LIKE CONTROL TO ME. Given that I made a Cloudpost Ban a personal crusade on this forum, and in emails sent to Wizards, I am so happy that this ban came down. Given the widespread player support for this ban, Wizards really did a good job in listening to its player base. Modern will be better off because of it.
I have emphasized a few reasons for GSZ's banning, because these are the core reasons that the card got banned. Apparently, GSZ limits what green-based decks get played, as only decks running GSZ become viable. I am not sure that this is good logic on the DCI's part. Red decks basically all run Lightning Bolt, just as white decks all run Path to Exile. That said, GSZ does dictate, in a sense, what type of deck you are playing. If you run GSZ, then you are probably running a toolbox based green deck, and I can understand if R&D had a problem with that.
Overall, I am totally on board with all the bannings EXCEPT GSZ. Now that we have seen the "official" reason for its banning, however, we can discuss it with more clarity and precision. What do people think about the official GSZ stance, or any of the other stances for that matter?
-ktkenshinx-
Wizards actually argues that GSZ Decreases deck diversity, not increases it. This is because GSZ's existence forces all green based decks to run a toolbox of the same creatures that are supported by this card. Personally, I disagree with Wizards on this point, but it is important to at least acknowledge that they made the point if we want to disagree with it. Up until now, people really are not talking about the direct reasons that Wizards is banning cards. That needs to change.
Which is why all these bannings are going to be the death of the format
I seriously do not understand why people keep saying this. It might be because they do not have experience in Magic history or that they aren't playtesting enough. In the vast, vast majority of cases, bans INCREASE, not decrease, the deck diversity in a forum. This is very utilitarian of Wizards. By banning one card and one deck, you open up the format to a dozen cards and a dozen decks. Obviously, you need to draw the line a little more clearly than that, but the gist of it is obvious. The cards that Wizards banned in this last set of bannings were designed to help Modern, and in most cases, they are totally defensible.
Balance is arbitrary in itself; as you said earlier, throwing 'broken' things around is just fine if you're competing with a reasonably diverse field of other 'broken' things. One has to pick some kind of benchmark to balance around.
Wizards picked "turn 4." Why? I can only speculate, but it's no more arbitrary than saying "turn 3 is fine."
It is not arbitrary at all. It is based on other formats. Here is the quote from Tom LaPille's "Welcome to the Modern World" article, explaining turn 4 wins in Modern:
(Source: http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/155) "First, we have a rule of thumb about Legacy that we don't like consistent turn-two combination decks, but that turn-three combination decks are okay. We modified that rule for Modern by adding a turn to each side: we are going to allow turn-four combination decks, but not decks that consistently win the game on turn three.
This is perfectly reasonable to me, and it has been reasonable since it was announced.
That's like saying
"I hate Creature killing cards, nothing takes the fun out of a game more than "No, your creature won't live passed my turn."
Heh. I hate most creatures in general. I'm supposed to be a ridiculously powerful wizard here, not some army general Probably why I drift towards combo or control whenever they're viable.
Serious question, what do you think the average clock of the top tier decks are? You saying that turn 4 wins are "unreasonable," but I would argue that they are incredibly common.
Actually, I think he misquoted - the issue wasn't turn-4 kills, but pre-turn 4 kills.
People who think that Storm decks are dead are in for a rude awakening. They won't kill you on turn 2 any more, but you'd be amazed at how consistent the deck can still be (especially Empty the Warrens variants).
And that's how it should be, IMO. Then again, my inner Vorthos hates creatures with a passion anyway so I may be a bit biased
Asking you a question isn't an argument, it's a question. This isn't a formal debate buddy, this is an Internet forum designated to discuss a children's card game.
Adolescent's game. Pokemon or YuGiOh were for kids; MtG was always aimed at the adolescent/young-adult market.
You're making baseless claims that this card is a lategame powerhouse that will enable you to control your draws and ultimately outmaneuver and outplay your opponent. I don't know how you could possibly boast such feats if you've never actually used the card, nor have any intention to.
(on Mystic Speculation)
Theorycrafting, mostly. And the theory seems mostly sound; but his theory fails to account for the difficulty involved in getting to that lategame situation where the card would allegedly shine.
I have tested a bit with the card, albeit in janky homebrews that likely had other problems as well. Mostly in that the rest of the deck was already a powerhouse if it got to the lategame, and didn't really need another card that made it better at that point. What it needed was help getting there, and Speculation didn't really give that. (As an instant, though...)
There isn't a confirmed top tier anymore Cloudpost was the biggest boogieman keeping the decks that *might* have run Wrath (or Damnation, for that matter) out of the mix, and Cloudpost is now dead. Control decks which might run Wrath (or even Speculation, though I have my doubts) can now focus a bit better on beating the aggro and combo, and maybe get in there.
It is not arbitrary at all. It is based on other formats. Here is the quote from Tom LaPille's "Welcome to the Modern World" article, explaining turn 4 wins in Modern:
(Source: http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/155) "First, we have a rule of thumb about Legacy that we don't like consistent turn-two combination decks, but that turn-three combination decks are okay. We modified that rule for Modern by adding a turn to each side: we are going to allow turn-four combination decks, but not decks that consistently win the game on turn three.
This is perfectly reasonable to me, and it has been reasonable since it was announced.
I'm not saying it's an unreasonable decision. But "yeah, we just decided to add 1 turn to our rule-of-thumb concerning Legacy" is still just as arbitrary (no more, no less) than if they would have said "we'll keep the Legacy rule of thumb and allow Turn 3 combination decks."
BOO who zoo is now the best deck and you crying because you have to run a more developed sideboard like the rest of us. The card also effected other decks, not just zoo, but it was too go in zoo because it was like running 10 more creatures for 4 cards.
Not actually what I said, but hey, why respond to a point when you can rant eh?
Unless they are going to ban every tutoring card in the format, banning GSZ for that reason makes no sense.
EDIT: And yes, I read the explanations. I read them right away and the justification for GSZ is a nonpoint that makes little to no sense. Banning a card because it's a staple is stupid. Of course every Green deck will run GSZ, just like every red deck will run Lightning Bolt, etc. etc. etc. It's the same with Ponder and Preordain. People running Blue will want the best card filter/draw spells they can get. Banning Ponder and Preordain means they'll spend a couple weeks working out the next best, then use those. Will the DCI then ban the next cards used as well? The Cloudpost ban took care of that deck, and the only other deck using GSZ was indeed Zoo. But that made Zoo a more interesting deck, which now has to resort to "Durp drup thumpit burn".
“My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.” - Jack Layton, RIP
Theorycrafting, mostly. And the theory seems mostly sound; but his theory fails to account for the difficulty involved in getting to that lategame situation where the card would allegedly shine.
List a single comparable card that been successful in the past. I'm not talking about Top either, I'm talking about a Sorcery that made you tap 3+ mana on your turn. Top could be used at EOT and only cost you 1 mana. It could also be used to draw a card in a pinch. Mystic Speculation costs you 4 mana and only happens at Sorcery speed. Never in the history of magic has Blue ever used such a horribly underpowered card to filter and control their draws. Nobody who's ever played Magic competitively would look at this card and say "now this is diamond in the rough!" It's a horrible card and it will see 0 competitive play because it's a useless card that doesn't do anything. Tapping 4 mana at Sorcery speed to look at 3 cards... unreal that people are trying to defend this thing. Azure Mage will see more play than this card will. The theory isn't sound, the theory is utter nonsense (I'm still waiting for these imaginary decks that run Wrath of God) which makes sense given that that people defending this card have never tested it nor have any intention of doing so. People are talking straight from their *** and that's how much their opinion is worth. This card is not a "poor man's Top." It always has been and always will be complete trash.
Not actually what I said, but hey, why respond to a point when you can rant eh?
Unless they are going to ban every tutoring card in the format, banning GSZ for that reason makes no sense.
EDIT: And yes, I read the explanations. I read them right away and the justification for GSZ is a nonpoint that makes little to no sense. Banning a card because it's a staple is stupid. Of course every Green deck will run GSZ, just like every red deck will run Lightning Bolt, etc. etc. etc. It's the same with Ponder and Preordain. People running Blue will want the best card filter/draw spells they can get. Banning Ponder and Preordain means they'll spend a couple weeks working out the next best, then use those. Will the DCI then ban the next cards used as well? The Cloudpost ban took care of that deck, and the only other deck using GSZ was indeed Zoo. But that made Zoo a more interesting deck, which now has to resort to "Durp drup thumpit burn".
If you want to run a tool box you should be forced to run something more restrictive or slower. Thus something like trinket mage or chord of calling which are both fine in the meta.
They didn't exactly ban a staple, but how many bant/zoo/ect decks would run 4 GSZ, with a teeg, a pridemage, ect. It puts way to much parity into the meta game where eventually every G/x/x aggro deck would be exactly alike, instead of having different strengths and weaknesses.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In life all we can do is try to make things better. Sitting lost in old ways and fearing change only makes us outdated and ignorant.
Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.
Albert Einstein
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
Never in the history of magic has Blue ever used such a horribly underpowered card to filter and control their draws.
Nobody who's ever played Magic competitively would look at this card and say "now this is diamond in the rough!" It's a horrible card and it will see 0 competitive play because it's a useless card that doesn't do anything. Tapping 4 mana at Sorcery speed to look at 3 cards... unreal that people are trying to defend this thing. Azure Mage will see more play than this card will. The theory isn't sound, the theory is utter nonsense which makes sense given that that people defending this card have never tested it nor have any intention of doing so.
I have tested it. And discarded it for not doing enough in the situations where I need it to. Clearly you didn't actually read much of what I said.
People are talking straight from their *** and that's how much their opinion is worth.
While I think it's likely that you're not concerned about infractions, I still think it fair to warn you that you're treading close to the kind of response that will get you one.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
:symu::symr::symg: ANIMAR :symu::symr::symg:
i'll try it with punishing fire,and kavu predator,:)
thanks to DNC of Heroes of the Plane Studios for the coolest sig
vintage-WBdark timesBW
legacy-BGRJund-51/60BGR
RBBob Sligh 48/60BR
GRone land belcherRG
URBTES-54/60URB
Fun deck-BBBBKobolds stormBBBB
Please don't say things like this if it is not true. I mean I would like that since I own Dark Confidants that I do not want to keep.
These "CRY PRICE HIKE!" rantings is what drives prices up arbituarily.
I lol'd. You just described zoo to a tee.
Their curve is something like ~22x 1-drops, ~12x 2-drops, and maybe ~4x 3+ drops. The deck isn't played for the midgame, it expects to kill on or before turn 5 (about when a Turn 1 vision would go off). Also Vial is not banned, so they have access to uncountable dudes if/when control becomes a thing.
So 'forcing' aggro decks to be aggro decks is bad? Or are you getting confused and calling midrange 'aggro'?
They need to machine gun bans, they can't roll one card one week and another the next. Do it now, get it done. Move on. Evaluate.
I encourage you to do the same. Instead of FNM try Friday Night Something Spontaneous. Instead of thousands of hours and dollars on plastic imagine it with a significant other or friends sharing something meaningful. I randomly typed a new password, so bon voyage itches i encourage you to follow suit! Cheers
I don't know why the needed to ban Rite of Flame. You hardly can get extra mana and to get RR from one R isn't such a big deal.
I can't say anything about banning Preordain and Ponder, but I feel like they ban all popular cards. Valacut was banned initially, now they ban Cloudpost. That means Eldrazi locus deck will not be played. Cloudpost was not so nasty to play against as Grapeshot + Pyromanser's swath combo.
Learn to play magic better? Honestly I would think that anyone who considers themselves a competitive player in a format would know how to work with with/against counterspells. To me counterspells are inherently a part of blue magic and belong in every format there is to magic.
laborers, the poor, and upon negroes, and the like;
All these--all the meanness and agony without end I sitting look out upon,
See, hear, and am silent."
BR B/r Vampires (Standard)
GWU Angus Mackenzie(EDH)
UW Venser Control (Legacy)
That's like saying
"I hate Creature killing cards, nothing takes the fun out of a game more than "No, your creature won't live passed my turn."
Define "lategame" when Affinity is killing you on turn 3-4. By all means, tap out to do absolutely nothing at Sorcery speed on your turn!
Guilds of Ravnica - Commander 2018 - Core 2019 - Battlebond - Dominaria - Rivals of Ixalan - Ixalan - Commander 2017 - Hour of Devastation - Amonket - Aether Revolt - Commander 2016 - Kaladesh - Conspiracy 2 - Eldritch Moon - Shadows Over Innistrad - Oath of the Gatewatch - Commander 2015 - Battle for Zendikar - Magic Origins - Dragons of Tarkir
Green - Blue - Red - White - Gold
Why would you tap out to do this?
You're trying to make the card look bad by making the format look more unreasonable than it really is.
You're also asking why I would use a card when I wouldn't use it. Which is a bizarre argument that doesn't actually advance your position at all. It's some sort of odd fallacy that users continue to use against this card, and I can't figure out why you think it means anything.
At any rate, a more appropriate use of the card would be post-Wrath. Any player worth half his salt should know how to play against Affinity, especially this far into the life of the format, where Affinity has been a consistently top tier threat. Although there are times when things go horribly wrong. Affinity has god hands like any deck (I'd imagine it would probably involve a turn one Ravager or Atog and a bunch of Memnites).
However, it is not at all unreasonable to use a Mystic Speculation post-Wrath to filter the top three cards of your deck. Against a deck like Affinity it's imperative that you get the jump on them as soon as you've worn them down (be it with a Wrath or what have you) and Speculation can help you do that. And repeatedly to boot.
(Note: I do not advocate playing Speculation immediately after the Wrath. Try to find something else to back it up before you Wrath, and then use Speculation to back that up. You shouldn't give Affinity any more turns than absolutely necessary.)
I also like it as a card that can give you a leg-up in top deck wars.
Like I said, it's a late game card. Post-stabilization of board state. Two to three copies main, tops. Perhaps two main, one board, so you can side in a third if you're facing a deck that you need to win top deck wars against. It's like a dollar store Sensei's Diving Top. You use it to make sure you don't draw anything you don't want.
It'd be nice to just use Preordain, but I can't. It's gone. I have to keep an open mind as to methods of card advantage/card filtering/whatever. I realize that you people hate it when people are open-minded, but it's not something that you can just ignore. In this situation you have no choice. Even if it's something as mundane as Sleight of Hand.
What the heck is wrong with "toolbox" type control decks. I tutor up Gaddock Teeg because you're playing some spell I don't like (like GSZ ;))
Since when is that a "banned" approach. If thats the case put the hammer down on KotR for "tutoring" up toolbox lands.
Source: http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/161b
I am just going to quote from the article and quickly address each of Lauer's points in turn.
So turn 4 is no longer the gold standard. The problem is just when the TOP decks are winning on turn 3 or earlier. So when Pump Infect, Breach Hulk, Kitties, and Storm randomly pull out turn 2 wins, that's not a problem, so long as they aren't doing it at the widespread Top 8 professional level. Wizards also commits to deck diversity in this format, which means archetype (control, aggro, combo) diversity.
Yeah, this deck is a little too consistent. The only way to beat it reliably is to run Sudden Shock in the sideboard or maindeck, or to get lucky off of a turn 1 discard spell. Even the former plan is not foolproof, given that Infect Shoal runs Disrupting Shoal as a quasi Force of Will. The well-kept secret of Blazing Shoal was that the deck was a lot more consistent in practice than it appeared on paper. That made it terrifying, and that's why Blazing is gone.
It looks like Wizards had two options here. They could either ban storm cards like Grapeshot, Ignite Memories, Empty the Warrens, and/or Pyromancer's Swath. OR, they could ban one ritual to slow down the deck but preserve its win conditions. Turn 2 wins off of a Rite-powered storm deck were the norm at PT Philly (just read the reports), and that deck was definitely a top contender. Sadly, its pilots sucked at draft which means we did not see storm wrecking the Top 8. In the choice between storm kill cards and one ritual, we should be relieved to just see the ritual go.
That last line is really important. "Without removing the possibility of playing them". Wizards was really looking out for players on this one, allowing you to still play the core win cards of the deck but getting rid of the consistent hand sculpting effects that pushed these decks over the top. Combo was most out of control in its consistency and ability to recover after getting stopped, and Ponder/Preordain are the main culprits in that regard. By banning these cards, Wizards depowers combo BUT preserves the archetype and its win conditions.
"Kept a lot of different decks out of the tournament, greatly reducing the diversity". SOUNDS LIKE CONTROL TO ME. Given that I made a Cloudpost Ban a personal crusade on this forum, and in emails sent to Wizards, I am so happy that this ban came down. Given the widespread player support for this ban, Wizards really did a good job in listening to its player base. Modern will be better off because of it.
I have emphasized a few reasons for GSZ's banning, because these are the core reasons that the card got banned. Apparently, GSZ limits what green-based decks get played, as only decks running GSZ become viable. I am not sure that this is good logic on the DCI's part. Red decks basically all run Lightning Bolt, just as white decks all run Path to Exile. That said, GSZ does dictate, in a sense, what type of deck you are playing. If you run GSZ, then you are probably running a toolbox based green deck, and I can understand if R&D had a problem with that.
Overall, I am totally on board with all the bannings EXCEPT GSZ. Now that we have seen the "official" reason for its banning, however, we can discuss it with more clarity and precision. What do people think about the official GSZ stance, or any of the other stances for that matter?
-ktkenshinx-
Serious question, what do you think the average clock of the top tier decks are? You saying that turn 4 wins are "unreasonable," but I would argue that they are incredibly common. Play an Affinity deck with Atog and Fling. Play a Zoo deck. Play an Eggs or Melira deck. Turn 4 wins are much consistent than you think. People who think that Storm decks are dead are in for a rude awakening. They won't kill you on turn 2 any more, but you'd be amazed at how consistent the deck can still be (especially Empty the Warrens variants).
Asking you a question isn't an argument, it's a question. This isn't a formal debate buddy, this is an Internet forum designated to discuss a children's card game. We think the card is bad and we want to know why you're making a case for it. You can't just say "oh I would never use that card, quit committing logical fallacies" to avoid answering. Normally when people make a case for a card it's because they like it and would use it. You're just arguing for a card that you've never tried, never tested, and never used, and are acting like you have so much insight as to how powerful the card can be. You're making baseless claims that this card is a lategame powerhouse that will enable you to control your draws and ultimately outmaneuver and outplay your opponent. I don't know how you could possibly boast such feats if you've never actually used the card, nor have any intention to.
List me one top tier deck that runs Wrath of God. Honestly, any deck at all. I have no idea what format you're playing where control decks who maindeck *** run rampart. You're talking about decks that don't exist which run cards that aren't ran. Show me your top tier deck with Wrath of God and Mystic Speculation. I know that you're just going to say something dumb like "oh I wouldn't use it in a deck so I don't actually have one, and you're committing a logical fallacy by asking me to." Oh well, at least I'm not the one using imaginary decks to support my arguments.
I like how you entire argument is based around control decks always stabilizing against Affinity (or any combo/aggro deck for that matter). What happens when they kill you on turn 3? You seem to be ignoring the fact that this card is ONLY useful lategame and it doesn't help you get to the lategame because it doesn't get you what you need, when you need it. If it's just going to sit in your hand until turn 5 or later, then you're basically down a card for most of the game. If you do use it early, it's strict card disadvantage. Yes, it can help you control your next few plays, but it doesn't draw you a land if you need one on turn 2 (like other dig spells can), and it won't get you that Wrath of God RIGHT NOW if you need it RIGHT NOW. This isn't just about Affinity either, but any combo and aggro deck. They are going to be pressuring you and killing you in 3-4 turns if you let them. I wouldn't play a card that is only good "lategame" when the format is defined by early game decks. That's what we're asking you, why are trying to defend a slow card in a fast format? I don't care if you're not going to play the card yourself, that has nothing to do with anything. You think that a slow, lategame card is well-poised in a fast meta. Why?
Guilds of Ravnica - Commander 2018 - Core 2019 - Battlebond - Dominaria - Rivals of Ixalan - Ixalan - Commander 2017 - Hour of Devastation - Amonket - Aether Revolt - Commander 2016 - Kaladesh - Conspiracy 2 - Eldritch Moon - Shadows Over Innistrad - Oath of the Gatewatch - Commander 2015 - Battle for Zendikar - Magic Origins - Dragons of Tarkir
Green - Blue - Red - White - Gold
Its getting kind of silly seeing this point over and over again. What GSZ allowed us to do was run singleton copie sof toolbox creatures. Its what allowed Catfish (or Countercat or whatever you want to call it) to be an aggro-control deck instead of just another aggro deck. It was rarely used to drop extra Goyfs. Hell, it made Goyf a less useful addition to the deck, because suddenly, vanilla fat isnt good enough. I wanted value creatures that contributed to the board meaningfully. Losing GSZ means losing the more interesting and creative aspects of the decks it was in, which is why it pisses me off so much. Banning it will lead to less diversity, not more, as it will be harder to experiment so everyone will just go back to 4 ofs.
Standard
BWGRock RampBWG
Modern
UBRGLiving EndUBRG
Legacy
BWGJunkbladeBWG
My Sales Thread
I WANT YOUR SORINS
“My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.” - Jack Layton, RIP
Which is why all these bannings are going to be the death of the format
Aaaaaaand Affinity still can lol. Not complaining though, I love my artifacts. I'm still upset they banned Rite of Flame
It was a really good ritual for red that wasn't broken imo. It completely screws over AiR decks (All in Red), which had a pretty strong early game being able to pull out Deus of Calamity, Demigod of Revenge, or even Koth of the Hammer on turn 1 if not turn 2. Now,after removing Rite of Flame, I can get turn 1 board advantage every once in awhile, but its usually turn 2 or 3 now =/
BOO who zoo is now the best deck and you crying because you have to run a more developed sideboard like the rest of us. The card also effected other decks, not just zoo, but it was too go in zoo because it was like running 10 more creatures for 4 cards.
Albert Einstein
Thomas Jefferson
Balance is arbitrary in itself; as you said earlier, throwing 'broken' things around is just fine if you're competing with a reasonably diverse field of other 'broken' things. One has to pick some kind of benchmark to balance around.
Wizards picked "turn 4." Why? I can only speculate, but it's no more arbitrary than saying "turn 3 is fine."
I knew I shouldn't have posted this on the previous page at the very end, because now it is lost in the stream of argument. Wizards posted justifications for its Modern bannings, and with the exception of my post, no one has actually talked about those reasons at all. It's stupid to speculate on reasons for Wizards' bans when we actually have the reasons up front. Here is the quotation of my post, which includes the Wizards stance on GSZ and why it got banned:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=7341659&postcount=120
Wizards actually argues that GSZ Decreases deck diversity, not increases it. This is because GSZ's existence forces all green based decks to run a toolbox of the same creatures that are supported by this card. Personally, I disagree with Wizards on this point, but it is important to at least acknowledge that they made the point if we want to disagree with it. Up until now, people really are not talking about the direct reasons that Wizards is banning cards. That needs to change.
I seriously do not understand why people keep saying this. It might be because they do not have experience in Magic history or that they aren't playtesting enough. In the vast, vast majority of cases, bans INCREASE, not decrease, the deck diversity in a forum. This is very utilitarian of Wizards. By banning one card and one deck, you open up the format to a dozen cards and a dozen decks. Obviously, you need to draw the line a little more clearly than that, but the gist of it is obvious. The cards that Wizards banned in this last set of bannings were designed to help Modern, and in most cases, they are totally defensible.
It is not arbitrary at all. It is based on other formats. Here is the quote from Tom LaPille's "Welcome to the Modern World" article, explaining turn 4 wins in Modern:
(Source: http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/155)
"First, we have a rule of thumb about Legacy that we don't like consistent turn-two combination decks, but that turn-three combination decks are okay. We modified that rule for Modern by adding a turn to each side: we are going to allow turn-four combination decks, but not decks that consistently win the game on turn three.
This is perfectly reasonable to me, and it has been reasonable since it was announced.
-ktkenshinx-
Heh. I hate most creatures in general. I'm supposed to be a ridiculously powerful wizard here, not some army general Probably why I drift towards combo or control whenever they're viable.
Actually, I think he misquoted - the issue wasn't turn-4 kills, but pre-turn 4 kills.
And that's how it should be, IMO. Then again, my inner Vorthos hates creatures with a passion anyway so I may be a bit biased
Adolescent's game. Pokemon or YuGiOh were for kids; MtG was always aimed at the adolescent/young-adult market.
(on Mystic Speculation)
Theorycrafting, mostly. And the theory seems mostly sound; but his theory fails to account for the difficulty involved in getting to that lategame situation where the card would allegedly shine.
I have tested a bit with the card, albeit in janky homebrews that likely had other problems as well. Mostly in that the rest of the deck was already a powerhouse if it got to the lategame, and didn't really need another card that made it better at that point. What it needed was help getting there, and Speculation didn't really give that. (As an instant, though...)
There isn't a confirmed top tier anymore Cloudpost was the biggest boogieman keeping the decks that *might* have run Wrath (or Damnation, for that matter) out of the mix, and Cloudpost is now dead. Control decks which might run Wrath (or even Speculation, though I have my doubts) can now focus a bit better on beating the aggro and combo, and maybe get in there.
Or maybe not. We'll have to wait and see.
Just like every set of bannings before...
I'm not saying it's an unreasonable decision. But "yeah, we just decided to add 1 turn to our rule-of-thumb concerning Legacy" is still just as arbitrary (no more, no less) than if they would have said "we'll keep the Legacy rule of thumb and allow Turn 3 combination decks."
Not actually what I said, but hey, why respond to a point when you can rant eh?
Unless they are going to ban every tutoring card in the format, banning GSZ for that reason makes no sense.
EDIT: And yes, I read the explanations. I read them right away and the justification for GSZ is a nonpoint that makes little to no sense. Banning a card because it's a staple is stupid. Of course every Green deck will run GSZ, just like every red deck will run Lightning Bolt, etc. etc. etc. It's the same with Ponder and Preordain. People running Blue will want the best card filter/draw spells they can get. Banning Ponder and Preordain means they'll spend a couple weeks working out the next best, then use those. Will the DCI then ban the next cards used as well? The Cloudpost ban took care of that deck, and the only other deck using GSZ was indeed Zoo. But that made Zoo a more interesting deck, which now has to resort to "Durp drup thumpit burn".
Standard
BWGRock RampBWG
Modern
UBRGLiving EndUBRG
Legacy
BWGJunkbladeBWG
My Sales Thread
I WANT YOUR SORINS
“My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.” - Jack Layton, RIP
List a single comparable card that been successful in the past. I'm not talking about Top either, I'm talking about a Sorcery that made you tap 3+ mana on your turn. Top could be used at EOT and only cost you 1 mana. It could also be used to draw a card in a pinch. Mystic Speculation costs you 4 mana and only happens at Sorcery speed. Never in the history of magic has Blue ever used such a horribly underpowered card to filter and control their draws. Nobody who's ever played Magic competitively would look at this card and say "now this is diamond in the rough!" It's a horrible card and it will see 0 competitive play because it's a useless card that doesn't do anything. Tapping 4 mana at Sorcery speed to look at 3 cards... unreal that people are trying to defend this thing. Azure Mage will see more play than this card will. The theory isn't sound, the theory is utter nonsense (I'm still waiting for these imaginary decks that run Wrath of God) which makes sense given that that people defending this card have never tested it nor have any intention of doing so. People are talking straight from their *** and that's how much their opinion is worth. This card is not a "poor man's Top." It always has been and always will be complete trash.
Guilds of Ravnica - Commander 2018 - Core 2019 - Battlebond - Dominaria - Rivals of Ixalan - Ixalan - Commander 2017 - Hour of Devastation - Amonket - Aether Revolt - Commander 2016 - Kaladesh - Conspiracy 2 - Eldritch Moon - Shadows Over Innistrad - Oath of the Gatewatch - Commander 2015 - Battle for Zendikar - Magic Origins - Dragons of Tarkir
Green - Blue - Red - White - Gold
If you want to run a tool box you should be forced to run something more restrictive or slower. Thus something like trinket mage or chord of calling which are both fine in the meta.
They didn't exactly ban a staple, but how many bant/zoo/ect decks would run 4 GSZ, with a teeg, a pridemage, ect. It puts way to much parity into the meta game where eventually every G/x/x aggro deck would be exactly alike, instead of having different strengths and weaknesses.
Albert Einstein
Thomas Jefferson
TBH, I can't think of a *genuinely* comparable card at all. Successful or otherwise.
4 mana? Son, when you get little details like that wrong, people stop taking you seriously.
I have tested it. And discarded it for not doing enough in the situations where I need it to. Clearly you didn't actually read much of what I said.
While I think it's likely that you're not concerned about infractions, I still think it fair to warn you that you're treading close to the kind of response that will get you one.