TC draws you 3 cards immediately for magnitudes less than it should cost. 4 mana draw three is decent. 3 mana draw 3 is really good. 2 mana is busted. 1 mana is absolutely broken. Dark Confidant draws you three cards over three turns for a loss of life, 1B and can be disrupted by things other than counterspells. Dig Through Time is way above the power level of spending 2 mana. Compare to Impulse, which is strong but fair. Goyf is extremely powerful but easy to interact with.
There's no real, easy way to sum up a general rule for what makes a broken card, or what the exact limit is between fair and broken. Over the last 20 years everyone who plays and designs magic has slowly arrived at the right mana cost for an effect through a slow trial and error process.
A balanced counterspell costs 2.5mana. 3 is unplayable, 2 is extremely good. Lightning Bolt is insane, while Searing Spear is trash. It's amusing how such a small difference in mana cost means EVERYTHING. Goyf would be unplayable if its mana cost was 2G. At a single G it would need to be banned.
A card's power is determined by its effect relative to its cost, and how difficult it is for your opponent to deal with it. The truth of magic, as has been discovered by WotC over 10 years ago is that instants and sorceries are way more powerful than creatures. They cannot be stopped, except by other instants and sorceries. They provide a powerful effect that happens straight away for a traditionally much smaller mana investment than permanents, which slowly realise their effect over time. This is why instants and sorceries are much more dangerous at lower costs than permanents, generally. You can deal with your opponent's Tarmogoyf several turns after they've cast it in a multitude of ways. Instants and sorceries can only be countered, or discarded. There's a reason why the only possible way to play a fair deck in modern is generally to either play discard or counterspells.
As always I agree with you Shodai and bow down to your wisdom.
Instants and Sorceries are way more powerful than any other card type because only Blue and Black can interact with them. That's why Wizards is underway in making the game more permanent-based(*cough* Creatures *cough*) and not spell-based so more type of decks can compete and are not forced splash certain colors just to survive.
Why do people think that Storm had a target on it's head and ate several bannings? It's mostly spell-based which means that only certain type of decks can interact with it. Your mono-green stompy deck that is playing some good creatures is just dead to it. There is nothing you can do about it. Just scoop'em up and hope you don't have to play against it again.
Some may say now "well, that's how it always has been". But as I said in of my earlier post just because things have been true in the past doesn't mean they have to be true now or in the future.
Instants and Sorceries were ridiculous and way overpowered compared to everything else in the game with artifacts being probably just behind. Timetwister, Time Walk, Ancestral Recall just to name a few of the very early offenders to this. Juzám Djinn on the other hand was one of best creatures in the game at some point.
Today we live in the world of Polukranos, World Eater, Baneslayer Angel, Thundermaw Hellkite, Geist of Saint Traft, Siege Rhino, etc. and the game is better for it.
That's what I think and that's what Wizards think. Their research and experience making this game has lead them to that conclusion.
Legacy and Vintage are still there if you want to sling overpowered spells.
TC draws you 3 cards immediately for magnitudes less than it should cost. 4 mana draw three is decent. 3 mana draw 3 is really good. 2 mana is busted. 1 mana is absolutely broken. Dark Confidant draws you three cards over three turns for a loss of life, 1B and can be disrupted by things other than counterspells. Dig Through Time is way above the power level of spending 2 mana. Compare to Impulse, which is strong but fair. Goyf is extremely powerful but easy to interact with.
There's no real, easy way to sum up a general rule for what makes a broken card, or what the exact limit is between fair and broken. Over the last 20 years everyone who plays and designs magic has slowly arrived at the right mana cost for an effect through a slow trial and error process.
A balanced counterspell costs 2.5mana. 3 is unplayable, 2 is extremely good. Lightning Bolt is insane, while Searing Spear is trash. It's amusing how such a small difference in mana cost means EVERYTHING. Goyf would be unplayable if its mana cost was 2G. At a single G it would need to be banned.
A card's power is determined by its effect relative to its cost, and how difficult it is for your opponent to deal with it. The truth of magic, as has been discovered by WotC over 10 years ago is that instants and sorceries are way more powerful than creatures. They cannot be stopped, except by other instants and sorceries. They provide a powerful effect that happens straight away for a traditionally much smaller mana investment than permanents, which slowly realise their effect over time. This is why instants and sorceries are much more dangerous at lower costs than permanents, generally. You can deal with your opponent's Tarmogoyf several turns after they've cast it in a multitude of ways. Instants and sorceries can only be countered, or discarded. There's a reason why the only possible way to play a fair deck in modern is generally to either play discard or counterspells.
As always I agree with you Shodai and bow down to your wisdom.
Instants and Sorceries are way more powerful than any other card type because only Blue and Black can interact with them. That's why Wizards is underway in making the game more permanent-based(*cough* Creatures *cough*) and not spell-based so more type of decks can compete and are not forced splash certain colors just to survive.
Why do people think that Storm had a target on it's head and ate several bannings? It's mostly spell-based which means that only certain type of decks can interact with it. Your mono-green stompy deck that is playing some good creatures is just dead to it. There is nothing you can do about it. Just scoop'em up and hope you don't have to play against it again.
Some may say now "well, that's how it always has been". But as I said in of my earlier post just because things have been true in the past doesn't mean they have to be true now or in the future.
Instants and Sorceries were ridiculous and way overpowered compared to everything else in the game with artifacts being probably just behind. Timetwister, Time Walk, Ancestral Recall just to name a few of the very early offenders to this. Juzám Djinn on the other hand was one of best creatures in the game at some point.
Today we live in the world of Polukranos, World Eater, Baneslayer Angel, Thundermaw Hellkite, Geist of Saint Traft, Siege Rhino, etc. and the game is better for it.
That's what I think and that's what Wizards think. Their research and experience making this game has lead them to that conclusion.
Legacy and Vintage are still there if you want to sling overpowered spells.
Aka... We have only 1 color that is capable of interacting in a playable manner with an entire component of the game (the stack). Sounds like good game design to me. /sarcasm
Seriously though, it'd be nice to split blue's interaction on the stack up among more colors. Then blue could at least gain in other areas. As is, if you want to stop a spell you either have to get it first (black) or play blue.
But mana leak, force spike, etc all feel kinda white to me.. (since ya know.. taxing is kinda white's thing)
A balanced counterspell costs 2.5mana. 3 is unplayable, 2 is extremely good. Lightning Bolt is insane, while Searing Spear is trash. It's amusing how such a small difference in mana cost means EVERYTHING. Goyf would be unplayable if its mana cost was 2G. At a single G it would need to be banned.
It is not hard to design a counterspell with CMC of 2.5: just add some drawbacks.
For example, counterspell, but you lose 2 life in addition.
Or, counterspell, but you cannot cast this spell unless you control three island.
TC draws you 3 cards immediately for magnitudes less than it should cost. 4 mana draw three is decent. 3 mana draw 3 is really good. 2 mana is busted. 1 mana is absolutely broken. Dark Confidant draws you three cards over three turns for a loss of life, 1B and can be disrupted by things other than counterspells. Dig Through Time is way above the power level of spending 2 mana. Compare to Impulse, which is strong but fair. Goyf is extremely powerful but easy to interact with.
There's no real, easy way to sum up a general rule for what makes a broken card, or what the exact limit is between fair and broken. Over the last 20 years everyone who plays and designs magic has slowly arrived at the right mana cost for an effect through a slow trial and error process.
A balanced counterspell costs 2.5mana. 3 is unplayable, 2 is extremely good. Lightning Bolt is insane, while Searing Spear is trash. It's amusing how such a small difference in mana cost means EVERYTHING. Goyf would be unplayable if its mana cost was 2G. At a single G it would need to be banned.
A card's power is determined by its effect relative to its cost, and how difficult it is for your opponent to deal with it. The truth of magic, as has been discovered by WotC over 10 years ago is that instants and sorceries are way more powerful than creatures. They cannot be stopped, except by other instants and sorceries. They provide a powerful effect that happens straight away for a traditionally much smaller mana investment than permanents, which slowly realise their effect over time. This is why instants and sorceries are much more dangerous at lower costs than permanents, generally. You can deal with your opponent's Tarmogoyf several turns after they've cast it in a multitude of ways. Instants and sorceries can only be countered, or discarded. There's a reason why the only possible way to play a fair deck in modern is generally to either play discard or counterspells.
As always I agree with you Shodai and bow down to your wisdom.
Instants and Sorceries are way more powerful than any other card type because only Blue and Black can interact with them. That's why Wizards is underway in making the game more permanent-based(*cough* Creatures *cough*) and not spell-based so more type of decks can compete and are not forced splash certain colors just to survive.
Why do people think that Storm had a target on it's head and ate several bannings? It's mostly spell-based which means that only certain type of decks can interact with it. Your mono-green stompy deck that is playing some good creatures is just dead to it. There is nothing you can do about it. Just scoop'em up and hope you don't have to play against it again.
Some may say now "well, that's how it always has been". But as I said in of my earlier post just because things have been true in the past doesn't mean they have to be true now or in the future.
Instants and Sorceries were ridiculous and way overpowered compared to everything else in the game with artifacts being probably just behind. Timetwister, Time Walk, Ancestral Recall just to name a few of the very early offenders to this. Juzám Djinn on the other hand was one of best creatures in the game at some point.
Today we live in the world of Polukranos, World Eater, Baneslayer Angel, Thundermaw Hellkite, Geist of Saint Traft, Siege Rhino, etc. and the game is better for it.
That's what I think and that's what Wizards think. Their research and experience making this game has lead them to that conclusion.
Legacy and Vintage are still there if you want to sling overpowered spells.
Aka... We have only 1 color that is capable of interacting in a playable manner with an entire component of the game (the stack). Sounds like good game design to me. /sarcasm
Seriously though, it'd be nice to split blue's interaction on the stack up among more colors. Then blue could at least gain in other areas. As is, if you want to stop a spell you either have to get it first (black) or play blue.
But mana leak, force spike, etc all feel kinda white to me.. (since ya know.. taxing is kinda white's thing)
Aka... We have only 1 color that is capable of interacting in a playable manner with an entire component of the game (the stack). Sounds like good game design to me. /sarcasm
Seriously though, it'd be nice to split blue's interaction on the stack up among more colors. Then blue could at least gain in other areas. As is, if you want to stop a spell you either have to get it first (black) or play blue.
But mana leak, force spike, etc all feel kinda white to me.. (since ya know.. taxing is kinda white's thing)
Every color has ways to interact with the stack, they just aren't all as obvious as blue's counter magic.
White controls the stack in a much bigger way than blue does through global effects like Rule of Law, Thalia, and True Believer. They don't just target a single spell on the stack; they change the very rules of the stack.
Black interacts with things before they can make it to the stack, as has been pointed out.
Red is single minded, and that is reflected in its stack interaction as well. Cards like Skullcrack and Flames of the Blood Hand attack on the only axis that red cares about: life gain/damage prevention.
Green doesn't mess around with Magic much so most of their interaction is permanent based. It kills artifacts, enchantments, land, and even creatures sometimes. They also have hexproof creatures to prevent opponents from interacting with their own game plan. It's probably fair to say Green's weakness is the stack in the same sense that blue's is resolved permanents.
This goes to show there's many ways to stop a spell. Black can take it from your hand, white can prevent you from casting it at all, red just doesn't care unless it affects their singular game plan, and green just can't be bothered unless you're dropping some enchantment/artifact to cramp their nature vibe.
So perhaps Terminus should be banned? It sees play in the top tier Legacy Miracles deck. Sure Top, Jace, and Brainstorm aren't in the format, but other manipulation spells are and the blind flip can be devastating. Just the fact that it shows up in that deck should be a sign of its power in Modern. Also, you really should give examples of those "various other blue decks" that play Ancestral Vision, or someone might think you're pulling it out of your ass.
Terminus doesn't draw 3 cards.
And you are still missing the point. If something is played in Legacy, even due to extra support, there is a chance that it's also highly playable in Modern. I'm not guaranteeing anything, although it should be obvious to most intelligent Modern players why Ancestral Vision is more playable than Terminus in this format despite both lacking certain tools that prop them up in Legacy.
The various blue decks that have used Ancestral Vision in Legacy that I'm aware of include:
UW Control
RUG Cascade
BUG Cascade
UR Control
Faeries
"Terminus doesn't draw 3 cards." What are you even trying to argue? Drawing 3 cards isn't inherently better than sweeping the board. In fact, Wrath of God is way more playable than Concentrate, and the Terminus tuck is stronger than Wrath destroy.
YOU are missing the point. Of course there's a chance that its playable! That's why people actually care about it being unbanned, unlike something on the level of Golgari Grave Troll. I'm saying that these comparisons to "Legacy tier" card draw is stupid because the enablers aren't even there. You're acting like its play in Legacy means it is inherently really good, but it only sees play because of Cascade and previously Mental Misstep. Remove the Mental Misstep decks from your list. Remove the cascade decks from your list. And remove the "Faeries" deck because what the actual hell? Legacy Faeries? And you're left with an extremely mediocre card draw spell in Legacy that sees play...nowhere. Just like Terminus would see play nowhere without the enablers.
You can't bring up Legacy for Ancestral Vision where it only sees play because of enablers, yet ignore the power of Terminus in Legacy which only sees play because of its enablers.
All the ban talk just makes me think of the Spam sketch (monty python) replacing the word spam with BAN.
Man: Sshh, dear, don't cause a fuss. I'll have your Ban. I love it. I'm having Ban Ban Ban Ban Ban Ban Ban birthing Pod
Ban Ban Ban and Ban!
Vikings: Ban Ban Ban Ban. Lovely Ban! Wonderful Ban!
Waitress: Shut up!! Birthing Pods are gone.
Man: Well could I have her Ban instead of the Birthing pod then?
Waitress: You want Ban Ban Ban Ban Ban Ban..
You also only posted one real deck, and UW control decks like Gold Digger are Dig decks, not AV decks. You post long winded explanations that still show you have no understanding of that card or how it actually functions in decks outside of turn 1 suspending it.
"Terminus doesn't draw 3 cards." What are you even trying to argue? Drawing 3 cards isn't inherently better than sweeping the board. In fact, Wrath of God is way more playable than Concentrate, and the Terminus tuck is stronger than Wrath destroy.
YOU are missing the point. Of course there's a chance that its playable! That's why people actually care about it being unbanned, unlike something on the level of Golgari Grave Troll. I'm saying that these comparisons to "Legacy tier" card draw is stupid because the enablers aren't even there. You're acting like its play in Legacy means it is inherently really good, but it only sees play because of Cascade and previously Mental Misstep. Remove the Mental Misstep decks from your list. Remove the cascade decks from your list. And remove the "Faeries" deck because what the actual hell? Legacy Faeries? And you're left with an extremely mediocre card draw spell in Legacy that sees play...nowhere. Just like Terminus would see play nowhere without the enablers.
You can't bring up Legacy for Ancestral Vision where it only sees play because of enablers, yet ignore the power of Terminus in Legacy which only sees play because of its enablers.
I'm arguing that drawing 3 cards for one mana is a lot more powerful of an effect and much less replaceable than sweeping the board, especially in this format. There's a chance that it's more than just playable, and that it's in fact stronger than many people realize, which is why it's still on the banlist.
I'm not ignoring the case of Terminus, but you are comparing apples to oranges. If we could Terminus for 1 in Modern it would obviously also be great, but we have replacement effects that are relatively reasonable in Supreme Verdict and Wrath of God. We don't have replacement effects for Draw 3 cards for One mana, so even if the card available to us has a huge time restriction, it still looks pretty good. And again, I'm not using absolutes. I realize that the fact that AV sees play in a few corner case Legacy decks doesn't strictly mean anything about Modern by itself. But on the flipside, the fact that Terminus doesn't see play without Top in Modern doesn't disprove anything either.
It's pretty logical to look at the dearth of good blue draw spells in Modern and conclude that Ancestral Vision would be a nice addition. And it isn't a stretch to think that it could also possible prove to be overpowered. Legacy, again, has access to a host of blue spells that are simply missing in Modern, which is the biggest reason I think we are even having this conversation in the first place. We don't need AV to be played naked in a Legacy deck for it be good in Modern, I was just trying to point out examples of how the card can be used and abused.
We can round and round on this, but my original point had a lot more to do with Ancestral Vision being playable in multiple Modern archetypes, and not just control. I do not think that Ancestral Vision would resurrect control in some miraculous manner. I think it might make control more popular, but only relative to the success of blue as a whole. If WOTC were to unban AV, the first places it would pop up would be in midrange blue decks that are already looking to grind out the game. That is the ultimate discussion point.
You also only posted one real deck, and UW control decks like Gold Digger are Dig decks, not AV decks. You post long winded explanations that still show you have no understanding of that card or how it actually functions in decks outside of turn 1 suspending it.
I assume you are referencing me here as well? I assure you that I fully understand how Ancestral Vision functions.
What do you guys think of unbanning Sword of the Meek to give more power to control decks? Or is that too much power for the control decks?
It's certainly an option, and one that's been discussed here before. But whatever metagame share it gives to control would likely be taken away from Aggro and Affinity decks, which might not be where WOTC wants things to go. Decks like Combo and Abzan could probably still deal with the ThopterSword combo, but decks with less interaction would have a tough time, and they are already threatened by a number of combo decks in the format. ThopterSword would certainly be a controlling deck, but it could still end up being more midrange and/or combo than people realize. For instance, Abzan could easily splash blue for the card, or morph into an Esper deck with mostly the same core. It would still be a different deck, but it's not clear that it wouldn't just be a grindier and more resilient form of Abzan, only with counterspells to keep the game locked up instead.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MODERN RGB Jund BGR WGB Junk/Abzan Company WGB
LEGACY RUGB Delver GURB
EDH UW Geist of Saint Traft Aggro-Control WU RUG Riku of Two Reflections Combo GUR BBB Skithiryx Control BB
it wouldnt be hard to design a counterspell for 2 mana that helps control without hurting the format
eg UU counter target spell your opponent gains 4 life
-> that would definatly be playable in control without breaking any other decks due to the drawback of double blue mana and 4 life for you opponent
such a spell would be perfectly viable for a control deck, but pretty much only for control
-> it would not hurt the format or be broken and wouldnt push combo further
Please explain the draw back to this counter spell.
With the mana we have in Modern UU is nothing to hit turn 2, and 4 life is laughable.
We already have UU counter spells in Modern with draw backs and people wont play them, you are just trying to make a card that makes people think there are draw backs when in reality there are none.
Aka... We have only 1 color that is capable of interacting in a playable manner with an entire component of the game (the stack). Sounds like good game design to me. /sarcasm
Seriously though, it'd be nice to split blue's interaction on the stack up among more colors. Then blue could at least gain in other areas. As is, if you want to stop a spell you either have to get it first (black) or play blue.
But mana leak, force spike, etc all feel kinda white to me.. (since ya know.. taxing is kinda white's thing)
Every color has ways to interact with the stack, they just aren't all as obvious as blue's counter magic.
White controls the stack in a much bigger way than blue does through global effects like Rule of Law, Thalia, and True Believer. They don't just target a single spell on the stack; they change the very rules of the stack.
Black interacts with things before they can make it to the stack, as has been pointed out.
Red is single minded, and that is reflected in its stack interaction as well. Cards like Skullcrack and Flames of the Blood Hand attack on the only axis that red cares about: life gain/damage prevention.
Green doesn't mess around with Magic much so most of their interaction is permanent based. It kills artifacts, enchantments, land, and even creatures sometimes. They also have hexproof creatures to prevent opponents from interacting with their own game plan. It's probably fair to say Green's weakness is the stack in the same sense that blue's is resolved permanents.
This goes to show there's many ways to stop a spell. Black can take it from your hand, white can prevent you from casting it at all, red just doesn't care unless it affects their singular game plan, and green just can't be bothered unless you're dropping some enchantment/artifact to cramp their nature vibe.
'
You basically just said "every color has ways to interact with the stack! They don't." White and red are the next most interactive and for the most part the interaction is limited to a few cards.
It would be hard to really argue that blue doesn't have a monopoly on stack interaction. Almost no other color really can interact. I've posted about it before, it would go a long way towards making the game seem less biased towards blue if every color could interact with the stack. They don't all need countermagic, but they do all need more ways to be interactive.
Interaction isn't a bad thing. More of it should be something we want in the format.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Playing:
Modern: UWUW TronUW
Legacy: WDeath N TaxesW CEldrazi C
If you couldn't tell I hate greedy blue decks.
Please explain the draw back to this counter spell.
With the mana we have in Modern UU is nothing to hit turn 2, and 4 life is laughable.
We already have UU counter spells in Modern with draw backs and people wont play them, you are just trying to make a card that makes people think there are draw backs when in reality there are none.
I think he was trying to make a Counterspell that would likely see play in proper control, but that might not be appealing to a Twin or Delver type deck. Which this card pretty much is.
It's not even clear that UWR control would want this over the other options, since they often close the game with incidental damage off Colonnade or Bolts etc. But regardless, it's not a real card, so there isn't much point in discussing it further.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MODERN RGB Jund BGR WGB Junk/Abzan Company WGB
LEGACY RUGB Delver GURB
EDH UW Geist of Saint Traft Aggro-Control WU RUG Riku of Two Reflections Combo GUR BBB Skithiryx Control BB
Aka... We have only 1 color that is capable of interacting in a playable manner with an entire component of the game (the stack). Sounds like good game design to me. /sarcasm
Seriously though, it'd be nice to split blue's interaction on the stack up among more colors. Then blue could at least gain in other areas. As is, if you want to stop a spell you either have to get it first (black) or play blue.
But mana leak, force spike, etc all feel kinda white to me.. (since ya know.. taxing is kinda white's thing)
Every color has ways to interact with the stack, they just aren't all as obvious as blue's counter magic.
White controls the stack in a much bigger way than blue does through global effects like Rule of Law, Thalia, and True Believer. They don't just target a single spell on the stack; they change the very rules of the stack.
Black interacts with things before they can make it to the stack, as has been pointed out.
Red is single minded, and that is reflected in its stack interaction as well. Cards like Skullcrack and Flames of the Blood Hand attack on the only axis that red cares about: life gain/damage prevention.
Green doesn't mess around with Magic much so most of their interaction is permanent based. It kills artifacts, enchantments, land, and even creatures sometimes. They also have hexproof creatures to prevent opponents from interacting with their own game plan. It's probably fair to say Green's weakness is the stack in the same sense that blue's is resolved permanents.
This goes to show there's many ways to stop a spell. Black can take it from your hand, white can prevent you from casting it at all, red just doesn't care unless it affects their singular game plan, and green just can't be bothered unless you're dropping some enchantment/artifact to cramp their nature vibe.
'
You basically just said "every color has ways to interact with the stack! They don't." White and red are the next most interactive and for the most part the interaction is limited to a few cards.
It would be hard to really argue that blue doesn't have a monopoly on stack interaction. Almost no other color really can interact. I've posted about it before, it would go a long way towards making the game seem less biased towards blue if every color could interact with the stack. They don't all need countermagic, but they do all need more ways to be interactive.
Interaction isn't a bad thing. More of it should be something we want in the format.
While I agree, I don't think this is the place to discuss it. Is this all in relation to the stupid plan to unban all those cards to turn modern into a combofest? Cause I kinda thought we all accepted that that was stupid and we're moving on.
TC draws you 3 cards immediately for magnitudes less than it should cost. 4 mana draw three is decent. 3 mana draw 3 is really good. 2 mana is busted. 1 mana is absolutely broken. Dark Confidant draws you three cards over three turns for a loss of life, 1B and can be disrupted by things other than counterspells. Dig Through Time is way above the power level of spending 2 mana. Compare to Impulse, which is strong but fair. Goyf is extremely powerful but easy to interact with.
There's no real, easy way to sum up a general rule for what makes a broken card, or what the exact limit is between fair and broken. Over the last 20 years everyone who plays and designs magic has slowly arrived at the right mana cost for an effect through a slow trial and error process.
A balanced counterspell costs 2.5mana. 3 is unplayable, 2 is extremely good. Lightning Bolt is insane, while Searing Spear is trash. It's amusing how such a small difference in mana cost means EVERYTHING. Goyf would be unplayable if its mana cost was 2G. At a single G it would need to be banned.
A card's power is determined by its effect relative to its cost, and how difficult it is for your opponent to deal with it. The truth of magic, as has been discovered by WotC over 10 years ago is that instants and sorceries are way more powerful than creatures. They cannot be stopped, except by other instants and sorceries. They provide a powerful effect that happens straight away for a traditionally much smaller mana investment than permanents, which slowly realise their effect over time. This is why instants and sorceries are much more dangerous at lower costs than permanents, generally. You can deal with your opponent's Tarmogoyf several turns after they've cast it in a multitude of ways. Instants and sorceries can only be countered, or discarded. There's a reason why the only possible way to play a fair deck in modern is generally to either play discard or counterspells.
As always I agree with you Shodai and bow down to your wisdom.
Instants and Sorceries are way more powerful than any other card type because only Blue and Black can interact with them. That's why Wizards is underway in making the game more permanent-based(*cough* Creatures *cough*) and not spell-based so more type of decks can compete and are not forced splash certain colors just to survive.
Why do people think that Storm had a target on it's head and ate several bannings? It's mostly spell-based which means that only certain type of decks can interact with it. Your mono-green stompy deck that is playing some good creatures is just dead to it. There is nothing you can do about it. Just scoop'em up and hope you don't have to play against it again.
Some may say now "well, that's how it always has been". But as I said in of my earlier post just because things have been true in the past doesn't mean they have to be true now or in the future.
Instants and Sorceries were ridiculous and way overpowered compared to everything else in the game with artifacts being probably just behind. Timetwister, Time Walk, Ancestral Recall just to name a few of the very early offenders to this. Juzám Djinn on the other hand was one of best creatures in the game at some point.
Today we live in the world of Polukranos, World Eater, Baneslayer Angel, Thundermaw Hellkite, Geist of Saint Traft, Siege Rhino, etc. and the game is better for it.
That's what I think and that's what Wizards think. Their research and experience making this game has lead them to that conclusion.
Legacy and Vintage are still there if you want to sling overpowered spells.
Why can't we have powerful spells and powerful creatures be printed at the same time? They've done it before (for example, Lightning Bolt and Path to Exile were in Standard at the same time as Goblin Guide and Bloodbraid Elf). What is wrong with living in a world of Thundermaw Hellkites that also has Counterspell? What is wrong with living in a world of Geist of Saint Traft that also has Wrath of God? Wizards has been continuing to lower the power-level of spells and increase the power-level of creatures. Siege Rhino would have been unthinkable 2 years ago and the idea that Wizards would remove all 4 mana wraths and 2 mana removal spells with reasonable conditions was viewed as irrational fear. Why does creature power-level have to continuously increase while the power-level of spells continuously decreases? Why can't the power-level be equal for both?
TC draws you 3 cards immediately for magnitudes less than it should cost. 4 mana draw three is decent. 3 mana draw 3 is really good. 2 mana is busted. 1 mana is absolutely broken. Dark Confidant draws you three cards over three turns for a loss of life, 1B and can be disrupted by things other than counterspells. Dig Through Time is way above the power level of spending 2 mana. Compare to Impulse, which is strong but fair. Goyf is extremely powerful but easy to interact with.
There's no real, easy way to sum up a general rule for what makes a broken card, or what the exact limit is between fair and broken. Over the last 20 years everyone who plays and designs magic has slowly arrived at the right mana cost for an effect through a slow trial and error process.
A balanced counterspell costs 2.5mana. 3 is unplayable, 2 is extremely good. Lightning Bolt is insane, while Searing Spear is trash. It's amusing how such a small difference in mana cost means EVERYTHING. Goyf would be unplayable if its mana cost was 2G. At a single G it would need to be banned.
A card's power is determined by its effect relative to its cost, and how difficult it is for your opponent to deal with it. The truth of magic, as has been discovered by WotC over 10 years ago is that instants and sorceries are way more powerful than creatures. They cannot be stopped, except by other instants and sorceries. They provide a powerful effect that happens straight away for a traditionally much smaller mana investment than permanents, which slowly realise their effect over time. This is why instants and sorceries are much more dangerous at lower costs than permanents, generally. You can deal with your opponent's Tarmogoyf several turns after they've cast it in a multitude of ways. Instants and sorceries can only be countered, or discarded. There's a reason why the only possible way to play a fair deck in modern is generally to either play discard or counterspells.
While this is true, creatures can also be much more powerful than spells. Lightning Bolt can deal 3 damage to you once. Wild Nacatl will do it every turn until it dies. A removal spell will kill a creature. A card like Siege Rhino will have a strong effect and then stop that creature from attacking until it dies. Also, maybe the solution is giving other colors a way to interact with spells before they resolve instead of making most of those cards unplayable.
Hello, people! New modern player here
After seing the ban of TC and DTT [NOTE: this whole thing is NOT about the ban itself] a question came to my mind: what's the limit between fair and broken?
This question comes from a new player, so I have not played so many matches and I have not faced every single card I'm going to speak about, so I'm not 100% aware of their actual power levels
Let's start taking the card advantage issue
I can get Treasure Cruise being quite OP because is cheap and draws a lot without drawbacks (exluding a little nonbo with graveyard strategies)
However, thinking about Dark Confidant, it has a drawback (lifeloss) that is quite menageable through proper deckbuilding, adding a body AND possibly drawing far more than 3 cards if he sticks around. This is not saying that Bob should be banned, I'm just asking about the power level: when does drawing become too much of an issue?
Dig Through Time had the ability to create card advantage AND quality choice. Thoughtseize offers card choice (in a disrupting way), plus information, plus it's cheaper.
They are far from being the same kind of effect, but they seem to be quite on a similiar power level to me
If the problem is power/cost Tarmogoyf as a creature should be much more despised
However, it's probably a shared opinion that Goyf as a card is very strong but not broken
When does a card get broken in your opinion?
What's the exact limit between being fair and broken when it comes to powerful value staples?
Posted elsewhere but an interesting discussion for this thread!
Well Dark Confidant is far from broken.
If he would be then every deck that can support him would run 4 of them but the reality is that most Junk lists don't include him at all. The drawback is real and that is undeniable.
Also every single deck can interact with him. If you kill him directly I haven't gained any advantage.
Non-blue decks cannot interact with Treasure Cruise at all and you got a lot of cards immediately without any kind of drawback.
And it's the same with Dig Through Time and Thoughtseize.
Thoughtseize is a 1-for-1 trade and is a bad topdeck.
Dig is a 2-for-1 where you get to choose the best from seven and it's a great topdeck to boot.
So is every way of drawing cards quickly at a playable price too good for Modern in your opinion? If that is true, we aren't ever getting a Control deck.
I'm not sure a lack of Control as an archetype is a problem. I'm assuming by Control you mean a deck that stalls the game out with one-for-ones, eventually stabilizes with a big spell like Sphinx's Revelation, and then wins with a one-off Batterskull or a Planeswalker or a Collonade? How is that so different from stalling out the game until turn 7, then winning with Scapeshift?
Scapeshift forces you to run several cards to support the win-con. 12+ cards devoted to winning the game is a bit beyond what I would consider to count as Control.
I'll agree that there's more Aggro now than there was pre-Khans, but IIRC there's still less than there was during the Treasure Cruise era. Delver's ubiquity allowed a bunch of Aggro archetypes to flourish by employing a semi-Stompy shell with Chalice of the Void (Green Stompy, Merfolk and Zoo builds, etc.). You did mention that Merfolk is still a deck but I think we can both agree that it's very, very bad right now. Why would you play creatures that conditionally attack for 4 and can't be blocked (i.e. when you have 2 Lords and a Spreading Seas in play) when you could just play Tarmogoyf in a deck that has no problem keeping the rest of the board clear? One of the issues I personally have with Modern is that synergy isn't really good enough for the format, and Treasure Cruise helped mitigate this issue while it was legal. It was only even played in one archetype (which included 3 styles of Delver decks) and all of those decks were synergy-based. It also opened the door for a variety of tribal strategies that happened to stomp Delver.
I definitely agree. At the very least they didn't need to ban Dig.
You said to look at the consistency cards banned since Philly. I listed all of them. What more do you want?
Consistency cards banned since Philly.. Blazing Shoal, Birthing Pod, Cloudpost, DRS, DTT, Glimpse of Nature, GSZ, Ponder, Preordain, Rite of Flame, Seething Song, and TC. Add in AV, SFM, JTMS, SDT and arguably the artifact lands from the original ban and there is a lot more then the 5 you mention. I would say Pfire is another, but I am sure you would disagree. Every card I mentioned is a consistency key (at some time in the history of Magic) to a deck(s).
How do you even define consistency? I am not sure how DRS increased consistency any more than Noble Hierarch does. Blazing Shoal killed a deck (it also broke the turn 4 rule, which means that it was breaking a different requirement than saying that consistency after turn 4 is bad). Sure, the deck not existing made it a lot less consistent. I mentioned Pod, Dig, GSZ, Ponder, Preordain, and Cruise. Cloudpost is a similar case to Blazing Shoal. It killed the deck. If they wanted to lower consistency of 12-Post, Glimmerpost or Primeval Titan would have been banned. Instead, they banned Cloudpost which led to it being replaced with Tron (which is a different deck, even though it is a similar type of deck). Glimpse of Nature was banned before PT Philadelphia and was breaking the turn 4 rule. Rite of Flame and Seething Song both broke the turn 4 rule, so they are not a part of a rule against consistency after turn 4. And when you mention the cards that were banned earlier, Sensei's Top was banned for time reasons and SFM and Jace were pretty obviously part of Wizards's fear of extended and Standard power-houses that we saw throughout the early bans (for example, the Valakut and Bitterblossom bans). So all you have to back up your case is that Ancestral Vision was banned, and that is one of the most disagreed with bans in Modern. There isn't a rule against consistency in Modern that does not cause logistical issues, consistent turn 3 kills, or 15+% decks.
No, it comes down to Wizards's stated goals for the format and what you believe their hidden motives that they are unwilling to share with us are. I think it is safer to assume that Wizards is being overcautious than assuming that they banned Dig Through Time because they wanted decks that were not breaking any of the stated rules of the format to be less consistent for no reason.
I think you are wrong.
Are you even listening to yourself? Why would Wizards hide their motive for bans? And why would they oppose consistency in Modern that doesn't break any of their stated views? And if that is the case, then why is Dark Confidant allowed? It certainly provides consistency past turn 4. The answer is simple. Wizards isn't lying about why it is banning cards. It might be wrong about what cards need to be banned, but it isn't lying to us about why they are doing it. You can have all of the conspiracy theories that you want, but that doesn't make them true. Think Occam's Razor.
DRS meant hitting consistent double black mana turn 3 without messing with the manabase. The jund manabase is stretched thin as is, so this was huge. C'mon valanarch you're better than this, I feel like you're carrying on this argument just for the sake of not agreeing with Bocephus. He's absolutely wrong about telling time but the rest of his points are actually solid and well supported. At least stop straight up hating with foodchain, I'd be shocked if he even plays modern anymore.
As I said, DRS does not enable consistency anymore than any other manadork. It had a very high overall power-level that led to an oppressive 15% deck becoming dominant, but it does not enable consistency any more than any other cards of its type.
That said, I'm disappointed in the dig ban as well, it felt like we were a step away from viable control and I honestly didn't think combo was really oppressive with it. Yea scapeshift was stronger but there's ways to hate on that, don't any of you pack tec edges anymore? Slaughter games from the board? Slaughter might be a bit to narrow for many people's tastes, but I suppose playing a white based deck I'm used to narrow hate. One day I do hope we get it back or at least SOMETHING that doesn't make me splash black for card advantage (though I do like the recent printing of Tasigur, Id be the first to say THAT is a well designed powerful card)
I completely agree with all of this. I shouldn't have to splash black to draw cards. That is in blue's slice of the color pie. I should be able to play UW Control and draw cards before turn 7.
I don't really mind lower power formats typically though. I'm a huge fan of standard/pauper and don't like legacy or commander as much (I don't really get vintage as much? It strikes me as mana costs not mattering nearly as much as the power of the effect which is slightly disconcerting). Not much we can do I suppose though other than see how this all shakes out. I do kinda feel that they are actively trying to flush out some of the older decks to try and give rise to new ones which I have mixed feelings about. They never want to go back to that high a power level, but without doing so the same decks would rule modern for all eternity. I don't have the answer for that, but if it would mean new decks rather than years of minor improvements to old ones, I think I lean toward the new decks.
I don't dislike all formats with lower power-levels. For example, I enjoy Pauper as well (RG Madness). However, I don't support bans that exist just to keep the power-level low. If it isn't breaking any of the stated rules of Modern, I say unban it.
Also, Bocephus, stop hiding and admit that you were wrong. Your arguments about secret consistency reasons for bans are ridiculous. It might be rare, but it isn't heresy to admit that you are wrong on the Internet.
Wizards has been continuing to lower the power-level of spells and increase the power-level of creatures
What you are not getting is 20 years ago spells were about a 20 on a 10 scale. Creatures were about a -10 on that same scale. Over the years they have brought the 2 much closer to even which makes some upset. When you are comparing recent spells to spells of days past people complain we have weak spells, when in reality they have been adjusted to the meta (Standard meta), the exact same thing with creatures going the other way. They are trying to balance the game so neither spells or creatures are over powered. Some don like it.
Also, Bocephus, stop hiding and admit that you were wrong. Your arguments about secret consistency reasons for bans are ridiculous. It might be rare, but it isn't heresy to admit that you are wrong on the Internet.
Not hiding, I am not wrong, you are just too stubborn to see it. Even Sheepz has said I am right and you are just arguing to argue.
What you find ridiculous others find fine.
In case you missed it...
Quote from Sheepz »
DRS meant hitting consistent double black mana turn 3 without messing with the manabase. The jund manabase is stretched thin as is, so this was huge. C'mon valanarch you're better than this, I feel like you're carrying on this argument just for the sake of not agreeing with Bocephus. He's absolutely wrong about telling time but the rest of his points are actually solid and well supported. At least stop straight up hating with foodchain, I'd be shocked if he even plays modern anymore.
You have a very skewed perception of the game over all and the format. You want something that Wotc seems to not want and you are mad. The fact you liked the Delver/Pod meta when a good portion of the player base did not should tell you, you look at the format different from what others do. To you, everyone is worng. Me, Wotc, anyone who doesnt think like you do.
Wizards has been continuing to lower the power-level of spells and increase the power-level of creatures
What you are not getting is 20 years ago spells were about a 20 on a 10 scale. Creatures were about a -10 on that same scale. Over the years they have brought the 2 much closer to even which makes some upset. When you are comparing recent spells to spells of days past people complain we have weak spells, when in reality they have been adjusted to the meta (Standard meta), the exact same thing with creatures going the other way. They are trying to balance the game so neither spells or creatures are over powered. Some don like it.
Also, Bocephus, stop hiding and admit that you were wrong. Your arguments about secret consistency reasons for bans are ridiculous. It might be rare, but it isn't heresy to admit that you are wrong on the Internet.
Not hiding, I am not wrong, you are just too stubborn to see it. Even Sheepz has said I am right and you are just arguing to argue.
What you find ridiculous others find fine.
You have a very skewed perception of the game over all and the format. You want something that Wotc seems to not want and you are mad. The fact you liked the Delver/Pod meta when a good portion of the player base did not should tell you, you look at the format different from what others do. To you, everyone is worng. Me, Wotc, anyone who doesnt think like you do.
This weird narrative of creatures being bad needs to end. Let's look back at the years 98, 99, 00, 01 and those standard seasons with broken spells like Tinker, Brainstorm, Dark Rit, Survival, and Bargain. Not only were those cards really good and present for winning decks, but lo and behold a plethora of creature decks that helped define those formats like Sligh (whose creatures aren't nearly good enough for today's standard), Stompy, Machine Head, Fires, GW aggro, and RG Angry Hermit. Extended had decks like Dump Truck, Junk, and Stompy also doing well. Creatures have always been important and good enough, but now they're way ahead compared to spells.
Wizards has been continuing to lower the power-level of spells and increase the power-level of creatures
What you are not getting is 20 years ago spells were about a 20 on a 10 scale. Creatures were about a -10 on that same scale. Over the years they have brought the 2 much closer to even which makes some upset. When you are comparing recent spells to spells of days past people complain we have weak spells, when in reality they have been adjusted to the meta (Standard meta), the exact same thing with creatures going the other way. They are trying to balance the game so neither spells or creatures are over powered. Some don like it.
Also, Bocephus, stop hiding and admit that you were wrong. Your arguments about secret consistency reasons for bans are ridiculous. It might be rare, but it isn't heresy to admit that you are wrong on the Internet.
Not hiding, I am not wrong, you are just too stubborn to see it. Even Sheepz has said I am right and you are just arguing to argue.
What you find ridiculous others find fine.
You have a very skewed perception of the game over all and the format. You want something that Wotc seems to not want and you are mad. The fact you liked the Delver/Pod meta when a good portion of the player base did not should tell you, you look at the format different from what others do. To you, everyone is worng. Me, Wotc, anyone who doesnt think like you do.
This weird narrative of creatures being bad needs to end. Let's look back at the years 98, 99, 00, 01 and those standard seasons with broken spells like Tinker, Brainstorm, Dark Rit, Survival, and Bargain. Not only were those cards really good and present for winning decks, but lo and behold a plethora of creature decks that helped define those formats like Sligh (whose creatures aren't nearly good enough for today's standard), Stompy, Machine Head, Fires, GW aggro, and RG Angry Hermit. Extended had decks like Dump Truck, Junk, and Stompy also doing well. Creatures have always been important and good enough, but now they're way ahead compared to spells.
I disagree. In the history of Magic there have been numerous spell based, spell only decks that were competitive on some level. You cannot say the same about creatures. Even in recent times with creatures getting spells piggy backed on to creatures, we dont have creature only decks. I would say creatures and spells have come closer to being equal with the number of mid range decks that run 16-18 creatures and 16-20 spells plus the mana base.
Creatures have always been important and good enough, but now they're way ahead compared to spells.
"Good enough" is an extremely nebulous term, though. Sure, some of those decks were good, but denying that early magic was defined by noncreature spells is silly. The Power Nine are exclusively non creatures, as are the other broken cards (Time Vault, Sol Ring, etc).
Wizards has been continuing to lower the power-level of spells and increase the power-level of creatures
What you are not getting is 20 years ago spells were about a 20 on a 10 scale. Creatures were about a -10 on that same scale. Over the years they have brought the 2 much closer to even which makes some upset. When you are comparing recent spells to spells of days past people complain we have weak spells, when in reality they have been adjusted to the meta (Standard meta), the exact same thing with creatures going the other way. They are trying to balance the game so neither spells or creatures are over powered. Some don like it.
If the answers are situational and cost as much as the threats, what reason do you have to play the answers instead of the threats? If I have to spend 3 mana to kill a 3 mana creature, why not just play the 3 mana creature instead? Answers inherently have to be cheaper than threats because if they aren't, there is no reason to play the answers anymore. I am not asking for a return to the Power Nine. I merely want spells and creatures to both be back at the power-level that they were at around Alara and Zendikar (with occassional exceptions for both spells and creatures). We had powerful creatures (Emrakul, Noble Hierarch, Knight of the Reliquary, Goblin Guide, Steppe Lynx, Meddling Mage, Ranger of Eos, Primeval Titan, Inferno Titan, Baneslayer Angel, Lotus Cobra, Sun Titan, Grave Titan, Frost Titan, Woolly Thoctar, Tidehollow Sculler, Sprouting Thirnax, Bloodbraid Elf), but we also had powerful spells (Lightning Bolt, Path to Exile, Bant Charm, Ajani Vengeant, Ad Nauseum, Tezzeret, Burst Lightning, Maelstrom Pulse, Forked Bolt, Preordain, Ponder, Day of Judgment, Pyromancer Ascension, Cruel Ultimatium, Esper Charm, Relic of Progenitus, Terminate, Zealous Persecution). Why can't they be balanced like that? Why must we be in a Standard where spells are so weak compared to creatures?
Also, Bocephus, stop hiding and admit that you were wrong. Your arguments about secret consistency reasons for bans are ridiculous. It might be rare, but it isn't heresy to admit that you are wrong on the Internet.
Not hiding, I am not wrong, you are just too stubborn to see it. Even Sheepz has said I am right and you are just arguing to argue.
What you find ridiculous others find fine.
In case you missed it...
Quote from Sheepz »
DRS meant hitting consistent double black mana turn 3 without messing with the manabase. The jund manabase is stretched thin as is, so this was huge. C'mon valanarch you're better than this, I feel like you're carrying on this argument just for the sake of not agreeing with Bocephus. He's absolutely wrong about telling time but the rest of his points are actually solid and well supported. At least stop straight up hating with foodchain, I'd be shocked if he even plays modern anymore.
Sure, I respect Sheepz more than you. However, the argument isn't good no matter who's fingers typed it. How does DRS enable consistency anymore than Birds of Paradise does in regards to manabases? Sure, he caused problems in Modern, but he was banned for making a deck 15% of the meta. Also, I break down your argument card by card and you just give me a blanket statement? It is like you aren't even trying. I will ask this again, because I have literally no idea what you think the right answer is. What cards have been banned in Modern for specifically enabling consistency that were not banned for breaking the turn 4 rule, causing logistical problems, or making a deck 15% of the meta? The only answers are GSZ, AV, Dig, Jace, and SFM. While that is still a large number, Jace, SFM, Dig, and GSZ all had equally valid reasons. Instead, you claim that Wizards is banning these cards because they enable consistency, even though they haven't said anything against consistency beyond turn 4. Stop being a conspiracy theorist and admit that it is more likely that cards are banned for their stated reason than a hidden reason that Wizards isn't allowed to state.
You have a very skewed perception of the game over all and the format. You want something that Wotc seems to not want and you are mad.
The fact you liked the Delver/Pod meta when a good portion of the player base did not should tell you, you look at the format different from what others do.
Yes. I want a format with diversity. I want a format where all archetypes are able to compete within the bounds of the turn 4 rule. Maybe the rest of the players don't want diversity. Maybe the rest of the players want Modern to be crushed into the ground by ban after ban instead of just accepting that the power-level of Modern will inherently get higher as time progresses. That doesn't make me any less right. I want to be able to play Tempo and Control. I want people to be able to play with Midrange and Combo and Aggro. And finally, what I want is for cards that do not break any of the stated rules of the format to not be banned. Is this really too unreasonable?
To you, everyone is wrong. Me, Wotc, anyone who doesnt think like you do.
To you it is the same. I am wrong. Everyone who disagrees with your continuous stream of nonsensical ideas on this forum is wrong. When Wizards disagrees with you, you claim secret meaning that only you can see but that they cannot say in the open for unknown reasons. When people say that you are wrong about ban testing, you claim the existence of a secret cabal of pro Modern testers who can somehow take time out of their lives to test what cards should be banned in Modern, but aren't willing to release results, their names, or even the existence of this group. When Aaron Forsythe disagreed with you, you claimed that he said that Stoneforge Mystic is a better version of Tinker. You have a pattern of this Bocephus. You think that everyone else is wrong, but unlike me you won't ever admit that you were wrong. You make up evidence that can't be disproven because there is no proof for or against it and if you are losing an argument you just quit. So yes, you are wrong. You continue to be wrong, and your radical ideas towards the format are still wrong and always will be wrong. I don't agree with them. Most players don't agree with them. And most importantly, Wizards doesn't agree that banning the format into the ground, banning any card that has a 0.01% chance of winning the game before turn 4, and eliminating archetype diversity in favor of a secret arbitrary rule that decks can't consistently win even after their already stated turn 4 rule is the right way to approach Modern.
[quote]Also, Bocephus, stop hiding and admit that you were wrong.
Here's the thing...
Oh really? What is more likely? Wizards banning cards for the reasons that they state or Wizards banning cards for hidden reasons that they are unwilling to share with anyone else? The simplest explanation is the one most likely to be true.
I'm arguing that drawing 3 cards for one mana is a lot more powerful of an effect and much less replaceable than sweeping the board, especially in this format. There's a chance that it's more than just playable, and that it's in fact stronger than many people realize, which is why it's still on the banlist.
I'm not ignoring the case of Terminus, but you are comparing apples to oranges. If we could Terminus for 1 in Modern it would obviously also be great
Yes you can? The enablers are just not as good. Sound familiar?
, but we have replacement effects that are relatively reasonable in Supreme Verdict and Wrath of God.
*lists four mana sweepers
We don't have replacement effects for Draw 3 cards for One mana,
*ignores four mana draw threes
so even if the card available to us has a huge time restriction, it still looks pretty good. And again, I'm not using absolutes. I realize that the fact that AV sees play in a few corner case Legacy decks doesn't strictly mean anything about Modern by itself. But on the flipside, the fact that Terminus doesn't see play without Top in Modern doesn't disprove anything either.
And I'm saying that if you can bring up Ancestral Vision in Legacy where it only sees play because of Legacy enablers, why can't I bring up Terminus in Legacy where it only sees play because of Legacy enablers? So basically, you should really stop the Legacy comparisons.
It's pretty logical to look at the dearth of good blue draw spells in Modern and conclude that Ancestral Vision would be a nice addition. And it isn't a stretch to think that it could also possible prove to be overpowered. Legacy, again, has access to a host of blue spells that are simply missing in Modern, which is the biggest reason I think we are even having this conversation in the first place. We don't need AV to be played naked in a Legacy deck for it be good in Modern, I was just trying to point out examples of how the card can be used and abused.
"Abused" in ways that would never happen in Modern with the current pool. If those enablers weren't in Legacy, Ancestral Vision wouldn't be played. Given that those enablers don't exist in Modern, why is Legacy even part of the discussion?
We can round and round on this, but my original point had a lot more to do with Ancestral Vision being playable in multiple Modern archetypes, and not just control. I do not think that Ancestral Vision would resurrect control in some miraculous manner. I think it might make control more popular, but only relative to the success of blue as a whole. If WOTC were to unban AV, the first places it would pop up would be in midrange blue decks that are already looking to grind out the game. That is the ultimate discussion point.
Why must we be in a Standard where spells are so weak compared to creatures?
...and Standard is the healthiest its been in a few rotations.
How does DRS enable consistency anymore than Birds of Paradise
If someone has to explain the difference between Bop and DRS we have bigger issues.
Oh really? What is more likely? Wizards banning cards for the reasons that they state or Wizards banning cards for hidden reasons that they are unwilling to share with anyone else? The simplest explanation is the one most likely to be true.
Again, you want what you want and cant fathom any other direction.
I am done here. I have explained multiple times, and you continue to ask the same questions. I am done with this topic with you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As always I agree with you Shodai and bow down to your wisdom.
Instants and Sorceries are way more powerful than any other card type because only Blue and Black can interact with them. That's why Wizards is underway in making the game more permanent-based(*cough* Creatures *cough*) and not spell-based so more type of decks can compete and are not forced splash certain colors just to survive.
Why do people think that Storm had a target on it's head and ate several bannings? It's mostly spell-based which means that only certain type of decks can interact with it. Your mono-green stompy deck that is playing some good creatures is just dead to it. There is nothing you can do about it. Just scoop'em up and hope you don't have to play against it again.
Some may say now "well, that's how it always has been". But as I said in of my earlier post just because things have been true in the past doesn't mean they have to be true now or in the future.
Instants and Sorceries were ridiculous and way overpowered compared to everything else in the game with artifacts being probably just behind. Timetwister, Time Walk, Ancestral Recall just to name a few of the very early offenders to this.
Juzám Djinn on the other hand was one of best creatures in the game at some point.
Today we live in the world of Polukranos, World Eater, Baneslayer Angel, Thundermaw Hellkite, Geist of Saint Traft, Siege Rhino, etc. and the game is better for it.
That's what I think and that's what Wizards think. Their research and experience making this game has lead them to that conclusion.
Legacy and Vintage are still there if you want to sling overpowered spells.
Aka... We have only 1 color that is capable of interacting in a playable manner with an entire component of the game (the stack). Sounds like good game design to me. /sarcasm
Seriously though, it'd be nice to split blue's interaction on the stack up among more colors. Then blue could at least gain in other areas. As is, if you want to stop a spell you either have to get it first (black) or play blue.
But mana leak, force spike, etc all feel kinda white to me.. (since ya know.. taxing is kinda white's thing)
It is not hard to design a counterspell with CMC of 2.5: just add some drawbacks.
For example, counterspell, but you lose 2 life in addition.
Or, counterspell, but you cannot cast this spell unless you control three island.
Such counterspell should be unplayable in Modern.
Anything, but nothing at the moment...
Modern:
WUBRGAmulet Titan, WUBRGHuman
WUBRAd Nauseam, WBRGDeath Shadow, UBRGScapeshift, UBRGDredge
WURJeskai Nahiri, WURCheeri0s, WBGCounter Company, WRGBurn, UBRMadcap Moon, BRGJund Midrange
UBTurn,BRGriselbrand Reanimator, WGKnight Company, RGRG Tron, RGRG Ponza, XAffinity, XEldrazi Tron
Other colors do have a few counterspells but they are all not as universal as the blue ones and therefore mostly unplayable.
White has Dawn Charm, Illumination, Lapse of Certainty, Mana Tithe, Rebuff the Wicked
Red has has Red Elemental Blast and Pyroblast
Black has DeathGrip and Dash Hopes
Green has Guttural Response, Lifeforce and really a ton of spells that fight countermagic or are uncounterable themselves to fight against wannabe blue mages like Autumn's Veil, Insist, Savage Summoning, Summoning Trap, Leyline of Lifeforce, Mistcutter Hydra, Gaea's Revenge, Thrun, the Last Troll and many many more.
But yeah as you said only one color can really interact with the stack hence the toning down of countermagic and more ways to fight against it.
Every color has ways to interact with the stack, they just aren't all as obvious as blue's counter magic.
White controls the stack in a much bigger way than blue does through global effects like Rule of Law, Thalia, and True Believer. They don't just target a single spell on the stack; they change the very rules of the stack.
Black interacts with things before they can make it to the stack, as has been pointed out.
Red is single minded, and that is reflected in its stack interaction as well. Cards like Skullcrack and Flames of the Blood Hand attack on the only axis that red cares about: life gain/damage prevention.
Green doesn't mess around with Magic much so most of their interaction is permanent based. It kills artifacts, enchantments, land, and even creatures sometimes. They also have hexproof creatures to prevent opponents from interacting with their own game plan. It's probably fair to say Green's weakness is the stack in the same sense that blue's is resolved permanents.
This goes to show there's many ways to stop a spell. Black can take it from your hand, white can prevent you from casting it at all, red just doesn't care unless it affects their singular game plan, and green just can't be bothered unless you're dropping some enchantment/artifact to cramp their nature vibe.
'78 CB750F, '09 CBR600RR
YOU are missing the point. Of course there's a chance that its playable! That's why people actually care about it being unbanned, unlike something on the level of Golgari Grave Troll. I'm saying that these comparisons to "Legacy tier" card draw is stupid because the enablers aren't even there. You're acting like its play in Legacy means it is inherently really good, but it only sees play because of Cascade and previously Mental Misstep. Remove the Mental Misstep decks from your list. Remove the cascade decks from your list. And remove the "Faeries" deck because what the actual hell? Legacy Faeries? And you're left with an extremely mediocre card draw spell in Legacy that sees play...nowhere. Just like Terminus would see play nowhere without the enablers.
You can't bring up Legacy for Ancestral Vision where it only sees play because of enablers, yet ignore the power of Terminus in Legacy which only sees play because of its enablers.
Man: Sshh, dear, don't cause a fuss. I'll have your Ban. I love it. I'm having Ban Ban Ban Ban Ban Ban Ban birthing Pod
Ban Ban Ban and Ban!
Vikings: Ban Ban Ban Ban. Lovely Ban! Wonderful Ban!
Waitress: Shut up!! Birthing Pods are gone.
Man: Well could I have her Ban instead of the Birthing pod then?
Waitress: You want Ban Ban Ban Ban Ban Ban..
I'm arguing that drawing 3 cards for one mana is a lot more powerful of an effect and much less replaceable than sweeping the board, especially in this format. There's a chance that it's more than just playable, and that it's in fact stronger than many people realize, which is why it's still on the banlist.
I'm not ignoring the case of Terminus, but you are comparing apples to oranges. If we could Terminus for 1 in Modern it would obviously also be great, but we have replacement effects that are relatively reasonable in Supreme Verdict and Wrath of God. We don't have replacement effects for Draw 3 cards for One mana, so even if the card available to us has a huge time restriction, it still looks pretty good. And again, I'm not using absolutes. I realize that the fact that AV sees play in a few corner case Legacy decks doesn't strictly mean anything about Modern by itself. But on the flipside, the fact that Terminus doesn't see play without Top in Modern doesn't disprove anything either.
It's pretty logical to look at the dearth of good blue draw spells in Modern and conclude that Ancestral Vision would be a nice addition. And it isn't a stretch to think that it could also possible prove to be overpowered. Legacy, again, has access to a host of blue spells that are simply missing in Modern, which is the biggest reason I think we are even having this conversation in the first place. We don't need AV to be played naked in a Legacy deck for it be good in Modern, I was just trying to point out examples of how the card can be used and abused.
We can round and round on this, but my original point had a lot more to do with Ancestral Vision being playable in multiple Modern archetypes, and not just control. I do not think that Ancestral Vision would resurrect control in some miraculous manner. I think it might make control more popular, but only relative to the success of blue as a whole. If WOTC were to unban AV, the first places it would pop up would be in midrange blue decks that are already looking to grind out the game. That is the ultimate discussion point.
I assume you are referencing me here as well? I assure you that I fully understand how Ancestral Vision functions.
RGB Jund BGR
WGB Junk/Abzan Company WGB
LEGACY
RUGB Delver GURB
EDH
UW Geist of Saint Traft Aggro-Control WU
RUG Riku of Two Reflections Combo GUR
BBB Skithiryx Control BB
It's certainly an option, and one that's been discussed here before. But whatever metagame share it gives to control would likely be taken away from Aggro and Affinity decks, which might not be where WOTC wants things to go. Decks like Combo and Abzan could probably still deal with the ThopterSword combo, but decks with less interaction would have a tough time, and they are already threatened by a number of combo decks in the format. ThopterSword would certainly be a controlling deck, but it could still end up being more midrange and/or combo than people realize. For instance, Abzan could easily splash blue for the card, or morph into an Esper deck with mostly the same core. It would still be a different deck, but it's not clear that it wouldn't just be a grindier and more resilient form of Abzan, only with counterspells to keep the game locked up instead.
RGB Jund BGR
WGB Junk/Abzan Company WGB
LEGACY
RUGB Delver GURB
EDH
UW Geist of Saint Traft Aggro-Control WU
RUG Riku of Two Reflections Combo GUR
BBB Skithiryx Control BB
Please explain the draw back to this counter spell.
With the mana we have in Modern UU is nothing to hit turn 2, and 4 life is laughable.
We already have UU counter spells in Modern with draw backs and people wont play them, you are just trying to make a card that makes people think there are draw backs when in reality there are none.
'
You basically just said "every color has ways to interact with the stack! They don't." White and red are the next most interactive and for the most part the interaction is limited to a few cards.
It would be hard to really argue that blue doesn't have a monopoly on stack interaction. Almost no other color really can interact. I've posted about it before, it would go a long way towards making the game seem less biased towards blue if every color could interact with the stack. They don't all need countermagic, but they do all need more ways to be interactive.
Interaction isn't a bad thing. More of it should be something we want in the format.
Modern:
UWUW TronUW
Legacy:
WDeath N TaxesW
CEldrazi C
If you couldn't tell I hate greedy blue decks.
Vintage
WWhite Trash
I think he was trying to make a Counterspell that would likely see play in proper control, but that might not be appealing to a Twin or Delver type deck. Which this card pretty much is.
It's not even clear that UWR control would want this over the other options, since they often close the game with incidental damage off Colonnade or Bolts etc. But regardless, it's not a real card, so there isn't much point in discussing it further.
RGB Jund BGR
WGB Junk/Abzan Company WGB
LEGACY
RUGB Delver GURB
EDH
UW Geist of Saint Traft Aggro-Control WU
RUG Riku of Two Reflections Combo GUR
BBB Skithiryx Control BB
While I agree, I don't think this is the place to discuss it. Is this all in relation to the stupid plan to unban all those cards to turn modern into a combofest? Cause I kinda thought we all accepted that that was stupid and we're moving on.
Why can't we have powerful spells and powerful creatures be printed at the same time? They've done it before (for example, Lightning Bolt and Path to Exile were in Standard at the same time as Goblin Guide and Bloodbraid Elf). What is wrong with living in a world of Thundermaw Hellkites that also has Counterspell? What is wrong with living in a world of Geist of Saint Traft that also has Wrath of God? Wizards has been continuing to lower the power-level of spells and increase the power-level of creatures. Siege Rhino would have been unthinkable 2 years ago and the idea that Wizards would remove all 4 mana wraths and 2 mana removal spells with reasonable conditions was viewed as irrational fear. Why does creature power-level have to continuously increase while the power-level of spells continuously decreases? Why can't the power-level be equal for both?
While this is true, creatures can also be much more powerful than spells. Lightning Bolt can deal 3 damage to you once. Wild Nacatl will do it every turn until it dies. A removal spell will kill a creature. A card like Siege Rhino will have a strong effect and then stop that creature from attacking until it dies. Also, maybe the solution is giving other colors a way to interact with spells before they resolve instead of making most of those cards unplayable.
So is every way of drawing cards quickly at a playable price too good for Modern in your opinion? If that is true, we aren't ever getting a Control deck.
Scapeshift forces you to run several cards to support the win-con. 12+ cards devoted to winning the game is a bit beyond what I would consider to count as Control.
I definitely agree. At the very least they didn't need to ban Dig.
As I said, DRS does not enable consistency anymore than any other manadork. It had a very high overall power-level that led to an oppressive 15% deck becoming dominant, but it does not enable consistency any more than any other cards of its type.
I completely agree with all of this. I shouldn't have to splash black to draw cards. That is in blue's slice of the color pie. I should be able to play UW Control and draw cards before turn 7.
I don't dislike all formats with lower power-levels. For example, I enjoy Pauper as well (RG Madness). However, I don't support bans that exist just to keep the power-level low. If it isn't breaking any of the stated rules of Modern, I say unban it.
Also, Bocephus, stop hiding and admit that you were wrong. Your arguments about secret consistency reasons for bans are ridiculous. It might be rare, but it isn't heresy to admit that you are wrong on the Internet.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
What you are not getting is 20 years ago spells were about a 20 on a 10 scale. Creatures were about a -10 on that same scale. Over the years they have brought the 2 much closer to even which makes some upset. When you are comparing recent spells to spells of days past people complain we have weak spells, when in reality they have been adjusted to the meta (Standard meta), the exact same thing with creatures going the other way. They are trying to balance the game so neither spells or creatures are over powered. Some don like it.
Not hiding, I am not wrong, you are just too stubborn to see it. Even Sheepz has said I am right and you are just arguing to argue.
What you find ridiculous others find fine.
In case you missed it...
You have a very skewed perception of the game over all and the format. You want something that Wotc seems to not want and you are mad. The fact you liked the Delver/Pod meta when a good portion of the player base did not should tell you, you look at the format different from what others do. To you, everyone is worng. Me, Wotc, anyone who doesnt think like you do.
Here's the thing...
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
This weird narrative of creatures being bad needs to end. Let's look back at the years 98, 99, 00, 01 and those standard seasons with broken spells like Tinker, Brainstorm, Dark Rit, Survival, and Bargain. Not only were those cards really good and present for winning decks, but lo and behold a plethora of creature decks that helped define those formats like Sligh (whose creatures aren't nearly good enough for today's standard), Stompy, Machine Head, Fires, GW aggro, and RG Angry Hermit. Extended had decks like Dump Truck, Junk, and Stompy also doing well. Creatures have always been important and good enough, but now they're way ahead compared to spells.
I disagree. In the history of Magic there have been numerous spell based, spell only decks that were competitive on some level. You cannot say the same about creatures. Even in recent times with creatures getting spells piggy backed on to creatures, we dont have creature only decks. I would say creatures and spells have come closer to being equal with the number of mid range decks that run 16-18 creatures and 16-20 spells plus the mana base.
"Good enough" is an extremely nebulous term, though. Sure, some of those decks were good, but denying that early magic was defined by noncreature spells is silly. The Power Nine are exclusively non creatures, as are the other broken cards (Time Vault, Sol Ring, etc).
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
If the answers are situational and cost as much as the threats, what reason do you have to play the answers instead of the threats? If I have to spend 3 mana to kill a 3 mana creature, why not just play the 3 mana creature instead? Answers inherently have to be cheaper than threats because if they aren't, there is no reason to play the answers anymore. I am not asking for a return to the Power Nine. I merely want spells and creatures to both be back at the power-level that they were at around Alara and Zendikar (with occassional exceptions for both spells and creatures). We had powerful creatures (Emrakul, Noble Hierarch, Knight of the Reliquary, Goblin Guide, Steppe Lynx, Meddling Mage, Ranger of Eos, Primeval Titan, Inferno Titan, Baneslayer Angel, Lotus Cobra, Sun Titan, Grave Titan, Frost Titan, Woolly Thoctar, Tidehollow Sculler, Sprouting Thirnax, Bloodbraid Elf), but we also had powerful spells (Lightning Bolt, Path to Exile, Bant Charm, Ajani Vengeant, Ad Nauseum, Tezzeret, Burst Lightning, Maelstrom Pulse, Forked Bolt, Preordain, Ponder, Day of Judgment, Pyromancer Ascension, Cruel Ultimatium, Esper Charm, Relic of Progenitus, Terminate, Zealous Persecution). Why can't they be balanced like that? Why must we be in a Standard where spells are so weak compared to creatures?
Sure, I respect Sheepz more than you. However, the argument isn't good no matter who's fingers typed it. How does DRS enable consistency anymore than Birds of Paradise does in regards to manabases? Sure, he caused problems in Modern, but he was banned for making a deck 15% of the meta. Also, I break down your argument card by card and you just give me a blanket statement? It is like you aren't even trying. I will ask this again, because I have literally no idea what you think the right answer is. What cards have been banned in Modern for specifically enabling consistency that were not banned for breaking the turn 4 rule, causing logistical problems, or making a deck 15% of the meta? The only answers are GSZ, AV, Dig, Jace, and SFM. While that is still a large number, Jace, SFM, Dig, and GSZ all had equally valid reasons. Instead, you claim that Wizards is banning these cards because they enable consistency, even though they haven't said anything against consistency beyond turn 4. Stop being a conspiracy theorist and admit that it is more likely that cards are banned for their stated reason than a hidden reason that Wizards isn't allowed to state.
Oh really? What is more likely? Wizards banning cards for the reasons that they state or Wizards banning cards for hidden reasons that they are unwilling to share with anyone else? The simplest explanation is the one most likely to be true.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
...and Standard is the healthiest its been in a few rotations.
If someone has to explain the difference between Bop and DRS we have bigger issues.
Again, you want what you want and cant fathom any other direction.
I am done here. I have explained multiple times, and you continue to ask the same questions. I am done with this topic with you.