Yikes. This thread devolved into ban mania again. For reference, ban mania is when users identify a problem that may or may not exist, and then attempt to frame/solve/address the problem through unwarranted bans. All the Looting and Vial suggestions are solidly in this category. Stirrings too, because although the card did a lot this year, its end-of-year performance was largely inoffensive. The only ban talk that might be justified would be focused Dredge ban discussion. Dredge created a "battle of sideboards" in late 2016 without a single GP T8. It was all MTGO and tournament-wide results, not top finishes. This pattern could easily be at play today and could justify a Dredge-focused ban such as Imp, Thug, Chill, etc. under the same criteria as the GGT ban. Note that Looting would be exempt here for the same reasons that similar enablers (Looting, Reunion, Neonate, etc.) were exempt in late 2016/early 2017 when GGT got banned.
Re: Modern's alleged non-interactivity
This argument has gotten increasingly tired and unsupportable to the point where I think many proponents just want to play Legacy FoW decks and nothing else. There are numerous viable interactive decks in Modern. Just look at the recent MTGO and GP/SCG results. But now we've now seen at least one user, Arkmer, turn to an even more frustrating Modern analysis technique of minimizing high level results because local events do not reflect those high-level results. Amusingly, we've seen Modern critics in the past use the literal opposite technique ("local results don't matter because big event results drive ban decisions/format health", paraphrased) in the past to shows the format is worse than some claim. This further underscores my theory that some players will simply not be satisfied with a Modern that is otherwise healthy and engaging to different players. At least drmarkb is honest about their complaints and points directly to FoW/Wasteland as panaceas that would allegedly address Modern's supposed non-interactivity problem. Never mind that recent results don't support this at all, and never mind that not everyone wants to play a blue-dominated format like Legacy. And before someone talks about how Legacy is more skill-testing, I would remind you that Modern and Legacy venues see pros achieve the same MWP performances over the past 2-3 years. Also, Modern does not have as many top-tier 80-20 matchups as people claim. The worst top-tier matchups are 35-65 (Jeskai vs. Tron) and or even closer to 30-70 (Tron vs. Infect). Everything else is in the 40-60/60-40 range.
I will happily acknowledge that some cards on the Modern banlist should be removed. SFM is a prime example. But their inclusion on the list should not lead us to assume that Wizards thinks they are unsafe. It is far more likely that they think something like SFM is fine and are just waiting for the right time to unban. See BBE/JTMS and Sword/AV. Their conservative approach to unbans should not indict the entire format. We've been in this position before. Since early 2017, we have seen vehement pro and everyday player calls for multiple bans. Examples have included Tron lands, Company, GDS staples, Eldrazi staples, Humans cards, Bridgevine pieces, KCI cards, Stirrings, Looting, Vial, Opal, SSG, Goryo's Vengeance, Cavern of Souls, and literally a dozen or more other cards. The metagame always adjusted and those ban maniacs were always proven to be off base. This is not to say that no card in Modern will ever be banned again. But it is definitely to say that I can tell right away when someone is making a legitimate data-driven case for a potentially valid ban target, vs. when someone is just personally unhappy with some format element and is venting in ban terms. That's where we are now and that's where we've been before.
Again, the sole exception to this might be a hyper-focused Dredge ban under the GGT criteria. Otherwise, the ban talk in this thread continues to be alarmist, unjustified, and unwarranted.
I think the big issue with Modern is the disconnect between higher level and competitive play allied to the financial aspect, at least in Europe.
In Standard, unless your store is very, very casual, the best decks will be represented. In Legacy, this is a given, even if Europe is less blue than the US or less Delver-y than Japan was. In Modern I can see very little evidence of the top decks being played in the numbers they should be, at least in Europe, even at larger events. The lack of competitive ladder for Modern, coupled with the price means that by and large people are happy to stick with their deck/s. This is true in Legacy, of course, but the power level of the format is so, so high that a "bad" legacy choice can still do well.
In Modern the old PPTQ system failed rapidly...I could play Modern once a year but only to qualify for an event that was not Modern. Or I can play FNM. Or travel to an event with Modern, but wait, oh, it has a Legacy event at the same time.
Without that ladder for higher tier play there was no incentive to change to the best decks. Now as it happens I don't like the "best decks" I like the best prison decks, no mean task in Modern, but the principle holds. Why bother to learn top decks and acquire cards that are spiking in price when there is nothing to do with them beyond FNM? Why drop 400-800 GBP on a deck when I can grab a couple of duals or RL cards for Legacy that hold their value? Thus Wizard's decisions, correctly based on top tier play, don't really impact the vast majority of Modern enthusiasts outside of the US that has a real Modern scene.
Modern is all sorts of linear flavours (or flavors, for the US readers) lined up against each other. Without a Wasteland and Force of will police this will always be the case while sideboards are just 15 cards and tutoring is awful. But when the format is always everyone's second or third choice format, and the competitive scene is so weak outside of the US, does it actually matter? I enjoy Modern, I don't enjoy 80/20 matches, but overall, when so little is on the line in the format, I can't bring myself to care too much. If Wizards improved the competitive ladder for Modern players then the format would get more scrutiny. As it is, it is a flawed but enjoyable format that gets very little compared to the vast number of players it has.
I think this is a very interesting line of thinking. We know the Meta is different, even in large events, from region to region, and then in comparison to Online, I wonder if a deep dive could be done to shake anything out on this.
Euro vs Eastern US vs Western US vs Japan vs Online vs South America.
never mind that not everyone wants to play a blue-dominated format like Legacy.
Modern has never, and will never be this. Nor has anyone ever made the assertion that it should.
I agree that Modern has never been this way, and I agree that Modern will likely not become this way. I disagree that some people don't secretly want this. Or, more likely, that they want certain things in Modern that will lead to it becoming a blue-dominated format, even if they won't admit that outright. The most glaring example of this on this page alone was drmarkb stating "Without a Wasteland and Force of will police this will always be the case while sideboards are just 15 cards and tutoring is awful." I can read between the lines enough on that to infer that drmarkb might prefer the FoW-policed Legacy with its elite suite of blue-based card selection, which ultimately boils down to a blue-dominated format.
Legacy UW Control was a Prison deck, but I dont believe thats what they are looking for. Wasteland though...
Either way. You can add Counterspell, and you can add Preordain. That still wont fix Control, because we dont have Daze, we dont have Force, or Ponder, or Brainstorm, and thats what really does the work.
Old Sphinx Rev/Elixir of Immortality UW Control is not going to wok against the fields in Modern, you need something busted like Terminus, and Teferi, and you do not have the luxury of those slow old cards.
I'm pretty sure in all my posts I've not asked for a ban but also said a ban is entirely unlikely, totally theoretical, and that the current criteria is the current criteria. I've been asking why people would quit over these theoretical bans, not asking for the bans to happen. Thus far only idSurge has given any kind of answer to that question.
But now I am labeled part of "ban mania". Thanks, KTK.
This is why I have an issue with these cards. No one can talk about them, no one can have a discussion, no one can even ask without getting labeled one thing or another. Please don't insinuate that I have been dishonest about my questions by naming me then immediately saying "at least [user] is honest". I have done my best to avoid belittling others and their views on the format, I have done my best to try to repeat my question clearly- even bolding my own quote to highlight that it's not about them being banned, but time and time again my actual question has been ignored so people can tell me why these cards shouldn't be banned and now I am, myself, being belittled.
I get it. They shouldn't be banned. I'm not asking them to be banned. Please stop shoving numbers down my throat, please stop justifying the cards. I get it. I want to know why people would take such extreme stances as to quit if they were banned.
I am done for awhile. Clearly my question is not something people can actually answer, it's been nearly 3 pages of non-answers. I'll withdraw my question entirely and go back to not posting. Again, I am sorry for causing such an upheaval in this thread.
Dont sweat it, this thread's notorious for this kind of stuff.
People would quit because banning anyone of the 3 would do 2 things.
1. Kill (yes kill) the decks that lost the card. If you are not Tier 1, or able to hang with them, you are not good enough.
2. Push the other 2 sets (Vial/Stirrings if Looting went) up even higher.
People quit over their decks getting nerfed. Hell I know of people who quit over Amulet losing Summer Bloom, even though its STILL Tier 1 in power level! Forget about people who ACTUALLY lost their decks in cases like Twin.
I'm pretty sure in all my posts I've not asked for a ban but also said a ban is entirely unlikely, totally theoretical, and that the current criteria is the current criteria. I've been asking why people would quit over these theoretical bans, not asking for the bans to happen. Thus far only idSurge has given any kind of answer to that question.
But now I am labeled part of "ban mania". Thanks, KTK.
There is simply no reason to even bring up the topic. You claim you aren't advocating for bans, but then you talk about how you would prefer the ban criteria being changed and wondering very academically why people would quit if the cards were banned. I just don't understand why this is even on the table as a viable Modern topic. With the sole exception of Dredge, a deck that might legitimately be bannable, there is just no reason to even be talking about this topic at all. When people bring up the concept of bans, even academically/theoretically, in a metagame that doesn't justify them, it's just more of the same tired banlist conversation we've had for years. There's nothing unique about Looting/Stirrings/Vial as sacred topics. It's the notion of anything being banned right now (Except Dredge cards) that riles people up. Let's talk about format trends, new design philosophies, unban speculation (GSZ was a new, interesting field), Arena's potential impact on Modern, Modern and Mythic Champs, deck win percentages, or any of the dozen other viable topics. Not bans.
I am done for awhile. Clearly my question is not something people can actually answer, it's been nearly 3 pages of non-answers. I'll withdraw my question entirely and go back to not posting. Again, I am sorry for causing such an upheaval in this thread.
A) Some people would quit because their deck investment was weakened/destroyed by a ban, so it makes more economical sense to cut losses than to linger on with a subpar deck that can't perform.
B) Other people would quit because it makes Modern feel like an unsafe format in which to build top-tier decks for fear of a ban. Twin players are still unhappy about a ban that was three years old and I imagine many of them, certainly some in my own personal experience, have been hesitant to buy into cards for fear of the Twin effect happening again.
C) Still other players would shy away from Modern / be discouraged from investing because of ban volatility. Why invest in top decks if Wizards bans them solely because they are top-tier? Every format has top-tier decks. We can't just race to the bottom by banning all the powerful stuff in a non-rotating format billed as a home for powerful strategies.
I'm really sorry for taking this thread and throwing it over the way it has been. All I wanted was to voice what I was seeing and find out why others are making the claims they are making about quitting. I wanted to talk through why people would quit if a hypothetical ban happened, but apparently it's inseparable from the idea of calling for an actual ban. My mistake.
just for clarification i know you werent asking for any bans. i didnt directly respond to you because i couldnt think of any way to voice thoughts. it is something along the lines of 'i cant think of even a hypothetical, therefore if it did magically happen my head would explode along with any confidence in this format going forward'.
note this is for just any one ban. i can entertain the idea that wizards says 'NO MORE. NO MORE OF THIS!' and does a hard course correct on the format with a comprehensive wave of bannings/unbannings.
i get it. you wanna see more play patterns with back and forth, games going longer, small changes in positioning based on accruing those edges in card economy or tempo. id like it too. ive been playing jeskai control for quite a while now, even before all the great new(ish) toys. believe me i wasnt doing it because it was a reasonable response to anything going on in modern.
modern has always been on a one way ticket to becoming like legacy. in that as more effects, interaction, mechanics, etc are poured into the format it stops being about certain decks or even certain strategies and rather about certain cards. cards that, given the right conditions (which increases in probability as more cards enter), pull more weight.
for example consider legacy, in particular the notorious brainstorm. brainstorm is currently played by aggro, combo, midrange, and control.
hardened scales, kci, eldrazi, and tron/lantern. look familiar?
lootings isnt quite there yet but it has combo, aggro in spades, and midrange. doesnt even have to be a selection spell. maybe its fast mana like opal in grindfather/whir lantern, and vanilla affinity. tutors are another example, they just outpace 'goodstuff' staples at some point.
so these cards are in disparate strategies and the format 'appears' to be at a state where there is a soup of evenly distributed (relatively) decks. hitting one not only doesnt rid you of the 'non-interaction', it cripples a class of decks including fair ones; all with some arbitrary justification.
'too bad! none of you were too good/winning too much and other broken stuff is going on, but bananas are yellow so it had to happen.'
you are gonna tell me dredge with lootings needs to go when kci can smoke you on turn 2 with a double opal draw?
as such, it doesnt make sense as a solution for a problem that is vague and possibly nonexistent.
anywho, ive been writing this for a while now, but suffice it to say that there is ONE solution observable in legacy. blue. the color wheel was imbalanced from the start. everyone wants to find cards, everyone wants to draw cards, and counter magic hits everything (sans corner cases); therefore it can be used everywhere. this is NOT a case to empower blue in modern, but showcases what 'fair' decks need - consistency. if its not done through selection/tutoring, as wizards says they dont prefer, then it has to be redundancy. more answers, but specifically powerful main deckable generic answers. THIS is the solution i believe wizards is working towards, knowingly or not.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
Then they go and print stupid cards like Gruul Spellbreaker and you wonder if they have learned anything.
I would add Assassin's Trophy, Damping Sphere, Alpine Moon, Amulet of Safekeeping, Unmoored Ego, Infernal Reckoning, and probably some others I am missing. Some of these cards definitely missed the mark (Moon, Amulet, Reckoning). Others landed exactly where Wizards wanted them to (Trophy, Knight, Sphere). I expect Wizards to keep pushing back on threats with improved answers. This will benefit Modern as more cards get added and we get more overlapping, generic answers to diverse threats.
I think Alpine Moon is perfectly serviceable in Modern, but yeah I didnt exhaust the list. A few of these are home run's in my opinion.
One of the challenge in making Modern-relevant answers is mana cost. You really need to be able to answer problems on the first and second turn of the game in Modern or things really get out of hand. Thoughtseize/IoK are great for this reason. So are Sphere, Stony Silence, RIP, and Leyline. Those are the critical windows where a deck on the draw needs to answer a proactive strategy on the play. Of course, there are some exceptions to this. Field of Ruin is a big one, as are K-Command and Cryptic. So it is definitely possible to make a defining answer higher up on the curve as long as the payoff is worth it. But the kinds of cards people really want are the kinds that stop stuff like KCI/Dredge/Storm/Infect/Tron/Hardened Scales from running away with the game on T3/T4. To use a blue example, because it's the one most people think about, we would want a kind of reverse Serra Avenger Force of Will template, but also one that couldn't be readily used in combo/non-blue strategies.
Two existing cards could also help this issue, neither of which are Modern legal and at least one of which is totally appropriate for Standard: Baleful Strix and Containment Priest. These are the kinds of cards that create significant roadblocks for certain kinds of unfair strategies, especially Priest which really should exist in both Standard and Modern. The new Lavinia is a great example of this kind of card, and I expect we'll keep seeing these designs in Standard.
Although bones tossed to Izzet and Dimir in GRN were fairly lackluster overall, I am still cautiously optimistic for Azorius in the next set.
Phoenix, a hallmark Izzet Mythic, is a multi-format all star. That's a pretty big bone in my opinion, even if stuff like Ral and Ionize weren't exciting.
Phoenix, a hallmark Izzet Mythic, is a multi-format all star. That's a pretty big bone in my opinion, even if stuff like Ral and Ionize weren't exciting.
I was speaking more towards the topic of generalized answers. Not another tool for fast, linear decks. I love Phoenix, and I love getting them for free just for casting cantrips and lightning bolts, but the topic at hand was answers. Ionize is unplayable trash and Ral is... OK I guess. I play one and he has been so-so. Hilariously better than Jace the Mind Sculptor, but that just says more about Jace not being good than anything else.
I think Alpine Moon is perfectly serviceable in Modern, but yeah I didnt exhaust the list. A few of these are home run's in my opinion.
One of the challenge in making Modern-relevant answers is mana cost. You really need to be able to answer problems on the first and second turn of the game in Modern or things really get out of hand. Thoughtseize/IoK are great for this reason. So are Sphere, Stony Silence, RIP, and Leyline. Those are the critical windows where a deck on the draw needs to answer a proactive strategy on the play. Of course, there are some exceptions to this. Field of Ruin is a big one, as are K-Command and Cryptic. So it is definitely possible to make a defining answer higher up on the curve as long as the payoff is worth it.
Two existing cards could also help this issue, neither of which are Modern legal and at least one of which is totally appropriate for Standard: Baleful Strix and Containment Priest. These are the kinds of cards that create significant roadblocks for certain kinds of unfair strategies, especially Priest which really should exist in both Standard and Modern. The new Lavinia is a great example of this kind of card, and I expect we'll keep seeing these designs in Standard.
Yep, agreed on all of this. I'm 2-0 (both 2-0!) in my last 2 Games against Tron, on the back of Sphere/Stony but most importantly the fact Knight of Autumn is a clock, Tracker is a clock, and an EoT CoCo, can be enough to close out the game.
I'm at the point where the hate is there, you simply cannot be on something dead ass slow, and expect to 'oh I'll just counter it all', that simply is not an answer in Modern, and it isnt really an answer in Legacy either, people just have this perception that Counterspell would do something, it wouldnt, it doesnt even see Legacy play. FREE counters, that someone can spend the mana to dig for, would do something.
The ideal of an interactive deck in Modern, is GDS.
Two existing cards could also help this issue, neither of which are Modern legal and at least one of which is totally appropriate for Standard: Baleful Strix and Containment Priest. These are the kinds of cards that create significant roadblocks for certain kinds of unfair strategies, especially Priest which really should exist in both Standard and Modern. The new Lavinia is a great example of this kind of card, and I expect we'll keep seeing these designs in Standard.
Although bones tossed to Izzet and Dimir in GRN were fairly lackluster overall, I am still cautiously optimistic for Azorius in the next set.
Phoenix, a hallmark Izzet Mythic, is a multi-format all star. That's a pretty big bone in my opinion, even if stuff like Ral and Ionize weren't exciting.
i agree that strix probably qualifies. its what i meant about even being generic and maindeckable. if your against a noncreature deck terminate is dead, but strix can still provide a clock; albeit a slow one.
unfortunately i cant see a standard environment where it would be okay for strix to be around. like you would need lightning bolt level removal and even then you are still behind. card just has too many freakin keywords that are especially good in standard.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
The ideal of an interactive deck in Modern, is GDS.
Which is ironic, as the deck basically functions to pump out a huge, 1 mana creature, take or counter your removal, and trample over blockers for the win. At least games 2 and 3 can become more engaging and interactive. But after turn 3 killing people a number of times with this deck... it's mostly only interactive enough to protect it's fast aggro plan. Which makes sense, given what makes a "good" deck in Modern.
I think Alpine Moon is perfectly serviceable in Modern, but yeah I didnt exhaust the list. A few of these are home run's in my opinion.
One of the challenge in making Modern-relevant answers is mana cost. You really need to be able to answer problems on the first and second turn of the game in Modern or things really get out of hand. Thoughtseize/IoK are great for this reason. So are Sphere, Stony Silence, RIP, and Leyline. Those are the critical windows where a deck on the draw needs to answer a proactive strategy on the play. Of course, there are some exceptions to this. Field of Ruin is a big one, as are K-Command and Cryptic. So it is definitely possible to make a defining answer higher up on the curve as long as the payoff is worth it. But the kinds of cards people really want are the kinds that stop stuff like KCI/Dredge/Storm/Infect/Tron/Hardened Scales from running away with the game on T3/T4. To use a blue example, because it's the one most people think about, we would want a kind of reverse Serra Avenger Force of Will template, but also one that couldn't be readily used in combo/non-blue strategies.
Two existing cards could also help this issue, neither of which are Modern legal and at least one of which is totally appropriate for Standard: Baleful Strix and Containment Priest. These are the kinds of cards that create significant roadblocks for certain kinds of unfair strategies, especially Priest which really should exist in both Standard and Modern. The new Lavinia is a great example of this kind of card, and I expect we'll keep seeing these designs in Standard.
Although bones tossed to Izzet and Dimir in GRN were fairly lackluster overall, I am still cautiously optimistic for Azorius in the next set.
Phoenix, a hallmark Izzet Mythic, is a multi-format all star. That's a pretty big bone in my opinion, even if stuff like Ral and Ionize weren't exciting.
I totally agree with Containment Priest. The card would't do much in Standard but it would be immensely helpful in Modern. Without a doubt one of the best cards against anything looking to cheat things into play.
I think you are underselling Baleful Strix though. It's deceptively powerful since it invalidates certain strategies and not even unfair ones. That card would be the bane of most creature decks especially Midrange ones. Either it trades with a valuable creature or it eats a removal spell. Both scenarios are 2-for-1s in favor of the Strix player and that's on a card that only costs two mana. It would be often basically a Terminate that cantrips.
I can't imagine that Wizards would be fine with a card like that in Standard considering their current design philosophies.
Now in Modern things are certainly different and it might be fine since it doesn't slot into any deck Tier deck currently. It would make stuff like Grixis Control better but that could use the help since it's clearly worse than the UW based Control decks and I don't see this card being the reason to suddenly go into Esper.
I think you are underselling Baleful Strix though. It's deceptively powerful since it invalidates certain strategies and not even unfair ones. That card would be the bane of most creature decks especially Midrange ones. Either it trades with a valuable creature or it eats a removal spell. Both scenarios are 2-for-1s in favor of the Strix player and that's on a card that only costs two mana. It would be often basically a Terminate that cantrips.
I can't imagine that Wizards would be fine with a card like that in Standard considering their current design philosophies.
Now in Modern things are certainly different and it might be fine since it doesn't slot into any deck Tier deck currently. It would make stuff like Grixis Control better but that could use the help since it's clearly worse than the UW based Control decks and I don't see this card being the reason to suddenly go into Esper.
You're giving a lot of credit to a 1/1 that dies to a light sneeze in a format full of creature removal and artifact hate. If the only thing it does is draw a card and trade with a creature or removal spell; cool. You are just about on par with the lower end of acceptable power level for Modern. Ideally, they need to change the rules of Modern to introduce cards without having to go through Standard.
Look I am fine with Bans or Printing Answers in my massive post a few pages back I presented plenty of ideas for answers.
The issue is WOTC refuses to reign in Aggro Decks via Bans or help Control and Midrange with some Unbans and Answers. Yeah Yeah they printed Trophy but its minor improvement at best but MARO saying we designed Azorious to make sure Teferi wouldn't get better is a bit annoying. Cause I argue Teferi is the only thing keeping control alive in Modern and Standard. If you didn't have Teferi the control metashare would be 2% UB in Standard based on MTG Goldfish data. And I think control would be similarly crippled in Modern. MARO seems think Teferi alone is good enough and yeah its a great top end no doubt about that but removal, card selection, and wipes could all be way better for both midrange and control.
Or end this farce and simply rebalance the whole color pie to put all the emphasis for all colors and color pairs around creatures.
And as for different decks yeah technically your probably have 15-20 decks floating around although I say all the other types combo, midrange, big mana and control together would at best make 50% or 40% of the decks represented but I say the best way to count deck or archtype would be more percentage of meta or percentage of top 8s in either case I would bet aggro is taking home
more then 50% of those top 8s and adds up to over 50% of the metashare.
I dont belive Midrange is dead, and I believe your idea of Control does not exist in Legacy, Pauper, or Modern. It goes back to maybe the last version of this thread, there was a link when we discussed Xerox decks.
UW 'Control' in Legacy, is more a Prison deck, than the Sphinx Rev/Elixir decks that people associate with Modern Control.
Look at the last UB Fairies deck that did well. Full of removal, but packing several of the most potent walkers that exist, and 4 Bitterblossom, because even as Control you must be working to end the game.
UW in Modern? Hilariously propped up on Terminus. Without it, that deck stands little to no chance against the field in a large event. You think Terminus is coming back or wipes on par with it? Look at the card draw we get, that is even modern played! Hieroglyphic Illumination lol.
Years ago, literally years ago, we had UW players stating that Control did not exist in Modern, and they blamed Twin. Twin players, claimed that Modern Control WAS Twin.
Well Twin got banned, and Control ceased to exist outside spurts of UWR for 2+ years, and even when it did come back for a bit what was it?
Nahiri, the Harbinger + Emmy.
TLDR: People need to reconsider what they think Control actually does, because 'incremental value, card draw, and selection' isnt it.
Removal for days, Search for Azcanta, Teferi, is Control because it wins the game.
UB Faries was a one off with a player who seems to love that deck. I am sorry that does not make a meta deck to me. Same with KCI not really counting for me until it spread from its creators. If UB Faries keep showing up with different pilots I consider it viable, a one off no just no. Not statically relevant.
I am saying I think they should print some better wipes and answers. Not that WOTC will print some better wipes and answeres and draw. I think its clear they will not under current management cause counters and wipes are no fun apparently for your opponent but dropping 5+ power turn one is fun for you foe under their logic.
Did you read my first post that started this chain all I also suggested the new Lavinia reading. Stopping creatures not noncreaure spells. Its also why I suggested in the farce and rebalance the color pie around creatures and walkers.
Midrange and Control are not dead, they are crippled but not dead.
Of course its not a meta level deck, but your argument is that there is little room for Control to operate, without defining what Control is.
You'll never get a Sweeper, unconditional, better than Terminus, Settle the Wreckage (which tragically they seem to think is too good!) or Supreme Verdict so, given what you have, those are 3 very valid options.
The answers they are printing, are pushed, especially within the context of Standard, with obviously targeted options for Modern. Alpine Moon, Damping Sphere, etc, etc, in combination with what we have (Rest in Peace, Stony Silence and so on) provide an incredibly robust set of sideboard cards.
Trust me, I railed against Tron for years. I loathe it because it specifically works against what I wanted to be doing. Casting things like Remand, with poor threats that did not apply pressure.
Well turns out, Damping Sphere is good enough, when not put into a bad deck like Blue Moon.
Essentially we are getting the answers we need, and Teferi is going to (likely) be as good as UW ever gets as a Control threat, ever.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
UW Spirits
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Re: Modern's alleged non-interactivity
This argument has gotten increasingly tired and unsupportable to the point where I think many proponents just want to play Legacy FoW decks and nothing else. There are numerous viable interactive decks in Modern. Just look at the recent MTGO and GP/SCG results. But now we've now seen at least one user, Arkmer, turn to an even more frustrating Modern analysis technique of minimizing high level results because local events do not reflect those high-level results. Amusingly, we've seen Modern critics in the past use the literal opposite technique ("local results don't matter because big event results drive ban decisions/format health", paraphrased) in the past to shows the format is worse than some claim. This further underscores my theory that some players will simply not be satisfied with a Modern that is otherwise healthy and engaging to different players. At least drmarkb is honest about their complaints and points directly to FoW/Wasteland as panaceas that would allegedly address Modern's supposed non-interactivity problem. Never mind that recent results don't support this at all, and never mind that not everyone wants to play a blue-dominated format like Legacy. And before someone talks about how Legacy is more skill-testing, I would remind you that Modern and Legacy venues see pros achieve the same MWP performances over the past 2-3 years. Also, Modern does not have as many top-tier 80-20 matchups as people claim. The worst top-tier matchups are 35-65 (Jeskai vs. Tron) and or even closer to 30-70 (Tron vs. Infect). Everything else is in the 40-60/60-40 range.
I will happily acknowledge that some cards on the Modern banlist should be removed. SFM is a prime example. But their inclusion on the list should not lead us to assume that Wizards thinks they are unsafe. It is far more likely that they think something like SFM is fine and are just waiting for the right time to unban. See BBE/JTMS and Sword/AV. Their conservative approach to unbans should not indict the entire format. We've been in this position before. Since early 2017, we have seen vehement pro and everyday player calls for multiple bans. Examples have included Tron lands, Company, GDS staples, Eldrazi staples, Humans cards, Bridgevine pieces, KCI cards, Stirrings, Looting, Vial, Opal, SSG, Goryo's Vengeance, Cavern of Souls, and literally a dozen or more other cards. The metagame always adjusted and those ban maniacs were always proven to be off base. This is not to say that no card in Modern will ever be banned again. But it is definitely to say that I can tell right away when someone is making a legitimate data-driven case for a potentially valid ban target, vs. when someone is just personally unhappy with some format element and is venting in ban terms. That's where we are now and that's where we've been before.
Again, the sole exception to this might be a hyper-focused Dredge ban under the GGT criteria. Otherwise, the ban talk in this thread continues to be alarmist, unjustified, and unwarranted.
Modern has never, and will never be this. Nor has anyone ever made the assertion that it should.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I think this is a very interesting line of thinking. We know the Meta is different, even in large events, from region to region, and then in comparison to Online, I wonder if a deep dive could be done to shake anything out on this.
Euro vs Eastern US vs Western US vs Japan vs Online vs South America.
Spirits
I agree that Modern has never been this way, and I agree that Modern will likely not become this way. I disagree that some people don't secretly want this. Or, more likely, that they want certain things in Modern that will lead to it becoming a blue-dominated format, even if they won't admit that outright. The most glaring example of this on this page alone was drmarkb stating "Without a Wasteland and Force of will police this will always be the case while sideboards are just 15 cards and tutoring is awful." I can read between the lines enough on that to infer that drmarkb might prefer the FoW-policed Legacy with its elite suite of blue-based card selection, which ultimately boils down to a blue-dominated format.
Legacy UW Control was a Prison deck, but I dont believe thats what they are looking for. Wasteland though...
Either way. You can add Counterspell, and you can add Preordain. That still wont fix Control, because we dont have Daze, we dont have Force, or Ponder, or Brainstorm, and thats what really does the work.
Old Sphinx Rev/Elixir of Immortality UW Control is not going to wok against the fields in Modern, you need something busted like Terminus, and Teferi, and you do not have the luxury of those slow old cards.
Spirits
But now I am labeled part of "ban mania". Thanks, KTK.
This is why I have an issue with these cards. No one can talk about them, no one can have a discussion, no one can even ask without getting labeled one thing or another. Please don't insinuate that I have been dishonest about my questions by naming me then immediately saying "at least [user] is honest". I have done my best to avoid belittling others and their views on the format, I have done my best to try to repeat my question clearly- even bolding my own quote to highlight that it's not about them being banned, but time and time again my actual question has been ignored so people can tell me why these cards shouldn't be banned and now I am, myself, being belittled.
I get it. They shouldn't be banned. I'm not asking them to be banned. Please stop shoving numbers down my throat, please stop justifying the cards. I get it. I want to know why people would take such extreme stances as to quit if they were banned.
I am done for awhile. Clearly my question is not something people can actually answer, it's been nearly 3 pages of non-answers. I'll withdraw my question entirely and go back to not posting. Again, I am sorry for causing such an upheaval in this thread.
"Reveal a Dragon"
People would quit because banning anyone of the 3 would do 2 things.
1. Kill (yes kill) the decks that lost the card. If you are not Tier 1, or able to hang with them, you are not good enough.
2. Push the other 2 sets (Vial/Stirrings if Looting went) up even higher.
People quit over their decks getting nerfed. Hell I know of people who quit over Amulet losing Summer Bloom, even though its STILL Tier 1 in power level! Forget about people who ACTUALLY lost their decks in cases like Twin.
Spirits
There is simply no reason to even bring up the topic. You claim you aren't advocating for bans, but then you talk about how you would prefer the ban criteria being changed and wondering very academically why people would quit if the cards were banned. I just don't understand why this is even on the table as a viable Modern topic. With the sole exception of Dredge, a deck that might legitimately be bannable, there is just no reason to even be talking about this topic at all. When people bring up the concept of bans, even academically/theoretically, in a metagame that doesn't justify them, it's just more of the same tired banlist conversation we've had for years. There's nothing unique about Looting/Stirrings/Vial as sacred topics. It's the notion of anything being banned right now (Except Dredge cards) that riles people up. Let's talk about format trends, new design philosophies, unban speculation (GSZ was a new, interesting field), Arena's potential impact on Modern, Modern and Mythic Champs, deck win percentages, or any of the dozen other viable topics. Not bans.
A) Some people would quit because their deck investment was weakened/destroyed by a ban, so it makes more economical sense to cut losses than to linger on with a subpar deck that can't perform.
B) Other people would quit because it makes Modern feel like an unsafe format in which to build top-tier decks for fear of a ban. Twin players are still unhappy about a ban that was three years old and I imagine many of them, certainly some in my own personal experience, have been hesitant to buy into cards for fear of the Twin effect happening again.
C) Still other players would shy away from Modern / be discouraged from investing because of ban volatility. Why invest in top decks if Wizards bans them solely because they are top-tier? Every format has top-tier decks. We can't just race to the bottom by banning all the powerful stuff in a non-rotating format billed as a home for powerful strategies.
just for clarification i know you werent asking for any bans. i didnt directly respond to you because i couldnt think of any way to voice thoughts. it is something along the lines of 'i cant think of even a hypothetical, therefore if it did magically happen my head would explode along with any confidence in this format going forward'.
note this is for just any one ban. i can entertain the idea that wizards says 'NO MORE. NO MORE OF THIS!' and does a hard course correct on the format with a comprehensive wave of bannings/unbannings.
i get it. you wanna see more play patterns with back and forth, games going longer, small changes in positioning based on accruing those edges in card economy or tempo. id like it too. ive been playing jeskai control for quite a while now, even before all the great new(ish) toys. believe me i wasnt doing it because it was a reasonable response to anything going on in modern.
modern has always been on a one way ticket to becoming like legacy. in that as more effects, interaction, mechanics, etc are poured into the format it stops being about certain decks or even certain strategies and rather about certain cards. cards that, given the right conditions (which increases in probability as more cards enter), pull more weight.
for example consider legacy, in particular the notorious brainstorm. brainstorm is currently played by aggro, combo, midrange, and control.
hardened scales, kci, eldrazi, and tron/lantern. look familiar?
lootings isnt quite there yet but it has combo, aggro in spades, and midrange. doesnt even have to be a selection spell. maybe its fast mana like opal in grindfather/whir lantern, and vanilla affinity. tutors are another example, they just outpace 'goodstuff' staples at some point.
so these cards are in disparate strategies and the format 'appears' to be at a state where there is a soup of evenly distributed (relatively) decks. hitting one not only doesnt rid you of the 'non-interaction', it cripples a class of decks including fair ones; all with some arbitrary justification.
'too bad! none of you were too good/winning too much and other broken stuff is going on, but bananas are yellow so it had to happen.'
you are gonna tell me dredge with lootings needs to go when kci can smoke you on turn 2 with a double opal draw?
as such, it doesnt make sense as a solution for a problem that is vague and possibly nonexistent.
anywho, ive been writing this for a while now, but suffice it to say that there is ONE solution observable in legacy. blue. the color wheel was imbalanced from the start. everyone wants to find cards, everyone wants to draw cards, and counter magic hits everything (sans corner cases); therefore it can be used everywhere. this is NOT a case to empower blue in modern, but showcases what 'fair' decks need - consistency. if its not done through selection/tutoring, as wizards says they dont prefer, then it has to be redundancy. more answers, but specifically powerful main deckable generic answers. THIS is the solution i believe wizards is working towards, knowingly or not.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Then they go and print stupid cards like Gruul Spellbreaker and you wonder if they have learned anything.
Spirits
I would add Assassin's Trophy, Damping Sphere, Alpine Moon, Amulet of Safekeeping, Unmoored Ego, Infernal Reckoning, and probably some others I am missing. Some of these cards definitely missed the mark (Moon, Amulet, Reckoning). Others landed exactly where Wizards wanted them to (Trophy, Knight, Sphere). I expect Wizards to keep pushing back on threats with improved answers. This will benefit Modern as more cards get added and we get more overlapping, generic answers to diverse threats.
Spirits
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
One of the challenge in making Modern-relevant answers is mana cost. You really need to be able to answer problems on the first and second turn of the game in Modern or things really get out of hand. Thoughtseize/IoK are great for this reason. So are Sphere, Stony Silence, RIP, and Leyline. Those are the critical windows where a deck on the draw needs to answer a proactive strategy on the play. Of course, there are some exceptions to this. Field of Ruin is a big one, as are K-Command and Cryptic. So it is definitely possible to make a defining answer higher up on the curve as long as the payoff is worth it. But the kinds of cards people really want are the kinds that stop stuff like KCI/Dredge/Storm/Infect/Tron/Hardened Scales from running away with the game on T3/T4. To use a blue example, because it's the one most people think about, we would want a kind of reverse Serra Avenger Force of Will template, but also one that couldn't be readily used in combo/non-blue strategies.
Two existing cards could also help this issue, neither of which are Modern legal and at least one of which is totally appropriate for Standard: Baleful Strix and Containment Priest. These are the kinds of cards that create significant roadblocks for certain kinds of unfair strategies, especially Priest which really should exist in both Standard and Modern. The new Lavinia is a great example of this kind of card, and I expect we'll keep seeing these designs in Standard.
Phoenix, a hallmark Izzet Mythic, is a multi-format all star. That's a pretty big bone in my opinion, even if stuff like Ral and Ionize weren't exciting.
I was speaking more towards the topic of generalized answers. Not another tool for fast, linear decks. I love Phoenix, and I love getting them for free just for casting cantrips and lightning bolts, but the topic at hand was answers. Ionize is unplayable trash and Ral is... OK I guess. I play one and he has been so-so. Hilariously better than Jace the Mind Sculptor, but that just says more about Jace not being good than anything else.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Yep, agreed on all of this. I'm 2-0 (both 2-0!) in my last 2 Games against Tron, on the back of Sphere/Stony but most importantly the fact Knight of Autumn is a clock, Tracker is a clock, and an EoT CoCo, can be enough to close out the game.
I'm at the point where the hate is there, you simply cannot be on something dead ass slow, and expect to 'oh I'll just counter it all', that simply is not an answer in Modern, and it isnt really an answer in Legacy either, people just have this perception that Counterspell would do something, it wouldnt, it doesnt even see Legacy play. FREE counters, that someone can spend the mana to dig for, would do something.
The ideal of an interactive deck in Modern, is GDS.
Spirits
i agree that strix probably qualifies. its what i meant about even being generic and maindeckable. if your against a noncreature deck terminate is dead, but strix can still provide a clock; albeit a slow one.
unfortunately i cant see a standard environment where it would be okay for strix to be around. like you would need lightning bolt level removal and even then you are still behind. card just has too many freakin keywords that are especially good in standard.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Which is ironic, as the deck basically functions to pump out a huge, 1 mana creature, take or counter your removal, and trample over blockers for the win. At least games 2 and 3 can become more engaging and interactive. But after turn 3 killing people a number of times with this deck... it's mostly only interactive enough to protect it's fast aggro plan. Which makes sense, given what makes a "good" deck in Modern.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Spirits
I totally agree with Containment Priest. The card would't do much in Standard but it would be immensely helpful in Modern. Without a doubt one of the best cards against anything looking to cheat things into play.
I think you are underselling Baleful Strix though. It's deceptively powerful since it invalidates certain strategies and not even unfair ones. That card would be the bane of most creature decks especially Midrange ones. Either it trades with a valuable creature or it eats a removal spell. Both scenarios are 2-for-1s in favor of the Strix player and that's on a card that only costs two mana. It would be often basically a Terminate that cantrips.
I can't imagine that Wizards would be fine with a card like that in Standard considering their current design philosophies.
Now in Modern things are certainly different and it might be fine since it doesn't slot into any deck Tier deck currently. It would make stuff like Grixis Control better but that could use the help since it's clearly worse than the UW based Control decks and I don't see this card being the reason to suddenly go into Esper.
You're giving a lot of credit to a 1/1 that dies to a light sneeze in a format full of creature removal and artifact hate. If the only thing it does is draw a card and trade with a creature or removal spell; cool. You are just about on par with the lower end of acceptable power level for Modern. Ideally, they need to change the rules of Modern to introduce cards without having to go through Standard.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
The issue is WOTC refuses to reign in Aggro Decks via Bans or help Control and Midrange with some Unbans and Answers. Yeah Yeah they printed Trophy but its minor improvement at best but MARO saying we designed Azorious to make sure Teferi wouldn't get better is a bit annoying. Cause I argue Teferi is the only thing keeping control alive in Modern and Standard. If you didn't have Teferi the control metashare would be 2% UB in Standard based on MTG Goldfish data. And I think control would be similarly crippled in Modern. MARO seems think Teferi alone is good enough and yeah its a great top end no doubt about that but removal, card selection, and wipes could all be way better for both midrange and control.
Or end this farce and simply rebalance the whole color pie to put all the emphasis for all colors and color pairs around creatures.
And as for different decks yeah technically your probably have 15-20 decks floating around although I say all the other types combo, midrange, big mana and control together would at best make 50% or 40% of the decks represented but I say the best way to count deck or archtype would be more percentage of meta or percentage of top 8s in either case I would bet aggro is taking home
more then 50% of those top 8s and adds up to over 50% of the metashare.
UW 'Control' in Legacy, is more a Prison deck, than the Sphinx Rev/Elixir decks that people associate with Modern Control.
Look at the last UB Fairies deck that did well. Full of removal, but packing several of the most potent walkers that exist, and 4 Bitterblossom, because even as Control you must be working to end the game.
UW in Modern? Hilariously propped up on Terminus. Without it, that deck stands little to no chance against the field in a large event. You think Terminus is coming back or wipes on par with it? Look at the card draw we get, that is even modern played! Hieroglyphic Illumination lol.
Years ago, literally years ago, we had UW players stating that Control did not exist in Modern, and they blamed Twin. Twin players, claimed that Modern Control WAS Twin.
Well Twin got banned, and Control ceased to exist outside spurts of UWR for 2+ years, and even when it did come back for a bit what was it?
Nahiri, the Harbinger + Emmy.
TLDR: People need to reconsider what they think Control actually does, because 'incremental value, card draw, and selection' isnt it.
Removal for days, Search for Azcanta, Teferi, is Control because it wins the game.
Spirits
UB Faries was a one off with a player who seems to love that deck. I am sorry that does not make a meta deck to me. Same with KCI not really counting for me until it spread from its creators. If UB Faries keep showing up with different pilots I consider it viable, a one off no just no. Not statically relevant.
I am saying I think they should print some better wipes and answers. Not that WOTC will print some better wipes and answeres and draw. I think its clear they will not under current management cause counters and wipes are no fun apparently for your opponent but dropping 5+ power turn one is fun for you foe under their logic.
Did you read my first post that started this chain all I also suggested the new Lavinia reading. Stopping creatures not noncreaure spells. Its also why I suggested in the farce and rebalance the color pie around creatures and walkers.
Midrange and Control are not dead, they are crippled but not dead.
You'll never get a Sweeper, unconditional, better than Terminus, Settle the Wreckage (which tragically they seem to think is too good!) or Supreme Verdict so, given what you have, those are 3 very valid options.
The answers they are printing, are pushed, especially within the context of Standard, with obviously targeted options for Modern. Alpine Moon, Damping Sphere, etc, etc, in combination with what we have (Rest in Peace, Stony Silence and so on) provide an incredibly robust set of sideboard cards.
Trust me, I railed against Tron for years. I loathe it because it specifically works against what I wanted to be doing. Casting things like Remand, with poor threats that did not apply pressure.
Well turns out, Damping Sphere is good enough, when not put into a bad deck like Blue Moon.
Essentially we are getting the answers we need, and Teferi is going to (likely) be as good as UW ever gets as a Control threat, ever.
Spirits