But I do this maybe 1-2 days and after this is over for the next year. Some people here and in real life seems doing nothing other anymore, only ban ban ban all day, all month, all years. If people can't see difference in this behavior, they should try thinking about again. So it's enough now to me here for a while. I'm out, enjoy your bans.
The deck was 50% at the latest GP, with the deck warping itself to win in the mirror, and the format warping around itself to beat it...yet it still posted a greater than 50 win%. That's impressive. If you don't cherry pick your data Phoenix has been running between 53-58%. You can argue not to ban something without resorting to obviously ridiculous lies and half truths.
I just dont see why the 'b' word is being used at all. Nobody is asking for bans that I can see.
I want Phoenixes and dredge be banned, so what? And I'm pretty sure there're other people that want bans too but not posting here.
So please, stop saying that "WE" don't want bans.
Oh, sorry, feel free to call for bans, I did not see the posts which had started the ban conversation.
I would like to but I'm not sure if this will be usefull for ppl here. Most ppl on this tread who are posting are against bans and I don't think they want to hear anything about it.
I can explain my visions of more balanced modern and why bans are necessary (and some other stuuf Wizards should not do).
The deck was 50% at the latest GP, with the deck warping itself to win in the mirror, and the format warping around itself to beat it...yet it still posted a greater than 50 win%. That's impressive. If you don't cherry pick your data Phoenix has been running between 53-58%. You can argue not to ban something without resorting to obviously ridiculous lies and half truths.
I just dont see why the 'b' word is being used at all. Nobody is asking for bans that I can see.
I want Phoenixes and dredge be banned, so what? And I'm pretty sure there're other people that want bans too but not posting here.
So please, stop saying that "WE" don't want bans.
only Phoenix and dredge? Let's ban storm too preventive to be sure, because if dredge and Phoenix dyes this is good for storm. Maybe soon you can play all day long against your own deck if this is the way you want modern
Even if I don't like Storm myself, I can't call it unbalanced and call for bans against it. They's enough hate and common used answer to get this deck out of format. It's also not so fast and resilient as dredge and phoenix.
But I do this maybe 1-2 days and after this is over for the next year. Some people here and in real life seems doing nothing other anymore, only ban ban ban all day, all month, all years. If people can't see difference in this behavior, they should try thinking about again. So it's enough now to me here for a while. I'm out, enjoy your bans.
its just a discussion about what is going on in the format. everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if its driven by emotion, bias, or whatever. you just cant expect everyone to agree with you when you express it.
like say for instance where i distinctly remember you 'crying' about humans last year with hyperbole about its GP performance and pushed back.
similarly i am going to push back against handwaving away or closing ones eyes to what ur phoenix is or has been doing based on easily observable stuff like top8 results; regardless of your stance on a ban decision. maybe there are cases to be made about why its a fluke, or how it contradicts personal experiences; however that doesnt nullify the fact that wizards has set precedents for banlist decisions and what that means for likely actions in the future.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
I would like to but I'm not sure if this will be usefull for ppl here. Most ppl on this tread who are posting are against bans and I don't think they want to hear anything about it.
I can explain my visions of more balanced modern and why bans are necessary (and some other stuuf Wizards should not do).
Go for it, I'll read a well thought out post.
At this point I personally am against bans, because losing your deck has been in my case, one of the most frustrating and tormenting experiences I've had in gaming over the last 3 years.
That said, I'm more then open to arguments for it, I just hope you consider the consequences of any ban, and what the meta would actually look like after. Better the devil you know...and all that.
Maybe wotc should let open 1 slot in each deck till 6 months bevore it comes out to put 1 good anti card. As example 1 slot in horizon open... See Phoenix is strong... Make a card versus them in this last spot. So it could be a reaction on current meta instead planing 2 years bevore all the cards. Why not try new ways? Allways bannings is bad as a answer
Since it wasn't clear the first time:
This is logistically not possible due to a lot of reasons.
Greetings,
Kathal
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What I play or have:
Modern/Legacy
either funpolice (Delver, Deathcloud, UW Control) or the fun decks (especially those ft. Griselbrand)
I've been busy with life for a week or two. How is the London muligan rule turning out on line? Rumors I hear at work make it sound like it is not going well so far, but a very cursory web search I did seemed like things were mostly ok.
I love it. Definitely cuts down on non-games, and I haven't seen any wild metagame shifts because of it. Tron is a little more common, maybe. I'm sure after London, things will change because some pros are going to break it. But for now, I hope they stick with it, and ban things if ugly decks pop up because of it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I can't say I'm pleased to see you and must warn you I may have to do something about it.
EDH: UGEdric
Pauper: URDelver
Modern: UGRDelver
Draft my cube: Eric's 390 Unpowered
I love it. Definitely cuts down on non-games, and I haven't seen any wild metagame shifts because of it. Tron is a little more common, maybe. I'm sure after London, things will change because some pros are going to break it. But for now, I hope they stick with it, and ban things if ugly decks pop up because of it.
I've read its helping ETron and Colourless Eldrazi...which are both literally the last decks I ever want to see in the meta.
The funny thing is that my playing to win means I don't get so salty at people talking about bans or unbans. One thing I really haven't seen in the wake of the london rule's announcement, let alone implementation, is the ability to reduce land counts in decks. For instance I want to try to take one land each out of burn and grixis shadow, decks that really only need two lands to operate in the vast majority of situations.
Well that all sounds positive so far but with risk from the pros breaking it in the future. That is a good review so far IMO, but I also still worry about a few decks getting broken in the future.
Also, did everyone see the new GSZ, finale of devastation?
Well that all sounds positive so far but with risk from the pros breaking it in the future. That is a good review so far IMO, but I also still worry about a few decks getting broken in the future.
Also, did everyone see the new GSZ, finale of devastation?
I mean on basic level I would think the Mulligan does wonders for Tron. You want to assemble three tron lands and have a threat as quickly as possible. Seems you can easily mulligan to 4 in most cases. Turn 3 Tron and Threat On Board on a regular basis. Probably boost more for Blue Tron and Eldrazi Tron then Green Tron but that is more a factor of Green Tron starting at a higher position.
Fair decks don't "get worse," they just don't gain AS much. Which is no surprise, as people are testing pre-London decklists. The London Mulligan works to improve inconsistent decks, so decks like Jund or Burn (with 90+% consistency) mathematically CAN'T gain very much, while a deck like Tron (with 70-80% consistency of super-powerful opening hands) has much more to gain. No one is currently testing WIN PERCENTAGE, as this would take thousands upon thousands of games to conclusively show the results; they're just speculating and confirming suspicions based on a very limited scope of experimentation with regards to opening hands.
Post-London "Fair" decks will probably cut some more lands and run more singleton copies of silver bullets; cutting consistency for more power would cancel out with how beneficial the London Mull is for all decks, as BlueTron was talking about.
my guess is the biggest difference will be seen between these decks racing to get a specific combination of cards when they play against eachother. the value of any one piece of disruption should go up proportionally if the opponent has fewer resources because of aggressive mulligans. so that should offset the difference in benefits, or relative lack thereof, for decks that play plenty of it (somewhat).
right now im feeling like the potential influence of the london mulligan is being oversold. mostly because, outside of serum powder shenannigans, major differences between the new rule and the current one dont start to show until you get to the sub 5 range. if you are going that low i find it hard to see how you arent doing so out of desperation.
if im wrong and the format gets noticeably worse, then its whatever. i already feel that high powered nut draws vs. the ability to play back against them is imbalanced enough; and that is what this rule would be shining a light on if anything.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
my guess is the biggest difference will be seen between these decks racing to get a specific combination of cards when they play against eachother. the value of any one piece of disruption should go up proportionally if the opponent has fewer resources because of aggressive mulligans. so that should offset the difference in benefits, or relative lack thereof, for decks that play plenty of it (somewhat).
right now im feeling like the potential influence of the london mulligan is being oversold. mostly because, outside of serum powder shenannigans, major differences between the new rule and the current one dont start to show until you get to the sub 5 range. if you are going that low i find it hard to see how you arent doing so out of desperation.
if im wrong and the format gets noticeably worse, then its whatever. i already feel that high powered nut draws vs. the ability to play back against them is imbalanced enough; and that is what this rule would be shining a light on if anything.
It will cause some changes, but I don't see that as an issue. For every combo deck that gets better, every other deck winds up with better tools to fight the combo. Maybe combo game 1's go up across the board, but combo games 2 and 3 certainly go down. In the end, while the exact good/bad decks may shift I don't think the format percentages by archetype will adjust by much.
I'm still indifferent, however, I've watched a variety of matches thus far and have seen some dirty ***** done using Gemstone Caverns, Serum Powder, & Pull From Eternity. Opening hands for Dredge and Tron are just filthy. I just hope WotC will take some time to scour over the data from MTGO before pulling the trigger officially; I hate seeing bans and banning a card/nerfing a deck b/c it becomes too consistent after WotC changing the rules would cause a proverbial *****storm.
I'm still indifferent, however, I've watched a variety of matches thus far and have seen some dirty ***** done using Gemstone Caverns, Serum Powder, & Pull From Eternity. Opening hands for Dredge and Tron are just filthy. I just hope WotC will take some time to scour over the data from MTGO before pulling the trigger officially; I hate seeing bans and banning a card/nerfing a deck b/c it becomes too consistent after WotC changing the rules would cause a proverbial *****storm.
A stupid as it may sound: If they would need to ban 1-2 cards in Modern to make the game overall enjoyable for everybody else, why shouldn't they do it? That ruling is massive for limited (especially for limited) and also very impactful in Standard. Sure, from all formats Modern gets affected the hardest by this (dunno about Vintage) relative to it's powerlevel, so, if it is borderline okay in Modern (in a hypothetical standpoint), why not pull the trigger and in worst case ban 1-2 cards in Modern to increase the overall health of the game?
Greetings,
Kathal
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What I play or have:
Modern/Legacy
either funpolice (Delver, Deathcloud, UW Control) or the fun decks (especially those ft. Griselbrand)
I'm still indifferent, however, I've watched a variety of matches thus far and have seen some dirty ***** done using Gemstone Caverns, Serum Powder, & Pull From Eternity. Opening hands for Dredge and Tron are just filthy. I just hope WotC will take some time to scour over the data from MTGO before pulling the trigger officially; I hate seeing bans and banning a card/nerfing a deck b/c it becomes too consistent after WotC changing the rules would cause a proverbial *****storm.
A stupid as it may sound: If they would need to ban 1-2 cards in Modern to make the game overall enjoyable for everybody else, why shouldn't they do it? That ruling is massive for limited (especially for limited) and also very impactful in Standard. Sure, from all formats Modern gets affected the hardest by this (dunno about Vintage) relative to it's powerlevel, so, if it is borderline okay in Modern (in a hypothetical standpoint), why not pull the trigger and in worst case ban 1-2 cards in Modern to increase the overall health of the game?
Greetings,
Kathal
because we are not in communism where you can be unfair versus some less people to be fair versus rest. What I mean? I allways buy decks which are tier 3. The reason is I will never get a deck which maybe banned in future. I own red prison, green stompy, 8 rack and I bought 2 years ago my eldrazi stompy... The only 1 all in foil, even Gemstone caverns Noone needed 1 year ago... My pet deck I love. Is it fair when people ban my deck now? After changing surprising rules? Is it my mistake? Could I new this like people buying 5 months ago whir prison? Is this OK?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I would like to but I'm not sure if this will be usefull for ppl here. Most ppl on this tread who are posting are against bans and I don't think they want to hear anything about it.
I can explain my visions of more balanced modern and why bans are necessary (and some other stuuf Wizards should not do).
Even if I don't like Storm myself, I can't call it unbalanced and call for bans against it. They's enough hate and common used answer to get this deck out of format. It's also not so fast and resilient as dredge and phoenix.
like say for instance where i distinctly remember you 'crying' about humans last year with hyperbole about its GP performance and pushed back.
similarly i am going to push back against handwaving away or closing ones eyes to what ur phoenix is or has been doing based on easily observable stuff like top8 results; regardless of your stance on a ban decision. maybe there are cases to be made about why its a fluke, or how it contradicts personal experiences; however that doesnt nullify the fact that wizards has set precedents for banlist decisions and what that means for likely actions in the future.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Go for it, I'll read a well thought out post.
At this point I personally am against bans, because losing your deck has been in my case, one of the most frustrating and tormenting experiences I've had in gaming over the last 3 years.
That said, I'm more then open to arguments for it, I just hope you consider the consequences of any ban, and what the meta would actually look like after. Better the devil you know...and all that.
Spirits
This is logistically not possible due to a lot of reasons.
Greetings,
Kathal
Modern/Legacy
either funpolice (Delver, Deathcloud, UW Control) or the fun decks (especially those ft. Griselbrand)
EDH: UGEdric
Pauper: UR Delver
Modern: UGR Delver
Draft my cube: Eric's 390 Unpowered
I've read its helping ETron and Colourless Eldrazi...which are both literally the last decks I ever want to see in the meta.
Spirits
Interesting, for sure. E-Tron seems competitively dead from humans alone, at least I thought.
I've enjoyed the mulligan rule on mtgo but I imagine someone is going to break 1 or 2 decks in the nearish future from this.
Also, did everyone see the new GSZ, finale of devastation?
Yeah, I hate that Tron can use it...
Spirits
Link to Discord server where anybody from MTGS can keep up with thread topics while everything is being sorted out with the new site.
Tron and combo gain, fair decks get worse.
Bad for modern
Post-London "Fair" decks will probably cut some more lands and run more singleton copies of silver bullets; cutting consistency for more power would cancel out with how beneficial the London Mull is for all decks, as BlueTron was talking about.
right now im feeling like the potential influence of the london mulligan is being oversold. mostly because, outside of serum powder shenannigans, major differences between the new rule and the current one dont start to show until you get to the sub 5 range. if you are going that low i find it hard to see how you arent doing so out of desperation.
if im wrong and the format gets noticeably worse, then its whatever. i already feel that high powered nut draws vs. the ability to play back against them is imbalanced enough; and that is what this rule would be shining a light on if anything.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)It will cause some changes, but I don't see that as an issue. For every combo deck that gets better, every other deck winds up with better tools to fight the combo. Maybe combo game 1's go up across the board, but combo games 2 and 3 certainly go down. In the end, while the exact good/bad decks may shift I don't think the format percentages by archetype will adjust by much.
Link to Discord server where anybody from MTGS can keep up with thread topics while everything is being sorted out with the new site.
Greetings,
Kathal
Modern/Legacy
either funpolice (Delver, Deathcloud, UW Control) or the fun decks (especially those ft. Griselbrand)