Basically what I want to say has been addressed by these two people: Koopa, and eflin
This is such a non-sense banning decision on DRS, because of the following reason stated by WOTC:
"Deathrite Shaman, however, is powerful at all stages of the game. Having a strong attrition-based deck as a large portion of the metagame makes it difficult for decks that are based on synergies between cards instead of individually powerful cards. We believe that removing Deathrite Shaman from the format will leave more room for future innovation. "
Non of the previous banning decision is based on the power of the staple card itself. They all belong to certain categories: such of breaking the turn-4 rule, make a big contribution on the dominant deck in the META (reduce the deck diversity), time-consuming issue.
DRS does not fit into any of those categories, but banned due to the stupid reason : "leave more room for future innovation"?
There is no logic behind...
Damned if you do, damned if you don't is all I can say.
You have people like Valanarch who constantly complain about how bad BNG is for Modern and how it is getting stale but then Wizards does this which will surely shake up the meta and then you have other people complaining.
Im not a modern player so I cant comment on Deathrite Shamans powerlevel but the reasoning for it's ban sounds logical to me. The card is all upside and value. No thought required.
I mean several pro players also thought that this card needs a ban, so I dont see something wrong with it.
How can you define the term "power" for a card, my friend?
This is very subjective without considering the META or the PT/GP results.
You can believe that the power level of Deathrite Shamans deserves a ban. But comparing with lightning bolt, liliana of the veil, snapcaster mage, is Deathrite Shamans superior than those powerful card?
Why Deathrite Shamans is banned, but the other powerful cards are not banned?
You cannot just keep banning powerful cards without a reason other than the "power level". If so on, there are so many cards in the queue waiting for the next ban. Is it good for Modern?
Basically what I want to say has been addressed by these two people: Koopa, and eflin
This is such a non-sense banning decision on DRS, because of the following reason stated by WOTC:
"Deathrite Shaman, however, is powerful at all stages of the game. Having a strong attrition-based deck as a large portion of the metagame makes it difficult for decks that are based on synergies between cards instead of individually powerful cards. We believe that removing Deathrite Shaman from the format will leave more room for future innovation. "
Non of the previous banning decision is based on the power of the staple card itself. They all belong to certain categories: such of breaking the turn-4 rule, make a big contribution on the dominant deck in the META (reduce the deck diversity), time-consuming issue.
DRS does not fit into any of those categories, but banned due to the stupid reason : "leave more room for future innovation"?
There is no logic behind...
Yes. That does noy mean efficient mana fixing is bad, or that he doesn't want efficient mana fixing, but at a certain point his statement is factually correct. Whether Fetches are that point is debatable, but if you think that post says he wants inefficient mana you are misinterpreting it.
Posted from MTGsalvation.com App for Android
I will stop arguing with you at this point, until OP responses to my message. We cannot pretend we know what he thought in that message.
However, If I read "XXX is broken"", especially in this forum, usually I will translate to "XXX is bad" or "XXX should be fixed".
I have never seen someone says : XXX is broken, and I love it so much, etc,etc.
If you want to play MTG without efficient manafixing, maybe you should play Limited or Standard. Modern is one of the non-rotation formate. Please tell me why Modern should NOT have an efficient manafixing?
You seem to just ignore what everyone else actually says, so I guess you don't know how to make reasonable arguments. When you learn get back to me.
1. Why is Top banned?
2. There are a number of arguments made in this very thread that fetches to restrict format diversity.
For 1:
Top is banned because it makes the game much much longer (where second sunrise is banned in Modern for the same reason), but fetch lands do not. Well, deck shuffling takes time, but it is not comparable with TOP or Egg deck.
For 2:
Please show me some examples about this argument. We can discuss based on that. I am interested in seeing how fetch lands can restrict format diversity. Note I am talking about the diversity of the deck, not the diversity of the staple card.
If fetch lands do not restrict the diverisity of the META, or do not violate the turn-4 rule defined by WOTC, then there is no good reason to be banned.
You're heart is certainly in the right place, but I do not think there is any injustice in someone not having certain Magic cards.
It's selfish to want Magic cards, it's selfish for me to have enjoyed watching fetchlands double/triple in value. I've seen many ages of the game of Magic come and go and things like this just happen. Certain cards eventually generate great enough cache and demand that they become collector's items as well as play things. The game moves on and prints new cards for the next generation, eventually turning them into collectables too. The way people want things to go now though is to recycle every old idea to death because they weren't around for that era of Magic. The Innistrad crowd wishes to gut Magic for everything that it's worth.
I like that the games of Legacy/old-card-casual played between me and friends were using obscenely rare and valuable Magic cards that were attached to our own selfish identities, something unique to our generation, something that can have even greater value and mystique at a later time. Compounded with memories formed over the game in the past and you have the perfect storm for nostalgia. There is great, existential value in playing with rare and valuable cards which contributes to Magics awesomeness.
There are plenty of ways to play Magic, I happen to love limited. Denying someone easy access to fetches doesn't tell them that they can't play Magic.
Modern will NEVER be a cheap format. I think Wizards is OK with Modern being under-supplied. They only need to supply Modern with enough cards to be more played than Legacy. The hierarchy of Limited played more than Standard played more than Modern played more than Legacy played more than Vintage must be maintained.
I was all for banning fetchlands in Modern so more people could play, Goyf and DRS would suck, and other lands would have a chance to be format pillars, but no. Modern just need enough cards to see just a teentsy-bit more play than it does now.
You are indeed a very selfish person.
What you care is to keep the card price where you own it when it is cheap. You reject other players own the card using a similar amount of expense and ask them to use less powerful to play.
Please keep that argument. Once nobody joins the "limited" format due to the high price issue, you will see how it affects the price of your "valuable" cards, and how difficult to find a player play the game with you.
Again. 2 color decks do not want these. There is enough fixing in two colors from lands that do positive things for your deck as opposed to hurting you. This is especially true for allied color that get Manlands already. Unless fetches do something positive for your deck, the fixing isn't worth the life loss in 2 color decks.
And do you really think you get more options for what fetches to play in your 3 color decks by adding the ONS fetches? Are you going to argue you might want to run Marsh Flats in your Jund deck because its cheaper than Wooded Foothills? Or vice versa in a Junk deck? That entire argument is based on you being willing to try to build a competitive deck poorly to save money and invalidates any other argument you make because it's clear you only care about one thing. $$$$
Posted from MTGsalvation.com App for Android
"UG Splinter Twin" and "BG Rock", these are the two examples of the tier 1 deck in the current Modern META, which only use 2-color.
Do they use fetch lands or not? This clearly tells you the answer that if 2 color decks wants these fetch lands or not. Sure, you can argue that there are many other choices of duel lands for 2 color decks, but fetch lands + shock lands are still the best combination even in 2 color decks (Deck Thinning, shuffling, filling the graveyard).
With the help of shock lands, running Marsh Flats has almost no difference than running Wooded Foothills for Jund/Junk. Because you can always fetch the right shock land and solve the mana screw issue.
This is my argument. And please correct me if I am wrong.
In addition, personally I do not care the fetch land price drops. I have already bought the playset for all the five ZEN fetch lands. I do not mind if I lose the money due to the ZEN fetch reprints, or Onslaught fetch introducing.
Instead, I prefer to see the price gets lower, attract more players joining the Modern, and then find more players at my LGS and play with me.
2 color decks don't want Fetches unless they are using the shuffle effect (splinter twin) or landfall abilities (boros), otherwise they would rather run other duals.
Grabbing an Overgrown Tomb with Marsh Flats is more costly because if you only wanted the green mana you possibly cost yourself 2 life and opened yourself up to LD. There should be a cost to playing insane mana bases, and adding allied fetches reduces that cost.
I have still yet to see a single argument how adding ONS fetches to Modern is a good thing.
Posted from MTGsalvation.com App for Android
Introducing Onslaught fetch lands into Modern will let the allied 2-colors decks more viable in the META. Comparing with the allied 2-color decks, these Onslaught fetch lands only helps a little to improve the power level for 3 or 3+ colors decks.
Besides, if there are 10 fetch lands instead of 5 fetch lands in Modern, the price tag for each fetch land will drop. Because the player has more degree of freedom to choose the color of fetch, instead of struggling to the restricted 5 color pair, and competing with other players who really wants the fetch with the right color pair.
I am lost from your argument against adding the Onslaught fetch lands to Modern.
It's not really that great interaction. Options, and less importantly, hidden information is what make interaction interesting in magic. The board opens up everything for everyone to see and, unfortunately (in magic), there's not too many things to do on the board (turn things sideways). When a tapped out opponent means you can windmill slam the strongest thing you have (see t3 karn), it cuts down on choices.
To make my point clearer, consider chess. Chess is a game of perfect information, but the options are such that volumes of works have been written analyzing only openings, let alone the mid and end game.
For a contrived example, imagine, if you will, if both players always had their hands revealed. Then the only interaction would come from players libraries, because both players could optimally lay out each play.
Modern, as a format, has incredibly strong threats (in fact, it has many of the same threats as legacy), but mediocre answers. I really like the poster that said, modern decks strive to just play past each other because you know your opponent can only somewhat-maybe deal with what you're trying to do. The addition of wasteland alone would make the format far more interesting (allow the growth of a tempo deck), without making the format a "legacy-lite".
I agree with you that interacting with threats on the board is more straightforward and more trivial than interacting with threats on the stack. However, it does not mean that "interacting with threats on the board" is NOT interactive, where I have seen some legacy players making such funny criticism for Modern META.
Besides, we all know that there are five colors in magic, however only the blue color can interact with threats on the stack. If there are many powerful
threats on the stack (instant, sorcery), it is inevitable that the blue color will dominate the META, just like Legacy.
Do you think this format or META is healthy, and attractive?
But one thing that piqued my interest earlier in the thread was people claiming that every deck in Modern is 'non-interactive', that across the various archetypes that exist they are all non-interactive. This makes me wonder what most people's definition of an interactive deck is.
Not to get too philosophical here, but to break Magic down to it's core elements, you the player are trying to get the game into a state such that you either win outright that turn, or your eventual victory is so obviously inevitable that your opponent concedes (also known as a win-con). While you strive to reach your win-con, your opponent is doing the same. Therefore, it makes sense for you to attempt to disrupt your opponent from reaching their win-con, just as it makes sense for them to attempt to disrupt yours. In turn it makes sense for you to either have counters/responses to your opponents answers, or playing cards that are themselves resilient to being answered.
Now all of what I described is what I see going on in the current Modern format, and is the essence of what I see as 'interaction' in the game of magic. I understand that some decks can be truly non-interactive when their win-con comes either so quickly, or takes place almost entirely in their hands and instant/sorcery spells, as was the case with Storm and Eggs (and therefore I'm glad they were banned). But I think it's an incredible stretch to call the current BGx or Jund deck non-interactive. Yes, the deck is incredibly powerful and dominant, but that does not necessarily make a deck non-interactive. I mean the deck wins on the back of creatures, planeswalkers (well just one really) and removal. There are plenty of ways to interact with all that.
The term 'interaction' from the definition of those people is very naive and fantistic. They believe that the term 'interaction' can only be carried out from the stack, not from the board and permanents.
How can you define the term "power" for a card, my friend?
This is very subjective without considering the META or the PT/GP results.
You can believe that the power level of Deathrite Shamans deserves a ban. But comparing with lightning bolt, liliana of the veil, snapcaster mage, is Deathrite Shamans superior than those powerful card?
Why Deathrite Shamans is banned, but the other powerful cards are not banned?
You cannot just keep banning powerful cards without a reason other than the "power level". If so on, there are so many cards in the queue waiting for the next ban. Is it good for Modern?
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/the-rumor-mill/539981-banned-restricted-list-update-bitterblossom#c31
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/the-rumor-mill/539981-banned-restricted-list-update-bitterblossom?page=10#c237
Basically what I want to say has been addressed by these two people: Koopa, and eflin
This is such a non-sense banning decision on DRS, because of the following reason stated by WOTC:
"Deathrite Shaman, however, is powerful at all stages of the game. Having a strong attrition-based deck as a large portion of the metagame makes it difficult for decks that are based on synergies between cards instead of individually powerful cards. We believe that removing Deathrite Shaman from the format will leave more room for future innovation. "
Non of the previous banning decision is based on the power of the staple card itself. They all belong to certain categories: such of breaking the turn-4 rule, make a big contribution on the dominant deck in the META (reduce the deck diversity), time-consuming issue.
DRS does not fit into any of those categories, but banned due to the stupid reason : "leave more room for future innovation"?
There is no logic behind...
I will stop arguing with you at this point, until OP responses to my message. We cannot pretend we know what he thought in that message.
However, If I read "XXX is broken"", especially in this forum, usually I will translate to "XXX is bad" or "XXX should be fixed".
I have never seen someone says : XXX is broken, and I love it so much, etc,etc.
"Sufficiently efficient manafixing is broken. "
This is what he said. Do I interpret this message incorrectly?
If you want to play MTG without efficient manafixing, maybe you should play Limited or Standard. Modern is one of the non-rotation formate. Please tell me why Modern should NOT have an efficient manafixing?
For 1:
Top is banned because it makes the game much much longer (where second sunrise is banned in Modern for the same reason), but fetch lands do not. Well, deck shuffling takes time, but it is not comparable with TOP or Egg deck.
For 2:
Please show me some examples about this argument. We can discuss based on that. I am interested in seeing how fetch lands can restrict format diversity. Note I am talking about the diversity of the deck, not the diversity of the staple card.
You are indeed a very selfish person.
What you care is to keep the card price where you own it when it is cheap. You reject other players own the card using a similar amount of expense and ask them to use less powerful to play.
Please keep that argument. Once nobody joins the "limited" format due to the high price issue, you will see how it affects the price of your "valuable" cards, and how difficult to find a player play the game with you.
"UG Splinter Twin" and "BG Rock", these are the two examples of the tier 1 deck in the current Modern META, which only use 2-color.
Do they use fetch lands or not? This clearly tells you the answer that if 2 color decks wants these fetch lands or not. Sure, you can argue that there are many other choices of duel lands for 2 color decks, but fetch lands + shock lands are still the best combination even in 2 color decks (Deck Thinning, shuffling, filling the graveyard).
With the help of shock lands, running Marsh Flats has almost no difference than running Wooded Foothills for Jund/Junk. Because you can always fetch the right shock land and solve the mana screw issue.
This is my argument. And please correct me if I am wrong.
In addition, personally I do not care the fetch land price drops. I have already bought the playset for all the five ZEN fetch lands. I do not mind if I lose the money due to the ZEN fetch reprints, or Onslaught fetch introducing.
Instead, I prefer to see the price gets lower, attract more players joining the Modern, and then find more players at my LGS and play with me.
Introducing Onslaught fetch lands into Modern will let the allied 2-colors decks more viable in the META. Comparing with the allied 2-color decks, these Onslaught fetch lands only helps a little to improve the power level for 3 or 3+ colors decks.
Besides, if there are 10 fetch lands instead of 5 fetch lands in Modern, the price tag for each fetch land will drop. Because the player has more degree of freedom to choose the color of fetch, instead of struggling to the restricted 5 color pair, and competing with other players who really wants the fetch with the right color pair.
I am lost from your argument against adding the Onslaught fetch lands to Modern.
I agree with you that interacting with threats on the board is more straightforward and more trivial than interacting with threats on the stack. However, it does not mean that "interacting with threats on the board" is NOT interactive, where I have seen some legacy players making such funny criticism for Modern META.
Besides, we all know that there are five colors in magic, however only the blue color can interact with threats on the stack. If there are many powerful
threats on the stack (instant, sorcery), it is inevitable that the blue color will dominate the META, just like Legacy.
Do you think this format or META is healthy, and attractive?
The term 'interaction' from the definition of those people is very naive and fantistic. They believe that the term 'interaction' can only be carried out from the stack, not from the board and permanents.