MTG Salvation

Quote from tronix »

man you guys are thinking way too hard over-analyzing what, at face value, was a rather straightforward decision.

like attributing choosing bridge over another card because they are greedy and only care about selling new product. is it not possible that bridge was chosen because it was actually the appropriate choice given its role in the most degenerate play patterns and its awkward and frankly poor design?

similarly their citing of certain data points but not including all the data they looked at isnt some deliberate attempt at deceive or hide anything. there isnt some set of immutable guidelines for ban decisions where some burden of proof exists. they are just people designing a game, and they adapt the 'rules' as they see fit in order to craft what they believe is a more enjoyable environment. so you either agree or you dont, and in turn you trust them or you dont. i get that players, especially ones that might use this forum/thread, would delight in more transparency; however it behooves wizards not to share everything they look at and the specifics because its needlessly constrains future decisions by setting precedent/expectations that most will likely misinterpret.

i mean did anything about the announcement seem unreasonable if taken at face value? regardless if anyone believed bridgevine didnt ultimately cross some line, i dont believe it can be argued the deck w/ bridge wasnt at least a borderline case.

All of this. People need to look at this and internalize it.

I dont know if you are on twitter tronix, but I consistently think 'this is someone people should listen to more.'

Quote from Depian »

Re-reading the announcement I noticed that WotC could be cherrypicking the data showed to us:

In the case of the Hogaak Bridgevine deck, its initial overall win rate on Magic Online was over 60%.

Initial? Was it decreasing after people started adjusting to it? Remember MH1 was released less than 1 month ago so taking the initial results before people adapted to it seems intentional to put more emphasis on how dominant it is. If it was still 60% I am pretty sure they would have told us but they didn't

I don't disagree with the ban and I could totally get behind the battle of sideboard argument but the reasoning used makes me think that winrates were not so insane as of lately and WotC wanted to present some numbers that showcase how busted it was (even if they are not the usual ones like winrate was mentioned for KCI)

Good points. I do believe they cherry picked the data (the 3 kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics!) but even so, Bridge was the obvious choice when compared to Hogaak itself, or Altar.

I'm pretty sure no 'pure combo' deck will ever be allowed to be better within the context of the meta than Storm. That decks been hit a half dozen times and its still just a 'did you kill my guy on turn 2?' question.

Quote from icehippo »

Another ban on a tier 1 combo deck. Why does wizards refuse to allow combo to be anymore than tier 2 at best? Pod, Twin, Bloom, KCI, now Bridge. Sends a strong message that combo has no place in the modern format.

The format lacks the tools to deal with combo. If Combo is winning 60% of its matches, through hate, that is not a balanced place to be.

Pod/Twin died for reasons that are no longer applicable, not because they where combo.

Bloom died for going off too early, and some nice twitch clips that showed it to be absurd.

KCI died for winning too much, through hate, on an axis that was quite difficult to interact with even with Split Second text. I mean...come on.

Bridge was nerfed, not killed (yet/yet to be confirmed) because even with a format's worth of hate, free, 'colourless' instant speed hate, it was carrying a dominate pre-turn 4, win rate.

This isnt about Combo not being allowed to be tier 1, but being Tier 0.

I'll just say this Torpf. I've been personally attacked (as far as being attacked online on a forum goes lol) far more than most, and I've been the one eating the 'warnings'. Hell, one of the admin's on this site even has me blocked on Twitter and I've never spoken to them in my life.

The double standard's and bias is out of control around here, and thats why I've had to just put several people on ignore because they get away with it, and I never do.

Calling me out specifically like Earthbound does, when I dont think I've ever even conversed with him/her, and you just let people like gkourou snipe from the sideline over and over and people like Colt spout absolute NONSENSE for years with no repercussions?

Its unfair, and needed to be said.

I believe the last 3 years prove that they know that was a mistake, it's the only deck that actually died.

Amulet (nerfed due to clips of turn 2 insanity) still around and viable.

Dredge - laughs in Creeping Chill.

Infect - still fine.

Storm - still fine.

KCI - legit too good, with a comical win rate, but it was only banned once SCG grinders (and vocal twitter users that they are) decided to play it instead of the tier 2 stuff they prefer. I believe Nass had an 80% win rate at one point?

Just watch the trends driven by the twitter/SCG/cfb types and you'll have a decent idea of what's going to get hit.

Wizards has even lifted common arguments in their announcement straight up from tweets by those people.

It's not about data and competitive integrity, how could it be when they don't understand the format?

Quote from rcwraspy »

Quote from idSurge »

1. Accept Modern as what it is, warp your deck around it, and accept infrequent bans/unbans if something gets nuts.

In what world is this not the only option? Nobody here has any decision making authority over WotC or the format. We choose to play or not.

Because we actually do have an ability to influence things. KCI would not have been banned if not for player outcry. It did not have an overwhelming presence in the meta, did not win more Top 8's than Phoenix.

If this thread united behind something, and snowballed into SCG articles, Twitter, and Reddit, something would be done.

As we near the end here my thoughts return to several months back.

There are 2 paths for Modern, and they depend upon on not what you want to play, but on what you want to play against.

You can PLAY near whatever, and if you warp to the meta you'll be fine. I don't believe anyone can argue against that.

The problem is, what are you playing against, and are the games fun for you? Well that's an individual opinion.

So what are the 2 paths?

1. Accept Modern as what it is, warp your deck around it, and accept infrequent bans/unbans if something gets nuts.

This is how Wizards has approached the format for some time, roughly 3.5 years.

2. Push for a rebuild of the ban list. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BAN MANIA. No, what this path is, is an acceptance that Modern is flawed, but that to fix it, would take multiple bans to bring the power back down and free up some actual diversity in the format.

You would ban.

Faithless Looting
Burning Inquiry
Bridge from Below
Creeping Chill
Manamorphose
Terminus
Ancient Stirrings
Allosaurus Rider
Teferi, Time Raveler
Narset, Parter of Veils
Karn, the Great Creator

And probably.

Mox Opal
Simian Spirit Guide

You UNBAN

Stoneforge Mystic
Splinter Twin

Would this dramatically change Modern? Yes.

Would it improve Modern? If you are an 'option 2 please' person, yes, and that's it.

Either you accept Modern for what it is, and you embrace the decks you play against, or you push not for a few bans, but whole sale changes to the format.

As for me? It's not realistic to hope for option 2. So I accept what I cannot change, and continue to just churn through the days until I take a good long break, by playing Warcraft Classic.

Modern is what it is, good, bad, or just Modern. Your cards don't disappear if you put them in storage. They don't lose $ value if they are in a box.

Don't like Modern as it is? It will not change from this path, it's too far gone.

Either a lot of bans are coming, or you accept Modern for what it is, or you take a break.

That's it.

EDIT: Typo's and Card Tags as I posted this from my phone.

man you guys are thinking way too hard over-analyzing what, at face value, was a rather straightforward decision.

like attributing choosing bridge over another card because they are greedy and only care about selling new product. is it not possible that bridge was chosen because it was actually the appropriate choice given its role in the most degenerate play patterns and its awkward and frankly poor design?

similarly their citing of certain data points but not including all the data they looked at isnt some deliberate attempt at deceive or hide anything. there isnt some set of immutable guidelines for ban decisions where some burden of proof exists. they are just people designing a game, and they adapt the 'rules' as they see fit in order to craft what they believe is a more enjoyable environment. so you either agree or you dont, and in turn you trust them or you dont. i get that players, especially ones that might use this forum/thread, would delight in more transparency; however it behooves wizards not to share everything they look at and the specifics because its needlessly constrains future decisions by setting precedent/expectations that most will likely misinterpret.

i mean did anything about the announcement seem unreasonable if taken at face value? regardless if anyone believed bridgevine didnt ultimately cross some line, i dont believe it can be argued the deck w/ bridge wasnt at least a borderline case.

I would also get Force of Negation now and not later. I got 2 for my UW deck but Im thinking about getting another 2 just in case. Currently I don't need them but you never know what might happen later on and if that happens the price of these certainly will shoot through the roof. Better to swallow the pill now than having to pay double later.

Quote from Eternal_Infinity »

Quote from user-11171179 »

I also didn't noticed the price move on Gravecrawler, it's now what triple what it was for like forever? Time to dig some of those up from my boxes.

I need a playset for my casual/FNM Zombies deck. Any chance it goes down in price after the Bridge ban? Or should I just get them now?

I would wait if I were you. Hoogvine is technically still a deck but now it has to compete with Dredge and it could very well lose that comparison so people will leave it in droves. In that case Gravecrawler most certainly will fall.

Quote from idSurge »

Quote from FoodChainGoblins »

I do not understand the Ban decision. Hogaak, Arisen Necropolis is only $4 right now. Altar of Dementia is only $3 right now. They don't need these cards to sell the set, unlike the Eldrazi.

Huh?

60% Match Win Rate.
66% Game 1 Win Rate.
Warped the Meta.
Won through Main and Sideboard Hate.
Won more 5-0 Leagues by 3 x than the next best deck.

The ban choice was more obvious than we have seen in years. Bridge was the core issue.

Re-reading the announcement I noticed that WotC could be cherrypicking the data showed to us:

In the case of the Hogaak Bridgevine deck, its initial overall win rate on Magic Online was over 60%.

Initial? Was it decreasing after people started adjusting to it? Remember MH1 was released less than 1 month ago so taking the initial results before people adapted to it seems intentional to put more emphasis on how dominant it is. If it was still 60% I am pretty sure they would have told us but they didn't

In recent weeks, Hogaak Bridgevine has been the most played Modern deck on Magic Online and has earned over three times as many 5-0 League trophies as the deck with the next most.

So, the most played deck gets the most trophies, 3 times more than the second most played deck. This really doesn't say anything unless you compare how much presence each deck had. If there were 3 Hogaak decks for every second best deck, it means both have the same conversion rate. Why not tell us how its winrate was compared to other decks?

I don't disagree with the ban and I could totally get behind the battle of sideboard argument but the reasoning used makes me think that winrates were not so insane as of lately and WotC wanted to present some numbers that showcase how busted it was (even if they are not the usual ones like winrate was mentioned for KCI)

Quote from FoodChainGoblins »

Quote from cfusionpm »

Extremely disappointed not to see any unbans. If there was ever a time to do it, it's alongside a large and predictable ban.

Also lots of words about Faithless Looting (and other things) here: http://www.starcitygames.com/articles/38840_Was-Banning-Bridge-From-Below-In-Modern-The-Right-Call.html

As much as I hate to vote for the fella, I sided mostly with Cedric Phillips. Regarding Rampaging Ferocidon, if nobody cares, then why not unban it? I personally know some locals who actually do care.

I do not understand the Ban decision. Hogaak, Arisen Necropolis is only $4 right now. Altar of Dementia is only $3 right now. They don't need these cards to sell the set, unlike the Eldrazi.

Because both of those cards go up enough to sell packs within a week because they dodged a ban, they weren't going to be expensive while things were so risky.

Less cynical, cards that break with Bridge are going to come along again, Wizards seems to be addicted to that particular mistake. After the last couple years of Dredge, I actually think it's deliberate. But cards that break Altar and Hogaak that badly are extremely rare. Wizards made the choice that was less likely to result in more bans later. On their own, those are two neat cards that bring something new to the format without being broken on the surface. People not initially getting hyped about Hogaak is not us being bad at evaluation, it was us not thinking about taking the big obvious midrange value creature and shoving it in a combo deck. I STILL view it as more of a Tarmogoyf. Those two can exist in healthy shells that don't lead to toxic busted decks. Bridge really can't, there is no 'good enough to play with the big dogs but not a complete busted monster' with that card

Quote from Aegraen »

Quote from Galerion »

Quote from icehippo »

I can see this however the one major tournament (GP) there was, as well as the SCG team event, didn’t show that the deck was all that oppressive. Only 2 copies in the top 8 doesn’t quite live up to the hype of this obscene win rate wotc claims and isn’t exactly tier 0. UW Control also put 2 copies in the same top 8 and we aren’t calling for bans on Control.

Maybe not here directly but I have certainly seen people elsewhere being salty about UWs ever increasing power level. Maybe all the Midrange and Jank players

If you're a lingering souls mid range player you want to see UW. When I was playing Esper Midrange (granted, a jank deck) I'd love to see UWx control across from me. It's not too difficult to build mid-range decks to be positive against UW. There are certainly a fair amount of grindy tools in the format. A deck like Mardu would also love to sit across from UW every round. UW is certainly a strong deck, but it's not a giant.

True but then don't make the mistake of comparing a deck specially targeted against UW against UW lists that don't target them back. Midrange is basically dead currently in the format so UW isn't really built with them in mind. It still has the natural advantage of the all the value its spells have but that's it.

If those decks that you have mentioned would actually be a big part of the metagame than UW would look different too. More Jaces, more Teferis, Sphinx's Revelation, Elspeth, Sun's Champion, stuff like Fact of Fiction, etc. You can reconfigure the entire deck basically.

I was joking with my comment about Midrange players being the salty ones but I don't think Im that far off because some of these salty people called UW Control "Tron 2.0" which is telling about them. I don't think they are wrong about that though. If Midrange ever gets big again Tron certainly won't be the only thing that will smell blood. That's for sure.

All things considered I'd say this ends up as a win for modern. I'm still shocked at some of the cards on the ban list considering what is legal but I'm glad they did what they could to not disrupt other decks and also keep the Hogaak deck as a competitive option.

I am starting to get worried about WU control though. With bridge gone and the Hogaak deck slowing down in general sweepers will become far more effective. On top of that with the 4 field of ruin 2 surgical package tron is a far less scary matchup than it used to be so if people reckon tron will be back that's pretty grim.

It's not like there's any 1 card in WU that is too strong it's just that in the last 2 years the deck has got access to field of ruin, opt, big teferi, little teferi, narset, jace, force of negation, dovin's veto and other less played options like fof and search for azcanta. That is a ton of tools that have really pushed the deck to the top.

Quote from cfusionpm »

Quote from The Fluff »

nice, the deck even has infinite combo. Should be a deck to watch out for, espescially when Hogaak finally eats a ban.
and glad to see that the iconic character Urza has found a home for his card in Modern,

When I first saw Urza, I was sure it was just a Commander card. A local player who was on KCI, Lantern, and pretty much whatever current artifact iteration is best, has picked it up. Wow how wrong I was. In addition to just being good, it looks like another badge to sew onto the sash of horrid decks I hate playing against.

It's cool for an iconic character to have a played card for sure. The problem is kitchen sink design (zatalpa, emrakul, etc.) just leads to poor gameplay I think. Urza just has a ton of very relevant text. Does he really need to survive bolt too? He never struck me as a particularly sturdy character prespark.

I mean the forums were all talking about potentially busted sai was going to be in similar lists and he would show up here or there as a two of maybe. For 1 mana more I get to turn my slow 2 card combo i already wanted to run into infinite mana/life/draw my deck. Not to mention how well it plays with the rest of the pieces you're already running.

I think the deck is okay to have around for now, but I'm not a fan of how quickly some of the new decks to beat can shift between game plans.

Decks like Phoenix/Urza/hoggak can progress multiple game plans at once while seeing a high volume of cards. Even if you path 1-2 Phoenix you're still fighting the yard/thing/and aria of flame. Even if you hit hoggak with yard hate you're still slogging trough 8-20 power on board accross multiple bodies by t2 sometimes. Even if you have spot removal for Urza you still need to have artifact removal for the sword combo/prison elements of the deck.

This is what has been bogging me down in the format the most. Decks can shift gears seamlessly and really turn the corner in two turns in most cases to execute a win. I ran westvale abbey in elves but the cost of not tapping for G on T1 AND having to sac 5 guys was very real. Where is the cost to these payoff cards they keep printing? Where is the sacrifice if my opponent can respond?

I feel kinda silly that I was so hyped for Serra when she reads like serras angel in most cases and there were cards like this in the set.

I'm kind of over arguing about bans. Wizards does whatever they'll do and nothing I can do or say will make much difference. I'm going to focus on playing the format in front of me. And for now, that means maindeck Surgical with Traps in the board.

From what evidence we have, Wizards places significant weight on T8s at the GP level. From what I remember, they have never cited an SCG event, and I have no idea how they would even weigh a team event. Day 2s are also infrequently cited. The GP DFW T8 is the most important data point of the weekend.

Speaking of which, I can figure out a few of the T8 lists based on Tweets, but not all. What's the breakdown?

Little Teferi is a Prison card, in my opinion. @idSurge, I think that's why you get that bad feel when you play him. He's just a Prison card that masquerades as a Control piece.

Control tends to continually need more resources to keep it's opponent at bay, Prison plays a few things and generally renders a deck useless. Teferi, does get you more resources, but the single card draw and bounce is peanuts compared to what he does with his passive; that's one card rendering many irrelevant.

Is it a perfect analogy? Nope. I'm not going to even pretend it is, but it's pretty close to how I view Teferi.