Good take on Frontier...I would go as far as using the word "scam" to raise the prices of certain cards, like the Khan's fetches. The private, secondary-market influence, which is what is pushing the format, should be a red flag to everybody.
I'd hesitate to call it a scam. A friend of mine is from Japan and was telling me that there isn't a particularly large Modern scene there because the price of certain cards is too much for the average Japanese player to afford (since the older sets were not printed in Japanese very much). While they do have a very invested Legacy scene and Standard is popular, Modern has trouble. Apparently Hareyua created Frontier for those who want a non-rotating format but who can't afford the inflated price of Modern cards. They put it at KTK because it had a lot of decks that the younger players wanted to keep playing.
So yes, it is, in a way, entirely corporate since it was created specifically by one card shop. That being said, I can see where they're coming from and I don't think Frontier deserves as much hate as it gets.
I think a scam is anything in which a customer is not getting what they are being sold. Frontier is being sold as a "cheap" alternative to Modern but if it became a thing and was supported by WotC it would no longer be cheap. Therein, I believe, lies the scam.
Things like "policing" a format and "police" decks sound like things people say b/c they sound fancy and in the know.
I'd like somebody to define both terms, please.
Police decks are (or where) defined as Decks like Jund and UR Twin. Decks which had the means to say no to many of the fringe strategies or abusive interactions present in the card pool, to prevent things from getting out of hand.
Most GBx and Twin varients where 'police' decks under that definition.
Policing a format, involves setting a standard within the format 'you must be able to deal with X, or not fold to Y' types of arguments. Many many janky combo's that depended on things which could be countered easily, or bolted, for example are 'policed' by Jund and URx control style decks.
I play Shape Anew, just messing around really these last few days and when you come up against a police deck, it falls apart a bit. When you come up against non-interactive decks, you can just go off and win T4, like Twin.
In short.
Police decks push interaction to the point where if your strategy folds to interaction, you lose. Midrange, Tempo/Combo/Control, and Control decks would all fall under that definition. Right now, in T1, we expect GBx to do all the policing, and those are the most expensive decks...
Thank you...that is helpful. I wonder why though we don't simply say we all want a BALANCED format with a DIVERSITY in deck types so that aggro, combo, mid-range, and control all become viable, competitive options in the format for the player base and no one of those archetypes is allowed to run roughshod over the rest b/c each archetype has advantages and disadvantages in a format in which all the deck types can live and breath together. Lack of diversity is what drove me out of Standard more than the dumb-down of power level. I see the potential for balance in the Modern card pool but after playing for a year now I also see it too suffers from a lack of diverse options for players to choose from.
[/quote]Out of curiosity, where would you go, if that were the case? Legacy? Or more of an "I'm out, screw Magic" kinda thing?[/quote]
[/quote]
Likely Legacy. Or some grassroots foray into a post-Modern "Origins" format. I can't get behind Frontier because the cutoff doesn't make sense to me (Khans is almost certainly more powerful than what Wizards would want the successor to be) to me. Also, the format has too much private, secondary-market interest in its creation.[/quote]
Good take on Frontier...I would go as far as using the word "scam" to raise the prices of certain cards, like the Khan's fetches. The private, secondary-market influence, which is what is pushing the format, should be a red flag to everybody.
The anger at this announcement is unusually overblown and unwarranted, even considering the general Modern outcry at such changes. Although there are definitely some legitimately scary elements of the ban update, most people are complaining about elements that are totally fine, or even heartening.
The GGT ban is perfectly fine. It keeps the deck a top-tier contender without leaving it a Tier 1 mainstay. This lets other GY decks return (remember old faithful Abzan Company?) and lets everyone free up SB slots to fight other decks. The "scary" part about this ban is that it's a reversal of a previous ban, which is unprecedented but not really that scary. I'm fine with companies and organizations changing their minds based on new realities. In these regards, the GGT ban gets top marks from me.
Probe ban gets a B-. Yes, it's effective at taking a little bit off the top of most fast decks without killing any of them outright. In that regard, it's a solid A. Unfortunately, it does this at the expense of very fair Delver decks, which were great for format health. That's C-, unintended consequence ban territory. More importantly, these kinds of silly bans just underscore Modern's problems: WHERE THE HECK ARE OUR GENERIC ANSWERS AND POLICING CARDS/STRATEGIES?? You don't see these absurd bans in Legacy because the format has internal regulation from cards, not external regulations from bans.
What about the Gitaxian Probe ban? They didn't even pay lip service to killing off lower-tier decks with the banning. And their reasoning for all of the bans was really weak compared to previous bans.
Sorry, the post wasn't finished when you quoted it. Had some posting issues; the final version talks about the weak reasoning.
I'm less concerned about Wizards failing to address Probe's impact on decks like Storm. I can't expect them to test a ban's impact on every Tier 3 or lower deck, and I think some of those "killed decks" aren't as killed as many believe. But I can definitely expect them to articulate their reasoning at all. The article totally failed to draw on tournament finishes, format guidelines, ban policies, etc. It didn't address possible fears and didn't mention other Modern articles and updates to that time. It just reads like it was thrown together in the hour before publication, and that frightens me as a Modern player. Something so important needs more thought and effort put into its release and publication.
Their reason for banning probe was as succinct and to the point as it gets...and correct. I don't see how tournament reports are necessary when they are addressing how the card influences gameplay.
You mentioned the Delver deck above. It runs 17 lands and essentially 56 cards b/c Probe enables such a composition to be viable when normally it would not.
Crazy some of the defenses for Probe here. One person salty b/c he now doesn't get to peek freely at his opponent's hand so he knows the way is clear for turn 1 Glistener. Another salty b/c his 56-card 17-land deck is now nerfed into oblivion. Where do they teach fundamentals of MTG now? 20-year vet here of the game and those two examples above are what we've always called broken and deserving of bans. Why do people think they are entitled to run broken cards to make broken decks?
Last time I played against Infect my opponent, on turn three, paid 2-life for Probe into my open mana to look at my hand and see I had nothing to stop an alpha strike, drew his card, another Probe, played that Probe for 2-life, and then drew BImmense to combo me out for the win w/ exactly the mana on his side and cards in his yard to pay for the pump spells. If he actually had to pay mana for the Probes he would not have had the mana left to pump-spell win. That is ridiculous, busted magic that has no place in the game and Probe, not BImmense, made it happen.
The Probe ban, like the Twin ban, should have occurred long ago. Wizards is a sloppy company now, more than ever, when it comes to balancing the game of Magic. They just banned in Standard one of the poster children for a set released less than a year ago. That's sloppy. I used to play Standard, but I got out and got into Modern so I could play Magic w/o purchasing packs of cards from Wizards. Now I buy a handful of singles from each set if I deem them Modern worthy and give as little of my money as possible to WoTC. I make sure my money goes to LGSs and other players, or I trade.
How many of you, if you are upset w/ how Wizards handles the Modern format, or any format for that matter, continue to give them your money? Wizards has no incentive to do anything differently if their products keep selling.
I think a scam is anything in which a customer is not getting what they are being sold. Frontier is being sold as a "cheap" alternative to Modern but if it became a thing and was supported by WotC it would no longer be cheap. Therein, I believe, lies the scam.
Thank you...that is helpful. I wonder why though we don't simply say we all want a BALANCED format with a DIVERSITY in deck types so that aggro, combo, mid-range, and control all become viable, competitive options in the format for the player base and no one of those archetypes is allowed to run roughshod over the rest b/c each archetype has advantages and disadvantages in a format in which all the deck types can live and breath together. Lack of diversity is what drove me out of Standard more than the dumb-down of power level. I see the potential for balance in the Modern card pool but after playing for a year now I also see it too suffers from a lack of diverse options for players to choose from.
[/quote]
Likely Legacy. Or some grassroots foray into a post-Modern "Origins" format. I can't get behind Frontier because the cutoff doesn't make sense to me (Khans is almost certainly more powerful than what Wizards would want the successor to be) to me. Also, the format has too much private, secondary-market interest in its creation.[/quote]
Good take on Frontier...I would go as far as using the word "scam" to raise the prices of certain cards, like the Khan's fetches. The private, secondary-market influence, which is what is pushing the format, should be a red flag to everybody.
I'd like somebody to define both terms, please.
Tarmogoyf
Their reason for banning probe was as succinct and to the point as it gets...and correct. I don't see how tournament reports are necessary when they are addressing how the card influences gameplay.
You mentioned the Delver deck above. It runs 17 lands and essentially 56 cards b/c Probe enables such a composition to be viable when normally it would not.
Last time I played against Infect my opponent, on turn three, paid 2-life for Probe into my open mana to look at my hand and see I had nothing to stop an alpha strike, drew his card, another Probe, played that Probe for 2-life, and then drew BImmense to combo me out for the win w/ exactly the mana on his side and cards in his yard to pay for the pump spells. If he actually had to pay mana for the Probes he would not have had the mana left to pump-spell win. That is ridiculous, busted magic that has no place in the game and Probe, not BImmense, made it happen.
The Probe ban, like the Twin ban, should have occurred long ago. Wizards is a sloppy company now, more than ever, when it comes to balancing the game of Magic. They just banned in Standard one of the poster children for a set released less than a year ago. That's sloppy. I used to play Standard, but I got out and got into Modern so I could play Magic w/o purchasing packs of cards from Wizards. Now I buy a handful of singles from each set if I deem them Modern worthy and give as little of my money as possible to WoTC. I make sure my money goes to LGSs and other players, or I trade.
How many of you, if you are upset w/ how Wizards handles the Modern format, or any format for that matter, continue to give them your money? Wizards has no incentive to do anything differently if their products keep selling.