I'll root for a Faithless Looting ban until the day it happens. I expect to only see Hogaak targeted bans next week but just maybe Hogaak was enough to make someone at RnD realize Looting has be the thorn in Modern for a very long time now.
I'm also incredibly disappointed that Magic Arena's Historic format got announced with he excitement of a wet fart without any old sets being brought in. I yearn for a new eternal format that isn't kept in a chokehold by the reserved list
I can't tell you how disappointed and sad I am that the new Historic format doesn't have Kaladesh and Amonkhet in it....... I know they basically said "sometime down the line" which sounds like 2 years or something lel..... kill me.
I am really fearing another Brawl fiasco where they toss a ruleset at the playerbase and hope it sticks without any support. Arena doesn't even have a Historic ladder... I kind of feel they don't WANT Historic to become popular so people keep dumping money into Standard rotation.
These kinds of conspiracy theories are routinely unfounded. I think you (maybe another poster but I seem to recall you participating) had similar speculations about Wizards deliberately tanking Modern in some way to help Standard. Wizards will likely continue to develop Historic and we will ultimately see more sets added and a ladder.
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?
I literally acknowledged GGT as a ban with minimal GP data, I.e. the battle of sideboards reference you are making, in the post I assume you are responding to. So I don't know why you are framing this as a no GP result = no ban scenario. As I posted on this same page and will repost now, GGT was banned with very few GP results, likely based off MTGO data. Hogaak could be the same case regardless of how the GP plays out. I know you are exceedingly skeptical of Wizards and routinely negative towards Modern over a good chunk of the last 3 years, but that doesn't mean you need to indict Wizards' handling of the current situation. At least, not until after the 8th.
They knew what was going to happen with Eldrazi Winter but that PT still happened.
What do you think the chances are that Wizards leaves Hogaak in with the express purpose of making it the level 0 deck at the Pro Tour, and seeing if the PT can define a new metagame first?
The Eldrazi Winter timeline was a little different. The deck was largely off the radar until the PT. Then it broke out big at the PT, but Wizards didn't act immediately. There was significant cause for concern for a month or so, and then a triple GP weekend where Eldrazi ran absolutely rampant. Eye died at the next ban update, and there was no scheduled ban update between the PT and the GP weekend.
With Hogaak, we actually have a B&R update scheduled before the PT, which gives Wizards an opportunity to act. I think this is largely dependent on the results this weekend. If it's a Hogaak fest, we'll probably see a ban based on GP and MTGO performance. If Hogaak falls flat on Day 2 and into the T32/16/8, or just matches performance with other top decks like Izzet Phoenix, Humans, and others, Wizards will probably wait until after the PT. I'm unwilling to make a final prediction until we have the results from this weekend.
(it must be terrible; I predicted the Stoneforge Unban every B & R announcement since 2013 until the last 2 when I did NOT predict it anymore cuz I got tired)
Not sure off the top of my head. It was easier to audit Nyzzeh's predictions because they are less active in these threads unless discussing ban stuff; fewer posts to check.
I don't include unban predictions in that record because I have no idea about the logic which governs unbans. I think bans are much more predictable; unbans seem to happen in both unstable and stable metagames whenever Wizards wants.
P.S. - Are you playing a lot now? I know you like some Cheerios, which seems pretty well placed in this meta.
Not too much, actually. More Arena than anything. But I'm always game to rev up the MTGO Cheeri0s list again!
Wait a minute, just after the deck gets released and abused and is obviously broken and I point that out most of you call me a flamer or a troll, and now you are all saying it should get banned. LOL.
Next time, learn from the master...
Then I make 1 mistake out of 10 and people call me bad because I have a 10% failure rate. Suuuure :).
You have predicted and/or called for bans/nerfs on Tron cards, ETemple, Chalice, Past in Flames, Traverse the Ulvenwald, Dredge, and now Hogaak Bridge. That's one hit in Dredge, five misses (Tron cards, Temple, Chalice, PiF, Traverse), and one ommision (no KCI). If Hogaak gets banned, you'll be 2 for 7 or 2 for 8, depending on how you score. This is exactly what I was referring to when I talk about throwing darts at a board. If you throw enough, you are bound to hit and then give acclaim to predictive skills when the record clearly shows a less flattering hit rate.
Again, Hogaak may be capital B Busted. It may be bannable. But that doesn't mean we change proven ban prediction methods because the hysteria and alarm was right one time in 10+.
So if people are weary of Hogaak's ban potential as soon as two weeks from now, and refuse to buy it in paper to show it off dominating a large GP, then we're just in for yet another period of insufferable misery in Modern?
I remember when "battle of sideboards" was a ban criteria. Now 8 pieces of GY hate in your 75 is supposed to be "normal."
Why do I play this format again? /shrug
I literally acknowledged GGT as a ban with minimal GP data, I.e. the battle of sideboards reference you are making, in the post I assume you are responding to. So I don't know why you are framing this as a no GP result = no ban scenario. As I posted on this same page and will repost now, GGT was banned with very few GP results, likely based off MTGO data. Hogaak could be the same case regardless of how the GP plays out. I know you are exceedingly skeptical of Wizards and routinely negative towards Modern over a good chunk of the last 3 years, but that doesn't mean you need to indict Wizards' handling of the current situation. At least, not until after the 8th.
At this point, Hogaak Bridge has all the hallmarks of a broken deck, except a major paper finish/presence. If it enjoys this kind of performance at the upcoming GP, it will have more than enough data points to justify a ban. If it doesn't, it might still have enough data points based on MTGO alone; GGT was banned without too much Dredge dominance at the GP level.
As other users have noted in the swirl of ban talk around Hogaak, none of this should change our ban method. Waiting for more data to validate a ban theory has proven a significantly more reliable and accurate method of predicting bans and brokenness than the knee-jerk responses we typically see. We should not change that method in the future regardless of how Hogaak turns out.
Re: graveyard hate prevalence
To some extent, there isn't anything necessarily wrong with maindeck or prevalent graveyard hate. It's not like the graveyard is a niche resource anymore. There are so many strategies which use it to some extent. I expect sweepers are dead in fewer matchups than graveyard hate, which doesn't mean the format is broken, but does mean we need to recognize the graveyard as an important gameplay element. The problem arises in two situations. First, it comes up when decks have too much graveyard hate. This is the Mirrodin-era precedent with artifact hate. It's probably fine to have 2-3 MD GY hate spells and maybe 1-2 more in the SB. But requiring 8 is probably too many and a sign of warping. Second, we face a problem when drawing that GY hate is the only way to win a matchup. This is Wizards' initial ban rationale in the GGT ban, that games come down to who draws GY hate and who draws the counter to GY hate. If that is happening on a significant scale, that's also a problem.
Re: Hogaak Vine
There are no results from this weekend that will, or should, change my position. Our ban method should not change until we have consistent results from multiple venues over a longer time range than two weeks. It doesn't matter if the people calling for a Hogaak Vine ban end up being right and the card gets banned in July or later. If the ban mania method hits the target once every 1-2 years, we don't suddenly adopt it and ignore the literal dozens of misses this method produces. That method of asking for bans within two weeks of a breakout deck was wrong on so many strategies in the last two years. Instead, we stick with the data-first method, which successfully predicted the KCI ban and every "No changes" since 2017. This method may well point to a Hogaak Vine ban in a few weeks after we get some paper data and/or more sustained MTGO results. I would rather we use the accurate method that is sometimes slower to identify true problems than the inaccurate method that quickly indicts numerous strategies that ultimately are proven innocent.
I would be very against card patching, as I just do not believe Wizards would be able to get it right.
Would Goyf see play a 2G? (Assuming it saw play today) probably not. Being on the treadmill of constant updates, constant tweaks, and thats before set releases...its a terrible life, and anyone that games semi-competitively online is well used to it from any number of 'I just want to play but you keep changing it' competitive online games.
What kind of card patching exactly.. is it increase cmc?. Games on paper would be awkward as when I for example play a Goblin Guide, what's written on the card is R but I had to tap two mana because WoTC "patched" it to become 1R. Patching the rules text of a card would be even worse.. I would pretty much prefer bans to patching.
I'm less talking about cards like Guide and Goyf, which have never been banned, and am instead talking about cards that were banned in one format or another. Patching would just be an alternative to banning. Of course, as you both suggest, this opens up the can of worms to patching for all kinds of balance reasons, not just bans. I too am not entirely confident Wizards would do this right. It's just the direction I eventually see the game going in the distant future.
Patching in paper doesn't make any sense at all. It would just be an extreme mess with rules and whatnot. The effects on the secondary market would be so huge that it's unthinkable. Besides it would just make their Design team more loose on doing real testing, like HS does. Actually it is the number one reason I dislike HS. I'd just quit if they started patching things up.
Unless you mean that we'll just kill paper magic before that happens. If that's the proposal then by all means do it. Even if Arena is cool and all, and it was the reason I returned from my hiatus, I can't stand the idea of not playing paper magic.
Like I said in my original post, the concept of patching forces us to entertain an entirely new idea about digital vs. paper Magic. It might be something that happens in the distant future, and we just don't know how "distant" that is. It's just the direction I see the game eventually going, much like in 2017 it was clear that Arena was going to be the all-in bet for Magic's future, and in early 2019 it was clear that Wizards would promote Arena-only esport style events with no paper component. I am confident Wizards and Hasbro continue to have these discussions about paper vs. digital Magic, and I am confident it is an extremely complicated issue that none of us have enough inside information and perspective to understand. Patching is just a small piece of that conversation and one I eventually see happening with Magic. Also, logistics aside, I would much rather Wizards patch cards than ban cards, if we had some guarantee (unlikely) that the only time a card would be patched is if it would otherwise be banned. Of course, as I've acknowledged a few times, Wizards could start patching for lots of reasons, which creates a lot of potential risks and rewards we'd have to consider. Obviously, this isn't a near-future prediction; just a distant future idea that I predict will one day happen in place of bans.
They don't test past standard, that's why the ban list exists, to ban problematic cards. Don't know why people are so afraid of bans. Bans are also what mantains the format fresh and evolving. Don't be afraid of bans. I guess I'm so used to "bans" aka buffs and nerfs in other online games that it's just a natural process to me.
Half the bans wizards makes don't even outright kill the deck, just downgrade them from tier0 to tier1-3.
If cards were free, bans and unbans could be made with much more ease and less risk (JTMS comes to mind, unbanning it was dangerous in part because of its price and the economic implications, it had to come with a reprint to alleviate the increase in demand)
In terms of gameplay, you are correct, bans are made to fix something problematic and improve the game experience so being able to fix those quickly should be positive. But when your playerbase has already invested money to get their cards, making these changes becomes a challenge since you now have to keep in mind other things besides how good the format will look afterwards, otherwise you could take away motivation from some players (even if their cards didn't plummet in price, having to move to another deck is not easy in paper and usually takes some time) resulting in less people attending tournaments, even if gameplay had improved. That's why WotC has to always be cautious with B&R announcements affecting paper magic.
Arena could be the environment where WotC is quicker in terms of bans and unbans since the economic and logistic repercusions are diminished or almost gone. I know, crafting new cards requires game resources but you can get them for free in a reasonable amount of time so players don't suffer too much if a card gets banned like Nexus of Fate did.
I still believe the way of the future will ultimately be a form of card patching, where Wizards can adjust problematic cards to not ban them outright. This would be the end of feelbad bans as we know it and is the way every digital game I know of handles similar balance issues. This would require an even heavier investment in Arena, however, as well as a total paradigm shift to how we think about paper vs. digital Magic. It's also not a panacea. Bad patches can still happen, especially if Wizards starts both nerfing problems AND buffing struggling archetypes. This would create its own set of risks and benefits. But ultimately, it would eliminate the need to ban cards outright.
Somewhat related, I don't know why wizards created arclight phoenix, prized amalgam, or hollow one, cards that enable recursive graveyard strategies. Dredge was already problematic.
They don't test for Modern.
Arclight Phoenix made an archetype in Standard and even Prized Amalgam was in a fun Standard deck (UR Zombies). Had a local 12-0 at a GP into 12-3 with UR Zombies during its Standard run. Skaab Stitching or something like that, lol. They may have thought that Hollow One could do something in Standard?
Wizards literally does not think at all about other formats. London Mulligan? That's terrible news for Modern and Legacy, the 2 formats I play the most.
I'm fine with allegations that Wizards doesn't test new cards in Standard-legal sets for Modern. They've literally said that in Play Design articles. But the allegation that Wizards "does not think at all about other formats" with the citation of the "London Mulligan" is patently incorrect. They literally tested the rule at a Modern MC prior to releasing it, and explicitly cited Modern results in evaluating it. I don't know how much more they could have realistically acknowledged Modern in that rollout.
I might be on the ban mania train at this point. I'm just so tired of watching things be the way they are. This isn't good Magic. And by "good Magic" I mean it actually feels like Magic. For example, Gitaxian Probe is a card I like having banned because it's not good Magic. It's borderline free for perfect information and it make you play 56 card decks. This isn't "good Magic."
Speaking from my own definition of ban mania, I want to be clear that not all calls for bans are ban mania. As a term, "ban mania" specifically refers to framing an issue that is fundamentally about the metagame, format, cards, decks, strategy, etc. as a ban policy issue, doing so with minimal or no evidence, and/or doing so out of dialogue with known Wizards ban criteria/decisions. This encompasses most of the ban calls we have seen aimed at decks since 2017: GDS, E-Tron, CoCo, Storm, Humans, Gx Tron, UWx, Dredge, Bridgevine, etc. all come to mind. Even KCI ban talk was initially ban mania because it lacked evidence for many months. But once there was significant evidence against KCI, in the form of disproportionate T8 performance and MWP stats, the initial ban mania became just a ban argument. Ban arguments are okay. Ban arguments can, in fact, be positive if driven by reasonable arguments and framed as cases or conversations. As long as you're engaged in that dialogue, it can be healthy and interesting to discuss bans.
In the same vein, I'm having a harder and harder time enjoying Modern. I dislike how Modern is defined by degeneracy (however you choose to interpret the word, it's how Modern has felt to me for a long time). I'm tired of there being these insane cards that enable so much absurd things. I'm tired of how UW is now my only control option for the most part. I'm tired of the gymnastics of testing new decks in an effort to enjoy this format again. When I first started playing the format the deck diversity was great and there were options, oh so many options. Now I feel like I have to be playing a deck I dislike playing in order to do well. I don't want to play Dredge, Phoenix, Humans, Tron, maybe Amulet. I don't want to feel forced into playing UW if I want to play Control. Maybe I just dislike how this is another phase in Modern's history, and I need to suck it up and just keep going. But at this point, I can even enjoy playing the format anymore. I don't feel like the format is diverse anymore. I feel like my options in order to compete keep getting smaller.
Maybe I'm not a fan of the Graveyard Check people were talking about earlier. I'm I being unfair to the format here? I just can't get behind the format and need something to reinvigorate my interest once more.
I don't know your local scene or what venue you play in, but I always encourage players to think in terms of what they are likely to face from week to week, not what they are likely to face in a hypothetical major paper tournament. It's easy to get sucked into believing that only the Tier 1 decks of any given time are viable, and we tend to define such decks as those which T8 a GP or SCG Open (maybe; some people are STILL skpetical of these events). For one, it's always surprising just how many decks are in T8 contention. Second, very few of us actually play in these kinds of 15 round events. We are more likely to play in 8-rounders or smaller. I find if players pick for those events in known metagames, they have more success and enjoyment.
These kinds of conspiracy theories are routinely unfounded. I think you (maybe another poster but I seem to recall you participating) had similar speculations about Wizards deliberately tanking Modern in some way to help Standard. Wizards will likely continue to develop Historic and we will ultimately see more sets added and a ladder.
Speaking of which, I can figure out a few of the T8 lists based on Tweets, but not all. What's the breakdown?
The Eldrazi Winter timeline was a little different. The deck was largely off the radar until the PT. Then it broke out big at the PT, but Wizards didn't act immediately. There was significant cause for concern for a month or so, and then a triple GP weekend where Eldrazi ran absolutely rampant. Eye died at the next ban update, and there was no scheduled ban update between the PT and the GP weekend.
With Hogaak, we actually have a B&R update scheduled before the PT, which gives Wizards an opportunity to act. I think this is largely dependent on the results this weekend. If it's a Hogaak fest, we'll probably see a ban based on GP and MTGO performance. If Hogaak falls flat on Day 2 and into the T32/16/8, or just matches performance with other top decks like Izzet Phoenix, Humans, and others, Wizards will probably wait until after the PT. I'm unwilling to make a final prediction until we have the results from this weekend.
Not sure off the top of my head. It was easier to audit Nyzzeh's predictions because they are less active in these threads unless discussing ban stuff; fewer posts to check.
I don't include unban predictions in that record because I have no idea about the logic which governs unbans. I think bans are much more predictable; unbans seem to happen in both unstable and stable metagames whenever Wizards wants.
Not too much, actually. More Arena than anything. But I'm always game to rev up the MTGO Cheeri0s list again!
MCQ Results from yesterday: https://twitter.com/ChannelFireball/status/1144808075553120263
Top 64
Hogaak: 18
Izzet Phoenix: 10
Humans: 6
E-Tron: 4
Burn: 3
Mono R Phoenix: 3
Jund: 2
Counters Company: 2
Jeskai Saheeli: 2
Affinity: 2
Other: 12
T8:
1. Hogaak Bridge
2. Orzhov Eldrazi Taxes
3. Hogaak Bridge
4. E-Tron
5. Esper Mentor
6. Izzet Phoenix
7. Izzet Phoenix
8. Thopter Sword
You have predicted and/or called for bans/nerfs on Tron cards, ETemple, Chalice, Past in Flames, Traverse the Ulvenwald, Dredge, and now Hogaak Bridge. That's one hit in Dredge, five misses (Tron cards, Temple, Chalice, PiF, Traverse), and one ommision (no KCI). If Hogaak gets banned, you'll be 2 for 7 or 2 for 8, depending on how you score. This is exactly what I was referring to when I talk about throwing darts at a board. If you throw enough, you are bound to hit and then give acclaim to predictive skills when the record clearly shows a less flattering hit rate.
Again, Hogaak may be capital B Busted. It may be bannable. But that doesn't mean we change proven ban prediction methods because the hysteria and alarm was right one time in 10+.
I literally acknowledged GGT as a ban with minimal GP data, I.e. the battle of sideboards reference you are making, in the post I assume you are responding to. So I don't know why you are framing this as a no GP result = no ban scenario. As I posted on this same page and will repost now, GGT was banned with very few GP results, likely based off MTGO data. Hogaak could be the same case regardless of how the GP plays out. I know you are exceedingly skeptical of Wizards and routinely negative towards Modern over a good chunk of the last 3 years, but that doesn't mean you need to indict Wizards' handling of the current situation. At least, not until after the 8th.
As other users have noted in the swirl of ban talk around Hogaak, none of this should change our ban method. Waiting for more data to validate a ban theory has proven a significantly more reliable and accurate method of predicting bans and brokenness than the knee-jerk responses we typically see. We should not change that method in the future regardless of how Hogaak turns out.
You're right. I edited it for a T3 line instead. Good catch.
Yep. This card is very good with Amulet of Vigor and totally nuts with multiple Amulets.
EDITED: I was wrong with my first post.
To some extent, there isn't anything necessarily wrong with maindeck or prevalent graveyard hate. It's not like the graveyard is a niche resource anymore. There are so many strategies which use it to some extent. I expect sweepers are dead in fewer matchups than graveyard hate, which doesn't mean the format is broken, but does mean we need to recognize the graveyard as an important gameplay element. The problem arises in two situations. First, it comes up when decks have too much graveyard hate. This is the Mirrodin-era precedent with artifact hate. It's probably fine to have 2-3 MD GY hate spells and maybe 1-2 more in the SB. But requiring 8 is probably too many and a sign of warping. Second, we face a problem when drawing that GY hate is the only way to win a matchup. This is Wizards' initial ban rationale in the GGT ban, that games come down to who draws GY hate and who draws the counter to GY hate. If that is happening on a significant scale, that's also a problem.
Re: Hogaak Vine
There are no results from this weekend that will, or should, change my position. Our ban method should not change until we have consistent results from multiple venues over a longer time range than two weeks. It doesn't matter if the people calling for a Hogaak Vine ban end up being right and the card gets banned in July or later. If the ban mania method hits the target once every 1-2 years, we don't suddenly adopt it and ignore the literal dozens of misses this method produces. That method of asking for bans within two weeks of a breakout deck was wrong on so many strategies in the last two years. Instead, we stick with the data-first method, which successfully predicted the KCI ban and every "No changes" since 2017. This method may well point to a Hogaak Vine ban in a few weeks after we get some paper data and/or more sustained MTGO results. I would rather we use the accurate method that is sometimes slower to identify true problems than the inaccurate method that quickly indicts numerous strategies that ultimately are proven innocent.
I'm less talking about cards like Guide and Goyf, which have never been banned, and am instead talking about cards that were banned in one format or another. Patching would just be an alternative to banning. Of course, as you both suggest, this opens up the can of worms to patching for all kinds of balance reasons, not just bans. I too am not entirely confident Wizards would do this right. It's just the direction I eventually see the game going in the distant future.
Like I said in my original post, the concept of patching forces us to entertain an entirely new idea about digital vs. paper Magic. It might be something that happens in the distant future, and we just don't know how "distant" that is. It's just the direction I see the game eventually going, much like in 2017 it was clear that Arena was going to be the all-in bet for Magic's future, and in early 2019 it was clear that Wizards would promote Arena-only esport style events with no paper component. I am confident Wizards and Hasbro continue to have these discussions about paper vs. digital Magic, and I am confident it is an extremely complicated issue that none of us have enough inside information and perspective to understand. Patching is just a small piece of that conversation and one I eventually see happening with Magic. Also, logistics aside, I would much rather Wizards patch cards than ban cards, if we had some guarantee (unlikely) that the only time a card would be patched is if it would otherwise be banned. Of course, as I've acknowledged a few times, Wizards could start patching for lots of reasons, which creates a lot of potential risks and rewards we'd have to consider. Obviously, this isn't a near-future prediction; just a distant future idea that I predict will one day happen in place of bans.
I still believe the way of the future will ultimately be a form of card patching, where Wizards can adjust problematic cards to not ban them outright. This would be the end of feelbad bans as we know it and is the way every digital game I know of handles similar balance issues. This would require an even heavier investment in Arena, however, as well as a total paradigm shift to how we think about paper vs. digital Magic. It's also not a panacea. Bad patches can still happen, especially if Wizards starts both nerfing problems AND buffing struggling archetypes. This would create its own set of risks and benefits. But ultimately, it would eliminate the need to ban cards outright.
I'm fine with allegations that Wizards doesn't test new cards in Standard-legal sets for Modern. They've literally said that in Play Design articles. But the allegation that Wizards "does not think at all about other formats" with the citation of the "London Mulligan" is patently incorrect. They literally tested the rule at a Modern MC prior to releasing it, and explicitly cited Modern results in evaluating it. I don't know how much more they could have realistically acknowledged Modern in that rollout.
Speaking from my own definition of ban mania, I want to be clear that not all calls for bans are ban mania. As a term, "ban mania" specifically refers to framing an issue that is fundamentally about the metagame, format, cards, decks, strategy, etc. as a ban policy issue, doing so with minimal or no evidence, and/or doing so out of dialogue with known Wizards ban criteria/decisions. This encompasses most of the ban calls we have seen aimed at decks since 2017: GDS, E-Tron, CoCo, Storm, Humans, Gx Tron, UWx, Dredge, Bridgevine, etc. all come to mind. Even KCI ban talk was initially ban mania because it lacked evidence for many months. But once there was significant evidence against KCI, in the form of disproportionate T8 performance and MWP stats, the initial ban mania became just a ban argument. Ban arguments are okay. Ban arguments can, in fact, be positive if driven by reasonable arguments and framed as cases or conversations. As long as you're engaged in that dialogue, it can be healthy and interesting to discuss bans.
I don't know your local scene or what venue you play in, but I always encourage players to think in terms of what they are likely to face from week to week, not what they are likely to face in a hypothetical major paper tournament. It's easy to get sucked into believing that only the Tier 1 decks of any given time are viable, and we tend to define such decks as those which T8 a GP or SCG Open (maybe; some people are STILL skpetical of these events). For one, it's always surprising just how many decks are in T8 contention. Second, very few of us actually play in these kinds of 15 round events. We are more likely to play in 8-rounders or smaller. I find if players pick for those events in known metagames, they have more success and enjoyment.