MTGNexus

you know whats been on my mind a lot? the whole craze over trading card grading. maybe i'm watching too much youtube. the prices that psa 9 and 10's are fetching are crazy. i recently checked some completed listings on ebay for graded yugioh. i don't see anyone casting doubt or skepticism on collecting this type of stuff. i kinda don't like it.

We need to differentiate between control and prison. It is the absence of the latter that causes toxic permanents to be issues. The paradigm is that permanent answers must be weaker than threats, and substantially lower at that, on the off chance that someone builds a deck that stops the opponent playing spells.
Control in many people's eyes is UW or UWx, and nowadays with a few critters. You can't balance a meta with such a deck, you actually need other diverse forms of control, including hand and mana control, which is what wotc don't like. They are ok with uw, not the rest. It is ironic, they prioritise the board but won't allow proper board heavy stax type decks that can hit lands. Doom foretold is a stax card, but ultimately it can't do lands, which is why it could never be modern viable. If you don't allow mana control, you get tron.

cfusionpm wrote: ↑

4 years ago

idSurge wrote: ↑

4 years ago

Ed06288 wrote: ↑

4 years ago

i remember reading arguments on "the source" about how brainstorm was bad but cards like dark confidant and sylvan library were good designs. i wonder if wizards is doing the right thing by moving away from stack interaction.

Sounds like some idiotic bias to me. The stack is what makes Magic.

Being able to make conscious, meaningful game actions with opponent and their plays, on their turn, or in response to their actions is what makes Magic interesting. It's what sets it apart from regular board games and almost every other card game. It adds a real-time element to a turn-based structure, and vastly increases decision trees, and what makes me really love this game. Most of the "here's my stuff, deal with it" of Battlecruiser Magic is done a lot better by a number of board games, and frankly bores me in Magic.

Battlecruiser mtg is dull flor me too.

ooh, the dredge people in my area are gonna like their new pet Ox.

I hope Ox can do well. And also hoping he does not get banned if he does well. I like playing against this deck.

drmarkb wrote: ↑

4 years ago

We need to differentiate between control and prison. It is the absence of the latter that causes toxic permanents to be issues. The paradigm is that permanent answers must be weaker than threats, and substantially lower at that, on the off chance that someone builds a deck that stops the opponent playing spells.
Control in many people's eyes is UW or UWx, and nowadays with a few critters. You can't balance a meta with such a deck, you actually need other diverse forms of control, including hand and mana control, which is what wotc don't like. They are ok with uw, not the rest. It is ironic, they prioritise the board but won't allow proper board heavy stax type decks that can hit lands. Doom foretold is a stax card, but ultimately it can't do lands, which is why it could never be modern viable. If you don't allow mana control, you get tron.

I don't think this is necessarily correct. Having mana control decks is generally the definition of unfun. Maybe there is an argument for policing (although I don't personally it), but playing against mana denial decks is the worst MTG experience, at least personally.

1000 times Tron over any mana control strategies, and I hate Tron with a PASSION.

The only thing that is worse than losing the game on T1-2 without being able to cast anything, is losing the game on T10, STILL unable to cast anything, because you can't get a freaking land on the board. I am all for having SOME mana disruption stuff, like Field of Ruin, so ability-heavy lands don't overwhelm the format, but nothing more.

drmarkb wrote: ↑

4 years ago

We need to differentiate between control and prison. It is the absence of the latter that causes toxic permanents to be issues. The paradigm is that permanent answers must be weaker than threats, and substantially lower at that, on the off chance that someone builds a deck that stops the opponent playing spells.
Control in many people's eyes is UW or UWx, and nowadays with a few critters. You can't balance a meta with such a deck, you actually need other diverse forms of control, including hand and mana control, which is what wotc don't like. They are ok with uw, not the rest. It is ironic, they prioritise the board but won't allow proper board heavy stax type decks that can hit lands. Doom foretold is a stax card, but ultimately it can't do lands, which is why it could never be modern viable. If you don't allow mana control, you get tron.

I used to play Ponza in modern, and that deck is my troll deck against some people. Not being able to play their creatures and spells can make people rage quit or just quit. But Hollow One kicked out Ponza decks in my meta... so I don't use it anymore. Ponza is already rage inducing, I can't imagine what amount negativity Stax type decks would do to modern. WotC would never allow Stax decks here - well, you can always play them in legacy if you like that kind of strategy.

Not sure why, but I haven't been able to acces this site for a while, but it's working now apparently.

I know I missed all the talk about the last ban, but since I missed it, I'd just like to add for the record that it's a %$#% %$#%$#% ban and I'm really pissed about it. Seriously %$#% that ban announcement. Lattice and Opal didn't need bans. They once again target the wrong cards.
I'll probably be taking a break from 1vs1 magic if they end up banning Walking Ballista too because of Heliod.

On a lighter note, I'm glad to see an Eldrazi Tron list still using Karn even without lattice go 5-0. Gives me a little hope that I didn't waste too much money....
https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/2695224#paper

And for what it's worth, MagicAids makes the best magic videos. Even if he occasionally makes some decks that are a bit OP hehe

Simto wrote: ↑

4 years ago

Not sure why, but I haven't been able to acces this site for a while, but it's working now apparently.

I know I missed all the talk about the last ban, but since I missed it, I'd just like to add for the record that it's a %$#% %$#%$#% ban and I'm really pissed about it. Seriously %$#% that ban announcement. Lattice and Opal didn't need bans. They once again target the wrong cards.
I'll probably be taking a break from 1vs1 magic if they end up banning Walking Ballista too because of Heliod.

On a lighter note, I'm glad to see an Eldrazi Tron list still using Karn even without lattice go 5-0. Gives me a little hope that I didn't waste too much money....

No need to be too dramatic, the bans were justified to hit gold fishing starts as well as unfun prison locks. Also lets put things into perspective, you didn't waste money, if you don't need your lattices, then sell em, they have still retained most of their value post banning. Even if Tron ends up getting banned, most of the cards of note in the deck will also retain most of their value, you won't actually be out a huge amount of money, just some time to sell some cards and pick up other ones, no need for hysterics.

Simto wrote: ↑

4 years ago

I'll probably be taking a break from 1vs1 magic if they end up banning Walking Ballista too because of Heliod.

I just generally don't like the attitude that if a card got printed, then it must stay legal. In an alternate timeline where card X never saw print, no one rage on the absence of the card. I own a playset of ballista. It's the easy go-to card for infinite mana combos. It doesn't need to exist, something else can be used in its place. Don't mistake this for a call to ban it. I'm just saying people should stop raging about a card not being legal. There's 8 or 10 years worth of cards that are not legal in modern.

I also disagree that in the Heliod/ballista combo, it's necessarily Heliod that would need to go. It always all depend if ballista was the only card that could make a two-cards combo with Heliod. It's always a hard decision: ban Heliod (or Urza, or Pod, or Stoneforge) is the easy, safe, definitive road. It also makes a lot of lower-tier deck now invalid. Ban ballista, and it affects many other decks, but the card can often be replaced by something else a little less powerful. It's not automatic which one is the best way.

PS: wow, that video card guys is annoying on all levels: voice, tone, and those lilianas. I just wonder why he doesn't go "badger, badger, badger" all the time just to add to the """lol""" (yep, that required triple quotes).

Tomatotime wrote: ↑

4 years ago

Simto wrote: ↑

4 years ago

Not sure why, but I haven't been able to acces this site for a while, but it's working now apparently.

I know I missed all the talk about the last ban, but since I missed it, I'd just like to add for the record that it's a %$#% %$#%$#% ban and I'm really pissed about it. Seriously %$#% that ban announcement. Lattice and Opal didn't need bans. They once again target the wrong cards.
I'll probably be taking a break from 1vs1 magic if they end up banning Walking Ballista too because of Heliod.

On a lighter note, I'm glad to see an Eldrazi Tron list still using Karn even without lattice go 5-0. Gives me a little hope that I didn't waste too much money....

No need to be too dramatic, the bans were justified to hit gold fishing starts as well as unfun prison locks. Also lets put things into perspective, you didn't waste money, if you don't need your lattices, then sell em, they have still retained most of their value post banning. Even if Tron ends up getting banned, most of the cards of note in the deck will also retain most of their value, you won't actually be out a huge amount of money, just some time to sell some cards and pick up other ones, no need for hysterics.

I'm not being dramatic or hysterical, I'm just very frustrated. Lattice and Opal bans were far from justified.
No need to "put it into perspective" when it's clear that it is a waste of money if a card you put money into is rendered useless for it's an unwarranted purpose. I'm just glad I didn't get any opals myself, but I was tempted many times because I love artifact decks.

But I have a feeling this is something we won't ever agree on, so I don't even know why I'm replying.

@[mention]pierreb[/mention] : That's exactly my point. If anything it's Heliod that needs a ban and not Walking Ballista, but we all know they sure as %$#% ain't banning a new money card people want to buy packs. It was the same with the big hoe last summer, banning other cards instead of the main problem that needed to go.

Simto wrote: ↑

4 years ago

@@pierreb : That's exactly my point. If anything it's Heliod that needs a ban and not Walking Ballista, but we all know they sure as %$#% ain't banning a new money card people want to buy packs. It was the same with the big hoe last summer, banning other cards instead of the main problem that needed to go.

Meh, what Heliod actually does is nothing egregious, it just so happens to combo off with the weird design of Ballista, a card that will always be a combo piece even if Heliod isn't in the picture, just in a different deck, they may as well ban Ballista instead of Heliod if they actually feel the need to intervene.

Yeah, you're right. Heliod isn't too bad himself. I was lucky enough to get him when I was playing sealed with my friends and I'm putting him in my Atraxa commander deck.
I can just see Walking Ballista being banned from a mile away. I hope I'm wrong since Ballista is probably my top 3 favourite card of all time and I basically use it in every deck I play hehe.

This thread has been a bit all encompassing at times, I just want to clarify that you're discussing banning Heliod in Modern vs another format, right?

I myself assumed this was for Pioneer, I don't think Modern will be a factor since if Wotc is going to be banning anything in Modern, we have bigger fish to fry.

This is the modern thread hehe, so I'm primarily talking about modern unless I specifically mention Pioneer, but if it's strong enough to get banned in modern, then it'll definitely get killed in Pioneer too.

But yeah it depends on how strong it'll end up being in Modern. Guess we'll have to wait and see. I can just see an infinite combo that barely needs anything to work and one of my favourite cards getting caught in Sauron's gaze. No bueno

[mention]Tomatotime[/mention]
That's why I was confused. I think it's a relevant conversation in Pioneer as well. For what it's worth, I'm fairly certain that this eats a ban and it's Ballista. The combo is fewer colors, harder to interact with, and potentially faster than Cat Combo and Cat lived one whole week in Pioneer.

Heliod being in Standard is a big factor as we've all come to accept (willingly or not), and some are calling Ballista a degenerate card. I think the last bit is open for debate, I understand that that word has nearly a completely different connotation in this thread as it does in other places, but that's what I've seen said in regard to Ballista vs Heliod as a ban.

[mention]Simto[/mention]
I really think for Modern it's just a question of how WotC feels about it. It's likely stronger in Modern just by way of support available. But if they see it as a quiet Twin replacement, then consider this their apology. If they feel that this "not-Twin" is still not something they want to see then expect it to take a ban in Modern.

Personally, having viewed Modern from the sidelines since Pioneer, I don't think it's strong enough to ban in Modern. Literally Shock (I know it's not used often here ) requires you to sink an extra 4 mana minimum into casting Ballista, not to mention the availability of Bolt. So to throw my opinion onto the pile of other Twin opinions; like Twin this combo encourages interaction and is easily disrupted with smart play.

I can't imagine Heliod+Ballista being banned in Modern. Both pieces are sorcery speed, and while you can combo at any point after that, to combo the turn Ballista comes down requires 6 mana, or 5 if Ballista comes down first, then Heliod comes down (and in that case you're vulnerable to removal).

It might be a playable combo, but a best case scenario of 5 mana, and more likely 6 to combo ASAP is far from breaking any rules of the format. It's just another potentially powerful thing you can be doing in a format full of powerful things.

There's a far stronger case out there to ban Ballista due to Tron than there is due to Heliod, and that's not bannable either.

Arkmer wrote: ↑

4 years ago

Tomatotime
That's why I was confused. I think it's a relevant conversation in Pioneer as well. For what it's worth, I'm fairly certain that this eats a ban and it's Ballista. The combo is fewer colors, harder to interact with, and potentially faster than Cat Combo and Cat lived one whole week in Pioneer.

Heliod being in Standard is a big factor as we've all come to accept (willingly or not), and some are calling Ballista a degenerate card. I think the last bit is open for debate, I understand that that word has nearly a completely different connotation in this thread as it does in other places, but that's what I've seen said in regard to Ballista vs Heliod as a ban.

Simto
I really think for Modern it's just a question of how WotC feels about it. It's likely stronger in Modern just by way of support available. But if they see it as a quiet Twin replacement, then consider this their apology. If they feel that this "not-Twin" is still not something they want to see then expect it to take a ban in Modern.

Personally, having viewed Modern from the sidelines since Pioneer, I don't think it's strong enough to ban in Modern. Literally Shock (I know it's not used often here ) requires you to sink an extra 4 mana minimum into casting Ballista, not to mention the availability of Bolt. So to throw my opinion onto the pile of other Twin opinions; like Twin this combo encourages interaction and is easily disrupted with smart play.

Yeah, you're right. I think we'll just have to wait and see how it plays out since today is really "the first day" of the new cards being out. More games being played will show if it's needed.
But again, Heliod in a vacuum is pretty rad But I love +1/+1 counter synergy stuff hehe.

Aazadan wrote: ↑

4 years ago

I can't imagine Heliod+Ballista being banned in Modern. Both pieces are sorcery speed, and while you can combo at any point after that, to combo the turn Ballista comes down requires 6 mana, or 5 if Ballista comes down first, then Heliod comes down (and in that case you're vulnerable to removal).

It might be a playable combo, but a best case scenario of 5 mana, and more likely 6 to combo ASAP is far from breaking any rules of the format. It's just another potentially powerful thing you can be doing in a format full of powerful things.

There's a far stronger case out there to ban Ballista due to Tron than there is due to Heliod, and that's not bannable either.

I definitely agree that spending 5-6 (or even 7 mana!) on something that is easily disrupted by regular creature removal should be totally fine.

cfusionpm wrote: ↑

4 years ago

I definitely agree that spending 5-6 (or even 7 mana!) on something that is easily disrupted by regular creature removal should be totally fine.

I'll ignore the Twin analogy, and instead focus on Ballista itself. Are there any highly played removal spells that don't kill a Ballista on 2?

Are we sure we are looking at optimal lines here? I dont think Tron is even the best shell for this combo.

Aazadan wrote: ↑

4 years ago

I'll ignore the Twin analogy, and instead focus on Ballista itself. Are there any highly played removal spells that don't kill a Ballista on 2?

(First off, obv, Heliod being an indestructible enchantment is almost impervious to cards normally played.)

Ballista survives most removal played in moderm when...

• You have spellskite in play.
• You have leonin abunas in play.
• You have welding jar in play.
• you have giver of runes in play.

Just saying it's not all that clear that the combo is fragile.

pierreb wrote: ↑

4 years ago

Aazadan wrote: ↑

4 years ago

I'll ignore the Twin analogy, and instead focus on Ballista itself. Are there any highly played removal spells that don't kill a Ballista on 2?

(First off, obv, Heliod being an indestructible enchantment is almost impervious to cards normally played.)

Ballista survives most removal played in moderm when...

• You have spellskite in play.
• You have leonin abunas in play.
• You have welding jar in play.
• you have giver of runes in play.

Just saying it's not all that clear that the combo is fragile.

Yet also implying that your opponent lacks any interaction and allows such a situation to exist is the exact case study we should be using to claim it is fragile.

??

Temple Garden → Dork
Plains → Heliod, Sun-Crowned
Tap Garden + Dork → Walking Ballista as a 1/1 → Radiant Fountain Gain Life Counter on Ballista → Tap Plains + Fountain - Go Off King.

There are decks that already function off of these cards.

I mean the question really is, is it better than Knightfall? Its all within the same realm of competitiveness that is all the GW/Bant creature based combo decks.

Shmanka wrote: ↑

4 years ago

Yet also implying that your opponent lacks any interaction and allows such a situation to exist is the exact case study we should be using to claim it is fragile.

I don't think after the 1-2 years we have just had in Modern we can sit here and claim that artifact based combo decks are fragile in good faith, they clearly lean on multiple tools which give them a lot of durability.