MTGNexus

I have to post about nature's claim again now that i have heard the argument against it.

Modern is FULL of powerful sideboard cards that can absolutely hose you. That is imo a feature, not a bug, of modern. There are also lots of easy replacements for it including force of vigor, natural state and wispmare, (those are just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more cheap ones) do we need to ban all these type of cards?

Also, when I look at the modern ban list I don't see any other dedicated sideboard cards on it. A few like punishing fire and mental misstep could be SB cards but would surely be used main deck in several decks. Nature's claim and veil of summer are the only dedicated SB cards I have ever seen discussed as ban targets. (Besides the lattice which is a combo peice) WOTC does not appear to be in the habit of banning small SB cards. There are arguments of cards doing too much for too little like faithless looting, DRS, dread return, summer bloom and even GGT but those were all main deck cards core to a specific strategies, not the same as nature's claim.

I just think we have to set our sights higher than this little sideboard card and this card does is probably not a realistic target anyway.

I predict a format reshuffle next week. If it was going to be just a couple cards they would have done it yesterday. It's time to clean house. If you are playing a degenerate deck ie tron, artifact control or dredge, you are in real danger now.

gkourou wrote: ↑

4 years ago

We should focus on a couple of unbans, as well. Power creep is real, some cards got left behind. Twin should probably be fine with no Oko at least.

Veil cannot be legal with Twin.

In the Aug 2019 B&R they specifically said they weren't going to unban bridge from below AT THAT TIME. They have never to my knowledge said something like that about any other specific card and I take that as a huge indicator they know they were wrong and will unban it in the relatively near future.
Also twin with veil would be real good, but I was already running 2 dispel in the main. Having mana up for counterspells also means the combo didn't go off turn 4. Just unban twin and we can sort every thing else out if it ends up needing another ban.

No way dude. Veil is way more than a Dispel. The biggest safety valves we used to have were things like Rending Volley (I'm wrong, but will leave this as proof of my failure), and Abrupt Decay. Veil %$#% on both.

There has to be lines of play/design that are not crossed. Veil, T3feri, Oko, these are just mistakes. Oko is such a mistake its a 1 card EVERYTHING, and T3feri only obliterates 'Blue Diversity' (hmm interesting that) while rendering the game for 1 person into garbage like Hearthstone.

Veil? There is no realm in which that card is fine. Its an absolutely monumental mistake, but nobody cares because it doesnt even need to see play, as the rest of the format is busted anyway.

How does Veil of Summer stop Rending Volley?

Sorry, not Rending Volley.

metalmusic_4 wrote: ↑

4 years ago

In the Aug 2019 B&R they specifically said they weren't going to unban bridge from below AT THAT TIME. They have never to my knowledge said something like that about any other specific card and I take that as a huge indicator they know they were wrong and will unban it in the relatively near future.

Why unban Bridge from Below? It doesn't add anything productive or fun to the format and it isn't going to. Even if Bridge wasn't the fully culpable party at fault this time around doesn't mean that unbanning it would make people more excited to play Modern.

From a perspective of 'if its not broken, it should not be banned.'

I personally dont hold to that anymore, because there are designs that do not need to be broken at the present time, which are still not improving things.

idSurge wrote: ↑

4 years ago

From a perspective of 'if its not broken, it should not be banned.'

I understand this general sentiment, but the opportunity cost to prove that Bridge, or any other card on the banlist is not broken is simply not worth it at this point. The main focus should be put onto eliminating known and current problems from the format via bans.

My article soft-launch draft is up. Please don't share it on any other sites because I'm still looking for feedback and a soft-launch publish is the easiest way to do that. This forum is valuable in that regard because it's a smaller group of committed Modern players who know the format, know its issues, and enjoy longer form discussion/reading.

https://mtgmodernmetrics.wordpress.com/ ... t-mission/

In summary, the article does the following:

1. Introduce the new "Fixing Modern" article series.
2. Define a Modern crisis through the following datapoints -
2a. GP Columbus attendance
2b. Decreased Modern content
2c. Decreased r/ModernMagic subreddit traffic
3. Propose the first of a many changes Wizards and players must make to Modern for it to survive, starting with updating format mission. This must be done by -
3a. Publishing an updated format mission article
3b. Revising/editing most of the existing format guidelines
3c. Adding a guideline committing to long-term support
4. Set next steps including a discussion about bans/unbans, new Wizards policies, and player commitments

Please @ me with any changes, criticisms, edits, feedback, etc.

[mention]ktkenshinx[/mention]

Some things you might consider.
Revise calling it Oko the Broko, just to seem more analytical in your arguments. Especially relevant when later discussing banning cards.

Maybe try putting some more context on GP numbers. Specific spots in your argument are:
Add some historical context to the numbers for GP Brisbane and GP Lincoln in contrast with GP Columbus. Common issues that explain low attendance with all three can strengthen the argument that Modern is broken.
If you have any non Modern GP's with significantly low attendance for their format/region, maybe mention those and the potential causes of why those numbers were low. That can also help to identify Modern issues.

When you talk about content production, maybe break the CFB/SCG numbers into pre and post Pioneer for 2019. Pioneer is new and people are interested as they always are in new formats. Without the before and after numbers, the entire argument is much easier to dismiss as Pioneer is simply new right now, so it dominates the conversation the way new Standard does right after rotation.

On point #3, I think it might be worth mentioning that without Modern there's a considerable gap in time where cards effectively aren't in a non rotating format. With a decline in Legacy support, and then a decline in Modern support it seriously impacts the replay value of any card prior to RTR. You already hit this point but I would be more explicit about what it means. (EDIT: This becomes extra relevant because Wizards has spent nearly 10 years now selling Modern as the premier non rotating format where those cards would stick around. Without that type of promise and stated commitment it wouldn't really be all that relevant as some would still goto Legacy).

As far as the ban list goes, I would say that all bans from Splinter Twin and backwards should be reevaluated in order to determine if the reasons they were banned is still relevant. Many like Stoneforge Mystic and Jace the Mind Sculptor that were original bans shouldn't have been on the list, and there's considerable interest among the playerbase in looking at Splinter Twin. Given the success of the Pioneer approach, part of me wonders if it would be worth a year long experiment to rebuild the ban list with the weekly update style. Perhaps starting with just a handful of well known, definite problems (Eye of Ugin, maybe a couple others, or maybe nothing at all should be held back originally) and seeing how the format evolves. I don't think there's any question right now that this approach was fantastic for Pioneer, and it could be a way to revitalize Modern.

Such an approach would also make a lot of sense if paired with a revised format guideline.

Finally, although I don't know if it's out of scope for this article you may want to think about mentioning the shift from paper to online play and what that means with Arena. Putting aside a transition to Arena and eventual Pioneer rollout there, Standard is mostly played on Arena now, but that's also how Pioneer and Modern get their cards. Even if MTGO and Arena are maintained, there could be some real concerns in card availability for Modern on MTGO when people aren't playing the format that puts most cards into the economy. And of course the ever present question of does Modern have a digital future beyond MTGO?

I have been reading your articles, I have spotted the first red flag under your redefining of Aaron's 9 rules for Modern:

7. "Not be dominated by fast, non-interactive decks (top-tier decks with consistent kills before turn four are a red flag)"

"This guideline refers to Modern's "Turn Four Rule," which Wizards loosely defined in 2011's "Welcome to the Modern World." Unfortunately, the guideline as-written does not actually include one of the most important criterion for turn four rule violators: that a deck be BOTH "top-tier" AND consistently winning on turn three or earlier. This will eliminate some player confusion around the rule. "

I have a problem with this take, for one thing by requiring an arbitrary winrate requirement before Wotc can act to save the format, it binds their hands. Looking at history, it took Wotc way too long already to ban Eye of Ugin as well as Hogaak, these errors caused enormous format damage as well as damage to third party commercial interests. Going forward we need Wotc to be more agile with bans in the interest of the format, not less, and your above take would potentially inhibit this. I will continue reading your article for more potential critiques.

Also to further expand on this, by following your updated rule 7, it actually fully negates rule 1 in that the format needs to be fun. Modern has historically had plenty of decks that created absolute miserable game play standards which piss of players but which these decks themselves never actually had format dominance in terms of meta game shares, and example would be Lantern Control. Wotc should never has its hands tied when it comes to intervening the ensure that Modern is a fun format.

Typos:

• You mention both Oko and Oko the Broko in the "Redefining Staple" list entry.
• "in additi and that terms needs to go" nonsensical sentence in the reworking of modern's 9 principles.
• "top tier and doing so" would read better as "top tier while doing so".

Okay Sheridan I have read the rest of your article, the second red flag I noticed was your ban suggestions (which admittedly will surely differ from person to person but it bears defending if your going to name specific cards). The two main issues I have are:

"Banning broken cards that reduce diversity, e.g. Oko, maybe Urza or Opal, etc."

What exactly is the metric we are using to establish which cards reduce diversity, I for one could easily argue that Tron's existence destroys the diversity or even prevalence of midrange decks, we could probably get data to back that up if we needed, perhaps Wotc already has that data internally from MTGO.

"Banning overpowered cards that narrowly define archetypes and push others out of contention, e.g. Veil of Summer, Teferi, Time Raveler, etc."

This is a smaller gripe, but how exactly is Teferi, Time Raveler an overpowered card which pushes others out of contention? Using MTG Goldfish statistics

https://www.mtggoldfish.com/format-stap ... n/full/all

Teferi is literally number 33 on the list of Modern staples, and the amount of copies per deck is approximately 2.3. Which actual competing cards is Teferi pushing out of contention?

Tomatotime wrote: ↑

4 years ago

Why unban Bridge from Below? It doesn't add anything productive or fun to the format and it isn't going to. Even if Bridge wasn't the fully culpable party at fault this time around doesn't mean that unbanning it would make people more excited to play Modern.

You may be right on those points, but excitement and how much something can add to a format should not be reason to keep something banned. If we banned cards that were not exciting and didn't add anything to the format I could think of lots of old commons that should be banned under that criteria. Cards should only be banned as a last resort for the reasons of dominance, diversity and tournament logistics. The turn 4 rule would fall under dominance here. Bridge was banned in place of hogaak which was later banned with faithless looting too. Bridge is now less threatening than it was with FL before hogaak was printed and should be unbanned.

idSurge wrote: ↑

4 years ago

No way dude. Veil is way more than a Dispel. The biggest safety valves we used to have were things like Rending Volley (I'm wrong, but will leave this as proof of my failure), and Abrupt Decay. Veil %$#% on both.

Ya you are probably right too. I'm not sure I would want to splash a third color for veil over dispel. I know some people would though because tarmotwin was a good deck. RUG would have to be significantly better than UR for me to do that to my manabase.

metalmusic_4 wrote: ↑

4 years ago

I know some people would though because tarmotwin was a good deck. RUG would have to be significantly better than UR for me to do that to my manabase.

Personally, I agree, but the opportunity cost is so low, I think it would be incorrect to not splash for it. You then also get to go for OuaT which is also still mind blowingly legal.

Tomatotime wrote: ↑

4 years ago

Teferi is literally number 33 on the list of Modern staples, and the amount of copies per deck is approximately 2.3. Which actual competing cards is Teferi pushing out of contention?

Is there any reason whatsoever to play Grixis, UB, or UR, when you could play UW, and if so, why are those colours not played, but UW is?

idSurge wrote: ↑

4 years ago

Is there any reason whatsoever to play Grixis, UB, or UR, when you could play UW, and if so, why are those colours not played, but UW is?

I thought Grixis Death's Shadow is the most played Shadow variant, if so what exactly is the issue?

Tomatotime wrote: ↑

4 years ago

idSurge wrote: ↑

4 years ago

Is there any reason whatsoever to play Grixis, UB, or UR, when you could play UW, and if so, why are those colours not played, but UW is?

I thought Grixis Death's Shadow is the most played Shadow variant, if so what exactly is the issue?

Apologies, I meant Control.

idSurge wrote: ↑

4 years ago

Apologies, I meant Control.

I admit not all blue color combinations are going to be viable at the same time, but in my opinion the biggest hurdle control decks face is honestly Tron, and the reason why white/blue based control decks have an easier time against Tron is that they can more easily slot in Field of Ruins compared to say Grixis which generally can't. If Tron was not an issue, I honestly think more varieties of blue control variants would be viable.

In short, I do not see how Teferi is material to Grixis' lower control share.

There is no reason to play Grixis, UR (which could play FoR) or UB (which could also play FoR) when UW has T3feri that renders the Tempo game of UR irrelevant in the match up, and turns off the primary means of interaction, on the stack, which all colours otherwise would be utilizing.

It makes it so you are fighting over a lock/prison piece as early as Turn 3, against a Control deck.

Being a dog to tron, is fine. In fact UW shouldnt be good against Tron either, its the cap on Control, but thats a different topic. :p

idSurge wrote: ↑

4 years ago

There is no reason to play Grixis, UR (which could play FoR) or UB (which could also play FoR) when UW has T3feri that renders the Tempo game of UR irrelevant in the match up, and turns off the primary means of interaction, on the stack, which all colours otherwise would be utilizing.

I feel like if you are just arguing in favor of UR or UB in order to try to paint Teferi as some kind of criminal element we aren't going to get anywhere. I could just as easily ask for you to point to successful GW, RW, or GR decks and say that because they aren't as successful as I want them to be, something I don't like should be banned.

Don't get me wrong, when it comes to control, Wotc has historically given UW the best tools on a consistent basis, I don't think anyone will argue that, but we could just as easily lobby in favor of other color combinations getting better tools like Drown in the Loch rather than just wanting to get random UW tools banned.

When those tools will be invalidated by a stupid 3cmc Walker, I guess I just will continue to have issue with it. Its a discussion I've had multiple times in various venues, but I'm assuming it will not be banned any time soon.

My actual hope, is that in Pioneer UW becomes so overwhelmingly oppressive, that it eats a ban there, I doubt UW will ever be that good in Modern.

idSurge wrote: ↑

4 years ago

When those tools will be invalidated by a stupid 3cmc Walker, I guess I just will continue to have issue with it. Its a discussion I've had multiple times in various venues, but I'm assuming it will not be banned any time soon.

This statement seems a little confusing, are you just talking about the Control vs Control matchup specifically? To what end? Control isn't much of a relevant factor in Modern right now anyways, that would be like if I wanted my pet mid range deck to get a leg up so I lobbied in favor of getting a Jund piece banned so our decks would be more equally matched, despite the fact that Mid range has been gutted in Modern as well.

idSurge wrote: ↑

4 years ago

My actual hope, is that in Pioneer UW becomes so overwhelmingly oppressive, that it eats a ban there, I doubt UW will ever be that good in Modern.

So you want Teferi banned but admit it's not even good? I suppose on some level I can relate, I have lobbied in the past for annoying stuff to get banned regardless of Meta share so I guess I can't fault you for that.