Re: [Official] State of Modern Thread (B&R 01/13/2020)
Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2020 4:19 pm
Magic the Gathering Resources, Tools, Previews, and Community.
https://www.mtgnexus.com/
I found this definition of Xerox deck.
We don't need free spells for xerox deck: just good selective cantrip. Delver for example, could be a real deck with preordain.Xerox decks wrote:A Xerox deck is one that uses cheap cantrips to their fullest potential, including shaving lands by making the cantrips into pseudo lands. They allow you to hit your land drops nonetheless while also allowing you to find cards you want later on.
This is a classic example of ban mania that we need to push back against. For reference, "ban mania" is not just talking about bans, which is acceptable and even necessary in some contexts. Ban mania is when someone frames an issue in banning terms when there is no data or even strong qualitative argument to back up that framing. Grinding ban axes at Storm and E Tron, especially E Tron that just got hit with a ban, feels like personal bias more than data-driven argument. It's particularly bad at this phase of metagame evolution where we are just coming off a ban cycle and the metagame is still taking shape. There are a few excellent ban targets we should be discussing with significant underlying support: see Veil or OUaT. See even the more qualitative idea of nerf-bans to fringe sideboard cards. But the notion of hitting core pieces of Storm and E Tron with their current metagame performance is totally unsupportable.
It adds another effective style of play to Modern that beats up on Tron while being soft to Jund, Burn and Humans. Not that I particularly care if improving Storm's consistency boosts it to tier 1, but if it would end up being a byproduct of improving the consistency of Blue control decks to match the current selection tools of other decks, power to them.Tomatotime wrote: ↑4 years agoOkay but is Modern actually made better with Storm being T1? If so please explain how.
Okay the issue with this is that in this very scenario, mid range players have only 1 or 2 options of decks to pick from whereas aggro/combo players have 10-15 to pick from, do you actually think this is even a good condition for the meta to be in? What if you want more variety in mid range deck choice that aggro players get to have?Albegas wrote: ↑4 years agoFor the record, I know a lot of people are bothered by the quantity of non-midrange and control decks, but that's never been a problem to me. Even if there's only 1 or 2 viable midrange/control decks in the face of 10-15 aggro/ramp/combo decks, so long as they're good enough for someone to comfortably walk into any major tournament and win, that's fine with me because it means that there is at least something for everyone.
Firstly we don't need data driven arguments for bans anymore, there is no need to keep repeating this going forward. Secondly, the data we get is curated by Wotc by and large which means we are not seeing the full picture anyways even if you wanted to use data driven decisions.ktkenshinx wrote: ↑4 years agoGrinding ban axes at Storm and E Tron, especially E Tron that just got hit with a ban, feels like personal bias more than data-driven argument.
Okay so your ban suggestions are valid but other people's are not? Answer me this then, how many decks or archetypes is OUaT crowding out the format? Now compare this with Tron or a Titanshift piece. I don't care if OUaT is reaching prior Goyf levels of play, Goyf wasn't banned either because of what the card itself actually does, the same argument applies to Lightning Bolt. If we are just going to look at the amount of play any card sees that isn't on an already pre-approved list of "staples" or "pillars" which give them some kind of immunity, to what end do we ban cards which upset the apple cart? This reeks of the Treasure Cruise ban, which was spurned on by folks like Channel Fireball who wanted it gone because they argued the card undermined Dark Confidant and Liliana of the Veil, if you actually want to be this arbitrary then say so.ktkenshinx wrote: ↑4 years agoThere are a few excellent ban targets we should be discussing with significant underlying support: see Veil or OUaT. See even the more qualitative idea of nerf-bans to fringe sideboard cards. But the notion of hitting core pieces of Storm and E Tron with their current metagame performance is totally unsupportable.
ktkenshinx wrote: ↑4 years agoOne thing this discussion has put into sharp light for me is how individual unban targets distract from the overall unban experiment
K but why though? Seriously, you have yet to actually answer this, why is it worth the format disruption and adding potentially dangerous cards to the format for what gain exactly? Will fair decks be in a better position after Twin/JTMS/Veil/Ponder becomes a deck? What about with Pod which now has a turn 3 goldfish? What about Emry now boosted by Artifact lands in your scenario?ktkenshinx wrote: ↑4 years agoThe idea is to challenge old assumptions and either confirm them in a contemporary context or dismiss them with new information.
would have to agree with artifact lands not able to pay for astrolabe. If a deck has astrolabe, it's important that the lands would be able to cast them. I'm currently building Bant Snow, the astrolabes sometimes go bad if the snow lands are not the right number.
Every Modern ban decision in the last year was made with explicit data citations, EXCEPT Lattice. We have more than enough GP, Challenge, PTQ, Premier, and other data to make informed ban cases, even if Wizards curates Leagues. We can also make ban suggestions like Lattice as long as the underlying rationale makes sense. Neither that Storm nor E Tron ban suggestion was in either category.Tomatotime wrote: ↑4 years agoFirstly we don't need data driven arguments for bans anymore, there is no need to keep repeating this going forward. Secondly, the data we get is curated by Wotc by and large which means we are not seeing the full picture anyways even if you wanted to use data driven decisions.
I'm really not sure why this post and a few others you have made are so sharp and accusatory. Just tone it down a bit. We're having a friendly discussion about a shared format. No need to start with this sarcastic, rhetorical question jab and end with another sarcastic accusation.Okay so your ban suggestions are valid but other people's are not? Answer me this then, how many decks or archetypes is OUaT crowding out the format? Now compare this with Tron or a Titanshift piece. I don't care if OUaT is reaching prior Goyf levels of play, Goyf wasn't banned either because of what the card itself actually does, the same argument applies to Lightning Bolt. If we are just going to look at the amount of play any card sees that isn't on an already pre-approved list of "staples" or "pillars" which give them some kind of immunity, to what end do we ban cards which upset the apple cart? This reeks of the Treasure Cruise ban, which was spurned on by folks like Channel Fireball who wanted it gone because they argued the card undermined Dark Confidant and Liliana of the Veil, if you actually want to be this arbitrary then say so.
I also think I have answered this, but in case I am misremembering, here are the potential upsides.K but why though? Seriously, you have yet to actually answer this, why is it worth the format disruption and adding potentially dangerous cards to the format for what gain exactly? Will fair decks be in a better position after Twin/JTMS/Veil/Ponder becomes a deck? What about with Pod which now has a turn 3 goldfish? What about Emry now boosted by Artifact lands in your scenario?
Here is my fundamental issue with your experiment, all the cards you listed for your ideal unbans either fall into two camps:
1. Combo fuel
2. Cards which have the potential to suppress fair decks
So again, what is the actual upside to doing this? Are we talking attendance numbers? MTG Finance activity? I just would like to have a specific answer here. What about the people at local levels who just want Wotc to enforce improved gameplay standards?
Which is no longer relevant as data driven input is no longer required for cards to be banned.ktkenshinx wrote: ↑4 years agoEvery Modern ban decision in the last year was made with explicit data citations, EXCEPT Lattice.
Agree to disagree, I assume there are more Modern matches being played in a day on MTGO than there are in a month of high level competition, I simply think that Wotc has the data to a much larger and more accurate extent than we ever can.ktkenshinx wrote: ↑4 years agoWe have more than enough GP, Challenge, PTQ, Premier, and other data to make informed ban cases, even if Wizards curates Leagues.
Ya my bad, just having a bad day today because of some other stuff.ktkenshinx wrote: ↑4 years agoI'm really not sure why this post and a few others you have made are so sharp and accusatory. Just tone it down a bit. We're having a friendly discussion about a shared format. No need to start with this sarcastic, rhetorical question jab and end with another sarcastic accusation.
I understand the general tenure of this statement, but you need to understand, OUaT and P&P are simply different kinds of cards, they aren't just cantrips. In my opinion, the defining quality of OUaT is it's mulligan protection effect, mixed with the ability to find specifically lands or creatures which are most of the time required to actually play a game of magic. P&P on the other hand tend to be viewed with some amount of suspicion since they are used for combo decks on the basis they can take any card type. Again let me say, I don't mind P&P becoming ubanned myself, but we shouldn't act like the two sets of cards are apples to apples.ktkenshinx wrote: ↑4 years agoRegarding the content of this quote, if not the tone, I've already explained this. OUaT is a cantrips, not a threat like Goyf or an answer like Bolt. Enabling cantrips are treated differently. See P&P or Looting, or Stirrings on a 2019 watchlist. If OUaT is appropriate for Modern, Wizards should give P&P (or one of the Ps) a shot too. If Wizards doesn't think those high consistency cantrips are okay, OUaT should also not be okay.
I guess my opinion on this is how many events are we as a community willing to sacrifice on the alter of experimentation to complete this venture? We should not discount the factor of time, what we need to understand is that this game is a hobby, one of the most expensive hobbies in existence, if we casually make initiatives which don't respect people's time than how much longevity does this even have?ktkenshinx wrote: ↑4 years agoThe specific cards are less important than the experiment as a whole, because if cards are combo fuel or linear disasters, they can just get rebanned.
I suppose the way I see it is simply that after this past year, it just looks to me like more actual excitement and interest is generated by bans compared to unbans. Lets look at SFM, people were clamoring to get this card unbanned for years, there was a lot of buzz for it at one point, but when it was finally unbanned, people just didn't care, they had been put through the hogaak wringer for so long that their spirits were broken. Conversely, after the recent Urza related bans came in, you saw a lot of social media buzz with Modern in terms of pros and others trying out creative brews for a time. Obviously those brewing days don't last when you have certain format pillars which stomp entire archetypes out of existence.ktkenshinx wrote: ↑4 years agoI am sure you or anyone else can argue against every one of these points, because ultimately they are all qualitative, subjective takes. I can't emphasize enough that 4 of these upsides happen even if every single experimental unban gets rebanned.
That's a perfectly fine view. I'm not saying there needs to be only 1-2 midrange options and only 1-2 control options for every 10-15 aggro/combo decks. What I'm saying is that so long as those 2-4 options are roughly as good as the other 10-15, I'm satisfied. Would I like to see more options for Midrange/Control in such a scenario? Absolutely, the more the merrier. Using my own scenario another way, just because there's 1 dish at a food court I enjoy that I'm willing to eat 7 days a week doesn't mean that I'm against new, similar food items being added to the menu that I would enjoy. At the same time, I don't really mind if there's 10 different food dishes that I don't like to eat so long as there's at least 1 dish I enjoy.Tomatotime wrote: ↑4 years agoOkay the issue with this is that in this very scenario, mid range players have only 1 or 2 options of decks to pick from whereas aggro/combo players have 10-15 to pick from, do you actually think this is even a good condition for the meta to be in? What if you want more variety in mid range deck choice that aggro players get to have?Albegas wrote: ↑4 years agoFor the record, I know a lot of people are bothered by the quantity of non-midrange and control decks, but that's never been a problem to me. Even if there's only 1 or 2 viable midrange/control decks in the face of 10-15 aggro/ramp/combo decks, so long as they're good enough for someone to comfortably walk into any major tournament and win, that's fine with me because it means that there is at least something for everyone.
Citation needed.gkourou wrote: ↑4 years agoOnce Upon A Time moves in the two aspects the Modern format should be focusing on and the same two mtg is traditionally focusing on: Creatures and Lands.
At the risk of reposting myself. Does anyone have any thoughts about my suggestion of a Modern 2.0 beta test? I think it could answer a lot of the questions/problems that people have brought up without the risk of ruining Modern forever.Yawgmoth wrote: ↑4 years agoIn theory, they could run Modern 2.0 beta leagues and/or side events at major tournaments using pools of pro players and stores with large groups of regular Modern players. In this context they could initially unban lots of things and then actively monitor the situation and re-ban as needed. If this new version is fun/interesting then these players/bloggers etc will be excited and write/talk about it and then other players/stores might start trying it. If it turns out to be a dumpster fire after 1yr (or whatever time) then they could end the experiment without tanking the format. This would protect average Joe Modern players from economic instability/ buying into a deck only to have it banned soon after.
I think if Wotc ran tournaments even just on MTGO with good prize support with variable banlists it could be interesting. Mind you wotc would probably need to give enough time for the players to prepare and the prize support would need to be good enough to actually attract the relevant attention, mind you the prize support doesn't necessarily need to be money, it could include intangible benefits like invites to major paper tournaments or "byes" at said tournaments.Yawgmoth wrote: ↑4 years agoAt the risk of reposting myself. Does anyone have any thoughts about my suggestion of a Modern 2.0 beta test? I think it could answer a lot of the questions/problems that people have brought up without the risk of ruining Modern forever.
Is this just completely stupid/unworkable?
[mention]ktkenshinx[/mention]Re: Unban targets
One thing this discussion has put into sharp light for me is how individual unban targets distract from the overall unban experiment. In particular, I see a lot of posts saying "Card X is too broken" or something to that effect. I want to emphasize that in the Pioneer experiment, Wizards kept cards unbanned that were almost certainly going to end up banned as the experiment continued. Or, if not a specific card getting banned (e.g. Leyline or Oath), a card from a breakout deck eating a ban (e.g. Devotion). Knowing these likely outcomes, Wizards still let the metagame take shape and then banned the obviously broken cards people "knew" would be banned all along. Modern could easily see the same scenario play out over our own experiment. There are many cards on my list of potential unban targets that would almost certainly be rebanned. We need to understand that this is a feature of the experiment, not a bug in selecting its initial unban pool. The idea is to challenge old assumptions and either confirm them in a contemporary context or dismiss them with new information. Unbanning cards that will be rebanned is okay in this context.
I'm not positive that is sufficient in Modern, because if you spend your mana to dig, you do not have any mana to do anything with whatever you have found, on the turn you absolutely need it.
Two pages ago, you made an amazing post. You asked people to stop talking about bans so much and concentrate on unbans. I agree with this completely, but didn't comment on it because I still personally have something against Veil of Summer and Once Upon a Time (which I don't mind because I play it, but it shouldn't be legal). But now you are suggesting 3 bans to make Modern popular again. I will agree that many players would love to see Tron and Dredge knocked down a HUGE notch, but do we honestly need this? The unbans are definitely fine with me and I actively want to see all of those. The artifact lands are most likely fine with KCI and Mox Opal both banned.gkourou wrote: ↑4 years agoOn my way out, I will say, those are the things I would like to see for Modern to be more popular again.
Ban Expedition Map
Ban Veil of Summer
Ban Stinkweed Imp
Unban Splinter Twin
Unban Green Sun's Zenith
Unban Birthing Pod
Unban all artifact lands, but the blue one
I'm not sure this is true. Jund players will never leave, and Control players are always waiting. If anything, the killing of decks via banning, has soured people on the format, and there is now simply a legit alternative, even if it is Aggro heavy.
the scry mulligan used before it lasted for some time. I expect the london mulligan to last just as long, until wotc finds something better to replace it with.FoodChainGoblins wrote: ↑4 years agoI feel that people are avoiding idSurge's comments about the mulligan because they think that Wizards will never change it.
Not to interject, but I'm pretty sure I debated that topic pretty thoroughly with idSurge, I think we both said basically everything that needed to be said on that matter.FoodChainGoblins wrote: ↑4 years agoBut I think many people are avoiding idSurge's comments about the London Mulligan.
Uhhh, ya thats debatable, Tron has been a powerhouse ever since it got Ugin in my opinion, and it has gotten quite a few more threats since that point in time. And Dredge faced a banning well before the London Mulligan was ever introduced.FoodChainGoblins wrote: ↑4 years agoTron and Dredge were fine before it and should be fine without it.
This is sort of what I was imagining. The content producers (streamers and bloggers) would potentially be interested because it gives them access to something exclusive which makes for good stories. This would also provide a really obvious metric of success/failure which is how much demand there is from people outside the beta to take part. You won't have hype/interest if the format is no fun. Over time stores will want to run non-sanctioned events if enough players are calling for it etc.Tomatotime wrote: ↑4 years agoI think if Wotc ran tournaments even just on MTGO with good prize support with variable banlists it could be interesting. Mind you wotc would probably need to give enough time for the players to prepare and the prize support would need to be good enough to actually attract the relevant attention, mind you the prize support doesn't necessarily need to be money, it could include intangible benefits like invites to major paper tournaments or "byes" at said tournaments.Yawgmoth wrote: ↑4 years agoAt the risk of reposting myself. Does anyone have any thoughts about my suggestion of a Modern 2.0 beta test? I think it could answer a lot of the questions/problems that people have brought up without the risk of ruining Modern forever.
Is this just completely stupid/unworkable?
Honestly there's so much space to print old cards in MH2. I remember when we were all spit balling what we wanted to see or what we thought we'd see - stuff like Leovold, Emissary of Trest, Innocent Blood, Containment Priest, Counterspell, and the list goes on and on. I hope we see a lot more of that type of stuff in the next one. By the way, when is MH2 supposed to hit?