[Official] State of Modern Thread (B&R 07/13/2020)

metalmusic_4
Posts: 260
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by metalmusic_4 » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago

Re: Hogaak
lol ban

More seriously, I don't necessarily fault Wizards for banning Bridge instead of Hogaak. I'll do a full review for a later post-Hogaak summer debrief, but I'm confident the vast majority of Twitter and article personalities thought Bridge was a good enough ban. I know there are some people here and elsewhere who will swear up and down that they KNEW the Bridge ban was wrong, and some of those people are at least on record saying it early. But that doesn't make Wizards idiots for banning the wrong card; it was at least an open issue that people disagreed on, with most of the people I read thinking the ban was fine. That's not a problem.
I know i am probably the loudest voice against the bridge ban so i wanted to reply this. For the record I don't think i ever said WOTC knew bridge was the wrong ban and did it anyway. They had the choice of 3 cards, alter, hogaak or bridge, just like they said in the announcement and they had to pick one, then I think they picked the wrong one. Any guess at the motive behind naming that card is speculation, I may have mentioned money from continuing to sell hogaaks but that is just speculation. My early statement about bridge being the wrong card was entirely based on bridge's non-existent competitive history in modern and hogaak being a free 8/8 trampler that keeps coming back from the grave. I think the raw power level was just not comparable.
Bridge vs alter vs hogaak was an open question at that time, and they just chose wrong. I believe there was enough evidence to make the correct choice and I am not sure why they chose bridge instead. They made an unusually fast ban on bridge and I believe that unusually quick knee jerk reaction is what made them pick the wrong card. If they had spent more time and consideration I am confidant they would have identified hogaak as the real offender and banned him only. But again, they HAD to pick something HASTILY and they just picked wrong. They should admit fault in that decision, but they certainly won't. I hope this has made my position more clear.

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1109
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
If Modern truly does have problems, they will persist undiagnosed for months.
This is probably the saddest realization. It's made even worse by the inevitable number of people that will continue to use curated League lists and anecdotal stories to justify wherever on the spectrum of views they may have for the format. The only one who truly know are the ones who actively do not want us to know.

User avatar
robertleva
Posts: 484
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by robertleva » 1 year ago

[mention]ktkenshinx[/mention] Re Emergency Ban: They can't do it. It would cause more problems / headaches in the long run. If there EVER was a case for an emergency ban Hogaak would be the case, and as a lay person I do not want a special ban for it. Just wait until the regularly scheduled ban update.

If they emergency banned Hogaak, for the next 20 years, EVERY busted card will get the "but they did it for Hogaak" threads. It's worth waiting, trust me. Plus my theory is that they will be highly motivated to unban something fun that will instantly make us forget about all this Hogaak nonsense.
Robert Leva
Creator of Modern's 8Rack Deck
Image

User avatar
FoodChainGoblins
Level 47
Posts: 816
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Riverside

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 1 year ago

metalmusic_4 wrote:
1 year ago
ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago

Re: Hogaak
lol ban

More seriously, I don't necessarily fault Wizards for banning Bridge instead of Hogaak. I'll do a full review for a later post-Hogaak summer debrief, but I'm confident the vast majority of Twitter and article personalities thought Bridge was a good enough ban. I know there are some people here and elsewhere who will swear up and down that they KNEW the Bridge ban was wrong, and some of those people are at least on record saying it early. But that doesn't make Wizards idiots for banning the wrong card; it was at least an open issue that people disagreed on, with most of the people I read thinking the ban was fine. That's not a problem.
I know i am probably the loudest voice against the bridge ban so i wanted to reply this. For the record I don't think i ever said WOTC knew bridge was the wrong ban and did it anyway. They had the choice of 3 cards, alter, hogaak or bridge, just like they said in the announcement and they had to pick one, then I think they picked the wrong one. Any guess at the motive behind naming that card is speculation, I may have mentioned money from continuing to sell hogaaks but that is just speculation. My early statement about bridge being the wrong card was entirely based on bridge's non-existent competitive history in modern and hogaak being a free 8/8 trampler that keeps coming back from the grave. I think the raw power level was just not comparable.
Bridge vs alter vs hogaak was an open question at that time, and they just chose wrong. I believe there was enough evidence to make the correct choice and I am not sure why they chose bridge instead. They made an unusually fast ban on bridge and I believe that unusually quick knee jerk reaction is what made them pick the wrong card. If they had spent more time and consideration I am confidant they would have identified hogaak as the real offender and banned him only. But again, they HAD to pick something HASTILY and they just picked wrong. They should admit fault in that decision, but they certainly won't. I hope this has made my position more clear.
I am right there with you. Bridge from Below absolutely was the incorrect ban. I don't understand not banning a $4-8 card that doesn't help to sell Modern Horizons. If the card in question is Wrenn and Six, then yes, I don't expect them to ban a $75 card from a new set. That would hurt sales. But I think for Wizards, it was more "let players play with new toys" and hopefully those toys don't lead to another ban. If they do, we can shut it down then. I don't think they anticipated how quickly they'd need to act.

Who knows? Maybe Bridge from Below was a ban preemptively because Wizards wants to continue to print graveyard matters cards. Maybe they thought it would neuter the deck enough. Maybe they thought with the ban that players would give up on the deck and move to other MH cards. I think if there was any serious deliberation regarding what should get banned, it could only come to the conclusion that an 8/8 trample for 0 mana is unacceptable in Modern. In Legacy, yes, it may be fine. But not in Modern.

Remember some people thought Altar of Dementia is the problem? I even read (I think it was the CFB comments section) that Devoted Druid Combo would run Altar of Dementia and be too good. I had to give a very serious laugh to the creator of that comment, lol. Altar of Dementia was too much, but a ban obviously does not hurt Hogaak too much because it can still put a serious number of bodies on the field as early as turn 2 and STILL win with the combat step instead of essentially at instant speed.

Others said Bridge is the problem. No, Hogaak exacerbated that problem. Even Stitcher's Supplier, Carrion Feeder, and Faithless Looting all look like a problem that is exacerbated by Hogaak. It was always Hogaak.

I think that instead of doing the research, WotC hoped that the problem wouldn't arise (pun intended) so soon or at all. But Magic players put their heads down, went back to the lab, and it didn't take long for them to concoct a list or multiple lists (Crabs, Dredgegaak, etc.) that ran only cards to kill Leyline of the Void and Leyline of the Void itself in the SB. So, they killed a turn later. Still good...
Standard - Will pick up what's good when paper starts
Pre Modern - Do not own anymore
Pioneer - MBA, UB Inverter
Modern - Amulet Titan, Elementals, Yawmoth Chord, Uroza
Legacy - No more cards, will rebuy Sneak Show when I can
Limited - Will start when paper starts
Commander - Nope

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

Modern Classic - SCG http://www.starcitygames.com/decks/Star ... d_VA_US/1/

Hogaak 1st
Jund 2nd
Mono-Green Tron
Mono-Red Phoenix
Jund 5th
Eldrazi Tron 6th
Eldrazi Ton 7th
Hogaak 8th

EDIT: The Team Side did not have Hogaak in the top 8, but I'm too tired to parse that out.
UR Control UR

User avatar
The Fluff
is this so?
Posts: 1945
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Gradius Home World
Contact:

Post by The Fluff » 1 year ago

robertleva wrote:
1 year ago
ktkenshinx Re Emergency Ban: They can't do it. It would cause more problems / headaches in the long run. If there EVER was a case for an emergency ban Hogaak would be the case, and as a lay person I do not want a special ban for it. Just wait until the regularly scheduled ban update.

If they emergency banned Hogaak, for the next 20 years, EVERY busted card will get the "but they did it for Hogaak" threads. It's worth waiting, trust me. Plus my theory is that they will be highly motivated to unban something fun that will instantly make us forget about all this Hogaak nonsense.
referring to the part I put in bold. Hopefully, something like that happens. Maybe it SFM will be freed at last?
Image
AnimEVO 2020 - EFZ Tournament (english commentary) // OE 2016 // POF 2018
want to play a uw control deck in modern, but don't have Jace or snapcaster? please come visit us at the Emeria thread

User avatar
Simto
Posts: 252
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Copenhagen

Post by Simto » 1 year ago

I'm going to my local FNM on Friday and I'm wondering which tron variation I should play.

Which do you guys think is strongest?
Green Tron without Karn Liberated and Ugin The Spirit Dragon? or Eldrazi Tron without 4 Chalice and no Leyline in the side (both with Creator Karn + wishboard package)

I don't have any of the big Karn, Ugins, Chalice or leyline, but I've done alright with the green tron deck considering I don't have the big planeswalkers. I'll eventually buy the planeswalkers and chalices, but I just haven't gotten around to it yet. It's hard for me to justify spending so much money on cardboard.

Just curious to hear what you guys think would kick the most ass. (my local FNM meta is pretty friendly, a lot of homebrew stuff. only a few top tier decks. It's usually a lot of fun)

User avatar
Ym1r
Posts: 153
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Ym1r » 1 year ago

Simto wrote:
1 year ago
I'm going to my local FNM on Friday and I'm wondering which tron variation I should play.

Which do you guys think is strongest?
Green Tron without Karn Liberated and Ugin The Spirit Dragon? or Eldrazi Tron without 4 Chalice and no Leyline in the side (both with Creator Karn + wishboard package)

I don't have any of the big Karn, Ugins, Chalice or leyline, but I've done alright with the green tron deck considering I don't have the big planeswalkers. I'll eventually buy the planeswalkers and chalices, but I just haven't gotten around to it yet. It's hard for me to justify spending so much money on cardboard.

Just curious to hear what you guys think would kick the most ass. (my local FNM meta is pretty friendly, a lot of homebrew stuff. only a few top tier decks. It's usually a lot of fun)
Eldrazi Tron without Chalice. Big Karn is core to Green Tron, and the strategy doesn't function that well without him. Eldrazi Tron's plan is more relied on its creatures and the midrange plan. Chalice is there to support it, and make sure you don't lose to some of your bad MUs. You can still execute the plan however, even without them.
Counter, draw a card.

iTaLenTZ
Posts: 216
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by iTaLenTZ » 1 year ago

I am pretty sure Wrenn will also be banned within 3 months in at least 1 format. The more I play with and against this card in Legacy and Modern the more obviously busted he becomes. He simply comes too soon with too many loyalty counters and starts generating too much CA every turn without using any resources while also building up to his ultimate. And if it wasn't enough he completely hoses any deck relying on X/1 creatures like mana dorks and even things like Phantasmal Image. He can even finish of PW's or ping players. His cost/efficiency is off the chart and imo way too powerful. The card isn't sustainable in the mid-long run unless they print very strong generic undercost flexible PW answers. In the end if will come down to the question: Ban Wrenn or add more powercreep to counter the powercreep and continue this vicious circle.

User avatar
Depian
Posts: 26
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Spain

Post by Depian » 1 year ago

iTaLenTZ wrote:
1 year ago
I am pretty sure Wrenn will also be banned within 3 months in at least 1 format. The more I play with and against this card in Legacy and Modern the more obviously busted he becomes. He simply comes too soon with too many loyalty counters and starts generating too much CA every turn without using any resources while also building up to his ultimate. And if it wasn't enough he completely hoses any deck relying on X/1 creatures like mana dorks and even things like Phantasmal Image. He can even finish of PW's or ping players. His cost/efficiency is off the chart and imo way too powerful.
I could see a problem in Legacy with how deadly a Wasteland+Wrenn lock can be, but we have to measure her for what she can do in Modern.

We have to see how Modern shapes when Hogaak inevitably leaves the format next week, and then if anything stands out as "too strong", start collecting and analyzing data to check if that hypothesis stands true.

Calling a ban now when we definitely don't have a way to measure the meta without Hogaak is basically banmania

User avatar
ktkenshinx
Posts: 571
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: West Coast
Contact:

Post by ktkenshinx » 1 year ago

robertleva wrote:
1 year ago
If they emergency banned Hogaak, for the next 20 years, EVERY busted card will get the "but they did it for Hogaak" threads. It's worth waiting, trust me. Plus my theory is that they will be highly motivated to unban something fun that will instantly make us forget about all this Hogaak nonsense.
This kind of ban mania is already happening in Modern and has been happening for years. It will be even worse this year with three bans before the year is even over, and we haven't even addressed some of the community's biggest and recurring issues (Looting/Stirrings). An emergency ban may have increased that, but the on-schedule ban is also going to increase it. Between this and Eldrazi Winter, there are going to be more calls for emergency bans than ever before over emerging issues, which the online community will continue to cite whenever new breakout decks emerge. I can appreciate many complicated reasons for not e-banning Hogaak, especially the cost to players who attend events and planned to play Hogaak. But that's an economical weighting we can maybe calculcate. The ban mania issue is not economical and is already at a fever pitch regardless of how Wizards handled this issue.
The Fluff wrote:
1 year ago
referring to the part I put in bold. Hopefully, something like that happens. Maybe it SFM will be freed at last?
Unbans are completely unpredictable. If history is a good indicator, we should see an unban coincide with a ban after a particularly warped period of Modern (Pod/TC/DTT and Eldrazi Winter), but we've also seen unbans in a vacuum (JTMS/BBE), and we've seen big bans with no unbans to pair with them (Twin/GGT). Personally, I've given up on predicting unbans, and can just as easily see Wizards unbanning SFM or something as an "apology" as I can see them letting the post-Hogaak metagame evolve naturally with WAR/MH1/M20 and Throne.
Simto wrote:
1 year ago
I'm going to my local FNM on Friday and I'm wondering which tron variation I should play.

Which do you guys think is strongest?
Green Tron without Karn Liberated and Ugin The Spirit Dragon? or Eldrazi Tron without 4 Chalice and no Leyline in the side (both with Creator Karn + wishboard package)

I don't have any of the big Karn, Ugins, Chalice or leyline, but I've done alright with the green tron deck considering I don't have the big planeswalkers. I'll eventually buy the planeswalkers and chalices, but I just haven't gotten around to it yet. It's hard for me to justify spending so much money on cardboard.

Just curious to hear what you guys think would kick the most ass. (my local FNM meta is pretty friendly, a lot of homebrew stuff. only a few top tier decks. It's usually a lot of fun)
Definitely Eldrazi Tron without Chalice. G Tron isn't worth it without Ugin or Karn Liberated, but Eldrazi Tron is viable in certain metagames without Chalice. If you have a lot of GY decks in your home metagame, replace the Chalices with Relics.
iTaLenTZ wrote:
1 year ago
I am pretty sure Wrenn will also be banned within 3 months in at least 1 format. The more I play with and against this card in Legacy and Modern the more obviously busted he becomes. He simply comes too soon with too many loyalty counters and starts generating too much CA every turn without using any resources while also building up to his ultimate. And if it wasn't enough he completely hoses any deck relying on X/1 creatures like mana dorks and even things like Phantasmal Image. He can even finish of PW's or ping players. His cost/efficiency is off the chart and imo way too powerful. The card isn't sustainable in the mid-long run unless they print very strong generic undercost flexible PW answers. In the end if will come down to the question: Ban Wrenn or add more powercreep to counter the powercreep and continue this vicious circle.
W6 could be an issue in Legacy. The Wasteland lock is really not good form for that format, but I also don't play enough Legacy to weigh in seriously on that issue. I'll defer to the Legacy regulars and experts.

As for Modern, this is clinical ban mania in a year that is only going to foster more ban mania. To be clear, ban mania is not calling for a card to be banned. Ban mania is calling for cards to be banned a) in the utter absence of data, b) without citing data even if it's out there, and/or c) when the "issues/effects" they pose for the format are not bannable offenses. Ban mania is also framing an issue in terms of bans that doesn't need to be framed that way. In this case, your anti W6 stance is squarely in the realm of (a) and probably also in the realm of (c). Regarding (a), there is simply no way to assess any element of format health or balance while Hogaak is still around. It's too warping and creates too many secondary effects on the format to see how the format "truly" looks. Obviously, Jund's shares and performances aren't even remotely bannable with the current data we have, which suggests you are speculating about a post-Hogaak world we don't have any real data for. We have no clue how the combination of Humans/G-Tron/E-Tron/Phoenix/Jund/UW Control/Dredge/Urza ThopterSword, and other top-tier decks will play out in a post-Hogaak world.

(C) gets more at the experiential dimensions of a deck, which is fine to discuss as long as we acknowledge it's very subjective. It seems your criticism of W6 is that it generates too much CA, is hard to remove, invalidates X/1 strategies, and is overall too powerful. Modern is an insanely powerful format. In order to hang at the top-tier of Modern, you need to be doing powerful things. Humans/G-Tron/E-Tron/Phoenix/Dredge/Urza ThopterSword are all doing just as powerful things on T2-T3 as Jund, and with the exception of Humans, those decks don't really even care much about anything W6 is doing. UW Control is in a similar position as Jund where it needs regular sources of proactive pressure, and it gets that from the equally powerful Narset/T3feri. Fair decks need this in order to compete with unfair decks (I define fair/unfair as cheating on resources/curves). Without these planeswalkers, Jund and UW Control would not be very good in Modern and they would be unable to hang with the top-tier strategies listed above.

W6 would be a problem in Modern if it gave Jund too many 50/50+ matchups. As it stands, however, Jund appears to have just as many bad matchups as other top-tier decks. It's terrible against Burn, unfavored against E-Tron, and even worse against Urza ThopterSword than against Burn. It's also terrible against Hogaak, which suggests it will struggle against Dredge (but probably not to the same extent because Hogaak is busted). All of this suggests W6 Jund in Modern is not nearly as problematic as you make it out to be.

Re: ban mania
I can't emphasize this enough: ban mania is when we assess a deck/card in banning terms when it's not warranted. It's a mindframe we see whenever a breakout strategy/card emerges, and it will only get worse after the Hogaak fears proved to be more than warranted. This creates a vicious confirmation bias for people who want cards banned quickly and are quick to frame issues in terms of bans. Rather than remember all the failed ban predictions/suggestions (Stirrings, Tron lands, Moon, Opal, GDS, Company, Griselbrand, etc.), ban hawks can fixate on the one time Wizards should have acted decisively to ban a demonstrably broken deck after a month of play (Hogaak in July, NOT Bridge). This vindicates future ban talk and empowers them to discuss every single emerging deck/card in ban terms. As a whole, this effect is extremely negative for the format. It scares away new players, embitters old players, discourages innovation (why evolve when you can ban your problems!), encourages echo chambers/hive mind thinking, etc. Imagine new players going to an LGS and the bitter Modern veteran complaining about bans to everyone. That harm ripples across the format and ultimately imperils our growth.

It is imperative we push against this if we are to recover from Hogaak Summer, but I fear the ban mania will be at its highest ever and not decrease any time soon.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
W6 would be a problem in Modern if it gave Jund too many 50/50+ matchups. As it stands, however, Jund appears to have just as many bad matchups as other top-tier decks. It's terrible against Burn, unfavored against E-Tron, and even worse against Urza ThopterSword than against Burn. It's also terrible against Hogaak, which suggests it will struggle against Dredge (but probably not to the same extent because Hogaak is busted). All of this suggests W6 Jund in Modern is not nearly as problematic as you make it out to be.
I think without the fixing (4C Delver) and Wasteland, W6 will just be 'great' and not 'busted'. We should be fine.
UR Control UR

iTaLenTZ
Posts: 216
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by iTaLenTZ » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
W6 would be a problem in Modern if it gave Jund too many 50/50+ matchups.
Jund is a bad deck that prays on bad players and poor souls bringing fair decks to Modern but that doesn't mean W6 is a bad card. Jund is not synonymous with W6. I still believe the best list for W6 needs to be discovered. I took out all creatures and replaced them with Seismic Assault, a Loam engine and more PW's and in testing the deck is doing really great.

But this is not the point. Everything said right now about W6 is hypothetical because there is no real Modern format to collect data on as long as Hogaak exists. I strongly intuit the card is busted. As a Legacy player I am more than happy to see it go. In contrast to Loam, the Wasteland lock doesn't cost you your draw and 2 mana every turn. As a Modern player I think it will suffer the same fate in the long run. Just because its played in 'fair' midrange decks doesn't mean the card itself is fair nor balanced. I am not calling for a ban now because its obvious there isn't any data to proof my claims, I am just saying I have this feeling about W6 that the card is too strong.

User avatar
Wraithpk
Posts: 177
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Connecticut, USA

Post by Wraithpk » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago

Unbans are completely unpredictable. If history is a good indicator, we should see an unban coincide with a ban after a particularly warped period of Modern (Pod/TC/DTT and Eldrazi Winter), but we've also seen unbans in a vacuum (JTMS/BBE), and we've seen big bans with no unbans to pair with them (Twin/GGT). Personally, I've given up on predicting unbans, and can just as easily see Wizards unbanning SFM or something as an "apology" as I can see them letting the post-Hogaak metagame evolve naturally with WAR/MH1/M20 and Throne.
The one predictable aspect of unbans is that they've always unbanned something in roughly 1 to 1.5 year intervals. Here's the timeline:

August 2011: Modern is born
September 2012 (13 months): Valakut is unbanned
February 2014 (17 months): Bitterblossom and Wild Nacatl unbanned
January 2015 (11 months): GGT unbanned
April 2016 (15 months): AV and SotM unbanned
February 2018 (22 months): JtMS and BBE unbanned.

So the shortest time they've gone is 11 months, and the longest is 22 months. We're currently at 18 months from the last unbans. December would be 22 months, matching the previous longest interval. Personally, I anticipate an unban sometime pretty soon. I wouldn't be surprised if they unban SFM alongside banning Hogaak.
Modern
ubr Grixis Shadow ubr
uwg Bant Stoneblade uwg
gbr Jund gbr

Pioneer
urIzzet Phoenixur
rMono-Red Aggror
uwAzorius Controluw

Commander
bg Meren of Clan Nel Toth bg

metalmusic_4
Posts: 260
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by metalmusic_4 » 1 year ago

Do we have a ban/unban poll up yet? I really want to see hogaak at 90%. I really hope they unban SFM and twin is also a fairly likely option, but with the format being a virtual unknown outside of hogaak it wouldn't surprise me if they wait a bit longer to see what they are actually working with.

User avatar
ktkenshinx
Posts: 571
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: West Coast
Contact:

Post by ktkenshinx » 1 year ago

metalmusic_4 wrote:
1 year ago
Do we have a ban/unban poll up yet? I really want to see hogaak at 90%. I really hope they unban SFM and twin is also a fairly likely option, but with the format being a virtual unknown outside of hogaak it wouldn't surprise me if they wait a bit longer to see what they are actually working with.
Polls are up!

Ban: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1198&p=12257
Unban: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1197&p=12255

I think I got all the ban options, but feel free to let me know if I missed a big topic of conversation.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

metalmusic_4
Posts: 260
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by metalmusic_4 » 1 year ago

Thank you Ktk for making the polls.

Question about the math on the polls: if a card on the unban poll is at 28% with 18 votes, is that 28% of voters voted for that card or 28% of total votes cast were for that card? It looks like it is the % of total votes cast and in the past I think it was % of voters who voted for that card.

User avatar
Bearscape
Posts: 213
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Bearscape » 1 year ago

gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
teferi being on the banlist seems a little bit weird, no?
It's a card comparable to Blood Moon and Ensnaring Bridge, permanents that basically end the game on their own by completely invalidating a lot of what the opponent is doing. From a purely power perspective I don't think it needs a ban, but from a gameplay perspective I can see why people loathe it so much.

User avatar
The Fluff
is this so?
Posts: 1945
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Gradius Home World
Contact:

Post by The Fluff » 1 year ago

I personally don't have a problem with little teferi, but I know a few people in this thread who do. It won't get banned anyway, so why not see how many people want to see it go in a poll.
Image
AnimEVO 2020 - EFZ Tournament (english commentary) // OE 2016 // POF 2018
want to play a uw control deck in modern, but don't have Jace or snapcaster? please come visit us at the Emeria thread

User avatar
ktkenshinx
Posts: 571
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: West Coast
Contact:

Post by ktkenshinx » 1 year ago

gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
ktkenshinx , teferi being on the banlist seems a little bit weird, no?
We have historically included many "weird" cards on the banlist poll because we've seen community buzz about them. There's an entire 90+ Reddit thread right now with Modern players unhappy about Teferi. If I had it my way, these polls would be maybe 2-3 cards and this one would be one card, but that's not fair to the community. Teferi also has more votes than a few other entrants on the list currently.
metalmusic_4 wrote:
1 year ago
Thank you Ktk for making the polls.

Question about the math on the polls: if a card on the unban poll is at 28% with 18 votes, is that 28% of voters voted for that card or 28% of total votes cast were for that card? It looks like it is the % of total votes cast and in the past I think it was % of voters who voted for that card.
This is one of the problems with our polling software and I'll bring it up to the admins. In short, everyone gets to vote multiple times, so it's 28% of total CAST votes, not total VOTERS. If we want display % of total VOTERS, we'd have to make it a single-option poll, which is definitely inaccurate. I'll see if there's a way to display % of voters, not votes cast.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

Amalek0
Posts: 65
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Amalek0 » 1 year ago

[mention]ktkenshinx[/mention] do you think there's any merit to this line of thinking by WOTC:

"Hogaak is a problem because this consistent mill-out plan is incredibly fast and uninteractive as a combo deck that also happens to have a beatdown plan. Bridge from below fuels the uninteractive kill, hogaak powers the beatdown plan; if we take away one axis of noninteraction for the deck, then there's a good chance the metagame can adjust to interact with these turbo-hogaak decks. We already know how hogaak behaves in normal dredge, because that's obviously the first place we tested it, and we have a good understanding of its impacts there. Hogaak probably requires a big resource investment to push out on the first turn or two, but if it gets answered it probably takes another turn to restock the graveyard and present again, the same way all of the gurmag angler decks are often delayed by a complete full turn when subjected to a relic activation. A hogaak on turn two is threatening, but turn 2 hogaak, turn 4 hogaak isn't enough to make a dent in modern. We can ban bridge from below now, and if a more efficient recursive threat hogaak deck emerges, we can address it at a later date."

I'm just trying to avoid the "how did WOTC get it this wrong" line and move toward the "what did WOTC think or know that made banning bridge from below a contextually good choice at the time?" and all I have is the presumption that their data showed them that the combo mechanism of bridge from below is what lead to the least interactive and fastest kills, and that taking that away made the deck manageable in the short term (if not the long term). If you think the format can ride out six months after the bridge ban without hogaak returning to tier 1 status (probably by assuming that banning bridge puts all the graveyard players back on dredge), then the calculus makes a lot of sense to me.

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

Bearscape wrote:
1 year ago
It's a card comparable to Blood Moon and Ensnaring Bridge, permanents that basically end the game on their own by completely invalidating a lot of what the opponent is doing. From a purely power perspective I don't think it needs a ban, but from a gameplay perspective I can see why people loathe it so much.
Its worse than those, as its one sided, and has no restrictions on the player casting the card. Blood Moon? Well you better have built for basics. Bridge? You better be planning to win outside combat/empty your hand.

T3feri? Just turn's off Magic, and enables Hearthstone.
UR Control UR

User avatar
motleyslayer
Posts: 844
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Contact:

Post by motleyslayer » 1 year ago

I feel that 3feri creates some weird games but I don't think that it really causes any problems that would cause it to be need to be banned

Like forcing your opponent to play at sorcery speed and not being able to interact with stuff you do on your turn causes some weird moments and forces blue based control to shift how they work but I like the way it works for the most part

User avatar
Wraithpk
Posts: 177
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Connecticut, USA

Post by Wraithpk » 1 year ago

I think it's pretty easy to guess what their logic was behind the Bridge ban instead of Hogaak. They wanted to nerf the deck, but they didn't want to kill it. That's been their MO ever since the community backlash from the Birthing Pod and Splinter Twin bans. They thought taking away the combo mill plan could sufficiently nerf the deck while leaving something still playable, but banning Hogaak would probably kill the deck entirely. It turns out that there's probably not a playable Hogaak deck that's not busted, because the card is a problem.
Modern
ubr Grixis Shadow ubr
uwg Bant Stoneblade uwg
gbr Jund gbr

Pioneer
urIzzet Phoenixur
rMono-Red Aggror
uwAzorius Controluw

Commander
bg Meren of Clan Nel Toth bg

User avatar
motleyslayer
Posts: 844
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Contact:

Post by motleyslayer » 1 year ago

Wraithpk wrote:
1 year ago
I think it's pretty easy to guess what their logic was behind the Bridge ban instead of Hogaak. They wanted to nerf the deck, but they didn't want to kill it. That's been their MO ever since the community backlash from the Birthing Pod and Splinter Twin bans. They thought taking away the combo mill plan could sufficiently nerf the deck while leaving something still playable, but banning Hogaak would probably kill the deck entirely. It turns out that there's probably not a playable Hogaak deck that's not busted, because the card is a problem.
I feel that banning an old, random card that is only really in that deck is usually safer than banning a card they just printed so early after printing it. While it's clear that banning bridge only really stopped the mill your opponent out combo but now they've left us with a really consistent gy aggro deck

Looking back it was a mistake but hindsight usually shows us that

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Modern”