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

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 2 years ago

motleyslayer wrote:
2 years 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
I was thinking on this line earlier, and its actually to me like Bridge from Below. Was Bridge from Below 'broken'? No, not really. Hogaak was/is. Was Bridge a card worth having in the game? No, not really.

T3feri is the same to me. What value does it add? It just makes the game worse.

EDIT: Should say, again from an objective view, T3feri is not worthy of a ban, however as I leave you all with your game I would hope the players would begin to look at what makes for a better subjective game for the most people.

T3feri and a few other cards, are not part of that world.
Last edited by idSurge 2 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
UR Control UR

User avatar
motleyslayer
Posts: 922
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Contact:

Post by motleyslayer » 2 years ago

idSurge wrote:
2 years ago
motleyslayer wrote:
2 years 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
I was thinking on this line earlier, and its actually to me like Bridge from Below. Was Bridge from Below 'broken'? No, not really. Hogaak was/is. Was Bridge a card worth having in the game? No, not really.

T3feri is the same to me. What value does it add? It just makes the game worse.
I feel that bridge from below definitely didn't add anything good to the game and I'm glad it was banned, even if it was Hogaak that made the deck worse

I'm still not 100% sure where I stand on 3feri for sure. While I don't feel it's BROKEN, it makes some weird lines as I said before. Even infect splashes white for it and giver of runes now because they make the deck harder to interact with

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 2 years ago

Ya, its not about weird lines I clarified above a bit. There is nothing weird to be about 'I'm going to protect my combo, lol'. It just is what it is. Its too cheap for what it does, and should have cost 4, if not 5.
UR Control UR

User avatar
motleyslayer
Posts: 922
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Contact:

Post by motleyslayer » 2 years ago

idSurge wrote:
2 years ago
Ya, its not about weird lines I clarified above a bit. There is nothing weird to be about 'I'm going to protect my combo, lol'. It just is what it is. Its too cheap for what it does, and should have cost 4, if not 5.
I feel that 3feri would be a lot less bothersome if it cost 4 rather than 3, that would make a lot of the decks that wanna protect their combo have to work harder for the protection. I feel that the extra 1 mana be a lot harder for some decks

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 2 years ago

Yeah, at 4, I think it would be far less an issue, and more a value play if anything. At 3, it does nothing but push the cmc where the game is defined even lower, and the format didnt need that.
UR Control UR

User avatar
motleyslayer
Posts: 922
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Contact:

Post by motleyslayer » 2 years ago

idSurge wrote:
2 years ago
Yeah, at 4, I think it would be far less an issue, and more a value play if anything. At 3, it does nothing but push the cmc where the game is defined even lower, and the format didnt need that.
my issue with it at 3 is that it comes down so early and basically makes the game about dealing with him before you can deal or interact with anything else

I'm not really against cards that prevent you from interacting at instant speed but 3feri is so cheap and does so much else

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 2 years ago

Yeah nobody (that I remember) hated on Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir thats a fair card because

1. Its 5 mana.
2. Its a creature and every colour can deal with creatures.

World of difference.
UR Control UR

User avatar
motleyslayer
Posts: 922
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Contact:

Post by motleyslayer » 2 years ago

idSurge wrote:
2 years ago
Yeah nobody (that I remember) hated on Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir thats a fair card because

1. Its 5 mana.
2. Its a creature and every colour can deal with creatures.

World of difference.
I feel that a creature that costs 2UUU is also really hard to cast as well, especially if it's so easy to deal with.

1UW on a walker is much easier to cast while much harder to deal with at the same time. There are so many decks with good walkers in my meta that I won't play FNM with 1 copies of dreadbore

User avatar
Thenarus
Posts: 9
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Tucson AZ

Post by Thenarus » 2 years ago

Ross Merriam wrote an article posted to SCG Premium today titled "Winners And Losers In A Post Hogaak World". He basically claims that the format will slow down after the Gaak is banned, so strong interactive decks will thrive.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't it been the case historically that the strong proactive decks are the strongest decks immediately following meta shake-ups? Interactive decks like UW Control and Jund need to tailor their flex slots and sideboards to the other top decks, so they end up being spread a bit thin at first.

Decks like Dredge, Whirza, and Mono-Red Phoenix seem like they would all require different cards from those decks to deal with, and are proven contenders. Green Tron also seems like it would have a worse time initially if strong linear decks are the norm at first. Again, though, please correct me if the interactive decks have been the best initial decks post-ban, as opposed to the proactive linear ones.

User avatar
motleyslayer
Posts: 922
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Contact:

Post by motleyslayer » 2 years ago

I feel that dredge will probably just take it's place back as the default graveyard deck almost if Hogaak gets banned. Whirza and mono red phoenix will still be good.

I'm not sure how else the format would change if Hogaak was banned but I'm hoping it slows down

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 2 years ago

Yeah Thenarus, that would be right.

You'll still have Phoenix/Dredge.
You'll still have Urza/Scales.
You'll still have Burn/R Phoenix/Prowess.
You'll still have G Tron/E Tron.
You'll still have Humans/Shadow.

Proactive will remain the way, there are no cards that change that in the format outside the ban list.
UR Control UR

User avatar
motleyslayer
Posts: 922
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Contact:

Post by motleyslayer » 2 years ago

I feel that Jund still fits into the format somewhere still. W6 was still a great addition to the format. I've been okay with Mardu Octomancer but I'm not sure actually how good the deck is.

I'm at the point where I just don't wanna see leylines in the main being the norm

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 2 years ago

If you wanted to put it in my list?

You'll still have Phoenix/Dredge.
You'll still have Urza/Scales.
You'll still have Burn/R Phoenix/Prowess.
You'll still have G Tron/E Tron.
You'll still have Humans/Shadow.
You'll still have UW Walkers/Jund W6

Its there, sure, but is it going to be the same when it cannot warp for and account for, a dominant predatory like Hogaak? I doubt it.
UR Control UR

User avatar
ktkenshinx
Posts: 571
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: West Coast
Contact:

Post by ktkenshinx » 2 years ago

Amalek0 wrote:
2 years ago
ktkenshinx 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.
Did Wizards write that? Or was that just a hypothetical explanation? Either way, I think that makes sense to me. I'm not super interested in criticizing Wizards for banning the wrong card. It was a complicated decision and they clearly chose wrong, although who knows what Altar/Feeder/Bridge sans Hogaak would have done. Enough pros also thought the ban was fine when it happened that I'm willing to write that off to a missed call. I'm also willing to forgive Wizards for banning the wrong thing; otherwise, they were correct to act within barely a month of the deck emerging. The problem thereafter was not correcting the issue until 08/26, which I believe is going to create a cascade of issues which Modern will need to recover from.

Re: T3feri
In case it's unclear, I don't think the card is remotely bannable. I just included it in the poll because we historically include lots of cards that people murmur about, bannable or not. It's an annoying card that crystalizes Ux control towards UWx control specifically instead of other options, but that's not bannable.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

metalmusic_4
Posts: 260
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by metalmusic_4 » 2 years ago

I am happy that many people are now comfortable calling bridge the wrong ban. Nobody is really saying WOTC is dumb, they just had to pick 1 card to ban from a list of 3 and they picked wrong. I think that is understandable, disappointing, but understandable. I am confident on 26 Aug they will ban the correct card.

User avatar
Bearscape
Posts: 230
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Bearscape » 2 years ago

I don't think Bridge was the wrong ban, Most people seemed to agree that, to kill the Hogaak decks, two cards needed to go. If their intent was to weaken Hogaak without killing it, then Bridge was the right pick. That ban actually did do what it set out to do; the bridgeless Hogaak decks differ widely from the pre-ban Hogaak Bridge lists, and there isn't even really a consensus yet on what the optimal shell is. The original broken Hogaak Bridge deck was correctly removed, it just turned out that Hogaak was still busted in completely different shells. Criticising the Bridge ban now seeing as it didn't work out seems like hindsight bias to me.

Conversely, if they now unban Bridge from Below on Monday, I would think that would be disastrous as the Carrion Feeder Bridge engine on its own is I think much too powerful. In the alternate timeline where they banned Hogaak but left Bridge in the format, I think there are forum posts claiming Bridge was the right ban all along.

Amalek0
Posts: 65
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Amalek0 » 2 years ago

I think it's realistic to point out that *neither* bridge from below nor Hogaak, arisen necropolis are cards that promote a "lands and creatures and removal spells" type format.

metalmusic_4
Posts: 260
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by metalmusic_4 » 2 years ago

Bearscape wrote:
2 years ago
I don't think Bridge was the wrong ban, Most people seemed to agree that, to kill the Hogaak decks, two cards needed to go. If their intent was to weaken Hogaak without killing it, then Bridge was the right pick. That ban actually did do what it set out to do; the bridgeless Hogaak decks differ widely from the pre-ban Hogaak Bridge lists, and there isn't even really a consensus yet on what the optimal shell is. The original broken Hogaak Bridge deck was correctly removed, it just turned out that Hogaak was still busted in completely different shells. Criticising the Bridge ban now seeing as it didn't work out seems like hindsight bias to me.

Conversely, if they now unban Bridge from Below on Monday, I would think that would be disastrous as the Carrion Feeder Bridge engine on its own is I think much too powerful. In the alternate timeline where they banned Hogaak but left Bridge in the format, I think there are forum posts claiming Bridge was the right ban all along.
I disagree with most of this. First of all, the two hogaak shells pre and post bridge ban were VERY similar. The only real difference is the alter of dementia mill combo, the rest of the deck is almost identical. So only like 2 sets of cards different plus a bit of variance from deck to deck. Everyone agrees the original hogaak combo deck was too powerful and needed a ban, but hogaak still being this dominant shows it was and is and will continue to be the real problem until it is banned. We have hard evidence of what hogaak has done, but any talk about how overpowered bridge would be without hogaak is speculation that is not entirely in line with bridge's past modern performance.
As far as hogaak and bridge both playing on a different axis and that not being desirable and therefore ok to ban, you could apply that to alot of cards that don't need a ban. I believe cards should only be banned for one reason and that is proven over performance. Hogaak clearly falls in this, but bridge is much less clear since banning hogaak originally would also have removed the offending mill combo.

To say this plainly: hogaak is very clearly a problem and should be banned, but bridge from below is not clear since its banning is so intertwined with hogaak. Is that statement fair?

User avatar
FoodChainGoblins
Level 47
Posts: 857
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Riverside

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 2 years ago

Amalek0 wrote:
2 years ago
I think it's realistic to point out that *neither* bridge from below nor Hogaak, arisen necropolis are cards that promote a "lands and creatures and removal spells" type format.
There are tons of cards that fit this description that won't be banned - Mox Opal, Simian Spirit Guide, Faithless Looting. Do you think these cards "promote a Limited type format?" The first 2 are cards that speed up the format and the 3rd has been proven to speed up the format even more so.

If Bridge from Below in the yard with Carrion Feeder in play and Gravecrawler in the yard + Black mana in play to get B: 2/2 Zombie is the worst we have to fear once Hogaak, Arisen Necropolis is gone, then I think it's safe to say that Bridge is fine and was NOT the correct ban. But honestly it doesn't matter because Bridge is never getting unbanned, especially this soon. Why would Wizards admit a mistake (so soon)? There also is not much of a reason to do so, as Golgari Grave-Troll was also fine for so long, then they unbanned it and printed 3 amazing Standard legal cards to go with it, causing it to break. Why would they take that chance with Bridge from Below?

*I just truly hope that the Kor Artificer is going to be legal. You guys on here have gotten me hyped up about that one and it actually makes sense to have an unban with the upcoming ban. :)
Standard - Will pick up what's good when paper starts
Pre Modern - Do not own anymore
Pioneer - DEAD
Modern - Amulet Titan, Elementals, Trollementals, BR Asmo/Goryo's, Yawmoth Chord
Legacy - No more cards, will rebuy Sneak Show when I can
Limited - Will start when paper starts
Commander - Nope

User avatar
Wraithpk
Posts: 181
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Connecticut, USA

Post by Wraithpk » 2 years ago

It's certainly possible that Bridge would have been fine if they'd banned Hogaak first, but now that it's banned there's no reason to unban it. It's just not a card that's ever going to promote fair game play. It's in the same boat as Blazing Shoal: either it's unplayable or it's a part of a busted unfair deck, and Modern already has a problem with being too unfair. I want them to continue unbanning fair cards from the banned list.
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
FoodChainGoblins
Level 47
Posts: 857
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Riverside

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 2 years ago

Wraithpk wrote:
2 years ago
It's certainly possible that Bridge would have been fine if they'd banned Hogaak first, but now that it's banned there's no reason to unban it. It's just not a card that's ever going to promote fair game play. It's in the same boat as Blazing Shoal: either it's unplayable or it's a part of a busted unfair deck, and Modern already has a problem with being too unfair. I want them to continue unbanning fair cards from the banned list.
Well, the reason to unban it is the same as the reason to unban Bloodbraid Elf. Bloodbraid Elf cascading into a spell is not everyone's idea of the most fair Magic (probably more so today in comparison to the rest of what's going on), but it isn't hurtful to the format.

When I ran UW Control at the beginning of the format and ran into Jund, I could beat 1 Bloodbraid Elf. Two was iffy and any more than that, I would just fold. It was a very simple equation, as I didn't have the insane UW tools that are out there today.
Standard - Will pick up what's good when paper starts
Pre Modern - Do not own anymore
Pioneer - DEAD
Modern - Amulet Titan, Elementals, Trollementals, BR Asmo/Goryo's, Yawmoth Chord
Legacy - No more cards, will rebuy Sneak Show when I can
Limited - Will start when paper starts
Commander - Nope

iTaLenTZ
Posts: 224
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by iTaLenTZ » 2 years ago

I am totally fine with Bridge being and staying banned. The card will never do anything but toxic and degenerate for Modern. Hogaak will join on Monday and then we can finally see where the format is really at. I guess Loothing decks will still be the best decks in Modern so I am hoping for it to get banned as well so we really get a new format.

User avatar
Albegas
Posts: 149
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Albegas » 2 years ago

FoodChainGoblins wrote:
2 years ago
Wraithpk wrote:
2 years ago
It's certainly possible that Bridge would have been fine if they'd banned Hogaak first, but now that it's banned there's no reason to unban it. It's just not a card that's ever going to promote fair game play. It's in the same boat as Blazing Shoal: either it's unplayable or it's a part of a busted unfair deck, and Modern already has a problem with being too unfair. I want them to continue unbanning fair cards from the banned list.
Well, the reason to unban it is the same as the reason to unban Bloodbraid Elf. Bloodbraid Elf cascading into a spell is not everyone's idea of the most fair Magic (probably more so today in comparison to the rest of what's going on), but it isn't hurtful to the format.

When I ran UW Control at the beginning of the format and ran into Jund, I could beat 1 Bloodbraid Elf. Two was iffy and any more than that, I would just fold. It was a very simple equation, as I didn't have the insane UW tools that are out there today.
BBE is really not a good comparison. BBE historically was prominent in Jund and continues to only be used in Jund after its unban, a deck considered to be fair by Modern standards. It's like Snapcaster in UWx: unfair card technically, but it's primarily used in fair shells, so no one really cares. Bridge was only remotely successful in a deck that was about as fair as Dredge with no known shell that's remotely fair. An early banning sucks, but if they unbanned it only for it to replace HogaakVine with BridgeVine + Altar, Wizards would never hear the end of it. It's not even worth looking at Bridge for at least a year or two

Edited to fix typo
Last edited by Albegas 2 years ago, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 2 years ago

FoodChainGoblins wrote:
2 years ago
Well, the reason to unban it is the same as the reason to unban Bloodbraid Elf. Bloodbraid Elf cascading into a spell is not everyone's idea of the most fair Magic (probably more so today in comparison to the rest of what's going on), but it isn't hurtful to the format.
Not the same at all. One is a creature, with applications in a number of decks, from straight up value play's, to some interactions with the rules and 0 cost spells, of which there are very few.

The other is a card that literally is unique in that it does nothing on the field, only in the yard, and tries to allow for non-standard lines of play. Would it be fine without hogaak? Maybe, probably even. Do we need more GY decks in the game? Simply no, we do not.

Even a deck that was easy to hate out like Bridgevine, brings nothing unique to the format. Its just another ultra aggro GY deck, yippee (and I love my playset of Vengevine...it's just only good in bad decks).
UR Control UR

metalmusic_4
Posts: 260
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by metalmusic_4 » 2 years ago

Bridge is comparable to BBE in regards to its banning, not it's actual function or words on its card. BBE was banned to weaken jund but the real problem was DRS. Jund continued to dominate until DRS was later banned. Over time people realized BBE didn't belong on the banned list and that it died for the sins of a more powerful card, DRS in that case. Then we all know BBE was unbanned last year and does see marginal to fair levels of play now.

Do we really see no comparison here?

Bridge had been fine in modern for years while hogaak is a unholy monster that continues to dominate even after its deck was weakened by a ban. I see a comparison. IMO the DRS vs BBE is the BEST comparison to what we are going through right now. I do not expect an immediate unban of bridge but when I look at the merits of the bridge ban it looks redundant and strange if hogaak is also banned.
Another comparison of redundancy banning like this could be both SFM and jittie being banned. They site the jittie as a reason for the SFM banning but then they banned jittie too, That was redundant and their is a loud cry to unban SFM because that ban is unnessesary. Or another possible comparison could be the original naya zoo lists with punishing fire and wild necatle. Both those cards were banned at the same time due to the dominance of zoo but a few years later wild necatle was unbanned. That card sees very little play now. So there are multiple examples of this type of ban and (sometimes) subsequent unban in the past and present, but IMO the most accurate comparison is probably BBE vs DRS.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Modern”