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

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

Post by Albegas » 2 years ago

It's not that I don't see the comparison in the bannings of BBE and Bridge. As you say, both were part of decks that were broken and both cards were the wrong bans. The fairness of those decks didn't matter, only the results of those decks.

What I was disagreeing with was the specific use of BBE's unfair aspects as justification that Bridge should come off, which I suppose on its own isn't much of a stance. To make my stance perfectly clear, I agree that Hogaak would have been the correct ban, though only with hindsight. I also believe that unbanning Bridge right now would be a mistake. WotC can't take the PR hit if Bridge makes the current Hogaak shell Tier 0.5 again, and I'd imagine that WotC won't look at Bridge again unless every GY deck falls off the map a year from now due to its history of only being used to fuel strategies that by every metric of Magic would be considered unfair.

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

Post by ktkenshinx » 2 years ago

metalmusic_4 wrote:
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.
I see where this comparison is going but there's a huge flaw in it: MH1 also gave us Feeder and Altar. If MH1 just gave us Hogaak and then Wizards banned Bridge, I would 100% be on board with a Bridge unban because we would be close to 100% confident Bridge could not do anything degenerate if unbanned. It would just be a super clean pre- and post- comparison. But we don't have that confidence because MH1 gave Hogaak Bridgevine other tools that made the deck strong: Feeder and Altar. Wizards absolutely, positively cannot risk Bridge/Altar/Feeder being a good deck right now. They have exhausted every ounce of Modern good will they had this year and are probably running a deficit. This format has a lot of recovery to do and a Bridge unban cannot jeopardize that. Anyone who says "Feeder/Altar/Bridge is not a good deck" is either misleading us or themselves. We have no idea if that's a good deck. It might be trash, it might be Tier 2, it might be Tier 1. We don't know. What we do know is Wizards has put Modern in such a %$#%, precarious position this summer that they can't risk all of that for a niche unban that is significantly less certain than you are making it out to be.

Again, if Hogaak Bridgevine was just a problem because of Hogaak's addition to Modern alone, then 100% unban Bridge. But because Feeder and Altar are also new additions, and new additions in that specific deck which made Hogaak Bridgevine good in tandem with Hogaak itself, Wizards cannot and should not take any risks. Keep both banned.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

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

Post by idSurge » 2 years ago

metalmusic_4 wrote:
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?
From the perspective of 'wrong card' ? Sure.

However the TYPE (not card type, but the decks it will enable) are fundamentally different to the point where its not a valid comparison. BBE was a card banned for the wrong reason, just as Bridge. Bridge however is not a Magic card that is eeeeeeeeeever going to do anything but promote Magic games that are lopsided.

I mean I know we went over this, and we probably still disagree, but is Modern better off without Bridge in it? Yeah, I think so, even in an abstract way.
UR Control UR

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

Post by iTaLenTZ » 2 years ago

There is no comparison between Bridge/Hogaak and BBE/DRS bans. Bridge would have been the same degenerate deck without Hogaak but with Carrion Feeder, Altar, Supplier. Bridge limits design space and is bound to be broken again in the future exactly as they said it was another reason for the ban. Bridgevine was already a toxic deck before MH and only lost favour to dredge because of Creeping Chill and consistency.

Stoneforge Mystic is a bad card. It will come off and people will play it and see how bad the card is. Turn 2 Squire --> gets killed and you are stuck with a Batterskull in hand until turn 5. Best case scenario you can block turn 3 and attack turn 4 with a 4/4 lifelink vigilance and 50% of the meta can ignore this play perfectly. If the opponent doesn't answer this its because they don't care about it and if they do they just kill it and you wasted 3 turns playing a Squire. The Swords are too slow for Modern and it seems SoFaI will remain as the best second target. The only legitimate reason I can think of why SFM can stay banned is because it limits design space for equipments but seeing the equipments we have gotten over the years and the new useless swords I think its a safe unban.

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

Post by Bearscape » 2 years ago

metalmusic_4 wrote:
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?
We didn't have hard evidence of Hogaak being a problem. With Modern Horizons, we got Hogaak, Carrion Feeder and Altar of Dementia, and the combination of those cards we had evidence of being a problem. WotC quoted the mill plan as an issue, and banning either Hogaak or Bridge would have gotten rid of it (and it evidently did). After the banning, people started experimenting with other Hogaak enablers like Hedron Crab, Satyr Wayfinder and classic dredge shells, and then it quickly became evident that Hogaak was still too powerful on its own.

To be clear, you can go back to mtgs and see that I immediately wanted to ban Bridge and Hogaak, but that was my own speculative opinion. R&D's goal of the Bridge ban was to weaken the deck without killing it, and with that point of view Bridge was the right choice, even if it didn't work out.

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

Post by Bearscape » 2 years ago

As for banning cards, I don't think powerlevel is the only axis. Obnoxious, unfun gameplay can definitely be a factor in banning a card and I want to say it already has been; things that come to mind for me are Sensei's Divining Top in Legacy; although Miracles was a top tier deck, didn't put up absurd numbers. Matches taking too long was quoted as a tournament organisation issue, but was definitely also a gameplay issue. Nexus of Fate is also a weird case where it really wasn't that overpowered in standard, but just incredibly obnoxious and forcing people to play narrow sideboard cards in the mainboard, which is why it only got banned in best of 1.

On its own, poor gameplay can't be the sole reason for something to ban as it is purely subjective even if a majority of the playerbase agrees a card creates poor gameplay. But if poor gameplay also comes paired with top tier strategies, the threshold of metagame share at which a strong deck is too good gets lowered for me.


tl;dr ban Faitless Looting

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

Post by metalmusic_4 » 2 years ago

Thanks everyone for all the opinions. I dont expect a bridge unban anytime soon, but as a few years go by we will see how the popular opinion and legacy of the bridge ban compares with some of the other banned cards.

Ktk, I know you write several articles and I would be interested in a long article comparing the bridge ban with some of these other bans we have been discussing. With all the unusual circumstances going on, meaning the quick bridge ban and hogaaks continued super dominance, I think there is probable alot of interest. Specifically, the wild nacatle and BBE ban/unban (and maybe SFM) as compares to our current situation. Successful weakening bans that help support the case to ban bridge definitely include summer bloom and eye of ugin, and maybe GGT, probe, or some of the storm cards, there are probably other good examples too.

The Bridge ban is at least not clear cut and I think it is worth drawing attention to how unusual this circumstance/timing/double-ban has been.

User avatar
Depian
Posts: 26
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Spain

Post by Depian » 2 years ago

Bearscape wrote:
2 years ago
As for banning cards, I don't think powerlevel is the only axis. Obnoxious, unfun gameplay can definitely be a factor in banning a card and I want to say it already has been; things that come to mind for me are Sensei's Divining Top in Legacy; although Miracles was a top tier deck, didn't put up absurd numbers. Matches taking too long was quoted as a tournament organisation issue, but was definitely also a gameplay issue. Nexus of Fate is also a weird case where it really wasn't that overpowered in standard, but just incredibly obnoxious and forcing people to play narrow sideboard cards in the mainboard, which is why it only got banned in best of 1.

On its own, poor gameplay can't be the sole reason for something to ban as it is purely subjective even if a majority of the playerbase agrees a card creates poor gameplay. But if poor gameplay also comes paired with top tier strategies, the threshold of metagame share at which a strong deck is too good gets lowered for me.


tl;dr ban Faitless Looting
Powerlevel is not the only axis but "Unfun gameplay" is not a factor to ban cards, criteria should be as objective as possible and fun or unfun is definitely on the subjective side of things.

Sensei's Divining Top was not banned for being boring, it was banned for the amount of time a player could spend durdling with it ("top, fetch, top, brainstorm, top, fetch, top" could easily be happening during your end step, with faster players it was not an issue as they resolved those fast but most players were not that fast), affecting round times and thus affecting how the tournament developed leading to tournament delays.

Nexus of fate was banned only in MTG arena because the program couldn't do much to prevent a player from simply spending n hours casting Nexus of Fate every turn without any single way to win the game, that situation would be easily solvable in paper magic. It was not banned because it forced people to play niche sideboard cards in the main, that's a BO1 issue on its own, if my opponent chains consecutive Nexus of Fate and start winning from there, it's what their deck tries to do and that's ok.
The problem is when they are out of win conditions so they start cycling Nexus of Fate without altering the game state, that's called stalling and a judge would force the player to pass priority instead of keep looping if they can't advance the game state any further, on Arena, you could simply ignore the judge, and that's an issue.

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

Post by Bearscape » 2 years ago

Depian wrote:
2 years ago
Bearscape wrote:
2 years ago
As for banning cards, I don't think powerlevel is the only axis. Obnoxious, unfun gameplay can definitely be a factor in banning a card and I want to say it already has been; things that come to mind for me are Sensei's Divining Top in Legacy; although Miracles was a top tier deck, didn't put up absurd numbers. Matches taking too long was quoted as a tournament organisation issue, but was definitely also a gameplay issue. Nexus of Fate is also a weird case where it really wasn't that overpowered in standard, but just incredibly obnoxious and forcing people to play narrow sideboard cards in the mainboard, which is why it only got banned in best of 1.

On its own, poor gameplay can't be the sole reason for something to ban as it is purely subjective even if a majority of the playerbase agrees a card creates poor gameplay. But if poor gameplay also comes paired with top tier strategies, the threshold of metagame share at which a strong deck is too good gets lowered for me.


tl;dr ban Faitless Looting
Powerlevel is not the only axis but "Unfun gameplay" is not a factor to ban cards, criteria should be as objective as possible and fun or unfun is definitely on the subjective side of things.

Sensei's Divining Top was not banned for being boring, it was banned for the amount of time a player could spend durdling with it ("top, fetch, top, brainstorm, top, fetch, top" could easily be happening during your end step, with faster players it was not an issue as they resolved those fast but most players were not that fast), affecting round times and thus affecting how the tournament developed leading to tournament delays.

Nexus of fate was banned only in MTG arena because the program couldn't do much to prevent a player from simply spending n hours casting Nexus of Fate every turn without any single way to win the game, that situation would be easily solvable in paper magic. It was not banned because it forced people to play niche sideboard cards in the main, that's a BO1 issue on its own, if my opponent chains consecutive Nexus of Fate and start winning from there, it's what their deck tries to do and that's ok.
The problem is when they are out of win conditions so they start cycling Nexus of Fate without altering the game state, that's called stalling and a judge would force the player to pass priority instead of keep looping if they can't advance the game state any further, on Arena, you could simply ignore the judge, and that's an issue.
It's my opinion that poor gameplay should be a factor to ban a card quicker than normal. I'm also certain it is a factor R&D considers, even if they could never acknowledge it because then you open the floodgates. It's been a while since we had a fair deck in modern that needed a ban, but Jund was something like 25 meta share before Bloodbraid Elf got the hammer. Unfair strategies get banned for lower meta shares than fair decks (and rightfully so).

Time issues were quoted as a ban reason for Top, but the witchhunt for that card had been going on much longer by the playerbase and their complaints were not time issues for tournament, it was that the durdling became obnoxious. Nexus of Fate loops could not be prevented in best of 3 just as well as it couldn't be prevented in best of 1, but it only got banned in best of 1. As I said, R&D would never acknowledge it, but if you ask me, community perception of game design is obviously a factor in ban decisions. You want to sell a product, then you don't want people to stop going to events, and you don't want to have coverage gameplay look dull or annoying to play.

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

Post by ktkenshinx » 2 years ago

On the one hand, it's pretty clear that gameplay is one of many factors in a ban. The Nexus ban announcement literally says just that. The KCI ban article also cited gameplay, as did Marvel's ban, Top's ban, and Sunrise's ban. Of those bans, however, only Marvel really stands out as a "true" gameplay ban that could be comparable to Looting. Three others caused time issues: Nexus with 30 minute wins and infinite looping Top and Eggs by adding time to events. KCI was largely a power level ban with a tertiary or even quaternary gameplay consideration. None of those are really comparable to Looting.

Marvel is a weirder case. R&D actually talk about how the deck is not overly strong and appeared quite beatable on paper. They spent most of the time discussing the gameplay issues alone and it reads as a very subjective ban. It's perhaps the only ban where a card was basically voted put by popular opinion. That is a tough precedent to apply because we don't know how popular the opinion was and where the subjective feedback came from, but I suspect it was much more universal in lower power Standard than it would be for Modern Looting decks.

That said, the Marvel article explored a FASCINATING topic I totally forgot about until I reread it: alternate ban models like functional errata, legalization of new cards in formats that don't have them, and a sweet idea called "pair banning" - where two cards could not be played in the same deck but could be played separately, a tactic other TCGs have employed." I love this idea as a way to tune problematic cards and decks without invalidating fringe cards and players who still want to play the cards. I am curious about other ban models that nerf decks without killing them, and it's interesting to see R&D considered it too.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

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

Post by idSurge » 2 years ago

metalmusic_4 wrote:
2 years ago
The Bridge ban is at least not clear cut and I think it is worth drawing attention to how unusual this circumstance/timing/double-ban has been.
How so? They thought it would bring the power level more in line by removing a hard to disrupt combo kill. It was not sufficient, but the reason for the ban was clear.
UR Control UR

User avatar
tronix
Posts: 32
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by tronix » 2 years ago

Depian wrote:
2 years ago
Powerlevel is not the only axis but "Unfun gameplay" is not a factor to ban cards, criteria should be as objective as possible and fun or unfun is definitely on the subjective side of things.
i see this sentiment repeated often, however its important to remember that this only applies to us, here, in the community as onlookers. arguing from a 'subjective' stance typically doesnt hold much weight, which is why we try to look for the 'objective' markers wizards places with their own actions therefore giving us the opportunity to assess and discuss using data or any logic bound field applicable.

although our subjective analysis, our opinions, or our qualitative assessment of the game only merits distinction given some basis for credibility or the persuasiveness of our rhetoric; the very objective of the game, and what wizards designs its products around, is rooted in the 'subjective' experience of its players.

the stuff like fun, levels of engagement, hitting key motivators or triggers, replayability, and the elements seen in gameplay in general are very real objectives being sought after; whether explicitly or implicitly stated. metrics such as how much a card is being played, how much decks are winning, a decks 'meta'-share or presence or anything else that we might look at indicating something being 'too good' or 'too powerful' are just that, indicators; not some objective truth that needs to be proven or disproven. such things are evidence or may imply that the gameplay experience (ie the 'subjective') may be suffering, not the other way around.

for us, the average joe/jane anonymous, there is little recourse when arguing a case for one card or another without the objective pieces, often in the form of data that our resident statistician loves to promote. its difficult to get any traction; often devolving into insubstantial claims or opinions being shouted into the wind as if they were genuine arguments. however for wotc, as the designers and arbiters of a game, cards or decks or whatever detrimentally impacting gameplay (and therefore those buying and using their product) is literally the foremost reason for them to take action. the data points they bring up as justifications are just an extension of that.
bant iceblade
GDS

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

Post by metalmusic_4 » 2 years ago

idSurge wrote:
2 years ago
metalmusic_4 wrote:
2 years ago
The Bridge ban is at least not clear cut and I think it is worth drawing attention to how unusual this circumstance/timing/double-ban has been.
How so? They thought it would bring the power level more in line by removing a hard to disrupt combo kill. It was not sufficient, but the reason for the ban was clear.
For all the reasons ive been talking about. The deck reciebed a ban unusually quickly, we can disagree on if the speed of the banning was correct or not, but the fast speed of the ban was acknowledged during the ban announcement so I think we can all agree that the way that happened was unusual.
The ban announcement specifically said they looked at three cards to ban and the picked bridge. It did remove the mill combo like the wanted, but did not sufficiently weaken the decka and it is EXTREMELY likely hogaak will be banned on monday. I think we are all still in agreement on these facts so far.
Now I inject my opinion, the bridge ban was a failed ban. It's format dominance will forever be tied to hogaak which itself will be banned soon. This reminds me of the BBE ban a lot. The banning of hogaak would also remove the mill combo, rending the bridge ban explanation they gave effectively void. The goal they wanted will be achieved twice over by banning hogaak and bridge is going to stay banned but its unnessesary. Does that remind anyone else of the BBE ban after DRS was removed? The initial banning was clear cut, but it has been proven wrong and that makes it not clear cut anymore.

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

Post by Wraithpk » 2 years ago

metalmusic_4 wrote:
2 years ago
Now I inject my opinion, the bridge ban was a failed ban. It's format dominance will forever be tied to hogaak which itself will be banned soon. This reminds me of the BBE ban a lot. The banning of hogaak would also remove the mill combo, rending the bridge ban explanation they gave effectively void. The goal they wanted will be achieved twice over by banning hogaak and bridge is going to stay banned but its unnessesary. Does that remind anyone else of the BBE ban after DRS was removed? The initial banning was clear cut, but it has been proven wrong and that makes it not clear cut anymore.
Sure, the circumstances behind the ban are similar to BBE. Both were banned when the real problem card was something else. The argument to unban them is not similar, though. BBE is a card that only goes into fair decks. Bridge is a card that only goes into unfair decks. If we've determined that BBE is within the power level of Modern, it's pretty safe to unban it because it's not really a synergy card that's going to be broken by something else they might print in the future. The same is not true for Bridge. It's a card that definitely could be broken again in the future, and might still be now even without Hogaak with all the things they printed in MH1. Plus, you unban cards to give boosts to types of decks that need it. Graveyard decks don't need any help in Modern right now, so there's no reason to unban it.
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: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by metalmusic_4 » 2 years ago

I can agree with that statement. I'm really not just complaining trying to get an unban for bridge, I just think it is worth everyone seeing these similarities. In the future we all may feel differently. Say what you will about whether we should have bridge in the format or is using it playing real magic or not, but we should all realize and remember bridge died for the sins of hogaak. Hogaak was and is the actual problem card.

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

Post by idSurge » 2 years ago

I don't think there is much disagreement there.

The issue for some (me?) is I just don't care that it's gone. Much like I wouldn't care if Treasure Hunt was banned for example.
UR Control UR

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

Post by Wraithpk » 2 years ago

metalmusic_4 wrote:
2 years ago
I can agree with that statement. I'm really not just complaining trying to get an unban for bridge, I just think it is worth everyone seeing these similarities. In the future we all may feel differently. Say what you will about whether we should have bridge in the format or is using it playing real magic or not, but we should all realize and remember bridge died for the sins of hogaak. Hogaak was and is the actual problem card.
Sure, but that doesn't mean that Bridge is an innocent card. Like, I could see a world where Mox Opal ends up getting banned because of Whirza or some other busted artifact deck. Maybe the real problem card is Urza or something else, but that doesn't mean that Mox Opal is without fault. It's an inherently unfair card that's doing something that they've actively tried to keep out of Modern, for the most part, but it's been allowed to live because it hasn't been a part of a broken deck yet. We all know that it's on the chopping block, though.

On another note, I just saw a youtube video where a guy was playing on MTGO against someone playing a Hogaakless Hogaak deck, I guess in preparation of the ban. The deck is still pretty powerful even without Hogaak. Vengevine is still a good strategy to build around, and there's a ton of enablers for them left even without Hogaak. Watching that also solidified to me that Bridge was a good ban even if Hogaak was banned first. It would still be too good in the Vengevine deck even without Hogaak, Carrion feeder was a huge addition to that archetype.
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: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by metalmusic_4 » 2 years ago

idSurge wrote:
2 years ago
I don't think there is much disagreement there.

The issue for some (me?) is I just don't care that it's gone. Much like I wouldn't care if Treasure Hunt was banned for example.
Ok, I feel very differently. I would scream to the high heavens if they did something as ridiculous as ban treasure hunt. Bridge is an unfair card, but I want to see bans make sense. It made some sense at first but evidence has shown me they were just wrong and the ban no longer makes sense to me. Feeder was a boost for the deck, but again it is so intertwined with hogaak that it is hard to separate the evidence. I will be looking for the hogaakless hogaak deck and if that stays teir 1 then that completely changes things by presenting new evidence. I'm not unreasonable, I can change my opinions when new info is presented. I guess we'll see.

User avatar
tronix
Posts: 32
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by tronix » 2 years ago

really it showcases (probably anyways) that the requirements to ban a card and those to unban a card dont exactly align. bridge was a very reasonable target given it was a central component of the most 'degenerate' play patterns the bridgevine deck could exhibit that also happened to let it circumvent the combat step; all while leaving it plausible that some hogaak + vengevine deck would remain competitive (which is presumably one of their objectives).

any notion that the ban was 'wrong' or 'unjust' and therefore the card should be unbanned holds little water as an argument given there are pretty clear examples of wizards not adhering to such a rationale. its somewhat akin to the philosophy many subscribe to where any card that can be unbanned should be. its great to think about but there is little indication this is how wizards actually curates the ban list. typically they are looking for cards that fit into the narrative that the format is spinning at any given point. in that regard i believe bridge garners very little sympathy right now given the continued success of GY centric aggressive creature decks over the last 1.5ish-2 years.

granted i also believe the point ktkenshinx brought up about unbans being relatively unpredictable holds true. for as much as we attempt to craft some objective model for what constitutes a bannable card, unbans have been too infrequent and all over the place. that said, it would only further disappoint me if they unbanned bridge without first scrutinizing other potential candidates on the ban list that arguably have a better capacity to expand and improve the format more than a semi-competitive to irrelevant explosive GY creature deck.
bant iceblade
GDS

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

Post by idSurge » 2 years ago

metalmusic_4 wrote:
2 years ago
idSurge wrote:
2 years ago
I don't think there is much disagreement there.

The issue for some (me?) is I just don't care that it's gone. Much like I wouldn't care if Treasure Hunt was banned for example.
Ok, I feel very differently. I would scream to the high heavens if they did something as ridiculous as ban treasure hunt. Bridge is an unfair card, but I want to see bans make sense. It made some sense at first but evidence has shown me they were just wrong and the ban no longer makes sense to me. Feeder was a boost for the deck, but again it is so intertwined with hogaak that it is hard to separate the evidence. I will be looking for the hogaakless hogaak deck and if that stays teir 1 then that completely changes things by presenting new evidence. I'm not unreasonable, I can change my opinions when new info is presented. I guess we'll see.
Bans have not made sense since Twin.

That said my opinion is clearly tinted by my few of the format over the last 10 or 11 months, the fact Twin and SFM are banned, and the fact I have played less and less for the last year, and when WoW Classic is released I will unfollow 90% of the Magic related accounts I currently do on Twitter, and will likely not come back here UNLESS Twin is finally, righteously, freed with the Hogaak ban on Monday.

To say I have my foot out the door is an understatement, I'm holding a gas can and I've crossed the bridge with a lighter. :D

So ya, I'm checked out, have been for most of the year, and to me, the format is currently in need of deep and fundamental change. Banning Bridge is just a step in the right direction for me.
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

idSurge wrote:
2 years ago
Bans have not made sense since Twin.
I know you are unhappy with that ban, but let's not blow everything out of proportion as a result. This is the kind of hyperbole we need to push back against in the wake of Hogaak Summer. Recovery is going to be hard enough as is without us rewriting Modern history because of a single 2016 ban that absolutely did not mark the end of sensible bans. Almost every ban since then has been completely explicable and justifiable. The same is true of every lack of ban. Unbans remain unpredictable and inconsistent, but the bans have been just fine.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

User avatar
TheAnnihilator
Posts: 222
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: US
Contact:

Post by TheAnnihilator » 2 years ago

To be honest, I wasn't really on board with a Bridge unban at first, mainly because I don't think Modern needs more degenerate graveyard strategies, but I think I've changed my mind. As an opponent of the Twin ban, I have come around and totally see the case for unbanning Bridge.

Twin was credited as a ban to promote blue diversity, and it simply didn't do that. I think that there is no need for it to remain banned.

Bridge was banned to power-down Hogaak, and it didn't accomplish that. As much as I hate to admit it, I think that there is no need for Bridge to remain banned either. If it proves problematic now or in the future, then ban it. I just had a harder time accepting that due to personal bias, but I realized I was pulling the same opinionated arguments we have heard countless times against a Twin unban.

That said, now is absolutely NOT the time to unban Bridge, seeing as Hogaak is even still legal in the format. The risk of a BridgeVine deck dominating so soon after Hogaak is too high. That said, I think I'll be supportive of a Bridge unban in the future. I won't be sad if it never even gets considered, though.

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

Post by idSurge » 2 years ago

I will blow it out of proportion. Twin was wrong, and it remains so. SFM is wrong. Nactl? Wrong. Sword of the meek? Bitterblossom? AV?

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.

In a completely objective view, I can accept Bridge was/is/could be Wrong.

Now though? Closer to 4 years than 3 since Forsythe kicked my dog?

No, the ban list doesn't make objective sense, so I must assume a subjective element to a greater or lesser degree.

As such? I don't care they banned bridge, it would never improve the format.
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

idSurge wrote:
2 years ago
I will blow it out of proportion. Twin was wrong, and it remains so. SFM is wrong. Nactl? Wrong. Sword of the meek? Bitterblossom? AV?

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.

In a completely objective view, I can accept Bridge was/is/could be Wrong.

Now though? Closer to 4 years than 3 since Forsythe kicked my dog?

No, the ban list doesn't make objective sense, so I must assume a subjective element to a greater or lesser degree.

As such? I don't care they banned bridge, it would never improve the format.
Oh, I may have misinterpreted. If you're saying the lack of unbans on the banlist / some cards on the banlist are wrong, I don't necessarily disagree. But "Bans have not made sense since Twin" suggests that Eye, Probe, GGT, KCI, Bridge, and Hogaak were all bans that didn't make sense. Or the lack of bans on other cards. Those two things are fine. But there are definitely cards on the banlist that shouldn't be there. Also, I don't understand why Nacatl/Sword/AV/BB are on your list. Two of those happened immediately after Twin and two were before Twin. So how does that lead to bans not making sense SINCE Twin?
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

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

Post by idSurge » 2 years ago

I should have said the ban list hasnt made sense.

First, I'll never agree with anyone at this point that Twin should have been banned. Too much ink has been spilled here and MTGS already so its not worth debating, as I think broadly we agree that it was under false pretense anyway.

2nd, the things rotting on the ban list, even if they came off post twin, should likely NEVER have been there. We even saw the utter PANIC from people who were 'furious' that cards like AV or Jace came off only to...either do quite literally nothing, or need half a dozen or more cards to make them 'great' for AV/Jace specifically.

Cards like Nacatl, Sword (again only NOW good with an Infinite Engine) and BB? Should not have been on the list likely ever. BB is still a Tier 3 deck card, and Nacatl is even worse.

So no, at one point we could look at metrics and reasonably say that cards were going to be banned out of a deck, but Twin caught near everyone with their pants down, and thats the point where (openly biased, subjective opinion) the Ban List jumped the shark. It wasnt there to protect the format anymore, but to manipulate the format. For Masters sets, for Pro Tours, for Reprints.

Again though, thats what it would take for me to even consider spending any further time with Modern, and likely Magic at all.

Aug 26th:

Ban: Hogaak, Arisen Necropolis
Unban: Splinter Twin, Stoneforge Mystic

Anything less and it's simply not going to be remotely worth my time to play anymore, just to what? Go back to Phoenix/Dredge and now with Urza going off Turn 3? Still needing 4+ GY Hate and now Artifact too? Still not playing the decks I want, chasing 'the next set will fix it!' when cards have no business being banned just sit there?

lol no.
UR Control UR

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Modern”