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

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

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

Tron vs OuaT? OuaT is worse for the game.

Opal/Vial → If you go back a few years now the pillars of the format were Looting, Stirrings, and Vial. Vial decks fell off because Humans and Spirits just couldnt keep up with what 2019 did to the format.

Tron was covered last page, its not that Tron is an issue, its that cards added to Tron are too good, and the London Mulligan makes 'Land, land, land, Karn' too consistent.

I have played countless Blood Moons, you absolutely can play around it.

Of course I have played Lantern. If you dont account for removal of artifacts, you used to just lose in Modern. Stony Silence and Knight of Autumn were great.

The problem is not the card that did nothing for literally a decade, the problem is 2019 Karn.

Infect/Burn DO add something to Modern. They can (or should) eat Tron.

The London Mull changes your flavour of non-games, thats all. Instead of you losing to a mull to the abyss, you lose to a nut draw.

Yes, every bad step Wizards has made, every single one, was made a little worse because Twin was banned to precede it. ;)
UR Control UR

User avatar
Amalgam
Posts: 151
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Amalgam » 1 year ago

Well this thread sure imploded overnight. You guys are honestly just going mental now to the point it's more of a joke than actual discussion. I cant see more than 3 bans happening followed by 1-2 bans a few months later as that's how wizards normally operates. Wizards needs time between bans and even jus 2-3 bans on it's own creates a massive meta shift on it's own. Just saying we should delete 4-5 decks from modern is both stupid and will never actually happen so can we just push that discussion to the side please

Tomatotime
Posts: 197
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Tomatotime » 1 year ago

idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
Tron vs OuaT? OuaT is worse for the game.
I'm sorry but in my years playing Modern, this statement just feels utterly absurd, I have NEVER seen Once Upon a Time do anything even remotely as degenerate in any deck period compared to Tron.
idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
Tron was covered last page, its not that Tron is an issue, its that cards added to Tron are too good, and the London Mulligan makes 'Land, land, land, Karn' too consistent.
idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
The London Mull changes your flavour of non-games, thats all. Instead of you losing to a mull to the abyss, you lose to a nut draw.
These just seem like more arguments in favor of banning Tron to be honest since Tron is the most obvious outlier in terms of the London Mulligan.
idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
I have played countless Blood Moons, you absolutely can play around it.
Except when you can't than the game immediately ends, kind of like Twin, except just 1 card.
idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
Of course I have played Lantern. If you dont account for removal of artifacts, you used to just lose in Modern. Stony Silence and Knight of Autumn were great.
How do you draw these cards against Lantern? They won't let you.
idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
Infect/Burn DO add something to Modern. They can (or should) eat Tron.
Which would be an irrelevant point if Tron were gone.

User avatar
drmarkb
Posts: 553
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by drmarkb » 1 year ago

Bridge is fine. I have hid behind a few, they buy a few turns- at most. So many decks ignore it. Every critter colour deals with it, even Brazen borrower in blue is maindeckable.

Ditto moon. I often played against Top control, rarely had an issue, Leyline of sanctity was rather hard for them. Thoughtseize was more problematic than bridge in a lot of matches. , doubt anyone wants that banned. Burn or fast aggro always won. Always. People dying to Moon in Modern were just playing badly and fetching the wrong land too often. Legacy players often fetchbasics first due to Moon and Wasteland. Modern players often failed to learn this type of lesson. Make a mistake fetching you lose is fair enough. By turn two you can have two colours in basic lands that can't be Wasted. Moon helps stops degenerate 4 colour deck vs 4 colour deck.

I think Modern will implode regardless without support, and to be honest you can see people want such vastly different things from it. I want to play Prisons or control and low critter decks. I want to not play against one card engines like Pod, or AB combo, but am. Ok with ramp valakut decks. Someone else wants to play nothing but, and someone else wants to ban prison cards. Someone else wants jund to be great. It is such a mess.

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

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

[mention]Tomatotime[/mention]

1. To me, its not about what a card is doing right now. Some of these cards are simply a mistake, and OuaT is one of them.
2. I'll have to just disagree on the London Mull. From a high level point of view, I just dont see the need for it, and the benefits are to decks that are not ideal to boost.
3. Outside of really rare 'gotcha' SSG, SSG, Mountain, Blood Moon, its so damn rare. If it was this 'one card win', why is it not seen at the top of the meta, main decked?
4. You fight it from multiple angles. Again, Lantern is not even a thing now, so where is this boogieman?
5. Why limit diversity even further?

My position is that we can have deck and archetype diversity, and that should be the ultimate goal. I'd rather we have 10 Tier 1 decks, and 15 Tier 2 decks, than Midrange vs Midrange/Control.
UR Control UR

Tomatotime
Posts: 197
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Tomatotime » 1 year ago

drmarkb wrote:
1 year ago
I think Modern will implode regardless without support, and to be honest you can see people want such vastly different things from it. I want to play Prisons or control and low critter decks. I want to not play against one card engines like Pod, or AB combo, but am. Ok with ramp valakut decks. Someone else wants to play nothing but, and someone else wants to ban prison cards. Someone else wants jund to be great. It is such a mess.
I agree with this take a least, and unless Wotc actually defines what Modern is supposed to be and actually takes action to enforce that definition, we will all just be pecking at each other non stop.

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

Post by robertleva » 1 year ago

Amalgam wrote:
1 year ago
Well this thread sure imploded overnight. You guys are honestly just going mental now to the point it's more of a joke than actual discussion. I cant see more than 3 bans happening followed by 1-2 bans a few months later as that's how wizards normally operates. Wizards needs time between bans and even jus 2-3 bans on it's own creates a massive meta shift on it's own. Just saying we should delete 4-5 decks from modern is both stupid and will never actually happen so can we just push that discussion to the side please
Sure they will only ban a couple cards but thats the frigging problem isn't it?? It's NEVER been enough. It's always too little wayyyyyy too late. Drastic times call for drastic measures. Y'all wanna just sit here and spout the same "ban a card here or there, then wait 6 months" methodology that has put us in this mess I don;t know what to tell you.
Robert Leva
Creator of Modern's 8Rack Deck
Image

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

Post by robertleva » 1 year ago

idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
robertleva wrote:
1 year ago
I am completely serious. Delete those decks, or completely neuter them to the point of trash tier. Then the format can be FUN. I dont care if you like those decks they are BAD for the game!
Thats never going to fly in a non rotational format. Trust, I hate Tron to the point where random Tron players on Twitter have me blocked, but people should be allowed to play it.
Even if it kills the format? Surely not, and that is literally where we are now. One of the biggest selling points of Pioneer is no Tron.
Last edited by robertleva 1 year ago, edited 1 time in total.
Robert Leva
Creator of Modern's 8Rack Deck
Image

User avatar
Amalgam
Posts: 151
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Amalgam » 1 year ago

robertleva wrote:
1 year ago
Amalgam wrote:
1 year ago
Well this thread sure imploded overnight. You guys are honestly just going mental now to the point it's more of a joke than actual discussion. I cant see more than 3 bans happening followed by 1-2 bans a few months later as that's how wizards normally operates. Wizards needs time between bans and even jus 2-3 bans on it's own creates a massive meta shift on it's own. Just saying we should delete 4-5 decks from modern is both stupid and will never actually happen so can we just push that discussion to the side please
Sure they will only ban a couple cards but thats the frigging problem isn't it?? It's NEVER been enough. It's always too little wayyyyyy too late. Drastic times call for drastic measures. Y'all wanna just sit here and spout the same "ban a card here or there, then wait 6 months" methodology that has put us in this mess I don;t know what to tell you.
Because it's about being realistic rather than dreaming up 20 fantasy bans against every deck you don't like in modern such ad what's happening in this thread right now. Its outright pointless as it will never happen

User avatar
FoodChainGoblins
Level 47
Posts: 815
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Riverside

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 1 year ago

Tomatotime wrote:
1 year ago
idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
Tron vs OuaT? OuaT is worse for the game.
I'm sorry but in my years playing Modern, this statement just feels utterly absurd, I have NEVER seen Once Upon a Time do anything even remotely as degenerate in any deck period compared to Tron.
idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
Tron was covered last page, its not that Tron is an issue, its that cards added to Tron are too good, and the London Mulligan makes 'Land, land, land, Karn' too consistent.
idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
The London Mull changes your flavour of non-games, thats all. Instead of you losing to a mull to the abyss, you lose to a nut draw.
These just seem like more arguments in favor of banning Tron to be honest since Tron is the most obvious outlier in terms of the London Mulligan.
idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
I have played countless Blood Moons, you absolutely can play around it.
Except when you can't than the game immediately ends, kind of like Twin, except just 1 card.
idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
Of course I have played Lantern. If you dont account for removal of artifacts, you used to just lose in Modern. Stony Silence and Knight of Autumn were great.
How do you draw these cards against Lantern? They won't let you.
idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
Infect/Burn DO add something to Modern. They can (or should) eat Tron.
Which would be an irrelevant point if Tron were gone.
I have to chime in here. Once Upon a Time has done more degenerate stuff than Tron has done. I get that Tron has been around for longer, so you can say "Tron has done more degenerate stuff" simply as a factor of it being around longer, but Tron got pushed by the London Mulligan just like idSurge said. Before then, it was fine and even with Tron gone, the London mulligan would 100% still be a problem. I feel like some people are using the London mulligan to force their agenda, sort of like how Hogaak got Bridge from Below banned (sort of how a Mox Opal ban instead of the problem - Urza, would be stupid). I don't like when a new problem is introduced to make an old staple seem like the issue.

As for Blood Moon, I am sort of between both of you on the issue. The card can win games, especially if your deck is not naturally strong against it (mana dorks, Astrolabe, basics). But there is definitely a way to try to play around it the best you can. But I definitely can see where you're coming from because some decks just can't do that much. I think it is all right, as Blood Moon has not really presented much of an overall problem in Modern - just occasionally shut some people down and not let them play Magic. I've "not let people play Magic" with a million Modern decks that I've played.

You definitely do have a point with Lantern, but if you hedged enough (I know that it's impossible to do in a large meta), you can definitely find what you need to beat them. I have used everything from playing Turns, to Chalice of the Void to Abrupt Decay to Leyline of Sanctity. The deck was sort of an issue a while ago, but why rehash all that?

Burn and Infect are decks that I absolutely do not enjoy playing. Still, they are needed. Yes, they are a necessity to a rock/paper/scissors metagame. We need decks like this, even if I personally hate them and wouldn't mind seeing them leave (until the meta becomes messed up because of their absence that is). People love playing these strategies and they shouldn't be denied them any more than I should be denied playing Combo.
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
robertleva
Posts: 484
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by robertleva » 1 year ago

Amalgam wrote:
1 year ago
robertleva wrote:
1 year ago
Amalgam wrote:
1 year ago
Well this thread sure imploded overnight. You guys are honestly just going mental now to the point it's more of a joke than actual discussion. I cant see more than 3 bans happening followed by 1-2 bans a few months later as that's how wizards normally operates. Wizards needs time between bans and even jus 2-3 bans on it's own creates a massive meta shift on it's own. Just saying we should delete 4-5 decks from modern is both stupid and will never actually happen so can we just push that discussion to the side please
Sure they will only ban a couple cards but thats the frigging problem isn't it?? It's NEVER been enough. It's always too little wayyyyyy too late. Drastic times call for drastic measures. Y'all wanna just sit here and spout the same "ban a card here or there, then wait 6 months" methodology that has put us in this mess I don;t know what to tell you.
Because it's about being realistic rather than dreaming up 20 fantasy bans against every deck you don't like in modern such ad what's happening in this thread right now. Its outright pointless as it will never happen
No more pointless then just bending over and taking it while they keep on doing the same old same old that has gotten us here. You stay in your lane I will stay in mine thank you very much.
Robert Leva
Creator of Modern's 8Rack Deck
Image

Tomatotime
Posts: 197
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Tomatotime » 1 year ago

FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
but Tron got pushed by the London Mulligan just like idSurge said. Before then, it was fine
I'm sorry but if that is your view of history than I simply must be playing a different game than you. We could simply have had very different experiences within the format over the years, but from my perspective, the second Ugin got printed, Tron has been getting nonstop steroid buffs for years and it makes for degenerate game play.

On another topic, can you show a specific example of Once Upon a Time doing something fundamentally wrong? Is there some feature match video you can point to? I'm just more curious at this point than anything since so many people make an issue out of Once Upon a Time.

User avatar
FoodChainGoblins
Level 47
Posts: 815
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Riverside

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 1 year ago

Tomatotime wrote:
1 year ago
FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
but Tron got pushed by the London Mulligan just like idSurge said. Before then, it was fine
I'm sorry but if that is your view of history than I simply must be playing a different game than you. We could simply have had very different experiences within the format over the years, but from my perspective, the second Ugin got printed, Tron has been getting nonstop steroid buffs for years and it makes for degenerate game play.

On another topic, can you show a specific example of Once Upon a Time doing something fundamentally wrong? Is there some feature match video you can point to? I'm just more curious at this point than anything since so many people make an issue out of Once Upon a Time.
Tron has certainly gotten a lot of buffs over the years. I would point out Ugin, the Spirit Dragon and Ulamog, the Ceaseless Hunger over most other cards. I used to play Bogles a lot. At one point, I had won something like 91% of my matches vs. Tron. Enter the new Ugin being printed. After that, I struggled to keep it at 50%. This is real time losing. My deck had become obsolete. It took me a while to realize it, but Bogles hasn't received buffs over the years and just is not that strong a deck, even if I used to slaughter my local meta of 60+ players and 6-7 rounds with it in the PAST. That's what it is - the past.

Tron %$#% on fair decks. Quick combo decks and to a lesser extent, quick Aggro decks can beat it. This is okay, as it presents a rock/paper/scissors situation. It is fine to stomp some decks while getting stomped by others. I realize that the matchups being so polarized (at high win or loss percentages) leads to a lot of players just naturally hating the deck. But I have never felt it to be the largest problem at any time in Modern. Never.

With Once Upon a Time, it just shouldn't be a free card. It shouldn't cost 0. That's it. I play Amulet Titan and I have 11 Prime Times - 4 Prime Time, 4 Summoner's Pact, and 3 Tolaria West. All range in efficacy because of how much mana is needed or their spell type. With Once Upon a Time, it ups it to 15 Prime Times, which is HUGE in a deck like this. It also makes sure I almost always get turn 1 Sakura-Tribe Scout or the land needed to cast it. The card should not be free. If it didn't have that clause, I believe it would be fine for Modern.
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

Aazadan
Posts: 516
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Aazadan » 1 year ago

idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
Aazadan wrote:
1 year ago
idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
1. Remove the absolute %$#% that is the London Mulligan.
What do you believe the problem with the London Mulligan is? I know that when it came out, many people were apprehensive of what it would do to certain decks, but the idea at the time was that bans could correct that if necessary. Why is removing a much better mulligan preferable to making ban list corrections?
I'm on record as wanting MULTIPLE, more than most people by far, bans and an unban.

I also firmly believe that in a format where you do not need card advantage, and decks are already hyper consistent, when you allow for people to sculpt a 4 or 5 card hand and ensure you get those explosive starts, its provides no reason to do anything but play a linear proactive game plan.

It further widens the gulf between Tier 1, and Tier 2 level decks.

We should not want bans to correct things, when a prior rule was better for keeping variance at an acceptable level. I wish LSV had just had the nuts and won that PT, because if not for him mulling to the abyss, we would all be better off.
My counter to that point would be that many tier 2 decks are tier 2 because of consistency issues. A London Mulligan will improve that. The Vancouver Mulligan still wasn't good enough and the data supports that.

The issue of games being linear isn't really changed with the current mulligan plan, but it does have the advantage of making sideboards far more relevant.

Mtgthewary
Posts: 219
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Mtgthewary » 1 year ago

metalmusic_4 wrote:
1 year ago
Mtgthewary wrote:
1 year ago
Why we want ban so many cards, if mox alone do same (maybe more?). Emry? It's fine without mox helping it turn 1... Urza? It's fine if he can use it most early turn 4. You all want cards banned around the real problem. We need to stop core of this stuff
I am willing to hear this out. Mox opal has been powerful and a relitivly minor problem for a long time, similar but to a lesser extent to the way faithless looting was. So to follow the ban core pieces model strictly you would ban mox opal, and I'm assuming oko too, and what else?

A Mox and oko ban would certainly down power the urza decks and that may be enough for that achatype, but the format almost certainly needs more done than that. Peole are eyeing OUaT and veil of summer as ban targets instead of something bigger like the titan itself. What else needs done under the only ban core peice philosophy? Certainly twin and pod would never be unbanned with this line of thinking. The whole ban list would need to be reworked if you stuck to this philosophy strictly. (Looking at you cantrips, storm ramp spells, summer bloom and more)

I think they should ban oko, urza, lattice, astrolabe.
Unban Twin and bridge from below.

That may not hurt titan much, but the oko ban would help. I would rather ban urza than mox opal, urza will just find more peices to combo with if he remains legal.
oko, mox and something from Tron, but I am not sure what. Then look how urza without mox does... I really think it's after only good but not broken

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

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

robertleva wrote:
1 year ago
idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
robertleva wrote:
1 year ago
I am completely serious. Delete those decks, or completely neuter them to the point of trash tier. Then the format can be FUN. I dont care if you like those decks they are BAD for the game!
Thats never going to fly in a non rotational format. Trust, I hate Tron to the point where random Tron players on Twitter have me blocked, but people should be allowed to play it.
Even if it kills the format? Surely not, and that is literally where we are now. One of the biggest selling points of Pioneer is no Tron.
If you remove decks like Tron/Dredge/Lantern, then it's not Modern.
UR Control UR

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

Post by ktkenshinx » 1 year ago

FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
Re: bans
Lattice, Veil, and OUaT all fit my so-called "nerf ban" model of eliminating problematic cards without killing their core decks. Oko needs to go for format dominance reasons at this point, even if it's the core of certain UGx strategies. At a minimum, all four of those cards should be banned today (or ASAP) to rebalance Modern. Astrolabe should also be up for discussion, along with Urza himself and potentially Emry. I'd also add T3feri to my nerf ban list, as it homogenizes Ux decks towards UWx and represents yet another god awful, format-wrecking 2019 design mistake. This ban update also needs to have clear marching directives from Wizards about where their format curation is heading in 2020.
You don't think Oko, Thief of Crowns needs a ban? This card is so pervasive that it is now in Bant Snowblade, most versions of Urza decks, Amulet, Infect, and players are splashing him in decks like Titanshift, etc. This card is just too much and super strong. After coming back from playing at CFB's Game Center in Santa Clara, I am convinced that in more competitive metas, Oko is NOT all right.
I literally said "Oko needs to go for format dominance reasons." It is at the top of my banlist.
Tomatotime wrote:
1 year ago
Personally I'm kind of tired of all these posts calling for bans of exclusively 2019 cards, I'm not sure how people think that will actually solve anything, Modern has been a dumpster fire since well before 2019, if you want to fix it via banning, than people need to freely advocate for pre-2019 cards to be banned, such as:

Tron
Blood Moon
Ensnaring Bridge
Lattice
Something from infect?
Something from burn?
etc.
Tron is a fine check on midrange and grindy strategies. There are ways to depower it without killing the deck. Wizards must avoid killing decks if at all possible because it undermines format confidence almost as much as letting the format implode. It also leads to uncertain, cascading issues if Tron is holding back grindy strategies. Moon creates nongames and honestly, at this point, I wouldn't be sad with it dying. Bridge, however, is fine and invites significant counterplay. Bridge doesn't turn off the means to deal with it, unlike Moon. Lattice must go (but also, that's a 2019 problem, not a Lattice problem), and Infect/Burn are (probably) fine but it also probably wouldn't hurt Modern to nerf-ban elements of some linear decks.
Amalgam wrote:
1 year ago
Well this thread sure imploded overnight. You guys are honestly just going mental now to the point it's more of a joke than actual discussion. I cant see more than 3 bans happening followed by 1-2 bans a few months later as that's how wizards normally operates. Wizards needs time between bans and even jus 2-3 bans on it's own creates a massive meta shift on it's own. Just saying we should delete 4-5 decks from modern is both stupid and will never actually happen so can we just push that discussion to the side please
The format is on fire right now. Wizards needs to take multiple aggressive bans to save it, likely an unban, and then release a statement about Modern's direction going forward. There is no other option that is going to reverse the format's trajectory. As someone who has tirelessly advocated for critical, rational, non-hyperbolic, measured discussion, I am going on record saying that Modern has never, ever been in a worse spot. Wizards needs to take aggressive, public, and sweeping action to reverse its decline or this format is a goner by 2021. And this doesn't even address the Pioneer pressures the format also needs to overcome!

Wizards needs to ban Oko, OUaT, Veil, Lattice, either Urza or Opal, and probably a variety of other so-called nerf-ban cards to restabilize the format. Examples of such nerf bans would be Creeping Chill, Nature's Claim, Force of Vigor, Scale Up, T3feri, and potentially a few others. We have overwhelming metagame and format data that shows the format is exceedingly unhealthy on multiple fronts. Sweeping bans like these will mostly allow players to keep their decks, get ahead of metagame shifts to the next unhealthy thing, and dramatically improving format experience and player engagement.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

User avatar
FoodChainGoblins
Level 47
Posts: 815
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Riverside

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
I literally said "Oko needs to go for format dominance reasons." It is at the top of my banlist.
Sorry for the confusion.
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

CurdBros
Posts: 55
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by CurdBros » 1 year ago

The format is on fire right now. Wizards needs to take multiple aggressive bans to save it, likely an unban, and then release a statement about Modern's direction going forward. There is no other option that is going to reverse the format's trajectory. As someone who has tirelessly advocated for critical, rational, non-hyperbolic, measured discussion, I am going on record saying that Modern has never, ever been in a worse spot. Wizards needs to take aggressive, public, and sweeping action to reverse its decline or this format is a goner by 2021. And this doesn't even address the Pioneer pressures the format also needs to overcome!

Wizards needs to ban Oko, OUaT, Veil, Lattice, either Urza or Opal, and probably a variety of other so-called nerf-ban cards to restabilize the format. Examples of such nerf bans would be Creeping Chill, Nature's Claim, Force of Vigor, Scale Up, T3feri, and potentially a few others. We have overwhelming metagame and format data that shows the format is exceedingly unhealthy on multiple fronts. Sweeping bans like these will mostly allow players to keep their decks, get ahead of metagame shifts to the next unhealthy thing, and dramatically improving format experience and player engagement.
I couldn't have said it better myself. I think this post is SPOT on. In my opinion WOTC needs to ban Oko, OUAT, Veil, Lattice, Opal, and I would personally add Simian Spirit Guide to the list as well. A couple of weeks ago I likened it to "ripping of the band-aid". Just do it at once and see what happens. I think major bans are needed and also just as importantly WOTC needs to make a statement about their support of the modern format in the future for the players confidence. I don't think they will do sweeping bans, but i hope they do. If they truly do want modern to continue into the future then a statement costs them nothing and gains the player bases confidence into the future. At least the short term future. They would have really benefited from making that type of statement when pioneer was released instead of "putting modern on the back burner" at the time.

The post above is my vote for post of the year. I wrote to Maro on his blogatog today asking if he thought that WOTC would make a confidence statement for modern in the near future. I will let you all know if he responds.

Aazadan
Posts: 516
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Aazadan » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
Wizards needs to ban Oko, OUaT, Veil, Lattice, either Urza or Opal, and probably a variety of other so-called nerf-ban cards to restabilize the format. Examples of such nerf bans would be Creeping Chill, Nature's Claim, Force of Vigor, Scale Up, T3feri, and potentially a few others. We have overwhelming metagame and format data that shows the format is exceedingly unhealthy on multiple fronts. Sweeping bans like these will mostly allow players to keep their decks, get ahead of metagame shifts to the next unhealthy thing, and dramatically improving format experience and player engagement.
I'm starting to come around on your nerf ban argument. But I think a couple cards are still missing the mark. Urza/Opal I think are ok, and are just one more thing in a long line of degeneracy powered by Astrolabe. I would hit both Astrolabe and Mishra's Bauble instead of Urza and/or Opal. Force of Vigor I would only remove if Blood Moon is also removed (Magus is fine though, as all colors have creature removal), Once Upon a Time I would leave in for now, but I would eliminate a few other cards too.

Oko I'm not fully on board with, but not opposed to either... I'm basically fine either way. I don't fully accept the format dominance argument for Oko yet, because it just passed Tarmogoyf as the most played threat in the formats history (outside of Eldrazi Winter). I admit that it's getting very, very close though. Especially when it doesn't slot into a deck as easily as Goyf does. Any higher rise in metagame share (which I'm pretty sure we're going to get, but I want to see them first), and my reservations on the dominance argument are gone.

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

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
Wizards needs to ban Oko, OUaT, Veil, Lattice, either Urza or Opal, and probably a variety of other so-called nerf-ban cards to restabilize the format. Examples of such nerf bans would be Creeping Chill, Nature's Claim, Force of Vigor, Scale Up, T3feri, and potentially a few others. We have overwhelming metagame and format data that shows the format is exceedingly unhealthy on multiple fronts. Sweeping bans like these will mostly allow players to keep their decks, get ahead of metagame shifts to the next unhealthy thing, and dramatically improving format experience and player engagement.
100% this.
Aazadan wrote:
1 year ago
My counter to that point would be that many tier 2 decks are tier 2 because of consistency issues. A London Mulligan will improve that. The Vancouver Mulligan still wasn't good enough and the data supports that.
What part of any data whatsoever points the London Mull helping Tier 2 decks? At all?
UR Control UR

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

Post by iTaLenTZ » 1 year ago

Ban Oko, OUAT, Veil, Lattice, Opal, SSG, Creeping Chill, Scale Up, T3feri, Field of the Dead, Ancient Stirrings, Devoted Druid, W6

The fact so many cards need/should get banned so Modern becomes a healthy format means the format is rotten at its core. Modern Horizons was the chance for Wizards to introduce the very much needed answers to all these cards, answers deemed too strong for Standard, yet except for FoN we only got even stronger threats with the likes of Hogaak, Urza and W6 and support cards like Astrolabe.

If so many cards need to get banned to fulfil Modern's prerequisites it can also mean Modern is simply outdated and needs to be redefined. I rather have a format reboot than so many bans trying to artificially implement a format which has fundamental* problems that can't be solved. Without this its just waiting for the next set of cards to break the format.
Last edited by iTaLenTZ 1 year ago, edited 1 time in total.

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

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

Note that several of these cards have hit Legacy and Vintage.

You know, the ones that have the deepest card pools, and answers that will never be printed. 2019 could be deleted from the library, and the game would dramatically improve.

You DO just ban these cards, and then go from there.
UR Control UR

Aazadan
Posts: 516
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Aazadan » 1 year ago

idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
What part of any data whatsoever points the London Mull helping Tier 2 decks? At all?
None, but there's also real data that suggests otherwise either. According to this we had 39 decks in 2018 with a 1% or higher metagame share. In the past 2 months, despite considerable consolidation in the meta due to Oko there are 35 decks, and across all of 2019 (of which half had the London Mulligan) there are 37 decks meeting those criteria.

Thus, there's a total absence of data that it's actually hurting things, as the Oko and Hogaak impacts on the meta are a much more likely explanation for those results. So at worst it is neutral in Modern given the available data, at best it could have even blunted the impact of those decks. Meaning, there's no data to support the idea of rolling back the rule on the basis of it being bad for the format.

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

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

Any non rotational format that has the number of eyes and rep's put in against it will struggle.

You do not need to ban out people's decks, to decrease the power level. If you are going to just accept that this is the new normal, then I would LOVE Wizards to come out and say so, so we can all stop wasting our time.
UR Control UR

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Modern”