[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

Comically enough, 'fun' is not objective.

Twin is fun to a great many people who near 5 years later wish for it to return.

The London Mulligan is enjoyed by people who just want to jam 'their deck' and avoid the pitfalls of certain strategies not being as consistent as they would like, while also powering up their linear, synergistic decks as the expense of slower, more card advantage/attrition based play.

There is a pattern here though, I will admit to that, and I would propose that if you are the type who would like to play Control or even Midrange, you are going to like the London Mulligan less than Combo/Aggro/Ramp players.

And no, the format is not fading because its 'not fun'. It has a number of problems, but fun was never the issue at the formats high's, unless you consider Twin/BGx as 'fun'. Thats the formats peak.
UR Control UR

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

Post by robertleva » 1 year ago

Pretty much everyone agrees the format isn't fun and hasn't been for years. If you don't think that way then you are in the minority, as far as I can tell.
Robert Leva
Creator of Modern's 8Rack Deck
Image

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

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

Then Modern has not been fun for half a decade, Its not 'fun' that is the deciding factor on format health.

Its broken cards, broken levels of card representation, and a lack of balance. Its a lack of a future with pioneer. Its a lack of reasonable police decks.

Your vision of Modern, is not even Modern, and represents a completely new format.

I agree Modern has been trash for years, but we disagree on why.
UR Control UR

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

Post by Tomatotime » 1 year ago

idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
Comically enough, 'fun' is not objective.
That doesn't matter, it is required for a game to be successful.
idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
There is a pattern here though, I will admit to that, and I would propose that if you are the type who would like to play Control or even Midrange, you are going to like the London Mulligan less than Combo/Aggro/Ramp players.
Not to sound like a contrarian (I'm usually not), but I like the London Mulligan, and I play Midrange decks usually. The thing is that I simply don't view the London Mulligan through the cynical lens of using it to gain a competitive advantage, I view it through the lens of simply cutting down on the number of non-games that occur which is an awful gameplay experience for BOTH players involved.

I will also comment on a previous post you made that the relative amount of non-games occuring is about equal to the relative number of nut draws your opponents gets so it all balances out anyways. What you fail to see, is that Wotc can literally control what "the nuts" is by using the ban list, they cannot do the same for the greatest number of players possible in regards to preventing non-games at start using the ban list, so instead they chose to revamp the mulligan rules multiple times now, which I believe is a good faith attempt.

The only real pitfall that occurred was that when the London Mulligan was announced, it was clear, and was discussed at length by various people throughout the community, that Tron would obviously be a disproportionate beneficiary of this otherwise good faith innovation, the issue ultimately is that Wotc did not ban or even nerf Tron to compensate for the new rule since that would have required them to have a spine.

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

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

Tomatotime wrote:
1 year ago
I will also comment on a previous post you made that the relative amount of non-games occuring is about equal to the relative number of nut draws your opponents gets so it all balances out anyways. What you fail to see, is that Wotc can literally control what "the nuts" is by using the ban list, they cannot do the same for the greatest number of players possible in regards to preventing non-games at start using the ban list, so instead they chose to revamp the mulligan rules multiple times now, which I believe is a good faith attempt.
They can, but they clearly dont. Or, even if they do, its just ban after ban after ban, which is terrible for everyone.

They knew it would disproportionately impact non-rotational formats, and its why they did not implement it before.
Tomatotime wrote:
1 year ago
That doesn't matter, it is required for a game to be successful.
Egg's Players. Counter Top Players. Prison Players. Control Players. Combo Players. 8 Rack Players. Twin Players. Tron Players. Hollow One Players.

I can keep going if you like.
UR Control UR

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

Post by Tomatotime » 1 year ago

idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
They can, but they clearly dont. Or, even if they do, its just ban after ban after ban, which is terrible for everyone.
Firstly, again, I fully acknowledge that Wotc is incompetent. Secondly, ban after ban after ban is not terrible for everyone, it is required (for eternal formats) to actually maintain game play standards within the format, and if they don't ban cards then we would still have Eye of Ugin and Hogaak in the format (among others) which wouldn't be making this any easier.
idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
Egg's Players. Counter Top Players. Prison Players. Control Players. Combo Players. 8 Rack Players. Twin Players. Tron Players. Hollow One Players.

I can keep going if you like.
I don't know what point your trying to make here, that Egg's players play Egg's to have fun? That is quite an assumption, I could just as easily assume Eggs players played the deck for the competitive advantage because they want to win that badly, I could say the same for Lantern Control players, among others. And even if they were, what of it? Magic is a game played between 2 or more players, as such it is required that the fun be shared in some sort of equitable manner throughout the game to some degree, if it isn't, then things break down.

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

Post by Aazadan » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
Re: radical Modern changes
I've seen a few posts in here suggesting some more radical shifts to Modern. These include, but are not limited to, banning cards to nuke a specific archetype (RL was mentioning virtually all Dredge staples), changing the cutoff point to Mercadian Masques (I believe this was italentz), and/or restarting the banlist from scratch following Pioneer's example (Azadan brought this up). There might be other radical ideas I haven't mentioned here, and there might be other proponents of these I left out. Regardless of the specifics, I am personally avoiding these kinds of radical suggestions when making a pitch to Wizards. Some of them are a little tamer and more viable than others, but I believe all these kinds of radical ideas are either a) too unrealistic to even bother asking for, and/or b) too alienating of the Modern core with an uncertain end.
My suggestion is definitely radical, but I think it would make a lot of sense in the context of creating a new vision statement for the format. I do see how it could be interpreted as redefining Modern, and that people at that point may feel the format is being retired, but I don't think it would be quite so significant. Regardless, it would be a hard sell for just a single article even if you did want to write about it. Right now, I think it's much better to prove there's a problem, and attempt to find the causes of that problem and that's where the community can actually speak up. When it comes to the format itself, WotC will make the format into what they want it to be.

I would point out though, that most of the ban list would probably end up rebanned. There's 36 cards currently on the ban list, of those 36 there are 18 that have never been in the format (I'm including Dig Through Time in this, because it saw zero play before Treasure Cruises banning). Of those, a case could be made that some number of them are ok. Out of the other 18, between 8 and 10 have a greater than 0% chance of being ok. The remaining few would probably be gone within the first week or two, those being Deathrite Shaman, Eye of Ugin, Golgari Grave Troll, Hogaak, KCI, Mental Misstep, Skullclamp, and Jitte. Or alternatively, the ban list could start out including them because they're so easily instaban worthy.

More than anything, I think that bans are often times political in terms of when they happen, what/how much gets hit, and especially unbans. Especially since most bans are paired with unbans to soften the blow, this essentially puts an upper bound on the number of bans that can be placed into a format. This was the other part of the genius in setting up Pioneer's ban list in the way that it was. It gave players the expectation of widespread and quick bans for a period of time, thereby sidestepping that political overhead. If a lot of bans are needed in Modern, and I think it's reasonable to assume that there are, then this approach would let that happen without creating a negative attitude by players in the format as things are banned week after week.

If I had to guess, I would say the fallout of such an experiment would result in around 4 to 6 currently banned cards coming off of the ban list and between 20 and 30 cards not currently on the ban list winding up on it.

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

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

Tomatotime wrote:
1 year ago
I could just as easily assume Eggs players played the deck for the competitive advantage because they want to win that badly, I could say the same for Lantern Control players, among others. And even if they were, what of it? Magic is a game played between 2 or more players, as such it is required that the fun be shared in some sort of equitable manner throughout the game to some degree, if it isn't, then things break down.
I think this is simply not realistic for a format like Modern, when played competitively.

We are not talking about 'fun' in the same way. Lantern players dont give 2 %$#% if you have fun. Neither do 8rack, or any number of Modern decks.

In fact, one of the primary promoters of 8rack on mtgs often trolled his opponents by saying in MTGO "there is only so much fun available, I would like to have all of it."

If you ban out everything people have called 'not fun' you dont have a format even remotely recognizable as Modern, so its not 'fix Modern!' its 'make me a new format'.

There is a difference in goals there that cannot be discussed in the same context.
UR Control UR

User avatar
AvalonAurora
Posts: 162
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: they / them

Post by AvalonAurora » 1 year ago

I think a lot of bans are going to be needed. I'm not sure if twin will be safe, depending on how much needs to be banned and what isn't banned. And honestly, a lot of the things that are comparable to twin to justify it being unbanned as not that powerful compared to the rest of the format seem like potential future ban targets to me, rather than a sign twin is okay to unban. I think a lot of the cards modern needs printed (or re-printed into Modern) to be more stable in the long term would also potentially make twin broken, as would a lot of potentially fair theoretical cards of relatively simple design that twin can go infinite with. I think some of the cards that could break twin though, could make something like Kikki eventually high tier, once more broken stuff is more manageable due to a combination of bans and having more answers put into Modern.

I don't think Modern Horizons was exactly a problem overall, I think it had some mistakes and they were too aggressive with some things, but it added some things that modern needed (like Archmage's Charm), and was a good idea in concept. We need more Modern Horizons type sets, just for Wizards to do better theorycrafting to catch more of the broken stuff they might otherwise print, and be more willing to more quickly ban the stuff that falls through the cracks, mostly because I don't think they can get enough tools that modern needs through Standard fast enough without massive changes in the way they balance Standard (although maybe they should do so, given that they've done a terrible job with Standard on relatively regular intervals, and there is clearly something about their process that lets problems too easily slip through the cracks, including ones that should really be more obvious, like Oko, or SaheeliCat).

And besides just balancing Modern, they need to return confidence in it if they want to save it, this supporting it at least as much as Pioneer, if Pioneer is getting Arena support, Modern must too, and that they must make their format management standards more clear in the future, so people can properly anticipate bans, and they need to release the data to let people figure that out. Keeping data hidden to discourage people from 'solving' a format just makes people more afraid the format is secretly broken, and encourages people to unreasonably panic about non-broken things due to personal anecdotes and stuff when they can't see the big picture.

Of course, it's possible Wizards has the data, and Modern is completely broken and has been secretly 'solved' but it would piss too many people off to ban what needs to be banned to actually balance it, and they're trying to hide the data and are letting Modern die with plans to let Pioneer take over, hoping to minimize backlash with a new format rather than mass bannings or something, with Horizons intended to test the waters for potential ways to fix Modern as a backup plan, but I don't think that is likely given the data and testing people have been able to get on their own, I think Wizards just has weird ideas about what releasing data means and isn't motivated enough to put in the effort to monitor and understand the format for more timely ban decisions.

Honestly, I think we might need to create a fan-moderated format (in a similar model to how EDH is managed, but hopefully better) to replace Modern/Pioneer as a non-rotating format without any reserve list cards, for regular constructed type setup, with computer programs and websites designed for deck building and checking card legality in the format easily, and strong data collection and analysis policies, because I don't think Wizards is going to ever do the job right with their patterns of behavior they've shown. It would have to have clear format standards and general policies for achetype and color balance and speed and metagame domiance and other such factors from the outset, but be flexible enough to adjust those standards in face of serious changes to things like the way Wizards prints new cards in Standard or things like that.

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

Post by The Fluff » 1 year ago

Since it's being talked about a bit. My experience with the london mull has been sort of a double edged sword.. it makes finding leyline of the void easier, but at the same time my dredge opponent has better chances of finding their ray of revelation or whatever card they could remove the leyline with - so it feels fair. People of course have different experiences.. Idsurge might have a bad experience with the said rule, so he's against it.
Image
AnimEVO 2020 - EFZ Tournament (english commentary) // OE 2016 // POF 2018
want to play a uw control deck in modern, but don't have Jace or snapcaster? please come visit us at the Emeria thread

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

Post by iTaLenTZ » 1 year ago

If you look at the data from the past years it Modern is the home of uninteractive degenerated decks who try to win by turn 3 or create a boardstate that virtually wins by turn 3. This is Modern and its time to accept it.

I have said it before I will say it again. What does Modern have to offer as a format? What kind of gameplay does Modern have to offer? What is the justification of its existence? is there a need for current Modern? What does someone make buying into Modern, sleeve up their cards, spend time and money to attend tourneys etc? Everyone should answer these questions for themselves but....

Modern's top tier decks have become to streamlined because of the powercreep. The illusion you can bring any deck to an FNM and have fun and win some games has been shattered long time ago, despite Wizards withholding data to keep that illusion alive as long as possible. This is where Modern fatigue is coming from. People are tired of bringing their pet deck and folding over and over again to the same decks for years. Either its Tron, then some degenerated graveyard deck, then an artifact deck etc. Like Gkourou said "there are 4 axis that consistently break modern. Graveyard, artifact, big mana, Turbo xerox", and people are now fully aware of it and grew tired of it. They throw the towel and went to Pioneer.

You can try and counter this by nerfing the topdecks but for how long can you maintain this artificial state and can it be done timely? It would mean Wotc has to ban cards really fast thus react fast. Until now they have showed it takes at least 6 monts of terrible Modern for them to act. Also we are already at a point where 50 cards need to be banned to fulfil Modern's description of an turn 4 interactive format. Banning cards comes at a cost of consumer confidence, people losing their decks/money etc. Banning cards with the goal of just nerfing and thus undoing the powercreep is just band aid because the next cards to break Modern are already on its way, especially since Wotc has stated they want to increase the power of future Standard sets like we have seen with Throne. Modern is simply imploding.

As ktkenshinx already pointed out, Modern was already in decline before Urza winter and before Pioneer was announced. Modern fatigue is real. Apparently most people negatively answer the questions I post therefore the existence of current Modern as a format is in jeopardy. And like I said before a irreversible process has been set in motion (People selling out, LGS swapping Modern to Thursday and Pioneer to Friday, players, stores and TO's committing themselves to Pioneer in the long term) which full effects still have to take place. Throughout this year we will continue to watch Modern's demand drop even lower. Less FNM's, lower attendances at big tourneys, lower card prices etc.

Eventually what justifies the existence of a format is the willingness of players to participate in it, therefore I strongly believe Modern as we know it will be cancelled this summer. Just like Extended got cancelled 6 months after Modern got announced. The good news is there is a huge gap between Legacy and Pioneer thus a new format has more than enough space to arise out of the ashes of Modern. A reboot is eminent and unavoidable. Powerful reactive answers of the past are needed to compete with current designs.
Last edited by iTaLenTZ 1 year ago, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
AvalonAurora
Posts: 162
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: they / them

Post by AvalonAurora » 1 year ago

The Fluff wrote:
1 year ago
Since it's being talked about a bit. My experience with the london mull has been sort of a double edged sword.. it makes finding leyline of the void easier, but at the same time my dredge opponent has better chances of finding their ray of revelation or whatever card they could remove the leyline with - so it feels fair. People of course have different experiences.. Idsurge might have a bad experience with the said rule, so he's against it.
Eh, IMO, the problem with the London mulligan isn't the answer vs. combo deck issue. It is the issue of combo decks getting much more consistent, control decks becoming slightly more reliable, but hardly any change to regular aggro decks, which screws up the aggro vs. control. vs. combo setup.

However, I don't think that setup had infinite lifespan in a non-rotating format. Eventually, there would be enough similar working combo pieces that you could create aggro-like redundancy in many combo decks, so the London Mulligan doesn't hurt the format any more than a much larger card pool would.

Then again, I think the justification for the Preordain ban was too many good cantrips, so maybe Wizards has a policy against that sort of thing, and they'll ban excess combo piece redundancy eventually, and that would mean that they should end London Mulligan to let aggro catch up to other archetypes properly in the areas it is supposed to be better than them.

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

Post by drmarkb » 1 year ago

London in Legacy has been fine. The inconsistent decks are the prison decks- Stax etc. The combo decks pretty much had all the consistency they needed via Brainstorm and good tutoring like crop rotation. The ability to drop a t1 chalice or trinisphere type card gives them more consistency, remembering that acceleration is limited to 8 sol lands, and some number of moxen. Pox also benefited by london- Hymn to tourach/Thoughtseize becomes more powerful if the opposition have mulled to 6 or 5 perfect cards, and you can go looking for a haymaker like Leyline or ritual/thoughtseize/hymn. Modern is different, but London has done little to Legacy.

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

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

iTaLenTZ wrote:
1 year ago
If you look at the data from the past years it Modern is the home of uninteractive degenerated decks who try to win by turn 3 or create a boardstate that virtually wins by turn 3. This is Modern and its time to accept it.
Cool. Give me back Twin, which was incapable of winning before turn 4, and forced players to slow down or risk losing on the spot. Seems absolutely and completely reasonable, given this description of the format.

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

Post by iTaLenTZ » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
iTaLenTZ wrote:
1 year ago
If you look at the data from the past years it Modern is the home of uninteractive degenerated decks who try to win by turn 3 or create a boardstate that virtually wins by turn 3. This is Modern and its time to accept it.
Cool. Give me back Twin, which was incapable of winning before turn 4, and forced players to slow down or risk losing on the spot. Seems absolutely and completely reasonable, given this description of the format.
FFS can you talk about something else than Twin for once. You sound like an overly bitter obsessed person. Its been 5 years, move on, turn the page. MTG and Modern are more than just Twin. This constant bickering about Twin over and over again is pointless. Its literally the only thing you post and I at this point its straight up trolling. It doesn't matter what is said you always end up mentioning Twin somehow. Also when you make a great post and at the end of your argument you must always refer to Twin again I simply stop reading and it really takes away any valuable posts you make. This also goes for some others who have to refer to Twin in every of their arguments or conclusion. I am sick of it. There are so many things to talk about and the Modern crisis is real and you are like a parrot only saying "Twin, Twin, Twin, Twin, Twin".

[mention]ktkenshinx[/mention] What is your stand on the excessive Twin talk? Do you think its adding anything relevant to the discussion about the state of Modern to add Twin in every argument and conclusion or do you believe after 5 years all has been said. The Twin obsession has to stop. Its trolling.

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

Post by robertleva » 1 year ago

Twin should be so far down the list we never even think about it. We have, you know, actual problems to fix in Modern.
Robert Leva
Creator of Modern's 8Rack Deck
Image

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

Post by Aazadan » 1 year ago

iTaLenTZ wrote:
1 year ago
FFS can you talk about something else than Twin for once.
It's a (rather poor) argument strategy. Attempt to connect one decision to being relevant to every single other decision, and then be overly annoying until people support the poor argument just to shut them up. Also frequently used in politics (not going to cite examples here, since I don't think anyone wants to go into them), and anything else which involves people in power making decisions for people who merely participate in the system, but without any power other than public pressure.

Personally, I just tune it out unless it actually is relevant, such as my recent comments where I suggest rebuilding the ban list Pioneer style (but even then, I'm trying to avoid a stance on any specific card as I suspect the vast majority of the ban list would still be rebanned, in addition to several other cards). I think everyone has at least a card or two on the ban list that they would enjoy playing with. It doesn't mean a case has to constantly be made for that card.

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

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

The Fluff wrote:
1 year ago
Since it's being talked about a bit. My experience with the london mull has been sort of a double edged sword.. it makes finding leyline of the void easier, but at the same time my dredge opponent has better chances of finding their ray of revelation or whatever card they could remove the leyline with - so it feels fair. People of course have different experiences.. Idsurge might have a bad experience with the said rule, so he's against it.
'Feels' is the whole issue here. It 'feels' better, but in reality it is not.

Something that was mentioned in a discussion between Hoogland and SaffronOlive on Twitter was that it makes the gap between 'real' decks and pet decks even wider, while also making gameplay repetitive.

If thats good or bad, is wholly dependent upon your view of what is good magic.

Lets suppose the following arguments.

Issue 1:

2 Decks. Deck A is Tier 1, B is Tier 2. Everyone should understand already that B unless it has a massive advantage on a particular axis will probably be in a 40-60 hole against Deck A, by power alone.

Lets say that Deck A is Linear, and aggressive, while deck B is not.

The London Mulligan helps both 'equally', but considering Deck A starts off ahead of B in Power, and a linear aggressive strategy operates not on Card Advantage, but Card Quality taken in a holistic context, which Deck is benefiting more?

When card quality matters more than card advantage, and synergistic draws on 4 or 5 cards can lead to early wins, what decks are favored by the london mulligan in Modern?

Issue 2: Variance.

Magic is a game, where most of us will have an unspoken understanding that the variance in our opener + the variance in our opponents opener + the variance in our draws throughout the game, can render each game we play as a 'new' experience. Our amazing top deck, vs our opponents luck sack draw to seal a win, are resonating experiences.

We play more of the same game, less variation between games. Yes you will mull to the abyss less. You will also see 1, 2, 3 Karn and Turn 1 TS more.

The London Mulligan decreases variance, and for decks which operate on a small number of cards, can do so significantly. (cfusionpm did the math on Twitter for me I would have to go look)

This is simply bad for the long term health of the game.

Issue 3: Color Identity.

This is the only one of these which I feel is a personal issue vs a mechanical/logical one.

If you want to have increased levels of consistency, you should have to build it into your deck. You should need cantrips, or card draw, to make up the difference between what you are trying to do, and your ability to force out the same patterns every game.

This is why a valid way to nerf aggro/combo is to make it respect (interact) with other decks. If you increase the number of consistency and interactive cards, you decrease the number of synergistic cards, leading to few nut draws that win before Deck B is online in any capacity.

Color identity to me personally is the foundation of the game, and increasing the consistency of decks that do not have that as part of their identity is a pie break on a systemic (Mulligan) level.

If you want consistency, play cards which increase it.

-------------

TLDR: Its not about my personal experience, its about the impacts the rule has on how the game plays out, and how it impacts both deck construction and color identity.
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

Aazadan wrote:
1 year ago
I would point out though, that most of the ban list would probably end up rebanned. There's 36 cards currently on the ban list, of those 36 there are 18 that have never been in the format (I'm including Dig Through Time in this, because it saw zero play before Treasure Cruises banning). Of those, a case could be made that some number of them are ok. Out of the other 18, between 8 and 10 have a greater than 0% chance of being ok. The remaining few would probably be gone within the first week or two, those being Deathrite Shaman, Eye of Ugin, Golgari Grave Troll, Hogaak, KCI, Mental Misstep, Skullclamp, and Jitte. Or alternatively, the ban list could start out including them because they're so easily instaban worthy.
On further consideration, I do think there are elements of this idea I like, but just not how sweeping it is right now. There's really no need to unban Skullclamp; it's just a waste of time and resources. Similarly, even if Hypergenesis and Shoal are "okay" in a new Modern, the format really doesn't need more T3 linear nonsense. No one/very few people seriously care about that kind of stuff anyway. Based on that, here's the unban rule I would use if I wanted to do a mass unban and then approach the new Modern from a Pioneer process: unban everything that isn't banned in Legacy and doesn't contribute to T4 rule violations. This releases the following cards in one sweep:

All five artifact lands (Ancient Den, etc.)
Birthing Pod
Cloudpost
Green Sun's Zenith
Ponder
Preordain
Punishing Fire
Splinter Twin
Umezawa's Jitte

Wizards can unban those 13 cards and then see what happens much like they experimented with Pioneer's banlist. This would be on top of some of the nerf-bans I and others have already suggested, like Lattice, Veil, OUaT, Oko, potentially Urza/Mox, and others. I'm not sure this is a particularly realistic suggestion, but I think it's much more realistic and also reasonable than the idea of just unbanning everything, including cards that are almost certainly broken and will likely waste player and R&D time.
iTaLenTZ wrote:
1 year ago
ktkenshinx What is your stand on the excessive Twin talk? Do you think its adding anything relevant to the discussion about the state of Modern to add Twin in every argument and conclusion or do you believe after 5 years all has been said. The Twin obsession has to stop. Its trolling.
We banned Twin talk in a previous version of the thread because it was literally the only thing a small group of people were discussing, hijacking every conversation with that topic. The last dozen pages of this thread, however, have seen a huge range of issues and discussion, Twin just being one of them. As long as we continue to have that debate diversity, Twin is fine. If you aren't interested in engaging any user on any topic, you can always not reply to their post and just reply to other posts instead.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

User avatar
pierreb
Posts: 266
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Up North

Post by pierreb » 1 year ago

While it's a nice thought experiment, I don't see how throwing more unban-fuel to the modern fire would help the situation. I won't even discuss which cards are safer and which are just crazy-talk.

I can believe some people may think that the format power level is fine and thus enabling even crazier stuff would be okay.

I'm in the camp that, right now, we need to power-down the format, not up.

PS: on the london vs linearity vs variance, I think it comes down to having good answers. CA is still a thing, if the linear deck gets a key piece removed, countered or discarded, then it cannot operate on a deep mulligan. This is mostly true in post-sideboarded games. I've already said that I think all games should be sideboarded, including game 1. That would help level the playing field.

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

Post by Aazadan » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
Based on that, here's the unban rule I would use if I wanted to do a mass unban and then approach the new Modern from a Pioneer process: unban everything that isn't banned in Legacy and doesn't contribute to T4 rule violations. This releases the following cards in one sweep:
This is why I think it would be important to pair such a process with an updated vision statement for the format. If a card clearly violates that vision statement (the T4 rule for example, if that is left in place), then there's not really a reason to test it. Cards which have already proven themselves to violate the constraints of the format however it's laid out post change could be ignored so we largely agree there, with one exception. I would also include cards which play significantly different online versus in paper. The big one here is cards which create long non deterministic combos. Eggs was one such deck as was KCI. Both decks used KCI as their base, so I would put KCI on an initial ban list. There may be other cards in that same category but I can't think of any right now. My reasoning here is these are bad decks for tournaments as they make games go long, it's difficult for a player to determine if they've lost, and they're not popular on MTGO due to the clock working differently, so MTGO can't be used as an effective data gathering platform.

[mention]pierreb[/mention]
I can believe some people may think that the format power level is fine and thus enabling even crazier stuff would be okay.
Actually, I suspect my approach, while initially wiping out the ban list would conclude with a larger ban list than we have now (and this is a good thing because the ban list is currently insufficient), and most of the current list remaining banned (though I suspect a few would come off). Besides testing the current cards and giving a level of insight to the format that currently doesn't exist, I think the value in the approach is it gives WotC significant leeway in making numerous ban changes over a short period of time without the usual format confidence hit.
if the linear deck gets a key piece removed, countered or discarded, then it cannot operate on a deep mulligan.
I disagree here too. If we use the definition provided a while ago that linear is essentially a word for counting the number of decision points, then it stands to reason that a linear deck has very little variation in their cards. All decks are going to run roughly the same number of cards, and the same numbers of different cards, but a linear deck might be evaluating the subtle difference between tutoring for Urza's Mine/Urza's Power Plant, while a non linear deck can be deciding on wanting to win via using Supreme Verdict into finisher or grindy 1 for 1 trades with incremental advantage in any given game.

Thus, since a linear deck will have a lot of similar cards, a deep mulligan doesn't actually significantly alter the decision tree of a game. Where as a deck with a lot of non linear aspects will have their range of potential actions significantly reduced.
Last edited by Aazadan 1 year ago, edited 1 time in total.

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

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

iTaLenTZ wrote:
1 year ago
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
iTaLenTZ wrote:
1 year ago
If you look at the data from the past years it Modern is the home of uninteractive degenerated decks who try to win by turn 3 or create a boardstate that virtually wins by turn 3. This is Modern and its time to accept it.
Cool. Give me back Twin, which was incapable of winning before turn 4, and forced players to slow down or risk losing on the spot. Seems absolutely and completely reasonable, given this description of the format.
FFS can you talk about something else than Twin for once. You sound like an overly bitter obsessed person.
I do, all the time. But if you're going to distill the format down to what you did, and say we should just accept that as is, then what harm is there in returning something which is objectively weaker than what you described?

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

Post by iTaLenTZ » 1 year ago

Aazadan wrote:
1 year ago
This is why I think it would be important to pair such a process with an updated vision statement for the format. If a card clearly violates that vision statement, then there's not really a reason to test it.
I agree. Also I believe the turn 4 rule is outdated. Modern should be accepted as a turn 3 format.
Vintage: turn 1
Legacy: turn 2
Modern: turn 3
Pioneer: turn 4
Standard: turn 5

The next goal is how to make Modern unique and diverse compared to other formats. The reason Legacy is a turn 2 format yet on average it has longer games than Modern is because reactive strategies are rewarded. Also good card selection (Ponder, Preordain) is necessary if you are lowering the bar on which decks are allowed to win so you can dig for the right answers and use them timely.

Cloudpost is absolutely broken for Modern. If you have any Legacy experience you should know this. There is a reason why it sees play at top tables and Tron is not. Its just a better Tron and Modern definitely doesn't need this nor another big mana engine/deck.

Preordain and Green Sun Zenith are long overdue. OUAT is a better GSZ in a lot of cases.

Punishing Fire, Umezawa's Jitte, Birthing Pod don't violate the turn 3 nor the the turn 4 rule. However Punishing Fire comes with logistic issues. If control decks would adept it games could take very very long. Jitte is a twice 2 mana investment and you have to inflict combat damage with a creature. These are substantiation requirements for just 2 counters. The swords aren't good enough for Modern, Jitte might be not much better. The fear it would take over the battlefield with Stoneforge Mystic could be ungrounded just like a lot of fear for cards that have never been legal has been. I would be willing to test it. The downside of unbanning Jitte and Punishing Fires is that those cards punish the battlefield and not the degenerated decks. It could just lead to more incentive to play non-interactive stuff rather than trying to deal with Jitte etc.

True-Name Nemesis
Posts: 156
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by True-Name Nemesis » 1 year ago

Seems like WoTC finding YET another way to screw around with competitive play now for I wanna say the 3rd time since 2019 began?

https://magic.gg/news/2020-grand-prix-player-points-cap

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

Post by CurdBros » 1 year ago

True-Name Nemesis wrote:
1 year ago
Seems like WoTC finding YET another way to screw around with competitive play now for I wanna say the 3rd time since 2019 began?

https://magic.gg/news/2020-grand-prix-player-points-cap
I don't understand. So you have to spike the first two events you play in or decide which events you think you will do well in and let WOTC know that the other events don't count for your points. Isn't this a direct disincentive to go to more than two events? Magic is a grind/marathon not a sprint. I like when the grinders who are committed to attending events are rewarded. Am I reading this incorrectly?

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Modern”