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

User avatar
Arkmer
Opinionated and Wrong
Posts: 325
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Minnesota

Post by Arkmer » 2 years ago

UW really only acts like a prison deck in some matches. Against aggro and midrange based decks it's clearly just a control deck that uses sweepers, some removal, and some deck sift. Pretty innocuous, pretty normal. Play against another control deck though, it's Prison. No question, no doubt, no... something. It just becomes a race to see who can untap with a Teferi or a Narset and non-W control decks don't even get access the better half of that prison set.

The card alters the mirror much in the same way many of us talk about graveyard decks altering sideboards, but I don't think there is room for argument in this one. Teferi shuts off an opposing control deck in a way that Ensnaring Bridge is unfathomably jealous of. Like I've been saying for quite awhile (pretty sure since it's spoiling), "It's a control card that polices control out of the meta", with some occasional addition of "non-W control is now stuck and unable to get help because UW is so far ahead as both a T1 deck and as a control policing deck".

This is likely the reason the control players here call it a prison deck while the rest of the meta thinks we're crazy. If you aren't playing the majority of your deck at instant speed, you simply are not seeing the full affects and do not understand the degree to which it shuts you out. Given that without a reasonable glut of creatures, walkers are much more difficult to remove, you can understand why this card is such an issue for the "subset" of the meta that is control.

From a diversity standpoint, I'll reiterate that we have many multiple of many strategies in T1 & T2 except control. There may be the occasional UR control list, but they're certainly the exception and not the rule. I would credit this largely to UW just being good on its own and oppressive to its own archetype. Between Teferi and Veto, UW(x) will always be the dominant control variant and obsolete other control lists.

For the most part I haven't posted much because any mention of control gets UW crammed down my and other's throats (not necessarily talking about just here). I'm starting to realize that Phoenix, Dredge, and Hogaak likely aren't the problem I have with the meta. It's UW control. It's looking in the mirror and seeing that I dislike the thing I stand for and try to defend.

Do we care about this at all? That's up to you as an individual to decide.

User avatar
FoodChainGoblins
Level 47
Posts: 859
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Riverside

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 2 years ago

No Cryptic Command in Daniel Fournier's list? No ScM is reasonable - no Cryptic is a mad man (with a trophy I guess).
Standard - Will pick up what's good when paper starts
Pre Modern - Do not own anymore
Pioneer - DEAD
Modern - Amulet Titan, Elementals, Trollementals, BR Asmo/Goryo's, Yawmoth Chord
Legacy - No more cards, will rebuy Sneak Show when I can
Limited - Will start when paper starts
Commander - Nope

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1177
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 2 years ago

Arkmer wrote:
2 years ago
This is likely the reason the control players here call it a prison deck while the rest of the meta thinks we're crazy. If you aren't playing the majority of your deck at instant speed, you simply are not seeing the full affects and do not understand the degree to which it shuts you out. Given that without a reasonable glut of creatures, walkers are much more difficult to remove, you can understand why this card is such an issue for the "subset" of the meta that is control.
This seems to be a good representation of what I was unable to articulate myself. I have only ever played decks loaded with instants, counters, and card draw, so for pretty much every deck I have ever played, T3feri and Narset represent prison locks that make gameplay miserable and are extremely difficult to ever deal with. They literally make most of my decks borderline unplayable, especially when backed by their own counters and card draw.
FoodChainGoblins wrote:
2 years ago
No Cryptic Command in Daniel Fournier's list? No ScM is reasonable - no Cryptic is a mad man (with a trophy I guess).
Yeah, I had to do a double take on that one... I didn't even notice the lack of them, but wow. Usually I'm weighing whether I want 3 or the full playset of Cryptic Command each time I sleeve up Hallowed Fountain...

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

Post by idSurge » 2 years ago

Arkmer wrote:
2 years ago
The card alters the mirror much in the same way many of us talk about graveyard decks altering sideboards, but I don't think there is room for argument in this one. Teferi shuts off an opposing control deck in a way that Ensnaring Bridge is unfathomably jealous of. Like I've been saying for quite awhile (pretty sure since it's spoiling), "It's a control card that polices control out of the meta", with some occasional addition of "non-W control is now stuck and unable to get help because UW is so far ahead as both a T1 deck and as a control policing deck".

This is likely the reason the control players here call it a prison deck while the rest of the meta thinks we're crazy. If you aren't playing the majority of your deck at instant speed, you simply are not seeing the full affects and do not understand the degree to which it shuts you out. Given that without a reasonable glut of creatures, walkers are much more difficult to remove, you can understand why this card is such an issue for the "subset" of the meta that is control.

From a diversity standpoint, I'll reiterate that we have many multiple of many strategies in T1 & T2 except control. There may be the occasional UR control list, but they're certainly the exception and not the rule. I would credit this largely to UW just being good on its own and oppressive to its own archetype. Between Teferi and Veto, UW(x) will always be the dominant control variant and obsolete other control lists.
Great post. Its been an issue since Big Teferi and Search, but Veto and T3feri sealed it. You play UW if you want to play control, and you can splash for Black/Red if you like, but W is required.
UR Control UR

User avatar
FoodChainGoblins
Level 47
Posts: 859
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Riverside

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 2 years ago

cfusionpm wrote:
2 years ago
FoodChainGoblins wrote:
2 years ago
No Cryptic Command in Daniel Fournier's list? No ScM is reasonable - no Cryptic is a mad man (with a trophy I guess).
Yeah, I had to do a double take on that one... I didn't even notice the lack of them, but wow. Usually I'm weighing whether I want 3 or the full playset of Cryptic Command each time I sleeve up Hallowed Fountain...
I figured just after I posted that Daniel Fournier probably is using the Planeswalkers as the only card advantage for the deck. He's playing a list that is similar to what Esper Control is doing in Standard (or was doing until Scapeshift and Jund Dinos). I played in 4 MCQs during the Standard season, so that's the gist of what I know.

There's a few interesting things about his list - 6 "Path to Exile" with the On Thin Ice. But decks like E Tron can find their Ghost Quarter to potentially get a Smasher or Thought-Knot Seer back by destroying the basic snow Island or Plains. Planeswalkers galore, no Dovin's Veto, many Wrath of God effects. I can't see the card under 2 Supreme Verdict, but I'm assuming it's the Portal Wrath of God.

I like the list. I may try to procure 4 Force of Negation to play this list. Outside of that, I'm certainly waiting for after the Magic Fest Las Vegas to buy MH cards.
Standard - Will pick up what's good when paper starts
Pre Modern - Do not own anymore
Pioneer - DEAD
Modern - Amulet Titan, Elementals, Trollementals, BR Asmo/Goryo's, Yawmoth Chord
Legacy - No more cards, will rebuy Sneak Show when I can
Limited - Will start when paper starts
Commander - Nope

User avatar
Ym1r
Posts: 153
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Ym1r » 2 years ago

Daniel Fournier's list is by no means the norm. I had already seen it, hence I mentioned that some lists run 1 RiP main, but again, it's just 1 case in a sea of 4x Snapcaster UW control decks. What idSurge post is more or less a basis for what is considered stock list now for UW control.

Regarding UW and other control decks, it's true imho that it suppresses other control decks due to the mirror feeling like a prison, although I still would be hesitant to call it that. I think there are two sides to this problem. One is that UW is just so much better in the mirror than really any other control deck. The other side is that besides UW, we haven't seen any powerful printings lately. Maybe you can argue that the new Bolas PW is great for Grixis control (I've tried it and it does a good impersonation of Tef5ri, even better in some cases), but the shell is just SO much weaker, there is not way you can justify playing it. No matter what build I try on Grixis, or even straight up UB, just feels worse than UW atm. Is this necessarily a bad thng? Idk, maybe, probably, depending on future printings. But it does seem right now that there is no other control option than playing UW.

The new Mono U tempo/control that is popping up seems to be getting some traction, and has some merit to it, but still doesn't feel as good (check Yellowhat's stream for it).
Counter, draw a card.

User avatar
robertleva
Posts: 582
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by robertleva » 2 years ago

You guys are using the term "Prison deck" to describe the UW deck vs other control. I think the term you are looking for is "lock" or possibly soft lock. Prison decks call back to a specific type of soft lock deck that has a certain feel to it that UW doesnt have. Also those decks, ya know, actually use Ghostly Prison.
Robert Leva
Creator of Modern's 8Rack Deck
Image

User avatar
Arkmer
Opinionated and Wrong
Posts: 325
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Minnesota

Post by Arkmer » 2 years ago

robertleva wrote:
2 years ago
You guys are using the term "Prison deck" to describe the UW deck vs other control. I think the term you are looking for is "lock" or possibly soft lock. Prison decks call back to a specific type of soft lock deck that has a certain feel to it that UW doesnt have. Also those decks, ya know, actually use Ghostly Prison.
The difference between "lock" and "prison" is just personal preference. There are literally lists called "Whir Prison" and "Mono Red Prison" that don't run Ghostly Prison. No one is going to advocate they change their deck names. It's the idea and the intent that make it what it is, not the card; a single card may make up the name sake for some decks, but prison became an archetype and transcended the requirement of the actual card long ago.

"It's not Tribal, it's humans", it's the same statement, but it tries to shunt humans into a different category than Elves, Merfolk, and Spirits. While I know that Lock and Prison are the same thing, I also see what the intent of differentiating them is (or can be).

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

Post by ktkenshinx » 2 years ago

gkourou wrote:
2 years ago
Saying Modern Challenges are skewed is obviously wrong, so whatever fits whoever's narrative, I guess. Modern challenges hide no data at all. They literally show you the top 32 performing lists. Using a compined canvas of the latest MOCS and Modern Challenge events(and the latest GP event), it seems like Izzet Phoenix is struggling and hitting consistently 0 or 1 decks at the top 32 of any major MODO event.
I'm not 100% sure which post you were responding to, but I don't think this is an issue of the published Challenge results themselves being misrepresented. As you said, it's the unabridged T32, and it's been that way for a while, unlike the 5-0 results which are skewed the moment they get released. The Challenge results are "skewed" only in the sense that a single Challenge is often not representative of anything. For example, here's the Challenge from the weekend before Bridge's banning:
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/a ... 2019-07-07

There are 0 Hogaak Bridgevine decks in the T8, 1 in the T16, and 4 in the event overall. That actually doesn't look too bad; there's actually more E-Tron in this event than Bridgevine. But we already know Bridgevine was super broken and dominant. The Challenge just didn't capture it. Of course, other Challenges did accurately capture that brokenness, but we would not always know by looking at one Challenge on its own. We needed multiple Challenges to draw conclusions. That's all I mean when I say a Challenge is potentially skewed. One event may or may not represent anything, but we can never tell based on the event alone. We need multiple datapoints to draw any conclusions.
cfusionpm wrote:
2 years ago
If it was unclear, I was classifying UW in its current iteration as a prison deck. I know it's definitely up to individual interpretation, but I definitely have vomited a bit lately looking at some of the recent UW lists. The 0 Snap, maindeck RIP ones are particularly egregious. :sick:

I can say that if I could play against Jund and Jund-like decks every round of every event, I would be in absolute heaven. Some of my absolute best and most favorite games have been against grindy value decks like Jund. It's just unfortunate how rarely that actually happens.
Arkmer wrote:
2 years ago
This is likely the reason the control players here call it a prison deck while the rest of the meta thinks we're crazy. If you aren't playing the majority of your deck at instant speed, you simply are not seeing the full affects and do not understand the degree to which it shuts you out. Given that without a reasonable glut of creatures, walkers are much more difficult to remove, you can understand why this card is such an issue for the "subset" of the meta that is control.

From a diversity standpoint, I'll reiterate that we have many multiple of many strategies in T1 & T2 except control. There may be the occasional UR control list, but they're certainly the exception and not the rule. I would credit this largely to UW just being good on its own and oppressive to its own archetype. Between Teferi and Veto, UW(x) will always be the dominant control variant and obsolete other control lists.
As CFP said later, I think Arkmer's quote accurately describes why some players might call UW a prison deck, but other players would not. But I also think there's more to it. Part of this definition disagreement comes out of unclear terminology. Incidentally, this is a huge Modern and Magic problem generally (as anyone who has seen the interactive/uninteractive, fair/unfair, warp/adapt ,etc. arguments can attest), but I'm sticking with the prison/control disagreement for now. Prison is more or less widely understood to mean preventing an opponent from executing their gameplan or, as Ari Lax once said, making an opponent unable to win. Control is more broadly understood to mean answering and reacting to an opponent's gameplan.

But it just takes a cursory glance at those definitions to see they are basically the same thing. In fact, Reid Duke defined Control in a 2014 Wizards mothership article as: "Their top priority is to stop the opponent from executing his or her game plan." Umm. That's basically just prison, right? And when you think about it, control at its most optimal should feel like a prison deck. If a control deck is constantly answering everything an opponent is doing, then the control deck (or prison deck) isn't trying to win so much as making an opponent unable to win. If you Verdict/Terminus/Path/etc. all my creatures away, the end result is no different than if you have Bridge out and I can't attack. Now we're in real semantical trouble, because our two different terms look like they start meaning the same thing.

Planeswalkers and permanent-based sources of control make this even tougher. JTMS, the Teferis, and Narset provide ongoing investments to control a gameplan. Countermagic and removal are one-use. This makes us feel like any ongoing source of control is prison and any single-use source of control is "proper control," but that can't be right either because they effectively accomplish the same objective of preventing opposing gameplan execution. Permanents might just be more efficient at that (one card answering multiple game actions), but Teferi stopping a player from playing instants is effectually no different than a control player countering every single instant the opponent plays. One of those just has the illusion of action and interaction (counter wars, even if they were already decided before they started), and the other is an ongoing, deterministic effect (T3feri's static). Same with the removal vs. Bridge example.

I think this comes down to an illusion of interactivity. We think it's prison if we have known permanents preventing us from doing things. We think it's "proper control" if we have counterplay and resource/card exchanges using hidden cards in our hands. But we also think it's "proper control" even if they control player is so far ahead that it's just an illusion of counterplay. From the control side, control players don't actually want uncertain one-for-one or even two-for-one exchanges that depend on good topdecks. They want the game locked out of an opponent's grasp ASAP. If the best way to do that is counter-bolt-snap-counter-bolt, then that's their way of executing a prison mechanic to prevent an opponent from winning. If the best way to do that is planeswalkers, then they will take that option instead.

Ultimately, I think the prison and control distinction is a misnomer. Instead, I believe all control aspires to be prison where the control player completely prevents an opponent from winning. Only inefficient and uncertain control where we're relying on topdecks and matching reactive answers to proactive threats will look like "proper control,, even if there's nothing "proper" about it: it's just inefficient and uncertain. Similarly, all control players whose primary goal is winning will just gravitate towards prison, because an ongoing lockdown is more efficient than a one-for-one or even two-for-one exchange rate. When your only way of doing this was Icy Manipulator, this looked bad (and was bad). Counterpsell decks looked better. But with planeswalkers being so good (potentially a separate issue), the best way to optimize control is using those ongoing effects alongside "proper" reactive answers. Prison is secretly what control players were evolving to all along.

Last note on this: I also don't think all control players just want to win. I think many of them want a good game of Magic where they ultimately win or lose in tight 49/51 or 51/49 edges. This makes control players feel smart, gives a sense of agency/expertise, and, less cynically, is probably more fun. But this entire set of motives is not optimized for winning, and an incentive-based game economy like MTG rewards winning strategies. In that environment, efficient prison decks will always be better than inefficient "traditional" control decks.
Zorakkiller wrote:
2 years ago
if modern's banned list was more reasonable, there would be much more reasonable ban talk. remember the people managing the banned list saw fit to unban goglari grave troll before blood-braid elf. there are reasons why the modern player base is the way it is. hopefully this is clear and won't be misquoted or lumped into someone else's argument.
The GGT/BBE comparison doesn't work for me because one of those cards was never legal in Modern and Wizards was just giving it a chance (GGT). The other card was demonstrably part of an overly dominant strategy (BBE). The unban record shows Wizards is far more likely to unban cards that never saw Modern play (Valakut, BB, GGT, AV, Sword, JTMS) as opposed to giving a second chance to cards banned after the format started (Nacatl, BBE). JTMS and GGT are better comparisons because both were on the original banlist, but even there, I still understand why Wizards unbanned GGT first. GGT is an extremely limited card which realistically only impacts a small set of decks which saw very little Modern play at the time GGT got freed. JTMS is a much broader tool that benefited a wider range of decks. Wizards was just more conservative in that unban case. As for GGT, the card didn't do anything for months until Wizards printed not one (Neonate), not two (Amalgam), but three (Reunion) outrageous additions to the deck in less than a year. This does not indict the original GGT unban, which was fine, but does seriously call into question the communication between R&D and Design/Development, and/or R&D's ability to know which upcoming cards will impact Modern. I would hope the community does not hold the GGT/BBE and/or GGT/JTMS "discrepancy" against Wizards or the banlist in general.

I think a much bigger issue than perceived inconsistencies between legal and banned cards (e.g. SFM banned, Neobrand okay), is Wizards' overall propensity for banning cards. Even after creating the original banlist, Wizards banned 8 cards in 2011, 0 in 2012, 3 in 2013, 1 in 2014, 3 in 2015, 2 in 2016, 2 in 2017, 0 in 2018, and 2 by July of 2019. That's a lot of bans! The original banlist had 21 cards on it. Since then, Wizards has banned an additional 21 cards. I'm not saying some/many of those bans were unjustified, but it primes the community to think in banning terms. If Wizards addresses problematic decks with bans, and if Wizards is unclear about the criteria for "problematic," the community is naturally going to gravitate towards ban mania as a default way of thinking. Players have a responsibility to try and get out of that mindframe, but Wizards shares some of that blame.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1177
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 2 years ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
2 years ago
Planeswalkers and permanent-based sources of control make this even tougher. JTMS, the Teferis, and Narset provide ongoing investments to control a gameplan. Countermagic and removal are one-use. This makes us feel like any ongoing source of control is prison and any single-use source of control is "proper control," but that can't be right either because they effectively accomplish the same objective of preventing opposing gameplan execution. Permanents might just be more efficient at that (one card answering multiple game actions), but Teferi stopping a player from playing instants is effectually no different than a control player countering every single instant the opponent plays. One of those just has the illusion of action and interaction (counter wars, even if they were already decided before they started), and the other is an ongoing, deterministic effect (T3feri's static). Same with the removal vs. Bridge example.
This seems to hit it fairly well. I personally choose to define the two as:
  • In Control, you have to make decisions on which pieces to allow and when to stop. Each time you stop something, it costs a resource. So there has to be meaning and purpose behind the decisions you make (or are able to make).
    Examples: Counterspell, Thoughtseize, Path to Exile
  • In Prison, permanent-based static effects just stop all of a given effect, so no additional thought or decision making needs to occur. It just happens (or stops it from happening). These effects also do not require precise timing or holding up resources.
    Examples: Ensnaring Bridge, Chalice of the Void, Blood Moon, Stony Silence
So when I see UW lists like Fournier's, it just pains me to see the move to nearly half the deck being permanent-based interaction instead of spell-based. And I would imagine the Force of Negation's main job, rather than interacting with an opponent's threat, is instead to protect the planeswalkers and other permanents.
Last edited by cfusionpm 2 years ago, edited 1 time in total.

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

Post by Albegas » 2 years ago

RE: Control vs. Prison
I think for the most part I agree with you KTK, but whereas you believe that the distinction is a misnomer, my interpretation has always been that Prison is a subset of control relying primarily on static effects to cut off game plans rather than answers. This is why I think it's wrong to label UW Control in its current iteration as a prison deck: it's more proactive, but the static effects are not the primary means of cutting off means to win. However, as you say, any form of control has the same goal: cut off your opponent's means of winning until it's safe to push for the kill. The means by which it's done, be it static effects, discard via 8-Rack, or counter magic, doesn't change whether a deck is a control deck. I still the distinction matters when suggesting decks for people to play (if a guy says he really likes counter magic, I wouldn't suggest 8 Rack or Grixis Whir even though they're both control) but ultimately I agree that it's incorrect to write off Prison decks as something other than Control just because they don't rely on reactive cards to cut off threats.

I believe you also touch on another important aspect of reactive control: the game has evolved in such a way that fair decks, especially reactive control, can't simply have 1 card answer 1 threat. Other decks simply get too much value out of single cards these days. Just looking at the top decks in the meta, almost all of them are either playing better cards than you in the early turns (Tron, Hogaak) or they're playing cards that, more often than not, do more than one thing (Eldrazi, Humans). Eventually, reactive control was going to need to do one of two things: start using cards that could do more than answer one question, or start using cards that reduce the number of questions (i.e. threats) that have to be answered. Planesalkers are good at the former since they can often deal with a threat while pushing for a win, and T3feri and Narset do both by having utility effects stacked onto static effects that at least narrow how your opponent can play. I know some people are put off by the more proactive nature of Control these days, but honestly, unless we start getting way better modal charms and/or better cheap Command cards, control's probably not going to ever more reactive than it is now.

User avatar
Arkmer
Opinionated and Wrong
Posts: 325
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Minnesota

Post by Arkmer » 2 years ago

I mostly think Prison is proactively stopping my opponent (by playing out lock pieces) and Control is reactively stopping my opponent (by holding counters/removal and resources). Other than that, I think [mention]ktkenshinx[/mention] pretty well nails it. The blend between JTMS being in control lists but acting like Prison, the permanents vs spells, the desire for 51/49 games resulting in feelings of agency/expertise/fun, and even the end result and goal of both strategies being essentially a complete lock out of the opponent (though through different methods).

I do have to say that Prison has always been distinctly different than Control until this iteration of UW. Lists that go by "Prison" have incredibly rarely included JTMS as a regular piece and have been incredibly different in general. The only exception I can think of is Lantern Control which was widely regarded as a Prison deck despite carrying the Control branding.

A lot of what has been said here is really interesting insight. I think I have some more things to think through in regard to how to address all of it, at least on a personal level.

User avatar
FoodChainGoblins
Level 47
Posts: 859
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Riverside

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 2 years ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
2 years ago
Zorakkiller wrote:
2 years ago
if modern's banned list was more reasonable, there would be much more reasonable ban talk. remember the people managing the banned list saw fit to unban goglari grave troll before blood-braid elf. there are reasons why the modern player base is the way it is. hopefully this is clear and won't be misquoted or lumped into someone else's argument.
The GGT/BBE comparison doesn't work for me because one of those cards was never legal in Modern and Wizards was just giving it a chance (GGT). The other card was demonstrably part of an overly dominant strategy (BBE). The unban record shows Wizards is far more likely to unban cards that never saw Modern play (Valakut, BB, GGT, AV, Sword, JTMS) as opposed to giving a second chance to cards banned after the format started (Nacatl, BBE). JTMS and GGT are better comparisons because both were on the original banlist, but even there, I still understand why Wizards unbanned GGT first. GGT is an extremely limited card which realistically only impacts a small set of decks which saw very little Modern play at the time GGT got freed. JTMS is a much broader tool that benefited a wider range of decks. Wizards was just more conservative in that unban case. As for GGT, the card didn't do anything for months until Wizards printed not one (Neonate), not two (Amalgam), but three (Reunion) outrageous additions to the deck in less than a year. This does not indict the original GGT unban, which was fine, but does seriously call into question the communication between R&D and Design/Development, and/or R&D's ability to know which upcoming cards will impact Modern. I would hope the community does not hold the GGT/BBE and/or GGT/JTMS "discrepancy" against Wizards or the banlist in general.

I think a much bigger issue than perceived inconsistencies between legal and banned cards (e.g. SFM banned, Neobrand okay), is Wizards' overall propensity for banning cards. Even after creating the original banlist, Wizards banned 8 cards in 2011, 0 in 2012, 3 in 2013, 1 in 2014, 3 in 2015, 2 in 2016, 2 in 2017, 0 in 2018, and 2 by July of 2019. That's a lot of bans! The original banlist had 21 cards on it. Since then, Wizards has banned an additional 21 cards. I'm not saying some/many of those bans were unjustified, but it primes the community to think in banning terms. If Wizards addresses problematic decks with bans, and if Wizards is unclear about the criteria for "problematic," the community is naturally going to gravitate towards ban mania as a default way of thinking. Players have a responsibility to try and get out of that mindframe, but Wizards shares some of that blame.
Bloodbraid Elf being banned was a mistake. Deathrite Shaman was the card that needed to be banned, but Wizards doesn't ban new cards. That is why it took so long for Bloodbraid Elf to come off the ban list - it is at least somewhat an admission of a mistake. If they wait much longer, they can say the meta changed in a way that Bloodbraid Elf is NOW okay. Anyone can come up with something to justify a move that was made if they think hard enough.

Let's say Bloodbraid Elf was still banned as of today. Do you think with Wrenn and Six's success in Jund and Jund doing well in that Red Bull tournament would give Bloodbraid Elf the slightest chance to get unbanned? Nope. We can justify its spot on the ban list due to "Jund already being good." (But as we know it today, BBE is just a 2 of in those lists anyway.)

Why do I bring this up? Stoneforge Mystic. Many players feel that this card is okay, yet it has been on the ban list for all 7 years of Modern. Why? Every few months or so, someone will say that UW Control is good. If someone says this, they certainly can't urban Stoneforge Mystic, right? After all, it caused a horrible time in Standard with his buddy, now unbanned in Modern and fine, Jace, the Mind Sculptor. It still is a mainstay in Legacy Stoneblade, so surely it can't be right in Modern? Certainly, every deck running White would run it. Certainly UW Control w/ Stoneforge Mystic is the de facto best deck.

*On a side note, Golgari Grave-Troll would have been fine in Modern the whole time. The only thing that broke the card was Insolent Neonate, Cathartic Reunion, Prized Amalgam, and probably some others that I forgot. Even with "Dredge 6" going down to "Dredge 4" since Stinkweed Imp is a 4 of in both lists, the deck is still very strong (also because of Creeping Chill of course).

**People will always justify Wizard's ban list choices and there will always be a way to do it. Literally if WotC banned Shock, there would be at least a few people somewhere that would justify it or someone would say, well, it doesn't really see play, so it's not a loss anyway.

***If someone thinks that every single card on the ban list is much, much better than every single currently unbanned card, I honestly don't know what to tell you.
Standard - Will pick up what's good when paper starts
Pre Modern - Do not own anymore
Pioneer - DEAD
Modern - Amulet Titan, Elementals, Trollementals, BR Asmo/Goryo's, Yawmoth Chord
Legacy - No more cards, will rebuy Sneak Show when I can
Limited - Will start when paper starts
Commander - Nope

User avatar
pierreb
Posts: 276
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Up North

Post by pierreb » 2 years ago

Yep,

Prison: permanent-based proactive locking out. (enchantments, neo PW, chalice, ...)
Control: Spell-based reactive answers, (counters, wrath, ...)

Of course they both want to control the game, but how they approach it differs. Current UW decks are prison/control.

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1177
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 2 years ago

I think that anyone who truly believes Teferi/Teferi/Narset/Jace UW decks want anything to do with Stoneforge Mystic are out of their minds. I believe it's a completely unfounded fear for a format that doesn't exist and a deck that doesn't want it.

The fact that WOTC believes UW, in its current iteration, is reason not to release Stoneforge is both disturbing and embarrassing.

Zorakkiller
Posts: 57
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Zorakkiller » 2 years ago

I cant give wizards a pass for unbaning GGT before BBE or many other card they have unban. who cares if it was never legal in modern we all know that GGT does one thing and that's dredge. jund continued to dominate after BBE got unbanned because BBE wasn't even close to the problem

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

Post by metalmusic_4 » 2 years ago

FoodChainGoblins wrote:
2 years ago
Zorakkiller wrote:
2 years ago
if modern's banned list was more reasonable, there would be much more reasonable ban talk. remember the people managing the banned list saw fit to unban goglari grave troll before blood-braid elf. there are reasons why the modern player base is the way it is. hopefully this is clear and won't be misquoted or lumped into someone else's argument.
Bloodbraid Elf being banned was a mistake. Deathrite Shaman was the card that needed to be banned, but Wizards doesn't ban new cards. That is why it took so long for Bloodbraid Elf to come off the ban list - it is at least somewhat an admission of a mistake. If they wait much longer, they can say the meta changed in a way that Bloodbraid Elf is NOW okay. Anyone can come up with something to justify a move that was made if they think hard enough.

Let's say Bloodbraid Elf was still banned as of today. Do you think with Wrenn and Six's success in Jund and Jund doing well in that Red Bull tournament would give Bloodbraid Elf the slightest chance to get unbanned? Nope. We can justify its spot on the ban list due to "Jund already being good." (But as we know it today, BBE is just a 2 of in those lists anyway.)

Why do I bring this up? Stoneforge Mystic. Many players feel that this card is okay, yet it has been on the ban list for all 7 years of Modern. Why? Every few months or so, someone will say that UW Control is good. If someone says this, they certainly can't urban Stoneforge Mystic, right? After all, it caused a horrible time in Standard with his buddy, now unbanned in Modern and fine, Jace, the Mind Sculptor. It still is a mainstay in Legacy Stoneblade, so surely it can't be right in Modern? Certainly, every deck running White would run it. Certainly UW Control w/ Stoneforge Mystic is the de facto best deck.

*On a side note, Golgari Grave-Troll would have been fine in Modern the whole time. The only thing that broke the card was Insolent Neonate, Cathartic Reunion, Prized Amalgam, and probably some others that I forgot. Even with "Dredge 6" going down to "Dredge 4" since Stinkweed Imp is a 4 of in both lists, the deck is still very strong (also because of Creeping Chill of course).

**People will always justify Wizard's ban list choices and there will always be a way to do it. Literally if WotC banned Shock, there would be at least a few people somewhere that would justify it or someone would say, well, it doesn't really see play, so it's not a loss anyway.

***If someone thinks that every single card on the ban list is much, much better than every single currently unbanned card, I honestly don't know what to tell you.
You guys are my heros. This is all EXACTLY how I feel. Mismanaged from the beginning, they even stated in one of the first B&R announcements that they may have over banned. Really, I do think they are getting better about it though. They have only banned problem decks, with most being non-contraversal (twin being the biggest exception by far), and unbanned several cards.

I think bridge died for the sins of new cards that were just printed, like GGT & BBE did. Some cards on the list absolutely can not be unbanned but GSZ & SFM are easy unbans IMO, I am comfortable unbanning several more. I think I can pick 5 cards on the list to unban today and not break the format.

Zorakkiller
Posts: 57
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Zorakkiller » 2 years ago

agreed gsz and sfm being banned at this point is a bad joke that has gone on too long. having these cards banned makes it very difficult to take modern seriously. at what point does the state of the banned list is delegitimize modern or has it already happened?

User avatar
FoodChainGoblins
Level 47
Posts: 859
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Riverside

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 2 years ago

Zorakkiller wrote:
2 years ago
agreed gsz and sfm being banned at this point is a bad joke that has gone on too long. having these cards banned makes it very difficult to take modern seriously. at what point does the state of the banned list is delegitimize modern or has it already happened?
For many players of other formats, it IS indeed a joke. I know this because I hear this. They play Modern for fun but it doesn't seem like a "real" format to them.

It's sad to me because my format IS Modern. Although I enjoy Legacy more right now, Modern is the format that I know I can play every week. Legacy tournaments are a bit tougher to find and I have to drive over 55 mi. for them.
Standard - Will pick up what's good when paper starts
Pre Modern - Do not own anymore
Pioneer - DEAD
Modern - Amulet Titan, Elementals, Trollementals, BR Asmo/Goryo's, Yawmoth Chord
Legacy - No more cards, will rebuy Sneak Show when I can
Limited - Will start when paper starts
Commander - Nope

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

Post by Wraithpk » 2 years ago

Hi everyone, is this where we come to complain about the Splinter Twin ban? ;-)

On a more serious note, man have War of the Spark and Modern Horizons impacted the format. I haven't been playing in a few months, and now I'm going to update my decks, and these two sets are everywhere. Lots of fun new toys, but it's hurting my wallet...
Modern
ubr Grixis Shadow ubr
uwg Bant Stoneblade uwg
gbr Jund gbr

Pioneer
urIzzet Phoenixur
rMono-Red Aggror
uwAzorius Controluw

Commander
bg Meren of Clan Nel Toth bg

User avatar
The Fluff
is this so?
Posts: 2115
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Gradius Home World
Contact:

Post by The Fluff » 2 years ago

wotc nailed it with horizons. One of my decks alone, has 16 cards from MH1 in it. wallet almost died.. :omg:

they have to put some good // interesting cards in ELD if they want me to spend more on singles..
Image
AnimEVO 2020 - EFZ Tournament (english commentary) // OE 2016 // POF 2018
want to play a uw control deck in modern, but don't have Jace or snapcaster? please come visit us at the Emeria thread

User avatar
pierreb
Posts: 276
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Up North

Post by pierreb » 2 years ago

FoodChainGoblins wrote:
2 years ago
For many players of other formats, it IS indeed a joke. I know this because I hear this. They play Modern for fun but it doesn't seem like a "real" format to them.
... and for many players standard is a joke (stale! Same decks all the time! Mid-range fest!), or legacy is a joke (turn 2 format! FoW format!), or vintage is a joke (millionnaire format!).

People will see and hear what they expect and believe. This thread has shown that everyone has a mantra and they mostly just keep repeating themselves.

Modern is dead, dying, yep, yep, yep it is. /s

User avatar
Ym1r
Posts: 153
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Ym1r » 2 years ago

FoodChainGoblins wrote:
2 years ago
Zorakkiller wrote:
2 years ago
agreed gsz and sfm being banned at this point is a bad joke that has gone on too long. having these cards banned makes it very difficult to take modern seriously. at what point does the state of the banned list is delegitimize modern or has it already happened?
For many players of other formats, it IS indeed a joke. I know this because I hear this. They play Modern for fun but it doesn't seem like a "real" format to them.

It's sad to me because my format IS Modern. Although I enjoy Legacy more right now, Modern is the format that I know I can play every week. Legacy tournaments are a bit tougher to find and I have to drive over 55 mi. for them.
Well, opinions of single individuals can vary, and they are not always informed. I mean, for some people playing magic is a joke so... If someone who is not really playing the format, or just super casually, and has an outsiders view of some outspoken pros or whatever, why really bother with what they have to say? IF you enjoy the format, if it is the format you want to play, just play it. Heck, even within the format people will tell you (not you specifically, in general), that a deck you play is "a joke" because you didn't net-deck, or it's not dredge/phoenix. People can claim things and they can (often) be wrong.
Counter, draw a card.

User avatar
The Fluff
is this so?
Posts: 2115
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Gradius Home World
Contact:

Post by The Fluff » 2 years ago

FoodChainGoblins wrote:
2 years ago
They play Modern for fun but it doesn't seem like a "real" format to them.

It's sad to me because my format IS Modern.
hmm, relax why do you have to be sad that modern is not a real format for other people? It's just the opinion of others.. should not be treated as overwhelming fact.

WoTC even printed a set named "modern horizons", so they care about modern. And that is enough for me. ;)
Image
AnimEVO 2020 - EFZ Tournament (english commentary) // OE 2016 // POF 2018
want to play a uw control deck in modern, but don't have Jace or snapcaster? please come visit us at the Emeria thread

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

Post by Depian » 2 years ago

I agree that we must enjoy Modern as it is and not try to turn it into something else but aren't these statements incongruent?:
gkourou wrote:
2 years ago
You can see the same people now, inventing new arguments, claiming UW is the only viable control deck,
gkourou wrote:
2 years ago
Control(UW)
Seems like UW is the only viable control deck, at least in the realms of tier1 or tier2

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Modern”