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

User avatar
Bearscape
Posts: 213
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Bearscape » 1 year ago

Moon, Bridge and Veil aren't issues because of the decks they are in, they are issues because they are awfully designed obnoxious cards that are not fun to play with. Then the argument comes that fun is subjective but honestly it really isn't; the amount of people who want games to be interactive always vastly outnumber the few who like Solitaire. Moon and Bridge just end games on the spot. Veil is of course an interactive card, but is just way too good of a rate.

User avatar
ModernDefector
Posts: 26
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: xe /xim

Post by ModernDefector » 1 year ago

I'm not sure how anyone is surprised at the banmania. Now that 1.) unfun and 2.) anticipatory/preemptive bans are fair game, it's open season. Banmania is a permanent part of the format now.

You get what you deserve, Modern 🤡

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

Post by drmarkb » 1 year ago

Bearscape wrote:
1 year ago
Moon, Bridge and Veil aren't issues because of the decks they are in, they are issues because they are awfully designed obnoxious cards that are not fun to play with. Then the argument comes that fun is subjective but honestly it really isn't; the amount of people who want games to be interactive always vastly outnumber the few who like Solitaire. Moon and Bridge just end games on the spot. Veil is of course an interactive card, but is just way too good of a rate.
Seems to me that you are one of those Johnny big monsters who don't like to be told 'no'. Attitudes like yours are why this format has cards like Oko it that we can't deal with because people with your attitude label anything controlling that locks you out as unfun. If you are locked out by these cards you have built your deck wrong. Cards like blood moon are essential to stop non basics being rancid. Bridge stops you attacking with huge cheated creatures, for a time. Neither end the game on the spot. Neither.
Modern has horrendous problems with threats vs answers, because they catered to people who don't like answers for too long.

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

Post by Tomatotime » 1 year ago

drmarkb wrote:
1 year ago
Seems to me that you are one of those Johnny big monsters who don't like to be told 'no'. Attitudes like yours are why this format has cards like Oko it that we can't deal with because people with your attitude label anything controlling that locks you out as unfun. If you are locked out by these cards you have built your deck wrong. Cards like blood moon are essential to stop non basics being rancid. Bridge stops you attacking with huge cheated creatures, for a time. Neither end the game on the spot. Neither.
Modern has horrendous problems with threats vs answers, because they catered to people who don't like answers for too long.
Ya you might need to chill out guy, there is clearly a distinction between answer cards like path to exile, which answers a creature, versus blood moon, a card that often ends the game immediately upon resolution even against fair decks that run lots of basics but just so happened to draw the wrong half of their mana base.

It is highly dubious to call a card like Blood Moon "interactive" or even an "answer" for that matter, it isn't, its a game ending threat, always has been, always will be. Also I'm not sure what you mean by "stop non basics being rancid" this comment just seems cringe like its from 2015 or something, what exactly are non basics doing to the format (beyond Tron of course)?

User avatar
Ed06288
Posts: 160
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Ed06288 » 1 year ago

where does g-tron go from here? it can't be that bad, lots of bg/x and control in the room. can be fine tuned to beat humans and toolbox decks. burn is bad of course.

i have mixed feelings on bridge and moon. maybe bridge should have costed 4 mana.

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

gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
Serious question: Why 0 Urza decks in here? Since so many people think Urza should be banned? Nah, Urza is fine.

Latest Modern Challenge: https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/a ... 2020-01-19
Probably because this is an MTGO event, and the clicky clicky clicky clicky nature of the Thopter Sword combo means that you are guaranteeing yourself some match losses due to the clock. Because even though you can demonstrate a loop, gain an arbitrary amount of life, and make an arbitrary amount of thopters, your opponent can just refuse to concede. Even playing briskly, the deck may not win quickly. And if the opponent refuses to concede, you will get match losses due to the clock. Even one of those in a medium sized event could be enough to knock someone out of contention. I have even come across this in practice rooms while learning play lines.

Even with hotkeys and fast play, I have lost matches that I had decisively won due to the structure of performing card interaction loops on MTGO (IE handily win game 1, and have full control of game 2, with combo loop in place, but run out of time and lose the match).

So it will never be properly represented in MTGO events.

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

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

drmarkb wrote:
1 year ago
idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
drmarkb wrote:
1 year ago
Instead of veil going because only U and B are decent at control, how about making white the control bastion it always was? Veil is an issue due to the card pool, so change the card pool so veil is not an issue.
OK, see you in that 'changed card pool' in 2 years?

Come now. Ban Veil. Its idiotic.
No more idiotic than letting white and red do sod all about these problematic cards, and by that I mean problematic permanents, because some Jonny big monster does not like to be told "no". Why should I be forced to play a narrow range of answers in blue or black to problem permanents? I don't want to be forced to play those cards. What you want is a ban so that you get to play for two years without worrying about Veil and meanwhile I don't get any meaningful interaction for the strategies I like. If we all suffer maybe they will actually ban the problem permanents.

White is supposed to say 'no.'. Nevermore, and suppression field type cards need to be printed at Modern quality. Prison cards, basically, because if white does not blow up the board efficiently and does not have prison effects it does nothing. Orim's chant and silence type effects are needed, but actually good. Chant is close to good but sadly it is not legal. As it stands veil is the only interesting stack interaction in the Modern game. Red too used to have cards like Aftershock iirc. It has hatebears like harsh mentor, but as usual underpowered. Chaos Warp would be fine. Landkill can help nerf things, but it would need to be better. Try crumble to dust at 3 and uncountable and see how good tron is.
I don't disagree that White especially needs a re-branding. That's not relevant to Veil absolutely needing to be removed.
UR Control UR

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

Post by drmarkb » 1 year ago

Tomatotime wrote:
1 year ago
drmarkb wrote:
1 year ago
Seems to me that you are one of those Johnny big monsters who don't like to be told 'no'. Attitudes like yours are why this format has cards like Oko it that we can't deal with because people with your attitude label anything controlling that locks you out as unfun. If you are locked out by these cards you have built your deck wrong. Cards like blood moon are essential to stop non basics being rancid. Bridge stops you attacking with huge cheated creatures, for a time. Neither end the game on the spot. Neither.
Modern has horrendous problems with threats vs answers, because they catered to people who don't like answers for too long.
Ya you might need to chill out guy, there is clearly a distinction between answer cards like path to exile, which answers a creature, versus blood moon, a card that often ends the game immediately upon resolution even against fair decks that run lots of basics but just so happened to draw the wrong half of their mana base.

It is highly dubious to call a card like Blood Moon "interactive" or even an "answer" for that matter, it isn't, its a game ending threat, always has been, always will be. Also I'm not sure what you mean by "stop non basics being rancid" this comment just seems cringe like its from 2015 or something, what exactly are non basics doing to the format (beyond Tron of course)?
Obvious point- how does it end the game immediately. I mean you do yourself no service by saying this easily fact checked statement, Twin plus pestermite or RIP helm is a combo that literally ends the game. A blood moon plus nothing literally does not.
IIt is true path is not moon, but preemptively stopping something is what we need against the problems of Modern this past year. "You can't cast" is needed, you can't design mtg with just "I kill this". So many Modern bans are a consequence of not making answers that might upset certain types of players.

Equally obvious point- Aside from scapeshift into Valakut, the whole point is that cards like Moon stops cards like Field of the Dead becoming rancid. Why was the card banned in standard. It is the existence of these cards that stops them being rancid, If nonbasics besides Valakut and Tron are doing nothing it is because Blood Moon exists. Had it existed in Standard, Field would not have been banned. Non basics are fine because of the safety valve that is Moon.
Last edited by drmarkb 1 year ago, edited 2 times in total.

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

Post by drmarkb » 1 year ago

idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
drmarkb wrote:
1 year ago
idSurge wrote:
1 year ago


OK, see you in that 'changed card pool' in 2 years?

Come now. Ban Veil. Its idiotic.
No more idiotic than letting white and red do sod all about these problematic cards, and by that I mean problematic permanents, because some Jonny big monster does not like to be told "no". Why should I be forced to play a narrow range of answers in blue or black to problem permanents? I don't want to be forced to play those cards. What you want is a ban so that you get to play for two years without worrying about Veil and meanwhile I don't get any meaningful interaction for the strategies I like. If we all suffer maybe they will actually ban the problem permanents.

White is supposed to say 'no.'. Nevermore, and suppression field type cards need to be printed at Modern quality. Prison cards, basically, because if white does not blow up the board efficiently and does not have prison effects it does nothing. Orim's chant and silence type effects are needed, but actually good. Chant is close to good but sadly it is not legal. As it stands veil is the only interesting stack interaction in the Modern game. Red too used to have cards like Aftershock iirc. It has hatebears like harsh mentor, but as usual underpowered. Chaos Warp would be fine. Landkill can help nerf things, but it would need to be better. Try crumble to dust at 3 and uncountable and see how good tron is.
I don't disagree that White especially needs a re-branding. That's not relevant to Veil absolutely needing to be removed.
They are not directly connected, but Veil would be far less ubiquitous if white and red had answers that needed dealing with, though, and if many decks could choose to run a wide range of veil-proof answers to the next Oko, alongside ones hit by Veil then Veil would not be as useful or as common. The issue is Veil nerfs the only good options for control in the format and has protected some stupidly good stuff. I mean we know that cards are contextual- Field of the dead is not banworthy in a standard with wasteland, for example, but is in the recent one. Veil could exist in a different card pool as it does in Legacy without huge issues, as a superb card rather than a broken one. Sadly we don't have that card pool, and Veil nerfs the only good stuff.

User avatar
ModernDefector
Posts: 26
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: xe /xim

Post by ModernDefector » 1 year ago

gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
No need for other bans now. Modern seems to be heading into a great direction. Lot's of things have changed.

Serious question: Why 0 Urza decks in here? Since so many people think Urza should be banned? Nah, Urza is fine.

Latest Modern Challenge: https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/a ... 2020-01-19

Winner: UB Control
Runner Up: UW Control

Top 8:
UB Control
UW Control
Abzan Coco(various combos in it)
Humans
E-Tron (with Once)
RG Eldrazi
BTL Shift
Ad Naus

9-16:
Jund: 3
GDS: 1
E-Tron(0 Once): 1
Living End: 1
Burn: 1
Titan Ramp: 1

17-32:
Mono Red Prowess: 3
Dredge(3 Ox of Agonas, 2 Ox of Agonas): 2
Burn: 2
Jund: 2
Storm: 1
Neoform: 1
Amulet: 1
Crabvine: 1
UR Thing in the ice: 1
Yawgmoth Combo/Toolbox: 1
Traverse Death's Shadow: 1

Modern is heading into a good direction and I love it!
This was the first MTGO Challenge, at the end of August, after the Hogaak/Looting ban and Stoneforge unban. We know how that worked out.

After a ban, people always try whatever for a short while. It's not a sustainable cycle, but rather a band-aid, and an illusory excitement and fix.
Image

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

Post by Tomatotime » 1 year ago

drmarkb wrote:
1 year ago
Obvious point- how does it end the game immediately. I mean you do yourself no service by saying this easily fact checked statement, Twin plus pestermite or RIP helm is a combo that literally ends the game. A blood moon plus nothing literally does not.
IIt is true path is not moon, but preemptively stopping something is what we need against the problems of Modern this past year. "You can't cast" is needed, you can't design mtg with just "I kill this". So many Modern bans are a consequence of not making answers that might upset certain types of players.
It "immediately" ends the game in the sense that it stops the victim from casting cards, which is something that 99% of decks in Modern need to do to play Magic: The Gathering(tm) and win. You argue semantics all you want, the point remains.
drmarkb wrote:
1 year ago
Equally obvious point- Aside from scapeshift into Valakut, the whole point is that cards like Moon stops cards like Field of the Dead becoming rancid. Why was the card banned in standard. It is the existence of these cards that stops them being rancid, If nonbasics besides Valakut and Tron are doing nothing it is because Blood Moon exists. Had it existed in Standard, Field would not have been banned. Non basics are fine because of the safety valve that is Moon.
Honestly, scapeshift into valakut isn't a real concern for me in terms of Modern, there are bigger issues that have been plaguing Modern for years, Tron being the chief concern. And even if Field of the dead and Tron together are massive threats to the format, it is literally easier to just ban those 2 cards to also justify a blood moon ban rather than to make the entire format have to put up with degenerate threats, and degenerate responses to said threats which also happen to cannibalize other decks who are honest actors within the format but are simply being held down by certain decks or cards which should probably be banned anyways.

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

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

drmarkb wrote:
1 year ago
They are not directly connected, but Veil would be far less ubiquitous if white and red had answers that needed dealing with, though, and if many decks could choose to run a wide range of veil-proof answers to the next Oko, alongside ones hit by Veil then Veil would not be as useful or as common. The issue is Veil nerfs the only good options for control in the format and has protected some stupidly good stuff. I mean we know that cards are contextual- Field of the dead is not banworthy in a standard with wasteland, for example, but is in the recent one. Veil could exist in a different card pool as it does in Legacy without huge issues, as a superb card rather than a broken one. Sadly we don't have that card pool, and Veil nerfs the only good stuff.
All absolutely defensible positions, but the reality needs to be discuss, not just the hypothetical.

The reality, as that Veil alone is enough to dent that already tenuous position that U and B have within the format. It is not a well designed card, it is not appropriately costed, and it fundamentally tilt's what is already a tilted meta.

Yes, it can exist in Legacy, fine. It's not a balanced card, and it actively discourages the exact kind of gameplay that has struggled for near 5 years, that has had multiple targeted unban's to attempt to prop up.

Could Veil be a hypothetically fine card? Sure.
Is Veil a fine card in Modern? No.

Moon and Bridge are far closer to fine (and I argue they are fine) compared to Veil. 1 Mana Cryptic that spits in the face of interactive magic is the stupidest card since T3feri.

3 things will continue to degrade Magic.

1. London Mull.
2. Cards like T3feri and Veil.
3. Further Oko like Power Creep/Leap.

If those 3 things are not handled better, the game continues to take a nose dive.
UR Control UR

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

Is the Heliod Ballista combo viable in modern? T3feri can help protect the combo from instant speed interaction.
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
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

The Fluff wrote:
1 year ago
Is the Heliod Ballista combo viable in modern? T3feri can help protect the combo from instant speed interaction.
Lots of different ways to build it. Most likely home is in a shell that already does similar things (like the old CoCo decks with Finks). I'm waiting for price to come down before testing myself, but I have most of a Bant shell ready to go, minus the Heliods themselves.

User avatar
Tzoulis
Posts: 279
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Tzoulis » 1 year ago

gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
I just saw Underworld Breach and I imagine an opening from the deck, like that:

Turn 1 mox opal(guessing mox amber will try to replace it), mishra's bauble, cast emry, Emry, Lurker of the Loch, mill grinding station
Turn 2 Land, underworld breach, mox opal cast grinding station from the graveyard, mill the opponent from there, or mill yourself and use Thassa's Oracle as a win con.

Is that a Turn 2 kill or something? I think yes, and even Turn 3. Guessing someone, like Kanister or somebody else, would/could have break this one. Mox Opal was the right banning.
This still can be done T2... You know what stops that sequence dead in its tracks? Banning Underworld Breach (or never printing it) IF it turns out to be that oppressive.

Your sequence illustrates what our problem IS with the Opal ban. Newer, busted cards that should've never left the playtest phase (Urza) (ab)using perfectly acceptable cards that for nearly a decade posed no problems in the format. As [mention]cfusionpm[/mention] discussed upthread, Urza decks didn't change, they didn't NEED Opal. Their powerlevel is roughly the same, because Opal wasn't the problem (if there was any to begin with, we can't know for sure).

As for this:
gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
Serious question: Why 0 Urza decks in here? Since so many people think Urza should be banned? Nah, Urza is fine.
You should know by now -since you're playing Amulet for so long- after a ban/nerf people stop playing a particular deck for a bit, then pick it up again. Conversely, if Urza is fine, why the hell ban Opal?
The Fluff wrote:
1 year ago
Is the Heliod Ballista combo viable in modern? T3feri can help protect the combo from instant speed interaction.
It can fit pretty much anywhere, I'm brainstorming a Wx (leaning Boros atm for %$#% and giggles) with the combo since both cards do well on their own but end the game on the spot together,

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

Post by ktkenshinx » 1 year ago

drmarkb wrote:
1 year ago
Legacy is bar far and away better in terms of ban talk.
Fewer bans because the crowd as a whole does not like them and the control tools are there.
Veil is an insanely good card in Legacy, where blue dominates, and yet very, very few people think of banning it, partly because Show and Tell is insanely great, Grisselbrand is great, Chalice is great....you get the picture. Obviously maindecking Veil comes at a cost when decks like DnT, Goblins, Maverick etc. all exist and in a format as wide as it is, even sideboard slots are important too. Astrolabe is a more likely long term ban, as it violates the unwritten rule that five colours comes at a cost namely vulnerability to Moon and Wastelands. Obviously nerfing five colour piles won't affect dual land prices, so they are in a better position to act without hurting wallets.
I enjoy Legacy, but we need to be clear about some of Legacy's health issues. The format is profoundly unhealthy and warped towards certain strategies, but as long as it remains under-supported and off the stage, those major health issues will never be a big part of the format experience. It's just like how Modern tends to look pretty great at the local level, or in between big changes, and then narrows around a band of top-tier strategies in major events. This is to say nothing about Legacy being a complete DOA non-starter until Wizards addresses the Reserved List which, by all measures, they are never, ever going to do. So for stable, nonrotating format experiences, it's really Modern or Pioneer right now.
Bearscape wrote:
1 year ago
Moon, Bridge and Veil aren't issues because of the decks they are in, they are issues because they are awfully designed obnoxious cards that are not fun to play with. Then the argument comes that fun is subjective but honestly it really isn't; the amount of people who want games to be interactive always vastly outnumber the few who like Solitaire. Moon and Bridge just end games on the spot. Veil is of course an interactive card, but is just way too good of a rate.
With the Lattice ban, fun is now solidly on the table as a ban criteria. This means there is definitely some kind of objective measure of fun Wizards is willing to work from. In that regard, I would not classify Bridge and Moon the same way. Bridge doesn't stop you from playing Magic or answering Bridge itself. You just can't attack. You can still cast cards, develop a board, and dig for an answer. Contrast this with Moon which actively protects itself by shutting off mana that would provide colors to answer it. I'm not saying I want Moon banned, especially because Moon's offenses are significantly less noticeable than the egregious Lattice combo in the last year. I'm just noting that Moon seems to meet a much higher standard of unfun than Bridge.
ModernDefector wrote:
1 year ago
I'm not sure how anyone is surprised at the banmania. Now that 1.) unfun and 2.) anticipatory/preemptive bans are fair game, it's open season. Banmania is a permanent part of the format now.

You get what you deserve, Modern 🤡
I agree that unfun is now an established ban criterion, for better or worse. But where do you get anticipatory/preemptive bans? I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that you are referring to Opal being banned fro an upcoming synergy with Underworld Breach. This is wild speculation with zero published evidence to back it up. Modern has enough issues and skeletons in the closet already without people inventing new conspiracy theories without evidence.
ModernDefector wrote:
1 year ago
This was the first MTGO Challenge, at the end of August, after the Hogaak/Looting ban and Stoneforge unban. We know how that worked out.

After a ban, people always try whatever for a short while. It's not a sustainable cycle, but rather a band-aid, and an illusory excitement and fix.
There's an anti-Modern sentiment in this post and the previously quoted one which I'm not super keen on. Between that and your user name, I'm just going to caution you against format bashing as defined in the OP.

That said, you are 100% correct that post-ban Challenges are not necessarily indicative of anything. It is impossible to extrapolate format direction in any way based on a single Challenge, especially in the uncertain weeks immediately following a ban. People in this thread and across the community need to remember this when assessing metagame health one way or the other.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

User avatar
FoodChainGoblins
Level 47
Posts: 816
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Riverside

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 1 year ago

Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
This still can be done T2... You know what stops that sequence dead in its tracks? Banning Underworld Breach (or never printing it) IF it turns out to be that oppressive.

Your sequence illustrates what our problem IS with the Opal ban. Newer, busted cards that should've never left the playtest phase (Urza) (ab)using perfectly acceptable cards that for nearly a decade posed no problems in the format. As cfusionpm discussed upthread, Urza decks didn't change, they didn't NEED Opal. Their powerlevel is roughly the same, because Opal wasn't the problem (if there was any to begin with, we can't know for sure).
Given Wizard's track record, they will NEVER ban a new card before at least banning 1 old card first. Show me the deck list and I'll tell you what would possibly eat a ban, given that scenario.

As for Heliod/Ballista, I've heard from some testing that the Modern version is not that good. I thought that the Pioneer version in theory would be good, but my friend also knows someone testing that version, playing it a bunch on MTGO, where cards are legal earlier, and it's not too good in the early stages. It's more of a combo built into a Weenie White deck.
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
Tzoulis
Posts: 279
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Tzoulis » 1 year ago

[mention]gkourou[/mention] Your premise that Modern will be slowed by the banning of Opal (and the rest) is fundamentally wrong. Urza decks were not winning before T3 or even T4, it was a midrange/control deck that SLOWED the format down, granted it was OP with Oko and Veil. Now big mana decks will reign supreme -especially Titan decks. Veil will make sure of that, since UW/UB control can't efficiently interact with them.
One challenge just after a ban decision amounts to nothing.

There are still many decks that can kill on T3, Druid combo decks among them, they didn't lose anything. On the contrary, they lost a predator.

You can't know that Urza decks would be broken with Opal, you didn't play the decks and there wasn't enough data to justify such a statement. They could be, but you simply can't know it. And even if they were, Opal would still be the wrong ban -and I'll disagree with the banning of Looting, as much as I welcomed it, they should've gone after Dredge itself and not Phoenix/Pyro etc. - Astrolabe and/or Emry are still the main culprits. Even in your Underworld Breach scenario Emry's the problem. Same with Jeskai Ascendancy. She;s the one enabling those loops for the T2-T3 kills. Also, Outcome NEVER killed before T4.

Probe was never fine, we just liked it because it enabled Delver strategies. As much as it pained me to see it go, it's a fundamentally unhealthy card, being a free cantrip that provides information. As mentioned before, Looting was wrong imo. Dredge and Crabvine are the main graveyard strategies that exist now. The Looting ban just killed off Phoenix, Pyro and other strategies like them. Hell, Dredge is potentially broken with Ox of Agonas.

Instead of banning or substantially nerfing fundamentally broken cards or strategies that history has shown Modern (and sometimes other formats) can't handle, they decide to go the half-assed way of doing bans with huge collateral damage.

That is to say, if they decide to start printing proper answers on par to the silly things they keep printing, we wouldn't be in this situation.

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

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
That is to say, if they decide to start printing proper answers on par to the silly things they keep printing, we wouldn't be in this situation.
This is a race to the bottom. I've mentioned it before but it just cannot work.
UR Control UR

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

Post by Tomatotime » 1 year ago

idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
This is a race to the bottom. I've mentioned it before but it just cannot work.
Is it actually a race to the bottom? Genuinely curious as I don't think we have much data to show what are the ultimate consequences of having high powered answers. Personally I have long since made peace with the fact that from a gameplay standpoint, and from a logistical one in terms of running events on a schedule, threats must be better than answers to some degree, I think the biggest issue stems from when the gulf between threats and answers is too great. I mean even control decks, an archetype made on the premise of being more weighted towards answers, still have threats in them (i.e. Elspeth, Keranos, JTMS, etc).

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

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

There must always be a threat, but they do not need to come at early turns, to the point that the answer must be free.

When you have OP threats that are so cheap, the answers must be literally free (FoW, FoN, Daze, Void, Surgical) or they cannot cannot hang. This is not a healthy, sustainable state of the game.

Creep cannot go on forever.
UR Control UR

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

Post by Tomatotime » 1 year ago

Yup I can agree with that.

User avatar
Tzoulis
Posts: 279
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Tzoulis » 1 year ago

gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
First off, I made a point that Opal decks had some limited turn 3 kills, and this, combined with Looting and Probe bans, slows the format down. Opal in a lesser degree(Cheerios are not viable now, but it was a Tier 4 deck anyway, but had Turn 2 kills, Paradoxical Outcome had some Turn 3 kills, I had lost to that, and also I had lost some times to Turn 1 emry toss SOTM, untap play mox foundry, turn 3 urza, essentially turn 3 kill, also had lost to some affinity and scales turn 3 nut draws, Phoenix turn 3 kills, Dredge putting me at 2 life at Turn 3 also, I had also lost to Goryos at turn 1 with SSG and the likes, Infect turn 3 kill'ed out of the game, Ur Kiln Fiend, DS Zoo). When you play modern for so many years and so much, and spend so much time, you get to see all broken periods. Also Turn 3 killed at lot with all of those cards.

Those were all turn 3 kills. All those decks can not kill anymore. This is a net positive in my eyes and certainly those 3 bans help the format slow down by a lot. It's basically a Turn 4 format now, except memeform and some other less played and less strong decks. It's fine having some Turn 3 kills at some relatively weak decks, that lose those cards.
Nut draws aren't relevant. All of what you described were nut draws. There are new and there are still old decks that can T3 kill. Infect got an easier T2 kill with Scale Up for example. Kiln Fiend can STILL kill on T3 just as easily. DS Zoo as well. Underworld Breach or Thassa's Oracle decks can kill on T3 (maybe T2). Druid/Vizier still kills on T3. If Wizards keeps printing new busted cards, but keep banning old cards that weren't a problem until they printed a card that broke that one, that doesn't mean that the old one was problematic.

How is that wrong? Why do old cards have to suffer for Wizard's desire to push threats ever stronger, while leaving answers to abysmal levels?
gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
Also, Dredge and Crabvine are there and Looting killed only Phoenix? This is wrong. Dredge would be bonkers with Ox now. The only thing that's making the deck worse is the looting ban. Looting nerfed Dredge as much as it was needed. And I am telling you that as a UR Phoenix lover.

Probe was "fine" from 2012 until 2016, this means 4 years, literally nobody played the card, but a Tier 2 infect. Then all hell breaks loose and it get's banned. It's a matter of how you define fine. If Looting was "fine" until they break it with various cards, same goes for Probe. Mox Opal is a special case, but it's a moxen in Modern.
Again, Probe was never fine. It just got to a point where it enabled too many broken decks to bypass interaction for virtually no costs.

I mean I didn't even write that Looting killed ONLY Phoenix and I didn't even write that Looting nerfed Dredge or Dredgevine decks appropriately. Since, they still exist and are close to T1 levels, while killing off other more midrange/weak to interaction or interactive themselves strategy the ban missed it's mark. That they decide to print another broken enabler in Ox of Agonas is another thing entirely, that circles back to what I was saying. Banning Chill, Vengevine or Stitcher's Supplier or Imp or, hel,l even Narcoamoeba would've been better while allowing the other decks to exist. If the printing of Ox would break that dredge, ban Ox, not a new card. Or ban a deck specific card since one specific strategy is the problem.
gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
Also disagree in the answers aspect. They printed answers. It's not an issue about answers anymore. We have nearly all the answers in the world(I guess we can take Daze and the likes in MH2 and we will certainly will). They could go on only one roard

1) Stop printing pushed cards/have lower power level, and this way Looting, Probe, Opal survives.
2) Have higher power level, and then those cards get the axe. We can't ban Underworld breach now though.

They chose the road no.1, that's why they are banning cards that will be problems for upcoming and future cards. Because if they go down this road and leave Opal, Stirrings, Looting, Probe intact and start banning newer cards like Urzas and Breaches and Astrolabes, the new sets will stop selling to the eternal players. So, what thing do they want more? Clearly to sell more. If that's the case, Mox Opal does not sell anymore. Thus, Mox Opal is banned in Modern.
They haven't printed answers. The best new answer they've printed was Trophy, followed by probably Force of Negation. Even Daze wouldn't do much since there is no deck to leverage that. And don't get me started on White, the color supposed to have the best answers, but somehow has never gotten a good one in years.

Meanwhile, you have -in just the past year and off the top of my head, in no particular order: Urza, Oko, Hogaak, Narset, Karn, Teferi, Emry, Questing Beast, Nissa, Creeping Chill, Stitcher's Supplier, Once Upon a Time and many others.

Stirrings has been supplanted by Once Upon a Time...

When you have that power level on threats leaving answers to Path and Push won't cut it and that will reduce the amount of interactive decks that get played.

As for sets not selling, what will happen if you ban out all the older players? Modern will lose a significant amount of its playerbase. If you want to sell boxes do what Ravnica (not War) did: It gave us new toys for linear/combo decks, created a new archetype (Phoenix), and it also gave us a high level playable answer in Trophy and a card that could've been playable in Mission Briefing.

Ravnica will have sold way more than M20 or Eldraine will have. Broken power level doesn't lead to higher sales, a better designed world in combination with a good power level does. They've missed that mark for the past 3 sets.

Modern Horizons was a good first attempt with 2 significant mistakes that should never have been printed.

Also, what will have a higher profit margin? Designing a new set by scratch with the inherent danger of screwing it up or designing a new "Masters" set and putting several chase cards like Mox Opal, Dark Confidant, Cryptic, Fetchlands etc in it?
Also it's not 0 or 100, there's a happy medium where those two can coexist and there's no need to ban longstanding staples of a format, like Opal and/or Looting.

In Opal's case, none of the newly printed cards really needed it to be broken, they were by themselves broken. Banning it just killed off 2 innocent by standers, while leaving the "offenders" relatively unharmed.
idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
This is a race to the bottom. I've mentioned it before but it just cannot work.
It definitely doesn't work now, so I don't see why not pushing on the other end of the spectrum (slowly) is a bad idea.

Cards like Counterspell, Daze, Force of Will, Toxic Deluge, Null Rod, Armageddon (bear with me on this one), Swords to Plowshares, Mystic/Fiery Confluence, the Monarch, are cards and mechanics that help a format regulate itself by either increasing the flexibility of answers or pushing fair strategies that need to be respected.

If you only push the threats then there's no point in playing interaction because the threats outvalue even your occasional 2 for 1. There's a balance there that Wizard's seems to have stopped caring about and just designs combo card after combo card while never giving interactive decks anything.

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

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
Cards like Counterspell, Daze, Force of Will, Toxic Deluge, Null Rod, Armageddon (bear with me on this one), Swords to Plowshares, Mystic/Fiery Confluence, the Monarch, are cards and mechanics that help a format regulate itself by either increasing the flexibility of answers or pushing fair strategies that need to be respected.

If you only push the threats then there's no point in playing interaction because the threats outvalue even your occasional 2 for 1. There's a balance there that Wizard's seems to have stopped caring about and just designs combo card after combo card while never giving interactive decks anything.
Honestly, I wouldnt mind, because at least the tools would be available.
UR Control UR

Yawgmoth
Posts: 170
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Yawgmoth » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
drmarkb wrote:
1 year ago
Legacy is bar far and away better in terms of ban talk.
Fewer bans because the crowd as a whole does not like them and the control tools are there...
I enjoy Legacy, but we need to be clear about some of Legacy's health issues. The format is profoundly unhealthy and warped towards certain strategies, but as long as it remains under-supported and off the stage, those major health issues will never be a big part of the format experience.
I absolutely acknowledge that Legacy is incredibly warped and that under more pressures (ie official competitive support) the format would like break.

However, I think we can learn a couple of lessons about managing format health and identity from Legacy.

1. A broken/warped format can still be fun.

In spite of the issues you identified, people love playing Legacy. I hear a lot less grumbling about format health on Legacy night than I do on a Modern night. In theory, a format should be fun. It's not clear to me if there was a point in time where there was major dissatisfaction with Legacy leading to a mass exodus of unhappy players leaving only those who enjoyed the brokenness of the format. Alternatively, the format might be broken because trying to fix it would have made people unhappy so instead they just left it alone.

2. A warped meta can define a format.

Legacy is very Blue. Force of Will in many ways defines Legacy (fast, strong, unfairly cheap). Modern is very clearly different from Legacy mostly because Modern is decidedly not Legacy. With the advent of Pioneer, Modern is at a crossroads. In 5 years what will distinguish Modern from Pioneer?

What defines Modern?

In my mind, Modern is: Tron, Jund, Urza, Dredge, Affinity, Death's Shadow, Twin, Pod...

The problem is that half of these decks have been invalidated in the pursuit of balance. Maybe the format is "balanced" or "fair" but it isn't very much fun. Or rather, it could be a lot more fun. Without a unique identity, Modern will slowly be replaced by Pioneer.

3. If a format is fun, people will play it even if WotC doesn't support it.

Legacy has been declared dead many times over but it continues to draw players around the world. People continue to play Legacy because it offers something unique to other formats. If WotC drops Modern will people still show up to their LGS to play it anyways? Right now I think the answer is decidedly "no." I can almost imagine a player defined format which is basically Modern without the banlist. People could get their Modern nostalgia vibes and break out the old Twin decks or whatever makes them happy. Without the competitive pressure the format might be able to breathe a little and become fun again.

Would love to see people's thoughts. I just want to enjoy Modern and an over-policed format while technically "balanced" isn't necessarily fun.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Modern”