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

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

Post by Tomatotime » 1 year ago

FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
Veil of Summer is just a card that has to be on the mind of anyone who utilizes Thoughtseize effects, Abrupt Decay effects, and countermagic. There are plenty of other reasons not to play those cards, but Veil is kind of the final nail in the coffin. We don't need this nail. There were already reasons not to play those cards, as they are/were commonly sided out in certain matchups.
I mean I understand what your saying, but if I'm trying to play a mid range, 100% I am more worried about going against Tron than I am against a deck playing Veil. Even as efficient as Veil is, it is a one off cast for each copy you find if it is even the correct play in the first place, compared to Tron which presents perpetual, never ending crushing card advantage which snuffs fair decks out of the game. Note I am not defending Veil, I believe the ban of it will be warranted, but we should put things into perspective and recognize which problems are bigger than others.
FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
Once Upon a Time is just way too efficient for what it does. This card makes a ban of Preordain look like a joke. Blue is much worse at doing this kind of effect than Green.
I mean OUaT is no more efficient than Ancient Stirrings really, the thing that sets OUaT apart is it gives mulligan protection, which is what Wotc have shown a desire to provide the game anyways, are we just going to ban any card that Wotc prints which gives mulligan protection that isn't blue?
FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
Which, all in all, is pretty terrible because I see it like this. Green is waaaaay above other colors. Blue is second. Black is somewhat close, then Red way down and finally, White, the joke color of Modern. The colors need to be a lot more balanced. There is a reason that Stoneforge Mystic has made a minimal impact in Modern.
You say that Green is way above other colors yet your unban request in your prior post is for Green Sun's Zenith?
FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
We have to remember the decks that it breaks, like Amulet, not the Tier 2 and Tier 3 decks that it bolsters.
Do we actually have data showing that OUaT breaks Amulet? Even if we do, what happens when Wotc prints the next card which offers mulligan protection? At what point do we just ban the cards or decks that are actually causing the problems rather than innocuous enablers?
FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
Faithless Looting was a card just like this and if you agree with its ban, then the same thing goes for OUaT.
I somewhat agreed with the looting ban but I think its worth mentioning that these situations were very different. Looting was specific to graveyard enabling which people were/are sick to death of after living with Hogaak for as long as we did. Honestly, for me, if they instead just banned a dredge specific piece and maybe Arclight Phoenix I wouldn't have minded letting Looting stay in the format but thats just me, and Wotc decided to REALLY make sure Hogaak was dead.
FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
There are a lot of problems is Modern. There is no 1 thing that will solve this. There are no 10 things that will solve this. The first thing to work on are the inconsistencies in the ban list in my opinion.
What do you see as actual inconsistencies in the banlist?
FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
Banning something from Tron solves NOTHING in my opinion. Titanshift is much more of a problem for Jund and Control than Tron is. Ask Reid Duke, who commonly beats Tron with Jund, but admits to almost never beating Titanshift, despite obviously "getting (understanding)" the matchup.
Saying that one problem "A" in the format is stronger than problem deck "B" in the format, does not prove that getting rid of problem deck "B" wouldn't improve things for various decks (there are more mid range decks that could exist in the format than Jund).

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

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 1 year ago

Tomatotime wrote:
1 year ago
FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
Veil of Summer is just a card that has to be on the mind of anyone who utilizes Thoughtseize effects, Abrupt Decay effects, and countermagic. There are plenty of other reasons not to play those cards, but Veil is kind of the final nail in the coffin. We don't need this nail. There were already reasons not to play those cards, as they are/were commonly sided out in certain matchups.
I mean I understand what your saying, but if I'm trying to play a mid range, 100% I am more worried about going against Tron than I am against a deck playing Veil. Even as efficient as Veil is, it is a one off cast for each copy you find if it is even the correct play in the first place, compared to Tron which presents perpetual, never ending crushing card advantage which snuffs fair decks out of the game. Note I am not defending Veil, I believe the ban of it will be warranted, but we should put things into perspective and recognize which problems are bigger than others.
FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
Once Upon a Time is just way too efficient for what it does. This card makes a ban of Preordain look like a joke. Blue is much worse at doing this kind of effect than Green.
I mean OUaT is no more efficient than Ancient Stirrings really, the thing that sets OUaT apart is it gives mulligan protection, which is what Wotc have shown a desire to provide the game anyways, are we just going to ban any card that Wotc prints which gives mulligan protection that isn't blue?
FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
Which, all in all, is pretty terrible because I see it like this. Green is waaaaay above other colors. Blue is second. Black is somewhat close, then Red way down and finally, White, the joke color of Modern. The colors need to be a lot more balanced. There is a reason that Stoneforge Mystic has made a minimal impact in Modern.
You say that Green is way above other colors yet your unban request in your prior post is for Green Sun's Zenith?
FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
We have to remember the decks that it breaks, like Amulet, not the Tier 2 and Tier 3 decks that it bolsters.
Do we actually have data showing that OUaT breaks Amulet? Even if we do, what happens when Wotc prints the next card which offers mulligan protection? At what point do we just ban the cards or decks that are actually causing the problems rather than innocuous enablers?
FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
Faithless Looting was a card just like this and if you agree with its ban, then the same thing goes for OUaT.
I somewhat agreed with the looting ban but I think its worth mentioning that these situations were very different. Looting was specific to graveyard enabling which people were/are sick to death of after living with Hogaak for as long as we did. Honestly, for me, if they instead just banned a dredge specific piece and maybe Arclight Phoenix I wouldn't have minded letting Looting stay in the format but thats just me, and Wotc decided to REALLY make sure Hogaak was dead.
FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
There are a lot of problems is Modern. There is no 1 thing that will solve this. There are no 10 things that will solve this. The first thing to work on are the inconsistencies in the ban list in my opinion.
What do you see as actual inconsistencies in the banlist?
FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
Banning something from Tron solves NOTHING in my opinion. Titanshift is much more of a problem for Jund and Control than Tron is. Ask Reid Duke, who commonly beats Tron with Jund, but admits to almost never beating Titanshift, despite obviously "getting (understanding)" the matchup.
Saying that one problem "A" in the format is stronger than problem deck "B" in the format, does not prove that getting rid of problem deck "B" wouldn't improve things for various decks (there are more mid range decks that could exist in the format than Jund).
Tron is one deck. You may run into Tron once every 12 matches. That means if you really can beat everything else, then you can be 11-1 at a GP going into the last 3 rounds. It gets much worse at the local level occasionally, but that is its own problem that is solved by changing what deck you play.

As an Amulet player, Once Upon a Time is sooooo much better than Ancient Stirrings. Ancient Stirrings has felt like a very average card in my opinion in the past few months and I will openly shun anyone who wants it banned while OUaT is not banned. Ancient Stirrings gets lands and Amulet. Once gets lands and creatures (Prime Time!). There is no evidence that OUaT breaks Amulet, but as an Amulet player, it's just a matter of time. Oko is now banned, so if Modern is played, we can start to analyze the data.

Hogaak as a deck died when the actual card was banned. No more, no less. With Bridge also banned, I'd argue that non Dredge graveyard strategies were already dead. Faithless Looting was banned so the format wouldn't divert to UR Phoenix, Dredge, and Mono Red Prowess after the Hogaak ban. Those would be the best decks.

Inconsistencies? I will try to refrain from saying "Twin" in this post. Preordain is banned while OUaT is not. Birthing Pod is banned while Urza is not. Green Sun's Zenith does almost nothing, outside of making poor players scoop to turn 1 Dryad Arbor. I think removing that possibility is a tragedy in Modern.

I agree that just because B is a problem doesn't mean that A has to be solved first. Still, there has to be some sort of plan at making the format more playable and banning Oko and Lattice was an amazing start. If something was done before that, it would look somewhat like a drop in the bucket when there are larger problems. I guess we have to come to some agreement in what are the larger problems.
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

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

Post by Tomatotime » 1 year ago

FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
Tron is one deck. You may run into Tron once every 12 matches. That means if you really can beat everything else, then you can be 11-1 at a GP going into the last 3 rounds. It gets much worse at the local level occasionally, but that is its own problem that is solved by changing what deck you play.
I will say that as per MTG Top 8 Modern rankings, Tron consists of multiple decks, not just one, that together make up approximately 12% of the total meta which as per their rankings make the overall archetype the most played in Modern currently, I don't see how people aren't going to run into it routinely at high levels of play, especially post day 1 conversion.

You concede the tragic effect it has on local levels of play which I appreciate but I don't think just making people switch their decks to better prepare themselves against a broken pile riddled with polarizing matchups is actually a sustainable or reasonable expectation.
FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
Inconsistencies? I will try to refrain from saying "Twin" in this post. Preordain is banned while OUaT is not. Birthing Pod is banned while Urza is not. Green Sun's Zenith does almost nothing, outside of making poor players scoop to turn 1 Dryad Arbor. I think removing that possibility is a tragedy in Modern.
Setting aside the topic of Twin, I personally don't have strong opinions one way or the other in terms of whether the cards you listed should stay banned or not, it wouldn't destroy my world view if they were unbanned, but I don't think we can really say that most of those are actual inconsistencies. Birthing Pod is simply a fundamentally different card than Urza, I don't see the point in even trying to compare the two, and in terms of comparing Preordain to OUaT, I suppose I can at least somewhat understand that, but I would say its worth adding the greater context to the purpose of Modern overall, I think when Wotc created Modern they were very sensitive to making sure blue didn't take over and become the defacto king of the hill like it did in Legacy, now we can certainly argue whether this concern is more or less relevant today than it was back then, I personally think that the unbanning of JTMS signaled that they may be softening their opinion of blue in Modern but thats just me.

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

Post by Aazadan » 1 year ago

On the Once Upon a Time meta prevalence, it's currently at 3.6 copies in 34.1% of decks. That puts it at an average of 1.23 copies per deck. That is approaching danger numbers but isn't quite there yet. It's around Tarmogoyf at it's peak for a point of reference. 1.4 is where cards that have gotten banned for being too prevalent in Modern has been a serious discussion (and so far, always happened) as far as non land goes.

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

Post by Ed06288 » 1 year ago

Yawgmoth wrote:
1 year ago
Do you have a list you could share? I tried a few different replacements for Looting but never really was very happy. The conversation in the deck primer thread dried up too. If there are Mardu Pyro lists posting good results I'd love to check them out.
https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/2645869#paper

Basically just swap out looting for seasoned pyromancer and add in some more lands. I've been playing this in competitive environments and cashing. Everyone trash talked the deck but winning is winning. I did get lucky with pairings though, been beating up on traverse shadow, grixis shadow, regular jund, and collected company combo decks. In all seriousness it has weaknesses but the deck feels strong in the right matchups. Feels heavier than all the other fair decks and just outgrinds them.

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

Post by ktkenshinx » 1 year ago

I'm doing some initial work for the next Fixing Modern articles. I have a few topics already set, especially about Wizards' communication on Modern, but want to do some brainstorming on unbans. I also eventually want to talk more about "nerf bans" (i.e. banning at the fringes of decks with hits such as Force of Vigor and Veil of Summer), but I have a little more certainty about what that will look like. Unbans are more interesting. Rather than advocate for a specific unban, I'm thinking of making the case to unban a bunch of cards simultaneously and allow real data to inform re-bannings. Basically, this is the Pioneer ban experiment reapplied to Modern.

Of course, we don't need to totally reinvent the wheel. Stuff like Skullclamp doesn't see the light of day as a result of these unbans. But I do think we can unban more cards than people think, at least if we're committed to this experimental approach. Here are the cards I do not want to unban and think Wizards should keep locked up:

1. Any T4 rule violators
Modern already struggles with too many fast/less interactive decks. Even if we can't agree that this is necessarily reflected in the data, it's certainly an optics issue Modern needs to overcome. More cards that enable fast, broken strategies does not promote the kind of strategic diversity we want Modern to reach. In that spirit, I would not unban any card that was initially banned for speed/T4 rule violations, or cards that pair with new threats to create T3 wins.
Blazing Shoal, Chrome Mox, Dread Return, Eye of Ugin, Glimpse of Nature, Gitaxian Probe, Golgari Grave-Troll, Hypergenesis, Rite of Flame, Seething Song, Summer Bloom

2. Anything legal in the Modern and Legacy cardpool that's banned in Legacy
With the exception of W6, anything that's banned in Legacy and potentially legal in Modern is also banned in Modern. If those cards are inappropriate at both power levels, we don't need to reconsider them now.
Deathrite Shaman, Dig Through Time, Probe (captured in category 1)), Mental Misstep, Sensei's Divining Top, Skullclamp, Treasure Cruise

3. Anything banned in the 2019/2020
The idea of this mass unbanning is to give old cards new chances. We don't need to put the new offenders back on trial when they were just convicted in a contemporary context.
Bridge from Below, Faithless Looting, Hogaak, Arisen Necropolis, Krark-Clan Ironworks, Mox Opal, Mycosynth Lattice, Oko, Thief of Crowns

4. Logistical problems
Cards that broke tournament structures in the past will probably continue to do so in the future. It only takes one person on Eggs to grind the entire tournament to a halt.
Second Sunrise, Top (capture in category 2)

That nixes 25 cards from our unban experiment and leaves us with the following:
Ancient Den, Birthing Pod, Cloudpost, Dark Depths, Great Furnace, Green Sun's Zenith, Ponder, Preordain, Punishing Fire, Seat of the Synod, Splinter Twin, Tree of Tales, Umezawa's Jitte, Vault of Whispers

A few of these cards are troubling. Depths + Stage is probably a little too consistent for Modern without a real Wasteland effect, so I don't mind Depths going. It's also an iconic Legacy card that doesn't need to bleed into Modern. Ponder and Preordain are also interesting cases, because they were initially banned for alleged T4 rule violations. In that regard, they should probably be in my list of T4 rule violators above. I'm excluding them from that list for a few reasons. First, there's only one fast blue combo deck in Modern right now (Storm), which had multiple cards banned from it alongside or after Ponder/Preordain. Second, there are two extremely strong green cantrips in Modern right now (OUaT, Stirrings) which pushes overall consistency in those strategies. Maybe P&P end up being broken, but we should at least give them a shot in the experiment. Finally, I'd be a little worried about Cloudpost. Just like Modern has a bunch of linear, aggressive decks undercutting strategic diversity, so too does it have at least four top-tier ramp decks (Gx Tron, Titanshift, Simic Titan, Amulet Titan). I don't think we really need one more.

Given that, here's the list of cards I'd consider in our experiment:

The Great Modern Unban Experiment
Ancient Den, Birthing Pod, Great Furnace, Green Sun's Zenith, Ponder, Preordain, Punishing Fire, Seat of the Synod, Splinter Twin, Tree of Tales, Umezawa's Jitte, Vault of Whispers

I would like to see Wizards unban these 12 cards simultaneously in a period with no GP/PT events for a few months. Then we can watch what happens on MTGO and make new bans based on that. I suspect a number of these cards would be rebanned for a variety of reasons, but I also think we would be left with a few surprises that are secretly acceptable for the format and need a second chance. The experiment's goal is not necessarily to exonerate all 12 of these cards. It's to give the greatest number of banlist inmates the best chance at exoneration in a new Modern context. This will also help us mythbust or confirm banlist beliefs/arguments that have splintered (bahaha) the community for years. Finally, it will excite the playerbase and further cement Modern's identity. The cost to all this is a period of 2-3 months of instability with the promise of a more diverse Modern, assuming Wizards/the community gets the bans right, thereafter.

To restate a point earlier, I'm not 100% sold on this list or the underlying rationale. I'm just brainstorming out loud for a future article and am happy to hear feedback, criticism, and ideas about this approach.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

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

Post by Tomatotime » 1 year ago

Let me preface this by saying that I don't have anything fundamentally against a lot of these cards you want to unban, but what exactly is the upside for Wotc to do so? Lets break it down categorically:

1. Artifact Lands - We have just gone through a 1+ years of artifact driven metas, whether it was KCI, into Urza, with some Lantern Control sprinkled in which won a pro tour in early 2018. So if your Wotc, and your trying to manage this format and trying to get artifact decks under control, isn't unbanning these just rolling the dice? And for what gain?

2. Green Sun's Zenith - With the desire to reduce the speed of the format and reduce overall gold fishing/solitaire strategies, I'm not sure this card will ever come off. After all, they just banned Mox Opal whose primary role is to ramp on turn 1, I don't think Wotc is in a rush to unban this just because.

3. Preordain/Ponder - I personally have no issue with unbanning these, I think Wotc's fear of Modern becoming blue dominated like Legacy was is a bit outdated and arbitrary at this point. However, by the logic of many within this thread, we have been continually debating whether it is more appropriate to ban degenerate decks in terms of the actual cards causing the problems versus simply using bans to hurt those decks consistency. I don't think we can simultaneously hold the position that Expedition Map needs to be banned so that Tron becomes less consistent while allowing these cards in which will immediately slot into whichever combo decks it possibly can to improve the consistency for them. Now if as a group we could come to a consensus that consistency effects are fine and should not be banned compared to the actual causes of degenerate gameplay, so be it, I assume by that logic, OUaT would also be exonorated.

4. Umezawa's Jitte - This one is a bit flashy at first glance but again, what exactly would this unban be used to push back against? I don't think it would even be strong in Modern to be honest but without a clear reason to unban it, doesn't it simply represent another tool for artifact decks to Whir for to suppress fairer decks?

5. Punishing Fire - Again, I don't think this card would even be strong in Modern, but what exactly does it do to help the Modern meta at this point? It doesn't kill most of the highly played threats in the format, so what is the actual ideal interaction this card would have within the format?

6. Birthing Pod/ Twin - I'll be brief, I don't know if I care at this point if these cards are unbanned, as soon as anyone even mentions Twin in particular in this thread the conversation simply spirals out of control. I would simply ask, what is Modern gaining by bringing them back beyond just nostalgia exploitation?

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

Post by Yawgmoth » 1 year ago

Ed06288 wrote:
1 year ago
Yawgmoth wrote:
1 year ago
Do you have a list you could share? I tried a few different replacements for Looting but never really was very happy. The conversation in the deck primer thread dried up too. If there are Mardu Pyro lists posting good results I'd love to check them out.
https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/2645869#paper

Basically just swap out looting for seasoned pyromancer and add in some more lands. I've been playing this in competitive environments and cashing. Everyone trash talked the deck but winning is winning. I did get lucky with pairings though, been beating up on traverse shadow, grixis shadow, regular jund, and collected company combo decks. In all seriousness it has weaknesses but the deck feels strong in the right matchups. Feels heavier than all the other fair decks and just outgrinds them.
Awesome, thanks!

My meta is overrun with Traverse & Grixis Shadow, Jund, and Amulet-Titan decks so your results are encouraging me to try and rebuild my Pyro deck. As a Goblins player I'm used to getting trash talked and also winning. My favorite was one of our regulars literally ignore me for game 1 (texting during the entire game) only to lose, then he barely wins game two, and then starts complaining about my slow play while I grind out a win with my Gobos. I prefer the slow burn and I'll take wins where I can get them.

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

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 1 year ago

Tomatotime wrote:
1 year ago
Let me preface this by saying that I don't have anything fundamentally against a lot of these cards you want to unban, but what exactly is the upside for Wotc to do so? Lets break it down categorically:

1. Artifact Lands - We have just gone through a 1+ years of artifact driven metas, whether it was KCI, into Urza, with some Lantern Control sprinkled in which won a pro tour in early 2018. So if your Wotc, and your trying to manage this format and trying to get artifact decks under control, isn't unbanning these just rolling the dice? And for what gain?

2. Green Sun's Zenith - With the desire to reduce the speed of the format and reduce overall gold fishing/solitaire strategies, I'm not sure this card will ever come off. After all, they just banned Mox Opal whose primary role is to ramp on turn 1, I don't think Wotc is in a rush to unban this just because.

3. Preordain/Ponder - I personally have no issue with unbanning these, I think Wotc's fear of Modern becoming blue dominated like Legacy was is a bit outdated and arbitrary at this point. However, by the logic of many within this thread, we have been continually debating whether it is more appropriate to ban degenerate decks in terms of the actual cards causing the problems versus simply using bans to hurt those decks consistency. I don't think we can simultaneously hold the position that Expedition Map needs to be banned so that Tron becomes less consistent while allowing these cards in which will immediately slot into whichever combo decks it possibly can to improve the consistency for them. Now if as a group we could come to a consensus that consistency effects are fine and should not be banned compared to the actual causes of degenerate gameplay, so be it, I assume by that logic, OUaT would also be exonorated.

4. Umezawa's Jitte - This one is a bit flashy at first glance but again, what exactly would this unban be used to push back against? I don't think it would even be strong in Modern to be honest but without a clear reason to unban it, doesn't it simply represent another tool for artifact decks to Whir for to suppress fairer decks?

5. Punishing Fire - Again, I don't think this card would even be strong in Modern, but what exactly does it do to help the Modern meta at this point? It doesn't kill most of the highly played threats in the format, so what is the actual ideal interaction this card would have within the format?

6. Birthing Pod/ Twin - I'll be brief, I don't know if I care at this point if these cards are unbanned, as soon as anyone even mentions Twin in particular in this thread the conversation simply spirals out of control. I would simply ask, what is Modern gaining by bringing them back beyond just nostalgia exploitation?
What deck does Green Sun's Zenith speed up? Green Sun's Zenith is much more of a consistency card than a speed card. The only deck that could kill before turn 3 with this in it is Infect, which already is known for turn 2 and turn 3 kills without interaction.

[mention]Aazadan[/mention] - Thank you for showing stats on Once Upon a Time! Like I said, it's only a matter of time before everyone knows it. Some already know it. The card is seriously busted and Preordain and probably even Ponder are both JOKES, yes, JOKES compared with this card. The illusion of a stronger chance to come back from a mulligan is not enough to allow busted cards to prevail in Modern while less busted ones are banned. THAT is not right and inconsistency keeps players from playing this format.

[mention]ktkenshinx[/mention] - Thank you for that well thought out post. I truly see you are someone who cares deeply about Modern, possibly even more than myself (which I could never believe for anybody else). That experiment would be wonderful. I've said all along that Modern should not have had a preconceived ban list. Sword of the Meek never deserved to be there and Eye of Ugin and Hogaak not being emergency banned made this format seem even more silly, when compared with the preconceived ban list. I would like to add some cards to your list like Deathrite Shaman. I never understood why people were so adverse to this card. Some people act like it's the strongest card on the ban list when there are at least 4 other more obvious cards. It is a fair card. It should hate on graveyards at least a tiny bit. It is a superior mana dork, but Noble Hierarch is not even super strong anymore. Bridge from Below was only banned to sell more Modern Horizons. And there is much, much more.

As for Jitte, I am biased against the card. I think it makes creature matchups very stupid. But I am willing to concede and allow a card like that if other cards like Birthing Pod can come off.
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

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

Post by iTaLenTZ » 1 year ago

The unban experiment should coincide with a restart point like Invasion or Mercadian Masques otherwise it would be pointless to have the same cards/decks back in the format without answers or other shakeups.

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

Post by ModernDefector » 1 year ago

Once Upon a Time in yesterday's MTGO Challenge:

50% of the top 32 playing it main deck; all but one of them with 3 or 4 copies

1. 1 copy
2. -
3. -
4. -
5. -
6. 4 copies
7. -
8. -
9. -
10. -
11. -
12. 4 copies
13. 4 copies
14. 4 copies
15. -
16. -
17. 4 copies
18. -
19. -
20. -
21. 4 copies
22.
23. 4 copies
24. 3 copies
25. 4 copies
26.
27. 4 copies
28. 4 copies
29. 3 copies
30. 4 copies
31. 4 copies
32. 4 copies

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

Post by ktkenshinx » 1 year ago

Tomatotime wrote:
1 year ago
Let me preface this by saying that I don't have anything fundamentally against a lot of these cards you want to unban, but what exactly is the upside for Wotc to do so? Lets break it down categorically:
I don't disagree with most of your assessments, except for the artifact lands. I think there's some mix of artifact lands which are appropriate for Modern without overpowering artifact strategies, and Wizards has five colors/five lands to play with in that regard. The underlying point of the experiment is not to reach any specific format upside with an unban. It's to reassess historical bans in light of new cards and address banlist myths/realities once and for all. This will help repair some format confidence for veteran players, and excite new and old players about potential reentered cards. It's important to remember that Pioneer's unban experiment had a few cards that were almost CERTAINLY going to eat bans. Guardian and Copter looked like goners almost as soon as they announced the format, with awful Nexus of Fate close behind. Wizards still let these cards have a fair shot. In the worst case scenario, every single unbanned card gets rebanned in a 1-3 month period of instability, and then we put the unban myths to rest for a long while. In the better scenario, we find a few gems which are solid Modern contenders without breaking anything, and all of those can reenter. This kind of experiment shows players that Wizards cares about the format and is open to revisiting old decisions, regardless of what does or doesn't stay unbanned.
FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
ktkenshinx - Thank you for that well thought out post. I truly see you are someone who cares deeply about Modern, possibly even more than myself (which I could never believe for anybody else). That experiment would be wonderful. I've said all along that Modern should not have had a preconceived ban list. Sword of the Meek never deserved to be there and Eye of Ugin and Hogaak not being emergency banned made this format seem even more silly, when compared with the preconceived ban list. I would like to add some cards to your list like Deathrite Shaman. I never understood why people were so adverse to this card. Some people act like it's the strongest card on the ban list when there are at least 4 other more obvious cards. It is a fair card. It should hate on graveyards at least a tiny bit. It is a superior mana dork, but Noble Hierarch is not even super strong anymore. Bridge from Below was only banned to sell more Modern Horizons. And there is much, much more.

As for Jitte, I am biased against the card. I think it makes creature matchups very stupid. But I am willing to concede and allow a card like that if other cards like Birthing Pod can come off.
I don't really have anything against DRS, but I'm worried about the Legacy/Modern track record. In general, the Legacy/Modern-legal cards that got banned in both formats were supremely broken, even if for slightly different reasons. I don't really think we should let one of those go. That said, I'd also be willing to consider a few on a case by case basis. The DRS ban is old enough in Modern that it's maybe worth giving it a second shot in the unban experiment; after all, that's the point of the experiment.
iTaLenTZ wrote:
1 year ago
The unban experiment should coincide with a restart point like Invasion or Mercadian Masques otherwise it would be pointless to have the same cards/decks back in the format without answers or other shakeups.
Although some players would like this, this suggestion is just too unrealistic for me to get behind. The odds of Wizards totally rebooting Modern with a new starting point are too low. It's also a very uncertain proposal that will see a host of other cards banned. These kind of seismic changes are too much for the format and will totally redefine it in a way that is unrealistic and uncertain. Modern needs to stabilize its identity, not double down into more upheavals.
gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
ktkenshinx, thanks for the great post.

Just my 2 cents. Don't include Ponder in that list. Ponder means combos and we all know that. Does it also mean control? Yeah, but that's beside the point. Ponder + Preordain + Twin + Veil of Summer, what do you expect from this? What do you expect from Ad nauseam or Storm taking those 2 cards? It's not right, and even if Ponder is not a clear T4 rule violator, historically, it's kind of been one.

I would say don't include Preordain also, but that would be a stretch.

That said, if this article of yours included Ponder, it would look as a bad article, even if the rest of it would be great. Please, take my advice.
I think P&P are open questions. I also totally disagree with your last statement that the entire article will be torpedoed based on a few unban suggestions that may be off-base. In my last article, I mentioned shakeup nerf bans and only a tiny handful of users got upset about that with basically everyone else, Forsythe included, focusing on the main concepts. That is almost certainly going to be the case here. I am also not advocating for any specific list as much as I am advocating for the concept of a Great Unban Experiment. Wizards and the community can curate that list however they like, as long as it represents a bunch of cards in an experimental period.
ModernDefector wrote:
1 year ago
Once Upon a Time in yesterday's MTGO Challenge:

50% of the top 32 playing it main deck; all but one of them with 3 or 4 copies
gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
Let's move the conversation away from bannings, for a start. Stahp with the banmania. Let's discuss ktk's article. It's the only way to save Modern from the downfall.
I gotta agree with ModernDefector here. OUaT is a problem. Veil is also a problem, but that's a topic for another time. Modern does need more bans to reach a stable state, and one of the Fixing Modern articles will discuss ban ideas. It just can't be the only thing Wizards does. It must be paired with other actions.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

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

Post by Tzoulis » 1 year ago

gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
So, fast forward to my local store, Pioneer has a lot more players than Modern now.
Some of those Modern players are on toolbox decks(I know, those are tier 3 decks mostly and some on Infect). All of them got hit by multiple bannings and decided to play some decks that are immune to them. Two of them were on Mardu Pyromancer, got hit by Looting bans, one of them turned into Pioneer and the other one is playing a yawgmoth deck.
Where do you play? Because my store has been one the 2 or 3 stores in Athens that didn't see a decrease in Modern players because of Hogaak/Oko or directly related to Wizard's handling of Modern, but mostly due to RL circumstances. Also, I think it's the only store that fires Legacy events. We've just started Pioneer events (one of our players just top 4'd GP Brussels in Pioneer), but the two don't really compete, we do 2 days of Modern with 15 or more people regularly.

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

Post by drmarkb » 1 year ago

Having been through the Pioneer banning process, it is not one that will be attractive to players, a few weeks of disruption to establish whether GSZ or whatever is bannable is not attractive for an established format. If you wish to make Modern into a new format, extending the pool back or forward a couple of years then fair enough. There is a bloody good argument for Modern to go to TSE block, bringing in Replenish, Wasteland etc. If you want to do that then there is an argument for a Pioneer approach, I would happily and enthusiastically sign up. Otherwise, forget it. If you are not doing that, then more upheaval is as attractive as a turd in a swimming pool.
We don't need to look at all these cards when the format is on fire. There is absolutely no reason to pick on 2019 bans either. A format with Pod, Twin et al is fundamentally not the same as Modern now, and thus cards recently banned might not be so good in the new format, so if you are looking again at old ones then the new ones should be treated equally.


With Modern as what it is, theT4 rule should really be T5- selection is poor and it is too easy to stumble- if you can win on the play ON T4, not before before T4, then bans should be applied. That means no Depths or Twin. Pod and GSZ too will just enable more combo that threatens early wins.

I am comfortable extending modern to an earlier point where tools exist to deal with degeneracy and to add consistency to answers, I just don't think it can be done sucessfully without Force, Wasteland and Swords, which means back to Ice age/4th. Which is Legacy with no duals and Legends cards.
Last edited by drmarkb 1 year ago, edited 1 time in total.

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

Post by iTaLenTZ » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
iTaLenTZ wrote: ↑12 hours ago
The unban experiment should coincide with a restart point like Invasion or Mercadian Masques otherwise it would be pointless to have the same cards/decks back in the format without answers or other shakeups.
Although some players would like this, this suggestion is just too unrealistic for me to get behind. The odds of Wizards totally rebooting Modern with a new starting point are too low. It's also a very uncertain proposal that will see a host of other cards banned. These kind of seismic changes are too much for the format and will totally redefine it in a way that is unrealistic and uncertain. Modern needs to stabilize its identity, not double down into more upheavals.
Current Modern isn't and hasn't been working for some time now due to fundamental issues thus a redefinition of Modern is inevitable. If Modern is going to be redefined than every possibility should be open for discussion. Its a one time window of opportunity and if it passes people will lament and comment on it for years. Every startingpoint for Modern is arbitrary anyway.

Also they have somehow already tried to artificially change the startingpoint of Modern by reprinting those cards of prior sets that would be staples/see play but they failed with Modern Horizons because they left out all those cards people had been begging for years.

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

Post by Yawgmoth » 1 year ago

iTaLenTZ wrote:
1 year ago
Also they have somehow already tried to artificially change the startingpoint of Modern by reprinting those cards of prior sets that would be staples/see play but they failed with Modern Horizons because they left out all those cards people had been begging for years.
This I think is a much better approach than winding back the clock. I'm hoping that WotC realizes the jeopardy that Modern is in and uses MH2 to try to remedy it. We need more staples and less draft chaff. It can still be drafted, obviously, it will just be super strong. Honestly, that sounds more fun than most drafts.

MH has the potential to be the vehicle WotC needs but they need to fully commit. To be fair, MH1 wasn't as bad as most people act. The Horizon Lands cycle was great for example and they could easily finish it. Prismatic Vista and Astrolabe were also great. That's the type of product that I personally liked in that set. That and Wrenn & Six and Yawgmoth. I'm still baffled by how early reviews didn't like Wrenn. It immediately became the first planeswalker I have ever liked playing with. I normally hate the card type. It took almost a year for Yawgmoth to start seeing real attention too.

What is the general opinions on MH specifically? As a whole was it good or bad? Yes Hogaak was broken and Urza is very strong but those are only two cards.

User avatar
Simto
Posts: 252
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Copenhagen

Post by Simto » 1 year ago

Yawgmoth wrote:
1 year ago

This I think is a much better approach than winding back the clock. I'm hoping that WotC realizes the jeopardy that Modern is in and uses MH2 to try to remedy it. We need more staples and less draft chaff. It can still be drafted, obviously, it will just be super strong. Honestly, that sounds more fun than most drafts.
Can't tell you how happy I'd be if they put out a proper set like Modern Horizon 2 and didn't have to focus on making it work in draft... I like sealed, but hate draft so much.

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

Post by pierreb » 1 year ago

I understand the intent behind the unban experiment, bit I still question its merit. Especially in the context of an article which aims to heal modern. The problem I have with it, which is already a bit illustrated here and would be much more vehemently displayed elsewhere is that it would mostly just stir the %$#% pot.

People have different, reasonable opinions about which cards are safe or unsafe to unban. So the experiment would surely just bring about a slug-fest. Is that a good goal for your article? Like others have said, most of the cards would not help struggling archetypes nor really create new ones. If the goal is to produce excitement and bring back players who abandoned the format, then pod and twin are the only unban targets that would do so. (But, unbanning twin risks having the opposite effect of making people want to play the format less... unless it instantly proves to be harmless. That one really big if.)

(Just to give contrary opinions on card, illustrating of the divisive nature of unban suggestions... IMO, Jitte would defeat small creatures, DRS is a monster of a card (it's not hierarch by a mile: it's mana, plus GY hate, plus inevitability, plus life gain rolled in a 1-drop), artifact lands make emry and other affinity and/or artifact engine silly consistent, P&P, well, P&P would make me and others play more storm :) )

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
Having been through the Pioneer banning process, it is not one that will be attractive to players, a few weeks of disruption to establish whether GSZ or whatever is bannable is not attractive for an established format. If you wish to make Modern into a new format, extending the pool back or forward a couple of years then fair enough. There is a bloody good argument for Modern to go to TSE block, bringing in Replenish, Wasteland etc. If you want to do that then there is an argument for a Pioneer approach, I would happily and enthusiastically sign up. Otherwise, forget it. If you are not doing that, then more upheaval is as attractive as a turd in a swimming pool.
iTaLenTZ wrote:
1 year ago
Current Modern isn't and hasn't been working for some time now due to fundamental issues thus a redefinition of Modern is inevitable. If Modern is going to be redefined than every possibility should be open for discussion. Its a one time window of opportunity and if it passes people will lament and comment on it for years. Every startingpoint for Modern is arbitrary anyway.
Again, there is no good reason to advocate for a new starting point. It will result in a dozen new bans and a total format upheaval with an extremely uncertain end. Modern was wildly popular for years and maintains a strong core. Wizards doesn't fix that by upending their top format, invalidating or redefining every single deck in the metagame, and creating major secondary market price shifts due to new card legality. I get that we represent an extremely spikey group of enfranchised players who lean towards a more Legacy or Legacy-lite style of Magic. I want you both to realize this is not anywhere close to where Wizards wants Modern to go. I'm not wasting words or community capital arguing for this kind of unrealistic and unstable objective.
drmarkb wrote:
1 year ago
With Modern as what it is, theT4 rule should really be T5- selection is poor and it is too easy to stumble- if you can win on the play ON T4, not before before T4, then bans should be applied. That means no Depths or Twin. Pod and GSZ too will just enable more combo that threatens early wins.
This is an egregious misreading of the T4 rule as we understand it. Every aggro deck in the format wins on T4 on the play in a goldfish scenario. This doesn't mean we ban dozens of cards from aggressive decks to artificially slow their natural game plan. I hate to defer to this argument, but it's true in this case: if you don't like that speed, Modern is not the format for you. Pioneer and Standard would be more appropriate.
drmarkb wrote:
1 year ago
I am comfortable extending modern to an earlier point where tools exist to deal with degeneracy and to add consistency to answers, I just don't think it can be done sucessfully without Force, Wasteland and Swords, which means back to Ice age/4th. Which is Legacy with no duals and Legends cards.
iTaLenTZ wrote:
1 year ago
Also they have somehow already tried to artificially change the startingpoint of Modern by reprinting those cards of prior sets that would be staples/see play but they failed with Modern Horizons because they left out all those cards people had been begging for years.
Arguing for Wizards to change the starting point is an unrealistic waste of our resources that fundamentally misunderstands Wizards as a company. It also attributes Modern's issues to a very narrow set of circumstances that are heavily Legacy or Legacy-Lite oriented. Arguing for meaningful reprints, however, is a winning proposition. Wizards has a demonstrated track record of trying to add cards to Modern, either directly through MH1, directly through Standard-legal sets, or indirectly through pushed design mistakes. We can and should advocate for more of the first two (and less of the third). This approach sells Wizards new product and hypes up their older format during release period. It also monetizes a nonrotating format in a way that doesn't interfere with Wizards' other format offerings and product lines. Finally, with the exception of offensive errors like Hogaak, it allows Wizards to more surgically inject tools to the format that can create new archetypes or empower old ones. Meaningful reprints are absolutely, 100% part of a long-term Fixing Modern strategy. Changing the starting point, however, is a misguided nonstarter.
pierreb wrote:
1 year ago
I understand the intent behind the unban experiment, bit I still question its merit. Especially in the context of an article which aims to heal modern. The problem I have with it, which is already a bit illustrated here and would be much more vehemently displayed elsewhere is that it would mostly just stir the %$#% pot.

People have different, reasonable opinions about which cards are safe or unsafe to unban. So the experiment would surely just bring about a slug-fest. Is that a good goal for your article? Like others have said, most of the cards would not help struggling archetypes nor really create new ones. If the goal is to produce excitement and bring back players who abandoned the format, then pod and twin are the only unban targets that would do so. (But, unbanning twin risks having the opposite effect of making people want to play the format less... unless it instantly proves to be harmless. That one really big if.)

(Just to give contrary opinions on card, illustrating of the divisive nature of unban suggestions... IMO, Jitte would defeat small creatures, DRS is a monster of a card (it's not hierarch by a mile: it's mana, plus GY hate, plus inevitability, plus life gain rolled in a 1-drop), artifact lands make emry and other affinity and/or artifact engine silly consistent, P&P, well, P&P would make me and others play more storm :) )
These are relevant cautions to consider. I will note that the purpose of the article is not just to "heal" Modern; it's to fix the format. Some people may get alienated and upset with Wizards' decisions as they repair a broken format, but the long-term benefits can outweigh the short-term costs. This means some suggestions are not necessarily "healing" so much as they repair Modern deficits. I'll also note that the goal of these fixes is not to make everyone happy. It's to create a better format, which will make a large number of players happy at the potential, and inevitable, expense of those who disagree with the direction.

As for the polarizing nature of unbans, I agree this is a unique topic that really amps up a selection of players. There are right and wrong ways to approach unbans. I'll also say that successful unbans are hugely beneficial to the format. They simply add cards back into circulation, increasing net diversity even if not meaningful diversity (it's not like Bitterblossom sees top-tier play). They are also great opportunities for Wizards to admit they were wrong in the past, which builds significant community goodwill towards a company that needs a lot of player goodwill after a bad 2019. Most people agree on these general principles. They just disagree about which unbans accomplish it. That's why the Experiment casts a wide net: it lets us examine many of the possible targets one last time for the foreseeable future to see if they are or are not appropriate.

I still believe there is a combination of unban targets and unban timing (e.g. unbanning all at once vs. unbanning once at a time every 1-2 weeks, etc.) that makes the Great Unban Experiment a resounding community success. People get really hung up on specific cards that they will swear up and down are broken. And yet, we've heard this for literally every unbanned card in the format and none of them broke on their own without Wizards doing something boneheaded (see GGT being fine for a while and then not being fine because Wizards can't print appropriately-powered GY sets). It's not like Wizards unbanning Entomb in Legacy and then having to ban Mystical Tutor months later because the Entomb/Tutor strategy was too powerful and they missed it. Players need to view this as an experiment to identify the right unbans, knowing and accepting that some/many will probably be rebanned.

Overall, although I disagree with many of the issues brought up with this idea, I very much enjoy the discussion and think these are critical points to consider in refining the argument. This is a huge advantage of these forums.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

User avatar
The Fluff
is this so?
Posts: 1943
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Gradius Home World
Contact:

Post by The Fluff » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
The Great Modern Unban Experiment
Ancient Den, Birthing Pod, Great Furnace, Green Sun's Zenith, Ponder, Preordain, Punishing Fire, Seat of the Synod, Splinter Twin, Tree of Tales, Umezawa's Jitte, Vault of Whispers

I would like to see Wizards unban these 12 cards simultaneously in a period with no GP/PT events for a few months. Then we can watch what happens on MTGO and make new bans based on that. I suspect a number of these cards would be rebanned for a variety of reasons, but I also think we would be left with a few surprises that are secretly acceptable for the format and need a second chance. The experiment's goal is not necessarily to exonerate all 12 of these cards. It's to give the greatest number of banlist inmates the best chance at exoneration in a new Modern context. This will also help us mythbust or confirm banlist beliefs/arguments that have splintered (bahaha) the community for years. Finally, it will excite the playerbase and further cement Modern's identity. The cost to all this is a period of 2-3 months of instability with the promise of a more diverse Modern, assuming Wizards/the community gets the bans right, thereafter.

To restate a point earlier, I'm not 100% sold on this list or the underlying rationale. I'm just brainstorming out loud for a future article and am happy to hear feedback, criticism, and ideas about this approach.
would agree that it would excite the playerbase. very greatly. Although Jitte would wreck a lot of people, it would be an auto include in sfm decks. Artifact lands could potentially revitalize classic affinity, but the deck would now be more vulnerable to stony silence and hurkyll's recall type of cards.

and I would make plenty money selling playsets of gsz and spellskites.
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: 266
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Up North

Post by pierreb » 1 year ago

I'm not convinced about the goodwill argument. Sure, some will see it as you claim, that Wizards is ready to revisit past decisions and admit error. Others would see it as Wizards being dumb and not seeing that cards X should obviously never be unbanned. Of course, we have a good pool of "see? it was harmless after all" unbans to point to, so it may work out.

I;m just afraid that after 2019 being awful for months, this experiment would make 20202 awful for months. It may be good for the long term, but will surely be painful.

Plus, I only own a single jitte and no twins. :) But hey!, my pod deck is ready. I guess the excitement part works! (Mmm, pod could really use DRS as a one-drop...)
Last edited by pierreb 1 year ago, edited 1 time in total.

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

Post by Tomatotime » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
There are right and wrong ways to approach unbans. I'll also say that successful unbans are hugely beneficial to the format.
Ya I think this statement needs to clarification, can you please name literally even 1 card for Modern that was unbanned which fits this definition of being "hugely beneficial"? I think we need to understand to what extent you actually mean in order to debate this.
ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
They are also great opportunities for Wizards to admit they were wrong in the past, which builds significant community goodwill towards a company that needs a lot of player goodwill after a bad 2019.
I mean....whether we agree with it or not, the vast majority of the cards on the ban list are there for a reason, just because they were put onto the banlist does not mean Wotc was actually wrong in doing so, nor does Wotc unbanning something act as an admission of fault.
ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
I still believe there is a combination of unban targets and unban timing (e.g. unbanning all at once vs. unbanning once at a time every 1-2 weeks, etc.) that makes the Great Unban Experiment a resounding community success.
So if this is supposed to be some community initiative, walk me through the steps of how it actually succeeds. Let me give my guess, it probably goes something like this:

1. All of your cards requested get unbanned
2. [insert local spike] decides to buy into Twin
3. Due to Twin now having Ponder and Veil, it most likely gets banned within a couple of weeks.
4. [insert local spike] now gets even more furious with the format for wasting both his time and money to an even greater extent than it already has.

If you disagree with this assessment then by all means please advise your counterpoint and we can talk things out, as I see it, the Pioneer method worked to the extent it did solely on the basis of it being an actual new format which gave players an extra level of patience that they otherwise wouldn't exhibit. This is why I agree with other posters here, that if you wanted to actually give your mass unbanning proposal some actual purpose, you would want to change the actual starting point of Modern to actually give a definitive reason to justify all the hassle of this experiment, not that I myself necessarily even want the starting point of Modern to change, but it represents an actual logical reason to justify the mass unbannings.

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

Post by pierreb » 1 year ago

Tomatotime wrote:
1 year ago
If you disagree with this assessment then by all means please advise your counterpoint and we can talk things out, as I see it, the Pioneer method worked to the extent it did solely on the basis of it being an actual new format which gave players an extra level of patience that they otherwise wouldn't exhibit.
I think the fix would be to pair the unbans with an announcement/article that makes it clear it is an experiment and that all unbanned cards are likely to be re-banned. This would limit who tries to jam the new cards to people who already own them and people willing to bet money. They would need to make clear the cards are on a watch list.

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

Post by Tomatotime » 1 year ago

pierreb wrote:
1 year ago
I think the fix would be to pair the unbans with an announcement/article that makes it clear it is an experiment and that all unbanned cards are likely to be re-banned. This would limit who tries to jam the new cards to people who already own them and people willing to bet money. They would need to make clear the cards are on a watch list.
Fair enough, but what about the players who after being put through the wringer for literally years at this point, just want better gameplay standards to be enforced in the format instead of being treated like lab rats in some experiment with uncertain gains?

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

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

I think there is a greater importance than anything else right now on giving Modern an identity. I've touched on it a few times but to me, it is not about ephemeral rules that can, and have been or will be, be ignored by Wizards.

Modern is not Modern without its pillars. New decks come in and push something down? Fine, thats the nature of things, but we should not work to 'remove' decks from the format.

As such, there should be an effort to 'nerf ban' cards out of decks, so as to allow those decks to still function.

Twin was not nerf banned.
Amulet was nerf banned.

KCI was not nerf banned.
Jund was nerf banned.

Hoggak was not nerf banned.
Eldrazi was nerf banned.

The overwhelming majority of the time we should strive to keep popular decks as functional, competitive decks, and if that means we need MORE bans, but of a lesser version (nuke vs nerf) then we should embrace that.

I despise Tron. I do not want to play a Modern without Tron.
UR Control UR

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Modern”