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

User avatar
TheAnswer
Posts: 62
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by TheAnswer » 1 year ago

They've mentioned MTGO data in announcements before, though if I recall correctly it has been during Standard discussions. They've admitted to putting weight in MTGO stats for a while now.

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

Post by Bearscape » 1 year ago

They do mention that this quick of a banning will not become the norm. It was clear as day that Hogaak was busted, though. There is such a thing as being too conservative and I'm glad we're not in the timeline of 3 months of Hogaak

bias
Posts: 3
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by bias » 1 year ago

Yeah but it is usually heavily accompanied by major event paper data. There is no speak of Day 2 presence, conversion or Top 8 finishes.

User avatar
TheAnswer
Posts: 62
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by TheAnswer » 1 year ago

Because there simply hasn't been time for any. They saw where this ship was headed and turned it around before too much was compromised. I laud them for that.

Also I hope they always use that card image for B&R announcement in the future.

bias
Posts: 3
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by bias » 1 year ago

Yeah I'm not refuting the decision, just stating that it has set a new precedence on how WOTC handles ban announcements. I'm quite neutral on the subject overall, just curious on how consistent their methodologies are.

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

Bridge is step in the right direction but this line worrys me greatly:

"Our goal is not to eliminate graveyard strategies from the Modern metagame, but rather to weaken this version of the graveyard combo archetype that has proven too powerful for other decks to reasonably adapt to."

I do not look forward to Dredge, Phoenix, and other Looting decks returning to the spotlight, after the previous dominance everyone seems to have forgotten about.

Also extremely disappointed that, yet again, cards that do not belong on the banned list continue to rot there.
Last edited by cfusionpm 1 year ago, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
TheAnswer
Posts: 62
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by TheAnswer » 1 year ago

I haven't played in person for a bit, hadn't the format settled a fair amount before MH1 released?

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

TheAnswer wrote:
1 year ago
I haven't played in person for a bit, hadn't the format settled a fair amount before MH1 released?
May vary from location to location. My personal store had been overrun Dredge, Phoenix, Hollow One, with much of the rest rounded out with Tron, Titan, Whir Prison, and mono R prison.

People play what they own in paper and are slower to have any big shifts. We have no meaningful data to judge what it means to be "settled" other than anecdotal stories from LGSs, MTGO data that is purposely misleading, and a small handful of paper tournaments, most of which were dominated by Looting decks.

It's nice to see Bridge gone. I hope this leads to a better Modern. But there are still many issues that remain, especially with London Mulligan taking effect.

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

Post by Simto » 1 year ago

Should make for an interesting Mythic Championship with this banning. I'm glad Looting didn't go down in the ban either (wasn't even mentioned).
Sad there wasn't any unbannings though.

Anyway, what are people going to complain about wanting to be banned now? :)

User avatar
TheAnswer
Posts: 62
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by TheAnswer » 1 year ago

Looting, most likely. I still stand by the comparison that Looting and the Stirrings of the last year are not fundamentally broken, they are just strong tools for archetypes that got too big for their britches. No one even mentions Stirrings anymore after the KCI ban, but I suspect Phoenix being a likely candidate for best deck now will cause people to continue pointing the finger.

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

Simto wrote:
1 year ago
Anyway, what are people going to complain about wanting to be banned now? :)
I'd say Faithless Looting, but if it's made it this far, it's unlikely to ever get the ax it deserves.

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

Post by ktkenshinx » 1 year ago

(Updated OP - not going to create a new thread because this one is so young)

Re: Bridge banning itself
This seems like a great decision that I support. I am glad Wizards was not too conservative and just ripped off the band-aid before the MC. Bridge seems like the correct target for reasons I and others noted in this thread and elsewhere.

Re: Banning rationale
The explanation for Bridge's banning is excellent, and I encourage everyone to read the article and not just focus on the ban result itself. Notably, Wizards heavily cited MTGO data and specific data points to support the ban. I suspected MTGO would be the tipping point for Bridge (see my prediction last page), and this rationale sets a clear precedent that Wizards can ban cards primarily based on MTGO data. This puts us at a slight disadvantage in predicting future bans, as full MTGO data is a black box for us, but is also an important analytic tool we can use to predict bans if we do have convincing MTGO evidence.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

BloodyRabbit
Posts: 143
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by BloodyRabbit » 1 year ago

There is no reason for Looting been banned, given the fact that more than 10 archetypes are tailored around the card itself.

izzetmage
Posts: 22
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by izzetmage » 1 year ago

Aaaaand here's another announcement where SFM stays banned. But seriously, with all that UW has gotten in WAR, does it deserve that much more?

This ban was a lot more palatable than GGT's. "Bridge from Below doesn't cost mana or other resources to use and isn't reliant on being drawn naturally from the library" is a fact, and a satisfactory explanation for why it should be banned instead of X other card. "While those cards were discussed, the real offender always has been the dredge mechanic itself" is an assertion pretending to be a fact, and absolute horseshit, as it's already been shown that you can fill up your graveyard fast enough without a single dredge card.

Now the big question is, is the deck still playable? If it is, it's a win-win for everyone: the format is saved and people who bought it still have a competitive but not broken deck. The announcement does go into what they hope will happen (we want you to use Hogaak and Altar to mill yourself 8 cards at a time. Milling yourself 6 cards at a time with GGT was too powerful, what could possibly go wrong? /s). In truth I'm not sure you still want Altar though, since without Bridge there is less of a need for sac outlets.

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

BloodyRabbit wrote:
1 year ago
There is no reason for Looting been banned, given the fact that more than 10 archetypes are tailored around the card itself.
The gameplay style and decks that Looting enable don't do anything good for the format. Or were we all so distracted by Hogaak that we all forgot the dominance and complaints of the previous several months?

What's to stop those decks from simply returning to the top?

User avatar
TheAnswer
Posts: 62
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by TheAnswer » 1 year ago

There are always complaints, the real measure is whether they are founded. I think (I could be misremembering) that the format had adjusted to Phoenix before MH1, and things were relatively smooth up until MH1, apart from the people who will always find things to complain about.

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

I don't have an exact timeline (on mobile) but there was extremely high dominance by Looting decks for months, then essentially chaos from the introductions of WAR and MH1, along with random London Mull test phases. I don't know if I would consider that shake up as "settled", especially since we do not have access to the data that seems to actually matter (MTGO).

As stated earlier, many paper players are slow and reluctant to change. If your local store is not being torn to pieces by Looting decks, awesome! I wish I had a store like that!

Edit: some excellent rationale on Looting is written here: http://www.starcitygames.com/articles/3 ... -Call.html

metalmusic_4
Posts: 260
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by metalmusic_4 » 1 year ago

Facts I don't dispute: hogaak was a real strong deck, a turn 4 rule violater, was format warping, not necessarily fun to play against, a ban was almost unavoidable at some point.
Now, what I think that others may not agree with:

****A ban happening this quickly is a dangerous precedent. ****

***Bridge has been fine for many years, real problem is hogaak.***

I am not going to spend anymore time on this announcement. Bridge from below will never come back. Just sit it beside eye of ugin. This deck may still have legs and just need retooled. The Hogaak card is definetly too good to not find a new home or combo.

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

Post by ktkenshinx » 1 year ago

metalmusic_4 wrote:
1 year ago
****A ban happening this quickly is a dangerous precedent. ****
I don't have significant disagreements with the rest of your post, but I don't agree with this piece. Wizards takes pains to address this in the article so it doesn't become a precedent. First, they note some truly egregious MTGO achievements which are absolutely banworthy. Second, in a few places in the article, they talk about their normal practice of allowing formats time to adapt. They also include a sentence that directly and explicitly speaks to your concern:
While we don't intend on setting a precedent for quickly taking B&R action whenever a successful new deck breaks out, in this case, the situation clearly needed to be addressed.
All of this gives me confidence that Wizards made the right call and is aware that this is a dangerous precedent they are unlikely to repeat. I would be much more nervous if they hadn't acknowledged this as a dangerous precedent.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

metalmusic_4
Posts: 260
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by metalmusic_4 » 1 year ago

Ktkenshinx, it looks like you do agree with my statement, but you are calmed by wotc acknowledging this point. That's a fine point of view. I am just not as put at ease as you seem to be. A precedent with an explanation statement, is still a precedent IMO. That's all I'm saying.

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

Post by ktkenshinx » 1 year ago

metalmusic_4 wrote:
1 year ago
Ktkenshinx, it looks like you do agree with my statement, but you are calmed by wotc acknowledging this point. That's a fine point of view. I am just not as put at ease as you seem to be. A precedent with an explanation statement, is still a precedent IMO. That's all I'm saying.
I just don't view it as a true precedent. They are actually saying they don't intend to set a precedent and have just responded to an unusual situation. The last time this happened was Eldrazi Winter. Wizards has historically been very conservative in pulling the trigger on bans, as recently as all of 2018 and early 2019 (KCI took over a year to go, they never acted against Gx Tron or Humans, they didn't do anything about Izzet Phoenix, etc.). There is simply no cause for concern at this point when Wizards is explicitly saying this isn't them setting a precedent. They emphasize it's an emergency situation, not a precedent.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

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

It sounds more like they learned from Eldrazi that it's just not worth ruining the format for 4 months. Banning Bridge was absolutely the right call. I'm only disappointed that more didn't happen (on either the ban or unban side). I am less optimistic than others about Looting decks going forward, especially with London Mulligan. And I am very disappointed at the total lack of unbans.

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

Post by ktkenshinx » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
It sounds more like they learned from Eldrazi that it's just not worth ruining the format for 4 months. Banning Bridge was absolutely the right call. I'm only disappointed that more didn't happen (on either the ban or unban side). I am less optimistic than others about Looting decks going forward, especially with London Mulligan. And I am very disappointed at the total lack of unbans.
Correct me if I am wrong, but there was no scheduled B&R update between the Eldrazi PT and the upcoming April B&R. Wizards just didn't have an opportunity to ban something outside of a super rare emergency ban. I imagine the Eldrazi situation was a factor that led to more aggressive/frequent ban update windows, but I don't see Bridge as them learning from Eldrazi Winter. In both cases, they banned a problematic deck at the first scheduled opportunity.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

User avatar
TheAnswer
Posts: 62
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by TheAnswer » 1 year ago

Without Hogaak on the scene, I'm more worried about Tron than Phoenix in regards to the London Mulligan. So much of Phoenix is hot air; liberal mulligans don't really do much for the deck.

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

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
It sounds more like they learned from Eldrazi that it's just not worth ruining the format for 4 months. Banning Bridge was absolutely the right call. I'm only disappointed that more didn't happen (on either the ban or unban side). I am less optimistic than others about Looting decks going forward, especially with London Mulligan. And I am very disappointed at the total lack of unbans.
Correct me if I am wrong, but there was no scheduled B&R update between the Eldrazi PT and the upcoming April B&R. Wizards just didn't have an opportunity to ban something outside of a super rare emergency ban. I imagine the Eldrazi situation was a factor that led to more aggressive/frequent ban update windows, but I don't see Bridge as them learning from Eldrazi Winter. In both cases, they banned a problematic deck at the first scheduled opportunity.
They could have done an emergency ban. But yeah, I think that was the next "regular" opportunity. Nevertheless, that felt like an eternity, and in no was was that Eldrazi deck ever going to be OK.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Modern”