IF we saw Affinity become a problem, this would be the likely ban target. Wizards historically goes after the fast mana engine (see Eye, Bloom, and Song) when a deck with fast mana creates issues. That said, we would need to actually see these decks become issues before discussing bans. Affinity having some newfound success is meaningless from a ban perspective. Again, I encourage anyone who is entertaining a ban suggestion to look at Modern since 02/2017. If the deck you think needs ban targeting a) does not exceed the metagame share of any other "offensive" deck in that time period and b) exceed that share for a longer period of time than any deck held the share before, it's not bannable. Also, if you think a deck is violating the T4 rule, it probably needs to be doing so in >10% of real games. Storm was at 12% for late 2017 and dropped in 2018 and Storm was totally untouched by bans. These are suggestive benchmarks which we need to learn from. That means ban talk aimed at Opal, Humans, H1 or basically any other common target of ban mania is completely unfounded at this point.
Re: Punishing Fire unbanning
Unlike SFM and JTMS, Fire was actually banned based on real tournament performance, not just speculation about the format. This puts it in the same category as Nacatl and BBE as previous offenders who were later exonerated. In both those cases, Wizards analyzed the intended effect of the ban and saw if it was fulfilled in Modern. They also analyzed the card on its own merits in the current Modern scene. Notably, they did not admit they were wrong about banning the card in the first place or somehow argue against their initial rationale. They reexamined the old ban in a new context.
Let's see how that applies to Fire:
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/explanation-december-2011-br-changes-2011-12-20
This is an interesting B&R update because neither Fire nor Nacatl were banned in a vacuum. They were banned because R&D had a stated goal with this particular update:
We also have the goal of maintaining a diverse format. While there were aggressive decks, control decks, attrition decks, and combination decks that succeeded, the diversity was not ideal. In particular, the heavy majority of all aggressive decks were "Zoo" decks. We looked at why other aggressive decks were not played, and after our analysis decided to ban two cards.
Wizards banned Fire and Nacatl because they wanted to open up the format to other aggressive decks. They identified Nacatl and Fire as the two cards holding back those other aggressive strategies. Here's what they had to say about Fire specifically (in regards to its combination with Grove):
This pair of cards is commonly used, and is devastating to creature decks relying on creatures with less than 2 toughness. It also is a very slow and reliable win condition, netting 1 life for 3 mana. Tribal decks relying on 2 toughness "lords" see very little play, and this is a major barrier to their success.
Here, we see Wizards focusing on two issues with Fire:
1. It is "devastating to creature decks relying on creatures with less than 2 toughness."
2. It is a "major barrier to [the] success" of "tribal decks relying on 2 toughness lords."
In order for Fire to be unbanned, Wizards would need to believe that Fire would no longer commit these two offenses. Unfortunately for Fire proponents, I don't see this happening. Elves, Merfolk, Affinity, Humans, and Burn (to a lesser extent) all fit in one or both of these categories. Bogles is totally unaffected and H1 is largely unaffected. It seems unlikely that Wizards would unban a card that threatens to homogenize aggressive decks around the two archetypes least affected by Fire. Moreover, these were all decks that weren't really viable when Fire was banned and they are viable now. Why would Wizards risk making them less viable with an unban? This is in stark contrast to Nacatl, which was banned to make Zoo worse and then Zoo completely disappeared. That was a good reason to bring Nacatl back to the format. Bringing back Fire does not suddenly make a plurality of decks more viable. It just threatens existing aggro diversity. Based on this, I'd say this is a very unlikely unban. This is particularly true because Modern diversity today is basically what it was for the last 15 months, which we already know Wizards considers healthy.
2
1)Lightning Bolt: This card is very good in general. The problem is that sometimes it just feels underwhelming in contrast to the rest of the deck. It's versatile and helps in bad matchups like go wide and PW-based control(BGx and UWx). I think playing 1 is right more often than not, but 2 could be a stretch. Test them yourself and see, i think you will end up in a split with Push IF you really want 2 Bolts. 4 Push and 1 Bolt is my personal split, i consider 3-2 to be correct too. Also, 6 one-mana removals should be a little too much, even if you expect lots of creature based combo and go wide. This brings me to the next point.
2)TBR: This card is very good, even if we don't pack giant Goyfs, it still holds its value with DS because those two are that good. I play 1 MB, and 0 SB. I'm pretty sure 0 is incorrect, and more than 2 is also incorrect. 1-2 are the preferred copies, you can manage yourself whether you want them MB or SB. This card basically accomplishes much of what Bolt does against said strategies, but instead of answering, it just kills you opponent. There has to be a crapload of D&T to prefer the extra removal over TBR. TBR also make SBing very easy, if they play too much removal, it's out.
3)Liliana the Last hope: This is in my opinion a very good card in DS strategies. It helps in a variety of matchups which goes from Go Wide to Control and Midrange. It's really all over the place, which makes your SB bigger for broader applications. I think this card deserves a nice 1-2 of in the SB, along LOTV(which probably should be a 2-3 of).
4)Explosives: I've been on and off this card. It's lights out when it's good, and medium to inefficient otherwise. There are few decks that get completly wrecked by it(like Bogles) but it does a good impression of other good cards like By Force and Izzet Staticaster, Dreadbore and whatnot. It remains in my list of cards that stretch your SB large enough to cover a bigger meta(which seems very important in nowadays Modern), which is why i would put it 1-2 in my SB if i can't predict the metagame to some extent.
Other than that, 2-of Dismember without TBR is going to give you a headache, because Dismember doesn't like long games in GDS(because of Snapcaster Mage). I'm still skeptical of "Battle Rage Grixis" builds since we pack less punch that our Green counterpart, but we grind much better. This has been in my opinion the biggest challenge Grixis Shadow players have had since its inception. Players can simply not decide whether it's right to go all in, or maintain a control approach. The metagame in Modern changes too fast and this led to people believe that being all in was the right approach, but i'm not sure it's right, i think the controlling nature of the Grixis shard is what makes this deck good, right now i'm trying all builds and haven't made a choice yet.
If you have any other question i'm happy to help and give you my opinion.
1
WOTC stated what seems to be their definition of healthy when they re-stated their goals for the format. Diversity among top tiers was at the top, speed of the top tier decks was also the other big takeaway.
The problem is that most vocal Modern players DO NOT care about diversity among top Tiers as much as they care about specific gameplay patterns and other factors such as variance, which are OBJECTIVELY very important in Modern. That's why lots of people recall the Twin/Jund/Pod format as being a better one than the post Pod-ban ones. It was a less diverse format from the archetype standpoint, but it was slower, less variance driven, and atop of that, those 3 decks being juggernauts made metagaming and SBoarding more narrow, so less variant.
1
The consensus by now regarding sweepers has been, 1-2 Kozilek's Return and 0-1 Izzet Staticaster, 0-2 Temur Battle Rage. In an open meta which you really can't predict, i recommend this configuration.
Anger of the Gods is good if you expect a lot of Dredge and CoCo. Dredge particularly gets wrecked by Anger, whereas KReturn is pretty mediocre(that's why TBR is great, it insulates you from the random nonsense this format brings). Anger is better than Return against CoCo but Return is prefectly fine, especially along Staticaster and TBR.
I played Flaying Tendrils at GP SP, and while i didn't cross a matchup i would like one of the other sweepers, it felt underpowered against decks you might want to bring a sweeper but they are not a must. For example, i played against Faeries and had to bring them because i was stone cold to Bitterblossom, they felt bad. Return at least is an instant, and Staticaster is the best at dealing with those pesky x/1s.
To round up, i think the premise behind Tendrils is being more easy on the mana base, and being somewhere in the middle of Anger and Return, but fails to be spectacular in any of those matchups. That's why people are leaning towards the red sweepers depending on the meta and add some TBR to punch through. Return is the best right now because Dredge is nowhere to be seen. You will be fine against Dredge with KReturn and TBR/Staticaster, and you will destroy Affinity which is a Tier 1 deck.
1
TBR has continued to impress me out of the board because of what Friedman says, it gives you the "Oops i win" button which you opponents can either respect it and enter the "False Tempo" theory, or die to it. I'm really looking to move them MB.
The only card i'm not sold on is Dismember. While it powers some fast Death's Shadows, it's bad in multiples and with Snapcaster Mage, and it's mediocre against the card Death's Shadow itself. That should make the mirror a bit worse i guess?. If you are banking in TBR so much, you will lose a lot when you don't draw it.
I will test his list and see if it really matters.
PS: The list with 16 lands seems spicy and could be a even less hybrid version of Friedman's. It drops Snapcaster and plays more cantrips, that makes sense if you are planning to aggro you opponent out.
2
Regarding the very interesting and productive conversation about Banlist you were having, i have some thoughts too.
Modern is healthier than the people make it out to be. Yes, it's mostly dominated by uninteractive decks, but that's Modern 80% of its life, combo decks(aggro and spell based-classic) have always been the best archetypes and those do not want to interact.
Setting aside that point i think the Banlist could use some change for the better. I'm not sure they are necessary though.
-The scenario where Grapeshot/PIF,Temple/Chalice,DS/SW are getting hammered is basically imposible. I don't think that's never the direction they want to take and after the Standard fiasco that was last season i don't think they will recur to triple bans or double bans for some time.
-There is a scenario where they unban BBE to compensate the lack of Midrange in the top Tier of the format, and that change by now seems very logical, EVEN if i have a also logical fear of BBE+AV being a potential problem.
-SFM alone is still a no-go. The card itself inserts herself in the Tier 2 of the format to combat Eldrazi and Shadow(?) but in reality, i think Eldrazi Tron players will move to their old Bant Eldrazi and jam SFM themselves. I'm not saying it WILL happen but it's a concern when you think of the obejective of the unban.
-Lastly as much as i like Splinter Twin myself, i think Splinter Twin and Jace, the Mind Sculptor are NOT safe for unbans yet. They might be at some point in the future with new printings and meta shifts, but they are too risky to even take the chance.
This is my opinion and it's a little biased of course.
1
I always say, that Modern problems come from Combo being too good. The rest are just symptoms of this. I'm not saying Combo shouldn't exist, but it should be a little less good so less games resolve around trash cards like Chalice of the Void and first 8 cards, SB roulette, etc.
Sadly, i think the only direct way of fixing this is by banning combo decks(instead of consitency tools). i.e: Banning Grapeshot,Valakut,Mox Opal, etc.
Either way goes against format goals(Shorter banlist and be different form Standrad and Legacy respectively).
GDS is still the good guy in my eyes. I wouldn't be opposed to opening the floodgates(SFM,BBE,Jace,etc). I would rather this than banning all combo decks.
The best option of course is better answers for fair decks against combo decks. If Legacy is and example of anything, you see how difficult is to regulate combo decks without warping the whole format(Fair=Blue). And even then, combo decks are super good in Legacy.
7
"Probe was solidly Turn 4 Rule, but really strangely targeted. The main driving force for consistent, early kills was specifically Become Immense... not Probe. Yeah, Probe gave information, but decks like Infect were already more than capable of T2 or T3 killing before that anyway. It only became a problem when BI was helping them do it more consistently, and another deck (also running BI) was also wildly popular and strong. Several on-camera T2 and 3 kills don't help, especially with big names on GP streams playing <5 turns across a 3-game match."
Why do you only talk about DS Zoo and Infect when there was another clear violator of the T3 rule that didn't play Become Immense? UR Prowess was a very good deck and many players lastly opted to play that instead of the 2 aforementioned. The common denominator? Gitaxian Probe. All 3 decks abused it by enabling their most broken and explosive draws. That ban was really a great call by WOTC, even if Fatal Push was entering the format and COULD have mitigated the obnoxious speed of the format, ultimately that card is poorly designed and it would have been a much worse problem later.
1
At this point is clear that there's no clear best deck in Modern right? Death's Shadow is very good and a little pushed and so is Affinity and Eldrazi.
I prefer to stay this way and not start the banning spiral.
1
Pact doesn't let you counter spells from T0 like Fow does.
Force certainly makes its way into fair decks too, which could make it more symetrical but still way better than Pact in all decks.
1
Dredge summer was a disgusting period of Modern. Poor Ross i think now he doesn't have a 90-10 matchup against the whole midrange/control spectrum of decks WHILE having the inability to lose a G1 against those, is making him unhappy. Give me a break.
I can only imagine in my darkest nightmares what Modern would be if Shadow gets banned and nothing else happens. Welcome to 2Ships Passing in the Night: The Gathereing.