You say this all the time, but it's all talk. You have no foundation for this assertion.
It's possible that unbans wouldn't affect BG prevalence, however I doubt it. You can't just keep flat out claiming you know this as fact. The slightest ripples in a metagame can cause massive unexpected waves, you can't possibly know the full extent of what would happen if 20 powerful, established cards suddenly entered the format.
That is a huge claim to make.
I get that you don't like the idea of unbans, but I don't for the life of me understand why you oppose the concept so adamantly.
I have been testing quite a lot lately with a large group of high level players to see if said cards would slow down the BGx shell. If you have followed my posts, I have been against sword of the meek and bitterblossom being unbanned up until recently. Through the testing we have been doing, those cards would do zero against the BGx shell. AV is way too slow. Even Jitte would do little to slow down the decks. (most I play with feel Jiite would be slid into the GBx shell as at least a 1 of)
The GBx shell can only be slowed down by speed. Hence the only cards on the ban list that would do much to the GBx dominance would be cards that speed up decks. Such as the artifact lands, Hypergenesis, blazing shoal, the rituals, and chrome mox. But everyone of those unbans would break the turn 4 rule to the format.
False. Wizards can do many things to stop BGx. If midrange will always be the most powerful thing in Modern (which I doubt, considering the fact that it usually hasn't been), they could give the Uxx shell some powerful cards to help them compete. They can create more powerful color heavy cards or cards in WU, WR, and UR. They can give more support and ways to combat disruption to combo decks that don't break the turn 4 rule. They can ban a critical BGx card or two and then stop giving BGx incredibly pushed cards like they have been doing. There are many options.
I have been testing quite a lot lately with a large group of high level players to see if said cards would slow down the BGx shell. If you have followed my posts, I have been against sword of the meek and bitterblossom being unbanned up until recently. Through the testing we have been doing, those cards would do zero against the BGx shell. AV is way too slow. Even Jitte would do little to slow down the decks. (most I play with feel Jiite would be slid into the GBx shell as at least a 1 of)
The GBx shell can only be slowed down by speed. Hence the only cards on the ban list that would do much to the GBx dominance would be cards that speed up decks. Such as the artifact lands, Hypergenesis, blazing shoal, the rituals, and chrome mox. But everyone of those unbans would break the turn 4 rule to the format.
Do some testing and you will understand.
So your position on the currently banned cards is both A) They are too powerful for the format, AND B) Unplayable in the format because of BGx dominance?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
So your position on the currently banned cards is both A) They are too powerful for the format, AND B) Unplayable in the format because of BGx dominance?
I think he means each card on the banned list is:
A - Going to create a deck as oppressive as BG (like Jace, possibly)
B - Not going to make a difference at all (like Golgari Grave Troll)
Basically, there is no card that can come off the ban list that will lead to a tier 1 deck that preys on GB, they'll either be Tier 0 or Tier 2.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Things WotC cares about:
-making certain Standard cards can be played in Modern, therefore increasing their value and increasing WotC's profit margin
Things WotC does not care about:
-keeping the ban list as short as possible
-taking chances with an entire format for the benefit of a single card
-catering to play styles that newer players generally don't like and will lose them more players than it will gain
-keeping the meta balanced between archetypes/colors/whatever
-keeping cards on the secondary market cheap (available yes, but not cheap)
-keeping the meta diverse (as long as a single deck doesn't threaten the popularity of the format)
I think he means each card on the banned list is:
A - Going to create a deck as oppressive as BG (like Jace, possibly)
B - Not going to make a difference at all (like Golgari Grave Troll)
Basically, there is no card that can come off the ban list that will lead to a tier 1 deck that preys on GB, they'll either be Tier 0 or Tier 2.
First If there are cards that don't make a difference, why are they banned?
Second, if they make an such an oppressive deck would it oppress BG? From what I've seen, nothing in modern frame oppresses BG.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
First If there are cards that don't make a difference, why are they banned?
Because sometimes a card reduces diversity. Because sometimes they make the game run long. Because sometimes Wizard's screws up. The ban list will never be perfect.
Second, if they make an such an oppressive deck would it oppress BG? From
what I've seen, nothing in modern frame oppresses BG.
I don't know if anything unbanned would create something that oppresses BGx, but there are a few cards I suspect would create an oppressive deck in the absence of BGx, so unbanning them now may or may not change anything, but if BGx gets reigned in later they might cause problems. I can't really say if any cards on the list would do this.
Long story short: none of the banned cards seem to hit the sweet spot in terms of power level, but since so much of a card's power level is determined by what other cards are available for it to synergize with, we just argue endlessly about what card could save the format. We all hope wizards will print something to hate out BGx, but the way the company prints things make this slow and difficult. If printing something isn't an option, and unbanning something won't fix the meta, then we are only left with everyone's least favourite option: banning something from BGx.
Of course, then we argue about what to ban from BGx...
Things WotC cares about:
-making certain Standard cards can be played in Modern, therefore increasing their value and increasing WotC's profit margin
Things WotC does not care about:
-keeping the ban list as short as possible
-taking chances with an entire format for the benefit of a single card
-catering to play styles that newer players generally don't like and will lose them more players than it will gain
-keeping the meta balanced between archetypes/colors/whatever
-keeping cards on the secondary market cheap (available yes, but not cheap)
-keeping the meta diverse (as long as a single deck doesn't threaten the popularity of the format)
Of course, then we argue about what to ban form BGx...
It's worth remembering that the last time something was banned from the shell, it had no effect in the long run. Something will eventually be printed to repower the shell, and yet another ban will be wanted.
Likewise, I want to talk about Pod. Calls for its banning have subsided, but the actual strength of the card has not. Why, in a non-self-regulating format, will it never require banning? Recall, for the sake of this thought exercise, that Wizards will continue to print stronger creatures.
Long story short: none of the banned cards seem to hit the sweet spot in terms of power level, but since so much of a card's power level is determined by what other cards are available for it to synergize with, we just argue endlessly about what card could save the format. We all hope wizards will print something to hate out BGx, but the way the company prints things make this slow and difficult. If printing something isn't an option, and unbanning something won't fix the meta, then we are only left with everyone's least favourite option: banning something from BGx.
Of course, then we argue about what to ban from BGx...
Depends on the unban, bringing back Skullclamp would put a huge dent in BGx similar for Mental Misstep
Chrome Mox is the main card that would power up other archetypes.to compete with it, but it also likely speeds the format up by about .5 of a turn
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern:
Paper: WUR Waffle Control, RG and U Tron
MTGO: U Tron, BRG Living End, B Infect
Testing Modern on MTGO and helping to craft decks on a Budget I stream!
Because sometimes a card reduces diversity. Because sometimes they make the game run long. Because sometimes Wizard's screws up. The ban list will never be perfect.
Reduces diversity in decks that aren't good? Who cares.
Wizards should just live with mistakes when they have the power to change them? The ban list should STRIVE to be perfect. Not just rest on "oops, we banned it. No going back guys!"
I don't know if anything unbanned would create something that oppresses BGx, but there are a few cards I suspect would create an oppressive deck in the absence of BGx, so unbanning them now may or may not change anything, but if BGx gets reigned in later they might cause problems. I can't really say if any cards on the list would do this.
SO no, you don't believe any of the cards would be good enough to stop the format's Best Deck (tm), but they should still be banned just in case? We're back to the "They're too good and no impact" pairing.
Wizards should just live with mistakes when they have the power to change them? The ban list should STRIVE to be perfect. Not just rest on "oops, we banned it. No going back guys!"
I hope Wizard's keeps trying, but I don't expect them to ever be exactly right.
SO no, you don't believe any of the cards would be good enough to stop the format's Best Deck (tm), but they should still be banned just in case? We're back to the "They're too good and no impact" pairing.
Depends on how you feel about cards being re-banned after they have been unbanned. Sure, they could unban something now to fight GBx, but what happens when they finally manage to reign it in? Then you just end up with another oppressive deck.
Things WotC cares about:
-making certain Standard cards can be played in Modern, therefore increasing their value and increasing WotC's profit margin
Things WotC does not care about:
-keeping the ban list as short as possible
-taking chances with an entire format for the benefit of a single card
-catering to play styles that newer players generally don't like and will lose them more players than it will gain
-keeping the meta balanced between archetypes/colors/whatever
-keeping cards on the secondary market cheap (available yes, but not cheap)
-keeping the meta diverse (as long as a single deck doesn't threaten the popularity of the format)
The GBx dominance is a product of the card pool that can not be solved with unbans. Printing cards is going to take way too long. If we rely on Wotc printing some cards to weaken the GBx decks, the format will be dead and gone.
The GBx dominance is also a product of the bans too. Many decks that could compete with it were banned (not saying that some of those bans were wrong)
The format will be dead and gone if everytime a deck becomes the topdeck, it get something banned. People will not feel modern as safe to invest, beliving that any card can be banned anytime.
Also the format will be dead and gone if we don't get good cards with new sets. So good cards WILL be printed. And if those cards are strong enough, they will slot in BGx, and guess what, we will need more bans, but i suppose that is what you wish. more and more bans.
The GBx shell can only be slowed down by speed. Hence the only cards on the ban list that would do much to the GBx dominance would be cards that speed up decks. Such as the artifact lands, Hypergenesis, blazing shoal, the rituals, and chrome mox. But everyone of those unbans would break the turn 4 rule to the format.
Yes, punishing their manabase is not going to do anything...
You just so urge for bans, that you prefer to belive that it is the only solution and ignore anything else.
I don't even know why i'm arguing with you, considering how banfreak you are.
I think he means each card on the banned list is:
A - Going to create a deck as oppressive as BG (like Jace, possibly)
B - Not going to make a difference at all (like Golgari Grave Troll)
Basically, there is no card that can come off the ban list that will lead to a tier 1 deck that preys on GB, they'll either be Tier 0 or Tier 2.
Yes, Preordain and Ancestral Visions would make nothing to the format or would be very oppressive... oh wait...
The problem can be solved, Bocephus just want something fast and that involve bans.
Example of effects that can do a good work against GBx if printed on good cards:
- Quagnoth (can't be discarded by spell and abilities of the opponent)
- Guerrilla Tactics (if discarded, you get the effefct for free and stronger)
- Anathemancer (punish greedy manabases)
- Skyshroud elite (punishes greedy manabases)
- Sigarda, Host of Herons (very hard to be interacted with)
None of those cards are strong enough to see modern play, but their effects, when added to good cards, can be. Loxodon Smiter was a nice try, but the fact that he is in abrupt range makes him not that good vs. GBx.
Bocephus belive that "modern can't live long enough" if we don't get a fast reaction to GBx that involves bans. Who here also agree with him?
Full powered storm with all the rituals and cantrips can totally dodge the grave by using rituals + epic experiment. It wouldn't even need PiF or Ascession to win.
Likewise, I want to talk about Pod. Calls for its banning have subsided, but the actual strength of the card has not. Why, in a non-self-regulating format, will it never require banning? Recall, for the sake of this thought exercise, that Wizards will continue to print stronger creatures.
Pod power was reduced with the introduction of Ooze. But i still belive that sooner or later it will get the axe because wizards will print something stupid that breaks it. Cheap tutor+cheat are too easy to accidentally break.
What about madness coming back as a mechanic to combat some of the discard? That may reduce the hurt of cards like thoughtseize. But it would need good cards not in BG.
I'm just thinking into my keyboard here.
Edit: nvm. I'm tired. It wouldn't affect TS at all.
Restricted lists are frowned upon because they place a lot more of the game into the hands of luck.
A very fair point, but isn't the increased inconsistency the true goal of modern's ban list? From my point of view, everyone agrees that BGx is a very powerful shell because, while it doesn't excel in any one aspect, it does well in all aspects, and does so consistently. Many of the solutions offered have been to lower the consistency of BGx to match other shells, or raise other shells to match BGx, but people don't want cards banned, people don't think waiting for new cards to counter will come along fast enough, and people don't think unbanning cards will help. It's here where I think a restricted list strikes a good balance in giving all parties a little bit of what they want while keeping in the spirit of the ban list. Sure, it adds a greater noticeable element of "luck", but that element has always been there, and I would argue is a small price to pay for the positives it brings.
To use DRS as an example of a restricted card...
DRS stays in the format as a powerful card, so value of the card remains.
BGx people who choose to play DRS will have one at the cost of a perceived lowered consistency value, diminishing the one element almost all people agree is the broken element of BGx.
BGx people who choose not to play DRS, or people who would choose to splash solely for DRS otherwise but won't, due to the restriction lower the amount of play, and therefore influence, DRS would have in the format.
People who play against DRS will probably see it less often in situations where they can't react, increasing the perceived viability of less "consistent" decks.
This could also allow cards on the ban list to come back into play, where they can be used without potentially warping the format. Thoughts? Opinions?
A very fair point, but isn't the increased inconsistency the true goal of modern's ban list? From my point of view, everyone agrees that BGx is a very powerful shell because, while it doesn't excel in any one aspect, it does well in all aspects, and does so consistently. Many of the solutions offered have been to lower the consistency of BGx to match other shells, or raise other shells to match BGx, but people don't want cards banned, people don't think waiting for new cards to counter will come along fast enough, and people don't think unbanning cards will help. It's here where I think a restricted list strikes a good balance in giving all parties a little bit of what they want while keeping in the spirit of the ban list. Sure, it adds a greater noticeable element of "luck", but that element has always been there, and I would argue is a small price to pay for the positives it brings.
To use DRS as an example of a restricted card...
DRS stays in the format as a powerful card, so value of the card remains.
BGx people who choose to play DRS will have one at the cost of a perceived lowered consistency value, diminishing the one element almost all people agree is the broken element of BGx.
BGx people who choose not to play DRS, or people who would choose to splash solely for DRS otherwise but won't, due to the restriction lower the amount of play, and therefore influence, DRS would have in the format.
People who play against DRS will probably see it less often in situations where they can't react, increasing the perceived viability of less "consistent" decks.
This could also allow cards on the ban list to come back into play, where they can be used without potentially warping the format. Thoughts? Opinions?
One thing is affecting consistency based on the opponents action or the lack of a specific tool in the deck, other thing is just let it completely on the hand of luck.
But it is not DRS that do this, is the whole GBx shell.
People are playing GBx because the shell is overall good, not because "GBx have DRS". So it is not DRS fault that the metagame is this GBx fest.
Well, all of the 5 colors have powerful staples available to them.
Putting powerful staples around something that is as powerful (and cheap) as DRS is going to give you a good deck.
DRS is the reason the GBx shell is as prevalent as it is, imo. Just like how BBE was the reason Jund was so prevalent.
I would never advocate for a ban of DRS, my sarcasm was mostly due to my opinion that GSZ was a poor ban. DRS being an 'all-in-one' hate package and ubiquity to Midrange as a whole archetype just illustrated this to me.
I don't believe the format benefits at all from bans being used as a policing tool for things that aren't fundamentally 'broken', but rather 'powerful'. In the sense that Skullclamp is broken, and Nacatl is a 'fair' card.
A very fair point, but isn't the increased inconsistency the true goal of modern's ban list? From my point of view, everyone agrees that BGx is a very powerful shell because, while it doesn't excel in any one aspect, it does well in all aspects, and does so consistently. Many of the solutions offered have been to lower the consistency of BGx to match other shells, or raise other shells to match BGx, but people don't want cards banned, people don't think waiting for new cards to counter will come along fast enough, and people don't think unbanning cards will help. It's here where I think a restricted list strikes a good balance in giving all parties a little bit of what they want while keeping in the spirit of the ban list. Sure, it adds a greater noticeable element of "luck", but that element has always been there, and I would argue is a small price to pay for the positives it brings.
To use DRS as an example of a restricted card...
DRS stays in the format as a powerful card, so value of the card remains.
BGx people who choose to play DRS will have one at the cost of a perceived lowered consistency value, diminishing the one element almost all people agree is the broken element of BGx.
BGx people who choose not to play DRS, or people who would choose to splash solely for DRS otherwise but won't, due to the restriction lower the amount of play, and therefore influence, DRS would have in the format.
People who play against DRS will probably see it less often in situations where they can't react, increasing the perceived viability of less "consistent" decks.
This could also allow cards on the ban list to come back into play, where they can be used without potentially warping the format. Thoughts? Opinions?
I think the issue is whether a restricted card in your opening hand would cause your game plan to be THAT much better than if it wasn't there. Whether or not the restricted card in your opening hand means the game is overwhelmingly in your favor because your opponent doesn't have there's. Some cards like Green Sun's Zenith seems really interesting as a restricted card, simply acting as a 5th copy of important cards and enabling a less consistent toolbox. Overall, I think it would just leave a bitter taste in people's mouthes when the restricted list in Vintage is more to just make the most powerful cards in the game a little more reasonable in a format where they're legal.
full powered storm and eggs (with ponder and preordain and all the rituals) could possibly destroy bg
And completely destroy the turn 4 rule.
Quote from Fizzler »
Depends on the unban, bringing back Skullclamp would put a huge dent in BGx similar for Mental Misstep
Chrome Mox is the main card that would power up other archetypes.to compete with it, but it also likely speeds the format up by about .5 of a turn
MM was just adapted by the BGx decks and it was a MM war for the firet 1cc drop and then it was game as usual.
Skullclamp was very dependent on what was drawn and how much mana they had to keep attaching it. Not to mention when it was tried to equip decay got it.
Mox along side the rituals speeds up some decks more then a turn. Especially with P&P to play with. Destroying the turn 4 rule.
Who ever mentioned Jace, way too slow. Not to mention between thoughtseize and Lilly, its hard to stick him on turn 4, the turn you have to stick it.
Quote from LordOwlingtonIII »
So your position on the currently banned cards is both A) They are too powerful for the format, AND B) Unplayable in the format because of BGx dominance?
Not too powerful, but too fast. They break the turn 4 rule of the format. Unplayable? They are playable, but people will be disappointed at how they play in the format with the BGx decks floating around.
Well, all of the 5 colors have powerful staples available to them.
Putting powerful staples around something that is as powerful (and cheap) as DRS is going to give you a good deck.
Then why GBx is the only shell that is over? GBx have a huge concentration of valuable low costed cards when compared to the other colors.
Look at red, red have bolt and what? The only other value card of red cost 4 (Chandra), and the others are multicolor, cost more or are combo picies.
Not too powerful, but too fast. They break the turn 4 rule of the format. Unplayable? They are playable, but people will be disappointed at how they play in the format with the BGx decks floating around.
They're both too fast, and they won't work. If they won't work, why bother banning them? It'd be like banning charbelcher, a card that only matters when you play it too fast, but doesn't perform in this format.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
And why are we apologizing for wizards? They don't post in this thread.
They're both too fast, and they won't work. If they won't work, why bother banning them? It'd be like banning charbelcher, a card that only matters when you play it too fast, but doesn't perform in this format.
Because in a balanced meta they would be too powerful and format warping. Wotc needs to fix what ails it before unbanning anything. I dont care if they go the printing route or banning route. Once they solve the BGx problem (that is if Wotc sees the BGx decks as a problem) in the format, they dont need a handful of other problems.
And why are we apologizing for wizards? They don't post in this thread.
Who is apologizing for them? Some understand its Wotc's sandbox we can play in if we wish. Not our sandbox to model as we wish.
The GBx dominance is a product of the card pool that can not be solved with unbans. Printing cards is going to take way too long. If we rely on Wotc printing some cards to weaken the GBx decks, the format will be dead and gone.
Okay, I have only recently been reading this thread and this "doom and gloom" sort of thing is getting old. You keep on saying that Modern is going to die unless GBx is dealt within a year or less. Is this like the Dec 21st, 2012 of Modern, did the ancient alien mtg players predict of this fate? You have no way of knowing what's going to happen in one year.
The only way to fix what ails the format is bans. Like it or hate it, right now, its the only answer.
Ah, no it's not. Everyone would agree with you if that were the case, but clearly some people are against bans.
I have been testing quite a lot lately with a large group of high level players to see if said cards would slow down the BGx shell.
So, you tested with what, ten, twenty people? Anyone can take that you say at face value, but you're ignoring a few unknown variables. First, there are thousands of Modern players in the world and they may have their spin on how to incorporate newly unbanned cards. Second, you also have no info about how new sets will interact with Modern. I'm not necessarily talking about WoTC printing exact answer like some, including myself, have suggested, but something that could push another deck into dominance.
I'm not not trying to be rude, but coming in here and saying that bans are the only solution is kind of a tough sell.
There is the other side also, that Wotc intended the format to be like this. They have the numbers of what the player base enjoys. Maybe the majority enjoy the midrange decks.
That may very well be the case since Modern was pitched to be a place were players can play what they enjoyed in Standard before rotation. New players nowadays don't like control or lightning fast combo decks. Looking back at the Innistrad/Ravnica season it's clear that a lot of players prefer midrange and WoTC seems to printing stuff for it.
After reading this thread I'm glad that people here have little to no real influence on what WoTC decides.
I have been testing quite a lot lately with a large group of high level players to see if said cards would slow down the BGx shell. If you have followed my posts, I have been against sword of the meek and bitterblossom being unbanned up until recently. Through the testing we have been doing, those cards would do zero against the BGx shell. AV is way too slow. Even Jitte would do little to slow down the decks. (most I play with feel Jiite would be slid into the GBx shell as at least a 1 of)
The GBx shell can only be slowed down by speed. Hence the only cards on the ban list that would do much to the GBx dominance would be cards that speed up decks. Such as the artifact lands, Hypergenesis, blazing shoal, the rituals, and chrome mox. But everyone of those unbans would break the turn 4 rule to the format.
Do some testing and you will understand.
False. Wizards can do many things to stop BGx. If midrange will always be the most powerful thing in Modern (which I doubt, considering the fact that it usually hasn't been), they could give the Uxx shell some powerful cards to help them compete. They can create more powerful color heavy cards or cards in WU, WR, and UR. They can give more support and ways to combat disruption to combo decks that don't break the turn 4 rule. They can ban a critical BGx card or two and then stop giving BGx incredibly pushed cards like they have been doing. There are many options.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
So your position on the currently banned cards is both A) They are too powerful for the format, AND B) Unplayable in the format because of BGx dominance?
I think he means each card on the banned list is:
A - Going to create a deck as oppressive as BG (like Jace, possibly)
B - Not going to make a difference at all (like Golgari Grave Troll)
Basically, there is no card that can come off the ban list that will lead to a tier 1 deck that preys on GB, they'll either be Tier 0 or Tier 2.
-making certain Standard cards can be played in Modern, therefore increasing their value and increasing WotC's profit margin
Things WotC does not care about:
-keeping the ban list as short as possible
-taking chances with an entire format for the benefit of a single card
-catering to play styles that newer players generally don't like and will lose them more players than it will gain
-keeping the meta balanced between archetypes/colors/whatever
-keeping cards on the secondary market cheap (available yes, but not cheap)
-keeping the meta diverse (as long as a single deck doesn't threaten the popularity of the format)
First If there are cards that don't make a difference, why are they banned?
Second, if they make an such an oppressive deck would it oppress BG? From what I've seen, nothing in modern frame oppresses BG.
Because sometimes a card reduces diversity. Because sometimes they make the game run long. Because sometimes Wizard's screws up. The ban list will never be perfect.
I don't know if anything unbanned would create something that oppresses BGx, but there are a few cards I suspect would create an oppressive deck in the absence of BGx, so unbanning them now may or may not change anything, but if BGx gets reigned in later they might cause problems. I can't really say if any cards on the list would do this.
Long story short: none of the banned cards seem to hit the sweet spot in terms of power level, but since so much of a card's power level is determined by what other cards are available for it to synergize with, we just argue endlessly about what card could save the format. We all hope wizards will print something to hate out BGx, but the way the company prints things make this slow and difficult. If printing something isn't an option, and unbanning something won't fix the meta, then we are only left with everyone's least favourite option: banning something from BGx.
Of course, then we argue about what to ban from BGx...
-making certain Standard cards can be played in Modern, therefore increasing their value and increasing WotC's profit margin
Things WotC does not care about:
-keeping the ban list as short as possible
-taking chances with an entire format for the benefit of a single card
-catering to play styles that newer players generally don't like and will lose them more players than it will gain
-keeping the meta balanced between archetypes/colors/whatever
-keeping cards on the secondary market cheap (available yes, but not cheap)
-keeping the meta diverse (as long as a single deck doesn't threaten the popularity of the format)
Likewise, I want to talk about Pod. Calls for its banning have subsided, but the actual strength of the card has not. Why, in a non-self-regulating format, will it never require banning? Recall, for the sake of this thought exercise, that Wizards will continue to print stronger creatures.
Depends on the unban, bringing back Skullclamp would put a huge dent in BGx similar for Mental Misstep
Chrome Mox is the main card that would power up other archetypes.to compete with it, but it also likely speeds the format up by about .5 of a turn
Paper: WUR Waffle Control, RG and U Tron
MTGO: U Tron, BRG Living End, B Infect
Testing Modern on MTGO and helping to craft decks on a Budget
I stream!
Hermit Druid Combo:
Not when BG has all the graveyard hate.
Reduces diversity in decks that aren't good? Who cares.
Wizards should just live with mistakes when they have the power to change them? The ban list should STRIVE to be perfect. Not just rest on "oops, we banned it. No going back guys!"
SO no, you don't believe any of the cards would be good enough to stop the format's Best Deck (tm), but they should still be banned just in case? We're back to the "They're too good and no impact" pairing.
Yes, but I think we're all in agreement over "no Skullclamp".
Skullclamp and Mental Misstep are both horribly broken cards that can never come off the banned list.
Apparently Wizard's does.
I hope Wizard's keeps trying, but I don't expect them to ever be exactly right.
Depends on how you feel about cards being re-banned after they have been unbanned. Sure, they could unban something now to fight GBx, but what happens when they finally manage to reign it in? Then you just end up with another oppressive deck.
-making certain Standard cards can be played in Modern, therefore increasing their value and increasing WotC's profit margin
Things WotC does not care about:
-keeping the ban list as short as possible
-taking chances with an entire format for the benefit of a single card
-catering to play styles that newer players generally don't like and will lose them more players than it will gain
-keeping the meta balanced between archetypes/colors/whatever
-keeping cards on the secondary market cheap (available yes, but not cheap)
-keeping the meta diverse (as long as a single deck doesn't threaten the popularity of the format)
The GBx dominance is also a product of the bans too. Many decks that could compete with it were banned (not saying that some of those bans were wrong)
The format will be dead and gone if everytime a deck becomes the topdeck, it get something banned. People will not feel modern as safe to invest, beliving that any card can be banned anytime.
Also the format will be dead and gone if we don't get good cards with new sets. So good cards WILL be printed. And if those cards are strong enough, they will slot in BGx, and guess what, we will need more bans, but i suppose that is what you wish. more and more bans.
It's not the only answer, it just the answer for the lazy and blind people, who refuse to accept differents points of view.
Yes, punishing their manabase is not going to do anything...
You just so urge for bans, that you prefer to belive that it is the only solution and ignore anything else.
I don't even know why i'm arguing with you, considering how banfreak you are.
Yes, Preordain and Ancestral Visions would make nothing to the format or would be very oppressive... oh wait...
The problem can be solved, Bocephus just want something fast and that involve bans.
Example of effects that can do a good work against GBx if printed on good cards:
- Quagnoth (can't be discarded by spell and abilities of the opponent)
- Guerrilla Tactics (if discarded, you get the effefct for free and stronger)
- Anathemancer (punish greedy manabases)
- Skyshroud elite (punishes greedy manabases)
- Sigarda, Host of Herons (very hard to be interacted with)
None of those cards are strong enough to see modern play, but their effects, when added to good cards, can be. Loxodon Smiter was a nice try, but the fact that he is in abrupt range makes him not that good vs. GBx.
Bocephus belive that "modern can't live long enough" if we don't get a fast reaction to GBx that involves bans. Who here also agree with him?
Full powered storm with all the rituals and cantrips can totally dodge the grave by using rituals + epic experiment. It wouldn't even need PiF or Ascession to win.
Pod power was reduced with the introduction of Ooze. But i still belive that sooner or later it will get the axe because wizards will print something stupid that breaks it. Cheap tutor+cheat are too easy to accidentally break.
I'm just thinking into my keyboard here.
Edit: nvm. I'm tired. It wouldn't affect TS at all.
Indeed, but I was contesting the argument that unbans wouldn't do anything to the dominance of GBx decks
Like I said if WotC does not mind speeding the format up by around half a turn Chrome Mox would be a fine unban
Paper: WUR Waffle Control, RG and U Tron
MTGO: U Tron, BRG Living End, B Infect
Testing Modern on MTGO and helping to craft decks on a Budget
I stream!
Hermit Druid Combo:
A very fair point, but isn't the increased inconsistency the true goal of modern's ban list? From my point of view, everyone agrees that BGx is a very powerful shell because, while it doesn't excel in any one aspect, it does well in all aspects, and does so consistently. Many of the solutions offered have been to lower the consistency of BGx to match other shells, or raise other shells to match BGx, but people don't want cards banned, people don't think waiting for new cards to counter will come along fast enough, and people don't think unbanning cards will help. It's here where I think a restricted list strikes a good balance in giving all parties a little bit of what they want while keeping in the spirit of the ban list. Sure, it adds a greater noticeable element of "luck", but that element has always been there, and I would argue is a small price to pay for the positives it brings.
To use DRS as an example of a restricted card...
Well, all of the 5 colors have powerful staples available to them.
Putting powerful staples around something that is as powerful (and cheap) as DRS is going to give you a good deck.
DRS is the reason the GBx shell is as prevalent as it is, imo. Just like how BBE was the reason Jund was so prevalent.
I would never advocate for a ban of DRS, my sarcasm was mostly due to my opinion that GSZ was a poor ban. DRS being an 'all-in-one' hate package and ubiquity to Midrange as a whole archetype just illustrated this to me.
I don't believe the format benefits at all from bans being used as a policing tool for things that aren't fundamentally 'broken', but rather 'powerful'. In the sense that Skullclamp is broken, and Nacatl is a 'fair' card.
Sig courtesy of DOLZero
[82/360] Custom Cube
Blog about the Custom Cube
I think the issue is whether a restricted card in your opening hand would cause your game plan to be THAT much better than if it wasn't there. Whether or not the restricted card in your opening hand means the game is overwhelmingly in your favor because your opponent doesn't have there's. Some cards like Green Sun's Zenith seems really interesting as a restricted card, simply acting as a 5th copy of important cards and enabling a less consistent toolbox. Overall, I think it would just leave a bitter taste in people's mouthes when the restricted list in Vintage is more to just make the most powerful cards in the game a little more reasonable in a format where they're legal.
And completely destroy the turn 4 rule.
MM was just adapted by the BGx decks and it was a MM war for the firet 1cc drop and then it was game as usual.
Skullclamp was very dependent on what was drawn and how much mana they had to keep attaching it. Not to mention when it was tried to equip decay got it.
Mox along side the rituals speeds up some decks more then a turn. Especially with P&P to play with. Destroying the turn 4 rule.
Who ever mentioned Jace, way too slow. Not to mention between thoughtseize and Lilly, its hard to stick him on turn 4, the turn you have to stick it.
Not too powerful, but too fast. They break the turn 4 rule of the format. Unplayable? They are playable, but people will be disappointed at how they play in the format with the BGx decks floating around.
Look at red, red have bolt and what? The only other value card of red cost 4 (Chandra), and the others are multicolor, cost more or are combo picies.
And why are we apologizing for wizards? They don't post in this thread.
They're both too fast, and they won't work. If they won't work, why bother banning them? It'd be like banning charbelcher, a card that only matters when you play it too fast, but doesn't perform in this format.
Because in a balanced meta they would be too powerful and format warping. Wotc needs to fix what ails it before unbanning anything. I dont care if they go the printing route or banning route. Once they solve the BGx problem (that is if Wotc sees the BGx decks as a problem) in the format, they dont need a handful of other problems.
Who is apologizing for them? Some understand its Wotc's sandbox we can play in if we wish. Not our sandbox to model as we wish.
Okay, I have only recently been reading this thread and this "doom and gloom" sort of thing is getting old. You keep on saying that Modern is going to die unless GBx is dealt within a year or less. Is this like the Dec 21st, 2012 of Modern, did the ancient
alienmtg players predict of this fate? You have no way of knowing what's going to happen in one year.Ah, no it's not. Everyone would agree with you if that were the case, but clearly some people are against bans.
So, you tested with what, ten, twenty people? Anyone can take that you say at face value, but you're ignoring a few unknown variables. First, there are thousands of Modern players in the world and they may have their spin on how to incorporate newly unbanned cards. Second, you also have no info about how new sets will interact with Modern. I'm not necessarily talking about WoTC printing exact answer like some, including myself, have suggested, but something that could push another deck into dominance.
I'm not not trying to be rude, but coming in here and saying that bans are the only solution is kind of a tough sell.
That may very well be the case since Modern was pitched to be a place were players can play what they enjoyed in Standard before rotation. New players nowadays don't like control or lightning fast combo decks. Looking back at the Innistrad/Ravnica season it's clear that a lot of players prefer midrange and WoTC seems to printing stuff for it.
After reading this thread I'm glad that people here have little to no real influence on what WoTC decides.