I still want to see Bitterblossom and Ancestral Visions unbanned but I really doubt that will ever happen now
When the format balances out, and stays that way, wotc will unban things to diversify the metagame.
When one deck is being too dominant and warping the meta, what reason would they have to unban things? There's no telling what the effect of the unban would be. One can only SPECULATE as to the effect. Wizards feels it is much safer to hit the problem from its roots.
tl; dr dont count them out just yet. Valakut got its day. BB and AV will likely get theirs.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
There has never been a land that enters the battlefield untapped unconditionally and taps for two colors unconditionally. That would be strictly better than a basic land
Im just curious... If one of the criteria for banning creatures is that they push alternatives out, and Nacatl was banned for this reason, why is Goyf legal? Nacatl While being a 1 drop 3/3 most of the time forces you into 3 colors if you want to use it, and dies to Lightning Bolt. Meanwhile Goyf is a 2 drop that is easily splashed, and will be a 3/4-5/6 easily. Doesnt die to burn spells a lot of the time. AND is retarded expensive. If they are going to ban things and cite the reasons, they should at least be consistent with it
Im just curious... If one of the criteria for banning creatures is that they push alternatives out, and Nacatl was banned for this reason, why is Goyf legal? Nacatl While being a 1 drop 3/3 most of the time forces you into 3 colors if you want to use it, and dies to Lightning Bolt. Meanwhile Goyf is a 2 drop that is easily splashed, and will be a 3/4-5/6 easily. Doesnt die to burn spells a lot of the time. AND is retarded expensive. If they are going to ban things and cite the reasons, they should at least be consistent with it
Because Goyf is going to sell a whole lotta Modern Masters
You "anti-Legacy" guys are hilarious. It YOU guys who keep talking about Legacy in this modern forums, and inaccurately so. So when some one corrects you, the reaction is defensiveness. I wonder who has format envy.
Legacy players don't want or need Modern to be like Legacy, BECAUSE we HAVE Legacy.
Admittedly, I don't really get the modern ban philosophy.
To all the those angry Jund and storm players, legacy welcomes you as it welcomed the victims of the banning of sfm and jace from standard cawblade days.
As a legacy aficionado, I am happy they are keeping the lines of division between modern and legacy quite clear and distinct.
Possible Future Bans:
As an Infect player I know how fast the deck is. I don't think any other deck can kill turn 2. I expect Glistener Elf to leave us within a year. Even if they kill it, now they just have one less removal for the 2 drop. It will not kill infect, and it will still be playable.
Something from Eggs. If not for breaking the turn 3 rule (this deck does fizzles sometimes), then for taking way, WAY too long. It is not fun to play against. People not having fun hurts a format.
To the people saying this killed modern: I love this format dearly and many other people do too. New players will no longer be scared off by Big Bad Jund from when they started playing or by super fast combo.
To the people saying they are quitting modern: I pity you. You are really going to miss out. I will welcome you back when you are ready.
To the people saying that Wizards is banhappy: Have faith. Don't jump to conclusions, this is the first ban in a year.
To my fellow modern players: Feels good doesn't it?
I can see Infect rising as a Stompy deck (perfectly fair it is a Stompy deck) which is fine the format should have a Stompy deck, don't think it can consistently turn 2, removal does exist
Eggs can't turn 3 unless they either open the nut hand or are playing KCI and can somehow resolve it turn 3, it may not be fun to play against, but it is unique, weak to hate (GY, Storm, and Artifact hate) so it is unlikely they decide to ban anything to kill the deck if they do so at all (which I find very unlikely)
It is more of the feeling that a lot of players are unsure what Modern is supposed to be and why WotC decided not let the format regulate itself. I just say Song was the wrong card to hit if they wanted to weaken Storm and want the format to increase in Power Level, but I may be able to play Teachings in the format since Jund lost BBE we'll see.
I am more concerned with the Pauper bans than Modern
Storm player at heart, but Song doesn't kill the deck just killed Hive Mind, that is what I am more disappointed about
http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/channel-lsv-modern-pod-event-2/
Here third from the bottom u can watch LSV lose t3 to storm without song!
He also loses to Jund without BBE, heck many Juno proponents say she wasn't the best card in the deck any how.
These will still be decks people, storm players could also convert easily to twin, heck I was always terrified of that sb plan.
Yeah Storm will adapt, the Twin SB plan was scary because you couldn't see it coming
The problem is that people made their own conception of "what modern will be", and among these the legacy players that wanted modern to be "Legacy lite".
Some legacy players, are just jealous because Legacy don't receive any more love from the WotC like modern does, then they insult modern. Like an enraged ex-girlfriend, that tries to make your new girlfriend look bad insulting her.
I enjoy Legacy and want Modern to be its own identity, so I don't see the point in a blanket statement saying "All Legacy players are jealous" when it isn't true for awhile I was enjoying both formats equally as they are unique and different.
I guess what I am saying is let the Modern format self-regulate and start the unbans!
I am happy with this announcement, its like Wizards finally understands what is actually OP or not, they definitely have time to correct the modern format within a year by unbanning cards like Wild Nacatl now.
I am unsure again the idea to new players that their favorite deck could get banned if it dominates or occasionally violates the T4 rule is dismaying, I know some players who play Eggs and Infect, have yet to talk to them since the bannings, but my hope is they aren't dismayed that their decks could get banned by this announcement.
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!
Im just curious... If one of the criteria for banning creatures is that they push alternatives out, and Nacatl was banned for this reason, why is Goyf legal? Nacatl While being a 1 drop 3/3 most of the time forces you into 3 colors if you want to use it, and dies to Lightning Bolt. Meanwhile Goyf is a 2 drop that is easily splashed, and will be a 3/4-5/6 easily. Doesnt die to burn spells a lot of the time. AND is retarded expensive. If they are going to ban things and cite the reasons, they should at least be consistent with it
As cynical as it sounds, it's most likely due to Goyf being one of the super-chase mythics in Modern Masters.
I am really not sure why so many people on here think that what happened with the ban list in legacy (tons of bans at first, then slowly shrunk as format stabilized) is going to happen with modern. Legacy has the cardpool capable of dealing with new sets and strategies that come its way due to the sheer power level of the cards that exist, which only resulted in very few bans these past several years.
In modern, the turn 4 rule is a limit that is far easier to break. There's very little buffering capacity in modern compared to legacy, hence the banlist will most likely grow faster than it can decrease. Ultimately, that is the price to pay when you artificially try to limit the power of the format even further.
Prior to the banning of seething song, the general assumption in here of what wotc meant by a turn-4 format was that up to a certain extent, it would rely on how well the deck performed in the meta. This came about when storm erupted with Past In Flames last year, leading to a bunch of wins turn 3 and 4, before the meta adapted and crushed them. Nothing went unbanned, so we thought we knew what their "vision" meant. Now that they resurrected the turn 4 rule by banning seething song, it's become much clearer what they meant, and it looks grim for those who hope for a smaller banlist in the future. I'm not going to even take a guess as to how much the list will grow.
As cynical as it sounds, it's most likely due to Goyf being one of the super-chase mythics in Modern Masters.
I am really not sure why so many people on here think that what happened with the ban list in legacy (tons of bans at first, then slowly shrunk as format stabilized) is going to happen with modern. Legacy has the cardpool capable of dealing with new sets and strategies that come its way due to the sheer power level of the cards that exist, which only resulted in very few bans these past several years.
In modern, the turn 4 rule is a limit that is far easier to break. There's very little buffering capacity in modern compared to legacy, hence the banlist will most likely grow faster than it can decrease. Ultimately, that is the price to pay when you artificially try to limit the power of the format even further.
Prior to the banning of seething song, the general assumption in here of what wotc meant by a turn-4 format was that up to a certain extent, it would rely on how well the deck performed in the meta. This came about when storm erupted with Past In Flames last year, leading to a bunch of wins turn 3 and 4, before the meta adapted and crushed them. Nothing went unbanned, so we thought we knew what their "vision" meant. Now that they resurrected the turn 4 rule by banning seething song, it's become much clearer what they meant, and it looks grim for those who hope for a smaller banlist in the future. I'm not going to even take a guess as to how much the list will grow.
This is why Modern desperately needs Force of Will and some sort of Wasteland equivalent (Wasteland itself is probably too powerful for a Standard set). People are already complaining about the bannings, and they only accept them because Wizards is able to say that the format is still new and they are working on it. But they will have to do something other than banning cards eventually because you can't keep an activist ban policy forever, it alienates too many players.
You know you got quoted on ChannelFireBall and was pointed out as an example of how stupid our community was right?
Ruta has a correct notion, even though you pointed out examples of other industries where the correlation does not fit, doesn't make him generally incorrect.
You know, it's frustrating when you try to discuss something with someone who says I'm wrong or ignorant while in the same breath they provide absolutely no evidence other than their own opinion or some other anonymous person posting an opinion on the internet.
Show me a statistical study on either a reputable poker site or MTGO that the data they have is "random" or should be considered invalid or contrived for nefarious means.
This is the part where you say "I do not have prove ****" and raise all kinds of hell.
It happened a few years ago, of course his name wasn't posted directly under the highlights, but I found the quote Silvestri himself quoted and put it in the standard forums at the time.
Here is the link to my post putting the clues in place.
It makes sense now.....something of mine was quoted almost two years ago, but having nothing to do with the current discussion we are having here and this some how proves something? I make one bone headed comment two years ago and its relevant today in this discussion, why?
Show me a statistical study on either a reputable poker site or MTGO that the data they have is "random" or should be considered invalid or contrived for nefarious means.
You could easily ask Blippy, they just reduced the number of events on MTGO database to the public and select a random Daily Event per format so that we do not have access towards the full amount of data per archetype in an attempt for each constructed format to not be "solved".
That's just Magic, other games do similar things. Nefarious is a strong word, it's not objectively malicious in anyway but it is a collection of hiding full values of truth.
It makes sense now.....something of mine was quoted almost two years ago, but having nothing to do with the current discussion we are having here and this some how proves something? I make one bone headed comment two years ago and its relevant today in this discussion, why?
After your edit, I am glad you have now admitted that it was you. So instead of attacking other posters for being "lesser" than you, perhaps you should learn that you yourself were not the most educated of the bunch, and understand the fact that not having contrary evidence, is not evidence of the contrary.
Banning Seething Song doesn't kill Storm entirely; if you want to win games by throwing buckets of needles at your opponent's face, it's quite possible you can still do that. But the deck loses significant consistency by dropping from 12 rituals to 8, and (IMO) there's now very little reason to play it over other T1 combo decks (the obvious choice to move to is Splinter Twin).
You "anti-Legacy" guys are hilarious. It YOU guys who keep talking about Legacy in this modern forums, and inaccurately so. So when some one corrects you, the reaction is defensiveness. I wonder who has format envy.
It's a funny comment, considering that modern players don't go into the Legacy forum to whine about how bad the format is like Legacy playes come to Modern forum to do this.
You know this is the Modern ban list discussion, Yet a lot of legacy player come here to whine.
I enjoy Legacy and want Modern to be its own identity, so I don't see the point in a blanket statement saying "All Legacy players are jealous" when it isn't true for awhile I was enjoying both formats equally as they are unique and different
Read what you quoted again, i said SOME Legacy players. not all.
Joking aside, I do believe that most of this forum is in a large agreement that Wild Nacatl being banned was definitely excessive.
At first it wasn't excessive.
Let's be realists: with Nactal in the format, there's no reason to play other aggro decks beside Affinity and Zoo.
Nactal was supressing other aggro decks. This is undeniable
BUT, even with the ban, other aggro strategies didn't rise.
So it's time to release the kitty! Because aggro needs more representation on the format.
You could easily ask Blippy, they just reduced the number of events on MTGO database to the public and select a random Daily Event per format so that we do not have access towards the full amount of data per archetype in an attempt for each constructed format to not be "solved".
This contradicts your assertion. You contend that the data from MTGO is meaningless in context of making decisions on bannings, largely due to the purported "randomness" of it. If the data was not accurate, as you suggest, you would not be able to solve much of anything with it. Yet, now you are making an argument that they are hiding data, which they might be doing, to keep the game from being solved. They supposedly have the data that would solve the game but its not good enough to make determinations on bannings, in your opinion.
With that said, once again you point to a person opinion as validation of something with no substantive evidence to support it.
I've seen no evidence from any reliable source on either a major poker site or MTGO suggesting their mechanics of play are different from playing in person, other than automation.
I respect your opinion and I once again ask if you have no intentions of proving something you state just say you agree to disagree instead of bringing up irrelevant post from two years ago and suggesting other people are wrong.
That's just Magic, other games do similar things. Nefarious is a strong word, it's not objectively malicious in anyway but it is a collection of hiding full values of truth.
Yet, you form an opinion on incomplete data then suggest someone else is wrong based on that incomplete information.
Wow...I said something stupid two years ago in frustration.
I see now....it is comical how this in no way has any bearing on the conversation we are having today. It seems more of an attempt to ridicule me than anything. How is this relevant today?
After your edit, I am glad you have now admitted that it was you. So instead of attacking other posters for being "lesser" than you, perhaps you should learn that you yourself were not the most educated of the bunch, and understand the fact that not having contrary evidence, is not evidence of the contrary.
What? This has nothing to do with what we are discussing. I see what you are doing, you are making the discussion about me and distracting from the issue at hand. Well played. By the way, excuse me for not remembering something I posted almost two years ago....silly me.
This contradicts your assertion. You contend that the data from MTGO is meaningless in context of making decisions on bannings, largely due to the purported "randomness" of it. If the data was not accurate, as you suggest, you would not be able to solve much of anything with it. Yet, now you are making an argument that they are hiding data, which they might be doing, to keep the game from being solved. They supposedly have the data that would solve the game but its not good enough to make determinations on bannings, in your opinion.
With that said, once again you point to a person opinion as validation of something with no substantive evidence to support it.
I can look for the post... it's hidden on the Wizards forum, the only reason I referenced you to another member of the community is because he can navigate those forums better than most, and got a personal reply towards his concerns so he would be the easiest access point.
Wizards is hiding the information available to us, this issue is over 4 months old. You need to update yourself before coming back on these forums with a bull-headed mentality when you ask for "evidence".
If you can stop needlessly posting, I can update this post with your much needed "evidence".
Here you go, so if you can stop attacking other people about what is considered common knowledge on this forum, it would be appreciated.
Concerning the recent bannings, this is tremendously relevant because they have more data than we do on hundreds of topics. How many games are done on turn 2-3-4 by which archetypes. How many archetypes are actually going 4-0, and how common Bloodbraid has recently been used and abused in a variety of archetypes. They made their decision based on information the public does not have. I think the guns need to be laid down, and understand that at this point in time, most of us have a dramatically more clear vision of where this format is headed.
I can look for the post... it's hidden on the Wizards forum, the only reason I referenced you to another member of the community is because he can navigate those forums better than most, and got a personal reply towards his concerns so he would be the easiest access point.
Wizards is hiding the information available to us, this issue is over 4 months old. You need to update yourself before coming back on these forums with a bull-headed mentality when you ask for "evidence".
If you can stop needlessly posting, I can update this post with your much needed "evidence".
Here you go, so if you can stop attacking other people about what is considered common knowledge on this forum, it would be appreciated.
Concerning the recent bannings, this is tremendously relevant because they have more data than we do on hundreds of topics. How many games are done on turn 2-3-4 by which archetypes. How many archetypes are actually going 4-0, and how common Bloodbraid has recently been used and abused in a variety of archetypes. They made their decision based on information the public does not have. I think the guns need to be laid down, and understand that at this point in time, most of us have a dramatically more clear vision of where this format is headed.
What exactly do you think I'm arguing against? Here my first post on this matter:
I think you may have me confused with someone else or you misunderstand what I'm arguing. I have no idea what, if any, objections you may have in regards to the issue about MTGO data. I fully believe the information they (the authority on bannings) get from MTGO is relevant and I was disputing the assertion that it was not.
I was under the impression you were either defending that poster or agreeing with him which makes very little sense and I now have no idea why you are engaging me on this matter.
considering that modern players don't go into the Legacy forum to whine about how bad the format is like Legacy playes come to Modern forum to do this.
Not to derail the thread but yes they do, search the forums and you will see. There is guilt belonging to both parties.
Read what you quoted again, i said SOME Legacy players. not all.
At first it wasn't excessive.
Let's be realists: with Nactal in the format, there's no reason to play other aggro decks beside Affinity and Zoo.
Nactal was supressing other aggro decks. This is undeniable
BUT, even with the ban, other aggro strategies didn't rise.
So it's time to release the kitty! Because aggro needs more representation on the format.
You made a statement that Legacy players want Legacy Lite, than said some are disliking it, I know many players who want the two formats to remain separate, but on a higher Power Level than Standard
Nacatl should be free, Burn won't stop being a deck nor Affinity
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!
yes, because with nacatl banned, there are so many more aggro decks now! now we have affinity and affinity. with shades of affinity on the side. you CLEARLY have no idea what you're talking about. do you know what was concurrently banned with Nacatl that ended up killing naya zoo? punishing fire. it made any other aggro strategy running x/2s obsolete.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I speak in sarcasm because calling people ******* ******** is not allowed.
Also, when we had Nacatl (and thus a tier 1 Zoo), we also still had Affinity. Affinity was more than capable of racing Zoo, even back then. Pretty confident bogle would still kick Zoo's behind a good deal of the time, if Nacatl were unbanned. Infect is a tough clock, too. I don't see literally every aggro strategy being pushed out by a Nacatl unban. A Nacatl+GSZ+Punishing Fire unban would not be so good, but obviously no one is advocating that.
I know this argument has become a broken record. I just miss good Zoo.
Zoo was a solid player before Punishing Fire, nearly always tier-1, NEVER dominant. Wild Nacatl would be fine here.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Go to my blog, Musings of the False God, for in-depth guides playing the game, from the building blocks of deck design to deceiving your opponent through clever game play!
You may also know me as the guy in the art of Dark Confidant. No, not Bob Maher, the OTHER one.
You made a statement that Legacy players want Legacy Lite, than said some are disliking it, I know many players who want the two formats to remain separate, but on a higher Power Level than Standard
"All Legacy players are jealous" is FAR different from "SOME Legacy players are jealous". I made a statement about some legacy players, but it wasn't a "blanket statement", i could quote half of the people who posted here to confirm what i said. I never said ALL legacy players are jealous, so i don't get why you argued about it.
Also, when we had Nacatl (and thus a tier 1 Zoo), we also still had Affinity. Affinity was more than capable of racing Zoo, even back then. Pretty confident bogle would still kick Zoo's behind a good deal of the time, if Nacatl were unbanned. Infect is a tough clock, too. I don't see literally every aggro strategy being pushed out by a Nacatl unban
Zoo was a solid player before Punishing Fire, nearly always tier-1, NEVER dominant.
Being dominant isn't the only reason for bans... and Nacatl wasn't banned for being dominant or format breaking.
Infect is more a creature based combo than a aggro deck.
Affinity and Bogle have different approach.
Zoo would be on the same boat as Goblins, Mono G Stompy, White Weenie, and other "Cast Creatures, Tap Creatures, Be happy!".
With zoo, other decks of this type didn't had a chance because zoo was simply a lot stronger that these.
Why play goblins or WW if i can play Zoo with Nacatl?
Wild Nacatl was banned because it was too strong for Zoo that it supressed other aggro decks.
Wizards thought that removing Nacatl would open a chance for these other aggros to shine, so people would have a reason to play other aggros. But in the end no aggro was able to see play.
So yes, it's time to free the Kitty.
The reason aggro was not diverse was not because of Nacatl, it was because of Fast Combo.
In fact because of both. No aggro deck can race fast combos, in the end only Nacatl was a option. So it pushed other decks out because it was the only one that could get near that.
Wizards have the turn 4 rule, and as long these decks don't break it, they will stay (storm got axed again for breaking it).
So combo will be always a reality on the meta and these aggros won't shine ever until something new shows, but this "something new" needs to be on the level of Nacatl at last.
But i agree that slowing down storm might give another chance for aggros, and i think this is the "last chance" wizards is giving to other aggros.
But if they still don't get anywhere, FREE THE KITTY!
But i agree that slowing down storm might give another chance for aggros, and i think this is the "last chance" wizards is giving to other aggros.
But if they still don't get anywhere, FREE THE KITTY!
I agree with this 100%. This is aggro's chance. If the rest of this PTQ season doesn't show some growth in the aggro department the will free the cat or ban non basics.
There has never been a land that enters the battlefield untapped unconditionally and taps for two colors unconditionally. That would be strictly better than a basic land
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
When the format balances out, and stays that way, wotc will unban things to diversify the metagame.
When one deck is being too dominant and warping the meta, what reason would they have to unban things? There's no telling what the effect of the unban would be. One can only SPECULATE as to the effect. Wizards feels it is much safer to hit the problem from its roots.
tl; dr dont count them out just yet. Valakut got its day. BB and AV will likely get theirs.
Set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Because Goyf is going to sell a whole lotta Modern Masters
Legacy players don't want or need Modern to be like Legacy, BECAUSE we HAVE Legacy.
I hate to quote myself, but I'm going to.
I can see Infect rising as a Stompy deck (perfectly fair it is a Stompy deck) which is fine the format should have a Stompy deck, don't think it can consistently turn 2, removal does exist
Eggs can't turn 3 unless they either open the nut hand or are playing KCI and can somehow resolve it turn 3, it may not be fun to play against, but it is unique, weak to hate (GY, Storm, and Artifact hate) so it is unlikely they decide to ban anything to kill the deck if they do so at all (which I find very unlikely)
It is more of the feeling that a lot of players are unsure what Modern is supposed to be and why WotC decided not let the format regulate itself. I just say Song was the wrong card to hit if they wanted to weaken Storm and want the format to increase in Power Level, but I may be able to play Teachings in the format since Jund lost BBE we'll see.
I am more concerned with the Pauper bans than Modern
Storm player at heart, but Song doesn't kill the deck just killed Hive Mind, that is what I am more disappointed about
Yeah Storm will adapt, the Twin SB plan was scary because you couldn't see it coming
I enjoy Legacy and want Modern to be its own identity, so I don't see the point in a blanket statement saying "All Legacy players are jealous" when it isn't true for awhile I was enjoying both formats equally as they are unique and different.
I guess what I am saying is let the Modern format self-regulate and start the unbans!
I am unsure again the idea to new players that their favorite deck could get banned if it dominates or occasionally violates the T4 rule is dismaying, I know some players who play Eggs and Infect, have yet to talk to them since the bannings, but my hope is they aren't dismayed that their decks could get banned by this announcement.
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:
As cynical as it sounds, it's most likely due to Goyf being one of the super-chase mythics in Modern Masters.
I am really not sure why so many people on here think that what happened with the ban list in legacy (tons of bans at first, then slowly shrunk as format stabilized) is going to happen with modern. Legacy has the cardpool capable of dealing with new sets and strategies that come its way due to the sheer power level of the cards that exist, which only resulted in very few bans these past several years.
In modern, the turn 4 rule is a limit that is far easier to break. There's very little buffering capacity in modern compared to legacy, hence the banlist will most likely grow faster than it can decrease. Ultimately, that is the price to pay when you artificially try to limit the power of the format even further.
Prior to the banning of seething song, the general assumption in here of what wotc meant by a turn-4 format was that up to a certain extent, it would rely on how well the deck performed in the meta. This came about when storm erupted with Past In Flames last year, leading to a bunch of wins turn 3 and 4, before the meta adapted and crushed them. Nothing went unbanned, so we thought we knew what their "vision" meant. Now that they resurrected the turn 4 rule by banning seething song, it's become much clearer what they meant, and it looks grim for those who hope for a smaller banlist in the future. I'm not going to even take a guess as to how much the list will grow.
Modern: Twin URW Wilted Abzan WBG
Legacy: Stax WWW Maverick WBG
Cockatrice ID: Voltigasm
This is why Modern desperately needs Force of Will and some sort of Wasteland equivalent (Wasteland itself is probably too powerful for a Standard set). People are already complaining about the bannings, and they only accept them because Wizards is able to say that the format is still new and they are working on it. But they will have to do something other than banning cards eventually because you can't keep an activist ban policy forever, it alienates too many players.
You know, it's frustrating when you try to discuss something with someone who says I'm wrong or ignorant while in the same breath they provide absolutely no evidence other than their own opinion or some other anonymous person posting an opinion on the internet.
Show me a statistical study on either a reputable poker site or MTGO that the data they have is "random" or should be considered invalid or contrived for nefarious means.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
It makes sense now.....something of mine was quoted almost two years ago, but having nothing to do with the current discussion we are having here and this some how proves something? I make one bone headed comment two years ago and its relevant today in this discussion, why?
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
You could easily ask Blippy, they just reduced the number of events on MTGO database to the public and select a random Daily Event per format so that we do not have access towards the full amount of data per archetype in an attempt for each constructed format to not be "solved".
That's just Magic, other games do similar things. Nefarious is a strong word, it's not objectively malicious in anyway but it is a collection of hiding full values of truth.
You were.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=6498207&postcount=234
That's your post. That's the post in the article. You've been in denial for two years, that's impressive.
After your edit, I am glad you have now admitted that it was you. So instead of attacking other posters for being "lesser" than you, perhaps you should learn that you yourself were not the most educated of the bunch, and understand the fact that not having contrary evidence, is not evidence of the contrary.
It's a funny comment, considering that modern players don't go into the Legacy forum to whine about how bad the format is like Legacy playes come to Modern forum to do this.
You know this is the Modern ban list discussion, Yet a lot of legacy player come here to whine.
Read what you quoted again, i said SOME Legacy players. not all.
At first it wasn't excessive.
Let's be realists: with Nactal in the format, there's no reason to play other aggro decks beside Affinity and Zoo.
Nactal was supressing other aggro decks. This is undeniable
BUT, even with the ban, other aggro strategies didn't rise.
So it's time to release the kitty! Because aggro needs more representation on the format.
This contradicts your assertion. You contend that the data from MTGO is meaningless in context of making decisions on bannings, largely due to the purported "randomness" of it. If the data was not accurate, as you suggest, you would not be able to solve much of anything with it. Yet, now you are making an argument that they are hiding data, which they might be doing, to keep the game from being solved. They supposedly have the data that would solve the game but its not good enough to make determinations on bannings, in your opinion.
With that said, once again you point to a person opinion as validation of something with no substantive evidence to support it.
I've seen no evidence from any reliable source on either a major poker site or MTGO suggesting their mechanics of play are different from playing in person, other than automation.
I respect your opinion and I once again ask if you have no intentions of proving something you state just say you agree to disagree instead of bringing up irrelevant post from two years ago and suggesting other people are wrong.
Yet, you form an opinion on incomplete data then suggest someone else is wrong based on that incomplete information.
Wow...I said something stupid two years ago in frustration.
I see now....it is comical how this in no way has any bearing on the conversation we are having today. It seems more of an attempt to ridicule me than anything. How is this relevant today?
What? This has nothing to do with what we are discussing. I see what you are doing, you are making the discussion about me and distracting from the issue at hand. Well played. By the way, excuse me for not remembering something I posted almost two years ago....silly me.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I can look for the post... it's hidden on the Wizards forum, the only reason I referenced you to another member of the community is because he can navigate those forums better than most, and got a personal reply towards his concerns so he would be the easiest access point.
Wizards is hiding the information available to us, this issue is over 4 months old. You need to update yourself before coming back on these forums with a bull-headed mentality when you ask for "evidence".
If you can stop needlessly posting, I can update this post with your much needed "evidence".
EDIT: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75846/29443457/What_is_WRONG_with_you,_WotC_Grrrr.....&post_num=12#525499121
Here you go, so if you can stop attacking other people about what is considered common knowledge on this forum, it would be appreciated.
Concerning the recent bannings, this is tremendously relevant because they have more data than we do on hundreds of topics. How many games are done on turn 2-3-4 by which archetypes. How many archetypes are actually going 4-0, and how common Bloodbraid has recently been used and abused in a variety of archetypes. They made their decision based on information the public does not have. I think the guns need to be laid down, and understand that at this point in time, most of us have a dramatically more clear vision of where this format is headed.
What exactly do you think I'm arguing against? Here my first post on this matter:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=9706122&postcount=638
I think you may have me confused with someone else or you misunderstand what I'm arguing. I have no idea what, if any, objections you may have in regards to the issue about MTGO data. I fully believe the information they (the authority on bannings) get from MTGO is relevant and I was disputing the assertion that it was not.
I was under the impression you were either defending that poster or agreeing with him which makes very little sense and I now have no idea why you are engaging me on this matter.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Not to derail the thread but yes they do, search the forums and you will see. There is guilt belonging to both parties.
You made a statement that Legacy players want Legacy Lite, than said some are disliking it, I know many players who want the two formats to remain separate, but on a higher Power Level than Standard
Nacatl should be free, Burn won't stop being a deck nor Affinity
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:
I know this argument has become a broken record. I just miss good Zoo.
CG
You may also know me as the guy in the art of Dark Confidant. No, not Bob Maher, the OTHER one.
Being dominant isn't the only reason for bans... and Nacatl wasn't banned for being dominant or format breaking.
Infect is more a creature based combo than a aggro deck.
Affinity and Bogle have different approach.
Zoo would be on the same boat as Goblins, Mono G Stompy, White Weenie, and other "Cast Creatures, Tap Creatures, Be happy!".
With zoo, other decks of this type didn't had a chance because zoo was simply a lot stronger that these.
Why play goblins or WW if i can play Zoo with Nacatl?
Wild Nacatl was banned because it was too strong for Zoo that it supressed other aggro decks.
Wizards thought that removing Nacatl would open a chance for these other aggros to shine, so people would have a reason to play other aggros. But in the end no aggro was able to see play.
So yes, it's time to free the Kitty.
In fact because of both. No aggro deck can race fast combos, in the end only Nacatl was a option. So it pushed other decks out because it was the only one that could get near that.
Wizards have the turn 4 rule, and as long these decks don't break it, they will stay (storm got axed again for breaking it).
So combo will be always a reality on the meta and these aggros won't shine ever until something new shows, but this "something new" needs to be on the level of Nacatl at last.
But i agree that slowing down storm might give another chance for aggros, and i think this is the "last chance" wizards is giving to other aggros.
But if they still don't get anywhere, FREE THE KITTY!
I agree with this 100%. This is aggro's chance. If the rest of this PTQ season doesn't show some growth in the aggro department the will free the cat or ban non basics.
Level 1 Judge
WUBRG
They will ban WHAT?!
Set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.