I am not surprised at the no-bans. The only thing I thought should be banned, i know never will (Twin/Blood Moon) but my reasons are beyond their % of meta or win %.
I am slightly sad at the no unbans. I think there are a few safe unbans (SotM, AV, JtMS) but I am not overly surprised, WotC is definitely on the cautious side when it comes to unbans.
I'm really tempted to go through that last thread and quote a lot of people about how confident they were in a Bloom/Griselbrand/Vengeance/Twin/Snapcaster/etc. banning.
Please do this. Those misevaluation quotes are always a laugh.
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
Considering all of the discussion about a possible ban for Amulet Bloom, it would have been nice if they had given an explanation for why they didn't. I don't mean that in the snarky way of "they have to justify such a silly decision" but that it would be useful to know what their exact reasoning actually was, whether it was a "it's not top tier" sort of thing, "despite its potential to kill quickly, it doesn't do so consistently enough" sort of thing, or some combination of the two. Same for Grishoalbrand (though that one also has the "it's a new deck" explanation). While it's of course important to know why they banned something, I wish they'd more often give an explanation for a lack of banning.'
Rather disappointed in the lack of changes in Legacy, though. Looks like we'll have to put up with Dig Through Time's crazy dominance (51%!) even more.
As a side note, I had a dream last night that Remand got banned. The goofiness of it made me realize I was dreaming and woke up.
I am not surprised at the no-bans. The only thing I thought should be banned, i know never will (Twin/Blood Moon) but my reasons are beyond their % of meta or win %.
I am slightly sad at the no unbans. I think there are a few safe unbans (SotM, AV, JtMS) but I am not overly surprised, WotC is definitely on the cautious side when it comes to unbans.
So your reasons are "I don't like these cards and don't want to play against them?" You want blood moon banned but JTMS unbanned?
I just don't understand these threads. How can anyone be disappointed when we've seen so much happening in modern lately? The "wait and see" approach makes sense with where modern is at the moment IMO.
I'm really tempted to go through that last thread and quote a lot of people about how confident they were in a Bloom/Griselbrand/Vengeance/Twin/Snapcaster/etc. banning. But that's not very moderatorial. As it stands, I am extremely pleased about Wizards' decision and look forward to the format's continued growth. Now excuse me as I go hammer out a banlist article for the 11 AM Nexus deadline.
I think the sweet satisfaction of providing meaningful data points, coherent application of statistics, and providing rational arguments should be enough. ...Or you could rub it in their faces anyways.
To anyone paying attention to those things, it was an obvious decision not to ban anything. It's unfortunate to not see some unbans, but not surprising.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently playing:
Standard: I, for one, welcome our new rhinoceros overlords
Modern: Pod's dead, Bob's back.
Legacy: Lands, Deathblade, Death and Taxes, Elves, MUD
Retired Legacy: Merfolk, Goblins, Jund, Delver, Reanimator
Considering all of the discussion about a possible ban for Amulet Bloom, it would have been nice if they had given an explanation for why they didn't. I don't mean that in the snarky way of "they have to justify such a silly decision" but that it would be useful to know what their exact reasoning actually was, whether it was a "it's not top tier" sort of thing, "despite its potential to kill quickly, it doesn't do so consistently enough" sort of thing, or some combination of the two. Same for Grishoalbrand (though that one also has the "it's a new deck" explanation). While it's of course important to know why they banned something, I wish they'd more often give an explanation for a lack of banning.'
Rather disappointed in the lack of changes in Legacy, though. Looks like we'll have to put up with Dig Through Time's crazy dominance (51%!) even more.
As a side note, I had a dream last night that Remand got banned. The goofiness of it made me realize I was dreaming and woke up.
You should have been there when I saw the spoiler for a khans printing of force of will. My whole world flipped upside down 'Modern is never going to be the same...', felt crazy for like 10 minutes until I came to my senses and realized it had to be 100% fake.
As much as I'd like them to explain themselves for the sake of our understanding and transparency, I don't think it does any good to let people know what cards they're actually having a discussion about. If they mentioned anything players on the decks effected panic every few months, people prematurely jump on board, jump ship, ect. Seems less damaging this way and doesn't promote the ban culture that modern really needs to buck.
I do wish they'd just do a general 'state of the format' address however. 'We feel good, KTHXBYE!'-WOTC
Edit Edit: I'm still an idiot and want sword unbanned, perhaps the coming pro tour as the 'shake up' unban?
Considering all of the discussion about a possible ban for Amulet Bloom, it would have been nice if they had given an explanation for why they didn't. I don't mean that in the snarky way of "they have to justify such a silly decision" but that it would be useful to know what their exact reasoning actually was, whether it was a "it's not top tier" sort of thing, "despite its potential to kill quickly, it doesn't do so consistently enough" sort of thing, or some combination of the two. Same for Grishoalbrand (though that one also has the "it's a new deck" explanation). While it's of course important to know why they banned something, I wish they'd more often give an explanation for a lack of banning.'
As a side note, I had a dream last night that Remand got banned. The goofiness of it made me realize I was dreaming and woke up.
"We don't waste resources to thoroughly test for the format, and people whose opinion we respect havent complained to us about bloom or griselbrand combo. When they make a big noise, combined with a big community outrage, we will hastily ban it."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Playing:
Modern: UWUW TronUW
Legacy: WDeath N TaxesW CEldrazi C
If you couldn't tell I hate greedy blue decks.
I am not surprised at the no-bans. The only thing I thought should be banned, i know never will (Twin/Blood Moon) but my reasons are beyond their % of meta or win %.
I am slightly sad at the no unbans. I think there are a few safe unbans (SotM, AV, JtMS) but I am not overly surprised, WotC is definitely on the cautious side when it comes to unbans.
I like how the list of "safe" unbans ramps up pretty fast.
Like "Most people agree, eh it's a little debatable, completely unreasonsable..."
I don't play Bloom Titan, but I'm glad nothing got hit from it. There wasn't a compelling enough argument that it should be, and it seems that Wizards is semi-endorsing its existence, presuming it doesn't suddenly spike in the meta. But seeing as it didn't get unreasonable even after a PT win, I think it'll be fine.
As much as I'd like them to explain themselves for the sake of our understanding and transparency, I don't think it does any good to let people know what cards they're actually having a discussion about. If they mentioned anything players on the decks effected panic every few months, people prematurely jump on board, jump ship, ect. Seems less damaging this way and doesn't promote the ban culture that modern really needs to buck.
I don't see it as encouraging ban culture, nor a case of letting people know what cards they're having a discussion about. The former would actually be a way to tell players "barring something changing, nothing is getting banned" and it really isn't a case of the latter. It doesn't say anything about what cards they discuss, as it's more of a response to what you see a lot of players discuss. One of the Grand Prix kept having all of this discussion about Amulet Bloom and a possible ban for it, so addressing player concerns would have been nice. Unfortunately, to my knowledge they've only done it once, in regards to UW Delver in Standard several years back.
Edit Edit: I'm still an idiot and want sword unbanned, perhaps the coming pro tour as the 'shake up' unban?
Why would you be an idiot for wanting a harmless card unbanned?
I am not surprised at the no-bans. The only thing I thought should be banned, i know never will (Twin/Blood Moon) but my reasons are beyond their % of meta or win %.
I am slightly sad at the no unbans. I think there are a few safe unbans (SotM, AV, JtMS) but I am not overly surprised, WotC is definitely on the cautious side when it comes to unbans.
I like how the list of "safe" unbans ramps up pretty fast.
Like "Most people agree, eh it's a little debatable, completely unreasonsable..."
I don't play Bloom Titan, but I'm glad nothing got hit from it. There wasn't a compelling enough argument that it should be, and it seems that Wizards is semi-endorsing its existence, presuming it doesn't suddenly spike in the meta. But seeing as it didn't get unreasonable even after a PT win, I think it'll be fine.
The only thing I dislike about bloom is the mindhive. Loosing to a turn 2 pact is just the worst way to go.
The only thing I dislike about Grisslebrand is Shoal. It just adds way too much consistency in my opinion.
Some key takeaways:
1. Nothing deserved to be banned. People misevaluated the format and the health of certain cards because they didn't consider metagame context and/or they didn't understand the ban rules that Wizards would act on. The big one here was forgetting that a deck needed to be TOP-TIER before being eligible for a turn four rule banning.
2. Nothing needed to be unbanned. The metagame is both diverse and evolving right now (not just stable/stagnant). Add to that a new set release and we really don't need an unban today. We might need it in the future and that's when Wizards will deploy it.
3. Wizards rocks. There was reason to worry that Wizards wouldn't stay objective and rational following the ban-mania and hype of this month. July 13 will always serve as a reminder that level heads will often prevail in Modern.
Some key takeaways:
1. Nothing deserved to be banned. People misevaluated the format and the health of certain cards because they didn't consider metagame context and/or they didn't understand the ban rules that Wizards would act on. The big one here was forgetting that a deck needed to be TOP-TIER before being eligible for a turn four rule banning.
2. Nothing needed to be unbanned. The metagame is both diverse and evolving right now (not just stable/stagnant). Add to that a new set release and we really don't need an unban today. We might need it in the future and that's when Wizards will deploy it.
3. Wizards rocks. There was reason to worry that Wizards wouldn't stay objective and rational following the ban-mania and hype of this month. July 13 will always serve as a reminder that level heads will often prevail in Modern.
Read your article: I must disagree on several fronts. For starters Grisselbrand and Bloom are tier 1 decks now. They are here to stay in most local (and non-local metas).
I also disagree with your notion that a deck has to be "the top tier deck" to warrant a banning. I'm sure that factors into the equation; however, there have been historical bannings where the deck in question was not necessarily THE top deck.
From my experience, Wizard has three criteria for establishing bans.
1) Is the deck consistent? Does it continually do well in tournaments?
2) Is the deck non-interactive? Non interactive combos are frowned upon heavily.
Decks like Eggs (second sunrise) have been banned in the past in modern not necessarily because they are too good or unbeatable, but because their "synergy" is non-interactive.
Solitaire type decks are often quickly neutered or banned in modern.
Please do this. Those misevaluation quotes are always a laugh.
I don't think it's the right thing to do since words can get taken out of context. KT may show a post where it seems like I believed Griselbrand would be banned today, which is not true. I just think that some day, they may eventually have to ban the card in a similar way to Birthing Pod because the card is just waiting to be broken and the current deck may be it. (or it could get even more OP)
"We don't waste resources to thoroughly test for the format, and people whose opinion we respect havent complained to us about bloom or griselbrand combo. When they make a big noise, combined with a big community outrage, we will hastily ban it."
Do you work for Wizards because this is SPOT on? (seriously)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
Yeah, I'm happy about the banlist update. ktken is right, there's nothing that's actually a problem in the format. Amulet and Grishoalbrand are good combo decks, but there are tools to beat them, and Wizards just printed a Grishoalbrand answer. We can't ban every combo deck because a handful of people think they're unreasonable decks. With Amulet and Grishoalbrand having very small metagame shares COMBINED with the fact that it hasn't been straight dominating the format, there's no reason to panic. Banning cards is a good way to upset players who have invested, so you should generally err on the side of not banning.
I'm also happy there was no transparency. Transparency is a good way to scare players unnecessarily. If you tell me "we looked at banning Summer Bloom and Goryo's Vengeance", for instance, it would scare people off investing into those decks. It's hard for us to sit here and think those decks weren't looked at, they very likely were. But keeping that to themselves makes sure to not remind us that they might just ban some combo deck at a whim, which they ought not to do.
The meta percentages are very good right now actually. Three decks around 8.5% and three decks around 5%, which seems very healthy for me. That's coupled with 2/3 of the 8.5% decks being Affinity and Burn, which will often have slightly inflated numbers simply because of cost and speed of play. Amulet is at 4.1% and Grishoalbrand is at 1.8%. Other recent metas have had much larger discrepancies.
Remember that when Storm got the axe, it was over 11% on MTGO and winning a sizable amount of the time on turn 3. This was also flat out winning, not just putting a Primeval Titan into play. Recall that this was the second most popular deck in the format, not even the most popular deck. That was a meta in which two decks were more popular than any given deck in our current meta. This is a good indication that our current meta is a lot healthier than in the past. These are the types of things you look for when deciding if the format actually needs any changes, that some deck(s) is/are too large a share of the format, and if some deck that's a large share is completely bonkers with turn 3 wins. Any player from when Seething Song was legal will tell you it won more consistently on turn 3 or earlier than Amulet does now.
Read your article: I must disagree on several fronts. For starters Grisselbrand and Bloom are tier 1 decks now. They are here to stay in most local (and non-local metas).
I also disagree with your notion that a deck has to be "the top tier deck" to warrant a banning. I'm sure that factors into the equation; however, there have been historical bannings where the deck in question was not necessarily THE top deck.
From my experience, Wizard has three criteria for establishing bans.
1) Is the deck consistent? Does it continually do well in tournaments?
2) Is the deck non-interactive? Non interactive combos are frowned upon heavily.
Decks like Eggs (second sunrise) have been banned in the past in modern not necessarily because they are too good or unbeatable, but because their "synergy" is non-interactive.
Solitaire type decks are often quickly neutered or banned in modern.
Although I understand you may personally feel this way, Wizards does not. If Grishoalbrand and Bloom were tier 1 decks in Wizards' books, they would probably have been banned. Also, the notion that a deck must be "top-tier" to be banned under the turn four rule is not my notion. It's Wizards'. This gets back to fundamental misunderstandings about the banlist and the rules governing it. For a deck to be banned under the turn four rule, it must also be top-tier. It can't just win on turn three or earlier, contrary to what many believe. Indeed, Wizards explicitly used this in the Storm banning. So you may personally disagree with the article and the rules, but they aren't really my rules or my criteria. I'm just articulating how Wizards has historically approached bans.
Some key takeaways:
1. Nothing deserved to be banned. People misevaluated the format and the health of certain cards because they didn't consider metagame context and/or they didn't understand the ban rules that Wizards would act on. The big one here was forgetting that a deck needed to be TOP-TIER before being eligible for a turn four rule banning.
2. Nothing needed to be unbanned. The metagame is both diverse and evolving right now (not just stable/stagnant). Add to that a new set release and we really don't need an unban today. We might need it in the future and that's when Wizards will deploy it.
3. Wizards rocks. There was reason to worry that Wizards wouldn't stay objective and rational following the ban-mania and hype of this month. July 13 will always serve as a reminder that level heads will often prevail in Modern.
Read your article: I must disagree on several fronts. For starters Grisselbrand and Bloom are tier 1 decks now. They are here to stay in most local (and non-local metas).
I also disagree with your notion that a deck has to be "the top tier deck" to warrant a banning. I'm sure that factors into the equation; however, there have been historical bannings where the deck in question was not necessarily THE top deck.
From my experience, Wizard has three criteria for establishing bans.
1) Is the deck consistent? Does it continually do well in tournaments?
2) Is the deck non-interactive? Non interactive combos are frowned upon heavily.
Decks like Eggs (second sunrise) have been banned in the past in modern not necessarily because they are too good or unbeatable, but because their "synergy" is non-interactive.
Solitaire type decks are often quickly neutered or banned in modern.
But then how in the world do you justify their continued existence within the format? We saw amulet win on turn 2 on camera at a gp.
Both grishoalbrand and amulet are uninteractive combo decks, but again were left completely untouched. Eggs was bannedspecifically because it took too much time to play out,not because of its uniinteractivity.
I mean the article laid all of this out, with quotes by WotC about it. You can claim that wizards bans for your reasons, but you have absolutely no proof of that, made even more evident by this ban announcement.
Some key takeaways:
1. Nothing deserved to be banned. People misevaluated the format and the health of certain cards because they didn't consider metagame context and/or they didn't understand the ban rules that Wizards would act on. The big one here was forgetting that a deck needed to be TOP-TIER before being eligible for a turn four rule banning.
2. Nothing needed to be unbanned. The metagame is both diverse and evolving right now (not just stable/stagnant). Add to that a new set release and we really don't need an unban today. We might need it in the future and that's when Wizards will deploy it.
3. Wizards rocks. There was reason to worry that Wizards wouldn't stay objective and rational following the ban-mania and hype of this month. July 13 will always serve as a reminder that level heads will often prevail in Modern.
Read your article: I must disagree on several fronts. For starters Grisselbrand and Bloom are tier 1 decks now. They are here to stay in most local (and non-local metas).
Uh... how are they Tier 1? By what definition are they Tier 1? Being "here to stay in most local metas" doesn't make something Tier 1. One might as well claim that Living End is Tier 1, because that deck is also "here to stay" (and, incidentally, according to MTG Goldfish, has a higher meta share than Grishoalbrand and is currently close to the metagame share of Amulet Bloom!)
Decks like Eggs (second sunrise) have been banned in the past in modern not necessarily because they are too good or unbeatable, but because their "synergy" is non-interactive.
Solitaire type decks are often quickly neutered or banned in modern.
Eggs was not banned for being non-interactive. It was banned for making tournaments take hours longer to complete.
Some key takeaways:
1. Nothing deserved to be banned. People misevaluated the format and the health of certain cards because they didn't consider metagame context and/or they didn't understand the ban rules that Wizards would act on. The big one here was forgetting that a deck needed to be TOP-TIER before being eligible for a turn four rule banning.
2. Nothing needed to be unbanned. The metagame is both diverse and evolving right now (not just stable/stagnant). Add to that a new set release and we really don't need an unban today. We might need it in the future and that's when Wizards will deploy it.
3. Wizards rocks. There was reason to worry that Wizards wouldn't stay objective and rational following the ban-mania and hype of this month. July 13 will always serve as a reminder that level heads will often prevail in Modern.
Read your article: I must disagree on several fronts. For starters Grisselbrand and Bloom are tier 1 decks now. They are here to stay in most local (and non-local metas).
I also disagree with your notion that a deck has to be "the top tier deck" to warrant a banning. I'm sure that factors into the equation; however, there have been historical bannings where the deck in question was not necessarily THE top deck.
From my experience, Wizard has three criteria for establishing bans.
1) Is the deck consistent? Does it continually do well in tournaments?
2) Is the deck non-interactive? Non interactive combos are frowned upon heavily.
Decks like Eggs (second sunrise) have been banned in the past in modern not necessarily because they are too good or unbeatable, but because their "synergy" is non-interactive.
Solitaire type decks are often quickly neutered or banned in modern.
>> 1) Is the deck consistent? Does it continually do well in tournaments?
This is how "the top tier deck" be defined.
There are only three criteria for banning a card in Modern:
1. consistently break the turn 4 rule
2. dominate the META
3. spend too much time in tournaments
>> 2) Is the deck non-interactive? Non interactive combos are frowned upon heavily.
This is NOT the "criteria", but just a "factor" causing a ban.
For example, if a combo is extremely non-interactive, but take 10 turns to make the combo. This will NOT be banned.
The "criteria" are listed above.
Grisselbrand and Bloom are NOT banned now because they "do not dominate the META" + they "cannot consistently break the turn 4 rule" + they "do not spend too much time in tournaments"
Egg was banned because it "spends too much time in tournaments". Not because it is interactive or non-interactive.
Read your article: I must disagree on several fronts. For starters Grisselbrand and Bloom are tier 1 decks now. They are here to stay in most local (and non-local metas).
I also disagree with your notion that a deck has to be "the top tier deck" to warrant a banning. I'm sure that factors into the equation; however, there have been historical bannings where the deck in question was not necessarily THE top deck.
From my experience, Wizard has three criteria for establishing bans.
1) Is the deck consistent? Does it continually do well in tournaments?
2) Is the deck non-interactive? Non interactive combos are frowned upon heavily.
Decks like Eggs (second sunrise) have been banned in the past in modern not necessarily because they are too good or unbeatable, but because their "synergy" is non-interactive.
Solitaire type decks are often quickly neutered or banned in modern.
Although I understand you may personally feel this way, Wizards does not. If Grishoalbrand and Bloom were tier 1 decks in Wizards' books, they would probably have been banned. Also, the notion that a deck must be "top-tier" to be banned under the turn four rule is not my notion. It's Wizards'. This gets back to fundamental misunderstandings about the banlist and the rules governing it. For a deck to be banned under the turn four rule, it must also be top-tier. It can't just win on turn three or earlier, contrary to what many believe. Indeed, Wizards explicitly used this in the Storm banning. So you may personally disagree with the article and the rules, but they aren't really my rules or my criteria. I'm just articulating how Wizards has historically approached bans.
The point to not banning under the turn four rule when the deck isn't top tier is to avoid banning cards from bad decks because they randomly found a way to win fast. If Wizards had to ban every card that enabled someone to win before turn 4, it would be absurd what got banned. This way, we get this safety net wherein we do ban if it becomes a problem, but it's only a problem if enough people are doing well with it.
I went and looked back at the Storm ban notes, and they cited multiple strong finishes (multiple 18+ points at the PT and a GP top 8) with the deck on top of an 11% MTGO metagame. While Amulet has a PT top 8 and multiple top 32s at GPs, it doesn't have this 11% MTGO metagame percentage that would indicate it's a top tier deck. They also cite "turn-three wins are frequent", and I wouldn't say Amulet can do this frequently like Storm could. It may be a strong, non-interactive deck (which I'd say it's still more interactive than Storm was), it's just not at the XYZ criteria we need to ultimately ban a card.
I am not surprised at the no-bans. The only thing I thought should be banned, i know never will (Twin/Blood Moon) but my reasons are beyond their % of meta or win %.
I am slightly sad at the no unbans. I think there are a few safe unbans (SotM, AV, JtMS) but I am not overly surprised, WotC is definitely on the cautious side when it comes to unbans.
So your reasons are "I don't like these cards and don't want to play against them?" You want blood moon banned but JTMS unbanned?
I just don't understand these threads. How can anyone be disappointed when we've seen so much happening in modern lately? The "wait and see" approach makes sense with where modern is at the moment IMO.
I have listed the reasons why I think those cards should be banned multiple times: Twin represses what can be printed in Blue, which I think is dumb that a card in one colour directly affects what can be printed/unbanned in another colour. Blood Moon needs to be banned purely because its effect is so powerful in so many match ups but exists in only 1 colour. If they reprinted something like Back to Basics or a similar effect in another colour of two, I could careless. So no, my reasons are I dont like these cards but thanks anyways.
JtMS, as has been described dozens of times throughout every unban/ban list discussion, is perfectly safe to unban in Modern but WotC/community have way too much PTSD from its time in Standard to ever let it happen but its still wrong.
I am not very dissappointed, I just think Modern needs a good draw-go control deck and some sort of unbans (like SotM and JtMS) would help that. But as i said before, I am not surprised just saddened that WotC continues to be overly cautious.
2. Nothing needed to be unbanned. The metagame is both diverse and evolving right now (not just stable/stagnant). Add to that a new set release and we really don't need an unban today. We might need it in the future and that's when Wizards will deploy it.
I feel your article missed a very key feature in regards to unbans: This isn't before a Pro Tour. Every unban in Modern has been in the banning announcement immediately preceding a Pro Tour. Now, as I've said before, that could change, but it does show that before a Pro Tour they're significantly more likely to unban something. I feel this honestly was probably a bigger part in their decision than anything else you speculated on in the article.
I am not surprised at the no-bans. The only thing I thought should be banned, i know never will (Twin/Blood Moon) but my reasons are beyond their % of meta or win %.
I am slightly sad at the no unbans. I think there are a few safe unbans (SotM, AV, JtMS) but I am not overly surprised, WotC is definitely on the cautious side when it comes to unbans.
So your reasons are "I don't like these cards and don't want to play against them?" You want blood moon banned but JTMS unbanned?
I just don't understand these threads. How can anyone be disappointed when we've seen so much happening in modern lately? The "wait and see" approach makes sense with where modern is at the moment IMO.
I have listed the reasons why I think those cards should be banned multiple times: Twin represses what can be printed in Blue, which I think is dumb that a card in one colour directly affects what can be printed/unbanned in another colour. Blood Moon needs to be banned purely because its effect is so powerful in so many match ups but exists in only 1 colour. If they reprinted something like Back to Basics or a similar effect in another colour of two, I could careless. So no, my reasons are I dont like these cards but thanks anyways.
JtMS, as has been described dozens of times throughout every unban/ban list discussion, is perfectly safe to unban in Modern but WotC/community have way too much PTSD from its time in Standard to ever let it happen but its still wrong.
I am not very dissappointed, I just think Modern needs a good draw-go control deck and some sort of unbans (like SotM and JtMS) would help that. But as i said before, I am not surprised just saddened that WotC continues to be overly cautious.
One of the issues with banning cards is how it affects players who play the deck. Imagine you're Bob who scraped together birthday and Christmas money to build Splinter Twin, but then when you finally finished the deck, Wizards decided to ban Splinter Twin. Now you're probably crying to yourself because you invested hundreds of dollars into a deck you can no longer play. While Twin isn't the worst investment because you have several cards that go to other decks, this situation is exactly what happened when Pod got banned, and people largely did make it known they were upset.
For that reason, you really do need to be more cautious about what you want to ban. While Twin is oppressive to other blue strategies and what can be allowed, it's not so outrageous that we have to just completely shut it out. We've got Grixis Control doing reasonably well, and it's fairly draw-go aside from some delve creatures. Twin also boards out the combo in a lot of sideboarded games, which essentially turns them into draw-go with flash creatures.
Blood Moon is also a card that's currently balancing the format the way Force of Will does in Legacy. By having the card keep some decks in check, namely Amulet and RG Tron, it's very reasonable to keep it around. It's also a solid card to have because, in more or less every other matchup, there are reasonable ways to play around Blood Moon (aka fetch your basics). It keeps two decks in check, which are both still solid decks, one of which people were asking to get banned. If you're banning Blood Moon, you're probably going to have an Amulet dominated meta for three months and then an Amulet ban.
"We don't waste resources to thoroughly test for the format, and people whose opinion we respect havent complained to us about bloom or griselbrand combo. When they make a big noise, combined with a big community outrage, we will hastily ban it."
Do you work for Wizards because this is SPOT on? (seriously)
I've read enough statements from Lapille, and Forsythe combined with listening to interviews to know their opinions on it.
They don't test, or really think about modern at all unless they're forced to. They will change stuff when its the pro tour because modern is going to be highly scrutinized then by a ton of people whose opinions they respect.
They really don't want to ban decks that people have worked hard to build and learn to play, but that wont stop them if they feel enough pressure. It's also part of the reason the ban list reasonings are frustrating to read. They can't overtly write the full reason why they ban things, but its pretty self evident. Lapille has flat out said they've banned things to shake up the pro tour, but there wont be an official statement agreeing with that.
WOTC basically understands that its important for there to be a relevant competitive format post standard, but doesn't really want to regulate it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Playing:
Modern: UWUW TronUW
Legacy: WDeath N TaxesW CEldrazi C
If you couldn't tell I hate greedy blue decks.
Grishoalbrand here I come. Not playing anything else when this is in the format.
See you in the top 8 of the next Pro Tour/Grand Prix/SCG Event then, right?
Anyway pretty much what I thought. No changes are needed. The format is very healthy and you have a fair and interactive deck at the top of the metagame. Can't hope for much more.
For the people wanting thing X or Y unbanned. Keep up the dream, guys. Maybe someday...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UW Control
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am slightly sad at the no unbans. I think there are a few safe unbans (SotM, AV, JtMS) but I am not overly surprised, WotC is definitely on the cautious side when it comes to unbans.
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
Rather disappointed in the lack of changes in Legacy, though. Looks like we'll have to put up with Dig Through Time's crazy dominance (51%!) even more.
As a side note, I had a dream last night that Remand got banned. The goofiness of it made me realize I was dreaming and woke up.
So your reasons are "I don't like these cards and don't want to play against them?" You want blood moon banned but JTMS unbanned?
I just don't understand these threads. How can anyone be disappointed when we've seen so much happening in modern lately? The "wait and see" approach makes sense with where modern is at the moment IMO.
'78 CB750F, '09 CBR600RR
I think the sweet satisfaction of providing meaningful data points, coherent application of statistics, and providing rational arguments should be enough. ...Or you could rub it in their faces anyways.
To anyone paying attention to those things, it was an obvious decision not to ban anything. It's unfortunate to not see some unbans, but not surprising.
Standard: I, for one, welcome our new rhinoceros overlords
Modern: Pod's dead, Bob's back.
Legacy: Lands, Deathblade, Death and Taxes, Elves, MUD
Retired Legacy: Merfolk, Goblins, Jund, Delver, Reanimator
You should have been there when I saw the spoiler for a khans printing of force of will. My whole world flipped upside down 'Modern is never going to be the same...', felt crazy for like 10 minutes until I came to my senses and realized it had to be 100% fake.
As much as I'd like them to explain themselves for the sake of our understanding and transparency, I don't think it does any good to let people know what cards they're actually having a discussion about. If they mentioned anything players on the decks effected panic every few months, people prematurely jump on board, jump ship, ect. Seems less damaging this way and doesn't promote the ban culture that modern really needs to buck.
I do wish they'd just do a general 'state of the format' address however. 'We feel good, KTHXBYE!'-WOTC
Edit Edit: I'm still an idiot and want sword unbanned, perhaps the coming pro tour as the 'shake up' unban?
"We don't waste resources to thoroughly test for the format, and people whose opinion we respect havent complained to us about bloom or griselbrand combo. When they make a big noise, combined with a big community outrage, we will hastily ban it."
Modern:
UWUW TronUW
Legacy:
WDeath N TaxesW
CEldrazi C
If you couldn't tell I hate greedy blue decks.
Vintage
WWhite Trash
I like how the list of "safe" unbans ramps up pretty fast.
Like "Most people agree, eh it's a little debatable, completely unreasonsable..."
I don't play Bloom Titan, but I'm glad nothing got hit from it. There wasn't a compelling enough argument that it should be, and it seems that Wizards is semi-endorsing its existence, presuming it doesn't suddenly spike in the meta. But seeing as it didn't get unreasonable even after a PT win, I think it'll be fine.
Why would you be an idiot for wanting a harmless card unbanned?
The only thing I dislike about bloom is the mindhive. Loosing to a turn 2 pact is just the worst way to go.
The only thing I dislike about Grisslebrand is Shoal. It just adds way too much consistency in my opinion.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
http://modernnexus.com/modern-banlist-update-713-no-changes/
Some key takeaways:
1. Nothing deserved to be banned. People misevaluated the format and the health of certain cards because they didn't consider metagame context and/or they didn't understand the ban rules that Wizards would act on. The big one here was forgetting that a deck needed to be TOP-TIER before being eligible for a turn four rule banning.
2. Nothing needed to be unbanned. The metagame is both diverse and evolving right now (not just stable/stagnant). Add to that a new set release and we really don't need an unban today. We might need it in the future and that's when Wizards will deploy it.
3. Wizards rocks. There was reason to worry that Wizards wouldn't stay objective and rational following the ban-mania and hype of this month. July 13 will always serve as a reminder that level heads will often prevail in Modern.
Read your article: I must disagree on several fronts. For starters Grisselbrand and Bloom are tier 1 decks now. They are here to stay in most local (and non-local metas).
I also disagree with your notion that a deck has to be "the top tier deck" to warrant a banning. I'm sure that factors into the equation; however, there have been historical bannings where the deck in question was not necessarily THE top deck.
From my experience, Wizard has three criteria for establishing bans.
1) Is the deck consistent? Does it continually do well in tournaments?
2) Is the deck non-interactive? Non interactive combos are frowned upon heavily.
Decks like Eggs (second sunrise) have been banned in the past in modern not necessarily because they are too good or unbeatable, but because their "synergy" is non-interactive.
Solitaire type decks are often quickly neutered or banned in modern.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
I've been telling people this for a month now. (I guess more so in person than on this forum.)
I don't think it's the right thing to do since words can get taken out of context. KT may show a post where it seems like I believed Griselbrand would be banned today, which is not true. I just think that some day, they may eventually have to ban the card in a similar way to Birthing Pod because the card is just waiting to be broken and the current deck may be it. (or it could get even more OP)
Somebody's thinking about Modern a bit too much.
Do you work for Wizards because this is SPOT on? (seriously)
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)I'm also happy there was no transparency. Transparency is a good way to scare players unnecessarily. If you tell me "we looked at banning Summer Bloom and Goryo's Vengeance", for instance, it would scare people off investing into those decks. It's hard for us to sit here and think those decks weren't looked at, they very likely were. But keeping that to themselves makes sure to not remind us that they might just ban some combo deck at a whim, which they ought not to do.
The meta percentages are very good right now actually. Three decks around 8.5% and three decks around 5%, which seems very healthy for me. That's coupled with 2/3 of the 8.5% decks being Affinity and Burn, which will often have slightly inflated numbers simply because of cost and speed of play. Amulet is at 4.1% and Grishoalbrand is at 1.8%. Other recent metas have had much larger discrepancies.
Remember that when Storm got the axe, it was over 11% on MTGO and winning a sizable amount of the time on turn 3. This was also flat out winning, not just putting a Primeval Titan into play. Recall that this was the second most popular deck in the format, not even the most popular deck. That was a meta in which two decks were more popular than any given deck in our current meta. This is a good indication that our current meta is a lot healthier than in the past. These are the types of things you look for when deciding if the format actually needs any changes, that some deck(s) is/are too large a share of the format, and if some deck that's a large share is completely bonkers with turn 3 wins. Any player from when Seething Song was legal will tell you it won more consistently on turn 3 or earlier than Amulet does now.
Grixis Death's Shadow, Jund, UW Tron, Jeskai Control, Storm, Counters Company, Eldrazi Tron, Affinity, Living End, Infect, Merfolk, Dredge, Ad Nauseam, Amulet, Bogles, Eldrazi Tron, Mono U Tron, Lantern, Mardu Pyromancer
Although I understand you may personally feel this way, Wizards does not. If Grishoalbrand and Bloom were tier 1 decks in Wizards' books, they would probably have been banned. Also, the notion that a deck must be "top-tier" to be banned under the turn four rule is not my notion. It's Wizards'. This gets back to fundamental misunderstandings about the banlist and the rules governing it. For a deck to be banned under the turn four rule, it must also be top-tier. It can't just win on turn three or earlier, contrary to what many believe. Indeed, Wizards explicitly used this in the Storm banning. So you may personally disagree with the article and the rules, but they aren't really my rules or my criteria. I'm just articulating how Wizards has historically approached bans.
But then how in the world do you justify their continued existence within the format? We saw amulet win on turn 2 on camera at a gp.
Both grishoalbrand and amulet are uninteractive combo decks, but again were left completely untouched. Eggs was bannedspecifically because it took too much time to play out,not because of its uniinteractivity.
I mean the article laid all of this out, with quotes by WotC about it. You can claim that wizards bans for your reasons, but you have absolutely no proof of that, made even more evident by this ban announcement.
My H/W list
Eggs was not banned for being non-interactive. It was banned for making tournaments take hours longer to complete.
>> 1) Is the deck consistent? Does it continually do well in tournaments?
This is how "the top tier deck" be defined.
There are only three criteria for banning a card in Modern:
1. consistently break the turn 4 rule
2. dominate the META
3. spend too much time in tournaments
>> 2) Is the deck non-interactive? Non interactive combos are frowned upon heavily.
This is NOT the "criteria", but just a "factor" causing a ban.
For example, if a combo is extremely non-interactive, but take 10 turns to make the combo. This will NOT be banned.
The "criteria" are listed above.
Grisselbrand and Bloom are NOT banned now because they "do not dominate the META" + they "cannot consistently break the turn 4 rule" + they "do not spend too much time in tournaments"
Egg was banned because it "spends too much time in tournaments". Not because it is interactive or non-interactive.
Regards.
Anything, but nothing at the moment...
Modern:
WUBRGAmulet Titan, WUBRGHuman
WUBRAd Nauseam, WBRGDeath Shadow, UBRGScapeshift, UBRGDredge
WURJeskai Nahiri, WURCheeri0s, WBGCounter Company, WRGBurn, UBRMadcap Moon, BRGJund Midrange
UBTurn,BRGriselbrand Reanimator, WGKnight Company, RGRG Tron, RGRG Ponza, XAffinity, XEldrazi Tron
The point to not banning under the turn four rule when the deck isn't top tier is to avoid banning cards from bad decks because they randomly found a way to win fast. If Wizards had to ban every card that enabled someone to win before turn 4, it would be absurd what got banned. This way, we get this safety net wherein we do ban if it becomes a problem, but it's only a problem if enough people are doing well with it.
I went and looked back at the Storm ban notes, and they cited multiple strong finishes (multiple 18+ points at the PT and a GP top 8) with the deck on top of an 11% MTGO metagame. While Amulet has a PT top 8 and multiple top 32s at GPs, it doesn't have this 11% MTGO metagame percentage that would indicate it's a top tier deck. They also cite "turn-three wins are frequent", and I wouldn't say Amulet can do this frequently like Storm could. It may be a strong, non-interactive deck (which I'd say it's still more interactive than Storm was), it's just not at the XYZ criteria we need to ultimately ban a card.
Grixis Death's Shadow, Jund, UW Tron, Jeskai Control, Storm, Counters Company, Eldrazi Tron, Affinity, Living End, Infect, Merfolk, Dredge, Ad Nauseam, Amulet, Bogles, Eldrazi Tron, Mono U Tron, Lantern, Mardu Pyromancer
I have listed the reasons why I think those cards should be banned multiple times: Twin represses what can be printed in Blue, which I think is dumb that a card in one colour directly affects what can be printed/unbanned in another colour. Blood Moon needs to be banned purely because its effect is so powerful in so many match ups but exists in only 1 colour. If they reprinted something like Back to Basics or a similar effect in another colour of two, I could careless. So no, my reasons are I dont like these cards but thanks anyways.
JtMS, as has been described dozens of times throughout every unban/ban list discussion, is perfectly safe to unban in Modern but WotC/community have way too much PTSD from its time in Standard to ever let it happen but its still wrong.
I am not very dissappointed, I just think Modern needs a good draw-go control deck and some sort of unbans (like SotM and JtMS) would help that. But as i said before, I am not surprised just saddened that WotC continues to be overly cautious.
One of the issues with banning cards is how it affects players who play the deck. Imagine you're Bob who scraped together birthday and Christmas money to build Splinter Twin, but then when you finally finished the deck, Wizards decided to ban Splinter Twin. Now you're probably crying to yourself because you invested hundreds of dollars into a deck you can no longer play. While Twin isn't the worst investment because you have several cards that go to other decks, this situation is exactly what happened when Pod got banned, and people largely did make it known they were upset.
For that reason, you really do need to be more cautious about what you want to ban. While Twin is oppressive to other blue strategies and what can be allowed, it's not so outrageous that we have to just completely shut it out. We've got Grixis Control doing reasonably well, and it's fairly draw-go aside from some delve creatures. Twin also boards out the combo in a lot of sideboarded games, which essentially turns them into draw-go with flash creatures.
Blood Moon is also a card that's currently balancing the format the way Force of Will does in Legacy. By having the card keep some decks in check, namely Amulet and RG Tron, it's very reasonable to keep it around. It's also a solid card to have because, in more or less every other matchup, there are reasonable ways to play around Blood Moon (aka fetch your basics). It keeps two decks in check, which are both still solid decks, one of which people were asking to get banned. If you're banning Blood Moon, you're probably going to have an Amulet dominated meta for three months and then an Amulet ban.
Grixis Death's Shadow, Jund, UW Tron, Jeskai Control, Storm, Counters Company, Eldrazi Tron, Affinity, Living End, Infect, Merfolk, Dredge, Ad Nauseam, Amulet, Bogles, Eldrazi Tron, Mono U Tron, Lantern, Mardu Pyromancer
I've read enough statements from Lapille, and Forsythe combined with listening to interviews to know their opinions on it.
They don't test, or really think about modern at all unless they're forced to. They will change stuff when its the pro tour because modern is going to be highly scrutinized then by a ton of people whose opinions they respect.
They really don't want to ban decks that people have worked hard to build and learn to play, but that wont stop them if they feel enough pressure. It's also part of the reason the ban list reasonings are frustrating to read. They can't overtly write the full reason why they ban things, but its pretty self evident. Lapille has flat out said they've banned things to shake up the pro tour, but there wont be an official statement agreeing with that.
WOTC basically understands that its important for there to be a relevant competitive format post standard, but doesn't really want to regulate it.
Modern:
UWUW TronUW
Legacy:
WDeath N TaxesW
CEldrazi C
If you couldn't tell I hate greedy blue decks.
Vintage
WWhite Trash
See you in the top 8 of the next Pro Tour/Grand Prix/SCG Event then, right?
Anyway pretty much what I thought. No changes are needed. The format is very healthy and you have a fair and interactive deck at the top of the metagame. Can't hope for much more.
For the people wanting thing X or Y unbanned. Keep up the dream, guys. Maybe someday...