I still stand by Simian Spirit Guide ultimately needing a ban. It's essentially just here to speed up busted things. I know it kills one deck out right (Ad Nauseam) but to me, that doesn't outweigh it's need to be banned. It essentially operates as a "fixed"rite of flame. I get to rite of flame because at minimum a card like that would cost R giving a feint impression of R: add RR. However, it doesn't actually cost anything to use. Meaning it creates explosive plays. Sometimes it just powers out T1-2 bloodmoons which in and of itself isn't terrible, other times it creates powerful plays like in Grishoalbrand, those rare T1 amulet bloom senarios, as well as housing the possibility of breaking future cards to be printed. I'm sure i'm in a minority here with this opinion, but the cards only purpose is the break the T4 rule or to cast things essentially for free when you draw a billion cards. This, by the way, is not a knock against grishoal brand specifically. Meaning it's not a choice aimed at hurting that deck, but an opinion designed around the health of the format as a whole.
As for Unbans: Bloodbraid Elf - I just really don't feel like this card changes anything. People can bring up the "but Aryakin it's 10% of the meta" all they like, but as someone who mains jund at the moment it doesn't change much if anything in the jund deck. It's a different weapon in the arsenal, sure, but it causes shifts in the diagram not some massive exodus to the BG/x archtype. It is also constantly ignored that this offers a boon to aggressive zoo shells, or at the very least an option in that arsenal. In a format that is obsessed with linear non-interactive strategies it's hard for me to understand why something that is simply CA attached to a body get's such a bad rap, particularly when cards like snapcaster mage and Collected Company are above reproach. To me these cards are extremely comparable in their respective shells.
Sword of the Meek - Here is a card most people seem to agree is a "safe unban". Me, not so much, as it does two things to the meta that I, as a player, would dislike. It forces anyone trying to play on a "fair" axis to run BG/x for abrupt decay. Yes, I main jund at the moment, but that is not ultimately where I would like to find myself in the future of this format. Currently I run it because it allows me to play KoCommand, abrupt decay and blood moon in the same deck which is to say, it gives me the best "fair way" to fight "unfair decks". Hopefully this wont always be the case. Hopefully people will have other fair ways to attack the format, but if Sword of the Meek comes off the banned list, I don't see any creature based "fair strategy" being able to compete once the combo is assembled, and I don't see any control deck, which does not play the combo, able to compete without abrupt decay. Now, maybe I'm wrong on this point and maybe aggro decks like Zoo, fish, goblins, or hatebears, or non Gx or Ux control lists like MBC will be able to beat 1: gain 1 life add a 1/1 flyer to the board, but I've yet to see anyone make an argument in this thread to support that. Instead everyone focuses on things like "with twin, amulet and grishoal decks in the format this is perfectly fine". (which is an argument that doesn't work for bloodbraid elf mind you). I guess I'm still hopeful that the format will eventually even out between fair/unfair decks and in that possibility I don't see SoTM as healthy.
These are just my opinions though. I'm not upset about the update, but I am a little disappointed. As for the format being healthy and nothing needing to be changed, I think that's strongly opinion based. not that you can't have an opinion on the matter, but I find the massive amounts of non-interactive linear decks that require such specific hate to be a real problem for the format that only two things can help address, new printings and ban announcements so where some people think it's a healthy format others can find fault with it.
This has been said many times but I'll say it again, bloodbraid elf is uninteractive b/c the ability happens as long as its cast.
That's a really poor excuse though. It still uses the stack so in fact can be interacted with, and the 3/2 haste body it leaves behind is very lackluster. If snapcaster, coco,and cryptic are safe for the format then in a vacuum so is BBE. The issue is simply the prevalence of the most popular deck it slots into.
I feel like this argument is going in circles because you are evaluating bloodbraid elf for its 3/2 body alone and not the free spell that you get to cast in jund. Unlike snapcaster, coco and cryptic, this card is a 2 for 1 for just CASTING the card. Tell me another card like that. Plus what deck does bloodbraid really help? Jund is doing fine right now and zoo is seeing a mini resurgence with coco. Do we really want to see Jund get over 10 percent of the meta game again?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
On mtgsalvation people don't want to discuss ideas, so I give people something else to discuss: my controversial opinions.
Why is a further explanation necessary? There's already an implied one that they're not breaking the rules so their fine. The rules for the format are fairly clear IMO, and I know you have a good understanding of them. I don't feel wizards needs to explain ban list reasoning every announcement, especially when doing so could be potentially harmful.
If they're so clear, then why are so many people, including reasonably well-known players (who are likely to complain and thus further spread confusion among people), having an issue with a supposed dissonance? There's a lack of clear communication in regards to this from WOTC, and it'd certainly help clear things up for people if they were at least a little more forthcoming in explanations.
Even going into the announcement, I was thinking "if they don't ban anything, they should give an explanation as to why so people can understand." The silence on their part just frustrates people.
Very disappointed that Amulet Bloom and Grishoalbrand both survived the bannings. These decks aren't healthy for the format. On the other hand the more time they are legal to play with, the more people will open their eyes and see the monster that is hiding in the closet.
Decks like these remind me of legacy dredge. While the deck can win on turn 2 or turn 3, hate cards are so strong for it that dredge isn't an oppressive deck (unless people forget to pack rest in peace).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
On mtgsalvation people don't want to discuss ideas, so I give people something else to discuss: my controversial opinions.
Why is a further explanation necessary? There's already an implied one that they're not breaking the rules so their fine. The rules for the format are fairly clear IMO, and I know you have a good understanding of them. I don't feel wizards needs to explain ban list reasoning every announcement, especially when doing so could be potentially harmful.
If they're so clear, then why are so many people, including reasonably well-known players (who are likely to complain and thus further spread confusion among people), having an issue with a supposed dissonance? There's a lack of clear communication in regards to this from WOTC, and it'd certainly help clear things up for people if they were at least a little more forthcoming in explanations.
Even going into the announcement, I was thinking "if they don't ban anything, they should give an explanation as to why so people can understand." The silence on their part just frustrates people.
Even an explanation like that seems too much to me. It gives off the impression that the banlist should be year long constantly considered, which honestly is not something I really think they do. I'm fine with them just leaving it alone and looking at it once a year. Perhaps they could clarify on specific rules, but I don't think they should be letting players in to the back room discussion unless a card is specifically banned or unbanned. I don't think players should receive a clear indication from wizards which cards are or are not on their watch list.
There are many ways to interact with Grishoalbrand indeed. Plenty of graveyard hate is available in modern which should efficiently deal with it. There are two issues with it however. First one are turn 2/3 wins since most of the hate is too slow to deal with it. The other one is Through the Breach which is harder to interact with since graveyard hate is useless here, discard is also marginal as they can top deck it and removal doesn't do much as well (same as to Goryo's Vengeance) since Griselbrand will draw into next combo. Depending on situation it certainly cab be problematic to fight against but as long as it's numbers are low I don't see too many issues with it.
Spell snare's and other counterspells can deal with it fine however.
So your implying that, decks need to run blue for counters now?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard : What is Stand-tart
Modern : Huh?
EDH : UBGW Thrasios / Tymna Combo UBGW // GRW Mayael Big Stuff GRW // GU Edric Timewalkers GU
Storm wasn't creature based and from the looks of it, had more consistent turn 3 kills. The not creature based part makes all the difference. Yes there's hivemind kills but that's a rarity IMO.
Very disappointed that Amulet Bloom and Grishoalbrand both survived the bannings. These decks aren't healthy for the format. On the other hand the more time they are legal to play with, the more people will open their eyes and see the monster that is hiding in the closet.
Occasional troll post. People with second accounts just get in here to spam.
Nothing got banned, and nothing will of those 2. Get over it.
It's entirely possible something out of these two decks WILL get banned, and this needs to be considered by the people playing the deck. Wizards very clearly does not like combo decks, and given how resilient these two can be to hate, it's not unreasonable to expect something to eventually get banned if the meta shares are high enough.
If they stay low, then Wizards won't target them, but if they get a decent metagame share, I would expect them to get hit, though not necessarily killed.
The only way I think you can reasonably say "nothing from these will get banned" is if you are also saying "These decks aren't good enough to ever be top tier."
There are many ways to interact with Grishoalbrand indeed. Plenty of graveyard hate is available in modern which should efficiently deal with it. There are two issues with it however. First one are turn 2/3 wins since most of the hate is too slow to deal with it. The other one is Through the Breach which is harder to interact with since graveyard hate is useless here, discard is also marginal as they can top deck it and removal doesn't do much as well (same as to Goryo's Vengeance) since Griselbrand will draw into next combo. Depending on situation it certainly cab be problematic to fight against but as long as it's numbers are low I don't see too many issues with it.
Spell snare's and other counterspells can deal with it fine however.
Not when it's spliced.
Storm wasn't creature based and from the looks of it, had more consistent turn 3 kills. The not creature based part makes all the difference. Yes there's hivemind kills but that's a rarity IMO.
Grisleshoalbrand goes off instant speed, while laughing at counters. There are pros and cons to each deck.
There are many ways to interact with Grishoalbrand indeed. Plenty of graveyard hate is available in modern which should efficiently deal with it. There are two issues with it however. First one are turn 2/3 wins since most of the hate is too slow to deal with it. The other one is Through the Breach which is harder to interact with since graveyard hate is useless here, discard is also marginal as they can top deck it and removal doesn't do much as well (same as to Goryo's Vengeance) since Griselbrand will draw into next combo. Depending on situation it certainly cab be problematic to fight against but as long as it's numbers are low I don't see too many issues with it.
Spell snare's and other counterspells can deal with it fine however.
Not when it's spliced.
Storm wasn't creature based and from the looks of it, had more consistent turn 3 kills. The not creature based part makes all the difference. Yes there's hivemind kills but that's a rarity IMO.
Grisleshoalbrand goes off instant speed, while laughing at counters. There are pros and cons to each deck.
These are all theoretical explanations as to why Grishoalbrand is broken. Until the deck puts up significantly more results than it is now, it's not even close to bannable. I suspect that a key reason for Wizards only banning top-tier turn four violators is sample size. If a deck is just 2% of the metagame (Grishoalbrand) and is winning on turn three in some high percentage of games, you have no way of knowing why that is. Maybe people just don't understand how to beat the deck. Maybe there aren't sideboard or maindeck cards in play that can beat it. Maybe it's just getting lucky matchups. Until that sample increases, we have no way of knowing if it's truly winning too many games before turn four, or if it's just within expected variance. But if a deck can become top-tier and maintain that win rate, then yeah, that's a problem. We just aren't even close to there right now, so we need a lot more data and time.
The only way I think you can reasonably say "nothing from these will get banned" is if you are also saying "These decks aren't good enough to ever be top tier."
Sadly enough, this is 100% correct. Wizards will allow decks like Twin, Affinity, and Jund be Tier 1 for years. But if a deck like Bloom Titan or Griselbanned becomes Tier 1 (by people's definitions, not just deck power), then they will certainly get the axe. Combo decks are not allowed to be on the level of those 3 decks; Twin after all is a Combo deck. Jund is a Midrange deck and Affinity is Aggro, so we have "diversity" at the top Tier. Bloom Titan is getting close to Tier 1 as their metagame share is rising slowly, but Griselbanned needs to have 5 times as many people playing it as are currently.
All I can say is when I saw nothing was banned is that I thought "thank God that Wizards doesn't ban decks that are played by less than 6% of the meta." I'm pretty sure that the B&R Announcement didn't surprise most people who were being non-emotional about it.
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)
I'm not calling for any bannings but I disagree with anyone saying that Amulet Bloom isn't a tier one deck. It most certainly is.
Well, Wizards disagrees with you too. When you add to that the metagame shares Amulet Bloom holds (4% overall, 4.5% MTGO, 3.5% paper, 2.8% at major paper events), and it becomes pretty clear we don't have good evidence to suggest Amulet Bloom is currently top-tier. People may think it is, but the data just isn't there.
Somebody managed to read the article about the announcement on SCG yet? http://www.starcitygames.com/article/31204_Fact-Or-Fiction-Banning-Nothing-In-Modern-Was-Correct.html
Want to know if it is good and worth a read or not. BBD is after all part of it. While I really respect him as a player and even though he does say a few true things he also has a more radical view that I don't necessarily agree with.
My premium expired yesterday and Im not to keen on getting it again for an article that might not even be worth reading.
I'm not calling for any bannings but I disagree with anyone saying that Amulet Bloom isn't a tier one deck. It most certainly is.
Well, Wizards disagrees with you too. When you add to that the metagame shares Amulet Bloom holds (4% overall, 4.5% MTGO, 3.5% paper, 2.8% at major paper events), and it becomes pretty clear we don't have good evidence to suggest Amulet Bloom is currently top-tier. People may think it is, but the data just isn't there.
When did wizards say that Amulet wasn't a tier one deck? That would be a strange comment for them to make. But I think I agree with most pros, it is a tier one deck, maybe the best deck overall.
These are all theoretical explanations as to why Grishoalbrand is broken. Until the deck puts up significantly more results than it is now, it's not even close to bannable. I suspect that a key reason for Wizards only banning top-tier turn four violators is sample size. If a deck is just 2% of the metagame (Grishoalbrand) and is winning on turn three in some high percentage of games, you have no way of knowing why that is. Maybe people just don't understand how to beat the deck. Maybe there aren't sideboard or maindeck cards in play that can beat it. Maybe it's just getting lucky matchups. Until that sample increases, we have no way of knowing if it's truly winning too many games before turn four, or if it's just within expected variance. But if a deck can become top-tier and maintain that win rate, then yeah, that's a problem. We just aren't even close to there right now, so we need a lot more data and time.
I agree with everything that you've said, but for the sake of playing Devil's advocate, I want to offer a counterpoint.
If WotC waits until a deck has a large percentage of the metagame before they ban a piece, then it's too late.
Modern is a nonrotating format. Switching between decks can be a problem, because it's expensive to do that. When a deck is underrepresented, it doesn't necessarily mean that the deck isn't powerful, nor does it mean that a piece couldn't be banned; it just means that Modern players haven't abandoned what they're currently playing in order to be competitive.
This happens in Legacy all of the time. People start by building one deck, and they play it for years. It gives a player a chance to play in the occasional tournament, without being completely invested in a single format.
Grishoalbrand is a relatively new deck and, in Modern especially, owning it is pretty high risk. Most of the cards in the deck aren't played in any other Modern deck, and it's definitely capable of breaking WotC's stated rules for the format. No reasonable person is going to cash out their current deck in order to pick up Grishoalbrand, unless WotC makes it look like nothing from the deck is getting banned.
If WotC waits until lots of players are playing it, and they use that "percent of the metagame" as a criteria for bannings, then it's extremely bad customer service. They're intentionally letting lots of players invest in a deck, only to ultimately ban a key component of it. That upsets a larger number of players (than had they banned a piece earlier), and it signals that WotC has no problem with letting its customers waste their money.
Grishoalbrand has a small metagame share. If it were clearly the best deck in the format, people would need to play it in order to be competitive. But there are other factors at work that keep the metagame share small, including economics and risk exposure. Grishoalbrand is already pushing the boundaries of WotC's stated goals for the format, and it's irresponsible for WotC to wait until people buy the deck in order to ban a piece from it.
Playing millions of cards every turn... Slowly and systematically obliterating any chance my opponent has of winning... Clicking the multitude of locking mechanisms into place... Not even trying to win myself until turn 10+ once I have nigh absolute control... Watching my opponent desperately trying to navigate the labyrinthine prison that I've constructed... Seeing the light of hope fade and ultimately extinguished in an excruciatingly slow manner... THAT'S fun Magic.
We have 2-3 users that are dramatically making this thread incomprehensible and non-productive for anyone else to possibly join in the discussion. This needs to change.
Every time I see [ktkenshinx] post in here, I get the impression of a stern dad walking in on a bunch of kids trying to do something dumb and just shaking his head in disappointment.
Near Mint: The same as Slightly Played, but we threw some Altoids in the box we stored it in to cover up the scent of dead mice. Slightly Played: The base condition for all MTG cards. This card looks OK, but there’s one minor annoying ding in it that will always irritate and distract you whenever you draw it. Moderately Played: This card looks like it survived the Tet Offensive tucked inside the waistband of GI underwear. It may smell like it, too. Heavily Played: This card looks like the remains of Mohammed Atta’s passport after 9/11. It may be playable if you double-sleeve it to stop the chunks from falling out. The condition formerly known as "Washing Machine Grade" Damaged: This card is the unfortunate victim of a Mirrorweave/March of the Machines/Chaos Confetti/Mindslaver combo.
[M]aking counterfeit cards is the absolute height of dishonesty. Ask yourself this question: Since most people...are totally cool with the use of proxies...what purpose do [high] quality counterfeit cards serve?
Somebody managed to read the article about the announcement on SCG yet? http://www.starcitygames.com/article/31204_Fact-Or-Fiction-Banning-Nothing-In-Modern-Was-Correct.html
Want to know if it is good and worth a read or not. BBD is after all part of it. While I really respect him as a player and even though he does say a few true things he also has a more radical view that I don't necessarily agree with.
My premium expired yesterday and Im not to keen on getting it again for an article that might not even be worth reading.
he said no ban on griselbrand is fine since it's new but that amulet should have been hit and compares it to storm.
Kibler agreed with no action and said things should be reserved to shake up pro tours.
Why is a further explanation necessary? There's already an implied one that they're not breaking the rules so their fine. The rules for the format are fairly clear IMO, and I know you have a good understanding of them. I don't feel wizards needs to explain ban list reasoning every announcement, especially when doing so could be potentially harmful.
If they're so clear, then why are so many people, including reasonably well-known players (who are likely to complain and thus further spread confusion among people), having an issue with a supposed dissonance? There's a lack of clear communication in regards to this from WOTC, and it'd certainly help clear things up for people if they were at least a little more forthcoming in explanations.
Even going into the announcement, I was thinking "if they don't ban anything, they should give an explanation as to why so people can understand." The silence on their part just frustrates people.
Even an explanation like that seems too much to me. It gives off the impression that the banlist should be year long constantly considered, which honestly is not something I really think they do. I'm fine with them just leaving it alone and looking at it once a year.
Only looking at it "once a year" is a terrible idea; if cards are problematic in the format, that shouldn't be ignored by them. In fact, if they think cards are worth banning but only bother to ban them once a year, that leads to a false sense of security among people who play those.
Perhaps they could clarify on specific rules, but I don't think they should be letting players in to the back room discussion unless a card is specifically banned or unbanned. I don't think players should receive a clear indication from wizards which cards are or are not on their watch list.
But again, they can give an explanation without doing that. Here's a (quick draft) of something they could post:
“There have been some calls from the community for bannings of certain decks that allegedly break the turn 4 rule. To clarify, this rule is that top-tier decks that consistently win the game before turn 4 are not allowed in the format. At present, we see no decks in the format that fit that criteria, as the decks often mentioned in conjunction with such claims are not currently top tier and/or do not win consistently enough before turn 4. Therefore, we see no need for any bannings presently.”
It manages to avoid any mention of discussion or lack thereof, doesn’t specify the decks, and doesn’t pigeonhole themselves by saying exactly what the reason for the decks not being banned is (i.e. whether it’s a case of not consistently enough or simply not being top tier). Sure, that explanation wouldn’t satisfy everyone (I’m sure some people would complain “but these decks ARE top tier and DO win consistently!”), but it’d at least give an explanation and a clear restatement about what the turn 4 rule is actually supposed to say. Considering how many people misunderstand what the rule actually says, an explicit restatement of it from Wizards of the Coast would be pretty useful.
I'm not calling for any bannings but I disagree with anyone saying that Amulet Bloom isn't a tier one deck. It most certainly is.
Well, Wizards disagrees with you too. When you add to that the metagame shares Amulet Bloom holds (4% overall, 4.5% MTGO, 3.5% paper, 2.8% at major paper events), and it becomes pretty clear we don't have good evidence to suggest Amulet Bloom is currently top-tier. People may think it is, but the data just isn't there.
Not necessarily. They may simply not consider it to have consistent pre-turn 4 kills. Just because it can win that quickly doesn't mean it consistently does.
For example, Burn and Affinity are definitely Tier 1 decks. They can also win before turn 4. But they certainly can't consistently do it. Can Amulet Bloom consistently win before turn 4? I don't know, I haven't done that much research into it. But it's worth remembering that the deck's fast wins aren't necessarily all that frequent.
Grishoalbrand has a small metagame share. If it were clearly the best deck in the format, people would need to play it in order to be competitive. But there are other factors at work that keep the metagame share small, including economics and risk exposure. Grishoalbrand is already pushing the boundaries of WotC's stated goals for the format, and it's irresponsible for WotC to wait until people buy the deck in order to ban a piece from it.
I agree with a lot of what you said, but this is not a concern in the slightest to WoTC. Not in the slightest.
There really is no "good timing" when it comes to banning a card or essentially, a deck. When Birthing Pod was banned, many people had played the deck for years, so arguably they got their "mileage" out of the cards. However, I personally know 4 players who were getting into Modern and started with Pod. When it was banned, 3 of these players went on to go back to Standard. I can't blame them. The other stayed and changed to Liege Rhino. Now he's currently putting together Ad Nauseam. The point here is that Wizards cares not one bit who spent money on what cards (and probably rightfully so since people are also going to be upset if financial decisions, rather than game play decisions determine the ban list) and banning or not banning at any time will potentially hurt some people.
Besides, will you believe me if I say that Wizards has no idea of how powerful Griselbanned is in Modern?
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)
Grishoalbrand has a small metagame share. If it were clearly the best deck in the format, people would need to play it in order to be competitive. But there are other factors at work that keep the metagame share small, including economics and risk exposure. Grishoalbrand is already pushing the boundaries of WotC's stated goals for the format, and it's irresponsible for WotC to wait until people buy the deck in order to ban a piece from it.
I agree with a lot of what you said, but this is not a concern in the slightest to WoTC. Not in the slightest.
Upsetting their customers is a huge concern for WotC. Just look at the Reserved List; the Reserved List is only honored today because WotC worries about its public image.
There really is no "good timing" when it comes to banning a card or essentially, a deck. When Birthing Pod was banned, many people had played the deck for years, so arguably they got their "mileage" out of the cards. However, I personally know 4 players who were getting into Modern and started with Pod. When it was banned, 3 of these players went on to go back to Standard. I can't blame them. The other stayed and changed to Liege Rhino. Now he's currently putting together Ad Nauseam. The point here is that Wizards cares not one bit who spent money on what cards (and probably rightfully so since people are also going to be upset if financial decisions, rather than game play decisions determine the ban list) and banning or not banning at any time will potentially hurt some people.
If people changed decks rapidly, I would agree with this. The problem is that decks cost hundreds of dollars and they tend to be built over a long period of time.
WotC knows that Grishoalbrand is a deck. They have the resources to do the testing if they, as a business, make that a priority. (To be clear, they don't have the resources to test every deck in the format, but given the contentious nature of Grishoalbrand and Amulet Bloom, they could just look at those two for now.)
There is a "good time" to ban a card, and it's before everyone invests their time, money, and energy into a deck.
Besides, will you believe me if I say that Wizards has no idea of how powerful Griselbanned is in Modern?
I believe this.
I think WotC has to pick and choose what they test, and in which formats. Cards are designed for Limited, Standard, and Commander playability. Modern isn't the after thought that Legacy is, but I don't think many cards (if any) are designed specifically for Modern play.
Playing millions of cards every turn... Slowly and systematically obliterating any chance my opponent has of winning... Clicking the multitude of locking mechanisms into place... Not even trying to win myself until turn 10+ once I have nigh absolute control... Watching my opponent desperately trying to navigate the labyrinthine prison that I've constructed... Seeing the light of hope fade and ultimately extinguished in an excruciatingly slow manner... THAT'S fun Magic.
We have 2-3 users that are dramatically making this thread incomprehensible and non-productive for anyone else to possibly join in the discussion. This needs to change.
Every time I see [ktkenshinx] post in here, I get the impression of a stern dad walking in on a bunch of kids trying to do something dumb and just shaking his head in disappointment.
Near Mint: The same as Slightly Played, but we threw some Altoids in the box we stored it in to cover up the scent of dead mice. Slightly Played: The base condition for all MTG cards. This card looks OK, but there’s one minor annoying ding in it that will always irritate and distract you whenever you draw it. Moderately Played: This card looks like it survived the Tet Offensive tucked inside the waistband of GI underwear. It may smell like it, too. Heavily Played: This card looks like the remains of Mohammed Atta’s passport after 9/11. It may be playable if you double-sleeve it to stop the chunks from falling out. The condition formerly known as "Washing Machine Grade" Damaged: This card is the unfortunate victim of a Mirrorweave/March of the Machines/Chaos Confetti/Mindslaver combo.
[M]aking counterfeit cards is the absolute height of dishonesty. Ask yourself this question: Since most people...are totally cool with the use of proxies...what purpose do [high] quality counterfeit cards serve?
Upsetting their customers is a huge concern for WotC. Just look at the Reserved List; the Reserved List is only honored today because WotC worries about its public image.
I think for every customer they lose, they gain many more. When Birthing Pod, Treasure Cruise, and Dig Through Time were banned, a lot of people didn't like these decisions. But after all the smoke settled, very few actually quit and there was such an influx of new players. People could play Burn. People could play Zoo. People could play whatever rogue Aggro deck that they wanted. People could play decks other than Pod or Delver.
As a business, they realize that you have to occasionally push the envelope and lose long time customers if it brings you in twice as many newer customers. A lot of people don't realize this. They believe that they are a "true" customer because they've gone to some place year after year. They genuinely believe that the business cares about them. Often they find out in horror that the company can care less about how much business you've given them over the years because it's already done and they are setting out to expand much more than just one customer.
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)
I think for every customer they lose, they gain many more. When Birthing Pod, Treasure Cruise, and Dig Through Time were banned, a lot of people didn't like these decisions. But after all the smoke settled, very few actually quit and there was such an influx of new players. People could play Burn. People could play Zoo. People could play whatever rogue Aggro deck that they wanted. People could play decks other than Pod or Delver.
I can't really comment on this, because I only have anecdotal evidence. That said, the Birthing Pod ban nearly killed Modern in my area.
As a business, they realize that you have to occasionally push the envelope and lose long time customers if it brings you in twice as many newer customers. A lot of people don't realize this. They believe that they are a "true" customer because they've gone to some place year after year. They genuinely believe that the business cares about them. Often they find out in horror that the company can care less about how much business you've given them over the years because it's already done and they are setting out to expand much more than just one customer.
As true as this can be, it's actually pretty complex. Customers come in different qualities, and long-term customers tend to be the reason that businesses make money.
I'm sure that WotC has business goals for Magic. Two of those goals are customer volume and profit. Interestingly, they're not the same thing. Acquiring new customers at the expense of older customers is an interesting business move, and it's not always the right one. That said, I actually agree with your point, and I think that WotC will benefit in the long run by having a heavy-handed approach to Modern.
Playing millions of cards every turn... Slowly and systematically obliterating any chance my opponent has of winning... Clicking the multitude of locking mechanisms into place... Not even trying to win myself until turn 10+ once I have nigh absolute control... Watching my opponent desperately trying to navigate the labyrinthine prison that I've constructed... Seeing the light of hope fade and ultimately extinguished in an excruciatingly slow manner... THAT'S fun Magic.
We have 2-3 users that are dramatically making this thread incomprehensible and non-productive for anyone else to possibly join in the discussion. This needs to change.
Every time I see [ktkenshinx] post in here, I get the impression of a stern dad walking in on a bunch of kids trying to do something dumb and just shaking his head in disappointment.
Near Mint: The same as Slightly Played, but we threw some Altoids in the box we stored it in to cover up the scent of dead mice. Slightly Played: The base condition for all MTG cards. This card looks OK, but there’s one minor annoying ding in it that will always irritate and distract you whenever you draw it. Moderately Played: This card looks like it survived the Tet Offensive tucked inside the waistband of GI underwear. It may smell like it, too. Heavily Played: This card looks like the remains of Mohammed Atta’s passport after 9/11. It may be playable if you double-sleeve it to stop the chunks from falling out. The condition formerly known as "Washing Machine Grade" Damaged: This card is the unfortunate victim of a Mirrorweave/March of the Machines/Chaos Confetti/Mindslaver combo.
[M]aking counterfeit cards is the absolute height of dishonesty. Ask yourself this question: Since most people...are totally cool with the use of proxies...what purpose do [high] quality counterfeit cards serve?
I think for every customer they lose, they gain many more. When Birthing Pod, Treasure Cruise, and Dig Through Time were banned, a lot of people didn't like these decisions. But after all the smoke settled, very few actually quit and there was such an influx of new players. People could play Burn. People could play Zoo. People could play whatever rogue Aggro deck that they wanted. People could play decks other than Pod or Delver.
I can't really comment on this, because I only have anecdotal evidence. That said, the Birthing Pod ban nearly killed Modern in my area.
As a business, they realize that you have to occasionally push the envelope and lose long time customers if it brings you in twice as many newer customers. A lot of people don't realize this. They believe that they are a "true" customer because they've gone to some place year after year. They genuinely believe that the business cares about them. Often they find out in horror that the company can care less about how much business you've given them over the years because it's already done and they are setting out to expand much more than just one customer.
As true as this can be, it's actually pretty complex. Customers come in different qualities, and long-term customers tend to be the reason that businesses make money.
I'm sure that WotC has business goals for Magic. Two of those goals are customer volume and profit. Interestingly, they're not the same thing. Acquiring new customers at the expense of older customers is an interesting business move, and it's not always the right one. That said, I actually agree with your point, and I think that WotC will benefit in the long run by having a heavy-handed approach to Modern.
In my area, the attendance had gone down during Pod and Delver's dominance, even though I didn't want to admit it since I was SO upset over the Pod ban. I was too emotional over it. We went from 32 players to 20 players during Pod and Delver's dominance. Since then we went back up to 36 players and 45 during the current Modern season. So it's funny that allowing Treasure Cruise and others to be in the meta for a short time, once it was banned, attendance at least in my area went up a bit. I doubt Wizards regrets anything that happened during those times. Yes, my evidence is also anecdotal, but I don't think anyone can argue that Modern is growing constantly. Just look at the ridiculous prices. I paid a ridiculous price for playsets of Horizon Canopy, Chord of Calling, and Vendilion Clique when Modern started. Still, $28, $28, and $36 seems to pale in comparison with the prices now.
Many people realize that long time customers spend less money than newer customers. I bought a box of Modern Masters 2. It was the first box that I bought since ... Tempest. Many players get their cards through speculation and winning prizes. They are not the ones that spend money. The guy who started Magic and bought 2 boxes, then went to buy all of the singles that he needed for a deck IS. They care about the influx of newer players. (Ever thought about why Combo has been phased out in Standard?)
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)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I feel like this argument is going in circles because you are evaluating bloodbraid elf for its 3/2 body alone and not the free spell that you get to cast in jund. Unlike snapcaster, coco and cryptic, this card is a 2 for 1 for just CASTING the card. Tell me another card like that. Plus what deck does bloodbraid really help? Jund is doing fine right now and zoo is seeing a mini resurgence with coco. Do we really want to see Jund get over 10 percent of the meta game again?
Decks I'm playing in Modern right now:
URB Grixis Reveler (http://www.mtgvault.com/supast4r7/decks/modern-grixis-reveler/)
UB Faeries (http://www.mtgvault.com/supast4r7/decks/ub-fae-2/)
UW Azorious Control (http://www.mtgvault.com/supast4r7/decks/modern-ojutai-control-2/)
Even going into the announcement, I was thinking "if they don't ban anything, they should give an explanation as to why so people can understand." The silence on their part just frustrates people.
Which is why they're so dominant, right?
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
Decks like these remind me of legacy dredge. While the deck can win on turn 2 or turn 3, hate cards are so strong for it that dredge isn't an oppressive deck (unless people forget to pack rest in peace).
Decks I'm playing in Modern right now:
URB Grixis Reveler (http://www.mtgvault.com/supast4r7/decks/modern-grixis-reveler/)
UB Faeries (http://www.mtgvault.com/supast4r7/decks/ub-fae-2/)
UW Azorious Control (http://www.mtgvault.com/supast4r7/decks/modern-ojutai-control-2/)
Faerie macabre and leyline of the void...
(I play living end).
There are many ways to shut down those decks.
Even an explanation like that seems too much to me. It gives off the impression that the banlist should be year long constantly considered, which honestly is not something I really think they do. I'm fine with them just leaving it alone and looking at it once a year. Perhaps they could clarify on specific rules, but I don't think they should be letting players in to the back room discussion unless a card is specifically banned or unbanned. I don't think players should receive a clear indication from wizards which cards are or are not on their watch list.
So your implying that, decks need to run blue for counters now?
Modern : Huh?
EDH : UBGW Thrasios / Tymna Combo UBGW // GRW Mayael Big Stuff GRW // GU Edric Timewalkers GU
It's entirely possible something out of these two decks WILL get banned, and this needs to be considered by the people playing the deck. Wizards very clearly does not like combo decks, and given how resilient these two can be to hate, it's not unreasonable to expect something to eventually get banned if the meta shares are high enough.
If they stay low, then Wizards won't target them, but if they get a decent metagame share, I would expect them to get hit, though not necessarily killed.
The only way I think you can reasonably say "nothing from these will get banned" is if you are also saying "These decks aren't good enough to ever be top tier."
Not when it's spliced.
Grisleshoalbrand goes off instant speed, while laughing at counters. There are pros and cons to each deck.
These are all theoretical explanations as to why Grishoalbrand is broken. Until the deck puts up significantly more results than it is now, it's not even close to bannable. I suspect that a key reason for Wizards only banning top-tier turn four violators is sample size. If a deck is just 2% of the metagame (Grishoalbrand) and is winning on turn three in some high percentage of games, you have no way of knowing why that is. Maybe people just don't understand how to beat the deck. Maybe there aren't sideboard or maindeck cards in play that can beat it. Maybe it's just getting lucky matchups. Until that sample increases, we have no way of knowing if it's truly winning too many games before turn four, or if it's just within expected variance. But if a deck can become top-tier and maintain that win rate, then yeah, that's a problem. We just aren't even close to there right now, so we need a lot more data and time.
Sadly enough, this is 100% correct. Wizards will allow decks like Twin, Affinity, and Jund be Tier 1 for years. But if a deck like Bloom Titan or Griselbanned becomes Tier 1 (by people's definitions, not just deck power), then they will certainly get the axe. Combo decks are not allowed to be on the level of those 3 decks; Twin after all is a Combo deck. Jund is a Midrange deck and Affinity is Aggro, so we have "diversity" at the top Tier. Bloom Titan is getting close to Tier 1 as their metagame share is rising slowly, but Griselbanned needs to have 5 times as many people playing it as are currently.
All I can say is when I saw nothing was banned is that I thought "thank God that Wizards doesn't ban decks that are played by less than 6% of the meta." I'm pretty sure that the B&R Announcement didn't surprise most people who were being non-emotional about it.
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)Well, Wizards disagrees with you too. When you add to that the metagame shares Amulet Bloom holds (4% overall, 4.5% MTGO, 3.5% paper, 2.8% at major paper events), and it becomes pretty clear we don't have good evidence to suggest Amulet Bloom is currently top-tier. People may think it is, but the data just isn't there.
Want to know if it is good and worth a read or not. BBD is after all part of it. While I really respect him as a player and even though he does say a few true things he also has a more radical view that I don't necessarily agree with.
My premium expired yesterday and Im not to keen on getting it again for an article that might not even be worth reading.
When did wizards say that Amulet wasn't a tier one deck? That would be a strange comment for them to make. But I think I agree with most pros, it is a tier one deck, maybe the best deck overall.
If WotC waits until a deck has a large percentage of the metagame before they ban a piece, then it's too late.
Modern is a nonrotating format. Switching between decks can be a problem, because it's expensive to do that. When a deck is underrepresented, it doesn't necessarily mean that the deck isn't powerful, nor does it mean that a piece couldn't be banned; it just means that Modern players haven't abandoned what they're currently playing in order to be competitive.
This happens in Legacy all of the time. People start by building one deck, and they play it for years. It gives a player a chance to play in the occasional tournament, without being completely invested in a single format.
Grishoalbrand is a relatively new deck and, in Modern especially, owning it is pretty high risk. Most of the cards in the deck aren't played in any other Modern deck, and it's definitely capable of breaking WotC's stated rules for the format. No reasonable person is going to cash out their current deck in order to pick up Grishoalbrand, unless WotC makes it look like nothing from the deck is getting banned.
If WotC waits until lots of players are playing it, and they use that "percent of the metagame" as a criteria for bannings, then it's extremely bad customer service. They're intentionally letting lots of players invest in a deck, only to ultimately ban a key component of it. That upsets a larger number of players (than had they banned a piece earlier), and it signals that WotC has no problem with letting its customers waste their money.
Grishoalbrand has a small metagame share. If it were clearly the best deck in the format, people would need to play it in order to be competitive. But there are other factors at work that keep the metagame share small, including economics and risk exposure. Grishoalbrand is already pushing the boundaries of WotC's stated goals for the format, and it's irresponsible for WotC to wait until people buy the deck in order to ban a piece from it.
WUDeath&TaxesWG
Legacy
UBRGDredgeUBRG
UHigh TideU
URGLandsURG
WR Card Choice List
WUR American D&T
WUB Esper D&T
The Reserved List
Heat Maps
Kibler agreed with no action and said things should be reserved to shake up pro tours.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
But again, they can give an explanation without doing that. Here's a (quick draft) of something they could post:
“There have been some calls from the community for bannings of certain decks that allegedly break the turn 4 rule. To clarify, this rule is that top-tier decks that consistently win the game before turn 4 are not allowed in the format. At present, we see no decks in the format that fit that criteria, as the decks often mentioned in conjunction with such claims are not currently top tier and/or do not win consistently enough before turn 4. Therefore, we see no need for any bannings presently.”
It manages to avoid any mention of discussion or lack thereof, doesn’t specify the decks, and doesn’t pigeonhole themselves by saying exactly what the reason for the decks not being banned is (i.e. whether it’s a case of not consistently enough or simply not being top tier). Sure, that explanation wouldn’t satisfy everyone (I’m sure some people would complain “but these decks ARE top tier and DO win consistently!”), but it’d at least give an explanation and a clear restatement about what the turn 4 rule is actually supposed to say. Considering how many people misunderstand what the rule actually says, an explicit restatement of it from Wizards of the Coast would be pretty useful.
For example, Burn and Affinity are definitely Tier 1 decks. They can also win before turn 4. But they certainly can't consistently do it. Can Amulet Bloom consistently win before turn 4? I don't know, I haven't done that much research into it. But it's worth remembering that the deck's fast wins aren't necessarily all that frequent.
I agree with a lot of what you said, but this is not a concern in the slightest to WoTC. Not in the slightest.
There really is no "good timing" when it comes to banning a card or essentially, a deck. When Birthing Pod was banned, many people had played the deck for years, so arguably they got their "mileage" out of the cards. However, I personally know 4 players who were getting into Modern and started with Pod. When it was banned, 3 of these players went on to go back to Standard. I can't blame them. The other stayed and changed to Liege Rhino. Now he's currently putting together Ad Nauseam. The point here is that Wizards cares not one bit who spent money on what cards (and probably rightfully so since people are also going to be upset if financial decisions, rather than game play decisions determine the ban list) and banning or not banning at any time will potentially hurt some people.
Besides, will you believe me if I say that Wizards has no idea of how powerful Griselbanned is in Modern?
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)If people changed decks rapidly, I would agree with this. The problem is that decks cost hundreds of dollars and they tend to be built over a long period of time.
WotC knows that Grishoalbrand is a deck. They have the resources to do the testing if they, as a business, make that a priority. (To be clear, they don't have the resources to test every deck in the format, but given the contentious nature of Grishoalbrand and Amulet Bloom, they could just look at those two for now.)
There is a "good time" to ban a card, and it's before everyone invests their time, money, and energy into a deck.
I believe this.
I think WotC has to pick and choose what they test, and in which formats. Cards are designed for Limited, Standard, and Commander playability. Modern isn't the after thought that Legacy is, but I don't think many cards (if any) are designed specifically for Modern play.
WUDeath&TaxesWG
Legacy
UBRGDredgeUBRG
UHigh TideU
URGLandsURG
WR Card Choice List
WUR American D&T
WUB Esper D&T
The Reserved List
Heat Maps
I think for every customer they lose, they gain many more. When Birthing Pod, Treasure Cruise, and Dig Through Time were banned, a lot of people didn't like these decisions. But after all the smoke settled, very few actually quit and there was such an influx of new players. People could play Burn. People could play Zoo. People could play whatever rogue Aggro deck that they wanted. People could play decks other than Pod or Delver.
As a business, they realize that you have to occasionally push the envelope and lose long time customers if it brings you in twice as many newer customers. A lot of people don't realize this. They believe that they are a "true" customer because they've gone to some place year after year. They genuinely believe that the business cares about them. Often they find out in horror that the company can care less about how much business you've given them over the years because it's already done and they are setting out to expand much more than just one customer.
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)As true as this can be, it's actually pretty complex. Customers come in different qualities, and long-term customers tend to be the reason that businesses make money.
I'm sure that WotC has business goals for Magic. Two of those goals are customer volume and profit. Interestingly, they're not the same thing. Acquiring new customers at the expense of older customers is an interesting business move, and it's not always the right one. That said, I actually agree with your point, and I think that WotC will benefit in the long run by having a heavy-handed approach to Modern.
WUDeath&TaxesWG
Legacy
UBRGDredgeUBRG
UHigh TideU
URGLandsURG
WR Card Choice List
WUR American D&T
WUB Esper D&T
The Reserved List
Heat Maps
In my area, the attendance had gone down during Pod and Delver's dominance, even though I didn't want to admit it since I was SO upset over the Pod ban. I was too emotional over it. We went from 32 players to 20 players during Pod and Delver's dominance. Since then we went back up to 36 players and 45 during the current Modern season. So it's funny that allowing Treasure Cruise and others to be in the meta for a short time, once it was banned, attendance at least in my area went up a bit. I doubt Wizards regrets anything that happened during those times. Yes, my evidence is also anecdotal, but I don't think anyone can argue that Modern is growing constantly. Just look at the ridiculous prices. I paid a ridiculous price for playsets of Horizon Canopy, Chord of Calling, and Vendilion Clique when Modern started. Still, $28, $28, and $36 seems to pale in comparison with the prices now.
Many people realize that long time customers spend less money than newer customers. I bought a box of Modern Masters 2. It was the first box that I bought since ... Tempest. Many players get their cards through speculation and winning prizes. They are not the ones that spend money. The guy who started Magic and bought 2 boxes, then went to buy all of the singles that he needed for a deck IS. They care about the influx of newer players. (Ever thought about why Combo has been phased out in Standard?)
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)