I get the feeling that Wizards is adopting a far more aggressive approach to banning in recent years. For a long stretch it would take a lot for a card to get banned in Standard. Look at Faeries and Jund. Both those decks had periods where they were head and shoulders above anything else in the format and they never banned Bitterblossom or Bloodbraid Elf.
In my opinion they definitely should have. Just because they were MUCH more scarred of banning cards then doesn't mean that those cards didn't deserve to be banned.
If these cards existed in standard today, you can bet they would get banned. Cascade is one the mechanics that they realized were over powered much later. It would never see the light of day again.
I get the feeling that Wizards is adopting a far more aggressive approach to banning in recent years. For a long stretch it would take a lot for a card to get banned in Standard. Look at Faeries and Jund. Both those decks had periods where they were head and shoulders above anything else in the format and they never banned Bitterblossom or Bloodbraid Elf.
In my opinion they definitely should have. Just because they were MUCH more scarred of banning cards then doesn't mean that those cards didn't deserve to be banned.
If these cards existed in standard today, you can bet they would get banned. Cascade is one the mechanics that they realized were over powered much later. It would never see the light of day again.
Bitterblossom and Bloodbraid Elf didn't deserve to be banned. Yeah, they were great, but it's business as usual for Standard to have one deck that defines the format. If Bitterblossom and Bloodbraid Elf deserved bans, then (with only a handful of exceptions) there should have been bans every year in Standard from its premiere until today. Somehow, I doubt that would go over well with players.
But, of course, let's be honest, the reason they're taking a more active role now isn't because of some new philosophy or whatever. It's attendance. In the past, people might have complained about Faeries and Bloodbraid Jund and Monoblack Devotion and all the rest, but they kept playing the format. They turn to bannings when players stop playing Standard, as was the case with Caw-Blade, Affinity, and all the nonsense in Urza's Saga. And for as strong as it was, it's my understanding that players actually loved Necropotence which explains why it was not only kept legal, but reprinted to remain in Standard.
But people have been quitting Standard now. Lower attendance means bannings. Of course, with so many bannings it's tough to figure out how much of the apparent attendance drops come from the bannings and how much come from the metagames that caused those bannings. Nevertheless, the more "hands on" approach is simply because players are much more dissatisfied with Standard than they were in those past Standards. What's the difference between them? Well, lots of paragraphs have been written on that by others so I'll skip over it, but the point is that if they're being really hands on, it's because attendance is continually a problem.
If there was a deck that was at 90% of the metagame but attendance was fine, they would almost certainly leave that deck alone; heck, they admitted as much with their Jace/Stoneforge banning, that they didn't ban until it was obvious players were uninterested in the format to the point of not playing anymore.
I get the feeling that Wizards is adopting a far more aggressive approach to banning in recent years. For a long stretch it would take a lot for a card to get banned in Standard. Look at Faeries and Jund. Both those decks had periods where they were head and shoulders above anything else in the format and they never banned Bitterblossom or Bloodbraid Elf.
In my opinion they definitely should have. Just because they were MUCH more scarred of banning cards then doesn't mean that those cards didn't deserve to be banned.
If these cards existed in standard today, you can bet they would get banned. Cascade is one the mechanics that they realized were over powered much later. It would never see the light of day again.
Bitterblossom and Bloodbraid Elf didn't deserve to be banned. Yeah, they were great, but it's business as usual for Standard to have one deck that defines the format. If Bitterblossom and Bloodbraid Elf deserved bans, then (with only a handful of exceptions) there should have been bans every year in Standard from its premiere until today. Somehow, I doubt that would go over well with players.
But, of course, let's be honest, the reason they're taking a more active role now isn't because of some new philosophy or whatever. It's attendance. In the past, people might have complained about Faeries and Bloodbraid Jund and Monoblack Devotion and all the rest, but they kept playing the format. They turn to bannings when players stop playing Standard, as was the case with Caw-Blade, Affinity, and all the nonsense in Urza's Saga. And for as strong as it was, it's my understanding that players actually loved Necropotence which explains why it was not only kept legal, but reprinted to remain in Standard.
But people have been quitting Standard now. Lower attendance means bannings. Of course, with so many bannings it's tough to figure out how much of the apparent attendance drops come from the bannings and how much come from the metagames that caused those bannings. Nevertheless, the more "hands on" approach is simply because players are much more dissatisfied with Standard than they were in those past Standards. What's the difference between them? Well, lots of paragraphs have been written on that by others so I'll skip over it, but the point is that if they're being really hands on, it's because attendance is continually a problem.
If there was a deck that was at 90% of the metagame but attendance was fine, they would almost certainly leave that deck alone; heck, they admitted as much with their Jace/Stoneforge banning, that they didn't ban until it was obvious players were uninterested in the format to the point of not playing anymore.
I have a hard time buying into that.
The reason for this is that WotC didn't have access to the data then that they do now.
You think people weren't tired of playing against Faeries?? That's non-sense. I remember standard in those days and it was "Play faeries or don't play at all". Faeries stopped being so dominant when that instant deal 2 damage can't be countered to all creatures was printed.
I'm willing to bet plenty of folks quit playing standard at that time because of it.
I'll concede the one regarding Jund because there were ways to exploit it (and even back then, the tournament scene was play Jund or don't play at all) but it lost to anything else.
There's plenty of times where 1 deck ruled the format and in today's reality, it just wouldn't happen anymore. Magic was in its infancy during Necrowinter. Cheating at tournaments was rampant. The rules were pre-fifth edition (meaning a total mess). Magic was kind of a joke back then. So ya, people loved to play a completely broken deck that made the game stupid (hell i still remember getting stripped mine, hymned and necrod in standard...on turn 1!).
More recently, Thoughtseize likely should have been banned (or never printed at all - WoTc went on record to state this was a mistake). How many games did you lose to T1 TS, T2 PR?
But i'll agree with someone else who posted earlier. These bannings are symptomatic of something bigger.
And it has everything to do with printing appropriate answers to the threats. Now with play design in place (and with a guys like Majors and Ross), I feel like we're going to shift away from the non-sense of the last couple of years and re-establish a healthier format (like Innistratd-Ravnica).
I'll also point you out to the article Sarge posted on SCG. Where he tracks back some of the reasons why bans took place and the direct justifications that Wizards used.
You can see that there's been a philosophy change over the last 10 years and it's not just about attendance anymore. It's about how much of the field a certain archetype occupies and what are the chances of it being less than 50%. If we could have a format that was 25% aggro, 25% control, 25% combo, 25% midrange, we'd reach parity and that would be just swell. I think that's the goal for WoTc going forward.
The reason for this is that WotC didn't have access to the data then that they do now.
You think people weren't tired of playing against Faeries?? That's non-sense. I remember standard in those days and it was "Play faeries or don't play at all". Faeries stopped being so dominant when that instant deal 2 damage can't be countered to all creatures was printed.
I'm willing to bet plenty of folks quit playing standard at that time because of it.
Certainly, many disliked Faeries. But did they actually quit the format over it? You don't really provide support for this, and if one dominant deck is enough to do that, then one wonders how Standard had people playing at all, considering the high frequency with which Faeries situations occur where one deck is at the clear top of the metagame. This is the norm for Standard, not the exception. If one deck being on top was this endemic to dropping attendance, then Standard shouldn't even exist because it would've withered away and died long before these recent bannings happened.
Players complained about Faeries, sure. Players will always complain about something in Standard. You hold up Innistrad-RTR as a great format, but people complained a lot during it, too! But the question is: Are they complaining so much they're actually no longer playing? In those situations, it seems the answer was no. In recent situations, it seems the answer was yes, although admittedly at this point it's hard to figure out how many people are leaving due to not liking the metagame and how many people are leaving due to not having any confidence in the format due to the bannings.
Certainly, contrary to what you seem to be claiming, one deck being at the clear top doesn't inherently lead to poor attendance. I'm not sure if they ever commented on attendance during the Faeries and Jund years, but UW Delver ruled its Standard format in a similar fashion, provoked a ton of complaints about its dominance, and yet during its tenure, Standard had more people playing than ever before in tournaments.
Heck, the environment where the original trio of Copter, Emrakul, and Mage were banned was actually relatively diverse by Standard's, um, standards. But in spite of the relative diversity, players didn't like the way games played out and fewer were playing, setting off the bans.
The reason for this is that WotC didn't have access to the data then that they do now.
You think people weren't tired of playing against Faeries?? That's non-sense. I remember standard in those days and it was "Play faeries or don't play at all". Faeries stopped being so dominant when that instant deal 2 damage can't be countered to all creatures was printed.
I'm willing to bet plenty of folks quit playing standard at that time because of it.
Certainly, many disliked Faeries. But did they actually quit the format over it? You don't really provide support for this, and if one dominant deck is enough to do that, then one wonders how Standard had people playing at all, considering the high frequency with which Faeries situations occur where one deck is at the clear top of the metagame. This is the norm for Standard, not the exception. If one deck being on top was this endemic to dropping attendance, then Standard shouldn't even exist because it would've withered away and died long before these recent bannings happened.
Players complained about Faeries, sure. Players will always complain about something in Standard. You hold up Innistrad-RTR as a great format, but people complained a lot during it, too! But the question is: Are they complaining so much they're actually no longer playing? In those situations, it seems the answer was no. In recent situations, it seems the answer was yes, although admittedly at this point it's hard to figure out how many people are leaving due to not liking the metagame and how many people are leaving due to not having any confidence in the format due to the bannings.
Certainly, contrary to what you seem to be claiming, one deck being at the clear top doesn't inherently lead to poor attendance. I'm not sure if they ever commented on attendance during the Faeries and Jund years, but UW Delver ruled its Standard format in a similar fashion, provoked a ton of complaints about its dominance, and yet during its tenure, Standard had more people playing than ever before in tournaments.
Heck, the environment where the original trio of Copter, Emrakul, and Mage were banned was actually relatively diverse by Standard's, um, standards. But in spite of the relative diversity, players didn't like the way games played out and fewer were playing, setting off the bans.
Unfortunately there's no way for me to show that attendance was down but we have to remember that this was not the golden age of magic. The game grew bigger after that format. I can only talk about anecdotal evidence, which admittedly, is not really useful for the point.
Wizards was adamant about bannings throughout most of standard's history. Because ultimately, it's an admission in failure to deliver a format that was balanced enough to not have 1/2 decks dominating the metagame months on end. The new direction that they are going in now, would indicate that they are finally willing to admit that they are occasions where the format requires a banning in order to diversify it. People got tired pretty quickly of watching only two decks in Standard and it's kind of been a recurring theme lately.
If they were willing to print answers, we wouldn't be here. For example, if stony silence and rest in peace had been in the format, we would not have had any issues at all with anything but the cat, which would have required a banning. If solemnity cost 2 and drew a card, it would have solved the energy problem too.
At any rate, my argument is if they had approached the same philosophy with past standards that they have with now, Bitterblossom, blood braid elf, Geist, Delver, Company would have been banned and standard would have been better for it every time.
Unfortunately there's no way for me to show that attendance was down but we have to remember that this was not the golden age of magic. The game grew bigger after that format. I can only talk about anecdotal evidence, which admittedly, is not really useful for the point.
Well, let's try to see what hard evidence we can get. You've made two assertions:
1) Standard was "play Faeries or don't play at all."
2) People were playing Standard less as a result.
So, is #1 true? Well, let's take a look. Faeries was first introduced in Lorwyn (October 2007) though it didn't truly get all of its main tools until Morningtide (February 2008), and it rotated out with the release of Zendikar (September 2009), though you also said that it stopped being so dominant after Volcanic Fallout was released (February 2009). So, what do the tournament results on the whole say?
There isn't as full of metagame data back then like we have now, but we can take a look at the Standard Grand Prix and Pro Tours. In this time period, we had the following Standard Grand Prix and Pro Tours
GP Krakow (November 2007): 1/8 Faeries
GP Shizuoka (March 2008): 2/8 Faeries
PT Hollywood (May 2008): 1/8 Faeries
GP Buenos Aires (June 2008): 1/8 Faeries
GP Copenhagen (August 2008): 0/8 Faeries
GP Barcelona (May 2009): 1/8 Faeries
GP Seattle (May 2009): 5/8 Faeries
GP Sao Paulo (June 2009): 0/8 Faeries
Someone can try to dismiss Krakow by pointing out Morningtide wasn't out yet, but even after Morningtide, Faeries does not seem to have actually been particularly dominant during this time period, not even getting a single copy into the Top 8 of some of those tournaments. Obviously, GP Seattle is a major exception, but it is just that: an exception. It didn't even happen during the period when people claimed Faeries was the biggest deck, as this was when Volcanic Fallout was legal.
I suppose someone can point to Faeries getting 5/8 at the 2008 World Championship, but that is highly misleading because this was the format for that event: 6 rounds of Standard, 4 of the team format (Standard/Extended/Legacy), 6 of draft, and 6 of Extended. So only 1/3 of what decided the Top 8 decks were even Standard matches! We can't use the results of such an event to try to make any statement about Standard. And before anyone tries to claim "oh, you're just saying that because it goes against your point" I should point out that I disregarded PT Kyoto (only 1/8 Faeries) for the same reason: The whole thing wasn't Standard, it was Standard and draft; although, unlike the World Championship, it was at least mostly Standard, being 8 rounds of Standard and 6 of Draft.
But, hey, maybe it was just perception of Faeries that was the problem, even if in actuality there's little evidence to indicate it was a problem, at least on the GP level. Of course, banning simply due to perception of a deck rather than how the deck was actually doing seems questionable, but we can at least consider it. So how was attendance? Here's what we have for the above Grand Prix:
Krakow (November 2007) 849
Shizuoka (March 2008) 827
Buenos Aires (June 2008) 580
Copenhagen (August 2008) 610
Barcelona (May 2009) 1495
Seattle (May 2009) 1127
Sao Paulo (June 2009) 638
The next logical step is to see if there was a decrease in attendance compared to Ravnica-Time Spiral Standard, which people hold up as a great and diverse Standard season. Unfortunately, there was actually only one Standard Grand Prix during that entire season. Yes, really. Wizards of the Coast had a really big obsession with Limited Grand Prix during that period, it seems. Still, we can try out best. We had GP Kyoto, with 859 attendance. The closest Grand Prix to this geographically from the above list was Shizuoka, which had 827 attendees. So, going from one of the most diverse Standard settings to one you claim was so limited to Faeries that people were leaving, we have... a negligible drop.
Now, we've examined the allegations of Faeries' dominance and have found it wanting. What of the other claim you threw out, that Bloodbraid Elf was an issue? Let's see how many decks were running the card:
GP Barcelona (May 2009): 3/8
GP Seattle (May 2009): 1/8
GP Sao Paulo (June 2009): 1/8
Kuala Lumpur (March 2010): 0/8
Brussels (March 2010): 6/8
Washington DC (May 2010): 0/8
Sendai (June 2010): 2/8
Manila (June 2010): 3/8
During its time legal, we had an average of 2 BBE decks per Top 8. That is higher than the 1.42 average that Faeries had (this is excluding Krakow's 1 because Morningtide hadn't come out). So it's more so than Faeries, but still does not seem to have been an actual problem in terms of the metagame. A good deck, to be sure, and aside from its its finish in Brussels, it seems to have been fine. Let us also not forget it didn't have a single copy in the Top 8 of Kuala Lumpur or Washington DC.
If they were willing to print answers, we wouldn't be here. For example, if stony silence and rest in peace had been in the format, we would not have had any issues at all with anything but the cat, which would have required a banning. If solemnity cost 2 and drew a card, it would have solved the energy problem too.
I'm a bit dubious of this, because all the cards you listed are White. what if you're not in White? Then you have no recourse. Pithing Needle and Scrabbling Claws would have been better choices (the former of which may have actually kept CopyCat in check), and I think if Solemnity, in addition to being dropped in cost, had been an artifact (or if there had been anti-energy cards in other colors) it would've worked as well. Although, this is admittedly a nitpick, as your general point is correct.
At any rate, my argument is if they had approached the same philosophy with past standards that they have with now, Bitterblossom, blood braid elf, Geist, Delver, Company would have been banned and standard would have been better for it every time.
The evidence I have posted regarding Bitterblossom and Bloodbraid Elf seems to have debunked your claim regarding those. As for Delver, let's take a look at how it did in GPs during Scars-Innistrad Standard:
Brisbane (October 2011): 0/8
Hiroshima (October 2011): 0/8
Orlando (January 2012): 3/8 [1/8 with Delver AND Geist]
Baltimore (February 2012): 1/8
Lille (March 2012): 2/8
Kuala Lumpur (March 2012): 4/8
Salt Lake City (March/April 2012): 5/8
Minneapolis (May 2012): 6/8
Manila (June 2012): 4/8
All right, so we can see some significantly better numbers for Delver than Faeries or Bloodbraid Elf! (we'll disregard the first two because it was just after rotation and people hadn't figured out the power of the deck). So, should Delver have been banned? Well, I thought that Standard was a blast, one of the best I've ever played in in spite of one deck's dominance, so I'd obviously disagree. And it seems a lot of other people would also, considering that Wizards of the Coast cited attendance at competitive events being at a never-before-seen high during Delver's tenure. So people were clearly enjoying Standard. Even if a format lacks diversity, if people in general are enjoying it, why does that need to change? Particularly considering the fact that Delver would be on its way out within a year due to rotation.
As for Collected Company, I'm not sure what banning it would have really done. I believe that it after Eldritch Moon's release that it was considered to really get out of control, but back then they had no opportunity to ban it until Kaladesh, at which point it rotated! So a ban on Collected Company wouldn't have really been possible at the time it was a problem (which is sort of part of the problem with their decision to have bannings coincide with the release of sets). Although, as I've noted, Kaladesh Standard (prior to the bannings) was actually relatively diverse, possibly the most diverse since Innistrad-RTR Standard. Players still didn't like it because, in spite of the relative diversity, it wasn't considered fun due to the lack of answer cards. So this more "hands on" banning approach you suggest actually began with a Standard that was, by Standard's standards at least, relatively diverse rather than being ruled by a single deck.
And this all brings us to one additional point: You advocate them banning more often (rather than simply banning when players are clearly not liking the format), but players don't like it when cards get banned, as it makes them lose confidence. I can tell you that, at least at my store, Standard attendance has been hurt by more bans than anything in the metagame itself. But beyond that anecdotal evidence, let us remember that Standard rotates once a year, so there's already a time limit on how long you can play your deck. The implicit promise that, even if your deck will be gone, you know when it'll be gone and can play it until then, is what lets players put up with the rotation. But toss bans into that area and that whole rationale goes straight out the window. Why play when anytime I pick up a good deck, it can just get itself banned? That may be true for Modern as well, but at least Modern doesn't have an inherent time limit on how long I can play any given deck.
This is not to argue that recent bannings have necessarily been wrong. But it is to say that the philosophy in recent times seems to be due to players walking away from the format, which was not the case for previous cases bannings did not occur. If players enjoy playing Standard, or at least are willing to keep playing it, Wizards of the Coast seems to leave Standard alone. Which makes a lot of sense, why mess with something players will keep playing?
I wrote a lot, so the TL/DR summary: Evidence from Grand Prix results strongly suggests that neither Faeries nor Bloodbraid Elf was actually dominant enough to be considered a real problem. While data regarding attendance is harder to come by, the limited amount we have doesn't suggest a decrease during Faeries. Data does show that Delver was quite dominant, but attendance increased while it was legal, showing that players, far from being put off from it, were actively enjoying the format, so saying a format data shows people liked would be improved by bannings seems highly dubious. There wasn't really an opportunity to ban Collected Company before rotation. So essentially, you are saying that Wizards of the Coat should have banned cards that (1) despite public perception, weren't actually dominant according to data (Bitterblossom, Bloodbraid Elf), (2) players on the whole didn't mind having around (Delver, Geist), or (3) they didn't have an actual opportunity to ban (Collected Company).
Well, you know things are grim when the big shots are trying pauper in paper of all things just to keep attendance strong. I don't know if Tolarian was paid to do it or he really does like pauper, but it feels like CFB and SCG both are trying to find other formats to depend on that can allow more budget friendly deck building. It's basically impossible to grow modern with the costs being so volatile, and I have my doubts that pauper in paper is going to be the budget savior that people are wishing it to be, especially when Tortured Existence can go to 5 dollars and Oubliette basically doubled in price.
Standard isn't going to change until September at the earliest, and WoTC is probably going to short run every single set including masters 25 until the attendance goes up. They actually did short run Rivals and are now being forced into doing a second run due to the popularity.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Unfortunately there's no way for me to show that attendance was down but we have to remember that this was not the golden age of magic. The game grew bigger after that format. I can only talk about anecdotal evidence, which admittedly, is not really useful for the point.
Well, let's try to see what hard evidence we can get. You've made two assertions:
1) Standard was "play Faeries or don't play at all."
2) People were playing Standard less as a result.
So, is #1 true? Well, let's take a look. Faeries was first introduced in Lorwyn (October 2007) though it didn't truly get all of its main tools until Morningtide (February 2008), and it rotated out with the release of Zendikar (September 2009), though you also said that it stopped being so dominant after Volcanic Fallout was released (February 2009). So, what do the tournament results on the whole say?
There isn't as full of metagame data back then like we have now, but we can take a look at the Standard Grand Prix and Pro Tours. In this time period, we had the following Standard Grand Prix and Pro Tours
GP Krakow (November 2007): 1/8 Faeries
GP Shizuoka (March 2008): 2/8 Faeries
PT Hollywood (May 2008): 1/8 Faeries
GP Buenos Aires (June 2008): 1/8 Faeries
GP Copenhagen (August 2008): 0/8 Faeries
GP Barcelona (May 2009): 1/8 Faeries
GP Seattle (May 2009): 5/8 Faeries
GP Sao Paulo (June 2009): 0/8 Faeries
Someone can try to dismiss Krakow by pointing out Morningtide wasn't out yet, but even after Morningtide, Faeries does not seem to have actually been particularly dominant during this time period, not even getting a single copy into the Top 8 of some of those tournaments. Obviously, GP Seattle is a major exception, but it is just that: an exception. It didn't even happen during the period when people claimed Faeries was the biggest deck, as this was when Volcanic Fallout was legal.
I suppose someone can point to Faeries getting 5/8 at the 2008 World Championship, but that is highly misleading because this was the format for that event: 6 rounds of Standard, 4 of the team format (Standard/Extended/Legacy), 6 of draft, and 6 of Extended. So only 1/3 of what decided the Top 8 decks were even Standard matches! We can't use the results of such an event to try to make any statement about Standard. And before anyone tries to claim "oh, you're just saying that because it goes against your point" I should point out that I disregarded PT Kyoto (only 1/8 Faeries) for the same reason: The whole thing wasn't Standard, it was Standard and draft; although, unlike the World Championship, it was at least mostly Standard, being 8 rounds of Standard and 6 of Draft.
But, hey, maybe it was just perception of Faeries that was the problem, even if in actuality there's little evidence to indicate it was a problem, at least on the GP level. Of course, banning simply due to perception of a deck rather than how the deck was actually doing seems questionable, but we can at least consider it. So how was attendance? Here's what we have for the above Grand Prix:
Krakow (November 2007) 849
Shizuoka (March 2008) 827
Buenos Aires (June 2008) 580
Copenhagen (August 2008) 610
Barcelona (May 2009) 1495
Seattle (May 2009) 1127
Sao Paulo (June 2009) 638
The next logical step is to see if there was a decrease in attendance compared to Ravnica-Time Spiral Standard, which people hold up as a great and diverse Standard season. Unfortunately, there was actually only one Standard Grand Prix during that entire season. Yes, really. Wizards of the Coast had a really big obsession with Limited Grand Prix during that period, it seems. Still, we can try out best. We had GP Kyoto, with 859 attendance. The closest Grand Prix to this geographically from the above list was Shizuoka, which had 827 attendees. So, going from one of the most diverse Standard settings to one you claim was so limited to Faeries that people were leaving, we have... a negligible drop.
Now, we've examined the allegations of Faeries' dominance and have found it wanting. What of the other claim you threw out, that Bloodbraid Elf was an issue? Let's see how many decks were running the card:
GP Barcelona (May 2009): 3/8
GP Seattle (May 2009): 1/8
GP Sao Paulo (June 2009): 1/8
Kuala Lumpur (March 2010): 0/8
Brussels (March 2010): 6/8
Washington DC (May 2010): 0/8
Sendai (June 2010): 2/8
Manila (June 2010): 3/8
During its time legal, we had an average of 2 BBE decks per Top 8. That is higher than the 1.42 average that Faeries had (this is excluding Krakow's 1 because Morningtide hadn't come out). So it's more so than Faeries, but still does not seem to have been an actual problem in terms of the metagame. A good deck, to be sure, and aside from its its finish in Brussels, it seems to have been fine. Let us also not forget it didn't have a single copy in the Top 8 of Kuala Lumpur or Washington DC.
If they were willing to print answers, we wouldn't be here. For example, if stony silence and rest in peace had been in the format, we would not have had any issues at all with anything but the cat, which would have required a banning. If solemnity cost 2 and drew a card, it would have solved the energy problem too.
I'm a bit dubious of this, because all the cards you listed are White. what if you're not in White? Then you have no recourse. Pithing Needle and Scrabbling Claws would have been better choices (the former of which may have actually kept CopyCat in check), and I think if Solemnity, in addition to being dropped in cost, had been an artifact (or if there had been anti-energy cards in other colors) it would've worked as well. Although, this is admittedly a nitpick, as your general point is correct.
At any rate, my argument is if they had approached the same philosophy with past standards that they have with now, Bitterblossom, blood braid elf, Geist, Delver, Company would have been banned and standard would have been better for it every time.
The evidence I have posted regarding Bitterblossom and Bloodbraid Elf seems to have debunked your claim regarding those. As for Delver, let's take a look at how it did in GPs during Scars-Innistrad Standard:
Brisbane (October 2011): 0/8
Hiroshima (October 2011): 0/8
Orlando (January 2012): 3/8 [1/8 with Delver AND Geist]
Baltimore (February 2012): 1/8
Lille (March 2012): 2/8
Kuala Lumpur (March 2012): 4/8
Salt Lake City (March/April 2012): 5/8
Minneapolis (May 2012): 6/8
Manila (June 2012): 4/8
All right, so we can see some significantly better numbers for Delver than Faeries or Bloodbraid Elf! (we'll disregard the first two because it was just after rotation and people hadn't figured out the power of the deck). So, should Delver have been banned? Well, I thought that Standard was a blast, one of the best I've ever played in in spite of one deck's dominance, so I'd obviously disagree. And it seems a lot of other people would also, considering that Wizards of the Coast cited attendance at competitive events being at a never-before-seen high during Delver's tenure. So people were clearly enjoying Standard. Even if a format lacks diversity, if people in general are enjoying it, why does that need to change? Particularly considering the fact that Delver would be on its way out within a year due to rotation.
As for Collected Company, I'm not sure what banning it would have really done. I believe that it after Eldritch Moon's release that it was considered to really get out of control, but back then they had no opportunity to ban it until Kaladesh, at which point it rotated! So a ban on Collected Company wouldn't have really been possible at the time it was a problem (which is sort of part of the problem with their decision to have bannings coincide with the release of sets). Although, as I've noted, Kaladesh Standard (prior to the bannings) was actually relatively diverse, possibly the most diverse since Innistrad-RTR Standard. Players still didn't like it because, in spite of the relative diversity, it wasn't considered fun due to the lack of answer cards. So this more "hands on" banning approach you suggest actually began with a Standard that was, by Standard's standards at least, relatively diverse rather than being ruled by a single deck.
And this all brings us to one additional point: You advocate them banning more often (rather than simply banning when players are clearly not liking the format), but players don't like it when cards get banned, as it makes them lose confidence. I can tell you that, at least at my store, Standard attendance has been hurt by more bans than anything in the metagame itself. But beyond that anecdotal evidence, let us remember that Standard rotates once a year, so there's already a time limit on how long you can play your deck. The implicit promise that, even if your deck will be gone, you know when it'll be gone and can play it until then, is what lets players put up with the rotation. But toss bans into that area and that whole rationale goes straight out the window. Why play when anytime I pick up a good deck, it can just get itself banned? That may be true for Modern as well, but at least Modern doesn't have an inherent time limit on how long I can play any given deck.
This is not to argue that recent bannings have necessarily been wrong. But it is to say that the philosophy in recent times seems to be due to players walking away from the format, which was not the case for previous cases bannings did not occur. If players enjoy playing Standard, or at least are willing to keep playing it, Wizards of the Coast seems to leave Standard alone. Which makes a lot of sense, why mess with something players will keep playing?
I wrote a lot, so the TL/DR summary: Evidence from Grand Prix results strongly suggests that neither Faeries nor Bloodbraid Elf was actually dominant enough to be considered a real problem. While data regarding attendance is harder to come by, the limited amount we have doesn't suggest a decrease during Faeries. Data does show that Delver was quite dominant, but attendance increased while it was legal, showing that players, far from being put off from it, were actively enjoying the format, so saying a format data shows people liked would be improved by bannings seems highly dubious. There wasn't really an opportunity to ban Collected Company before rotation. So essentially, you are saying that Wizards of the Coat should have banned cards that (1) despite public perception, weren't actually dominant according to data (Bitterblossom, Bloodbraid Elf), (2) players on the whole didn't mind having around (Delver, Geist), or (3) they didn't have an actual opportunity to ban (Collected Company).
I think it's awesome the amount of research that went into this but it is a little disingenuous. If you look at the way the data is represented today, it's not based on the number of top 8 the deck has but more so on its overall played percentage and its win ratio vs everything else.
Faeries was omnipresent when it was legal. I can't check every thing up right now, but my point was not necessarily how dominant any given strategy was but how often it showed up. Jund was also similar, omnipresent. It was not uncommon at the time to play a gp amd ay six straight rounds against it.
Knowing this, i still believe that using today's philosophy to yester year's formats would have seen more cards banned.
But i digressed as ultimately my point isn't really anything new; print better answers to powerful cards. /the end
The cards being banned today are weak. And Standard only playable.
By what metric are they weak? because they don't show up in eternal formats? The majority of cards that are printed don't show up in eternal formats because it takes a specific list of things to show up in eternal formats.
I gave up on playing standard this season just like the last one. The decks are clunky nightmares and the ones that aren't are still kind of painful to run. I just do not like bad mana combined with over costed removal effects and a lack of good enablers.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
I really miss playing the Temur energy deck, especially the mirror match. It was actually very fun and skill testing. I hate when Wizards bans skill testing decks out of the format.
Aetherworks Marvel I was perfectly ok with it going away even though I played it as long as it was legal. But Temur energy was sad to see go.
right now is probably the most excited I've been for standard since before Kaladesh, format seems super interesting right now. I can't wait for Dominaria
There is one massive downside to this. I have no idea what I am supposed to be playing for a GP coming up. My local meta isn't helpful at all and rarely reflects what I see performing well at other events. While it's nice that it is really robust, it feels a bit like a crapshoot for a major event which again, is both good and bad.
There is one massive downside to this. I have no idea what I am supposed to be playing for a GP coming up. My local meta isn't helpful at all and rarely reflects what I see performing well at other events. While it's nice that it is really robust, it feels a bit like a crapshoot for a major event which again, is both good and bad.
In my opinion they definitely should have. Just because they were MUCH more scarred of banning cards then doesn't mean that those cards didn't deserve to be banned.
If these cards existed in standard today, you can bet they would get banned. Cascade is one the mechanics that they realized were over powered much later. It would never see the light of day again.
But, of course, let's be honest, the reason they're taking a more active role now isn't because of some new philosophy or whatever. It's attendance. In the past, people might have complained about Faeries and Bloodbraid Jund and Monoblack Devotion and all the rest, but they kept playing the format. They turn to bannings when players stop playing Standard, as was the case with Caw-Blade, Affinity, and all the nonsense in Urza's Saga. And for as strong as it was, it's my understanding that players actually loved Necropotence which explains why it was not only kept legal, but reprinted to remain in Standard.
But people have been quitting Standard now. Lower attendance means bannings. Of course, with so many bannings it's tough to figure out how much of the apparent attendance drops come from the bannings and how much come from the metagames that caused those bannings. Nevertheless, the more "hands on" approach is simply because players are much more dissatisfied with Standard than they were in those past Standards. What's the difference between them? Well, lots of paragraphs have been written on that by others so I'll skip over it, but the point is that if they're being really hands on, it's because attendance is continually a problem.
If there was a deck that was at 90% of the metagame but attendance was fine, they would almost certainly leave that deck alone; heck, they admitted as much with their Jace/Stoneforge banning, that they didn't ban until it was obvious players were uninterested in the format to the point of not playing anymore.
I have a hard time buying into that.
The reason for this is that WotC didn't have access to the data then that they do now.
You think people weren't tired of playing against Faeries?? That's non-sense. I remember standard in those days and it was "Play faeries or don't play at all". Faeries stopped being so dominant when that instant deal 2 damage can't be countered to all creatures was printed.
I'm willing to bet plenty of folks quit playing standard at that time because of it.
I'll concede the one regarding Jund because there were ways to exploit it (and even back then, the tournament scene was play Jund or don't play at all) but it lost to anything else.
There's plenty of times where 1 deck ruled the format and in today's reality, it just wouldn't happen anymore. Magic was in its infancy during Necrowinter. Cheating at tournaments was rampant. The rules were pre-fifth edition (meaning a total mess). Magic was kind of a joke back then. So ya, people loved to play a completely broken deck that made the game stupid (hell i still remember getting stripped mine, hymned and necrod in standard...on turn 1!).
More recently, Thoughtseize likely should have been banned (or never printed at all - WoTc went on record to state this was a mistake). How many games did you lose to T1 TS, T2 PR?
But i'll agree with someone else who posted earlier. These bannings are symptomatic of something bigger.
And it has everything to do with printing appropriate answers to the threats. Now with play design in place (and with a guys like Majors and Ross), I feel like we're going to shift away from the non-sense of the last couple of years and re-establish a healthier format (like Innistratd-Ravnica).
I'll also point you out to the article Sarge posted on SCG. Where he tracks back some of the reasons why bans took place and the direct justifications that Wizards used.
You can see that there's been a philosophy change over the last 10 years and it's not just about attendance anymore. It's about how much of the field a certain archetype occupies and what are the chances of it being less than 50%. If we could have a format that was 25% aggro, 25% control, 25% combo, 25% midrange, we'd reach parity and that would be just swell. I think that's the goal for WoTc going forward.
I was hoping to see what decks pros went to after the bannings
RNA Standard: Grixis Midrange, Jund Deathwhirler, Sultai Vannifar
GRN Standard: Red Midrange, Mono-Blue Tempo, Wr Aggro, Gruul Experimental Dinosaurs, Sultai Midrange, Jeskai Midrange
Modern: Bant Spirits
Forcing a single archetype in all formats: too many colors, bad mana.
thanks for letting me know, I thought it was just modern but was clearly wrong. any cool new decks ?
Players complained about Faeries, sure. Players will always complain about something in Standard. You hold up Innistrad-RTR as a great format, but people complained a lot during it, too! But the question is: Are they complaining so much they're actually no longer playing? In those situations, it seems the answer was no. In recent situations, it seems the answer was yes, although admittedly at this point it's hard to figure out how many people are leaving due to not liking the metagame and how many people are leaving due to not having any confidence in the format due to the bannings.
Certainly, contrary to what you seem to be claiming, one deck being at the clear top doesn't inherently lead to poor attendance. I'm not sure if they ever commented on attendance during the Faeries and Jund years, but UW Delver ruled its Standard format in a similar fashion, provoked a ton of complaints about its dominance, and yet during its tenure, Standard had more people playing than ever before in tournaments.
Heck, the environment where the original trio of Copter, Emrakul, and Mage were banned was actually relatively diverse by Standard's, um, standards. But in spite of the relative diversity, players didn't like the way games played out and fewer were playing, setting off the bans.
Unfortunately there's no way for me to show that attendance was down but we have to remember that this was not the golden age of magic. The game grew bigger after that format. I can only talk about anecdotal evidence, which admittedly, is not really useful for the point.
Wizards was adamant about bannings throughout most of standard's history. Because ultimately, it's an admission in failure to deliver a format that was balanced enough to not have 1/2 decks dominating the metagame months on end. The new direction that they are going in now, would indicate that they are finally willing to admit that they are occasions where the format requires a banning in order to diversify it. People got tired pretty quickly of watching only two decks in Standard and it's kind of been a recurring theme lately.
If they were willing to print answers, we wouldn't be here. For example, if stony silence and rest in peace had been in the format, we would not have had any issues at all with anything but the cat, which would have required a banning. If solemnity cost 2 and drew a card, it would have solved the energy problem too.
At any rate, my argument is if they had approached the same philosophy with past standards that they have with now, Bitterblossom, blood braid elf, Geist, Delver, Company would have been banned and standard would have been better for it every time.
1) Standard was "play Faeries or don't play at all."
2) People were playing Standard less as a result.
So, is #1 true? Well, let's take a look. Faeries was first introduced in Lorwyn (October 2007) though it didn't truly get all of its main tools until Morningtide (February 2008), and it rotated out with the release of Zendikar (September 2009), though you also said that it stopped being so dominant after Volcanic Fallout was released (February 2009). So, what do the tournament results on the whole say?
There isn't as full of metagame data back then like we have now, but we can take a look at the Standard Grand Prix and Pro Tours. In this time period, we had the following Standard Grand Prix and Pro Tours
GP Krakow (November 2007): 1/8 Faeries
GP Shizuoka (March 2008): 2/8 Faeries
PT Hollywood (May 2008): 1/8 Faeries
GP Buenos Aires (June 2008): 1/8 Faeries
GP Copenhagen (August 2008): 0/8 Faeries
GP Barcelona (May 2009): 1/8 Faeries
GP Seattle (May 2009): 5/8 Faeries
GP Sao Paulo (June 2009): 0/8 Faeries
Someone can try to dismiss Krakow by pointing out Morningtide wasn't out yet, but even after Morningtide, Faeries does not seem to have actually been particularly dominant during this time period, not even getting a single copy into the Top 8 of some of those tournaments. Obviously, GP Seattle is a major exception, but it is just that: an exception. It didn't even happen during the period when people claimed Faeries was the biggest deck, as this was when Volcanic Fallout was legal.
I suppose someone can point to Faeries getting 5/8 at the 2008 World Championship, but that is highly misleading because this was the format for that event: 6 rounds of Standard, 4 of the team format (Standard/Extended/Legacy), 6 of draft, and 6 of Extended. So only 1/3 of what decided the Top 8 decks were even Standard matches! We can't use the results of such an event to try to make any statement about Standard. And before anyone tries to claim "oh, you're just saying that because it goes against your point" I should point out that I disregarded PT Kyoto (only 1/8 Faeries) for the same reason: The whole thing wasn't Standard, it was Standard and draft; although, unlike the World Championship, it was at least mostly Standard, being 8 rounds of Standard and 6 of Draft.
But, hey, maybe it was just perception of Faeries that was the problem, even if in actuality there's little evidence to indicate it was a problem, at least on the GP level. Of course, banning simply due to perception of a deck rather than how the deck was actually doing seems questionable, but we can at least consider it. So how was attendance? Here's what we have for the above Grand Prix:
Krakow (November 2007) 849
Shizuoka (March 2008) 827
Buenos Aires (June 2008) 580
Copenhagen (August 2008) 610
Barcelona (May 2009) 1495
Seattle (May 2009) 1127
Sao Paulo (June 2009) 638
The next logical step is to see if there was a decrease in attendance compared to Ravnica-Time Spiral Standard, which people hold up as a great and diverse Standard season. Unfortunately, there was actually only one Standard Grand Prix during that entire season. Yes, really. Wizards of the Coast had a really big obsession with Limited Grand Prix during that period, it seems. Still, we can try out best. We had GP Kyoto, with 859 attendance. The closest Grand Prix to this geographically from the above list was Shizuoka, which had 827 attendees. So, going from one of the most diverse Standard settings to one you claim was so limited to Faeries that people were leaving, we have... a negligible drop.
Now, we've examined the allegations of Faeries' dominance and have found it wanting. What of the other claim you threw out, that Bloodbraid Elf was an issue? Let's see how many decks were running the card:
GP Barcelona (May 2009): 3/8
GP Seattle (May 2009): 1/8
GP Sao Paulo (June 2009): 1/8
Kuala Lumpur (March 2010): 0/8
Brussels (March 2010): 6/8
Washington DC (May 2010): 0/8
Sendai (June 2010): 2/8
Manila (June 2010): 3/8
During its time legal, we had an average of 2 BBE decks per Top 8. That is higher than the 1.42 average that Faeries had (this is excluding Krakow's 1 because Morningtide hadn't come out). So it's more so than Faeries, but still does not seem to have been an actual problem in terms of the metagame. A good deck, to be sure, and aside from its its finish in Brussels, it seems to have been fine. Let us also not forget it didn't have a single copy in the Top 8 of Kuala Lumpur or Washington DC.
I'm a bit dubious of this, because all the cards you listed are White. what if you're not in White? Then you have no recourse. Pithing Needle and Scrabbling Claws would have been better choices (the former of which may have actually kept CopyCat in check), and I think if Solemnity, in addition to being dropped in cost, had been an artifact (or if there had been anti-energy cards in other colors) it would've worked as well. Although, this is admittedly a nitpick, as your general point is correct.
The evidence I have posted regarding Bitterblossom and Bloodbraid Elf seems to have debunked your claim regarding those. As for Delver, let's take a look at how it did in GPs during Scars-Innistrad Standard:
Brisbane (October 2011): 0/8
Hiroshima (October 2011): 0/8
Orlando (January 2012): 3/8 [1/8 with Delver AND Geist]
Baltimore (February 2012): 1/8
Lille (March 2012): 2/8
Kuala Lumpur (March 2012): 4/8
Salt Lake City (March/April 2012): 5/8
Minneapolis (May 2012): 6/8
Manila (June 2012): 4/8
All right, so we can see some significantly better numbers for Delver than Faeries or Bloodbraid Elf! (we'll disregard the first two because it was just after rotation and people hadn't figured out the power of the deck). So, should Delver have been banned? Well, I thought that Standard was a blast, one of the best I've ever played in in spite of one deck's dominance, so I'd obviously disagree. And it seems a lot of other people would also, considering that Wizards of the Coast cited attendance at competitive events being at a never-before-seen high during Delver's tenure. So people were clearly enjoying Standard. Even if a format lacks diversity, if people in general are enjoying it, why does that need to change? Particularly considering the fact that Delver would be on its way out within a year due to rotation.
As for Collected Company, I'm not sure what banning it would have really done. I believe that it after Eldritch Moon's release that it was considered to really get out of control, but back then they had no opportunity to ban it until Kaladesh, at which point it rotated! So a ban on Collected Company wouldn't have really been possible at the time it was a problem (which is sort of part of the problem with their decision to have bannings coincide with the release of sets). Although, as I've noted, Kaladesh Standard (prior to the bannings) was actually relatively diverse, possibly the most diverse since Innistrad-RTR Standard. Players still didn't like it because, in spite of the relative diversity, it wasn't considered fun due to the lack of answer cards. So this more "hands on" banning approach you suggest actually began with a Standard that was, by Standard's standards at least, relatively diverse rather than being ruled by a single deck.
And this all brings us to one additional point: You advocate them banning more often (rather than simply banning when players are clearly not liking the format), but players don't like it when cards get banned, as it makes them lose confidence. I can tell you that, at least at my store, Standard attendance has been hurt by more bans than anything in the metagame itself. But beyond that anecdotal evidence, let us remember that Standard rotates once a year, so there's already a time limit on how long you can play your deck. The implicit promise that, even if your deck will be gone, you know when it'll be gone and can play it until then, is what lets players put up with the rotation. But toss bans into that area and that whole rationale goes straight out the window. Why play when anytime I pick up a good deck, it can just get itself banned? That may be true for Modern as well, but at least Modern doesn't have an inherent time limit on how long I can play any given deck.
This is not to argue that recent bannings have necessarily been wrong. But it is to say that the philosophy in recent times seems to be due to players walking away from the format, which was not the case for previous cases bannings did not occur. If players enjoy playing Standard, or at least are willing to keep playing it, Wizards of the Coast seems to leave Standard alone. Which makes a lot of sense, why mess with something players will keep playing?
I wrote a lot, so the TL/DR summary: Evidence from Grand Prix results strongly suggests that neither Faeries nor Bloodbraid Elf was actually dominant enough to be considered a real problem. While data regarding attendance is harder to come by, the limited amount we have doesn't suggest a decrease during Faeries. Data does show that Delver was quite dominant, but attendance increased while it was legal, showing that players, far from being put off from it, were actively enjoying the format, so saying a format data shows people liked would be improved by bannings seems highly dubious. There wasn't really an opportunity to ban Collected Company before rotation. So essentially, you are saying that Wizards of the Coat should have banned cards that (1) despite public perception, weren't actually dominant according to data (Bitterblossom, Bloodbraid Elf), (2) players on the whole didn't mind having around (Delver, Geist), or (3) they didn't have an actual opportunity to ban (Collected Company).
Standard isn't going to change until September at the earliest, and WoTC is probably going to short run every single set including masters 25 until the attendance goes up. They actually did short run Rivals and are now being forced into doing a second run due to the popularity.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
I think it's awesome the amount of research that went into this but it is a little disingenuous. If you look at the way the data is represented today, it's not based on the number of top 8 the deck has but more so on its overall played percentage and its win ratio vs everything else.
Faeries was omnipresent when it was legal. I can't check every thing up right now, but my point was not necessarily how dominant any given strategy was but how often it showed up. Jund was also similar, omnipresent. It was not uncommon at the time to play a gp amd ay six straight rounds against it.
Knowing this, i still believe that using today's philosophy to yester year's formats would have seen more cards banned.
But i digressed as ultimately my point isn't really anything new; print better answers to powerful cards. /the end
C Long Live Eldrazi C
There's only 4 pro tours a year. If you have any non-standard ones then at least one of them is not standard constructed after a new set.
Modern Tallowisp Spirits - A Modern Tallowisp Deck UW
Eldrazi Ninjas - Summoning Octopus Jutsu YYYYAAAHHHH!
STANDARD
Naban Wizards
rRd
C Long Live Eldrazi C
By what metric are they weak? because they don't show up in eternal formats? The majority of cards that are printed don't show up in eternal formats because it takes a specific list of things to show up in eternal formats.
Dragons of Legend, Lead by Scion of the UR-Dragon
The Gitrog Monster
Gonti, Lord of Luxury
Shogun Saskia
Hive World
Atraxa hates fun
Abzan
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Aetherworks Marvel I was perfectly ok with it going away even though I played it as long as it was legal. But Temur energy was sad to see go.
I'm a huge fan.
Nothing is top dog for long.
There is one massive downside to this. I have no idea what I am supposed to be playing for a GP coming up. My local meta isn't helpful at all and rarely reflects what I see performing well at other events. While it's nice that it is really robust, it feels a bit like a crapshoot for a major event which again, is both good and bad.
Hey, have fun with it!
Jam a bit on modo if you can.