There is no way around a Looting ban. The card is way too powerful.
People are packing a bunch of gy hate and dredge still has a 56% winrate. That is ridicolous
Much like my view of Probe, I find it ironic that a card which has been legal in Modern for nearly the entirety of the existence of the format, is suddenly broken. But nobody seems to address that the reason why it's "broken" is specifically due to newprintings that abuse free, uncounterable graveyard abilities.
I 2/3rds agree with you. I agree it's similar to Probe (which I felt shouldn't have been banned). I agree that Lootings has been fine for ever. But I disagree that it's simply because of new printings. New printings have made those decks more popular, but the real issue in my mind is that the format lacks general answers to those strategies which can be deployed by almost any deck.
2010 World Champion Guillaume Matignon defeats Thomas Rasmussen in an Izzet Phoenix mirror
Now six-time GP Top 8 competitor Louis-Samuel Deltour (Whir Prison) triumphs over Joseba Garcia (Dredge).
EDIT: Matignon on UR Phoenix takes down Bilbao
So this gets updated:
Since Printing Phoenix on 10/5/18
Total GPs: 6
Total copies of Phoenix in T8: 9
Avg copies per GP: 1.5 (?, 2*, 2*, 2, 1*, 2, 0) *Win
Winners: 3* (Don't know Tampa results yet)
Twin in all of 2015
Total GPs: 8
Total copies of Twin in T8: 10
Avg copies per GP: 1.25 (3*, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1*, 0) *Win
Winners: 2 (vastly different builds, nearly a year apart)
Either Phoenix gets banned, Twin gets unbanned, or WOTC are just massive hypocrites who sold us on a bulls**t banning three years ago.
I see the numbers you've posted and certainly can't dispute them (I'm assuming they're correct without doing the fact-checking myself). The one thing I'd say is that Twin is a combo whereas Phoenix relies on a limited number of attackers. WotC's ban of Twin came with a nod toward allowing more "fair" (read: not combo) U/R decks in the format to thrive. They may think it's easier to interact with Phoenix than it was with Twin and therefore be fine with the numbers.
I'm not saying I agree with that argument, but I'm just presenting it as a possible train of thought which would distinguish the decks and potentially provide a gap in the tolerance for those numbers.
I'm wondering how Horizons will affect prices of existing cards. It's hard to know until the spoilers, but even without reprinting existing cards, it can still affect their prices.
After all, some decks may find cards in it suit them slightly better than certain cards currently in the deck (even if they aren't strictly better, and other decks with that card would still use it), which could cause those cards to turn up for sale, some decks could be made more viable by new inclusions which could result in people buying other cards from those decks, some cards could see strictly better versions turn up and plummet in price, some decks could see enough new hate against them or decks that prey on them rising in the metagame or being created based on the new cards and become less popular with their pieces dropping in demand, and so on.
It's probably good that the shock-lands are currently in print, given the potential for Modern Horizons to increase the popularity of the format. Although of course, that could only make the pressure on the fetch-lands worse, so if that does happen, I hope they'd quickly reprint those in large numbers somehow outside of Standard.
My current operating assumption is that two things will happen.
1. Cards will be printed that will enable low-tier or currently non-existent decks and invalidate current decks. The cards from those invalidated decks which are used solely in those decks will drop in price. However, if this happens at all it will likely only happen to a very small number of decks, maybe not even more than 1 deck.
2. Cards will be printed that boost current strategies. The cards currently used by those strategies will rise in dollar value as their decks become more popular. This has a higher chance of happening to a larger number of decks.
And with either (or both) of those possibilities comes the inevitable meta-game shift which itself could create the same sort of price variations we currently see when the meta shifts.
So overall it is my opinion that buying current staples should be a net financial benefit, but be ready for some of those staples to fall in price. If you diversify the staples and their respective decks you should come out ahead.
There's also a possibility that if Horizons has the kind of impact that the first Modern Masters did, Modern will grow in popularity yet again, also raising the prices of most staples.
That's just what makes sense to me at the moment - certainly don't take it as gospel.
EDIT: And as you mention, there's also the possibility that they print "strictly better" cards. I wouldn't anticipate this happening very broadly. Maybe Counterspell pushes Mana Leak and Remand further out of the format, but those cards aren't widely played at the moment anyway. Similar to #1 above, I wouldn't anticipate this happening to a large portion of the current staples. Remember that it's designed as a draft set so there will be a lot of chaff that doesn't make its way into competitive Modern.
The fact that Mox Amber can't actually cast anything until the Legendary permanent is already on the battlefield makes it aggressively mediocre. It will be interesting to see if someone actually breaks it, but its reliance on things already being there is significantly more difficult than turning on Mox Opal. It's hype and speculation, and I'm guessing many people are going to regret buying them (just like the people who pre-ordered them for $30, only to see it fall to $7).
If White Weenie or Red Sligh type decks ever wanted ramp it would be OK there. But they don't. Maybe Elves, to cut things down by a turn?
Happy with no changes. On top of the obvious things coming down the road - Horizons, potential change to Mulligan rules, and a new Standard set with loads of PWs - I simply don't think any card met a currently-known threshold for bans. I know a large contingent of voices (especially pros) wanted Looting banned but I feel that's a very misguided target.
I really like Modern right now, and think it's at a "medium" place in terms of the format's history. I think "fair" decks need some slight boosts and then it would be pretty perfect. I'm cautiously optimistic about Modern Horizons adding things for historically underrepresented color pairings in Modern, like BUG, Esper, Temur, Bant, Dimir, etc. If they print playable fair cards (don't even have to approach broken) and steer clear of combo and gy enablers in the set then I think we're headed in a great direction.
I like what they are testing out for this new mulligan rule but I would prefer they modify the system and also add the old rule to it. So this is how it should look:
First Mulligan: Draw 7 cards, choose 6 and put one onto the bottom of your library. Scry 1
Second Mulligan: Draw 6, choose 5 and put one onto the bottom of your library. Scry 1
Third Mulligan: Draw 5, choose 4 and put one onto the bottom of your library. Scry 1
So on and so forth afterwards. This I think reduces the chance of combo decks mulligan to the point of getting their combo and also prevents mulligan in second and third games to get your sideboard card (ex. Leylines).
That's a good idea but I think it's just too complicated. They need something that a new player will be able to grasp quickly.
$40/ea on TCGPlayer the lowest we can expect for Noble Hierarch?
I think so, at least in the short run and until it is reprinted again. It already bottomed out to about $30 during the UMA release, but started climbing back up 2 weeks after. I wouldn't sleep on these cards if I were you.
There's a whole bunch that I want to buy play sets of and am just waiting to get money from other cards to fund this (I'm looking at you extra sets of Goryo's Vengeance, Celestial Colonnade, Through the Breach, as well as some from IMA.)
Thank you. I'm sorry I missed the $30 bottom, but just pulled the trigger at $40/each for 4. Especially since no currently-Modern legal cards will be in Modern Horizons, I see these having nowhere to go but up for the foreseeable future.
Wait, you're taking credit for the "idea" to print Modern-legal cards outside of Standard?
That has literally been in every Modern player's mind since the rule was announced that Modern cards must enter by way of Standard. Since the moment the format was announced.
I suspect Cabal Therapist may lure removal, but I'm not quite as sure on that. It's easy to whiff with your first named card.
If Cabal Therapist lures removal then it has done its job. Its job is to remove cards from your opponent's hand. You guess a card, and take any that are there. Maybe none, maybe up to 4. If it gets removed instead then you are guaranteed a card from their hand plus the spent resources.
No reprints whatsoever; I'll be readying my collection for sale some time this year if WotC is planning on giving Modern the Legacy treatment....
Literally printing a full Modern set of cards. I don't see any legacy aimed sets on the horizon.
Scroll to around the 16 minute mark in the video at this link. https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/announcing-modern-horizons-2019-02-28. The reprints are "new to Modern." The tag line on the screen says "New cards + reprints of cards not in Modern (minus basic lands)." So yes, a full set of Modern cards. Once it's released. Before then none of the cards in it are Modern legal.
Too often the Magic community bases speculation on one or more layers of other speculation. There's something to be said for taking an observation to a logical conclusion, but only if you realize that multiple logical conclusions may exist and you acknowledge them.
Is this really our fault, given the lengths and choices they continually make with regards to concealing information, making purposely-vague statements, and generally giving players no meaningful consistency with which to make predictions for future actions?
When the baseless speculation is so often wrong, yes.
Note that's not aimed at you individually. It's aimed at the community as a whole.
Interesting interpretation of the new Mulligan rule from Patrick Sullivan, which only really makes sense if he believes Modern will never make it to Arena:
The more troubling element of this is that it seems so dubious for older formats that one could only be confident in this path if you didn't really care about that impact. With Arena occupying an ever-growing share of the way Magic gets played, it makes some sense to reorganize around that philosophy. The Mythic Championship will be illuminating. But there is an ever-growing signal from Wizards of the Coast that formats that aren't available on Arena will be a lower and lower priority as time goes on, and this proposed mulligan change is some of the loudest signal sent so far.
I suppose this is one interpretation, but it's a few levels of speculation and conspiracies ahead of the a tangible, concrete counterpoint: they are literally trying the rule at a Modern MC. I would be much more concerned if they hand't even announced a Modern MC yet, or were trying the rule on Arena, in Standard, or in a non-Modern venue. But they chose to try it at a Modern version of their biggest event, and they chose to make that event Modern in the first place. The second MC ever (new terminology, not the old PTs) will be Modern, and the first live pilot of the rule will also be Modern. Those are immediate signs of Modern health and long-term support, and I think that outweighs the speculative stretch it takes to believe Sullivan's interpretation.
I completely agree. Too often the Magic community bases speculation on one or more layers of other speculation. There's something to be said for taking an observation to a logical conclusion, but only if you realize that multiple logical conclusions may exist and you acknowledge them.
A great deck building technique which is not talked about very often is the "Elephant" technique. That is a method where you conceive of the best deck build for your particular deck for each matchup and then whittle it down to a full 75. A quick Google search brings up this article from 2013, and I'm sure there are others: http://www.starcitygames.com/article/26317_The-Elephant-Method-A-Case-Study.html.
If you use this method you will often end up with multiple 1-of cards in your SB, because your MD is reconfigured on a card by card basis per matchup.
I'm not saying I agree with that argument, but I'm just presenting it as a possible train of thought which would distinguish the decks and potentially provide a gap in the tolerance for those numbers.
1. Cards will be printed that will enable low-tier or currently non-existent decks and invalidate current decks. The cards from those invalidated decks which are used solely in those decks will drop in price. However, if this happens at all it will likely only happen to a very small number of decks, maybe not even more than 1 deck.
2. Cards will be printed that boost current strategies. The cards currently used by those strategies will rise in dollar value as their decks become more popular. This has a higher chance of happening to a larger number of decks.
And with either (or both) of those possibilities comes the inevitable meta-game shift which itself could create the same sort of price variations we currently see when the meta shifts.
So overall it is my opinion that buying current staples should be a net financial benefit, but be ready for some of those staples to fall in price. If you diversify the staples and their respective decks you should come out ahead.
There's also a possibility that if Horizons has the kind of impact that the first Modern Masters did, Modern will grow in popularity yet again, also raising the prices of most staples.
That's just what makes sense to me at the moment - certainly don't take it as gospel.
EDIT: And as you mention, there's also the possibility that they print "strictly better" cards. I wouldn't anticipate this happening very broadly. Maybe Counterspell pushes Mana Leak and Remand further out of the format, but those cards aren't widely played at the moment anyway. Similar to #1 above, I wouldn't anticipate this happening to a large portion of the current staples. Remember that it's designed as a draft set so there will be a lot of chaff that doesn't make its way into competitive Modern.
I really like Modern right now, and think it's at a "medium" place in terms of the format's history. I think "fair" decks need some slight boosts and then it would be pretty perfect. I'm cautiously optimistic about Modern Horizons adding things for historically underrepresented color pairings in Modern, like BUG, Esper, Temur, Bant, Dimir, etc. If they print playable fair cards (don't even have to approach broken) and steer clear of combo and gy enablers in the set then I think we're headed in a great direction.
That has literally been in every Modern player's mind since the rule was announced that Modern cards must enter by way of Standard. Since the moment the format was announced.
Note that's not aimed at you individually. It's aimed at the community as a whole.
If you use this method you will often end up with multiple 1-of cards in your SB, because your MD is reconfigured on a card by card basis per matchup.