First, if they ban anything with this announcement I will pretty much lose any faith I have in this format. Nothing is currently warping the format to the point of degeneracy. This is especially true for DRS. That card has to be the most fair card printed in recent memory that people have cried out "ban!" on. The card is LITERALLY a situational mana dork that has Grim Lavamancer spliced in. Is it a good card? Hell yes! Is a card that needs to be banned? Of course not.
As for unbannings, here is what I want:
Most Wanted:
-Wild Nacatl: Because this format needs an aggro deck that isn't burn. I know the argument is that with Nacatl in the format it pushes out the other aggro decks but now without Nacatl there simply isn't an aggro deck.
-Sword of the Meek: On a similar note there isn't a real control deck in the format. UWR is a deck I suppose but it feels more of a Aggro-Control Flash deck. When this combo existed in Extended it wasn't a format warping deck until it was smashed into the same deck as HexDepths. Unbanning this AND Nacatl creates stronger extremes forcing the midrange "Jund" decks to become less focused and streamlines as they have to dedicate slots to one half of the spectrum or the other.
-Bitterblossom: Because while this card is VERY good, it isn't ban worthy. I would like to see some Aggro Control besides UWR to help push some of the combo decks out, which can lead to some more potential unbannings.
Tier 2 Wants:
-Grave Troll: Because if DRS is so ubiquitously bonkers then there is no reason Dredge can't be a deck.
-Preordain/Ponder: I think these are still safe to be banned until we unban other things. (Like the above 3). Still, these card can eventually be unbanned, we just need to wait.
-GSZ: I am probably incredibly biased with this choice, but I refuse to believe a creature tutor that makes stuff like Green and Taxes more consistent to be a degenerate thread to the format.
-Visions: I desperately want to play with this card but I want Blossom first and I don't want these both unbanned at the same time.
Cards that can not come off:
-Jitte: Makes the format into Jitte decks and decks that don't care about Jitte.
-Punishing Fire: Single-handedly eliminates a handful of decks that are otherwise completely fair.
Top and Sunrise: For tournament sanity (Time Issues)
Misstep: See Jitte.
- Dragonslayer_90
- Registered User
-
Member for 11 years and 10 months
Last active Thu, Apr, 9 2015 22:28:21
- 1 Follower
- 226 Total Posts
- 3 Thanks
-
2
Koopa posted a message on Temp Banlist Thread: DRS Banned, BB/Nacatl Unbanned!Posted in: Modern -
3
ktkenshinx posted a message on [[Official]] Current Modern Banned List Discussion (4/2013 - 6/2013)Posted in: Modern ArchivesQuote from Timothy, MimeslayerAlso, anyone who thinks that a deck is good enough to win a tournament and then chooses not to play it are being kinda dumb. If I am going to a modern grand prix and I think that infect is the best bet for me to win, I will play it. Who cares if they ban it after I won with it? Also, it isn't like infect is expensive to build.
And yet, on this forum alone, we constantly see players who ask what to invest in and receive advice that they should wait until Modern stabilizes. We see it in local metagames as well, with people reporting that they would rather just play Legacy where they know a deck will be viable and legal two years from now. Attendance at Modern events is neither declining nor booming, but players are definitely worried to invest in such an unstable format. I admit that (hopefully) this will improve with time. But until it does, format investment will remain very low.
Quote from CrumpetThe reason why infect and griselbrand decks don't win gp's is that they are easily disrupted glass cannons.
So if that ever changes, they can be banned at any moment? If another fast deck arises, it can be banned too? I know you are just going to answer "yes", but I want you to consider what that means for deckbuilders and for metagames. It discourages innovation and it discourages diversity. That's terrible for any format, let alone a non-rotating one. Other nonrotating formats allow for metagame adaption to keep "Broken" decks in line. For the most part, it succeeds, and when it doesn't succeed, Wizards intervenes months and months later. Modern has a ban first, ask questions later policy, and it's terrible for our format's publicity.
As for the cards listed above, 1, they are cards and not decks.
Wizards doesn't ban decks. It bans cards. The only exception to this in Magic's history was Affinity in Standard and Block, when multiple cards got banned from the same deck so as to constitute a "deck" banning. But in every other case, cards get banned, not decks.
2: Kitty: Zoo still VERY playable.
BBE: Jund still tier 1
GSZ: still tier 1
Cloudpost: Became Tron, still tier 1-1.5
1. Zoo is fine as a deck, we can agree on that.
2. Jund got rocked at GP Portland, and will likely be continually rocked at future events. UWR is just a better deck.
3. The Punishing Fire ban, which I notice you didn't address, took out a whole chunk of Grixis and RUG control decks that lost their best way of dealing with aggro.
4. Not addressing GSZ or Cloudpost because I didn't mention those cards, and I really hated Twelvepost.
Truth is, if a deck's good, it could end up being nerfed.
Why? For the sake of fairness and equality.
What parallel universe are you living in? Nonrotating formats do not thrive on this kind of instability. Here's the goal of the format in LaPille's own words: "...many of you have called for a non-rotating format that doesn't have the card availability problems of Legacy. We propose Modern as that format."
This format is supposed to be an inheritor of Legacy, a successor and supplement that players can enjoy. But the ban policy of Modern is far more aggressive than that of Legacy, so the intended comparison just doesn't hold up under scrutiny. We want a non-rotating format with long term stability. Until Wizards relents on it ban policy and bannings, that stability is not going to happen, and Modern is not going to be such a format. -
1
Lord Seth posted a message on [[Official]] Current Modern Banned List Discussion (4/2013 - 6/2013)Posted in: Modern Archives -
3
ktkenshinx posted a message on [[Official]] Current Modern Banned List Discussion (4/2013 - 6/2013)Posted in: Modern ArchivesQuote from CrumpetWhy shouldn't you?
Is that a serious question? Really? Do you honestly think that a metagame is healthy when players are afraid to play a deck for fear of seeing it banned? I would normally report a post that consisted of just "LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL", but in this case, Sabertooth gets a pass because his reaction is just too appropriate.
There is no innovation in a format where players are afraid to play and design strong decks. There is no emotional investment either, because no one wants to commit to a deck only to see it banned into oblivion. And of course, there is no financial investment in the format's staples, because bannings might cause cards to devalue overnight.
Now, I understand that Modern is going to have some growing pains, and I understand that its banlist will necessarily be conservative and longer at the beginning. But until the format can find some stability, it is going to continue to be a "Detour" (as Mike Flores so snarkily put it last night) and not a destination. -
4
LandBoySteve posted a message on Why the demise of Legacy is greatly exaggeratedLast night, Maplewood Hobby in NJ had its first sanctioned Legacy event, something nobody thought possible. We only had 8 but still, given the area, nobody expected this. And no proxies either.Posted in: Legacy (Type 1.5)
And diverse?
These were the 8 decks played and the final standings.
1- Team America
2- ANT
3- Burn
4- Look Ma No Lands
5- Punishing Jund
6- Esper Stone Blade
7- Pox
8- Miracles
I played Pox. Had No Lands not top decked a Chrome Mox against me at 2 life and a turn away from lethal from my Mishra's, I would have finished 4th. That's a tough matchup for Pox but I took him to a 3rd game.
Albeit slowly, Legacy is growing in my area. A year ago, I would have had no hope for this.
You can't ask for more than that. -
5
RCarlysle posted a message on THEFT RECOVERY IMMINENTPosted in: Magic GeneralQuote from PorkWhy don't you start giving away your collection? I'm sure we could all use a few of your rares. I just don't understand how people think it is okay to steal another persons property... If this was anyone they would be very upset and be trying to do what ever they can to get there hands back on there collection. Just because Eli had a pretty amazing collections get stolen doesn't mean we should all act like it was his fault and be like "Distribute the Wealth!". If you want to have an amazing collection like he has/did then shovel out some money and buy it yourself. Stop expecting free handouts. Like honestly, what has this world come to?
Is it wrong of me to say that kids should be able to go to a nice public school regardless of the living situation they're in? Is it wrong of me to say that our future children shouldn't be resigned to only Shocklands? Is it wrong of me to say that 'Well Checklands and Shocks are as good as it'll get, may as well just not ask for anything more otherwise its socialism!'
I have a dream! That one day, little black manas and little white manas will be able to come into play UNTAPPED! Judged not by the color of their deck but by the context of their CMC and Off Color Activation costs!
Will this happen tomorrow? Will this happen in the next set? I don't know. Like any Magic Player I ache to open a pack of Beta and get a Black Lotus but that really doesn't matter to me now. I wanted a near mint playset of Force of Will for my Legacy Deck, but I learned that my old Force of Will has allowed me to Counter Spells and keep Legacy as a format together. And Force of Will has allowed me to go up the Arabian Knights Mountains, even though the Guru Special Edition Mountains would have been cooler, but anyways. I've looked over, and I've seen the Promised Black Bordered Dual Lands. I may not get there with you, but we, as a community will get our Black Bordered Underground Seas with updated Rob Alexander Artwork! And as I walk through the valley of the Overpriced Cardshop, I will fear no price tag, for there is E-Bay.
P.S. Since most of you didn't get it the first time around. This is sarcasm.
Edit: TwinSais got it, Fblthp got it too, and he's completely lost in Ravnica! -
2
ktkenshinx posted a message on [[Official]] Compare Modern to Other Formats ThreadPosted in: Modern ArchivesQuote from Sanara@ktkenshinx:
Remember that, for the turn four rule, there are two guidelines: 1) It must be consistent (how much consistent is acording to wizards) and 2) It must be top tier.
Are GV reanimator and infect top tier decks?
You are right in that Wizards needs a deck to be top tier before it faces a banning. Unfortunately, this policy is not doing Modern any favors. One of the biggest Legacy appeals is its relative stability. A deck that you buy today will probably still be around two years from now. It will certainly be around by next year. And that's true of even some of the more broken interactions, like Show and Tell into Omniscience on turn 2 off of City of Traitors. But with Modern, you get the sense that people are afraid to try and push any limits for fear of a ban. It's both an economic phenomenon and a human one. From a financial perspective, no one wants to invest in a deck that, if it succeeds, will just get banned. From a personal perspective, no one wants to put care and time into a deck that is going to be gone in a few months. Will GV get banned next? Or Infect? Or maybe Kiki? Who knows!
It doesn't matter whether the above scenario is the reality of the format. It matters that it is the PERCEPTION of the format that we see time and time again, whether in articles, forums, local metagames, larger regional events, etc. Legacy does not have this instability, and that is one of the huge appeals of a nonrotating format. Insofar as it is supposed to be nonrotating, Modern is not living up to one of the most important qualities of such a format: Stability. -
2
ktkenshinx posted a message on [[Official]] Compare Modern to Other Formats ThreadPosted in: Modern ArchivesQuote from HomelandZecurity
Modern is by no means perfect, and I too disagree with some of WoTc's bans. Still, I think for the most part they've stuck to their guns and are working toward building the format they said they would from the get-go. If you want to play combo in Modern, than you are certainly at a risk, and that's a shame for many players. Still, if you want to invest in the format so you can play it in the future, it's pretty easy to identify which cards and decks are safe and which aren't. That was my point.
I emphasized one of your points that is most problematic for Modern. According to good old Tom LaPille, Wizards tries to ban Legacy cards that enable "consistent" turn 2 wins. Turn 3 is okay, at least in Legacy. For Modern, the goal was to get rid of "consistent" turn 3 wins, but allow turn 4 to stick around.
That word "Consistent", however, has no consistent definition. That's a big problem, because there are plenty of Legacy combo decks that can either win outright on turn 1-2 (Belcher, ANT, SI, etc.), or just set up a position where they virtually win (OmniTell). That seems to be in direct violation of Wizards rule. But, as any Legacy player will tell you, that's not quite accurate. Force of Will and Daze can keep that speed in check, as can Thoughtseize and other spells. So it looks like, at least in Legacy, consistency is not about a decks ability to win solitaire, but a decks ability to win against the cards in the format.
Then there is the Modern definition of "consistent" combo, a definition that is full of contradictions. Glimpse of Nature gets banned because it combos with Heritage Druid and Nettle Sentinel to win on turn 3. But Glistener Elf and Blighted Agent are untouched, even though they can pump to achieve the same win with roughly the same number of cards. And both are creature based, so they are theoretically vulnerable to the same suit of removal we see in most Modern decks: Path and Bolt. Then there's Dread Return, a card that can enable some nasty dredge wins on turn 3, and has been banned since the beginning. But what about Goryo's Vengeance, a card that works in an almost identical manner to produce an almost identical result? All the answers that work on GV are just as effective against DR. So if consistency is supposed to be a function of cards in the format, then why are some Modern cards banned instead of other similar ones?
I admit that the comparison isn't always perfect. Comparing Dredge to GV Reanimator is like comparing Storm to Heartbeat; both win via similar engines and methods, but one is just so much more consistent. But isn't that what our nonrotating card pool is designed to do: Provide answers to decks? With Spell Snare, Path to Exile, and Lightning Bolt able to keep Infect in check, why can we not have a card like Dread Return, when most green decks are maindecking Deathrite Shaman (not to mention all the sideboards)?
This failed definition of "consistent" is one of the worst problems with Modern, and it is one that Legacy has solved with its card pool. -
4
Dyne posted a message on [[Official]] Compare Modern to Other Formats ThreadOh wow, where to begin. Let me start with I have been an avid Legacy player since the format has become Legacy, even before when it was 1.5, so I've been playing it for quite a while.Posted in: Modern Archives
I have also started Modern when it first became a format, not the Invasion+ that Gavin was testing, but actual Modern, so I can't draw experiences from there.
I would also like to say that even though I do play and enjoy both formats, I do have a little bit of a Legacy bias, so that may come out in this post.
Modern is still young. It has the support from WotC, it's non-rotating (which is good) and is very fun. One of the main problems with Modern, and I'm starting to see this a bit more in Legacy, is player entitlement. WotC promoted this format to be the affordable non-rotating format. Is it affordable? That depends on what your comparing it too. If you compare this format to Legacy, then by comparison, yes, it is affordable. However, not everyone can afford Legacy in the first place, so what makes you think People who play Standard now, or have only started playing MTG, can afford this format?
Which is another strike against it. It is supported so much, that people want to play it. They want to play it in FNM. They want to play it at GP's, because these opportunities are given to them. The problem is, a lot of people can't. Now this is where the good news comes in. There is NO reserved list for Modern, which is great news if you know anything about Legacy. That means they can reprint anything they want in this format. Which is what Modern Masters is supposed to do. Great idea, terrible execution.
And that seems to be what a lot of the complaining is about with Modern. Terrible execution, with a lot of the formats decisions. No heavier backlash then the B&R announcements that keep rearing their head in this format. Which brings me back to the age of the format. It's still young, and still has kinks to be worked out, but banning pre-maturely, even before the format had it's 1st game played, seems a little brash.
Now, Legacy had 1.5 to learn from in this area. The difference was, Legacy was not all that supported by WotC. Which is both good and bad. The good, means that the dedicated players will play the format, regardless of support for it, which is good, because more formats need this type of attitude to stay healthy (aka. Modern). What was also good about this was there was no pressure regarding the format, which meant it time to work itself out. This is not what has happened with Modern.
Modern as a format was implemented to replace Extended for a PT. It was, IMO, rushed and not done properly. However the idea of Modern got people excited, and the format took off. The problem is now, it's turning back into Extended. People are not enjoying the micro-managed format, and that all comes back to poor execution by WotC. -
2
ktkenshinx posted a message on [[Official]] Compare Modern to Other Formats ThreadPosted in: Modern ArchivesQuote from bocephusI guess we just will agree to disagree. Because I really can not understand your side of the argument. 3 cards at instant speed, who cares what the cards are, is drooled about by most Magic players. Yet you wish to discount it. It simply amazes me.
As I have mentioned before, it's easy for anyone to just use rhetoric alone to try and make a point. But is there any actual evidence to support your claim?
I can find ample evidence to the contrary. I looked to Pro Tour Austin from October 2009, an Extended event for which both Ancestral Vision and Violent Outburst were legal. With a smaller card pool than Modern and comparatively worse/slower decks, it is the event where we would most expect to see a Vision/Outburst pairing in a competitive deck. There are differences between the two formats (Nacatl was legal at PT Austin, for example, as was Bitterblossom), but it is the closest point of comparison we have. If anything, these differences would make the combo MORE likely to be played, not less, because the metagame would have been slower and more narrow.
Certainly, with all the varied pros in attendance, we could safely guess that at least one of them figured this combo out and tested it. But did anyone actually pilot the combo at the event?
Of course, the answer is "No". Not a single one of the 418 pros in attendance thought this combo was worth bringing to the Pro Tour. Of the 77 players who scored 18 or more points, only 7 actually ran AV at all. 2 ran cascade engines, one for Living End and the other for Hypergenesis. No one in those top 77 ran both. What of the players in the lower brackets? The pros who just showed up and did not score 18 or better in the Extended rounds? Not a single one of them tried out the combo.
It is important to emphasize that PT Austin is a decent comparison point to Modern. It is a slower version of our format without the explosiveness of Infect or Affinity. It also lacked the midrange options of a souped up Jund and Geist list. But if anything, this only made it more hospitable to a possible AV and VO combination. More decks could have run this combo without fear of cascading into something bad against a Gruul Blitz. More decks could have run this combo as a way of getting added tempo against powerful Bitterblossom-based control. The powered-down midrange decks could have run this combo to gain some card advantage, or cascade into Bob/Goyf/disruption. And yet, none of them did.
Again, it is easy to just talk about how a card or combination might be good. But the available evidence will always provide the last word. In the case of Violent Outburst and Ancestral Vision, I think it's pretty clear that this is not the synergy that is going to break either card, let alone the format. - To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1
2
I can corroborate that since I'm one of the new guys who came yesterday. Glad to have met you WorstBandNameEver.