Free free then, to bask in your sense of superior reasoning.
Claiming the Modern PT was unsolicited is comical however, I guess we can agree to disagree on that one too. :]
You think they have perfect knowledge, I think they have bias and corporate goals. /shrug
I don't feel as though I have a superior sense of reasoning, I simply take offense to you telling me what my line of reasoning is. To me that is very presumptuous on your part and I make every effort to never assume what line of reasoning another person takes to draw their conclusions unless they explicitly state what line they took.
To my knowledge it hasn't had a large vocal group of players asking for it to return which is why I prefaced my statement with "seemingly", for the most part I was under the impression that most players had been happier with the No PT = lighter ban hammerings as WotC did explicitly stated that with Modern as a PT format it will be more prone to needing bannings. Again I used the word seemingly which means that this is the impression that I had given the facts regarding it, though I could be very wrong might be a whole reddit devoted to pestering them about it and I am simply not aware of it.
I wouldn't disagree that they have corporate goals as they are a capitalist enterprise and have to turn a profit to justify their existence, so sure that "bias" has to exist by their very nature. I think they have perfect knowledge because every single sanctioned event has to have its results reported to them, plus they have access to every single Online events results so as far as information regarding the state of any given meta-game they do have perfect knowledge. That doesn't mean I think they always make perfect decisions based on this knowledge as they are human and are by default prone to error but it seems pretty "bias" on your part to deny that they have the information I was referring too.
Either way, I think you are looking to pick a fight with me bizzy, not FCG. I couldnt be bothered though. You think Wizards is doing good things. I think them doing next to nothing is about the best we can expect. You think they must now be happy with the format, I think they just want to higher view numbers Modern brings.
In the end you have no data (until they say 'oh yes we just love modern now!') and neither do I. :]
No that isn't my opinion I have a opinion more in line with the Rule of the Golden Middle not the Rule of Excluded Middle, some stuff they do I agree with some stuff I disagree with, things are often good and bad. I generally think we have to defer to things they do based on their information about things like prevalence of x or y etc.. because they have perfect knowledge and we have never had that so IMO we have to assume that the perfect data sets they have reveal things that might not be shown with the far narrower information we have ever had access to.
I would say that your claim is far more speculative than mine no the PT issue, simply because we know that WotC had pretty consistently in the past disliked Modern as a PT format and have given reasons for why they feel this way, to me a seemingly unsolicited return to the format should show that something has changed in the format that caused them to reevaluate their previous opinion and change it. So we actually do have some "data" ( I would prefer Proclamations regarding it as I don't think "data" suits what are essentially rhetorical justifications) that "data" would be previous statements made regarding why they don't like Modern as a PT format.
Heh both? Unlike Wizards I'm of the opinion more data gives better discussion.
Sorry but that isn't what they claimed the data restriction was about, has nothing to do with "better discussions" this is some kinda crazy attitude that people have towards WotC every thing they do sucks, except you know producing the game we all play.
For the most part, I love what Wizards has done. They created a long standing game that has millions of followers. They have allowed us to play ---- for so long in Modern. They have allowed Affinity, Pod, Bloom, and many other decks for some periods of time and I thank them for that. It also doesn't mean that I'm not going to call them out on something that I don't agree with.
Admittedly a lot of the bannings that have been done are justified and ended up being very good. But there's still some I don't agree with and I think that many people can agree that their handling of Modern has been less than stellar, even if it is a format that we all have enjoyed for 1-6 years.
The bottom line - Wizards of the Coast has done a very good job overall.
Thats all fine and dandy, I was being critical of your statement in the first Post that portrayed WotC as geared towards something that it had nothing to do with which fallows the trend of "WotC are stupid, don't understand the game, etc..." just add essentially whatever pejorative claim you want. In the case of your post it is that WotC is in opposition to "better discussion" which had nothing to do with their changes regarding them no longer sharing their information with us in the way they had previously.
I personally have been amused reading all of the fear around the return of the Modern PT, just a few days ago people complaining that they don't pay enough attention to the format and suddenly now that it will certainly receive a much higher profile level of attention people are what? still complaining.
I've enjoyed Modern since they created the format with a small window of the Eldrazi Winter in which every meta-game offered something interesting.
I personally think that the return of the Modern PT shows that WotC is happier with the Format than it was when it decided to remove it from the PT all together.
Heh both? Unlike Wizards I'm of the opinion more data gives better discussion.
Sorry but that isn't what they claimed the data restriction was about, has nothing to do with "better discussions" this is some kinda crazy attitude that people have towards WotC every thing they do sucks, except you know producing the game we all play.
I take the return of the Modern Pro Tour as a clear sign that they are much happier with the types of results at Modern events than in the previous Meta-games in which they deemed the format as a bad Pro Tour format and removed it.
I wonder how those of you who have aspirations to making to the PT grinding Modern GP's and such feel over all, I play online only so its really only a interesting event to look forward to watching for me.
Hasn't the argument against GSZ always been that it would just slot into Jund/Junk, thereby making two Tier 1 decks far more consistent and powerful?
Correct me if I'm wrong, I have no opinion on GSZ either way.
I'm pretty sure the argument against GSZ is that it is functionally copies 5-8 of any given green creature in your deck and its live every turn of the game. Essentially just way to good at what it does. If it didn't shuffle back into your deck or if it cost xGG it wouldn't be busted but at its current cost its a pretty clear example of poor design.
Is gsz any more broken than turn 3 karn, turn 3 or 4 storm kills, mox opal, eldrazi temple or anything else currently in modern. It's also not like the green creature decks are good at the moment
First off I don't think the argument of X,Y, and Z are broken hence we should unban known broken card A is a valid argument. Second I think its more banned for the same kind of reasons that Ponder and Preordained are banned it makes the decks it is played in to consistent. It seems that people are quick to forget just how powerful a card like GSZ, I would think that Green decks would need to be in terrible shape for prolonged period before even considering unbanninga card such as GSZ after all it wasn't but a few weeks back that CoCo decks where sitting at T1 and we don't have any real expectations for what the long term trends in the meta-game will look like and it could just be that dropping out of T1 to T2 and back again might be the new norm for such decks.
Why do you not think it's a valid argument? If your argument against it is that it makes decks too consistent how do you feel about grixis death shadow, it is the most consistent deck in modern and plays 12 cantrips. Modern has changed so much since the days of counter cat and it has become much more powerful. If eldrazi tron is going to be one of the most popular decks in the format it's hard to see green sun zenith doing much harm. It's not even a lock to be played in the company decks as it's another non creature spell and it's arguably worse than chord in those decks
At what point does the "x, y, and z are broken so unban broken card A" end? you just create a situation in which you cannot really justify anything being banned because after all in might be busted but x, y, and z will still be busted and busted card A is now removed so what justification could their be for busted card B, C, D, E etc... being banned? This is a classic reductio ad absurdum argument unless at some point you request special pleading in which you place demand we give GSZ a specific exemption for consideration which I don't think it deserves. Not every card is banned for it being individually broken, TC by itself isn't broken it is the types of games that it facilitated that are broken, same with the cheap ramp, not fundamentally broken on its own, T1 get 2 red for 1 card isn't broken it is the types of out comes it facilitates in specific decks that broken, if all we did with it was cheat out a 2 drop on 1 etc... it would be fine since that is just a recipe for 2 for 1ing yourself.
I didn't say my argument was that it made decks to consistent I said that his is the reasoning that WotC gave. "On turn one, this can give the acceleration of a Llanowar Elves by getting a Dryad Arbor. On later turns, it can get a large creature or a one-of "toolbox" creature such as Gaddock Teeg. While this is interesting, it is also too efficient. If one intends to build a deck that has turn-one accelerants, Green Sun's Zenith is a great choice. If one wants to more access to utility green creatures, Green Sun's Zenith is a great choice. If one wants to more reliably get a large green creature, such as a Primeval Titan, onto the battlefield, Green Sun's Zenith is a great choice. However, this ends up with fewer different decks being played in practice, as Green Sun's Zenith is such a good choice that there are fewer green decks that do anything else. The DCI hopes that banning Green Sun's Zenith increases diversity among Modern green decks."(http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/explanation-september-2011-br-changes-2011-09-20)
I don't know why your pointing to counter-cat as though it was ever a consistent T1 deck that was a hallmark of the format, just a weird deck to point to as though it was the deck par excellence. I don't agree that GDS is the most consistent deck, I play the deck and one of the most consistent ways to lose a game is to have your first threat killed and never draw into a second, DSJund is far more consistent since it can actually directly search up a threat it is just not favored in the mirror which is why it fell out of of favor and Grixis still suffers from the same problems Grixis aggro-control decks based around the delve creatures have always had sometimes you just spin your wheels and don't ever hit one of your 8 major threats.
I mean currently they have done decent at printing an answer in Hour of Devastation. solemnity is a step int he right direction for answers and with the reintroduction of core sets I feel we should be getting more answers or reprinted answers from past sets. At this point I have hope that wizards will follow their word on helping with the lack of answers so only time can tell.
I disagree. This is more of a combo-enabler than an "answer." What exactly does it "answer"? The now-totally-irrelevant Infect?
Wizards has a long way to go before we can reliably believe they are willing or capable of printing reasonable answer cards.
It is a little unrealistic to expect them to print a answer in a upcoming set for a issue that is currently relevant to the Meta. While Solemnity does help with a deck that is currently irrelevant, the card itself was likely designed a year to a two years ago. I doubt it was designed with anymore purpose than hosing the current Standard Energy decks and that any infect hate was simply a happy coincidence like with Fatal Push.
Its probably also unrealistic to conflate Standard playable answers with Modern playable ones. They will likely print more answers to threats in Standard but that doesn't mean anything in regards to breaking the trend of Standard level answers not being good/efficient enough for Modern. I don't doubt WotC will print more answers for Standard but main deck worthy answers that are Modern playable will probably still be very sparse and we are more likely to get some SB options for the already strained SB configurations we have now.
Without the actual quote, it's tough to analyze exactly what he meant. I've been looking for it and have not been able to find it. I think it was on either an old tweet or on his Blogatog. Either way, I remember he very candidly mentions how threats have been outpacing answers and that the ramp up of better answers begins with Hour. If he only means Standard answers, then we have very little to look forward to in terms of Modern playable answers moving forward. And if he thinks something like Solemnity is an "answer" then we have bigger problems at hand. I'll keep looking for that quote in the meantime.
Well we know for a fact that R&D designs for Standard and Limited first and foremost. Fatal Push was not designed for Modern, it was designed for standard and it was recognized that it would be very good in larger non-rotating formats but that isn't why it was designed. I really do think that the printing of that card while great for the format has also kind of made many of us collectively forget how rare it actually is to get main deck playable non-creature spells for modern, we don't get directly injected stuff like Legacy does and more often we get things like like Kcommand, or the modal spells which are not fantastic answers as much as very flexible options.
They did discuss how threats out paced answers but that was very specifically a conversation about standard and how the rash of recent bannings in standard was due to the lack of answers for the actual threats that they developed; much of the criticism from high profile players was that something like Pithing Needle or Oblivion Ring would have prevented most of the bannings which obviously if reprinted wouldn't have added anything new or useful respectively to the Modern format.
I am hopeful that the return of the core set will be a better outlet for more consistent potential for Modern playable answers and generally better non-creature spells. IMO block sets will still suffer from the same issues that keep most of the cards in them somewhat useless in modern i.e. that they are designed to be connected to set mechanics/themes, which core sets do not have to do.
I haven't seen a good argument for a GSZ unban ever, but FoodChainGoblins is probably right. I think it would see play in Elves for sure, and it would create some new archetypes, such as the aforementioned GW Midrange deck. The card opens up a lot of possibilities, and that's what I want to see in an unban.
Hasn't the argument against GSZ always been that it would just slot into Jund/Junk, thereby making two Tier 1 decks far more consistent and powerful?
Correct me if I'm wrong, I have no opinion on GSZ either way.
I'm pretty sure the argument against GSZ is that it is functionally copies 5-8 of any given green creature in your deck and its live every turn of the game. Essentially just way to good at what it does. If it didn't shuffle back into your deck or if it cost xGG it wouldn't be busted but at its current cost its a pretty clear example of poor design.
Is gsz any more broken than turn 3 karn, turn 3 or 4 storm kills, mox opal, eldrazi temple or anything else currently in modern. It's also not like the green creature decks are good at the moment
First off I don't think the argument of X,Y, and Z are broken hence we should unban known broken card A is a valid argument. Second I think its more banned for the same kind of reasons that Ponder and Preordained are banned it makes the decks it is played in to consistent. It seems that people are quick to forget just how powerful a card like GSZ, I would think that Green decks would need to be in terrible shape for prolonged period before even considering unbanninga card such as GSZ after all it wasn't but a few weeks back that CoCo decks where sitting at T1 and we don't have any real expectations for what the long term trends in the meta-game will look like and it could just be that dropping out of T1 to T2 and back again might be the new norm for such decks.
I haven't seen a good argument for a GSZ unban ever, but FoodChainGoblins is probably right. I think it would see play in Elves for sure, and it would create some new archetypes, such as the aforementioned GW Midrange deck. The card opens up a lot of possibilities, and that's what I want to see in an unban.
Hasn't the argument against GSZ always been that it would just slot into Jund/Junk, thereby making two Tier 1 decks far more consistent and powerful?
Correct me if I'm wrong, I have no opinion on GSZ either way.
I'm pretty sure the argument against GSZ is that it is functionally copies 5-8 of any given green creature in your deck and its live every turn of the game. Essentially just way to good at what it does. If it didn't shuffle back into your deck or if it cost xGG it wouldn't be busted but at its current cost its a pretty clear example of poor design.
I mean currently they have done decent at printing an answer in Hour of Devastation. solemnity is a step int he right direction for answers and with the reintroduction of core sets I feel we should be getting more answers or reprinted answers from past sets. At this point I have hope that wizards will follow their word on helping with the lack of answers so only time can tell.
I disagree. This is more of a combo-enabler than an "answer." What exactly does it "answer"? The now-totally-irrelevant Infect?
Wizards has a long way to go before we can reliably believe they are willing or capable of printing reasonable answer cards.
It is a little unrealistic to expect them to print a answer in a upcoming set for a issue that is currently relevant to the Meta. While Solemnity does help with a deck that is currently irrelevant, the card itself was likely designed a year to a two years ago. I doubt it was designed with anymore purpose than hosing the current Standard Energy decks and that any infect hate was simply a happy coincidence like with Fatal Push.
Its probably also unrealistic to conflate Standard playable answers with Modern playable ones. They will likely print more answers to threats in Standard but that doesn't mean anything in regards to breaking the trend of Standard level answers not being good/efficient enough for Modern. I don't doubt WotC will print more answers for Standard but main deck worthy answers that are Modern playable will probably still be very sparse and we are more likely to get some SB options for the already strained SB configurations we have now.
I'm not saying Eldrazi Tron is a problem. A poster asked what would be good cards to be printed in the next set which would be good for the modern metagame, and I said I'd like to see some tribal hate, like engineered plague.
I imagine we will have to wait until we have another Eldrazi focused block, it will happen unless WotC decides to abandon the current story line which still has 2 of the 3 big Eldrazi running around the multiverse. Hopefully they print a useful "destroy target colorless creature" spell but i would be willing to bet that they would cost it at 3-4 mana
Why? Narrow hate cards rarely cost that much. The newest mono-color hate cards are all inexpensive. If the "destroy target colorless creature" is a sorcery, I expect it will cost 1 mana. 2 mana if it's an instant.
Because things printed generally need to have some relation to the set/block it gets printed in. C.Rejection for instance was printed in a block with a ton of colorless targets. I doubt we will see another artifact focused block before we have another Eldrazi focused block.
I think it will be even less likely with the single set block structure that we will see after the last 2 set block, WotC will have even less space to just put a non-functional card with regards to the set design. Its not like a destroy target colorless creature spell would be nearly as potentially useful as something like Negate which while narrow always has a potential for being useful given that ruffly half of the non-land cards in a set are non-creature spells. You would really need enough targets in a set to even consider designing a card like that.
I only put the cost so high because of the eldrazi's standing in the story, they are intended to be the Lovecraftian extra-dimensional monsters, which makes me think it would be "harder" and hence more expensive to deal with one in such a direct way. Then again maybe the next time we see the Eldrazi will be the last and WotC plans on letting the gatewatch win over them and finish this story line off in which case maybe we get a cycle of "kill" spells in each color that are cheap and target colorless or specifically Eldrazi creature types.
I certainly hope that the next set isn't a slew of more 2-5 costed intentionally OP'ed creatures with no real means of regulating them effectively but that is also a possibility.
I wasn't calling for a specific Eldrazi hate card to be printed, I was calling for a generic tribal hate card like:
Tribal hate makes sense in a set that's about pirates vs. dinosaurs. Plus, it would fit the story if they decide to have dinosaurs go extinct.
oh yeah, I doubt WotC will ever print such strong hate ever again. They certainly don't want to make a tribal set and then produce a hate card that makes the entire theme of the set not good for constructed. They just don't do design the game that way anymore.
I'm not saying Eldrazi Tron is a problem. A poster asked what would be good cards to be printed in the next set which would be good for the modern metagame, and I said I'd like to see some tribal hate, like engineered plague.
I imagine we will have to wait until we have another Eldrazi focused block, it will happen unless WotC decides to abandon the current story line which still has 2 of the 3 big Eldrazi running around the multiverse. Hopefully they print a useful "destroy target colorless creature" spell but i would be willing to bet that they would cost it at 3-4 mana
Why? Narrow hate cards rarely cost that much. The newest mono-color hate cards are all inexpensive. If the "destroy target colorless creature" is a sorcery, I expect it will cost 1 mana. 2 mana if it's an instant.
Because things printed generally need to have some relation to the set/block it gets printed in. C.Rejection for instance was printed in a block with a ton of colorless targets. I doubt we will see another artifact focused block before we have another Eldrazi focused block.
I think it will be even less likely with the single set block structure that we will see after the last 2 set block, WotC will have even less space to just put a non-functional card with regards to the set design. Its not like a destroy target colorless creature spell would be nearly as potentially useful as something like Negate which while narrow always has a potential for being useful given that ruffly half of the non-land cards in a set are non-creature spells. You would really need enough targets in a set to even consider designing a card like that.
I only put the cost so high because of the eldrazi's standing in the story, they are intended to be the Lovecraftian extra-dimensional monsters, which makes me think it would be "harder" and hence more expensive to deal with one in such a direct way. Then again maybe the next time we see the Eldrazi will be the last and WotC plans on letting the gatewatch win over them and finish this story line off in which case maybe we get a cycle of "kill" spells in each color that are cheap and target colorless or specifically Eldrazi creature types.
I certainly hope that the next set isn't a slew of more 2-5 costed intentionally OP'ed creatures with no real means of regulating them effectively but that is also a possibility.
I'm not saying Eldrazi Tron is a problem. A poster asked what would be good cards to be printed in the next set which would be good for the modern metagame, and I said I'd like to see some tribal hate, like engineered plague.
I imagine we will have to wait until we have another Eldrazi focused block, it will happen unless WotC decides to abandon the current story line which still has 2 of the 3 big Eldrazi running around the multiverse. Hopefully they print a useful "destroy target colorless creature" spell but i would be willing to bet that they would cost it at 3-4 mana
Twin had a very linear win con and but was also a very interactive deck, but all the interaction was essentially a mirage a means to the same end the decks end game goal was to combo win.
Goyf was a headache when bolt was the best removal
I knew push would be the best removal, I didn't foresee how much worse it'd make Goyf, because it seemed too much of the "dies to doom-blade" argument
Honestly I don't think it's push as much as its DS/Tas/Angler in Grixis all are always in case of DS or very often larger or as large but cheaper. A 5/5 for B makes a 4/5 for 1G bad. Add to it that Grixis' only big beater that dies to Push is DS itself leaving the other half untouched by the most common removal and you often can cast them on T2 while leaving up Denial just makes the deck way better in the mirror.
Its not like JundDS is "bad" so much as it isn't favored in the DS mirror. DS decks also just make traditional Jund bad as they are aggro decks that invalidate the traditional mid-range strategy of "mid-range creature > aggro creature" gofy was fantastic when the best 1c.c. creatures your opponent would be running were 2/2's and 3/3's but when your opponent is casting 6/6's, 5/5's and 4/5's for 1c.c. mid-range loses a crucial edge that traditionally made it a strong strategy. Add to this that DS decks are aggro-control decks and Control elements have always been strong against Jund type decks, so they essentially get the best of both worlds aggro creatures that trump Junds mid-range options and utilizes the same powerful control spells that Jund itself looks to employ.
DS isn't a mid-range deck, the mirrors often feel mid-rangish but that is actually very common for aggro v aggro matches.
I don't feel as though I have a superior sense of reasoning, I simply take offense to you telling me what my line of reasoning is. To me that is very presumptuous on your part and I make every effort to never assume what line of reasoning another person takes to draw their conclusions unless they explicitly state what line they took.
To my knowledge it hasn't had a large vocal group of players asking for it to return which is why I prefaced my statement with "seemingly", for the most part I was under the impression that most players had been happier with the No PT = lighter ban hammerings as WotC did explicitly stated that with Modern as a PT format it will be more prone to needing bannings. Again I used the word seemingly which means that this is the impression that I had given the facts regarding it, though I could be very wrong might be a whole reddit devoted to pestering them about it and I am simply not aware of it.
I wouldn't disagree that they have corporate goals as they are a capitalist enterprise and have to turn a profit to justify their existence, so sure that "bias" has to exist by their very nature. I think they have perfect knowledge because every single sanctioned event has to have its results reported to them, plus they have access to every single Online events results so as far as information regarding the state of any given meta-game they do have perfect knowledge. That doesn't mean I think they always make perfect decisions based on this knowledge as they are human and are by default prone to error but it seems pretty "bias" on your part to deny that they have the information I was referring too.
No that isn't my opinion I have a opinion more in line with the Rule of the Golden Middle not the Rule of Excluded Middle, some stuff they do I agree with some stuff I disagree with, things are often good and bad. I generally think we have to defer to things they do based on their information about things like prevalence of x or y etc.. because they have perfect knowledge and we have never had that so IMO we have to assume that the perfect data sets they have reveal things that might not be shown with the far narrower information we have ever had access to.
I would say that your claim is far more speculative than mine no the PT issue, simply because we know that WotC had pretty consistently in the past disliked Modern as a PT format and have given reasons for why they feel this way, to me a seemingly unsolicited return to the format should show that something has changed in the format that caused them to reevaluate their previous opinion and change it. So we actually do have some "data" ( I would prefer Proclamations regarding it as I don't think "data" suits what are essentially rhetorical justifications) that "data" would be previous statements made regarding why they don't like Modern as a PT format.
Thats all fine and dandy, I was being critical of your statement in the first Post that portrayed WotC as geared towards something that it had nothing to do with which fallows the trend of "WotC are stupid, don't understand the game, etc..." just add essentially whatever pejorative claim you want. In the case of your post it is that WotC is in opposition to "better discussion" which had nothing to do with their changes regarding them no longer sharing their information with us in the way they had previously.
I personally have been amused reading all of the fear around the return of the Modern PT, just a few days ago people complaining that they don't pay enough attention to the format and suddenly now that it will certainly receive a much higher profile level of attention people are what? still complaining.
I've enjoyed Modern since they created the format with a small window of the Eldrazi Winter in which every meta-game offered something interesting.
I personally think that the return of the Modern PT shows that WotC is happier with the Format than it was when it decided to remove it from the PT all together.
Sorry but that isn't what they claimed the data restriction was about, has nothing to do with "better discussions" this is some kinda crazy attitude that people have towards WotC every thing they do sucks, except you know producing the game we all play.
I wonder how those of you who have aspirations to making to the PT grinding Modern GP's and such feel over all, I play online only so its really only a interesting event to look forward to watching for me.
At what point does the "x, y, and z are broken so unban broken card A" end? you just create a situation in which you cannot really justify anything being banned because after all in might be busted but x, y, and z will still be busted and busted card A is now removed so what justification could their be for busted card B, C, D, E etc... being banned? This is a classic reductio ad absurdum argument unless at some point you request special pleading in which you place demand we give GSZ a specific exemption for consideration which I don't think it deserves. Not every card is banned for it being individually broken, TC by itself isn't broken it is the types of games that it facilitated that are broken, same with the cheap ramp, not fundamentally broken on its own, T1 get 2 red for 1 card isn't broken it is the types of out comes it facilitates in specific decks that broken, if all we did with it was cheat out a 2 drop on 1 etc... it would be fine since that is just a recipe for 2 for 1ing yourself.
I didn't say my argument was that it made decks to consistent I said that his is the reasoning that WotC gave. "On turn one, this can give the acceleration of a Llanowar Elves by getting a Dryad Arbor. On later turns, it can get a large creature or a one-of "toolbox" creature such as Gaddock Teeg. While this is interesting, it is also too efficient. If one intends to build a deck that has turn-one accelerants, Green Sun's Zenith is a great choice. If one wants to more access to utility green creatures, Green Sun's Zenith is a great choice. If one wants to more reliably get a large green creature, such as a Primeval Titan, onto the battlefield, Green Sun's Zenith is a great choice. However, this ends up with fewer different decks being played in practice, as Green Sun's Zenith is such a good choice that there are fewer green decks that do anything else. The DCI hopes that banning Green Sun's Zenith increases diversity among Modern green decks."(http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/explanation-september-2011-br-changes-2011-09-20)
I don't know why your pointing to counter-cat as though it was ever a consistent T1 deck that was a hallmark of the format, just a weird deck to point to as though it was the deck par excellence. I don't agree that GDS is the most consistent deck, I play the deck and one of the most consistent ways to lose a game is to have your first threat killed and never draw into a second, DSJund is far more consistent since it can actually directly search up a threat it is just not favored in the mirror which is why it fell out of of favor and Grixis still suffers from the same problems Grixis aggro-control decks based around the delve creatures have always had sometimes you just spin your wheels and don't ever hit one of your 8 major threats.
Well we know for a fact that R&D designs for Standard and Limited first and foremost. Fatal Push was not designed for Modern, it was designed for standard and it was recognized that it would be very good in larger non-rotating formats but that isn't why it was designed. I really do think that the printing of that card while great for the format has also kind of made many of us collectively forget how rare it actually is to get main deck playable non-creature spells for modern, we don't get directly injected stuff like Legacy does and more often we get things like like Kcommand, or the modal spells which are not fantastic answers as much as very flexible options.
They did discuss how threats out paced answers but that was very specifically a conversation about standard and how the rash of recent bannings in standard was due to the lack of answers for the actual threats that they developed; much of the criticism from high profile players was that something like Pithing Needle or Oblivion Ring would have prevented most of the bannings which obviously if reprinted wouldn't have added anything new or useful respectively to the Modern format.
I am hopeful that the return of the core set will be a better outlet for more consistent potential for Modern playable answers and generally better non-creature spells. IMO block sets will still suffer from the same issues that keep most of the cards in them somewhat useless in modern i.e. that they are designed to be connected to set mechanics/themes, which core sets do not have to do.
First off I don't think the argument of X,Y, and Z are broken hence we should unban known broken card A is a valid argument. Second I think its more banned for the same kind of reasons that Ponder and Preordained are banned it makes the decks it is played in to consistent. It seems that people are quick to forget just how powerful a card like GSZ, I would think that Green decks would need to be in terrible shape for prolonged period before even considering unbanninga card such as GSZ after all it wasn't but a few weeks back that CoCo decks where sitting at T1 and we don't have any real expectations for what the long term trends in the meta-game will look like and it could just be that dropping out of T1 to T2 and back again might be the new norm for such decks.
I'm pretty sure the argument against GSZ is that it is functionally copies 5-8 of any given green creature in your deck and its live every turn of the game. Essentially just way to good at what it does. If it didn't shuffle back into your deck or if it cost xGG it wouldn't be busted but at its current cost its a pretty clear example of poor design.
It is a little unrealistic to expect them to print a answer in a upcoming set for a issue that is currently relevant to the Meta. While Solemnity does help with a deck that is currently irrelevant, the card itself was likely designed a year to a two years ago. I doubt it was designed with anymore purpose than hosing the current Standard Energy decks and that any infect hate was simply a happy coincidence like with Fatal Push.
Its probably also unrealistic to conflate Standard playable answers with Modern playable ones. They will likely print more answers to threats in Standard but that doesn't mean anything in regards to breaking the trend of Standard level answers not being good/efficient enough for Modern. I don't doubt WotC will print more answers for Standard but main deck worthy answers that are Modern playable will probably still be very sparse and we are more likely to get some SB options for the already strained SB configurations we have now.
oh yeah, I doubt WotC will ever print such strong hate ever again. They certainly don't want to make a tribal set and then produce a hate card that makes the entire theme of the set not good for constructed. They just don't do design the game that way anymore.
Because things printed generally need to have some relation to the set/block it gets printed in. C.Rejection for instance was printed in a block with a ton of colorless targets. I doubt we will see another artifact focused block before we have another Eldrazi focused block.
I think it will be even less likely with the single set block structure that we will see after the last 2 set block, WotC will have even less space to just put a non-functional card with regards to the set design. Its not like a destroy target colorless creature spell would be nearly as potentially useful as something like Negate which while narrow always has a potential for being useful given that ruffly half of the non-land cards in a set are non-creature spells. You would really need enough targets in a set to even consider designing a card like that.
I only put the cost so high because of the eldrazi's standing in the story, they are intended to be the Lovecraftian extra-dimensional monsters, which makes me think it would be "harder" and hence more expensive to deal with one in such a direct way. Then again maybe the next time we see the Eldrazi will be the last and WotC plans on letting the gatewatch win over them and finish this story line off in which case maybe we get a cycle of "kill" spells in each color that are cheap and target colorless or specifically Eldrazi creature types.
I certainly hope that the next set isn't a slew of more 2-5 costed intentionally OP'ed creatures with no real means of regulating them effectively but that is also a possibility.
I imagine we will have to wait until we have another Eldrazi focused block, it will happen unless WotC decides to abandon the current story line which still has 2 of the 3 big Eldrazi running around the multiverse. Hopefully they print a useful "destroy target colorless creature" spell but i would be willing to bet that they would cost it at 3-4 mana
Twin had a very linear win con and but was also a very interactive deck, but all the interaction was essentially a mirage a means to the same end the decks end game goal was to combo win.
Honestly I don't think it's push as much as its DS/Tas/Angler in Grixis all are always in case of DS or very often larger or as large but cheaper. A 5/5 for B makes a 4/5 for 1G bad. Add to it that Grixis' only big beater that dies to Push is DS itself leaving the other half untouched by the most common removal and you often can cast them on T2 while leaving up Denial just makes the deck way better in the mirror.
Its not like JundDS is "bad" so much as it isn't favored in the DS mirror. DS decks also just make traditional Jund bad as they are aggro decks that invalidate the traditional mid-range strategy of "mid-range creature > aggro creature" gofy was fantastic when the best 1c.c. creatures your opponent would be running were 2/2's and 3/3's but when your opponent is casting 6/6's, 5/5's and 4/5's for 1c.c. mid-range loses a crucial edge that traditionally made it a strong strategy. Add to this that DS decks are aggro-control decks and Control elements have always been strong against Jund type decks, so they essentially get the best of both worlds aggro creatures that trump Junds mid-range options and utilizes the same powerful control spells that Jund itself looks to employ.
DS isn't a mid-range deck, the mirrors often feel mid-rangish but that is actually very common for aggro v aggro matches.