I think it's a mistake to consider Mana leak to be a top 5 counterspell, and perhaps even top 10. The card is straight up bad in the late game, which is what most of the decks that would consider a 2cmc counterspell are playing towards. Negate is almost always 100% better than Mana leak because it is a hard answer into the late game and only misses threats that can be dealt with via the rest of your removal. Mana leak is really underwhelming unless you can be the beatdown in matchups that threaten to go medium-long.
Others have somehow been including Remand on the list at all, despite it seeing almost no play. The card is just too inefficient vs aggro like burn/affinity to be on the list. At least cryptic is card advantage and much more flexible. Remand being 1U:Cycle in the meta too often should also really limit its placing to the bottom wrungs. To emphasize how bad Remand is, consider that it has effectively been replaced in control decks by Spreading Seas as more effective way of disrupting your opponent. Spreading Seas is more effective at disruption than Remand. That says alot about Remand in the meta imo.
I'd like to add that Ceremonious rejection should probably have won out over Dispel in my above list due to its broader application in the meta.
1.Stubborn Denial: Usually half-priced-negate in the decks that can run it.
2.Countersquall: Negate with upside in the decks that can run it.
3.Negate: Hard answer to problematic cards that creature-based removal won`t address.
4.Cryptic Command: Gives control a strong late game.
5.Dispel: Efficiency is key for interactive matchups where one might find this card.
To maybe help wrap up this discussion on Angle Shooting vs The Rules of the Game, here's a link to an article by Cedric Phillips about an Esper charm situation which may have been the basis for the discussion. Philips plays reasonably within the rules and permits his opponents to make the mistakes they are going to make - nothing wrong with that.
That is a distinct situation from trying to prompt a player into making a mistake through confusing language/interruptions/questions.
I'm pretty sure asking the question "are you targeting me, or targeting yourself" for Esper Charm is 'angle shooting', and highly questionable itself if not against the rules. There is almost no case where a player would target themselves with esper charm unless they misunderstand the draw affect to be targeting as well - one might reasonably infer as much from the question.
If a player did that and then called a judge, that player should be given a misconduct warning imo. Angle shooting is not cool.
The new organization is great and I like having both the direct measure as the primary sort metric, and then the weighted measure as the secondary sort metric. This gives the direct frequency of occurrence at the top of events first, and then the option of seeing it weighted by placement as well. Between both you get more information than just the first, so the second is welcome imo.
If data says the top tier is just two decks, then the top tier is just two decks. No need to apologize or manipulate anything with a tier 1.5. The top tier isn't a "tier 0" situation because the top tier decks don't make up a large enough part of the meta. I would just have your tier 1.5 labeled as tier 2 since that seems to be what the data says.
I find it hilarious that you think SFM is more worthy of an unban than BBE. The power level differences in those cards is STAGGERING. And the one with the higher power level is 100% not the multicoloured card
I don't find it clear that BBE is less powerful than SFM. BBE costs effectively the same as cheating out a batterskull, except you don't have to stick the BBE for a full turn. Of course the catch of a random card to cast is double edged - but the variance will include a range which puts the total value over the batterskull.
I don't find it clear that the expected value of BBE in the decks that would run the card is less than the expected value of SFM in the decks that would run it. I find the idea that either of them would lead to more powerful decks than exist presently in the meta to be unsupportable.
What rationale do you use to formulate the idea that the average value of the 3/2 haster + cascade @ 4 mana is less than the average value of a 1/2 squire +4/4 vigilience/lifelink @ 4 mana? Between A[3/2 haste creature and cascade trigger] and B[1/2 creature and 4/4 vig lifelink creature], A seems a little better to me since it can interact with non-creature based strategies.
What reason do you find to asses SFM as bringing more value to the table over BBE?
To bring it back a bit more positive, I would like to note that WotC has mentioned the importance of iterating models to improve upon them (ex: patches in video games). This necessarily means making mistakes in order to gather data on the outcome of a specific policy/framework. Each time they make a change, in part due to their willingness to revert negative changes, they are finding ways to improve the game. The improvements require experimentation with negative outcomes in order to discover the changes with positive outcomes.
We're blundering from change to change looking for the best way for MTG to function. Seems kinda blundering when you're in it, but overall the game-play certainly doesn't seem (to me) to be getting worse. If anything, the game-play is as strong or stronger than it has ever been.
I'm just gonna throw this out there. The Modern PT is a great way to shake up the format in ways the don't effect the community at large. For example: "For the Modern PT, Stoneforge Mystic will be legal to use in deck creation." or they could ban something for the tournament instead.
I believe said tournament-only ban or unban would shake up the format enough to get people to want to watch without making a portion of the playerbase cry about something being banned or unbanned. And if after the PT they decide the change is a good one, then they make it official.
Remember that the goal of a 'shake-up ban' is to allow more room for standard cards to enter the format. Therefore, "shake-up unbans" are incoherent as they do not open space for standard-level cards, but rather tend to increase the bar for a card to enter the format.
A 'shake-up unban' should have the opposite effect to a 'shake-up ban', and therefore be undesirable to WotC.
The problem with SFM is not that the card itself is broken. The problem is that it is only really good against other fair decks. Its inclusion would easily lead to a reduced diversity of fair decks, and the meta would descend to "SFM fair decks vs unfair decks vs "fair" decks."
Sure, Affinity, Storm and Dredge seem more degenerate than SFM decks, and I don't disagree. The problem is SFM pushes out more fair interactive decks than linear ones. FFS, did you all buy fifty copies and are pushing for a spike? What is the fascination with this one card being reintroduced into a format with a ton of diversity?
Likely players who have the card and want to play it? No need to assume ill motives on this one. Lots of cards are better against fair decks than unfair ones, but that is no reason to have a card on the banned list.
What is your fascination with keeping it banned? Why do you care so much if a group of players that like a card on the banlist are advocating for its return? Isn't it reasonable for the people who have the card rotting in their binder to advocate for its return when opponents regularly pack even more powerful cards? I mean I'm just sitting over here with my SFM in my binder, and you're casting Death's Shadow, Karn Liberated and reanimating multiple Prized Amalgams before I can even get a batterskull into play! Not to mention that against the top decks you'll run into Thoughtseize, Kolaghan's Command, Fatal Push, Lightning bolt, etc.
Once you put some thought into how it's real lines of play interact with other decks (or you know, test the card) it's hard to see it as worthy of a ban. Wanting SFM unbanned is simply consistent with my other views - such as no cards presently need to be banned.
I thought the whole point of removing Modern from the PT was to open the space up for a wave of unbans? But they have had zero cards released since their pathetic apologytour after Eldrazi Winter (and actually two more banned instead...).
I imagine this will only inevitably lead to more shake up bans and more stupid pushed Standard cards that knowingly break older formats (ala Eldrazi) so that the Pro Tour can both remain "exciting" and "feature cards in the new set". I don't see how this is at all a good thing.
Well, zero cards other than the two they released in the Ancestral Vision and Sword of the Meek. But yes, I agree with the basic premise that WotC has had plenty of time to do some more unbans and chose not to.
Bye Bye death's shadow. Bye Bye Eldrazi Temple. Maybe even Mox Opal will go
Yep, no PT is worth ruining the format like that. Everyone should consider going to twitter to pressure WotC into not making moves like that. Defend modern from the wolves!
It would be nice if they used a new pro-tour to do a "shakeup unban".
Unleash Stoneforge Mystic back into the wild to see how it affects the meta in a PT? Maybe that's just a dream though...
And then end up re-banning it after the pro tour shows how busted it is, which is what would happen.
Yeah cause spending 4 mana over 2 turns to get a 4/4 vigilence lifelink into play turn 3 is so much better than what other decks are doing, like casting 2 mana 8/8s or turn 2 TKS, etc.
I'm doubting SFM will ever get unbanned, but if it ever did, there would be many players with egg on their face as SFM ends up being barely playable in the format. This is the Ancestral Vision/ Bitterblossom/ Wild Nacatl situation all over again. Yes it would see play, not it isn't better than what other decks are doing.
Given Modern's return to the Pro Tour, it seems very unlikely that we will be seeing any unbans in the future.
Modern was discontinued as a promotional tour format because the cards in the new set didn't get enough screen time during the promotional tour. This was stated explicitly by WotC. By bringing it back, they must have discussed this thoroughly. An obvious difficulty of new sets seeing play during modern events is that the card quality required to see play is very high, which unbans would only exacerbate.
From my perspective, this move makes unbans extremely unlikely.
Overall negative news in my eyes, even if I'll still love to watch to coverage.
Others have somehow been including Remand on the list at all, despite it seeing almost no play. The card is just too inefficient vs aggro like burn/affinity to be on the list. At least cryptic is card advantage and much more flexible. Remand being 1U:Cycle in the meta too often should also really limit its placing to the bottom wrungs. To emphasize how bad Remand is, consider that it has effectively been replaced in control decks by Spreading Seas as more effective way of disrupting your opponent. Spreading Seas is more effective at disruption than Remand. That says alot about Remand in the meta imo.
I'd like to add that Ceremonious rejection should probably have won out over Dispel in my above list due to its broader application in the meta.
1.Stubborn Denial: Usually half-priced-negate in the decks that can run it.
2.Countersquall: Negate with upside in the decks that can run it.
3.Negate: Hard answer to problematic cards that creature-based removal won`t address.
4.Cryptic Command: Gives control a strong late game.
5.Dispel: Efficiency is key for interactive matchups where one might find this card.
That is a distinct situation from trying to prompt a player into making a mistake through confusing language/interruptions/questions.
If a player did that and then called a judge, that player should be given a misconduct warning imo. Angle shooting is not cool.
If data says the top tier is just two decks, then the top tier is just two decks. No need to apologize or manipulate anything with a tier 1.5. The top tier isn't a "tier 0" situation because the top tier decks don't make up a large enough part of the meta. I would just have your tier 1.5 labeled as tier 2 since that seems to be what the data says.
I don't find it clear that the expected value of BBE in the decks that would run the card is less than the expected value of SFM in the decks that would run it. I find the idea that either of them would lead to more powerful decks than exist presently in the meta to be unsupportable.
What rationale do you use to formulate the idea that the average value of the 3/2 haster + cascade @ 4 mana is less than the average value of a 1/2 squire +4/4 vigilience/lifelink @ 4 mana? Between A[3/2 haste creature and cascade trigger] and B[1/2 creature and 4/4 vig lifelink creature], A seems a little better to me since it can interact with non-creature based strategies.
What reason do you find to asses SFM as bringing more value to the table over BBE?
We're blundering from change to change looking for the best way for MTG to function. Seems kinda blundering when you're in it, but overall the game-play certainly doesn't seem (to me) to be getting worse. If anything, the game-play is as strong or stronger than it has ever been.
A 'shake-up unban' should have the opposite effect to a 'shake-up ban', and therefore be undesirable to WotC.
What is your fascination with keeping it banned? Why do you care so much if a group of players that like a card on the banlist are advocating for its return? Isn't it reasonable for the people who have the card rotting in their binder to advocate for its return when opponents regularly pack even more powerful cards? I mean I'm just sitting over here with my SFM in my binder, and you're casting Death's Shadow, Karn Liberated and reanimating multiple Prized Amalgams before I can even get a batterskull into play! Not to mention that against the top decks you'll run into Thoughtseize, Kolaghan's Command, Fatal Push, Lightning bolt, etc.
Once you put some thought into how it's real lines of play interact with other decks (or you know, test the card) it's hard to see it as worthy of a ban. Wanting SFM unbanned is simply consistent with my other views - such as no cards presently need to be banned.
I'm doubting SFM will ever get unbanned, but if it ever did, there would be many players with egg on their face as SFM ends up being barely playable in the format. This is the Ancestral Vision/ Bitterblossom/ Wild Nacatl situation all over again. Yes it would see play, not it isn't better than what other decks are doing.
Modern was discontinued as a promotional tour format because the cards in the new set didn't get enough screen time during the promotional tour. This was stated explicitly by WotC. By bringing it back, they must have discussed this thoroughly. An obvious difficulty of new sets seeing play during modern events is that the card quality required to see play is very high, which unbans would only exacerbate.
From my perspective, this move makes unbans extremely unlikely.
Overall negative news in my eyes, even if I'll still love to watch to coverage.