Can you provide hard evidence, in numbers, rather than conjecture, on what the effect will be if the card is unbanned?
EDIT: I'm not saying it's not safe, I just want to see an argument that is based on more than conjecture from random people in forums and reddit Even conjecture from pros aren't reliable. So far, the best and honest argument that I've seen is that people want cards unbanned because they want to play with them. To state a card is okay to be unbanned, even if we agree, without lots of hard evidence or data, is just random internet conjecture.
Although I do agree with your sentiment that people are too quick to conspiracy talk, it is rather convenient that AV, Bitterblossom, and Jace were reprinted right around the time of their unbanning. Of course, that’s not really sufficient evidence that they’re using the ban list as a tool for boosting sales on product.
Asking each person to provide such testing to post their opinions seems like an extremely high bar to set. The only extensive testing I’ve ever seen regarding potential unbannings comes from David Ernenwein on Modern Nexus. WotC hasn't really acknowledged any sort of internal testing to prove that a card is safe to re-enter the Modern format. When Wild Nacatl was removed from the list, they didn’t cite thousands of games played in testing to ensure that it was safe for the format, nor did they cite it for the other unbannings. They basically just said, "Hey, we think this is probably okay in the format now."
I do, however, wish people would stop speaking with such certainty about banlist decisions. The reality is that all of us have opinions about the banlist, most of them based on intuition over any sort of conclusive evidence. I think that’s okay as long as we’re all willing to admit that our intuitions are subject to being wrong. My thoughts were certainly wrong about Jace, the Mind Sculptor when all the unbanning talk was happening.
Having access to perfect mana can lead to reduced deck diversity and Wizards has always expressed that they desire deck diversity.An easy example of this is KTK-BFZ Standard, where a lot of the decks bled together and the format became all about jamming the best cards available on curve, with no regards to the colored symbols in the mana cost. This is the main reason we’ll probably never see perfect mana in Modern, even though Modern has less of a risk of that happening since the card diversity outside of the land base allows for a lot of competing strategies to function.
Also, with varied mana, it creates a huge number of interesting choices that a deck builder must make. Fetchlands and Shocks set up mana very well, but it comes at the cost of life. That damage can hurt them against aggro/burn decks. You can opt for Fastlands, but then you run the risk of them coming into play tapped in the late game. Cavern forces you into a tribal them, as does Ancient Ziggurat and Unclaimed Territory.
It really forces the player to think hard about the choices they make when it comes to a land base, which on a personal level, I appreciate.
I really do not think anything graveyard-based will be considered for this next announcement.
Ancient Stirrings will be the only card looked into, as evinced by our poll. The format will change enough from that banning, and will require time to develop to see if dredge remains problematic
I would agree with this. We're not that far out from the release of Guilds of Ravnica. The heavy resurgence of Dredge has been a fairly recent happening. Ancient Stirrings, on the other hand, has had a consistent presence in the meta-game, especially in Top 8 results, for a while. If there is anything that is currently being watched, I'd put my money on Stirrings. My guess is that even if Dredge is being watched, they will give it some time to breathe in the format before making any sort of quickfire decisions about it. That being said, I'm skeptical on whether any action is needed at the moment.
I've seen compelling arguments running in both directions. On a personal level, I'd like to see it gone from the format, but that is merely for biased reasons and I can fully admit that. I can't say for sure whether the format requires it to be removed via banning.
For a long time, I’ve thought that Bloodghast was the problematic card within the Dredge deck, even when people were clamoring for a GGT ban. IF (and that’s a big IF) the deck does require a ban, I think Bloodghast has always been the card that needed to go.
Bloodghast is the card that makes the recurring threat engine work, since it gives the deck an on demand way to bring back ALL of their threats back. It’s the primary card that makes standard, non-exiling removal a joke against the deck. Without it, it makes the entire Dredge mechanic a much less offensive modern, since a Narcomoeba hit the only thing that can put their grave back into play.
Creeping Chill just gives the deck another form of inevitability that cannot be interacted with and I doubt it would be a huge problem if the deck didn’t also have a highly reliable method of keeping the board pressure on.
But no one cared about Dredge pre Creeping Chill. Creeping Chill put the deck into tier 1. Don't kill the entire deck. Don't hit other decks like Bridgevine and Hallow one because of Dredge. I understand Blooghast is the best card in the deck, but it should be Creeping Chill to be banned if anything
I don’t think that this is a good way to evaluate whether a card is problematic or not.
Heck, no one cared about Dredge before Prized Amalgam came out. That was when it was decided that GGT was a broken Magic card. Become Immense seemed like it was a problem… but Gitaxian Probe was identified as the real problem that enabled the card. Birthing Pod was “okay” until Siege Rhino came out. No one cared about Eye of Ugin or “eldrazi” strategies until cards like Thought-Knot Seer and Reality Smasher were printed.
The reality is, sometimes new cards aren’t the problem, but they highlight why cards that have existed in the format are problematic. I’m not exactly sure if this is the case that is happening with Creeping Chill and Dredge, but I wouldn’t be so quick to point the finger at Creeping Chill just because it’s the new card in the deck.
For a long time, I’ve thought that Bloodghast was the problematic card within the Dredge deck, even when people were clamoring for a GGT ban. IF (and that’s a big IF) the deck does require a ban, I think Bloodghast has always been the card that needed to go.
Bloodghast is the card that makes the recurring threat engine work, since it gives the deck an on demand way to bring back ALL of their threats back. It’s the primary card that makes standard, non-exiling removal a joke against the deck. Without it, it makes the entire Dredge mechanic a much less offensive modern, since a Narcomoeba hit the only thing that can put their grave back into play.
Creeping Chill just gives the deck another form of inevitability that cannot be interacted with and I doubt it would be a huge problem if the deck didn’t also have a highly reliable method of keeping the board pressure on.
Which does more: unbanning twin or banning ancient stirrings?
Twin unban.
Like multiple people said before, the Stirrings decks dont warp the format
“Warp” is a term I’ve seen used many times. What does this exactly mean?
What conditions must be met for a deck, or group of decks, to be “warping” the format. If “Ancient Stirrings” have actively been taking up a 30% share of GP top 8’s, then why are they “warping” the format.
If Dredge IS “warping” the format, why isn’t there a larger top 8 turnout for the deck? What qualifies Dredge as a warping deck?
“Better” and “Fun” are too subjective for my liking.
I hate playing against Tron. I don’t find it “fun” to play against. I think the format would be “better” if it was gone from the format, because it mostly just punishes opponents for not choosing a fast, linear deck.
My opinion is biased and unfair. Plenty of people like playing Tron. Plenty of people enjoy playing against Tron (I know a few Infect players who LOVE staring down an Urza’s Mine on turn 1). So, it seems rather unfair for me to impose my view of what Modern is supposed to be by moving a list of cards to the banlist for encouraging "unfun" gameplay.
Now, if the format was younger and WotC had presented a more detailed vision of what they wanted to the format to be, then I could see implementing more radical bans without date-based justifications… but as is, Modern has been a living, breathing format for too long to just go at it with a hacksaw.
Yeah it looks like the deck lacks a second 'natural' threat (vs. Delve threats that need to be 'activated' through GY). Could Thing in the Ice do the job? Or Kiln fiend? To me it looks like the recent lists are slightly too control oriented (6x discard, 3x countermagic), I would replace 2x-3x of those with a fast-clock T2 threat. Lightning bolt+Fatal push+Dismember should take care of the possible blockers T3.
On threats:
Death’s Shadow and the delve threats are must-haves because they require little babysitting once deployed. They win combat against most creatures. They naturally dodge some forms of removal. You can slam them and attack without doing much else. Cast Stubborn Denial to foil removal and let them do the dirty work.
TiTi and Kiln Fiend require more setup once they’ve hit the field. Kiln Fiend needs a TBR in hand to win combat, since it’s a 1/2 that basically dies to anything unless you give him Double Strike. TiTi is going to require 4 spells to become a threat, which forces you to dump your hand to effectively use him. You might be able to slot either of those into GDS with some success, but then I think the deck begins to lean more toward something like H0lydiva’s Bloo/UR Kiln Fiend deck, which is a good deck, but it focuses very heavily on scoring the TBR combo win.
On control elements:
GDS is an odd deck. You need to shift from control to aggro, or from aggro to control, in an instant. You need to disrupt your opponent just enough to eek out the win. You often have a short window of opportunity to win and success with this deck is largely tied to understanding when that window is open. The “control” elements that you refer to are necessary for this.
Like discard. Thoughtseize clears out problem cards from your opponent’s hand and gives you perfect information as early as turn 1. It “protects” the threats you want to deploy in 2 ways. Thoughtseize also turns on Death Shadow earlier and in many games, you just want to run out a DS as quick as possible. Stubborn Denial just says “no” to so many cards that it’s hard not run it. It’s true that Denial is laughably bad in a couple of matchups… but it’s just THAT good in the matchups that it’s good in that you probably want 2-3 of them.
Thinking of getting into the deck, how is the matchup vs. Humans?
Not great. It is winnable, but difficult. Humans (and UW/Jeskai Control) becoming big are really what pushed Grixis Death's Shadow down a bit. Our deck already struggles with go wide strategies, and Humans' added disruption makes it a bad matchup.
Trampling over is not enough against go-wide strategies?
It is, but it requires you to have:
1) Death's Shadow on the board, of which we have only 4 of in the deck.
2) Temur Battle-Rage in hand
3) A life total low enough that will ensure a kill in a single hit, through any potential blockers. This is particularly tricky, since if you're that low on life total, then you're usually running the risk of losing the very next turn.
That's often enough to pull out a win against a deck like Humans, but setting up all 3 of those conditions so you can pummel through a clogged battlefield can be difficult. Sometimes, you fall short. You either dig for that TBR and fail to find it in time or you dig for threats and can only find a Gurmag Angler.
The thing is, blue gets access to counterspells. Those have the ability to say “NO” to any card. The idea is that blue deals with problems BEFORE they’re a problem. It requires you to play reactively, which isn’t generally a great strategy in Modern, but it does have access to answers for any card type.
Let's not in any way insinuate that Blue has any reasonable advantage because it plays counterspells. Especially when cards like Cavern of Souls exists, as well as Aether Vial, uncounterable cards, and devistating on-casttriggers. Never mind the discardspells that can simply remove them or the huge number of recursion decks that simply don't care about things going to the yard.
Edit: Forgot to also mention activated/triggered abilities that simply cannot be meaningfully or profitably interacted with by counterspells. Since we don't have Stifle, our only options are bad Counterspell, bad Vendillion Clique, or hope to draw some relevant, narrow hate card in games 2 and 3.
Don't get me wrong. I agree with you. I wasn't trying to claim that Counterpsells are great in Modern. I've sleeved up counters in Modern enough times to know exactly how limited they are. My argument wasn't for how strong blue is (because it's resoundingly mediocre in Modern), but that it doesn't necessarily deserve to have "destroy target enchantment" added to its color pie. Counterspells were supposed to be their relevant interaction for enchantments, but they've made counters increasingly less useful over the years, but I think that's a separate issue. Counters SHOULD be better in Modern. I'd like to see blue get more of the "exile target spell" phrasing on Instants... and not stapled to creatures like Spell Queller.
The thing is, blue gets access to counterspells. Those have the ability to say “NO” to any card. The idea is that blue deals with problems BEFORE they’re a problem. It requires you to play reactively, which isn’t generally a great strategy in Modern, but it does have access to answers for any card type.
Its removal of choice is bounce effects, which makes sense in conjunction with counterspells... it’s a solution set that has a very small window of time to work and they become very inefficient if you miss that window.
Honestly I think Stoneforge would be equally bad in Modern. But it's on the banned list, so it's all the rage and calamity. Other than for curiosity's sake, I can't think of much a reason I actually want to play that card with either Batterskull or the Swords in the super hostile format meta we have today.
This is kind of where I’m at.
SFM takes 2 turns and 4 mana investment to impact the board. That’s 2 turns of NOT advancing a proactive gameplan, or 2 turns of NOT interacting with your opponent if you’re playing Midrange/Control. That’s a lifetime in Modern. Decks are either too fast to even care about SFM, or they're packing so much removal/artifact that the SFM/Batterskull package is probably mediocre at best.
This is the Modern forum, so it might not be the right place for this question. But, anyways…
Let’s look at the rules for each! The Cascade reminder text is as follows: Cascade (When you cast this spell, exile cards from the top of your library until you exile a nonland card that costs less. You may cast it without paying its mana cost. Put the exiled cards on the bottom in a random order.
Now, let’s take a look at some Kicker text, from the card Into the Roil: Kicker {1}{U} (You may pay an additional {1}{U} as you cast this spell.)
Notice anything? I’ve bolded the important parts.
Now, let’s take a look at a card with Replicate. Here’s the text from Gigadrowse: Replicate {U} (When you cast this spell, copy it for each time you paid its replicate cost. You may choose new targets for the copies.)
Again, I’ve highlighted the important part. So, can you do it? Cascade allows you to cast the card that you've exiled as a part of the triggered ability. Both of the other keyworded abilities take effect as you cast it. So, that means you cast the spell and decide whether you will be paying the kicker or replicate costs at the time you are casting it.
Complaining will never end… but that’s because the format will never be absolutely perfect. Everyone sort of has their own idea of what a “perfect” modern means and it will rarely match what the next player has in mind.
Conversation about format problems is good as long as it’s constructive though, even when the format is doing pretty well. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with discussing the potential for more targeted hate cards for specific strategies. The format does a better job of regulating itself when it has access to more safety valves.
Although I do agree with your sentiment that people are too quick to conspiracy talk, it is rather convenient that AV, Bitterblossom, and Jace were reprinted right around the time of their unbanning. Of course, that’s not really sufficient evidence that they’re using the ban list as a tool for boosting sales on product.
Asking each person to provide such testing to post their opinions seems like an extremely high bar to set. The only extensive testing I’ve ever seen regarding potential unbannings comes from David Ernenwein on Modern Nexus. WotC hasn't really acknowledged any sort of internal testing to prove that a card is safe to re-enter the Modern format. When Wild Nacatl was removed from the list, they didn’t cite thousands of games played in testing to ensure that it was safe for the format, nor did they cite it for the other unbannings. They basically just said, "Hey, we think this is probably okay in the format now."
I do, however, wish people would stop speaking with such certainty about banlist decisions. The reality is that all of us have opinions about the banlist, most of them based on intuition over any sort of conclusive evidence. I think that’s okay as long as we’re all willing to admit that our intuitions are subject to being wrong. My thoughts were certainly wrong about Jace, the Mind Sculptor when all the unbanning talk was happening.
Also, with varied mana, it creates a huge number of interesting choices that a deck builder must make. Fetchlands and Shocks set up mana very well, but it comes at the cost of life. That damage can hurt them against aggro/burn decks. You can opt for Fastlands, but then you run the risk of them coming into play tapped in the late game. Cavern forces you into a tribal them, as does Ancient Ziggurat and Unclaimed Territory.
It really forces the player to think hard about the choices they make when it comes to a land base, which on a personal level, I appreciate.
I would agree with this. We're not that far out from the release of Guilds of Ravnica. The heavy resurgence of Dredge has been a fairly recent happening. Ancient Stirrings, on the other hand, has had a consistent presence in the meta-game, especially in Top 8 results, for a while. If there is anything that is currently being watched, I'd put my money on Stirrings. My guess is that even if Dredge is being watched, they will give it some time to breathe in the format before making any sort of quickfire decisions about it. That being said, I'm skeptical on whether any action is needed at the moment.
I've seen compelling arguments running in both directions. On a personal level, I'd like to see it gone from the format, but that is merely for biased reasons and I can fully admit that. I can't say for sure whether the format requires it to be removed via banning.
I don’t think that this is a good way to evaluate whether a card is problematic or not.
Heck, no one cared about Dredge before Prized Amalgam came out. That was when it was decided that GGT was a broken Magic card. Become Immense seemed like it was a problem… but Gitaxian Probe was identified as the real problem that enabled the card. Birthing Pod was “okay” until Siege Rhino came out. No one cared about Eye of Ugin or “eldrazi” strategies until cards like Thought-Knot Seer and Reality Smasher were printed.
The reality is, sometimes new cards aren’t the problem, but they highlight why cards that have existed in the format are problematic. I’m not exactly sure if this is the case that is happening with Creeping Chill and Dredge, but I wouldn’t be so quick to point the finger at Creeping Chill just because it’s the new card in the deck.
Bloodghast is the card that makes the recurring threat engine work, since it gives the deck an on demand way to bring back ALL of their threats back. It’s the primary card that makes standard, non-exiling removal a joke against the deck. Without it, it makes the entire Dredge mechanic a much less offensive modern, since a Narcomoeba hit the only thing that can put their grave back into play.
Creeping Chill just gives the deck another form of inevitability that cannot be interacted with and I doubt it would be a huge problem if the deck didn’t also have a highly reliable method of keeping the board pressure on.
“Warp” is a term I’ve seen used many times. What does this exactly mean?
What conditions must be met for a deck, or group of decks, to be “warping” the format. If “Ancient Stirrings” have actively been taking up a 30% share of GP top 8’s, then why are they “warping” the format.
If Dredge IS “warping” the format, why isn’t there a larger top 8 turnout for the deck? What qualifies Dredge as a warping deck?
I hate playing against Tron. I don’t find it “fun” to play against. I think the format would be “better” if it was gone from the format, because it mostly just punishes opponents for not choosing a fast, linear deck.
My opinion is biased and unfair. Plenty of people like playing Tron. Plenty of people enjoy playing against Tron (I know a few Infect players who LOVE staring down an Urza’s Mine on turn 1). So, it seems rather unfair for me to impose my view of what Modern is supposed to be by moving a list of cards to the banlist for encouraging "unfun" gameplay.
Now, if the format was younger and WotC had presented a more detailed vision of what they wanted to the format to be, then I could see implementing more radical bans without date-based justifications… but as is, Modern has been a living, breathing format for too long to just go at it with a hacksaw.
On threats:
Death’s Shadow and the delve threats are must-haves because they require little babysitting once deployed. They win combat against most creatures. They naturally dodge some forms of removal. You can slam them and attack without doing much else. Cast Stubborn Denial to foil removal and let them do the dirty work.
TiTi and Kiln Fiend require more setup once they’ve hit the field. Kiln Fiend needs a TBR in hand to win combat, since it’s a 1/2 that basically dies to anything unless you give him Double Strike. TiTi is going to require 4 spells to become a threat, which forces you to dump your hand to effectively use him. You might be able to slot either of those into GDS with some success, but then I think the deck begins to lean more toward something like H0lydiva’s Bloo/UR Kiln Fiend deck, which is a good deck, but it focuses very heavily on scoring the TBR combo win.
On control elements:
GDS is an odd deck. You need to shift from control to aggro, or from aggro to control, in an instant. You need to disrupt your opponent just enough to eek out the win. You often have a short window of opportunity to win and success with this deck is largely tied to understanding when that window is open. The “control” elements that you refer to are necessary for this.
Like discard. Thoughtseize clears out problem cards from your opponent’s hand and gives you perfect information as early as turn 1. It “protects” the threats you want to deploy in 2 ways. Thoughtseize also turns on Death Shadow earlier and in many games, you just want to run out a DS as quick as possible. Stubborn Denial just says “no” to so many cards that it’s hard not run it. It’s true that Denial is laughably bad in a couple of matchups… but it’s just THAT good in the matchups that it’s good in that you probably want 2-3 of them.
It is, but it requires you to have:
1) Death's Shadow on the board, of which we have only 4 of in the deck.
2) Temur Battle-Rage in hand
3) A life total low enough that will ensure a kill in a single hit, through any potential blockers. This is particularly tricky, since if you're that low on life total, then you're usually running the risk of losing the very next turn.
That's often enough to pull out a win against a deck like Humans, but setting up all 3 of those conditions so you can pummel through a clogged battlefield can be difficult. Sometimes, you fall short. You either dig for that TBR and fail to find it in time or you dig for threats and can only find a Gurmag Angler.
Don't get me wrong. I agree with you. I wasn't trying to claim that Counterpsells are great in Modern. I've sleeved up counters in Modern enough times to know exactly how limited they are. My argument wasn't for how strong blue is (because it's resoundingly mediocre in Modern), but that it doesn't necessarily deserve to have "destroy target enchantment" added to its color pie. Counterspells were supposed to be their relevant interaction for enchantments, but they've made counters increasingly less useful over the years, but I think that's a separate issue. Counters SHOULD be better in Modern. I'd like to see blue get more of the "exile target spell" phrasing on Instants... and not stapled to creatures like Spell Queller.
Its removal of choice is bounce effects, which makes sense in conjunction with counterspells... it’s a solution set that has a very small window of time to work and they become very inefficient if you miss that window.
This is kind of where I’m at.
SFM takes 2 turns and 4 mana investment to impact the board. That’s 2 turns of NOT advancing a proactive gameplan, or 2 turns of NOT interacting with your opponent if you’re playing Midrange/Control. That’s a lifetime in Modern. Decks are either too fast to even care about SFM, or they're packing so much removal/artifact that the SFM/Batterskull package is probably mediocre at best.
Let’s look at the rules for each! The Cascade reminder text is as follows: Cascade (When you cast this spell, exile cards from the top of your library until you exile a nonland card that costs less. You may cast it without paying its mana cost. Put the exiled cards on the bottom in a random order.
Now, let’s take a look at some Kicker text, from the card Into the Roil: Kicker {1}{U} (You may pay an additional {1}{U} as you cast this spell.)
Notice anything? I’ve bolded the important parts.
Now, let’s take a look at a card with Replicate. Here’s the text from Gigadrowse: Replicate {U} (When you cast this spell, copy it for each time you paid its replicate cost. You may choose new targets for the copies.)
Again, I’ve highlighted the important part. So, can you do it? Cascade allows you to cast the card that you've exiled as a part of the triggered ability. Both of the other keyworded abilities take effect as you cast it. So, that means you cast the spell and decide whether you will be paying the kicker or replicate costs at the time you are casting it.
Conversation about format problems is good as long as it’s constructive though, even when the format is doing pretty well. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with discussing the potential for more targeted hate cards for specific strategies. The format does a better job of regulating itself when it has access to more safety valves.
Freyalise is not Modern legal.