Quote from xxhellfirexx3 »
one could argue all day about situations where these decks are fine yet it still doesn't save them from the fact that all together its decks like these as a whole that are not good for modern if we want this format to be less linear/uninteractive/goldfish. but meta percentages will save them and well always have those BS games were you just lose and theres nothing you can do. ie game 1 affinity. or infect with a hand that can win turn 2/3 through disruption.
Im just saying things like ssg/cranial plating/something from infect for example, should be addressed someday to slow the format down. but if we do this, now we have bogles/tron/ ensnaring bridge decks benefiting....yay fun
I don't want to be that guy, but a) this kind of advocacy for banning multiple cards is against the thread rules, and b) it seems like you want a format that just isn't Modern. Modern is going to have non-top-tier decks that win before turn four. It's going to have fringe strategies in Tier 3 that people hate. It's going to have Tier 1 and Tier 2 strategies that aren't breaking the turn four rule but are doing something fundamentally more powerful than a midrange or control deck. That's always been Modern and that's always been how Wizards has advertised the format. I agree that Wizards can do more to encourage interactivity in Modern, through incentivizing and empowering unbans and through new cards and reprints. But a half dozen new bans is not the solution. The solution is to add cards, not subtract them. Subtracting cards only gets people angry and leads to an endless race to the bottom. See current-day Modern for an ongoing example of that. Adding cards makes the format better able to internally regulate and has the added bonus of improving player morale.
2
3
1
It seems pretty safe to assume that confederate flag flying traitors are racist.
39
3