Ancient Stirrings won the last "What cards do you want banned" poll and I wouldn't be surprised if it defended its title this time around.
Once again, some posters will complain that a ban would be unreasonable because there is not enough "metric evidence" to support the dominance of the mostly non-interactive decks that like to run the card. Yet, many players I personally know wouldn't touch a deck like Tron or KCI with a 10 foot pole. I'd take that as a hint that the numbers, especially those from local tournaments, do not reflect the true power level of these decks, as people tend not to play the decks that they hate.
Indestructible mode can be pretty important in various situations, e.g. protecting your Eidolon when opponent is low on life, protecting a vital chump-blocker or preventing destruction of your Ensnaring Bridge.
Not playing any noncreature spells outside of Aether Vial (which is most relevant on turn 1) has the upside of turning Stubborn Denial, Negate and several other counterspells into dead cards, especially when combined with Cavern of Souls. The CoCo versions of Humans are considerably easier to handle for some of the nost popular blue-based decks in the format. I would, thus, not call it a bug but a feature, at least to some degree.
My point is that Tron players complain just as much about other people's decks as everybody else from my experience. There where several postings in this thread that make it look as if only the midrange/control players acted like that. Being a midrange/control player, I experience quite the opposite, which makes me think that the MtG Community in general likes to complain.
So why are you arguing against me if you seem to be in agreement that Tron isn't such a problem in the format that it needs some kind of ban?
Because there were so many points in your posting that looked inaccurate. But after your clarifications, I'm mostly okay with it. I don't think the format needs a ban, but I think that the format would benefit from a different ban policy.
The problem IMO is that wizards doesn't handle the ban list properly. IMO, more bans and unbans should be done, more frequently. The ban list should be treated as a balance patch like they do in online games. Let's ban stirrings and see how the meta evolves etc.
But it's not wizards fault IMO, it's the players fault, because most of them are super anti ban list changes. It's like every ban is gonna make the sky fall...
This is what I also think. I have been playing MtG for a long time and WotC has banned numerous cards that I own and played. They banned deck archetypes that I owned into oblivion. It never felt like a big deal when it let to a more interesting format. Other cards went up in value both financially and in play value as a result of the bannings.
As I said before, I have also seen Tron players complain about their opponent's deck, most often about the amount of sideboard hate they are exposed to.
I have been told by Tron players that Burning Inquiry needs to be banned. I have been told that Crumble to Dust shouldn't be played in any deck just after I got rid of Urza's Tower with it. And I can't even count how many times a Tron player prematurely quit a match in the training room of MTGO when they didn't have the nut draw - which is kinda counterproductive, since sub-optimal draws usually result in a considerably greater learning experience. It just doesn't make sense and feels unsportsmanlike to me, robbing the opponent of the kind of open game that they need to improve their tron matchup. There is little to learn from T1 Expedition Map into T3 Karn.
In fact, with your continued complaining about how Tron got so much better in the last 2 years (ironic, considering its biggest buffs occurred prior to the last 2 years), you're ignoring how the various other decks got better.
What do you mean by "biggest buffs"? The biggest buffs to Tron in recent time have been the big Eldrazi with their enters-the-battlefield-effects. And just because other decks also received buffs doesn't mean that the buffs for Tron where for the better for the format. This finger pointing in a different direction is a diversion tactic.
Eye of Ugin was way better than Sanctum. Sanctum can be great, but it's unreliable if you can't activate it (which happens quite often) and is one-shot.
I agree with you that Eye of Ugin is the more problematic card, but in what world can Tron not activate Sanctum? If they can't activate it, they usually don't tutor it. But it gets tutored a lot against me. And used a lot.
Are Ulamog and Ugin annoying? Sure. But they can be dealt with. Emrakul was basically an "I win!" button that was only possible to play because of Eye of Ugin. That guaranteed "I win!" button is what sealed the deal on Tron being a nightmare for control (and to a lesser extent midrange), because of their lack of ways to deal with it.
I played many matches against the old Tron and never got the impression that Emrakul was too powerful. There is a reason why Ulamog replaced Emrakul. It's just way more powerful in this deck.
The main place Sanctum of Ugin is better is against fast decks, because the ability to tutor repeatedly, or tutor up Emrakul, generally comes too late. So the ability to tap out and then search out a Wurmcoil Engine or whatever is more useful. But again, that's against the faster decks, not the slower ones.
This is just plain wrong. When I play fast against Tron with my Snapcaster-based decks, which can be very good at playing the tempo game, the Tron player's main problem is that they can usually only produce one big threat per turn. So, what they do is not tutor up Wurmcoil Engine, but Ulamog (see a pattern?), to get rid of my two best creatures even if I have a counterspell for it. And I don't always have a counterspell, so in the pre-supercharged-Edlrazi world of MtG, where the mere attempt of casting a spell wouldn't have a huge impact on the game, the Tron player would have to calculate the odds of me having a counterspell and then decide if they want to bait it out with their second best card etc. pp. But since they now have Ulamog, they just slam. This is the kind of change in the play experience against Tron that I criticize. I don't have a problem with Tron doing powerful stuff in general.
The simple fact is that Tron is not the metagame-controlling monster you've claimed it is, as it is, as I've noted, at about 5% of the metagame. That isn't anywhere close enough to have the kind of effect you're proclaiming it does.
You are accusing the person you reply to of not sticking to the facts, but seem to have a problem with the facts as well. Just because the metagame share of a deck archetype is around the 5% mark (which is true for most current Modern decks, including Humans) doesn't mean that its presence doesn't have a major impact on the format. I like to brew and when I have a new deck that is doing great against some of the established decks, there is usually a point at which I have to face Tron and get utterly bashed because I can't keep up with its consistency. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, it's kind of a fun police situation where Tron might even help to filter out non-competitive deck ideas for the better of the format. But it is certainly very noticeable. So, yes, Tron is a format-defining deck.
So again, can we stop this utter nonsense that Tron is actually having that big of an impact on the metagame?
First of all, Tron can certainly have an effect on the metagame whenever it rises in popularity or one of the decks that it is good against rise in popularity. You don't have to be a prophet to predict an uptick in Tron if, say, Jund does particularly well. It certainly affects my deck choices when I go to a tournament. So, I think it's actually utter nonsense to call that utter nonsense. But that's not even the point here. "Metagame" and "format" are not the same thing. Tron is one of the few format-defining decks in Modern. I don't know if that's good or bad, even though I think that it's a myth we all have to thank Tron that Modern doesn't look like Pro Tour Dominaria Standard - because nobody knows what Modern would be like without Tron. It could be worse, it could be better. We simply don't know. And I don't think that there is something fundamentally wrong with Tron. As others are not tiring to point out, there has been no "metric evidence" that Tron is too good. But denying that Tron's presence has a significant impact on the format is absurd. There are literally dozens if not hundreds of threads on forums all other the internet in which midrange and control players discuss what they can do about Tron. That's a tale-tell sign of how much Tron influences deck building and sideboard choices, even at 5% metagame share at some point in time.
If I was in charge of a company which owns multiple brands and one of these brands would struggle with a dwindling player base while one of my other brands, which targets a similar audience, would constantly exceed expectations, I would closely look at what drives up the sales numbers of the second brand. One of the main reasons for the recent success of the 5th edition of Dungeons and Dragons is its popularity on twitch and youtube, sparking the interest of many new players, including everyone in the new playgroup that I just joined (except the DM, who has some previous experience in Pathfinder).
I think it's safe to assume that Magic would also benefit from attractive tournament matches with interesting and meaningful interactions. This looks to me like a good reason for overthinking the way certain tournament formats have been policed in the past, based on what is perhaps the most important metric for a company: future sales numbers. Heck, we could even randomly unban some cards that might or might not ruin the format, just create some artificial hype around the next set of reprints that we are trying to sale. Not that WotC would ever resort to such tactics, though...
People prefer the evidence-based banning metrics [..]
Where is the evidence for that? Have you done a study based on scientific methodology on this topic or how do you know what magic players prefer? If yes, would you please share your sources?
I find the "there is not enough metric evidence"-argument rather irritating. Some posters don't seem to get the difference between a situation where something desperately needs to be done and a situation where the format would be more enjoyable to play and watch on stream for various people. Just because you don't agree with an opinion, doesn't mean that you are right and the others are wrong. Why do people here always have to be so intolerant in discussions? It can't be so hard to accept that there are players out there who are tired of seeing the same lines of play again and again from decks that have become highly redundant over time. You don't have to agree, but this opinion is not that far fetched, IMHO.
It's also a common misconception that Gx Tron won't be able to keep up with the rest of the format if one of its enablers is banned. If most decks in the format have a fighting chance against Tron without resorting to silver bullets like Damping Sphere or cards that are mostly played because of Tron like Ceremonious Rejection or Fulminator Mage, then those sideboard slots can be used for something else. I have heard Tron players complain more than once that every deck they face has so many Tron hate cards in the sideboard. It's a myth that only the players of the fair decks ever complain.
Affinity is a good example of a deck that could be hated out but isn't because most decks have a fighting chance against it without resorting to multiple dedicated hate cards in the sideboard. If Affinity had access to Mirodin artifact lands, many different deck archetypes would be forced make major adjustments to their sideboards, probably even their maindeck. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to directly compare Mirrodin artifact lands to anything in Tron, but the general principle is the same: If many decks in the format have to dedicate 5+ sideboard slots to be able to compete with a single archetype, there is less room for innovation and the most narrow and linear decks benefit the most from the situation - decks, that don't really need a sideboard and would benefit greatly if sideboards didn't exist.
Two questions:
a) What deck are you playing?
b) Which version of Tron is offending you? I'm thinking Gx, but I want to be sure before saying anything else.
a) I play mostly three-color Snapcaster decks (Grixis, Esper, Jeskai), usually with 12+ creatures in them. It's the kind of deck that I personally enjoy most because there are so many decisions to be made in the course of a game. I used to play chess competitively at school, so that's where I come from.
b) I'm talking about Gx Tron. I never had an issue with blue Tron.
I have fond memories of playing against the old Tron decks. I lost against those quite often, but it always felt as if all I needed to keep up with them was tweaking my sideboard. Nowadays literally half of my sideboard is anti-Tron and it still feels like an uphill battle when I'm on control or just about any interactive deck that I enjoy playing.
Most of the the time it seems as if the Tron player doesn't really care about my deck and all. They just jam something every turn, not playing around counter-magic or anything. They know they have the redundancy in 12 land tutors and the inevitability in Sanctum of Ughin and the big Eldrazi. So all I do is merrily a nuisance to them.
As a side note, I also noticed that some of the Tron players I face on MTGO make very bad decisions when they are forced to play "normal" Magic. So, one good thing about Tron might actually be that it enables inexperienced and below average players to have some success in Modern. I don't mean this as an insult. It can actually help make a format as diverse as Modern more accessible if you can win a good share of matches without profound knowledge of the other decks in the format.
I'm an aggro-control player who likes to brew and Tron has been the one deck that has made me give up on my creations again and again. It's very common to run into Tron on MTGO, so I have lots of practice playing against it. Which doesn't really help most of the time when I'm on control, because the available means of land destruction are so much worse than the available means of land tutoring. The ability of getting Sanctum of Ugin with the same engine as the Tron pieces is nuts against control.
Of the popular decks, the three decks I like to play the least against are Tron, Bogles and Mardu Pyromancer. The games against them feel same-y, probably because the decks are highly redundant and stick to a singular plan. Dishonorable mentions: Elves and Ponza.
The decks I currently enjoy playing against the most are Jund, Jeskai Control (the Teferi version) and Affinity. These decks have multiple angles of attack and feel almost elegant in comparison to many of the other decks in their respective categories. Honorable mentions: Various Shadow decks and Storm.
I'm unsure about Humans. After playing against it a lot recently, my feeling is that the deck's super-convenient access to rainbow mana might be a little bit too good for the format.
Turns seems fine to me. As far as I can tell from my limited experience of playing against it, it's actually quite interactive in its attempts to take over the game.
Once again, some posters will complain that a ban would be unreasonable because there is not enough "metric evidence" to support the dominance of the mostly non-interactive decks that like to run the card. Yet, many players I personally know wouldn't touch a deck like Tron or KCI with a 10 foot pole. I'd take that as a hint that the numbers, especially those from local tournaments, do not reflect the true power level of these decks, as people tend not to play the decks that they hate.
I have been told by Tron players that Burning Inquiry needs to be banned. I have been told that Crumble to Dust shouldn't be played in any deck just after I got rid of Urza's Tower with it. And I can't even count how many times a Tron player prematurely quit a match in the training room of MTGO when they didn't have the nut draw - which is kinda counterproductive, since sub-optimal draws usually result in a considerably greater learning experience. It just doesn't make sense and feels unsportsmanlike to me, robbing the opponent of the kind of open game that they need to improve their tron matchup. There is little to learn from T1 Expedition Map into T3 Karn.
I think it's safe to assume that Magic would also benefit from attractive tournament matches with interesting and meaningful interactions. This looks to me like a good reason for overthinking the way certain tournament formats have been policed in the past, based on what is perhaps the most important metric for a company: future sales numbers. Heck, we could even randomly unban some cards that might or might not ruin the format, just create some artificial hype around the next set of reprints that we are trying to sale. Not that WotC would ever resort to such tactics, though...
Affinity is a good example of a deck that could be hated out but isn't because most decks have a fighting chance against it without resorting to multiple dedicated hate cards in the sideboard. If Affinity had access to Mirodin artifact lands, many different deck archetypes would be forced make major adjustments to their sideboards, probably even their maindeck. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to directly compare Mirrodin artifact lands to anything in Tron, but the general principle is the same: If many decks in the format have to dedicate 5+ sideboard slots to be able to compete with a single archetype, there is less room for innovation and the most narrow and linear decks benefit the most from the situation - decks, that don't really need a sideboard and would benefit greatly if sideboards didn't exist.
b) I'm talking about Gx Tron. I never had an issue with blue Tron.
Most of the the time it seems as if the Tron player doesn't really care about my deck and all. They just jam something every turn, not playing around counter-magic or anything. They know they have the redundancy in 12 land tutors and the inevitability in Sanctum of Ughin and the big Eldrazi. So all I do is merrily a nuisance to them.
As a side note, I also noticed that some of the Tron players I face on MTGO make very bad decisions when they are forced to play "normal" Magic. So, one good thing about Tron might actually be that it enables inexperienced and below average players to have some success in Modern. I don't mean this as an insult. It can actually help make a format as diverse as Modern more accessible if you can win a good share of matches without profound knowledge of the other decks in the format.
The decks I currently enjoy playing against the most are Jund, Jeskai Control (the Teferi version) and Affinity. These decks have multiple angles of attack and feel almost elegant in comparison to many of the other decks in their respective categories. Honorable mentions: Various Shadow decks and Storm.
I'm unsure about Humans. After playing against it a lot recently, my feeling is that the deck's super-convenient access to rainbow mana might be a little bit too good for the format.
Turns seems fine to me. As far as I can tell from my limited experience of playing against it, it's actually quite interactive in its attempts to take over the game.