IMO, any deck that you have to Be prepared for with specific cards is a bit much. Cards like chalice,nix,spell pierce, and ethersworn cannonist are so narrow in application that the only reason they typically will get put into 75s is because of this deck. It can easily win game 1 against most decks in the format.
There are a lot of posts like this, people who claim that the sideboard tech and other cards that work best against HG are useless/minimally useful in other matchups. Simply put, this is not true. Chalice and Spell Pierce in particular serve a wide range of functions, especially in the proper deck. A while back, I noted that in order to play Chalice as an anti HG card, you also need to figure out where else it is useful. Thankfully, it is quite powerful in a number of other matchups, some of which are absolutely format defining.
Chalice at 0 also has applications against both Tempered Steel (Memnite, Mox Opal, Ornithopter) and Living End decks. This makes the card quite versatile in the decks that are capable of playing it. It is not an unstoppable HG answer, because both Krosan Grip and Ingot Chewer stop it cold, but it definitely can put a serious wrench in their plans.
This is in addition to the other cards that stop HG, such as Magus of the Moon and Blood Moon, which are quite strong metagame cards regardless of HG's presence.
This really just seems to boil down to the same fear that players had about both Combo Elves and Twelvepost; a lot of claims about the unbeatability of the deck without any historical evidence to back it up. The only thing that the deck has gained since the good old days is Chancellor of the Annex and, to a lesser extent, Chancellor of the Tangle. Emrakul and Blightsteel are also present, but after a Hypergenesis resolves, there's really no hope of a win anyway, regardless of what your killers are.
And the results don't get any better from there. Zoo? Combo Elves? Faeries? Jund? 5 Color Control? All these decks consistently posted better results over a longer period of time. I personally dislike the deck, and I do not like playing against it. But it is not unbeatable; it is just a powerful combo deck that can contribute to the metagame. History has shown that it does not warp formats, and while it will definitely see play, I do not think that there is enough evidence to merit its banning yet. If someone can show the evidence, I would be happy to consider it, as also I am sure others would be. But until then, we do not have enough to go on for banning Hypergenesis.
I mean, why preemptively ban anything unless they test it first?
For me, this is really the problem with Hypergenesis. The deck was never totally out of control in the old Extended, and it was only banned in the new Extended to make sure players used diverse decks and didn't default to the same old archetypes. Sure, it's a very powerful combo deck, but it is not unbeatable by any means. Like most combo decks, it has a very strong game 1, followed by increasingly fragile games 2 and 3. Like most combo decks, it is non-interactive and explosive against Aggro, but far weaker versus control. It wins faster than other combo decks, but when disrupted, is a lot harder to get going again.
There is a long list of cards that are strong against Hypergenesis AND give the decks using them an edge up on other decks in the metagame. This is not the "dredge case", where everyone has to board in 4-6 GY hate spells or fold the Dredge matchup, 4-6 GY spells that are effectively useless against most other decks in the format. Cards that are strong against Hypergenesis also tend to be strong against other decks.
1) Chalice of the Void:
Obviously, the limiting factor on Chalice is your own deck. A deck packed with one drops can't really roll with Chalice realistically. But there are plenty of decks that are either not full of one drops, or can evolve to use Chalice. Not only does Chalice at 0 stop Hypergenesis, but it also wreaks havoc on Living End's game plan. In other matchups, Chalice at 1 is extremely powerful, hurting Zoo (Nacatl, Bolt, Path, Lion/Ape), Combo Elves (Glimpse, Heritage Druid, Nettle Sentinel), Pyromancer's Ascension (Ponder, Preordain, Gitaxian Probe, Bolt), Burn (Bolt, Spike, Guide, Spark Elemental), and a variety of other decks.
2) Countermagic:
Any deck running maindeck countermagic just needs to have 3-4 over the course of the game to stop Hypergenesis dead in its tracks. Just 2 counterspells is often enough to grind the Hypergen gameplan to a halt, long enough for Jace to get a lock going, for Batterskull to beat down, or for Bitterblossom to make an unstoppable swarm. Spellstutter Sprite, Mana Leak, Cryptic Command, Condescend, and Remand (For combo) are all commonly used counterspells that can give Hypergen a big problem. Also, most control decks run as many counterspells as Hypergen runs cascade engines, which gives the control player an almost equal chance of being able to answer any cascades on a one to one basis.
3) Discard:
BW Midrange and Mono Black Discard thrive in a control and combo heavy metagame. Augur of Skulls, Duress, Thoughtseize, Inquisition of Kozilek, and Wrench Mind are all powerful hand-wrecking engines that give Hypergenesis players major headaches.
4) Land Destruction/Disruption:
The biggest threats in this category are in the RG Ponza camp (Turn 1 Birds into turn 2 Blood Moon/Magus of the Moon/Stone Rain) and in the All In Red camp (Turn 1 Rite/Simian Spirit Guide/Blood Moon). Both of these strategies are absolute death for Hypergenesis in game 1, as the deck runs a hilariously low percentage of basic lands, and virtually no maindeck answers to this sort of pressure. If Hypergenesis becomes a decent deck, then you can expect to see an uptick in land destruction and AIR strategies, taking advantage of fragile manabases. RG Ponza strategies are especially well-suited to this task, as they can easily aim a steady turn 2 (Stone Rain), turn 3 (Creeping Mold), turn 4 (Acidic Slime), turn 5 (Reap and Sow) stream of land destruction to keep Hypergen completely off balance. And then there's Blood Moon, which destroys Hypergen's manabase.
All of these options are potential answers to the Hypergenesis question. It would be best if these theoretical solutions were tested in the context of tournaments and events before bannings are announced. Some cards ABSOLUTELY need to be banned (Sensei's Divining Top and Sword of the Meek are both in this category). But other cards should be tested before banning, because the solutions are out there, and those solutions do NOT distract decks from what they would otherwise be doing.
Remember, it is NEVER a good argument to say "Card X has answers, so it is ok!" Black Lotus can be FoW'd, and Tolarian Academy can be Wastelanded, and those guys are obviously not okay for Legacy (which has a lot of FoW and Wasteland). But in the Hypergenesis case, the answers are a lot more numerous and a lot more accessible to different strategies. Testing can answer this puzzle more than can just rageful speculation.
Mirrodin is arbitrary enough as it is. New card frames help players figure out legality? First of all, that is not even true; anyone who is so new as to need the visual aid is not going to understand that their Wild Mongrel/Dark Ritual from Duel Decks is not legal in the format. For those who already know what blocks are legal, then you also don't need the visual aid to help. In short, there is no reason to have this silly "modern frame" business defining the most important Eternal Format in Magic history.
Ravnica is even more arbitrary, because there is actually nothing distinguishing it from Mirrodin, Kamigawa, Coldsnap, or any of the other surrounding blocks.
Going earlier, however, is definitely an option. I understand that MTGO availability limits us from using a Masques starting point (...now, at least), but Masques really does have the historical significance to justify the format. The end of the reserve list?! Need I say more?! This is the reason this format exists at all, and to start at such a historical point would be good for the format and its popularity. Besides, as the Overextended tournaments on MTGO showed, more formats did NOT mean less diversity. On the contrary; Overextended was, and is, more diverse than even Legacy by a long shot.
Earlier cutoffs are better for the health of the format, although I am not optimistic that Wizards will follow this reasoning.
-ktkenshinx-
EDIT:
Quote from slipknot72102 »
overextended is trash; its legacy decks minus five or six cards that are replaced with fillers. The ability to start a format off without a banned list is a great opportunity. The format would have plenty of decks, I mean what are we honestly losing from mirrodin that isn't already banned? Nothing necessary for any deck that would be in the meta. The only deck we lose is 12 post which can just be replaced by tron. The combo decks would also be a lot more fair as elves would lose glimpse of nature, and hypergenesis would have to cut down to 3-4 colors to retain any sort of mana consistency. The other cascade decks would become viable, control decks would become viable, aggro besides zoo(vampires maybe) would become viable. Hell 5cc and MBC could even become players in this format. Maybe project-x or other decks from the past that wouldn't be possible with over powered combos become meta gamed decks. The possibilities are endless.
I am sorry to butt heads with you again on another thread, but I do not think you have the right idea about OE. Have you looked at the results on the site, and what consistently posts top results? All of the Legacy overlap decks also exist in Modern; Bant, Zoo, Merfolk, UW Stoneforge, Elves, and RDW. They barely lose a single card, in fact.
But then there are all the decks that do not exist in Legacy, some of which don't even exist in Modern! Twelvepost, Allies, Astral Slide, Enduring Ideal, Scapeshift, Dragonstorm, Twin Combo, Pyromancer's Ascension, Protean Hulk, etc. In fact, I challenge anyone here to name a deck that DOES exist in Modern but does NOT exist in Overextended (decks that exist/don't exist because of bannings do not count). The two formats have heavy overlaps, but everything that exists in Modern could also exist in OE. By ditching an earlier cutoff, some stuff is lost (Reanimator, Madness, Astral Slide, Goblins, to name a few), but overall, I would not be too displeased.
But knocking the Overextended metagame for lack of knowledge is just not fair. There is a lot to be learned from looking over those results, and it definitely says a lot about the direction that Modern can go.
When EVERY DECK IN THE FORMAT has to dedicate any amount of cards towards 1 deck in the format, that deck is warping the format. Yes any deck can be answered but, history shows us when a format is geared like that, every deck becomes weaker to every other deck in the format. This format needs to start out diverse and wide open, not on a mission to hate out a couple decks.
This isn't really a matter of any deck being answerable. Yeah, Black Lotus is answerable, and so is Flash Hulk. As we all know, that does not make them fair or balanced. But this is not an argument like that. I am saying that Hypergenesis is totally answerable by the metagame with overlapping threats. Decks running lots of countermagic already have a leg up on Hypergenesis, and there are plenty of those decks around. Decks running discard also have a similar advantage, and between the UB, BW, and BG builds that exist in this format, there are plenty of those as well. Decks running red can Blood Moon or Magus of the Moon to lock down the board, and decks running white have access to Silence. And Chalice of the Void is always effective.
My point exactly. Ever deck would need at least 4-8 slots in the sideboard as dedicated hypergenesis hate that would not be relevant in any other match up. Also people will complain when hypergenesis goes undefeated as it will. Also the rules questions that it will bring up would be rather annoying especially if I'm not able to be there for the match.
This brings me to the next point. All those sideboard cards I mentioned above are also relevant in tons of other matchups! This is not dedicated sideboard hate, in the spirit of maindecked Oxidize in 2003-2005, or 4 Leyline of the Void in every Dredge-era sideboard. Chalice of the Void is good against Elves (CMC 1 = Glimpse, Heritage Druid, Nettle Sentinel), BW Midrange (CMC 1 = Path, Thoughtseize, Inquisition), Ascension and Swath combo (CMC 1 = Ponder, Preordain, Gitaxian Probe, etc.), and a variety of other decks. Silence is strong against combo. Countermagic and discard are obviously useful in all matchups, and Blood Moon/Magus of the Moon are highly relevant against all of the tri-colored decks and nonbasic focused decks (Scapeshift, Bant, Zoo, Twelvepost, Urzatron, etc.).
If you challenge these assertions of mine (which I hope you do, because nothing should be taken at face value), then I strongly encourage you all to test it out IN THIS TOURNAMENT. I will be the first to jump on board the anti-hypergenesis bandwagon if there is some solid testing and results to back it up. This tournament could provide those results! It could show that Hypergenesis is totally degenerate and not healthy for the format. Or it could show just the opposite, that it is a valuable combo addition to the metagame.
We should not advance a theory before gathering good evidence. We should get the proof and then advance our theory.
I had initially written this post as a defense of the Hypergenesis-banning group, but upon thinking about it, I think that people should reconsider their stance.
This tournament SHOULD include Hypergenesis, and here is why.
(Note: Unlike previous advocates for Hypergenesis, I am not going to troll or get personal. This is just an academic argument for why Hypergenesis should be allowed in the tournament, and why excluding it is a mistake. I hope that any responses to this post are returned in kind).
1. Hypergenesis is NOT unstoppable.
I have been testing Modern for weeks now, and we included Hypergenesis in our testing gauntlet. There are lots of sideboard threats that definitely hurt Hypergen, ones that all decks can use. Chalice of the Void at 0 is a particularly devastating opening versus the deck, one that is not limited by color. Blue gets its usual countermagic plus Nix (if needed). Black gets Thoughtseize and Duress. Red gets Blood Moon and Magus of the Moon. White gets Silence (Cast Silence in response to the cascade trigger, with it on the stack. They can reveal the card, but they won't be able to cast it). All of these are viable options against Hypergenesis, ones that most decks can use.
2. Hypergenesis may not be banned!
Sacrilege, I know. But Wizards has never been perfect with its banlist. Golgari Grave Troll over Bridge from Below? Banning Mystic Tutor in Legacy? Unbanning Gush in Vintage? Taking 2 years to ban out Affinity? Magic's history is fraught with Wizards' errors in banning, and Modern is going to be no exception to this (I am not attacking Wizards here, just remarking on its imperfections). We have no way of knowing FOR SURE whether Hypergenesis will or will not be banned. It MIGHT be. But it is not guaranteed. This sets up this tournament in a potentially risky situation. If Hypergenesis does get axed, then no worries. But if it doesn't, then this was not a Modern tournament at all, and it would have been better for players to run the Hypergenesis gauntlet.
3. A Learning Experience
If we include Hypergenesis in this tournament, then we will accomplish two things. First, we will learn what is good against it and what is not so good. Second, we will learn if it is truly as powerful as everyone believes. Experiments like this are important, because they inform the community, which in turn can inform Wizards.
For example, in the early days of Modern, I heard a lot of griping about Combo Elves and Twelvepost. But having tested and played online for weeks now, I see that these decks are not nearly as powerful as was initially feared. Elves is fragile, hard to play, and fairly easy to hate out without dedicating yourself to anti-Elf cards. Twelvepost is explosive and powerful, but even the mono blue versions have trouble against faster combo decks that win outright (Ascension, Twin, Pyromancer's Swath, Elves, Scapeshift), and equal trouble versus dedicated control (UW Stoneforge, BW Midrange, etc.). Hypergenesis may turn out to be nothing more than a boogie man, a misplaced fear in a new era. Or it might be the new affinity. Time and testing will tell for sure, but the only way we can get that is with its legalization in events.
So those are my thoughts on the matter. This is not a matter of personal preference, selfishness, or trolling. I just think it would be best for the community and the future of Modern if we learn how to play against this card, either as a preparation period for its ultimate inclusion, or as a cautionary tale for its banning.
There has been a lot of talk that Modern will be more expensive than Legacy, or about the same price as Legacy. People cite, as examples, the crossover cards that are needed in both formats (Goyf, Confidant, Jace, Mystic, Misstep, etc.), as well as the format staples that are critical to building many of the best Modern decks (Shocklands, Vesuva, Glimpse of Nature, etc.).
Both of these views are seriously flawed.
If crossover staples go up in price, then BOTH Legacy and Modern will become more expensive. Modern will not become the more expensive format over Legacy, because the cards are shared between the two formats. It is not as if players buying Goyf/Mystic/Confidants for Legacy somehow get a discount over the hapless Modern player buying it for his new format. Any deck that used to run $50 Goyfs in Legacy will now have to run $70 Goyfs in Legacy. The same goes for Modern.
As to the other staples, the whole point of Modern is that it is a non-Reserve List format. Wizards can and ABSOLUTELY WILL reprint staples to keep the format accessible and popular, and to drive prices to reasonable levels. It is totally fine for duals to cost in the neighborhood of 20-30 per land; all "adult" hobbies are somewhat expensive, and Magic is a lot cheaper than the alternatives at a competitive level (poker anyone?).
Anyone who thinks that Wizards is not going to do reprints is completely missing the intention of this format, and the language surrounding its creation. Modern is the new eternal format with a sustainable premise (reprintable cards and sets). Wizards and its representatives have always acknowledged these facts of the format, and they will continue to do so in the months to come.
Breeding Pool
Hallowed Fountain
Watery Grave
Seam Vents
Sacred Foundry
Godless Shrine
Stomping Ground
Temple Garden
Overgrown Tomb
Blood Crypt
Jace, The Mind Sculptor
Tarmogoyf
Dark Confidant
Sword of Fire and Ice
Mutavault
I'd buy it...
Everyone would buy this. Casual players, investors, speculators, collectors, Modern players, Legacy players, and everyone else in between would all buy such a set. The end result would be a product that was almost impossible to find and one that retailers could make small fortunes on. This would not do much to increase the accessibility of the format.
Now, if the cards were NOT fixed, then the model could be sustainable. For example, if there was a Modern Master's Set that was sold in 6 card booster packs, and you were guaranteed 1 Rare/Mythic Rare, 2 Uncommons, and 3 Commons, players would still flock to this product. It would definitely cost more than an average booster pack, maybe around $9.99 or something, but it would also provide a great jumpoff platform for incoming players. It would put enough new Goyfs and Jace's into the secondary market to lower their price just a little.
In the end, you need to find a balance between printing enough new cards to make Modern more accessible and satisfy the increased demand for cards, while still keeping rares and mythis suitably priced. A format where the best rare goes for 40-50 is not that bad. But right now, Tarmogoyf is played only in Legacy, and he's still worth 60. When Modern becomes a reality, and Zoo becomes a powerhouse, demand for him is going to skyrocket, and so will his price. Wizards needs to prevent that.
The way I see it, there are two big ways that a Modern FTV/Master's set could work out (assuming Wizards does it at all). The first is as an FTV set, with fixed cards. In my opinion, this would be a bad idea. The FTV: Relics set only had a handful of good, playable artifacts, and that thing was retailing for over $50 per box (now it's at $75+). An FTV pre-made set with Confidant, Goyf, Jitte, Sword of Fire and Ice, Jace, etc. would be absurdly expensive. Everyone from Legacy players to Modern players, and casual players to investors and speculators, would all buy this box. Wizards would have to print literal tons of these boxes in order to keep prices reasonable, but this would probably have some economic impact on the Magic secondary market that Wizards might want to avoid (even if they never acknowledge that they care about the secondary market).
The other option, and I think this is a much better one, is to print 6 card booster packs (numbers are tinkerable) with 1 rare/mythic rare, 2 uncommons, and 3 commons. These cards would all be Modern staples. You would not have too many rares and mythic rares in the master's set as a whole, so you would have a decent chance of opening Jaces and Goyfs if you bought enough packs. This product would definitely be more expensive than a regular booster pack, but not so much more that it would exclude players from the format. This would increase accessibility, provide format hype, and lower the cost of certain cards for both Modern and even Legacy.
1) Tarmogoyf - I don't see this being reprinted anytime soon, it is one of the most powerful creatures in magic history, and as said by WoTC it is a mistake in design
2) Dark Confidant - possible, but also not at the same time, we'll just have to see in future sets
3) Jace, the Mind Sculptor - now this I don't see being reprinted anytime soon, after just having been banned then reprinting it again doesn't make any sense at all.
4) Fetchlands - this I want, the onslaught fethclands need reprinting anyway since they are already at $20-30ea
5) Shocklands - possible since they are balanced, maybe having it reprinted ilike in Ravnica before. Or if possible new versions with different ETB cost than the previous that way it can give more land variety.
As for the prices of Modern cards such as these, I think it is a lot more appealing than actually playing Legacy as well as the supply of cards is much more than that of Legacy cards. It is harder to find a playset of Duals from ABU than a playset of Shocklands from Ravnica and at cheaper prices. The only thing I am worrying about if the prices of the shocklands would reach the prices of the actual duals due to high demand and high popularity of the format.
I might have been unclear in my post. At no point did I think that the top 3 cards on this list (Goyf, Confidant, Jace) would be reprinted in a Standard legal set. Master's/Event/FTV sets do not necessarily provide Standard legal cards, and these cards could simply be reprinted to drive down prices and increase format popularity. Even if Standard players are done with Jace, and even if Standard is an unsafe home for Goyf, these cards are still going to be used in Modern. A lot. Reprinting them just makes the format easier to get into without warping any other formats.
Master's/Event/FTV sets are the answer to the reprint question, not base/expansion set reprinting.
I don't understand why people even think that Modern will be cheap. Come on, Tier one Standard decks are $200-$300. If you can get into an Eternal format for $400-$500 for most Tier 1 decks I would consider the format cheap.
Obviously WoTC is going to reprint the Ravnica duals, I would also expect them to reprint Goyf early on due to his cost and how many decks he will likely be run in.
The only cards that are going to need reprinting for price reasons are:
1) Tarmogoyf
2) Dark Confidant
3) Jace, the Mind Sculptor
4) Fetchlands
5) Shocklands
Fetchlands and shocklands are not difficult reprints for Wizards to handle. In fact, the "Hook" block (return to Ravnica) could see a reprinting of those shocklands for Standard AND Modern play. Fetchlands could also fit into a number of blocks.
The other top 3, however, are a bigger problem. Expect to see 70+ pricetags on those guys, which immediately shoots certain decks into the stratosphere of expensiveness. That said, Wizards has an easy solution which they have already implemented once before: print the cards in Master's sets to increase tournament accessibility. I am thinking of the recent event deck which printed out a pair of Stoneforge Mystics during a time when the card boasted a $20 price tag. Wizards could easily market and sell a FTV/Event/Master's product which had these guys available. They could even do it like a special set that you have to buy booster packs of: 6 card booster packs with 2 rares and 4 "staples" of the modern format (Ponder, Duress, Remand, Mana Leak, Aether Vial, etc.) The numbers could easily be tinkered with, but the overall idea is a decent one. This would both increase format popularity AND make the card pool more accessible.
All in all I am quite positive about the pricing of this new format, although I do hope that the new Modern that was announced to be sanctioned in a few months will not have such a stupid cutoff as Mirrodin/8th. If so, we can live with it, but a lot of diversity and cards will be arbitrarily lost.
That won't work because the rules demand an exact accounting of the game state. You need to determine exactly how many tokens each player controls; you aren't allowed to use an approximate answer. So using the law of large numbers won't work.
A solution which doesn't calculate timestamps is also problematic because even if it's irrelevant at the time it's possible that it will matter at some point in the future.
Exactly. This is why the game must be a draw. The players will have two options. They can either 1) Go through each individual coin flip to resolve the spell (which means the round will go to time and be a draw), or 2) Choose to accept a mutual draw and move on to the next game. This was the conclusion that was reached when the Worldgorger Dragon player milled an Oath player for 100000000+, but the Oath player had 2 Blessings in his deck. There was no way to determine the exact card order without going through the motions, so the players were given the two options I have said above.
Mathematical modeling is awesome, but it is not part of the rules. Any solution that involves such modeling is not going to work.
The game will either end in a draw or it will be a mutually-agreed upon intentional draw.
"715.2a At any point in the game, the player with priority may suggest a shortcut by describing a sequence of game choices, for all players, that may be legally taken based on the current game state and the predictable results of the sequence of choices. "
The result of the Scrambleverse cannot be predicted. DCI policy demands that a loop be 100% predictable to be shortcutted on. This action of randomizing that many tokens is nowhere near 100% predictable, and therefore cannot be shortcutted on.
That means the players can either agree to randomize all of the tokens, which will take too long and force the round to time, or they can just say the game is a draw and move on.
This is like the old "one million coins" and "lantern of insight" threads.
That's not quite how the end step triggers work. Here is a quote from the Daily MTG article:
The final trick I want to pull (with a little brainstorming push from Kelly Digges) is to completely break effects that trigger "at the beginning of the next end step." End the turn with these effects on the stack, and they fade, never to recur. (You have to let them hit the stack first, or they'll just trigger at the beginning of the next end step that actually happens.)
So here's how it works with Through the Breach (Ball Lightning has a static effect which I wasn't thinking about when I wrote the example)
1. Cast Breach, bring dude into play
2. Swing
3. At the beginning of your end step, Breach's trigger goes on the stack.
4. Activate Sundial.
5. The trigger is removed from the stack and gone forever.
If you use the sundial BEFORE your end step, then the trigger will just come back during your opponent's turn. But if the trigger is ALREADY ON THE STACK, then it will be gone forever and you can continue to abuse your cards.
There are a lot of posts like this, people who claim that the sideboard tech and other cards that work best against HG are useless/minimally useful in other matchups. Simply put, this is not true. Chalice and Spell Pierce in particular serve a wide range of functions, especially in the proper deck. A while back, I noted that in order to play Chalice as an anti HG card, you also need to figure out where else it is useful. Thankfully, it is quite powerful in a number of other matchups, some of which are absolutely format defining.
Combo Elves: Heritage Druid, Nettle Sentinel, Glimpse of Nature
Burn: Lightning Bolt, Goblin Guide, Lava Spike, Spark Elemental
Zoo: Wild Nacatl, Lightning Bolt, Path to Exile, Kird Ape/Loam Lion
BW Discard: Inquisition of Kozilek, Thoughtseize, Path to Exile
Pyromancer's Ascension/Storm Combo: Ponder, Preordain, Gitaxian Probe
Merfolk: Aether Vial, Cursecatcher, Ponder, Mental Misstep
Chalice at 0 also has applications against both Tempered Steel (Memnite, Mox Opal, Ornithopter) and Living End decks. This makes the card quite versatile in the decks that are capable of playing it. It is not an unstoppable HG answer, because both Krosan Grip and Ingot Chewer stop it cold, but it definitely can put a serious wrench in their plans.
This is in addition to the other cards that stop HG, such as Magus of the Moon and Blood Moon, which are quite strong metagame cards regardless of HG's presence.
-ktkenshinx-
Are we to believe that Chancellor of the Annex/Tangle make the deck so broken that it is going to completely turn around the metagame from years earlier? Take a look at the deck's postings. A quick Starcitygames deck search for all decks that placed 8th or higher (in the last 5 years) shows only 18 contenders.
//sales.starcitygames.com/deckdatabase/deckshow.php?t_all=All&deck_name[">=&event_ID=&feedin=&start_date=2007-02-11&end_date=2011-08-14&city=&state=&country=&start=&finish=&exp=&p_first=&p_last=&simple_card_name[1]=Hypergenesis&simple_card_name[2]=&simple_card_name[3]=&simple_card_name[4]=&simple_card_name[5]=&w_perc=0&g_perc=0&r_perc=0&b_perc=0&u_perc=0&a_perc=0&comparison[1]=%3E%3D&card_qty[1]=1&card_name[1]=&comparison[2]=%3E%3D&card_qty[2]=1&card_name[2]=&comparison[3]=%3E%3D&card_qty[3]=1&card_name[3]=&comparison[4]=%3E%3D&card_qty[4]=1&card_name[4]=&comparison[5]=%3E%3D&card_qty[5]=1&card_name[5]=&sb_comparison[1]=%3E%3D&sb_card_qty[1]=1&sb_card_name[1]=&sb_comparison[2]=%3E%3D&sb_card_qty[2]=1&sb_card_name[2]=&card_not[1]=&card_not[2]=&card_not[3]=&card_not[4]=&card_not[5]=&order_1=finish&order_2=&limit=25&action=Show+Decks"]Link here
Of those placings, only one deck managed to take first at a PTQ, that being held in Greensboro, North Carolina, on 3/14/2010. Another first place finish happened at an MTGO event on 4/10/2010. After that, in terms of PTQ finishers, Hypergenesis seriously underperformed. It placed...
2nd place: 1 player
3rd place: 3 players
4th place: 0
5th place: 2 players at a PTQ, 1 player at a Grand Prix, 1 player at a Pro Tour.
And the results don't get any better from there. Zoo? Combo Elves? Faeries? Jund? 5 Color Control? All these decks consistently posted better results over a longer period of time. I personally dislike the deck, and I do not like playing against it. But it is not unbeatable; it is just a powerful combo deck that can contribute to the metagame. History has shown that it does not warp formats, and while it will definitely see play, I do not think that there is enough evidence to merit its banning yet. If someone can show the evidence, I would be happy to consider it, as also I am sure others would be. But until then, we do not have enough to go on for banning Hypergenesis.
-ktkenshinx-
For me, this is really the problem with Hypergenesis. The deck was never totally out of control in the old Extended, and it was only banned in the new Extended to make sure players used diverse decks and didn't default to the same old archetypes. Sure, it's a very powerful combo deck, but it is not unbeatable by any means. Like most combo decks, it has a very strong game 1, followed by increasingly fragile games 2 and 3. Like most combo decks, it is non-interactive and explosive against Aggro, but far weaker versus control. It wins faster than other combo decks, but when disrupted, is a lot harder to get going again.
There is a long list of cards that are strong against Hypergenesis AND give the decks using them an edge up on other decks in the metagame. This is not the "dredge case", where everyone has to board in 4-6 GY hate spells or fold the Dredge matchup, 4-6 GY spells that are effectively useless against most other decks in the format. Cards that are strong against Hypergenesis also tend to be strong against other decks.
1) Chalice of the Void:
Obviously, the limiting factor on Chalice is your own deck. A deck packed with one drops can't really roll with Chalice realistically. But there are plenty of decks that are either not full of one drops, or can evolve to use Chalice. Not only does Chalice at 0 stop Hypergenesis, but it also wreaks havoc on Living End's game plan. In other matchups, Chalice at 1 is extremely powerful, hurting Zoo (Nacatl, Bolt, Path, Lion/Ape), Combo Elves (Glimpse, Heritage Druid, Nettle Sentinel), Pyromancer's Ascension (Ponder, Preordain, Gitaxian Probe, Bolt), Burn (Bolt, Spike, Guide, Spark Elemental), and a variety of other decks.
2) Countermagic:
Any deck running maindeck countermagic just needs to have 3-4 over the course of the game to stop Hypergenesis dead in its tracks. Just 2 counterspells is often enough to grind the Hypergen gameplan to a halt, long enough for Jace to get a lock going, for Batterskull to beat down, or for Bitterblossom to make an unstoppable swarm. Spellstutter Sprite, Mana Leak, Cryptic Command, Condescend, and Remand (For combo) are all commonly used counterspells that can give Hypergen a big problem. Also, most control decks run as many counterspells as Hypergen runs cascade engines, which gives the control player an almost equal chance of being able to answer any cascades on a one to one basis.
3) Discard:
BW Midrange and Mono Black Discard thrive in a control and combo heavy metagame. Augur of Skulls, Duress, Thoughtseize, Inquisition of Kozilek, and Wrench Mind are all powerful hand-wrecking engines that give Hypergenesis players major headaches.
4) Land Destruction/Disruption:
The biggest threats in this category are in the RG Ponza camp (Turn 1 Birds into turn 2 Blood Moon/Magus of the Moon/Stone Rain) and in the All In Red camp (Turn 1 Rite/Simian Spirit Guide/Blood Moon). Both of these strategies are absolute death for Hypergenesis in game 1, as the deck runs a hilariously low percentage of basic lands, and virtually no maindeck answers to this sort of pressure. If Hypergenesis becomes a decent deck, then you can expect to see an uptick in land destruction and AIR strategies, taking advantage of fragile manabases. RG Ponza strategies are especially well-suited to this task, as they can easily aim a steady turn 2 (Stone Rain), turn 3 (Creeping Mold), turn 4 (Acidic Slime), turn 5 (Reap and Sow) stream of land destruction to keep Hypergen completely off balance. And then there's Blood Moon, which destroys Hypergen's manabase.
All of these options are potential answers to the Hypergenesis question. It would be best if these theoretical solutions were tested in the context of tournaments and events before bannings are announced. Some cards ABSOLUTELY need to be banned (Sensei's Divining Top and Sword of the Meek are both in this category). But other cards should be tested before banning, because the solutions are out there, and those solutions do NOT distract decks from what they would otherwise be doing.
Remember, it is NEVER a good argument to say "Card X has answers, so it is ok!" Black Lotus can be FoW'd, and Tolarian Academy can be Wastelanded, and those guys are obviously not okay for Legacy (which has a lot of FoW and Wasteland). But in the Hypergenesis case, the answers are a lot more numerous and a lot more accessible to different strategies. Testing can answer this puzzle more than can just rageful speculation.
-ktkenshinx-
Ravnica is even more arbitrary, because there is actually nothing distinguishing it from Mirrodin, Kamigawa, Coldsnap, or any of the other surrounding blocks.
Going earlier, however, is definitely an option. I understand that MTGO availability limits us from using a Masques starting point (...now, at least), but Masques really does have the historical significance to justify the format. The end of the reserve list?! Need I say more?! This is the reason this format exists at all, and to start at such a historical point would be good for the format and its popularity. Besides, as the Overextended tournaments on MTGO showed, more formats did NOT mean less diversity. On the contrary; Overextended was, and is, more diverse than even Legacy by a long shot.
Earlier cutoffs are better for the health of the format, although I am not optimistic that Wizards will follow this reasoning.
-ktkenshinx-
EDIT:
I am sorry to butt heads with you again on another thread, but I do not think you have the right idea about OE. Have you looked at the results on the site, and what consistently posts top results? All of the Legacy overlap decks also exist in Modern; Bant, Zoo, Merfolk, UW Stoneforge, Elves, and RDW. They barely lose a single card, in fact.
But then there are all the decks that do not exist in Legacy, some of which don't even exist in Modern! Twelvepost, Allies, Astral Slide, Enduring Ideal, Scapeshift, Dragonstorm, Twin Combo, Pyromancer's Ascension, Protean Hulk, etc. In fact, I challenge anyone here to name a deck that DOES exist in Modern but does NOT exist in Overextended (decks that exist/don't exist because of bannings do not count). The two formats have heavy overlaps, but everything that exists in Modern could also exist in OE. By ditching an earlier cutoff, some stuff is lost (Reanimator, Madness, Astral Slide, Goblins, to name a few), but overall, I would not be too displeased.
But knocking the Overextended metagame for lack of knowledge is just not fair. There is a lot to be learned from looking over those results, and it definitely says a lot about the direction that Modern can go.
-ktkenshinx-
This isn't really a matter of any deck being answerable. Yeah, Black Lotus is answerable, and so is Flash Hulk. As we all know, that does not make them fair or balanced. But this is not an argument like that. I am saying that Hypergenesis is totally answerable by the metagame with overlapping threats. Decks running lots of countermagic already have a leg up on Hypergenesis, and there are plenty of those decks around. Decks running discard also have a similar advantage, and between the UB, BW, and BG builds that exist in this format, there are plenty of those as well. Decks running red can Blood Moon or Magus of the Moon to lock down the board, and decks running white have access to Silence. And Chalice of the Void is always effective.
This brings me to the next point. All those sideboard cards I mentioned above are also relevant in tons of other matchups! This is not dedicated sideboard hate, in the spirit of maindecked Oxidize in 2003-2005, or 4 Leyline of the Void in every Dredge-era sideboard. Chalice of the Void is good against Elves (CMC 1 = Glimpse, Heritage Druid, Nettle Sentinel), BW Midrange (CMC 1 = Path, Thoughtseize, Inquisition), Ascension and Swath combo (CMC 1 = Ponder, Preordain, Gitaxian Probe, etc.), and a variety of other decks. Silence is strong against combo. Countermagic and discard are obviously useful in all matchups, and Blood Moon/Magus of the Moon are highly relevant against all of the tri-colored decks and nonbasic focused decks (Scapeshift, Bant, Zoo, Twelvepost, Urzatron, etc.).
If you challenge these assertions of mine (which I hope you do, because nothing should be taken at face value), then I strongly encourage you all to test it out IN THIS TOURNAMENT. I will be the first to jump on board the anti-hypergenesis bandwagon if there is some solid testing and results to back it up. This tournament could provide those results! It could show that Hypergenesis is totally degenerate and not healthy for the format. Or it could show just the opposite, that it is a valuable combo addition to the metagame.
We should not advance a theory before gathering good evidence. We should get the proof and then advance our theory.
-ktkenshinx-
This tournament SHOULD include Hypergenesis, and here is why.
(Note: Unlike previous advocates for Hypergenesis, I am not going to troll or get personal. This is just an academic argument for why Hypergenesis should be allowed in the tournament, and why excluding it is a mistake. I hope that any responses to this post are returned in kind).
1. Hypergenesis is NOT unstoppable.
I have been testing Modern for weeks now, and we included Hypergenesis in our testing gauntlet. There are lots of sideboard threats that definitely hurt Hypergen, ones that all decks can use. Chalice of the Void at 0 is a particularly devastating opening versus the deck, one that is not limited by color. Blue gets its usual countermagic plus Nix (if needed). Black gets Thoughtseize and Duress. Red gets Blood Moon and Magus of the Moon. White gets Silence (Cast Silence in response to the cascade trigger, with it on the stack. They can reveal the card, but they won't be able to cast it). All of these are viable options against Hypergenesis, ones that most decks can use.
2. Hypergenesis may not be banned!
Sacrilege, I know. But Wizards has never been perfect with its banlist. Golgari Grave Troll over Bridge from Below? Banning Mystic Tutor in Legacy? Unbanning Gush in Vintage? Taking 2 years to ban out Affinity? Magic's history is fraught with Wizards' errors in banning, and Modern is going to be no exception to this (I am not attacking Wizards here, just remarking on its imperfections). We have no way of knowing FOR SURE whether Hypergenesis will or will not be banned. It MIGHT be. But it is not guaranteed. This sets up this tournament in a potentially risky situation. If Hypergenesis does get axed, then no worries. But if it doesn't, then this was not a Modern tournament at all, and it would have been better for players to run the Hypergenesis gauntlet.
3. A Learning Experience
If we include Hypergenesis in this tournament, then we will accomplish two things. First, we will learn what is good against it and what is not so good. Second, we will learn if it is truly as powerful as everyone believes. Experiments like this are important, because they inform the community, which in turn can inform Wizards.
For example, in the early days of Modern, I heard a lot of griping about Combo Elves and Twelvepost. But having tested and played online for weeks now, I see that these decks are not nearly as powerful as was initially feared. Elves is fragile, hard to play, and fairly easy to hate out without dedicating yourself to anti-Elf cards. Twelvepost is explosive and powerful, but even the mono blue versions have trouble against faster combo decks that win outright (Ascension, Twin, Pyromancer's Swath, Elves, Scapeshift), and equal trouble versus dedicated control (UW Stoneforge, BW Midrange, etc.). Hypergenesis may turn out to be nothing more than a boogie man, a misplaced fear in a new era. Or it might be the new affinity. Time and testing will tell for sure, but the only way we can get that is with its legalization in events.
So those are my thoughts on the matter. This is not a matter of personal preference, selfishness, or trolling. I just think it would be best for the community and the future of Modern if we learn how to play against this card, either as a preparation period for its ultimate inclusion, or as a cautionary tale for its banning.
-ktkenshinx-
-ktkenshinx-
Both of these views are seriously flawed.
If crossover staples go up in price, then BOTH Legacy and Modern will become more expensive. Modern will not become the more expensive format over Legacy, because the cards are shared between the two formats. It is not as if players buying Goyf/Mystic/Confidants for Legacy somehow get a discount over the hapless Modern player buying it for his new format. Any deck that used to run $50 Goyfs in Legacy will now have to run $70 Goyfs in Legacy. The same goes for Modern.
As to the other staples, the whole point of Modern is that it is a non-Reserve List format. Wizards can and ABSOLUTELY WILL reprint staples to keep the format accessible and popular, and to drive prices to reasonable levels. It is totally fine for duals to cost in the neighborhood of 20-30 per land; all "adult" hobbies are somewhat expensive, and Magic is a lot cheaper than the alternatives at a competitive level (poker anyone?).
Anyone who thinks that Wizards is not going to do reprints is completely missing the intention of this format, and the language surrounding its creation. Modern is the new eternal format with a sustainable premise (reprintable cards and sets). Wizards and its representatives have always acknowledged these facts of the format, and they will continue to do so in the months to come.
-ktkenshinx-
Everyone would buy this. Casual players, investors, speculators, collectors, Modern players, Legacy players, and everyone else in between would all buy such a set. The end result would be a product that was almost impossible to find and one that retailers could make small fortunes on. This would not do much to increase the accessibility of the format.
Now, if the cards were NOT fixed, then the model could be sustainable. For example, if there was a Modern Master's Set that was sold in 6 card booster packs, and you were guaranteed 1 Rare/Mythic Rare, 2 Uncommons, and 3 Commons, players would still flock to this product. It would definitely cost more than an average booster pack, maybe around $9.99 or something, but it would also provide a great jumpoff platform for incoming players. It would put enough new Goyfs and Jace's into the secondary market to lower their price just a little.
In the end, you need to find a balance between printing enough new cards to make Modern more accessible and satisfy the increased demand for cards, while still keeping rares and mythis suitably priced. A format where the best rare goes for 40-50 is not that bad. But right now, Tarmogoyf is played only in Legacy, and he's still worth 60. When Modern becomes a reality, and Zoo becomes a powerhouse, demand for him is going to skyrocket, and so will his price. Wizards needs to prevent that.
-ktkenshinx-
The other option, and I think this is a much better one, is to print 6 card booster packs (numbers are tinkerable) with 1 rare/mythic rare, 2 uncommons, and 3 commons. These cards would all be Modern staples. You would not have too many rares and mythic rares in the master's set as a whole, so you would have a decent chance of opening Jaces and Goyfs if you bought enough packs. This product would definitely be more expensive than a regular booster pack, but not so much more that it would exclude players from the format. This would increase accessibility, provide format hype, and lower the cost of certain cards for both Modern and even Legacy.
-ktkenshinx-
I might have been unclear in my post. At no point did I think that the top 3 cards on this list (Goyf, Confidant, Jace) would be reprinted in a Standard legal set. Master's/Event/FTV sets do not necessarily provide Standard legal cards, and these cards could simply be reprinted to drive down prices and increase format popularity. Even if Standard players are done with Jace, and even if Standard is an unsafe home for Goyf, these cards are still going to be used in Modern. A lot. Reprinting them just makes the format easier to get into without warping any other formats.
Master's/Event/FTV sets are the answer to the reprint question, not base/expansion set reprinting.
-ktkenshinx-
The only cards that are going to need reprinting for price reasons are:
1) Tarmogoyf
2) Dark Confidant
3) Jace, the Mind Sculptor
4) Fetchlands
5) Shocklands
Fetchlands and shocklands are not difficult reprints for Wizards to handle. In fact, the "Hook" block (return to Ravnica) could see a reprinting of those shocklands for Standard AND Modern play. Fetchlands could also fit into a number of blocks.
The other top 3, however, are a bigger problem. Expect to see 70+ pricetags on those guys, which immediately shoots certain decks into the stratosphere of expensiveness. That said, Wizards has an easy solution which they have already implemented once before: print the cards in Master's sets to increase tournament accessibility. I am thinking of the recent event deck which printed out a pair of Stoneforge Mystics during a time when the card boasted a $20 price tag. Wizards could easily market and sell a FTV/Event/Master's product which had these guys available. They could even do it like a special set that you have to buy booster packs of: 6 card booster packs with 2 rares and 4 "staples" of the modern format (Ponder, Duress, Remand, Mana Leak, Aether Vial, etc.) The numbers could easily be tinkered with, but the overall idea is a decent one. This would both increase format popularity AND make the card pool more accessible.
All in all I am quite positive about the pricing of this new format, although I do hope that the new Modern that was announced to be sanctioned in a few months will not have such a stupid cutoff as Mirrodin/8th. If so, we can live with it, but a lot of diversity and cards will be arbitrarily lost.
-ktkenshinx-
Exactly. This is why the game must be a draw. The players will have two options. They can either 1) Go through each individual coin flip to resolve the spell (which means the round will go to time and be a draw), or 2) Choose to accept a mutual draw and move on to the next game. This was the conclusion that was reached when the Worldgorger Dragon player milled an Oath player for 100000000+, but the Oath player had 2 Blessings in his deck. There was no way to determine the exact card order without going through the motions, so the players were given the two options I have said above.
Mathematical modeling is awesome, but it is not part of the rules. Any solution that involves such modeling is not going to work.
-ktkenshinx-
"715.2a At any point in the game, the player with priority may suggest a shortcut by describing a sequence of game choices, for all players, that may be legally taken based on the current game state and the predictable results of the sequence of choices. "
The result of the Scrambleverse cannot be predicted. DCI policy demands that a loop be 100% predictable to be shortcutted on. This action of randomizing that many tokens is nowhere near 100% predictable, and therefore cannot be shortcutted on.
That means the players can either agree to randomize all of the tokens, which will take too long and force the round to time, or they can just say the game is a draw and move on.
This is like the old "one million coins" and "lantern of insight" threads.
-ktkenshinx-
So here's how it works with Through the Breach (Ball Lightning has a static effect which I wasn't thinking about when I wrote the example)
1. Cast Breach, bring dude into play
2. Swing
3. At the beginning of your end step, Breach's trigger goes on the stack.
4. Activate Sundial.
5. The trigger is removed from the stack and gone forever.
If you use the sundial BEFORE your end step, then the trigger will just come back during your opponent's turn. But if the trigger is ALREADY ON THE STACK, then it will be gone forever and you can continue to abuse your cards.
-ktkenshinx-