The demand for bannings in this format is becoming a danger. Let the format fix itself and if it is unable, ban. Jund needed the cut it got when BBE was banned. (From what I read, I was not playing at the time.) I am not sure DRS needed to go, but I do agree he was very strong. But you take out one deck, another will rise. You can not just cycle decks with consent bannings and unbannings without unsettling the player base. Not everyone can pay for a new deck, have it banned and make a new one. We are not all playing in the Pro Tour where we have limitless cards available thanks to sponsors. You just can't cut decks away at the knees and not expect that people will feel uneasy. A lack of trust is not good for the format.
Really, what modern needs is Printings, not bannings. Because while you may not hit the mark you intend with new cards, the chance to build new decks as well as prey on old ones is a much stronger draw than a continuous game of Wack a Mole.
As for Pod, I do not think the card is that powerful, but remember that it is repeatable. Repeatable tutors are almost always at risk of one day breaking themselves.
-
- CrazyMike366
- Registered User
-
Member for 12 years, 9 months, and 9 days
Last active Mon, May, 19 2014 17:23:14
- 1 Follower
- 512 Total Posts
- 62 Thanks
-
Mar 12, 2014
1
Dice_Bag posted a message on [[Official]] Current Modern Banlist Discussion (2/2014 - 7/2014)Posted in: Modern Archives -
Mar 10, 20141
LegitKarona posted a message on [[Official]] Current Modern Banlist Discussion (2/2014 - 7/2014)Some of you may remember my team did some (sadly, limited) testing of possible unbans, testing which managed to predict with some accuracy what would happen given their January unbans (Bitterblossom would be too weak to perform in modern, and Nacatl would be strong enough, but still a safe unban). That testing, which we've done a bit more of, says the following about possible unbans:Posted in: Modern Archives
Golgari Grave-Troll is the safest unban you can get. It's absolutely unplayable in its historic decks, and no current deck wants it. We got some decent results with a Goryo's Vengeance reanimator deck using a dredge engine to draw, but it was still unimpressive, and if it were modern legal the results we got were not good enough for me to pursue the deck further.
Ancestral Vision is a safe unban. It's not unplayable like Grave-Troll, and indeed I found it to be quite strong, but it's not banworthy. We got solid results with it in UW/X control (esper and UWR), and it would certainly be worth playing there, but the results still weren't amazing enough to make the deck too dominant. We also did some limited U/B faeries testing with it, but still didn't get strong enough results for us to worry about it. I'm going to say this explicitly: I don't believer faeries is a good deck in modern. It's playable now, and might be decent with Ancestral Vision, but unless we missed a major card choice that significantly ups its power level, Faeries will not be tier 1.
Bloodbraid Elf is probably a safe unban. We got some scary results with Jund (a little bit better than our testing with Nacatl), but it didn't feel particularly broken. The most notable thing was that it had a quite poor matchup against UWR and especially UWR twin, which suggests that there's a fundamental check on the power of Jund in the format with Deathrite Shaman gone. I'd definitely want to see more testing of this card before I felt comfortable unbanning it, were I the DCI, but it's certainly not inherently dangerous.
Seething Song is debatable. We tried storm with seething song, and found it to be quite powerful, probably powerful enough to make it a recurring contender in the format. However, we found a 15% turn-3 goldfish rate so far, and this was done against our standard modern gauntlet with no sideboard changes. Given that it performed well but not incredibly well (worse, for instance, than zoo with Nacatl did during our testing), it would probably only mean people would have to devote more sideboard hate to storm. From a format dominance and enjoyability perspective, Seething Song is not a threat. From a turn-4 rule perspective, it could be in violation, but I don't think it has a high enough percentage. It's also worth noting that I am a longtime storm combo player, as are two other members of my team, which in my opinion gives this testing more credence (we're less likely to misplay a storm deck).
Sword of the Meek is NOT a safe unban. Dear god is this not a safe unban. The combo is so good, a control shell that can consistently get it out by turn 4 (not that hard if you play any Muddle the Mixtures) doesn't really have to worry about aggro matchups, so they can just play a ton of counters and discard with Snapcasters and Thirst. We tried it in UWR, Esper, and U/B tezzeret. Every single one was extremely strong, with Tezzeret testing roughly equally to zoo with Nacatl and the other two testing vastly better. Note: this does not mean that Sword is absolutely not unbannable. It's entirely possible we missed a couple of powerful hate cards or interactions that make Thopter/Sword weaker, or that new printings over the next couple months will make it weaker. What it does mean is that it's not a safe unban, meaning that, based on our testing, there are real and credible risks that sword will be dominant.
There are other cards we've done minimal testing for (Mental Misstep, Chrome Mox, and Blazing Shoal), but none of those are actually for potential unbans, but rather for reasons of figuring out more general things about approaching banned lists. We haven't done enough testing for those to be relevant, so I can't make any predictions about them. -
Mar 5, 20141
ktkenshinx posted a message on [[Official]] Current Modern Banlist Discussion (2/2014 - 7/2014)Posted in: Modern ArchivesQuote from bocephus
Wrong, Aaron Forsyth said that SFM is on par with SFM in a video I linked in the past. I just agreed with him.
Here is the link, SFM is about 2:30 in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-r-wfodlro
That is not what AF says at all. You are either totally missing what he actually says, or you are just summarizing it badly.
Here's the transcript of the quote.
Quote from Aaron Forsythe »
I think Kibler (was it Kibler?) or someone wrote an article on Starcity saying, you know...maybe it was Pat Sullivan? It was somebody, you know, one of those other guys who works for other game companies, saying,
"Stoneforge is a card that they should have just said, why are we making this? We would never make a card that does this. We would never make a tutor that ignores mana costs. Right? That's Tinker. That's Natural Order. That's cards that we know are ridiculous."
They're right; we shouldn't have done that. In retrospect it's kind of a <facepalm> what were we thinking?
So first of all, AF is paraphrasing another author on SCG. He is not saying that this is his stance. The comparison to Tinker and NO, apart from being mostly rhetorical, was not actually something AF believes. Sure, he agrees that they shouldn't have done SFM the way they did her. But the "They're right; we shouldn't have done that" quote really does not read as if he's saying "Tinker = SFM". He's just agreeing that SFM was poorly designed. There's a reason that Tinker is restricted in Vintage and SFM is totally legal and fair. That comparison, although potentially effective as a rhetorical gimmick, is miles off in gauging the actual power level of the cards in question. -
Feb 26, 2014
1
ktkenshinx posted a message on [[Official]] Current Modern Banlist Discussion (2/2014 - 7/2014)Posted in: Modern ArchivesQuote from CrazyMike366\
Could you please elaborate on why he thinks storm deserves another ban? Just because it performed well in the hands of a few of the best players in the world when no one was expected it to be viable? Or does he cite some on-camera turn 3 wins or something? Faeries did just as well day 2 but I don't see anyone worried about that yet...and in fact Faeries should be an excellent choice if you expect storm to be popular.
I have to say it seems crazy to keep banning rituals. At this point if storm deserves another ban (and I don't think I it does) it makes much more sense to hit pyromancers Ascension, Past in Flames, or Grapeshot instead of rituals and/or cantrips. It's been said that insanity is doing the same things over and over again but expecting different results. So WotC would be nuts to try to hinder Storm by continuing to go after the rituals and can trips instead of he enabler (ascension, past in flames) or undercosted and likely broken Storm finishers (Grapeshot, etc).
He mentions two reasons that Storm should be banned. First, it wins on turn 4 too consistently with too few "points of interaction" for other decks. Twin, an entirely creature-based combo deck, has lots of interaction points. Storm, which is mostly spell-based, has a lot less. As such, Chapin thinks its unfair for the format. Second, Storm is "excruciating to play with, play against, or watch." He thinks it takes too much time, is too uninteractive, and is "outside" the scope of what should be normal Magic.
Personally, I think these are quite possibly the dumbest reasons I have ever heard for a ban in Modern. And that's even comparing his rationale to the rationale we sometimes see on these forums. It is insanely easy to interact with Storm IF you are trying to interact with it. We have these cards called Thoughtseize and Inquisition of Kozilek in the format, along with Scooze, Decay, Spell Snare, etc. It turns out that when you prepare your PT deck to beat Zoo, Melira Pod, UWR Midrange/Control, and Twin, you are pretty dang vulnerable to a graveyard based combo deck. It also turns out that there's this thing called a sideboard to reduce that vulnerability. It would be one thing if the deck was consistently winning on turn 3; that would be too fast. But Chapin even admits that it's a turn 4 deck that is just too hard to interact with. Well Pat, it's only hard to interact with it if you aren't trying to interact with it.
As to the second reason about the deck being unfun, I am genuinely shocked that a pro player would suggest this as a valid reason for a ban. The day decks are banned because they are unfun is the day Magic ends. It's one thing if the deck is unfun and it causes logistical problems (e.g. Second Sunrise from Eggs). Or if the deck is unfun/noninteractive and potentially too fast (Dread Return). Or if the deck is unfun because it dominates the metagame (Caw caw caw!) But Storm is a deck that fits all the format's parameters and is only unfun if you build a deck that refuses to interact with it. It's just one piece of the metagame that is fun to some and unfun to others, just as many other decks are fun to some and unfun to others. I don't think there is anything fun about playing against UWR Control or Affinity or Infect, but I don't go around calling for bannings of my personal dislikes.
Again, I really have to believe that Chapin is making these suggestions for pageviews and sensationalism. No one in their right mind should call for bans after one event. Maybe he's just unhappy he did poorly at the event. I don't know.
Quote from RitaCornyMichaelUnban Sword of the Meek
Unban Deathrite Shaman
Ban Tarmogoyf
OR
Unban Sword of the Meek
Ban Snapcaster Mage
Reasoning: While clearly Jund needed a hit, DRS was the wrong choice. Without DRS providing value to the BGx decks, UWR is oppressive. People thought DRS was too oppressive because it was Grim Lavamancer, Birds of Paradise, and a lifegain/gravehate spell. But it dies to so much, and has summoning sickness, and is vulnerable to grave hate itself! It served as a check on Pod decks (by monkeying with their value) and UWR decks (by providing inevitability and plucking SCM targets).
With Wild Nacatl unbanned, Zoo was in a position to pressure Jund, even with DRS still in the format. Jund damages itself a lot and is subject to being overrun by Zoo. Its removal suite, other than Bolt, is inefficient against Zoo decks: Abrupt Decay, Terminate, Dismember, Liliana and Maelstrom Pulse cost more than the creatures they'd be removing. It was also subject to Tarmogoyf stalls and just being burned out. But now Jund is essentially dead, and even though the BG rock decks are pretty good, they lack the card that really gives them value against UWR and Pod.
Meanwhile, Goyf pushes every 2cmc and some 3cmc creatures out of the format with its pure efficiency. Yes, a turn 2 Liliana is scary. So you have to be ready to kill a 2 toughness creature on turn 1. That doesn't help you when they just plop down a 3/4 or 4/5 instead on turn 2. Now you're getting clocked and you need to be playing, essentially, a Jund deck yourself or a Path deck to beat it. That pushed the format into more BGx decks. Further, with the Nacatl unbanned, you still have to be able to kill a 3 toughness creature on turn 1, which means cheap effective removal is just as needed as it was with DRS in the format.
If Goyf had been banned instead of DRS, Jund's mana curve would've been higher (relevant with Bob and its already large amount of fetching/shocking/Thoughtseizing), making it weaker to aggressive decks, but it still could've fought control and Pod like it had been, preventing those decks from getting out of control.
If DRS must remain banned, then Snapcaster Mage should be banned as well. It is subject to all the same hate that hit DRS that seemingly people are unwilling to play (RIP, Tormod's Crypt effects, etc.), except for removal — it doesn't need to untap to be effective. Look at it this way: It is an instant speed Yawgmoth's Will on a stick. DRS turned your used Bolts and fetches into 2 life drain and a mana? SCM turns your used bolts into bolts! It makes UWR just too good — it makes their graveyard into a wishboard. If DRS and Stoneforge Mystic is the standard for banning a utility creature, SCM fits the bill as well.
Personally, I think both those cards are fair and balanced. Tarmogoyf is a huge mistake, though — as much as a creature that only attacks and blocks can be. (Well, its problem is more that it completely pushes other cards out of the format, sort of like GSZ does).
As for sword of the meek, it is banned because of a combo with Thopter Foundry, itself an artifact with an activation cost. That means it is vulnerable to SB hate people are already running for Pod and Affinity like Ancient Grudge, Stony Silence, Pithing Needle, Wear // Tear, Kataki, etc. There also could be a deck that plays it with Bitterblossom out there that would add to the format instead of just keeping us in this perpetual rotation of Tron, Pod, UWR, and Zoo (where Jund used to be Zoo).
Just my view.
More bannings! One event in and we still have people calling for bannings! At least wait until GP Richmond to start doomsaying about cards that supposedly need to be banned. Comparing Tiago to DRS is particularly egregious because I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that Snappy is reducing format diversity. People claim that it makes UWR too good, and yet there are a ton of other non-blue decks that are viable in this format. -
Jan 25, 20142
TheDasuri posted a message on Temp Banlist Thread: DRS Banned, BB/Nacatl Unbanned!Posted in: ModernQuote from NyzzehI play against twin, pod, scapeshift and living end just fine since they don't use 90% of the game time playing alone while I watch, thank you.
Quote from NyzzehWhy do you play Magic? I play it to actually play. Not to see my opponent play alone through an endless chain of spells.
And btw this was not even the reason they banned the song. They said it was because storm was too fast, which is completely true and something I had been denouncing several months prior to the ban. Yes, it wasn't breaking the format in terms of win% because jund and his discard existed, but being too fast coupled with the uninteraction was enough imo.
PD: Plus, it warped the meta even more towards decks with discard or counters vs decks not having them and having to rely on 5+ SB cards specifically against storm to have a chance.
The meta is not perfect but is sooooo much better than it was prebans.
Quote from Nyzzehthe what?
So you play the game to "play competitively", not because you like the game. You sure will find more competitiveness in chess if that's all you care about.
And btw the current metagame is the way I like it (in terms of decks like storm and eggs not existing), but that must be because wizards catters to us nonskilled casual players.
Damn, if only every deck had a way to hate out storm. I wish there was a colorless answer that was modern legal like Mindbreak Trap Or Leyline of Sanctity CURSE YOU WIZARDS!
Storm was apparently banned because it was too quickly, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it. Even Eggs wasn't too good, there's plenty of answers it was just a time constraint.
You refuse to metagame, and you are whiny about it. there's no reason for your preferences to take precedent over others. You aren't some special snowflake that's better than everyone else who wizards must pay attention to you.
Stop making generalizations about what everyone finds fun. You don't like it. AJ Gibson doesn't like it and he's someone who decided all by himself that people shouldn't have to pay attention to modern because meta games are for try hards. You both also refuse to pack answers for it. It's not broken because you don't like it, its just something you don't like.
Edit:
Wizards has handled the ban list poorly because the only rule should be turn 4 format. It's the only thing we know about. Everything else is too subjective. If something doesn't break turn 4, then it should be banned. If not it should be unbanned.
Jace, Sword of the Meek, Visions, Stoneforge, Bitterblossom, Bloodbraid Elf all don't break that rule. It would be a more powerful format, but it would be different enough from legacy because there is no fast combo. I think it would strike a pretty good chord, but then again we have people who refuse to meta game. God forbid some strong cards enter the format. We'd have to adapt our strategies and pay attention to modern and spark interest in the format. We can't have people paying attention to the format, They'd have to metagame! -
Oct 31, 2013
2
LordOwlingtonIII posted a message on [[Official]] Current Modern Banned List Discussion (Next Announcement: 1/27/14)Posted in: ModernQuote from bocephusExcept modern is not considered an eternal format. It is a non rotating format.
In a card pool as deep as modern's the difference is pedantic and his point still holds. -
Oct 22, 2013
1
ktkenshinx posted a message on [[Official]] Current Modern Banned List Discussion (Next Announcement: 1/27/14)Posted in: ModernQuote from ValanarchCombo is my favorite archetype. But it is doing fine in Modern. Melira Pod, Kiki Pod, Amulet of Vigor, Splinter Twin, Griselbrand Reanimator, Living End, and Restore Balance are all viable, and that is not even counting decks that only some people classify as combo (RG Tron). But turn 3 combo wins are not needed. As a combo player, I actually like the turn 4 rule. It is fun thing to try to break.
Of the combo decks in Modern, very few are actually viable in the sense that they could win a major event. You could take some Dailies or FNMs with them, but you would never take down a PTQ or GP, especially not in today's metagame.
Here are the combo decks that are solidly viable in the current format:
Scapeshift
Twin
Living End
Melira Pod
Kiki Pod
As a longtime combo player, I am mildly offended by the concept of Pod decks being combo. Their backup midrange plan just doesn't sit well with my historic experience of combo, but I am still willing to include them on the list. All of these decks (perhaps with the exception of Living End) are longtime combo staples of our format, and even in the BGx era of today, they still remain viable. Their share has dropped, but they retain some relevance.
Then there's the list of non-viable combo decks. These range from decks that can take down dailies but not GPs (Amulet) to decks that are just totally dead in this metagame (Storm).
Ad Nauseam
Storm
Restore Balance
Tide
Eggs
Enduring Ideal
Death's Shadow
Griselbanned Cannon
Griselbrand Ooze
Amulet of Vigor
cheeri0s
Nivmiseit
I'm probably stretching the definition of playability with these decks, but all of these either have fairly high profile on this site, or have performed in events over the past months. But none of them, Restore Balance being the only possible exception, can really cut it outside of small metagames. They are locally viable. But they aren't viable across the broader metagame.
Returning to the first list, I should note that both Twin and Scapeshift have fallen on seriously hard times on MTGO. BGx has taken its toll on these decks, especially on Twin. That's why I want to see a Preordain unban, a card that would help not only the current tier 1 decks, but also bump up something like Storm back to real viability. As a combo player, I would love to see cards that push more of those non-viable decks into tier 2 status, but I acknowledge that this isn't really a function of unbannings. Bannings could do it, but I am not yet convinced that BGx needs a ban. -
Sep 9, 2013
2
thethirdbardo posted a message on The state of control in modern.Grixis control can get the job done if you tune it for the meta. It also has a bit of an edge up on URW from my experience. You're really just trading Path / Helix / Ajani for stuff like Terminate, Colonnade for Creeping Tarpit, Sphinx's Rev for Cruel Ultimatum. The sideboard cards you get access to with black are just awesome, namely Slaughter Games. With Snapcaster Mage, you can easily take out all of the most important win conditions or key cards against combos / Tron / control decks.Posted in: Modern
It's really just not being tested enough to be considered proven, I'd say that the deck has potential.
Path is really the biggest loss, and it is still very impactful. But, you can hedge your bets where you need it by maindecking Shadow of Doubt and Damnation.
Straight Blue/Black and Blue/White just don't do enough on their own to be top tier contenders. You really see the difference when you add Red for key cards like Bolt, Sowing Salt, Electrolyze, Helix, Terminate, Slaughter Games, Molten Rain, Thundermaw, etc. -
Jun 30, 20133
Vamp1r posted a message on [[M14]] DailyMTG Previews 7/1: Chandra, Pyromaster; Pyromancer's Gauntlet; Manaweft SliverChandra: In my mind, the 0 ability had "without paying its casting cost." at the end. Then I read it again.Posted in: The Rumor Mill
Seems fine. Not sure why they couldn't cost this card for 3. Not particularly exciting for 4. -
Jun 30, 2013
1
ktkenshinx posted a message on [[Official]] Current Modern Banned List Discussion (Next Announcement: 1/27/14)Posted in: ModernQuote from LandBoySteveThis is all well and good and I'm not even arguing with any of it. But the end result is this.
Non creature combo is almost non existent and traditional control is poorly represented in Modern because of the way the banned list is being handled.
What you have is one really good aggro deck (zoo), a few good mid range decks and a few creature based combo decks such as Pod and Twin.
I think we can do better without warping the format and I think AV is a step in that direction.
On the other half of that equation, I would love to see a Seething Song unban to enable some better combo strategies that can actually contest aggro. AV is the card that makes control good enough to play. Similarly, Song is the card that makes combo good enough to play, whether Dragonstorm, Hive Mind, UR Storm, Through the Breach variants, etc. It is possible that an AV unban could ultimately be a precursor for a Song unban, powering up control so it has the tools to succeed against a legitimate combo deck. Of course, Song has only been banned for a few months now, so it is unlikely to come off soon. But even looking back to the justification for the Song ban, it was flimsy at best, and downright ridiculous at worst.
The point being that control and combo need help in this format. AV and SS could be the tools needed to help out those archetypes. If they are worried about noninteractive combo and want to keep it more creature based, Grapeshot could take the ban instead, leaving Empty the Warrens and/or Ignite Memories as the kill conditions of choice. That's more speculative than prescriptive, but it's an interesting idea when considering the ban policy regarding combo. - To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1
I agree with GGT, MeekSword, and BBE, but I'm don't follow your logic on Ponder/Preordain or Ancestral Vision. Decks getting better isn't a negative unless they go from fair to warpingly dominating. On the balance I think it's probably fair to say that other decks that aren't competing right now (Delver, non-White U/x, Tezzerator, Faeries, etc) have more to gain from P/P or AV than the established top decks, which would means a more competitive and diverse metagame as a whole.
I also doubt that UWR control would run AV over Sphinx's Rev. The incidental life gain and better late game topdecks that Sphinx's Rev represent are substantial compared to AV. UWR midrange might run AV over Sphinx's Rev, but that version of the deck hasn't fared as well so maybe it getting some help wouldn't be a bad thing. Grixis, BUG, and other under-represented Non-white U/x decks that don't really have a good card advantage option right now might play it too.
1
TL;DR - We need to systematically test more and theorycraft less or else the discussion dies, so I'm going to try to get something organized. We'll start brewing with Golgari grave-troll because that seems to be the consensus 'safest' card for now.
We have allowed Ban List Testing Threads in the Past. Please remember that Decks and Test Results go here. Discussion goes in the Ban List Discussion Thread. Don't abuse the privilege. t_C
Testing Procedure
1. Decide on an alternative banned list to test
2. Brew decks to take max advantage of the change and select a list or two that represents the consensus
3. Grind it through a gauntlet that represents the metagame and report & analyze the results
4. Hold an open tournament with an alternative banned list and report & analyze the results (may need multiple tournaments)
5. Collect as much data as possible and survey participants about impressions of the alternative format and generate a report
6. Return to the other banned list discussion thread to report results and decide on a new alternative banned list to test
So....
1. Pick an alternative banned list
As discussion of certain cards heats up, there is a tendency for members of the discussion forum to align into camps and dogmatically argue in favor of only one perspective. As the discussion reaches an impasse, testing becomes the best means of resolving a dispute over the effect a card would have on the environment. Members who wish to systemically test the card should propose that the card in question be tested in the manner herein proposed. It is important for the sake of analysis that the number of variables be minimized in order to make the most relevant observations, so minimizing the number of changes to the banned list per testing session is desirable. Conclusions about cumulative effects of multiple banned list changes is much harder to control for by comparison.
Proposed format:
2.Generate deck lists
I suggest we focus on the superlative examples of an archetype - e.g. fastest aggro variant, the fastest combo variant, the most resilient variant, etc - The way Modern seems to be working, the 'right list' is probably going to be on the furthest point forward on one of those axis. Then start weighing the pros and cons and doing preliminary testing in an attempt to reach an informed consensus on which direction is best. First post a list, then move to a goldfish to see how its working, then try playing against yourself on cockatrice with a 'top deck' or two from a recent pro event. We should take a week or so to find a consensus before moving on.
3. The Gauntlet test
When we get a few lists that consensus finds to be a solid option, we can organize a gauntlet test - the 2-3 guys who were most involved with the experimental deck and know it best should pilot it so we can minimize any play-skill discrepancies. Gauntlet decks will be chosen from current metagame data and hopefully we'll have a testing group participant who is familiar with it. Play a couple matches with the deck gauntlet deck as-is against the experimental deck, then modify the gauntlet deck to face a theoretically open field that uses the alternative banned list. Then grind 15-20 full 3-game matches, with sideboarding and record the G1, G2/3, and overall match records as well as matchup impressions (e.g. when kill turn occurred, through hate, most relevant cards etc). The goal will be to generate a matchup table like the ones WotC publishes to describe metagame performance. This will probably take a couple weeks at least if done right. (If we're having trouble with finding qualified testers, maybe we can even set something up with the retainers of the various primer threads to get the most knowledgeable/enthusiastic players in the mix.)
4. An Open Tournament
After all the gauntlet has been run and we have good data, we can organize an alternative banned list tournament. Players should look at the data we have from the gauntlet and make an informed decision to play whatever deck they want. (I've never set up a tournament, so maybe one of the guys who hosts the regular Cockatrice tournaments would be willing to help?) And we'll record the metagame shares of each deck as well as the G1, G2/3, and match records to see how it stacks up against actual decks in a simulated tournament environment.
5. Draw conclusions
Try to use the data and match observations to come to a valid conclusion. Primary goals should be to identify how widely the card was played, how diversity was effected, and whether or not any other 'Modern Rules' were violated...all with the goal of suggesting whether or not this was a good change or a bad change.
6. Publish and Repeat
Collect the overall thoughts, hear opinions on whether the change was good/bad/indifferent and (maybe if they'd care) forward the results to WotC. Then we'd descend back upon the other Banned List discussion to debate the merits of the next experimental list to go through the testing procedure.
So, lets begin! I challenge you to brew, test, and analyze hypothetical changes to the banned list.
EDIT: Please keep it to only decklists, decklist discussion, procedural discussion, and testing results here...the other banned list discussion thread is for all other discussion outside the scope of testing. Cheers!
1
If you completely change the context to resolution and coming off of an early suspend that's true. But it's still an awful top deck on turn 9 when you're both in top deck mode and desperately trying to kill a DRS or manland pecking away at your life total. Sphinx's Rev is going to be way better in the late game where the deck expects to play. Even Jace's Ingenuity would be better then. AV is only an upgrade if you suspend it early to come off suspend while the game is still on.
1
Fetch (19), Shock (17), DRS
Fetch (16), Shock (14), tap DRS exiling fetch
That gives you 3 mana on turn 2, and if you hit your fetches right, access to all 5 colors at the same time. Or it could just be 2 colors. The cost in life is exactly the same either way. So its not the fetch/shock combo that is the problem...its the lack of ability to punish a player for getting greedy with it.
For example, lets say we get Wild Nacatl back. We'll assume you play it in a Naya shell (duh). If you want black, it becomes dark Naya. If you want blue, it becomes counter-cat or Aquarium or whatever. If you want both it becomes all of them and you might as well throw in Tribal Flame cuz Domain. But they're all just variations of Naya. And that's what leads to the lack of diversity. Its because its so easy to drop into extra colors and no incentive to just stay to 3c. There's no real risk brought about by getting greedy when the cost in life would be the same as staying straight Naya.
So there's got to be something that can be done to nip a single land, early enough in the game to hurt a 4 or 5c deck but without crippling the 3c deck.
Legacy suggests it might be that a well timed Wasteland is priceless. Maybe in Modern it will be Ruination to make them think twice about it going into the late game. Maybe both of those are too hardcore and can be toned down, but better than TecEdge and Thoughts of Ruin. Either way, this isn't the place for that discussion.
But what we can be certain of is this - the risk/reward ratio between 3 and 5 color shouldn't stay the same as you add more colors. I don't think that means we need a ban on fetch lands. But maybe we need something to punish the 4c and 5c in the name of defeating greedy.goodstuff.dec, because in the long term, continuing that trend is going to keep us talking about stuff like DRS and questioning whether Nacatl, SFM, BB, etc can ever come off when they're so easily splashable into any deck.
1
Lets look at that in more detail, because it deserves some scrutiny IMO.
Here's the excerpt, just as a refresher:
WotC asserted the following in its banning announcement:
1. Storm is a top tier deck
2. Storm wins on Turn 3 'frequently'
3. Seething song is critical to the deck, but not unique to it
Reason (1) Seems to be completely untrue based even on the evidence they cite in the announcement itself. The 'Top Tier' is for decks that are likely to win events. Storm earned a single top 8 performance at notable paper tournaments. That's not winning. And at PT RTR, it was 4.44% of the field and 3.88% of the metagame with 18 points or better, which indicates its actually underperforming relative to its metagame share, not overperforming. And the 4 players who were piloting it to 18 points or better were Reid Duke, Jon Finkel, William Jensen, and Tom Martell. No one should be surprised that group succeeded regardless of what they were playing.
I have no idea what Reason (2) actually means. They didn't provide any numbers. And it didn't mention whether or not that was through hate or just a non-interactive match. I don't think anybody who plays competitively would argue against the notion that you sleep in the bed you make with your sideboard. If you decide to just punt to storm because its only 4.4% of the metagame, then you can't complain when its a hopeless matchup. Every single color combination can interact favorably with storm now that green has Scavenging Ooze. As someone who plays this deck off and on, some of the most interesting matches I've played have been against decks that are well prepared to combat Storm (and they didn't end on T3.) My best estimation is that Storm only won on T3 or sooner about 10% of the time, and almost never on T3 against decks that were interacting with it. That's a quite dangerous precedent to set because a stunning number of decks seem to approach similar numbers.
Reason (3) is the most puzzling. Picking a card that's not unique to Storm flies in the face of even the Bloodbraid Elf ban in the same announcement. Seething song was a critical card for the infrequently played All-in-Red, Hive Mind, Dragonstorm, etc. Removing it effectively killed those decks. In the same banning announcement for pauper, WotC banned Grapeshot and Empty the Warrens not mana rituals. If Storm is too fast, why not ban Grape Shot and force them to use Empty the Warrens and Goblin Bushwacker...or just wait a turn for the summoning sickness to go away? Then it would be even more fragile, a turn slower, and leave room for interaction because you still need to attack instead of just using the stack. Then there's also the fact that Ponder and Preordain were banned to decrease the efficiency of combo decks to decrease the risk of future bannings. That clearly didn't work, so does that mean those should come off? There's also a lot of design space left in counterspells between something like Deprive (not good enough) and Counterspell (too obsoleting).
So the question: Would Storm be more acceptable if Seething Song was unbanned and Grapeshot was banned instead?
That wound up being more long winded than I thought. Hopefully its worth it and makes for some real discussion beyond the usual bolded assertions from pathos.
1
SFM vs. Dark Confidant is an interesting comparison, but they don't line up well because the roles they play are very different. I'd probably throw 'goyf and maybe Snappy in there because of the pseudo 'cycle' they form as power 2-drops
Similarities:
SFM only:
Bob only:
3
SFM in Legacy isn't a good comparison because Legacy has Force of Will to protect SFM. In Modern, you play SFM, and the opponent has several turns to answer it before she starts jamming things into play....you can protect her, but then you'll have to sink mana into protection instead of advancing the Batterskull gameplan. Forcing a player to answer a card (and responding with protection) isn't the end of the world and we do it all the time in this format - SFM is no different than Bob, Goyf, Ravager, etc in that regard, so lets not pretend SFM would be some kind of sudden departure from the status quo of the format. Second, Modern doesn't have Brainstorm effects that can be used to protect the Batterskull from discard by putting it on top and/or abusing the shuffle effect she generates when tutoring for an equipment. Furthermore, creature removal is rarely dead in Modern and would be very effective against a dedicated UW/x Stoneforge deck that wouldn't be running many creatures.
Also, Modern's card pool is poised to combat SFM in a way that was impossible in Standard. First and foremost, Stoneblade wouldn't be able to lean on JTMS to support it like it did in Standard. Also, the removal is much better than Zen/Scars Standard with things like Abrupt Decay, Sudden Shock, and Krosan Grip providing 100% answers to SFM-Batterskull whereas Standards best option was...Manic Vandal, Crush, or mirror it with your own Batterskull? BG/x beats the tar out of Stoneblade in Legacy, there's no reason to think that BG/x wouldn't beat the tar out Stoneblade in Modern just as badly. There were also very few things bigger than a Batterskull in combat when it was in Standard. Goyf is a 4/5 or bigger by then usually, and there are plenty of block+sack tricks to pull off in Modern to negate the damage and lifegain from the Batterskull. The level of answers we have in Modern to an SFM is more similar to Legacy (where she's just another solid part of the metagame) than Zen/Scars.
Then there's the question of just how 'broken' getting attacked by a Batterskull or Sword on turn 4 really is in Modern. This is a 'turn 4' format, which means that a game shouldn't have a player dead before turn 4. Not dead on board. But dead. Getting attacked on turn 4 by a 0/0 germ holding a (very good) battering ram is definitely not dead. Getting attacked by a Sword on turn 4 in Modern is actually slower than the common Standard opening of (T1: land elf, T2: land, sword, T3: equip and swing) that was commonplace post-SFM banning in Standard - in fact, that line of play is currently available in Modern and isn't oppressive. In Modern, Tron can already ramp to a T3 Batterskull just as fast as an SFM could power one into play (or Tron could play a Wurmcoil or Karn on the same T3, which are both much scarier). And that's just undisrupted situations with an SFM on Turn 2 and forcing a 'skull into play on 3 before attacking on 4. If you can't answer a Turn 5+ Batterskull in Modern, then the opponent would deserve losing anyways. That's true now with hardcast 'skulls in the format, and would be true even if an SFM was responsible for putting it into play.
Most importantly though, being good in another format is a really silly reason to ban something in Modern. It might be an indication of vacuum power level, but it doesn't translate well because the card pools are vastly different. If WotC wants the player base to think of Modern as 'its own format' instead of Legacy's weird little brother, then they need to let Modern have its banned list be determined by Modern results, not Legacy results. For that matter, GGT, BB, AV, SotMeek and DD are all pre-emptive bans in the same vein, and we should therefore be skeptical of them regardless of what WotC or SamStodd says.
If SFM is unbanned then earns a deserved dominance ban based on results in Modern, then that's fine. This isn't one of those cut-and-dry pre-emptive bans like skullclamp was though. They might have both been deemed 'mistakes' but we're talking entirely different levels of magnitude here. For that matter, 'Goyf and Ravager were also 'mistakes' yet those are perfectly fine players in this format. There are many other cards that are good in Legacy, and there are many other cards that a portion of the playerbase doesn't really like to play against...but those aren't solid justifications for banning things.
EDIT: Just in case its not clear, I'm not proposing unbanning SFM right now. I'm merely pointing out that there is a legitimate perspective on SFM from which WotC's notion that some cards (e.g. SFM, Ponder, Preordain, etc) are more-or-less off limits for unbanning is asinine. The day the players are so happy with the banned list that we stop second guessing it (both inclusion and exclusion of cards) will be a good day, but that day is not here yet. Keep the skepticism coming.
1
1. The decklist
I've been playing it extensively with a friend the past couple days. Scion of Oona is crucial for protecting BB and clique from removal (esp. Abrupt Decay) with flashed in Shroud, then getting in a counter-beat before it inevitably bites a removal spell; other times its just a mediocre faerie. I'm going to cut it down by 1 and replace it with a Snapcaster Mage. I also think its correct to cut one or both of the Sunken Ruins for Tec Edges because Manlands and Tron are very hard to deal with and I'd rather be using the Spreading seas to disrupt early mana than save them for late game manlands - but that would open up the risk of color-light hands with only Tec Edge/Mutavault so I'm a bit hesitant to pull the trigger. I also don't like the Doom Blade because its dead against Confidant, DRS, or Geist etc but I don't know what to replace it with..Go for the Throat maybe? Another counterspell or a 5th kill spell would be nice too - perhaps a Disfigure - but I can't find the room for it. Also, Jund is a pretty rough matchup so Jace Beleren might be necessary in the sideboard to keep up with their value. I like Beerbleblox's suggestion about Ruins/Relic/RatchetBomb, but I'm not sure if its worth it without redundancy or a way to tutor for them. I'm still not happy with the sideboard and am open to more suggestions on the plans should be, so input is appreciated. This is a decklist I've been playing and tweaking through several iterations - especially in the last few days - and while I think its a good start, a Faeries devotee like GermanTurkey probably has more recent and more relevant experience that can be added to it.
4 Spellstutter Sprite
4 Vendilion Clique
3 Mistbind Clique
3 Scion of Oona
2 Snapcaster Mage
Spells - 20
4 Bitterblossom
3 Thoughtseize
2 Inquisition of Kozilek
1 Smother
1 Go for the Throat
2 Mana Leak
1 Ultimate Price
1 Dismember
4 Cryptic Command
3 Mutavault
4 Secluded Glen
2 Misty Rainforest
2 Marsh Flats
2 Watery Grave
4 Island
2 Swamp
2 Darkslick Shores
1 Smother
2 Creeping Tar Pit
1 Tectonic Edge
2 Deathmark
2 Extirpate
3 Spreading Seas
2 Steel Sabotage
1 Threads of Disloyalty
2 Jace Beleren
1 Academ Ruins
1 Relic of Progenitus
1 Ratchet Bomb
I'm pretty happy with it. Looks good?
2. The Gauntlet
The gauntlet should reflect what we think would actually be played if faeries were in the meta, but not necessarily tuned just to beat faeries. As far as testing goes, I support adding a Tron variant to the Gauntlet list alongside what KTkenshinx suggested. As far as tuning goes, for example with Jund, I swapped a terminate and the 4th Lily for a 3rd Abrupt Decay and a 2nd Maelstorm Pulse, swapped a Thrun for a Huntmaster from the SB to the MD fatty flex slot, and added a Boil to the sideboard. Seems like a good move in light of the Legendary rules change and general shift in the meta towards M-Pod and UWR (and possibly Faeries).
I trust that Lantern did his homework on Zoo because he seems very knowledgeable about the archetype. Not sure if we should go with the Kitty version or the regular gruul version. On one hand, the regular version is better for testing BB by itself (fewer variables) but I agree that its silly that Nacatl is banned and that the deck is just about equally fast and consistent either way. Opinions?
Just for reference:
4 Dark Confidant
4 Deathrite Shaman
4 Tarmogoyf
2 Kitchen Finks
1 Thrun, the Last Troll
1 Thundermaw Hellkite
Spells - 18
3 Thoughtseize
3 Inquisition of Kozilek
4 Lightning Bolt
2 Maelstrom Pulse
2 Abrupt Decay
1 Terminate
3 Liliana of the Veil
4 Raging Ravine
4 Blackcleave Cliffs
4 Verdant Catacombs
2 Overgrown Tomb
1 Stomping Ground
2 Swamp
1 Forest
1 Mountain
1 Marsh Flats
1 Misty Rainforest
1 Lavaclaw Reaches
1 Blood Crypt
1 Kessig Wolf Run
1 Olivia Voldaren
2 Sowing Salt
2 Slaughter Games
1 Shatterstorm
2 Rakdos Charm
2 Obstinate Baloth
1 Bonfire of the Damned
1 Boil
1 Ancient Grudge
1 Huntmaster of the Fells
1 Extirpate
1
Its likely that Hasbro's layoff woes have more to do with action figures not really selling well with the iGeneration kids, and with mismanagement of a couple key lines that could have been much bigger than they were (e.g. CN's Young Justice.)
Don't get me wrong, MM will fly off the shelves and be hugely popular and profitable...but this one has little to do with Hasbro's parent company problems.
1
WotC defined "Top Tier" for Storm as "4 players who scored 18 or more points at Pro Tour RTR." Do you know how many players scored 18 or more points at Pro Tour RTR? 103. So if 3.08% is the bar for "Top Tier" then we're going to have a lot of problems using top tier as an indicator for bannings...by that standard almost every deck is top tier. Storm also had a high win percentage that tournament...which is not surprising considering that the 4 people who played it were Finkel, Martell, Jensen, and Duke - 3 of them have won Pro Tours, with Reid Duke the odd man out with just a MOCS title. And despite that, Storm still didn't top8. For comparison, Pump-infect put 3 players on 18 or more points and sent a player to a Top8, where he lost to the eventual winner, Cifka, in the quarters.
The only other indicator for "top tier" WotC used was MTGO daily events, which is easy to explain because storm was the cheapest competitive deck, and the MTGO meta is generally characterized by a higher percentage of inexpensive decks than in the paper equivalent. The fact that Storm was the second most represented deck online should be a surprise only because the deck that beat it out was Jund, which has well established cost-of-entry problem. Using MTGO data compounds the issue because the turn clock present for MTGO matches implicitly discourages time-consuming and decision-heavy control strategies that typically prey upon easy to disrupt decks like Storm.
Storm never won a high profile paper event, and the only instance I can find of it Top8'ing a high profile paper event in its post-Right of Flame form was Oliver Ruel at GP Lyon. He lost in the quarters 0-2 to affinity (a deck Storm is favored against on paper) on the back of 2x Rest in Peace and 2x Ethersworn Canonist from the sideboard. Even with more speed from Seething Song, Storm still folded to sideboarded hate and graveyard disruption...just like people are suggesting the deck 'should.'
So, it begs the question:
(A) Was Storm really top tier or was it just over-represented on MTGO due to its inexpensive cost?
(B) Was Storm problematically fast in a healthy and balanced metagame, or was Storm only winning online because it was over-represented in an MTGO metagame that skewed away from control decks that should have had a very strong matchup against Storm?
(C) Would Pump-infect be comparable to or better than Storm was pre-banning on MTGO if the metagame skewed away from spot removal in a similar way to how the MTGO metagame skewed away from counters and control strategies against Storm?
Look at those questions and the balance of the evidence. Either Seething Song was unjustly banned, or Glistener Elf needs to be banned twice over.