Quote from izzetmageTurn 3 kills with Wild Nacatl? Wow, that's new.
It so rarely happens... and this is coming from the guy whos played zoo all my life. Ive turn 3 killed in modern... 3 times? tops?
T1: E1/nacat (20 life)
T2: burning tree-nacatl-guide. (15 life)
t3: rancor/bolt swing all, bolt. (0 life exact)
this hand requires you to open 2 one cmc three power guy, 2 lands, 1 burning tree, 1 guide, 1 bolt, 1 rancor. thats 8 cards. assuming you played first that means you had 1 draw that you could mess up. Its a god hand.
Yes, Burning tree can make turn 3 kills. But it has so much built in inconsistency. What if I draw 3 lands, what if I draw 1 land? What if I dont have burning tree. What if you had removal. What if you had anything to block. What if you had KITCHEN FINKS (Short answer, I cry)? what if I drew 2 e1s (and yea that does mess up the tempo.) What if I top deck E1 or Burning tree turn 3, it sucks. What if you played clasm. What if you bolted, izzet charmed, shocked, pillar of flamed, forked bolt, grim lavamancered my e1 before it evolved, what if I draw 3 burning trees, with out a 2 drop and 1 one drop, and have lands and path? Pro tip, we get bad hands more than god hands.
Any deck can have god hands. Its awesome that zoo can do it, but it ain't consistent, just means its a good aggro deck. Ive seen affinity do it more. Hell Ive seen infect almost always do it more if I dont have a bolt.
This freak out people are doing (Not you izzet, I know you're not worried. quoted you because it was relevant :P) is the same legacy does against turn 1 kills. But instead of "well thats what force of will is for" or "thoughtseize" this game plane can be wrecked by ALL colors, not just 2. Counter it, kill it, discard it, block it. All colors have access to at least one of these answers.
2
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
The logic is right there, you just refuse to see it. Let me formalize the argument for you:
1) Wizards bans cards in modern based on the stated reason, among others, of (quoting you) "make a big contribution on the dominant deck in the META (reduce the deck diversity)"
2) Wizards believes Deathrite Shaman reduces format diversity by hating on synergy-based decks (quoting Wizards)
3) More synergy-based decks in addition to preexisting decks based on individually powerful cards increases format diversity (self-evident)
Conclusion) Deathrite Shaman should be banned in modern (from 1, 2, 3)
Now, the argument is logically valid, so if you disagree with the ban it means that you disagree with one of more of the premises, which is totally fine and up for debate. But your other point about "no other banning decision is based on the power of the staple card itself" is laughably false. Look at Mental Misstep, Skullclamp, Jace, Jitte, or Green Sun's Zenith. All of those cards support multiple distinct archetypes or deck types, don't break the turn 4 or time constraints rule, and yet they are banned because wizards believes they are too powerful on their own. Those cards might enable a variety of decks if they were legal, so it's not even the "deck diversity" argument, it's that these cards are believed to be powerful enough to have a centralizing presence no matter how many decks are viable. And DRS definitely falls into the same category.
1
This is the worst possible logic you could use. Yes, every single person that opens their mouth about a card or format should have pretty extensive experience with that card or format. That's literally the only way a conversation or discourse can make any sense. Otherwise you're just babbling and your words have literally no meaning. Every time I discuss a card to unban I take a few hours to build a list and run it against the gauntlet of the most powerful decks currently available. That's how most people get their opinions on the inadequacy of the modern banned list, because they have firsthand experience with how uderwhelming some of these cards are. On the other hand, pushing for a ban should come from a position of extreme familiarity with a format. Since True-Name Nemesis came out, I have played in a Grand Prix, multiple Star City Opens, and countless smaller local events both with and against the card. From this position I would feel confident in expressing an opinion about the format as its health, and TNN's impact. For the record I don't think it should be banned, just giving an example of how familiar you should be with a format before spouting off inadequate commentary.
1