^Llanowar Elves is pretty clearly better than wild dogs. It's not like you can't compare two cards because they serve different functions. That's what you do every single time you design a competitive deck: which of these two disparate things is better for me? Card evaluation and design absolutely hinges on a semi-objective way to judge relative card strength and this game literally couldn't exist if your argument of "they serve different purposes, therefore they're not comparable" were true.
Honestly this isn't even the place to make that kind of argument. Nimble Vampire and Vampire Nighthawk are so similar, and it's not like "hyperagressive BR" plays very differently than "black tempo" anyway. Nighthawk saw very light play as a fringe card in Vampire Tribal and Mono-black decks, both of which were ostensibly aggro, and occasionally out of a control sideboard as an anti-aggro dude. Nimble Vampire similarly could see play in those same roles: obviously good in aggro or backed up by tribal synergies, but a BR or Grixis control/midrange deck can easily use this guy in the same sorts of anti-aggro role. A lifelink first-strike guy is a very efficient ground deterrent that demands removal.
A more fitting example for your argument of immutability would be "Which is better for the decks they are used in, Stoneforge Mystic or Tarmogoyf? They're both two-drop creatures that mostly enable decks on opposite sides of the metagame clock. But we can clearly say that Stoneforge did far more to enable its decks than Goyf does. Any deck that plays Goyf in legacy uses it as a large ground creature to either pressure life totals or stall up the ground game. Pretty much any large vanilla guy does the same thing. Hell, in most games of Legacy a Nimble Mongoose is more threatening than a Goyf. So any suitably large creature is a substitute (sometimes poor) for Goyf, evidenced by the rise of True-Name Nemesis in legacy filling roles formerly left to Tarmogoyf. Stoneforge on the other hand is the only creature that does what it does. The toolbox effect is extremely powerful on any card, and equipment is a very important tool in midrange mirrors. Stoneforge single-handedly creates and props up an archetype in the format, whereas Goyf is ultimately a replaceable tool for existing strategies. Therefore we can say that objectively Stoneforge has a higher utility and is thus a more powerful card.
Card evaluation is such an integral part of this game at every level, and I think your position of card power being unique to the scope of one deck and immutable among disparate cards to be unfounded in logic. Human nature dictates that we compare new stimuli to our previous experience and bank of relatable situations and find ways in which they are similar. So a position such as yours is simply unproductive at best and actively hindering the study of card design/theory at worst.
Honesty even if the tons of other fringe cards mentioned above didn't exist, after DrS/Abrupt Decay and the huge metagame shifts they provided I'd be satisfied with not having any more shakeups in a legacy for a few years. The biggest draw to eternal formats is that your cards should stay relevant for a longer term, and the existence and proliferation of GB means that a lot of formerly legacy playable cards and decks are now basically worthless ( Goblins players, I feel for you). I don't think that kind of format shakeup should be a regular or consistent thing.
Playing a land can only be done during your main phase, when you have priority, when the stack is empty, and when you haven't reached your maximum amount of land plays per turn.
Unless the ability is countered, it will resolve regardless of what happens to the source. It exists independently of the creature that created it. The stack resolves the same for all sorts of objects, including instant spells and abilities.
He falls into the "must counter" category for me, and control decks simply don't always have the counter or the mana to use it since they had to devote mana to other answers. This metagame heavily favors "tapout" control, because tapping for a wrath or a Jace or an Elspeth each turn is probably just better than what your opponent can do, so this reduces the amount of countermagic in most lists (usually 4-6 slots main).
Basically what I want to say has been addressed by these two people: Koopa, and eflin
This is such a non-sense banning decision on DRS, because of the following reason stated by WOTC:
"Deathrite Shaman, however, is powerful at all stages of the game. Having a strong attrition-based deck as a large portion of the metagame makes it difficult for decks that are based on synergies between cards instead of individually powerful cards. We believe that removing Deathrite Shaman from the format will leave more room for future innovation. "
Non of the previous banning decision is based on the power of the staple card itself. They all belong to certain categories: such of breaking the turn-4 rule, make a big contribution on the dominant deck in the META (reduce the deck diversity), time-consuming issue.
DRS does not fit into any of those categories, but banned due to the stupid reason : "leave more room for future innovation"?
There is no logic behind...
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.
I suppose we'll just have to disagree on the future of the deck, and that's just fine. I would like to point out that, although the formats are different, nobody has cast a Wild Nacatl in Legacy in years. I'd assume modern decks are just as capable of running cards like Bolt, Path, Spell Snare, Decay, Lightning Helix, Pyroclasm, Tarmogoyf, Ensnaring Bridge, etc. plus the unique "powered down" nature of the format means that you get to run slower cards Legacy can't really afford to like Snapcaster, Cryptic Command, Supreme Verdict, Baneslayer Angel, Planeswalkers aplenty, and the fact that a viable archetype just ramps into that Lifelink Wurm seems pretty rough for Zoo. I will freely admit that I play mainly legacy and the last time I played Modern with Cat legal I was playing a combo deck that absolutely rolled Zoo, but with the format as it is now I can't see it being a problem in the slightest.
The point is that it's not a consistent t3 kill, is easily disrupted by main deck cards (bigger guys and removal) and therefore doesn't violate the rules of the format. Nacatl is fine for Modern, it probably won't even make tier 1.
How can a zoo deck in modern (without Price of Progress or Fireblast) kill consistently before turn 4? It's utterly improbable. Absolute best draw I can think of involves t1 Cat, T2 double cat, swing 3, t3 swing 9, triple bolt. But Burn already is capable of that, arguably better because of Guide and more Lava Spikes, and it's not dominating events.
I mean, I'm aware it's a 6 mana multicolored mythic, but this still seems kind of nasty. It basically is an 8 power haste guy, it's insane with blink, and if your opponent dares to alpha strike or tap out on their turn you get to attack with all your guys, play this, untap, attack again plus 8, maybe Resto Angel/bounce and replay? There's a reason that time warp has never been attached to a dude before, it's a little too abusable. Of course in higher-powered formats this card is fine, but I generally assume most people in CCC are designing for a format like Wizard's current design intent, and in that case I think this card is a little too strong for the current "kid gloves" school of design.
The guy who said Bob is going to tank is absolutely spouting nonsense. It's still playable in every black deck. Bob and Goyf are the two strongest cards in modern, it was that way on day 1 of the format and DRS only took that spot for a few months. So instead of having all the top 5 best cards in the format in one deck (DRS/Bob/Goyf/Thoughtseize/Liliana) now you just have the top 4 and the rest of the top 10 is slightly more debatable (I think Bolt and Abrupt Decay are both up there, so depending on the build you're still 90% goodstuff)
I expect this banning announcement to eventually increase the price of combo cards that were pushed out by BGx (namely Living End/Reanimator variants, though the decks will suck people will buy into them early) and end up inadvertently hurting combo cards like Twin/Storm/Etc. that are weak to Faeries (again, not a good deck but hype is a thing)
If every player in this thread read this and followed it, most people wouldn't be able to comment at all on the non-rotating formats. I made an prediction because I hear from a lot of people that SnT should be banned. Hell, I've been playing the card in a Vintage Oath variant, and its redonkulous there too. Would you have preferred I jumped on the "unban earthcraft" train (which I totally do not support) without even doing a smidgen of research??
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.
Both are vulnerable to Mindbreak Trap, Leyline of Sanctity, and most other storm hate like Canonist. The Gravestorm one is additionally vulnerable to Leyline of the Void/Rest in peace/judiciously used single-target grave hate, while Banefire requires a ridiculous amount of mana and is foiled by a few rarely-seen infinite life combos. Both are obviously inferior to the current builds that can choose between Tendrils of Agony and Empty the Warrens.
Frankly for their utility and popularity combined with scarcity most reserved list cards like duals and non-reserved cards like Rishadan Port and Wasteland have been really underpriced relative to the amount of play they see.
Honestly this isn't even the place to make that kind of argument. Nimble Vampire and Vampire Nighthawk are so similar, and it's not like "hyperagressive BR" plays very differently than "black tempo" anyway. Nighthawk saw very light play as a fringe card in Vampire Tribal and Mono-black decks, both of which were ostensibly aggro, and occasionally out of a control sideboard as an anti-aggro dude. Nimble Vampire similarly could see play in those same roles: obviously good in aggro or backed up by tribal synergies, but a BR or Grixis control/midrange deck can easily use this guy in the same sorts of anti-aggro role. A lifelink first-strike guy is a very efficient ground deterrent that demands removal.
A more fitting example for your argument of immutability would be "Which is better for the decks they are used in, Stoneforge Mystic or Tarmogoyf? They're both two-drop creatures that mostly enable decks on opposite sides of the metagame clock. But we can clearly say that Stoneforge did far more to enable its decks than Goyf does. Any deck that plays Goyf in legacy uses it as a large ground creature to either pressure life totals or stall up the ground game. Pretty much any large vanilla guy does the same thing. Hell, in most games of Legacy a Nimble Mongoose is more threatening than a Goyf. So any suitably large creature is a substitute (sometimes poor) for Goyf, evidenced by the rise of True-Name Nemesis in legacy filling roles formerly left to Tarmogoyf. Stoneforge on the other hand is the only creature that does what it does. The toolbox effect is extremely powerful on any card, and equipment is a very important tool in midrange mirrors. Stoneforge single-handedly creates and props up an archetype in the format, whereas Goyf is ultimately a replaceable tool for existing strategies. Therefore we can say that objectively Stoneforge has a higher utility and is thus a more powerful card.
Card evaluation is such an integral part of this game at every level, and I think your position of card power being unique to the scope of one deck and immutable among disparate cards to be unfounded in logic. Human nature dictates that we compare new stimuli to our previous experience and bank of relatable situations and find ways in which they are similar. So a position such as yours is simply unproductive at best and actively hindering the study of card design/theory at worst.
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.
I expect this banning announcement to eventually increase the price of combo cards that were pushed out by BGx (namely Living End/Reanimator variants, though the decks will suck people will buy into them early) and end up inadvertently hurting combo cards like Twin/Storm/Etc. that are weak to Faeries (again, not a good deck but hype is a thing)
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.
In conclusion, play what you want.