A Case for Jace
Modern forum
Posted on Sept. 23, 2015, 11:54 a.m. by CanadianShinobi
Well, with people talking about cards that should, or could be, unbanned in Modern, I figured I'd jump in with something that I have been considering a lot lately.
Unban Jace, the Mind Sculptor.
Now, before you grab your pitchforks and torches (I'm sure they're lovely) I am going to lay out my reasoning.
Jace, the Mind Sculptor has never seen Modern play. Therefore, we do not know what impact he would have on the format. Many point to Legacy as an example of way JtMS should not see Modern play. That argument is flawed for a few reasons. Firstly, JtMS, as far as a quick search of some top Legacy decks goes, does not see a wide swathe of play. Secondly, Legacy is a vastly different format from Modern and there are better ways to protect Jace's fragile loyalty count. Thirdly, Force of Will. Any direct means of dealing with Jace himself can be prevented even without tapping mana, Modern possesses no such tool. So, currently Jace is banned under the pretense of "he could do something", but without knowing what, considering the vast differences between the format he sees play in and the format he could see play in, we are ignorant.
The current shape of Modern. I won't start lamenting about the lack of proper control decks in Modern, but I assure you they're virtually non-existent. As several users have pointed out, playing threats in Modern will always be better than waiting to react. Therefore, Control will always be at a disadvantage because Wizards will not present Control with the necessary tools due to fear of turning Modern into "Legacy-Lite". Furthermore, the means of dealing with Planeswalkers has increased dramatically, not only through cards like Hero's Downfall, but the sheer value creatures give. Which brings me to point number three.
The future of Modern. Modern, as we all know, relies on Standard. As many have observed these past few years, Wizards has been taking steps to drastically change Standard. For example, there will be an increasing lack of 1cmc mana dorks as the years march on. But creatures are always becoming more efficient and non-creature spells are too (but only to certain extents, ie dealing with PW). However, because of this, Wizards is forcing Modern into a more creature dependent format. I personally disagree with this as I feel it simplifies the game, but WotC isn't likely to print me something nice for the foreseeable future considering the Treasure Cruise fiasco last year. The point here is that as Standard changes, so will Modern and both formats will move towards being heavily interactive and creature based, which means Jace's 3 loyalty becomes a weakness as time goes on.
Jace, the Mind Sculptor is a boogeyman because of our ignorance. Finishing off by going back to something at the end of my first point; players are ignorant of Jace's capabilities within Modern. We only speculate. And these speculations are based upon the circumstances which he was banned and Legacy. Legacy, I have shown, is a flawed argument. But, so are the circumstances he was banned, because Jace was preemptively banned due to his performance in Standard with Stone Forge Mystic (and I believe in Extended, but I am most likely wrong here). Therefore, we perceive Jace to be a greater threat to Modern than he is. Yes, a Brainstorm every turn is powerful, but that's a 4 mana investment in a format where 4 mana needs to go a very long way seeing as decks like Twin will kill you on turn for. And unless Jace survives you're not getting to use him more than once. Play him later and the Control deck has probably already won. I will not say JtMS isn't powerful. Indeed he is, but as I said, times have changed and perhaps Jace is no longer what we hold him up to be.
However, I leave that to the T/O community to discuss. Have a made a convincing case, or have I just shown myself to be utterly ignorant and foolhardy? But, I seriously ask: Should Jace, the Mind Sculptor be removed from the ban list?
Control has a place in the meta game. You've got Grixis Control, Lantern Control, and one of the best decks in Modern being Twin as control with a combo wincon, along with Scapeshift being viable. Control is fine, it's just the old wincons of Celestial Colonnade and the like not being good enough anymore. Combo control is still control.
September 25, 2015 8:45 a.m.
canterlotguardian says... #3
I don't agree with the notion of a ban list in any format to begin with, so I may not be the most reputable Font of Mythos in this conversation, but I agree with CanadianShinobi on his points. Jace the Wallet Sculptor has never been legal in Modern, so there's absolutely no way of saying 100 percent "he should stay banned because X reason" because X reason has never been proven by playtesting.
Also at MindAblaze you say that Skullclamp is too game-breaking, which is the same argument they used for Pod, DRS, Jace, etc. So what would happen if Jace and Skullclamp got unbanned at the same time? Which would have the bigger impact? Jace and DRS? Jace and Pod? We don't know.
September 25, 2015 8:55 a.m.
Spoiler: Both are good cards that should stay banned. Results from 1 year ago are still very valid now.
Edit: Here is the playlist with the whole modern banlist: Banned series
September 25, 2015 9:11 a.m. Edited.
CanadianShinobi says... #5
awphutt we seem to have a contrasting view on what Control is. I'll agree that Lantern Control is fine, it seems like a Tezerator deck that's even grindier (if that's possible), but I have never played it so I may be wrong. Twin and Scapshift, these are combo decks. The control elements are after thoughts in order to protect the combo. What Twin transforms into post sideboard is of little relevance as it is primarily a combo deck. Grxis control is somewhat in decline and the closest thing I've seen since American Control. So granted it is a Control deck.
It probably appears that I am being somewhat entitled (and maybe I am), however, it is frustrating to love a certain style of play and not be able to utilize that to any significant extent and come out the victor. I was drawn into the game because of what a traditional control deck offered and valued: intelligence, skill and being able to out think an opponent. Sure, all decks require this to some extent, but control decks seem to demand them the most.
September 25, 2015 9:15 a.m.
Twin and Scapeshift are not primarily combo decks. Storm is primarily a combo deck. Eggs was primarily a combo deck. These are decks entirely based on comboing off, and cannot do anything else. With Twin and Scapeshift, the control isn't an afterthought, it's a huge part of the deck, bigger than the combo aspect.
Honestly, yeah, you are being incredibly entitled. You want UWR Control back, and so have decided "Control needs help". You've got 2 control decks that have done very well recently, but they're not close enough to what you want so you disregard them. You have 2 decks that have a combo wincon for a control deck, but you disregard them because of how they win. You want to play UWR Control, go nuts. But claiming Control needs help because the way you want it to play isn't tier 1 is like a Storm player complaining about how much help combo needs because Storm's not doing well. It's just ridiculous.
September 25, 2015 9:26 a.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #7
awphutt you seem rather agitated, I'm sorry if I've upset you in any way, I'm merely outlining arguments and engaging in a discussion. And no, I do not want UWR Control back, but I would like to be able to play a traditional control deck and I don't care what form that takes, so long as it has 
in it. Furthermore, Scapeshift is a combo deck. How else does it win? Beating down with a Snappy? Yes, the control aspect is necessary, but it is not the primary focus. Even post sideboard it is primarily a combo deck. And with Twin we must agree to disagree since while I do see where you are coming from, I tend to find the distinction to be one of semantics. But how would any player feel if they were told that they could play the game, but not the way they enjoy playing, especially if they enjoyed winning?
But now we've detracted from even the tangent of Wizards' management of the Modern format.
September 25, 2015 6:12 p.m.
So you want your specific version of control to be better, not control overall. Which leads back to he point that modern is in a good place right now. Which leads us back to the fact that Jace doesn't need to be unbanned.
September 25, 2015 7:04 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #9
I feel like control needs a win condition, sometimes that win condition is combo. For me, Twin is good because it's a control deck that has an "I win" button.
I feel like combo decks that aren't control oriented are glass cannon and not really legitimate competitors most of the time.
September 25, 2015 8:49 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #10
awphutt "So you want your specific version of control to be better, not control overall."
As I said, I have no issue with Grixis Control. It's very much in line with how I enjoy playing. However, it is a Tier 2 deck and it has been declining in favour recently. Why is it wrong to desire to have a strong control deck as a decent competitive option in Modern? A format, which traditionally, has not had any meaningful presence when it comes to the Control archetype. Modern is a format that has always been dominated by midrange, combo and aggro decks.
Why is it that when someone proposes something unorthodox, especially concerning Blue, people automatically assume they are wrong? Can you conclusively prove my arguments wrong? If not, then you must admit that, because you do not know, there is the very real potential that I am right. As I have said, I am willing to accept that I could be wrong. So, if I am willing to admit as much, why can you not do the same? Furthermore, you failed to answer my question: How would any player feel if they were told that they could play the game, but not the way they enjoy playing, especially if they enjoyed winning?
I am not attempting to antagonize you. I am trying to engage in rational discourse here, but you seem to be getting increasingly frustrated. Am I merely misreading this?
September 25, 2015 9:59 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #11
formayor for the record, WotC does very little testing concerning Modern. I greatly desire more transparency on their part concerning the Modern ban list because they're decisions often to be purely based upon statistical data and extrapolations based upon the Pro Tour. Frankly, such a system is absurd because it alienates large percentages of the player population and does not give a fair representation of the game.
September 25, 2015 10:11 p.m.
Serendipitous_Hummingbird says... #12
That I agree with. They created Treasure Cruise. Any testing whatsoever in modern would IMMEDIATELY demonstrate that it was op as shit. And yeah, I think there are cards on the banned list that should be given a chance in modern.
Would Umezawa's Jitte actually destroy modern? Probably, but if there's a chance it might be okay we should try. What about Sword of the Meek? That's a fun combo that might be okay.
September 25, 2015 10:34 p.m.
Okay, so while I stand by what I said, I was getting increasingly frustrated last night and could have phrased it better and should have been less aggressive, so for that I apologise.
My issue is this: You don't want Control to be better, you want Traditional -based control to be better. The issue is that, despite there being a tier 2 option here (and there is clear evidence that tier 2 is plenty powerful enough to win tournaments in modern), you want a tier 1 traditional control deck with grindy wincons.
There is a strong control deck in Modern. I still stand by Scapeshift and Twin as viable control decks. The Scapeshift can only win one way preboard arguement doesn't really hold water for me because UWR Control (That being my standard for good Modern -control decks) only ever won one way as well. As far as Twin goes, I'm not sure you've really explained why it's not control, but I could have missed it.
Regardless of Combo-Control vs Control, you've still got Grixis Control, as traditional control, and tier 2 is still plenty competitive. I mean, look at the last GP, there were all manner of tier 2 decks.
Just for the record, I'm not anti blue. Control is basically my favourite archetype, and if I could afford it I'd play a control deck in Modern. But the fact remains that I don't need to have seen Jace, the Mind Sculptor in a game of Modern to know what it would do to the format. The power level of fair blue decks would shoot up because of the huge card advantage engine they'd all have. The unfair decks would remain largely unchanged because Jace is too slow against them, but there is one thing I know for sure: BG/X would disappear. Even more so than when Treasure Cruise was legal, Jund and Abzan would be totally unplayable.
The way I look at it, what you're asking for is very similar to an Aggro player complaining that Zoo isn't tier 1. There are options for you to play control, and tier 2 is still plenty competitive for Modern. Just the same as there is for the Zoo player to play aggro at a higher tier than Zoo is at.
September 26, 2015 3:31 a.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #14
"But the fact remains that I don't need to have seen Jace, the Mind Sculptor in a game of Modern to know what it would do to the format. The power level of fair blue decks would shoot up because of the huge card advantage engine they'd all have."
But where is your evidence? I'm an academic, unfortunately I will not accept an argument based purely on gut instinct and assumptions. Prove to me that you know this. Being unable to do so then leaves us where we started. Analyzing Jace in a vacuum is utterly meaningless because it doesn't take all the potential possibilities into account. This is one of the severe flaws with the ban list as a whole. Much of it seems to be analyzed within a vacuum. If this is, in fact wrong, players have yet to be shown conclusive evidence of this.
"The way I look at it, what you're asking for is very similar to an Aggro player complaining that Zoo isn't tier 1. There are options for you to play control, and tier 2 is still plenty competitive for Modern. Just the same as there is for the Zoo player to play aggro at a higher tier than Zoo is at."
Yes and no. Arguably, combo-control and control are different archetypes. As someone put it, combo-control is like having a control deck with an "I win button". While this is, to some extent, true we have to consider the fact that Scapeshift, for instance, is still very much a combo deck. With Twin, the line is blurred slightly because of how it plays post board, but that is only against certain match ups. This is why I consider Twin a combo deck; because its primary function is to win via combo for the majority of its matches. In a sense I am asking for a traditional control deck because Modern really never has had one. Even UWR Control quickly became more akin to a midrange deck when it was popular.
The difference between your example of being options at a higher tier, is that it doesn't actually ring true. For Zoo, this is undeniably true. For Control players, not so much. I could play Twin, but if I did I wouldn't enjoy it. There isn't the same satisfaction there. And I have played with Twin before. Combos make my victory feel hollow. I am not saying they are not a legitimate means of winning, nor am I suggesting people shouldn't play Twin. It really is a good deck and a deck that takes skill to pilot, but it is not a deck that I enjoy using. Grixis Control is better, but as I have said, it is declining in favour; at least from what I've observed. I have never said that Tier 2 is not viable, but to be constantly told "You can play control, just not a pure control deck and don't expect to win if you do." is frustrating. As I keep asking: How would any player feel if they were told that they could play the game, but not the way they enjoy playing, especially if they enjoyed winning?
Modern is a format that for some reason, instead of breeding creativity breeds stagnation. There are occasionally breakout tier 2 decks which are new, but these decks often fade over the long term. Modern also seems to be a format that is increasingly suffering an identity crisis, for that I blame Wizards of the Coast for poorly managing the format. Fear, assumptions and blind guesses should not dictate decision making.
September 26, 2015 8:48 a.m.
Harashiohorn says... #15
God there seems to be a new one of these threads every year... But anyway, Story Time Again!
(I promise its relevant by the end)
We are going to have a little talk about Standard Affinity in Modern. This was an interesting deck because it was one of the only standard decks to be banned all the way into vintage, and to lose its 6 best cards, but still remain a tier one Modern deck. WOTC regrets that affinity deck more than just about any other decision they have made. That is because that deck almost killed MTG, they lost a large chunk of players and all decks became Affinity, or dedicated to beating Affinity. There were other possible decks like elves with good tools, but they never were anywhere on par with affinity and couldn't beat it. The Problem with Jace, the Mind Sculptor is that he would polarize the format. You are either running Jace, or you are running answers to Jace, and that is what WOTC has tried to so desperately avoid in modern because it kills formats. I honestly wouldn't mind a Jace, the Mind Sculptor unbanning if not for the price, but the thing is, if Jace was unbanned, a large chunk of players would want to try him out, and people would either be playing with Jace or against him. This creates a very boring meta, because eventually it would be the best JAce deck, and the best Anti Jace deck. Maybe Jace would be terrible in modern, just awful, but if he was unbanned for 6 months, and did to the format what he could, WOTC would risk having a massive chunk of the player base just stop playing modern. And it takes a lot to get people to pick back up their decks and start playing again. And possibly the worst part is, Jace would be a several hundred dollar card immediately after his unbanning, which would make the format at least appear "pay to win" which would drive away even more players, and make his re-banning even more painful, as people whined about lost investment. As I previously iterated, maybe JAce would be terrible, but the risk of destroying the meta is far to great, because PEOPLE WOULDN'T NEED TO "DISCOVER JACE" HE WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE PLAYED WITH THE MOMENT HE WAS UNBANNED. This means his tenure would be even longer and more brutal. WOTC is too paranoid after Mirrodin, and won't risk a repeat of it.
ALSO:Skullclamp Is banned for many GOOD reasons, it's often abusive than Yawgmoth's Bargain and nobody wants that in modern. Also banned for good reasons, and not coming back are; The artifact lands (maybe one or two could come back but never all), Punishing Fire, Blazing Shoal, Cloudpost, Chrome Mox, Dark Depths, Dread Return, Glimpse of Nature, Hypergenesis, Mental Misstep, Rite of Flame, Second Sunrise (SCREW YOU EGGS), Seething Song, Sensei's Divining Top, and Stoneforge Mystic. These are all banned for accelerating some decks too much, or making decks we know are broken viable. Jace, the Mindsculptor is interesting because he doesn't really fall into one of those categories, but more of a "Too legendarily broken" one.
September 26, 2015 9:01 a.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #16
"God there seems to be a new one of these threads every year... But anyway, Story Time Again!"
Please don't condescend me. You may have noticed a distinct difference between this thread and its predecessors. Notably that I have engaged in an actual conversation and have brought to light several rational arguments which hold relevance.
"The Problem with Jace, the Mind Sculptor is that he would polarize the format. You are either running Jace, or you are running answers to Jace, and that is what WOTC has tried to so desperately avoid in modern because it kills formats. I honestly wouldn't mind a Jace, the Mind Sculptor unbanning if not for the price, but the thing is, if Jace was unbanned, a large chunk of players would want to try him out, and people would either be playing with Jace or against him. This creates a very boring meta, because eventually it would be the best JAce deck, and the best Anti Jace deck."
Once again, I am going to ask for proof. Price hasn't stopped Goyf from being banned and goyf is a $150-180 card. And that's only because Wizards decided to reprint it twice. There's nothing stopping them from doing the same with Jace. Prices can be managed.
"PEOPLE WOULDN'T NEED TO "DISCOVER JACE" HE WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE PLAYED WITH THE MOMENT HE WAS UNBANNED"
As is anything that comes of the ban list. But as we have seen with Golgari Grave Troll, if the card doesn't do something meaningful people will stop playing it. If Jace did not warp the format, then he would be acceptable.
"WOTC is too paranoid after Mirrodin, and won't risk a repeat of it. "
Their own paranoia is a detriment to the Modern format. Especially because they do not test for Modern.
September 26, 2015 9:14 a.m.
Harashiohorn says... #17
I never meant to condescend, sorry If I came off that way, anyway though:
My proof of peoples jumping up and playing with Jace, the Mindsculptor is this thread in and of itself, and threads like it. The "lets unban Golgari Grave-Troll" crowd was a bit more... sedated? if you will.
My thought about Tarmogoyf is that he isn't banned, and WOTC is kind of stuck in a position where they acknowledge he was a mistake, but are afraid to ban him because of very negative player reception of such news, especially on the secondary markets.
I must admit I think the biggest problem with comparing Jace to a lot of the other unabannings is that they were all archetype facilitators. The fact that Faries and Dredge weren't great in modern even after they got back key pieces is different that if you let back in a card like Jace, or one of his broad enabling friends like Chrome Mox. Jace's success won't depend on the success of a single deck or archetype, it just needs to find a nieche in any one of many decks like Chrome Mox would.
As to WOTC's paranoia, it is certainly a pain sometimes. HOWEVER, I would state that I prefer that to the opposite end of the spectrum, under-regulation. WOTC tries very hard to make as many strategies viable as possible, and while sometimes that means they get a bit overzealous in their bannings (The Treasure Cruise banning felt VERY VERY premature to me) it's better than if they just sat back and let the format boil down to Jund with Deathrite Shaman against affinity with artifact lands and Eggs with Second Sunrise. IT also helps diversify the formats, with Modern being an in-between between standard and legacy where just about anything can happen. (But doesn't)
September 26, 2015 9:29 a.m.
ThisIsBullshit says... #18
the Treasure Cruise banning seemed premature to me
I'm sorry, but did you even play Modern even TC was legal?
September 26, 2015 9:51 a.m.
But where is your evidence? I'm an academic, unfortunately I will not accept an argument based purely on gut instinct and assumptions. Prove to me that you know this. Being unable to do so then leaves us where we started. Analyzing Jace in a vacuum is utterly meaningless because it doesn't take all the potential possibilities into account. This is one of the severe flaws with the ban list as a whole. Much of it seems to be analyzed within a vacuum. If this is, in fact wrong, players have yet to be shown conclusive evidence of this.
Claiming a player cannot know how good a card is in a format they know is illogical and frankly pretty insulting to that player's intelligence. Anyone who's played a lot of Modern can tell you fairly easily where a card's power level relative to Modern, and I can tell you that none of your arguments have helped in any way to change my mind as far as Jace goes.
Yes and no. Arguably, combo-control and control are different archetypes. As someone put it, combo-control is like having a control deck with an "I win button". While this is, to some extent, true we have to consider the fact that Scapeshift, for instance, is still very much a combo deck. With Twin, the line is blurred slightly because of how it plays post board, but that is only against certain match ups. This is why I consider Twin a combo deck; because its primary function is to win via combo for the majority of its matches. In a sense I am asking for a traditional control deck because Modern really never has had one. Even UWR Control quickly became more akin to a midrange deck when it was popular.
It comes down to how important we each find wincons I think, and the fact you find comboing off a "hollow victory" is really less a problem with Modern and more an issue with you.
The difference between your example of being options at a higher tier, is that it doesn't actually ring true. For Zoo, this is undeniably true. For Control players, not so much. I could play Twin, but if I did I wouldn't enjoy it. There isn't the same satisfaction there. And I have played with Twin before. Combos make my victory feel hollow. I am not saying they are not a legitimate means of winning, nor am I suggesting people shouldn't play Twin. It really is a good deck and a deck that takes skill to pilot, but it is not a deck that I enjoy using. Grixis Control is better, but as I have said, it is declining in favour; at least from what I've observed. I have never said that Tier 2 is not viable, but to be constantly told "You can play control, just not a pure control deck and don't expect to win if you do." is frustrating. As I keep asking: How would any player feel if they were told that they could play the game, but not the way they enjoy playing, especially if they enjoyed winning?
Sorry, why can't you play Grixis Control? It declining in favour is totally irrelevant to the discussion.
September 26, 2015 1:47 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #20
awphutt I am not trying to insult you. Again, I must reiterate that I am engaging in a debate. Debates require proof. I have submitted my evidence, which you have rejected. In turn, I expect you to submit your own evidence. Evidence, that I expect to be based upon something solid, not mere assumption or base speculation.
It comes down to how important we each find wincons I think, and the fact you find comboing off a "hollow victory" is really less a problem with Modern and more an issue with you.
I never claimed it was a problem with Modern. I claimed it was a flaw with your comparison. You made an inaccurate comparison.
Sorry, why can't you play Grixis Control? It declining in favour is totally irrelevant to the discussion.
I should have been clearer here. When I said Grixis Control was "falling out of favour" I should have said that it is becoming less viable. As a control player who enjoys winning, this is a problem. I want Control to be viable. Control. Not combo-control. But, pure unadulterated control. But, I am someone who believes that every variation of every archetype should be viable. This is a flaw, no doubt.
However you seem to only become increasing aggravated by our discourse. You mistake my assertions for insults. And you seem to think my standard of evidence, a standard no different from anything else you will encounter in life, a commentary on your intellect. Perhaps, then, we should discontinue this. I never intended to insult you. I merely had hoped to have an engaging conversation over the merits and pitfalls of my original argument. Yet, it has devolved into a conversation on our methods of playing and outlook towards Modern. And it seems, while I have willingly admitted that I could be at fault, you have stubbornly denied any ignorance that you, yourself may possess. And that, to me, is more insulting than anything you have inferred from my words.
September 26, 2015 8:18 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #21
I think arguing about semantics about a deck that devotes 8 slots to their win condition instead of...3-4 is detracting from the main argument. Jace could probably be played in Twin to disgusting results.
September 26, 2015 8:22 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #22
MindAblaze we cannot prove this without evidence. I realize that probably frustrates some people to a great extent, but in the coming days, once I am done constructing, I will present several decks that users on T/O can challenge. The gimmick is of course I will use Jace for the purposes of testing my arguments.
September 26, 2015 10:22 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #23
" You always say "boohoo no control, back in The day when uwr control was viable..etc" but grixis control is very much a thing and very, very powerful. I am Running it and when i get a handle on the First few turns (t1-3) i often think "one More good Card, any good Card for This deck and theyll have to take The banhammer to it, because its hold is just a stonewall. I am pretty certain jace would make it the Best deck in modern. By a strech."
Two things. UWR Control is my go to example because it is the deck that introduced me to Modern. Several times I have acknowledged the merit of Grixis Control. However, that you would insult me over presenting a differing point of view is disgusting. Secondly, no one has definitively proven that Jace is broken. Assumptionn and gut feelings are meaningless to skepticism.
September 26, 2015 10:46 p.m.
Didgeridooda says... #24
Does experience playing him in pretty much all other (popular/usual) formats carry any merit here?
Edited to clarify "all formats"
September 26, 2015 10:57 p.m. Edited.
MindAblaze says... #25
According to MTGTop8 Link Jace was played in 36% of decks in Extended during 2011, in the top five most commonly played cards. 38% of decks in the year were control decks, so it's a safe assumption that he had a stranglehold on the control category. Obviously you can't extrapolate to modern based on this as the power level is higher in Modern than it was in either standard or extended. Maybe that's a case for him if anything. Even in a weaker format, combo and aggro were healthy.
September 26, 2015 11:04 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #26
TheAlexGnanAnd the above comment had the purpose of summarizing that argument in a sarcastic manner to immediatly imply that I thought it was invalid.
I apologize. However, sarcasm can be used as an offensive tool regarding debates.
DidgeridoodaDoes experience playing him in pretty much all other (popular/usual) formats carry any merit here?
Of course it carries merrit, but how did you play Jace in Modern?
September 26, 2015 11:04 p.m.
Didgeridooda says... #28
I guess I am curious of what you are looking for as a counter to your post.
I think pure control is something that is being actively avoided in modern. I do not think that is a bad thing. Control is my favorite thing to play, and when it takes over, it completely takes over. Blue has been historically over powered, and now the game is trying to balance it out.
As far as Jace goes, I don't think price is a factor to ignore. He would immediately become the most expensive modern card. I feel this issue has been well represented here.
I have played with Jace in Standard, EDH, and in Legacy. Many times a resolved Jace turns into a grind to the win. Jace digs for counter protection, controls the opponent's turn, and then becomes the win condition. Nothing I have read has convinced me that he has a spot in modern. I would like to see testing for it, but that is because I love Jace.
September 27, 2015 12:31 a.m.
You keep claiming evidence is required for something to be known. Why is that? Why is it that nothing can possibly be known from experience, familiarity with the format and general knowledge of card interactions?
My comparison is still perfectly valid. The issue here lies with you, not me. For your version of control to be viable, you need it to have wincons that aren't combos for whatever personal reasons you might have. Tier 1 control decks exist, but you disregard them because of how they win. That's your issue, not mine.
Is Grixis Control becoming less viable? People are sideboard against it more sure, but the meta remains basically the same as when it first started seeing play.
I can't recall you saying a point at which you were at fault, but that could be me missing something. But please, tell me where I've been ignorant. If I agree that I have, I'll apologise for it.
September 27, 2015 5:20 a.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #30
"As I have said, I am willing to accept that I could be wrong." -post 64.
As well in my original post in which I asked if I had convinced people, or if I was merely ignorant and foolhardy.
I am perfectly willing to admit that my assertion could be wrong. Why would I not be?
"You keep claiming evidence is required for something to be known. Why is that?"
Because that's how debate works. That's how arguments work. I'm academically inclined, therefore I am used to someone providing concrete evidence for their arguments. You can analyze the card and say you think it is overpowered for Modern, but do you know for sure? Have you tested it? If so, what were the result? If you haven't tested it, then how can you know for sure?
September 27, 2015 11:11 a.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #31
It doesn't need to be known "for sure". Reasonable certainty is enough to keep it banned. Your argument seems... irrational.
September 27, 2015 12:04 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #32
ComradeJim270 I would argue we can't even have reasonable certainty at this point. How can we be reasonably certain when the majority of that certainty is fueled by bias and assumptions?
September 27, 2015 12:26 p.m.
fluffybunnypants says... #33
See, here's the thing. I'm actually for the unbanning of Jace, but not JUST Jace, other cards would have to be unbanned as well to balance the playing field, because Jace is that good. And frankly, he's not really a 4 drop, he's more of a 8 or 9 drop once you have the game firmly in hand, after a board wipe, leaving counter-magic up, etc. When it comes to policing a format I'm really in the school of thought of let power police power. I know MaRo's mantra is restrictions breed creativity, but I honestly just haven't found Modern fun for about a year and a half and would like to see something really turn the format on its head.
Thanks for an eloquent start to this thread, CanadianShinobi.
September 27, 2015 12:31 p.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #34
And you can certainly argue that, CanadianShinobi, but for you to respond to people with "you can't prove it" when you are the one putting forth the claim the whole thread is based on seems pretty disingenuous. So is dismissing opposing arguments as "bias and assumptions", in addition to just being straight-up rude.
September 27, 2015 1:12 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #35
ComradeJim270 "So is dismissing opposing arguments as "bias and assumptions", in addition to just being straight-up rude."
I was making an observation, nothing more. It seems people are looking to take offence with half of what I say simply because I am arguing for something they disagree with. Again, merely an observation.
September 27, 2015 3:14 p.m.
The 2 most obvious things about that reply to me is that (A) You completely ignored large parts of my comment, failing to address the points I've made and basically just not participating in the conversation, and (B) You're very good at taking things entirely out of context so they fit your purposes.
If you want to talk, let's talk. But if you want to just take parts of what I say and respond to them and flat out ignore others, why are you even bothering?
September 27, 2015 3:49 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #37
"The 2 most obvious things about that reply to me is that (A) You completely ignored large parts of my comment, failing to address the points I've made and basically just not participating in the conversation, and (B) You're very good at taking things entirely out of context so they fit your purposes."
I addressed the new material. Everything else we have talked about before. We have talked about and addressed it before. It is clear that we disagree. And I have made it clear that yes, I do have a failing when it comes to combo-control and my perception of it. However, let us not forget that you too have ignored parts of what I have said. At no point have I shown you hostility or anger, yet you seem (and I say seem because text is notoriously difficult to convey tone with) to be easily angered and dismissive of me over the fact that:
- I desire more than gut instincts to satisfy the burden of proof.
- We have an intellectual disagreement concerning Modern.
- We have a disagreement with our perception of what Control is and should be.
September 27, 2015 4:06 p.m.
I didn't realise I missed things you wrote, please let me know what they are and I'll do my best to respond.
You still haven't mentioned why you feel Grixis Control isn't good enough for you, other than it's being played by fewer people.
You continue to dismiss what I'm saying about Jace as "gut instincts". Let me put it to you this way: As far as basic power levels go, what card in Modern is more powerful than Jace that isn't cheated out (Nothing in Grishoalbrand, Tron, etc.)? Because I'm pretty sure there isn't one. So, you give the most powerful card in Modern to what is arguably the most powerful colour in Modern, and you think that this is a good thing.
You're also saying that evidence is required for anything to be considered true. By that logic, we need to test for Time Walk and Ancestral Recall in Modern, because they don't break the turn 4 rule, and after all, we have no evidence they're too powerful for Modern, right?
Also, how much evidence is enough evidence, and who decides how much evidence is enough? If you really need evidence, how do you plan on testing whether or not Jace is too powerful for Modern? Against current tier decks? But Jace will warp the meta game, introducing entirely new decks. And how many of them can you test against, these being decks that don't even exist yet? Even disregarding them, can you test Jace against every possible archetype of Modern that exists currently? For me (and most other people it would seem), Jace's power level meaning he sees Legacy play and the fact that we can read his abilities and know how Modern works is proof enough.
It's also interesting that you use the phrase "the burden of proof" considering the burden of proof here is on you. You've made the argument without any proof to back it up as well. So where's your proof that he isn't too powerful for Modern?
September 27, 2015 4:23 p.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #39
Yeah, that's the thing. If you are making the claim that JTMS should be unbanned the burden of proof is on you. If you believe in logic and rationality you should know this already.
CanadianShinobi says... #1
Didgeridooda how is ignorance not the issue? Without knowing for certain if Jace is too good for Modern, we are by default ignorant. People say he's too good, but this is based upon the notion of what might happen, or could happen. Such assertions are not based upon fact.
awphutt I would argue that it does. The field is diverse in terms of decks you can play, but not in terms of the archetypes. Modern is currently Midrange, Combo, Aggro. And largely dominated by the same decks. I'm a strong advocate that Control needs a place within the metagame. At the very least Control needs some more tools to help it out.
September 25, 2015 8:35 a.m.