Commander in Modern: Something to Discuss

CharlesMandore says... #2

If we ban what needs banning, then off the top of my head nothing is that bad. I don't see a huge issue.

December 30, 2015 5:33 p.m.

What I want to see is a Moern only set. Not like Modern Masters where they are all reprents, but a set released like Conspiracy where it's a full set that never goes through standard. If they release one every few years in place of the summer special release, it would keep Modern feeling fresh and having new powerful cards the never break standard.

December 30, 2015 5:46 p.m.

Necrotesque says... #4

As a Storm player i would love to replace Goblin Electromancer with Ruby Medallion. But like the article says, some cards would truly need a ban like Sol Ring for example.

December 30, 2015 5:48 p.m.

VampireArmy says... #5

I had this idea a few months ago and i agree with you. I think if they maintain the Ban list appropriately, it'll be a fun experience for everyone. What are the worst offenders? Flusterstorm? Modern might actually do well with that card considering the lack of counters being played

Edit: we are talking about the edh specific cards right? Like the ones that don't see print anywhere but the decks? I only advocate for those to be put in, nothing else

December 30, 2015 5:50 p.m. Edited.

Mortem says... #6

Huge problem with this: It would restrict the power level of the EDH product the same way it restricts the power level of standard. Some cards that are perfectly fine in EDH (Sol Ring, True-Name Nemesis, etc...) would be completely insane in Modern. Now, I know making the old product legal could happen at the same time as a bunch of necessary bannings, but the new product coming out in the future would have to be tailored not just to have cool pre-con edh decks, but also to bring something to the Modern Table, and at the same time avoid introducing unnecessary overpowered cards. The only way to offset that is have them banned in the annual or whatever ban change, but that just makes the banlist unnecessarily long and complicated.

I personally don't think this is a good idea.

December 30, 2015 5:51 p.m.

CanadianShinobi says... #7

VampireArmy the worst offender is Sol Ring and a few other cards. And yes, we're advocating that cards printed for EDH sets only go in Modern.

Mortem obviously the overly powerful cards would be banned. And considering that EDH is tailored for EDH and yet cards find their way to Legacy somewhat negates your argument. Essentially, the question is: why should Legacy get new cards from Commander Precons while Modern doesn't? Especially considering there are cards that have been printed in the precons that see no play in Legacy, but would be interesting in Modern, example: Fact or Fiction.

December 30, 2015 6:02 p.m.

VampireArmy says... #8

CanadianShinobi that's where im going to tend to disagree. I don't think modern needs every card that they reprint in these sets, I'm talking about adding all of the exclusives but none of the reprints

December 30, 2015 6:04 p.m.

CanadianShinobi says... #9

VampireArmy fair enough. Either way you look at it though, there's certainly potential in the idea. The more I look at Modern, the more I realize just how oddly handled it is.

December 30, 2015 6:07 p.m.

Epochalyptik says... #10

No.

First, Modern's identity is that of a non-rotating format. This identity, which it shares with Standard, is an easy way to describe how cards are or become legal in the format, and there's no need to worry about differentiating between non-rotating, eternal, and hybrid (hybrid being non-rotating that also includes some, but not all, supplemental products). Don't complicate the system without good reason.

Second, Commander sets are not designed for Modern. That much is intuitive, but it means that the card choices follow a specific design philosophy and that making Commander sets Modern legal would require changing the design philosophy for either Modern or Commander.

Third, you would need to go through the process of retroactively banning many cards just to make the Commander sets "safe" for Modern.

Fourth, the rate at which Modern develops doesn't necessarily need to be accelerated beyond its current vector. Modern doesn't need to have some explosive reorientation every single set; it's fair enough to print a powerful Modern card every couple sets (especially on the new double time rotation schedule) and allow it to rotate from Standard or lose Standard support before introducing something similar to Standard yet again.

Fifth, the proposal sort of requires you to believe that old cards are the solution to Modern's problems. Given that the game's design space hasn't been exhaustively explored (and never really will), it's unfair and unrealistic to assume that WOTC can't figure out new cards that will impact Modern without completely breaking Standard. WOTC, when possible, likes to explore new designs rather than forcing old ones back to the forefront. That's at least a small part of why they did away with core sets (which were comprised largely of reprints).

The first article's author also doesn't seem to understand product philosophy or format legality all that well, as he/she theorizes about the potential impact of Modern Masters being used as the vehicle for a card like True-Name Nemesis. The only reason Modern Masters' cards are Modern legal at all is because of their other printings. Modern Masters doesn't change format legality on anything; it's purely a way to get more supply into the market to meet demand.

Further, his/her examples of Commander cards he wants to see in Modern all come with nonzero possibilities of being printed/reprinted in Standard. He/she offers, at most, a "I don't think it's likely because X", which is not the same as a hard reason and which could easily be brushed aside if WOTC takes the time to integrate effects like Storm (speaking to the Flusterstorm example) into Standard again. Everything sort of depends on WOTC's design choices for upcoming Standard sets, and that's not something we can claim to know for sure at this point.

The second article's author just flatly neglects to explain why the proposed cards would be detrimental to Standard; he just operates on the assumption that they are. Everything requires context when we're talking about power levels and the potential to warp formats.

December 30, 2015 6:16 p.m.

FAMOUSWATERMELON says... #11

I do think that cards should be made Modern legal without having to pass through and break Standard, but EDH is not the right to do it. Maybe make all Modern Master cards Modern legal be default and introduce cards through that.

December 30, 2015 6:19 p.m.

CanadianShinobi says... #12

Epochalyptik Fair enough. However, I'd appreciate if you expanded on: "First, Modern's identity is that of a non-rotating format. This identity, which it shares with Standard, is an easy way to describe how cards are or become legal in the format, and there's no need to worry about differentiating between non-rotating, eternal, and hybrid (hybrid being non-rotating that also includes some, but not all, supplemental products). Don't complicate the system without good reason.". Notably,

I want to know why this shouldn't, or couldn't change in the future. Why is the "identity" of Modern so important to a format which is, arguably, being diluted through diverging design concepts in Standard. Furthermore, if not commander sets, then do you think, or would you at least entertain, the notion that Modern could have new cards through other products?

December 30, 2015 6:44 p.m.

Epochalyptik says... #13

I think that it's significant—and you may disagree—because it's how we easily and readily identify both what Modern is and what it includes.

I slightly erred in my original explanation when I said that Standard is also a non-rotating format. Standard rotates. Rather, both Standard and Modern are non-eternal formats, which means they don't include cards from every product released. (It's also true that Modern is a non-rotating format, but that's less important in this context.)

When we talk about Modern being non-eternal, we acknowledge that, like Standard, it includes only cards released as part of the main release schedule. These "primary sets," as I tend to call them, include core sets and block sets, but not "extra" sets or products like Conspiracy, Planechase, Commander, etc.

Basically what this does for us is it allows us to easily break Magic's formats down by whether they're eternal or non-eternal, and it therefore gives us a simple means of describing to someone or understanding for ourselves how cards become legal in a given format based on that label. It's not exceedingly complex to explain Standard:

Standard includes cards printed in blocks and that the three most recent blocks are legal at any given time. The oldest legal block rotates when a new block is released.

It's relatively simple to go from that explanation to the current identity of Modern:

Modern is like Standard in that it includes only core sets and blocks, but it's non-rotating and simply includes all core sets and blocks since 8th Edition.

Then eternal formats:

Eternal formats do not rotate and they include all cards printed in core sets, blocks, and other products.

The only real hitch so far is the Timeshifted cards, which are a nuisance only when you're relying on card borders to explain Modern.

If we change how this system of eternal and non-eternal works, then we lose the value in having similar formats be easily explainable in relation to one another. We now need to know that Standard only includes blocks and only the most recent three, but that Modern includes core sets and blocks since 8th Edition and it also includes supplementary products X, Y, and Z, and Legacy and other eternal formats just include everything ever. It's less intuitive.

Now, WOTC could certainly choose to adopt a new model if they saw a benefit to doing so, but you would need to explain why Standard is too big a limiter on Modern's development before you got that change pushed through. And I have yet to see that challenge satisfactorily surmounted.

December 30, 2015 7:10 p.m.

ToolmasterOfBrainerd says... #14

I would love me some Baleful Strix and True-Name Nemesis in my deck. They are powerful, no doubt, but there are some pretty convincing arguments of why they'd be okay in the format. Personally, I'd find them a blast to play with.

As for commander as a whole, I think it would be effective at improving modern, but they are meant to be commander-specific sets. I would rather have something like more Modern Event Decks. Sell the decks for something between $50 and $75, like the original Modern Event Deck, but make the decks not all reprints. If they used this to bring new staples into Modern as well as reprint cards, I think a lot of people would appreciate it. The one problem with doing this is that it would be confusing for new players which cards are modern-legal and which cards are not, but that could be solved by having easily-recognized set symbols for these sets and make the set symbols from year to year very similar.

December 30, 2015 7:18 p.m.

canterlotguardian says... #15

Except guess what? I don't play Modern at all. I play exclusively Commander. So wtf do I care if Modern-playable cards get into Commander products? If it increases the price, then it's not worth it to me in the slightest.

December 30, 2015 7:27 p.m.

Epochalyptik says... #16

I don't understand how using set symbols simplifies or solves the issue. At the end of the day, you'd still be requiring people to think about information in an unintuitive manner in order to understand something that should be simple. If anything, it may result in confusion if the symbols are too similar.

December 30, 2015 7:30 p.m.

VampireArmy says... #17

The best argument i can give for this change would only be applicable if legacy were to be phased out of competitive play over time. This would allow for modern to come closer to matching legacy's power level without risking the power level and health of standard. But also once again, i have to stress that I'm not talking about the reprints. I'm strictly talking about the exclusives.

December 30, 2015 7:40 p.m.

ToolmasterOfBrainerd says... #18

I'll try to give an example. Both modern masters symbols resembled each other. Tarmogoyf and Tarmogoyf.

Or, for another example, the KTK and DTK symbols were similar.

For the modern event deck series, Lingering Souls was the symbol. If every modern event deck had a vertical line of symmetry down the middle and had 3 'lobes', if you will, it would make it easier to identify the sets.

Having symbols from a series of related sets be similar to each other and distinctly different from other set symbols could help players identify the card more quickly making it less confusing. Whether it would solve the problem, I don't know. Whether there would even be a problem of identifying the cards for newer players, I don't know.

December 30, 2015 7:44 p.m.

MindAblaze says... #19

It sounds like a proposal for a "Modern Core Set." Creating a limited environment like a Modern Masters set, that also prints cards at an appropriate power level to potentially break into a format seems like it could be a good idea. Again though, the question is why? Because Modern feels stale?

December 30, 2015 7:51 p.m.

ToolmasterOfBrainerd says... #20

Because modern has problems that need solving and the cards needed to fix these problems aren't suitable for Standard, WOTC's pet, which regularly pees the floor.

December 30, 2015 7:54 p.m. Edited.

Epochalyptik says... #21

I again return to my previous statement: Why are we operating under the assumption that the solutions are unsuitable for Standard?

December 30, 2015 7:56 p.m.

VampireArmy says... #22

Because standard is controlled by a limited environment (rather more specifically, a draft environment) where we would be trying a constructed environment to introduce cards

December 30, 2015 8:02 p.m.

JWiley129 says... #23

This sounds an awful lot like when people ask Mark Rosewater "Can you print a Wrath of God or Infest at common for Pauper?" and MaRo replying "The point of Pauper is to play within the restriction of playing only commons." Modern is Modern, and it shouldn't and won't be Legacy.

Also the statement "Modern has problems that Standard can't fix" is bullshit. Look at Khans block. It gave us Siege Rhino, Murderous Cut, Monastery Swiftspear, Tasigur, the Golden Fang, Gurmag Angler, Kolaghan's Command, Atarka's Command, Collected Company, the allied fetch lands, and got Treasure Cruise and Dig Through Time banned! Magic Origins gave us Jace, Vryn's Prodigy ^Flip, Pia and Kiran Nalaar, Hangarback Walker, and Abbot of Keral Keep for Tier 1 decks and Vryn Wingmare, Kytheon, Hero of Akros ^Flip, Dwynen's Elite, and Liliana, Heretical Healer ^Flip in non Tier 1 decks. Plus Origins gave Dark Petition to Legacy and Vintage!

So don't cry foul that Standard sets can't help or "fix" Modern. It's provably false.

December 30, 2015 8:20 p.m.

VampireArmy says... #24

JWiley129 an interesting observation. Of all the cards you mentioned, only 3 were blue. And of those 3, only 1 is still legal. That seems like a problem doesn't it?

December 30, 2015 8:24 p.m.

JWiley129 says... #25

VampireArmy - No, why is that a problem? Modern has a large card pool, and only the best cards will rise to the top. And despite the fact so few Blue cards have been printed, Splinter Twin is still a top deck which is really a Blue deck that splashes Red for its win condition. Wizards does not have any obligation to make blue "better", whatever that means to you.

December 30, 2015 8:28 p.m.

Harashiohorn says... #26

Because modern sometimes needs hate cards, and sometimes need enablers. Take for example the deck bloom titan, some people think this deck is a problem in modern because there are very few means of interacting with it, but most of the answers would involve a)An effective form of land destruction, b)An effective/cheap counterspell, neither of these could really go through standard, land destruction isn't happening, and counterspells are usually a in the Cancel range of quality, and this is usually too slow in modern.

MORE IMPORTANTLY THOUGH:

A lot of the things people do, or want to do in modern are a tough sell in standard/too powerful. Take for example Affinity, cards that a person would even consider running in affinity come around... Once a mirrodin block? Not much coming from standard coming to that deck. Not much usually going to boggles, tron, merfolk, etc. The gist is that not many cards that are even vaguely modern playable come out of standard, and a lot of decks don't really change all that much over years, in short, not that much thought does/can go into brewing past a certain point. I'm as big a fan of anyone of the once a year decision of a 1 of Gitaxian Probe or a 1 of Peek in U/R Twin, but as the meta stands now the only real changes made to existing decks, is trying to figure out how to stamp out the new decks on the block. My contention is that the only development in modern shouldn't arise from the introduction of brand new decks/archetypes and the meta's response to said decks, or the one card a set that truly makes a slash in modern. A modern focused set could allow for new cards designed to be used with say goryo's vengance or in storm, as neither of these decks are likely to get a NW toy from standard anytime soon. I think the key to a healthy modern format, is to have a format with diversity and meaningful deckbuilding choices, and that can have necessary answers to cards printed. All that being said, letting in the commander decks is NOT what modern needs, modern needs supplemental modern products, other than the occasional Modern Masters set. Commander sets are for commander, not for modern, not for legacy, not for vintage, for commander and thus can't be what we rely on to source new modern cards, and fixes.

December 30, 2015 8:33 p.m.

VampireArmy says... #27

Im only challenging the perspective that just because a few recent sets have handed over a little power, that means the system shouldn't be questioned. For example, the constant reprinting-but not- reprinting cards as a "fix" so that they'll fit in the current standard. It gets a little bothersome in my humble opinion.

The other idea i challenge is the one that states that more sets per year = more good cards per year. Following what they have been doing with the reprints I've stated above, it would appear that they're more likely trading quality for quantity.

This comes down to my logic:

I love cards like the Mystic Confluence cycle and others that they print there. They're made with constructed in mind, not draft. They're made to be balanced but not broken.

December 30, 2015 8:38 p.m.

CanadianShinobi says... #28

JWiley129 Well, you'll notice that the top tier decks in Modern have been the top tier decks for a long time. We're going on what? A year and a half at this point? That's a long time, even for Modern. So, let's say Twin and Jund and co are still tier one this time next year, how do you propose we fix the problem? Because, at that point it would quite arguably, be a problem.

As for VampireArmy's comment, I think it's significant that Wizards is increasingly printing better cards in other colours aside from blue. Which feeds into the notion that people have an irrational fear of blue. But, I may be completely wrong.

Also, please explain for me, out of the cards mentioned by you, how those cards have solved the problems regarding the dominant decks in Modern.

December 30, 2015 8:40 p.m.

Harashiohorn says... #29

I just wanted to take a quick second to comment on the "grand old power of blue", back in the day Black, used to be comparably powerful to blue, it used to have insane mama acceleration like Dark Ritual, and awesome tutors like Imperial Seal, it just so happened that mama ramp was taken away, and tutoring heavily nerfed. Blue had its bonus turn engines nerfed (a-la black mama ramp), and its counterspells nerfed, but still retained almost sole possession of card draw, one of the most consistently powerful mechanics in the game, hence the fear.

December 30, 2015 8:49 p.m.

APPLE01DOJ says... #30

im on board for a modern only set. that would be sweet!

December 30, 2015 8:50 p.m.

Epochalyptik says... #31

I'm still not impressed by the "for" arguments. Again in post #25 I'm seeing circular reasoning applied to "prove" the argument that cards that would be good for Modern are too powerful for Standard.

The fact that no good Affinity cards have been printed recently, or that Modern-playable cards in general are fairly scarce each set is not proof that cards that are Modern playable are too strong for Standard. It's only proof that the past few Standard sets did not provide much in the way of Modern staples.

The difference is continually glossed over in this thread, it seems.

In order to prove that the cards that Modern needs are too powerful for Standard, you would need to identify the cards that Modern needs, then, well, prove that they're too powerful for Standard. And because none of us is prepared to exhaust the design space creating plausible new cards that would meet those criteria and simultaneously disprove the existence of cards that would only meet one of those criteria, I don't see this assumption going anywhere right now.

Why is it the case that a viable Goryo's Vengeance target would be too powerful for Standard? Is Standard not allowed to have viable legendary creatures?

Why is it the case that a viable Affinity card would be too powerful for Standard? Is Standard not allowed to have good artifacts?

I think part of the reason that people automatically assume that Modern cards are unprintable in Standard is that the power level of Modern as a whole is above that of Standard as a whole, so people believe that any individual card that could be played in Modern would necessarily be above the acceptable threshold for what could be allowed in Standard. And that assumption is provably false, as JWiley129 points out.

Another trend I notice is that people aren't satisfied with the rate at which Modern-viable cards are being printed. I issued a challenge earlier for someone to demonstrate that they need to be released faster. WOTC isn't required to release a full 185-card set of all new, all viable Modern cards every year. WOTC isn't obligated to redefine the entire Modern landscape every year. Yet it seems that most of the "for" arguments seem to be in favor of creating some drastic shift, and it's not clear whether some of these are just looking for a one-time shakeup to the current meta or some cyclical release schedule that would create new decks annually.

December 30, 2015 9:04 p.m.

CanadianShinobi says... #32

Harashiohorn Considering the Modern format I consider the fear of blue to be both irrational and ill-founded on faulty assumptions and fearmongering. Since no one has yet proven to me that giving Modern Counterspell or some other form of effective means of answering threats will doom modern, I remain highly skeptical.

Control, in a pure sense, does not exist in Modern. It compromises with combo decks, or turns into something more akin to mid-range, like Grixis Control. So yes, I'm biased, but the regulars here know that I'm biased. The point of the discussion was to answer, whether or not it would be advisable to give Modern cards printed in Commander.

I say yes. I am a firm believer that we must expand Modern in power and in size to further innovation. MaRo may claim that limitations breed creativity (or something like that) but I believe that is a fundamentally flawed premise in which to maintain a set like Modern. Modern needs to be invigorated consistently so that we avoid falling into the pit we currently find ourselves in. The meta is stale. Frankly, in my opinion, Modern has become boring. There's simply too much fear of "breaking it".

December 30, 2015 9:04 p.m.

CanadianShinobi says... #33

Epochalyptik do you play Modern?

Another trend I notice is that people aren't satisfied with the rate at which Modern-viable cards are being printed. I issued a challenge earlier for someone to demonstrate that they need to be released faster. WOTC isn't required to release a full 185-card set of all new, all viable Modern cards every year. WOTC isn't obligated to redefine the entire Modern landscape every year. Yet it seems that most of the "for" arguments seem to be in favor of creating some drastic shift, and it's not clear whether some of these are just looking for a one-time shakeup to the current meta or some cyclical release schedule that would create new decks annually.

Because this suggests that you don't. Let us concede that Wizards doesn't have to do anything for Modern players. That's sort of a granted. However, it's also a major point of contention, because to Modern players, it feels somewhat imbalanced. After all, Legacy gets anything from Standard and Commander, and anything else Wizards dreams up. Modern gets nothing. Now granted, "it's unfair" is a poor argument, but I think it goes a long way in explaining some of the malcontent within Modern players. We want new toys, new toys that Standard, quite frankly, has not provided us consistently recently. As JWiley129 the past few sets have done something. However, most of the cards listed have merely enabled the already tier 1 decks and have somewhat enabled the up and coming decks. In no way did they shake up the meta game. And, it needs shaking. You may disagree, but when the meta stays more or less the same for long periods of time (about a year to a year and a half I believe) it's disheartening.

However, if you haven't played Modern, it's difficult to understand this. Looking at Modern one could easily claim that it's healthy. Sure. It's also been in stasis, which I would argue, is unhealthy.

December 30, 2015 9:19 p.m.

VampireArmy says... #34

Epochalyptik : I've described the pattern in which cards that are needed for modern are being nerfed for standard.

Relic Seeker - Stoneforge Mystic

Pain Seer - Dark Confidant

Even in the new set of oath they did it with a new version of Zealous Conscripts by making it 3 mana but the ability now cost 2.

They aren't going to print the cards modern needs through standard. Once in a while they throw us a Thoughtseize or fetches sure but those are few and far between. Once again, my un-addressed argument. Why rely on a format where cards are balanced for only draft to be the sole contributer to moderns card pool?

December 30, 2015 9:22 p.m.

Harashiohorn says... #35

Epochalyptik

I see what your contending here, so consider this instead, standard is THEMATIC and this dictates, to a certain extent what will and will not be printed in a set. The thing is, since sets center around chief thematic elements, only certain decks ever even have a chance of getting cards from a set. I suppose its not necessarily that a new card for affinity would have to be too powerful in modern, but, that card requires an artifact based set, and those are far from a common occurrence. To propose that modern decks should only have the chance of getting new cards every time a set that thematically fits with their archetype is printed seems a bit... Unnecessarily sparse? Especially since standard isn't designed with modern in mind, there's not even a guarantee of an even vaugly modern playables, or continuation of archetypes/mechanics ever. For example, when was the last time storm was seem as a "thematically" appropriate mechanic? Now that doesn't mean there never will be a new set where storm fits in perfectly, but a storm players only chance to ever get a new card shouldn't be on a prayer that a new set will feature not only new storm cards, but also storm cards that are modern playable. And take for example the deck boggles, theros was an "enchantment matters block" so we wont be getting a new one for at least a couple years, that means the chance of getting new cards for the deck is significantly decreased. Amd since standard sets aren't developed with modern in mind, that means Billy the Boggles player isn't going to be getting many new cards for his deck any time soon. So why does it matter whether or not new cards are coming to modern decks on a more common rotation than... Well say 5 years until a revisit to a certain theme? 4 years? It matters because A) new cards encourage greater deck development, and variation, B) Other decks will be getting cards during this time, and that an entire archetype could fall out of viability simply because it hasn't received any new tools to adapt to changing meta is not good for the long term health of the format, and C) Modern shouldn't be forced to exist entirely upon "lucky" cards from standard. Basically people want a built in guaranteed "checkup" on modern be it yearly, or every couple of years. A one time shakeup is only a temporary fix, modern needs a guaranteed meta "fix" if you will, and shouldn't be left entirely at the mercy of cards designed for limited and standard.

December 30, 2015 9:43 p.m.

APPLE01DOJ says... #36

RTR was modern love galore but we have been getting new toys. Tron got a lot of love lately. Mono Black Eldrazi is a new deck. And Painful Truths is making a splash. Origins gave us Baby Jace and New Nissa in Oath is certainly going to see modern play.

I remember a time before Collected Company ...and Elves wasn't played in modern a year ago.

Even U/W got Dragonlord Ojutai recently.

As someone who frequently plays Modern, I don't feel the meta is stale at all.

December 30, 2015 9:46 p.m.

Epochalyptik says... #37

@CanadianShinobi: I make it a point of indicating that I don't play Modern. The point is that there needs to be some agreement on the rate at which Modern-viable cards are introduced; neither extreme seems advisable.

@VampireArmy: Magic Origins did several of those as a nod to existing staples. But I don't think that the trend means that all potentially viable Modern cards must be sanitized for Standard. So once again, we're left with the claim the cards Modern needs won't be printed in Standard without first defining what those cards even are. Does Modern need Dark Confidant and Zealous Conscripts in Standard? No. It already has them.

The question isn't so much "Why rely on new block sets for new Modern cards" as it is "Why include other sets or products in Modern?"

December 30, 2015 9:46 p.m.

APPLE01DOJ says... #38

Affinity got Ensoul Artifact not too long ago. It's not in every list but does see play.

December 30, 2015 9:47 p.m.

VampireArmy says... #39

Epochalyptik you keep saying they don't have to but that's not reality. The reality is that they are I'm basing my assumption on that reality.

As to your question as to why add more to it? You wouldn't. As i initially stated there is no reason to do this other than on the chance that legacy is left behind in the process.

December 30, 2015 9:50 p.m.

Epochalyptik says... #40

@Harashiohorn: I fully understand that blocks are thematic. But the question goes back to "Why does a new Affinity card need to be printed now? It seems like you're just demanding that all the popular decks get some new toys rather than acknowledging value in thematic set design as a vehicle for new and unexplored design choices. Again, WOTC isn't required to support a given archetype just because it happens to be represented in the Modern meta. To move toward that assumption is to argue from entitlement. If that's not where you're coming from, that's the direction you risk going in.

@VampireArmy: I'm not entirely sure what your post is supposed to mean. Maybe I'm missing the exact references you're making, but it seems vague.

@Everyone: We still need to identify the extend to which and the frequency with which Modern needs to change before we can argue that one method is more viable than another.

December 30, 2015 9:52 p.m.

VampireArmy says... #41

Epochalyptik you said that not every modern card needs to be sanitized for standard but so far that assumption isn't based in reality because the reality is that nearly every card for modern has been sanitized for standard.

The second thing i said was in reference to "Why include other sets or products in Modern?"

December 30, 2015 9:56 p.m.

Epochalyptik says... #42

Dark Confidant, Path to Exile, and all the other cards were Standard-legal at one point. But what I was really getting at there, and what I probably could have made clearer, is that the notion that every new potentially Modern viable card must somehow be nerfed into the ground in order to be printable in Limited/Standard seems misguided at best. It seems to me to be a misapplication of the ideas that Modern and Standard have different power levels and that Modern has defined archetypes rather than a holistic understanding that new designs can affect the meta in new ways.

December 30, 2015 10:04 p.m.

CanadianShinobi says... #43

Epochalyptik I would argue that Modern should change about once a year. Hence my advocating for Commander products to be legalized in Modern. A yearly shake up, I believe, would keep the format fresh and exciting.

I'd also like control to be a thing, but we won't get into that.

Edit: You make a good point about Path to Exile and Bob, but you're forgetting that Wizards is currently attempting to turn down the dial on the power level of Standard. They no longer print cards like Lightning Bolt and Path to Exile. Arguably, their shift in attitude toward Standard started in Theros and has continued since then. A prime example is the recent removal of 1 drop mana dorks from Standard legal sets.

December 30, 2015 10:06 p.m. Edited.

MindAblaze says... #44

I feel like the issue here is that, short of Collected Company, nothing has been printed recently (that didn't get banned) that creates any new decks in the modern meta. Players are getting bored in a format that has had a fairly stale tier one for much of the past year (again, aside from the Cruise fiasco.)

From the outside, as someone who used to find modern to be a robust and interesting format, this seems true. It makes sense though in the way the format works. The decks that are the strongest have settled into their positions, and now the only thing that can derail that is banning key pieces, or potentially unbannings with perhaps printings of cards to support those unbannings. I don't think we need to have specific cards created to spice up the format en masse so much as patience. How many decks are tier one in legacy and/or vintage?

December 30, 2015 10:18 p.m.

CanadianShinobi says... #45

MindAblaze patience is hard to come by when you're stuck between a static metagame and Wizards promoting a format which they only support sporadically.

December 30, 2015 10:21 p.m.

Epochalyptik says... #46

That much is certainly true, but I wonder whether it matters. It's unlikely that Lightning Bolt or Path to Exile would really have been topped. Instead, we're seeing cards like Snapcaster Mage, Siege Rhino, Collected Company. I noticed since RTR a decided trend toward powerful midrange creatures (incidentally, it's the same thing that drove me away from Standard; I hate midrange metas). Powerful cards are still being printed, but in different areas.

December 30, 2015 10:25 p.m.

Harashiohorn says... #47

Epochalyptik I'm not stating that affinity needs new cards now, I'm simply stating that decks such as affinity, or boggles, or idk. Merfolk? Should be able to get cards more often than once a revist to the rare thematic element they align with. A format cannot healthily survive of decks only have the opportunity to be rejuvenated every 5 years or so. If we had at least a modern oriented set not entirely composed of reprints every two years, that would seem a reasonlabe step toward. Also, if standard hasn't been "toned down" or "sanitized" as you say, there never would have had to been a Modern masters. WOTC Explicitly stated that Tarmogoyf was too powerful for standard. And yes, "we already have it, so why comment on how its not.coming back to standard", but your point about power curves doesn't actually make sense. Modern had a higher power curve than standard, therefore within cards that already exist upon the standard power curve WOTC would avoid breaking said curve would they not? Therefore the only card that might be within the modern curve would have to either be A) where the curves align (which, lets be honest, is rare, or B) uncharted territory. Take for example counter spells, as of right now not many see play on modern, and some could argue that modern could use one. But the counterspell space within standard has already been mostly carved out beneath the modern curve. Therefore for a counterspell to ever trickle into modern to would have to arise from some new form of counterspell, previously unheard of. This is... Inefficient? I mean sure we could stay with this, but an every second year, or more often modern oriented set could provide a far more effective, elegant answer.

December 30, 2015 10:34 p.m.

MindAblaze says... #48

I guess that's also why you see (saw?) an increase in Grixis Twin, as Grixis Control has no shortage of ways to deal with a midrange meta, while using combo as the win condition, since the same tools which kill Midrange creatures kill "traditional control" win conditions such as AEtherling.

December 30, 2015 10:34 p.m.

themindxyz says... #49

Before I go into my comment I want it to be known that Modern is my favorite competitive format. I say this so that everyone knows where I'm coming from.

My view is that Modern isn't quite stale, there are plenty of new deck appearing and doing quite well. The problem is that none of these new decks are able to reach high tiers of play. This is also where the problem of card price lies. With a greater spread of playable decks, the price of individual staples will drop farther than that of only increasing supply.

The next problem is that of the banned list. Out of the 25 non-land banned cards, 10 of which draw cards (I'm counting Bloodbraid since Cascade is basically card draw). That's 40%! The problem isn't that drawing a card is too powerful, it's that there is no alternative worth playing. For example, Treasure Cruise was banned due to the fact that decks that had had never played blue, burn, for example, were splashing solely for that card.

The final problem that I will discuss is the fact that there is a lack of cheap, hard disruption in both Green and Blue. Red has Lightning Bolt, White has Path, Black has it's discard suite, Green has absolutely nothing, and the best that Blue has is Remand.

Solutions:For the first problem, the best way to directly influence a growth in the size of the high tiers is a mass injection of playable cards into the card pool. Now purging standard with a mass of Modern playables will push standard to a level that Wizards has mad pretty clear they don't want standard to reach. To prevent this occurrence, the stepping stone of standard should just be bypassed.

For the second, printing cards that would allow for the power of these banned cards to be kept in check would break standard. Only printing one card to counteracting this power would have its price instantly skyrocket, so it would obviously need to be several cards. Even if it was only 4 cards, they couldn't be let into standard without either dominating the format or pushing it to a level which Wizards doesn't want it to reach.

For the final solution, I'm just going to act under the assumption that Green will never obtain a cheap, highly disruptive spell, lol. That leaves Blue. Since bounce normally isn't really a competitive effect, that leaves counterspells. Now, the only time in which standard is allowed a counterspell under 3 CMC is when it has severe limitations (example Silumgar's Scorn) and it's obvious that cancel isn't powerful enough for Modern play.

I feel that the best way to solve this in a timely and efficient manor is to create a Modern only set full of new and unique cards that wizards feels too powerful to put into standard.

December 30, 2015 11:15 p.m.

themindxyz says... #50

I would also like to say that the problems that I explained are just those of my personal views. not guaranteed for everyone.