Commander in Modern: Something to Discuss
Modern forum
Posted on Dec. 30, 2015, 5:06 p.m. by CanadianShinobi
Should Commander cards be made legal in Modern?
This is main question I would like to discuss. According to a few recent articles which I came across. which you can read here and here. The short answer is: maybe, if we ban what needs banning and don't go too crazy with it.
Personally, I'm a fan of this idea. Currently the only way Modern gets new cards is through Standard and as I'm sure you've noticed, Standard is vastly different than Modern. And that gulf is widening. Standard is, to a certain extent, a sub-par means of introducing new cards into Modern, as such, it would make some amount of sense to find a new means of introducing new and exciting cards to invigorate Modern on a more regular basis than the occasional ban.
This would allow for Wizards to maintain its current direction with Standard, whilst still catering to the Modern players by giving them new tools to solve old problems.
Anyway, I'd like to hear the Community's thoughts on the matter. I also highly suggest you read both the articles I linked before posting.
ToolmasterOfBrainerd says... #2
But guys, keep in mind that we don't want modern to change too fast. I actually like that modern doesn't change quickly or frequently. It definitely isn't changing fast enough right now, given we've had the same set of tier 1 decks for quite awhile, but do we really want there to be the 'deck of the month' that you either play or play to beat? Cuz that's called standard, which is NOT what I play modern for. The meta definitely needs a shake-up every once in awhile and it should be slowly but steadily shifting, but if it changes too quickly it's too hard to keep up with it and you have to change your deck every few weeks to stay competitive, which gets really expensive over time. Having some evergreen tier 1 decks like Twin, Affinity, and Burn really helps Spikes to be able to buy a deck once and make minor adjustments over time and stay competitive continuously.
Now, do I think there should be a way other than standard to get cards into modern? Absolutely! I'd love to have access to cards like Baleful Strix and True-Name Nemesis for Modern, which might not be broken, but would be busted beyond reason in Standard. My stance on the whole issue is that there aren't necessarily huge problems in modern that a solution for would break Standard multiple times, but that because cards have to go through Standard, design space is limited. I think we can all agree that True-Name Nemesis is too good for Standard, but it's modern viability is addressed in the first article. It's because of the limitations Standard provides on card design that I think we should have an alternate route of getting cards into modern other than Standard.
December 31, 2015 2:06 a.m.
FAMOUSWATERMELON says... #3
The problem isnt that Modern is boring. There are many diverse decks, each with a certain strength or weakness, and that makes it so that multiple decks are competitive against each other, and the format is well-balanced . The problem, rather, is that the format has barely changed in the last couple years and that with Wizards plan to slowly nerf the power of Standard (no more Lightning Bolt-power burn cards, no more one-mana dorks), the Modern meta is changing less and less, and will continue to be set in stone because the powerful cards that it needs to shift the meta wont come from Standard any more. A Modern core set, or new regulations and cards in the MM series would help that.
December 31, 2015 5:58 a.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #4
FAMOUSWATERMELON you just outlined precisely why I think its boring. Boring here is purely subjective. Notably the glacial pace of change in the format.
ToolmasterOfBrainerd at no point did anyone advocate turning Modern into Standard. So, I'm not quite sure where you got that idea from. At best I said Modern should be shaken up on a yearly basis. Does this mean that I want Twin to disappear into the realm of unplayable? No. It means I want to see at least something relatively new and to have a source of playable cards that are not going to trickle through Standard.
December 31, 2015 10:31 a.m. Edited.
I have refrained from posting for a while so I can codify my feelings and thoughts, and to read more of what people are upset about. I won't bother addressing the "Standard can't fix Modern's problems" because I already did. So I'm going to devote some time to each of the main complaints I've seen.
Modern's Metagame Shifts Too Slowly: Or, as I like to call it, "Why is Splinter Twin/Jund/Affinity/Infect/Burn still Tier 1?!" The entire point of an eternal or non-rotating format is that you can play the same deck for a long time. If you want quick meta shifts, play Standard. In Modern you have a large card pool, we can't debate that. The more cards you have available to you, the smaller percentage of those cards become "playable". Do know how many Lightning Bolt variants there are legal in Modern? It's 22. Do you know how many of those are playable in Modern? Three: Lightning Bolt, Shard Volley, and Lightning Helix. That's 14% of the total number of Bolt variants that are playable. Let's look at the Elf deck in Modern. There are 201 Elves legal in Modern. I count 19 of them which are played in Modern, and a few of those aren't played in the Elf tribal deck: Gladecover Scout (Hexproof), Glistener Elf (Infect), and Viridian Corrupter (Infect) That's 9% of all Elves legal in Modern that see play. And as Modern gets bigger, we're adding 185 cards when Oath of the Gatewatch comes out, those percentages are only going to go down. Why does this matter to the metagame shifts? Because the more cards that are available, the slower the metagame will shift.
Now, let's look at the impact of Khan's block plus Magic Origins on Modern. When Khans came out the decks that got stronger were Delver because of Treasure Cruise, Monastery Swiftspear for Burn, and Abzan because of Siege Rhino. Fate Reforged gave us Tasigur, the Golden Fang who helped the 
decks. Dragons of Tarkir gave us Atarka's Command which helped Burn get another Skullcrack effect, Kolaghan's Command gave a resurgence to Jund as the deck of choice, and Collected Company helped the Melira & Co deck come back as well as push Zoo and Elves to the forefront. Finally Origins gave us Jace, Vryn's Prodigy
Flip and Abbot of Keral Keep who pushed some people to play Grixis control alongside Snapcaster Mage and Kolaghan's Command. So don't give me the bullshit that the top decks don't change.
There Aren't Enough New Decks: This is also false, but again this is more to do with "No new Tier 1 decks." But if we go back to the size of the card pool, it would take a massive influx of cards to change the metagame drastically enough. Wizards manages this by banning and unbanning cards, as opposed to a Modern "core set" which some people want. Now if you have issue with Wizards B&R policy when it comes to Modern, we can blame the Modern Pro Tour for that. Since we have our Modern Pro Tour, Wizards has defaulted to only Banning or Unbanning cards right before that Pro Tour. This shakes up the metagame enough for the pros to have to find new decks, otherwise the Modern PT is not as exciting as it would be if there were no changes.
TL;DR The size of Modern's card pool is the reason the metagame shifts slowly. So if you don't like that, go play Standard where the metagame shifts weekly.
December 31, 2015 3:08 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #6
JWiley129 technically Modern is not an eternal format. It's merely non-rotating. There is a distinction to be made there. If it were eternal it would have access to everything printed in products like Commander and Conspiracy. You also failed to address why Modern shouldn't be able to have its own supplementary products.
Furthermore, GBx decks have always had the run of the show in Modern. Swapping Jund for Abzan and then for Jund again does not really seem indicative of a shift in the meta game. You insist that the metagame has shifted, but it has not done so at a tier one level in a long time. It is fairly static, and instead of remotely considering this a problem, you basically told anyone who disagrees to "fuck off" (I'm obviously paraphrasing). So, why is it so much to desire a changing metagame on a yearly basis, or somewhere in that ballpark.
Standard rotates too fast, Modern moves too slow because of a lack of new cards. Why is it such a problem that people propose that there should be a way to alleviate this? No one advocated that Modern move at the speed of Standard, but I find it hard to imagine that it is wholly unreasonable to want to inject new life into a rather static metagame. We're not talking about tier 1.5-2 decks here either.
December 31, 2015 3:28 p.m.
CanadianShinobi - If you read carefully I said "The entire point of an eternal or non-rotating format is that you can play the same deck for a long time." Also, Modern is defined as "All main Magic expansions printed since 8th edition and Mirrodin block." Adding in Duel Decks, Commander, Conspiracy, Planechase, or any of the other supplemental products would violate the spirit of the format. Once again, this feels like people complaining to MaRo about how Pauper is Pauper. Modern is Modern, and it shouldn't be allowed access to those Supplemental products.
I would argue that a change from Jund -> Abzan -> Jund is a meta shift because Jund and Abzan play very differently despite having the same shell. Abzan plays a much slower game to Jund because of the lack of Lightning Bolt. Then Kolaghan's Command pushes Jund further into a more grindy playstyle allowing it to out-grind Lingering Souls Abzan. But once again, I have to point to the issue of metagame shifts to the size of the card pool. You don't see Legacy players complaining about their metagame, despite it being much more static than Modern's. Also, the metagame does change on a yearly basis. It's the now-annual B&R announcement preceding the Modern Pro Tour.
December 31, 2015 3:37 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #8
JWiley129 "Adding in Duel Decks, Commander, Conspiracy, Planechase, or any of the other supplemental products would violate the spirit of the format."
This point feels utterly subjective. Why is the "spirit of the format" so fundamentally important? You're basically saying "I don't like change, things shouldn't change". Now, obviously if Modern became more like Legacy I'd say there's cause for some concern, however, adding in a "modern only" product wouldn't fundamentally ruin the format. So, no I'm not convinced the "spirit of Modern" is in any way a convincing argument as to why Modern can't have supplemental products.
Legacy is fundamentally different than Modern. I hardly feel it's an adequate comparison in this situation. However, I'm not liable to stand by this since I have a very poor understanding of Legacy.
The ban list is not a healthy way to operate the format. Unless the unban something energetic there's little impact the ban list has, except for banning cards, which I'm less fond of. And at no point yet has the unbanning of something provided Modern with a tangible benefit.
Furthermore, you completely ignore the last paragraph of my last comment.
December 31, 2015 3:48 p.m.
CanadianShinobi - What you see as a problem, the static metagame, I see as a feature. Modern is a non-rotating format, which means that the metagame is not going to change that frequently.
I'm not saying "I don't like change", I'm saying "play within the rules". Modern is defined by the primary sets that are the main expansions, alongside the description given by Wizards.
Legacy is very different than Modern, but both formats feature slow meta-shifts. Legacy has some other problems that Modern doesn't, for example the dominance of Blue decks, but Legacy's problems are Legacy's and not Modern's.
So first you say you want a yearly metagame shift, but then say that Banning is not the way to go? Cards have two ways of getting into Modern: Being printed in Standard, or adjusting the Banned and Restricted list. You don't like option 1 and you don't like option 2, so you try to make an option 3 that violates the basis of Modern. At that point, you aren't playing Modern. You are playing some other format. So either play Modern with the restrictions that it has, or play another format.
December 31, 2015 4:01 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #10
JWiley129 I have always been an advocate for unbanning cards since I believe the ban list requires further experimentation. Unbanning is the solution. I also advocate that Standard produces higher impact cards for Modern. However, this is less likely to happen because Wizards is shifting away from printing cards like that in Standard.
Your entire point is "It violates Modern's rules", which is arbitrary, because Wizards could, if they so desired, change those rules at any given point. And who is too say they won't at some point? Or are you content to have a metagame of combo, aggro and midrange indefinitely?
December 31, 2015 4:09 p.m.
CanadianShinobi - As to the printing cards issue, Mark Rosewater just answered a question that should make it clear why making a Standard core set or allowing supplemental sets won't have the impact you want.
Also you're contradicting yourself. "The ban list is not a healthy way to operate the format." "Unbanning is the solution." You are allowed to have nuanced opinions, but these are two very disparate opinions.
From your last paragraph you seem to indicate that you dislike the fact there isn't a control deck in Modern. I fail to see why there needs to be one. Not every deck needs to be viable in any given format. The fact we don't see a true "control deck" in Modern is another feature of the format. But you see this as a problem.
December 31, 2015 4:15 p.m.
FAMOUSWATERMELON says... #12
Well, I would argue that Modern being the only format that doesn't have a competitive deck in all four basic archetypes is probably more unhealthy than it is healthy. But it all comes back to how you define "control", and that's a very subjective matter.
December 31, 2015 4:24 p.m.
Harashiohorn says... #13
Okay so, yes, a feature of modern is that it's more of an "investment" than standard, tier one decks stay viable for quite some time. That being said, lets take a moment to look at legacy, how many new cars made it into legacy each year before the commander sets? 1 maybe 2 a block? Basically standard wasn't fueling really any change in the format, and the commander sets have given legacy a lot of new toys that have made an impact, such as Containment Priest and True-Name Nemesis. Now modern is not legacy, and it moves at a far less glacial pace, that being said, its not exactly been changing "quickly" by any stretch of the imagination. So should modern change as often as standard? No, but should it change? Definitely. Now, as it is right now two sets come out a year that can impact modern with new cards. That means there are only two opportunities for the a change to happen not from the banlist. Governing modern from the banlist is not a healthy approach to take, because you can only unban so many cards, I mean Blazing Shoal isn't coming back, and banning cards inherently goes against that previously mentioned core difference between modern and standard, deck longevity. Now I don't think we need to add in new cards to modern all willly nilly, but standard where as Maro stated, cards aren't tested for modern can't be the end all only source of new cards. I mean if nothing else could we maybe get 5-10 new cards printed in Modern Masters or something? Basically at a certain point, modern deserves to get some cards designed for it printed, and not just be left feeding off the scraps of a standard oriented world.
So why is change so important? Because mtg is A DECKBUILDING GAME (in addition to everything else). And if no cards are even close to shaking up the meta, there's no need to put thought into deckbuilding past maybe a card or two changed from that decklist you liked from MtgTop8. This also means the format inevitably goes towards favoring the decks that can most efficiently sideboard hate. Jund died for a while. Why? Because jund feeds of being able to hate and sideboard into wins, and for a time the modern format was in a wide open chaotic state. Treasure Cruise ended up getting the axe, but can anyone say the excitement and challenge presented by an evolving meta was just awful? Delver ended up being too powerful, but until it took over the format, it was a fun experiment. Shakeups like that shouldn't be flukes, but they don't need to be monthly either. Is ever year or two having a guaranteed format shakeup so bad? I think that would help ensure an interesting healthy format. And please don't say the banlist can fill this role, because it can't. The banlists job is to keep things in check, not to keep the forms interesting, because at a certain point there will be nothing left to unban, and nobody wants a format where ever couple months or years all the top decks get banned, thats just a more expensive glorified form of standard.
December 31, 2015 7:15 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #14
JWiley129 Yes, as a someone who enjoys playing control I see the lack of control as a problem. Big fucking shock.
Let me clarify: I do not think banning cards should be a top priority. I think we should first unban several questionable cards and go from there. The fact that certain cards on the ban list have never seen play in Modern, I find is problematic.
Furthermore, Mark Rosewater did not answer my question. He didn't even answer the question posed. He gave a nonanswer. My question is: Should Wizards provide Modern with supplementary products. His answer provides nothing with regard to that question. And the answer you gave me is utterly subjective.
So Aside from "It breaks the spirit of Modern" tell me why supplementary products are bad for Modern. They would produce new cards at a Modern power lever and possibly be a vehicle for reprints. Why is this bad?
December 31, 2015 9:08 p.m.
CanadianShinobi - If you are worried about cards having never seen play in Modern, I'd suggest you read these two articles for when Modern was debuted at the 2011 Community Cup and when PT Philedelphia's format was changed from Extended to Modern. Look at those banned lists, and see how the format has changed since then.
Also, Mark Rosewater did answer your question. As I previously stated, Modern's size prohibits one single card from having a sizable impact without some context. And because of the size, only the best cards are going to be played. So a Modern "core set" of ~180 cards will not have the impact you want. The biggest impact on the format would be by banning cards.
No one is stopping you from playing control. There are many control decks you can build in Modern: 
Tron, Grixis Control, Esper Control, 
Sun Titan, etc. What you are complaining about is that Control isn't Tier 1. Well, you know what? I wish White Weenie was Tier 1, or that Storm was Tier 1, or that... You see how whiny and selfish that sounds? Not every deck can be equally viable in any given format. Again, feature not problem.
As per allowing supplemental sets, Tom La Pille does go into that in the first article I linked. But to quote the relevant paragraph:
Sure, you can argue that "this was when Modern was made and is not as important now", however I strongly disagree. Once you change the rules, Modern isn't Modern anymore. It's Legacy-lite. And I don't want Modern to be Legacy-lite. I want it to be Modern. Why can't you just let Modern be Modern?
December 31, 2015 11:57 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #16
JWiley129 I am not complaining that control is not tier one. I am addressing the fact that the "control" decks in modern are not actually control decks. They're either Combo or Midrange. Grixis Control is much more akin to a midrange deck than it is a control deck. Stop misrepresenting what I am saying to fit your narrative. I too can claim that you are being selfish for wanting Modern to remain static forever. So how often do you think Modern should be severely shaken up? Or should Twin and Co rule Modern for all eternity? Would that please you, because quite frankly I am remarkably unconvinced by your sheer unwillingness to embrace innovation and change.
"The biggest impact on the format would be by banning cards. "
Why can't we unban cards instead? Your sources are lacking since they are four years old and Modern has changed substantially since then; and because of these changes, it may be necessary to eventually change the outlook of how Modern is approached. Even you have to admit that. I mean for fucks sakes, you have defined Modern through an arbitrary set of guidelines because it suits your own desires. Why is it so impossible to reconcile the notion that formats should be allowed to evolve into something new?
January 1, 2016 12:15 a.m. Edited.
CanadianShinobi - I am not against innovation or change. What I am against is moving outside the prescribed area of Modern. Yes, unbanning cards is also an option, and one that Wizards has used liberally the past few years unbanning Wild Nacatl, Bitterblossom, and Golgari Grave-Troll. Outside of the B&R list, Modern gets its cards from Standard. I've already shown that Modern cards can be printed in Standard, so complaining that Standard can't get it done is false.
I know I sound like a broken record, but let Modern be Modern. Stop trying to make it something it's not. You want to change Modern so it's better for you, without any consideration for the rest of us who are fine with the way Modern is made and managed. Does it suck that Twin & friends are the top dogs? Sure, but you'll also hear that of any format. Standard sucks b/c of Abzan. Legacy sucks b/c of Miracles. Vintage sucks b/c of Workshops. Let Modern be Modern, warts and all.
January 1, 2016 12:35 a.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #18
JWiley129 You sound like a broken record because you have to explain why Modern should remain static. You failed to even answer how often you think Modern should have a good shaking, if at all.
You have shown that tier two Modern cards can be printed in Standard. Or sideboard options. Anything remotely tier one was banned or hasn't existed since RTR and ISD.
And yes, I want Modern to have new cards outside of standard. There is no guarantee that this will make Control (I mean pure control) a playable option in Modern, so stop assuming that. It might make make Tezzerator better, it might make Elves tier one, hell it might create an unknown deck. That's the exciting thing. Even if I never played Modern again it would at least give Modern some form of innovation, because by limiting a format you make it stagnant. I have said this time and time again: the idea that restrictions breed creativity is wrong. Space and openness breed creativity. Allowing for the development of new lines of thought and play should be embraced because it creates a better environment for everyone. That you deny this, that you obstinately refuse to even consider change is infuriating. You have constructed a narrative and seem unyielding because you think "rules are rules". Rules should adapt to the changing times and Modern must change as well.
Standard is not ineffective, it is inefficient. Don't confuse the two. Wizards is fearful of "breaking" the game, so they refuse to unban more powerful cards. Those cards that have been unbanned are insignificant and meaningless in the grand scheme of the format. Those cards didn't bring any meaningful impact to Modern.
Also, clarify: "I am not against innovation or change. What I am against is moving outside the prescribed area of Modern." Because, that sounds like you are precisely against innovation and change. So, how would you innovate and change Modern? Because, you said you're not against such ideals, I would love to hear your opinion on that.
January 1, 2016 1 a.m.
ToolmasterOfBrainerd says... #19
I don't think I agree, Jwiley129. Modern can be whatever the heck Wizards says it is, so adding another way to get cards into the format is not unfeasible. There will always be people who enjoy the format and there will always be people who don't like the format no matter how good or bad the format gets. But the fact that we're able to have this seriously of a conversation about the format and potentially changing it says that there is likely a larger problem than just magic players with their usual list of complaints.
Earlier I said that we don't want the format to change too quickly because then cards fluctuate in value too quickly and it's difficult to build a deck and have it and play it forever, which is what many players join modern precisely for. The fact that modern doesn't change quickly is why I like the format so much. But, I have to agree that right now it's changing too slowly. I don't want it to change too fast, because that's worse than too slow, but it's current rate means the meta gets stale.
I do agree that we need an alternative method of getting cards into modern. It has to be a print run where it's printed widely enough and cheap enough that it doesn't create goyf-like prices. Or Flusterstorm-like prices. Shaking up the meta about once a year without abusing the banlist sounds like a good plan to me. Don't wipe decks out of existence, because that's no fun at all, but make Twin and Burn tier 1.5 or lower tier 1, and raise something like Elves to tier 1 for 6 months or so to give them some fun. Keep the same collection of about 20 decks in tier 1 and 2 for most part, but create 2-3 new tier 2 and remove 2-3 old tier 2 archetypes each year to keep things changing, but don't move any deck too quickly, to avoid too much power creep and keep modern as a game you only have to pay once.
January 1, 2016 1:12 a.m. Edited.
CanadianShinobi - I am against trying to change Modern outside of how it was defined. I am not against introducing new cards into Modern legal sets that can shake up the metagame. Look at Collected Company. It took the old Birthing Pod deck, which was banned, and gave it new life. It pushed Elves and Zoo towards the top of the metagame. Modern gets one shake-up a year, at the annual B&R announcement before the Modern PT that we all signed up for. Otherwise we'd see bannings during the year as opposed to only in January. More frequent bannings/unbannings would cause faster shake-ups, however that isn't happening.
Similarly, you haven't convinced me that Modern needs to have some sort of ancillary product made. I don't think you need to change the definition of Modern to get the results you want. If you don't like the way Modern is going, you can leave. Nothing is keeping you here.
ToolmasterOfBrainerd - So you want your cake and eat it too? That's nice. Tell me, what level of printing would this set need to have to A) get the cards into the players' hands and B) sell enough to satisfy Wizard's bottom line? Modern Masters levels? Conspiracy levels? BFZ levels? The fact is such a set would only be printed as much as MM, or Conspiracy if we're lucky. If Wizards did print it, I guarantee it'd be a marketing failure and we'd never see another product like it again. The audience is too narrow and the impact too small.
January 1, 2016 1:16 a.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #21
JWiley129 thank you once again for ignoring a large portion of my response. Notably the final two paragraphs of my last response.
Also, stop acting so bloody condescendingly. You keep bringing up lackluster examples to prove your point. Zoo is not tier 1, nor is Elves. And, as we have discussed (but you failed to admit) the unbanned cards thus far have done nothing for Modern in a significant fashion. Furthermore, I would like to point out that both Treasure Cruise and Dig Through Time did not receive an appropriate amount of time in Modern. If the meta game should adjust yearly for bans, then by your own standards Dig and Cruise should have been given a fair shot. However, I'm sure you'll merely respond with more snark and condescension, instead of something legitimate. Or even a concession.
Fun fact: I left Modern about 7 months ago. This doesn't mean I stopped paying attention to the format, or that I am incapable of noticing certain trends in the format. Or, that i stopped caring about the format.
And as you failed to address, ToolmasterOfBrainerd is right. The fact that there is a legitimate discussion about this indicates that this isn't some random bitching on my part. I linked sources, did I not?
January 1, 2016 1:43 a.m.
ToolmasterOfBrainerd says... #22
I like cake, if you're offering. I enjoy pie too, if you were curious, although I try to avoid cow pie, as I hear it's high in cholesterol.
Okay, story time. Modern was born because a bunch of WOTC employees got together and said 'okay guys, we need a new format'. After some discussion, they somewhat arbitrarily decided that it would start with 8th edition and only include core sets and block sets, and not supplemental product.
My point is that the format sorta just came to be. It's not like Legacy, Vintage, or Commander , which is every card printed with a massive ban/restricted list, or Standard with recent Block and Core set cards. Modern is much more arbitrary, and thus is the only format with the potential to change if needed outside of banning.
Consider if they did more Modern Event Decks, but these event decks could include new cards. The most expensive card in each deck could only be as expensive as the retail price of the deck as long as the deck is in print. Doing modern event deck anthologies every few years could help a lot too. If they do an unlimited print run of the event decks for a long enough period of time, such as, say, 6 months, and sell them for around $50 per deck with enough value inside to make it worth the price, then they could sell very well, make wizards plenty of money to sustain it, and have a significant impact on the format in a very good way. It would give wizards a way to reprint old cards with effects too strong for standard or with effects that they're trying to shy away from, such as Storm or Protection. More importantly, they could introduce a card like Daze or Fact or Fiction to the format, which could be balanced in modern, and would easily have the ability to shake up the format. Under the current system, cards like these would be too powerful for Stnadard, and thus cannot exist in modern because of arbitrary and changeable restrictions.
Canadianshinobi, if I'm being unhelpful, feel free to tell me to back off, because you clearly have a much stronger and well-thought out opinion on the matter, and I don't want to stand in your way.
January 1, 2016 1:50 a.m. Edited.
CanadianShinobi - First, I thought TC and DTT were fine. Others thought differently. Wild Nacatl is the most impactful of the unbans due primarily to the fact that it is seeing play in Burn decks. Also, thanks for ignoring my response to ToolmasterOfBrainerd for another reason why such a set is a bad idea on Wizards part. I'm glad we can bond over ignoring each other's statements.
Finally, I didn't provide any ways to change or innovate on Modern because it doesn't need it! What a novel concept.
ToolmasterOfBrainerd - I would encourage you to read the articles I posted in a reply to CanadianShinobi about the real birth of Modern. It was more thought out than "Guys, people don't like Extended. What are we gonna do?"
January 1, 2016 1:54 a.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #24
ToolmasterOfBrainerd why should you back off? This is an open forum for discussion. You have made excellent points thus far. I disagree with some of the finer details, but such is the nature of things.
JWiley129 has it ever occurred to you that insulting people and talking down to them is not a valid means of presenting an argument?
You said you're not against innovation and yet you just proved that this is not true. You're contradicting yourself. At least play the "What if" game.
I ignored your response to ToolmasterOfBrainerd because it wasn't directed to me and I haven't done any research into the matter. I assure I can correct this if you desire.
January 1, 2016 2:11 a.m.
JUDGE!
Not worth the veins and angry fingers kids. People will ALWAYS have different opinions on Magic.
Everybody breathe.
January 1, 2016 2:21 a.m.
I subbed this thread because I believed it would lead to interesting, engaging, and educational discussion. (Seriously...)
No onlooker wants to see bitterness and a poorly handled battle of the minds.
Agree to Disagree. Agree to do it gracefully. Like a suggestion for your deck that makes no sense at all: Smile; Say Thanks; Move on.
January 1, 2016 2:28 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #27
So after sobering up and reading that entire wall of text that is the second page, here are my observations.
CanadianShinobi: You're the one user who I'd say is being the most aggressive. Your language and repeated demands, whether literal or implied, that everyone acknowledge your ideas as some operational standard for the thread are unproductive, regardless of what JWiley129 may be doing.
To that point, JWiley129 may be dismissive, but he's also still asking for some convincing argument that Modern needs a supplementary product in order to be satisfactory. He and I seem mutually unimpressed by the assumption that innovation and change require a restructuring of what products Modern includes, and by the suggestion that he has been defining Modern through an arbitrary set of rules (he's working with the actual rules that define the format).
Further, the fact that some of the sources are old doesn't invalidate them. LaPille's article may have been written in 2011, but the excerpted point is still valid. Monitoring supplemental releases for Modern legality or being forced to design or instaban around Modern would be unnecessarily complex and time consuming, and all it really does is shoehorn Modern design considerations into products that were never meant to be used in Modern. One of the things that allows supplementary products to be more open in design is the fact that their cards, by format definitions, are not made legal in non-eternal formats. MaRo's Tumblr response reinforces the idea that new sets are not the single most efficient means of changing Modern, so trying to force feed new cards into Modern by changing the design paradigm for existing supplemental products or creating a new supplemental product that violates the current rules for Modern legality would, to some extent, be misplaced effort.
The more I read this page, the more it seems to me that you're simply unsatisfied with how Modern changes. Which is perfectly fine; you're welcome to feel that way. But your feelings don't create an obligation for action on anyone else's part, least of all WOTC. As I said earlier, you've yet to prove the following requirements of your own argument:
1. That Modern requires more change than it currently experiences. (This is requires that you substantiate your claim with event records, etc. rather than simply stating that you think Modern should change more frequently. The assumption that a single annual shakeup is too slow is not sufficient, nor is the assumption that any degree of stagnation in a non-rotating format is also insufficient. You have to show how Modern would be better if it changed more drastically or more often.)
2. That supplementary products would be the correct way to implement that change. (This requires that you prove block sets and ban list changes insufficient, which is exactly the opposite of the statements made thus far by WOTC's own authorities.)
January 1, 2016 11:53 a.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #28
Okay, I have collected my thoughts and can hopefully address this issue in a more reasonable manner. Since you're both on the same side of this argument and have drawn the same argument (more or less) I will focus on Epoch most recent post for the sake of simplicity.
1. That Modern requires more change than it currently experiences. (This is requires that you substantiate your claim with event records, etc. rather than simply stating that you think Modern should change more frequently. The assumption that a single annual shakeup is too slow is not sufficient, nor is the assumption that any degree of stagnation in a non-rotating format is also insufficient. You have to show how Modern would be better if it changed more drastically or more often.)
First off, I would like to ask: what sort of proof am I expected to give here? I have nothing more than the sources I provided in my OP. And you have dismissed my own enthusiasm and desires for such a change. To some extent I cannot fully address this point in a satisfying manner for either of you.
All I can point to is that for the past year to year and a half the top decks of Modern have not changed. If we count Affinity among these, then we're looking at a longer period for that specific deck. Despite the influx of cards in recent sets, it has hardly changed the top decks of the format. It has certainly given tools for the tier 2 decks, and tier 1.5, but tier 1 has remained tier 1. And as I mentioned, I don't care if Jund or Twin stay tier 1, but it would be exciting if a new deck pushed its way among those decks as well.
Now, Affinity has been around in tier 1 longer than any other deck. In many ways, it's the poster child for aggro in Modern. Indeed, if you want to play aggro in Modern in a competitive fashion, then you Affinity. Burn, Zoo and Infect (and recently Merfolk of all decks) have made significant pushes in the past, however, they have typically been hated out over time and float in the 1.5 category, occasionally pushing into tier 1. At least, based upon what I have seen and researched.
In conclusion to this point, all I can offer is that I think that if Modern had a somewhat frequent shift, say yearly, in it's tier 1 then it would make the format more open. I would even concede that, if tier 1 became a more accessible goal for other decks then this would be of great benefit to the format for the sake of a large and diverse competitive field.
2. That supplementary products would be the correct way to implement that change. (This requires that you prove block sets and ban list changes insufficient, which is exactly the opposite of the statements made thus far by WOTC's own authorities.)
Once again, I ask what sort of evidence should I provide? You're both relatively set in your ideals and there's nothing that I can produce, or at least nothing that I can think of, to convince you otherwise. The best I can do is to point to the fact that the majority of cards that were removed from the ban list have had no impact on the format in a meaningful fashion. As such, Wizard's policy of unbanning has thus far proven to be ineffective at changing the Modern format.
Banning cards has certainly proved effective, but this is a given. If you ban the enabler of a tier 1 deck, the deck ceases to function, or be competitive. The primary example of this is Birthing Pod. Now, whether or not Pod should have been banned is neither here nor there, the point is bans change Modern. However, you may also recall that Treasure Cruise and Dig Through Time were also banned and here's where bans become problematic. Unlike Pod, Cruise and Dig did not have a long time in the format. Pod had a solid year to a year and a half as a top deck. Before that it was a 1.5 deck and performed admirably even so. Cruise and Dig had roughly three months and were banned prior to the Pro Tour, if I recall correctly.
Cruise and Dig were the two greatest enablers for Blue decks in Modern. They encouraged brewing and creativity and had great potential. That potential was snuffed out prematurely and, in my opinion, has done great harm to the format, because the ban list has proven to be a restriction and a hindrance. After those bans, many Modern players felt disenfranchised, which was clear even on T/O, because it felt Wizards was being heavy handed.
Therefore, the only reasonable proposal it seems is to allow supplementary products into Modern. It avoids the pit fall of Wizard's letting their "mistakes" slip into Modern and harming the players' outlook of the game. Such a product could allow for reprints of overly expensive commons and allow for Modern level cards to be printed without fear. As I have said, Wizards is moving away from such practices in Standard. And the more they do this, the slower Modern will change. I do not think it unreasonable to desire a change on a yearly basis, even if that change is not significant.
I am not looking for a drastic shift in Modern. I perceive Modern as a middle ground in Magic. Things are powerful, but there's no need for something like Force of Will. It doesn't rotate, so so long as nothing is banned your investment is safe. But, because it is a middle ground then it should be reasonable to expect a middling level of change. Not as fast as Standard, but not as glacial as Legacy.
I have nothing left unfortunately. If you find this entire post dissatisfying then we will remain at an impasse. I have done my best to clarify my position. In summary: The ban list has done too little to change Modern is a positive fashion and supplementary products would work to rectify this by bypassing Wizards changing designs for Standard. Modern could hopefully then move at a moderate and reasonable pace of innovation whilst still allowing for older decks to flourish.
January 1, 2016 7:27 p.m.
ToolmasterOfBrainerd says... #29
I have something to add, to serve as proof.
The healthiest formats and the most fun magic are widely believed to be derived from a balanced metagame, a card pool that promotes innovation and creativity, and constant yet gradual change to the metagame. Both of the first two requirements, in my mind, for a fun format, can be used to prove that we need some alternative way of adding cards to modern other than Standard.
To show that we need alternative method of bringing cards into the format, I need to show 2 things. First, I must show that there is a need for a certain card or card type to be printed or reprinted to uphold one of the three requirements for a good format. Second, I must show that printing such a card or card type in Standard is not a realistic possibility for the health of the format.
So, first off, for the idea of a balanced metagame, there needs to exist a wide variety of strategies, from aggro to midrange to control, with combo variants at every stage. Right now in Modern control doesn't exist in its most pure form. For the sake of diversity and balance in a format, both of which contribute to meeting the needs of more players, and thus a better format, there should be a playable pure control deck in the format, like there is in Legacy and Standard. It is highly debatable what is needed to make modern control viable without making Twin or Scapeshift too powerful, but there are certainly some shortcomings in the control pieces in modern. Both the draw power and the counterspells are insufficient for modern control to exist, and Wizards doesn't want to print powerful counterspells in Standard. So, without an alternative method of bringing cards into the format, modern control will never exist. If you can create a card that's not overpowered in Standard but would give modern control the boost it needs, then have at it, but it is unlikely to impossible, especially because Wizards has said that they don't want powerful and efficient counterspells in Standard.
Now, for creativity and innovation, consider the card True-Name Nemesis. To me, it seems reasonably powered for modern, and the author of article 1 would agree with me, but that is completely debatable but not a debate I would like to have here and now, because it's beside the point.
Is there a need for True-Name Nemesis, or a card of similar function/power, in modern? I would say yes to that. There exist numerous people, such as myself and CanadianShinobi, who believe that the format has become stale. There is no immediate need for a certain card in Modern because any deck that's too powerful can simply become banned. But for the health of the format, to keep things interesting, the majority of players in the format would agree that there needs to be some amount of change. Having the same few decks be dominant for a long period of time leads to unfun magic, and a healthy format ought to promote innovation and creativity in deckbuilders. As I said earlier, the fact this conversation has been this serious and lasted this long proves that there is a problem in the format. The main problem for Shinobi and I in trying to prove this is that whether the format needs more or less change is extremely arbitrary and open to individual opinion, but because there exist enough of a population of the magic community that think the format needs change, yet not one person that I've meet that believes that the format needs less change, I am lead to the belief that there ought to be more change because that view seems to held more widely. Because there is no way of knowing for sure what the 'average belief' on the matter of change frequency of modern is amongst every modern player, all we can base this 'statistic' off of is what we have to work with and can see in front of us, which lends the belief that more change is in order.
Additionally, it is currently very difficult to brew an innovative deck because the format never receives the tools to innovate with. In order to innovate, there has to be new cards with enough power to make brewing around them viable. Also, having the possibility of a wide variety of card types and strategies helps to foster innovation.
Back to True-Name Nemesis. It has no possibility for a Standard printing. Protection is keyword that wizards has said is no longer evergreen and they are trying to edge away from. Also, it's simply too powerful in a nearly all-creature format. It would warp Standard beyond recognition as well as be too difficult to compensate for in the design of other cards. Basically, there is 0 chance of a Standard True-Name Nemesis printing, or of cards at a similar power level. What this means is that the current system of modern cards coming from standard is limiting design space. I don't think it's that debatable that limiting design space leads to an inherently less innovative format, or at least a format in which it is more difficult to have cards that spark innovation. Therefore, although there may not be a dire need for a method of bringing cards into the format other than Standard, the format would certainly benefit from having supplementary product for it. Perhaps not commander for reasons other people have given earlier in this thread, but I am going to go back to my earlier suggestion of more Modern Event Decks, which may include new printings of cards.
Now, Jwiley and Epoch, you both keep saying that you don't see any need for supplementary product in Modern. Yet I believe I have proven here that it would benefit the format. Neither of you have offered any reasoning as to why they should not have modern supplementary product to add new cards to the format other than that there is no need for it, but I have just shown that there could be a need for it. What proof can either of you provide that it would not benefit the format? No one has given me any sort of argument as to why a Modern Event Deck series would be a bad idea, aside from a poorly defended suggestion that it would not sell well. If they had enough value in them and were printed over a long period of time with high enough supply, it could sell very well, especially because there are a lot of modern players that would buy them.
January 1, 2016 9 p.m.
I would reply to both of these posts, but I am at FNM right now and will do so once I'm back in front of my computer. Because I don't want to type my rebuttal on my phone.
January 1, 2016 9:08 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #31
In some sense, the answer I "expect" for point #1 is an explanation of why more frequent changes would be beneficial for the format, which has more to do with what WOTC/the player base considers "healthy." Thus far, it seems to have just been an assumption of the "for" arguments that more change happens to be better by default or because that's what you like, and the statistics presented are analyses of the meta, but that doesn't actually prove that more change is an appropriate starting premise.
I do take some offense to the idea that we're set in our ways. We're just asking for actual evidence that actually supports your claims. We're even telling you what we're looking for.
For point #2, I think some credit is due to the planning and intent of those unbannings. Modern started with a fairly large ban list, and the unbannings it has experienced have been primarily at safe times so as to introduce additional options to the meta without creating a new deck that was sure to dominate. Which seems like the most appropriate way to handle unbannings; you don't want to unban something just to have it become the new juggernaut in the format.
As for Treasure Cruise and Dig Through Time, they're the kind of cards that every deck will splash for because they're so powerful and so available in all shells. I don't think the decision to ban them is inappropriate. Other banned blue spells like Ponder and Preordain enable combo decks much more than run-of-the-mill blue and are dangerous if your goal is to combat the overrepresentation of one archetype over another.
That said, one of the big criticisms of WOTC's management of Modern is that it hasn't allowed control to really blossom. That's a function of many of control's utility spells also being great combo utility spells, but it's still a problem that many feel needs to be worked on more aggressively.
You neglected to prove that block sets are insufficient as a means of introducing new cards to Modern. You can't prove that supplementary products are the best answer without proving that block sets are insufficient. Although I do agree that the general power level of certain kinds of Standard cards is dropping over time, you've yet to show how a supplemental release would be a better vector for introducing those things (economically speaking, it's not very attractive due to supply and demand concerns, but even practically speaking an argument needs to be made).
On another note, I don't know whether a productive argument can be had over Modern's "identity" as a non-rotating, non-eternal format (i.e., over whether supplemental products can even be allowed to contribute to the Modern card pool) because that's sort of a definitional thing and only a statement from MaRo or an equivalent authority would hold weight. Somebody who has a Tumblr should ask him.
January 1, 2016 9:48 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #32
Thus far, it seems to have just been an assumption of the "for" arguments that more change happens to be better by default or because that's what you like, and the statistics presented are analyses of the meta, but that doesn't actually prove that more change is an appropriate starting premise.
I would have thought that by demonstrating an overall lack of change and diversity within the competitive Modern environment that it would benefit my current position. Because, otherwise the assumption is that Modern is fine if the top decks don't move. Unless there is a middle ground that I am overlooking. Or at least that is what I am being led to believe when I read what I have quoted. Perhaps I am misinterpreting.
Which seems like the most appropriate way to handle unbannings; you don't want to unban something just to have it become the new juggernaut in the format.
Granted. But, even so I think it is a perfectly legitimate criticism to say that Wizards is overly cautious which is a direct result because they do not (or cannot) test for Modern. As such, the format is lacking in some form of support.
You neglected to prove that block sets are insufficient as a means of introducing new cards to Modern. You can't prove that supplementary products are the best answer without proving that block sets are insufficient.
I did not neglect this. I attempted to show this when I noted that Standard is shifting away from Modern in terms of power level. I can't fully demonstrate this at the current time, because the evidence you want simply isn't readily available to me. All I can say is that block sets have not recently contributed to Modern in an overly significant fashion with regard to tier 1 decks. In many ways, the blocks have given tier 1 decks even more tools (I'm thinking of Jund and Kolaghan's Command). So, assuming Standard continues at its current trajectory power wise, and cards can only come through Standard, it stands to reason that Modern, in the future will be presented with fewer and fewer options. I can only argue that this is the beginning of a worrying trend. Modern is getting better creatures and better threats, but it is increasingly left with old answers, which may not be sufficient. Unfortunately, I don't know if I can satisfy you on this point. Mostly, because this discussion was based on theoretical concepts to begin with.
That said, one of the big criticisms of WOTC's management of Modern is that it hasn't allowed control to really blossom. That's a function of many of control's utility spells also being great combo utility spells, but it's still a problem that many feel needs to be worked on more aggressively.
Just to tag this on to my last point. This is also why I feel the blocks are inefficient. Quality noncreature spells, especially for Control, are becoming increasingly hard to come by. If Standard cannot satisfy this need, then what can? I realize this isn't a problem to everyone, many players despise Control, but as a Control player myself it is a bone of contention. It is one of the reasons I abandoned the format.
January 1, 2016 10:18 p.m.
ToolmasterOfBrainerd says... #33
Did we all just miss my comment (#78)? Jwiley saw it, but he (understandably) can't respond at this time, but I feel like both Epoch and Shinobi didn't see it.
I think I addressed at least somewhat competently why the Standard isn't sufficient to produce the quality of cards modern deserves and why supplementary product for modern, such as more Modern Event Decks.
January 1, 2016 10:26 p.m. Edited.
CanadianShinobi says... #34
ToolmasterOfBrainerd no, I saw it. I just didn't have anything to add.
Epochalyptik I forgot to address your economic concerns. I feel this is a non-issue to some extent. Modern Masters has sold well. The last one didn't sell as well because it offered not only a substandard draft experience (from what I gather; I don't draft) but also lacked several key reprints that Modern players desired. Most of those reprints were commons and uncommons; such as: Serum Visions, Terminate, Gitaxian Probe ect. Therefore, it stands to reason that were Wizards to devote time, effort and resources in developing a Modern only product which contained key reprints (again even key commons and uncommons would do) as well as new, invigorating and potentially game changing, cards, that it would be financially successful. Modern has a large player base and that player base will only increase over time (barring Magic imploding) especially considering the new Standard rotation. As I noted, if you want to keep your investment, you play Modern. And if Wizards wants to continue to promote Modern they will have to find an effective means of ensuring the format flourishes.
January 1, 2016 10:35 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #35
Yet again, a lack of change compared to other formats is not in itself a sign that the format is doing poorly, and greater change over a given period is not a sign that a format is more successful. Indicating that Modern experiences a low amount of change over time does nothing to prove that greater change is better. I hope I don't have to explain this again, but you're assuming a premise, arguing that something could be used to achieve the position described by that premise, and then claiming to have proved your premise. It's a non-argument.
This is a legitimate argument, but it doesn't prove your point. So you concede that it's possible that bans are have more potential than has been actualized? Would it not be beneficial, then, to explore how effective bans could be before assuming that they're wholly ineffective?
For the rest of your post, consider that proving that block sets are less effective is a comparative process. You can show that a supplementary set could possibly be more effective. However, you're left with the responsibility of demonstrating why we should then accept supplementary products in violation of Modern's current identity and in violation of the current release paradigms.
I think the more realistic argument is that the general power level of both Standard and Modern could rise if the power level of cards in block sets would also rise. This would require only the same design considerations that are already being made and could lead to not only a more dynamic and developed Modern, but a punchier and more exciting Standard.
While I don't disagree that these are factors in a healthy format, the acceptable rate of change is the subjective bit that we've been arguing about for two pages now. I'm not particularly convinced by appeals from personal experience, either.
It's relatively simple to prove that a supplementary product could be beneficial. The challenge is in proving that it's more beneficial than block sets.
I don't think you make a convincing argument in that respect by taking as your example a single card that certainly won't see a Standard printing.
The task is made difficult also by the fact that, as I said earlier, we cannot know all possible solutions that exist in the design space. It could well be that we'll see a new series of cards in Standard sets that will create entirely new archetypes in Modern. It doesn't have to be the case that WOTC simply prints answers to existing decks.
January 1, 2016 11:55 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #36
However, you're left with the responsibility of demonstrating why we should then accept supplementary products in violation of Modern's current identity and in violation of the current release paradigms.
I would say that a Modern supplementary product would be more beneficial, because depending on the type of product released, it would allow card designer's greater design space. As I mentioned earlier one of the reasons Modern Masters 2015 ended up being somewhat disappointing was because it lacked key reprints. When questioned, WOTC said those reprints infringed upon their design space for the draft environment.
Blocks and sets, by their very nature of being designed for drafts, limit design space considerably, especially because Wizards is now changing the direction of Standard. If, for example, Wizards maintained ISD power level, or even slightly lower, there would be no complaint or argument to be had. Innistrad was a remarkably generous block to Modern. But, this is not the case.
However, if a supplementary product were released, this would free designers of needing to build a functioning draft environment. It would then allow for new cards to be printed and provide an effective vehicle for reprints. It would also allow them to keep their customers happy and avoid the conflicting ideas over what Modern Masters is supposed to be. See, to Wizards Modern Masters is for draft; to several players it's supposed to be about reprints and making Modern affordable.
I would argue that violating Modern's identity for the purpose of creating new design space and maintaining and growing the format through reprints and new cards, is perfectly acceptable. Modern players would certain pay for such products. The format is becoming increasingly expensive and because of Wizards design philosophies reprints are not occurring enough to meet the demand. And I'm not talking about mythics, I'm talking commons and uncommons. Cards that could be printed to worthlessness and no one would care. Yes, this is a TCG, but the older cards like Serum Visions are likely to see a reprint outside of Modern Masters, and such a product is not widely distributed enough.
So you concede that it's possible that bans are have more potential than has been actualized? Would it not be beneficial, then, to explore how effective bans could be before assuming that they're wholly ineffective?
I conceded that banning a card has an immediate impact. I would be more inclined to explore unbanning cards before banning something. I never said banning was ineffective, I said the unbanning of cards has thus far been ineffective.
January 2, 2016 6:10 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #37
To some extent, it is inappropriate to neglect draft. WOTC is a business, after all, and drafting is one of the ways they sell a set. If you were to design a set that included only good Modern cards and neglected its Limited environment, it would be less usable to players. You wouldn't be able to support the market through draft and sealed events, so the only people opening those boxes would be doing so for purely economic reasons.
The fact that both Modern Masters sets have been designed with Limited as a governing force for card choices should indicate to you that an idyllic bombs-only supplementary set is outside not only Modern's identity as a format, but outside of WOTC's design paradigm entirely.
The only way that you sidestep this conflict is by pushing for a supplementary product that isn't a set. This could be a duel deck or some other product (as the title of this thread suggests). But why choose an arbitrary product to become the new driving force for Modern? What else would this product offer? How would it be made successful in the market?
If we're met to discuss challenging WOTC's design philosophies, why not start by challenging the philosophy that Standard sets need to be less powerful as a whole? You've admitted multiple times that this would be a great solution (or at least a workable one), yet you utterly ignore it in favor of pushing for less practical and less congruent solutions.
And your second to last paragraph betrays an ulterior motive. We've been discussing the health of the Modern meta and the rate at which it changes, not the economic accessibility of Modern. The latter is an entirely separate topic with an entirely separate list of considerations. You may have only given it a paragraph's space in your response, but the content of that paragraph suggests that you're not prepared to discuss that topic appropriately. I caution you against moving down that road unless you want some very long asides about the game's economic position and history and several more requirements to your primary argument.
January 2, 2016 7:20 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #38
To some extent, it is inappropriate to neglect draft. WOTC is a business, after all, and drafting is one of the ways they sell a set. If you were to design a set that included only good Modern cards and neglected its Limited environment, it would be less usable to players. You wouldn't be able to support the market through draft and sealed events, so the only people opening those boxes would be doing so for purely economic reasons.
I'm forced to concede this. As I've freely admitted, I don't draft. In fact, I'm horrible at it. But, there's nothing to say that the product would have to be filled with bombs and goodstuff. Certainly that would be a part of it, but you could print jank and whatever else. But, if the product did sell and turn a profit what would the harm be? If the means justified the end, does it matter?
If we're met to discuss challenging WOTC's design philosophies, why not start by challenging the philosophy that Standard sets need to be less powerful as a whole? You've admitted multiple times that this would be a great solution (or at least a workable one), yet you utterly ignore it in favor of pushing for less practical and less congruent solutions.
I suppose the main reason I've avoided this is because, to me, it feels far less practical. Which probably sounds odd to you. However, to me, Wizards is more likely to eventually treat Modern like Legacy than it is to change its outlook on Standard. I would absolutely love it if Standard sets became more powerful, but I simply don't see it as reasonable anymore. Ever since ISD and RTR Standard, Wizards has been making changes in how they construct their blocks. KTK was an interesting set, but even that set saw elements of a changing design philosophy and I am convinced that Wizards didn't realize just how powerful delve could be in the older formats.
January 2, 2016 7:56 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #39
You just described Modern Masters.
If the point of the discussion is to investigate which change would be most productive, we're not bound to the current paradigms. We're, by definition, looking to change them in some way in order to foster a better environment.
Therefore, arbitrarily labeling one option as "unreasonable" and pursuing less likely and less practical solutions is asinine. We should be evaluating the potential of each option in order to identify the best one, regardless of what that is. If you're operating under a bias for or against one option, you've already disposed of your own ability to reach the best conclusion.
January 2, 2016 8:33 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #40
You just described Modern Masters.
Except Modern Masters is restricted and bound by the constraint of a draft environment, hence why Modern Masters 2015 was less appealing to the Modern player base. My point was, if a supplementary product, that was not designed for draft, succeeded financially, who cares if it isn't draft focused?
If the point of the discussion is to investigate which change would be most productive, we're not bound to the current paradigms. We're, by definition, looking to change them in some way in order to foster a better environment.
From my perspective you have been binding me to the current paradigm. Your entire argument is based upon the current paradigm and that it is better than what I have proposed. I mean, what else am I to discuss at this point? Unfortunately I lack your depth of understanding of the game.
I'm a Modern player, or was. I originally proposed the entire thread because I felt the sources and the idea were worth discussing, because to me it seemed like a brilliant idea. I left Modern because, as a player, I felt that Wizards was not doing enough to make Modern a diverse and compelling format. It felt tired and old and I was incensed at the banning of two new and powerful cards. And as a Control player I felt marginalized, especially by the Modern community who repeatedly insisted I go play Legacy instead.
I'm frankly no longer even sure what I can possibly bring to this discussion. To me the most effective change would be to continually print Standard at an RTR-ISD level of power. That would keep Standard engaging while still bringing a plethora of cards to Modern.
Failing that, or being bound to the current paradigm. Wizards would have to acknowledge that they are currently failing a percentage of the Modern players (mostly Control players) and begin to find a means to invigorate Modern in a way that did not upset their plans for Standard. The only logical conclusion to this would be a product not bound by the constraints of Modern Masters, notably the product would have to have new cards that were right for Modern, but too good for Standard.
I can't prove this. Really, I can't. There is simply no tangible evidence currently out there aside from the fact that Standard is slowing down and Modern has ground to a halt with its current metagame. I'm sorry I couldn't offer you the discourse you were looking for, but I don't have anything left to say.
Maybe we should debate history, at least I have a degree in that.
January 2, 2016 9:46 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #41
At that point, it isn't as big an issue. But the challenge to WOTC is finding a practical and economically viable means of introducing that support, and Limited is a proven standby.
I'm not binding you to the current paradigm, so to speak. I'm merely proposing that we ought to see if the current model could be more appropriate given that other models have more complicated issues surrounding them than simply whether you could implement them.
I think we can agree on that.
That much we also agree on (for the most part).
It's not so much about proof in terms of statistics, however. A lot of this is theoretical, and it's hard to describe how one argument would be superior to another. It's somewhat like history in that sense. You basically have to consider which options have the fewest shortcomings or introduce the fewest additional requirements and then see if those options are sufficient.
FWIW, I think the discussion has been productive.
January 2, 2016 10:38 p.m.
ToolmasterOfBrainerd says... #42
I'm not quite done yet. Who says a set is the best way to go? If Wizards tried to do a supplementary set without building for draft, it wouldn't sell very well, as Epoch has explained. My idea, which I've brought up numerous times, is more Modern Event Decks, but with new printings in addition to reprints. If wizards is smart about it and include reprints of staples, as well as made the decks viable tier 2 decks, then they could sell quite well. If they stuck to mono or dual colored decks, they could include 1-2 copies of a few different staples in those colors, such as shock lands, Scavenging Ooze, Lightning Bolt, Lightning Helix, Path to Exile, Abrupt Decay, Serum Visions, Gitaxian Probe, Inquisition of Kozilek, etc. They could also include a sideboard to get additional cards like Stony Silence. The manabases could be very similar to the first Modern Event Deck, so viable but not perfect, but could have 1-2 shocks per deck to reprint them as well. If the value is there, they will sell, as well as make the game more accessible for newer players. Some potential deck options that Wizards could do is UR delver, which could have Gitaxian Probe, Serum Visions, Delver of Secrets Flip, Monastery Swiftspear, Young Pyromancer, True-Name Nemesis, Remand, Daze, and Lightning Bolt for the core. This would introduce Daze and True-Name Nemesis to the format as well as reprint some key cards a lot of people want. The value cards would be 2 Steam Vents, 2 Sulfur Falls, 4 Serum Visions, 4 Remand, 2 True-Name Nemesis, and 4 Daze. Those cards alone adds up to $145, so they could probably MSRP for $75 because a lot of those prices would drop with the reprints. Adding TNN and Daze would give the format some new toys that Standard could never give them, give incoming modern players a playable deck, and reprint some key cards to make modern less expensive. I'd rather not get into whether Daze and True-Name Nemesis are too powerful for the format or not because that's not what this discussion is about, but more Modern Event decks could be a viable way of bringing new cards into the format other than Standard.
On a side note, I don't think we've exhausted the topic of design space in modern. Because Wizards has announced that they are trying to make less cards with protection, less cantrips, and less powerful counterspells, having Modern cards come from Standard is inherently limiting the types of cards that we will see. It is possible that there will be new mechanics coming from Standard that could spawn new archetypes, but with the trends of recent Standard sets of being less powerful and containing less modern caliber cards, it is unlikely. Even Legacy gets new toys every now and then such as Flusterstorm, True-Name Nemesis, Dack Fayden, and Containment Priest through supplementary product because that's the only way cards of that power level can safely be printed, so why shouldn't Modern? Modern is inherently more powerful than Standard, even if it's much less powerful than Legacy, and shaking up the format every once in awhile with some new powerhouses through supplementary product should increase the overall health of the format. How frequently it should change is still very subjective, as we've discussed, but the limitations of design space of Standard can be overcome with Modern Event Decks, which I think would be an effective method of reprinting needed staples, making the format accessible to more players, and having a method of bringing new toys into the format.
My debating skills aren't anywhere near as good as either of yours, so I can't even pretend to have as strong of arguments, but I think the idea is fairly strong still, even if I can't back it well. I do think this discussion has been highly informative and productive as a whole, so thank you everyone who contributed.
January 3, 2016 1:01 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #43
Any time a new card is introduced in a supplementary product that isn't a set, we see price gouging. It happens every time a good Commander precon comes out. These kinds of products are ultimately ineffective for introducing new cards into the market for this reason (combined with the fact that they don't provide nearly enough supply to begin with).
As for reprints that gain new legality, event decks are a highly unlikely vector. They're somewhat awkward to work with in that they have low print runs, aren't really perceived as a major product (or at least aren't as prevalent as, say, sets or even Commander precons), and have a different intended purpose. Event decks are marketed as a way to get people into the format by providing them with a ready-made deck of reasonable power. It would seem to me (a non-expert with only public access to WOTC's marketing strategies) that trying to shoehorn format-defining decisions or precedents into an entry-level product makes that product more inaccessible to new players.
Continuing, the question of "so why shouldn't Modern?" is as easily answered as asked. Modern's identity as a non-eternal format means that it cannot gain cards through supplemental products. You would first need to change that. The power level argument is not particularly convincing because it's somewhat arbitrarily applied. You're comparing an eternal format (Legacy) to a non-eternal format (Standard), then comparing a non-eternal format (Modern) to a non-eternal format (Standard) and using that as the basis for arguing that the eternal legality model be applied to a non-eternal format. It's misapplied logic.
I'd also hesitate to say that on the basis of some effects being phased out of or limited in Standard (e.g., cantrips, protection), cards with those characteristics should be printed in other products and then made legal in Modern. A move away from those mechanics represents a shift in the design paradigm, and the design paradigm is applied laterally across all new products. Remember, too, that "Standard cards" is something of a misnomer in this case because sets are designed first for Limited and only after for constructed. The better argument here is the one that simply analyzes the power level of Standard cards as a whole and makes predictions about what we're likely to see in the future. And even that argument does little to challenge the possibility that we'll see viable Modern cards coming out of new sets.
January 3, 2016 5:39 a.m.
Harashiohorn says... #44
Here are what I find as the two biggest problems with using standard sets alone: 1) Whiffs and 2)"Limited-unfriendly archetypes". Whiffs are sets like BFZ, were while a few cards sort of made it into modern, their existences as 1 or 2 of's in only very specific decks means they didn't actually have much of an impact, whenever this happens we have to hope the 1 other set a year has a big impact, or the meta will not be changing much this year. Limited-Unfriendly Archetypes are things like dredge, and hardcore control (Ie. Stasis control). Things that WOTC believe create either an un-fun or unbalanced limited environment. If these achetypes never get support from limited, that means they will inevitably slowly die out in modern, which is a shame since it is so very preventable. Cards and archetypes that make enjoyable drafts don't necessarily make enjoyable decks and archetypes in non-draft formats. Will standard be a source of new cards for modern? definitely, but I fail to see why that entirely precludes the introduction of alternatives. What if "Conspiracy 2" was modern legal? What if there was a new set "Modern Boosters", these sets could be spaced very far apart and still have a positive impact. I just feel that its nonsensical to neither add in additional supports for modern nor to cash in on one of the most popular forms of magic. There is literally no disadvantage for WOTC or for the playerbase. I don't think introducing new cards through mediums like the Modern Event Deck, or Commander makes sense for modern (Yay a rarer Tarmogoyf) but there has to be SOME way that WOTC can do it, be it through a few new card being printed in MM, to making a set like Conspiracy that is modern legal, to a Portal esque set for modern, or even a non-rotating format Coreset.
January 3, 2016 11:58 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #45
The debate is over whether block sets are sufficient.
As I explained before, Modern's identity as a non-eternal format means that it doesn't by default include supplementary products. If you want to change that, the reason for changing it needs to be solid (not arbitrary) and the change made needs to be the most appropriate one from the list of possible changes.
I also addressed earlier the potential trouble with changing the paradigm for existing supplementary products such as event decks or Modern Masters.
In this case, if block sets are sufficient, there is no pressing need to include supplementary products. Consistency and clarity in the definition of Modern's boundaries are worth something. This isn't a no-downside opportunity, as you seem to want to frame it. "Because the opportunity exists" is not a valid reason for implementing change.
January 3, 2016 4:11 p.m.
Harashiohorn says... #46
For a man who doesn't play modern you sure seem to have quite a strong opinion about what should and shouldn't be modern XP
January 3, 2016 4:17 p.m.
ToolmasterOfBrainerd says... #47
Modern is a non-rotating format. Legacy is a non-rotating format. Standard is a rotating format. You can label them however you like, but it really has no argumentative power. The fact of the matter is that there is a significant power level gap between Standard and Modern. Wizards doesn't expect legacy players to receive cards from standard, so they print powerful cards in supplementary products, such as Flusterstorm to name 1 card, but there are lots of examples I could give of supplementary product cards that have had an impact on legacy. Wizards does, however, expect modern to receive all of their cards from standard, which is a poor decision from my point of view.
The only reason not to give modern supplementary product of some sort is that it's not the way things work right now, but that could change pretty easily. Modern was created fairly arbitrarily, so changing the rules of what cards are allowed would not be some overly difficult process, nor would it upset too many players if the change was managed and small at first. And, because of the design space limitations of cards that modern could potentially receive, there is a need for supplementary products in modern.
January 3, 2016 5:56 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #48
The labels do, in fact, have argumentative value. It might be inferred that you don't understand why or what these values are (as evidenced by your picking on the labels of rating vs non-rotating rather than on the more relevant labels of eternal vs non-eternal), but that doesn't mean that they don't exist.
Further, you keep saying that there is a need for supplementary products in Modern as though that point were easily justified (or even self-justifying). Explain to me how the design space limitations necessitate that Modern be expanded through the use of supplementary products and how supplementary products would provide something necessary to Modern that could not be provided in another way.
Again, you're conflating what is possible with what is practical. We're not exploring what is possible. We're exploring what is practical. We could suggest that WOTC alternate between Standard and Modern blocks every six months. That suggestion is theoretically possible, but it is not realistically practical. Therefore, it has limited merit in this discussion.
Let's take an example from your previous post. Let's say that WOTC decides that Modern Merfolk could use a new tool. It's theoretically possible that True-Name Nemesis could be introduced to Modern, but there are other options:
1. Print True-Name Nemesis in a block set.
2. Redefine Modern's identity as a non-eternal format and allow it to draw from some number of supplementary products. Then, print True-Name Nemesis in a legal supplementary product.
3. Print a new card in a block set.
Extant cards aren't necessarily the answers to extant problems. If the opportunity exists to print new cards within the current design paradigms and within Modern's current identity, then what justification can be offered for bothering to change the current design paradigms and Modern's current identity? An argument for the latter would require by its very premise that (A) some non-negligible number of cards necessary to the health of Modern exist, (B) that those cards are dangerous to the health of Standard, and (C) that the only means of introducing them into Modern is to redefine Modern's identity in some way.
To apply this model to the True-Name Nemesis case:
- True-Name Nemesis is determined to be necessary to the health of Modern (point A is granted; option 3 is invalid).
- True-Name Nemesis is determined to be too dangerous to Standard to print in a block set (point B is granted; option 1 is invalid).
- True-Name Nemesis must be printed in another product and that product must be made legal in Modern through a redefinition of Modern's identity (point C is granted; option 2 is valid).
As we can see, it's theoretically possible (albeit in an unfalsifiable sort of way) that we could reach a situation where it's necessary to redefine Modern. But is it realistically likely that we will reach a situation in which that approach is the most practical one? Probably not.
As I said several times, the design space is not yet (and never will be) exhausted, so we cannot claim on the basis of how much we may like extant card "L," or how much we may wish L were legal in Modern, that L is certainly the answer to some extant problem "P" in Modern.
The point of all of this is that it's impractical and therefore unlikely for WOTC to choose to redefine Modern when other realistic, more practical options exist for improving and supporting Modern.
In fact, the best option (according to the above discussion) would be for WOTC to return to a more aggressive design paradigm and raise the power level of Standard once more such that they are able to use block sets as a vehicle to deliver cards to Modern.
CanadianShinobi says... #1
Epochalyptik Well, here in we see a problem that we can agree on. This trend toward midrange has in many ways hurt Modern. Modern is very much a midrange format. The exceptions are the few combo decks and Affinity and maybe Burn at times. Wizards is pressing a certain style of play in Standard and it is harming Modern by extension. This is another reason I would like some supplementary product. Because, I think we can both agree Modern is never getting a decent counterspell again.
Many might not see it as a problem, however this has led to some pretty boring Magic, in my opinion. By and large the metagame has been solved in Modern. And as someone I play Commander with on MTGO put it: "Modern has turned into who can find their sideboarded answer the fastest". And I am rather inclined to agree.
December 31, 2015 12:01 a.m.