Modern shouldnt have a ban list. Change my mind.
Modern forum
Posted on Feb. 19, 2019, 12:54 p.m. by Icbrgr
Admittedly there are some very powerful (and annoying) cards on the Modern ban list such as Deathrite Shaman , Sensei's Divining Top , Chrome Mox ect ect. But do these cards printed from 8th Edition onward (excluding duel deck/UNsets ect) really make the game/format unplayable?
A few weeks back I saw a thread talking about Splinter Twin / Birthing Pod aand honestly just read a lot of commentary that i thought made a pretty convincing case for why they should be unbanned.... The commentary got me curious to look into what the banned list for modern really looks like....and it got me wondering...
Why are these cards banned? and could their be a compromise in the format by changing banned cards to restricted (you can only have one of them in your main deck and sideboard combined)?.... or is the possibility of one copy of Mental Misstep in anyone's deck just too much for the format to handle?
In case anyone wants to see whats Banned in Modern.
as said previously; some deck archetypes are stronger against others... all any archetype can do in a weak matchup is sideboard in tech to help them overcome what is hurting them the most in weak matchups/capitalize on a strong matchup.... i dont think Alpine Moon / Ceremonious Rejection are typically mainboarded.
February 21, 2019 8:24 a.m. Edited.
Ok you remove chalice for two mana. And what do you do against 10+ power that will kill you? Have you ever bother d to look eldrazi game play? Because you dont seem to have a clue how powerful it is.
As i said before. That doesnt matter if eldrazi doesnt have bad MUs.
The Deck is to fast and has chalice. Thats what prevents other decks of beating it.
And as I also said before. Its not a good format if every deck needs to have a ton of sideboard cards for one specific deck.
February 21, 2019 8:35 a.m.
SynergyBuild says... #4
After reading through everything since last time, Icbrgr has gotten everyone riled up for nothing and then when they explain that MNBL would ruin the format, amongst ruining a secondary marketplace, and Icbrgr says that isn't the point.
So if ruining the game isn't an issue, Icbrgr, wtf are you asking us? If we'd play overpriced legacy lite (pauper is the current legacy lite), or a screwed up modern format?
Also, after playtesting Eldrazi, Storm (UR with Treasure Cruise , Rite of Flame , Dig Through Time , Ponder , Preordain , Gitaxian Probe , Manamorphose , Chrome Mox , Simian Spirit Guide , Seething Song , etc.), Eldrazi (Mono-red I think is best with a powerful aggro-prison plan based around Chalice), and Miracles (Jeskai, splashing red for B-Moon), Miracles edged out Eldrazi slightly because of Terminus for their explosive plays, and dredge actually was pretty good too.
Those were basically the only decks that stood up in the format. Delver decks I attempted to build (Mono-U, UR, Grixis, UB, etc.) all fell short on answers, while consistently flipping delver it just didn't do enough, Non-miracles control were bad w/o Leovold, and the format was just really degenerate.
DnT needed more efficient land destruction to beat Miracles, or faster Thalia, Guardian of Thraben to beat the storm list that often went off turn 1-2, Stoneblade was just way too fair and died too easily, Mother of Runes needs to be in the format for a lot of those fair decks to exist easily.
February 21, 2019 8:59 a.m.
I dont tink its turn 2 death like you say. Show
as far as hyper aggro/combo are concerned that is just inherent risk of running/abusing such a low mana curve...you will be kept honest with Chalice of the Void , Mindbreak Trap or potentially Mental Misstep .... greedy mana bases will be kept in line with Blood Moon and company.... and if a deck demands having a perfect opening hand...thats a bit ridiculous/probably not a great deck to run but we do have Serum Powder ...maybe that can help affinnity out?
SynergyBuild Truthfully I am not asking anything. This thread was honestly just started just for fun/speculation challenging the idea that modern would die without the banlist. I am making the case that there are plenty of answers that have been printed post 8th edition to prevent any one deck from being an apex predator/have someone to answer to... but certainly some will command more respect than others as is the case in any environment.... btw i dig that your playtesting this!
February 21, 2019 9:26 a.m.
I dont say that they always have a t2 kill. Also BBD explicitly states that he takes eldrazi out of the equotation.
If you explain to me what any of the cards you mentioned to against eldrazi you might have a point. Sadly non of those cards do anything against the deck.
February 21, 2019 9:35 a.m.
agreed BBD does specifically call out eldrazi as a predator...however; i think we can all agree that hinging all of our opinions off a single event is a little rash.
if Abrupt Decay /any form of removal/interaction not having the corresponding charge counters doesn't explain dealing with/playing around Chalice of the Void then i guess i just cant go any further with that...let alone delve into how with Ceremonious Rejection / Disdainful Stroke or Alpine Moon / Blood Moon / Damping Sphere or Infernal Reckoning or Ensnaring Bridge would combat an eldrazi deck.
February 21, 2019 9:50 a.m.
Yeah if you dont understand that you die when you remove the chalice then there is no point in discussing.
If you dont understand that a format where every deck needs to be warped around one single deck to try to beat it is not a good format then there is also no need to discuss.
If you dont change your mind after we gave you countless reasons why modern needs a banlist then there is also no point un asking in the first place
February 21, 2019 10:06 a.m.
SynergyBuild says... #9
Icbrgr but storm, a storm arguably more powerful interms of card draw than legacy storm ( Treasure Cruise and Dig Through Time are super broken as 4 ofs) can go off turn 1 relatively easily.
I wasn't talking about eldrazi when I said turn 2 kills.
February 21, 2019 10:11 a.m.
ToolmasterOfBrainerd says... #10
At this point I would like to point out that you should view this format like vintage, not like legacy. Not on the grounds of deck power level, but on the grounds of meta structure.
Historically, vintage has had 1 oppressive archetype, Shops, which is an aggro prison deck. And the rest of the meta is a bunch of other blue aggro combo and control decks. For MNBL, Eldrazi takes the place of shops. Everything else corresponds pretty well to everything else. Shops is not unbeatable, even for blue decks. A fascinating article I once read but can no longer find said that the blue players could change 8ish cards in their main deck to get a favorable Shops matchup, but doing so would significantly hurt their matchup against other blue decks. Given that blue decks are 70% of the field and Shops is only 30%, why would they sacrifice their matchup against the 70% of the field which they are going to face more often?
MNBL Eldrazi is much the same. Why should a player pre-board for Eldrazi when it means their matchup against everything else gets so much worse? Even if Eldrazi is beatable by adapting, it's not always in your best interest to adapt. And this is the crux of an unbalanced format, which MNBL Eldrazi presents.
SynergyBuild are you testing this format? Could you test Hypergenesis mainboarding 4 Ingot Chewer vs Eldrazi? I think it could be the move.
February 21, 2019 10:14 a.m.
Thats a pretty good example.
I think hypergenesis has a similar problem though. It beats every deck without chalice and gets worse when you try to beat chalice.
February 21, 2019 10:20 a.m.
ToolmasterOfBrainerd says... #12
lukas96 I don't think Hypergenesis actually gets worse when you try to beat chalice. The Hypergenesis decklist here plays 17 things they're trying to put into play with Hypergenesis. Realistically you can probably get by with fewer. You only need to put 1-2 into play to pretty much always win.
February 21, 2019 10:27 a.m.
SynergyBuild says... #13
ToolmasterOfBrainerd that deck dies to Chalice of the Void x=0, yes, the ingot chewers help... but it still dies. Storm siding 2-3 chalice and same with Miracles all make that deck really need the chewers and combo every game, along with lands and everything else and you need a perfect mulligan to pull it off.
It actually has a decent game against eldrazi if you run some Ceremonious Rejection s side, but gets stomped on by miracles too much IMO. Terminus + Counterbalance / Sensei's Divining Top to top a land and counter hypergen and Chalice in the side makes the matchup nearly an instant loss.
I'll do more testing though, but it seems storm isn't worth it due to weird hands too often. Been trying less all-in strategies with 4x Mental misstep and more cantrips and a different sideboard to go against Eldrazi, but then miracles stomps it, and the eldrazi matchup isn't much more favored.
Overall Miracles & Eldrazi are the format, with Dredge and Storm in tier 2
February 21, 2019 10:30 a.m.
SynergyBuild says... #14
*Testing manaless dredge to fight CounterTop rn. I was using a Cathartic Reunion and Bloodghast varient prior, but perhaps not casting anything is the play.
February 21, 2019 10:33 a.m.
i beg to differ lukas96 that the very point of discussing this is so that better minds/brewers in the community like SynergyBuild/ToolmasterOfBrainerd could contribute to the conversation or even go above and beyond and and playtest/theorycraft what no ban list in Modern would look like.... cuz initially i was met with
"Miracles is a deck that with Top and the other cantrips, especially with a way to counter a spell turn 1 and resolve top allows you to obliterate any opposing deck.
There would be no other deck.
Change my mind."
and then the conversation evolved from there with people thinking that Through the Breach or Caw-Blade would be too oppressive.... and now Eldrazi is the subject matter... yet little is being said about how Eye of Ugin is what is making it so oppressive.
its just really interesting stuff....and again i think Modern would be a fun and interesting format to play in even without a ban list.
February 21, 2019 10:57 a.m. Edited.
SynergyBuild says... #16
Nope, way to weak w/o anything but Narcomoeba / Prized Amalgam to recur for a Dread Return . Actually have yet to get a goldfish single cast on Dread return yet.
February 21, 2019 10:58 a.m.
SynergyBuild says... #17
Icbrgr I have never said eye was a problem, just that Eldrazi and Miracles are the meta...
Also what is the thought behind caw-blade? I can't see that deck working at all. Or TTB?
February 21, 2019 11 a.m.
Eye of Ugin / Umezawa's Jitte / Cloudpost are the only cards i saw as a common theme in eldrazi brews that are currently banned (i would have to look deeper into that though)... so far when discussing eldrazi those cards at least havent really popped on the radar/discussion by name....mainly Chalice of the Void which is interesting.
caw blade was just something said earlier in this thread in in regards to a deck being unable to be hated out/kept in check....i respectfully disagree...i think there would be very very strong decks and certainly miricles and eldrazi are among them.... but i feel that there is opportunity for brewers to prey on them... whether its a super jund/manaless dredge i really couldnt say.
February 21, 2019 11:14 a.m.
ToolmasterOfBrainerd says... #19
Caw blade is a standard deck. Stoneblade in any other format shouldn't waste time with squadron hawk. As for stoneblade, it's too fair. Turn 3 batterskull isn't as good as turn 3 reality smasher.
February 21, 2019 11:15 a.m.
your probably right.... in its context it was more aimed at making the case that some decks cant be beaten/hated out (am i wrong Vman?)....as in caw blade couldnt be beaten unless you played caw blade?.... I argue that this is not the case for eldrazi and that it can be/will be beaten in a no ban modern environment.... i believe this to be true for any deck honestly.
February 21, 2019 11:46 a.m. Edited.
Icbrgr your opposition comes from the fact that simply having the capacity to be beaten does not take away a deck's status as oppressive. Take the following example: NBLM Eldrazi loses to a deck of 60 copies of this hypothetical card:
Eldrazi LUL
Instant
Exile target nonland colorless permanent. You gain 5 life.
Eldrazi LUL cannot be countered.
If an effect an opponent controls would cause you to discard or exile Eldrazi LUL from your hand, summon a 15/15 colorless eldrazi with trample, banding, and LUL.
flavor text: HA, this should fix my eldrazi matchup!
That same deck of 60 eldrazi LUL's loses to a single
Storm Crow
, but does not lose to eldrazi. What's my point? ANY deck can be beaten with a critical mass of the right hate cards. The cost of hitting that critical mass though is that you likely take a hit to other match-ups across the board. The 60 eldrazi LUL deck is a hyperbole of this, as it literally cannot lose to NBLM eldrazi in its current form, but literally cannot beat any other deck, and the mirror is a perfect 50/50, where both players mulligan to 0 and the player who is on the play loses, as they draw/fatigue out first.
A deck isn't "tolerable" or "balanced" simply because it has the capacity to lose. It is balanced only when it has the capacity to lose to an entire suite of decks that are trying to win in their own unique ways, WITHOUT REQUIRING specific tech to win the matchup. Eldrazi, by this metric, is completely unbalanced in its NBLM form because it only loses to 2 decks in NBLM, and those two decks are Miracles (consistently) and storm, depending on whether storm goes off prior to turn 2 or not. EVERY OTHER DECK has to tech at least 8 cards specifically against eldrazi that aren't very good against any other meta deck. That's a huge problem.
Your argument is essentially; NBLM eldrazi will get beaten by at least one deck, and that deck will get beaten by at least one deck which eldrazi will probably beat. Hey, we still have a meta! That's essentially saying that rock paper scizzors still has a meta even when rock has a 70% winrate. Sure SOME meta exists, but it's by no metric a healthy one. So what's the solution? Nerf rock by banning eye of ugin AAAAND now its just SBLM (small ban list modern) and now that we're already tweaking power levels and have a ban list we might as well go all the way on this aaaand we're back to modern.
That's the logical flow that most of us here are going through, and the reason why most of us (frankly) are getting annoyed with this back and forth. Years of trial and error turned modern into what it is today. Many of us played through and experienced those errors. You're questioning whether the meta's that many of us suffered through were really that bad. The answer is yes, those metas were that bad, we really didn't like them, and many of these bans, if not all of them, were made with intelligent reason backed by months of evidence, sometimes years in the case of more nuanced bans such as twin.
We don't want pod back. We don't want eldrazi back. We don't want to sit through 3 50 minute games of miracle mirrors in the top8 of every modern GP. We don't want to die before turn 4 to a storm deck that drew and cast THE ENTIRE DECK and combo'd off. We don't want to watch 1 single game of an eggs player taking an hour and a half to combo off with second sunrise. Some of us like interacting with graveyards, and don't want to be forced into avoiding that feature of the game because dredge exploits the graveyard so hard that everyone has to run
Rest in Peace
. If we wanted all those things, we'd go play legacy.
While it's kind of fun to speculate about what NBLM might look like, the end result is that NBLM absolutely does not have the same meta diversity that modern does, and does not play as the same format, so for us modern players in this modern forum... most of us are having that visceral reaction of "stay the hell away from my nice and lovely format!"
February 21, 2019 1:58 p.m. Edited.
The chance of sticking 2 creatures on t3 are 85% with 17 and 70% with 14 pieces. Thats a huge loss of consistency.
If you dont know what makes eye of ugin so good in eldrazi you should propably find that out.
Honestly. You are stubborn and dont have an idea what you are talking about. Thats annoying and im done with you.
February 21, 2019 3:35 p.m.
Icbrgr this has nothing to do with the thread... but I get the sense you're relatively new to competitive card games as a whole. A lot of your arguments center around "well x card is fine because its answered by x other card" but there's a huge factor that's missing from your analysis: tempo.
The basic idea of tempo is this:
Let's build a hypothetical game of Hypergenesis v Eldrazi. The Eldrazi player plays a
Chalice of the Void
for 0 to counter
Hypergenesis
. Luckily, the Hypergenesis player is running
Kolaghan's Command
so he has an answer!
By your logic, this should mean that hypergenesis won't struggle with
Chalice of the Void
, because Eldrazi has a card and Hypergenesis has an answer.
Here's the flaw in your logic that reveals your (probable) inexperience.
Chalice of the Void
cost the Eldrazi player 0 mana.
Kolaghan's Command
cost 3 mana. That means that the Eldrazi player came out of that exchange up by 3 mana, which is a form of "Tempo" as it's labelled. The eldrazi player could resolve anything from a
Matter Reshaper
to a
Reality Smasher
(if
Eye of Ugin
is in play) using that 3 mana. Let's investigate what Hypergenesis could have done with that 3 mana instead. It could have played
Violent Outburst
cascading into
Hypergenesis
and WON THE GAME!
That's tempo, and the big issue with a lot of your logic is that you don't account for it. Another, more realistic example with less dire consequences:
An eldrazi player drops an
Eye of Ugin
. they already had a waste in play. The eldrazi player gets to play a
Matter Reshaper
. His opponent drops an
Alpine Moon
naming
Eye of Ugin
. Here's the "tempo breakdown". The Eldrazi player just came out 3 mana ahead AGAIN. he got one mana out of
Eye of Ugin
discounting the
Matter Reshaper
as compared with a regular land. That's +1 mana.
Alpine Moon
turned
Eye of Ugin
into a land which taps for mana. That's +2 total mana. The Eldrazi player's opponent had to spend on
Alpine Moon
which he couldn't spend on something else. Thats +3 total mana. HUGE tempo swing in the eldrazi player's favor, which means that this interaction is actually favorable for eldrazi. By your logic however, The eldrazi player's opponent SHOULD have come out ahead because his card "answered" the eldrazi player's card.
If you still aren't understanding this... tempo can be a complicated concept. My honest recommendation is to play magic as frequently as possible, and maybe get into competitive Hearthstone for a while before you get fed up with Hearthstone's stagnant metas and give up on the game. For all its flaws and stagnation, Hearthstone is a great learning ground for core concepts of competitive card games (sequencing, value, tempo, win-conditions, etc).
What I'm getting at is this: Sometimes it costs your opponent more to answer your card than it costs you to play it. In that situation, it doesn't matter that your card got answered, because you came out ahead on that exchange. That's the core of why Eldrazi decks are broken: They are tempo monstrosities that are nigh on impossible to stop IN A FAVORABLE MANNER.
February 21, 2019 4:29 p.m. Edited.
IAmTheWraith says... #24
"i dont really have any idea on what the competitive/pro tour scene would look like as far as what people would play with no modern ban"
Then why are you even having this discussion? Before making this kind of argument, you should have analyzed the metagame that the cards were banned in. Then, look at the win rates of said decks/usage level of said cards. Only then would you have enough knowledge to fully understand why there is a Modern Banlist. Most of the cards that were banned had a really high usage rate, or were key points of decks that were neigh unbeatable during their time, in much the same metagame that exists today (depending on the deck/card). If something like Mental Misstep was legal in modern, 9/10 most played cards in modern would be shut off (based on MTGGoldfish), and 19/50 of the most played cards. If Chrome Mox were legal, imagine t1 Thalia, Guardian of Thraben . It would be unbeatable, it's really that simple.
So before making an argument that is not even close to being based in fact, do the research. Then you can/will understand why there is a banlist in modern.
While some cards are probably deserving to come off the banlist, many of the spells have their place there, and will stay for many years to come.
February 21, 2019 5:25 p.m.
IAmTheWraith this discussion is just for fun/speculation (im not demanding change)... its a bit tricky to analyze the metagame with the printings of newer sets since cards "x-y-z" where originally banned; and so far im only aware of one MNBL event and have been told to never reference it or miracles again ..... Chrome Mox turning into a T1 Thalia, Guardian of Thraben sounds menacing to put it lightly...normally this is when i would make an argument for answers to this "simply unbeatable" scenario but as DuTogira pointed out that wouldnt be factoring in the tempo swings involved in that exchange... but at least we now know that T1 Thalia is the deck that beats eldrazi.
I think a lot of people take for granted the skill/luck factor involved in these games. as well as underestimate a willing playerbase....people love to win as well as break cards....in the end i see a lot of busted vs busted vs busted which honestly just sounds amazing in reguards to a competitive card game.
February 21, 2019 10:56 p.m.
"in the end i see a lot of busted vs busted vs busted which honestly just sounds amazing in reguards to a competitive card game."
There are two ways for Busted v. Busted to play out. The first is what you see in Legacy, Vintage, and cEDH - explosively powerful decks, with powerful turn 1 control elements, ensuring complex, brutal games.
The second is Rock-Paper-Scissors, as DuTogira mentioned. In such a game, the bracket, not the deck and its pilot, are deciding the victor of any given match. That's not good gameplay. As others have alluded to with in-depth explanations and playtests, that's what is likely to occur with MNBL.
So, why does this work in Legacy, but not MNBL?
As I mentioned earlier, the top tier Legacy decks are built around Modern-era cards, many of which are banned. Thus, the core offensive powers of these "broken" Legacy decks would survive relatively unphased in Modern. This makes sense--Miracles, Eldrazi, Storm, and Dredge are all from Modern-era sets.
While the core offense survives intact between Modern and Legacy, the defenses of Legacy are lacking. There's no Force of Will or Counterspell . No Wasteland or Rishadan Port . No Mother of Runes . These are all general checks that work on a whole host of different archetypes. With broken offensive decks running about, you can't afford to waste a slot on Blood Moon --a card that's situational (and comes down a bit too late). There's a reason a lot of your "well, these hate cards exist" are not commonly seen in Legacy.
Anyway, the short form is this: It sounds like you want to play Legacy, not Modern. Legacy has everything fun about MNBL, with a sufficient number of additional tools to ensure the format remains playable.
February 21, 2019 11:45 p.m.
Why do you keep saying abrupt decay destroys eye of ugin?
February 22, 2019 8:52 a.m.
shadow63 Abrupt Decay was in regards to dealing with Chalice of the Void along with a slew of other cards that a theoretical jund deck could run that wouldnt exactly be going out of its way just be to prey on Eldrazi.
I think that is a really interesting perspective noting the offensive powers of modern cards vs/kept in line with defensive legacy cards cdkime...Modern doesn't have Force of Will and i think that gets a lot of mileage until Modern banned Mental Misstep .
Blood Moon is a card that is only playable in very specific metagames. For it to be worth playing in Legacy, it has to more-or-less win you the game by itself. If your opponent can still cast spells and gain value from the cards in their hand through a resolved Blood Moon , you messed up somewhere. Maybe you shouldn't have had it in your deck, or maybe you shouldn't have cast it. Whatever the case may be, Blood Moon 's power comes from its ability to shut off entire strategic lines of play. If it's not doing that, don't play it....for those thinking that eventually those Mountain s will turn into a resolved spell/answer then again the tempo swing is in favor of the Blood Moon deck...
Blood Moon is great fine and dandy but its not the only thing vailable to the modern card pool (8th edition forward)... Chrome Mox into a T1 Damping Sphere might not be the same as a T1 Thalia, Guardian of Thraben however the point is; Modern has tons of defensive power availible to it. It just comes in different forms. hence why NBLM doesn't exactly equate to legacy... but imitation is the best form of flattery they say.
February 22, 2019 10:18 a.m.
IAmTheWraith says... #30
I'm not saying that t1 Thalia, Guardian of Thraben is the deck that beats Eldrazi, because it's not. Eldrazi's major threats come in the form of giant creatures, so Thalia does nothing but run in terror as the Eldrazi menace laughs in her face. The fact is, Chrome Mox alone does so many broken things by itself. Imagine the nuttiest 2-drop you can think of. Now imagine it on turn 1. That's what my point about Mox is. You get too far behind if you don't have your Chrome Mox to also play on t1.
Summer Bloom , and its deck, Amulet Bloom, was a grindy combo deck that rarely could be answered. Imagine a deck representing only ~3% of the meta taking 2 spots in the top 8. That was an insane win rate for the players that could make it happen, and therefore Summer Bloom was banned.
Imagine a meta where Amulet Bloom was allowed to run wild. With the new addition of Growth Spiral , I believe the deck would have been even better than before.
So yes, modern should have a banlist. There's a very good reason for it, as it keeps the power of the format in check. Without the banlist, there would be little variance in decks that would be viable in the format.
Also, let me add that your ignorance and dismissal of other people's opinion is really appaling, and it's probably not healthy in the spirit of this forum, this game, and the format in general.
February 22, 2019 2:18 p.m. Edited.
The idea here is merely to generate discussion not to score points or anything like that. Dismissal of an opinion isn't the same as disagreeing as I have acknowledged these opinions they just haven't changed my mind is all.... so far nobody has even touched the idea of compromising with a restricted list... I dont think that means people dismiss my opinion just disagree
February 22, 2019 2:49 p.m.
I think the point IAmTheWraith is getting at is that your responses do come off as rather dismissive, often missing the very point you are trying to respond to.
Take my most recent post. As I clearly stated, what allows Legacy to work is a number of "all general checks that work on a whole host of different archetypes."
This was contrasted with a specific "situational" card (one you had previously mentioned) by way of example.
You then proceeded to list another card that's a situational check, missing entirely the point that modern is lacking a large number of the "general checks" that are legacy staples.
This has been a theme of your responses on this thread--ignoring the important part of what players' posts and doubling down on your own interpretation. That's what feels dismissive, and that is why so many users have expressed frustration with your responses.
With regards to a restricted list, I did specifically address this point, and stated the reason why it would not work: "It makes games far too dependent on luck of the draw".
Will361405 posted the same concern: "Not to mention that i don't think the restricted list would work. It's whoever draws they're busted cards first."
Rather than "nobody has even touched the idea of compromising with a restricted list", as you portray, two different users have responded with the same substantive concern; you, on the other hand, have merely reiterated that you want to see a restricted list ("I just wanna be an advocate for a restricted list for the cards that cant be dealt with with the Modern card pool." "or resort to a restricted list for the exceptions"). At no point have you provided a response to the substantive concerns on this particular issue.
February 22, 2019 3:15 p.m.
To anyone this applies to here: Any posts/points within posts that have not been addressed honestly have not been omitted maliciously or by design (no diabolical intent)... many things have been said and frankly this has hands down been the longest thread I've ever started. So that is my failure as a (moderator?) In this discussion... I truly didn't notice/was caught up in other posts/points on the topic.
February 22, 2019 4:01 p.m.
As far as the substantive issue of "whoever draws the first broken card first wins" in a restricted list .. I think that's honestly even more difficult to determine than a clean NBLM... because idk how a single Mental Misstep changes things vs a single Preordain /probe.
February 22, 2019 4:21 p.m. Edited.
Meaning does a restricted list resort in a complete unban of Mental Misstep and a restriction of Preordain /probe? Or would it be a flat out restriction list (all banned cards become restricted)
February 22, 2019 5:23 p.m. Edited.
BrandonJamesCAC says... #36
Guys, let's just all be happy we have Modern. I would stop playing entirely if I had to choose between Standard and Legacy
All these points are valid and the discussion has been civil. Let's not start devolving it.
Icbrgr - I have actually thought of the restricted list before too.
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter because it will never be part of the format. That's a rules change I would bet my soul on never happening
Have a great weekend guys!
February 22, 2019 5:23 p.m.
For fun let's go through the entire Modern banlist and evaluate card-by-card what would happen if they were on a restricted list.
-
Ancient Den and the other Artifact Lands - these are a bit special, since you could run 5 total artifact lands in the deck. This might have implications for a potential Affinity deck.
-
Birthing Pod - this requires a dedicated build-around, which is really not worth it if you can't reliably hit the centerpiece that makes your deck work. Restricting Birthing Pod is tantamount to a ban.
-
Blazing Shoal - if you draw into this card, you're going to have a huge advantage. This will be one of those "broken cards" that will end games fairly quickly out of dumb luck.
-
Chrome Mox - almost every single deck will run a copy of this card, just as 88% of Vintage decks run Black Lotus . Whoever draws this card first will be at a significant advantage.
-
Cloudpost - not worth running if the Locuses are all Restricted.
-
Dark Depths - Like Birthing Pod , this is banned due to combo potential. Restricting it is no different from banning it, as there's no point in trying to assemble the combo.
-
Deathrite Shaman - Drawing into this card gives you a huge advantage against a number of different archetypes.
-
Dig Through Time / Treasure Cruise - if you draw this, you've basically won the game, since you're getting two cards, stacking your deck, and likely going to find other broken cards in the process.
-
Dread Return - There are enough graveyard shenanigans with Dredge that drawing this card is likely to net you your best creature and your second best creature. It's also pretty easy to enable even with one copy, as you can Dredge for it and sacrifice some creatures.
-
Eye of Ugin - another dumb luck card--you draw this, you're two turns ahead if that's the deck you're playing.
-
Gitaxian Probe - banned in Legacy, restricted in Vintage, so it's pretty clear this is a scary card. You get to see what your opponent has in-hand, as well as replace your own spell, all for the cost of two life.
-
Glimpse of Nature - Another dumb-luck card that will win you the game if drawn by quickly refilling your hand.
-
Golgari Grave-Troll - Again, extreme card advantage if you draw it, putting you vastly ahead.
-
Green Sun's Zenith - draw this card and you get easy ramp ( Dryad Arbor ) or your best creature.
-
Hypergenesis - Every Green Tron (or whatever the Eldrazi deck for the format is) will run this, and will win whenever they play it.
-
Krark-Clan Ironworks - combo piece, restriction is similar to ban.
-
Mental Misstep - too situational to only run one copy of; you need it early and you need it when you need it, the chances you have it at an appropriate time when you only have a single copy makes this card not worth running.
-
Ponder / Preordain / Sensei's Divining Top - you get to dig for your broken cards easier.
-
Punishing Fire - probably not going to see much play, as the deck it was designed around ( Grove of the Burnwillows will not be too effective in conjunction with only one copy.
-
Rite of Flame - if you draw this, it puts you a whole turn ahead, and that is often enough for Storm or Burn.
-
Second Sunrise - there are enough ways to dump things into the graveyard (including the inevitability of just playing the game) that whoever gets this would have a significant and sudden advantage.
-
Skullclamp - if Elves or other weanies draw this card, it's game over.
-
Splinter Twin - combo piece, likely restriction is similar to ban.
-
Stoneforge Mystic - Might be fine as a one-of.
-
Summer Bloom - puts you incredibly far ahead.
-
Umezawa's Jitte - Does a considerable number of things, so will put whoever gets it ahead.
Others might disagree with that analysis, but I think it's pretty solid for shooting from the hip. The cards on the Modern banlist would either (a) be supremely powerful if you drew them, either winning you the game outright or enabling victory through hyper-effecient ramp or card draw (card draw itself generating a chance to find more broken cards), or (b) part of hyper-efficient combos, and thus not worth running if you only get one copy.
February 22, 2019 5:28 p.m. Edited.
ToolmasterOfBrainerd says... #38
With all due respect, several of those analyses are almost certainly wrong.
Blazing Shoal would see no 1-of play. It's good as a 4-of because of blazing infect. It's not good outside of that deck.
Eye of Ugin is the one example of when a restricted list would be good for the format. Tron ran eye as a 1-of in the days of yore. In a long game they have enough land tutors to find it after they've assembled Tron and then use it to tutor Wurmcoil Engine every other turn or Emrakul, the Aeons Torn when they have enough mana and just win. Tron lost this piece of tech when it got banned, and nowadays they do something similar with Sanctum of Ugin , but it's not as good. I said this card restricted would be good, because it would have been a banning which hurt eldrazi without hurting another deck that wasn't abusing it. Tron is doing fine without eye, but collateral damage with the banlist does exist.
Hypergenesis is way too slow outside of its dedicated combo deck. The deck would exist and be super glass cannon and stupid in the format.
Mental Misstep : I think literally every deck would play 1 copy this card. There's no reason not to. This card isn't situational because 1-drops are everywhere in almost every deck. And the chance of having it turn 1 is worth it.
Rite of Flame would only be played in any deck that already plays Pyretic Ritual and nowhere else. I think only storm and some Through the Breach decks play the ritual.
Second Sunrise would only be played in eggs if that deck can even function with only 1 copy. Nothing else would ever play it.
Summer Bloom was only played in Amulet Titan to make absurd amounts of mana. They'd play their 1 copy and nobody else would ever play it.
Otherwise I think your analysis was pretty good.
February 22, 2019 6:20 p.m. Edited.
ToolmasterOfBrainerd - thanks for the clarification on these. I took a pretty long break from Magic, so was not overly familiar with how some of these cards had been played.
I’ll be honest, my evaluation of Mental Misstep , however, was quite bad, considering Thoughtseize , Path to Exile , and Lightning Bolt are arguably the best cards in the format.
I disagree, however, with your analysis of Eye of Ugin . Rather than show why it would be fine to restrict Eye, I think your analysis goes to my point. Even when it was being run primarially as a one-of, Wizards still coins it powerful enough to be worthy of banning. Your example just goes to show how degenerate a single card can be once obtained.
February 22, 2019 6:44 p.m.
Eye of ugin was banned because it was a 4 off in the only tier 0 deck that modern wver had. Ot was completely fine as one off in tron (besides the usual "tron ruins the format") it became problematic ones eldrazi starten to cost 2-5 mana.
This would propably be fine as a one off.
February 22, 2019 8:24 p.m.
Anyone have any thoughts about a restricted Birthing Pod with now having Prime Speaker Vannifar ? Would that be an exception to the current restriction of combo piece analysis?
February 22, 2019 11:09 p.m.
Meaning that would a Currently banned combo piece that has "strictly worse" support/extra copy make the combo piece playable rather than just a restriction equating to a ban?
In terms of theoretically running a combo deck and then not only increasing the chances of assembling your combo.. but the 5th copy is just awesome.
Does that seem better or worse or the same in the case of a card like Birthing Pod ?
February 23, 2019 7:52 a.m.
Something I completely forgot about earlier, if you google “[card name here] ban announcement” you will usually find Wizards’ explination as to why the card was banned. It might help you understand the need for each ban a bit better.
With regards to Vannifer, it is possible that deck could make a splash, but you’re running into the problem of (a) Vannifer effectively costing one mana more than Birthing Pod, and (b) Vannifer not being in GBW, as Birthing Pod was at its height ( Kitchen Finks , Murderous Redcap , Siege Rhino ) (though threats can probably be found to mitigate this issue).
February 23, 2019 11:17 a.m.
cdkime I mostly agree with your card analysis... I think the only things worth debating that ToolmasterOfBrainerd didn't already cover are Punishing Fire and Dark Depths .
Dark Depths is a land with no (relevant) activated abilities. Lands can be tutored with reasonable efficiency in modern, and the fact that you can't Pithing Needle / Sorcerous Spyglass the depths makes it very hard to interact with and very powerful. Throw it in a deck with Life from the Loam and I think that even as a 1 of, depths would be a reasonable combo piece.
Punishing Fire already plays one of the slowest game plans modern could have to offer. Teching in 2 Muddle the Mixture s or something to tutor it up is completely reasonable. The fact that it's an instant which can change zones at instant speed (activate Grove of the Burnwillows to make fire go from yard to hand) means that the only real way to deal with Punishing Fire is Dissipate / Rest in Peace / Scavenging Ooze leaving up a bunch of green. Punishing Fire is rarely the limiting factor in decks of its kind. The limiting factor is locking your opponent out of the game so thoroughly that they can't kill you faster than you can kill them with the Storm Crow of instants. Sure it's not quite the same as nugging someone for 8 every time they gain a life, but if izzet whir can win with Pyrite Spellbomb and Academy Ruins (both as 1 ofs) I'm sure Punishing Fire could find a way to rear its head in modern even if it were restricted, as 4 Grove of the Burnwillows plus one Punishing Fire in the late game is still 4 damage per turn. It's at least faster than grixis/izzet whir.
February 23, 2019 8:58 p.m.
Good points DuTogira/others. Land cards seem to be easy enough to tutor and tough to interact with to a degree. I can certainly see Dark Depths still being playable as a one of. (along with other previously mentioned cards).
As far as cdkime's suggestion about doing a Google search "[card name here] ban" the top themes i read in various forms/threads/articles were in regards to power (angry player: "That cards broken!) and metagame diversity (caw-blade vs caw-blade vs caw-blade).
Cards that we have recently talked about now such as Birthing Pod / Eye of Ugin / Dark Depths and so on are all super great/powerful cards in there own right... but they all have there own homes/decks. I for one wouldn't have any interest in running pod/eye of ugin in my Grixis Deaths shadow variant/deck no matter how much of a novelty that would be. Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle was a card that was on the initial banned list and unbanning it outright didnt ruin the format. It isn't exactly easy to slip into every deck or even already competitive decks. Scapeshift was/is a thing, but is far from dominant or oppressive.
Right/wrong or indifferent I think ive made my position on abilities to overcome a card/strategy clear... however; When it come to the argument of banning/restricting cards for the sake of "diversity"... some cards have a super tough time meeting that criteria such as Chrome Mox / Mental Misstep ; simply because there doesn't seem like any reason to not run a full playset or a minimum of 1 in a restricted format.
I do question however in the case of a restricted format that just because we would see 9/10 decks running Gitaxian Probe / Chrome Mox (as arbitrary examples) that this would result in seeing the same decks vs the same decks at the next GP/pro tour.... i also think it's also worth noting in this scenario that unlike vintage Chalice of the Void could still be ran as a full playset.
Icbrgr says... #1
Abrupt Decay does a good job of dealing with chalice...or any removal that doesnt have the corresponding charge counters....and what exactly is preventing aggro/combo from beating eldrazi?
February 21, 2019 8:15 a.m.