New modern developments
Modern forum
Posted on Feb. 6, 2015, 5:37 a.m. by ChiefBell
First of all I have this fantastic deck to show you:
Enjoy that, everyone.
Second of all: hypothetical question. Before the treasure cruise banning delver was making up somewhere just above 15% of the cumulative meta, according to mtgtop8. That's a decent indication because it's looking at all the people playing delver in all the different events. As we know many people were very unhappy with this.
Junk is currently on 13%. Now, I love Junk and you guys know that BUT, for the purposes of being fair and unbiased I have to note that with this figure creeping up it seems that we've replaced one very highly performing deck with another. I note that there are no howls of "Ban!" etc at the moment but how long will that last? If it reaches 15% do we start discussing a siege rhino ban? A liliana ban? Or do people just irrationally hate delver and don't hate Junk?
The thing is, metas evolve whether they have intervention or not. Even with banning there'll be a next best thing that fills the boots of the last 'next best thing'. I'm a staunch believer in not banning anything but the most degenerate, because as decks grow in power sideboard slots begin to be devoted to stopping them - and their natural power diminishes. For example - If everyone plays deck A but deck B is discovered that beats deck A then deck B becomes a big force too. If deck C comes along and starts beating B you'll see a transition from a meta that started out with a lot As to a meta with a lot of Bs and Cs. That's a natural evolution without banning. As it stands I think we have a new deck A: Junk. What's the next move?
It struggles against tron and scapeshift. Both matchup are winnable but difficult. You have a pretty good match against all aggro, if you get a T2 blocker or removal. You do very well against twin because abrupt decay is uncounterable.
February 6, 2015 5:46 a.m.
Basically, junk wants to go for a long game and do fair things like hit you with goyf. Any deck that wants to also go long but do unfair things like Emrakul or combo with Valakut will just win a lot of the time.
February 6, 2015 5:48 a.m.
bijschjdbcd says... #5
I feel like Tron is a real contender.
Another deck that I assumed would see an increase in play is UWR Control which has a bad matchup against both decks.
February 6, 2015 5:49 a.m.
JexInfinite says... #6
Banning Dig was the mistake. Cruise was alright to go, but Delver would still be a thing, though not as big, with Dig.
People just have a thing against blue decks. If it's a blue deck and represents more than 5% of the meta, people get annoyed at it. It happened with Twin, it happened with Delver. Abzan is seen as a 'fair' deck, because it runs cards which are good individually or each other. Good decks through synergy are seen to be less fair, and more people want bans.
February 6, 2015 6:01 a.m.
I am a bit amazed at all the fuss over delver and the relative silence over Abzan. If things get worse I almost WANT people to complain, otherwise I'm going to write off modern players as biased idiots.
February 6, 2015 6:10 a.m.
bijschjdbcd says... #9
Everyone hates playing against Control but no one complains about dying to a Rhino.
February 6, 2015 6:20 a.m.
Personally I was happy to see Cruise go, and disappointed if not admittedly somewhat relieved to see Pod go as well. For me, it's a question of variety:
With Pod being banned, my first thought was "Oh, people will just run Junk now instead" -- It's not too far of a leap in imagination considering the boards are very similar to each other. Now we're just going to see a lot of Junk decks winning, but with more variety in the 2nd/3rd-6th place results. We've already seen Tron, Scapeshift and Bloom decks take top places, so in regards to variety of decks, the ban worked, but it didn't kill off Junk.
I honestly like the colours of Azban/Junk, but hate that every Junk deck is THIS build with Goyf, Liliana, Rhino. I understand that this is the formula for what wins, but it just gets boring seeing the same decks winning everywhere.
(Forgive my ramblings, but there's a point in there somewhere...)
February 6, 2015 6:34 a.m.
Well the best way to build Junk is with Goyf, Liliana and Rhino. Therefore we will start seeing a lot more of those cards. There was an MTGO even the other day with 2 Junk decks in the top 8. If that continues - that's worrying.
February 6, 2015 6:40 a.m.
usually and not always they ban the cheapest card that makes it good such as banning cruse from the combo and delver deck so rhino is definatly a possibility there are so many ways to get rid of rhino at the moment and i dont get why it is still dominating there is an artifact aka for any deck that stops his ability from triggering there is counters for days in modern so i dont see why he is still as big of a problem
February 6, 2015 6:50 a.m.
bijschjdbcd says... #13
Its comparable to a Blood Braid Elf that always hits a Lightning Helix, It is 4 mana for a 4/5 Trample which is already efficient.
Also sideboarding in Torpor orb against a deck that has Abrupt Decay and only 1 card it affects is just silly.
February 6, 2015 7:01 a.m.
JexInfinite says... #14
Rhino will not be banned. It is an incredibly fair card. Bloodbraid Elf was banned because Cascade is broken and unreliable. Bloodbraid Rhino will always hit a helix, which is consistent, and not broken.
February 6, 2015 7:03 a.m.
JexInfinite says... #15
Hey guys, better play those Hushwing Gryffs in the sideboard.
February 6, 2015 7:04 a.m.
I really think that the question is more about:
What has the banning actually achieved except replace one all-star deck with another?
How can we stop this happening again? Do we ban or let it lie?
February 6, 2015 7:11 a.m.
I think the best way to deal with Junk is to try out new idea to deal with it, like Mirran Crusader and Rest in Peace -- Mono-White's the way to go, I say.
bijschjdbcd has a point though, sideboarding options need to be explored to better combat/frustrate/disrupt Junk. I know you can't devote an entire side to one deck type, but still.
You can't stop something from filling the void. With the two biggest % decks banned, there was a vacuum made. Something had to fill it, it was inevitable.
That said, we need new ideas for decks in modern. We're always going to have archetypes that are tried and tested, and it seems like people are unwilling to try new things for fear of failure. We just need to remember that all deck types were cobbled together builds once, janky and unreliable. All it takes is that spark of genius to make something viable. Imagine how the guy who made the first Delver build felt, let alone the guy who developed Bloom!
February 6, 2015 7:18 a.m.
Funny- I have a thread up right now about how scummy I feel (still) when i play my delver deck. It takes more heat from friends than my infect deck by far. Its just so demoralizing... you literally hold the opponent out of the game. I cant think of a deck that's less fun to play against.
My guess is nobody hates midrange because it at least allows the opponent to feel like they're playing a game.
February 6, 2015 7:20 a.m.
That's why the subtle point I'm making is 'banning solves literally nothing'. You can't just artificially create a space where a deck once was and expect it to not be filled.
February 6, 2015 7:20 a.m.
KrosanTusker says... #20
As much as I love blue draw spells, I think Cruise had to go, and I can see the reasoning behind Dig. The problem is that if, however, Junk does get 15%+ of the meta, that's harder to fix. There isn't one card to ban that supercharges it in the same way, and it's hard to sideboard effectively against a stack of individually strong midrange cards, so it would be difficult for natural metagame progression to curb the deck -- and any strong black or green card that ever gets printed has a chance to slot into the deck, only making it stronger. I think that Junk being dominant would be more of a problem than Delver.
What I would have liked to have happened is that, instead of banning Cruise, they had unbanned Deathrite Shaman. Shaman is powerful, no doubt, but I don't believe it to be fundamentally broken. Reintroducing him into the format would have made Junk/Jund/Rock a stronger deck again, even in the Cruise meta, and would have provided a very maindeckable way to combat delve.
February 6, 2015 7:23 a.m.
I highly doubt that this is a permanent trend. Junk is good right now because pod was recently banned. People have not been able to transition too quickly. The transition from pod to junk variants is easy and people are too lazy/strapped for cash to go for an entirely new deck.
IF Junk hovers around 15% for the next two months straight, especially after the new tech that will come from the PT, then you can clamor for bannings and my bet is on Tarmogoyf for being too efficient and damn expensive.
February 6, 2015 7:26 a.m.
DRS can only exile one per turn. It's not fast enough to combat delve. Delver decks can throw 3+ into the GY each and every turn.
February 6, 2015 7:26 a.m.
I wouldn't say "Banning solves Nothing" -- It's made people more willing to try new decks and discuss the state of the game just as much as it's driven people away from the format for getting rid of the two decks that were being played the most. You don't want to drive people away, but I think there were just as many people being driven away by the amount of Delver/Pod decks in the format, just over a longer period of time.
At the same time, I think the phrase should be "This ban was counter-productive", but it's not like Wizards are absolutely ignoring reaction and feedback and might rethink their stance on something like Dig Through Time later on in the year.
February 6, 2015 7:26 a.m.
I'm not really commenting on whether banning the delve cards were a bad idea per se. What I'm saying is that banning in a general sense is sometimes a bad idea. I am somewhat worried about Junk and its prevalence. I love that deck and would hate to see anything banned.
February 6, 2015 7:34 a.m.
Given that you yourself said no-one batted an eyelid toward Junk after the bans and that Junk was immediately the replacement for Pod afterwards, I don't think you have anything to worry about right now.
If you're really worried about Junk getting a target on it's back now, I think we, as the community, need to vouch for new ideas/decks and ways to beat Junk. Society/Community thrives on competition rather than monopoly.
February 6, 2015 7:43 a.m.
Maybe the community will stop urging wizards to take such an interventionist approach, maybe they won't.
February 6, 2015 7:45 a.m.
bijschjdbcd says... #28
It is easier to hide from a problem than itis to solve one.
February 6, 2015 7:47 a.m.
A community only policing itself will only do so much. You do need someone to come in occasionally and lay down the law.
We could all say "Okay, nobody ever play 8-Rack again because it's not fun" -- Eventually, someone will play it because either no-one is or because they simply don't care about public opinion.
Unless you take out the key part of a deck, people will still play it in some form or another. Look at Pod, it had stuff like Siege Rhino in it already, but as soon as Pod was banned, people just turned to Junk Midrange.
You raise a good point though, it needs to be less about buckling to public opinions and more about weighing up what would work and what doesn't. Treasure Cruise being banned worked, but the Pod ban didn't, arguably -- But it shouldn't have been because people were screaming about Delver and Pod being dominant.
February 6, 2015 7:52 a.m.
It wouldn't police itself on the grounds of verbal statements it would police itself through deck design. Abzan becomes the big bad for the next year or so - everyone starts playing Mirran Crusader instead. There's no verbal contract there's an actual shift in the way people play the game.
February 6, 2015 8:08 a.m.
Then people need to start trying new things and need to be encouraged to try new decks, rather than just being told to pick an archetype and copy it as best you can.
February 6, 2015 8:10 a.m.
Well this would be encouraged, in my opinion, if wizards just let things lie for a while. If there's no overarching authority threatening to ban a deck it gives people more motivation to change things themselves without waiting for someone else to take the problem away haha.
February 6, 2015 8:11 a.m.
That's all fair and good, but the community also needs to uphold it's end of the bargain and try new things.
It's all well and good to ask Wizards to not ban anything for a while, but when they or somebody else says "Well what are you going to do in the meantime?" the response shouldn't be "Oh, well I'm just going to keep playing Junk".
People are lazy, as cynical as that might sound -- Without fear or encouragement they won't change anything or try anything new. Fear is a far stronger motivator than encouragement.
February 6, 2015 8:19 a.m.
I think the drive to innovate and gain recognition through new brews is pretty important to a lot of people.
February 6, 2015 8:28 a.m.
I can see why Junk Gifts works though, Access to all the best things really. Goyf especially.
I know if I had a set i'd run them in my gifts brew lol.
February 6, 2015 8:48 a.m.
WovenNebula says... #36
I am with Chief that I don't believe in bannings but, in my opinion, I'd rather them restrict cards to 1 if any deck reaches above 15% regularly and consistently over a period of time.
On another note, I hate that people hate cards in control or discard, or what have you. The day MTG becomes games of I attack with my creatures, I block with my creatures, repeat, and game; I will probably quit magic. There always need to be diversity, thought provoking games, and there needs to be decks that we hate, it helps us understand what we love. Just like in real life...... Oh wait mtg is life.
February 6, 2015 11:56 a.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #37
Before I begin I have to admit that I have a personal bias for Blue. Now with that out of the way.
From my perspective there does seem to be an strange irrational hatred of Blue. People despise Control or Tempo decks because for many people not being able to play their cards is frustrating. It is a frustration born out of feeling whatever they do will be pointless. Many people view 
decks are fair because it allows them to play spells. There is a mentality that so long as they are able to play something they have a chance to turn things around. Because Blue often denies this feeling people become angry and lash out. This is why I believe that the recent bannings of Treasure Cruise and Dig Through Time were welcomed by so many. Perhaps not on T/O, (I've seen a lot of complaints and have made many myself) but I have seen many people very happy that, for lack of a better phrase, "Blue got what was coming to it".
Now, onto the matter of bans. I think you've hit upon the problem with Modern as a format, ChiefBell. What do we do about banning cards? Because from my own experience, as has been mentioned, banning something does not necessarily mean that things will work themselves out. There will always be the next best thing. But, the problem is a little more complicated than perhaps we've thus far examined it to be. Firstly, Skulloelegy you're partially right. To some extent we must have an overarching authority governing what is or isn't banned in Modern. But, if we are to have that authority then that authority should have certain responsibilities, which Wizards does not currently uphold. Because, and here is the real problem with bans, Wizards does not test cards for older formats. This is a problem. Should Wizards test for Legacy or Vintage? No. That would be absurd. However, Wizards has been strongly promoting Modern since its inception. Modern is its baby, perhaps it is high time Wizards starts testing new cards for Modern. Standard is the money maker, yes, but Modern is what Wizards has been encouraging to play. Then, is it not reasonable to hold Wizards to the responsibility of testing for it? As we have clearly seen in this past ban, Wizards can produce arbitrary reasoning with no data backing it up, as is the case with Dig Through Time.
So, if bans are counter productive for a variety of reasons, what should be done? Well, I think WovenNebula has already given voice to that suggestion. Modern should adopt a restricted list. Something I have been trying to advocate since this last ban. Not because of my bias, but because this ban showed me that Wizards may be dreadfully mistaken it its own reasons for banning certain cards. I think a Restricted List would help Modern. Firstly, it breeds innovation by granting access to certain previously banned cards. Secondly it allows for questionable cards to be tested further without outright banning them. And, lastly, cards that are currently banned can be used here to test if restricting their numbers is a more viable option. However, I would hold restrictions to 2.
Sorry for the long winded response, but I wanted to get that all out in one go.
February 6, 2015 1 p.m.
I like some of your thoughts and disagree with others. Nice explanation though.
February 6, 2015 1:30 p.m.
JexInfinite says... #39
And I thought that Wizards hated the attrition strategy of BGx decks. I don't think they understand how diversity works. Diversity in Magic happens for 2 reasons: the PT, and when people see an opportunity. There are no opportunities being created because of these bannings, and the PT probably won't have that many cool fringe decks.
If just Cruise were banned, and then Pod after Dragons of Tarkir, that's a decent time period allowing Wizards to see what would happen, and how people would compete against the top strategies. Banning a good card on a whim is stupid.
Wizards also didn't seem to realize that Pod was doing well because the pilots were really skilled. The best control player and best Pod player are probably evenly matched, because control has a slightly higher skill cap, but Pod is a slightly better deck. It's fair to say that not as many people mastered control as they did Pod. If you ban a deck because the player is good, you're basically saying 'Hey, you over there, stop being good at Magic!'
February 6, 2015 5:42 p.m.
KrosanTusker says... #40
Creating a restricted list is a very bad idea, nice though it seems in principle. The format would become far too swingy. Draw your 1-of Jace? You win. Draw just a bunch of mediocre support cards? Surprise, you lose. The existence of a restricted list, by nature, creates games that are either unwinnable or unloseable depending on the cards you draw (almost infinitely more so than in normal Magic).
In addition to that, it pushes people towards building decks around their one Dark Depths or Skullclamp or whatever, causing even more of that sort of game than would naturally happen.
You also have the problem that you can just dredge until you hit your Dread Return, even if you only have one to find; or Stoneforge Mystic up your Umezawa's Jitte, even if there's only the one to search for; or cascade into your Hypergenesis, even if there's only one to hit, etc. etc. In many cases, having one of the banned card is as good as having four.
On top of that, taking something like Affinity as an example, if all the banned cards were restricted instead, you still get to play five extra artifact lands. In Storm, you still get one each of Ponder, Preordain, Rite of Flame and Seething Song, which, given how much of your deck you get to see, counts for a lot.
tl;dr there is a good reason why the idea of a restricted list has been kept to the one format where you're supposed to be allowed to play all the cards.
February 6, 2015 6:14 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #41
@ KrosanTusker you made several blatant assumptions there. None of which I proposed. I suggest we consider a Restricted List. I did not propose that we make the entire ban list into that restricted list. That would be utterly ludicrous. And even if I did develop a rough idea of what I think should be on a Restricted List I'm not so foolhardy to think that JTMS and Jitte should be unbanned.
February 7, 2015 10:33 a.m.
bijschjdbcd says... #42
He is right though, A restricted list capitalises on variance which in my opinion is a negative aspect of the game.
It is easier to give an example on a increased magnitude in order to make the point a bit clearer to some.
February 7, 2015 10:39 a.m.
KrosanTusker says... #43
Completely replacing the banlist with a restricted list would be ridiculous, but that was only one of the points I was making. Any form of restricted list would just reduce too many games to a round of "did they draw it?"
Actually, what would be a nice idea is if you had a draft of what this new system would look like, although I completely understand that that would be a fair bit of work, given the number of cards on the current list.
February 7, 2015 4:45 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #44
My roughest idea on what should change is this:
Unban: Dig Through Time. The ban was arbitrary and built upon a false premise. Furthermore, without giving a new card the proper amount of time we will never know if it was truly broken. Also, I wish to note that Wizards was complaining about how no one played new cards in Modern prior to release of TC and DTT (thanks to the craptastic Theros Block) and then went ahead and banned cards that were new and exciting.
Restrict:
Stoneforge Mystic. It can tutor equipment, yes and put them on the battlefield. however it is very susceptible to removal and Jitte would never be unbanned.
Treasure Cruise: Again, time is need to see if this is ban worthy. I do not count 3 months as adequate time.
Birthing Pod: Give Pod less consistency, but still a viable archetype. Restore some confidence in players.
Deathrite Shaman (disclaimer I have never player BGX). A restriction here would be adequate. Powerful, yes, but I think to combat some power we need to add in more power to the format. Power creep be damned. Wizards has been slowly ratcheting creatures up for some time now.
Please tag me so that I actually know you've responded please. I'd like to continue this conversation.
February 7, 2015 5:09 p.m.
JexInfinite says... #45
CanadianShinobi You might as well not restrict Stoneforge, Pod and DRS, because they were played in 4s because of the consistency. Cruise might work being restricted, but I can't see anyone counting on a 1x card in their deck.
February 7, 2015 5:48 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #46
JexInfinite I would consider restricted a max of two copies per deck. Otherwise it would be worthless.
February 7, 2015 6:36 p.m.
Didgeridooda says... #47
Restricted has meant one when limiting, but not banning a card. Vintage restricts cards.
I don't think adding a restricted list to modern is a bad idea.
February 8, 2015 2:48 p.m.
KrosanTusker says... #48
I can see where you're coming from with Cruise and Dig. A significant portion of the power was in chaining them, but if you're allowed two Cruises and some Digs, think that that could quite easily just put us back where we were pre-bans on that front.
As a one- or two-of Stoneforge, I don't actually think that's too dangerous. I'd be a little scared of two, but you couldn't exactly build a deck around just one, so I can see it wouldn't necessarily be much more than Batterskull #2.
I don't know about Pod. Even when it was legal, there was always the tension between siding in a hate card (that absolutely shuts down the T1 dork, T2 Pod hands that were so strong) or not (since they don't draw Pod every game so you could well be stuck with a fairly useless Grafdigger's Cage or something, nor is it a necessary piece for them to have to win anyway). If they just have one or two, it's much worse to side in your Smelt effects (for example), but then it's an absolute blowout when they draw it and you can't answer it.
Shaman is a card I like, and not one I consider broken, but I think the right balance for this card is to ban it entirely or let people play four, because it does make a huge difference. Drawing it can make such a clear difference between a win and a loss in the decks that want it, so I think the variance that comes with playing just one or two is not a reasonable factor.
Following this model, I would also unban Sword of the Meek and restrict Ancestral Vision (since it lends itself to a control shell that has the time to set up, and provides a nice alternative to Sphinx's Revelation that doesn't force you to play 28-odd lands. Hopefully with just two in any list it puts a cap on how much it can be abused, but it's possible I haven't thought this one through) and consider unbanning Bloodbraid Elf. I don't think elf could be restricted as it's a card that plays hugely off of natural variance anyway, but I think Rhino+Souls is just that much better than Bloodbraid+Bolt that it wouldn't make much difference except for diversifying the meta beyond 28% Junk decks.
February 9, 2015 11:38 a.m.
bijschjdbcd says... #49
I wonder how much Twin winning will influence the metagane and enough people will complain for it to be banned.
February 9, 2015 7:45 p.m.
FreddyFlash311 says... #50
Just no on the restricted list. Seriously. It's Modern! Legacy doesn't get a restricted list, why should Modern?? What cards are there that are banned in Modern, legal in Legacy, but so insanely powerful that they shouldn't be allowed as more than a one-of. And if Modern, the middle child format, is going to get a restricted list than why isn't Legacy? Why is Modern so much more important? Why don't we go ahead and start a restricted and banned list in standard too??
I was purposely obnoxious because I don't think you realize how absurd it sounds, wanting to add a Restricted list to Modern. Not only is it not going to happen, I'll go so far as to say it's flat out a bad idea. But if you're so hooked on it, get your local store to let you have a Saturday event running it as your version of a Modern format and see how it goes. Keep accurate records of everything about it and when it becomes a weekly event that you're making all sorts of cash at then come tell me I was dead wrong.
bijschjdbcd says... #2
What are Junks bad match ups in your opinion?
February 6, 2015 5:42 a.m.