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?
CanadianShinobi says... #2
"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"
Did you not read my proposal? I said a Modern Restricted List should be a 2x. Also I see no reason why not to give Legacy a restricted list. Most of the cards in legacy are banned to make it more financially accessible for new players, which I find absurd. Counter question: Why ban Dig Through Time in Modern but not Legacy?
"Why is Modern so much more important?"
Because Wizards is actively promoting players to play Modern. and Legacy is slowly dying out.
"Why don't we go ahead and start a restricted and banned list in standard too??"
Because that is utterly ridiculous and because Wizards has done so in the past.This is a serious discussion don't be pedantic.
"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."
First and foremost, your obnoxious attitude is utterly insulting to me. I am quite serious in my proposals, especially because of the recent bans having shaken my faith in Wizards. I do not believe I am alone in saying that I do not trust Wizards as much as I once did when it comes to banning cards since this last ban was largely arbitrary. Secondly, if Wizards would not consider a restricted list then they should at least test sets for Modern because they are actively promoting players to participate in Modern. That is their responsibility that comes with their authority. Finally, I play Online. Yes, yes Online is for "scrubs" but I have no other alternative to pursue this particular hobby since my schedule does not allow for me to attend game stores.
Your assessment is inaccurate on why things get banned. Furthermore, the ban on both Dig and Cruise is largely arbitrary and I feel, as do people much more qualified than I, that the ban is detrimental to Modern because we could not properly analyze the effect that Dig and Cruise would have over the long term. Short term the cards were played because they were exciting and new. Especially after Theros Block provided so little for Modern. However, Pod is much more detrimental because it has shaken both player and buyer confidence. It now means that there will be perpetual fear of doing too well with a certain deck because Wizards may ban it. As I said before, sometimes to fight power you need to add power to somewhere else.
February 10, 2015 2:04 a.m.
FreddyFlash311 says... #3
Nothing wrong with playing online. And instead of me being a completely obnoxious person I'll try and be more specific.
Here's my thing- there's enough going on already. Oracle text in and of itself is insane. The fact that judges can misunderstand interactions, and this game's mechanic's, when that's what they strongly focus on, is insane. The amount of different keywords and things they add with every set is insane. Adding in more rules and more little things like a restricted list is just going to further muddy the already crazy waters.
Taking that a step further- Modern's more of a "middle child" format. It's meant to be a player's natural progression when they want more than they're getting from Standard. And Legacy's supposed to be the progression from Modern, yes? Adding in extra rules is going to potentially make things more complicated than even Legacy is right now. The larger card pool and pricing is enough of a barrier for entering Modern, radical differences in deck building rules would throw everything off. "4 Of" is a basic fundamental of deck building to a large percentage of the playerbase. It may not seem like it, I get that, but if it wasn't such a big deal WotC would have already implemented a restricted list into Legacy w/ some of the non mox and lotus cards.
But again, don't take my word for it. Get some friends, make an event with your rules. You said you play online, that's even better cause then everyone can play in their leisurewear. But get a good, honest feel for how truly different the format would be if it was your way and go from there. Write WotC and tell them your findings, the pro's and con's. Make a bunch of events and keep accurate records. Prove me wrong, I'm fine with being wrong (just ask my ex wife). But looking at the bigger picture of things I feel pretty confident I'm not.
February 10, 2015 5:50 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #4
@ FreddyFlash311 moving away from the concept of a restricted list for a moment I'd like to pose a question. Given that Wizards has been actively promoting the growth of the Modern player base, would it be unreasonable for players to, if not now, then in the near future, expect Wizards to begin testing sets for Modern?
February 10, 2015 7:40 p.m.
FreddyFlash311 says... #6
No and yes and no. I could see having very small groups focused on the impact of eternal formats in general, with a few individuals having a stronger focus on each specific format. That being with the thought process of WotC having major events in such formats so they should plan ahead.
But I don't know their argument as to why it doesn't happen. Maybe they want less overhead? Maybe they think the less people that know what's coming down the pipe the better? I dunno. I wouldn't argue the point that your question implies because from my perspective (some one who doesn't really pay much attention to that side of the business) it's kinda surprising that testing like you're asking about doesn't already happen.
February 10, 2015 8:26 p.m.
bijschjdbcd says... #7
I feel like they should test the decks that said card goes into, T Cruise and Dig are obviously powerful and could have been tested in Modern prior to release, Rhino is another example.
February 10, 2015 8:31 p.m.
Didgeridooda says... #8
One thing I am really curious about is did you purchase a playset right before the banning CanadianShinobi? I see what you are saying about dig, but you are so strongly voicing your opinion on it.
You sound like me when they did away with the banned as commander distinction. Still not a fan of that, and it needs to go away.
February 10, 2015 8:32 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #9
@ Didgeridooda No, I do not possess a playset of Dig Through Time, nor did I run Birthing Pod. I am vocal about this because I have been slowly wanting to get into more competitive forms of Magic. However, with the recent bans I am now leery of Wizards and Modern as a format. I am fine with bans so long as they are justified, my issue with Wizards is that they hyped Modern to unprecedented levels and then axed off the innovation of the recent set. Furthermore, if they wanted to ban Pod they should have done so long before now, especially given their logic behind banning it. Siege Rhino is not why Pod was banned as a year ago the same conversation over Pod's potential in the future was taking place. I despise hypocrisy and I feel that Wizards has displayed poor judgement and blatant hypocrisy with their recent bans.
Furthermore, I believe that Wizards needs to take responsibility for Modern since it has been heavily promoting it. Instead of, as they seem to be doing, arbitrarily banning things until they get it "right". As far as I know they do limited to no testing, only look at the Pro Tour and have little incentive to examine how things play out in a more general sense.
February 10, 2015 10:14 p.m.
This is exactly what they were saying in the podcast. It's the fact they hyped modern, encouraged innovation, and then banned key cards before they'd let the meta run its course. Of course people are now anxious because we don't know what they'll do next. If they ban something in BG/x I lose over $2000
February 11, 2015 5:28 a.m.
Didgeridooda says... #11
They way they have done things makes it seem like Lili, and Goyf are in line for a ban.
I see what you guys are worried about, and this has a feel to it like back in Chronicles. I am not saying it is the same, but has that feel. Uncertainty in the secondary market can kill momentum for the game. (modern is the secondary market)
I don't think they have to go as far as adding to the reserved list, but the process has to be more open, and defined at least.
February 11, 2015 9:17 a.m.
Personally, I would like to see Modern taken off the Pro-Tour and let it stabilize quietly, like legacy has. The reality is, dig and pod probably wouldn't have been banned if the modern pro tour event wasn't coming up [1]. The words in the linked podcast ring more than a bit of truth. Look back to the original announcement for the 2015 PT schedule, modern was left off. It was added due to demand. I personally believe this demand led to the bannings, to show case a different modern, the one we got.
If modern on the PT schedule continues, I expect to see more bannings and unbannings to shake things up.
February 11, 2015 9:31 a.m.
KrosanTusker says... #13
Didgeridooda: Slow down with that reserve list talk! I sure hope Wizards know that that was one of the biggest mistakes they've ever made, and not to repeat it. I'm not sure why they would.
ChiefBell: If I were you, I'd be worried. 28% of the field for Junk at the Pro Tour is more than Delver ever got. That does include all the Podless Pod decks and such, but that's still a very large percentage. Given how much the Pro Tour sets the tone of the format, and given how well Junk performed (3 in the top 8 is insane, even if one of them was really Selesnya Aggro), it's unlikely that numbers will drop too much. People talking about a Tarmogoyf ban or some such might be proved right.
gufymike: That's an astute assessment. I hadn't though of it from that angle. I like having a Modern Pro Tour, and I think actually that some sort of a proactive approach to bannings is beneficial, because the format is naturally quite slow-moving anyway, and it ought to be shaken up occasionally, if just for the players' sake. I dunno. I would certainly like to see Wizards actually testing Modern. It feels almost scandalous that they don't already.
February 11, 2015 12:52 p.m.
Indeed. What we really need is a competitor to BGW to make it less successful. Something's telling me there was one for many years but it disappeared for some reason....... Hmmmm
February 11, 2015 1:02 p.m.
KrosanTusker says... #15
While I can understand the reasoning behind the banning, I don't think that, overall, it's done much good. It's still a bit of a shock that they banned the staple piece of an archetype that's been a staple of the format for so long.
February 11, 2015 1:12 p.m.
KrosanTusker The main reason they don't test it as much as it could be is that they don't have the resources (read: money and time) to do it.
February 11, 2015 1:47 p.m.
I actually posted a follow up thread here. It might be good to take the discussion there.
February 11, 2015 2:11 p.m.
KrosanTusker says... #18
Btw gufymike Wizards have money. They have money. Aside from all the profits of the current block being one of the best in recent memory, and the player base growing seemingly exponentially, they have Hasbro's money. If time is the problem, they can hire two guys and lock them in a broom cupboard with some cards, I don't care. They can afford to be doing this, and it's frankly remiss of them not to.
February 11, 2015 2:38 p.m.
KrosanTusker They have money, but not every cent they have goes toward magic, it's a part of a larger wheel. Any money that magic gets is budgeted accordingly. Which goes into covering all areas where magic needs money, from printing to personal to advertising to mtgo. Personally, I would rather spend any extra money on mtgo and fix that.
Now, off that and on to other concerns for this problem. R&D is not going to let the past handcuff what they can and can't do. If it makes sense for standard and limited but not modern, they'll make it anyways. Then ban or not accordingly.
Face it, what you want for modern isn't going to happen for a multitude of reasons and I'm personally not mad about it. I would rather see it this way than 'omg, this is going to wreck modern, lets not print it.'
February 11, 2015 2:48 p.m.
KrosanTusker says... #20
I agree they should print the powerful cards for the sake of Standard and limited, rather than not print them for the sake of Modern (I accept that Standrad is worth much more of their resources and concern), but it would be nice if it came pre-emptively banned, or with the warning that it was on their watch list to be banned if it overperformed, so that bans don't mess things up for the players.
Of course I understand that Wizards' finances are much more complex than any model I could put forward, but if testing for Modern was a priority, don't tell me they couldn't sort something out. I don't even play Magic Online, but all I ever hear about it is how crap it is, so I agree that needs fixing too! While it's more popular than Xmage or Cockatrice or whatever, I can't see that they'll bother -- they have a near-monopoly on that kind of service, so people will still use it even if it's awful.
reawkwian says... #1
ive always been a junk player and it makes me upset to see that every one and there mothers flocking to it because 2 blue cards just happened to be banned. so unfortunately i do feel like something in junk's list will get banned. but if people would just stop playing the same deck stuff wouldnt get banned. cruise and dig got banned because in the short ammount of time that they happened to be out the entire meta shifted so much that decks who didnt even use blue like burn, added blue just to get access to treasure cruise.
February 10, 2015 12:47 a.m.