Should Modern have a Restricted List?
Modern forum
Posted on Jan. 20, 2015, 8:30 a.m. by CanadianShinobi
So, fresh off the heels of a series of bans that will no doubt reshape the Modern meta, I have made it quite clear of my position regarding the bans. Though, for those of you who do not feel like digging through the pages of the featured Ban List Update Thread I will reiterate them.
With regard to the banning of Birthing Pod and Treasure Cruise I can follow and understand the logic that WotC has applied. However, with specific regard to Birthing Pod I believe that WotC has committed hypocrisy as they have stated that they do not want to fully eliminate certain archetypes. However, they have done just that.
With regard to Dig Through Time I do not believe this was the correct decision. I further advocate that Wizards had neither the time nor data to make a properly informed decision with banning this card. They state that it is interchangeable with Treasure Cruise. This is false. The 
mana investment alone makes the card play differently, especially in a deck like U/R/X Delver where mana efficiency is of vital importance.
But, frankly I am not going tobother with the discussion of whether or not Wizards was right or wrong. Whether or not I'm right or wrong. Those questions are largely irrelevant because only time will tell.
What I am interesting in, however, is whether or not the Community believes that Modern should implement a restricted list. I see that a restricted list would benefit the meta far more than out right banning some cards. Cards of questionable power like Dig Through Time or Birthing Pod being restricted to two per deck could all for an overall more efficient meta in my opinion. It would also allow us to assess something like Dig Through Time over a longer period of time without, as I believe, jumping straight to inaccurate conclusions.
However, I will leave the discussion to the Community as I believe it to be not only highly relevant, but important.
I vote with both hands for NO!
If I may quote maro, "restrictions breed creativity". A banlist enforces that notion, while that is not true with a restricted list. Vintage is the only format with such restrictions because of card availability - imagine if Black Lotus was allowed to be a playset, this will automatically cut the vintage population to 1/4th of what it has been just on the limited availability.
I would play the heck out of DIg if it was two-of (UWR control uses it as a two-of at most, only scapeshift used all four), but I would never include 2 copies of Pod, because there is never a time when you do not want to draw it if your whole deck is based around it.
Pod was oppressive and there was no way to limit its footprint by removing any other card in the deck. Do you ban Birds, Finks, Rhino, or Melira or Orzhov pontiff? Even if all of these were banned, the deck would thrive, and those cards are not abused in any other shell.
Dig was OK IMO, it should not have gotten the axe.
January 20, 2015 8:50 a.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #4
@ Boza
As I quite clearly stated, we are not here to discuss whether or not the cards should have been banned or not. I merely gave my opinion so that I could frame my proposal as to why I believe there should be a banned list.
"Restrictions breed creativity" is a double edged sword. I could easily say that providing Modern with a restricted list for questionable bans would give rise to a wider variety of viable decks. So, what is your counter argument to that?
January 20, 2015 9:07 a.m.
We can't Ponder so it makes sense that we can't double it and call it Dig Through Time. Treasure Cruise was easy to abuse & draw 3 for one .
A restricted list could be a way to test if something should come off the ban list.
January 20, 2015 9:19 a.m.
i asked on the mtgs forums why vintage was the only format with a restricted list, and i'm not sure i got a response. the biggest argument against it i can see is the added pressure on players and judges to recognize which cards are restricted and which are banned. for modern, a format that is "accessible" to everyone, this is probably extra complexity that wizards is trying to avoid. the other reason against restricting cards i read on the mtg wiki is that they want to eliminate the variance of winning games just because one player drew their restricted cards first. i would think making smart decisions with what is banned vs restricted could prevent most of that kind of variance.
i absolutely see why it is necessary in vintage, as banning all the power 9 cards would piss off the entire player base, and no one is going to shell out for 3 more copies of each card. plus a format with playsets of those cards probably wouldn't be much fun anyway.
i don't pay as much attention to legacy, so i won't comment on the merits of restricting cards there, but i think modern could be a much more interesting format with a restricted list. i would think it would still need to be restricted to 1 per deck (to avoid confusion on the definition of "restricted" between formats) but i think there are a lot of interesting banned cards that could fit into existing decks or even help create new ones. i would think that a restricted list could let some of these cards see play without breaking the format. Ponder, Preordain, Jace, the Mind Sculptor, Deathrite Shaman, Green Sun's Zenith, Dig Through Time, maybe Birthing Pod and probably some others could all see play as one-ofs in existing lists without making any deck unbeatable.
January 20, 2015 9:30 a.m.
shuflw - the whole 'who draws it first wins' argument is rubbish though because that's how the game of magic works occasionally. I can't really subscribe to that because magic is a game of luck sometimes and thats just how it works.
I also completely disagree with the sentiment that various people here have expressed in that the restricted list exists in vintage to limit cost of decks - that's absolute rubbish. Wizards cares nothing for raising the cost of decks in a format they make little / no money off anyway. It's purely there for power - not to increase accessibility.
January 20, 2015 9:45 a.m.
To substantiate my point - a restricted list does not provide options, but limits them.
Lets take UR storm as an example - if ponder, preordain, rite of flame were restricted to two copies, the deck would play the maximum number of allowed restricted cards before adding Sleight of Hand and what not.
This immediately restricts the deckbuilding process - if you want to be competitive play with those cards. If you want a budget brew, choose Serum Visions over the strictly better Preordain. IF DRS was available, but restricted, what card, besides Goyf would you instantly include in all your Rock decks?
I do not think reserving slots for obviously more powerful cards is the right way to approach any format. A straight up ban list is infinitely better.
I hate making this comparison, but a restricted list will tread into yugioh territory - magic will eventually devolve into "make sets with all the broken cards, then Ban and restrict most of them". In my view, modern is already headed down that dark path.
January 20, 2015 10:01 a.m.
hermesmtz95 says... #9
I find it frustrating that Wizards would print cards like Treasure Cruise and Dig Through Time to just ban them a few months later in every competitive format not named Standard.
It's frustrating from the economical standpoint as well for people that bought DTT for Modern use.
My final rant/question is, why would they print them to begin with? You'd have to be brain dead to not think "oh my god this card is unbelievably overpowered"
January 20, 2015 10:11 a.m.
hermesmtz95 - Because WotC makes cards for Standard, not Modern. If a card makes it into an older format, it's just gravy. They don't have the manpower to test the older formats, so they focus all their energy on Standard/Limited. The thinking of "why would they print it just to ban it" is putting a lot of undue pressure on WotC to always worry about older formats, which just isn't feasible.
January 20, 2015 10:16 a.m.
Of course they worry about older formats, otherwise there probably wouldn't be older formats.
However, playtesting cards that are unrealesed can only happen in small controlled groups of employees because of risk of leakage. Sometimes, cards cards have to be assessed on a scale that is larger than feasible (FFL league and such). The whole magic community having a go at cards is much larger and reliable sample size that cannot be achieved without the card being released.
January 20, 2015 10:28 a.m.
Hjaltrohir says... #12
I agree, Dig should be restricted or controlled, it wasn't nearly as oppressive as Treasure Cruise or Birthing Pod, nor was it played as much...
January 20, 2015 11:55 a.m.
Restricted to 2 wont happen because of things like Glittering Wish and Research and I'm sure there are others.
One main one sideboard and a bunch of ways to grab it out of the board.
January 20, 2015 12:34 p.m.
ChiefBell - i think it's rubbish, too, especially in a format like modern where there wouldn't really be a single card that would necessarily win the game once drawn. as i wrote earlier, that reasoning came from the mtg wiki.
i also agree the main reason for restricting cards in vintage is the absurd power level of those cards. the format would certainly die without restricting certain cards, mostly because of the brokenness of decks. but another contributing factor would be that many would not care to quadruple their investment on those cards. both can be contributing factors as to why wizards has the restricted list for vintage.
Boza - the UR storm deck is the obvious example of the deck that would play the max amount of legal cantrip hand selection cards like ponder or preordain. then they have the interesting decision of what cards are replaced for those two, like to cut serum visions or to use the restricted cards as visions 5-6 and cut something else. other decks would have a more interesting decision. is it worth it to play these one-ofs in my UWR control deck, or would delver still be tier 1 with only single copies of some of the 1-mana cantrips and cruise, or would other decks like scapeshift or twin or even affinity want them?
is deathrite really a snap include in every BG deck as a 1-of? it's a great card, a mini-planeswalker, but it's much better if you can play 4 and reliably use the ramp option in addition to the other two. do you play the same number of fetchlands in the same deck with 0, 1 or 4 shamans? is the ramp option even important and do you play other mana dorks as well?
i definitely don't know the answers to these questions, and i think anyone building a deck would need to find out for themselves. it's true that having the option to play up to 4 copies gives way more options than 1 copy, but having the option to play 1 copy still creates more options than an outright ban.
January 20, 2015 12:40 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #15
@ Boza really, you're taking this out of context.
Let's consider the following:
Restrict Dig Through Time and Pod. I think this would allow for some greater development within the meta. Pod players don't lose their entire investment, but the deck becomes less consistent.
Furthermore, scapeshift and other combo players have a greater consistency within their own decks, but nothing damaging.
What would be wrong with such a proposal? How does that limit options? Is it not more limiting to remove an entire archetype and hope that something emerges? Until I am proven wrong I am going to say that the modern meta is going to revert to pre-KTK with one less deck. Hell, even Ascendency is gone now because of the loss of TC.
January 21, 2015 12:03 a.m.
Here's my number one argument as to why the banning was good. Just look at the number of people pissed off by it. That's how many people are playing decks using those cards.
Restricted only works if its down to one copy. Does one pod in a deck matter? No so sure it could happen but then you would just have an Abzan midrange deck with a pod in it. TC just no. It would still get in every damn deck as a 1 of same with dig. UU isn't hard to get with fetches and shocks.
Buuuuuttt there won't be a restricted list in modern sooo no need to worry about it.
January 21, 2015 12:38 a.m.
Birthing pod, deathrite shaman, BBEs, etc. are powerful cards that even if restricted will see play, but they are not nearly as useful as one ofs in decks. While this may seem contradictory, it really is so - these cards will either see play in their maximum allowed numbers in every deck that can play them or they will not be played at all, because of inconsistency issues. I cannot see a middle ground in a restricted list.
It is for sure more limiting to allow an archetype to limp along than outright murdering it if that archetype is suffocating potential newcomers to the field. Pod was asking the question: "You will face me once every three matches, if not more. Can you dedicate most of your deck and sideboard to handle this?".
The same reason why we have antimonopoly laws - it is making it difficult for competiton to thrive by proving a barrier to entry.
I cannot imagine how your restricted list hypothesis will be proven wrong, but reverting to the pre KTK meta is the natural thing to follow after bannings - it will take some time for new brews to emerge, as unlike Rome, decks aren't built in a day.
January 21, 2015 3:32 a.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #18
Restricted list in modern eh ...
Here's what I'd do.
Pod as a two of. You'd have to either mulligan down pretty hard, or run Fabricate. Bug/4 color pod anyone? Perfectly doable, and probably the only method of playing pod hence forth. Notice how restricting makes the deck structure much more different, and decreases the turn 3 Birthing Pod play dramatically.
Dig as a 2 of. Mainly because this card is combo control happy. Delver will still use it, but it won't make delver so meta defining, but yet still allow it play. Hence, we now have a more aggro side to the field. 5 colour burn won't use Dig because that UU is really hard to get with only 18-20 lands and you wanting to get White, black and green-post-sideboard onto the field as well. 2 of also means that it is less consistent in aggro decks. If it does see play in all builds, then yes, ban, but I think it is healthy for combo control fringe decks to appear. (I WANT MY Near-Death Experience CREATURELESS CONTROL BACK!! WAAAAAAH!!!)
Bloodbraid Elf, 2 of. I don't know enough about Jund, but I think that this is good enough.
Sword of the Meek. 2. If restricting, Thopter Foundry must be as 2. Esper artifact control becomes a thing. If too big of a thing (we still have Krosan Grip) we can try thopter limitation to 1. If too big still, outright ban of thopter and put sword up to unban. Remember, dig is legal in this hypothetical restriction list.
Here are the ones that should stay banned.
Storm Shit.
Skullclamp, if Cruise is too big for vintage, clamp is too big for modern.
Green Sun's Zenith. Pod was banned.
Dread Return. No.
Dark Depths. No.
Cloudpost. We have tron.
Blazing Shoal. Too easy for infect and perhaps Ascendancy storm.
Here are the ones I'm not sure about.
Artifact Lands. Affinity is consistent enough, even with all the hate in modern for it. BUUUT, Shatterstorming their lands is SO much fun! Only reason why it is in sideboard is because of ease of destroying artifact lands. I'd go one of each ... if that. Maybe only 2 or three lands.
Deathrite Shaman, Jace, the Mind Sculptor, Stoneforge Mystic. I was never around with these (okay, I was with DRS, but I knew absolutely nothing about Jund.), so don't know their impact on the format as one-ofs.
January 21, 2015 4:28 a.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #19
Notice how one deck archetype actually gets changed, we have fuel for more decks to come, one brand new deck, one revives, and another limps along.
January 21, 2015 4:30 a.m.
vomdur - "Buuuuuttt there won't be a restricted list in modern sooo no need to worry about it." Why not? I'm honestly asking if you have strong reasoning, because it seems like a good idea to me.
Boza - " these cards will either see play in their maximum allowed numbers in every deck that can play them or they will not be played at all" So that's approximately twice as many options as an outright ban? how is that more limiting?
every tron deck plays a playset of Urza's lands. every affinity deck plays a playset of Cranial Plating. every Scapeshift deck plays a playset of Scapeshift. who cares if every BGx deck plays a Deathrite Shaman, or every blue control/combo deck plays a Ponder? that's the nature of magic, people play with the best cards for their deck (and then everyone netdecks the best decks).
i don't see wizards implementing a restricted list, but i still think it would be a good idea. i think they would have to restrict to 1 copy to stay in line with the way vintage restricts cards.
January 21, 2015 10:41 a.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #21
Boza Let's consider Femme_Fatale's proposed model with a few changes. Firstly, I would keep DRS banned, I would also keep BBE banned. Not because I hate Jund, but because I know exactly what those cards can do. They make Jund a ridiculous powerhouse.
I would also restrict Stoneforge Mystic for the sake of experimenting.
JTMS can stay banned.
Artifact lands. I have no idea, someone else will have to make a case for this.
"it will take some time for new brews to emerge, as unlike Rome, decks aren't built in a day."
But will those brews be tier one or even tier 2? Yes, it will take time, but I'm not saying it won't take time. My issue is that I'm not thoroughly convinced that we will even see new decks. And that's why it's bothersome. Midrange has just taken a serious blow. You have Goyf. Or you have Goyf. If there's a modern deck that can emerge that doesn't run 
Praise the Sun. But right now, I think we have a very clear idea of what the meta is going to be like, because the tools that changed that meta are no long available.
January 21, 2015 10:59 a.m.
Hjaltrohir says... #22
@Femme_Fatale there is no way Stoneforge Mystic could be allowed play in modern. It would wreck it even more than the bannings have...
January 21, 2015 11:36 a.m.
The restricted to two will NEVER happen because of cards that let you grab stuff out of your sideboard. So never. Even if pod were restricted to 2 people could Fabricate turn 2 reliably and have the pod turn three. So there would be no change in the format other than pods land base would shift a bit.
Straight up restricted probably won't happen because as much playtesting as wizards/dci want to do they will never find that one obscure card that still breaks the other card that's restricted. we can't let people have nice things they do crazy shit with them. Pod and delver were both oppressive let pod die and delver go back to being fair.
January 21, 2015 12:48 p.m.
i also think a restricted list would be a good option for potentially transitioning cards on and off the banlist. they ban things every 3 months or so, so this could allow the list to be more fluid. Treasure Cruise is broken? try restricting it for 6 months. if nothing improves, ban it. if the format adjusts and cruise isn't doing bad things to the metagame, let it stay restricted. this would allow people time to adjust to things, see what is on wizards's radar and maybe help players not lose such a large investment to a ban. Pod has been dominant for years, maybe a 6-month restricted trial would have helped it be a decent but not dominant deck, or maybe would have helped wizards find a reason to ban it even sooner.
vomdur's pod example is a great argument FOR a restricted list. If a pod deck could only play one copy of pod, would it be worth splashing blue for Fabricate? it slows the deck down by a whole turn, adds another color to the manabase, and makes pod a lot less resilient to artifact hate. would it still be a tier 1 deck? i have no idea, but it would be awesome to see people try to figure that out.
then as time passes, it could work the other way. Bitterblossom was banned from the beginning. when it was unbanned, nothing happened (except the price spiked 400%). If it was restricted earlier as a test run, maybe everyone could have seen earlier that it wouldn't break the format wide open. i have a feeling the same thing is going to happen to Golgari Grave-Troll. i personally don't think Jace, the Mindsculptor would ruin the format, as straight control decks haven't been dominating play, but i'd feel a lot more comfortable starting it out as restricted just to see how many decks actually want to play it.
i think a restricted list would give wizards more control over creating the format they want, and would ease transitions for decks instead of broken into banhammer.
January 21, 2015 1:22 p.m.
Nope not an argument for. It would be the exact same deck just with a few minor tweaks. That's what is pissing wizards and a lot of the community off. People don't build their own decks anymore. Local metas got so ridiculous that modern was losing players. this shakeup is a good thing maybe people will build gasp new decks. quit being so conservative and trying to preserve the way of pod life and move on.
The only cards in pod that have dropped in value are the damn pods themselves. So im tired of hearing every pod player crying that they lost so much value in their cards. you lost $20.
January 21, 2015 2:24 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #26
Wizards doesn't care about netdecking vomdur. Netdecking is a very VERY important aspect of every format. Especially in expensive formats like what modern will turn into. If anything, this banning will encourage more netdecking as people won't know what to play and what to invest money in. Not everyone has the abilities to make professional homebrews. Leave that to the professionals. Once a pro makes this brand new homebrew that works really well, it will become netdecked and no longer be a homebrew.
Most of the decks we will see in the new meta are already well known decks. They were just Tier 2 before and now have a chance of being a higher tier. People will go back to what they know, and will go from there.
I have personally never played pod, but I liked pod. To me, Pod was what defined modern. If you were to ask me to say one deck that describes modern, I would have said Pod. It describes the amount of effort required on the user to pilot a deck properly and extrapolates on the idea of good deck building and knowledge.
January 21, 2015 2:36 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #27
shuflw while we disagree on some of the more technical aspects, I am glad to see that others are thinking critically about the ramifications of a Modern restricted list.
vomdur I am going to preface this with the following: I apologize if I misconstrue or misrepresent your experience within the Modern format. Now, that being said you strike me as having very little idea of what you're talking about. My intent here is to discuss whether or not a restricted list in Modern has merit. Your counter argument thus far has amounted to "You idea is stupid." You have not explained why you believe a restricted list is not beneficial to the format. Your netdecking argument is irrelevant.
Furthermore, you stated, "Local metas got so ridiculous that modern was losing players." However, a basic search can show you that Modern has been experiencing a growing fan base, and the release of KTK with its fetches and new toys brought in more players. You, therefore have no grounds to make this assertion.
The best statement thus far is this: "quit being so conservative and trying to preserve the way of pod life and move on." My proposal is not a conservative one. If anything it's radical, because I'm proposing we lift the bans of even more cards, that we experiment, that we further explore the Modern format with less limitations and then correct ourselves when we realize that perhaps a mistake has been made.
Also, considering that UR Delver was recently on the decline prior to the bans, I can hardly agree that it was oppressive. Even at its peak it was never oppressive. Your idea of oppressive seems skewed. Saying Pod was oppressive is debatable. I personally disagree with that, but I also see why some would consider that to be the case. No doubt it was approaching a dangerous level, but it never reached that level the way Jund did with Deathrite Shaman.
For the record I am not a Pod player. I never was. I play Control.
January 21, 2015 3:38 p.m.
"Nope not an argument for. It would be the exact same deck just with a few minor tweaks."
adding a 4th color, reducing the build-around card to 1 copy that is subject to removal, adding tutoring sorceries that would essentially be mulligans if drawn in multiples and do not add to the deck's creature count. these are all major changes. my best guess would be that pod still wouldn't exist even if it was only restricted and not banned. i'm more interested in other cards being restricted than pod.
"The only cards in pod that have dropped in value are the damn pods themselves. So im tired of hearing every pod player crying that they lost so much value in their cards. you lost $20."
it's been 2 days since the announcement, there's really no way to say what the financial impact will be.
no one is crying on this thread, we're trying to foster a discussion on the positives and negatives of a restricted list for modern.
January 21, 2015 4:19 p.m.
The restricted list would be good for taking cards off the ban list but not in the reverse and i see very few cards that need to be taken off the ban list. If you restricted pod it would slow it down 1 turn. Is that enough to make it fair? maybe but you know what makes it fair for sure? ban. TC and DTT would still be used and abused splashing for U or UU is not that hard especially when you don't cast those till turn 4/5. What does restricting cards do to a meta? look at vintage look at every restricted card then look at the deck lists. EVERY restricted card is in damn near ever list. Granted that those cards are extremely overpowered but thats the concept
Guess i should have stated MY local meta instead of the broader term i used. Three shops that i frequent have all nearly stopped with modern. the all had weekly modern before KTK now one shop stopped it all together the other two have it once a month. I have all the grounds to make the assertion when we can't even play modern around here any more because of those three cards.
You are being radical in the taking things off the ban list but keeping any of those three cards around for any longer is a terrible idea.
Delver still made up 16% of the meta on mtgtop8 last i checked and pod roughly the same so two decks make up 30% of the average tournament.
January 21, 2015 4:27 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #30
That's just three shops vomdur. I strongly suggest you properly look into the concepts of the scientific method and apply them to magic before you make your claims.
However, there is a point that must be taken with the restricted list. Notice how many of the cards I said that should mainly have kept banned, because they are just too good for modern. That goes to show just how well WotC has been keeping their ban list up to date well and proper. Just this most recent one ... I don't know. It doesn't feel as well thought out as all the other bans to date. Treasure Cruise did not make decks broken. Dig Through Time did not make them broken either. It made them viable for tournament play. Delver is easy to beat. Probably the largest factor of it being in the meta so prominently is because of its price. Same could be said for pod to, since it doesn't require Tarmogoyf. I really don't think Wizards thought this one out properly, Treasure Cruise I can see the ban, but not dig. And Pod just isn't broken yet.
Anyways, I'm not against the bannings, I think with their criteria, the bannings of cruise and pod were the right things to do. Just not dig, because it doesn't fall under that category as much. But the purpose of this thread is to discuss the restricted ban list in modern, and the potential new meta it could inspire.
Restricting pod as a two of will require it to be either BUG, BUG splash white, full 4 colour, or Junk splash blue. In any of the splash options, pod is now beatable by killing their mana dorks with thinks like Drown in Sorrow and Forked Bolt. A BUG build would be much smaller as it practically turns into a combo control deck. A tutor'd pod is really easy to see coming and requires protection. Regardless of whether or not pod goes midrange control or full midrange in the new BUG variant, it won't be nearly as strong as the original because of the lack of White locks like Linvala, Keeper of Silence and Junk beat down cards like Siege Rhino. In any of the 4 colour styles, Blood Moon would be all the sideboarding you'd need. I'm also going to highlight again the fact that you only get 2 pods means that it is really really fragile to removal.
I'm tempted to say Hypergenesis and Blazing Shoal to come out as a 2 of each. Hypergenesis as a 2 of would spawn it's own archetype of BUG creature control, slapping down powerful creatures like Ulamog, Sundering Titan and Wurmcoil. It would use Fauna Shaman to prep it up and Mystical Teachings to get the card, with control controlling till Hypergenesis comes out.
Blazing Shoal looks like it wouldn't be so oppressive as infect would get another way to win and become a different deck colour, but I fear for Ascendancy Storm with it.
January 21, 2015 6:30 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #31
January 21, 2015 7:57 p.m.
While i do not agree with the restricted list I just read a post about a "Watch list" which would be a list of the cards wizards is looking at for banning and balancing purposes. This would help ease backlash from bannings if people knew that wizards had been looking at the card for the last 6 months. Instead of just out of the blue like people felt the Pod banning was.
January 22, 2015 3:46 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #33
Watch list is definitely a good idea in terms of limiting back lash and stabilizing the economy and meta transformations.
CookieJedi says... #2
That would make sense and be fun. That's not what Modern is about.
January 20, 2015 8:48 a.m.