The Sick Man of Magic: A Discussion on the Modern Ban List
Modern forum
Posted on Jan. 17, 2016, 11:52 p.m. by CanadianShinobi
So, as all of us are aware Wizards has banned Splinter Twin and Summer Bloom. Now, for many Modern players who pay attention to the competitive aspect of the format, Summer Bloom seemed a likely candidate to be banned. However, what has caught many off guard, and rightly so, is the banning of Splinter Twin; thus removing a fundamental piece to a long standing deck in the format. A deck, which to many, defined the rules of the format.
It is time for a sober discussion about Modern and the Ban List. And, perhaps Modern as a format. Now, before I reach the heart of what I want to talk about, I would like to outline the two key tenets by which, according to Wizards of the Coast, regulate and inform the ban list decisions.
1. No Consistent Turn Three Combo Decks
2. No Dominating or Formerly Dominating Archetypes and Strategies
If we examine both recently banned cards we can immediately notice that Summer Bloom violates one of these tenets. Titan Bloom can win before turn four. The deck doesn't do it on an overly consistent basis, however, since Summer Bloom is capable of enabling such a strategy we can at least agree that it violates the format guidelines and can be subjected to banning.
However, if we examine Splinter Twin we notice that it does not violate these tenets. Twin decks only go off on Turn 4 or later and, I would argue, the deck was not overly dominating. It was a popular deck, but it was not a format warping deck. Modern certainly is not in the same place it was a year ago prior to the banning of Birthing Pod. Therefore, the banning of Splinter Twin can be considered arbitrary to a degree. While some may disagree with my assessment of the current situation I believe it is crucial that we tackle this now, rather than six months from now. You see, my issue is not necessarily with the banning of Splinter Twin, but what that banning represents.
The issue that I would like to discuss is the Modern Ban List. Not merely the cards upon the list, but the list itself as a concept in governing the format. While constructing my thoughts on this matter I came across this article by Jeff Cunningham. Within the article Cunningham considers the Modern ban list and how many cards currently on the list may actually be there for arbitrary reasons, or have been forgotten. It was written before the banning of Birthing Pod but the heart and thesis of the article remain true to this day.
However, Cunningham outlines several key points which I would like to touch on. I encourage you all to read the article at your leisure, I would like to only highlight some relevant material here. Here are some of the key issues with Modern as a format and, thus by extension its ban list:
_"i. It's unstable:
Legacy is not supported as a major competitive format and, as such, there's neither a heavy incentive for competitive players to work to exploit the format nor a high density of competitive players at any given Legacy tournament. This is part of the reason Legacy remains in a state of continuous diversity. It's rare for a deck to emerge and be so dominant that one of its keystones is called to be banned. In Modern, this isn't the case. Dominance is closely tracked and suppressed. Take Melira Pod, for example. This deck, which has won the three Grand Prix in a row and the last Magic Online Championship Series, is liable to be cut down at any time. Legacy offers a place where you can buy one deck, learn it, and develop it over a period of years. Even in Standard, the timeline is predetermined and banning only occurs in extreme cases. Modern is volatile."_
Living in the future we know what happened to Pod. However, we can apply the same concept to Twin decks, but Twin never reached Pod levels of play, making Modern even more volatile than we may have first considered it to be. I know next to nothing of Legacy, so I cannot comment or make assertions to what Cunningham has stated about it, but I believe it is true to a certain extent that Modern is somewhat more heavily regulated. And because of this it means that Modern is not a format that can be safely invested in. The banning of Twin has demonstrated that no matter what, if it places well, it will be banned. Which leads us to the next point:
_"ii. It's unsexy:
Modern is like giving someone a sports car and then telling them they can't take it over thirty. Now, to be sure, if the format was too fast and powerful it would be unsuitable for regular competitive play. There has to be a balance, though, so that it doesn't feel like the format has a curfew. Lights out at 9PM, boys. What's that a Jace? Tsk tsk... you know better than that, Jeremy. You could hurt yourself.
The source of this attitude is an effort to keep players safe from the boogeymen. If you can't play Jace, you don't have to play against Jace. It's worth remembering, though, that boogeymen are a lot less scary when they have to pick on others their own size. When it isn't play Jace or lose, then Jace becomes a much more fun card to have access to in the environment. While players should expect to feel safe in Standard, deeper formats should be allowed to have some long shadows."_
Wizards has been casting the spectre of the "boogeyman" for as long as Modern has existed. We can see this with the inception of the ban list. Further evidence can be shown by their reluctance to unban cards. Banning cards is not necessarily the issue here, it is the fact that Wizards is only banning cards, and not unbanning them.
Pointing out the few unbannings that have happened recently is unconvincing. Aside from Wild Nactl none of the cards that were unbanned made any substantial or meaningful impact on the format. If Wizards desires diversity, then it must allow Modern to thrive with different tools. Furthermore, the attitude presented by Wizards is patronizing. It does not trust its player base and is handling Modern with kid gloves. Letting Modern have some amount of power is not necessarily detrimental to the format. Which leads to point number three.
_"iii. It's familiar:
The experience of Modern is too close to the experience of Standard. In both cases there's a heavy emphasis on interaction, given shape in Modern by the banned list. It is, however, a narrow kind of interaction. Alex Borteh recently wrote a comment that struck a chord with a number of older players. He pointed out that part of the design approach over the past several years has been to make Constructed creature-centric. Powerful effects tend to be put, not on enchantments or crtifacts, but on creatures that can be easily answered by removal, and so are unreliable as build-around cards. This is in addition to the more general suppression of combo, land destruction, prison, and recursion decktypes. The result is that interaction comes to mean a narrow kind of interaction: The truly unique cards/effects are [...] overcosted for competitive play... and while the decks that are competitive use different cards, they're basically all doing the same thing... play some creatures, kill some creatures, maybe draw some cards.
This kind of interaction is fine in one place, but becomes tedious and redundant when it represents the full competitive Constructed spectrum. Modern has better mana available to it than Standard, but it's used to do the same things. While Modern does support a combo component not present in Standard, the crossover between the two remains crowded."_
Cunningham goes on to conclude that Modern is being micromanaged. I have stated and conclude the exact same thing. And this micromanagment is giving Modern something of an identity crisis. The banning of Splinter Twin has emphasized this crisis perhaps more prominently than any other banning to date. Twin, was arguably the only competitive Blue deck in Modern. I am not suggesting all colours need equal representation in the format, however Modern is supposedly a middle ground. But, can we really say that this is true when Wizards is shaping it into a format that has much more in common with Standard? Where emphasis is placed upon creatures and not the other spells? If Modern is a middle ground then it should act as one, where creatures and noncreature spells are able to find some sort of median. Modern should be explosive, but not overly so. The Turn 4 Rule is a good rule. And noncreature strategies should not merely be reserved for Legacy.
To bring us back I would like to pose the following questions:
Considering recent and past trends, do you think that Wizards should be so heavy handed in its regulation of the Modern format? Consider not only what I have brought up, but examine the ban list as a whole. What restraints could, or should be lifted? And to what extent do you agree with the presented argument?
I would like to conclude by saying that just because a format is healthy, does not necessarily mean that it is fun. Modern lacks certain archetypes, as such it lacks certain perspectives from certain players. It now lacks the presence of a combo deck which kept other decks in check. A deck, that by all rights fit within the guidelines imposed by Wizards of the Coast.
APPLE01DOJ says... #3
I enjoyed Modern a lot more with Twin, than I currently am with Tron & Eldrazi as the only 2 decks in the meta.
Half these new bandwagon Tron players don't even know their own deck.
January 18, 2016 12:36 a.m. Edited.
Really great article and thread. While I disagree with some of it, I agree with others. I think it's unfair that we judge Modern as a format until this ban is officially used and shown at Pro Tour. Then, I believe as players, we can judge the format accordingly. Until then I believe it is foolish to get upset over this ban. Modern may be micromanaged but if it wasn't worth playing, then players wouldn't play it. Obvious, I know, but it's true. Until Pro Tour shows how the format will be defined, and that may be with only Tron and Bx Eldrazi (God help us if this happens), I don't think it's fair to judge it quite yet.
January 18, 2016 12:48 a.m.
APPLE01DOJ exactly...so sick of the mindless zombie bandwagon
January 18, 2016 2:58 a.m.
People like what they like. If someone's just playing a deck because everyone else is instead of finding something that they actually like, well that's pretty stupid. Obviously the Eldrazi are being pushed on us, and with the new bannings.. Of course people are going to try it out, because it could be the new competitive thing. I wouldn't call it a zombie bandwagon..
The Eldrazis IMO are pretty fun to play, and this is coming from a control player. I've never really been a huge creature rush down guy, but I like dropping giant bombs. I really think wizards needs to do a reevaluation on the modern format. I don't see how it makes sense that Jace, the Mind Sculptor can be banned still, while people are going to be having Newlamog on turn 4 and go. It really doesn't make sense to me.. Ya people will say he's to powerful, and he is.. But so is a turn 3 Karn, or a turn four Newlamog, or whatever other shenanigans the new turn 2 or 3 plays are going to happen now.
At least Jace will give birth to more control decks in modern, and give them a fighting chance. With not much to choose from aside from big giant creatures and cute lands to play, I don't really fault people for wanting to play whatever is the most competitive. But ya, rant over haha.
January 18, 2016 3:58 a.m. Edited.
Another point to consider is outlined excelently in this article. In brief
-wizards is a business and wants to make money
-pro tours are a grand marketing scheme to sell more cards
-they make far less money from modern than standard, as the second market make all the modern money
-they tried to make all pro tours standard, to solve the problem with modern pro tours not selling standard cards, we made such a fuss they changed it
-they now have to change the format before every modern pro tour for two reasons
1. It is interesting to watch, no one wants to watch a format which is the exact same as it was last week 2. They want to push standard cards into modern, so they sell better (unfortunately they think to do this they have to push older things out, which i don't believe to be true, as this pro tour would have been interesting to see the meta gaming around the new eldrazi)Basically this is the consequence of being able to watch modern at the pro tour stage, so the question is, is the change to modern really worth having modern pro tours?
January 18, 2016 4:21 a.m.
JexInfinite says... #8
There are two ways to change the format before the pro tour. The first is to print archetype defining cards. The problem with this is that Wizards can't control the meta, and can only push us towards decks, rather than create them for us. The meta changes so much that unless they effectively reprint Seething Song, it's doubtful that large change will happen. The second way is to mess with the ban list.
January 18, 2016 5:48 a.m.
Named_Tawyny says... #9
APPLE01DOJ, how can you say that you 'enjoyed the format more (before the twin ban)'?
We haven't seen the meta yet, nor has anybody played a single game under the new ban list. I think you might be being a wee bit reactive.
January 18, 2016 8:23 a.m.
EpicFreddi says... #10
The thing with Twin that I always hated was that it was the only combo where you literally couldn't do anything if you don't have a removal. All the other decks had either ways to fail (Griselshoal can just bluntly miss, even though its rare. Storm can end up with no finisher and even burn can run out of gas at some point). The other top tier decks like Tron and Scapeshift can all be disrupted. But Twin? If you con't have that one bolt or that one path, you're gone by turn 4.
January 18, 2016 8:25 a.m.
EpicFreddi says... #12
GlistenerAgent I see, good point. can't edit it now though. :D
January 18, 2016 8:52 a.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #13
Kyresh Wizards has options aside from using the ban list. If you want to engage the Modern player base it's quite simple: print more Modern cards in Standard. Now, while you can't be certain new archetypes will spring up I believe that Standard should maintain the power level of the RTR-ISD Standard. Those were two blocks that gave Modern several new tools to work with while having a fun and engaging Standard. The second option is, reprint Modern cards in Standard. And I'm not talking rares. I'm talking commons and uncommons that have become egregiously expensive.
January 18, 2016 9:14 a.m.
FAMOUSWATERMELON says... #14
Well we can't really complain about printing Modern cards in Standard, because Oath literally created a new archetype, and gave the rest a lot of fun toys.
Anyhow, I'll just copy this from Canadian's wall, it pretty much plans out my thoughts.
I think that a ban list in general is necessary to keep any format balanced, as mistakes in printing are inevitable (Skullclamp, for example). Ideally, I think there should be a perfect balance between printing strong new cards and making sure that cards that were clearly mistakes (most recently Treasure Cruise) don't mess up the delicate balance of the format. But I don't think bans should A) get rid of entire archetypes or B) make certain colors/major styles (Aggro, Midrange, Combo, Control) distinctly weaker than others. Hence part of the current problem.
As for specifics, such as the most recent bans (since I assume that you're asking the question for that article of yours), I feel very mixed. I'm partially worried because Twin was literally the definition of the format, and it feels like Modern is having a bit of an identity crisis at the moment because of that ban. It was basically the only blue deck, speaking broadly, that could stand up to the most competitive decks out there. What's more, it definitely feels like Midrange/Tron decks are getting a serious handle on the format, and that's pushing the Combo out. The Bloom ban I'm not going to talk about, just on terms of sheer power, it was too good.
However. I can't deny that the banning of Twin will undoubtably shake up the format. And for all the recent complaining that Modern has gotten stale (including me), here's your chance. Because now multiple brews can be tested, and some might actually stand a chance in the format. Control is without a doubt going to make a comeback, however small it is, and that makes me happy. The "problem" of Modern's identity might actually turn out to be a good thing once the dust settles.
So I guess it's a matter of looking at it. I feel pretty neutral, but that might change depending on what we see in coming months.
January 18, 2016 9:37 a.m.
However. I can't deny that the banning of Twin will undoubtably shake up the format. And for all the recent complaining that Modern has gotten stale (including me), here's your chance. Because now multiple brews can be tested, and some might actually stand a chance in the format. Control is without a doubt going to make a comeback, however small it is, and that makes me happy. The "problem" of Modern's identity might actually turn out to be a good thing once the dust settles.
FAMOUSWATERMELON I've been saying this since Twin was announced as banned and everyone said the world was falling. We don't even know what the meta will look like. Everyone should chill out. lol
January 18, 2016 11:20 a.m. Edited.
EpicFreddi says... #16
It will look more beatiful, with longer games and more fun. :v
January 18, 2016 11:22 a.m.
FAMOUSWATERMELON says... #17
DrFunk27 Exactly. Let's just enjoy the change while we can and stop freaking out about Tron supposedly about to take over the format :)
January 18, 2016 11:24 a.m.
FAMOUSWATERMELON There are plenty of decks that can and will keep Tron in check. I'm not worried about a T3 Karn or T4 Newlamog. It's tough to beat and it sucks, but it's not impossible. I think we will see a lot more Extirpate and Surgical Extraction
January 18, 2016 11:27 a.m.
EpicFreddi says... #19
That's the point DrFunk27. WIthout twin, any deck can still be beat even though it has the best start it could possibly have. But the Twin deck went from Serum Visions into Remand into Pestermite into Twin and you didn't even see it coming.
January 18, 2016 11:33 a.m.
EpicFreddi I know what it did. I lost many times to it and won many times with it. lol I played the more unfair of the variants with TarmoTwin so I'm well aware of it's capability lol As a prior Twin player, I'm sad it's gone but I'm not unhappy. It was too good for the growth and health of Modern.
January 18, 2016 11:35 a.m.
APPLE01DOJ says... #21
Named_Tawyny, I play on Untap.
All day yesterday with the exception of 1 match and I mean that literally, every match was Eldrazi Processors or Tron. The 1 exception was American Control.
January 18, 2016 11:37 a.m.
canterlotguardian says... #22
I think the problem is, what's going to happen next time when some archetype becomes the big scary neighbor across the street? Wizards has set a rather interesting premise with the Splinter Twin banning. Even before this, if a deck became too dominant or too format-warping, Wizards stepped in and regulated things with a banning. See Bloodbraid Elf in Jund or Birthing Pod in anywhere near half a dozen strategy iterations. But Splinter Twin, while undoubtedly a good, competitive deck archetype, was nowhere near format-warping. Did it win Pro Tours? Sure. It's a good deck, maybe even a great one. But it wasn't anywhere near 50 percent of the meta like Jund was at one point.
I think I also agree with car's sentiment, though. Not everything that was banned at one point needs to be banned forever. They proved that when they unbanned Wild Nacatl, and again when they unbanned Golgari Grave-Troll. Did either one of those unbannings completely warp the format in favor of their respective archetypes, Zoo and Dredge? Not even close. So while banning things may be necessary, unbannings may also not be a bad idea in the process.
January 18, 2016 11:37 a.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #23
canterlotguardian but that requires a far more liberal unban policy than is currently in place. My issue isn't necessarily that Twin is gone. Indeed, as a Control player I may begin to start playing Modern again. But, it is still worrisome because of the precedent set.
I would be heavily in favour of unbanning cards. Liberally so, if the right steps were taken. Modern has great potential, but by creating such a low ceiling Wizards is limiting that potential.
January 18, 2016 2:47 p.m.
canterlotguardian says... #24
Then why not print Modern-playable cards in Standard? Because that would ruin Standard? Who cares about Standard nowadays anyways? Probably a lot of people who aren't willing to sink tons of money into their decks in order to be competitive. INN-RTR provided Modern with so many playable cards, some of which turned out to be pure and simple staples. And they didn't warp Standard. Most weren't even played much in Standard. (Looking at you, Abrupt Decay).
January 18, 2016 3:24 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #25
canterlotguardian take it up with Wizards. This is one of the many issues I have with Modern and Standard by extension. No one is advocating massive power creep here. A consistent level of power in Standard is what is needed, not this nonsense of scaling it back every few months. Keep it consistent and everyone would be happy.
January 18, 2016 3:28 p.m.
Here is the current banned list, and my suggestion to Wizards as to what I feel they should do.
Ancestral Vision - Unban - This card, when suspended, is fairly balanced. The work required to cast this without suspending is rarely worth the effort, and is often inconsistent.
Ancient Den - Remain Banned
Birthing Pod - Remain Banned
Blazing Shoal - Remain Banned
Bloodbraid Elf - Uncertain - Arguments for it's unbanning are compelling, but there is no doubt in my mind that the power level of this card is a little high, and decks can be built to abuse the mechanic.
Chrome Mox - Uncertain - While this can enable some very degenerative starts, so do many other cards (Mox Opal!). The card disadvantage and requirements makes it a bad card in the late game, and even only 'okay' when the opener is not 'busted'.
Cloudpost - Remain Banned
Dark Depths - Remain Banned
Deathrite Shaman - Remain Banned
Dig Through Time - Remain Banned
Dread Return - Remain Banned
Glimpse of Nature - Remain Banned
Great Furnace - Remain Banned
Green Sun's Zenith - Remain Banned
Hypergenesis - Remain Banned
Jace, the Mind Sculptor - Uncertain - Again, there are many arguments for it's unbanning. I personally don't see this as any stronger than Liliana of the Veil, and as Modern/Standard has developed, it has become easier to deal with Planeswalkers. - Tricky though... would be risky.
Mental Misstep - Uncertain - I understand Wizards viewed this as a 'mental misstep' on their part, but the game really does need something that can counter a T1 play when you are on the draw.
Ponder - Uncertain - This and/or another 'dig' card is required for combo to really be a thing. If the meta is to be diverse, something like this is required. Serum Visions is good, but not quite what is needed.
Preordain - Uncertain - See above.
Punishing Fire - Remain Banned
Rite of Flame - Remain Banned
Seat of the Synod - Remain Banned
Second Sunrise - Remain Banned
Seething Song - Remain Banned
Sensei's Divining Top - Remain Banned
Skullclamp - Remain Banned
Splinter Twin - Unban - Wizards took a good deck in a balanced Meta and decided they didn't want balance. Their stated reasoning behind this recent ban makes no sense. If I were to ramble off such gibberish, I would have never graduated Kindergarden.
Stoneforge Mystic - Remain Banned
Summer Bloom - Remain Banned
Sword of the Meek - Remain Banned
Treasure Cruise - Remain Banned
Tree of Tales - Remain Banned
Umezawa's Jitte - Remain Banned
Vault of Whispers - Remain Banned
There are other cards I feel may be in consideration for banning, but with a balanced meta, there's not much to those ideas, so I won't mention them...
There are also cards not in Modern that I think should be printed in Modern legal sets that might help justify leaving these cards on the banned list. Just to name a couple: Shardless Agent, Opt, Foil... Force of Will?
January 18, 2016 3:36 p.m. Edited.
canterlotguardian says... #28
I would flip if Shardless Agent were Modern legal. I'd probably actually get back into Modern full-time if that were the case.
January 18, 2016 3:41 p.m.
ToolmasterOfBrainerd says... #29
While we're talking Legacy staples, I want Baleful Strix and True-Name Nemesis in modern. They're so much fun and probably wouldn't be too broken. Yeah, everyone's about to flip and say TNN is too powerful, but that's a different discussion. Without Stoneforge Mystic or a strong control deck, 3 damage per turn isn't exactly a serious threat.
As for the banlist, Mental Misstep is a definite no. Ponder and JTMS would be fun and Ancestral Vision could help the format, but they are pretty powerful.
January 18, 2016 4:32 p.m.
The Real Reason Twin Got Banned
This is by far the best way to summarize WHY Twin got banned. This guy nails it on the head. We, the players, caused this effect.
We made Wizards host a Modern Pro Tour every year. Having a "irrational" banning every year is the unintended consequence of our decision. If Pro Tour Oath of the Gatewatch was Standard, Splinter Twin would still be in the format. If Pro Tour Fate Reforged was Standard, it's likely you'd still be able to play with Birthing Pod.
We can fight and argue over whether banning Splinter Twin was the right choice. But there's no argument as to why this ban happened. These bans will continue to happen as long as we have a Modern Pro Tour. Wizards is trying its best to make us happy by keeping the Modern Pro Tour, while still achieving its one and only goal of making a profit.
We did this to ourselves, accidentally and ignorant of the consequences, but it was our pitchforks that got Splinter Twin banned. It will be our pitchforks that get another card from a tier one deck banned next year and the year after that. Wizards is simply trying to make lemons into lemonade.
Look everyone. Wizards is a company. The fact is, they don't make much, if any, money off Modern. Wizards doesn't want Magic to be a game where players invest X dollars, then never spend anymore. They want Magic to be a game where players always have to keep paying money to play. That's why they want to kill Vintage and Legacy. It's why they've switched to the new block cadence. And it's another reason why they want to keep "shaking Modern up." The idea that a player can invest in a deck, then keep playing competitive Magic with it, is a fantasy.
January 18, 2016 5:50 p.m. Edited.
pumpkinwavy says... #31
True-Name Nemesis IS too powerful, and not at all part of any format wizards is trying to create. There's literally no interacting with it.
On the Twin banning, I trust in WOTC that it legitimately needed to go. Imo, this 'turn 4 rule' is completely arbitrary and not helpful in any way. The argument that 'oh twin can't win before turn 4 and is therefore completely fair' doesn't make much sense because turn 4 is no longer fundamentally different from any other turn. STANDARD decks can win on turn 3, so why is turn 4 so important for modern? This is probably what kept twin in the format for much longer than it should've been.
On the point of identity: this is exactly the problem wizards was addressing! The 'rules of the format' that twin created was holding down diversity by automatically making certain decks unplayable.
I think everyone needs to chill for a bit and trust wizards a bit more. They were right about pod, they'll probably end up being right about twin. The only I have about this is the unforeseen rise of the eldrazi (no pun intended). This deck may become too powerful without twin there, but Ghost Quarters should be able to take care of all that.
About modern becoming more like standard, I think that all formats are basically the same, since it's all the same game. In standard, we have a bunch of midrange decks, a control deck, a red aggro deck, a big-mana deck, and a creature- based combo deck. In modern, we have some midrange decks, a red based aggro deck, a big-mana deck, some pure combo decks, some not, some creature based synergy decks, which I would compare again to the combo deck in standard, and so on. In legacy we have much the same thing, with a lower and lower mana curve. Yes wizards wants creatures to be a part of the game, but that's becasue they should be a part of the game. They still are printing many powerful spells, but they are interacting with creatures more and more (Collected Company, Kolaghan's Command). I don't see why this is necessarily a bad thing.
Anyway, that's my two sense. Just trust in wizards and give it some time.
January 18, 2016 5:51 p.m.
Troy242621 says... #32
It's weird that I hear people say control decks aren't as strong as they ought to be in Modern, and I agree with it, but it seems like everyone I talk to doesn't want to ever have to play against a strong control deck and are perfectly happy with Blue being left out of the spotlight.
Then there's the fact that the actually strong control components are pretty expensive, at least to me. Hell this alone is pretty costly in my opinion:
January 18, 2016 5:52 p.m.
ToolmasterOfBrainerd says... #34
DrFunk27 After reading the excerpt of the article you posted, I think you're actually right. Clearly a lot of people thought twin was reasonable, but they had to change something to keep the Pro Tour interesting, and twin was the closest thing they could justify banning. And to get enough talk about the banlist to make the Pro Tour really significant, they had to destroy Twin rather than Nerf it.
That said, a Stoneforge Mystic or JTMS unban would have been a much better meta shaker-upper than a Twin ban.
Now I really want to see Kiki-Chord or Kiki Twin win the Pro Tour, just for the irony.
As for TNN, put in a modern deck and play it. You'll see quickly that it's real home is Legacy, not modern. But power aside, it is non-interactive and is the exact opposite of what Wizards is trying to do with modern.
January 18, 2016 5:59 p.m.
pumpkinwavy says... #35
Very interesting article, thanks for linking. Probably is all true, but I stand by all my points. A lot of people are always asking for wizards to 'shake things up', and this is what they've done by banning Splinter Twin. It is a bit crazy that it was printed in MMA 2, but it was probably the last gp where it put 3 copies into the top8 that did it in. Imagine if the pro tour had 3 copies in the top8, and then one of them won? Then they would have had a boring pro tour, and then they'd have to ban it anyway.
To clarify, I'm not just some salty person who lost to twin one too many times. I didn't play it, but I always enjoyed playing against it and shocked when I heard it was banned. I've come to accept that maybe it is okay after all.
January 18, 2016 6:05 p.m.
pumpkinwavy At some point, players will have to come to grips with reality that 1.) Wizards needs to make money, and Modern doesn't do that and 2.) If they don't want Wizards to change Modern, they need to stop featuring it for large events. The latter option would turn Modern into Legacy, and then we are back at square one where Wizards really doesn't care if a format thrives or survives. X years down the road, they would just create another format, and let Modern die. We, as players, CANNOT have the cake and eat it too. So which do you want? A non regulated and nonadvertised format? Or a format that features a Pro Tour and that Wizards really wants to nurture? I choose the latter.
January 18, 2016 6:31 p.m.
ToolmasterOfBrainerd says... #37
They should unban to shake up the format rather than ban without convincing reasoning. Had they unbanned Ancestral Vision, who would be complaining? I know I wouldn't.
January 18, 2016 6:39 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #38
I'm still waiting to be shown proof that Wizards is being forced to ban Twin instead of literally anything else. Such as:
Reprint Modern cards in Standard. Such as Terminate or any of the various uncommons and commons.
Print actual Modern viable cards in Standard.
Shake up the metagame through unbanning something.
To act as if there are no other options aside from banning is foolishness.
pumpkinwavy "On the point of identity: this is exactly the problem wizards was addressing! The 'rules of the format' that twin created was holding down diversity by automatically making certain decks unplayable."
And your evidence for this is what? That Wizards says so? Twin was no more dominant than anything else. It had about 9-11% of the meta, which is fairly reasonable considering previous bans in the format.
"About modern becoming more like standard, I think that all formats are basically the same, since it's all the same game."
Well this is just demonstrably false. Legacy and Vintage prove this through their very existence, so you're factually incorrect here.
January 18, 2016 6:41 p.m.
pumpkinwavy says... #39
What would reprinting Terminate do to fixing moderns problems? Even Serum Visions or iok reprint would do nothing but reduce the entry barrier to modern. And plenty of modern playable are being printed! Jace, k command, coco, Monastery Mentor, Monastery Swiftspear, and lots of others.I agree with your third point. Unbanning could really help. Just ask the card on the banned list are too powerful for modern, with the exception of Sword of the Meek, which has no business being banned. I don't have time right now to address the rest, but I'm not just disagreeing with you about everything.
January 18, 2016 7:05 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #40
pumpkinwavy reprinting Modern cards in Standard blocks would do a great deal to entice Modern players to open packs Standard cards. Which would equal money for Wizards of the coast.
January 18, 2016 7:11 p.m.
CanadianShinobi pumpkinwavy Exactly. If only they would do reprint modern cards in standard correctly and not this clusterfuck of PowerBall they called Expeditions. What a joke that was/is.
January 18, 2016 7:28 p.m.
ToolmasterOfBrainerd says... #42
Expeditions are for Legacy players. They were never meant to reprint things to reduce price. Regardless, more reprints is something very few people would complain about. Of course, people who already have them would be annoyed because they paid more, but that could be counteracted if the original printings were more valuable and the newer printings were less so, such as with white bordered cards....
Okay white borders would never go over well, but more reprints would help a lot.
January 18, 2016 7:58 p.m.
While I understand that Twin might not have NEEDED the ban hammer, I feel it is critical to point out that since the banning of Bloodbraid Elf, not a single banning has completely destroyed a deck archetype. Granted, Bloom Titan probably will not recover, but Jund is still a deck without bloodbraid; pod decks have morphed into CoCo decks if you want the Melira combo AND just recently Jeff Hoogland's Kiki-Chord deck if you instead want a deck whose creature base is almost 50% silver bullets; EGGS actually still was a deck despite the banning of Second Sunrise, but it takes so long to combo off that you usually get DQ'd for slowplay, which is the real culprit in killing that deck (thank God it finally died)! My point is, none of Wizard's recent nerfs -aside from the nerf to Bloom Titan, which no-one seems to be sad to see go- has outright killed a deck. Considering all of these bans, I actually approve of the bans Wizards have been making. Decks that are not fun to play against (like Eggs and Bloom Titan) simply die, while established decks are nerfed, but eventually recover.
Is twin really gone for good? I doubt it. Sure, Kiki slows the combo down by one turn, but the combo still plays at instant speed AND still has access to the entire control structure of the deck. Slowing a control deck down by a turn usually isn't a death sentence. This is in line with Wizards other recent bans, and strikes me as fair, even if not popular. As to whether or not Twin NEEDED the ban... it probably was not yet necessary, but I would rather not wait until it is, as Modern was largely becoming solved. The meta decks took up 5%+ of the meta per deck, and rogue brews were still fighting for 3% shares.
I'm more concerned about the upcoming eldrazi decks. What scares me most isn't when Wizards tries to stop a deck from working; there will always be johnnies that bring the deck up to its maximum potential and make it T2 at worst. Rather, I fear when Wizards tries to push a new archetype onto the player base, because no matter how much testing the company does, the player-base will always find a way to break it beyond what Wizards could have predicted. This is simply a personal fear, and time will tell of its validity.
More concerning is the fact that only Tron seems decidedly favored against the Bx eldrazi decks, and Tron is already coming back thanks to the nerf to what will now be Kiki-Exarch. This sets Tron up to get nerfed, maybe even before the Pro Tour simply so that we don't have a meta that is 60% colorless "expensive stuff" decks. The fact that these same decks will likely be seen running around in standard only reinforces the idea that Modern is being turned into a high-powered version of Standard. The problem is that Wizards pushed the format towards midrange decks via the banning of Twin, and then further pushed it towards midrange in OGW. This destabilizes the format as a whole, as one major archetype is now disgustingly well supported while two other major archetypes (control and combo) are comparatively feeble and decrepit. Assuming Tron and Bx Eldrazi are counted as midrange decks, and are thus excluded from these tally, control decks are left with 10% of the meta divided among all control decks, combo makes up 15% of the meta, midrange decks make up 22% of the meta and are expected to see a marked increase, and aggro decks make up 34% of the meta. 17% is un-accounted for.
To compensate for this, I would not mind seeing some cards unbanned which support control (cantrips mayhaps), as most of the cards which support control decks end up helping combo decks as well to a lesser extent. A great example of this would be unbanning Preordain and Ancestral Vision, as these cards do a good job of supporting blue (a color which has suffered of late), improving draw consistency (which helps both combo and control decks), and don't do anything explicitly broken. Preordain is a marginal improvement over Serum Visions, and Ancestral Vision takes time to get going, so it will not break any combo decks in that they might violate the turn 4 rule. Even in storm, Visions telegraphs the turn you might try to go off, and while it's probably worth running anyway, storm is already a deck against which more than sufficient hate has been printed. Bx Eldraxi and Tron can both grab a Trinisphere or 3. Problem solved. I wouldn't go so far as to un-ban jace, but this is because I would want to see where a post nerf Kiki-Exarch sits before providing it with a perfect hole to fill its t4.
As to where I stand on this article, I'll tackle it point by point.
1) modern is volatile: This is entirely the fault of Wizards RnD. While they cannot be expected to have perfect foresight, they have to at least test whether or not the removal/permission suite or failing that, the hate/tech suite available to Modern players is strong enough to handle a certain card. Basically: Does modern have a good way to 1-for-1 any new card. In recent sets, RnD have done an admirable job of this, managing to provide a replacement for pod in CoCo without making it as busted as pod was, generate new creatures which again are good, but not format breaking (such as newlamogg), and providing new hate cards (like Crumble to Dust) which are great sideboard material but which do not completely annihilate an archetype.
2) it's unsexy: I'll give Cunningham some slack here given the age of the article, but Modern has been explosively attractive to players new and old recently, it has been relatively well balanced, and while Wizards does not trust the player base, I can't say I blame them. The entire point of being a competitive player is to find the one card which Wizards weren't cautious enough with and to break it as hard as you can. Yes Wizards treats the player-base like irresponsible children who break everything they touch because that IS the player-base's job. I'm not saying Wizards needs to neuter Modern, but rather that they have to be careful maintaining the balance of power, and if doing so means restricting access to certain cards, so be it.
3) It's Familiar: The point here is that Modern is becoming more and more creature based. I can't fight this one at all; it is simply the truth. I don't necessarily have a problem with this one, and modern even has a decent supply of sweepers. This said, control decks need access to more early-game creatures with a control element (like Spellskite but less powerful) to slow the game down. Kalitas was an example of this, but one card from OGW is not enough to revive control as an archetype.
Summatively: While Wizards individual departments seem to be doing well, there needs to be more cohesion across the company so that one of the four major archetypes doesn't get over-supported like midrange is about to be. If the company continues the way it is currently operating, Modern will never see a healthy distribution of archetypes, but will instead swing drunkenly between extremes. Bans happen, but they need to happen to maintain the balance of power and keep a diverse meta, but the overall health of the meta needs to be considered a little more carefully by Wizards in the future. As for unbanning things, I think Wizards is being a bit timid and could afford to at least give us access to better draw spells and maybe Sword of the Meek, but most of the cards on the ban list exist in strictly worse forms in Modern already, and being forced to play on a slightly lower power level does promote diversity, as otherwise un-usable combos and cards become powerful enough to compete, even if only in T 1.5 lists.
January 19, 2016 2:58 a.m.
PrimeEpoch says... #44
Personally, I think they're making not making modern diverse enough. I think WOTC are prioritising their profits over customer satisfaction, and being a big company, they want returns. I don't think that calls for the banning of dominating/ overpowered decks instead of nerfing them though.
One example I have is the Birthing Pod deck. I loved this deck, and I had played it from when I first got into modern right up until it got banned. I just liked the way the deck worked, where no card was completely useless and you could do something with pretty much everything. I agree it was dominating the format, but I think it would be much better to ban the combo pieces like melira or archangel for those pod decks, but keep open the option to play the same kind of deck without the same level of domination.
I feel the same thing has happened with twin, except the deck was nowhere near as dominating. If it was up to me, I would ban either Pestermite or Deceiver Exarch to make the combo less consistent, or do something like like ban one of the core components and print a nerfed version (like Pestermite without flash). This would do exactly what WOTC are doing now, except keep the diversity and make the player base generally happier.
I understand WOTC want to make money, but the main reason people spend money on the game (in my experience) is for either completing a deck, or venturing out to discover a new archetype. Neither of these are supported by banning decks. Why would you invest into a new deck that could be banned at any time? Why would you invest into a deck that doesn't play at the same level as the general meta is at? Why would you finish a tier 1 deck if you still need to spend 200 or $200 on it, if your investment isn't likely to give you the full deck for a long time?
car says... #2
I agree with a lot of it. Twin was vital to the format, and set a clock. Not everything on the list deserves a ban. Sword of the meek isnt that great. I think that they should be a little softer on us. Some of the banlist is vital. Elfclamp is too good
January 18, 2016 midnight