The September 20th 2011 Banned / Restricted List Update Reaction Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joemauer

How about we make a "I Miss Mental Misstep" thread?

---

You mean so we can stop derailing this thread with our discussion of our reactions to its banning? Good call. What was this thread's title again?

At this point I'm just trying to figure out what the purpose is of discussing a card that no longer exists in the format we play in but rather focusing on the future development of the format that is about to unravel itself in the coming weeks.

These discussions are just cyclic at this point and it doesn't matter why Mental Misstep is gone, except that it is gone. We can go on and on about why it left and the reasons Wizards had in doing so, but they've already explained why they felt it was necessary - and that is (fortunately or unfortunately) that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlueNevus

If combo gets out of control, I hope Wizards prints some strong anti-combo cards that aren't limited to that use and are not blue, rather than ban important combo pieces, one by one. I actually like the idea of MM that was only for non-creature spells.

---

So you think Gaddock Teeg, Cannonist etc. are "weak"? I heared questionable arguments against maindecking them then TES was popular such as "too narrow against other matchups". I know that some players want a white 1cc 3/3 with Arcane Lab attached but if you pair a strong clock with a element of denial it gets easily out of hand and become a auto-4-of that dominates the metagame like Lodestone Golem.

Narrow it to non-creature would spare only Lackey and Nacatl, 2 creatures control near auto-looses too. But based in their explanation to want Combo-hate being available in all colors this should have been the wording.

@joemauer

The meta right before misstep wasn't more diverse, that's a illusion spread on the board. Misstep indeed take steam out of High Tide, TES and 8-outs-Goblins but gave a shitload of midrange decks their spot in the meta that were unplayable before because misstep slowed the game down. Check data from theCounsil.es during that time instead of repeating untrue phrases acting like a douche. "Go play another format" is always a bad solution.


@WotC and all interested

Trying to "break blue's dominance" by making misstep a BLUE card and then afterwards wonder why it's played in BLUE decks is the ... by far ... dumbest thing I've read in a B&R justification next to "Gentlemans Agreement".

This card should have been a white taxed effect. A white-phyrexian-mana Force Spike.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zilla

It's arguable that this was a significant contributing factor to their being the best/most popular decks in the format before Misstep was banned.

---

I would completely agree with that statement. But that's why I made the statement that Misstep was no better than Pierce or Snare. In the environment leading up to its ban, it was a poor tool to fight the top decks. And whether or not a card is objectively stronger is irrelevant; no card exists in a vaccuum. I could argue all day long that Lord of Tresserhorn should be better than Progenitus because he costs less mana to hardcast. But we all know that Swords to Plowshares is probably the most played non-blue card in the format, and good buddy sucks it to Plow.

Or for those of us who remember back when Ancestral Visions was first spoiled, the argument that went on over Visions v. Standstill. At the time, Visions was worse, not because Standstill was stronger but because if you're playing a Landstill mirror and you Visions and your opponent Standstills, you're a sad freaking panda. But now, Standstill has been out of the format for a while, meaning that interaction just won't happen. And Visions gets the nod in every deck that wants to run actual draw (not filter). Neither Visions nor Standstill had their text changed, but the context has changed completely.

I feel like I need to take a moment to apologize to Admiral Arzar. I was pretty much a giant dickhead in my last post. It probably doesn't fall into the category of flaming since it wasn't aimed at anyone per se, but it was in the line of my argument with him. And it probably wasn't my best behavior ever. I'm sorry. Kittens and rainbows and all that. Wub, wub. But I'm still saying that in Legacy, Misstep was heavily overrated. It was a good card. I ran it. But I also recognize that if the tool you're using isn't beating the things you need it to beat, it's time to discard it in favor of another tool. Spell Pierce was phenomenal against NO RUG because it stops GSZ and NO. By controlling the pace of the game, you can slow the deck down enough to beat them to death. It wasn't bad against Stoneblade either, as it stopped Jace and screwed with their tempo. Barring the turn 2 Stoneforge, Pierce gave you a lot of time against that deck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

This card should have been a white taxed effect. A white-phyrexian-mana Force Spike.

---

Dunno if taxing any kind of spell would have been a better solution, maybe 4 more Dazes would have been extra annoying to play against (and making more people walk away from the format).

But I really like the fact that Wizards have been actively experimenting to make an efficient answer against fast combo, Cards like Mindbreak trap, Flusterstorm, Mental Misstep make me think that Wizards wants to make them work, but in this format trial and error seems like their best way of testing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sligh16

Dunno if taxing any kind of spell would have been a better solution, maybe 4 more Dazes would have been extra annoying to play against (and making more people walk away from the format).

But I really like the fact that Wizards have been actively experimenting to make an efficient answer against fast combo, Cards like Mindbreak trap, Flusterstorm, Mental Misstep make me think that Wizards wants to make them work, but in this format trial and error seems like their best way of testing.

---

Daze can be played around, slows down games, hit combo decks and the 1cc-gg-cards like Vial. Without "removing their playability" that was moaned on the board in terms of misstep. If this is white One-the-draw-daze earns seriously the same hate as the blue hardcounter misstep I too get the feeling that the cursade against misstep is indeed from the Nacatl/Vial/Lackey fraction to have their threats unanswerable

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

The meta right before misstep wasn't more diverse, that's a illusion spread on the board. Misstep indeed take steam out of High Tide, TES and 8-outs-Goblins but gave a shitload of midrange decks their spot in the meta that were unplayable before because misstep slowed the game down. Check data from theCounsil.es during that time instead of repeating untrue phrases acting like a douche. "Go play another format" is always a bad solution.

---

This!!!

By diversity a great deal of people mean "Goblins!" and a good deal supporting them silently because they play with LEDs and Chandelabras.. We don't need to see the same 4-5 year old decks placing top8s for diversity. Let the format evolve for god's sake. Abolish Goblins and beat blue with Maverick, full of 2 drops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

I too get the feeling that the cursade against misstep is indeed from the Nacatl/Vial/Lackey fraction to have their threats unanswerable

---

This too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpikeyMikey

I feel like I need to take a moment to apologize to Admiral Arzar. I was pretty much a giant dickhead in my last post. It probably doesn't fall into the category of flaming since it wasn't aimed at anyone per se, but it was in the line of my argument with him. And it probably wasn't my best behavior ever. I'm sorry. Kittens and rainbows and all that. Wub, wub. But I'm still saying that in Legacy, Misstep was heavily overrated. It was a good card.

---

No problem, man. I was the one who accused you of being on drugs, after all. I agree that Misstep was overrated - the issue is that it was so overrated that it created the illusion that it was the best card in the format - and nobody really disputed that illusion. Even if a card isn't the best, if everybody is playing the card it becomes extremely difficult to play any deck that is bad against it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

If this is white One-the-draw-daze earns seriously the same hate as the blue hardcounter misstep I too get the feeling that the cursade against misstep is indeed from the Nacatl/Vial/Lackey fraction to have their threats unanswerable

---

I'm not really an aggro player, but I believe that there shouldn't be a card that answers ALL of those cards (in addition to a lot of the best combo accelerants, etc.) for so cheap a cost. I'd rather control players have to work for their wins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Admiral_Arzar

I'm not really an aggro player, but I believe that there shouldn't be a card that answers ALL of those cards (in addition to a lot of the best combo accelerants, etc.) for so cheap a cost. I'd rather control players have to work for their wins.

---

To play a little Devil's Advocate here, how hard do you feel that aggro and combo players have to work for their wins in a format that doesn't include Mental Misstep?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Admiral_Arzar

I'm not really an aggro player, but I believe that there shouldn't be a card that answers ALL of those cards (in addition to a lot of the best combo accelerants, etc.) for so cheap a cost. I'd rather control players have to work for their wins.

---

maybe it shouldn't ... at least not for 2 life. That brings me to an interesting questions I had lately: If pay 2 Life to Counter a spell is so cheap that people brainlessly sling their missteps on every target they find and FoW is considered on the Edge of being fair hardcountering a spell if you 2 for 1 yourself, what would have been a fair cost for misstep? 2 phyrexian mana? Pitch?

When I say diversity: I mean a format full of viable decks such as lands,ANT, and enlightened thopter decks. These decks all require a good amount of skill to play.

When I say less diverse: I mean a format lacking the aforementioned decks and being full of decks that either play Mental Misstep or play around Mental Misstep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Namida

To play a little Devil's Advocate here, how hard do you feel that aggro and combo players have to work for their wins in a format that doesn't include Mental Misstep?

---

They do have to work for their wins. The loss of Mental Misstep doesn't suddenly make all the blue decks favorable matchups for combo. Aggro is more favored against blue, but then again, it should be. It's combo's job to keep aggro under control.

The problem here really is that combo has a shot against control... maybe like 40 vs 60. Aggro has about 20-80 against combo. Also, combo can pack hate against control in their boards, while aggro's options against combo are extremely limited and might not apply to multiple different combo decks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarthVicious

1st - If McDonalds didn't listen to their customers, they wouldn't still be serving millions of customers a day. Same with Wizards or any other large company. They want to produce and support a game that is fun above all else.

---

Maybe your missing the point. There is nothing wrong with Wizards of the Coast making Magic Cards, I want them to make the best in every set. But I do have a problem when they are police their own cards.

It's like McDonalds and the FDA are the same company. Does that seem normal?


Currently there are two forms of Magic. Casual and Tournament; and typically casual players abide to the format rules because they dont have to inflect house rules upon others and their decks are universally acceptable when meeting players outside their playing circle.

Tournament magic is played at the same aggressive level as poker or anyother games that reqiures a players to put up cash for a chance to win a prize. In a sense a Magic Deck is like playing BINGO but we are allowed to alter the numbers on the card and for a few extra dollars we can add numbers that are mostly likely to be called upon (Duals, Force of Will, Goyf, etc). It does amazes me how this underage gambling is often overlooked for what it is... GAMBLING.

I believe DCI should be run a Gambling Commission (not Wizards of the Coat). Cards that are banned/restricted are based upon another entity that has no control on the making of magic cards. If the card is powerful and banned at that point I'm ok.

As I see it, Mental Misstep distrups the gamblers more then casual players because they are forced play the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Draener

The problem here really is that combo has a shot against control... maybe like 40 vs 60. Aggro has about 20-80 against combo. Also, combo can pack hate against control in their boards, while aggro's options against combo are extremely limited and might not apply to multiple different combo decks.

---

This is an uneccesarily broad generalization. Matchups between the three archetypes depend exclusively on which decks are involved. Zoo is quite strong against Painter-Grindstone or Cephalid Breakfast, while being highly unfavored against TES. Merfolk crushes Hive Mind and other slow, blue-based combo decks, but has a much more even matchup against Spiral Tide or ANT. The aforementioned Spiral Tide crushes slower blue decks that can't put up much of a clock, but is also slow enough to be in danger against Goblins' or Zoo's fast draws (to say nothing of Affinity, where Cunning Wish -> Rebuild is often too slow to save you). As for good aggro sideboard cards, try Thorn of Amethyst. I can't really think of a combo deck it doesn't hinder in some way off the top of my head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Admiral_Arzar

They do have to work for their wins. The loss of Mental Misstep doesn't suddenly make all the blue decks favorable matchups for combo. Aggro is more favored against blue, but then again, it should be. It's combo's job to keep aggro under control.

---

My thought process is that aggro and combo seek to dominate the early game by applying pressure, while control seeks to endure the early game because control is unmatched in the late game. Combo is faster than Aggro, so Mental Misstep was printed to give the decks that are slower than combo (Mainly aggro, which is generally not blue) an ability to endure combo by slowing it down. The unintended effect was giving control (mainly blue) more answers for the early game (where aggro/combo should shine), making it that much easier to reach a point in the game where it is very unlikely for decks to outmatch control.

Basically, the Rock Paper Scissors analogy holds some weight, but shouldn't taken as law. Wizards doesn't think combo should crush aggro, but trying to solve that issue made control crush everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lancer

I believe DCI should be run a Gambling Commission (not Wizards of the Coat). Cards that are banned/restricted are based upon another entity that has no control on the making of magic cards. If the card is powerful and banned at that point I'm ok.

---

I understand your point, but I feel like the idea in application would be such that cards like Mental Misstep would never see print due to Wizards being wholly conservative in the card making process given that they would have no control over what their cards do to tournament play once they leave the printing press. They are capable of trying radical designs because they have the power to police their own creations.

And...well, gamblers will gamble on anything. Players won't just play anything. So the company will cater to casual players before they will cater to anyone who just wants to compete, because at the end of the day you'd probably enter a tournament piloting a Ham Sandwich if it were the best deck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lancer

Maybe your missing the point. There is nothing wrong with Wizards of the Coast making Magic Cards, I want them to make the best in every set. But I do have a problem when they are police their own cards.

It's like McDonalds and the FDA are the same company.

---

I see your point, and I'll concede that maybe Wizards should have a separate company controlling the ban list.

What I am talking about is how ridiculous it seems to me that this thread is well over twenty pages already. And there's really nothing in it that positively contributes to anyone's knowledge of the format, the rules of the game, or what have you.

Then again, one thread isn't so bad. These 20+ pages could be clogging up each individual decks threads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarthVicious

I see your point, and I'll concede that maybe Wizards should have a separate company controlling the ban list.

What I am talking about is how ridiculous it seems to me that this thread is well over twenty pages already. And there's really nothing in it that positively contributes to anyone's knowledge of the format, the rules of the game, or what have you.

Then again, one thread isn't so bad. These 20+ pages could be clogging up each individual decks threads.

---

And this is a reaction thread. If you want a thread that positively contributes to knowledge of the format, I made one already. It's currently about half way down the page.

http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...e-format-going

It'd be a fine place to discuss what we expect to see going forward.

Also, if you've been following this thread, I've pointed out two things that I think were a positive contribution to knowledge of the format, namely the heavy warping effect that Green Sun's Zenith has on the metagame and the argument that Misstep was on par with Snare and Pierce. That's just from me. Other people have made poignant, cognizant statements about the format and the effects of the new banning too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarthVicious

I see your point, and I'll concede that maybe Wizards should have a separate company controlling the ban list.

---

No, there shouldn't.

The McDonald's and FDA analogy posted earlier is terrible. The FDA is responsible for regulating products made by thousands of restaurants, pharmaceutical companies, manufacturers, etc. McDonald's is only one such company. And where the analogy really fails is that in the hypothetical case that McDonald's and FDA were run by the same company, there would be a strong conflict of interest between McDonald's desire to sell more product and the FDA's goals of protecting consumer safety.

There is no such problem with Magic. Wizards tries to make money by producing fun products. The DCI tries to keep the format fun by banning cards that are degenerate or would otherwise reduce the diversity and/or interactivity of the format. The appropriate analogy is more like a company both making a product and providing tech support, and possibly offering warranties or making recalls when the product is defective. Seems fine to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joemauer

When I say diversity: I mean a format full of viable decks such as lands,ANT, and enlightened thopter decks.

---

How many will actually play Lands and how many will carry it to top 8s? It is way too slow and will be. Lands will be as viable as it was in the MM era.

ANT was still played in Europe. However with MM combo could evolve and produce decks like Hive Mind because people couldn't pack up storm combo decks as easily. Isn't that good for diversity? Seeing new decks around?

I'd rather play BUG Landstill over Enlightened tutor thopter deck as a control player.

Meanwhile what will happen to the Maverick and Reanimator decks? Those two were nice to see around. I'd say seeing new archetypes is always a positive thing for the meta.

I can't possibly understand how people can claim format will be more diverse while we will be losing most of the new decks (and yes, non blue ones. Blue will find its way anyways) but we'll be seeing Goblins and Storm combo all over the place once again. Didn't we have enough of those already? Isn't it enough to still prepare against Counter-Top decks?

If control can reliably control the early game with MM you go with two drops (Maverick!) and then smash face. All it takes is a little adaptation. If control can deal with fast creatures then you play relatively slower utility creatures. That's it.

Then the format evolves and we have more diversity. Playing against the same decks which have been around for ages doesn't contribute to diversity in my book. Plus when people refuse to play Burn (yes, play that against those midrange blue decks) or Maverick enough and then argue about aggro losing its ground against control (because they can't play goblins anymore) they shouldn't be complaining about MM at all.

I don't like playing against the same 75 cards for 4-5 years. I don't like it when people stick to their pet decks and refuse to evolve. If control decks see an opportunity in MM and evolve around that (yes it was an obvious evolution, I admit) but other archetypes just try to stay where they are and then fail, control will dominate for sure. If you want diversity just be creative and play decks that punish the many vulnerabilities of UW Stoneblade.

It's too late for that now obviously and I'm sad to be stuck with this static Zoo/Goblins/Storm/Counter-Top meta for several years more. And there'll be people playing their pet decks (still losing mind you) and cheering about diversity. I'm still hesitant whether to complete the Team America deck I've started putting together for the past 2-3 months or to sell all my magic (except my 13 year old Counter Phoenix deck of course hehe) because the only format I'm interested in (Legacy) hasn't gotten one bit more interesting since I've started following it in 2006. When it did, it just got axed back to the way it was..