All B/R update speculation.

[Claymore]

Put Survival on the stack a few times, in response LED for GGG, grab VengeVines, use LED mana to discard VengeVines for Hollow Ones, play out the Hollows and Vines...seems decent. Certainly much more broken stuff to do.

[Crimhead]

Pretty sure the difference between Survival of the Fittest and all the other garbage cards you named is that Survival HAS seen play in Legacy before. So much so that it actually got banned.

Totally. Comparing concern the Survival might be OP to the alarmism over unplayable cards is not really correct.
At the very least we know Survival will fit into a deck that is at least functional. And we can anticipate a large and keen player base to test it out (something Vise and Twist will never have).

Certainly much more broken stuff to do.

I think the issue isn't that Survival shenanigans are too broken on their own. But rather that they (might be) too broken to include in a fair deck that can (supposedly) play just fine without doing anything unfair at all.

Personally I think it's too soon. If Survival were to get unbanned only to require rebanning, WotC looses a ton of player confidence - more so than if they had to unban a card that had never been legal (like Vise). I personally don't believe WotC has a lot of confidence to spare. Seems like a huge potential risk. And what's the potential reward? A format where creature decks/strategies are even better than they already are? If I were the DCI, I would not take the gamble.

[Gheizen64]

If survival get unbanned and need rebanning then hell just froze over.

Speaking in hypoteticals, this would just be an experiment to shake a bit the format, and even if it failed in the end, the format would have been less stale than it was. This isn't standard where bans on top of constant rotations are a huge financial annoyance. No one is losing anything as most legacy players already have invested in said unbanned cards (SotF, Bargain, Frantic search for example) and we have 2 GPs an year, and no one that live on playing legacy.

[Rascalyote]

I think play-wise Survival is -probably- fine. I know price shouldn't really be a factor but the card is already really expensive and on the reserved list, and if you thought cards like Land Tax spiked after an unban then just imagine this one.

[Zombie]

Nobody ever talked about banning ponder or preordain either. As good as those are, the don't draw 3. They're more or less of the same power level of things like GSZ, Library, Confidant etc... And they don't push show and tell from the level of playable to really good cause they don't unstuck redundant combo pieces from your hand.

It's just the usual and dishonest slippery slope fallacy.

Not quite right - there are people who argue for more parts of the blue stew, and I'd say the vibe is a bit more towards "blue stew as a phenomenon is too much and needs to stop" from "Brainstorm is busted ffs" than it used to. I used to be in the Brainstorm only camp, but Shay's essay on Xerox and looking at the game since has made at least me uneasy. Brainstorm's ridiculous and should just go, but I fear I'd have to argue for the other two as well. I don't want to, casting cantrips is fun and I think Ponder and Preordain are at least in abstract of a permissible power level, but Xerox.format is less fun. I definitely don't want to swing the hammer on them in the same go as Brainstorm, I'd rather see if BS being gone is enough to give other engines a leg up. After Brainstorm I'd much rather go after several dumbostan wincons like TNN, Griseltard and friends.


re; Black Vise, a large number of the detractors were doomsayers who thought it'd be Delver #5-8, sure. But a large number also thought that the case for unbanning Vise was basically:
1. Unbanning Vise does nothing
2. Unbanning Vise makes the format actively worse

Basically, the point is less that Vise is busted, but that if it happened to be useful it'd be in a way that makes the format more miserable to play, and at least I can't think of a case where Vise would see play that'd lead to more fun games at the Legacy tables. It either does nothing or creates misery. Thank goodness it didn't do shit.

[Crimhead]

re; Black Vise, a large number of the detractors were doomsayers who thought it'd be Delver #5-8, sure. But a large number also thought that the case for unbanning Vise was basically:
1. Unbanning Vise does nothing
2. Unbanning Vise makes the format actively worse

Basically, the point is less that Vise is busted, but that if it happened to be useful it'd be in a way that makes the format more miserable to play, and at least I can't think of a case where Vise would see play that'd lead to more fun games at the Legacy tables. It either does nothing or creates misery. Thank goodness it didn't do shit.

I don't really have patience for that kind of subjective nonsense (this thread can try one's patience at the best of times).
Personally I find playing under pressure and a clock vs a hyper aggressive deck can be fun and fascinating. But whatever - that is entirely a personal preference.

I'd really rather pass on the "fun" based arguments.

But I am referring to the posts that specifically cited turn-one double Vise as a reason to keep it banned. I think we can all agree that improbable corner cases like this should not inform ban list decisions?

Edit - disingenuity is a big problem in this thread. It seems some users will say anything in attempt to propagate their opinions on what should or shouldn't be on the list. That includes appealing to bizarre worst-case scenarios.

[Lord Seth]

As for the spirit and joy of legacy, I actually feel that way about modern - it used to be such a cool format where you could do a ton of different things, and decks were powerful and could interact, but then WOTC banned the soul out of it, taking away Seething Song, BBE, Twin, Pod, etc, etc. I don't want Legacy to end up in the same place, and it feels like a lot of people who want more aggressive bannings would take it that direction.

Except Modern currently is a format where you can do a ton of different things, and decks are powerful and can interact. In fact it's more diverse than it was back when those cards were legal.

However...

Skimming through the last few pages this jumped out at me for being probably the most objectively wrong thing said.
Modern is way more diverse now than it was when Twin and Pod were legal.
You have the freedom to do way more 'ton of different things' now than you did when you could just lose the game by tapping out on turn 3-4.

'ton of different things' and 'decks were powerful and could interact' usually don't go hand in hand
Delver/Twin are powerful and can interact but they put a serious limit on 'ton of different things'

While it is more or less objectively true that the format is more diverse than when Splinter Twin was legal, I'm not sure how much of that, if any, is due to the banning of Splinter Twin. The problem is that the decks people point to as having supposedly been suppressed by Twin are decks that only got good due to subsequent unbannings or printings. Indeed, skipping over Eldrazi Winter for obvious reasons, the format didn't seem to become particularly more diverse after the ban in any way that couldn't be ascribed to new printings. For example, I remember how people would point to UWR Nahiri gaining popularity for a while (before it fell off the face of the format), but that ignores the rather obvious fact that Nahiri didn't exist while Twin was legal and thus one can't blame Twin for suppressing something that didn't yet exist.

As for the claim that with Splinter Twin gone, things are freed up because you can't "just lose the game by tapping out on turns 3-4." The problem with this claim is that even after the Splinter Twin ban, you saw a dearth of Sorcery-speed 4-drops (note I am only talking about decks that cast them "normally", things like Scapeshift or Tron which rely on ramp or decks using Delve creatures don't count). In fact, I think they actually dropped in popularity. Siege Rhino was a 4-of in Abzan while Twin was legal, but later the deck stopped playing it. Bloodbraid Elf and Jace have of course seen play since being unbanned, but Bloodbraid Elf saw plenty of play when Splinter Twin was legal. Interestingly, the lack of non-Instant 4-drops in Modern was cited as a reason for unbanning Jace and Bloodbraid Elf. Again, this was in a Twinless format. The more likely reason people weren't playing those treasured 4-drops was not because of Splinter Twin, but because they weren't good enough to run.

Again, I agree the format right now is better than before Splinter Twin was banned, but I question to what degree the banning was an influence on that rather than developments that occurred after the ban happened.

[Stevestamopz]

Survival is to the Legacy banned list what JTMS was to Modern's.

A big old bogeyman that is now old, arthritic and kinda pathetic.

[Crimhead]

So I'm wondering,

Are the folks yearning to get survival back also the folks who are bothered by "blue-stew cantrip cartel" decks?
I would tend to think there is a very good chance that, like DRS, the best Survival decks will be blue based. If June midrange plays better in a blue shell, why not Survival?

TBH (in Legacy) I have never played Survival, never played a Delver deck, and the closest I've come to playing a midrange deck is Elves.
So obviously I don't consider myself an expert on fair decks!

But is there no concern that Survival becomes the next best "blue card"? Do we really want that shell to get even better? Is that the subtle plan - unban Survival so that WotC is forced to ban DRS or a cantrip (rather than embarrassingly re-ban)?

If survival get unbanned and need rebanning then hell just froze over.

Well, if SotF yields a fair DRS/cantrip deck that is better than Czech or Grisix (and supplants them both), the ban hammer might have to come down.

Speaking in hypoteticals, this would just be an experiment to shake a bit the format, and even if it failed in the end, the format would have been less stale than it was. This isn't standard where bans on top of constant rotations are a huge financial annoyance. No one is losing anything as most legacy players already have invested in said unbanned cards (SotF, Bargain, Frantic search for example) and we have 2 GPs an year, and no one that live on playing legacy.

A lot of Legacy players are adamantly opposed to shake up bans.

Not everybody keeps a gauntlet - much less a hypothetical gauntlet for potential unbans. Meta shake-ups do cost players time and money to adjust; and unstable metas are a bit of a time waster in the mission to refine one's play and deck list. So I agree that WotC should err on the side of caution regarding unban - particularly with cards that have proven problematic in the format (as opposed to cards like Twist, which have never seen the light of day).

[Crimhead]

Except Modern currently is a format where you can do a ton of different things, and decks are powerful and can interact.

I don't follow modern closely, but doesn't the turn-4 rule prevent the existence of true combo decks? I mean, if your combo decks are not allowed to be faster than the fair decks, are they really producing a diverse type of interaction? In Legacy, combo decks create strategic diversity because they demand a strategic adjustment from decks that cannot outrace them.

Also, does Modern have a tier-1 prison deck? I understand Lantern Control is a tier-2 deck, and Rack and Ponza are worse.

For me, format diversity can't really exist without decks that approach the game from a completely different angle. In Legacy, ANT, Lands, and RB Reanimator are perfect examples. Does Modern have decks that are that "weird"? Honestly curious.

[Dice_Box]

I don't follow modern closely, but doesn't the turn-4 rule prevent the existence of true combo decks? I mean, if your combo decks are not allowed to be faster than the fair decks, are they really producing a diverse type of interaction? In Legacy, combo decks create strategic diversity because they demand a strategic adjustment from decks that cannot outrace them.

Also, does Modern have a tier-1 prison deck? I understand Lantern Control is a tier-2 deck, and Rack and Ponza are worse.

For me, format diversity can't really exist without decks that approach the game from a completely different angle. In Legacy, ANT, Lands, and RB Reanimator are perfect examples. Does Modern have decks that are that "weird"? Honestly curious.

First. Combo if undisturbed in Modern is fast, faster than most aggressive decks. The difference between combo in Modern and combo in Legacy is that Modern combo tends to also need permanents to work. This gives other decks interaction but it does not always give them the win.

Lantern is tier one. It was tier two but then it got tutors and... well you know what happens when a deck dependet on a handful of cards gets tutors right? Yea that happened. The only reason it's not going to see a ban is because Artifact hate is to Modern what Graveyard hate is to Vintage.

As for "Weird" decks, yea, Modern has its share. I would argue that Scapeshift is odd but there is some crazy fucking shit. My personal favourite that I play sometimes is Haakon Loam. A deck that you Dredge into Haakon and then play shit like Crib Swap and Nameless Inversion out of the grave. Your also playing Knight and Loam, so the deck can do some oddly broken things. Retrace comes to mind. It's not good but it's dam fun.

[taconaut]

Except Modern currently is a format where you can do a ton of different things, and decks are powerful and can interact. In fact it's more diverse than it was back when those cards were legal..

Yeah, I acknowledged this in response to Mega, there is certainly a variety of nominally different decks in modern, and more of them were reactive than I anticipated. Unfortunately, I think they're just not that interesting - many of the decks they banned were much cooler, in my opinion, though that isn't really a good argument for bans/unbans. A lot of them also feel "nerfed;" why play these when you can play Legacy?

I liked the rest of your analysis though, interesting take.

The difference between combo in Modern and combo in Legacy is that Modern combo tends to also need permanents to work. This gives other decks interaction but it does not always give them the win.

This is one of the things that makes me like modern less.

[kombatkiwi]

I'd really rather pass on the "fun" based arguments.

What kind of argument do you prefer? What other kind of argument is there?
You can try to make 'objective' arguments like 'X card should be banned because the metagame represenation of Y color is disproportionate' or 'X card should be banned because its % share of the metagame is too high' but these are just arbitrary metrics.
Can you answer a question like "why is metagame % of cards relevant to bannings discussions?" without making any kind of 'appeal to fun?'

Edit: I don't agree that the argument (as presented) is reasonable justification for not unbanning Black Vise, but "it turns out Black Vise is really good and it's a miserable gameplay experience losing to it" seems like it would be a fair reason for banning it again

[Megadeus]

Yeah, I acknowledged this in response to Mega, there is certainly a variety of nominally different decks in modern, and more of them were reactive than I anticipated. Unfortunately, I think they're just not that interesting - many of the decks they banned were much cooler, in my opinion, though that isn't really a good argument for bans/unbans. A lot of them also feel "nerfed;" why play these when you can play Legacy?

I liked the rest of your analysis though, interesting take.



This is one of the things that makes me like modern less.

The Main reason to play modern in my eyes is that you can actually come up with crazy shit and it be fairly viable. I mean for god's sake we just had a deck featuring burning inquiry and goblin lore become a tier deck. And a deck with lantern of insight being the key card is arguably the best deck in the format. Things like that don't happen in legacy because the raw efficiency of the format (mostly the cantrip cartel) makes it impossible to do. The format (again this is to me at least) is pretty much solved at this point and it's to the point that if something interesting and powerful enough to see play comes into the format it's either absorbed by blue stew or it's eventually figured out how to beat by the blue stew.

[taconaut]

The Main reason to play modern in my eyes is that you can actually come up with crazy shit and it be fairly viable. I mean for god's sake we just had a deck featuring burning inquiry and goblin lore become a tier deck. And a deck with lantern of insight being the key card is arguably the best deck in the format. Things like that don't happen in legacy because the raw efficiency of the format (mostly the cantrip cartel) makes it impossible to do. The format (again this is to me at least) is pretty much solved at this point and it's to the point that if something interesting and powerful enough to see play comes into the format it's either absorbed by blue stew or it's eventually figured out how to beat by the blue stew.

I think you're right that it is more or less solved, but I think (for me, at least) the "crazy shit" that is available in modern is still strictly less interesting than what you can do in Legacy (there's no Modern deck as cool as Legacy Lands, or ANT, or Elves, or Food Chain, or pre-top Miracles, etc).

I do think it's too bad that, strictly speaking, the best decks are probably Grixis and Czech, but I also think those decks allow for people to actually employ a competitive mindset in this format, as well. I also am skeptical that banning the cantrips would make more space for brewing - even if we get rid of all the good cantrips, is whatever brew you want to make going to be able to beat Lands? How about Elves? What about glass cannon combo, like Belcher? If it's a combo deck, can it compete with Eldrazi and DNT? I think there are still oppressive efficiencies in Legacy beyond U: Draw a card, and many of them are non-blue.

[Whitefaces]

Unban top and ban CB would do wonders for the format.

[PirateKing]

So I'm wondering,

Are the folks yearning to get survival back also the folks who are bothered by "blue-stew cantrip cartel" decks?
I would tend to think there is a very good chance that, like DRS, the best Survival decks will be blue based. If June midrange plays better in a blue shell, why not Survival?

TBH (in Legacy) I have never played Survival, never played a Delver deck, and the closest I've come to playing a midrange deck is Elves.
So obviously I don't consider myself an expert on fair decks!

But is there no concern that Survival becomes the next best "blue card"? Do we really want that shell to get even better? Is that the subtle plan - unban Survival so that WotC is forced to ban DRS or a cantrip (rather than embarrassingly re-ban)?

I certainly don't hate the blue stew. I have 5 decks sleeved up currently, ANT, Miracles, UB Reanimator, Deadguy Ale & Food Chain. So that's what, 16 Brainstorms, 12 Force of Wills? 8 Deathrite Shaman if we're also counting that. So no, I'm not crying for bans. It is not my plan to engineer a meta where Wizard's hand is force to axe DRS because of Survival. I just think it would be fun to play against, and would be fun to see what people would do with it in the world of Delver of Secrets and Young Pyromancer and Gurmag Angler.

[caprino]

Next bann shaman or gitaxian?

[Claymore]

it's to the point that if something interesting and powerful enough to see play comes into the format it's either absorbed by blue stew or it's eventually figured out how to beat by the blue stew.

Or, in the case of Chalice, called absolutely unfair and needs to be banned then stricken from history.

[Megadeus]

Or, in the case of Chalice, called absolutely unfair and needs to be banned then stricken from history.

Eh the irony of the chalice decks is that despite chalice being one of the best cards against Blue Stew it rarely puts up numbers. The more rounds an event has the less likely it will be there