WotC doesn't want to ban new cards, they want to ban old ones. From a money making standpoint, they would much rather you still buy their new mythic rare for some weird deck than a 2nd hand Survival of the Fittest.
Also banning new cards must be very embarrassing for them. Again, rather ban the old than the new.
I agree with you PI, but the modern banlist has shown that they have somewhat went against the principles on banning engines/enablers. They banned:
Jace, SFM, Wild Nacatl, GSZ, Bitterblossom all of which are new cards. A lot of the banlist in Modern don't even fall under the category of enablers/engines. Many are just powerful cards that are argubly still underpowered in the Modern card pool e.g. Bitterblossom/Jace. Granted that SFM/GSZ could be classified as enablers, but that is an argument of semantics, because in Legacy's case, Vengevine was the enabler of the Survival archetype (or engine if you prefer to call it). The Survival archetype/engine was perfectly fine until the enabler (Vengevine) came to push the archetype towards being dominant.
In the case of SFM/GSZ, they are enablers, but in all honesty, they are just tutors, because they don't enable anything overly broken except fetching up good cards e.g. Batterskull/Goyf. Vengevine was much more an enabler than SFM/GSZ could ever be.
What I feel unjustified is that the Modern banlist philosophy came after the time when they stated that they prefer to ban enablers/engines instead of the culprit cards, but it seems to me that the whole Modern banlist philosophy is about banning cards that are responsible for decks to become overly dominant. This is why I feel that Survival faced a sad tale in Legacy. It was clearly a powerful engine, but became too powerful when they printed Vengevine. Had Vengevine been printed post-Modern banlist philosophy formation, I would bet that there may be a likely chance Vengevine is banned instead of Survival. Here's hoping someone from WotC/DCI agrees with some of us on the issue and we may yet to see the return of an archetype to Legacy.
Sorry to derail the thread a little but I guess my point in the thread is to state that the banning principles for Modern are very different thanLegacy, so we shouldn't compare how it's dumb card X/Y was banned in Modern therefore Modern sucks. It's not true, WotC has a different approach and idea for Modern, whether it sucks, that's up to the player-base to decide.
Decks that I care about:
Steel Stompy
UWx Landstill
Dreadstalker
DDFT (10% practice)
Mangara on MWS? You must be masochistic. -kiblastOriginally Posted by Gheizen64
My comment only dealt with Survival of the Fittest and does not pertain to modern. All of the cards that get banned in Modern are going to be (relatively) new ones. That's all the format is.
I still don't understand all the hate for banning cards, especially for the people who don't play the format. I, myself, invested in Grove of Burnwillows assuming that they would be a Modern staple. They got banned. I don't have a lot of money, but I'm pretty sure I'm one of the least upset people on this forum about it. And I know most people hadn't bought the cards already.
Banning in the beginning of a new format needs to happen. That's all there is too it. It's not even a bad thing.
Grove of the Burnwillows is not banned in modern. I take it you mean they are hardly of use now because Punishing Fires is banned.
Last edited by Nelis; 12-22-2011 at 05:10 AM. Reason: grammar security officer
Quit playing Legacy but could still play Goblins (Rgw, Rg, Rw, Rb)
ジェームス・ブラウン
I'm staring in the mirror looking at my biggest rival.
I reckon this is all largely due to the fact that this is a new format and these things take time to settle. The banning of these cards (and others that were banned earlier for that matter) is simply to take the format into a healthy starting position.
If it were to be a truly defined format at the start of its very existence then WotC would not have to ban cards like Umezawa's Jitte
Frankly I think WotC have been printing enough hate cards to ensure that several cards are not too broken i.e. Stoneforge Mystic and several artifacts.
I think that WotC has done everyone a favor by banning several cards in Modern's early days, the banning of these two cards shows that they don't want this to be an all creature aggro format.
And there is nothing wrong with bannings. Nothing. If they are bannings done intelligently. When it's merely Wizards throwing up their hands and going, "we don't have a clue", that's a problem. These guys are supposed to be experts. They get PAID to be experts. And they know less about this format than your average kitchen table player. That's unacceptable. The original banned list was a bunch of "we thought this card was too strong in another format so we're banning it here." But as I've mentioned before, context is everything. Dark Confidant is great in every format it's legal in... Except Modern. Because, surprise, surprise, Modern format dynamics are not the same as any other format. Then the second banned list was a knee-jerk reaction to the unpleasant field in Philly. And they weren't ideal changes, but they weren't terrible. But these changes were just as bad as the pre-Philly bannings.
So what's next? Lightning Bolt? lol...
Brainstorm Realist
I close my eyes and sink within myself, relive the gift of precious memories, in need of a fix called innocence. - Chuck Shuldiner
I could realistically see Dark Confidant, Bloodbraid Elf, or Gifts Ungiven getting the ax at some point in the future
TIME POLICE
It's highly unlikely they'll ban anything next time. First off it was obvious after the last rounds that Zoo was left as the best deck, and there's nothing that's obviously the best left in Modern now that I'm aware of. Maybe Splinter Twin is the closest but there's lots of answers to that deck.
Second off it would just send a bad signal to be banning cards at every opportunity, they probably want a six month stable period in Modern, especially as they're probably gearing up to try and do GPs and Pro Tours with the format.
For my confessions, they burned me with fire/
And found I was for endurance made
51% vs. the field at Worlds. Just saying. Not banworthy numbers by any stretch of the imagination. The format definitely revolved around Zoo; any deck that makes up 28% of the metagame is going to warp the format around itself. Hell, Merfolk has a tendency to warp the field around itself in Legacy and it's usually less than half that popular. But *best* deck? not really. Tier 1? Probably, if you discount the Snapcaster variants; then you're looking at 56% vs. the field. But still not Vengevival type numbers. Not Academy type numbers. Not "ban something" numbers. And it wasn't format warping the way that 12Post was. There are multiple angles you can attack Zoo from.
My guess is that 3 months from now, they'll have something else that they need to ban. I think they're still missing too many things to have a healthy format. If I had to pick a card now that I think will get the axe, I'd probably say Mox Opal. Affinity can be too fast for existing hate. Ancient Grudge is great and all, but if you're Grudging the same turn a lethal Atog is coming your way, it's a bit late. Sorry Abe, but Dark Confidant doesn't see play in Modern and will not see play in Modern any time in the next year. The format is too suicidal with the available mana bases and without Top or even Brainstorm to help avoid damage, Bob is just not good enough. The format isn't about incremental advantage, it's about maximum tempo advantage. I could see Gifts banned, not because it deserves it, but hey, they banned Punishing Fire, Jace TMS and Bitterblossom. At this point, I could see them banning anything that even smells of control.
True, but everyone went into that tournament KNOWING Zoo was the best deck in the format. The fact that it had such a huge target on its back and still did so well is a testament to how good the deck was, and even still is. Before the December bannings, Zoo was playing on a level that no other deck was on.
Bob's looking really good in Zoo right now and has already proven himself in Jund; I think you're wrong on that one. I could see Opal being banned, and Gifts banned for no other reason than Gifts-->Unburial Rites/Iona makes n00bs cry.My guess is that 3 months from now, they'll have something else that they need to ban. I think they're still missing too many things to have a healthy format. If I had to pick a card now that I think will get the axe, I'd probably say Mox Opal. Affinity can be too fast for existing hate. Ancient Grudge is great and all, but if you're Grudging the same turn a lethal Atog is coming your way, it's a bit late. Sorry Abe, but Dark Confidant doesn't see play in Modern and will not see play in Modern any time in the next year. The format is too suicidal with the available mana bases and without Top or even Brainstorm to help avoid damage, Bob is just not good enough. The format isn't about incremental advantage, it's about maximum tempo advantage. I could see Gifts banned, not because it deserves it, but hey, they banned Punishing Fire, Jace TMS and Bitterblossom. At this point, I could see them banning anything that even smells of control.
TIME POLICE
Actually, Twin was the deck with the target on it's back. Zoo was just the deck everyone defaulted to because they didn't know what to play. It was definitely expected to be popular, but if you look at the board hate, Combust and Torpor Orb were a lot more prevalent than Firespout or Kitchen Finks. There were a number of decks that beat the tar out of Zoo; they were just relatively under the radar. Melira/Pod, for one. The Martyr/Proc listings tore it a new asshole. I was/am 65+% against the field with my Bant listing with somewhere on the order of 175 games played.
I wouldn't say that Bob has "proven himself" in Jund. I've seen people squeeze him into Jund, but I'm not impressed with him there. I watched a Jund player lose a game he otherwise had locked up against my mono-red because he flipped 7 points of Bob damage over 3 turns (Inquisition, Bob, BBE, in that order). You simply cannot afford that in a format where your opponent can be hitting you for 7-8 damage on turn 2. I think people are making the mistake of thinking that the format is slower than it was 6 months ago. It's not. If anything, it's faster, as the stable iterations of combo and aggro have been pushed out of the format.
Normally, stable is better than fast. TES and ANT are better than Belcher and SI. And Modern may swing back in a stable direction. But right now, I don't want to be playing anything that doesn't win over half of its games by turn 4. People say that Zoo isn't dead. But nobody is actually playing it. So it's irrelevant whether or not it's a viable deck. Some Zoo players went to Jund, some to Affinity, others to Bant. But I just don't see Zoo out there. It's not making much headway on MTGO, it's nowhere to be seen on MWS and Cockatrice and everyone I've talked to is working on other things. Because Zoo was the deck that was best equipped to deal with faster aggro (as a +1 aggro deck), the disappearance of Zoo from the metagame leads to the troubling analysis that there's no reason not to play fast aggro. I was goldfishing a new version of my SAW listing and had 12 turn 3 kills in 30 fishing attempts (5/15 on the play and 7/15 on draw). The average fish was turn 3.8 with a 40% turn 3 fish. Would I play it if I expected to see Zoo? No. But if the expected meta is Jund? Absolutely.
Most of the Jund listings I've seen aren't even playing Lightning Bolt and none of them have a relevant turn 1 creature. It's not like they've got the early cards to trade to keep a fast aggro deck from reaching critical mass. Some of them aren't even keeping the full 4 Ancient Grudge in board. Whether it's Affinity or Burn or some sort of homebrew like my list, the format is incredibly fast and the combination of shock duals and Bob is a recipe for disaster.
Affinity has made up 25% of the PTQ T8's so far and 44% of PTQ winners. Who's a brilliant theorist? I really ought to get paid for this. I'm extending my prediction to either Opal or Cranial Plating. Opal is the smarter pick as it would kill Kuldotha Red too (which I feel is actually stronger than Affinity, just off-radar for 95% of the people out there) but Plating is the card that gets more hype. Then again, I was surprised when Wizards had the presence of mind to ban Cloudpost, so perhaps they'll surprise me again and get it right here. Either way, they can either let the format sit as a turn 3/4 format or they can ban more to try and push it back to turn 4/5.
To be fair, I did underestimate how quickly Affinity would dominate. I don't know numbers for meta saturation since those aren't shared on the Wizards website, but 25% of the T8's would imply that it's seriously overperforming that 55% GWP mark. I can't imagine that 25% of the field at a given PTQ is Affinity, so it's definitely the DtB.I doubt that you're going to see Affinity dominating come the very start of January. But I think it's going to put up results and it's going to snowball as people realize that there's not really an effective board strategy to deal with the deck. It's something that not every color combination can deal with and it's going to seriously hamper the development of the format. By the time the GP rolls around, I think you're looking at 12-16% metagame saturation and a 55% GWP vs. the field.
My (uneducated) guess is that Plating gets the axe, as I'm sure Wizards is none too eager to ban Opal, as it would mean:
-Banning a $20 Mythic from a recent set, hitting a lot of the more cash-strapped players and making new cards seem (slightly) less secure.
-Taking a big hit to their egos. Banning a card from Ye Olde Mirrodin block, that was part of the Affinity deck is just closing the door on an old mistake, one that everybody already knows about. Banning Opal makes it look as though they screwed up again.
Of course, I am the 95% (geez, sound like I'm part of some #occupygreatfurnace movement) in that Kuldotha Red is off my radar, so I could be totally off.
I've never disagreed with a ban list more than the Modern list. It encourages me to avoid the format. Punishing/grove was understandable, but not Nacatl. That's just perplexing.
Though It does give me a silver of hope that we could one day see an ban list switcheroo of Survival for Vengevine. Give us the fun card and ban the silly creature. I can dream, can't I?
Looking at the current banned list, I really don't see any cards that stick out like a sore thumb. I can look at each one of those cards and come up with reasons why the card is banned. What Wizards might be doing is trying to make Modern a format that has a distinctly different flavor than either Standard or Legacy by having unique decks of its own and not just ports from other formats.
Now, thinking about future bannings, Affinity is most likely the "Best Deck" in the format, but it is a very beatable deck and therefore I don't see anything being banned from it in the near future. Outside of the "Best Deck", I could see Gifts Ungiven or Ad Nauseam banned just because they are very similar to many of the banned cards in how they feel when you're playing against them.
Sure, but that doesn't mean I agree with those reasons, or understand why they didn't let the format naturally weed out certain decks. Decks like 12post were vulnerable to many different strategies, and certainly had trouble competing against combo or disruptive aggro. A single Breach-Post deck T8ed at PT Philly, and they still banned Cloudpost - yeah, there was a lot of 12post, but the deck wasn't dominating the format. Or a card like Preordain; again, there's a reason it's banned, but seriously, did you take a look at the format and say, "yup, Preordain, that thing's just way too good"?
I was actually really excited to play Modern back during Philly, but the artificial metagame changes they keep forcing (which can get damn expensive if they decide they don't like your deck that month) have completely turned me off from the format. Oh well....
That's because Breach Post was trash. Trust me, 12Post was bad for the format. It represented a hard cap at the top end of the format. If you could not race it, you could not beat it. It didn't care about counterspells and once people figured out that trying to race combo rather than disrupt it was a fool's errand, the only deck that would have been able to handle it would've been Splinter Twin.
I would have liked to have more evidence that it was a problem before snap banning it. It did (relatively) badly at an event where it was heavily represented, and in a brand new format, it's difficult to predict exactly how things would have progressed. I'm not saying that it was a good thing in the format - the argument I just made could be said about Hulk-Flash in Legacy, which everyone hated - but I'd have liked to see the players forming a metagame without the heavy hand of the DCI making changes after every event.
Ehhhh, that deck was too good. I think just the fact that some of the lands would give them enough life to outrace even the most aggro of decks meant that they needed a banning. The things they cast were uncounterable, so control had relatively no shot of beating them, and they outraced aggro. It was really just combo deck or 12 post.
You have to remember that non basics in Modern have almost 0 drawback. What's someone going to do? Tectonic Edge one of them?Since Wasteland isn't a thing it leaves you with Blood Moon or something much worse (Sowing Salt? Fulminator Mage? Ghost Quarter?). Ghost Quarter hurts you to use, it barely slows them down when you take into account you gimp yourself.
There just wasn't enough to hate it, and if you really wanted to you ended up having a format where literally every deck other than combo had to have 6+ cards dedicated to just dealing with nonbasic lands.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote