Community

Hello,

 

I saw that you like banning a lot of cards this year..

 

You ban every decks affordable and now we can't even play your new wonderfull format because tarmogoyf and dark confidant are too good not to play and too expensive.

 

By the way, know that all of theses bannings costed me a lot of money.

 

Thank you wizard making me sad panda with no money to compete in your new formats, and now even reluctant to invest on your new set.

 

I supose you're trying your best but let me tell you that I think you're screwing hard with your game.

 

Ban tarmogoyf and dark confidant is the right thing to do now.

Are you really complaining about the cost of cards and asking for a banning. Go away, youre wasting your time. Both Tarmogoyf and Dark Confidant are the best respective two drops of all time in their colours. They're worth the money.

NO MUDKIPZ UR AN IDIOT. BAN BOB, HE SCARES ME DESPITE NOT SEEING ANY PLAY IN PT PHILLY!

Also, the goyf banning arguments just keep getting sadder. IT'S A VANILLA BEATER. If your deck can't handle a vanilla beater, you have more than just budget problems.

some people just will not be happy untill squire is the best 2 drop in every format...

Squire IS the best 2 drop in the format!

Zoo is not the only deck in the format. I'm fairly certain Affinity, Twin, Melira, Merfolk, UW control, and Martyr are pretty much Goyf and Bob free.

Fish has and does splash for goyf...just sayin lol

In Legacy, it doesnt splash at all, and if it does, usually Black.

Sep 20, 2011 -- 2:21AM, Guest2021323141 wrote:

I'm whining because I haven't figured out how to run aggro hate like threads of disloyalty and smother

Sep 20, 2011 -- 1:13PM, catowner wrote:

Sep 20, 2011 -- 2:21AM, Guest2021323141 wrote:

I'm whining because I haven't figured out how to run aggro hate like threads of disloyalty and smother

QFT

While the OP is a frothing retard for buying cards at peak price, I do wish they'd ban 'goyf and Bob.

Goyf I could see, but depending on how the future sets shape up (really it's going to be a while if at all.) But Bob? No thankyou, Bob is a pretty fair card no matter how you try to slice it, because he's just half a Sign in Blood during upkeeps, but he's good enough to pull the Zoo deck's need to draw into threats. Plus, without Shoal, Ritual, Ponder, Preordain or GSZ in the format, we might be looking at a heavy slow-down until either Ponder or Preordain get their ban lifted. 

Sep 20, 2011 -- 8:17PM, Wynzerman wrote:

Goyf I could see, but depending on how the future sets shape up (really it's going to be a while if at all.) But Bob? No thankyou, Bob is a pretty fair card no matter how you try to slice it, because he's just half a Sign in Blood during upkeeps, but he's good enough to pull the Zoo deck's need to draw into threats. Plus, without Shoal, Ritual, Ponder, Preordain or GSZ in the format, we might be looking at a heavy slow-down until either Ponder or Preordain get their ban lifted. 

yup, CA on a stick (much like SFM) is so much fairer than good beats.

Read: Tarmogoyf is never getting banned and stands a great chance at reprinting

Sep 20, 2011 -- 10:13PM, Atmapalazzo wrote:

Sep 20, 2011 -- 8:17PM, Wynzerman wrote:

Goyf I could see, but depending on how the future sets shape up (really it's going to be a while if at all.) But Bob? No thankyou, Bob is a pretty fair card no matter how you try to slice it, because he's just half a Sign in Blood during upkeeps, but he's good enough to pull the Zoo deck's need to draw into threats. Plus, without Shoal, Ritual, Ponder, Preordain or GSZ in the format, we might be looking at a heavy slow-down until either Ponder or Preordain get their ban lifted. 

yup, CA on a stick (much like SFM) is so much fairer than good beats.

Read: Tarmogoyf is never getting banned and stands a great chance at reprinting

Easy now xD CA isn't the only factor in winning games. The whole issue is what you pay versus what you get, but I'd rather Tarm get reprinted and have several rivaling scalers than be a one-of-a-kind as it has been. But Bob is by no means comparable to SFM, because he has a constant payment scheme, doesn't allow specific choices, and doesn't cheat equipment in for massively less than they may cost.

And SFM didn't become so powerful until it was allowed to cheat in 4/4 Vigilant Lifelinkers that can protect themselves .  Bob is a CA machine, with a drawback that can be built around, but he has to be used properly whereas SFM can just win games by including a single copy of Batterskull in your deck with some swords.

bob isn't CA if you remove him before the next upkeep.  Also, he's got a pretty hefty drawback.  I've killed people with their own bobs before.

Sep 21, 2011 -- 6:21AM, catowner wrote:

bob isn't CA if you remove him before the next upkeep.  Also, he's got a pretty hefty drawback.  I've killed people with their own bobs before.

They're probably misplaying Bob. You really want around an average of 1-3 CMC to avoid the hits. In addition, the fact that he has legs allows for his removal.

Sep 21, 2011 -- 1:39PM, zpikduM wrote:

Sep 21, 2011 -- 6:21AM, catowner wrote:

bob isn't CA if you remove him before the next upkeep.  Also, he's got a pretty hefty drawback.  I've killed people with their own bobs before.

They're probably misplaying Bob. You really want around an average of 1-3 CMC to avoid the hits. In addition, the fact that he has legs allows for his removal.

ROFL I guess it's a misplay to run tombstalkers with bob then. The point is that there are some situations in which Bob lands on turn 1-2 and you don't anticipate hitting every damn 3-drop in your deck for the next 4 turns. It happens, but no one doubts wehter or not Bob is worth it.

Banning is never a good answer. It just encourages more banning.

Sorry, I was probably unclear, I didn't mean that Bob will/should get banned. I was saying that a non-evasive beater stands no chance at being banned. I just used Bob to show that he's closer to what an aggro deck would lose :P

Honestly, if WotC wants to nerf Zoo, I'd expect them to take out Reliquary, since it's a tutor and beatstick. Again though, I doubt this will happen.

Sep 22, 2011 -- 7:19AM, Atmapalazzo wrote:

Sorry, I was probably unclear, I didn't mean that Bob will/should get banned. I was saying that a non-evasive beater stands no chance at being banned. I just used Bob to show that he's closer to what an aggro deck would lose :P

Honestly, if WotC wants to nerf Zoo, I'd expect them to take out Reliquary, since it's a tutor and beatstick. Again though, I doubt this will happen.

I agree with the last statement. The reason Zoo is a "fair" deck in spite of Tarmogoyf not having enough competition is because the deck is headlined by a powerful, but just really cool card which gets the job done ( Knight of the Reliquary ). Hopefully Zoo will wind up being the benchmark of the format, since a Zoo format is much easier to play "my cards" against than one ruled by belchers. 

I didn't mean to get anybody riled up by saying there is the possibility of Goyf being too good, I simply meant that if low cost easily scaling beaters don't become more accessible, it will become unhealthy. Perhaps the levelers were an exercise in this? But from the looks of it, Innistrad is trying to make Goyf-like "I get stronger" beaters for cheap a common thing for decks which produce green mana. In such a scenario, even if reprinted, Goyf has competition, so even if it remains "the best", it is easily replacable and answered (as green decks are expected to carry scaling powerhouses in the future, perhaps just making Goyf-like cards a sign of the times for the changing color philosophy?)

Edit: Then again, simply putting Terravore into a future set can further solidify that (as mentioned by a few folks in another thread). I think this would be a pretty nice addition to Modern's creature pool

Sep 22, 2011 -- 7:19AM, Atmapalazzo wrote:

Honestly, if WotC wants to nerf Zoo, I'd expect them to take out Reliquary, since it's a tutor and beatstick.

KotR is great, but I really don't think that any one banning would knock Zoo out of it position.  Zoo is amazing because it runs all of the best cheap beaters, and the loss of any one will do little.  I really don't think Zoo can be banned away without banning multiple creatures or multiple lands (forest shocks), and both of those are terrible ideas.  No, the best way is to either unban MM (won't happen), or print a near counterspell quality control spell in any color.  Of course that last option would really hurt Standard.

When did Zoo become a problem? I mean, seriously, how did we start talking about banning parts of Zoo? That's ridiculous. The deck is soooo fair it's not even funny.

There are already several cards that shouldn't have been banned in the first place, and now you are suggesting we ban more? Seriously people, grow up and stop asking for cards to be banned whenever a deck that uses them beats you. Banning cards is a fundamentally bad thing, and should be avoided at all costs. Wizards has already been too trigger-happy with banning cards, and suggesting more nonsense isn't going to help the problem. Stop complaining, and start trying to find answers to threats rather than crying. The card pool is huge. The solutions are there.

For all the complaining you do now, you would find Magic really boring if the best 2-drop actually was Squire .

Sep 20, 2011 -- 10:13PM, Atmapalazzo wrote:

Sep 20, 2011 -- 8:17PM, Wynzerman wrote:

Goyf I could see, but depending on how the future sets shape up (really it's going to be a while if at all.) But Bob? No thankyou, Bob is a pretty fair card no matter how you try to slice it, because he's just half a Sign in Blood during upkeeps, but he's good enough to pull the Zoo deck's need to draw into threats. Plus, without Shoal, Ritual, Ponder, Preordain or GSZ in the format, we might be looking at a heavy slow-down until either Ponder or Preordain get their ban lifted. 

yup, CA on a stick (much like SFM) is so much fairer than good beats.

Read: Tarmogoyf is never getting banned and stands a great chance at reprinting

Reprinting Goys would be AMAZING. He'd spike to $120 or so, then drop down a bit with everything else in the set being rather cheap due to the fact that every dealer and collector would double their normal case order. Fistfights would errupt over rare redraft draft games. Well, maybe no the second thing, but the first?

Hell, lets get a set with FoW, Bob, Goyf and... maybe some fetches? Bamn, instant accessibility of the older formats. Maybe mix in Wasteland, Sinkhole and Mind twist to go with it. You'd need a bit more to keep aggro ballanced, but it'd be glorious, if hellaciously messy. People would cry, cards would seesaw in value, people wouldn't know what to do with themselves when they finally rotated out.

Well, I wouldn't. I *like* control duels. They're, like fighting. With your brain. It's even less fun to watch than Chess, but to play! Oh, to play them!

Oct 24, 2011 -- 4:10PM, Cyklown wrote:

Well, I wouldn't. I *like* control duels. They're, like fighting. With your brain. It's even less fun to watch than Chess, but to play! Oh, to play them!

Control/Control matchups have been the best and most thoughtful and exhausting games of Magic I have ever played.  Watching them is even more fun, especially with a friend you can chat with.  Guessing at their strategy, and looking for the optimal play is great fun.  The matches really come down to skill, forcasting, and patience and when done well that is a blast to watch.  They are miles more entertaining than play creature X, turn Creature X sideways,play Creature Y, turn creature Y sideways...repeat.

While I support the reprinting of Goyf, I am not deluded enought to think that they would drop in price until they rotate out of Standard.

Oct 24, 2011 -- 4:45PM, DrWorm wrote:

Oct 24, 2011 -- 4:10PM, Cyklown wrote:

Well, I wouldn't. I *like* control duels. They're, like fighting. With your brain. It's even less fun to watch than Chess, but to play! Oh, to play them!

Control/Control matchups have been the best and most thoughtful and exhausting games of Magic I have ever played.  Watching them is even more fun, especially with a friend you can chat with.  Guessing at their strategy, and looking for the optimal play is great fun.  The matches really come down to skill, forcasting, and patience and when done well that is a blast to watch.  They are miles more entertaining than play creature X, turn Creature X sideways,play Creature Y, turn creature Y sideways...repeat.

While I support the reprinting of Goyf, I am not deluded enought to think that they would drop in price until they rotate out of Standard.

Well, most people seem to hate watching them, and I'll bow to that opinion if only for the purposes of lip service. As someone who learned (well, re-learned) to play magic after a long vacation from reading Oscar's articles on The Deck, natch, I can get into it.

Counter-control mirrors are the only magic games that will reliably bring me to a sweat while playing magic, and/or cause serious problems for me if I've forgotten to eat that day.


But yeah, it'd drop after it rotated. I guess I wasn't clearn enough on that front. Depending on how well this whole "Modern" thing takes, it'd probably not even see *that* much of a drop after it rotated. Standard would definatelly jump the price.

I'd actually love, love, love, to see them try to ballance FoW, Goyf, BoB and a fetch or it's ilk against the need for aggro to keep it honest. Not that that'd ever happen, but in all honesty I suspect they'd need to give straight up Sligh (not RDW, but, like full force 20/20/20 goodness) some treats. Plus it'd probably need to be banned as hard as mistep was for modern. Le Sigh.

Oct 24, 2011 -- 5:11PM, Cyklown wrote:

Counter-control mirrors are the only magic games that will reliably bring me to a sweat while playing magic, and/or cause serious problems for me if I've forgotten to eat that day.

Yea, it's a great feeling when you finish a seriously contested control mirror match and you look up and realize that you have no idea how much time has gone by, and what is going on around you.  Your brain is fried, but it still playing the game even though it has ended.  Win or loose you feel like you gave the game everything you could.  That is real Magic.

Oct 24, 2011 -- 9:38PM, DrWorm wrote:

Oct 24, 2011 -- 5:11PM, Cyklown wrote:

Counter-control mirrors are the only magic games that will reliably bring me to a sweat while playing magic, and/or cause serious problems for me if I've forgotten to eat that day.

Yea, it's a great feeling when you finish a seriously contested control mirror match and you look up and realize that you have no idea how much time has gone by, and what is going on around you.  Your brain is fried, but it still playing the game even though it has ended.  Win or loose you feel like you gave the game everything you could.  That is real Magic.

Yes! Yes!

Also, that's the Magic that I fell in love with reading "You CAN play Type 1" articles. One misplay should just end things. It turns every step of every phase of every turn into a Rosewater puzzle.

Oct 25, 2011 -- 2:18PM, Cyklown wrote:

Yes! Yes!

Also, that's the Magic that I fell in love with reading "You CAN play Type 1" articles. One misplay should just end things. It turns every step of every phase of every turn into a Rosewater puzzle.

Sadly far too many of my games end (or are lengthened) by my play mistakes.  I get distracted easily and it tends to draw my focus away, so I miss a trigger or forget to play an instant at the right time.  I still like trying, though, and I figure one day I might improve.

Oct 24, 2011 -- 4:10PM, Cyklown wrote:

Hell, lets get a set with FoW, Bob, Goyf and... maybe some fetches? Bamn, instant accessibility of the older formats. Maybe mix in Wasteland, Sinkhole and Mind twist to go with it. You'd need a bit more to keep aggro ballanced, but it'd be glorious, if hellaciously messy. People would cry, cards would seesaw in value, people wouldn't know what to do with themselves when they finally rotated out.

Oct 19, 2011 -- 10:44PM, buddy2 wrote:

There are already several cards that shouldn't have been banned in the first place, and now you are suggesting we ban more? Seriously people, grow up and stop asking for cards to be banned whenever a deck that uses them beats you. Banning cards is a fundamentally bad thing, and should be avoided at all costs. Wizards has already been too trigger-happy with banning cards, and suggesting more nonsense isn't going to help the problem. Stop complaining, and start trying to find answers to threats rather than crying. The card pool is huge. The solutions are there.

For all the complaining you do now, you would find Magic really boring if the best 2-drop actually was Squire .

Well, I wouldn't. I *like* control duels. They're, like fighting. With your brain. It's even less fun to watch than Chess, but to play! Oh, to play them!

I love control mirrors as well. Most of those cards I linked to are for control decks. I left out some other cards that I'd really love to see back because I knew people would react immaturely to them. I agree with all the stuff Cyklown and DrWorm have said about control mirrors. You have no idea how long you've been playing and your brain is fried, but it's all great fun.

And on the subject of unbanning Ponder and/or Preordain: Legacy is great fun because you're basically playing with all the best cards from Magic's history, save for a few HUGE mistakes (seriously, what the hell were they thinking?); but playing with Brainstorm is actually the biggest appeal of Legacy for me. BY FAR. Modern got a lot less fun with the new ban list (and that's saying something, given infect combo and 12 x Post in the format), because Serum Visions just isn't doing it for me.

It's just way more fun to play when you actually have some measure of control over what cards you draw; Serum Visions just isn't doing it for me. My fondest memories of playing Legacy are turns where I cast Brainstorm , crack a fetch, cast Ponder , Brainstorm off Jace , crack another fetch, cast Brainstorm , cast Ponder .

So I'm hoping to get back at least one functional cantrip soon.

Oct 25, 2011 -- 5:34PM, buddy2 wrote:

I love control mirrors as well. Most of those cards I linked to are for control decks. I left out some other cards that I'd really love to see back because I knew people would react immaturely to them. I agree with all the stuff Cyklown and DrWorm have said about control mirrors. You have no idea how long you've been playing and your brain is fried, but it's all great fun.

It's just way more fun to play when you actually have some measure of control over what cards you draw; Serum Visions just isn't doing it for me. My fondest memories of playing Legacy are turns where I cast Brainstorm , crack a fetch, cast Ponder , Brainstorm off Jace , crack another fetch, cast Brainstorm , cast Ponder .

So I'm hoping to get back at least one functional cantrip soon.

I can see what they mean about too much reliability ruining stuff. Between the time it takes to shuffle (card savers. each player averages a shuffle a turn, DOOM!) and aggro's advantage in terms of reliability (y'know, what with there being no wrong threats, unlike answers, etc.), but I agree. For that matter, I'd rather have Bstorm over ponder. It fits better with draw-go, fights discard, makes you more reactive.

As far as unbannings go... yeah, Fae is the one I want to see. I'm down to one Bitterblossom (I forgot I'd dumped them right before Lorwyn rotated, but thank goodness I did), but it was... well, the perfect fish archetype. Aside from that one Portal drake we don't really get anything quite like the "touch ground once"  draw-go. I'd love to see laboratory-vision powered Fae competing with the best power-free decks of all time. That'd be my primary impetus to play legacy directly. Granted, once I was in blue and black I'd probably find myself trying to assemble Stiflenaught and Ichorid since I'd have some of the manabase of one and the other one just seems so nice to have as a dark horse (since, y'know, it seems to win every tournament where "hate" isn't the word of the day), but... yeah. Dayum.

Plus, like, there's my Jittes and all that. So many old rares found in bargain-rate booster box's on ebay, drafted with some friends once (y'know, when I was convincing them all to play magic again. There's something about various drafting formats and limited that just reminds people of that "back in the day" feel) and then tradestocked never to see play... until modern showed up... 

We'd all rather have Brainstorm than Ponder. But really, Preordain really needs to be unbanned. It's significantly less powerful than either Ponder or Brainstorm, which is why it's not restricted in Type I and why in Legacy it's always 3rd choice (I only run in it ANT and High Tide, when I really need twelve cantrips). Plus it doesn't involve shuffling, if games taking too long is an issue. And the most important point: the format is more fun when it's around.

Yeah, I'm really missing fish decks.

I really don't think Goyf, Bob or Shocklands need to be banned. But, for the health of the format, I DO think they are in dire need of a reprint. They are all perfectly fair, just strong enough cards that, due to their scarcity (and in the case of Bob and Goyf, demand across formats) have a ridiculously high price tag. And there -is- a marked difference in decks with or without them. The strong perception is that you either play them, or don't play modern. Just this weekend, my LGS was holding a Modern Tournament, and I was the only one who showed up. Most of hte people I know who would play Modern don't because they can't afford, or indeed even find, Bob, Goyf, or Shocklands. The same reasons they don't play Legacy.

The cards I do think could do with being looked at are: Kird Ape, Loam Lion, Wild Nacatl and Punishing Fire. The reason for all them is pretty simple: right now, there is no reason, from a competitive standpoint, to play any aggro deck in modern that isn't Zoo. It's too much better, too efficient. You can make a synergistic cool aggro deck, but Zoo is just more reliable. Sure, you COULD try to play Boros, but Punishing Fire/Grove of the BUrnwillows makes that dead in the Water.

Loam Lion, Kird Ape and Wild Nacatl are the problem. It wouldn't make sense to just ban one and not the other two, so I think they should all go. They weren't a problem in their respective original printings, because, with the exception of Kird Ape, they never had Shocklands to play alongside (and I remember back when Kird Ape was the best creature in standard, when Zoo and Gruul dominated because of being the only deck whose early drops didn't die to Shock). But now, they make the perfect storm of efficient beaters. 4 Nacatls and any combination of 4-6 Apes/Lions gives you a consistent 1 drop that can't be traded with unless your opponent is also playing Zoo. So, sure, I could try Boros, but I'll inevitable have creautres just slightly weaker than Zoo, so I might as well play Zoo.

Punishing Fire/Grove of the Burnwillows is the other half of the reason nothing is better than Zoo. Because of the X/3 creatures of Zoo, they are relatively safe from this engine, because it takes 2 fires to kill one of their creatures. But Boros, Elves, Merfolk, etc. all rely on early drops with 1 or 2 toughness, and few creatures with higher, so this engine shuts it down. Now, Grove is an interesting and fun card in a vacuum, and there are lots of fun things you can do with it in decks with things like Kavu Predator and Tamanoa, while Punishing Fire is just another burn spell with a recursion effect that had unintended consequences. So I think Punishing Fire should be banned.

I really do believe that banning the check weenies (Ape, Lion, Nacatl) and Punishing Fire would open up the field and let other aggro decks be on par with Zoo. Hell, opening things up might drop the price of some of the above mentioned cards (though probably not).

I also think a few cards need unbanning, as they were banned in anticipation of a slower format that modern really isn't shaping up to be, and would not be nearly as opporessive as they were anticipated to be (Jace, Ancestal Visions, etc.). 

Ashinto, you have no idea what you are talking about. You are literally advocating the banning of vanilla creatures because they are too efficient? If we really need to go that far in Magic, then the game is broken beyond repair. I really can't emphasize enough that you are talking about banning VANILLA CREATURES.

You want reality? Here's some quick predictions.

1. There will be a successful control deck in Modern by the time the Modern PTQ season rolls around. Why? Because I've already seen incarnations of the list on Cockatrice, and it's essentially a Modern snapcaster control shell.

2. PLENTY of decks can poop all over Zoo. Kavu Justice, Splintertwin, Jund, and Big Naya all have great matchups against zoo.

3. Zoo's status as a deck-to-beat is shaky. It takes very little to nudge Zoo's win percentages from 50%+ to 50%-.

Nov 8, 2011 -- 3:31AM, Razorgore wrote:

Ashinto, you have no idea what you are talking about. You are literally advocating the banning of vanilla creatures because they are too efficient? If we really need to go that far in Magic, then the game is broken beyond repair. I really can't emphasize enough that you are talking about banning VANILLA CREATURES.

You want reality? Here's some quick predictions.

1. There will be a successful control deck in Modern by the time the Modern PTQ season rolls around. Why? Because I've already seen incarnations of the list on Cockatrice, and it's essentially a Modern snapcaster control shell.

2. PLENTY of decks can poop all over Zoo. Kavu Justice, Splintertwin, Jund, and Big Naya all have great matchups against zoo.

3. Zoo's status as a deck-to-beat is shaky. It takes very little to nudge Zoo's win percentages from 50%+ to 50%-.

Surprisingly I find myself agreeing with you.  I test on MTGO daily, trying to get in at least 4-5 matches a day, and I have not been seeing Zoo, Twin, or Affinity much at all.  What I do see are several blue based control builds that use Snapcaster Mage (I knew the community was crazy for not giving this card it's props) to counter everything you cast then ping you to death with Snappy, Fae, and to a smaller extent Manlands.  It is a VERY difficult matchup, for me at least, especially since I have been building with an aggro meta in mind.  My guess, at this point, is that a Snappy Fae deck will be the top control (BUG, or even UBR) deck and that it will start to put control on the map.  I will not admit to Control being truely viable until I see the matches or results of a large tournament, but I am anticipating that I will have to admit it soon

That does not mean that I support the ban-list.  I still disagree with GSZ, and still feel that the list is bloated with cards that do not belong there- heck, I would not even use some of the cards on the list if they were unbanned, but I think that a ban-list needs to be as lean as possible.

Nov 8, 2011 -- 3:31AM, Razorgore wrote:

Ashinto, you have no idea what you are talking about. You are literally advocating the banning of vanilla creatures because they are too efficient? If we really need to go that far in Magic, then the game is broken beyond repair. I really can't emphasize enough that you are talking about banning VANILLA CREATURES.

You want reality? Here's some quick predictions.

1. There will be a successful control deck in Modern by the time the Modern PTQ season rolls around. Why? Because I've already seen incarnations of the list on Cockatrice, and it's essentially a Modern snapcaster control shell.

2. PLENTY of decks can poop all over Zoo. Kavu Justice, Splintertwin, Jund, and Big Naya all have great matchups against zoo.

3. Zoo's status as a deck-to-beat is shaky. It takes very little to nudge Zoo's win percentages from 50%+ to 50%-.

Ah the internet, where civility and manners take a vacation and anonymity breeds douchebaggery...

They're not vanilla creatures. See that non-italicized text? That's called an ability. Incidentally, it is that ability to have 3 toughness on an aggressive 1 drop that invalidates any other aggro deck that could be built. The only way to get that 3 toughness is play Mountains, Forests and PLains. ie.: to play Zoo. 

Tarmogoyf is splashable, but Nacatl, Lion and Ape are NOT. That is the problem. If I want to make Boros, it takes about 5 minutes to realize that the best way for me to make the deck competitive is to play Zoo instead. Best way to improve a Bant deck? Add Mountains for Bolt, Nacatl and Helix. Oh wait, that's Zoo.

That's why I advocate the banning of these creatures. They do invalidate every other aggro deck in the format. If you can't see that, I'm sorry, but don't be an ass and accuse people of having no idea what they are talking about, especially when they spell it out for you line by line.  It's crass, rude, and doesn't make you cool.

Nov 8, 2011 -- 9:10PM, Ashinto wrote:

Nov 8, 2011 -- 3:31AM, Razorgore wrote:

Ashinto, you have no idea what you are talking about. You are literally advocating the banning of vanilla creatures because they are too efficient? If we really need to go that far in Magic, then the game is broken beyond repair. I really can't emphasize enough that you are talking about banning VANILLA CREATURES.

You want reality? Here's some quick predictions.

1. There will be a successful control deck in Modern by the time the Modern PTQ season rolls around. Why? Because I've already seen incarnations of the list on Cockatrice, and it's essentially a Modern snapcaster control shell.

2. PLENTY of decks can poop all over Zoo. Kavu Justice, Splintertwin, Jund, and Big Naya all have great matchups against zoo.

3. Zoo's status as a deck-to-beat is shaky. It takes very little to nudge Zoo's win percentages from 50%+ to 50%-.

Ah the internet, where civility and manners take a vacation and anonymity breeds douchebaggery...

They're not vanilla creatures. See that non-italicized text? That's called an ability. Incidentally, it is that ability to have 3 toughness on an aggressive 1 drop that invalidates any other aggro deck that could be built. The only way to get that 3 toughness is play Mountains, Forests and PLains. ie.: to play Zoo. 

Tarmogoyf is splashable, but Nacatl, Lion and Ape are NOT. That is the problem. If I want to make Boros, it takes about 5 minutes to realize that the best way for me to make the deck competitive is to play Zoo instead. Best way to improve a Bant deck? Add Mountains for Bolt, Nacatl and Helix. Oh wait, that's Zoo.

That's why I advocate the banning of these creatures. They do invalidate every other aggro deck in the format. If you can't see that, I'm sorry, but don't be an ass and accuse people of having no idea what they are talking about, especially when they spell it out for you line by line.  It's crass, rude, and doesn't make you cool.

You CAN'T ban the "best" aggro deck when the best aggro deck is struggling to keep up with more controlling decks. It's not just the Zoo-Vs-Other-Aggro matchup that obsoletes bad aggro. You get some awesome board control options in Modern. You think a deck that doesn't have a t1, t2 play that forces the other player to wrath is going to get you anywhere? Good lord. Zoo is going to be the best aggro if you're looking to pure aggro. Any format with good dual lands has three options. Weeny related aggro decks that are actually red-zone based combo decks win (gobbies, generally. See also: the days of clamp-bidding gobbos), super-curve decks that aim to get the game over with, like, yesterday with a stupid amount of reliability and the deliberate tactic of moving the principle turn of the game forward(nine land stompy, sligh) or zoo. You get those three. That's it. All other aggro can't be pure aggro and win with any decent cardpool. That's the pie. If the mana base supports it, the three colors that do aggresive "best" will win at pure aggro. In a world where you can support three colors reliably (albiet painfully) then cutting a color simply cuts your ability to keep up. Expecting anything else is why the squire jokes are out there.

The stronger aggro is at it's theoretical "what it can do", the more control has to be warry of it (ie, it prevents control from getting sloppy) and the more diversity in the cardpool with reguards to combo is out there.


Additionally, you don't entirely seem to understand vanilla as it gets used. It doesn't mean "nothing but flavor text". It means "it's just a beater. It beats".

@Ashinto - You have no idea what Vanilla means in reference to creatures. You're also complaining that aggro doesn't have enough variety in the format, which is clearly false. Want to know what doesn't have enough options? Control and Ramp. Control right now is forced into gifts/snapcaster/removal. The only variety that exists in that shell is whether you're running the academy ruins win-conditions or the teferi win-conditions. Ramp is just way out of luck. The only archetype with real options right now is combo. You have living end, splintertwin, melira, breach/goryo's vengeance, storm/belcher/swath, time sieve, and an EXTREMELY JANKY (but fun) reanimator build.

The bottom line is that your argument holds no water. RDW exists and is more than viable. Zoo exists. Doran Zoo exists. Just because you can't play boros doesn't mean your point is valid.

Nov 10, 2011 -- 12:43AM, Razorgore wrote:

@Ashinto - You have no idea what Vanilla means in reference to creatures. You're also complaining that aggro doesn't have enough variety in the format, which is clearly false. Want to know what doesn't have enough options? Control and Ramp. Control right now is forced into gifts/snapcaster/removal. The only variety that exists in that shell is whether you're running the academy ruins win-conditions or the teferi win-conditions. Ramp is just way out of luck. The only archetype with real options right now is combo. You have living end, splintertwin, melira, breach/goryo's vengeance, storm/belcher/swath, time sieve, and an EXTREMELY JANKY (but fun) reanimator build.

The bottom line is that your argument holds no water. RDW exists and is more than viable. Zoo exists. Doran Zoo exists. Just because you can't play boros doesn't mean your point is valid.

So... you're saying that Kird Ape, Loam Lion and Wild Nacatl are NOT the only non-defender creatures with 3 toughness for 1 mana? Because that is the only way my argument wouldn't "hold water" as you say, since that is my contention. But please, if you can demonstrate how I'm wrong, do sir, do.

How exactly is RDW viable? What magical red cards are they conjuring that allows them to compete with Zoo's better creatures and burn suite (thanks Lightning Helix)? And the second part of "Doran Zoo" demonstrates how much you thought about what you were typing as you were typing it.

As far as Vanilla, I use the term the way the developers use it: to refer to creatures with no abilties. If it doesn't benefit from Muraganda Petroglyphs, then it's not vanilla, whatever modified defnition you folks have adopted around here. 

Nov 10, 2011 -- 2:00AM, Ashinto wrote:

Nov 10, 2011 -- 12:43AM, Razorgore wrote:

So... you're saying that Kird Ape, Loam Lion and Wild Nacatl are NOT the only non-defender creatures with 3 toughness for 1 mana? Because that is the only way my argument wouldn't "hold water" as you say, since that is my contention. But please, if you can demonstrate how I'm wrong, do sir, do.

Yes, Green, White and Red have the best 1-drops. This isn't new. I'm not really sure why you're so obsesed with toughness, however.

How exactly is RDW viable? What magical red cards are they conjuring that allows them to compete with Zoo's better creatures and burn suite (thanks Lightning Helix)? And the second part of "Doran Zoo" demonstrates how much you thought about what you were typing as you were typing it.

Because it's still running 1 mana 2 power creatures, it's mono-red and it doesn't waste time with other crap. We'll need to start getting results before we can say for sure, but sligh is a survivor, even if we *are* in a format without wastelands. Sligh doesn't always do the best, but it always endures and always has resurgents. Hell, does anyone remember Oscar Tan complaining about Sligh decks ruining an otherwise easy to account for metagame when tuning the deck?

As far as Vanilla, I use the term the way the developers use it: to refer to creatures with no abilties. If it doesn't benefit from Muraganda Petroglyphs, then it's not vanilla, whatever modified defnition you folks have adopted around here. 

That's wonderful. The rest of the world considers vanila creatures to be just creatures with a power and toughness. Goyf has been called a vanilla beater since... the day it showed up, back before it was recognized as good. Back when the "dies to removal" vs "yeah, but it's only 2 mana" debate was raging the rest of us recognized that creatures without abilities are vanilla. Are kobolds not vanilla?

First of all, I'm not obsessed. This is a forum thread about the modern banlist. So I expressed my opinion regarding it. UNfortunately, members of this forum seem to be incapable of replying to an opinion without turning it into a personal attack, sadly.

Here is the big difference between the three check creatures and Goyf, and why Ape, Lion and Nacatl hurt the format and Goyf doesn't:

- I can add a few G producing lands and Tarmogoyf to any deck
- To make use of any of the others, I have to play Mountains, Plains AND Forests, and in good enough numbers to make sure they are consistant. The result of this is that every aggro list that performs efficeintly is going to look the same, because they will be limited to the same colour scheme.

By all means, play RDW. But you will lose to Zoo. You will play your 2/2 for R and they will be stopped cold by Zoo's 2/3s and 3/3s, which can attack gleefully into your creatures without fear. Are you going to waste burn on them? All the better for the Zoo player, who already has enough of an edge against you from the life gain from Helix, let alone you wasting your few burn spells on his creatures. It's not a matter of Red, Green and White having the best one drops, that's okay when they're stand alone. It's a matter of having to play all three together to play aggro. THAT is the problem. If it were a world of Goblin Guides, Isamarus, Figures of Destiny, Steppe Lynxes, then that would be a varied environment. You could have two equally performing aggro decks with radically different lists. Right now, however, that is simply not the case, and no amount of unbanning Control cards will change that. I'm not saying there aren't some control cards that SHOULD be unbanned (I fully believe that unbanning Jace and Ancestral Visions at the very least would only help the format, and Bitterblossom is probably safe in a world with so many easy and efficient ways to deal with it), but I firmly believe that aggro will be stale and boring until at least one (preferrably all three) of these format-warping creatures are banned.

And personal definitions of what "vanilla" means are pretty pointless here.  Whatever anyone means when they say "vanilla" doesn't change the effect those three have on the game. 

Nov 10, 2011 -- 4:18PM, Ashinto wrote:

First of all, I'm not obsessed. This is a forum thread about the modern banlist. So I expressed my opinion regarding it. UNfortunately, members of this forum seem to be incapable of replying to an opinion without turning it into a personal attack, sadly.

Banning vanilla creatures is totally unnecessary, and it would be an outrage if even remotely considered.

I just told you that I don't agree with your point at all. But that doesn't mean that I'm personally attacking you. "I disagree" is not a personal attack.

This issue comes up on every discussion about banning/unbanning cards: there always has to be a best of something. Accept it. You often see arguments like " Goyf is the biggest 2-Drop creature ever, he needs to be banned because he's too efficient."

Now, if Goyf were banned, the next-biggest 2-Drop would take over as being the biggest. Then you have people saying that that creature should be banned. If Wizards listened to these people each time, you know what you'd eventaully end up hearing?

"Man, Grizzly Bears is so unfair! 2 power for 2 mana?! Like,...WTF?"

Now, do you really want that to be the state of Magic?


There always has to be the best of something. Zoo is the best aggro deck? Ban something to cripple Zoo! Now RDW is the best? Ban something to cripple RDW! Now Zoo is good again? Ban something else!

Where do you draw the line? There's no reason for there to be 10 page long banlists, which is where thinking like yours would get us.


If vanilla creatures are banned, then Magic truly is broken beyond repair. Or wait, maybe it isn't. Maybe, just maybe, if you even thought of vanilla creatures being banned, then we should unban other cards instead. As long as power levels end up balanced, why can't we power-up control instead of nerfing aggro? As long as power levels are balanced, and the format is stable, the absolute power scale isn't as important.



Plus, Zoo is not "the best" deck. It is beatable, and easily, but you have to build your decks smart.

In last year's Standard, expecting a field full of Valakut decks, why would you not play Tectonic Edge ?

If you expect Twin - Combo , then you make sure to pack instant-speed removal

Aggro? Now that's easy. Just stock up on Wrath of God . Kitchen Finks can also be helpful. And Blood Moon is stupidly good against a deck that runs almost no basic lands (obviously).

Just try building your deck to the metagame before you say that cards should be banned.

Honestly, there's usually one aggro deck (as opposed to aggro control or aggro combo) deck that takes point. That being said, RDW has better hosers, although yes, it does hurt that Price of Progress isn't available.

Nov 10, 2011 -- 6:40PM, buddy2 wrote:

Plus, Zoo is not "the best" deck. It is beatable, and easily, but you have to build your decks smart.

I agree with the rest of your post, but this is just wrong as far as we know.  The lasd, best, verifiable information we have about the metagame is MTGO daylies, and before they stopped reporting Modern data (which was before the latest ban went in to effect) Zoo was had more slots in each t8 than any other deck.  "The Best" does not mean unbeatable, it just means that it has the best chance to win against the decks in the metagame.  Zoo had matchups that were worse than others, but it really had no BAD matchups, and most of the other decks did.

That is, of course, out of date, and your meta may have different results, but as far as data that can be publicly verfied, Zoo is the best deck.

Nov 10, 2011 -- 6:40PM, buddy2 wrote:

Nov 10, 2011 -- 4:18PM, Ashinto wrote:

First of all, I'm not obsessed. This is a forum thread about the modern banlist. So I expressed my opinion regarding it. UNfortunately, members of this forum seem to be incapable of replying to an opinion without turning it into a personal attack, sadly.

Banning vanilla creatures is totally unnecessary, and it would be an outrage if even remotely considered.

I just told you that I don't agree with your point at all. But that doesn't mean that I'm personally attacking you. "I disagree" is not a personal attack.

This issue comes up on every discussion about banning/unbanning cards: there always has to be a best of something. Accept it. You often see arguments like " Goyf is the biggest 2-Drop creature ever, he needs to be banned because he's too efficient."

Now, if Goyf were banned, the next-biggest 2-Drop would take over as being the biggest. Then you have people saying that that creature should be banned. If Wizards listened to these people each time, you know what you'd eventaully end up hearing?

"Man, Grizzly Bears is so unfair! 2 power for 2 mana?! Like,...WTF?"

Now, do you really want that to be the state of Magic?


There always has to be the best of something. Zoo is the best aggro deck? Ban something to cripple Zoo! Now RDW is the best? Ban something to cripple RDW! Now Zoo is good again? Ban something else!

Where do you draw the line? There's no reason for there to be 10 page long banlists, which is where thinking like yours would get us.


If vanilla creatures are banned, then Magic truly is broken beyond repair. Or wait, maybe it isn't. Maybe, just maybe, if you even thought of vanilla creatures being banned, then we should unban other cards instead. As long as power levels end up balanced, why can't we power-up control instead of nerfing aggro? As long as power levels are balanced, and the format is stable, the absolute power scale isn't as important.



Plus, Zoo is not "the best" deck. It is beatable, and easily, but you have to build your decks smart.

In last year's Standard, expecting a field full of Valakut decks, why would you not play Tectonic Edge ?

If you expect Twin - Combo , then you make sure to pack instant-speed removal

Aggro? Now that's easy. Just stock up on Wrath of God . Kitchen Finks can also be helpful. And Blood Moon is stupidly good against a deck that runs almost no basic lands (obviously).

Just try building your deck to the metagame before you say that cards should be banned.

Why does it always have to come down to dismissive hyperbole? Instead of demonstrating actual cards that contradict my position, you are strawmanning with the whole "At this rate, you're going to call Grizzly Bear broken and everyone will be playing Squire!" crap. If you can't address my actual point, why reply at all? Obviously I don't think all creatures should be banned, and I think I have been VERY VERY clear on why I think these creatures -should- be. I could hyperbolize and strawman your position too. Like, why did they restrict the Moxes in Vintage? They're just vanilla artifacts that make mana. There has to be a BEST mana rock right? Where does this end? With that sort of thinking, soon we'll all be playing Spheres of the Suns. You know why the Moxen are a problem? Because you get more out of them than you should for hte investment. Not even that far, even Sol Ring, Tolarian Academy, etc. etc. etc. And from a creautre standpoint, I feel the same about Nacatl, Ape and Lion. That's where I draw the line. THere is no slippery slope, no hidden agena, no paranoia. I say this with years of experience playing magic across formats and seeing how certain cards warp formats around them. 

Do you honestly not see the difference between these two situations?

A) The best creature in magic is easily splashable and fits into multiple archetypes and thus allows it to be used without dictating deck construction to the players

OR

B) The best creature in magic has strict requirements about manabase and fits only into a narrow archetype and therefore restricts deck construction

A is Tarrmogoyf, which is fine from a balance perspective (2 drop, can be countered even on turn one with Mana Tithe, takes a few turns to get big, and is easily splashable into decks). B is Wild Nacatla and to a (barely) lesser extent Kird Ape and Loam Lion (1 drop, uncounterable on the draw, immediate board impact, defines manabase and thus deck style by its very presence).

Even if you disagree with my conclusion, can you not at least see the difference between Goyf and the "Check Weenies"?

As far as attacks, no, I don't think disagreement is an attack. But telling me I have no idea what I am talking about is. As is implying that I am disconnected from reality. Dismissing my stance on a topic as "obsession" simply because it differs from yours is. Immediately insisting that my conclusion must come from ignorance may not be an attack of itself, but it is certainly arguing in poor faith, as are the strawman tactics you take up. It's saying you can't give $5 to charity because if you do the next thing you know those dirty pinko commie bastards are gonna come take all your gold. I jest, but seriously, address the point I made, not the point you invented because ti was easier for you to argue with. 

I don't see where this whole "the best creatures require a specific deck" hatred is coming from. That's a fact of magic card design. Protectible fatties? You need the right deck for that. Efficient betters that suck except you only care about their effiency? There's a deck for that. Tribe-matters cards? Oh, look, there's decks for that.

Zoo is an established pedigree in magic. Yes, there's some fallout from the devs working hard to keep the deck alive in Legacy that ramps it's power level up.

You've got a stable manabase to do it... up until the other guy gives it a push. You've got great t1 beats, but hey, that's aggro. Beats *have* to be that good in order for t1 beats to matter at all. Have to, HAVE to apply enough pressure t1-3 to force a wrath even though the other side has spot removal or else aggro just doesn't cut it.

Just because Zoo is good enough but your pet decks aren't is no reason for the hatred.

There need to be efficient beaters that dodge countermagic one way or another or else control just wins. Yeah, with combo getting the bulk of the hosing control does have to be on it's back foot a bit, but the fact that there's an aggro deck faster than the one you want to play isn't innately evil. 

I'll put in my 2 cents, then shut up. You are complaining bout Zoo only in relation to other aggro decks. Just because it is the "best" aggro deck doesn't make it broken. It has many inherent weaknesses to other decks. For example, my deck (an Eggs variant) has a nearly flawless record against Zoo and other creature-based decks. So, does that mean my deck needs to be banned for hosing the "best" deck? No, I actually have a near-winless record against control decks.

Decks always have different match-ups; get over it.

God, I really hate replying in these threads; always seems to me like I'm giving a personal attack even though I'm giving clear logic. 

Nov 11, 2011 -- 4:03PM, Cyklown wrote:

I don't see where this whole "the best creatures require a specific deck" hatred is coming from. That's a fact of magic card design. Protectible fatties? You need the right deck for that. Efficient betters that suck except you only care about their effiency? There's a deck for that. Tribe-matters cards? Oh, look, there's decks for that.

Zoo is an established pedigree in magic. Yes, there's some fallout from the devs working hard to keep the deck alive in Legacy that ramps it's power level up.

You've got a stable manabase to do it... up until the other guy gives it a push. You've got great t1 beats, but hey, that's aggro. Beats *have* to be that good in order for t1 beats to matter at all. Have to, HAVE to apply enough pressure t1-3 to force a wrath even though the other side has spot removal or else aggro just doesn't cut it.

Just because Zoo is good enough but your pet decks aren't is no reason for the hatred.

There need to be efficient beaters that dodge countermagic one way or another or else control just wins. Yeah, with combo getting the bulk of the hosing control does have to be on it's back foot a bit, but the fact that there's an aggro deck faster than the one you want to play isn't innately evil. 

Okay, I'm going to try one last time to explain this, because my point is being lost. A "best creature" that fits into a variety of decks is good. It allows for variety and creativity and interesting play. A "best creature" whose form dictates a significant portion of your deck construction for you is bad because it restricts the viable deck choices and results in stale play and mirror matches. 

I'll give an example from recent standard: Caw-Blade vs Birthing Pod

Caw-Blade decks were nearly identical to eachother and resulted in grinding mirror matches that turned a lot of people off of magic. Contrast with Birthing Pod decks, which are popular precisely because there is so much variety. There are many different colour combinations, and deckbuilders have room to be creative. 

That's why I think Goyf is fine but Nacatl & Co. are a problem. One lets you use it how you want, the other tells you how to use it. 

Nov 11, 2011 -- 7:38PM, Ashinto wrote:

That's why I think Goyf is fine but Nacatl & Co. are a problem. One lets you use it how you want, the other tells you how to use it. 

How does forcing (encouraging really) you to run some mountains and plains dictate your deck?  All Nacatl does is dictate what basic land types are in your deck, and if having certain basic land types dictates what your deck will look like, then perhaps we should ban them instead.  You speak of Nacatl, Lion, and Ape as if they were Slivers or Allys that have some linear mechanic.  They are not, you could put Nacatl in a Control deck if you want- it is not a smart move to do so due to the nature of control's game, but there is nothing about Nacatl (aside from being essentially a vanilla 3/3) that in anyway dictates what other spells you use.

Nov 11, 2011 -- 7:38PM, Ashinto wrote:

That's why I think Goyf is fine but Nacatl & Co. are a problem. One lets you use it how you want, the other tells you how to use it. 

OK, maybe one last input.

So we need to ban all parasitic deck archetypes because they encourage deckbuilding in a certain way (this spreads across all formats, not just Modern)? I'm sorry, but if that's a reason to ban things, the format is dead beyond belief. Things get banned for being to powerful.

Now I think I should stop looking at this thread.

Nov 12, 2011 -- 6:37AM, LunaStik wrote:

Nov 11, 2011 -- 7:38PM, Ashinto wrote:

That's why I think Goyf is fine but Nacatl & Co. are a problem. One lets you use it how you want, the other tells you how to use it. 

OK, maybe one last input.

So we need to ban all parasitic deck archetypes because they encourage deckbuilding in a certain way (this spreads across all formats, not just Modern)? I'm sorry, but if that's a reason to ban things, the format is dead beyond belief. Things get banned for being to powerful.

Now I think I should stop looking at this thread.

[FACEPALM]wut[/FACEPALM]

Remember what I said about hyperbole? You're doing it wrong (unless you're trolling, in which you're still doing it wrong becuase you forgot to ask "U MAD BRO?").

Why address someone's point when you can instead invent a different, extreme point and win over nine thousand internets?

This is like an unsharpened number 2 pencil.... 

Nov 12, 2011 -- 3:28PM, Ashinto wrote:

[FACEPALM]wut[/FACEPALM]

Remember what I said about hyperbole? You're doing it wrong (unless you're trolling, in which you're still doing it wrong becuase you forgot to ask "U MAD BRO?").

My point was not hyerbolic, and I would be interested in your answer.  To repeat:

Nov 11, 2011 -- 10:39PM, DrWorm wrote:

Nov 11, 2011 -- 7:38PM, Ashinto wrote:

That's why I think Goyf is fine but Nacatl & Co. are a problem. One lets you use it how you want, the other tells you how to use it. 

How does forcing (encouraging really) you to run some mountains and plains dictate your deck?  All Nacatl does is dictate what basic land types are in your deck, and if having certain basic land types dictates what your deck will look like, then perhaps we should ban them instead.  You speak of Nacatl, Lion, and Ape as if they were Slivers or Allys that have some linear mechanic.  They are not, you could put Nacatl in a traditional Control deck if you want- it is not a smart move to do so due to the nature of control's game, but there is nothing about Nacatl (aside from being essentially a vanilla 3/3) that in anyway dictates what other spells you use.

Okay...there was a slight bit, when I asked about banning basic lands, but for the most part the question is quite down to earth.  How does Nacatl "tell you how to use it" more than any other creature?

Nov 11, 2011 -- 7:38PM, Ashinto wrote:

Okay, I'm going to try one last time to explain this, because my point is being lost. A "best creature" that fits into a variety of decks is good. It allows for variety and creativity and interesting play. A "best creature" whose form dictates a significant portion of your deck construction for you is bad because it restricts the viable deck choices and results in stale play and mirror matches. 

~~~~~~~~

That's why I think Goyf is fine but Nacatl & Co. are a problem. One lets you use it how you want, the other tells you how to use it. 

You are saying Nacatl, Lion, and Ape are bad because they dictate that you run shocklands. It doesn't get more asinine than that. The best part is that you think RDW is too rigid to deal with zoo, when things like Boggart Ram-Gang and Searing Blaze actually make Zoo a relatively EASY matchup, especially when they are bolting themselves for the first 3 turns just to get their curve off.  The only reason burn wasn't making a better showing pre-banning was the fact that combo was everywhere, and there's not a lot RDW can do against goyro's vengeance or through the breach decks. With combo eating some needed nerfs, RDW is actually very well situated to perform in the modern meta.

Nov 13, 2011 -- 9:31PM, Razorgore wrote:

... especially when they are bolting themselves for the first 3 turns just to get their curve off...

EXACTLY.

We're talking about a deck that bolts itself twice and shocks itself once every game. In extended, when Zoo had access to fetches, shocks and either lash out or helix folks ran lash because the 3 life gain was offset too often by the life it cost to get there.

A deck like rdw, even though it loses out out a lifelinking incinerate, doesn't care that the other decks get better cards. RDW has never, NEVER cared about the fact that it was running worse cards. They care about what the other side is doing to itself, and a deck that repeatedly bolts and shocks itself just to be allowed into the game at all is simply delicious.

Please refrain from personal attacks and flaming, these are violations of the Code of Conduct.

You can review the Code here: wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg...

You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violations, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.

Nov 11, 2011 -- 7:38PM, Ashinto wrote:

Nov 11, 2011 -- 4:03PM, Cyklown wrote:

I don't see where this whole "the best creatures require a specific deck" hatred is coming from. That's a fact of magic card design. Protectible fatties? You need the right deck for that. Efficient betters that suck except you only care about their effiency? There's a deck for that. Tribe-matters cards? Oh, look, there's decks for that.

Zoo is an established pedigree in magic. Yes, there's some fallout from the devs working hard to keep the deck alive in Legacy that ramps it's power level up.

You've got a stable manabase to do it... up until the other guy gives it a push. You've got great t1 beats, but hey, that's aggro. Beats *have* to be that good in order for t1 beats to matter at all. Have to, HAVE to apply enough pressure t1-3 to force a wrath even though the other side has spot removal or else aggro just doesn't cut it.

Just because Zoo is good enough but your pet decks aren't is no reason for the hatred.

There need to be efficient beaters that dodge countermagic one way or another or else control just wins. Yeah, with combo getting the bulk of the hosing control does have to be on it's back foot a bit, but the fact that there's an aggro deck faster than the one you want to play isn't innately evil. 

Okay, I'm going to try one last time to explain this, because my point is being lost. A "best creature" that fits into a variety of decks is good. It allows for variety and creativity and interesting play. A "best creature" whose form dictates a significant portion of your deck construction for you is bad because it restricts the viable deck choices and results in stale play and mirror matches. 

I'll give an example from recent standard: Caw-Blade vs Birthing Pod

Caw-Blade decks were nearly identical to eachother and resulted in grinding mirror matches that turned a lot of people off of magic. Contrast with Birthing Pod decks, which are popular precisely because there is so much variety. There are many different colour combinations, and deckbuilders have room to be creative. 

That's why I think Goyf is fine but Nacatl & Co. are a problem. One lets you use it how you want, the other tells you how to use it. 

Hm...there is a flaw in your logic.

Even if Zoo has the best aggro vs. aggro match up, it does not mean that other aggro decks will not be played, because those other aggro decks may have better match ups against other decks in the format. The good thing about having a format like Modern (and Legacy) with such a huge cardpool is precisely the amount of decks that can spring from it. Non-Zoo aggro may not be the absolute tier-1, but it is possible to have showings as Tier-2 decks that play on the metagame.

But of course, I am using Legacy as an example. We won't really know until the format develops a bit more. But I seriously doubt that Nacatl, Lion, and Ape will be banned. Weakening aggro decks this way would put control decks over the top.

On a side note, I don't really understand why Preordain is banned...

Unless they reprint Goyf then I suggest to ban it as it makes the format inaccessable unless you drop $$$$ on the 2ndary market.

Nov 29, 2011 -- 10:19AM, BlackHalfDragon wrote:

Unless they reprint Goyf then I suggest to ban it as it makes the format inaccessable unless you drop $$$$ on the 2ndary market.

That is just not true.  Goyf is good, but is FAR from required to compete in the format.

The thing is with any such format - entry cost. 

Running black - need thoughtsiezes
Blue vend. cliques, or cryptics
Green - goyf or GTFO...

 I know standard is silly to even attempt to play competedtively in terms of cost (unless you draft 3/week) but the eternal formats require a high level of investment.

Nov 29, 2011 -- 2:12PM, BlackHalfDragon wrote:

The thing is with any such format - entry cost. 

Running black - need thoughtsiezes
Blue vend. cliques, or cryptics
Green - goyf or GTFO...

 I know standard is silly to even attempt to play competedtively in terms of cost (unless you draft 3/week) but the eternal formats require a high level of investment.

That is just not the case right now in modern.  Okay, in blue you sort of need Snapcaster Mage (but not the others you mention), and if you want to run green you would be better off running Goyf, but in the three other colors you do not have "must have" cards.  Thoughtseize is great and all, but most games IoK will do just as well.  Elspeth and Gideon are fantastic late game finishers, but not all white decks will be better with them.  I can't even think of what is close to a "must Have" in red that is not $1 or cheaper.

The only close to "must have" in Modern right now are shocklands and Fetches, and it is possible to make due without them and build up.  Good multi-color mana bases have always been an investment in eternal formats, and Modern is no different.

i hate the timeshifted frame, not to mention the art itself; i'd be glad simply to never see this card again.

Dec 22, 2011 -- 3:35AM, Emuscles wrote:

i hate the timeshifted frame, not to mention the art itself; i'd be glad simply to never see this card again.

I agree with you that the card is UGLY (it ain't got no aliby), but for me that is a god reason to reprint it.

Nov 10, 2011 -- 6:40PM, buddy2 wrote:

Banning vanilla creatures is totally unnecessary, and it would be an outrage if even remotely considered.
...
This issue comes up on every discussion about banning/unbanning cards: there always has to be a best of something. Accept it. You often see arguments like " Goyf is the biggest 2-Drop creature ever, he needs to be banned because he's too efficient."

Banning vanilla creatures is totally unnecessary, and it would be an outrage if even remotely considered. Haha, that made me laugh, but this discussion is silly.

It's the banning only semi doesn't-make-sence. Wizards probably look at the top 8 rankings and if the same card is being played in- say- five of the top eight decks. They probably ban it outright just so there is devirsity in the format. Who knows Modern is still pretty young, after the current "top cards" see some play maybe in a year the ban list will add some and then maybe they'll remove some.

That being said I'm curious out-side of Bob and Goyf. Who is the next top rated 2 drop?

Jan 23, 2012 -- 9:18AM, BloodDragon wrote:

Nov 10, 2011 -- 6:40PM, buddy2 wrote:

Banning vanilla creatures is totally unnecessary, and it would be an outrage if even remotely considered.
...
This issue comes up on every discussion about banning/unbanning cards: there always has to be a best of something. Accept it. You often see arguments like " Goyf is the biggest 2-Drop creature ever, he needs to be banned because he's too efficient."

Banning vanilla creatures is totally unnecessary, and it would be an outrage if even remotely considered. Haha, that made me laugh, but this discussion is silly.

It's the banning only semi doesn't-make-sence. Wizards probably look at the top 8 rankings and if the same card is being played in- say- five of the top eight decks. They probably ban it outright just so there is devirsity in the format. Who knows Modern is still pretty young, after the current "top cards" see some play maybe in a year the ban list will add some and then maybe they'll remove some.

That being said I'm curious out-side of Bob and Goyf. Who is the next top rated 2 drop?

You obviously didn't play Modern much. Nactal shoved aside almost every other turn one, two, and most of the turn three creatures that were available, simply because it WAS so good as a vanilla creature. 

As for the next rated 2-drop, I would vote Smother. One of the best pieces of Removal in the format.

Tarmogoyf 100$ ok thanks bye!

Mar 21, 2012 -- 5:21PM, Guest2021323141 wrote:

Tarmogoyf 100$ ok thanks bye!

You necro'd something from two months ago to add nothing to the conversation? Awesome dude, thanks!

I don't care, i'm just angry because I cannot play Modern.

Mar 23, 2012 -- 4:57AM, Guest2021323141 wrote:

I don't care, i'm just angry because I cannot play Modern.

If that is true it sounds like a skill problem. There are budget Modern decks, just not 'Goyf or Bob.

I was going to make a thread about this myself, but since one is already here, I'll post my thoughts.

First off, Tarmogoyf is the most broken green card in Modern right now. For two mana, you can have a 3/4, a 4/5, a 5/6 or a 6/7. There's no way to prepare against that. You have to hope you draw a Maelstrom Pulse or a Path. Players don't even need to cast him- he can be brought into play at EOT through Aether Vial. Normally, you'd have to pay lots of mana or run Birthing Pod to get a big creature.

Secondly, you can find him with a Bloodbraid Elf's cascade effect. In this case, you're not even paying mana for it. If someone has a counterspell in hand, what do they counter- the powerful creature or the one with haste? It's a pretty safe bet that no one's going to run Double Negative, so getting a really powerful card for free just shouldn't happen.

The issue here isn't one of price- there are other competitive strategies which are affordable. The issue is that Tarmogoyf is a creature better left to Legacy where there is a strong countermagic presence, something you don't have in Modern. Most blue decks will run Vendillion Clique, which can put a Goyf on the bottom. However, with cascade lurking, it doesn't even matter all that much. The one card that makes Zoo overbalanced is Tarmogoyf, and it should be banned.

As for Dark Confidant, he doesn't do anything much by himself except find a win condition faster. If that condition isn't there, he isn't playable. I think the answer is to leave Confidant legal and ban Tarmogoyf.

Mar 24, 2012 -- 6:49AM, Slivers79 wrote:

I was going to make a thread about this myself, but since one is already here, I'll post my thoughts.

First off, Tarmogoyf is the most broken green card in Modern right now. For two mana, you can have a 3/4, a 4/5, a 5/6 or a 6/7. There's no way to prepare against that. You have to hope you draw a Maelstrom Pulse or a Path. Players don't even need to cast him- he can be brought into play at EOT through Aether Vial. Normally, you'd have to pay lots of mana or run Birthing Pod to get a big creature.

My 0 mana Tormod's Crypt can make your broken card a tiny creature.  And you should be running plenty of ways to kill creatures anyway, because that's a huge part of what Modern is.  Terminate , Path to Exile , Doom Blade , Lightning Bolt before it's too big, even Unsummon can stall it enough to let you win.  So there are plenty of ways to prepare against it.

As for Dark Confidant, he doesn't do anything much by himself except find a win condition faster. If that condition isn't there, he isn't playable. I think the answer is to leave Confidant legal and ban Tarmogoyf.

You're going to run a deck that doesn't have a win condition to find?
Confidant does not only find your win card.  He finds your kill spells for that Tarmogoyf you don't like so much, more counters to deal with other threats, more lands to cast it all, etc.  And he attacks for 2.  Obviously he's not right for every deck - just the ones with swamps that like to play spells.

Mar 24, 2012 -- 6:49AM, Slivers79 wrote:

As for Dark Confidant, he doesn't do anything much by himself except find a win condition faster. If that condition isn't there, he isn't playable. I think the answer is to leave Confidant legal and ban Tarmogoyf.

On the basis of this comment alone, I have entirely discounted everything you just posted.

I keep forgetting how awful some magic players can be.

Mar 24, 2012 -- 1:44PM, Slivers79 wrote:

I keep forgetting how awful some magic players can be.

If you are playing black and not running Dark Confidant, you are doing it wrong. Some decks even splash black just for Confidant.

Yet you believe it mediocre. Yet we are aweful. 

Mar 24, 2012 -- 1:44PM, Slivers79 wrote:

I keep forgetting how awful some magic players can be.

Thank you for reminding us.


I distinctly recall Dark Confidant being played in Affinity builds. He's really good.


I think they should keep the format right where it is. The top 8's are terrifically balanced. Tron, RUG Tempo, Soul Sisters, BW Tokens, Boremandos, Twin, Storm, Jund, Bant, Aggro Loam... all totally viable.

Haha. Haha.

"Confident? That's only card advantage. Goyf is a cheap beater that your opponent has to use a 1:1 kill spell on! Oh noz!"

Yes. Magic players are awesome. They they all sarcastic when confronted with someone who professes to know what's what but who values beatsticks over card advantage. That, to me, is awesome enough.

how has this not been locked yet?

confidant does Not go in every deck just most, he needs to be in a deck with low cmc preferably fairly fast and aggresive. the opponents ive played who forget this tend to kill themselves. Ive even left confidants unblocked purely for the purpose of having them damage an opponent on low life.

they are very good but far from broken, imo. 

goyf is incredible value. hes close to broken when he manages to swing t3 for 5 but thats relatively rare, he does require some setup and can be curtailed by graveyard hate even if thats  relatively rare and usually comes at a price. All in all hes incrediboly strong but not broken. He IS probably the best costed combat creature in the game, especially considering that his power doesnt rely at all on synergy (with anything on the board anyway)

1) Price should never be a factor of a card getting banned. High prices can be a side-effect, but never a main factor of a broken card.

2) Magic is a business, they have to make money to survive. When a card is "popular" MTG will crank the price up of that card souly because of the fact that they need to pay the bills. So thats why cards like Confi and Tarmo are expensive. Along with natural inflation and the fact MTG keeps growing as a business, cards will continue to increase in price. Prepare yourself. (In my eyes though, money is a small cost to play such a brilliant game.)

3) Give the MTG Research & Development team a little respect would ya? They have been balancing this awesome game for like what.. 14 years now? The least you could do is try to come up with something intellectual to say on this forum instead of splooging your noob sauce all over your keyboard and then pressing enter. 

I remember when modern first started up everyone said noone will use bob cause nothing uses him blah blah blah.

Before modern even became offical bobs price skyrocketed and the first 6 months noone used it, now it needs to be banned? wow dude quite your complaining.

Jun 14, 2012 -- 8:24PM, Sidneyious wrote:

I remember when modern first started up everyone said noone will use bob cause nothing uses him blah blah blah.

Before modern even became offical bobs price skyrocketed and the first 6 months noone used it, now it needs to be banned? wow dude quite your complaining.

1) Who said that? Dark Confidant is has seen, is seeing, and will see play in quite literally every format he is legal in. Including Vintage. Whoever said Dark Confidant wouldn't see play in Modern is in a minority. 

2) Did this really need a necro?

Don't treat me like a "noob" for this question (although I only started playing this game 3 days ago), but can anyone explain to me the circumstances that make Dark Confidant a good card. To me it seems to be a slightly weak card with an ability that is too heavily priced in life to be an incentive to me.
If anyone can be bothered explaining, please do. =/

Jun 17, 2012 -- 7:59PM, ChopperChicken wrote:

Don't treat me like a "noob" for this question (although I only started playing this game 3 days ago), but can anyone explain to me the circumstances that make Dark Confidant a good card. To me it seems to be a slightly weak card with an ability that is too heavily priced in life to be an incentive to me.
If anyone can be bothered explaining, please do. =/

The only life that matters is the last one. Card advantage is extremely valuable, especially to control players. A few life for a single card is manageable, and you can just kill him off or bounce him if needed.

Jun 17, 2012 -- 7:59PM, ChopperChicken wrote:

Don't treat me like a "noob" for this question (although I only started playing this game 3 days ago), but can anyone explain to me the circumstances that make Dark Confidant a good card. To me it seems to be a slightly weak card with an ability that is too heavily priced in life to be an incentive to me.
If anyone can be bothered explaining, please do. =/

What can bob do?

he is cheap to play, he can swing for 2, he can block, he draws you cards, he is a target.

Just looking though this thread, I don't think it's great if only a handfull of stratergies are plausible, not everyone is into the meta game, ofc every deck clearly can't be optimised to equal perfection either, but wouldn't it be better to have at least a few top level statergies per color, that rotated around as new cards are relesed, several of which are more optimised vertions of less competitive statergies?

Also, I think in reguards to what was being said eariler, take the following vanillia two mana creatures, they are not based on any real cards:

1/2
1/3
2/1
2/2
2/3
3/2
3/4
4/1

Ban the few of thease (3/4 in this case) that seems wrong and there is more variety for players to build around, ban everything except the 1/2 and 2/1 and you get to the point of reducing the number of playable cards by banning instead of increasing it, which is only helpfull to slow down the format, whitch likely will need to occur as nothing ever rotates out of modern but it's a long way away. I don't see how removing cards from the very highest end of the power curve where the space of cards is tiny is a bad thing, in favour of the big chunk in the middle of the power curve where things are priced as would be expected and it's a ballenced matter of choice.

Jun 15, 2012 -- 12:45AM, iamajellydonut wrote:

Jun 14, 2012 -- 8:24PM, Sidneyious wrote:

I remember when modern first started up everyone said noone will use bob cause nothing uses him blah blah blah.

Before modern even became offical bobs price skyrocketed and the first 6 months noone used it, now it needs to be banned? wow dude quite your complaining.

1) Who said that? Dark Confidant is has seen, is seeing, and will see play in quite literally every format he is legal in. Including Vintage. Whoever said Dark Confidant wouldn't see play in Modern is in a minority.

2) Did this really need a necro?

1: how ever long modern has been around then add 3 months before that, there was a topic about it in some forum cause modern did not have a forum then. Now I can recall a topic that was about 10 pages long with about 10 people talking about card prices jumping and how bob went from 20$ to 45$ litterally in 12 hours. Thoes same 10 people said that there was only 4 deck types that even used them.

2: well its better than starting another topic when one exists already.

Please remember to keep your comments positive, productive, and on topic. Remember we are trying to create a
mutually beneficial and productive community for everyone to take part in.

At the end of the day we are all in this thing together, and if we don't work together we will never get anywhere!

If you have any questions or would like to read the CoC you can find it here:

company.wizards.com/conduct

Remember, Keep it clean, Keep it nice, and of course Keep it fun!

Thank you for your understanding!

Bob isn't worth bann. His drawback makes you to build aroud him. I experienced several times, that it killed his owner. His ability costs you 7 life during the game, which is quite a lot. He is good but not overpowered

The Goyf is totally different. He became almost auto-include in every deck playing green. 
Unfortunately, these auto-includes ruin the format for me. My idea of healthy and funny format is that you should encounter a lot of different decks and cards. Today's Legacy and Modern are boring as hell. You always encounter the same few decks and the same cards. The actual number of cards played in Modern and Legacy is horribly low compared to the cardpool available. This also leads to horrible price of the most played cards. All of you who argue that they are worth the investment: You know, not everybody is rich, not everybody is from Germany,America,Japan..etc., not everybody lives his life only for MTG. I agree that if you want to be a pro player, you must make some investment, but this policy totaly closed  MTG tournaments    for most of MTG players (the pros ale only a small fraction). There are no budget limited tournaments ( I would really like to visit some tournament with lets say.. 20-30 bucks limit for a deck ).  You can't enjoy playing competitions if you are not willing to spend hundreds of bucks for a deck.
The boring field and the price of constructed tournaments forced me and several my friends to stop or not start competitive MTG except drafts. 
Fortunately they banned Jace, Mind Sculptor. He was the biggest mistake ever printed. Practicaly a card that can win on its own.
I support banning goyf and several overpowered cards that are not connected with some strategy. It would make the modern enviroment more fun.
I always play some cards to deal with goyf, so its not really a problem for me in the meaning of power. But I am bored as hell. The MTG (and even competitive MTG). Should be more about fun ! 

Scrubs lead to banning. Banning leads to stagnation. Stagnation leads to boredom.

In all seriousness, though, I don't think there's a single argument for the banning of Goyf that I haven't heard yet, and "It's so expensive" is used way more often than should be reasonable. Yes, Goyf is overpriced. It's getting a reprint. A somewhat limited one, but a reprint nonetheless. That's the thing. Wizards seem intent on Modern not going the way of Legacy and slowly dying to the high entry price.

As for power level concerns? I could go "loldiestoremoval", but most creatures do, so that's stupid. Instead I will point out that Goyf, on its own, is not a broken card. It's not an enabler. Look at the banning of Survival of the Fittest in Legacy a year or so ago. Was it broken without Vengevine ? No, Survival was only broken when paired with VV. Doesn't that mean VV should be banned? No, because Survival is the enabler here, not VV. Over time, there  is a high risk that another creature would appear which had an equally overpowered combo with Survival. The other way around is far, far less likely. 

In my opinion, a card is broken when you have to either play with it or play dedicated hate to beat it. Goys is not such a card. It's just a dumb beater. Probably the best blue card in the format now, but still a dumb beater.

Confidant is also fine, but that one's not one I see brought up so often, so eh.