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?
Luckily, we have stop-having-fun guys to remind us that having anything more than 60 cards in your deck is tantamount to being a rapist and anyone considering it should be strung up by their **** .
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.
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 ?
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.
Luckily, we have stop-having-fun guys to remind us that having anything more than 60 cards in your deck is tantamount to being a rapist and anyone considering it should be strung up by their **** .
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.
Shalom! ------------------------------ "That's the trouble with the Multiverse: the inability to easily make holes."- "Marky" Mark Rosewater
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 ?
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.
Luckily, we have stop-having-fun guys to remind us that having anything more than 60 cards in your deck is tantamount to being a rapist and anyone considering it should be strung up by their **** .
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.
As long as it's random, I really can't see where's the problem. Anyway, there's already a few standard ways for doing this. We listed them in this thread. If someone does the bogey-bogey, eats the cards, waits until they come out, look out the approximate order, place replacements in the same order, calls the president to ask him to give him a string of numbers, puts the card in the given order, then pick the cards in the order given by taking the date of birth of his opponent, reversed, and taking only every other number, then a judge can clearly declare that he's random enough.
The beauty of sarcasm is that when the person using it is totally incorrect, you can just remove the sarcasm and end up with a post that is actually correct.
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.
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.
Shalom! ------------------------------ "That's the trouble with the Multiverse: the inability to easily make holes."- "Marky" Mark Rosewater
