Who was actuly asking for Nacatl to be banned??? Goyf (who im convinced now is in the next 2 sets) KotR and BBE are waaaaay more anoying. Nacatl dies to bolt and gets blocked by wall of omens. Its a 3 color 1 drop and isnt much worse than lynx or gob guide. Its much easier to beat than those other 3 creatures.
Who was actuly asking for Nacatl to be banned??? Goyf (who im convinced now is in the next 2 sets) KotR and BBE are waaaaay more anoying. Nacatl dies to bolt and gets blocked by wall of omens. Its a 3 color 1 drop and isnt much worse than lynx or
THE COMMUNITY IS SICK OF GETTING MORE CARDS BANNED. IT'S ANNOYING. IT MAKES US NOT WANT TO INVEST OR EVEN WASTE OUR TIME PLAYING THIS FORMAT IF THINGS ARE GOING TO KEEP GETTING BANNED. WE DO NOT LIKE HOW WEAK THE FORMAT HAS BECOME. POWERFUL CARDS ARE FUN. WE LIKE THEM. PLEASE STOP THIS HORRENDUS BANNING SPREE AND START UNBANNING CARDS FROM THE FORMAT BEFORE IT BECOMES EVEN MORE OF A JOKE THAN IT ALREADY IS.
LOVE EVERYONE
DEAR WOTC,THE COMMUNITY IS SICK OF GETTING MORE CARDS BANNED. IT'S ANNOYING. IT MAKES US NOT WANT TO INVEST OR EVEN WASTE OUR TIME PLAYING THIS FORMAT IF THINGS ARE GOING TO KEEP GETTING BANNED. WE DO NOT LIKE HOW WEAK THE FORMAT HAS BECOME. POWE
While it has a larger cardpool, I think the % of banned cards is higher in Legacy still than Modern. I think that this is the path to the stable format we want. Zoo was almost its legacy counterpart fighting against all of the other archetypes gimped by the banned list.
While it has a larger cardpool, I think the % of banned cards is higher in Legacy still than Modern. I think that this is the path to the stable format we want. Zoo was almost its legacy counterpart fighting against all of the other archetypes gimped
Speak for yourself. I, for one, and glad WOTC isn't afraid to ban in modern. Modern was supposed to be THE format for rogue decks and banning cards that see ubiquitous play is the only way to keep that spirit alive.
Speak for yourself. I, for one, and glad WOTC isn't afraid to ban in modern. Modern was supposed to be THE format for rogue decks and banning cards that see ubiquitous play is the only way to keep that spirit alive.
Honestly, I wouldn't have banned either. I'd sooner see Grove of the Burnwillows banned than Punishing Fire, and Goyf banned before Nacatl. That's ridiculous. Let people have slightly above par burn without an abusive combo available and a slightly above par creature without a supporting abusive counterpart. These were some of the poorer picked bans. This doesn't diversify the field. It just destroys an archetype.
Honestly, I wouldn't have banned either. I'd sooner see Grove of the Burnwillows banned than Punishing Fire, and Goyf banned before Nacatl. That's ridiculous. Let people have slightly above par burn without an abus
THE COMMUNITY IS SICK OF GETTING MORE CARDS BANNED. IT'S ANNOYING. IT MAKES US NOT WANT TO INVEST OR EVEN WASTE OUR TIME PLAYING THIS FORMAT IF THINGS ARE GOING TO KEEP GETTING BANNED. WE DO NOT LIKE HOW WEAK THE FORMAT HAS BECOME. POWERFUL CARDS ARE FUN. WE LIKE THEM. PLEASE STOP THIS HORRENDUS BANNING SPREE AND START UNBANNING CARDS FROM THE FORMAT BEFORE IT BECOMES EVEN MORE OF A JOKE THAN IT ALREADY IS.
LOVE EVERYONE
You DO NOT speak for everyone. If you want power & value for your money, invest in Legacy since there's no such thing as a S-Tier deck like you saw in Modern a few weeks ago.
As for Modern, yes, it feels sluggish since there's no real Rock/Paper/Scissors game (Aggro/Combo/ and a completely absent Control) in terms of decks, but the bans are necessary to create diversity. Unfortunately, combo is still a huge threat in the format and so are necessary availabity (prices) of cards to combat it (Thoughtseize for example).
You DO NOT speak for everyone. If you want power & value for your money, invest in Legacy since there's no such thing as a S-Tier deck like you saw in Modern a few weeks ago. As for Modern, yes, it feels sluggish since there's no real Rock/Paper/Scis
Is the DCI's policy now to just ban all good cards? I mean, I guess that's alright, but this is a completely new way of going about bannings. No longer are they just banning oppressive cards, but any card they feel like is "too good," even if that card doesn't lead to an overly oppressive deck. We'll see how this goes I guess...
Is the DCI's policy now to just ban all good cards? I mean, I guess that's alright, but this is a completely new way of going about bannings. No longer are they just banning oppressive cards, but any card they feel like is "too good," even if that ca
Honestly, what archetype is this destroying? Zoo can play Loam Lion, Ape, Lynx, goblin guide, Isamaru, etc there are PLENTY of 1 drops. Nacatl's 3 power gives zoo a significant clock. As far as banning Grove/Fire, neither is really going to see play without the other, so its largely irrelevant which one is banned.
Edit: Was zoo really not oppressive by your standards at Worlds? Decks can be oppresive even if they don't counter your spells (which zoo did), or kill you on turn 3/4 (which zoo almost does)
Honestly, what archetype is this destroying? Zoo can play Loam Lion, Ape, Lynx, goblin guide, Isamaru, etc there are PLENTY of 1 drops. Nacatl's 3 power gives zoo a significant clock. As far as banning Grove/Fire, neither is really going to see play
even if these bannings killed zoo, which won't happen, it increases the variety of aggro decks that will appear. brozek, doran,and bant should all see more play.
And that as Martha would say Is "a Good Thing".
even if these bannings killed zoo, which won't happen, it increases the variety of aggro decks that will appear. brozek, doran,and bant should all see more play.And that as Martha would say Is "a Good Thing".
The format is so fast, to keep banning cards like Nacatl or something is almost irrelevant. And at least if the Grove were banned instead of the Fire, people (more casual modern players) would be more inclined to take a chance on Punishing Fire than a land. Wild Nacatl can be, at best, a 2/2 on turn 1. As mentioned, this is any Goblin Guide or Isamaru, and equally susceptible to removal. At best it's a 3/3 with no abilities, at the whim of land any tectonic edge, ghost quarter, etc. That's my issue with the nacatl banning.
I admittedly dont play modern, but follow the format with great interest. I think it's just removing some fun factor by taking these cards away.
The format is so fast, to keep banning cards like Nacatl or something is almost irrelevant. And at least if the Grove were banned instead of the Fire, people (more casual modern players) would be more inclined to take a chance on Punishing Fire than
THE COMMUNITY IS SICK OF GETTING MORE CARDS BANNED. IT'S ANNOYING. IT MAKES US NOT WANT TO INVEST OR EVEN WASTE OUR TIME PLAYING THIS FORMAT IF THINGS ARE GOING TO KEEP GETTING BANNED. WE DO NOT LIKE HOW WEAK THE FORMAT HAS BECOME. POWERFUL CARDS ARE FUN. WE LIKE THEM. PLEASE STOP THIS HORRENDUS BANNING SPREE AND START UNBANNING CARDS FROM THE FORMAT BEFORE IT BECOMES EVEN MORE OF A JOKE THAN IT ALREADY IS.
LOVE EVERYONE
There's a key to the left of your "A" key. Please press it.
Honestly, I laughed really hard at this post, because I can imagine you in your chair at home throwing an emotional fit over this. Extreme emotional responses to stuff like this is typically hilarious.
There's a key to the left of your "A" key. Please press it.Honestly, I laughed really hard at this post, because I can imagine you in your chair at home throwing an emotional fit over this. Extreme emotional responses to stuff like this is typically
I've been toying with constructing my first tourney-legal decks in years, and was told that my local area is avoiding Modern because there are too many banned cards, and this des not help manners any. There needs to be some unbannings, not more bannings.
I've been toying with constructing my first tourney-legal decks in years, and was told that my local area is avoiding Modern because there are too many banned cards, and this des not help manners any. There needs to be some unbannings, not more bann
All things considered, there's 29 of 6500 cards available in this format banned. Something tells me people can be more creative with deck building then they have been.
All things considered, there's 29 of 6500 cards available in this format banned. Something tells me people can be more creative with deck building then they have been.
The banned list at this point is really a big LOL... Nacatal over Goyf... give me a brake wizards Nacatal is easily replaced but you want to increase variety of green decks??? then ban Goyf cause green decks all start with 4 Goyf an $100 card which should have been banned since the beginning.
The banned list at this point is really a big LOL... Nacatal over Goyf... give me a brake wizards Nacatal is easily replaced but you want to increase variety of green decks??? then ban Goyf cause green decks all start with 4 Goyf an $100 card which s
Banning Nacatl would be like banning Doomed Traveler in standard if WW was winning the most, simply because it was doing the most damage. I don't play zoo and I still think it is stupid. If you really think Nacatl is a problem, then the people deciding bannings are stats nerds and not actual players. This is nonsense. Nacatl isn't even the best creature in zoo. Steppe Lynx swings harder on turn 2. I can get a Delver of Secrets swinging just as hard as Nacatl, with fewer conditions to do so. AND IT IS FLYING. Goblin Guide swings for 2 on turn 1, should we ban him next?
Ban a card because it is TOO good, not just because it is good enough to be in every version of a popular type of deck. You aren't actually going to hurt zoo or stop it from being popular at all, you'll just upset a lot of customers instead.
Banning Nacatl would be like banning Doomed Traveler in standard if WW was winning the most, simply because it was doing the most damage. I don't play zoo and I still think it is stupid. If you really think Nacatl
I really think they're going the wrong way with this. They just keep banning more and more cards - and several of them are cards that I think really haven't shown themselves to be a problem in any Eternal format.
You know what banned list I'd like to use, instead of the current mess?
I think this is probably the smallest possible banned list that could work. There are plenty of cards that might need to end up banned again, such as Stoneforge Mystic or Sword of the Meek, but I think this shuts down the absolute worst problems.
I really think they're going the wrong way with this. They just keep banning more and more cards - and several of them are cards that I think really haven't shown themselves to be a problem in any Eternal format.You know what banned list I'd like to
Modern is like playing a new tournament every time : you build a deck, you win with it, don't bother keeping it. Just build another, its key pieces will get banned.
I'll bring the wise words of this fellow forum member to the thread, since they sum everything up pretty nicely:
nacatl is pretty good but still fair. dies to almost all the one and two mana removal. and punishing fires wasnt hurting anything. its slow and alot of the creatures have 3 toughness. i mean whatever it was a little opressive to theoretical creatures seeing play, and it is an annoying lock. im fine banning it.
top btw is still the worst ban ever. its not overpowered, and it was never a problem in any of its days. legacy decks dont go to time because of top. counterbalance was the problem a few extended seasons back not top. unban top please. also ban emrakul. stupid cards are stupid.
nacatl is pretty good but still fair. dies to almost all the one and two mana removal. and punishing fires wasnt hurting anything. its slow and alot of the creatures have 3 toughness. i mean whatever it was a little opressive to theoretical creatures
While Tarmogoyf is a lot more powerful, it is actually good that non-aggro decks can reccur to green for the best creature. So it does a lot of work for a lot of decks. It shouldn't be banned instead of Nacatl.
Now, Nacatl is the best one-drop, but there are tons of replacements. It's just that this format's Zoo will have consistent 2-power creatures that cost one, not 3-power creatures. That's cool. And it's not like anyone invested a lot of money in Wild Nacatl to complain.
But, yeah, the format is still being figured out.
While Tarmogoyf is a lot more powerful, it is actually good that non-aggro decks can reccur to green for the best creature. So it does a lot of work for a lot of decks. It shouldn't be banned instead of Nacatl.Now,
top btw is still the worst ban ever. its not overpowered, and it was never a problem in any of its days. legacy decks dont go to time because of top. counterbalance was the problem a few extended seasons back not top. unban top please. also ban emrakul. stupid cards are stupid.
Counterbalance is legal in Modern; you have to ban one or the other.
Counterbalance is legal in Modern; you have to ban one or the other.
I wholeheartedly support these bannings as they ARE what was needed to diversify the format.
Nacatl was/is just too efficient as a beater for this format. Sure, a bolt (or any one of the MANY 1 or 2 mana removal spells in the format) can kill it, but if you don't happen to have that spell in your hand in the first two turns, your basically up that certain creek we all know of. I'm not saying, that Goyf isn't as efficient as a beater (maybe even more so), but it is that at a later part of the game (unless your opponent happens to have done something like 1st turn fetch, discard Simian spirit guide and cast a 1 mana phyrexian spell, but how often has THAT happened?), when you have had more time to draw into your answer OR have more mana for mass-removal.
The Punishing Fire + Grove of Burnwillows combo doesn't at first glance seem that dangerous. "Okay, I can repeatedly get 2 damage for 3 mana and my opponent nets 1 life in the process". But the card-efficiency is just too much in this format. That Gaddock or Meddling Mage or Tide hollow Sculler or some other small creature you would have spent a card from your hand to deal with can now be dealt with over and over again with no card lost. And that is just with one of each. If you draw a second one of EITHER of the pieces things get REALLY degenerate. Although I feel that banning Grove would have probably worked as well, on the long term I think it is a more interesting card than Punishing Fire (also I dislike how Punishing fire kinda completely negates Kitchen Finks and the Soul Sisters-decks).
However, the most amazing thing about these bannings is, that I was right with the Nacatl about two weeks a go. A month or so ago for the Punishing Fire.
Sorry for the rant. I just wished to explain my support for these bannings.
I wholeheartedly support these bannings as they ARE what was needed to diversify the format. Nacatl was/is just too efficient as a beater for this format. Sure, a bolt (or any one of the MANY 1 or 2 mana removal spells in the format) can kill it, but
I would add that Nactal should have been seen coming a mile away. The similar card Kird Ape was one of the very first banned/ restricted cards because the original dual lands pumped it too much...
I would add that Nactal should have been seen coming a mile away. The similar card Kird Ape was one of the very first banned/ restricted cards because the original dual lands pumped it too much...
As for Modern, yes, it feels sluggish since there's no real Rock/Paper/Scissors game (Aggro/Combo/ and a completely absent Control) in terms of decks, but the bans are necessary to create diversity. Unfortunately, combo is still a huge threat in the format and so are necessary availabity (prices) of cards to combat it (Thoughtseize for example).
Control has been viable ever since Cloudpost got banned. Gifts Ungiven and Mystical Teachings are putting up good results now.
The banned list at this point is really a big LOL... Nacatal over Goyf... give me a brake wizards Nacatal is easily replaced but you want to increase variety of green decks??? then ban Goyf cause green decks all start with 4 Goyf an $100 card which should have been banned since the beginning.
Nacatl is NOT banned to increase variety of green decks, it's banned to increase variety of aggro decks. As others have said, now there is actually a reason to have an aggro deck in something other than naya colors.
The format is so fast, to keep banning cards like Nacatl or something is almost irrelevant. And at least if the Grove were banned instead of the Fire, people (more casual modern players) would be more inclined to take a chance on Punishing Fire than a land. Wild Nacatl can be, at best, a 2/2 on turn 1. As mentioned, this is any Goblin Guide or Isamaru, and equally susceptible to removal. At best it's a 3/3 with no abilities, at the whim of land any tectonic edge, ghost quarter, etc. That's my issue with the nacatl banning. I admittedly dont play modern, but follow the format with great interest. I think it's just removing some fun factor by taking these cards away.
Wild Nacatl wasn't broken, but its restrictive requirements did push all other aggro decks out of contention. We will see more variety now, and that will up the fun factor.
Grove is still playable now with Kavu Predator , theoretically =p
Control has been viable ever since Cloudpost got banned. Gifts Ungiven and Mystical Teachings are putting up good results now. Nacatl is NOT banned to increase variety of green decks, it's banned to increase varie
THE COMMUNITY IS SICK OF GETTING MORE CARDS BANNED. IT'S ANNOYING. IT MAKES US NOT WANT TO INVEST OR EVEN WASTE OUR TIME PLAYING THIS FORMAT IF THINGS ARE GOING TO KEEP GETTING BANNED. WE DO NOT LIKE HOW WEAK THE FORMAT HAS BECOME. POWERFUL CARDS ARE FUN. WE LIKE THEM. PLEASE STOP THIS HORRENDUS BANNING SPREE AND START UNBANNING CARDS FROM THE FORMAT BEFORE IT BECOMES EVEN MORE OF A JOKE THAN IT ALREADY IS.
LOVE EVERYONE
You DO NOT speak for everyone. If you want power & value for your money, invest in Legacy since there's no such thing as a S-Tier deck like you saw in Modern a few weeks ago.
As for Modern, yes, it feels sluggish since there's no real Rock/Paper/Scissors game (Aggro/Combo/ and a completely absent Control) in terms of decks, but the bans are necessary to create diversity. Unfortunately, combo is still a huge threat in the format and so are necessary availabity (prices) of cards to combat it (Thoughtseize for example).
This guy may not speak for you but he does speak for me. Ever since this format came out and the only thing wizards has done is just ban every deck that seems to do well in 1 tournament. This format isn't even a year old and they've already got a stupidly long ban list. You say the ban list is necessary in order to create a diverse format but how can we create a diverse format when wizards just bans every deck that seems to do well? The reason why we don't have a control deck in the format is because they banned every key card in every viable control deck. Wanna play faeries? too bad Bitterblossom is banned. Wanna play caw-blade? too bad Jace The Mind Sculptor and Stoneforge are banned? Wanna protect yourself while on the draw from turn 1 goblin guide or steppe linx? Too bad mental misstep is banned. Not only are we gonna do that we're going to ban ancetral visions for no good reason and a bunch of other cards because we're wizards of the coast and we can do what we want regardless of what the player base wants.Because we all know what a good job these bannings have done in diversifying the format..ohh wait???
You DO NOT speak for everyone. If you want power & value for your money, invest in Legacy since there's no such thing as a S-Tier deck like you saw in Modern a few weeks ago. As for Modern, yes, it feels sluggish since there's no real Rock/Paper/Scis
This guy may not speak for you but he does speak for me. Ever since this format came out and the only thing wizards has done is just ban every deck that seems to do well in 1 tournament. This format isn't even a year old and they've already got a stupidly long ban list. You say the ban list is necessary in order to create a diverse format but how can we create a diverse format when wizards just bans every deck that seems to do well? The reason why we don't have a control deck in the format is because they banned every key card in every viable control deck. Wanna play faeries? too bad Bitterblossom is banned. Wanna play caw-blade? too bad Jace The Mind Sculptor and Stoneforge are banned? Wanna protect yourself while on the draw from turn 1 goblin guide or steppe linx? Too bad mental misstep is banned. Not only are we gonna do that we're going to ban ancetral visions for no good reason and a bunch of other cards because we're wizards of the coast and we can do what we want regardless of what the player base wants.Because we all know what a good job these bannings have done in diversifying the format..ohh wait???
While Fairies and Caw-Blade are shining beacons of formats laden with diversity..ohh wait.
We do have control decks in the format. We did the second Cloudpost was banned.
While Fairies and Caw-Blade are shining beacons of formats laden with diversity..ohh wait.We do have control decks in the format. We did the second Cloudpost was banned.
I find some of the bannings in Modern surprising, but I'm going to express a minority view here that a liberal wielding of the banhammer is probably a good thing, even if a few eggs get broken in making this particular omelette.
I'd like to see a liberal use of the un-ban hammer too of course. My particular favourites to unban: green sun's zenith , Jitte and ancestral visions , if only to see what happens.
If the ban traffic is all one way then I think the diversity we seek won't happen quite as readily as it might with unbannings. Give Modern the identity of being the most fluid sacntioned constructed format and see what happens.
I find some of the bannings in Modern surprising, but I'm going to express a minority view here that a liberal wielding of the banhammer is probably a good thing, even if a few eggs get broken in making this particular omelette.I'd like to see a libe
I don't know Modern very well, so there's probably something I'm missing here, but... Is banning a creature necessary? How does Wild Nacatl put Zoo so above the other aggro decks they can't compete? Doess it make Zoo the most resilient/reliable aggro deck on non-aggro match-ups, and also the best aggro deck against other aggro decks? Isn't there any other aggro deck that can put at least a 50/50 chance agaisnt Zoo and the rest of the field? If so, is the problem really a 3/3, non-evasive creature? Is Nacatl that hard to race, compared to, say, Goblin Guide or Tarmogoyf?
I don't know Modern very well, so there's probably something I'm missing here, but... Is banning a creature necessary? How does Wild Nacatl put Zoo so above the other aggro decks they can't compete? Doess it make Zoo the most resilient/reliable aggro
Things like this is why I am playing more Yu-Gi-Oh. Wizards, you seriously need to get your act together. If you are serious about the continuity of this game, Wizards, then you will not Delete posts like this, you will do something good for the game so that there do not need to be posts made like this one. R&D is out of touch with the masses of MTG. I am not the only one that feels this way. After what you did to Worlds MTG will never be what it once was.
Wizards, do something good for the game!!!
Things like this is why I am playing more Yu-Gi-Oh. Wizards, you seriously need to get your act together. If you are serious about the continuity of this game, Wizards, then you will not Delete posts like this, you will do something good for the game
In particular, see rule 1.4 - now all "beneficial" triggers are optional, at least in Competitive and Professional tournaments, including lifegain (from Transcendence ?) and card draw (from Mind Unbound with only a few cards left in your library?). Maybe this rule is a good thing, but if so, shouldn't it be added to the Comprehensive Rules, and not just hidden away in the Infraction Procedure Guide?
A scary thought is that the rule is only intended to apply to high level tournaments. If this is so, players at FNM won't be allowed to copy the plays they read about in Pro Tour coverage. At that point, why even have a Pro Tour?
Since it's kind of related, how about the changes to the (tournament) rules?www.wizards.com/ContentResources/Wizards...In particular, see rule 1.4 - now all "beneficial" triggers are optional, at least in Competitive and Professional tournaments, inc
Anyone who has played Modern properly knew thsat Wild Nacatl needed banning. The card made any aggro deck that wasn't zoo completely unplayable and stopped many cards that once saw play become impossible to use. Loam Lion and Kird Ape for example, with those guys as the base level for 1 mana guys, then things like Treefolk Harbinger become useful. Punishign Fire made every creature with toughness 2 or less unplayable without a CIP effect like Clique and Snappy, even Clique was pretty pointless though. Nacatl did a similar thing, by making any agressive deck wrong if it didn't play the nacatl, it's not a case of people needing to be building different decks, it's a case of somethign being significantly better than other things making much of the format unviable.
Anyone who has played Modern properly knew thsat Wild Nacatl needed banning. The card made any aggro deck that wasn't zoo completely unplayable and stopped many cards that once saw play become impossible to use. Loam Lion and Kird Ape for example, wi
WotC is saving me a ton of money by not giving me a reason to play Vintage/Legacy/Modern tournaments in a whole year, or buying their product for that matter. I just can't enjoy Innistrad when it has brought so much damage to all the formats I love, and the DCI has been terrible at managing their competitive formats during all of 2011.
You know what's the difference between the best and the worst sets ever? A BLUE snapcaster mage, and a BLUE Delver of Secrets.
Do you know what the DCI calls a format in which 90% of the Top 8s feature the same two blue cards, and two variations of the same "blue tempo" strategy comprise 66% of the meta? A healthy legacy environment.
WotC is saving me a ton of money by not giving me a reason to play Vintage/Legacy/Modern tournaments in a whole year, or buying their product for that matter. I just can't enjoy Innistrad when it has brought so much damage to all the formats I love,
Declaimer: I do not, and won't, play Modern. I find the format rather janky (but I have played it). That said, the follow is true:
Of all the cards banned in Modern, there is a ridiculous number of them that are common. The total cost for a single of each comes up to about $68 (US), and thus a playset just over $300 (US). Over half the cost of this is borne by one card, Jace, the Mind Sculptor ($39 or 57%), while Bitterblossom comprises a not-insignificant portion of the remainder ($6 or 20%), and the rest are covered by cards at $4 to $1, to a ridiculous spread of cards like Seat of the Synod or Ponder which come out at less than $.25 (US).
The distribution of these cards tells me that the concerned cards do not fall into particular rarities, but that a lot of them are cheap, effective, and accessible enablers and filters, but not necessarily cards that do anything. The most expensive card to drop, in terms of mana, is Jace, while all others can essentially come down for 2, 1 or even 0. This suggests that enablers, to be effective, must be costed very cheap, but that this leads to their abusiveness. It should be considered that when cards work really well with other cards, they are typically very, very cheap and can be found to slide under the radar, implying that designers and developers, in the future, should be wary of such cards that do these things, ARE card advantage, or revise card quality.
Otherwise, this list will continue to grow until the next problem card arises, and it will likely pick up a card printed even before Zendikar. You may find yourselves realizing that every banning causes another monster to rise, and that there may never be a "healthy format" when such a giant card pool is present without shooting yourselves in the foot.
Declaimer: I do not, and won't, play Modern. I find the format rather janky (but I have played it). That said, the follow is true:Of all the cards banned in Modern, there is a ridiculous number of them that are common. The total cost for a single of
Punishing Fire should definitely have been banned, but I think Nacatl was unnecessary once that specter was lifted. Over-banning is probably better than under-banning right now, but Wizards should seriously consider starting to un-ban cards once the metagame becomes more healthy. The situation right now feels too uncertain for people to really commit to the format, but the overall direction is positive.
Punishing Fire should definitely have been banned, but I think Nacatl was unnecessary once that specter was lifted. Over-banning is probably better than under-banning right now, but Wizards should seriously consider starting to un-ban cards once the
Glad Wizards still aren't afraid to shape Modern to a vision. Personally would have gone after Grove rather than Punishing Fire as I think that keeps more design space open, but getting rid of the stupid, repressive combo is what really matters. Happy to see Nacatl go too, it is kind of embarressing that cards like it and Blazing Shoal have to get banned, but it's the only way to open up the format.
Glad Wizards still aren't afraid to shape Modern to a vision. Personally would have gone after Grove rather than Punishing Fire as I think that keeps more design space open, but getting rid of the stupid, repressive combo is what really matters. Happ
Declaimer: I do not, and won't, play Modern. I find the format rather janky (but I have played it). That said, the follow is true:
Of all the cards banned in Modern, there is a ridiculous number of them that are common. The total cost for a single of each comes up to about $68 (US), and thus a playset just over $300 (US). Over half the cost of this is borne by one card, Jace, the Mind Sculptor ($39 or 57%), while Bitterblossom comprises a not-insignificant portion of the remainder ($6 or 20%), and the rest are covered by cards at $4 to $1, to a ridiculous spread of cards like Seat of the Synod or Ponder which come out at less than $.25 (US).
The distribution of these cards tells me that the concerned cards do not fall into particular rarities, but that a lot of them are cheap, effective, and accessible enablers and filters, but not necessarily cards that do anything. The most expensive card to drop, in terms of mana, is Jace, while all others can essentially come down for 2, 1 or even 0. This suggests that enablers, to be effective, must be costed very cheap, but that this leads to their abusiveness. It should be considered that when cards work really well with other cards, they are typically very, very cheap and can be found to slide under the radar, implying that designers and developers, in the future, should be wary of such cards that do these things, ARE card advantage, or revise card quality.
Otherwise, this list will continue to grow until the next problem card arises, and it will likely pick up a card printed even before Zendikar. You may find yourselves realizing that every banning causes another monster to rise, and that there may never be a "healthy format" when such a giant card pool is present without shooting yourselves in the foot.
Unlike Legacy which has cards from when Magic was no fun like wasteland and force of will, Modern lacks any sort of interaction with lands and the first turn. These bannings were obvious. There is no good answer to lands in modern-and there never will be-so cards like Punishing Fire get banned since the wasteland of the format is the ban hammer. Anything fast gets banned due to their turn 4 rule and the lack of force and mental mistep-which could fill that role.
My only complaint about this announcement is timing. The PTQ season is just around the corner and it got changed officially on short notice. They could have done right by the PTQ player base and let them know as soon as they knew this was going to happen to give players more time to adapt. But who cares about them anyway right?
Unlike Legacy which has cards from when Magic was no fun like wasteland and force of will, Modern lacks any sort of interaction with lands and the first turn. These bannings were obvious. There is no good answer to lands in modern-and there never wil
Really glad they are wielding their banhammer with joy. Once they get everything to where they like it, they will slowly begin to unban cards to allow more diverse decks to flourish. All the whiners will then be able to come back into the format, unless they remain stubborn for no reason.
Really glad they are wielding their banhammer with joy. Once they get everything to where they like it, they will slowly begin to unban cards to allow more diverse decks to flourish. All the whiners will then be able to come back into the format, unl
This pretty much seals the deal for me. I will never play Modern. There are simply too many cards that are banned. I can't get a pile of cards and sort through them and come up with something like I normally would if I also have to reference an extensive banned list that I have to check every time I think a card just might be decent.
Wild Nacatl? Seriously? You guys remember when there was so much hoopla about banning Path to Exile ? So much so that someone even had the username BANPATHTOEXILE? Now, these current bannings and a few earlier ones leave me clueless as to why they didn't do it.
Punishing Fire? I'm so disgusted.
This pretty much seals the deal for me. I will never play Modern. There are simply too many cards that are banned. I can't get a pile of cards and sort through them and come up with something like I normally would if I also have to reference an exten
This pretty much seals the deal for me. I will never play Modern. There are simply too many cards that are banned. I can't get a pile of cards and sort through them and come up with something like I normally would if I also have to reference an extensive banned list that I have to check every time I think a card just might be decent.
Meaning you'll never play any non-rotating formats like Commander, Legacy and Vintage. Such formats will have a long banlist.
Meaning you'll never play any non-rotating formats like Commander, Legacy and Vintage. Such formats will have a long banlist.
In particular, see rule 1.4 - now all "beneficial" triggers are optional, at least in Competitive and Professional tournaments, including lifegain (from Transcendence ?) and card draw (from Mind Unbound with only a few cards left in your library?). Maybe this rule is a good thing, but if so, shouldn't it be added to the Comprehensive Rules, and not just hidden away in the Infraction Procedure Guide?
A scary thought is that the rule is only intended to apply to high level tournaments. If this is so, players at FNM won't be allowed to copy the plays they read about in Pro Tour coverage. At that point, why even have a Pro Tour?
I never liked the rule that Wishes worked differently in casual and competitive play, and this is a hundred times worse. In addition to all of the issues that you raised, the rule is poorly written. For example, one of the possible effects for an optional ability is "Puts +x/+x counters, or counters linked to a beneficial effect, on a permanent you control." What on earth is a "counter linked to a beneficial effect"? Are triggered abilities that add charge counters to one of your artifacts optional? Lots of effects care about charge counters, and most of them would usually be considered beneficial, but some, like Jinxed Choker , would not. The rules don't define "beneficial effect", let alone "counter linked to a beneficial effect".
I never liked the rule that Wishes worked differently in casual and competitive play, and this is a hundred times worse. In addition to all of the issues that you raised, the rule is poorly written. For example, one of the possible effects for an o
Huh, I was expecting Islands to be banned in Legacy before you guys would ban a vanilla 1/1 in modern. All this messing with the format makes me glad I'm not invested in it.
Maybe this is all a plot to make Goblin Guide better since it's the GP promo this coming year. It's also the cheapest promo they've done at a GP to my knowledge. This banning shall increase it's value!!! ....Or maybe not.
Huh, I was expecting Islands to be banned in Legacy before you guys would ban a vanilla 1/1 in modern. All this messing with the format makes me glad I'm not invested in it.Maybe this is all a plot to make Goblin Guide better since it's the GP promo
I don't know Modern very well, so there's probably something I'm missing here, but... Is banning a creature necessary?
In this case, no. Wild Nacatl is just a vanilla beater, and if people would just pick up a damn Terror every once in a while we wouldn't have this problem.
As for Stoneforge Mystic , yes, creatures like that should be banned as it's not being a vanilla beater that makes them dominate.
In this case, no. Wild Nacatl is just a vanilla beater, and if people would just pick up a damn Terror every once in a while we wouldn't have this problem.As for Stoneforge Mystic
This pretty much seals the deal for me. I will never play Modern. There are simply too many cards that are banned. I can't get a pile of cards and sort through them and come up with something like I normally would if I also have to reference an extensive banned list that I have to check every time I think a card just might be decent.
Meaning you'll never play any non-rotating formats like Commander, Legacy and Vintage. Such formats will have a long banlist.
Correct. I never have played any of these formats on a competitive level and I never played Commander at all, since it's not a real format.
Meaning you'll never play any non-rotating formats like Commander, Legacy and Vintage. Such formats will have a long banlist.[/quote]Correct. I never have played any of these formats on a competitive level and I never played Commander at all, since i
My only complaint about this announcement is timing. The PTQ season is just around the corner and it got changed officially on short notice. They could have done right by the PTQ player base and let them know as soon as they knew this was going to happen to give players more time to adapt. But who cares about them anyway right?
There's nothing wrong with the timing. This was the scheduled quarterly banned/restricted announcement. It was well understood that there would be this opportunity for banning prior to the PTQ season.
There's nothing wrong with the timing. This was the scheduled quarterly banned/restricted announcement. It was well understood that there would be this opportunity for banning prior to the PTQ season.
This pretty much seals the deal for me. I will never play Modern. There are simply too many cards that are banned. I can't get a pile of cards and sort through them and come up with something like I normally would if I also have to reference an extensive banned list that I have to check every time I think a card just might be decent.
Meaning you'll never play any non-rotating formats like Commander, Legacy and Vintage. Such formats will have a long banlist.
And the banned list is not as long as that in Legacy (or Classic on MTGO). There is MORE variability in Modern than in Eternal formats.
Correct. I never have played any of these formats on a competitive level and I never played Commander at all, since it's not a real format.
I actually would like to know your reasoning on this.
Meaning you'll never play any non-rotating formats like Commander, Legacy and Vintage. Such formats will have a long banlist.[/quote]And the banned list is not as long as that in Legacy (or Classic on MTGO). There is MORE variability in Modern than i
The problem is that Zoo should have been nerfed back when Modern was first created, but they failed to do so, and they are merely correcting it at the later stage where bannings become traumatic.
Another problem is that Delver of Secrets should have been banned in this round, too, but WotC has a clear double standard when it comes down to banning blue cards. A 3/3 that requires you to play three colors is not okay, but a 3/2 creature with flying for U is fair because it only attacks and blocks. So blue is apparently meant to be the best creature color now, right?
The problem is that Zoo should have been nerfed back when Modern was first created, but they failed to do so, and they are merely correcting it at the later stage where bannings become traumatic.Another problem is that Delver of Secrets should have b
This pretty much seals the deal for me. I will never play Modern. There are simply too many cards that are banned. I can't get a pile of cards and sort through them and come up with something like I normally would if I also have to reference an extensive banned list that I have to check every time I think a card just might be decent.
Meaning you'll never play any non-rotating formats like Commander, Legacy and Vintage. Such formats will have a long banlist.
Correct. I never have played any of these formats on a competitive level and I never played Commander at all, since it's not a real format.
Fair enough, they're not supposed to be formats for everyone =) But why did you bother with Modern then in the first place? It was always supposed to be a Legacy-lite, not a Standard-plus.
Meaning you'll never play any non-rotating formats like Commander, Legacy and Vintage. Such formats will have a long banlist.[/quote]Correct. I never have played any of these formats on a competitive level and I never played Commander at all, since i
A 3/3 that requires you to play three colors is not okay, but a 3/2 creature with flying for U is fair because it only attacks and blocks.
I think the reasoning behind banning the Nacatl was because it requires 3 colours, not in spite of the fact. Thanks to its efficiency, it warps aggressive 'Zoo' decks into the three colours that the card requires - the ban was put in place to foster diversity among 'Zoo' decks, not strictly to hamper them.
The Delver is not similarly warping, as far as I can tell, so I can see why they haven't considered it important to ban at this point. As Blue aggro is not a commonly accessible archetype, the Delver can in fact be considered an enabler for an archetype, expanding upon diversity within the format. If at some point the state of the format indicates that the Delver is forcing decks to play it to prove competitive, or warping aggressive strategies around it, I would fully expect it to meet the same fate as the Nacatl.
And I think the reason that Wizard's is generally hesitant to ban Blue cards is not so deliberate, but more a function of how Blue gets designed. Blue has done some very broken things in the past, and they make an effort (with mixed results ) to avoid those issues in the present. More often than not, modern Blue cards may enable broken things (generally in other colours), but are intentionally prevented from doing broken things on their own...
I think the reasoning behind banning the Nacatl was because it requires 3 colours, not in spite of the fact. Thanks to its efficiency, it warps aggressive 'Zoo' decks into the three colours that the card requires -
Dear Wizards, thats just frustrating. You keep banning cards without any concerns about restricted ones. I feel mostly frustrated about "unbanned cards", to be exact, of their absence. Termination of restricted status for such cards like Ancestral Vision and Bitterblossom was expected awfully. Although i understand why you don't want to unban Bitterblossom, it's still not clear, why Vision is still under arrest. According to surveys carried out by some prominent web-sites and according to a number of luminaries of contemporary magic (Luis-Scott Vargas, Brian Kibler, Patrick Chapin and others) Ancestral Vision would be the safiest card to unban. What's the matter with you, guys? I wonder if you ever tried to test Ancestral Vision in current metagame?
I do hope you will make up your mind to release some cards (at least Vision) from banning list with the next BnR announcement.
Dear Wizards, thats just frustrating. You keep banning cards without any concerns about restricted ones. I feel mostly frustrated about "unbanned cards", to be exact, of their absence. Termination of restricted status for such cards like Ancestral Vi
So Wild Nacatl is too good for a 1 mana 3/3, but Sarra Acendent in commander isn't to good at a 6/6 flying lifelink for one, unban Wild Nacatl and Green Sun
So Wild Nacatl is too good for a 1 mana 3/3, but Sarra Acendent in commander isn't to good at a 6/6 flying lifelink for one, unban Wild Nacatl and Green Sun
I don't know Modern very well, so there's probably something I'm missing here, but... Is banning a creature necessary? How does Wild Nacatl put Zoo so above the other aggro decks they can't compete?
Yes, banning Nacatl was neccessary to achieve the vision they stated for modern from its very inception. They want a diverse format, including diverse options in control decks, combo decks, and aggro decks.
Every aggro deck needing to be RGW( with an optional splash of the other colors) so that it can run the best 1 drop (Nacatl) does not make for diverse aggro decks.
Talk to anyone who has done serious brewing for Modern before these bannings. You make an aggro deck, you play a dozen games, then someone says "you know, you could throw in a couple more ravnica duals and run nacatl pretty easily". So you try that out, and nacatl is insanely good. So you tweak just a little bit more to make it more reliable...and this repeats until you look down at the board and realize you are just playing a Zoo deck with a bad splash (those colors you were trying to play in the first place).
Without Nacatl, you may still be tempted to splash for one of the the new best one drops like loam lion or kird ape. But including those warps your deck much less than Nacatl, and does not put you on the inevitable slope that leads to just playing zoo. And the slight dip in thier power level vs nacatl also leaves it as an option to not splash for them.
With Nacatl not banned, there really was no option, if you had 2 of the colors, you jammed that other one into your deck some way and played the nacatls.
Yes, banning Nacatl was neccessary to achieve the vision they stated for modern from its very inception. They want a diverse format, including diverse options in control decks, combo decks, and aggro decks. Every aggro deck needing to be RGW( with an
I'm surprised no one commented on the way the message was delivered rather than the specific cards that were banned.
Like pretty much everyone else, I've been pretty upset at the lack of explanation or poor explanations of bannings, changes, etc. in the past, but I think they really did the explanation right this time.
As far as the cards themselves, I agree with Wild Nacatl (for the reasons they mentioned: promoting diversity in aggro decks), and Punishing Fire is fine, but I would have preferred Grove of the Burnwillows instead. I agree that the main goal is to get rid of that combo, which was a good idea, but I think you have some interesting play with Punishing Fire on its own, which you don't really get with Grove of the Burnwillows.
I don't mean to harp so much on something I think was a good idea (but could've been better), but Punishing Fire provides an interesting option when facing things like Lightning Helix, Vault Skirge, Kitchen Finks, Ajani Vengeant, etc. It's not powerful enough that it would be a maindeck inclusion over other direct damage spells without Grove of the Burnwillows, but it's very interesting for metagame calls against decks that it would trigger against.
I'm surprised no one commented on the way the message was delivered rather than the specific cards that were banned.Like pretty much everyone else, I've been pretty upset at the lack of explanation or poor explanations of bannings, changes, etc. in t
Wholeheartedly support these - both were unquestionably hampering the diversity of the format (I think Punishing Fire in particular is responsible for the near-complete lack of Dark Confidant tempo decks of whatever form). I have to agree that Delver might be a little too good, but the fact that it needs mostly-spells to back it up (as opposed to mostly-men) means that it's got a natural tension. This should open the floodgates a bit for aggro decks and especially (I hope) the midrange decks that like to prey on true aggro strategies.
For the folks wondering why it was Punishing Fire instead of Grove: keep in mind that the Future Sight lands were all portrayed as harbingers of could-be cycles; for instance, Shadowmoor (and then Eventide for enemy colors) saw the rest of the filter lands printed, following in the footsteps of Graven Cairns. While some of those lands are a bit strange to really show up in a full cycle (I'm looking at you, River of Tears), the Grove of the Burnwillows design seems like exactly the sort of thing they'd use for a large-set cycle: they're probably in the same power-level vicinity as the Scars lands and likely a shade better than the M12/Innistrad lands, depending on archetype. If you assume that that cycle is likely to show up sometime in the not-too-distant future, then it makes sense to preemptively ban Punishing Fire rather than have to ban the entire cycle when it appears.
Wholeheartedly support these - both were unquestionably hampering the diversity of the format (I think Punishing Fire in particular is responsible for the near-complete lack of Dark Confidant tempo decks of whatever form). I have to agree that Delve
Good point, sstadnicki. I didn't think about the possibility of them (re)printing the rest of that cycle in the future. If we actually get 5 or 10 of those, I can see the value in that.
Good point, sstadnicki. I didn't think about the possibility of them (re)printing the rest of that cycle in the future. If we actually get 5 or 10 of those, I can see the value in that.
OK guise lissen, wen kardz r 2 powrful dey preevint groath (lol not like jiant groath!)
OK so kard like Wald Natalc tuk ovr liek all da creechurs. NOT good!
OK so axe Wald Natalc. OOPS! Puncturing Fare taek ovr all guise. NOT GUD!
OK so axe Puncturing Fare and Wald Natalc. Nao u can plai moar guise!
Reading this forum gives me such a headache!OK guise lissen, wen kardz r 2 powrful dey preevint groath (lol not like jiant groath!) OK so kard like Wald Natalc tuk ovr liek all da creechurs. NOT good!OK so axe Wald Natalc. OOPS! Puncturing Fare ta
I don't see why people get so upset about bannings. This is a barnd new format, its going to take a year or two to figure out what can and will work. WotC needs to be given the latitude to fiddle with the format to make it perfect because we all know - Modern has the potential to be the best format in Magic.
THE COMMUNITY IS SICK OF GETTING MORE CARDS BANNED. IT'S ANNOYING. IT MAKES US NOT WANT TO INVEST OR EVEN WASTE OUR TIME PLAYING THIS FORMAT IF THINGS ARE GOING TO KEEP GETTING BANNED. WE DO NOT LIKE HOW WEAK THE FORMAT HAS BECOME. POWERFUL CARDS ARE FUN. WE LIKE THEM. PLEASE STOP THIS HORRENDUS BANNING SPREE AND START UNBANNING CARDS FROM THE FORMAT BEFORE IT BECOMES EVEN MORE OF A JOKE THAN IT ALREADY IS.
I've been toying with constructing my first tourney-legal decks in years, and was told that my local area is avoiding Modern because there are too many banned cards, and this des not help manners any. There needs to be some unbannings, not more bannings.
Actually, they need to ban more cards to generate a diverse meta. Compared to the card pool of available cards, the banned list is very, very short.
I don't see why people get so upset about bannings. This is a barnd new format, its going to take a year or two to figure out what can and will work. WotC needs to be given the latitude to fiddle with the format to make it perfect because we all know
Nacatl really?......it's just stupid that they ban a 1 drop 3 color common instead of a 2 drop $100 creature that can be splashed into every deck!!! this banning makes no sense....it's wild nacatle for god sake....compared to 'Goyf there should be no contest which one SHOULD have be banned
Nacatl really?......it's just stupid that they ban a 1 drop 3 color common instead of a 2 drop $100 creature that can be splashed into every deck!!! this banning makes no sense....it's wild nacatle for god sake....compared to 'Goyf there should be no
This guy may not speak for you but he does speak for me. Ever since this format came out and the only thing wizards has done is just ban every deck that seems to do well in 1 tournament. This format isn't even a year old and they've already got a stupidly long ban list. You say the ban list is necessary in order to create a diverse format but how can we create a diverse format when wizards just bans every deck that seems to do well? The reason why we don't have a control deck in the format is because they banned every key card in every viable control deck. Wanna play faeries? too bad Bitterblossom is banned. Wanna play caw-blade? too bad Jace The Mind Sculptor and Stoneforge are banned? Wanna protect yourself while on the draw from turn 1 goblin guide or steppe linx? Too bad mental misstep is banned. Not only are we gonna do that we're going to ban ancetral visions for no good reason and a bunch of other cards because we're wizards of the coast and we can do what we want regardless of what the player base wants.Because we all know what a good job these bannings have done in diversifying the format..ohh wait???
While Fairies and Caw-Blade are shining beacons of formats laden with diversity..ohh wait.
We do have control decks in the format. We did the second Cloudpost was banned.
yeah because faeries wasn't beaten by decks like doran, 5cc and lark and caw blade didn't lose to r/b vamps and rdw. But maybe we should keep em banned because we're talking about the standard format here with only a small, limited card pool..ohh wait...
While Fairies and Caw-Blade are shining beacons of formats laden with diversity..ohh wait.We do have control decks in the format. We did the second Cloudpost was banned.[/quote]yeah because faeries wasn't beaten by
Nacatl really?......it's just stupid that they ban a 1 drop 3 color common instead of a 2 drop $100 creature that can be splashed into every deck!!! this banning makes no sense....it's wild nacatle for god sake....compared to 'Goyf there should be no contest which one SHOULD have be banned
Yep. Nacatl was the one that should have been banned. As you said, you can play Goyf in more than one deck, but if you're playing Nacatl, you can't really be playing anything but Zoo. Since they want more than one aggro deck to be viable, they banned the one card that forced aggro to be Zoo instead of trying to figure out which aggro card is objectively the best card.
Yep. Nacatl was the one that should have been banned. As you said, you can play Goyf in more than one deck, but if you're playing Nacatl, you can't really be playing anything but Zoo. Since they want more than one aggro deck to be viable, they ban
A 3/3 that requires you to play three colors is not okay, but a 3/2 creature with flying for U is fair because it only attacks and blocks.
I think the reasoning behind banning the Nacatl was because it requires 3 colours, not in spite of the fact. Thanks to its efficiency, it warps aggressive 'Zoo' decks into the three colours that the card requires - the ban was put in place to foster diversity among 'Zoo' decks, not strictly to hamper them.
This should be quoted because people are obviously missing the picture here.
The banning of Nacatl is not because it's too strong, but because it stops diversity. In Zoo decks this time.
I think the reasoning behind banning the Nacatl was because it requires 3 colours, not in spite of the fact. Thanks to its efficiency, it warps aggressive 'Zoo' decks into the three colours that the card requires -
I'm Tellin Ya Im 100% convince Goyf is like in the next set! Inn is a graveyard block and we almost got some cards close to it. I cant see any other reason to not Bann such a ubiquitus creature if they can do it to Nacatl. Nearly every one is screaming for Goyfs head. Wotc admited it was a mistake card, but they will be ok with in a block without fetch lands. They dont want sales afected by releasing a set with an already banned chase rare. Follow the money.
I'm Tellin Ya Im 100% convince Goyf is like in the next set! Inn is a graveyard block and we almost got some cards close to it. I cant see any other reason to not Bann such a ubiquitus creature if they can do it to Nacatl. Nearly every one is scr
I'm really surprised that they haven't just owned the idea that Fetches are a good portion of the problem. Without fetches then Nactal/Lion/Ape just aren't that consistant. Goyf is likely 1 smaller and Shocks are not the default go to lands.
I know Zen was a bad set without them, but Zen block and Zen standard have both come and gone.
I was ready to play old extended as soon as the ONS fetches rotated and then they reprinted them and (yes I have a full set its not money) it was undesirable again.
Fetches are BAD. Now that we've printed them all, can we ban them in modern, open up the base, reprint goyf, take nacatl off the banned list and actually have a slower format? I think we can.
I'm really surprised that they haven't just owned the idea that Fetches are a good portion of the problem. Without fetches then Nactal/Lion/Ape just aren't that consistant. Goyf is likely 1 smaller and Shocks are not the default go to lands. I know Z
If a designer made a 1-mana 5/5 creature, development would know the card is too good and it would not see print.
Oh, Eric, I wish I could believe you. Let me rephrase this:
If a designer made a 2-mana 8/9 creature, development would know the card is too good and it would not see print.
See, the problem here is not that Nacatl is this or that, it really isn't about Nacatl-anything. It's about this philosophy that it's borderline broken as a 3/3 for 1. You printed a white version not that long ago. You should consider that there are things such as effective drawbacks that constrain the types of decks cards can go into, such as printing "basic" on cards that care about land types or what not to specifically prohibit this level of exploitativeness. You can seriously consider making type-matters effects with concerns to how they can be abused as much as how they are limited in certain realms of play. This creates both choice and variance, even if it limits power before the card reaches someone's hand.
If Nacatl had "[CARDNAME] gets +1/+1 as long as you control a basic Mountain. [CARDNAME] gets +1/+1 as long as you control a basic ForestPlains." it would take three turns to get up to speed, not two. This would slow it down, and potentially deprive it of the power that made other variations in Zoo type builds (or really, aggro) less useful to play. You approached the option from a "what you won't do" instead of a "what you shouldn't have done" perspective, and I think there's something wrong with that from a person who would like to see a little constraint.
Edit: ninja'd
Oh, Eric, I wish I could believe you. Let me rephrase this:If a designer made a 2-mana 8/9 creature, development would know the card is too good and it would not see print.See, the problem here is not that Nacatl is this or that, it really isn't abou
So... The problem isn't that Nacatl is too good, but that it's too easy to play Nacatl and this overshadows any other aggro 1-drop?
... I don't think the problem is Nacatl, but rather the lack of hate against a greedy mana base, along with excelent available nonbasic lands... No Stifle to counter fetches, no Wasteland/Strip Mine to fight the shocklands, while Tectonic Edge is too slow and Ghost Quarter does at best half the job it was supposed to do...?
That's the only reason i can think on why there's more aggro diversity on Vintage/Classic/Legacy than on Modern...
So... The problem isn't that Nacatl is too good, but that it's too easy to play Nacatl and this overshadows any other aggro 1-drop?... I don't think the problem is Nacatl, but rather the lack of hate against a greedy mana base, along with excelent av
If Nacatl had "[CARDNAME] gets +1/+1 as long as you control a basic Mountain. [CARDNAME] gets +1/+1 as long as you control a basic Forest." it would take three turns to get up to speed, not two.
If Nacatl had "[CARDNAME] gets +1/+1 as long as you control a basic Mountain. [CARDNAME] gets +1/+1 as long as you control a basic Forest." it would take three turns to get up to speed, not two.
Would still take two
You'd need three lands, not two.
Would still take two [/quote]You'd need three lands, not two.
If Nacatl had "[CARDNAME] gets +1/+1 as long as you control a basic Mountain. [CARDNAME] gets +1/+1 as long as you control a basic Forest." it would take three turns to get up to speed, not two.
Would still take two
You'd need three lands, not two.
T1, Forest, Nacatl, 2/2 T2, Mountain, 3/3
Sorry, couldn't resist >.>
Would still take two [/quote]You'd need three lands, not two.[/quote]T1, Forest, Nacatl, 2/2T2, Mountain, 3/3Sorry, couldn't resist >.>
If Nacatl had "[CARDNAME] gets +1/+1 as long as you control a basic Mountain. [CARDNAME] gets +1/+1 as long as you control a basic Forest." it would take three turns to get up to speed, not two.
Would still take two
You'd need three lands, not two.
T1, Forest, Nacatl, 2/2 T2, Mountain, 3/3
Sorry, couldn't resist >.>
SUUURE you couldn't, but I figure you understood where I was going at (i.e., where I definitely said "Plains" and not "Forest").
Would still take two [/quote]You'd need three lands, not two.[/quote]T1, Forest, Nacatl, 2/2T2, Mountain, 3/3Sorry, couldn't resist >.> [/quote]SUUURE you couldn't, but I figure you understood where I was going at (i.e., where I definitely said "Plai
SUUURE you couldn't, but I figure you understood where I was going at (i.e., where I definitely said "Plains" and not "Forest").
Alright, for a more serious answer, this is generally not something Wizards encourages. During GDS2, one of the contestants had a 'basic lands matter' mechanic and that was reviewed unfavorable by the judges.
One of the big reasons is that mana fixing is fun. It's not fun to have a bunch of uncastable cards in your hand because you drew the wrong kinds of lands. So Wizards is making us pay life or turns (EtB tapped) in exchange for reduced variance in mana bases.
Of course, that lands are a huge selling point of a set also figures in this.
So we will rather not see a card like Wild Nacatl than we see a modified one.
Alright, for a more serious answer, this is generally not something Wizards encourages. During GDS2, one of the contestants had a 'basic lands matter' mechanic and that was reviewed unfavorable by the judges. One of the big reasons is that mana fixin
Another B&R has come by, and the S h o c k l a n d s still aren't banned in modern.
Shocks are like one of the main reasons restricting me from joining modern. They either reprint them, or ban them, before there's any chance I can play modern. Guess we'll have to wait for the block after Innistrad (I highly doubt Dark Ascension, Avacyn Restored or Magic2013 has them).
Another B&R has come by, and the S h o c k l a n d s still aren't banned in modern.
Shocks are like one of the main reasons restricting me from joining modern. They either reprint them, or ban them, before there's any chance I can play modern. Guess we'll have to wait for the block after Innistrad (I highly doubt Dark Ascension, Avacyn Restored or Magic2013 has them).
Aww it started so nice with WU UB BR RG GW WB But then the others are in a weird order. You should finish with BG GU UR RW instead =)
Aww it started so nice with WU UB BR RG GW WBBut then the others are in a weird order. You should finish with BG GU UR RW instead =)
SUUURE you couldn't, but I figure you understood where I was going at (i.e., where I definitely said "Plains" and not "Forest").
Alright, for a more serious answer, this is generally not something Wizards encourages. During GDS2, one of the contestants had a 'basic lands matter' mechanic and that was reviewed unfavorable by the judges.
One of the big reasons is that mana fixing is fun. It's not fun to have a bunch of uncastable cards in your hand because you drew the wrong kinds of lands. So Wizards is making us pay life or turns (EtB tapped) in exchange for reduced variance in mana bases.
Of course, that lands are a huge selling point of a set also figures in this.
So we will rather not see a card like Wild Nacatl than we see a modified one.
But it is an obvious solution: It endorses synergy within a limited environment while depriving all but one color decks of the synergy in eternal formats. They don't want to do this because it interferes with certain types of plays, but those types of plays are what are being punished in the banning of Nacatl. The same will eventually be said for Loam Lion which, while being younger, is just as effective as Wild Nacatl as they require the exact same lands to "come online."
The second quality to this is that the philosophy mentioned above closes off design space, rather than opening it, something suggested by Imperiosaur and Muraganda Petroglyphs . Of course WotC wouldn't push these because they were introduced in a time when multicolor decks are the norm. And continue to be. This regardless of WW or RDW in Modern and Eternal still work and are still decent. Pushing a mono-color-matters effect in the Core Set can teach instead that while multicolor is viable, so is monocolor, and what WotC has been doing is pushing multicolor simply because there is a desire for players (like Kibler splashing U in Zoo) to try to get every conceivable particular card for the deck to always be available. This leads to problems, as shown, by many, many decks having to copy one another in certain arrays of lands just to play their decks. WotC enables this by reducing the capability of fewer colors being viable when they do not push the quality of monocolor availability (unless it's tribal, such as Elves or Gobbies).
Alright, for a more serious answer, this is generally not something Wizards encourages. During GDS2, one of the contestants had a 'basic lands matter' mechanic and that was reviewed unfavorable by the judges. One of the big reasons is that mana fixin
The same will eventually be said for Loam Lion which, while being younger, is just as effective as Wild Nacatl as they require the exact same lands to "come online."
Actually no. No mountain is required for Loam Lion.
So Loam Lion can be in the following decks: WG WGR WGB WGU WGRU WGRB WGUB WGRUB
Wild Nacatl can only be played in: WGR WGRU WGRB WGRUB
Actually no. No mountain is required for Loam Lion.So Loam Lion can be in the following decks:WGWGRWGBWGUWGRUWGRBWGUBWGRUBWild Nacatl can only be played in:WGR WGRU WGRB WGRUB
SUUURE you couldn't, but I figure you understood where I was going at (i.e., where I definitely said "Plains" and not "Forest").
Alright, for a more serious answer, this is generally not something Wizards encourages. During GDS2, one of the contestants had a 'basic lands matter' mechanic and that was reviewed unfavorable by the judges.
One of the big reasons is that mana fixing is fun. It's not fun to have a bunch of uncastable cards in your hand because you drew the wrong kinds of lands. So Wizards is making us pay life or turns (EtB tapped) in exchange for reduced variance in mana bases.
Of course, that lands are a huge selling point of a set also figures in this.
So we will rather not see a card like Wild Nacatl than we see a modified one.
But it is an obvious solution: It endorses synergy within a limited environment while depriving all but one color decks of the synergy in eternal formats. They don't want to do this because it interferes with certain types of plays, but those types of plays are what are being punished in the banning of Nacatl. The same will eventually be said for Loam Lion which, while being younger, is just as effective as Wild Nacatl as they require the exact same lands to "come online."
The second quality to this is that the philosophy mentioned above closes off design space, rather than opening it, something suggested by Imperiosaur and Muraganda Petroglyphs . Of course WotC wouldn't push these because they were introduced in a time when multicolor decks are the norm. And continue to be. This regardless of WW or RDW in Modern and Eternal still work and are still decent. Pushing a mono-color-matters effect in the Core Set can teach instead that while multicolor is viable, so is monocolor, and what WotC has been doing is pushing multicolor simply because there is a desire for players (like Kibler splashing U in Zoo) to try to get every conceivable particular card for the deck to always be available. This leads to problems, as shown, by many, many decks having to copy one another in certain arrays of lands just to play their decks. WotC enables this by reducing the capability of fewer colors being viable when they do not push the quality of monocolor availability (unless it's tribal, such as Elves or Gobbies).
There is a delicate balance that should be found, that differs from format to format and rotation to rotation. You want to give players to opportunity to play multiple colors, because that is inherently fun. But this must come at a real cost. If you can just play whatever, there is indeed a problem. Like during Lorwyn standard, when you could play Cryptic Command and Firespout in the same deck without much effort.
Playing a lot of fetch and shocks in Modern is still punished; if you're up against an aggro deck you make it so much easier for them.
Mono-color matters can be pushed when it makes sense. In Shadowmoor-Eventide block for example. But you have to understand why 'multicolor' has been the #1 crowd favorite mechanic ever. Combining things to form a whole bigger than the parts (in the case of deckbuilding both building a deck out of individual cards and combining colors) is just too fun to pass up on.
So, say we can't find that balance for a moment. The majority of people will opt for the Kibler approach rather than mono-matters.
Alright, for a more serious answer, this is generally not something Wizards encourages. During GDS2, one of the contestants had a 'basic lands matter' mechanic and that was reviewed unfavorable by the judges. One of the big reasons is that mana fixin
I'm Tellin Ya Im 100% convince Goyf is like in the next set! Inn is a graveyard block and we almost got some cards close to it. I cant see any other reason to not Bann such a ubiquitus creature if they can do it to Nacatl. Nearly every one is screaming for Goyfs head. Wotc admited it was a mistake card, but they will be ok with in a block without fetch lands. They dont want sales afected by releasing a set with an already banned chase rare. Follow the money.
You have no idea what you're talking about. There's no way Tarmogoyf is every seeing Standard again.
(And it's not like people won't want it because it's banned in Modern.)
You have no idea what you're talking about. There's no way Tarmogoyf is every seeing Standard again.(And it's not like people won't want it because it's banned in Modern.)
I'm Tellin Ya Im 100% convince Goyf is like in the next set! Inn is a graveyard block and we almost got some cards close to it. I cant see any other reason to not Bann such a ubiquitus creature if they can do it to Nacatl. Nearly every one is screaming for Goyfs head. Wotc admited it was a mistake card, but they will be ok with in a block without fetch lands. They dont want sales afected by releasing a set with an already banned chase rare. Follow the money.
You have no idea what you're talking about. There's no way Tarmogoyf is every seeing Standard again.
(And it's not like people won't want it because it's banned in Modern.)
Disagree with you both.
Tarmogoyf was never that broken in Standard. Good? Sure. But not that dominant. Katsuhiro Mori's Top 8 Worlds 2007 deck didn't even play 4 of them, using a slot for Mirri the Cursed instead. It was Extended and older formats where the card really shined. So I don't think it's necessarily too strong for Standard ever.
However, reprinting Tarmogoyf in combination with a graveyard set almost certainly would be a problem. So it might get a set reprint, but it would take at least 2 years. (Or maybe it headlines a FTV, that's certainly possible too.)
You have no idea what you're talking about. There's no way Tarmogoyf is every seeing Standard again.(And it's not like people won't want it because it's banned in Modern.)[/quote]Disagree with you both.Tarmogoyf wa
Ah yes I was going to mention "or Goyf is in FTV", they said the next one is supposed too be great and also relief was coming for some of the card availability. SOMETHING has to be going on with Goyf right? Its by far the most expensive and auto include card in the format no? They may also not want to anger more people than they already have by banning an expensive card, damaging the formats fragile approval rating. Shocks are totally fine without fetches and those will surely be in the next block return to Ravnica. Hopeful speculation at the worst.
Ah yes I was going to mention "or Goyf is in FTV", they said the next one is supposed too be great and also relief was coming for some of the card availability. SOMETHING has to be going on with Goyf right? Its by far the most expensive and auto in
In design, it's important to keep in mind that the strength of the game should always trump the strength of an aspect. If banning a single fun card makes the game much more fun to play, it should be banned. Nacatl may be a fun card, but Wizards is making the statement that the game overall will be more fun without it legal in modern. Are they correct? Time will tell, but I assume they've done research and aren't just tossing darts at a board.
It's also important to recognize not only what is, but what could be (sorta like in the broken-window fallacy). You can see the competitive cards, but it's much harder to see the cards that are almost competitive except that they are edged out by some existing card/combo/deck. You can see that people play punishing fire and are annoyed that it gets banned, but once you see the post-bannings meta you recognize "oh cool, now I can play sculler, or sower, or card x". In this way, banning a card actually increases your card pool. You lose 1, but gain several.
They banned punishing fire over groves because it's a common, and people dislike getting their hands on rares only to see them banned whenever possible, unless the common has potential to do cool things where the rare would not (I'm looking at you, Dark Depths).
On a personal note, I think it's embarassing that punishing groves exists since it dodges cards like Extirpate which were *specifically* designed to fight exactly those kind of shenanigans.
In design, it's important to keep in mind that the strength of the game should always trump the strength of an aspect. If banning a single fun card makes the game much more fun to play, it should be banned. Nacatl may be a fun card, but Wizards is ma
I think the problem here is that WotC went "Oh a 3/3 for 1 that requires you to warp your deck to play it, that sounds fair". And in standard or any rotating format without access to both fetches and shock lands it really is. But what made it fair is now exactly why it needs to be banned. 'Goyf doesn't get banned because it has a drawback (requiring things in the yard) that doesn't warp deckbuilding. It goes in any deck that wants to play green sure, and can even make going green a more viable option but it doesn't make you go green, red AND white. The sad thing is the drawback of nacatl is exactly why it's getting banned. Its too good, and too restrictive, there is just no incentive to not play RGW if you are agro because of nacatl.
I think the problem here is that WotC went "Oh a 3/3 for 1 that requires you to warp your deck to play it, that sounds fair". And in standard or any rotating format without access to both fetches and shock lands it really is. But what made it fair is
I think the problem here is that WotC went "Oh a 3/3 for 1 that requires you to warp your deck to play it, that sounds fair". And in standard or any rotating format without access to both fetches and shock lands it really is. But what made it fair is now exactly why it needs to be banned. 'Goyf doesn't get banned because it has a drawback (requiring things in the yard) that doesn't warp deckbuilding. It goes in any deck that wants to play green sure, and can even make going green a more viable option but it doesn't make you go green, red AND white. The sad thing is the drawback of nacatl is exactly why it's getting banned. Its too good, and too restrictive, there is just no incentive to not play RGW if you are agro because of nacatl.
In Standard and Extended, at least, Tarmogoyf did warp deckbuilding: you wanted to get the biggest, nastiest badded Goyf you could as early as possible, and to do that you had to run a variety of different cards that could easily hit all of the card times in as few cards as possible, and get them in the 'yard. This meant you had to have a dredge engine of sorts in the deck. That's just any one player. Any other deckbuilder had to consider the prospect of facing a 'Goyf swinging for 5 or 6 turn 3 by dropping the best defense against a 'Goyf -- another one. Players considered or had to splash Green in otherwise nonGreen decks to run it, just to fight it, because there wasn't that much graveyard hate to go 'round; most of that was focused on Tormod's Crypt and the like, and just like Glissa EDH decks, you have to keep fighting their graveyard because you might end up against the OTHER thing 'Goyf decks did, and that was use a Dredge engine with Bridge from Below for reanimator. It did warp the metagame, and it did call for cries of banning, just as Bitterblossom was just as omnipresent. Fortunately, they weren't restrictive on how you could play, and what you could play, just as the solution to Punishing and Nactle were NOT using Punishing and Nacatl, or that the solution to Ravager was not playing anything.
So all in all, yes, I agree, but 'Goyf toed the line there a bit. It was a mistake to print, and a big one.
In Standard and Extended, at least, Tarmogoyf did warp deckbuilding: you wanted to get the biggest, nastiest badded Goyf you could as early as possible, and to do that you had to run a variety of different cards th
THE COMMUNITY IS SICK OF GETTING MORE CARDS BANNED. IT'S ANNOYING. IT MAKES US NOT WANT TO INVEST OR EVEN WASTE OUR TIME PLAYING THIS FORMAT IF THINGS ARE GOING TO KEEP GETTING BANNED. WE DO NOT LIKE HOW WEAK THE FORMAT HAS BECOME. POWERFUL CARDS ARE FUN. WE LIKE THEM. PLEASE STOP THIS HORRENDUS BANNING SPREE AND START UNBANNING CARDS FROM THE FORMAT BEFORE IT BECOMES EVEN MORE OF A JOKE THAN IT ALREADY IS.
LOVE EVERYONE
If you want to play powerfull cards go play vintage.
This guy may not speak for you but he does speak for me. Ever since this format came out and the only thing wizards has done is just ban every deck that seems to do well in 1 tournament. This format isn't even a year old and they've already got a stupidly long ban list. You say the ban list is necessary in order to create a diverse format but how can we create a diverse format when wizards just bans every deck that seems to do well? The reason why we don't have a control deck in the format is because they banned every key card in every viable control deck. Wanna play faeries? too bad Bitterblossom is banned. Wanna play caw-blade? too bad Jace The Mind Sculptor and Stoneforge are banned? Wanna protect yourself while on the draw from turn 1 goblin guide or steppe linx? Too bad mental misstep is banned. Not only are we gonna do that we're going to ban ancetral visions for no good reason and a bunch of other cards because we're wizards of the coast and we can do what we want regardless of what the player base wants.Because we all know what a good job these bannings have done in diversifying the format..ohh wait???
I think wotc just want people to come up with there own ideas instead of rebuilding the same decks.
I see the lists and you know what every format is running damn near the same card lists.
Modern is basicly right now ported decks from extended, std, eternal formats, if you want thoes type of power decks then go play thoes decks respected formats. honestly wotc need to ban alot more cards. Honestly if the deck is seen in 3 formats already then ban half thoes decks cards. Then we can get on to building this formats decks.
Things like this is why I am playing more Yu-Gi-Oh. Wizards, you seriously need to get your act together. If you are serious about the continuity of this game, Wizards, then you will not Delete posts like this, you will do something good for the game so that there do not need to be posts made like this one. R&D is out of touch with the masses of MTG. I am not the only one that feels this way. After what you did to Worlds MTG will never be what it once was.
Wizards, do something good for the game!!!
So how do you like being forced to go buy the best expensive cards for your deck just so you can compete?
I know how that game goes, you cant take year old sick as hell cards to a 2 month old new set and expect to win. Friend of mine has all the ba cards from like 6 years ago, if he took his deck to a tourny he would get stomped cause you have to have the best new cards or you will just lose every time.
Still think ygo is better?
Spoiler:
Show
If you want to play powerfull cards go play vintage.Spoiler:
Show
I think wotc just want people to come up with there own ideas instead of rebuilding the same decks.I see the lists and you know what every format is runnin
Is the DCI's policy now to just ban all good cards?
WotC's policy with respect to Modern remains what it was the day they announced the format.
They want a diverse format in which decks cannot reliably win the game, or establish control of the game, before turn 4.
If they believe that a card contributes to an environment where a deck can win or establish a decisive advantage by turn 3 on an average draw, it will get banned.
The banning of Nacatl marks the first occasion I can think of since 1997 in which a creature was banned from a format because it was too efficient at beating down. That was the first banned list for the newly-announced Extended format. The creatures banned for their efficieny at that time were Kird Ape and Serendib Efreet .
This is slightly different, as the banning is driven by the lack of diversity in Modern aggro decklists rather than a theoretical model of card strengths that put those two (and Hypnotic Specter ) above the curve.
The purpose is to slow down Zoo by one turn by banning the most efficient beater and forcing people to think about what alternatives to employ, and make other aggro decks a little bit more viable.
WotC's policy with respect to Modern remains what it was the day they announced the format.They want a diverse format in which decks cannot reliably win the game, or establish control of the game, before turn 4.If they believe that a card contributes
I just can't enjoy Innistrad when it has brought so much damage to all the formats I love, and the DCI has been terrible at managing their competitive formats during all of 2011.
