At best case Ancestral brings you 3 cards extra on the 5th turn assuming you played it immediately on turn 1. I think they were a little worried about cascading into Ancestral being too good but imho that was a silly worry. Imho that card should never have been on the ban list to begin with.
Bloodbraid Elf on the other hand earned its spot and then some. Onerous cards are onerous. Hope it never comes off.
You may be right about Bloodbraid but personally I'm not sure. There was certainly a time when Jund with Bloodbraid was not safe in the format and that is the risk that is run if Bloodbraid is brought back in. It's true that Jund is on the fringes of things now but I imagine that would change quickly if BBE is unbanned.
Ancestral Vision is an interesting one. I really haven't played with so I don't know how good it is but it might be possible to unban it. I actually think it might be a good unban to help promote Control decks in the format. I think blue mages could take quite a hit from the Twin ban but I guess we'll see how it all plays out at the Pro Tour.
I think that Bloodbraid can easily be unbanned. If players want to use Kolaghan's Command, they play Grixis. If players want to cast Goyf + Liliana, they play Abzan.
I was all for unbanning Ancestral Vision when they banned Cruise/DTT but I think WotC was correct to keep it banned without Twin and Bloom in the format. Though no big deal if it's unbanned, it's pretty bad against Eldrazi Processors and Remand.
Two cards I really like purified, but I'm happy since that will lead to a wider range of viable decks in tribe and out. I can still play those elsewhere. Good format!
Great article as always. I know you are discussing the history of bans in general but I hope you'd agree that Wizards' approach to the Modern banned list has been much more forthright and sometimes experimental than their approach to formats in the past.
I have some comments regarding your myths:
Myth #4
Obviously all decks are beatable to some degree but decks that completely dominate a format should be banned to keep things diverse and interesting. I found your comment about a deck warping a format 'too much' interesting because when is a card/deck warping the format 'too much'. Force of Will is a format warping card but in Vintage/Legacy where there are ridiculous combos Force is considered a check on the format.
At what point did Splinter Twin stop being a check on certain decks and start warping the format 'too much'? Was it really only recently?
Myth #5
As mentioned above your comments are generally true but perhaps less true of Modern. I would say in general Wizards have been pretty active in banning and unbanning cards in Modern. I think Wizards are far more willing to ban cards in Modern than they have shown themselves to be in Standard.
Myth #6
I think there is some credence behind this. I think Tron may well have been left behind because Oath of the Gatewatch is coming out and Tron/Mono-Black Eldrazi are going to be the decks that highlight those cards best.
I also recall when they banned Bloodbraid Elf in Modern and didn't ban the shiny new Deathrite Shaman (which in my view was a bigger culprit behind the dominance of Jund at the time). That's not saying Bloodbraid shouldn't have been banned but just that the Shaman seemingly got off the hook because it was a new card.
Though conversely we did see Treasure Cruise and Dig Through Time banned quite rapidly so I can't say it's always been the case.
Myth #7
I disagree with this being a myth, I think Modern gets bans because it still has a Pro Tour. That's not to say that Wizards would never look at Modern or ban cards in it without a Pro Tour existing but I think it's a major driving force. Twin has been a known quantity since the beginning of the format and Amulet Bloom has also been a known quantity for some time. If there had been a pressing need to ban these cards why weren't they banned much sooner? I can see no real excuse other than this creates a new format for the pros to figure out directly before the Pro Tour. I don't really buy into the idea that this was something they were getting around to and the timing happens to be convenient - there were opportunities to ban these cards earlier and they didn't.
Twin didn't break the format and I think Wizards would have been satisfied to let the format lie if it weren't for the Pro Tour arriving, as they did with the previous banning announcement.
I don't think their choice of cards to ban is simply a test of what will shake the format most. Their choice of cards is not without consideration or merit. I just think that when it comes to Modern, Wizards are not afraid to use the banlist for the purpose of shaking things up and this is a shake up for the primary purpose of making the Pro Tour more interesting.
Finally, I must just add that I am not particularly unhappy with the bans or whining about them (as I mentioned in my article). I just thought these were interesting points of discussion.
The cards are just slightly synergistic. Because 5/8 beater (even better when you have assault formation out) getting through because it is unblockable is awesome. (I really really like both cards.)
I suppose I should clarify that one of the decks I am referring to happened specifically because I was playing with Assault Formation so toughness mattered and Oblivion Sower fit that well and also fit the lands matter side of the deck (using the retreats in green/black and white) and then was noticing Sower's one weakness was the deck that plays blockers ad infinitum until they get their answer/threat. And Whirler Rogue was the way in which I broke this stalemate board state. It is a little sideways and of course only really matters when your opponent can either flash in blockers or make blocker tokens.
Haven't had an opportunity to play a good match with RR yet. I look forward to it when time allows.
How did it go with the Realm Razer deck? And is there a specific Oblivion Sower/ Whirler Rogue combo or are they just two cool cards you put in the same deck?
If you think of the cards with true colorless activation costs as being multicolored, they have to be that much better in order to be worth playing, as you have a pretty major setup cost (having access to both colors). Some of them are decent, and I feel like I noted that in my evaluation. But none of them are so good that they easily justify the awkward mana they require.
There also is very little synergy with actual Devoid cards, so it's not like your rewarded for playing those.
I actually had Slip Through Space right in my head, but messed up the wording in the review. While I definitely wrote it wrong, I don't think that changes anything about my evaluation.
Thanks for the analysis of the cards. Stellar job inserting humor, as always.
You seem quite down on cards. Could lumping these together in their mana-cost be part of the drain? Surely, we will want access to {U} mana to cast some X Eldrazi spells, but that does that push us into reviewing the cards as blue in and of themselves? Understandably, with a smaller set to analyze, we may be tempted to evaluate devoid cards - even cards that need/use <> mana - by their their mana-cost colors, and not really considering how devoid is played yet. Are we throwing the baby out with the bathwater by dismissing colorless while also railroading it into certain color schemes? Perhaps only deck building and play will tell us the final verdict on these new Eldrazi cards. Regardless, thank you for your take on Azorius.
Thanks for an analysis of Pauper sans Cloud of Faeries. Earlier, Alex, you hinted how Cloudfin Raptor may shine in the future. Is now the time to consider the evolving creature as a viable strategy?
Apparently my computer has gotten more laggy since I last recorded a video. I made a video of the draft picks of the deck I played against you but when I tried the recorder and MTGOv4 simultaneously, it was a no go.
I still don't think it was OP strong in delver to the point of breaking the game, but CoF in the familiars deck certainly was.
I do have some hopes for a few new decks creeping into the meta now, though.
And certainly less pressure on running cheap removal to allow some more versatile options.
Though MU delver still has plenty of solid options so it'd be premature to disregard it.
Just my thoughts on the matter though, retailing at .00000000000000000000002 bot credits as it were.
Heh.
While naming convention debates may continue to press forward, (although I see both Paul's claim about cumbersome linguistics and the gap olaw identifies) I wonder how people are going to BUILD DECKS with colorless mana.
We see a lot of new set/card reviews emerging, but nobody yet risking how to build a mana base with said lands for competitive (or even FUN) play. If "<>" proves too unreliable, we may exercising futility in trying to sort out what (1) vs <1> should be named. It all may be called "garbage" if no decks emerge to successfully utilize it.
I think Affinity, Stompy, UR Fiend, Goblins and Burn will keep the format plenty fast, though Jeskai does a pretty good job slowing things down. The CoF banning does open things up a lot for Acid Trip, as it struggled against good Familiars pilots. I'd also look out for Tron being pretty strong now. What I'm really excited to see is if the way is open for Tortured Existence to get into the top tiers, rather than being a good fringe deck as it has been recently.
I've been running UB Undying Evil recently, with pretty strong results. I'm pretty sure in a world without Cloud of Faeries, the Augur of Skulls + Undying Evil sequence will have a place.
I don't think people deny the need for a new term, they just don't understand why the term is "generic" and why this expansion of the magic lexicon is being done in such a clumsy manner. It feels inelegant and that's unfortunate because much of M:TG's design has been quite the opposite of late.
They could have called the new "colorless" mana, Grey(or Gray) and people would be fine with it. Calling the "any mana" Generic feels wrong on a linguistic level.
I don't really feel the confusion is self-induced. The problem is there is now something in the game that used to have a label and now doesn't. Whether that label is 'generic' or 'any mana' or whatever it is still a matter of confusion.
I, and I think most others, used to describe a card like Incinerate, which costs 1R, as costing one red mana and one colourless. The thing that was implicit in colourless costs was that you didn't need colourless mana to pay them, you can pay any type of mana to pay that cost.
The introduction of colourless mana as its own thing means that the term 'colourless mana' now has a very specific meaning. It means the new mana symbol that Wastes, and various other lands, create. As such a new term is required to define the casting cost of cards like Incinerate, it costs one red mana and one generic/of any mana (there needs to be a new label for this as it is a thing that exists in the game that has lost its previous label). The difference is also important because of the nature of colourless cards that now exist. Some colourless cards are paid for entirely with generic/any mana (e.g. Karn Liberated, Bonesplitter) and some require specific amounts of colourless mana (e.g. Kozilek, the Great Distortion, Warping Wail).
The choice of generic isn't mine - it is how Wizards chose to describe the changes. People may not like the new term (I also don't like it as it's not a proper Magic term) but I don't believe it is the term itself that causes confusion. As far as I can tell it is people denying a new label/term needs to exist or not understanding why a new term/label needs to exist.
Yeah, it's easy to forget that they changed the release schedule on core sets around a bit over the years.
Actually, Kamigawa block is up next; Ninth Edition is still about six weeks away.
At best case Ancestral brings you 3 cards extra on the 5th turn assuming you played it immediately on turn 1. I think they were a little worried about cascading into Ancestral being too good but imho that was a silly worry. Imho that card should never have been on the ban list to begin with.
Bloodbraid Elf on the other hand earned its spot and then some. Onerous cards are onerous. Hope it never comes off.
You may be right about Bloodbraid but personally I'm not sure. There was certainly a time when Jund with Bloodbraid was not safe in the format and that is the risk that is run if Bloodbraid is brought back in. It's true that Jund is on the fringes of things now but I imagine that would change quickly if BBE is unbanned.
Ancestral Vision is an interesting one. I really haven't played with so I don't know how good it is but it might be possible to unban it. I actually think it might be a good unban to help promote Control decks in the format. I think blue mages could take quite a hit from the Twin ban but I guess we'll see how it all plays out at the Pro Tour.
Hooray!
For those curious...I did spike the GPT today, playing GB Infect. Next stop, GP: Detroit...Round 3...
Oh, like Modern? ;)
Thanks so much for subbing to host 100CS. You're a life saver!
Yeah, the Icarus aspect of it (Fly too high, get your wings melted) really adds to the format.
I think that Bloodbraid can easily be unbanned. If players want to use Kolaghan's Command, they play Grixis. If players want to cast Goyf + Liliana, they play Abzan.
I was all for unbanning Ancestral Vision when they banned Cruise/DTT but I think WotC was correct to keep it banned without Twin and Bloom in the format. Though no big deal if it's unbanned, it's pretty bad against Eldrazi Processors and Remand.
Two cards I really like purified, but I'm happy since that will lead to a wider range of viable decks in tribe and out. I can still play those elsewhere. Good format!
Great article as always. I know you are discussing the history of bans in general but I hope you'd agree that Wizards' approach to the Modern banned list has been much more forthright and sometimes experimental than their approach to formats in the past.
I have some comments regarding your myths:
Myth #4
Obviously all decks are beatable to some degree but decks that completely dominate a format should be banned to keep things diverse and interesting. I found your comment about a deck warping a format 'too much' interesting because when is a card/deck warping the format 'too much'. Force of Will is a format warping card but in Vintage/Legacy where there are ridiculous combos Force is considered a check on the format.
At what point did Splinter Twin stop being a check on certain decks and start warping the format 'too much'? Was it really only recently?
Myth #5
As mentioned above your comments are generally true but perhaps less true of Modern. I would say in general Wizards have been pretty active in banning and unbanning cards in Modern. I think Wizards are far more willing to ban cards in Modern than they have shown themselves to be in Standard.
Myth #6
I think there is some credence behind this. I think Tron may well have been left behind because Oath of the Gatewatch is coming out and Tron/Mono-Black Eldrazi are going to be the decks that highlight those cards best.
I also recall when they banned Bloodbraid Elf in Modern and didn't ban the shiny new Deathrite Shaman (which in my view was a bigger culprit behind the dominance of Jund at the time). That's not saying Bloodbraid shouldn't have been banned but just that the Shaman seemingly got off the hook because it was a new card.
Though conversely we did see Treasure Cruise and Dig Through Time banned quite rapidly so I can't say it's always been the case.
Myth #7
I disagree with this being a myth, I think Modern gets bans because it still has a Pro Tour. That's not to say that Wizards would never look at Modern or ban cards in it without a Pro Tour existing but I think it's a major driving force. Twin has been a known quantity since the beginning of the format and Amulet Bloom has also been a known quantity for some time. If there had been a pressing need to ban these cards why weren't they banned much sooner? I can see no real excuse other than this creates a new format for the pros to figure out directly before the Pro Tour. I don't really buy into the idea that this was something they were getting around to and the timing happens to be convenient - there were opportunities to ban these cards earlier and they didn't.
Twin didn't break the format and I think Wizards would have been satisfied to let the format lie if it weren't for the Pro Tour arriving, as they did with the previous banning announcement.
I don't think their choice of cards to ban is simply a test of what will shake the format most. Their choice of cards is not without consideration or merit. I just think that when it comes to Modern, Wizards are not afraid to use the banlist for the purpose of shaking things up and this is a shake up for the primary purpose of making the Pro Tour more interesting.
Finally, I must just add that I am not particularly unhappy with the bans or whining about them (as I mentioned in my article). I just thought these were interesting points of discussion.
The cards are just slightly synergistic. Because 5/8 beater (even better when you have assault formation out) getting through because it is unblockable is awesome. (I really really like both cards.)
I suppose I should clarify that one of the decks I am referring to happened specifically because I was playing with Assault Formation so toughness mattered and Oblivion Sower fit that well and also fit the lands matter side of the deck (using the retreats in green/black and white) and then was noticing Sower's one weakness was the deck that plays blockers ad infinitum until they get their answer/threat. And Whirler Rogue was the way in which I broke this stalemate board state. It is a little sideways and of course only really matters when your opponent can either flash in blockers or make blocker tokens.
Haven't had an opportunity to play a good match with RR yet. I look forward to it when time allows.
How did it go with the Realm Razer deck? And is there a specific Oblivion Sower/ Whirler Rogue combo or are they just two cool cards you put in the same deck?
If you think of the cards with true colorless activation costs as being multicolored, they have to be that much better in order to be worth playing, as you have a pretty major setup cost (having access to both colors). Some of them are decent, and I feel like I noted that in my evaluation. But none of them are so good that they easily justify the awkward mana they require.
There also is very little synergy with actual Devoid cards, so it's not like your rewarded for playing those.
I actually had Slip Through Space right in my head, but messed up the wording in the review. While I definitely wrote it wrong, I don't think that changes anything about my evaluation.
Thanks for the analysis of the cards. Stellar job inserting humor, as always.
You seem quite down on cards. Could lumping these together in their mana-cost be part of the drain? Surely, we will want access to {U} mana to cast some X Eldrazi spells, but that does that push us into reviewing the cards as blue in and of themselves? Understandably, with a smaller set to analyze, we may be tempted to evaluate devoid cards - even cards that need/use <> mana - by their their mana-cost colors, and not really considering how devoid is played yet. Are we throwing the baby out with the bathwater by dismissing colorless while also railroading it into certain color schemes? Perhaps only deck building and play will tell us the final verdict on these new Eldrazi cards. Regardless, thank you for your take on Azorius.
Thanks for an analysis of Pauper sans Cloud of Faeries. Earlier, Alex, you hinted how Cloudfin Raptor may shine in the future. Is now the time to consider the evolving creature as a viable strategy?
Apparently my computer has gotten more laggy since I last recorded a video. I made a video of the draft picks of the deck I played against you but when I tried the recorder and MTGOv4 simultaneously, it was a no go.
I could not get the draft tool to work with this :(
I still don't think it was OP strong in delver to the point of breaking the game, but CoF in the familiars deck certainly was.
I do have some hopes for a few new decks creeping into the meta now, though.
And certainly less pressure on running cheap removal to allow some more versatile options.
Though MU delver still has plenty of solid options so it'd be premature to disregard it.
Just my thoughts on the matter though, retailing at .00000000000000000000002 bot credits as it were.
Heh.
While naming convention debates may continue to press forward, (although I see both Paul's claim about cumbersome linguistics and the gap olaw identifies) I wonder how people are going to BUILD DECKS with colorless mana.
We see a lot of new set/card reviews emerging, but nobody yet risking how to build a mana base with said lands for competitive (or even FUN) play. If "<>" proves too unreliable, we may exercising futility in trying to sort out what (1) vs <1> should be named. It all may be called "garbage" if no decks emerge to successfully utilize it.
I think Affinity, Stompy, UR Fiend, Goblins and Burn will keep the format plenty fast, though Jeskai does a pretty good job slowing things down. The CoF banning does open things up a lot for Acid Trip, as it struggled against good Familiars pilots. I'd also look out for Tron being pretty strong now. What I'm really excited to see is if the way is open for Tortured Existence to get into the top tiers, rather than being a good fringe deck as it has been recently.
I've been running UB Undying Evil recently, with pretty strong results. I'm pretty sure in a world without Cloud of Faeries, the Augur of Skulls + Undying Evil sequence will have a place.
I don't think people deny the need for a new term, they just don't understand why the term is "generic" and why this expansion of the magic lexicon is being done in such a clumsy manner. It feels inelegant and that's unfortunate because much of M:TG's design has been quite the opposite of late.
They could have called the new "colorless" mana, Grey(or Gray) and people would be fine with it. Calling the "any mana" Generic feels wrong on a linguistic level.
I don't really feel the confusion is self-induced. The problem is there is now something in the game that used to have a label and now doesn't. Whether that label is 'generic' or 'any mana' or whatever it is still a matter of confusion.
I, and I think most others, used to describe a card like Incinerate, which costs 1R, as costing one red mana and one colourless. The thing that was implicit in colourless costs was that you didn't need colourless mana to pay them, you can pay any type of mana to pay that cost.
The introduction of colourless mana as its own thing means that the term 'colourless mana' now has a very specific meaning. It means the new mana symbol that Wastes, and various other lands, create. As such a new term is required to define the casting cost of cards like Incinerate, it costs one red mana and one generic/of any mana (there needs to be a new label for this as it is a thing that exists in the game that has lost its previous label). The difference is also important because of the nature of colourless cards that now exist. Some colourless cards are paid for entirely with generic/any mana (e.g. Karn Liberated, Bonesplitter) and some require specific amounts of colourless mana (e.g. Kozilek, the Great Distortion, Warping Wail).
The choice of generic isn't mine - it is how Wizards chose to describe the changes. People may not like the new term (I also don't like it as it's not a proper Magic term) but I don't believe it is the term itself that causes confusion. As far as I can tell it is people denying a new label/term needs to exist or not understanding why a new term/label needs to exist.