Loved the LOTR reference

Oops, that anonymous comment right above is from me. Pseudonymous me, not anonymous me….

One final thought, I think its getting better but at the time of the pod ban, the majority of pros who would say anything about modern did not seem to be playing the format much, and were frustrated about the fact your sideboard isn’t large enough to play hate for every deck you might face. Perhaps you’d like to drift towards a bit more certainty about what you’ll face as well, but personally I like to be able to shift around my decks to try to find what will be good in the given meta. But I’m luckier than most in that I have access to multiple modern decks..

“Because literally every Pro said that was the reason for the Pod ban.”

I recall the reason being that Melira Pod had a very long history of format dominance (or at least overrepresentation), and WOTC argued restricted their flexibility to continue to create strong creatures.

Even if a “shake up” was the reason, I still think that the format is plenty “shaken up” and there is not a default “pro choice” like melira pod represented at the time. Splinter twin and Grixis control do not seem to me to be in that space right now, but maybe I’m wrong.

Cheers!

Huntmaster and Olivia are only played in the absence of a better 4drop. Both Huntmaster and Olivia were around at the time BBE was banned, but neither was played exactly because a better 4drop, BBE, was legal. I’d be surprised if anyone ran either if BBE would re-enter the format.

“What I don’t understand is the assumption a lot of people have that WOTC will feel compelled to shake it up for the pro tour. I’m not sure why they would feel the need to be so proactive”

Because literally every Pro said that was the reason for the Pod ban.

Which means come January and the meta has stabilised then the anticipation is that Wizards will want to see different decks in the top 8 (and not Grixis Control/Twin) putting pressure on a ban from those decks. Not that I expect that to happen this time – but that’s the thinking.

To be honest, I’m not overly excited by this current meta – it’s just too fluid. Settling down with a deck is becoming more and more difficult as meta shifts can completely throw your deck under the bus. While sideboard cards are narrow and there are few ways to increase consistency.

Something between now and TC Delver/Pod era is what’s needed.

Couldn’t Sword find it’s way into something like Affinity though, suddenly making memnites and Vault Skirges that little bit scarier?

What I don’t understand is the assumption a lot of people have that WOTC will feel compelled to shake it up for the pro tour. I’m not sure why they would feel the need to be so proactive when it seems like they’ve hit the sweet spot. If their fear is a pro tour top 8 dominated by one deck, wouldn’t that be more likely with a mis-step on a ban or unbanning than by letting this meta just play out? Then they’ll have a bullet to use when they actually need to reshape the format because of imbalances. I think they should leave it alone.

However, if they do I want it to be sword of the meek. Mostly because I’d love to play with it with Tezzeret Agent of Bolas. But without thinking about it extensively, that seems pretty risky and could potentially blank all the aggro decks that don’t kill extremely fast.

Love the site by the way, you have the best modern focused content I’ve found on the web. Hope you all can keep it up!

I was actually a little surprised, given how vocal R&D is about not making prison cards anymore, that we didn’t see an Ensnaring Bridge ban. I really thought that given Wizards’ dislike of Prison that Lantern could be like Eggs and get banned before it really started to be a problem (though the problem with Eggs was mostly time related). Still, if Lantern keeps doing well I would not be surprised if Bridge leaves us in January.

I also think there is more space for format improvement in printings than in unbannings. Or even reprintings! It’s unclear how much Wizards does this in practice, so I can’t count too much on it. On the one hand, we see clear Modern tributes like Goblin Piledriver. On the other hand, Goblin Piledriver isn’t eve doing anything right now, and we know Wizards doesn’t do testing for Modern. So we’ll have to see where the new sets take us!

Sheridan is the mod that manages what deck threads go in what forum, ktkenshinx.

Jund potentially gets better cards with every set, though I suppose your argument could be on wizards’ minds. The deck is doing fine, why change any of it?

The common argument I hear about BBE is that they banned the wrong card. Deathrite Shaman did WAY too much for too little cost (“1-mana Planeswalker”). BBE is a 2:1, though that is commensurate with its 4 CMC. Still, DRS was relatively new at that time and Jund was already dominant, so I can’t say I blame wizards for banning old shenanigans while letting people brew. Their ends seemed to have justified the means.

The current Jund deck has picked up several mainstays since 2013 in Huntmaster, Olivia, Scooze, Tasigur, and Kolaghan’s Comand, so BBE would have a lot of competition for slots were it to be unbanned. This brings us full-circle to the previous point: nothing is broken, so let it be.

I feel a lot of the modern mtg community doesn’t think considerably before they type on reddit/mtgsalvation. If you look at what they want:

a) each new set to contribute to the non-rotating format (looking at the complaints regarding Origins and BFZ); and
b) bans and unbans at the drop of a hat; AND
c) the one deck they can afford to remain competitive forever. The suggested bans are always for someone else’s deck.

It’s like they hate money and the possibility of their deck being impacted, and want a format defined by power creep and wildly changing metagames. But then without any warning turn around when the metagame does change and post a million “I just bought into pod waa waa” threads.

I am glad that the community’s collective opinion (hopefully) isnt taken into account when deciding the ban and unban changes each quarter.

The modern metagame appears to be currently evolving with a mass of competitive decks. I think the next few months will see the contenders solidify and the pretenders drop off. We’re still seeing Kolaghan’s Command work its way through the format.

It is possible this process may be finished by January in time for the meta to be shaken up a little. Even if they didnt change anything in time for the pro tour, seeing the pro teams and deck choices would be amazingly interesting, especially when they would have knowledge and time to sit down and really try to crack the format.

I think this is a (very) low degree of “pick[ing] on” as far as articles can go, and it’s supported with ample explanations about better ways to look at the banlist. Given all the frameworks introduced in this article, and those discussed elsewhere, I think we are definitely moving towards our goal of educating the community and helping them to understand these complicated issues. Little jokes like these add much more than they detract, especially given how impersonal and inoffensive they are, and especially when considering all the information around them.

I think we’ll all be happy for January when we see a Sword unban (or maybe even a Vision unban). Not sure if it would fit into the fringe decks people think it would, but its presence would be a neat addition to the format.

One issue is that it might make aggro decks significantly worse in Modern by providing an early stabilizer those decks can’t handle. It might also slot into Grixis decks or other UBx control builds, pushing those decks over other options. Although I’m not too worried about those dangers, I still respect they exist and appreciate Wizards’ conservatism in unbanning Swords.

I agree with that interpretation. I try not to extrapolate too much from the poll precisely because users can interpret it in different ways. But it’s a great general gauge of the Modern community’s feelings towards certain cards. Coupled with all the other stuff we’ve heard in articles, forums, and our own local scenes, it’s also a pretty good indicator of how wildly some people’s banlist views differ from others.

I chuckled, but the four unfortunate dudes who want Thoughtseize banned aren’t necessarily idiots. There’s so much confusion about Modern’s banlist precisely because Wizards has never been clear and transparent with the playerbase about it. Sheridan, you’ve taken a good look at the facts and have a really solid idea of the direction Wizards wants to take with Modern, something reflected in your constantly accurate banlist predictions. I’m just not sure it’s fair to pick on those who haven’t done so, for whatever reason – they lack time, they haven’t thought to do it themselves, or they don’t possess the analytical gifts you do.

Add to that the banmania every LGS falls prey too, and it becomes easy for “the little guy,” who plays Modern once a week with a five-month-old Burn deck, to feel sore after losing to Nourishing Shoal, a card he’s never even seen before, on turn two. All he knows about the banlist is that his friend’s foil Pod deck got nuked seemingly out of the blue.

I’m assuming your goal with these articles is to educate those players. After all, you’ve explored the issues at hand, and have done the work necessary to truly understand the banlist. I don’t think the most productive way to share that knowledge includes poking fun at those less Modern-inclined, no matter how ridiculous it may seem to us that someone out there wants Thoughtseize or Ensnaring Bridge banned.

It’s funny to us (yes, to me too) that someone wants the hammer dropped on Glistener Elf, but it’s also indicative of a serious problem with the community that Modern Nexus has the tools to address respectfully.