Thanks Jason. Fixed the link in my post above to prevent further confusion.

Minor note: The link to Sheridan’s article here is wrong. I assume this is the article Jordan was trying to reference:

http://quietspeculation.com/understanding-the-turn-four-rule/

In it, Sheridan explains what WotC means by this term in detail, and uses past bannings to illustrate how it’s applied in practice. For anyone looking to understand Wizards’ methods in B&R decisions, I can’t recommend this article any higher.

Like was said above, I would be incredibly surprised if Wizards printed a bossy removal spell that can deal with all the infect creatures and kiln fiend, but then banned something from those decks. It makes much more sense to see how this obviously meta-changing new removal spell shapes the format first.

As for Dredge, I definitely think it’s a possibility. Cathartic reunion would be the obvious ban, here, as the deck was good, but definitely not broken, before that. Currently, it’s brokenness is clearly, at the very least, debatable, but only theoretically. Practically speaking, the numbers don’t really violate the stated rules, and I do believe you, and Nexus in general, are correct to focus on these stated rules, rather than stipulate like so many other sites.

Now, it would be nice to have some criteria they use for unbans, but since that’s always something people like (vs bans that people, usually, hate), I don’t think anyone is really clamoring for transparency in unbans.

I’ve heard rumblings about banning Become Immense because of Infect’s rise post-Blossoming Defense, but given that BGx and Delver decks seem to have now held it in check, I don’t see that happening. These past few months have also proven that Dredge dies to hate, so I don’t expect a ban there either.

Blazing shoal? I thought it was too linear. How does blazing shoal help fair decks? It would just bolster infect and death shadow

Dig Through Time is powerful. Believe me. Getting 4-6 cards in yard for a spell based combo deck is barely difficult at all. T1 thought scour + fetchland gets 4 into the yard on t1 and sets up dig through time on t3. Combo decks fill graveyard quickly using cantrips to find their pieces anyway.

it has for me. i no longer feel awkwardly penned into path. bolt is pretty innefectual against them in general.

i never considered infect “absolutely must ban” but its always been toe-ing the line. a third color havign access to effective removal at 1 mana is a huge breath of air for fair decks, and fair decks tend to do just fine vs infect

You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but I don’t think the data supports you. In your own preferred data set blue interactive decks make up 13% of the field which, while lower than BGx at 18%, is certainly still respectable and a far cry from blue needing help whatsoever to stay relevant. In larger data sets the trend holds. The 2 month running tally on MTGTop8 has blue decks ringing in at 13% too with 101 out of 773 decks. MTGGoldfish presents similar numbers, with Grixis Delver as a singular deck ringing in as one of the 8 most prevalent decks.

None of those sites are perfect and this sites prior work on metagames is preferable to both as they overrepresent the online meta due to the simple fact that it produces far more decklists than any other source with 300~ per month. But insofar as nexus’ updates aren’t updated, that’s what we have to work with, and I don’t see a picture of blue needing cards to help them.

I won’t cry foul if they do unban preordain, I’ll happily include it in my UR Kiln Fiend deck, but I don’t think it’s needed for Modern based on what evidence we have access to.

This card is sure to become one of the defining removal spells of the format, joining Path and Bolt to create a trifecta of superb one-mana blanket answers for creatures. If my reasoning can’t, hopefully Push’s reveal manages to quell the “ban Infect” crowd’s bloodthirsty chants.

All good points. Forgive me for mishandling the data—not my strong suit! I still think my points stand, but we’ll find out whether Wizards agrees on the 16th. Thanks for checking me.

I am looking at spoilers for Aether Revolt, and Fatal Push has me full attention. That is a potential third awesome one-mana removal spell for modern alongside path and bolt that could really shake things up.

The last 2 weeks on MTGTop8 includes a whopping 92 decks. That’s hardly a decent basis for any analysis when it spans more than 20 archetypes and no major tournaments. That’s still terrible foundation for any kind of ban talk. Not to mention, the 3% for delver comes from a different data set that you can’t just compare to a different, much smaller data set that is also primarily online results.

What’s more, you’re combining both abzan and jund to make up that figure at which point you should do the same for blue decks. In those 2 weeks, if you combine the blue decks you get 12% of the meta playing blue interactive magic(and this doesn’t even include the 2 grixis control decks that top8d the 31/12 PTQ because MTGTop8 hasn’t been updated). There are 4 Grixis decks, 3 UW, 2 Gifts, 1 Fae, blue moon and Nahiri. That’s 12 out of 92 decks or 13% of the format. Compared to BGx’s 18 percent, that’s still not pitiably or inadequate.

Dredge’s numbers are worse than Jund’s. I wouldn’t call that “dominance,” even though the deck is doing very well for itself. And we know that Wizards also wouldn’t call it “dominance,” since they have never banned a deck for dominance reasons that had a sub-10% share. So far, Dredge violates none of Wizards’ five criteria for bans.

It’s explained in the article where I got that number from. I’m very happy to discuss my arguments with readers, but you should really read my arguments first!

DTT has the same issue as Ponder: it’s just way more powerful than Preordain. I’m with you that blue needs some selection. I just think it makes a lot more sense for Wizards to start small, especially considering they have no idea what the impact of DTT might be. The card is banned in Legacy and restricted in Vintage, after all. Two Ponders on one card is pretty gross.

I’m not really sure where you’re getting 14% for dredge, both MTGTop8 and MTGGoldfish lists it lower than that(8 and 5 percent respectively) or why you’re combining decks into a more generic color combination and then comparing it to a single blue deck.

It’s a dishonest tactic to combine Abzan and Jund to make Delver look smaller than it is, not to mention both Junk and Jund don’t even make it to 15% on either MTGTop8 nor MTGGoldfish, so you must be including more decks to get it that high!

The simple fact of the matter is that Grixis Delver has been doing well in the current meta without Preordain hanging out between 5th and 8th on MTGGoldfish. If you find tier 1.5 like that pitiable or inadequate, I’m sure we won’t agree on much.

2: i dissagree about the no need for bans. I believe that dredge is proving to meet another criteria thats been stated and demonstrated.

dominance in the face of consistent targeted hate. Any competent dredge player wil ltell you a single rest in peace resolving will not end the game by any stretch. sideboards and mainboard are heavily warping around it, mostly innefectually.
RW prison and skred have so much hate that it works but for instance my sultai deck and many abzan decks run nihil spellbomb mainboard. its double utility for combating snapcaster decks, and hosing unfair grave strategies while building up your goyfs etc.

im forced to run a full 4 sideboard cards on top of 2 spellbombs and my scavenging oozes. and i still feel that i am at the disadvantage heavily.

players are running incredibly narrow hate in the form of the trap, and still losing after their specific targetted hate resolves.
dredge is the deck that has a huge target on its head, everythings warped around it, and it remains dominant.

i cant find where it was stated. but I distinctly remember “continued dominance in the face of targeted hate”

i for one actually like dredge in general but… i would be not at all surprised to see at least one ban. I actually hope its not the troll and its something like cathartic reunion. i think this would be in line with how eldrazi was pulled back but not gutted.

But why “should” they? Because it’s in line with your own personal vision for the format? Wizards is in charge of the format, not individual players with varying opinions. That’s why I don’t find it very productive to talk about what they “should” and “shouldn’t” do, and prefer to focus on what they may actually do based on their past actions.

To be very clear, I never advocated for a larger sideboard. That was Paulo Vitor. With all due respect to Paulo, I find this idea damningly inelegant.

As for decision trees, I don’t think you’re right. I personally know a player who plays Valakut specifically because he would rather play the matchup lottery and doesn’t want to have to make many decisions (or have his decisions matter that much) in a Modern tournament.

That brings us back to my original point: everyone interacts with Modern differently. You might not like playing against Lantern, for instance, but I actually find the matchup fairly enjoyable when I pair with it on Temur Delver or Colorless Eldrazi. A substantial group of players also like paying the deck itself, with pros like Adrian Sullivan among the most vocal.

All this to say I’m happy we have a single consistent, data-rich entity (Wizards) in charge of the banlist, and not Modern’s diverse, conflicted playerbase.

I hadn’t even thought of Shoal with Bedlam—that sounds awesome! (Or horrifying)

I never called it miserable. I called it miserly, which is a relative term that means small or pitiable. Compared with BGx’s 15% share and Dredge’s 14% share, I stand by the claim that 3% for all interactive blue strategies is pretty small! If we disagree there, though, we probably won’t agree on much.