How the hell did you do that?
]]>SPOT ON:
]]>Wizards wants modern to be a “creature” format, wants players using creatures to win a modern match. Hence, no counterspell reprint but just negate. The first 20 deck types (>64%) of the current meta (according to mtggoldfish) use creatures to win the match and only about 5% of this meta decks can win without using combat (11% considering tron that in any case does use creatures to win!), while more than 20% of legacy decks can win without using creature (miracles and storm and maybe some more). That’s also why it’s very improbable they ban splinter twin. It’s a combo, but it’s a creature based combo (that doesn’t violate turn 4 rules).
Preordain will push more combo decks than the controls.
Last: Modern has so many good police card but they aren’t counters. Why it must be “good police card=good counter”?
Just my 2 cents.
The theory doesn’t hold water, considering that Aaron Forsythe has said R&D had no expectation that Collected Company would see play in any format, not to mention spawn entire decks in Modern. Collected Company wasn’t anything close to a plant to make up for banning Pod, the timing was just a coincidence.
]]>Good points, though I could see a few decks not wanting it. The first that comes to mind is abzan company since it doesn’t really fit the gameplan and fitting in 2 more non-creature spells could be rough.
]]>That’s a nice observation!
]]>a jund player can dream of a unbanned Bloodbraid Elf right? =(
]]>It should be noted that when I asked “When was the last time you played Modern?”, I didn’t mean to come across condescending, although I realize that I certainly came off that way. The reason I asked is because if you played Modern a lot around 1-2 years ago, then you would remember a lot of Nacatl decks. I know a lot of players who faded out of Modern for a while around this time period, coming back with questions like “has Faeries been banned yet?”, due to Faeries getting some hype (especially locally) at the time. These are all very good players, they were just a bit out of touch with the metagame, and I found this to be the most likely scenario for somebody asking for a Nacatl ban.
]]>Well . . . no? Modern is about 5.5% Burn, and somewhere from 1/3 to 2/3 of Burn decks run Nacatl (it’s hard to get exact numbers for this, because in terms of Modern, Nacatl Burn hasn’t been making waves for long). Zoo is maybe 2.5% of Modern, including Suicide Zoo. Naya Company comprises perhaps another 1.5%, and Knightfall perhaps 1%, with less than half of those lists playing Nacatl (accurate numbers for most of these decks are hard, because, with the exception of Burn, they’re fringe at best).
So, all in all, about 7.5% of Modern decks run Nacatl, meaning I underestimated slightly, but not by much. Additionally, about 40% of these decks (Burn and Knightfall) don’t even necessarily run Nacatl, so banning Nacatl doesn’t really hurt those decks.
Perhaps your meta is skewed towards more budget-friendly decks, but competitively, Nacatl is just a semi-relevant card. It doesn’t facilitate Modern’s best Aggro strategies, it doesn’t have an unduly large impact on competitive play (a 1-mana 3/3 is always strong, but Modern can handle it just fine), and it is nowhere near warranting a ban. If you have trouble beating Nacatl, play decks that beat Nacatl.
Also, Knightfall is far beyond “getting popular”. It got some hype after BFZ release, but it’s not really a fast-growing deck anymore. It sees about as much play and attention as most other tier-2.5 decks, making it relatively stable. Bx Heartless Eldrazi is the current hype deck, I believe.
]]>Not to mention Knightfall decks, which is a new combo type deck getting popular… when is the last time you’ve played Modern Joshy Josh?
]]>There are a LOT of Burn, Zoo, and Naya CoCo decks out in the real world, since they are some of the cheapest options to build. At least in my meta, probably yours, too, if you pay attention.
]]>When was the last time you played Modern? Wild Nacatl is in somewhere around 5% of decks (not 100% sure of this number), and it’s bad in a majority of those decks (Nacatl Burn).
]]>That’s a bit too coincidental and is only one datapoint, so don’t read too much into that. That being said, if something like what you suggest does happen then we have an actual basis for future speculation.
]]>That being said, it seems, then, the major strike against an unban is not its negative impact on aggro decks but rather the fact that every deck playing white would jam 4 Stoneforges — aggro, midrange, and control alike. You do seem to hint at this above, but don’t emphasis it enough. Subsequently, the inevitable price spike would also not be great for an already expensive format. As you point out with respect to Jace, Wizards is surely aware of an unban’s potential to have negative consequences here as well.
Any thoughts on these points? Any reason to believe that Stoneforge wouldn’t be played in every deck playing white (presuming she’s unbanned)?
]]>