(This comes from an affinity player, I’ve just lost one of my worst matchups)

Yeah, Recoil’s a tad too slow for Modern.

In reference to the Anonymous poster below, Twin has not sustained that share for a consistent period of time. It also hasn’t sustained that share at all since the summer. I also argue that Twin INCREASES diversity rather than decreasing it, just by policing out a variety of linear decks that would otherwise run rampant.

“we are typically talking about (b). These decks often do not violate the turn four rule but do reduce diversity by occupying 15%+”

So when does Twin get cut down? Has continuesly the highest shares of the metagame and is easily the most stable deck in the format. Also finds it’s place in Top8 ths of close to every tournament so far…

Would mean another card that probably would not be played.

A few things on this.

1. I’ve explicitly mentioned that Bloom needs banning in this article and Tuesday’s article. It’s 2016, the banlist announcement is around the corner, and my Amulet Bloom banning piece is coming out next week. It’s time to be up front. But previous articles have not suggested this. Bloom players might read between the lines what they want to hear (e.g. when we report Bloom has the highest MWP and Bloom players believe this suggests it should be banned). But this is the kind of paranoid alarmism that comes in Modern. If I genuinely think something should be banned based on the data, I’ll go out and say it. Otherwise, I’ll report what the data says.

2. The only reason I have not discussed the specific card that needs to be banned is article space. It’s inappropriate to talk about that offhandedly because it needs explanation, which I’ve given elsewhere in a QuietSpeculation article and on forums. For articles here, it is totally fine to say that I believe something will be banned and to stay tuned for next Tuesday to hear more. Before 2016, however, I never did this because we were still gathering data.

3. Banning a ritual is not opinion or personal preference. That’s what they did in the case of Song and the case of Rite of Flame. The other example of such a T4 ban was Blazing Shoal, which completely killed that style of Infect. Whatever historical precedent you draw from, Amulet Bloom is going to lose something big.

4. The data does not include scoops.

5. Totally agree Wizards should be more transparent and communicative about the T4 rule and banlist policy generally. It leads to lots of speculation, panic, alarmism, and general discontent. That said, Modern is still a super successful format, so maybe it’s not that important overall even if you and I think it is.

6. Better generic answers would help Modern a lot. When we get them, maybe the format’s banlist can be cleaned up. Until then, the T4 rule needs to be enforced by the DCI, not by regulating cards.

Also I will say that the reason why we have so many “goldfish” decks in modern is because there is no viable control strategy to deal with everything. I mean if force of will wasn’t in legacy, how much fun would you have going to a tournament and playing against reanimator all day? The reason legacy players don’t have that problem is because of force of will, so hate it or love it helps to keep ridiculously fast and powered decks in check.
Modern isn’t at that level so something like force probably isn’t necessary (not to mention the financial headache). What I am trying to say is that with a viable control strategy, that would in my opinion help to keep the goldfish decks like amulet and griselhoard and numerous other ones in check. I would love to see a lot of people getting together and testing this out to see if counterspell would be too good.
Also, we need a better land destruction than tec edge and ghost quarter. I am one that is for a wasteland that costs 1 to activate. Makes it slower than legacy while still allowing for early enough interaction. Tec edge is hardly played because the 4 land restriction is either too slow ( tron or amulet can already get their game online) or the decks don’t ever hit 4 lands, making it worthless. Ghost quarter still leaves them with a land and you without so its still a disadvantage instead of breaking even.

That’s the biggest thing (I’ll admit I’m an aggro player at heart). I also think it also adds another efficient tool to decks that don’t really need it (I see it slotting right into Abzan’s sideboard). Plus I think it’d spell the end for Boggles, and even though I don’t play that deck I’ve always had a soft spot for it.

What are your objections to it? One very possible complaint is that it took a while for aggro to regain a foothold in Modern after years of being a one-story Affinity town, and Blood might reverse that. Any other worries?

Totally agree with the assessment of blue-based control. Wizards needs to create that “Something” to push control into viability. My prediction and hope is that an unbanning, reprint, or new card will do just that.

As for Blood, I think the potential gains for non-BGx black decks far outweigh the chances that Abzan will use this effectively. It’s really narrow in any opening where you drop the T2 Goyf/Tasigur, although it’s much sweeter with Souls. I could certainly see it seeing Abzan play, but any gains it provides Abzan should be more than matched by the help it provides to struggling Bx(x) Control decks in lower tiers. ESPER PLEASE??

I also think an Innocent Blood reprint is overdue. It doesn’t enable Black aggro (a perpetually downtrodden archetype in this format, but that’s a story for another time) because of its drawback, but it’s a potent T1 piece for midrange and control decks who just need to get that Goblin Guide/Monastery Swiftspear/Wild Nacatl off their back so that they can operate. I don’t think it will replace Bolt or Path in Jund or Abzan (or even Mardu), but it will benefit UBx decks, which right now are sorely lacking good, cheap removal options (Disfigure? Please).

Counterspell is only an improvement of mana leak and i think it is not enough to keep in check the big-mana deck: it doesn’t stop bloom from winning on turn 2 on the play, is only good against tron unless they start casting ulamog/emrakul/new kozilek(possibly) and is pretty bad against Bx processor.

“Or just ban slayers stronghold so that the turn they play titan they cant attack and find more titans?? ”

Put another way: “Ban Siege Rhino and keep Pod decks intact”. In the short term, Pod would have taken a hit in power level. In the long term, the next value-creature would “undo” the ban. It’s an unnecessary design restriction. Banning Slayer’s Stronghold would vastly decrease the quantity of T2 titan deaths, but it also means that the next land that gives creatures haste would put us back in the same position.

“I think the magic community and the writers in general, not only here but on other sites need to take a different look on bannings and how the write their articles. The real problem is a lack of counterspell in the format.”

These articles seem to go hand in hand. Every author has their own opinion on what should be unbanned, what card needs a reprint in a modern-legal set, whether or not a 15 card sideboard is sufficient, and so on and so forth.

In regards to counterspell, I think it would make an interesting target for a “Banlist Test” article similar to the stoneforge abzan v. affinity experiment.

As an RG tron you pack rending volleys to deal ONLY with Twin (don’t lie saying is for something else, even though you can bring it in in one other match), and that’s fine for everyone. As a Merfolk player, you pack 3-4 Hurkyll Recall only for the sake of affinity (again, you can bring it in for one other match, lantern). As an Abzan player, you bring Stony Silence for Affinity, but you get incidental damage on one or two matches tops.

But hey, you can’t side in more hate against amulet bloom if the match is bad, that is warping the sideboard! Even though, for example, Tunnel Ignus would be primarly to Amulet Bloom and you could bring it in for Scapeshift(s) (one extra match).

It is the exact same thing in both cases.But if it is any other deck, it is what the sideboard is for, and if it is with amulet bloom, it is “warping the sideboard”.

Double standards everywhere.

I don’t think you understood me. Stony sees play because Affinity is all over but also because it has game against another very powerful staple (it is great vs. RG Tron). That’s not warping the board, it’s what the board is for.

I hope so too! But Wizards has made some odd reprint choices before, so maybe it doesn’t pan out.

I’m going to push back pretty strongly against this.

We basically NEVER make veiled banlist references (at least, outside of banlist articles where they are explicit references). This is the first metagame article where I’ve brought up an explicit reference to a deck. Indeed, in past articles, notably November’s when Bloom ban talk was at a height, I explicitly pushed back against it in the introduction. No other articles have discussed it. If you can point out other references please do so, but we actively avoid this in our articles.

As for Bloom itself, people get way too emotionally invested in their decks and struggle to see the arguments against it. If you’ve read my “Understanding the Turn Four Rule” piece, you know there are two criteria for determining if a deck breaks the turn four rule. Bloom has been top-tier for months now, so it’s clearly qualifying there. I also now have data to suggest it consistently wins before turn four, so it’s also qualifying on that count. The combination of those two quantitative datapoints are what drives me to my banning conclusion.

I don’t care about all the rhetoric around a supposedly bannable deck. I care primarily about the numbers, followed by the alignment of those numbers with more qualitative metrics. Stories, anecdotes, theorycrafting, etc. alone don’t cut it for me and I just don’t care about them.

As for what card to ban, again, I am just following precedent. Storm saw a ritual banned in 2013. The language from that announcement suggests a similar, ritual-focused ban would be aimed at Bloom. Summer Bloom and Amulet of Vigor are the deck’s “rituals”, so either is fair game (although I expect Wizards to not gut the deck by banning the artifact). Again, this is an example of a clear dialogue with past examples and precedent, not just the rhetorical spewing I see on many other sites discussing bans.

I’m happy to discuss these concerns with you further, but again, I really think you are off base with your accusation that we have veiled ban references. We explicitly fight against those references or defend against the ban maniacs. Every single banlist prediction article for this year has predicted “No Banned Changes” when most of the community was whining for some ban or another. The non-banlist articles haven’t even spoken to the topic up until this week, where it is totally appropriate to discuss the issue with a ban less than two weeks out.