Sickening posted:

I have a feeling that this might be a good set.

jassi007 posted:

That is true. While that is true, it is also true that it is super obvious to anyone who pays attention to formats and the metagame that there is a problem that needs fixed and we're all just waiting until this future date for someone to fix it. It is only a game and all, so it isn't like we can't do something else, but it is just weird that a majority of players and WOTC all agree that action is needed, but WOTC says "we just have to wait for this date we set." I get the logic of not just acting rashly or prematurely, but I think it is safe to say we're beyond that point. We've seen a lot of games online, at events etc, we know the issue isn't one that can be solved by players and new strategies/decks/etc. Acting at this point would no longer be considered hasty or premature. Right now there is an odd choice "play this broken deck" or "just wait for another month" I find a company that tells me to check back with them in a month to enjoy their product which they currently acknowledge isn't working is odd, when they could fix it today. I guess they don't want my money?

Matt Tabak posted:

DOUBLE-FACED CARDS RULES CHANGES
We tweaked three things about DFCs this time around to smooth out some edge cases. Oh, did you skip to this section from the top? Yeah, we say "DFCs" now. We cool like that. This part gets a bit technical, but we'll be back in "Happy Mechanic Preview Land" soon, I swear.

1. Converted mana cost

Remember when I said that the characteristics of the face that's up are all that matter? That wasn't quite accurate. Under the new rules, the converted mana cost of the back face of a DFC is based on the mana cost of the front face. (Previously, because the back faces lacked mana costs, their converted mana costs were all 0.) The one exception is if something is a copy of the back face of a DFC, its converted mana cost is 0. So If I control Insidious Mist, it has no mana cost, but its converted mana cost is 4. If I then put a copy of Insidious Mist onto the battlefield, that copy's converted mana cost is 0.

2. Entering the battlefield transformed

A few effects can put a card onto the battlefield transformed. This means to put it on the battlefield with its back face up. Starting with this set, we have a new rule that if you're told to put a card that isn't a DFC onto the battlefield transformed, it just stays where it is. This may affect a few cards in this set, but I think the Magic Origins planeswalkers illustrate the change nicely. (This is code for "The cool cards in this set I could use to illustrate this haven't been previewed yet." I know. I feel the same way.) Say you control a Clone that's copying Jace, Vryn's Prodigy, and you activate faux-Jace's ability with four thousand cards in your graveyard. Well, four thousand is "five or more," so faux-Jace dutifully exiles himself. Then he tries to return transformed, but in exile he's just a single-faced Clone. He's not a DFC, so he gets detained at the border and remains in exile. I hope the card you drew was good, because this wasn't a great play otherwise.

3. No flippy-floppy

I've saved our most technical change for last. Here's the new rule: if a DFC has an activated or triggered ability that transforms it, that permanent transforms only if it hasn't since that ability was put on the stack. What does that mean? For example, say you activate Elusive Tormentor's ability, then you activate it again in response. Why? Because you want to discard a lot of cards. Why? We're almost there. Relax. The first ability to resolve will cause Elusive Tormentor to transform, as expected. But the second ability won't, as Elusive Tormentor has already transformed because of the first ability.

Elyv posted:

jassi007 posted:

That is true. While that is true, it is also true that it is super obvious to anyone who pays attention to formats and the metagame that there is a problem that needs fixed and we're all just waiting until this future date for someone to fix it. It is only a game and all, so it isn't like we can't do something else, but it is just weird that a majority of players and WOTC all agree that action is needed, but WOTC says "we just have to wait for this date we set." I get the logic of not just acting rashly or prematurely, but I think it is safe to say we're beyond that point. We've seen a lot of games online, at events etc, we know the issue isn't one that can be solved by players and new strategies/decks/etc. Acting at this point would no longer be considered hasty or premature. Right now there is an odd choice "play this broken deck" or "just wait for another month" I find a company that tells me to check back with them in a month to enjoy their product which they currently acknowledge isn't working is odd, when they could fix it today. I guess they don't want my money?

Lieutenant Centaur posted:

Ok, so let me ask you then. What is your end game in the Modern format? Obviously, the goal of the game is to win faster than your opponent can so in that context what form of achieving that goal is acceptable to you and the community.

Obviously, things like Twin and Amulet could win the game quickly so the community complained until cards were banned. Now, people are playing Eldrazi because of it and the same people are complaining about it and want the cards from it to be banned.

At what point does this link of thinking stop? You kill the Eldrazi decks and then people will start brewing new powerful decks that go infinite and dominate the format once again creating this never ending loop of "unfair decks"

Will you ever view the format at completely stable with no needed changes or revisions? Like Sigma said people will spend $500 on these decks only to have them abolished months down the line and people are going to abandon the format more than they already are.

MiddleEastBeast posted:

I don't have a strong view on WoTC's stance re: Eldrazi bans, but just wanted to point out that conflating the reasons why Eldrazi will/should have pieces banned out to bring it back to earth with those for why Amulet/Twin was nerfed isn't really fair.

And it's entirely reasonable to have your end game in Modern not be a format in which almost 50% of day 2 decks are not the same archetype.

mehall posted:

Thing in the ice playable in legacy?
4 mana means bolt doesn't hit it, so it definitely goes in modern delver
especially with the mass-unsummon

Lieutenant Centaur posted:

But, the only reason these Eldrazi decks exist is because of the bannings to Bloom and Twin which at the time were dominators in the format.

No one was playing Eldrazi in the Bloom/Twin world of Modern. These decks are a direct result of those bannings. By banning Temple/Eye you're going to wreck these decks and people are just going to brew some new format dominating deck which people will play and then we're back to the initial argument of what cards should we ban now since everyone is playing (insert new deck)

Lieutenant Centaur posted:

But, the only reason these Eldrazi decks exist is because of the bannings to Bloom and Twin which at the time were dominators in the format.

No one was playing Eldrazi in the Bloom/Twin world of Modern. These decks are a direct result of those bannings. By banning Temple/Eye you're going to wreck these decks and people are just going to brew some new format dominating deck which people will play and then we're back to the initial argument of what cards should we ban now since everyone is playing (insert new deck)

Elyv posted:

quote:

Warped Landscape looks kind of bad at first, but being untapped probably makes it better than evolving wilds late game when your colors are already fixed and getting a land in your graveyard helps enable Delirium. Evolving Wilds is probably better overall though. I'm curious if they thought Evolving Wilds was too good with Delirium.

Lieutenant Centaur posted:

Ok, so let me ask you then. What is your end game in the Modern format? Obviously, the goal of the game is to win faster than your opponent can so in that context what form of achieving that goal is acceptable to you and the community.

Obviously, things like Twin and Amulet could win the game quickly so the community complained until cards were banned. Now, people are playing Eldrazi because of it and the same people are complaining about it and want the cards from it to be banned.

At what point does this link of thinking stop? You kill the Eldrazi decks and then people will start brewing new powerful decks that go infinite and dominate the format once again creating this never ending loop of "unfair decks"

Will you ever view the format at completely stable with no needed changes or revisions? Like Sigma said people will spend $500 on these decks only to have them abolished months down the line and people are going to abandon the format more than they already are.

Elyv posted:

What.

a) Eldrazi was a deck, albeit not a dominant one, before.
b) Eldrazi would likely have still become the best deck in a format with bloom and twin because the actual reason it became better was due to cards released in Oath.
c) Bloom was certainly not a dominant deck, and I'd argue Twin wasn't either.

Procrastinator posted:

More importantly, here are some garbage rules changes about DFCs.

80s James Hetfield posted:

If Twin and Bloom weren't dominant decks why were they banned?

80s James Hetfield posted:

If Twin and Bloom weren't dominant decks why were they banned?

jassi007 posted:

because they didn't know the eldrazi would invade the pro tour so they had to do something to make sure the metagame looked different.

Cernunnos posted:

The third one is OK I guess (it's not really a huge detriment or anything) but the first 2 are garbage yeah.

I can't Repeal flipped Delver's/Jace's for X=0 anymore? Not to mention the whole Clone thing. Bullshit.

MiddleEastBeast posted:

Counterpoint: I'd argue that a big reason no one was playing Eldrazi (in its current, broken, form) until after Twin/Amulet was banned was because like 1/3rd of the deck hadn't been released yet.

Elyv posted:

80s James Hetfield posted:

I'm only asking as an interested party and as someone who doesn't really know the format. But if what you're saying is true then what are the chances they would unban them

TheKingofSprings posted:

And there's been a suicide aggro deck in Modern for ages that runs 4 Probe, this seems like major for it, and surviving Bolt in general puts it a long way towards being a Modern card.

Elyv posted:

Missed this somehow: