Many modern players know the cards banned in Modern, but do you know why they're banned? Let’s look at five cards on the banned list and see if they are worthy of the ban hammer!
The Artifact Lands
All five original artifact lands were in the initial modern ban in August of 2011 because the lands had been banned in Standard for being an absolute powerhouse. Artifacts have been one of the most powerful card types since the birth of Magic, and the printing of Mirrodin only made them better. The introduction of the affinity mechanic broke Standard for quite a while, and it was so powerful that artifact decks continue to be named after it, even if none of the cards in the deck actually have the mechanic.
The artifact lands were especially heinous, allowing powerful cards like Myr Enforcer and Thoughtcast to be cast for virtually nothing. They are still used in both Legacy and Pauper to devastating effect. It is undisputed that these five lands are some of the most powerful lands that have ever been printed into Magic.
Do they deserve to be banned?
Well, yes and no. While these cards are extremely powerful and most likely will always be, the power level of Modern has increased considerably since 2011. For example, these lands are legal in Legacy because plenty of cards are just as powerful, if not more. They aren’t even all played in Legacy; only Seat of the Synod, Great Furnace, and Ancient Den see any play, and they each only go in a specific deck. Seat of the Synod is only in 8-cast and Echo of Eons decks, Great Furnace is only seen in Painter decks, and Ancient Den has only recently started seeing play in Hammertime decks. They are all played in Pauper; however, they are kept fair by the drawback of only using commons.
So my answer? It would be acceptable to gradually unban some of these lands. I think we can safely unban Tree of Tales right now, and I don’t think it would break Modern. Vault of Whispers could probably be next, and potentially Great Furnace. I would be hesitant to unban Ancient Den since modern Hammertime doesn’t need any more help at this time.
The only artifact land that should probably never be unbanned is Seat of the Synod, based solely on the fact that blue has been and will be the most powerful color in Magic, especially for artifacts. Wizards may have held back on a partial unbanning because they don’t want to confuse players about which lands are banned and which are not, but I'm unsure if that's a good enough reason to keep them all banned.
Arcum’s Astrolabe
Arcum’s Astrolabe was first printed in Modern Horizons in June of 2019. In less than four months, it was banned in Pauper due to its color-fixing ability and the fact that it replaced itself. Less than a year later, it was banned in Modern for the same reason, and six months after that, it was also banned in Legacy.
Astrolabe turned out to be one of the most powerful Modern mana-rocks that has ever been printed, and it allowed decks to efficiently run four to five colors without any drawbacks. It was surprisingly effortless to create snow-colored mana to cast it, and the fact that this was a cantrip for only one mana made it a must-have in most decks.
Does this deserve to be banned?
While this is not absolute, the fact that this card is banned in Legacy and Pauper makes it no wonder that it is also banned in Modern. While the card seems fun, it made it easy for decks to play all the most powerful cards in every color. We currently have issues with 4C Omnath dominating Modern; imagine if this was still legal! This was rightfully banned, and on the banned list is where this should stay.
Birthing Pod
New Phyrexia was released in 2011, and Birthing Pod wreaked havoc on Modern for almost four years until it was finally banned in early 2015. Birthing Pod was the perfect toolbox card in Modern, able to function around counterspells and dodge kill spells. In the last year it was legal, it won five out of the twelve GPs. As more powerful creatures got printed, the strength of Pod increased, and it was very efficient at keeping other creature decks from seeing the spotlight. Finally, Wizards realized that having Phyrexian mana on an artifact may have been too powerful, so they banned it.
Does this deserve to be banned?
I know this card has been seeing the spotlight of controversy recently when it comes to unbanning Modern cards, and for a good reason. With all the powerful things you can do in Modern these days, especially with the printing of Modern Horizons 2, is this four (or three) drop artifact the worst of our problems? Especially with all the artifact hate that can be played in the mainboards these days?
In my opinion, yes, I do think that it is safe to unban Birthing Pod. It may make Yawgmoth Combo more powerful, but that’s the least of our worries right now. Can you really say that Birthing Pod is more powerful or impactful than Ragavan or Wrenn and Six? This may make combo decks more powerful, but if you look at Legacy, Birthing Pod is literally played in zero decks. This is most likely because there are efficient counterspells to deal with it and better combos that can win the game faster.
But isn’t that just Modern these days? Modern now has Counterspell and Force of Negation, and plenty of combo decks win the game much quicker than turn four. Birthing Pod may have been the most powerful thing to do in 2015, but after two printings of Modern Horizons, I think it's safe to see the return of Pod decks.
Blazing Shoal
The first banned list for Modern came out in August of 2011, and a month afterward, Modern added six cards to that banned list. Blazing Shoal was one of the six cards. At face value, the card does not appear to be very powerful, except at the first Modern Pro Tour Sam Black almost won the entire thing piloting a mono-blue infect deck that played this card.
The strategy was simple; get out an infect creature and cast Blazing Shoal by exiling a Progenitus or Dragonstorm, usually winning on turn two or three. This quick combo was terrifying to Wizards and caused a very hasty ban. Since then, Infect has continued to be a powerful deck, even without this pseudo Berserk to push through easy damage.
Does this deserve to be banned?
While not always a tier-one deck, Infect is one of the few constant boogeymen of Modern. It is rarely played except by an elite few, but when you sit down across from it, you secretly pray that you don’t somehow die on turn two. Would Blazing Shoal make Infect a tier-one deck again? I doubt it. To play Blazing Shoal in your infect deck, you must also play several random large red cards, bringing down the deck's consistency. I can imagine that even if it were unbanned, a good amount of die-hard infect players wouldn’t even risk putting it into their decks.
With the incredibly efficient removal and counterspells printed into Modern, I don’t see this being any more powerful than Scale Up in Infect. There may be a hidden deck in Modern that secretly hopes this gets unbanned, but looking at the tier-one and two decks, I don’t think any of them would be excited if this was unbanned. I say we unban it, and if we get blindsided by some crazy combo, then put it back up on the banned list shelf.
Bridge from Below
The first Modern Horizons not only gave us Arcum’s Astrolabe, but it also introduced us to one of the most powerful graveyard cards ever: Hogaak, Arisen Necropolis. Magic players learned very quickly that this card was insanely powerful, and it promptly started dominating the Modern meta. Wizards realized they needed to take care of this issue, but they didn’t want to ban a card they had just printed into a new set specifically designed for Modern. So, they decided to ban a different card in the deck, Bridge from Below.
A month after Bridge was banned, Hogaak was still the most powerful card you could play in Modern, and Wizards finally conceded and banned Hogaak. However, even though the boogeyman was finally killed, Wizards did not unban Bridge from Below, even though without Hogaak, it was not nearly as powerful. And so, Bridge from Below died for Hogaak’s sins.
Does this deserve to be banned?
In my opinion, no. When Wizards banned the card, they said it was because it was “the most likely key card in the deck to become problematic again.” But that’s not the entire reason it was banned. It was also banned because Wizard’s didn’t want to lose profit by banning a card from a newly released set. Just because a card could become problematic in the future doesn’t mean that we need to ban it now. Just ban it when it actually becomes problematic! If we started banning cards just because they could become a problem, the modern banned list would become much larger than it currently is.
Those are my thoughts, what are yours? Do you agree or disagree with my assessment? Let me know in the comments!
Comentários