What Wizards Should do after every new ban
General forum
Posted on Dec. 29, 2015, 2:24 p.m. by Gandolfini
With any newly banned card, Wizard's should print a similar card as a promo that can be used in your deck. The similar card would serve the same function but be weaker in some way and be made legal in the format the original card was banned.
Wizards would then offer a special deal: You could then trade in your old banned card via mail, or to a participating comic book shop for the new unbanned replacement card.
For example, say Wizard's banned Wurmcoil Engine, they would then print "Wurmcoiling Engine" which only makes 2/2 tokens intead of 3/3s.This would be a kind gesture on the part of WOTC.
VampireArmy says... #3
But...they would literally lose money doing this.
December 29, 2015 2:36 p.m.
Gandolfini says... #4
It would increase deck diversity in the format while keeping your deck in tact. Also the new card would be designed to be more fun.Bans would be less concerning to players, as as a ban would more often result in minor tweaks rather than drastic changes to a deck.Players would also feel less sad if their card is banned.
December 29, 2015 2:38 p.m.
Gandolfini says... #5
It wouldn't be mandatory, VampireArmy. Also, the new card would have value as well, not as much though :( . It would probably be foil.
December 29, 2015 2:44 p.m.
Fictions_Reality says... #6
They kind of already do that. Relic Seeker is a compared as a significantly worse Stoneforge Mystic and all of the "Magus of the ____" are worse versions of their counterparts for example.
Wizards does 'fixes' of power levels constantly in new sets. When a card is banned its for a very good reason. they really don't need to print a whole new cards. Just because cards like Dark Depths are turn 3 kills in modern doesn't mean it needs to be reprinted as a 10/10 token instead. Its power level was just too high so it is much easier to ban it.
December 29, 2015 2:46 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #7
Yisan, the Wanderer Bard < Birthing Pod
Fauna Shaman < Survival of the Fittest
Sometimes they do this anyway. Bans happen, it's not their job to make sure nobody feels bad ever.
December 29, 2015 2:49 p.m.
Not to mention some bans aren't as relative to power level as they are simply diversifying the format.
Sometimes they DON'T WANT decks to stay intact.
That's a major reason they banned Birthing Pod. That's why everybody whined about it. Because EVERYBODY played Birthing Pod. They notably said in their announcement of the ban that it was overwhelming the format and in order to strike balance they banned it and unbanned cards that had lost power as time went on.
I understand the basic premise of your idea, but it is ultimately inefficient, possibly detrimental, in terms of the sanctity of constructed gameplay and the sanctity of their market.
December 29, 2015 3:29 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #11
Cards are banned based on their impact on the format—specifically, they're banned based on whether they're overrepresented in the current meta.
Your idea is, essentially, that WOTC should print strictly worse versions of cards so that players don't catch the feel-bads. However, this can play out one of two ways:
1) The "reprint" is still powerful enough that it does see play instead of its predecessor. In this case, the ban has been rendered ineffective because it has not addressed the card's representation in the meta.
2) The "reprint" is notably worse than its predecessor from a competitive standpoint, so it is not played in the meta. In this case, it doesn't matter that the "reprint" exists because the card is still unusable (one version is banned and the other is bad), so the "reprint" has been rendered ineffective because it's not going to make a difference.
At the end of the day, format management, including ban decisions, is about the health of the format and not about whether players feel good or bad about the ban list changes. You cannot please everyone; those who dislike a card will be unhappy while it's legal and happy when it's banned, but those who like the card will be happy while it's legal and unhappy when it's banned. WOTC is not obligated to apologize for improving the health of its game. Adopting a policy of apologetic tokenism doesn't lead to any positive outcomes.
December 29, 2015 5:24 p.m.
mathimus55 says... #13
Yea, Wizards is under no obligation to replace a card they banned, they obviously are getting rid of it for a specific reason, whether it's oppressive, over represented or whatever else the reason might be. They especially aren't responsible for supplying said replacement cards for players.
This whole idea comes out like wizards just banned your newly finished deck and now you want something to make it still playable. In most cases though like what was already mentioned there are less powerful cards that have similar functions. Wizards doesn't like making the same mistake twice though.
December 29, 2015 6:11 p.m.
FAMOUSWATERMELON says... #14
To be fair Epoch, there is a third scenario (which I think is the one OP is getting at) where the card is powerful enough to still be present in the format but is not nearly as oppressive as its predecessor. However, this case would barely happen as it would require an extreme delicatesse from a designing standpoint and not only would be extremely hard to create, but would also likely limit design space so not to break it in the future.
December 29, 2015 8:54 p.m. Edited.
Epochalyptik says... #15
It's a theoretically possible scenario, but I don't consider it a realistically plausible scenario. If the reprint is a worse version of the original, then it will in most cases either not be worse enough or be so much worse that it's unplayable. And of the cases in which it's not worse enough to completely eliminate its viability, we have to consider whether the decks that used to play it would even still consider it or whether they would slot something else in. The discussion becomes very conditional and rapidly devolves into "well, we need to look at a specific example" deflections.
Generally speaking, I think it's unlikely that a strictly worse version of a meta-defining card will retain playability given the number of considerations for any given deck.
Let's say Prime Time were banned and replaced with "2AM Infomercial," which tries to sell you a single land on ETB only for the low, low price of 
. Ignorant of Modern though I am, I don't think people would rush to play it.
December 29, 2015 9:28 p.m.
ClockworkSwordfish says... #16
Wizards doesn't give a cool cherry fuck whether you have fun or not, sorry to say. They're here for the dollars, which you can thank for the mythic rares, "expeditions" and an entire ocean's worth of FNM promos. If they ban a card, it's because they're afraid it's going to impact tournament attendance or the card market.
December 29, 2015 9:39 p.m.
FAMOUSWATERMELON says... #18
If it got the land with both the ETB and attack trigger, or only the attack trigger, then I think that it would still be played.
But that's just one instance. In many others it would not work, as with the Relic Seeker/Stoneforge Mystic example. When cards are banned, it's for a very good reason, and both scenarios that you stated are much more likely to happen than the third.
December 29, 2015 9:57 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #19
We could also consider the other such cards, like Pain Seer (which, when it was spoiled, was heralded to be the new Dark Confidant). There have been a lot of those types of remakes as of late, and none of them gain traction. That's in part due to the fact that the originals are still legal, but I don't think anyone would be playing Pain Seer anyway.
December 29, 2015 10:18 p.m.
I always found the little brother reprints to be simply homages to good cards from the past, as you mentioned with Pain Seer or with the Magus cards.
I feel they were designed with Standard and/or the cheaper market players in mind. I mean - how many freaking abilities and ideas and keywords have they come up with in 20 years? They probably sit at a table like: "You know what I miss? X Card!" "YEAH ME TOO! LETS BRING IT BACK!" "Well we can't just bring it back because of blah blah blah logic. So let's just make a new smaller one."
I also got a kick out of that "2AM Infomercial" comment Epochalyptik.
vampirelazarus says... #2
Why? Kind of defeats the purpose of banning cards.
December 29, 2015 2:29 p.m.