Which card to ban to make standard more fun?

[CJ desu]

To me most decks I play against recently are pretty reasonable. Sure some combos seem busted and OP, but generally speaking there are so many out there that it is still pretty interesting.

The one exception I see is that Omniscience reanimate as a flying token, into chaining Invasion of Arcavios, then return all non-lands to hands, into solitaire deck. The combo takes so long, and the non-interactive nature of the deck once Omniscience is down, makes it the most unfun deck in standard. To make things worse, its actually a good deck.

Not sure which combo piece I'd want banned from it though. Omniscience is the obvious one, but it is an iconic card so I doubt they'd do it. I'm leaning toward Invasion of Arcavios.

[John-Silver]

The problem isn't a singular card IMO, it's a redundancy of identical card effects, they know in R&D that a 4 copy rule has been needed since the early days to keep things "fair" and "fun" but they pump out sets way quick these days and print way to many cards that are identical "destroy target creature" for example with 30 different names that all cost the same and do the same thing, standard gets so many sets now that their's essentially no limit on "identical" card effects that you can put into your deck which makes the whole thing as bland and stale as 100 year-old cracker. Cards should be limited based on effect wording, not just names imo. You can only have 4 cards that read identical, if you want to add another "destroy target creature" card line, it should have to have additional or less effects or be considered a "5th copy" and not be allowed in the deck IMO this would force players to play a wider array of cards to a degree well also letting them balance the game better IMO.

[Traumaturgy]

Obviously Monstrous rage.

[Argstein]

Bat the Deep-Cavern Ban

[CJ desu]

Originally posted by Argstein:

Bat the Deep-Cavern Ban

Doesn't this card just force you to have some cheap removal and keep mana open against black in the early game? You also get your card back when it dies, so it isn't that unfun at the end of the day. Obviously it sucks when you play greedy early game against black and get punished by the bat

[Argstein]

was just repeating what quite a few others have said
i personally have no issues with the card

[Izzet Firemind]

Originally posted by John-Silver:

The problem isn't a singular card IMO, it's a redundancy of identical card effects, they know in R&D that a 4 copy rule has been needed since the early days to keep things "fair" and "fun" but they pump out sets way quick these days and print way to many cards that are identical "destroy target creature" for example with 30 different names that all cost the same and do the same thing, standard gets so many sets now that their's essentially no limit on "identical" card effects that you can put into your deck which makes the whole thing as bland and stale as 100 year-old cracker. Cards should be limited based on effect wording, not just names imo. You can only have 4 cards that read identical, if you want to add another "destroy target creature" card line, it should have to have additional or less effects or be considered a "5th copy" and not be allowed in the deck IMO this would force players to play a wider array of cards to a degree well also letting them balance the game better IMO.

To me, it does feel like there are too many cards with such small variations that it spoils you for choices. In the early days of MTG you had to hold an interaction spell and choose the targets carefully because you only a few to use. Now there are so many cards that do the same effects that you can use 2-6 with different names.
I feel that Wrath of God a great example. There are currently so many standard legal board wipes that it doesn't have that same powerful feel when either played or played on you. It happens so often you are almost numb to it.
I personally think the problem is the card pool availability. 3 years of cards is a lot of cards. With that kind of card availability opening hands can be so consistent that games are often decided in the first 10 cards (3-4 turns)
I am torn on the issue though, because as a deck builder, the consistency you can get with a card pool like this is amazing. You can almost guarantee to have a particular type of interaction when you need it and that opens up many options for a lot of different play styles and favorable board conditions.
As a player, that same consistency makes for a boring meta sometimes. Both players are playing decks with 12 spells that all do the same thing but have different names. To me, this feels most prevalent in Blue and Black with "Counterspells" and "Spot Removal" respectively, but it is not limited to that by any means.
I have no idea what could be done about it other than shorten the rotation, but that would also have both good and bad side effects that I couldn't even begin to speculate the overall effect on the meta.

[John-Silver]

Originally posted by Izzet Firemind:

Originally posted by John-Silver:

The problem isn't a singular card IMO, it's a redundancy of identical card effects, they know in R&D that a 4 copy rule has been needed since the early days to keep things "fair" and "fun" but they pump out sets way quick these days and print way to many cards that are identical "destroy target creature" for example with 30 different names that all cost the same and do the same thing, standard gets so many sets now that their's essentially no limit on "identical" card effects that you can put into your deck which makes the whole thing as bland and stale as 100 year-old cracker. Cards should be limited based on effect wording, not just names imo. You can only have 4 cards that read identical, if you want to add another "destroy target creature" card line, it should have to have additional or less effects or be considered a "5th copy" and not be allowed in the deck IMO this would force players to play a wider array of cards to a degree well also letting them balance the game better IMO.

To me, it does feel like there are too many cards with such small variations that it spoils you for choices. In the early days of MTG you had to hold an interaction spell and choose the targets carefully because you only a few to use. Now there are so many cards that do the same effects that you can use 2-6 with different names.
I feel that Wrath of God a great example. There are currently so many standard legal board wipes that it doesn't have that same powerful feel when either played or played on you. It happens so often you are almost numb to it.
I personally think the problem is the card pool availability. 3 years of cards is a lot of cards. With that kind of card availability opening hands can be so consistent that games are often decided in the first 10 cards (3-4 turns)
I am torn on the issue though, because as a deck builder, the consistency you can get with a card pool like this is amazing. You can almost guarantee to have a particular type of interaction when you need it and that opens up many options for a lot of different play styles and favorable board conditions.
As a player, that same consistency makes for a boring meta sometimes. Both players are playing decks with 12 spells that all do the same thing but have different names. To me, this feels most prevalent in Blue and Black with "Counterspells" and "Spot Removal" respectively, but it is not limited to that by any means.
I have no idea what could be done about it other than shorten the rotation, but that would also have both good and bad side effects that I couldn't even begin to speculate the overall effect on the meta.

They could easily extend the four of rule to covering any card with identical text, and just not print version of cards that they knew before were to OP, I swear this happens often, one set they'll go oh no, we can't print x card or x effect because it's too busted, than proceed to migrate that card idea to the next literal set which defeats the whole purpose of not printing the card in the first place. It's only gonna get worse for standard players, the limited sets before used to limit card choice and encourage -attempted to- more of an array of plays, but now sets in standard are going to last long, and be far more numerous in count which means standard decks are just going to become streamlined copies of historic decks with different named cards that do all the same things. I hate foundations, I'm sure this opinion will get me hated but standard did not need 75% of the cards from historic -not literally but it's a huge number of them- to shake up standard since all it did was add an even more redundancy of cards that have already been released with more balanced versions that are now pointless to play.

[paxtenebrae]

I'd give the boot to Caretaker's Talent. It's not broken or anything, I just don't like the play patterns it promotes.

[Burning Thyme | inFo]

overprotect is the only card i want gone right now

[PyroMail.com]

Originally posted by paxtenebrae:

I'd give the boot to Caretaker's Talent. It's not broken or anything, I just don't like the play patterns it promotes.

I dont think they would ever ban it since the whole deck around it would be gone too. As much as I agree with you.

[ʍolɟ ǝɥʇ ǝsɹǝʌǝɹ]

just play a new deck. deck are matched into small archetype pools that are mostly predetermined anyway. I never see toxic, or loads of other decks, since they don't match up to my deck archetypes.

Most t1 decks from 6 months ago are still t1, they are just forced to 50% by the matchmaker. rakdos fling was forced to 50% even though if allowed to be in the wild it would be like 70-80%. people know this instinctively, which is why that one guy melted down so hard over going second 20 times in a row.

who goes first is definitely rigged. and versus some decks its a huge bias. they go from 60-70% to 48% or something like that.

[John-Silver]

Originally posted by ʍolɟ ǝɥʇ ǝsɹǝʌǝɹ:

just play a new deck. deck are matched into small archetype pools that are mostly predetermined anyway. I never see toxic, or loads of other decks, since they don't match up to my deck archetypes.

Most t1 decks from 6 months ago are still t1, they are just forced to 50% by the matchmaker. rakdos fling was forced to 50% even though if allowed to be in the wild it would be like 70-80%. people know this instinctively, which is why that one guy melted down so hard over going second 20 times in a row.

who goes first is definitely rigged. and versus some decks its a huge bias. they go from 60-70% to 48% or something like that.

I find just changing up a few cards in you Bo1 deck every few matches keeps the matchmaker fresh and spicy.

[anaris]

Originally posted by ʍolɟ ǝɥʇ ǝsɹǝʌǝɹ:

just play a new deck. deck are matched into small archetype pools that are mostly predetermined anyway. I never see toxic, or loads of other decks, since they don't match up to my deck archetypes.

Most t1 decks from 6 months ago are still t1, they are just forced to 50% by the matchmaker. rakdos fling was forced to 50% even though if allowed to be in the wild it would be like 70-80%. people know this instinctively, which is why that one guy melted down so hard over going second 20 times in a row.

who goes first is definitely rigged. and versus some decks its a huge bias. they go from 60-70% to 48% or something like that.

reminder: in paper, 70% is the winrate for Pro Tour players taking their tour decks into an LGS and playing some random amateur. It's pretty much the ceiling for winrate, and not something decks regularly hit.

If you win 70% of your games with a deck, you're gonna hit PT level players and they're going to force your winrate back to 50%, which is the winrate for players of equal skill.

[Chad "The King" ThunderCuck]

deep cavern bat. unstopable douchmachine. hare apparent. anything with the word "jace" in it. anything i lose to.

[Hannah Barbara]

All.