Really appreciate this video. Not only do I think you're dead on with the decision, but also I appreciate that you've made the process and decision making very clear.
Interestingly though, this is the first(?) card to ever be pre-banned for power level issues. With Lutri, it was just that the card interacted poorly with the format rules.
This is okay. They don't make sets and cards with Pauper in mind to begin with. This pre-ban has a precedent; not doing it is to ignore something that has already proven to be bad.
The most important factor for this pre-banning is the fact that MH3 is coming out right before the biggest Pauper tournament of the year, and Wizards really didn't want to screw it up. In any other circumstance they most likely would have waited until regular ban cycle.
@@realitant yes. it would take up an uncommon slot with a card that A) needs to be common to really work in limited and B) is not strong enough in a limited environment to be uncommon. Things are, and always should be, balanced around limited when it comes to rarity.
Honestly, I find the discussion and evolution of Pauper so refreshing compared to other formats. It has such a healthy community and panel that are willing to make changes to benefit the overall play patterns. Keep up the great work!
I just wanted to say Gavin, thank you for being an incredible game designer. As someone who is going into college this year to become a game designer, seeing your insight behind these tough decisions has really inspired me. Thank you for being a super cool dude!!! :D
If you call regurgitated cards with recycled art "game design" then maybe you should perhaps find a different field. There is nothing creative about reskinning banned reserved list cards and making them "different" by adding an energy element, or completely destroying the lore and story telling element about the game by placing cowboy hats on everything. There hasn't been legitimate creativity from this "team" in many years.
@@jacobrule4118 Regardless of whether or not the MTG team specifically are good game designers, have you seen the industry lately? People whjo would consider regurgitated effects with recycled visuals "game design" are currently *thriving*. There's never been a better time to be bad at game design.
Thank you Gavin for the transparency. I personally was in the camp of letting it stay for a while to test/play with. From my perspective, it seems you could have communicated to the large tournament organizers and tell them your plans, have them ban it for the events, and still let MTGO/FNM people try it for a few weeks. Then you also don't have people asking the "what-ifs" or risk establishing a precedent. I also feel that this is another card that has taken a bullet for the artifact land's crimes, but that's a separate point entirely.
Sorry Gavin, I zoned out a little bit, but I think what I heard is that you’re trying to set precedent for prerelease bans? That’s outrageous, I’m going to start twitter discourse about this!
He did say that he did not expect this to happen again in pauper or any other format any time soon, but we don’t know if that means in the future thus could be not common or not, but implies that it won’t be
Hey Gavin, can a fix be applied to the Comprehensive Rules? Rule 205.3j does not currently include the Planeswalker type Quintorius, as seen on the card Quintorius Kand. Thanks!
I've been retally getting into Pauper recently and have been loving it! Part of the reason is definitely how well the format is maintained and just how open and in depth your analysis and decisions are regarding the format Gavin. Thanks for being awesome!
I have been playing pauper for 10 years, I won the 4th edition of the paupergeddon in Florence in 2016. I've been following the format since forever, and it's never been a secret that Cranial Ram was too high in power for the pauper format. I agree with the ban. I don't agree with the possible ban of artifact lands, neither those of Mirrodin nor the newer artifact duals. Those of mirrodin are an icon of the pauper...just like lightning bolt or kor skyfisher or mulldrifter. Mirrodin lands are fast entering untapped but they are also fragile. Playing jeskai kuldotha since 2016, I remember well how easy was winning against affinity post side just playing gorilla shaman... On the other hand, dual artifacts are slow, and removing them thinking of decreasing the power level affinity is probably not enought to decrease affinity s power...but this might end up destroying all the wildfire-based decks. Having said that, thank you for the work of the PFP, which has been impeccable so far. We'll see how the format will evolve without changing too many things all at once. #unbanpropheticprism
Banning the artifact lands would kill any artifact deck outright. They'd not be competative enough anymore to compete with any of the top decks anymore indefinitely.
pauper is a community driven format, and the pfp has said multiple times they feel that the legality of artifact lands in pauper is very important to the identity and community of pauper
@Gavin Thank you for all you do for the Pauper Format! I really love the new Landscape lands from MH3. I think it a step in the right direction for the Pauper format to include tools for multi color decks. Could we ever see the Tarkir and Alara uncommon lands down shifted to common for Pauper? I would love to see Crumbling Necropolis and Sandsteppe Citidel down shifted for much better mana fixing options in the Pauper Format. Do you believe those lands would be appropriate for the Pauper format in terms of power level and deck building tools?
With this focus on Pauper, can we get WotC to reprint some of the rarer commons at common or uncommon in a widely-available set to make most paper Pauper decktypes more approachable? It's not like you'd be reprinting reserved list cards. Pauper Masters 25, anyone?
Idk for me the simple fix is that it should have been a uncommon. The only downside to that is people thinking its a signpost card in limited when it maybe isnt. I dont think it would have throw mh3 limited out of wack that much like how out of wack pauper would be if ram got let though.
Do you ever think you can do a deep dive video, going over every card on the ban list and as to why they got there and how likely they are to remain there?
an interesting design i thought of was a mono-colored land cycle that are all artifact lands but they're also legendary. would they still be too good for modern?
After hearing the All that Glitters announcement, and then seeing this card being spoiled, It clicked that this was the card Gavin was warning us about. Glad to see that confirmed 😂
One of my biggest issues with MH3 is how much it pushes the base power of Magic. I know it’s a tired thing to say, but 10-15 years ago some of these commons would be rares. While old cards certainly had really high highs, the power of the average card is almost astronomically high these days.
MH3 didn't do that though, neither did MH2 or MH1. Powercreep is a steady process, because you need a slight power incline to make people interested in buying new cards. If this hadn't happened, MTG would be a much smaller game now because the only reason to be interested in new cards would be hoping for a retheme of an existing idea. New cards need to be strong enough that they're worth using, and as long as the process there is gradual, as it has been with MTG, it's fine.
I don't think this is bad, at all. In fact I think it's necessary. Issues with the top end aside - not a new problem, as you point out - it's absurd to continue with the idea that 90% of the cards in a set should be junk, just for the sake of one format. It's frustrating to be stuck between picking a rare you want for another format while knowing another uncommon or common is better in the draft environment and useless otherwise (OTJ is reaaaaally bad for that). I'm newish to playing Magic consistently. I have some stacks of cards from Mercadian Masques block and some other trades, but otherwise I just have some precon decks from the last year. I went to MH3 pre-release last night - first one I've ever gone to - and nah, I didn't do too well. But I came out with a whole stack of cards, well beyond just the rares and mythics, that will fit in commander decks I have, or want to brew, or just seem like interesting cards that I'd like to play with in some way. It's vastly more inspiring to collect cards like that, to want to get more and play more.
@@ajaxender12 rarity is sort of a separate conversation though. My point is more about what the power floor and complexity floor looks like for a magic card now. To that point, rarity for the most part only makes sense in terms of balancing limited (commons aren’t only played in pauper) and as WoTC has been pushing the super-staple envelope catering to commander players (even in modern sets), the bottom has fallen out on the “draft booster” rarity system.
I have a question for ya Gavin and crew. Illusionary Dreadmaw. I was trying to get around the sac effect on it. And came to phasing. So I came up with this soulbond (hexproof) targeting Dreadmaw. 2 effects on the stack. So it gets the hexproof. Then the sac. But it's a stack. On the stack. You phase out the dreadmaw. Sac effect fizzles cause Dreadmaw isn't there. And when it phases back in at upkeep. It's still soulbonded. Ready to swing. My question is. Am I correct with these interactions? Elgaud Shieldmate Phantasmal Dreadmaw Reality Ripple And the 3 cards in question
Hi Gavin ! I get that designers doesn't have pauper in mind while creating a set, though... could we have a reprint of Dust to dust ? It's 30 years old this year 😅 And especialy hard to find here in Europe... Thx for caring about the format !
Ok all good but i got 2 question for you Gavin: 1. Why not made it uncommons just for limited play or formats where the power level is really higher than pauper ? 2. Why made a second Cranial Plating common while you know the real one got banned almost for the same reason ? Imho these are 2 big mistakes a company with 30 years of Experience like WOTC can't do and aren't hallowed because of that. Made it uncommon can't be take on consideration while you develop the set ?
@@yan00155 i know this obviously but while design you had also to considerate now while Pauper is such a popular format. In my opinion made it as an uncommon was the best solution also for limited because the card is also potentially strong in limited (not so broken how much the impact on pauper) and because this cards is essentialy a copy of another cards that is banned in Pauper plus a small upgrade that provide also a creature token and a +1 on toughness. This mistake from a 30 years experience company are not acceptable. I think they need to focus because this mistake would be easily prevent or countered. Pre-Ban are not acceptable and now the common in each set are 80 less then time ago while you had more excuses while you had to develop 101 Commons....now you develop less commons and made more mistake ? For a product you ask more money to be purchased is not acceptable from customers. Very simple. Obviously mistake happens but this one is made me lol a lot while i think 20 years ago they think and create and print almost the same cards so you know from the past Cranial Plating and similiar cards are broken and to be banned and you have to stay away to create similiar or better in future....This one also open space to build with glint hawk because you generate more Phyrexian Germ just equipped (and the germ would be easy sacrificed to cards like Deadly Dispute...) so it appears unhealthy also to a very new to Magic player and also to the oldest and experienced. From the best company in the TCG worlds i expect the best and not embarassing mistake like this very simple. High cost product so i expect more and more perfection on them work. This one is very bad.
Gavin, you're great and I appreciate your communication with the players. But I also think banning cards before a set comes out is a really bad look. This is the 3rd time in the last 4 years(Lutri in commander and Book of Exalted Deeds in Standard). Once is an accident. 3 times is indicative of a bigger issue. But this one is especially because you acknowledged it was a problem weeks ago openly, implying the development team knew it was a problem in testing and didn't even try to fix it.
So we're at what, 5~6 cards banned in affinity since the bridges appeared, but the bridges still aren't the problem? Can't wait for the next pauper ban where another card synergizing with artifacts get banned and still hear the same talk about bridges not being the problem
Totally understand that these are atypical circumstances, but is it safe to assume that is similar atypical circumstances should arise that this kind of emergency response might be considered again? Certainly don't think that would be a bad thing, this seems like an elegant solution to a tricky problem.
Cranial Ram being a common seems really cool for PDH. Another example of something I'm sure Design didn't necessarily intend, but it's something that's exciting for me. Wish there were more cards that contribute to ending games like it!
I was one of the ones who lost the shiny toy of the week, but I agree that the tournaments come first in this case. Thanks for the transparency. Great job.
I think the sensible thing would be recognizing this prolblem fast enough ( i know hindsight is 20/20), but it shoudl've just been made into uncommon, it wouldn't really impact the limited gameplay, which isn't the reason why modern horizons product exist and get purchased in the first place.
I think Wizards has become too reluctant to ban cards. We live in a digital world where everything needs to happen faster than it used to, yet Wizards is slowing down their bans and setting arbitrary annual dates for doing so. If Wizards is going to push out 20 sets a year and dive head-first into power-creep to sell cards, they *have* to be willing to react quickly, ban problematic cards, and refund wildcards on digital clients. All that said, I have absolutely no issue with this ban.
I hear you. That being said, let's not pretend the lack of bans is for any other reason than money. Bans mean people are slightly more hesitant to buy packs from a set. WotC values money far, FAR more than they do balance. If they actually gave a shit about balancing game modes outside of pauper, they wouldv'e done something about Orcish Bowmaster a long time ago. They're waiting for sales to plummet. Welcome to post-covid WotC. This is how things are now. Period.
The problem with being hyper aggressive about banning is that why would I ever buy into a top tier deck? With common cards, it’s not much of a financial investment, but if there was a significant chance that chase cards could be banned very quickly, then I have no incentive to buy sealed products looking for the card OR supporting my LGS an alternative way by buying the singles. If the likelihood of high performing cards get banned much more aggressively, then the overall interest in those respective formats will decrease. It automatically filters out any player who can’t afford to buy into new top-tier competitive decks every three to six months. Idk about you, but the reason why I play MTG over Yu-Gi-Oh is because they’re not as aggressive with their bannings. If they choose to ban more cards, more often, then a large amount of players automatically get priced out of a pseudo-rotation of expensive top tier decks.
@@TastySnackies Depends. On MTGA with the promise of refunded wildcards, why not buy in? However, in paper, I can see how constant bans would be problematic. I still believe that if Wizards is going to flood formats with op cards (The One Ring, Orcish Bowmasters, etc.) they have to be willing to pull the ban trigger when these cards create massive problems.
Have you ever thought of banning the old artifacts Lands, LET THE Bridges be and stopping banning every Single card that releases and Interact with artifacts?
We didn't even get to Fling this card on pauper lol, I get it though, Plating never even saw any official pauper play (first and only banned card in pauper for years before Frantic Search), and now so does this card.
If sets are not designed with Pauper in mind, then how can you promise that pre-bans like this will be rare? It could very well happen again a few sets from now.
I get that you guys changed your mind about just keeping your eye on it to pre-banning it due to major events coming up, but did you guys consider banning it for those events and then giving it that 2 week-1 month to see if it really does warp the format? Because I really do think Cranial Ram has the opportunity to be the fair version of this effect, so I'm a little disappointed that there won't be a chance to try it out before making the final decision of whether this is just as bad as Cranial Plating
First of all, great video! Like most everyone else in these comments, I appreciate the transparency. This is a correct choice. However, if this was known to be too powerful, why was it even printed at common? Was this really necessary for MH3 draft? The existence of Pauper should be a failsafe for powercreep at common. I appreciate the foresight here, but maybe this is more of a design lesson than it is a format management one.
I really like how the format is being handled, and I think this was a great decision. Pauper is being handled how I imagine all the passionate people working at wizards want to handle their formats.
I honestly disagree with a prehentive ban. Yes the card is clearly very strong but people would've adapted, it is easier to interact with compared to glitters. And in the end, even if it would become broken, why not play a broken paupergeddon for the lols? Just like hoogak summer. Ultimately I understand the reasons though, it would've probably been banned just after a week so yeah, we all knew this would happen nonetheless
@casabaixo The original poster isn't wrong. There's a lot more efficient artifact hate in pauper than enchantment hate like Gorilla Shaman, Dust to Dust, Smash to Smithereens, Cast into Fire, Abrade, and etc. Plus, since it's part red, both Hydroblast and Blue Elemental blast hit it. Whereas there isn't a strong efficient hate card against white in pauper as there is for Red and Blue. Finally, Cranial Ram only added a point of toughness. So the creature could potentially removed with burn spells and didn't have instant speed activation. However, this current movement to keep Aggro decks in check. This ban was a forgone conclusion.
@@jasonkorf7700 I get your point BUT creature removal in response to auras is always a 1 for 2... Also, since its's an equipment, if equipped creature dies just equip another one... Said this, you have a good point with the artifact hate, I just think that "creature hate" is more prevalent and easily go into the main deck (instead of side)...
To play the ram and equip it to a creature costs 4 mana, it's much harder to cast than glitters, it doesn't boost toughness. I think this card would be less impactful than glitters
This was the right choice. I was in favor of letting it go crazy on MTGO for a bit before a ban, but given the two large events immediately following MH3, the choice makes a lot of sense.
Banning artifact lands would be like banning brainstorm and wasteland in Legacy or Sol Ring in commander. They are a massive part of the format's identity, for better and for worse.
@@Pidgeonsofwar there is a point where youre banning 2 to 4 cards a year where you have to wonder if maybe its time to move on from that. The lands are cool but what is a pauper staple is affinity, and as long as the lands are unbanned affinity is relegated to being a boring mid deck
Thanks for the explanation, I understand your reasons but I also think the card may have been handled by the format.. ok the living weapon was decent but at the same time the germ can simply be blocked by a 1/1 and die... I hope that you will consider unbanning it in a more "safe" moment distant enough from huge events and see what happens. The power level was much lower than the Cranial Plate and the card was also a lot slower than All that glitter because the germ has summoning weakness and BR+2 is double the cost of the aura and more restrictive because of the colors.
I don't think it would have been as strong as glitters or the og equipment. Pre banning cranial ram over watching it closely was a big mistake in my option. Really sad about this, making the set even more unattractive since it wasn't a good set for modern to begin with.
Yes, this was a good choice given the upcoming big tournaments. Yes, I would have liked to see it being a bit of chaos for one week or two. To the hall of banned pauper fame they go (red binder).
While I understand the reasonings behind the ban, I'm personally not a huge fan of this decision. As Gavin said in the video, it costs 2 mana to equip, and is color locked. The combination of these two things in my opinion makes it much less powerful. It makes mana more restrictive, and slotting it in to the grixis shell it may not even be an issue until turn 3 or 4. Additionally it gives every deck more time to find answers to the body it makes, and find their sideboard cards in games 2 and 3. With the abundance of cards in pauper that can handle 1 toughness creatures, and cranial ram not giving trample, decks that go wide can also block the creature really well. Overall I think this card has much more counter play than ATG and plate, and I think the current pauper meta could handle this card. Don't get me wrong, the card is very powerful, I just don't think it is powerful enough to warrant a pre ban.
I do agree that there's a chance it's not too powerful, but Gavin's points about having SB and warping decks around Ram is also valid, that while possible to tech against, it may not be fun. At the same time though, pre-banning a fun new card is also not fun. Eldrazi winter was horribly unbalanced but we look back on that crazy weekend with fondness, I think a weekend with Ram would have been fun for us as well.
The format is already warped around artifacts, if you look at mtgtop8 34% of decks plays great furnace, and 30% plays galvanic blast. A third of the format are artifact strategies already
I 100% agree with this ban. I have the same justifications for hoping you'd ban quickly. I did expect you'd wait for paupergeddon to give you the stats proving it is busted as you have before but 1 month of play with a card is still a faster ban than I recall the pfp taking action in the past
Yeah I saw the spoiler for this card and thought “this is gonna be banned pretty quickly”. I’m a little surprised it got pre-banned, but the fact there are multiple big events immediately after MH3 makes sense. I’d rather not have a Cranial Summer where everyone is maindecking artifact hate (Hogaak flashbacks).
The nature of Modern Horizons sets is to direct print to high power formats and provide more cube-like limited environments, so there's going to be more pushed cards at common. If this is going to happen anywhere, it makes sense here. This card may have been a signpost uncommon in a standard legal set.
I feel like this was a panic decision, and not giving Ram any chance to see play and prove it deserves to be banned, while being an atypical moment, is a huge feel bad and does set up for even more of this in the future. A Permanent, non Temporary ban is excessive and disappointing.
Not a fan of how it was said it was going to be on the watchlist, then its turned around to just straight up pre-banned. I feel like theres a huge difference between all that glitters and cranial. Running artifact removal is muuuch more relevant than enchantment removal. I just think pre-banning is a terrible idea in general. There are plenty of other cards in grixis affinity that could have been dealt with instead. Its not like cranial is some ubiguous play in every deck card.
it's allright, we'll have a look faster at the affinity rat this way instead of having both the rat and the ram comming at the same time in the format.
I think this is reasonable personally. The idea of a format restricted entirely by rarity has always been pretty janky because it relies on rarity always meaning the same thing. But some sets need to use rarity differently, especially sets like Modern Horizons which are specifically designed to be higher power level, and so banning a few cards out of pauper is absolutely fine. This shouldn't be seen as "FIRE BAD" or "WOTC BAD", just as "sometimes the best way to design around having multiple formats is to ignore some formats".
I love these Pauper management video's. They provide a unique look in the internal kitchen of Magic formats and the difficult decisions you guys have to make. I think I agree with the ban, but the body count of the artifact lands (all 15) is becoming very high. I think, even though they are an asset and a unique feature of our format, they are also a fundamental flaw. If we are having to ban an affinity card every couple of years, that one part of the community will continually have to face financial losses and chronic deck insecurity. I know some very passionate affinity players, but I am actively avoiding building an affinity list myself for these reasons. I don't feel free or safe to try.
Honestly I am not sure how heavily the financial insecurity argument should be weighed with pauper; it is the cheapest competitive mtg format by far to compete at high levels in
@@ashtonwestfall4777 That's true, you don't lose much, but it's still not fair. I have played the exact same Dimir Terror list for over a year and in that time Affinity got their cards banned twice, and if Atog is recent enough, three times. I feel secure that I can play this list for another year (though I will probably adjust for MH3), but for Affinity players, every new card they get can get another one banned at any moment. That lack of deck security is also not fair.
Why didn't they just make this card an uncommon then? This is fine, but it seems like this whole situation could have been avoided by swapping rarity on 2 cards
Hi, curious at to some of the thoughts that go into new cards when it comes to recent sets. Thunder Junction's "plot" mechanic is a brilliant idea however with the release of "Vexing bauble" being a 1 cost colourless artifact that counters all spells that where cast for no mana it means that it pretty much puts an ends to "plotting" for really cheap. Was this something that was considered? This isn't a dig btw, I'm just curious as it seems odd to have a card like "Vexing bauble" so soon after Thunder Junction.
I'll be honest the transparency is nice but the reasoning of big events are coming up so we need to ban this card not even giving it the chance to breathe which it would have gotten without those events is disheartening. Paupergeddon was scheduled to be around when the mh3 release was by the organisers, that is a choice they made so they should have considered the impacts of possibly overpowered cards, there are also several paupergeddons a year, that is a choice that community made, and doing such an extraordinary banning due to the that feels bad. Especially considering that it's not like cranial ram is going to be unbanned after said events so it can be tested to see the impacts it would have on the format (once again like would happen if those events were not occuring in a way which specifically put them into this kind of situation).
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
I always love the transparency you provide
Yea telling me you will continue printing and banning affinity pay offs bc you dont want to ban the affinity lands is very thoughtful of them
Really appreciate this video. Not only do I think you're dead on with the decision, but also I appreciate that you've made the process and decision making very clear.
Hey, Lutri now has a partner in crime that's tied for "fastest ban".
Barely. It’s Pre-Release day in my Timezone. If he waited any longer, it’d be a day-off ban.
Justice for Lutri!
Didn't Lutri get banned the day it was revealed? Ram has been revealed for two weeks at this point. Can't call that a tie.
Interestingly though, this is the first(?) card to ever be pre-banned for power level issues. With Lutri, it was just that the card interacted poorly with the format rules.
They'll have a lot to talk about as cell mates. The biggest bad boys of magic.
This is okay. They don't make sets and cards with Pauper in mind to begin with. This pre-ban has a precedent; not doing it is to ignore something that has already proven to be bad.
The most important factor for this pre-banning is the fact that MH3 is coming out right before the biggest Pauper tournament of the year, and Wizards really didn't want to screw it up. In any other circumstance they most likely would have waited until regular ban cycle.
But like, just print it at uncommon.
@@realitantfuck the limited format, right?
@@manuelito1233 would putting it at uncommon really make the red black artifact deck that much worse?
@@realitant yes. it would take up an uncommon slot with a card that A) needs to be common to really work in limited and B) is not strong enough in a limited environment to be uncommon. Things are, and always should be, balanced around limited when it comes to rarity.
I think Pauper is such a niche format it definitely lends itself to these kind of bans. This is quickly becoming my favorite official mtg channel.
Honestly, I find the discussion and evolution of Pauper so refreshing compared to other formats. It has such a healthy community and panel that are willing to make changes to benefit the overall play patterns. Keep up the great work!
I just wanted to say Gavin, thank you for being an incredible game designer. As someone who is going into college this year to become a game designer, seeing your insight behind these tough decisions has really inspired me. Thank you for being a super cool dude!!! :D
If you call regurgitated cards with recycled art "game design" then maybe you should perhaps find a different field. There is nothing creative about reskinning banned reserved list cards and making them "different" by adding an energy element, or completely destroying the lore and story telling element about the game by placing cowboy hats on everything. There hasn't been legitimate creativity from this "team" in many years.
@@jacobrule4118 Regardless of whether or not the MTG team specifically are good game designers, have you seen the industry lately? People whjo would consider regurgitated effects with recycled visuals "game design" are currently *thriving*. There's never been a better time to be bad at game design.
This video was thorough and well done, as always. Thank you, Gavin, for this pre-ban. Paupergeddon Pisa will be much better now!
The fact that Modern doesn't have a panel like this is embarrassing considering the price tag to enter the format, very cool to see this
Thank you Gavin for the transparency. I personally was in the camp of letting it stay for a while to test/play with. From my perspective, it seems you could have communicated to the large tournament organizers and tell them your plans, have them ban it for the events, and still let MTGO/FNM people try it for a few weeks. Then you also don't have people asking the "what-ifs" or risk establishing a precedent. I also feel that this is another card that has taken a bullet for the artifact land's crimes, but that's a separate point entirely.
Congrats, Cranial Ram, you got Memory Jar'D
It got Lutri'd (for people not as old)
Nah, Memory Jar got at least one weekend to ruin games
Sorry Gavin, I zoned out a little bit, but I think what I heard is that you’re trying to set precedent for prerelease bans? That’s outrageous, I’m going to start twitter discourse about this!
He did say that he did not expect this to happen again in pauper or any other format any time soon, but we don’t know if that means in the future thus could be not common or not, but implies that it won’t be
I love that pauper is so cared for, because it means that if I ever get into pauper, I will know it's going to be a great format
Why did you even print it as a common in the first place?
Hey Gavin, can a fix be applied to the Comprehensive Rules? Rule 205.3j does not currently include the Planeswalker type Quintorius, as seen on the card Quintorius Kand.
Thanks!
I've been retally getting into Pauper recently and have been loving it! Part of the reason is definitely how well the format is maintained and just how open and in depth your analysis and decisions are regarding the format Gavin. Thanks for being awesome!
I have been playing pauper for 10 years, I won the 4th edition of the paupergeddon in Florence in 2016. I've been following the format since forever, and it's never been a secret that Cranial Ram was too high in power for the pauper format. I agree with the ban. I don't agree with the possible ban of artifact lands, neither those of Mirrodin nor the newer artifact duals. Those of mirrodin are an icon of the pauper...just like lightning bolt or kor skyfisher or mulldrifter. Mirrodin lands are fast entering untapped but they are also fragile. Playing jeskai kuldotha since 2016, I remember well how easy was winning against affinity post side just playing gorilla shaman... On the other hand, dual artifacts are slow, and removing them thinking of decreasing the power level affinity is probably not enought to decrease affinity s power...but this might end up destroying all the wildfire-based decks. Having said that, thank you for the work of the PFP, which has been impeccable so far. We'll see how the format will evolve without changing too many things all at once.
#unbanpropheticprism
How many more sacrifices must be made to keep all 16 artifact lands legal?
Banning the artifact lands would kill any artifact deck outright. They'd not be competative enough anymore to compete with any of the top decks anymore indefinitely.
pauper is a community driven format, and the pfp has said multiple times they feel that the legality of artifact lands in pauper is very important to the identity and community of pauper
no offense, banning artifact lands will make affinity unplayable
@@jianhaogao7608 and why is that a problem? 😅
@Gavin
Thank you for all you do for the Pauper Format!
I really love the new Landscape lands from MH3. I think it a step in the right direction for the Pauper format to include tools for multi color decks.
Could we ever see the Tarkir and Alara uncommon lands down shifted to common for Pauper? I would love to see Crumbling Necropolis and Sandsteppe Citidel down shifted for much better mana fixing options in the Pauper Format. Do you believe those lands would be appropriate for the Pauper format in terms of power level and deck building tools?
With this focus on Pauper, can we get WotC to reprint some of the rarer commons at common or uncommon in a widely-available set to make most paper Pauper decktypes more approachable? It's not like you'd be reprinting reserved list cards. Pauper Masters 25, anyone?
Wouldn’t be profitable. Best we could hope for are pauper precons
Seems like the right decision, and always appreciate the transparency from the PFP!
Great work Gavin and the PFP.
I appreciate the update and providing the rationale behind it, but personally I think you should have given it time.
"Brand new pauper format" Boy i cant wait to play against affinity pile and ephemerate pile mh3 is going to make this format pretty diverse
I was down to give it 2 weeks to see how it works, but I understand.
Idk for me the simple fix is that it should have been a uncommon. The only downside to that is people thinking its a signpost card in limited when it maybe isnt. I dont think it would have throw mh3 limited out of wack that much like how out of wack pauper would be if ram got let though.
Do you ever think you can do a deep dive video, going over every card on the ban list and as to why they got there and how likely they are to remain there?
an interesting design i thought of was a mono-colored land cycle that are all artifact lands but they're also legendary. would they still be too good for modern?
After hearing the All that Glitters announcement, and then seeing this card being spoiled, It clicked that this was the card Gavin was warning us about. Glad to see that confirmed 😂
Gavin always clearly explains the situation. Now how to get Gavin on modern committee. Good GRIEF!
You were 100% right until the last point. Grief is a very bad shadow boy.
One of my biggest issues with MH3 is how much it pushes the base power of Magic. I know it’s a tired thing to say, but 10-15 years ago some of these commons would be rares. While old cards certainly had really high highs, the power of the average card is almost astronomically high these days.
MH3 didn't do that though, neither did MH2 or MH1. Powercreep is a steady process, because you need a slight power incline to make people interested in buying new cards. If this hadn't happened, MTG would be a much smaller game now because the only reason to be interested in new cards would be hoping for a retheme of an existing idea. New cards need to be strong enough that they're worth using, and as long as the process there is gradual, as it has been with MTG, it's fine.
I don't think this is bad, at all. In fact I think it's necessary. Issues with the top end aside - not a new problem, as you point out - it's absurd to continue with the idea that 90% of the cards in a set should be junk, just for the sake of one format. It's frustrating to be stuck between picking a rare you want for another format while knowing another uncommon or common is better in the draft environment and useless otherwise (OTJ is reaaaaally bad for that).
I'm newish to playing Magic consistently. I have some stacks of cards from Mercadian Masques block and some other trades, but otherwise I just have some precon decks from the last year. I went to MH3 pre-release last night - first one I've ever gone to - and nah, I didn't do too well. But I came out with a whole stack of cards, well beyond just the rares and mythics, that will fit in commander decks I have, or want to brew, or just seem like interesting cards that I'd like to play with in some way. It's vastly more inspiring to collect cards like that, to want to get more and play more.
@@ajaxender12 rarity is sort of a separate conversation though. My point is more about what the power floor and complexity floor looks like for a magic card now. To that point, rarity for the most part only makes sense in terms of balancing limited (commons aren’t only played in pauper) and as WoTC has been pushing the super-staple envelope catering to commander players (even in modern sets), the bottom has fallen out on the “draft booster” rarity system.
Why don't we have Pauper on MTG Arena? it would be a fantastic place for new players to start
Would an external modern banning team would be as effective as you are with pauper? Who should do it you think?
I have a question for ya Gavin and crew.
Illusionary Dreadmaw. I was trying to get around the sac effect on it. And came to phasing. So I came up with this soulbond (hexproof) targeting Dreadmaw. 2 effects on the stack. So it gets the hexproof. Then the sac. But it's a stack. On the stack. You phase out the dreadmaw. Sac effect fizzles cause Dreadmaw isn't there. And when it phases back in at upkeep. It's still soulbonded. Ready to swing.
My question is. Am I correct with these interactions?
Elgaud Shieldmate
Phantasmal Dreadmaw
Reality Ripple
And the 3 cards in question
Soulbond doesn't target
@@trubicaI thought the soulbond effect was treated as targeting. Triggering thw sac effect. Good to know. Lol
Hi Gavin ! I get that designers doesn't have pauper in mind while creating a set, though... could we have a reprint of Dust to dust ?
It's 30 years old this year 😅
And especialy hard to find here in Europe...
Thx for caring about the format !
More cards to die for the sins of artifact lands
Great decision and video! Thank you very much for the transparency!
Ok all good but i got 2 question for you Gavin: 1. Why not made it uncommons just for limited play or formats where the power level is really higher than pauper ? 2. Why made a second Cranial Plating common while you know the real one got banned almost for the same reason ? Imho these are 2 big mistakes a company with 30 years of Experience like WOTC can't do and aren't hallowed because of that. Made it uncommon can't be take on consideration while you develop the set ?
They don't design sets with Pauper in mind. They just decided it should be common in limited
@@yan00155 i know this obviously but while design you had also to considerate now while Pauper is such a popular format. In my opinion made it as an uncommon was the best solution also for limited because the card is also potentially strong in limited (not so broken how much the impact on pauper) and because this cards is essentialy a copy of another cards that is banned in Pauper plus a small upgrade that provide also a creature token and a +1 on toughness. This mistake from a 30 years experience company are not acceptable. I think they need to focus because this mistake would be easily prevent or countered. Pre-Ban are not acceptable and now the common in each set are 80 less then time ago while you had more excuses while you had to develop 101 Commons....now you develop less commons and made more mistake ? For a product you ask more money to be purchased is not acceptable from customers. Very simple. Obviously mistake happens but this one is made me lol a lot while i think 20 years ago they think and create and print almost the same cards so you know from the past Cranial Plating and similiar cards are broken and to be banned and you have to stay away to create similiar or better in future....This one also open space to build with glint hawk because you generate more Phyrexian Germ just equipped (and the germ would be easy sacrificed to cards like Deadly Dispute...) so it appears unhealthy also to a very new to Magic player and also to the oldest and experienced. From the best company in the TCG worlds i expect the best and not embarassing mistake like this very simple. High cost product so i expect more and more perfection on them work. This one is very bad.
Thank you for the well stated explanation.
Ban commentary aside, hearing Gaving tote "the mighty Cranial Ram" from just last episode at 11:30 is hilarious XD
Gavin, you're great and I appreciate your communication with the players. But I also think banning cards before a set comes out is a really bad look. This is the 3rd time in the last 4 years(Lutri in commander and Book of Exalted Deeds in Standard). Once is an accident. 3 times is indicative of a bigger issue. But this one is especially because you acknowledged it was a problem weeks ago openly, implying the development team knew it was a problem in testing and didn't even try to fix it.
So we're at what, 5~6 cards banned in affinity since the bridges appeared, but the bridges still aren't the problem?
Can't wait for the next pauper ban where another card synergizing with artifacts get banned and still hear the same talk about bridges not being the problem
I would be so much more likely to play other formats that functioned like this!
Totally understand that these are atypical circumstances, but is it safe to assume that is similar atypical circumstances should arise that this kind of emergency response might be considered again? Certainly don't think that would be a bad thing, this seems like an elegant solution to a tricky problem.
Cranial Ram being a common seems really cool for PDH.
Another example of something I'm sure Design didn't necessarily intend, but it's something that's exciting for me.
Wish there were more cards that contribute to ending games like it!
I was one of the ones who lost the shiny toy of the week, but I agree that the tournaments come first in this case. Thanks for the transparency. Great job.
Nice job on this one team, ty Gavin :)
I think the sensible thing would be recognizing this prolblem fast enough ( i know hindsight is 20/20), but it shoudl've just been made into uncommon, it wouldn't really impact the limited gameplay, which isn't the reason why modern horizons product exist and get purchased in the first place.
This is a good call. Nice work!
I think Wizards has become too reluctant to ban cards. We live in a digital world where everything needs to happen faster than it used to, yet Wizards is slowing down their bans and setting arbitrary annual dates for doing so. If Wizards is going to push out 20 sets a year and dive head-first into power-creep to sell cards, they *have* to be willing to react quickly, ban problematic cards, and refund wildcards on digital clients. All that said, I have absolutely no issue with this ban.
I staunchly agree 💯 be dynamic, be prompt, be bold. Ban problem cards.
I hear you.
That being said, let's not pretend the lack of bans is for any other reason than money. Bans mean people are slightly more hesitant to buy packs from a set. WotC values money far, FAR more than they do balance. If they actually gave a shit about balancing game modes outside of pauper, they wouldv'e done something about Orcish Bowmaster a long time ago. They're waiting for sales to plummet.
Welcome to post-covid WotC. This is how things are now. Period.
The problem with being hyper aggressive about banning is that why would I ever buy into a top tier deck? With common cards, it’s not much of a financial investment, but if there was a significant chance that chase cards could be banned very quickly, then I have no incentive to buy sealed products looking for the card OR supporting my LGS an alternative way by buying the singles.
If the likelihood of high performing cards get banned much more aggressively, then the overall interest in those respective formats will decrease. It automatically filters out any player who can’t afford to buy into new top-tier competitive decks every three to six months.
Idk about you, but the reason why I play MTG over Yu-Gi-Oh is because they’re not as aggressive with their bannings. If they choose to ban more cards, more often, then a large amount of players automatically get priced out of a pseudo-rotation of expensive top tier decks.
@@TastySnackies Depends. On MTGA with the promise of refunded wildcards, why not buy in? However, in paper, I can see how constant bans would be problematic. I still believe that if Wizards is going to flood formats with op cards (The One Ring, Orcish Bowmasters, etc.) they have to be willing to pull the ban trigger when these cards create massive problems.
Well communicated and thorough allaying the concerns of Pauper players.
Have you ever thought of banning the old artifacts Lands, LET THE Bridges be and stopping banning every Single card that releases and Interact with artifacts?
Thank you for the video. Its really well explained.😊
We didn't even get to Fling this card on pauper lol, I get it though, Plating never even saw any official pauper play (first and only banned card in pauper for years before Frantic Search), and now so does this card.
If sets are not designed with Pauper in mind, then how can you promise that pre-bans like this will be rare? It could very well happen again a few sets from now.
I get that you guys changed your mind about just keeping your eye on it to pre-banning it due to major events coming up, but did you guys consider banning it for those events and then giving it that 2 week-1 month to see if it really does warp the format? Because I really do think Cranial Ram has the opportunity to be the fair version of this effect, so I'm a little disappointed that there won't be a chance to try it out before making the final decision of whether this is just as bad as Cranial Plating
Please, make a glitters like deck to we play with UW aggro again. Onitopter and leaf drums playable.
As always I really appreciate the honesty and how open you are on these topics great stuff 👌👍
Are there any plans on making Pauper the RC format in the future?
First of all, great video! Like most everyone else in these comments, I appreciate the transparency. This is a correct choice. However, if this was known to be too powerful, why was it even printed at common? Was this really necessary for MH3 draft? The existence of Pauper should be a failsafe for powercreep at common. I appreciate the foresight here, but maybe this is more of a design lesson than it is a format management one.
I really like how the format is being handled, and I think this was a great decision. Pauper is being handled how I imagine all the passionate people working at wizards want to handle their formats.
Sad grixis affinity noises
Cheer up, you still got Refurbished Familiar which looks pretty strong!
What's Popper?
Ulalek says copy all spells after you play the first Eldrazi..
I honestly disagree with a prehentive ban. Yes the card is clearly very strong but people would've adapted, it is easier to interact with compared to glitters. And in the end, even if it would become broken, why not play a broken paupergeddon for the lols? Just like hoogak summer.
Ultimately I understand the reasons though, it would've probably been banned just after a week so yeah, we all knew this would happen nonetheless
"it is easier to interact with compared to glitters"
Pass the boof, you're high
@casabaixo The original poster isn't wrong. There's a lot more efficient artifact hate in pauper than enchantment hate like Gorilla Shaman, Dust to Dust, Smash to Smithereens, Cast into Fire, Abrade, and etc.
Plus, since it's part red, both Hydroblast and Blue Elemental blast hit it. Whereas there isn't a strong efficient hate card against white in pauper as there is for Red and Blue.
Finally, Cranial Ram only added a point of toughness. So the creature could potentially removed with burn spells and didn't have instant speed activation.
However, this current movement to keep Aggro decks in check. This ban was a forgone conclusion.
@@casabaixo Do you even play the format?
@@jasonkorf7700 I get your point BUT creature removal in response to auras is always a 1 for 2... Also, since its's an equipment, if equipped creature dies just equip another one... Said this, you have a good point with the artifact hate, I just think that "creature hate" is more prevalent and easily go into the main deck (instead of side)...
To play the ram and equip it to a creature costs 4 mana, it's much harder to cast than glitters, it doesn't boost toughness. I think this card would be less impactful than glitters
color locked and not being able to move it instantly is not so bad. should have let it be for now and see how it plays.
This was the right choice. I was in favor of letting it go crazy on MTGO for a bit before a ban, but given the two large events immediately following MH3, the choice makes a lot of sense.
Is Cranial Ram even good in modern tho? :-) I think it's draft chaff.
Another card banned trying to fix the symptoms and not the cause
They will ban the artifact lands later, and this card will just be very good. I'm getting my copies and any copies I can cheaply get.
Banning artifact lands would be like banning brainstorm and wasteland in Legacy or Sol Ring in commander. They are a massive part of the format's identity, for better and for worse.
@@Pidgeonsofwar there is a point where youre banning 2 to 4 cards a year where you have to wonder if maybe its time to move on from that. The lands are cool but what is a pauper staple is affinity, and as long as the lands are unbanned affinity is relegated to being a boring mid deck
the question becomes if you know it would possibly need to be banned, why even print it?
Because it wasn't designed for Pauper. It was designed for the Modern Horizons 3 limited format and for Modern.
I think you guys should look into unbans soon too though
Thanks for the explanation, I understand your reasons but I also think the card may have been handled by the format.. ok the living weapon was decent but at the same time the germ can simply be blocked by a 1/1 and die... I hope that you will consider unbanning it in a more "safe" moment distant enough from huge events and see what happens.
The power level was much lower than the Cranial Plate and the card was also a lot slower than All that glitter because the germ has summoning weakness and BR+2 is double the cost of the aura and more restrictive because of the colors.
Article says we shouldn't expect it to happen again, why not. It happened once, why shouldn't we expect it to happen again
Its about people expectation: people already crying for bans before a card came out.
I don't think it would have been as strong as glitters or the og equipment. Pre banning cranial ram over watching it closely was a big mistake in my option. Really sad about this, making the set even more unattractive since it wasn't a good set for modern to begin with.
Yes, this was a good choice given the upcoming big tournaments. Yes, I would have liked to see it being a bit of chaos for one week or two. To the hall of banned pauper fame they go (red binder).
While I understand the reasonings behind the ban, I'm personally not a huge fan of this decision. As Gavin said in the video, it costs 2 mana to equip, and is color locked. The combination of these two things in my opinion makes it much less powerful. It makes mana more restrictive, and slotting it in to the grixis shell it may not even be an issue until turn 3 or 4. Additionally it gives every deck more time to find answers to the body it makes, and find their sideboard cards in games 2 and 3. With the abundance of cards in pauper that can handle 1 toughness creatures, and cranial ram not giving trample, decks that go wide can also block the creature really well. Overall I think this card has much more counter play than ATG and plate, and I think the current pauper meta could handle this card. Don't get me wrong, the card is very powerful, I just don't think it is powerful enough to warrant a pre ban.
I do agree that there's a chance it's not too powerful, but Gavin's points about having SB and warping decks around Ram is also valid, that while possible to tech against, it may not be fun. At the same time though, pre-banning a fun new card is also not fun. Eldrazi winter was horribly unbalanced but we look back on that crazy weekend with fondness, I think a weekend with Ram would have been fun for us as well.
The format is already warped around artifacts, if you look at mtgtop8 34% of decks plays great furnace, and 30% plays galvanic blast. A third of the format are artifact strategies already
I 100% agree with this ban. I have the same justifications for hoping you'd ban quickly. I did expect you'd wait for paupergeddon to give you the stats proving it is busted as you have before but 1 month of play with a card is still a faster ban than I recall the pfp taking action in the past
Let's design a card to get banned! Yeah! Oh, wait, no.
Yeah I saw the spoiler for this card and thought “this is gonna be banned pretty quickly”. I’m a little surprised it got pre-banned, but the fact there are multiple big events immediately after MH3 makes sense. I’d rather not have a Cranial Summer where everyone is maindecking artifact hate (Hogaak flashbacks).
I think this was the correct call.
The nature of Modern Horizons sets is to direct print to high power formats and provide more cube-like limited environments, so there's going to be more pushed cards at common. If this is going to happen anywhere, it makes sense here. This card may have been a signpost uncommon in a standard legal set.
I feel like this was a panic decision, and not giving Ram any chance to see play and prove it deserves to be banned, while being an atypical moment, is a huge feel bad and does set up for even more of this in the future. A Permanent, non Temporary ban is excessive and disappointing.
Very timey, here in my city, i Just see 20+ copies been selled this past 2 days.
Pre band are never ok. You can at least give the card a month or so.
Not a fan of how it was said it was going to be on the watchlist, then its turned around to just straight up pre-banned. I feel like theres a huge difference between all that glitters and cranial. Running artifact removal is muuuch more relevant than enchantment removal.
I just think pre-banning is a terrible idea in general. There are plenty of other cards in grixis affinity that could have been dealt with instead. Its not like cranial is some ubiguous play in every deck card.
it's allright, we'll have a look faster at the affinity rat this way instead of having both the rat and the ram comming at the same time in the format.
Can you tell the Commander advisor group to be as transparent about this especially with the new ulamog honestly being a net 0 fun card
Reasonable I saw this card and googly eyed 👀 it up and down because I play pauper. I theorized my couple turn kills.
I mean, I don't think anyone is really bummed, we all saw it coming. Glad you didn't wait till afterwards.
good video
it being needed to play around would be a huge format cost
Thank you for the pre ban, not that im not sad that we wont be able to play with it, but not to have a silly 2 weeks before going back to normal
Shû uüp Gayvin Clerkhey
I think this is reasonable personally. The idea of a format restricted entirely by rarity has always been pretty janky because it relies on rarity always meaning the same thing. But some sets need to use rarity differently, especially sets like Modern Horizons which are specifically designed to be higher power level, and so banning a few cards out of pauper is absolutely fine. This shouldn't be seen as "FIRE BAD" or "WOTC BAD", just as "sometimes the best way to design around having multiple formats is to ignore some formats".
I love these Pauper management video's. They provide a unique look in the internal kitchen of Magic formats and the difficult decisions you guys have to make. I think I agree with the ban, but the body count of the artifact lands (all 15) is becoming very high. I think, even though they are an asset and a unique feature of our format, they are also a fundamental flaw. If we are having to ban an affinity card every couple of years, that one part of the community will continually have to face financial losses and chronic deck insecurity. I know some very passionate affinity players, but I am actively avoiding building an affinity list myself for these reasons. I don't feel free or safe to try.
Honestly I am not sure how heavily the financial insecurity argument should be weighed with pauper; it is the cheapest competitive mtg format by far to compete at high levels in
@@ashtonwestfall4777 That's true, you don't lose much, but it's still not fair. I have played the exact same Dimir Terror list for over a year and in that time Affinity got their cards banned twice, and if Atog is recent enough, three times. I feel secure that I can play this list for another year (though I will probably adjust for MH3), but for Affinity players, every new card they get can get another one banned at any moment. That lack of deck security is also not fair.
Why didn't they just make this card an uncommon then? This is fine, but it seems like this whole situation could have been avoided by swapping rarity on 2 cards
becuase they want a higher frequency of the card in limited?
Hi, curious at to some of the thoughts that go into new cards when it comes to recent sets. Thunder Junction's "plot" mechanic is a brilliant idea however with the release of "Vexing bauble" being a 1 cost colourless artifact that counters all spells that where cast for no mana it means that it pretty much puts an ends to "plotting" for really cheap.
Was this something that was considered? This isn't a dig btw, I'm just curious as it seems odd to have a card like "Vexing bauble" so soon after Thunder Junction.
It's because it's a card made for modern not standard.
@@vvGoose thanks. Im new to modern and it just seemed odd to me.
The mirrodin landsssssss
I'll be honest the transparency is nice but the reasoning of big events are coming up so we need to ban this card not even giving it the chance to breathe which it would have gotten without those events is disheartening. Paupergeddon was scheduled to be around when the mh3 release was by the organisers, that is a choice they made so they should have considered the impacts of possibly overpowered cards, there are also several paupergeddons a year, that is a choice that community made, and doing such an extraordinary banning due to the that feels bad. Especially considering that it's not like cranial ram is going to be unbanned after said events so it can be tested to see the impacts it would have on the format (once again like would happen if those events were not occuring in a way which specifically put them into this kind of situation).
I think this is a good plan, but it would be cool to have a pauper "no ban" event to see what really rises to the top.
Good decision. Thank you