Love the "it doesn't encourage removal, it demands removal" quote. I'm always happy to see Ragavan when I have a Young Wolf in my hand, but I can understand the arguments for the format as a whole. Quality video as always! 👏

It's funny because the exile clause of Ragavan is exactly why it got banned in Legacy in the first place. More often than not, if it wasn't answered, you would be allowed to hit a ponder or brainstorm, essentially netting you a +1 just for hitting.

I personally think the Evoke Elementals are worse for the format tbh.

If ragavan doesn’t need to be banned then deathrite and punishing fire need to come off the ban list

Ragavan is just a typical example of power creep that comes with a new Modern Horizons set to get people to buy into that set in hopes that people will pull this overpowered monkey. The 5 main elementals that were printed in MH2 brought modern closer to a legacy style format with all these "free to play" spells. The problem is that Wizards will most likely keep making these insanely good cards to get people to buy into that set. My LGS constantly runs out of stock of MH2 boosters before boosters from any other set, which means that this strategy is working. I am pretty certain that once Modern Horizons 3 is released, we will notice another power creep in the form of new overpowered cards that will probably be on the same level as Ragavan, and this will change the whole modern format that has been more or less the same since 2021 when MH2 was released.

Really enjoying these single-card studies

I definitely feel this. Modern used to be my favorite format by a longshot, and that slowly started slipping with War of the Spark and MH1. MH2 and the Ragavan-centric meta it created just weren't for me, and I sold out. Maybe someday we'll see the all-in-one monkey gone. One can hope, at least.

A Ragavan hit me and snagged my Thoughtseize when it was legal in Legacy and that one interaction made me want to have "friendly" "chat" with whoever design this monkey Being able to randomly get the benefit of having an extra color in your efficient tempo deck is too much. It's too good for Legacy and it is probably just as unhealthy for Modern Edit: At least give me the card to my hand if they don't use it so there is a choice if you decide to use it

I'm trying to get into modern recently, and this videos with you deck guides had helped me a ton! Keep up the good work! Also quick question for all of you, how would you consider bant eldrazi as a modern alternative with the state of modern today? That is my only "competitive" deck that I want to test but I am not sure if it would hold against the other powerhouses in the format, thanks in advance.

Ragavan is only the cover, Elementals are the nails in the coffin.

Have not kept up with Modern, TIL Yawgmoth is a viable deck that I've hear of guess like I am going to check it out. What do you mean by maindeck four spell pierce? The monkey is a creature and can't be targeted? Are you talking about Ragavan players maindecking it to counter opposing removal?

Anytime a card, or in fact any aspect of a game reaches a point where one has to argue why NOT to use it as part of your strategy, that option is probably too good.

I cannot agree with this argument more. The fact that Ragavan demands turn 1 or turn 2 removal forces decks to play around the card and warps the format in such a way that decks need to run more cheap removal than necessary because of the high meta share of decks that run the card in the format. If Ragavan isn't answered, it can and will single-handedly snowball the game out of control, even if it only gets one hit in. Ragavan connecting means a few things: 1. Whoever gets hit is being denied a card, period. There's almost no way you can get that card Ragavan exiled back. 2. Whoever has the Ragavan gets a huge resource lead. "It's just one treasure" is not a good argument when games in the format are decided by turns 3~4 at the latest, where having a single extra mana for one turn is enough for many decks to do very powerful things, especially when considering decks in the format are super-charged for maximum efficiency. 3. Whoever has the Ragavan gets the "I play your deck" buff, which further widens the resource gap. Every hit by Ragavan is essentially a 3-for-1 for the player who has the card in play (denial of opponent's top card of library, the ability to cast said card, and the treasure generation). 4. Ragavan connecting is such a big threat that it severely punishes situations where, as mentioned in the video, the defending player has the unfortunate luck of not being able to have or draw into any relevant removal is literally the reason they lose the game. Even when Ragavan is answered, the defending player loses a removal spell that could have been used on the real threat of their opponent's deck (Murktide, Omnath, T3feri, Scion, etc.). The card creates way too many lose-lose scenarios for a one mana creature, just like DRS. So yes, the card should and needs to be banned. If DRS can get the banhammer, then so should Ragavan. But right now apparently WotC is still doing print runs of MH2 and banning Ragavan will hurt their bottom line, so as long as MH2 keeps staying in print the chances of the card getting banned is quite low.

You forgot to mention, that not only is it possible to not have removal for ragavan, your removal could also be countered ragavan can be given hexproof or indestructible

If they don't ban it I am moving to Solitaire

It's interesting that you also bring up hammer because of the similar "demand interaction on turn 1". Something i agree with is not fun. Are there any cards in that deck you would like to see banned?

I am personally not convinced that Ragavan needs to be banned. The card is very pushed and the ramp effect might very well be too much as it allows you to have insane 3 mana turn 3 in Izzet decks, so I wouldn't be surprised or mad that it gets banned as the card is definitely on the edge. However, I would like to argue that we need very strong 1 drops in modern now. With all the extremely powerful 1 or 0 mana removal (leyline, unholy heat, the pitch elementals), you need decks that will not take a tempo hit against those removals in order to not make them dominate. If you play a tarmogoyf turn 2 but your opponent can kill it instantly with a solitude by turning one of his other white cards into a white simian spirit guide, you end up super behind. Ragavan, DRC, and the hammer creatures prevent strategies that stall the early game to dominate because the 1 mana tempo loss hurts way less and they present a threat that can kill those deck fast enough. Perhaps Ragavan is too much or isn't enjoyable to play against, but if you get rid of it you need an alternative.

I think saying Ragavan has no cost to activate it's ability is a bit disengenous. You don't just get the ability it ragavan survives to your turn or if you dash it out. It's activation is “dealing combat damage to an opponent”. I think it's about as much if not more of a restriction as having a land in the yard for DRS to make mana in a format defined by both players playing fetch lands. I also think think the removal argument and rebutle are weak. A similar argument is mare about all combo decks of any format “have interaction or lose”. I also think the type of interaction required is a deciding factor if a card is too good. Ragavan requires creature removal something that is expected of every deck to play. It not like hogaak that required mb gravehate or fotd that required land removal. I think incentivizing creature removal is fine. It's also something to take into account on your g2-3 mulligans. I think Ragavan is super pushes and maybe too good but there are 2 cards id like to see banned before it because the create much larger value differently (EI and breach). I think if UR decks are still the most dominant thing you could be doing post those 2 being banned then id be down for a rag ban.

The prevelance of monkey is why I enjoy playing Temur Electrobalance, since they can't suspend from exile. Lowers the amount of hits they can get (= Games I can't answer monkey quickly are often lost though, as after I wipe their lands they buy back into the game with the treasures they banked. Not impossible to win, but an uphill battle for sure. My personal preference would be for the Treasures to ETB tapped and exerted, and for the dash to be RR. Makes dashing a bit more mana restrictive, and the treasures cant be cracked to cast a bolt you just pulled. Late game I could care less about Raga winning, even if it'd still be a problem with this. My issue is the early turns where Murk doesn't need to fetch a 2nd R source to dash, can crack my bolt on me effectively making him 5 power that turn, while also denying my removal for him, etc.

I totally agree with you in this man. What do you think about bloodmoon? Dont you think that it makes the game less fun too?

I think the overabundance of free spells is the biggest problem with current Modern, with Wrenn & Six being a close second, followed by Ragavan

Ragavan definitely should've either just made treasure tokens or let you exile the top card of your own library The fact that you can just get rid of your opponent's threats with it is absurd, even without being able to cast them against said opponent

This video was awesome, loved the "crank to 11" bit 🤣Funny enough though it made me want to abuse this guy even more because YUP I'm "that guy"

Love the Imakuni reference in the example card

Love the video. Great content

I didn't play Modern in the "two ships passing in the night" years, but I've been really enjoying current modern, and I think it's largely because of the "remove me or die" threats. Many of my favorite games have been against hammer where I have the removal and I'm jockying around their spell pierces and givers and finding the right time to chump block with my premium creature vs. take one hit from a hammer. Demanding removal also isn't really that large of an ask, top modern decks are often running 10 removal spells, and some up to 16. I also think you are overestimating how often the card "draw" is relevant. The games where ragavan hits a teferi on turn 2 are memorable, but not actually that common, and when ragavan hits a land or uncastable/useless spell, he's really barely better than (ig)noble hierarch or llanowar elves.

UR murktide is still the best deck in legacy even after the ban... I don't think modern will change if you banned ragavan. Murktide would still be good, hammer would have even less competition, it wouldn't really move decks up or down. Maybe tron would come back but honestly I'd rather deal with ragavan than a turn 3 Karn

Hi, will you ever do a modern elves deck tech? I know its a tier 2 deck at best but its my favorite and it feels competitive in my hands. I semi regulary beat murktide or hammer or yawgmoth with it. The hardest matchup is living end or uw control or scam.

I think people should just enjoy the format albeit this was a great video. The issue is modern horizons 3....or a crazy standard season. If I had to guess, I believe magic will be receiving more pushed creatures very soon. Particularly in green. It's better to create and invalidate from a business sense then constantly swinging the ban hammer around. To add- venerated rotpriest is not ragavan but an example of what I think is to come.

The problem is we went from a powerful card that didn’t get replaced for YEARS, to now, we have the same card get more and more OP in months. Like how modern had only path of exile for such a long time, and now we have like 3-4 or even 5 exile spells that are argumentatively better hands down in essentially months. The power creep was amped up so fast. And they over saturate cards now. A card like rag should have never been printed and the bullshit evoke elementals. I explicitly remember when evoke was nutty back then, then they go and make it even worse like what the fuck. But remember wizards through actions and comments clearly show they give no fucks about competitive magic. It’s about collecting and commander….the degen format where people act like they are main characters in an anime…

I agree, Ragavan was a card that just had it's knobs pushed way to far in every possible direction. I like the flavor of a cheeky little monkey that sneaks in and steals your opponent's stuff because he's a pirate. There's so many ways this could have been fixed and I really think you highlighted a lot of really good ones. Fun extra thing, the fact that Ragavan and 99 lands is, while still not good, a deck that can actually win games in historic brawl is disgusting.

I think modern is in a great spot, the meta is very diverse and interactive. The only cards I can honestly see being banned are underworld breach and Mishras bauble. Rag is not that big a problem imo.

8:10 thank God I see this argument so often unironically I'm glad we're getting people who are actually explaining why it's dumb instead of brushing it off without acknowledging it, leaving those people who use it thinking they've won. Dies to removal as an argument only has any kind of value if the threat requires multiple turns to make any impact, and even Sheoldred has proved that even that isn't always true. Ragavan is immediate value, so not having protection from removal is meaningless, plus it's so cheap that even just coming out for 1-2 mana and baiting out a bolt is worthwhile

I personally would've been satisfied with erasing all of Ragavan's current abilities, and replace the card text with one word: haste (a burn player's dream)

This is a very well thought out and demonstrated essay. Some small bits of hyperbole and lower odds scenarios. But the fact that even the removal of a key card with the exile effect is in fact a thing. Even if statistically rare, you see them way more often considering how everywhere the card is. What are your thoughts on the mh2 evoke cards? I personally find them also egregious but not to the same degree. Usually. But would be interested in a deep dive like this on their impact on the meta.

Cool vid! Just after MH2 I remember saying that Ragavan was just as powerful as Deathrite Shaman and I was absolutely torn apart. Fast forward to now and I don’t necessarily still think that but I still think their power level is much closer than people give credit for! Modern is in a funny position right now. The card pool is available to build and play pretty much anything you want which is really cool! But these ideas are also challenged by these S tier decks. It’s like: if you want to play Stoneblade, you may as well play Murktide. If you want to play Affinity, you may as well play Hammer Time. I tried to build a Sulti tempo deck with Shardless Agent but no Rhinos and as fun as it was, it just wasn’t as good as the Rhinos deck. I also believe the Triomes are proving to be an issue as well. But I haven’t seen it talked about. Having super quick access to four or five colours of mana seems a little too easy and they’re pushing the already high power level of Omnath, Wrenn and Six and Leyline Binding.

Counterpoint: he's really fun to play as the commander in an EDH deck😁

Having to hit your opponent with Ragavan it a major disadvantage over deathrite shaman. To say shaman ‘has a cost’ and ragavan doesn’t seems like an unfair comparison. To say players don’t want to lose games due to random chance seems unrealistic to me. Its a trading card game. Randomness is the foundation of the game. If I could consistently find my sideboard cards in my opener game 2, well it wouldn’t even be the same game anymore. I don’t think randomness at the level of exiling one card from the top of your opponents deck is really a mark against any card in magic. Ragavan being banned in legacy I feel is more due to overpowered cards like brainstorm being grandfathered into the format than the card being so broken in a vacuum. The whole format is 1 drops so it makes sense the card is broken. Modern is not as fast and makes Ragavan comparatively much weaker. I agree Ragavan and Hammer time makes it so that your opponent has to interact with your board quickly, but I don’t see that as a bad thing in modern. Personally, I don’t want a format where control/combo players can just ignore the aggro/midrange player’s board until turn 4, then popoff and win from there. Without very strong one drop creatures, control/combo players could leverage the power thats in modern to never have to interact with their opponents board, leaving the only viable creature based strategy to be staxx. Ragavan/hammertime being 1/3 of the meta is bad but not terrible in my opinion. In comparison to most other formats, modern seems pretty varied in terms of decks. I think your comparison of Ragavan to Hogaak/Uro/Lurrus is an unfair one in terms of removal. Each of those cards has strong effects that do not require them to make it to attack step with no summoning sickness. They benefit your deck without actually having to protect them. Ragavan has to hit the board and attack to be its strongest. The cards you named don’t have that restriction. If ragavan gets banned I feel it would be being banned for an entirety different reason than these cards. Ragavan does not demand removal, but it does demand interaction. Playing a creature to block ragavan works too. This is more so a problem for uninteractive decks. If you don’t run any cheap removal or cheap creatures to keep up in the early game, you’re playing a greedy deck and deserve to lose to aggro/burn. I understand you won’t always have the removal spell/creature in your hand for ragavan, but your opponent also won’t always have ragavan and a way to protect it. I wrote out these responses live as I listened to the video. You definitely touched on a lot of my points in the rebuttal section, but I do still hold the belief that ragavan, and modern as a whole right now, is good and I respectfully disagree with your conclusion. Love your videos man, keep up the great work.

You missed "bUt ThEy WoN't BaN tRoN!" bad-faith argument, a.k.a. the SaffronOlive defense.

lol the intro xd

My stance on the monkey is that modern as it is, is a turn 4 to 6 format, by that I mean the winner of the game is decided by then even If the loser isn't dead but they don't want to play through the grind. Modern was a very grindy format and not its hyper efficient that snowballing will win you the game but the verse is also true that with the card advantage and removal we have access to, there are more chances for comebacks and I believe the player base currently are made up of grinders who relish overcoming hard odds for a W. That's why hammer time and scam are popular, not just cause they win but they do is asap for shorter games of magic

I'm new to your channel, I fuckin love it, Spinal Tap!!

Thank you for making this video

I dig the Imakuni reference.

Been saying this for a while. I feel that, if Oko remained unbanned, we would be having the same discussion about it like we are around Ragavan.

I was chuckling for a minute at the 20/1 1CMC

Love your videos!

I think if a card produces too much value for Legacy it shouldn’t be legal in Modern.

While I generally share your sentiment that Ragavan is way too pushed any bad for Modern, I think you underestimate the cost of requiring it to attack and deal damage to an opposing player for any of its real effects to happen. DRS can just sit back, block if necessary and still win the game on its own. Ragavan requires more things to go right. As such I think the ceiling on Ragavan is higher while the floor is lower. This increased variance is what makes it so frustrating in play and also the moments where it does something extraordinarily dumb are much more memorable. Is it possible to hit two Valakuts against PrimeTime? Sure but its extremely rare. I still would like it seeing banned just to shake things up

Great video and agree completely

great arguments good sir! o7

I wanted to post some silly "Unban Splinter Twin" meme response but Twin in a world with Ragavan would be the most egregiously unfun deck to play against ever devised by man

Just get good man.... lol jk, great video

Btw, @AmmiO2, i'd rather play against Burn than Ragavan anytime :D

I feel like what we need is a modern state of the union. We need to decide what we want modern to be, then tailor the ban list philosophy around that. If "two ships passing in then night" is a problem, then just ban the combo decks. Instead of asking if it's "fair" we should ask if it's fun for the format.

But like why is it a one drop, you can’t even remove it at an advantage most of the time

While I agree that ragavan is pushed and most formats would be better off without it, I think randomness is almost never a fair argument in a TCG. Every time you shuffle your deck, you’re invoking randomness, that’s literally what you signed up for playing a card game. Saying ‘Ragavan hit a random card in my deck that just so happens to be my low count win con’ well annoying, and potentially game ending, is not fair to ascribe to specifically Raghavan as the problem as there are many more games that don’t involve Raghavan that you just lose to not hitting that had no fault of its own besides the fact that randomness is a key aspect of the genre.

"ANSWER ME OR DIE" confirmed for MH3

I play 4 copies of Ragavan in my deck and I played 4 copies of Shaman too... I agree with your video.

I'm sure the second they stop printing mh2 boxes they'll ban ragavan in modern

Ive been shocked that Ragavan has been allowed to run rampant for this long. it needs to go. has needed to go for awhile.

Idk, we have the most interactive and also importantly long games in any modern meta I can think of. When games go long, yes people typically have snowballed by a certain point but it makes the play draw matter so little. Ragavan demanding a turn 1 answer is very nearly true but there are so many broken things in modern that are either way too free or way too strong and redundant as is. Living end can answer nearly any interactive spell without paying any mana, and then put 20 power onto the battlefield on like turn 3-4. Rhinos makes 10 power across 3 bodies for 3 mana. Creativity (my deck) can answer all the turn 1-2 nonsense and then stabilize and put an archon onto the battlefield with a 1 card combo. Ragavan is absurd for the format but at the same time it's ragavan's existence that really makes midrange decks in modern the powerhouse that they are, and in my opinion that's a really good thing. I'm enjoying the hell out of what mh1 and mh2 have done for modern and I don't even really play very many mh1/2 cards myself. The biggest lesson I've learned as a magic player the past few years is how to not cling desperately to one archetype and hope it works for 10 years, and instead adapt. I was an enduring ideal player and have the opposite problem - wotc printed so many free and flexible answers that my entire archetype is now almost literally unplayable. But I learned to try something new and shake things up, picked up creativity and am really enjoying all the interactions. Theres very rarely a game I feel I had no chance at winning and ragavan is rarely the driver of those in that category - but I have indeed adjusted my strategy accordingly. I do think you need 6 turn 1 reactive spells in any deck in modern that isnt pure spell combo trying to ignore the monke altogether. Modern feels the most fair and balanced it has in YEARS and I think that's evident by A.) the absurdly diverse league and challenge metas we have and B.) The best ragavan deck is murktide hands down, and their winrate fluctuates between less than 50, and something like 54 percent amongst the top tables of magic, so comparing lists only not really bad pilots. Ragavan decks are insanely beatable but yes they *Demand respect to do so. Run 4 lightning bolts, or 4 pending, or 4 1cmc blockers, or 4 pushes... running no early interaction would be a losing strategy against shredder, drc, or hammer in general anyways. If hammer becomes the best deck I think that's bad for modern - way more feels-bad having the cheap efficient kill you combo deck be unbeatable.

I'm suprised people not using gutshot as a sideboard target with a majority of best cards in the format have one toughness or the walkers go to 1 toughness

yeah ive lost many a games from not having removal for ragavan on turn 1

If the new teched out, super pushed 1-drop didn't slot right into the fun police best deck, I don't think it would be such a problem. But it does, and it should be axed.

still waiting for answer me or die to be printed

I think players really need to reevaluate what makes a card truly banworthy. Cards that have been banned in the past either have aided in degenerate, hard to interact with combos(Twin, SSG), leads to oppressive near impossible to deal with board states(Hogaak) or gains an unfair amount of advantage, easily abusable, and or hard to deal with(Looting, Lurrus, Yorion, Oko, Uro.) Ragavan does none of these things and while it is clearly a very powerful card, seeing a T1 Ragavan on the board doesn’t guarantee an instant lost or anything really and honestly due to moderns power level even pre MH1 it would take a design like this for a 1 drop for it to keep up as most 1 drops were unplayable in Modern. If anything it’s helped keep R, fair, midrangey decks relevant and able to help police the format. The argument of “its not fun to play against” holds little weight to imo as there are so many cards and strategies that someone is going to find these things unfun to play against, including generically powerful and commonly played staple cards. This has always been true. Something being “unfun” shouldn’t be reason enough to warrant a banning as the “fun vs unfun” aspect is so subjective. Especially considering all the insane stuff that’s possible in Modern. Also another thing to keep in mind when evaluating this card is yes it got banned in legacy but this card was meant for Modern and in the context of the format there are a vast amount of options for decks to keep Ragavan in check or continue to power through despite Ragavan connecting. While it is true that an opponent isn’t guaranteed to have a removal spell and/or a blocker for a T1 Ragavan, the opponent isn’t guaranteed to have a T1 Ragavan and No ragavan deck to my knowledge is dependent on having one that early either. It’s even disadvantageous to see extra ragavans more often than one would think depending on the matchup/situation. I get the card can be annoying for some but the card I think does get an undeserved amount of flack.

Most fun Commander= Ragavon

I would argue its very disenguious to put Ragavan in the same category of "just remove it" alongside Lurrus and Uro. Often times when Lurrus was played, you immediately recuperated value by recasting a bauble or a threat from the yard. Not to mention it was effectively always in your opening hand thanks to companion, which I'd argue is the actual reason it got banned not the other text on the card. The problem with Uro is that you COULDN'T "just remove it" as most removal doesn't kill it and it can recur itself unless you Exile it. On top of that, it always drew a card and gained 3 life, regardless of what the boardstate was, which Ragavan cannot do. There are many boardstates in modern where Ragavan is at best a chumpblocker and pretending that everytime it hits the board the opposing player loses is just incorrect.

Creatures are legendary because they need a drawback - can't play too many of them or they'll end up as dead cards in hand. I feel this does not happen with Ragavan.

Get good, scrub! Also have my like and subscribe :)

Excellent video essay on this monkey and the issues he has brought upon the formats he is legal in. He is currently the bane of modern, aside form the evoke-mentals (in my opinion). Trolls will troll. Those financially upper-handed may troll too or will be out of touch in regards to the average player's situation. WOTC is catering to these people with these sets. I have known people who have sold plasma to buy cards. This and many MANY problem cards of modern (MH2 in specific) are priced outside of the average person's price range/ ability to justify the cost. 1 Ragavan costs as much as: (American costs on this) 1. approximately 2 tanks of gas (vehicle and state/country depending) 2. the average internet bill 3. 1/2 or more of some utility bills someone has to pay for monthly (trash, electricity, water, etc.) 4. the average video game from a AAA company 5. about 1/4 of a car payment 6. someone's phone bill 7. 1/4 of a grocery run for a family 8. Etc. The list goes on. Especially considering the cost of a playset... This is not right. Yes, you could save for them, but is it worth it in the end? IS it savvy of you to do so? At the end of the day, it is a game and hobby. It should not be about how much money you spend on a game to be able to win. It should not be about who wins the die roll. This little cretin has caused far too many problems and has ruined a lot of peoples' enjoyment of the game and the format we love(d).

ive been playing magic for 29 years. There is an argument that I've always made. When cards are clearly ban worthy you either are A) an early adopter that got it cheap and won for a while before it was on the radar and banned or B) willing to pay big bucks to win knowing it will be temporary. the problem with Ragavan and things like Jace in years passed is it has a is it too good or not argument that leaves players never knowing what they should do. IMO cards like this should be printed into oblivion, or banned.

As a newer player who favors playing on a budget, I hate to think that I have to spend hundreds if dollars on literally fours pieces of cardboard because I want to play a good deck. I wanred to play Modern, but I believe I will stick to commander because it is cheaper and just as fun. Thank you for your insight, Ammi02

What is mawna?

Wait, Deathrite Shaman is still banned? LOL. Why is Ragavan still legal in Modern while Deathrite is banned?

I think something that I more personally dislike about the current state of things is cards that let you cast your opponents deck. In theory it's a cool idea but also skips a lot of deck building restrictions to someone who runs that sort of play. You are basically gathering and using the resources of another player and can ruin another deck build. But that is another personal preference and I'm not sure I'd have the math or theory to back it up as of right now.

You know, I used to think Modern was a format you had to have the best cards for, and that a viable Modern deck would raise the question of buying it or paying your mortgage for multiple months. MH2 feels like Wizards left their card in the gas pump and aimed the hose squarely at the dumpster fire, holy _hell_ !

Lol it hit my atraxa and they cast it with all their treasures. Monkey is more powerful than emrakul!

Last tuesday I was playing twiddle storm without wish Ragavan got my one copy of grape shot on turn two.. it was halarious But still dumb card tbh the worst part is being able to bank mana so murktide can hold up multiple counterspells

MH2 as a whole was a mistake for modern, But I love my Ragavan Edh deck

I can't belive that modern is so fucked that the modern set prints obligatory cards close to 100€...

I like Ragavan because I like red and I want it to be strong

Not only ragavan, the free spells are a problem too

I think Modern needs a proper re-do and new ban list that could make it more accessible and approachable.

👍

My friends and I have stopped playing Modern for roughly a year, effectively the moment the MH2 cards began affecting the Modern format at large. We saw and experienced the power creep, the cards that made Magic... not feel like the Magic we knew. When discussing cards like Ragavan at the time, you would be absolutely blasted by those that claimed Ragavan "was the power they wanted to see" and that "you need to adapt or die," any argument that cards like Ragavan and the like were too powerful were vehemently debated, seemingly slowly forcing anyone who disagreed with the design out of the communities that spoke about it. And here we are, still discussing how busted Ragavan is. In a sad way, it's proven us right, the card was ridiculous, no matter how they want to defend it, because people, even now in the midst of the players that remain thinking the card is fine, still come to the conclusion it's too much. Modern has been ruined for my friends and I for a long time now, there is likely no coming back, but seeing the monkey go would give a final amount of solace that, no, we weren't wrong.

banning Ragavan from Modern isn't going to fix anything. all it will do is kill Murktide's early game. keep in mind that the whole point of Modern Horizons sets is to change Modern to be all about those sets. Ragavan is full proof of that. but Ragavan isn't the biggest problem in the format; rather, it's far and away the pitch Elementals, especially Grief. Grief is just as much of a must-answer as Ragavan, and there are some forms of 1-mana removal that don't deal with Grief on turn 1 (Unholy Heat, Prismatic Ending, etc.). meanwhile, your hand is completely ruined and your opponent has a 4/3 with menace that will kill you quickly while you suddenly have nothing to do to stop it

I hate Ragavan as much as the next guy but you don’t need removal on turn 1, you need it on turn 2, which is pretty different

You're right and you should say it

Agreed!

Honestly, I’m surprised it hasn’t been banned

Ragavan would've been good if it had either of its two abilities, but both is far too pushed.

No one card should force every deck to have turn one removal. Now it is true that a turn one ragavan by itself doesn't win the game all the time. It's just the facts that it's a must answer turn one because if it lives it enables turn two blood moon and other degenerate stuff like playing your oppenents spells with your treasure that makes any mana color. As stated by plenty of other people responding.

Guys, Fractured Sanity is worse than Ragavan. You can block Ragavan easy. And he is removed easily. But if you cant counter or have a clever answer for Fractured Sanity, your deck is likely going to be in critical condition. Fractured Sanity has a CMC of 3... And Fractured sanity cost only a few dollars. When Ragavan for some reason has a $70 price tag. I go up against these cards almost ever FNM. Ragavan is not the problem. Its mill. Mill is the Modern problem. Mill has been giving too easy of direct access to the opponents library. For 3 mana..

monke is luv monke is lyf

I think your rebutal to the "Encourages Interaction" argument downplays the positive effects Ragavan has on the format. I will concede that an unanswered Ragavan feels horrible to play against, but often the decks most afraid of taking a hit from it are the decks best suided to dealing with it (decks with efficient generically good cheap cards that are easy to fit into your mana curve). There are plenty of decks that don't mind taking a hit from Ragavan as eventhough the treasure is powerful the exile is often irrelevant. The pressure Ragavan applies to the format breeds ground for unique answers one might not otherwise expect, for example a rise in Young Wolf's playability. Ragavan is undeniably pushed and probably should not have been released in it's current state, and some of the alternative effects you mentioned would definitely lead to a healthier experience playing with/against the card, but I also think that Ragavan encourages interactive magic while keeping modern the fast format it always has been. Without Ragavan I feel Modern's meta would turn to slower decks or wholely uninteractive decks which would be even worse for the format. In the current format these decks are playable and powerful without dominating the meta. I see Ragavan as a necessary evil that emphasizes creature based interactive magic. It is Modern's current Boogeyman, but every format has it's Boogeymen and Ragavan is by far not the worst one we've seen. Metas will always be pushed by certain specific pushed cards and the meta will always centralize around the most efficient and powerful strategies.

I personally don't own a set, but I agree with everything that is said here. 1 mana ramp/card advantage/loose the game on the spot is just so pushed, it's ridiculous. Plus it's not like U/R tempo needs more tool to be a dominant deck in the format... So much U/R Murktide in top 8 RN, it's just boring.

ragavand, scam and cascade make modern feel very shallow and completely unappealing to me. I prefer my legacy where even jank gets its day under the sun

I recently played in a modern RCQ with a budget deck costing just shy of two ragavans. I was excited about the format after binging the ‘every deck in modern’ series and now… I feel a bit deflated. I think Ragavan is emblamatic of a larger issue, which is that modern is at a point now where the vast majority of matchups are decided by a dice roll, what you draw, and what’s in your deck. There is very little room to ‘pilot’ many decks. Scales, dice factory, and amulet seem to be exceptions, though amulet less so from what I’ve seen in FNMs and the RCQ. Certain cards either provide strictly better effects than others. The big ones are ragavan, thoughtseize, counterspell, and the fetch/shock lands. Ragavan isn’t interactive because he doesn’t provide a CHOICE to the opponent the vast majority of the time. The correct choice on turn one is effectively always to try to kill a T1 ragavan. On the draw it’s even worse and sometimes is less interactive despite more spells being cast in response to one another. Ex is T1 ragavan, then someone trying to bolt/fatal push/ etc… and getting force of negationed. Getting countered is already bad: you’ve lost your turn 1 without being able to play a threat or do any significant set up for future turns, and now your opponent is about to ‘draw’ one, making up for the protection spell, and get to 3 mana. You’re effectively 2 turns behind and have made no meaningful choices. Despite more spells being cast, there was effectively 0 interaction here. It having deck building restrictions is similarly laughable. Between fetch, shock, and triomes, deck building restrictions don’t really exist in any meaningful way in modern. The mana base of a 5c pile is stable enough to consistently pump out an omnath by turn 4 (sometimes T3 if you can… idk… make a treasure token). Ragavan is not a companion, he does not have a meaningful deck building restriction. The question is what other turn one play can you make that you might be sacrificing in order to run out a ragavan. The only comparably powerful effects are mana dorks/ramp, thoughtseize, and free counterspells to sink your opponent’s turn. It’s restrictive to try and run all those effects, but to choose 2-3 of them, despite competing colors, means that you will always have a consistent must answer threat on turn 1. Thoughtseize isn’t a threat, but it reveals information about the opponent’s hand, and can easily disrupt their turn 1 play. This puts you on turn 2 with clear knowledge of what your opponent can do, and cuts down on meaningful interaction because typically, you know what your best plays are. It also has a ‘answer everything’ problem where there are no restrictions on it, so if your opponent can’t answer because they lost a dice roll (or don’t have negation), there’s no way for them to play around it. Counterspells are, typically, 1 mana, and the 2 mana version is an answer anything card with the only restriction being 2 blue pips, but because the mana base is so stable, that really isn’t a problem. There’s even a pay 0 mana, pitch a card version for when mana gets too restrictive for you. The question as to whether to run ragavan, counters, or hand control is a question of what you have to sacrifice in order to run it. In modern, the current cost to run those cards is to expect to pay 2-3 life on turn 1.