Before that, there were no standard bans since June 2011 (SFM and JTMS).
8 cards have been banned in Modern within the span of 4 years, 2014-Jan 2018:
DRS, DTT, TC, Pod, Twin, Eye, Probe, GGT
Overall, while we have been saying that modern is unsafe and so on, it really seems that there is a stability. 2 bans a year on avg and most of them very justifiable, if not mandatory (DRS, DTT, TC, Pod, Eye, GGT) and functional (Probe). The only questionable still is Twin, and for that, we've exhausted discussion.
Now, if only we can get the level of transparency they showed in the announcement for the next Modern announcement...
Standard is supposed to have few bans, it should be more stable than Modern by definition. I think it's pretty funny that Modern is actually more stable than Standard in the last 2 years. It goes to show what having actual answer cards does for a format, even if Modern's answers need improved.
The thing is, energy standard had the BEST answer in the form of Harnessed Lightning. This card, in the energy shell, was the most efficient answer of all. T2 it could deal 5 damage (with Attune T2). It's efficiency was clear by the type of creatures played. You just needed creatures that do something upon entering the battlefield and that would actually not trade down with the two mana removal. Harnessed lightning with Attune was part of the reason why energy decks were so good. Because you couldn't play big creatures in fear of falling way too far behind in your own turn.
I think the situation is a bit more complex than good answers vs good threats. Standard for years lacked a good answer and now that it got it, it became too stagnant. There needs to be a balance, and for that balance to exist you need testing and a robust RnD, something that has been lacking recently in Wizards
Before that, there were no standard bans since June 2011 (SFM and JTMS).
8 cards have been banned in Modern within the span of 4 years, 2014-Jan 2018:
DRS, DTT, TC, Pod, Twin, Eye, Probe, GGT
Overall, while we have been saying that modern is unsafe and so on, it really seems that there is a stability. 2 bans a year on avg and most of them very justifiable, if not mandatory (DRS, DTT, TC, Pod, Eye, GGT) and functional (Probe). The only questionable still is Twin, and for that, we've exhausted discussion.
Now, if only we can get the level of transparency they showed in the announcement for the next Modern announcement...
More importantly, there is in depth data analysis across different tournaments that gives us insight on how they approach bannings nowadays. The chart they presented shows why, even if we don't like it, bans had to be made. They stepped up their transparency game regarding bans/unbans. Now if only they would step up their design game!
Also Finally, we will have another banned and restricted announcement next month on February 12. The timing of this announcement makes it ideal to consider changes based on the results of Pro Tour Rivals of Ixalan, and thus will more than likely focus on Modern. However, it also is right before Grand Prix Lyon, which is Modern. As such, the paper effective date of that announcement, if we should change anything, will be February 23, so as not to disrupt anyone traveling to that event.
On the topic of pros breaking the format, Hoogland has earmarked Goryo's Vengeance as the deck he thinks pros will break for the PT. As someone who plays Griseldaddy, I do sort of hope for some innovation. I bought some Time of Needs because it seems so almost good in that deck.
That seems...an odd choice. Not a deck that's been getting a lot of play, so that'd be a bit out of nowhere. Not impossible, just not where I'd put my money if I were placing a bet. Hoogland's prone to the occasional hyperbole/wild exaggeration.
Oh I know, I think Hoogland is a grade A tool. But I do think there is refinement available yet for the deck and it is certainly doing enough powerful things to be a contender. If anything I hope the PT showcases more than UWR vs GDS vs Storm vs Tron vs Company vs Affinty or whatever that we already know about. I want the innovation to come.
Unfortunately I think Hoogland has been dropping the opinion ball lately. I have been following him for years, and the last year his opinions on modern have been nothing but an exaggerated rant. He used to have opinions backed up with reason and arguments, now he just says things for the sake of it.
On what the PT shows, to be fair, if these 6 decks that you mentioned are the pillar of the PT that would actually be great. Control vs Midrange vs combo vs big mana vs toolbox vs aggro is a very reasonable meta-game to have. If these are the top 6 decks, the format is in a pretty good spot and it would make for a great PT. The problem is if among these 6 decks you mentioned, there are 3 that are WAY better than the other 3 (and it is possible that that's the case).
That final was one of the best games I've seen in a long time.
I think this was probably the most masterful game I've seen since that one game where it was Living End v...what, jund or something, and the guy was beating him down with Kalitas?
Ben really proved what some of Sheridan was saying, know your decks in and out and you'll bring your win percentage up. Game 2, Ben just looked like he was losing by turn 3. He looked like he was losing in the middle of the game. Kevin Jones had a large amount of cards in hand and somehow Ben came back. I would have never in a million years made a ton of the decisions he did. The awesome thing was that there was no huge play he made, nor was it just one or two, and his opponent didn't somehow punt hardcore---he thoroughly outplayed Kevin Jones, who is no slouch.
The game was honestly a masterpiece of play. This is why I don't love when aggro or linear decks are too prominent, those games rarely ever look like this or are this interesting. If every game was this intense it would be too exhausting.
Great day 2, good top 8, I remain slightly skeptical of how poorly positioned big mana is until the PT.
I think you are referring to the game that was Living End vs Grixis Control with C. Burkhart (I think at least it was Corey, maybe it was another Grixis pilot), which won indeed by great Kalitas plays.
Ben played insanely well in both games. It was more clear in G2 because he was in the backfoot throughout the game, but G1 was also a masterclass of understanding your lines of play based on your opening hand and the first couple of draws. I will be examining these games for a long time.
Overall this SCG event was much more enjoyable than the last GP, in terms of coverage and match selection. It also shows a rather healthy metagame, but several people here just don't care about SCG events
I do have to say, however, that good Tron players could have a feast if Jeskai picks up after this event.
Are we talking about the state of modern on the competitive level or the average player level? Are the “best modern players” playing weekly modern in lgs? If so I’m really courious to see how those matches go. Are they playing the first three rounds at bigger tournaments where there is more “jank”. Annalitics only gets you so many answers just just the Cleveland Browns. Go to a lgs where modern events hit 20 plus people a night or play leagues online and you can clearly see a very wide variety of matchups that aren’t just the better player wins. Look at the guy who top 8’d with living end and scooped because he didn’t even know how known cards in the format work. That guy doesn’t make that mistake it’s very possible he wins the whole thing while not knowing the intricacies of the deck he’s playing but just having the right deck randomly.
Now this is largely a mean comment towards a player who succeeded in a very rough tournament. There is no way we know his actual skill level, but getting to a top 8 GP tells me that he is at least a good player. Not a pro by any stretch, but you can't top 8 a GP of 1500 players just with luck.
Plus, it's not like he didn't know the intricacies of his deck. The interaction is indeed hard to understand and it really depends on how many games you had against Scapeshift. Living End is not a deck you can randomly do well with. It is a rather hard deck to pilot properly, know when to go off and how to interact with the board.
The same bashing happened to the Skred Red guy, because he made a mistake with a trap at the finals of that GP. Sure, he wasn't the best of players. Yes, he made a mistake. But again, you don't get there by just being lucky. After 15 round of tournaments and a top 8, being there for the first time, under the spotlight, with the excitement of the top 8, anyone can do a mistake. Bashing players for mistakes and calling them bad/lucky is just mean.
Furthermore, people making some mistakes doesn't really prove much. We have seen great pros making mistakes on camera after long tournaments. Even silly mistakes. It is what it is, they are human after all. A mistake in 1 match doesn't prove anything for the format.
Don’t see how that was a mean statement at all but ok. So not understanding how your deck works vs other top decks means nothing huh.
You don't know that. You have but one mistake to make a case for a player who managed to top 8. There was one interaction he didn't understand. You can't judge an entire performance, and based on that, an entire format, just by pointing out one mistake by a guy who top 8ed.
Are we talking about the state of modern on the competitive level or the average player level? Are the “best modern players” playing weekly modern in lgs? If so I’m really courious to see how those matches go. Are they playing the first three rounds at bigger tournaments where there is more “jank”. Annalitics only gets you so many answers just just the Cleveland Browns. Go to a lgs where modern events hit 20 plus people a night or play leagues online and you can clearly see a very wide variety of matchups that aren’t just the better player wins. Look at the guy who top 8’d with living end and scooped because he didn’t even know how known cards in the format work. That guy doesn’t make that mistake it’s very possible he wins the whole thing while not knowing the intricacies of the deck he’s playing but just having the right deck randomly.
Now this is largely a mean comment towards a player who succeeded in a very rough tournament. There is no way we know his actual skill level, but getting to a top 8 GP tells me that he is at least a good player. Not a pro by any stretch, but you can't top 8 a GP of 1500 players just with luck.
Plus, it's not like he didn't know the intricacies of his deck. The interaction is indeed hard to understand and it really depends on how many games you had against Scapeshift. Living End is not a deck you can randomly do well with. It is a rather hard deck to pilot properly, know when to go off and how to interact with the board.
The same bashing happened to the Skred Red guy, because he made a mistake with a trap at the finals of that GP. Sure, he wasn't the best of players. Yes, he made a mistake. But again, you don't get there by just being lucky. After 15 round of tournaments and a top 8, being there for the first time, under the spotlight, with the excitement of the top 8, anyone can do a mistake. Bashing players for mistakes and calling them bad/lucky is just mean.
Furthermore, people making some mistakes doesn't really prove much. We have seen great pros making mistakes on camera after long tournaments. Even silly mistakes. It is what it is, they are human after all. A mistake in 1 match doesn't prove anything for the format.
In big events, there it can be an educated guesswork, but it is not random. It doesn't look as a great skill because of coverage. These people end up there because they have a combined skill of understanding how they should construct their deck for that given event AND have the skill required to pilot that deck.
Meh, looks like I wasted a "let's be reasonable" here.
Just repeating the word skill doesn't form an argument. Repetition is not truth. There is no coherent causality in your post, no data. Just skill because skill.
I even gave an example, which you dismissed. I shall give another, I'm not sure it's worth my time...
In GP OKC, tron and big mana came out on top. In a subsequent event, people prepared their sideboard for it and it did not make top 8.
1. Some people saw tron doing good and played it.
2. Some people saw tron doing good, and prepared a SB against it.
3. Ad Nauseam won.
So the ad-nauseam player was skilled because he next-level others? If people had not gunned as much for tron, tron might have won instead. Paper, scissor, rock, you know? There is no magic method to know how fast and how widely people will react to previous events. You call it skill. I call it survivor bias.
If you can show me a small group of players who consistently *not* play the same deck but instead consistently play the correct metagame deck and win, then you'd have an argument.
Otherwise, it's called having an opinion.
The data have already been presented by Sheridan multiple times.
First of all, I never said that people need to change decks. I said specifically, the way people construct their decks. I may have a pet deck that I play for years. If I present the same 75 tournament in tournament out, without considering the shifts in the metagame, I will likely come short in several tournaments because I trimmed my GY hate, my big mana hate or my artifact hate at a time I shouldn't had.
Again, you example is not what I am saying. I personally am all for consistency on decks a person plays. I consistently play control decks for 5 years now. HOWEVER, choosing how you construct your deck on the basis of understanding meta-game shifts is crucial for performance. That's why people test before events and they don't come with a 75 they always played. That's why sideboard DOES matter in modern, and that's ok.
We have seen such cases, where people were trimming, for example, on GY hate, and all of a sudden we had a double Living End on the top 8. People thought dredge was dying, cut on GY hate, and Living End found a spot.
You call it survivor bias, on the basis of coverage, or at least that's what you said. However, we saw, for example, a TON of storm in GP OKC coverage, but that did not translate in the top 8.
Again, what I am saying is that it's not about choosing a deck. Is about understanding a given metagame and constructing your deck in a sufficient way. I think that modern rewards consistent play and mastery of a deck. But this mastery includes an understanding of how you can transform a deck to perform in various environment. Deckbuilding is a skill in magic.
On a local level, with a limitd player pool piloting their pet decks, the skill is merely the ability to observe what a few people play.
In a big event, it's more of an educated guesswork. It only looks as great skill because of survivor bias. Those who are shown on stream are at the top table.
(I'll take as example world championships, where the player pool is small and yet every time some top pros make wrong metagame calls.)
I think you are making a couple of mistakes here.
On a local level, where the play pool is limited but the skill differentiation between players often very large, a correct sideboard is often more crucial than the deck choice. Constructing a sideboard and by a extent, a proper mainboard, for an expected field, does require deckbuilding skills. However, correct deck building skills can't carry you all the way. Most local environment have a handful of players winning more than other, and that is because skill is also a crucial factor.
In big events, there it can be an educated guesswork, but it is not random. It doesn't look as a great skill because of coverage. These people end up there because they have a combined skill of understanding how they should construct their deck for that given event AND have the skill required to pilot that deck.
World championships is a bad example because we are talking about a very small pool of players who purposefully try to one up the other with deck diversity but also by hiding information or tricking people into thinking they will play something else. The player field is known before hand and there are other things at play, which are not present in any other event. As such, I don't think the world championship is ever a good indicator of any metagame.
Interestingly, the deck that got 2nd (Jeskai Queller) doesn't run any Geists, has Archangel Avacyn, V. Cliques and a Search! There is a lot of diversity between Jeskai decks, and although there is 1 stock list (3 Geists, 4 Snaps, 4 Quellers), people take a lot of liberty to tune their lists any way the see fit. That, imho, shows that the deck is versatile and powerful.
I would like to see BBE at the very least, and I wouldn't be upset about SFM. I really have no idea what an SFM unban would look like, it'd have so many implications, it would be jammed into UW, Jeskai flavors, Taxes (maybe, the community seems split), and I'm most certain Mardu would be huge, since all it's missing is a cheap bomb, best removal in the format by a long shot).
Don't forget Abzan in this list. Abzan would definitely put SFM and would probably become the best BGx variant.
I'm not sure why you guys think midrange cards being unbanned is going to alleviate things
Yeah, let's unban BBE and SFM...to still lose to Tron and Titanshift?
HolyDiva's experience doesn't make me feel warm or soft about modern.
It is just one short period though, modern players may overreact and show up with too much land hate or decks that punish ramp.
All those jeskai/UW Control players explains why GDS did so poorly, go draw is a nightmare for them.
It looks like Tron/Titanshift was a good call since they saw how popular Jeskai and Go-Draw Jeskai was becoming. Those decks suppress their bad matchups in the process.
I think that SFM specifically would help for several reasons. Firstly, it would help white as a color in the format (irrelevant though to tron). She would also give a decent boost to D&T decks which can keep Tron decks honest, but they lose to too much of everything else. With a relatively stronger D&T, Tron and E. Tron would be worse choices.
BBE would help a struggling Jund which is lagging behind an evolving meta game. It might also give a small boost to decks like eternal command or other flavors of URG.
Top 8 looks horrendous. 5x Big mana decks, 2 graveyard combo decks and 1 combo deck.
HOWEVER, if one looks at the top 32, the image looks much healthier and the top 8 can be explained. There are a lot of control decks (3 Jeskai Queller, 2 Jeskai Control, 1 Grixis control, 1 UW control), some aggro/creature based combo (1 Affinity, 1 Burn, 1 Elves, 1 Humans, 1 Infect), some pure combo, some graveyard based combo and the only very lackluster archetype is midrange with only 2x GDS.
In such a top 32 it makes sense that Tron and other big mana decks would do well. Control decks have started gearing towards beating E. Tron and creature based decks like humans (meaning they include more mass removal), thus making their plan (even more) susceptible to big Tron and Scapeshift. With 15 decks of top 32 being some version of control or some version of Tron, you bet Tron would have the upper hand.
In all, I believe, GP showed the following things:
1) E. Tron can be targeted and kept in check. Only 2 in top 32 with 0 converting.
2) Storm had a staggering performance on camera and seemed like it was dominating the field, but in the end there were only 2 in top 32.
3) Control seemed to be struggling contrary to recent results but in the end had several appearances in Top 32
4) Tron is just too good in this metagame. However, years of modern have shown that Tron can be defeated.
5) Titanshift is better than recent results were suggesting, but not heavily dominating, it had only 2 copies in top 32, both of which reached the finals, mainly because of an extremely favorable meta game.
In relation to format health, the PT and future bans/unbans:
1) This GP was an alarming bell, but its top 32 showed that we still have room to wiggle.
2) PT is close, if we have the same trend (control decks "almost" getting there, Tron dominating, midrange really low) then big mana will be a candidate to take a hit
3) BBE and SFM both seem almost laughable at this point. We saw SO many T3 powerful things this weekend that a Batterskull T3 sounds underwhelming, if that can actually be a thing.
Because people like playing with those cards and like playing those decks that aren't dominating the format at all. Affinity is not a problem, Ad Nauseam is not a problem, Grishoalbrand is not a problem, RW Prison is not a problem, Living End is not a problem Lantern Prison is not a problem although it's a unwanted deck amongst Modern players is not a problem.
If you kill those cards, you kill certain strategies, you kill certain decks, heavily nerf others for no apparent reason, destroy player base confidence since those decks are not breaking any rule now.
What you don't understand, is that they will be problems. Look at Golgari Grave-Troll.
Yeah but that is a speculation. GGT is the exception among the unbanned cards, and that only happened when they printed not 1 but 3 new cards for dredge.
People made similar claims for: Bitterblossom, Ancestral Visions, Sword of the Meek, Wild Nacatl. If one would dig up arguments from a long time ago, they would see that thought that BB would be waaaay too strong. People (and wizards) also claimed that Sword of the Meek would break Lantern Control, but it didn't. Faeries got 2 of their old core cards (AV and BB) but they are nowhere to be seen. Zoo decks have fallen almost completely out of favor.
I think the situation is a bit more complex than good answers vs good threats. Standard for years lacked a good answer and now that it got it, it became too stagnant. There needs to be a balance, and for that balance to exist you need testing and a robust RnD, something that has been lacking recently in Wizards
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
They have banned 9 cards in standard in 1 year time exactly: Jan 2017-Jan 2018
Emrakul, the Promised End, Smuggler's Copter, Reflector Mage, Felidar Guardian, Aetherworks Marvel, Attune with Aether, Rogue Refiner, Rampaging Ferocidon, Ramunap Ruins
Before that, there were no standard bans since June 2011 (SFM and JTMS).
8 cards have been banned in Modern within the span of 4 years, 2014-Jan 2018:
DRS, DTT, TC, Pod, Twin, Eye, Probe, GGT
Overall, while we have been saying that modern is unsafe and so on, it really seems that there is a stability. 2 bans a year on avg and most of them very justifiable, if not mandatory (DRS, DTT, TC, Pod, Eye, GGT) and functional (Probe). The only questionable still is Twin, and for that, we've exhausted discussion.
Now, if only we can get the level of transparency they showed in the announcement for the next Modern announcement...
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
Also
Finally, we will have another banned and restricted announcement next month on February 12. The timing of this announcement makes it ideal to consider changes based on the results of Pro Tour Rivals of Ixalan, and thus will more than likely focus on Modern. However, it also is right before Grand Prix Lyon, which is Modern. As such, the paper effective date of that announcement, if we should change anything, will be February 23, so as not to disrupt anyone traveling to that event.
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
On what the PT shows, to be fair, if these 6 decks that you mentioned are the pillar of the PT that would actually be great. Control vs Midrange vs combo vs big mana vs toolbox vs aggro is a very reasonable meta-game to have. If these are the top 6 decks, the format is in a pretty good spot and it would make for a great PT. The problem is if among these 6 decks you mentioned, there are 3 that are WAY better than the other 3 (and it is possible that that's the case).
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
Ben played insanely well in both games. It was more clear in G2 because he was in the backfoot throughout the game, but G1 was also a masterclass of understanding your lines of play based on your opening hand and the first couple of draws. I will be examining these games for a long time.
Overall this SCG event was much more enjoyable than the last GP, in terms of coverage and match selection. It also shows a rather healthy metagame, but several people here just don't care about SCG events
I do have to say, however, that good Tron players could have a feast if Jeskai picks up after this event.
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
Plus, it's not like he didn't know the intricacies of his deck. The interaction is indeed hard to understand and it really depends on how many games you had against Scapeshift. Living End is not a deck you can randomly do well with. It is a rather hard deck to pilot properly, know when to go off and how to interact with the board.
The same bashing happened to the Skred Red guy, because he made a mistake with a trap at the finals of that GP. Sure, he wasn't the best of players. Yes, he made a mistake. But again, you don't get there by just being lucky. After 15 round of tournaments and a top 8, being there for the first time, under the spotlight, with the excitement of the top 8, anyone can do a mistake. Bashing players for mistakes and calling them bad/lucky is just mean.
Furthermore, people making some mistakes doesn't really prove much. We have seen great pros making mistakes on camera after long tournaments. Even silly mistakes. It is what it is, they are human after all. A mistake in 1 match doesn't prove anything for the format.
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
First of all, I never said that people need to change decks. I said specifically, the way people construct their decks. I may have a pet deck that I play for years. If I present the same 75 tournament in tournament out, without considering the shifts in the metagame, I will likely come short in several tournaments because I trimmed my GY hate, my big mana hate or my artifact hate at a time I shouldn't had.
I specifically explained why worlds, as an example, don't work. But don't take it from me, take it from PVDDR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvxgKGFw3rk
Again, you example is not what I am saying. I personally am all for consistency on decks a person plays. I consistently play control decks for 5 years now. HOWEVER, choosing how you construct your deck on the basis of understanding meta-game shifts is crucial for performance. That's why people test before events and they don't come with a 75 they always played. That's why sideboard DOES matter in modern, and that's ok.
We have seen such cases, where people were trimming, for example, on GY hate, and all of a sudden we had a double Living End on the top 8. People thought dredge was dying, cut on GY hate, and Living End found a spot.
You call it survivor bias, on the basis of coverage, or at least that's what you said. However, we saw, for example, a TON of storm in GP OKC coverage, but that did not translate in the top 8.
Again, what I am saying is that it's not about choosing a deck. Is about understanding a given metagame and constructing your deck in a sufficient way. I think that modern rewards consistent play and mastery of a deck. But this mastery includes an understanding of how you can transform a deck to perform in various environment. Deckbuilding is a skill in magic.
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
On a local level, where the play pool is limited but the skill differentiation between players often very large, a correct sideboard is often more crucial than the deck choice. Constructing a sideboard and by a extent, a proper mainboard, for an expected field, does require deckbuilding skills. However, correct deck building skills can't carry you all the way. Most local environment have a handful of players winning more than other, and that is because skill is also a crucial factor.
In big events, there it can be an educated guesswork, but it is not random. It doesn't look as a great skill because of coverage. These people end up there because they have a combined skill of understanding how they should construct their deck for that given event AND have the skill required to pilot that deck.
World championships is a bad example because we are talking about a very small pool of players who purposefully try to one up the other with deck diversity but also by hiding information or tricking people into thinking they will play something else. The player field is known before hand and there are other things at play, which are not present in any other event. As such, I don't think the world championship is ever a good indicator of any metagame.
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
BBE would help a struggling Jund which is lagging behind an evolving meta game. It might also give a small boost to decks like eternal command or other flavors of URG.
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
Top 8 looks horrendous. 5x Big mana decks, 2 graveyard combo decks and 1 combo deck.
HOWEVER, if one looks at the top 32, the image looks much healthier and the top 8 can be explained. There are a lot of control decks (3 Jeskai Queller, 2 Jeskai Control, 1 Grixis control, 1 UW control), some aggro/creature based combo (1 Affinity, 1 Burn, 1 Elves, 1 Humans, 1 Infect), some pure combo, some graveyard based combo and the only very lackluster archetype is midrange with only 2x GDS.
In such a top 32 it makes sense that Tron and other big mana decks would do well. Control decks have started gearing towards beating E. Tron and creature based decks like humans (meaning they include more mass removal), thus making their plan (even more) susceptible to big Tron and Scapeshift. With 15 decks of top 32 being some version of control or some version of Tron, you bet Tron would have the upper hand.
In all, I believe, GP showed the following things:
1) E. Tron can be targeted and kept in check. Only 2 in top 32 with 0 converting.
2) Storm had a staggering performance on camera and seemed like it was dominating the field, but in the end there were only 2 in top 32.
3) Control seemed to be struggling contrary to recent results but in the end had several appearances in Top 32
4) Tron is just too good in this metagame. However, years of modern have shown that Tron can be defeated.
5) Titanshift is better than recent results were suggesting, but not heavily dominating, it had only 2 copies in top 32, both of which reached the finals, mainly because of an extremely favorable meta game.
In relation to format health, the PT and future bans/unbans:
1) This GP was an alarming bell, but its top 32 showed that we still have room to wiggle.
2) PT is close, if we have the same trend (control decks "almost" getting there, Tron dominating, midrange really low) then big mana will be a candidate to take a hit
3) BBE and SFM both seem almost laughable at this point. We saw SO many T3 powerful things this weekend that a Batterskull T3 sounds underwhelming, if that can actually be a thing.
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
People made similar claims for: Bitterblossom, Ancestral Visions, Sword of the Meek, Wild Nacatl. If one would dig up arguments from a long time ago, they would see that thought that BB would be waaaay too strong. People (and wizards) also claimed that Sword of the Meek would break Lantern Control, but it didn't. Faeries got 2 of their old core cards (AV and BB) but they are nowhere to be seen. Zoo decks have fallen almost completely out of favor.
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past