Really? 4 Surgical Extraction mainboard was becoming common in every deck, not just to stop Hogaak, but because it's a good answer to opposing Surgicals since everyone was running them anyways.
6 was the standard during week 2 of Hogaak, it was creeping up in week 3. And that's in addition to other cards being sideboarded just for it.
The consensus was that the UW list was running the correct amount of hate, not that it wasn't enough
Burn and Hardened Scales played the right amount of hate, 0 main and the have their sideboard ready, no problem there (although I don't see the tutor you mention in the scales list, Recombiner searches for Constructs only)
The GDS list is interesting as I think it's the only I've seen with 4 maindeck cards to deal with graveyard strategies and even has room for 4 Jailers in the side, I think it's the list with most hate I've seen but it's still less than what you stated:
mainboarding 4 pieces of GY hate and having another 6 to 8 in the SB
These sideboards reflect how the deck warped the meta around it and are more than enough to justify the ban, no need to exaggerate, a deck with 10-12 graveyard hate cards is likely not going to succeed as it's diluting it's own gameplan too much, there is a point where going up is actually not worth it and it looks like 6-8 slots total was that point.
And yes, it's possible it may have been less of an issue given a few more weeks... like I said before, this was a ban after 3 weeks which is unheard of, and something I'm not a fan of in general (should give the meta 3 to 6 months to adapt in most cases), but I think this was a perfect storm of a very good deck, little time to innovate (especially publicly), plus an upcoming high profile tournament where they wanted to show diversity, not dominance.
Again, I agree with the ban, I never said they should have given it more time, just that they didn't need to cherrypick data to justify it.
My concern is: if they cherrypick data in an obvious ban like this, how can we trust they won't do the same in future situations where it isn't obvious that a ban is needed?
Initial? Was it decreasing after people started adjusting to it? Remember MH1 was released less than 1 month ago so taking the initial results before people adapted to it seems intentional to put more emphasis on how dominant it is. If it was still 60% I am pretty sure they would have told us but they didn't
I think it was falling slightly, but I don't think those numbers are particularly meaningful. For starters, the deck hadn't really evolved to deal with any hate yet. Second, it was effectively tier 0 so everyone was gunning for it, and despite that it was still over 50% (even if not over 60% anymore). Third, in order to get it's win rate down slightly, and not even below 50% people were mainboarding 4 pieces of GY hate and having another 6 to 8 in the SB.
That is unhealthy for the meta no matter how you cut it, because it then means every deck is either SB'ing specifically for Hogaak and losing to everything else, or SB'ing for everything else and losing to Hogaak.
It was definitely a very quick ban, I think that's the fastest they've ever taken action on a ban outside of emergency bans. Mental Misstep lasted 3 or 6 months (I don't remember) and Treasure Cruise lasted 3 months. Hogaak lasted 3 weeks. Definitely controversial as to what should be banned, but I think everyone agrees the deck was too good in it's current incarnation.
I agree with the ban, something had to go, I just don't like WotC cherrypicking data to make the ban look more convincing, that's it, they could present all the data they had and nobody would have claimed that the deck was fine. What bothers me is how WotC deliberately decided to show just some of it.
By the way, how do you know its winrate was above 50% vs hate? I couldn't find it in the announcement.
Fighting through 4 maindeck GY hate and another 6 to 8 hate pieces in the sideboard? C'mon, don't inflate the numbers, nobody played so much hate
I do not understand the Ban decision. Hogaak, Arisen Necropolis is only $4 right now. Altar of Dementia is only $3 right now. They don't need these cards to sell the set, unlike the Eldrazi.
Huh?
60% Match Win Rate.
66% Game 1 Win Rate.
Warped the Meta.
Won through Main and Sideboard Hate.
Won more 5-0 Leagues by 3 x than the next best deck.
The ban choice was more obvious than we have seen in years. Bridge was the core issue.
Re-reading the announcement I noticed that WotC could be cherrypicking the data showed to us:
In the case of the Hogaak Bridgevine deck, its initial overall win rate on Magic Online was over 60%.
Initial? Was it decreasing after people started adjusting to it? Remember MH1 was released less than 1 month ago so taking the initial results before people adapted to it seems intentional to put more emphasis on how dominant it is. If it was still 60% I am pretty sure they would have told us but they didn't
In recent weeks, Hogaak Bridgevine has been the most played Modern deck on Magic Online and has earned over three times as many 5-0 League trophies as the deck with the next most.
So, the most played deck gets the most trophies, 3 times more than the second most played deck. This really doesn't say anything unless you compare how much presence each deck had. If there were 3 Hogaak decks for every second best deck, it means both have the same conversion rate. Why not tell us how its winrate was compared to other decks?
I don't disagree with the ban and I could totally get behind the battle of sideboard argument but the reasoning used makes me think that winrates were not so insane as of lately and WotC wanted to present some numbers that showcase how busted it was (even if they are not the usual ones like winrate was mentioned for KCI)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The consensus was that the UW list was running the correct amount of hate, not that it wasn't enough
Burn and Hardened Scales played the right amount of hate, 0 main and the have their sideboard ready, no problem there (although I don't see the tutor you mention in the scales list, Recombiner searches for Constructs only)
The GDS list is interesting as I think it's the only I've seen with 4 maindeck cards to deal with graveyard strategies and even has room for 4 Jailers in the side, I think it's the list with most hate I've seen but it's still less than what you stated:
These sideboards reflect how the deck warped the meta around it and are more than enough to justify the ban, no need to exaggerate, a deck with 10-12 graveyard hate cards is likely not going to succeed as it's diluting it's own gameplan too much, there is a point where going up is actually not worth it and it looks like 6-8 slots total was that point.
Again, I agree with the ban, I never said they should have given it more time, just that they didn't need to cherrypick data to justify it.
My concern is: if they cherrypick data in an obvious ban like this, how can we trust they won't do the same in future situations where it isn't obvious that a ban is needed?
I agree with the ban, something had to go, I just don't like WotC cherrypicking data to make the ban look more convincing, that's it, they could present all the data they had and nobody would have claimed that the deck was fine. What bothers me is how WotC deliberately decided to show just some of it.
By the way, how do you know its winrate was above 50% vs hate? I couldn't find it in the announcement.
Fighting through 4 maindeck GY hate and another 6 to 8 hate pieces in the sideboard? C'mon, don't inflate the numbers, nobody played so much hate
Re-reading the announcement I noticed that WotC could be cherrypicking the data showed to us:
Initial? Was it decreasing after people started adjusting to it? Remember MH1 was released less than 1 month ago so taking the initial results before people adapted to it seems intentional to put more emphasis on how dominant it is. If it was still 60% I am pretty sure they would have told us but they didn't
So, the most played deck gets the most trophies, 3 times more than the second most played deck. This really doesn't say anything unless you compare how much presence each deck had. If there were 3 Hogaak decks for every second best deck, it means both have the same conversion rate. Why not tell us how its winrate was compared to other decks?
I don't disagree with the ban and I could totally get behind the battle of sideboard argument but the reasoning used makes me think that winrates were not so insane as of lately and WotC wanted to present some numbers that showcase how busted it was (even if they are not the usual ones like winrate was mentioned for KCI)