Reporting that people are pre-turn-3 killing opponents 50% of the time on MTGO is not ban mania. I counter your "knee-jerk ban-mania" claim with "anti-ban knee-jerk" claim! And double down for using the tired glass canon meme. Yes, combo-decks that are disrupted mid-combo fail to win, we know that.
The key points with this new deck are that:
It draws the entire library.
It kills on the turn it goes off.
Due 1 and 2, it can run pact of negation for protection.
Due to 1, it can ensure it has pact in hand.
There is a reason Enter the Infinite is 12 mana. It basically is ad-nauseam, but with a faster clock, an earlier fundamental turn. Sure, people can start packing dispel or some 1-mana creature bounce as a reaction, but that would not be healthy. (And still fails if they happen to have pact of negation in hand.)
None of this is relevant to the bannability of the deck. All four of those qualities apply to Ad Nauseam, an eminently acceptable combo deck. The only question is whether or not the deck can consistently win before T4. Based on the previous Bloom ban example, I would estimate a deck would need to win before T4 in 20%+ of games in a large N, large T context in order to be bannable. Cherrypicked streamer results don't get there. My Cheeri0s win rate was about 75% with more than 25% of my wins happening before T4. Obviously, nothing from Cheeri0s got banned. My personal examples don't necessarily reflect the wider metagame realities. Let's increase the number of auditable events and the time span before we entertain ban discussion like Cohen's.
Turn four rule is applayed if some cards enable a top tier deck to consistently win on turn 3 or earlier. Until any deck isn't in a top tier status, nothing will happen. Now, back on Allosaurus deck. I watched it fold to discards. It's far from unbeatable even if it is definetly annoying.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks played: Modern:
0 Affinity;
URG Delver
URGW Countercats
(Here you can find some video contents about Countercats and Temur Delver decks)
None of this is relevant to the bannability of the deck. All four of those qualities apply to Ad Nauseam, an eminently acceptable combo deck.
Well, we'll have to disagree on this. This very thread is about discussing the health of the meta. It's not merely about analysing results post-hoc once we have higher than 95% confidence.
The reasons why I disagree are exactly what I stated and what makes it different from ad-nauseam: the combo is more resilient, and it's faster. Sure, for Wizards to take action requires *them* to have hard numbers. To discuss and point out results we get when playing the deck, we don't need that. Plus, we can't have a large N if people are restrained from reporting the results they get.
Well, we'll have to disagree on this. This very thread is about discussing the health of the meta. It's not merely about analysing results post-hoc once we have higher than 95% confidence.
The reasons why I disagree are exactly what I stated and what makes it different from ad-nauseam: the combo is more resilient, and it's faster. Sure, for Wizards to take action requires *them* to have hard numbers. To discuss and point out results we get when playing the deck, we don't need that. Plus, we can't have a large N if people are restrained from reporting the results they get.
The Combo is only more resilient, cause it can kill on turn 0/1, hence can be faster than (most) interaction can be applied. Otherwise, Ad Nauseaum is way more consistent, due to how the deck works.
From what I have seen so far, I am worried about it. That the new Mulligan Rule (which is live on MTGO) helps the deck a lot too, makes it not better.
Greetings,
Kathal
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What I play or have:
Modern/Legacy
either funpolice (Delver, Deathcloud, UW Control) or the fun decks (especially those ft. Griselbrand)
Kanister's results are interesting, but we (I at least) don't have an N of total games to see frequency. Someone who is knowledgable and able could run some goldfish tests to see how often it would go off T0-2 without disruption and we would know. Because in the end, this is what this deck does, if it doesn't go T0-2 then it loses to itself.
It definitely is the hype of the moment, so we will be seeing this all over the place in MODO and it makes sense. There is no assertion to be made from this as for now it's just the hot potato and everyone wants to have a bite. Resilience and consistency in performance will tell us if this deck it to be considered as trash, mid-tier, top tier, or tier 0/bannable material.
IMHO, the deck is just another glass cannon and has the hype the Cheerios had. People in this thread talked about banning pieces from Cheerios even before the deck had a showing in a GP, or said that it would dominate the field. In the end Cheerios is still a fringe deck with nothing to show for itself. I believe this will be the case with the new combo-kid on the block.
Why even such a ridiculously high number like 80%? If even 20% of games end before a player gets to take a game action, that should be it, pound it with the hammer.
Guys please opinions on japanese cards. Lost a 3/3 creature against Japan celestial colonade. This guy played all creatures and spells in english cards, but some cards in his manabase was japanese. I dont registrated this really ( my brain say its all fine and all english to me lets attack his empty board)...and i am sure it is a Kind of legal cheating. It is not ok, but i know legal. I Hate such people. I never forget colonade normally, but with this Tricks it can happen one time in 3 years and such people take advantage of this
If I am a customer spending premium amount of dollars, I expect a premium service. Jund falls into the category of a premium deck costing more dollars than a majority of the rest of the format. I'm not getting the desired performance ratio per dollars spent out of the Jund deck because WOTC decided to make the format more diverse.
Reporting that people are pre-turn-3 killing opponents 50% of the time on MTGO is not ban mania. I counter your "knee-jerk ban-mania" claim with "anti-ban knee-jerk" claim! And double down for using the tired glass canon meme. Yes, combo-decks that are disrupted mid-combo fail to win, we know that.
The key points with this new deck are that:
It draws the entire library.
It kills on the turn it goes off.
Due 1 and 2, it can run pact of negation for protection.
Due to 1, it can ensure it has pact in hand.
There is a reason Enter the Infinite is 12 mana. It basically is ad-nauseam, but with a faster clock, an earlier fundamental turn. Sure, people can start packing dispel or some 1-mana creature bounce as a reaction, but that would not be healthy. (And still fails if they happen to have pact of negation in hand.)
None of this is relevant to the bannability of the deck. All four of those qualities apply to Ad Nauseam, an eminently acceptable combo deck. The only question is whether or not the deck can consistently win before T4. Based on the previous Bloom ban example, I would estimate a deck would need to win before T4 in 20%+ of games in a large N, large T context in order to be bannable. Cherrypicked streamer results don't get there. My Cheeri0s win rate was about 75% with more than 25% of my wins happening before T4. Obviously, nothing from Cheeri0s got banned. My personal examples don't necessarily reflect the wider metagame realities. Let's increase the number of auditable events and the time span before we entertain ban discussion like Cohen's.
The turn 4 rule doesn't feel like a fair assessment. In a format that doesn't have force of will no deck should be able to win on turn 1 before their opponent has a chance to do anything, even if it's only in a few % of games and even if the pre turn 4 win % is low. The feel bad of sitting down for a game of magic where you literally don't play is insane. That is the kind of thing that would make me avoid playing the format. The only other decks capable of nut drawing turn 1 kills use the graveyard at which point surgical and leyline both become legitimate ways to prevent it.
Sure you can say there are theoretical turn 1 kills with turn 1 blood moon or chalice of the void which some decks can't beat but you at least stand a chance and if you're playing a modern deck with 0 outs to a blood moon or chalice in your 75 you've clearly gone wrong somewhere. But if you're literally getting killed on turn 1 no amount of sideboard hate saves you...
Ad nauseam is a fine deck because it can nut draw for a turn 3 win but can't be faster than that but that gives your opponent at least 2 turns to play discard, some form of hate or hold counters.
20% is not nearly consistent enough is it? I mean I guess when you say '1 in 5' that sounds a lot worse than 20% but not nearly as hilarious as '4 in 5' lol.
I dont know, I see Twitter picking up on it already and starting to beat the drum, at this point its not particularly relevant to me. Let it take over the format for a few weeks if it can, without the London Mull I doubt its that strong.
As I have mentioned I've been Turn 1 killed before by Narset, Enlightened Master and this was probably years ago at this point. It happens.
I dont know, its just one more crazy thing in Modern to me. If its truly oppressive, it will be gone.
havent seen the deck in action myself (or even what lists look like), but its frustrating to hear about a deck that is punking people out of the game on turns 0-2. on one hand im low key hoping it is really consistent and just gets banned. on the other hand i think modern could use more pure(r) combo decks, since despite claims that the format is too linear the macro archetype isnt that well represented.
its just yet another instance of high powered nut draws outstripping available (as in broad/playable) responses.
The turn 4 rule doesn't feel like a fair assessment. In a format that doesn't have force of will no deck should be able to win on turn 1 before their opponent has a chance to do anything, even if it's only in a few % of games and even if the pre turn 4 win % is low. The feel bad of sitting down for a game of magic where you literally don't play is insane.
i have and still assert that one of the primary reasons modern gets hit with so much criticism is because of the prevalence of low probability high powered draws. in the scope of global data these instances look balanced because given enough games/match data it doesnt tip the scales on win rates too much; however with a localized view you have a good portion of highly played decks that just win without the opponent being able to do much of anything some small amount of the time. so from a personal perspective, players are already dealing with natural game variance when their deck doesnt function, then there is the added presence of these games across most matchups that elicit the negative emotive responses that tend to stick out in our minds. the majority of players also dont think in terms of statistical analysis with large datasets; rather its more likely small somewhat isolated events where you get screwed out of whatever meager prizing every so often.
i cant even say for sure if its happening more in modern than other formats across a similar number of decks; however the card pool itself isnt balanced with such draws in mind since there is no FoW (within a heavily blue dominated format) to even consider.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
20% is not nearly consistent enough is it? I mean I guess when you say '1 in 5' that sounds a lot worse than 20% but not nearly as hilarious as '4 in 5' lol.
I dont know, I see Twitter picking up on it already and starting to beat the drum, at this point its not particularly relevant to me. Let it take over the format for a few weeks if it can, without the London Mull I doubt its that strong.
As I have mentioned I've been Turn 1 killed before by Narset, Enlightened Master and this was probably years ago at this point. It happens.
I dont know, its just one more crazy thing in Modern to me. If its truly oppressive, it will be gone.
In order to pull off the narset kill on turn 1 you need your graveyard right? There are decks playing maindeck surgicals and a ton of decks running leylines or surgicals in the board. With that in mind the deck is never going to get a clean turn 1 kill where the opponent has no way to interact, especially with the London mulligan rule where they know a surgical or leyline is an auto win vs all in combo
Edit:
I was thinking a little more and you can't count mindbreak trap as an answer actually since Allosaurus Rider into Neoform is just 2 spells and at that point griselbrand is in play and they'll draw their deck and win with pact of negation backup
What was the 'acceptable' percentage for a pre-turn 4 win? I believe Infect's turn 3 kill rate with gitaxian probe could not be higher than 30%. And that's even after having 2 turns to develop resources and interact.
That being the case, 20% turn 1 kill rate with no chance at all to interact seems like it should just not be allowed. Heck even 10% is ridiculous. Although it does remain to be seen if the deck can actually put up such a percentage.
Guys please opinions on japanese cards. Lost a 3/3 creature against Japan celestial colonade. This guy played all creatures and spells in english cards, but some cards in his manabase was japanese. I dont registrated this really ( my brain say its all fine and all english to me lets attack his empty board)...and i am sure it is a Kind of legal cheating. It is not ok, but i know legal. I Hate such people. I never forget colonade normally, but with this Tricks it can happen one time in 3 years and such people take advantage of this
If I am a customer spending premium amount of dollars, I expect a premium service. Jund falls into the category of a premium deck costing more dollars than a majority of the rest of the format. I'm not getting the desired performance ratio per dollars spent out of the Jund deck because WOTC decided to make the format more diverse.
what precedents do we have to work with? the only that come to mind are infect and amulet bloom where turn 4 or something akin to it were cited as reasons for bans.
even then you have to consider context. such as infect with probe being able to check if its okay to go for it, and bloom having overwhelming mid to lategame backup plans. if im reading things correctly what the neoform combo has going for it is pact of negation for protection and it doesnt use the GY to go off. tbh without more information ive no clue how those compare (in relation to improving the decks overall efficacy or whatever).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
what precedents do we have to work with? the only that come to mind are infect and amulet bloom where turn 4 or something akin to it were cited as reasons for bans.
even then you have to consider context. such as infect with probe being able to check if its okay to go for it, and bloom having overwhelming mid to lategame backup plans. if im reading things correctly what the neoform combo has going for it is pact of negation for protection and it doesnt use the GY to go off. tbh without more information ive no clue how those compare (in relation to improving the decks overall efficacy or whatever).
I think the current BR grishoalbrand lists are the best analog. All in and can win t2. It has what I suppose is an acceptable fail rate so we just have to determine how much more consistent the UG builds can be.
I do agree that we should wait and see how the deck holds up in a larger tournament setting before calling for bans. I can't see the deck being able to consistently pull off t1s for 13 rounds straight in a GP style setting. Will it be annoying to get gibbed by it in the first few rounds? Yeah sure, but I think the chance to see this deck at the higher tables tanks drastically once you're into rounds 4+.
What I think is important is that no one seems to really be mentioning that there is little difference between a pre-t4 actual win and a pre-t4 virtual win (multiple Phoenix/ hollow one on t2). Yeah those decks aren't designed to pull it off as consistently, but they are MUCH more resilient.
I'd rather face a glass combo deck that can fail or I can interact with T1 via discard or t2 via counters than Phoenix where I'm trading 1-for-1 for rounds 2-3 where those were all essentially 1-for-0s because of the deck being able to cast/recoup so much from the yard. I've lost to Phoenix with leyline on the play into t2 dampening sphere (I know I'm bad, whatever).
Ive goldfished the deck and I think people are just highlighting hotstreaks right now. These percentages people are throwing around in earlier posts are outliers imho...or I suck at goldfishing.
I'm of the opinion that sheer power is not the only reason to ban a strategy. Magic is a game and it should be enjoyable, if there are strategies that a large portion of the playerbase finds unfun that is plenty reason to ban it. Now what the threshold is for enough people disliking a deck that it should become a consideration for a ban I don't know, but I feel that there are a lot of people who think that, although there is no single overpowered linear strategy in Modern, the sheer amount of different linear decks has become a big downside to the format.
So when this Neoform deck pops up I think it's completely understandable a bunch of people go "dear God, here we go AGAIN, please ban this asap". Overly reactionary yes, but understandable.
A comparison can be made to a discussion currently going on in the Smash Bros. Melee community, where a bunch of tournaments have started to ban "wobbling"; a technique with which Ice Climbers can kill every single character in one shot off of getting a single grab. It is a divisive discussion because Ice Climbers aren't that good of a character and good players know how to play around ever getting grabbed, and banning wobbling might make Ice Climbers a useless character in a game with an already quite small roster. However wobbling is considered so obnoxious, major tournaments are now banning it.
I'm of the opinion that sheer power is not the only reason to ban a strategy. Magic is a game and it should be enjoyable, if there are strategies that a large portion of the playerbase finds unfun that is plenty reason to ban it. Now what the threshold is for enough people disliking a deck that it should become a consideration for a ban I don't know, but I feel that there are a lot of people who think that, although there is no single overpowered linear strategy in Modern, the sheer amount of different linear decks has become a big downside to the format.
So when this Neoform deck pops up I think it's completely understandable a bunch of people go "dear God, here we go AGAIN, please ban this asap". Overly reactionary yes, but understandable.
A comparison can be made to a discussion currently going on in the Smash Bros. Melee community, where a bunch of tournaments have started to ban "wobbling"; a technique with which Ice Climbers can kill every single character in one shot off of getting a single grab. It is a divisive discussion because Ice Climbers aren't that good of a character and good players know how to play around ever getting grabbed, and banning wobbling might make Ice Climbers a useless character in a game with an already quite small roster. However wobbling is considered so obnoxious, major tournaments are now banning it.
It's always a balance. "Disruptive Gameplay" was that not the line for KCI? I'm not a big fan (to put it nicely) of that kind of logic. My favourite pet deck is EASILY Turns, so...yeah.
yeah overall im cool with the deck. just let it strut its stuff until its a real problem. outside of knee-jerk ban wave at the formats inception back in 2011 (and dig through time as a side case), decks/cards need a modicum of tournament success to verify a problem exists.
the deck looks pretty neat. i think too many people tend to lump too much into the 'linear' label, to where its reductive enough that distinctions between stuff like aggro and combo are lost; with the differences in gameplay that they entail. so as much as i worry about how many decks have disproportionately powerful nut draws vs. average and poor ones, the neoform combo isnt just another vomit aggro deck and doesnt even aim to win through the combat step. that should count in its favor, particularly since pure combo decks are few and far between.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
what precedents do we have to work with? the only that come to mind are infect and amulet bloom where turn 4 or something akin to it were cited as reasons for bans.
even then you have to consider context. such as infect with probe being able to check if its okay to go for it, and bloom having overwhelming mid to lategame backup plans. if im reading things correctly what the neoform combo has going for it is pact of negation for protection and it doesnt use the GY to go off. tbh without more information ive no clue how those compare (in relation to improving the decks overall efficacy or whatever).
Back in 2015, I estimated that Amulet Bloom won approximately 23% of its games (estimated from a coverage and MTGO sample) before T4. This included concessions by an opponent. The confidence interval of that range, calculated in two independent samples, was 15%-30% in the smaller N sample, and 17%-29% in the larger sample. Seething Song Storm averaged about a 25% pre-T4 kill using similar methods. Based on this, I'm comfortable saying if a deck exceeds 20% for pre-T4 wins and is also top-tier, it's probably in trouble.
When I played Cheeri0s a lot on MTGO in 2017, I had about a 75% MWP overall with about 200 games total in the sample, winning on T2 or T3 in an outrageous 40% of games. Obviously, nothing from Cheeri0s ate a ban, so the "true" win turn in a larger sample was undoubtedly lower. The deck was also not strong enough to catch on at a top-tier level. This shows that single-player samples don't necessarily reflect the MTGO-wide sample. We need more data to draw meaningful conclusions about potential bans and T4 rule violators.
I did a coverage-based analysis for both Counters Company and Affinity in a sample of approximately 60 Affinity games and 40 Company games. In those analyses, I found that Affinity averaged a pre-T4 win rate of approximately 5.3% with a 95% CI somewhere between 0% and 14.2%. For Company, it was 3.5% with the CI at 0%-10.7%. Neither of these decks had bans, so I'm comfortable saying the deck needs to be winning at least 10%+ of its games before T4 in order to be on Wizards' radar.
Finally, I remember an analysis I did of over 100 Caleb Scherer MTGO Storm games back when Baral first came out and Storm looked a little scary. During that time, we calculated an approximate 12%-14% (don't remember the exact #) pre-T4 win-rate. This iteration of Storm also did not eat a ban, so I'm comfortable with 12%-14% being a safe range.
Overall, based on all this, I'd estimate that a deck is in danger if it is BOTH top-tier AND wins approximately 20%+ of games before T4.
thanks. i think its a reasonable assumption that there is a strong correlation (but not causation) between a deck showing an adequate results of over 20% pre-turn 4 wins and it being a tier 1 deck for that reason. the major difference being between goldfish calculations and results when against opposition.
as for your cheerios stats, its either skill or the deck is secretly tier 0...so there's that
i remember a reddit post from like half a year ago where someone posted the data from 1000 matches with storm in mtgo leagues. i vaguely remember the spreadsheet having turn win percentages, because they werent as high as i thought they might be. unfortunately after digging up the post the spreadsheet doesnt show any of that, so maybe im just crazy. https://www.reddit.com/r/ModernMagic/comments/9im8es/data_and_thoughts_from_1000_matches_with_ur_gifts/
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
How are you guys feeling about Izzet still? It seems insane that despite a LOT of hate it's still performing this well. Humans and Shadow were eventually tamed.
Ignoring limited play, it did quite well at the pro tour
How are you guys feeling about Izzet still? It seems insane that despite a LOT of hate it's still performing this well. Humans and Shadow were eventually tamed.
Ignoring limited play, it did quite well at the pro tour
Indeed though I doubt Modern Horizons does much to contain it maybe by accident I guess but when they made Horizons...Izzet Phoenix didn't exist lol.
How are you guys feeling about Izzet still? It seems insane that despite a LOT of hate it's still performing this well. Humans and Shadow were eventually tamed.
Ignoring limited play, it did quite well at the pro tour
Personally, I still think its the best thing going. I'm curious what happens when London Mull goes back into 'we are thinking about it' Mode, and the next event doesnt have open decklists for Control to stack its hand.
How are you guys feeling about Izzet still? It seems insane that despite a LOT of hate it's still performing this well. Humans and Shadow were eventually tamed.
Ignoring limited play, it did quite well at the pro tour
it did do pretty good looking at lists with high match win points in modern. though i think its performance was just low key enough to give it a stay of execution.
things is, with horizons coming, id imagine most everyone including wizards is in a more lenient mindset. so to push wizards through that to the point where they say 'hey this may be a problem that we cant wait to see if it resolves itself', then im thinking it would have to at least dominate the event meta shares and put multiple copies in the top8.
since that didnt happen; WAR brewing, the london mulligan, and the potential for horizons deflects enough attention away to where IF the deck was crossing some line, there is no reason to act without more substantial evidence.
i mentioned some pages back, but im pretty ambivalent on the deck atm. its GP results were/are kind of ridiculous, but i played the deck for a few weeks and have played against it for a few as well; mostly with the deck feeling lukewarm. it even blew up hugely in my local scene where i swear every other person was playing it. past few events? nowhere in sight. /shrug
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
None of this is relevant to the bannability of the deck. All four of those qualities apply to Ad Nauseam, an eminently acceptable combo deck. The only question is whether or not the deck can consistently win before T4. Based on the previous Bloom ban example, I would estimate a deck would need to win before T4 in 20%+ of games in a large N, large T context in order to be bannable. Cherrypicked streamer results don't get there. My Cheeri0s win rate was about 75% with more than 25% of my wins happening before T4. Obviously, nothing from Cheeri0s got banned. My personal examples don't necessarily reflect the wider metagame realities. Let's increase the number of auditable events and the time span before we entertain ban discussion like Cohen's.
Modern:
Well, we'll have to disagree on this. This very thread is about discussing the health of the meta. It's not merely about analysing results post-hoc once we have higher than 95% confidence.
The reasons why I disagree are exactly what I stated and what makes it different from ad-nauseam: the combo is more resilient, and it's faster. Sure, for Wizards to take action requires *them* to have hard numbers. To discuss and point out results we get when playing the deck, we don't need that. Plus, we can't have a large N if people are restrained from reporting the results they get.
From what I have seen so far, I am worried about it. That the new Mulligan Rule (which is live on MTGO) helps the deck a lot too, makes it not better.
Greetings,
Kathal
Modern/Legacy
either funpolice (Delver, Deathcloud, UW Control) or the fun decks (especially those ft. Griselbrand)
It definitely is the hype of the moment, so we will be seeing this all over the place in MODO and it makes sense. There is no assertion to be made from this as for now it's just the hot potato and everyone wants to have a bite. Resilience and consistency in performance will tell us if this deck it to be considered as trash, mid-tier, top tier, or tier 0/bannable material.
IMHO, the deck is just another glass cannon and has the hype the Cheerios had. People in this thread talked about banning pieces from Cheerios even before the deck had a showing in a GP, or said that it would dominate the field. In the end Cheerios is still a fringe deck with nothing to show for itself. I believe this will be the case with the new combo-kid on the block.
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
Spirits
The turn 4 rule doesn't feel like a fair assessment. In a format that doesn't have force of will no deck should be able to win on turn 1 before their opponent has a chance to do anything, even if it's only in a few % of games and even if the pre turn 4 win % is low. The feel bad of sitting down for a game of magic where you literally don't play is insane. That is the kind of thing that would make me avoid playing the format. The only other decks capable of nut drawing turn 1 kills use the graveyard at which point surgical and leyline both become legitimate ways to prevent it.
Sure you can say there are theoretical turn 1 kills with turn 1 blood moon or chalice of the void which some decks can't beat but you at least stand a chance and if you're playing a modern deck with 0 outs to a blood moon or chalice in your 75 you've clearly gone wrong somewhere. But if you're literally getting killed on turn 1 no amount of sideboard hate saves you...
Ad nauseam is a fine deck because it can nut draw for a turn 3 win but can't be faster than that but that gives your opponent at least 2 turns to play discard, some form of hate or hold counters.
I dont know, I see Twitter picking up on it already and starting to beat the drum, at this point its not particularly relevant to me. Let it take over the format for a few weeks if it can, without the London Mull I doubt its that strong.
As I have mentioned I've been Turn 1 killed before by Narset, Enlightened Master and this was probably years ago at this point. It happens.
I dont know, its just one more crazy thing in Modern to me. If its truly oppressive, it will be gone.
Spirits
its just yet another instance of high powered nut draws outstripping available (as in broad/playable) responses.
i have and still assert that one of the primary reasons modern gets hit with so much criticism is because of the prevalence of low probability high powered draws. in the scope of global data these instances look balanced because given enough games/match data it doesnt tip the scales on win rates too much; however with a localized view you have a good portion of highly played decks that just win without the opponent being able to do much of anything some small amount of the time. so from a personal perspective, players are already dealing with natural game variance when their deck doesnt function, then there is the added presence of these games across most matchups that elicit the negative emotive responses that tend to stick out in our minds. the majority of players also dont think in terms of statistical analysis with large datasets; rather its more likely small somewhat isolated events where you get screwed out of whatever meager prizing every so often.
i cant even say for sure if its happening more in modern than other formats across a similar number of decks; however the card pool itself isnt balanced with such draws in mind since there is no FoW (within a heavily blue dominated format) to even consider.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)In order to pull off the narset kill on turn 1 you need your graveyard right? There are decks playing maindeck surgicals and a ton of decks running leylines or surgicals in the board. With that in mind the deck is never going to get a clean turn 1 kill where the opponent has no way to interact, especially with the London mulligan rule where they know a surgical or leyline is an auto win vs all in combo
Edit:
I was thinking a little more and you can't count mindbreak trap as an answer actually since Allosaurus Rider into Neoform is just 2 spells and at that point griselbrand is in play and they'll draw their deck and win with pact of negation backup
That being the case, 20% turn 1 kill rate with no chance at all to interact seems like it should just not be allowed. Heck even 10% is ridiculous. Although it does remain to be seen if the deck can actually put up such a percentage.
even then you have to consider context. such as infect with probe being able to check if its okay to go for it, and bloom having overwhelming mid to lategame backup plans. if im reading things correctly what the neoform combo has going for it is pact of negation for protection and it doesnt use the GY to go off. tbh without more information ive no clue how those compare (in relation to improving the decks overall efficacy or whatever).
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Spirits
I think the current BR grishoalbrand lists are the best analog. All in and can win t2. It has what I suppose is an acceptable fail rate so we just have to determine how much more consistent the UG builds can be.
I do agree that we should wait and see how the deck holds up in a larger tournament setting before calling for bans. I can't see the deck being able to consistently pull off t1s for 13 rounds straight in a GP style setting. Will it be annoying to get gibbed by it in the first few rounds? Yeah sure, but I think the chance to see this deck at the higher tables tanks drastically once you're into rounds 4+.
What I think is important is that no one seems to really be mentioning that there is little difference between a pre-t4 actual win and a pre-t4 virtual win (multiple Phoenix/ hollow one on t2). Yeah those decks aren't designed to pull it off as consistently, but they are MUCH more resilient.
I'd rather face a glass combo deck that can fail or I can interact with T1 via discard or t2 via counters than Phoenix where I'm trading 1-for-1 for rounds 2-3 where those were all essentially 1-for-0s because of the deck being able to cast/recoup so much from the yard. I've lost to Phoenix with leyline on the play into t2 dampening sphere (I know I'm bad, whatever).
Ive goldfished the deck and I think people are just highlighting hotstreaks right now. These percentages people are throwing around in earlier posts are outliers imho...or I suck at goldfishing.
So when this Neoform deck pops up I think it's completely understandable a bunch of people go "dear God, here we go AGAIN, please ban this asap". Overly reactionary yes, but understandable.
A comparison can be made to a discussion currently going on in the Smash Bros. Melee community, where a bunch of tournaments have started to ban "wobbling"; a technique with which Ice Climbers can kill every single character in one shot off of getting a single grab. It is a divisive discussion because Ice Climbers aren't that good of a character and good players know how to play around ever getting grabbed, and banning wobbling might make Ice Climbers a useless character in a game with an already quite small roster. However wobbling is considered so obnoxious, major tournaments are now banning it.
It's always a balance. "Disruptive Gameplay" was that not the line for KCI? I'm not a big fan (to put it nicely) of that kind of logic. My favourite pet deck is EASILY Turns, so...yeah.
Spirits
the deck looks pretty neat. i think too many people tend to lump too much into the 'linear' label, to where its reductive enough that distinctions between stuff like aggro and combo are lost; with the differences in gameplay that they entail. so as much as i worry about how many decks have disproportionately powerful nut draws vs. average and poor ones, the neoform combo isnt just another vomit aggro deck and doesnt even aim to win through the combat step. that should count in its favor, particularly since pure combo decks are few and far between.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Back in 2015, I estimated that Amulet Bloom won approximately 23% of its games (estimated from a coverage and MTGO sample) before T4. This included concessions by an opponent. The confidence interval of that range, calculated in two independent samples, was 15%-30% in the smaller N sample, and 17%-29% in the larger sample. Seething Song Storm averaged about a 25% pre-T4 kill using similar methods. Based on this, I'm comfortable saying if a deck exceeds 20% for pre-T4 wins and is also top-tier, it's probably in trouble.
When I played Cheeri0s a lot on MTGO in 2017, I had about a 75% MWP overall with about 200 games total in the sample, winning on T2 or T3 in an outrageous 40% of games. Obviously, nothing from Cheeri0s ate a ban, so the "true" win turn in a larger sample was undoubtedly lower. The deck was also not strong enough to catch on at a top-tier level. This shows that single-player samples don't necessarily reflect the MTGO-wide sample. We need more data to draw meaningful conclusions about potential bans and T4 rule violators.
I did a coverage-based analysis for both Counters Company and Affinity in a sample of approximately 60 Affinity games and 40 Company games. In those analyses, I found that Affinity averaged a pre-T4 win rate of approximately 5.3% with a 95% CI somewhere between 0% and 14.2%. For Company, it was 3.5% with the CI at 0%-10.7%. Neither of these decks had bans, so I'm comfortable saying the deck needs to be winning at least 10%+ of its games before T4 in order to be on Wizards' radar.
Finally, I remember an analysis I did of over 100 Caleb Scherer MTGO Storm games back when Baral first came out and Storm looked a little scary. During that time, we calculated an approximate 12%-14% (don't remember the exact #) pre-T4 win-rate. This iteration of Storm also did not eat a ban, so I'm comfortable with 12%-14% being a safe range.
Overall, based on all this, I'd estimate that a deck is in danger if it is BOTH top-tier AND wins approximately 20%+ of games before T4.
as for your cheerios stats, its either skill or the deck is secretly tier 0...so there's that
i remember a reddit post from like half a year ago where someone posted the data from 1000 matches with storm in mtgo leagues. i vaguely remember the spreadsheet having turn win percentages, because they werent as high as i thought they might be. unfortunately after digging up the post the spreadsheet doesnt show any of that, so maybe im just crazy. https://www.reddit.com/r/ModernMagic/comments/9im8es/data_and_thoughts_from_1000_matches_with_ur_gifts/
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Ignoring limited play, it did quite well at the pro tour
Indeed though I doubt Modern Horizons does much to contain it maybe by accident I guess but when they made Horizons...Izzet Phoenix didn't exist lol.
Personally, I still think its the best thing going. I'm curious what happens when London Mull goes back into 'we are thinking about it' Mode, and the next event doesnt have open decklists for Control to stack its hand.
Spirits
things is, with horizons coming, id imagine most everyone including wizards is in a more lenient mindset. so to push wizards through that to the point where they say 'hey this may be a problem that we cant wait to see if it resolves itself', then im thinking it would have to at least dominate the event meta shares and put multiple copies in the top8.
since that didnt happen; WAR brewing, the london mulligan, and the potential for horizons deflects enough attention away to where IF the deck was crossing some line, there is no reason to act without more substantial evidence.
i mentioned some pages back, but im pretty ambivalent on the deck atm. its GP results were/are kind of ridiculous, but i played the deck for a few weeks and have played against it for a few as well; mostly with the deck feeling lukewarm. it even blew up hugely in my local scene where i swear every other person was playing it. past few events? nowhere in sight. /shrug
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)