Storm ... if you aren't playing the GY hate then you need to be a black deck with creature removal and discard.
There, I've cut out the non-essentials from your post. I'll add that you can also play ethersworn canonist effects, counters, spell tax effects or leyline of sanctity... (Beware of globlins!) It's not like there are no answers or a single angle of attack.
People moan that decks are non-interactive but can't be bothered to sideboard into answer cards.
The difference is that with Storm, you either draw into your hate, or you lose by turn 4 with ridiculous certainty.
Storm ... if you aren't playing the GY hate then you need to be a black deck with creature removal and discard.
There, I've cut out the non-essentials from your post. I'll add that you can also play ethersworn canonist effects, counters, spell tax effects or leyline of sanctity... (Beware of globlins!) It's not like there are no answers or a single angle of attack.
People moan that decks are non-interactive but can't be bothered to sideboard into answer cards.
The difference is that with Storm, you either draw into your hate, or you lose by turn 4 with ridiculous certainty.
Yes, but on the other hand, storm doesn't punish you for mulliganing harder to find said answers. Its game plan is pretty straighforward and if you disrupt it, you gain a significant amount of time to replenish your hand and win from there.
I kinda think E-Tron is on its way to sliding down the 1.5-2.0 tier, to be honest. It's had decent results in the past two classic side events though.
There is definitely a meta shift occurring, one where go wide strategies are taking place.
The more I watch and hear about Storm, the more it's just busted, man
If Storm gets 1 single top 8 in the pro-tour, I think it's getting banned.
I don't understand how other UR decks in the past are banned because it can win turn 4 but this deck can be allowed to continue to exist. Storm easily does that, ritual end of turn 3, gifts. Win on turn 4. It's doing similar things in that if you aren't playing the GY hate then you need to be a black deck with creature removal and discard.
Winning on the draw against Storm is nightmarish, especially as a linear deck. I actually haven't felt very confidant against Storm as a GBx/Shadow deck on the draw, since I also have to fade Blood Moon while keeping a reasonable hand to handle a quick combo.
It really is head and shoulders above the rest of the combo decks, I believe. The goblins backup plan is also a really resilient plan.
I truly think if trends continue:
Storm is banned
BBE is unbanned (as a litmus test).
Sheridan's thoughts on the risk of the old UR deck in the private threads kinda convinced me it's incredibly unlikely currently, it's too much of an unknown factor, they wouldn't do it unless the meta was stale and in risk of losing too many players.
I think white's results may not make a compelling case for SFM
A lot of pros and the articles written on BBE seem to agree it's a joke that the card is on the ban list, I think they're going to start there. It's unlikely Jund ravages this format. The deck is tier 3 and they'll unban something with the lowest risk factor first.
Still not very convinced Jace is coming off in the next three years.
So, right now I think it's like
75% of BBE
25% of SFM
0% of any other major unban for Feb
While I would love BBE to come off, I don't know how people can believe it actually with with the presence of death's shadow. Cascading into literally every spell in the deck (with only whiff being stubborn denial) would probably launch the deck into unsafe territory. I would think something would have to be banned from DS (not saying anything should) before BBE comes back. I don't think regular Jund is the problem; it's Death Shadow Variants
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH:ShatterStax, Only The Strong Survive
Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir Mono-U Control
Ob Nixilis of the Black Oath
Sen Triplets
Mizzix of the Izmagnus
Derevi Stax
VolThrun
Marchesa, The Black Rose
Olivia Voldaren, Vampire Tribal
Storm ... if you aren't playing the GY hate then you need to be a black deck with creature removal and discard.
There, I've cut out the non-essentials from your post. I'll add that you can also play ethersworn canonist effects, counters, spell tax effects or leyline of sanctity... (Beware of globlins!) It's not like there are no answers or a single angle of attack.
People moan that decks are non-interactive but can't be bothered to sideboard into answer cards.
The difference is that with Storm, you either draw into your hate, or you lose by turn 4 with ridiculous certainty.
This claim seems apocryphal. Do you or anyone else have numbers to suggest Storm is CONSISTENTLY winning on T4? Possible data sources would be logging Storm's win-turns on Twitch streams for MTGO streamers and paper events. Anecdotal complaints from personal experience don't cut it.
I kinda think E-Tron is on its way to sliding down the 1.5-2.0 tier, to be honest. It's had decent results in the past two classic side events though.
There is definitely a meta shift occurring, one where go wide strategies are taking place.
The more I watch and hear about Storm, the more it's just busted, man
If Storm gets 1 single top 8 in the pro-tour, I think it's getting banned.
I don't understand how other UR decks in the past are banned because it can win turn 4 but this deck can be allowed to continue to exist. Storm easily does that, ritual end of turn 3, gifts. Win on turn 4. It's doing similar things in that if you aren't playing the GY hate then you need to be a black deck with creature removal and discard.
Winning on the draw against Storm is nightmarish, especially as a linear deck. I actually haven't felt very confidant against Storm as a GBx/Shadow deck on the draw, since I also have to fade Blood Moon while keeping a reasonable hand to handle a quick combo.
It really is head and shoulders above the rest of the combo decks, I believe. The goblins backup plan is also a really resilient plan.
I truly think if trends continue:
Storm is banned
BBE is unbanned (as a litmus test).
Sheridan's thoughts on the risk of the old UR deck in the private threads kinda convinced me it's incredibly unlikely currently, it's too much of an unknown factor, they wouldn't do it unless the meta was stale and in risk of losing too many players.
I think white's results may not make a compelling case for SFM
A lot of pros and the articles written on BBE seem to agree it's a joke that the card is on the ban list, I think they're going to start there. It's unlikely Jund ravages this format. The deck is tier 3 and they'll unban something with the lowest risk factor first.
Still not very convinced Jace is coming off in the next three years.
So, right now I think it's like
75% of BBE
25% of SFM
0% of any other major unban for Feb
While I would love BBE to come off, I don't know how people can believe it actually with with the presence of death's shadow. Cascading into literally every spell in the deck (with only whiff being stubborn denial) would probably launch the deck into unsafe territory. I would think something would have to be banned from DS (not saying anything should) before BBE comes back. I don't think regular Jund is the problem; it's Death Shadow Variants
Jund DS hasn't really held a heavy presence in the meta for a while and it's doubtful that any variant of DS would want BBE. DS's top end is generally 3 mana and it already has plenty of options of outvaluing their opponent at a cheaper cost (Snapcaster, Tasigur, K-Command, both Lilianas, etc).
DS's main problem right now is that it sometimes struggles to establish a threat since it typically runs 8 in the deck—a problem that BBE does not fix.
You should know by now that Sheridan respects data over bold claims.
Based on personal anecdotes, I tend to agree with you though (on Storm being consistent), but obviously, my experience might not be representative of the greater picture when it comes to Storm, since it's a very small sample size.
While I would love BBE to come off, I don't know how people can believe it actually with with the presence of death's shadow. Cascading into literally every spell in the deck (with only whiff being stubborn denial) would probably launch the deck into unsafe territory. I would think something would have to be banned from DS (not saying anything should) before BBE comes back. I don't think regular Jund is the problem; it's Death Shadow Variants
I really don't think Death's Shadow wants to be playing dorky 4 drops like that though.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Well, I can saw a woman in two, but you won't wanna look in the box when I'm through.
It's unfortunate that discussion quality has shifted to anecdotal, unverified claims (and sarcastic jabs) instead of citing actual data. I'm particularly surprised and disappointed given your past participation in a metagame analysis project. You of all people should know the importance of objective data analysis when making sweeping statements.
It's unfortunate that discussion quality has shifted to anecdotal, unverified claims (and sarcastic jabs) instead of citing actual data. I'm particularly surprised and disappointed given your past participation in a metagame analysis project. You of all people should know the importance of objective data analysis when making sweeping statements.
Some things are just obvious. I'm still doing my meta analysis, just doing it for myself and not sharing/discussing it. I will say though, Storm is doing well both objectively and anecdotally.
It's unfortunate that discussion quality has shifted to anecdotal, unverified claims (and sarcastic jabs) instead of citing actual data. I'm particularly surprised and disappointed given your past participation in a metagame analysis project. You of all people should know the importance of objective data analysis when making sweeping statements.
Some things are just obvious. I'm still doing my meta analysis, just doing it for myself and not sharing/discussing it. I will say though, Storm is doing well both objectively and anecdotally.
There's no way for us to believe the "objectively" statement without seeing data.
Quite frankly, I don't know what point you intend to prove by stating that you have the data to prove that Storm is doing amazing right now and you've decided to not present the data you used to come to that conclusion.
Like, "Hey guys, the Earth is flat. It looks flat and I've seen the data. Trust me."
Just because something seems like it could be true through anecdotes, that doesn't mean that we should just believe it without seeing compelling evidence.
Storm ... if you aren't playing the GY hate then you need to be a black deck with creature removal and discard.
There, I've cut out the non-essentials from your post. I'll add that you can also play ethersworn canonist effects, counters, spell tax effects or leyline of sanctity... (Beware of globlins!) It's not like there are no answers or a single angle of attack.
People moan that decks are non-interactive but can't be bothered to sideboard into answer cards.
I don't believe this is a very genuine response
Leyline can be gifted into echoing truth, or easily go the goblin route.
Counters are not a solution, just a small road bump against the deck
Cannonist is a bad card for the side, you have so many ways to deal with it
Spell tax...so, basically death and tax decks or humans?
Listen, I'm not a twin sympathizer, but you can't demand that ban and then unfairly say this deck is fine, and that people aren't playing enough hate
Your retort is reminding me of when dredge players said their deck was done, and that people needed to just play more hate
The deck isn't trending towards fine. I'm certain it'll begin to cannibalize combo meta shares. It's suffering from similar issues that bloom is, people are afraid to invest in a dangerous target ban
Guys, it's a game, and a very complex one at that. Some things you have to do a lot to really understand. Like the Cleveland Browns "analytics" based methodology that led them to pass on Carson Wentz while football guys like John Gruden were saying the guy is a stud. Oh, and now Carson Wentz is favorite to be the MVP in his second year. Analytics are great, I love data, but eyeballs and personal experience count for a lot too.
There's no way for us to believe the "objectively" statement without seeing data.
Quite frankly, I don't know what point you intend to prove by stating that you have the data to prove that Storm is doing amazing right now and you've decided to not present the data you used to come to that conclusion.
Like, "Hey guys, the Earth is flat. It looks flat and I've seen the data. Trust me."
Just because something seems like it could be true through anecdotes, that doesn't mean that we should just believe it without seeing compelling evidence.
You misquote me (I never said amazing) then make a stupid analogy (flat Earth) that has nothing to do with what I said. I could care less what you think, and I'm not trying to persuade you of anything. Posts like this are why I think this thread is full of circular arguments and not much substance.
I know what Storm does because I play against it almost daily. Believe what you want. We're never going to have data at the detail level to know what decks win by what turn. Having that level of data isn't the barrier of entry for discussion on the deck. If that's that case, then just shut down the forum because no one can post any opinion whatsoever without the data police telling them to shut up or prove it mathematically. Ridiculous.
Public Mod Note
(Xaricore):
Infraction issued for trolling. — Xaricore
There's no way for us to believe the "objectively" statement without seeing data.
Quite frankly, I don't know what point you intend to prove by stating that you have the data to prove that Storm is doing amazing right now and you've decided to not present the data you used to come to that conclusion.
Like, "Hey guys, the Earth is flat. It looks flat and I've seen the data. Trust me."
Just because something seems like it could be true through anecdotes, that doesn't mean that we should just believe it without seeing compelling evidence.
You misquote me (I never said amazing) then make a stupid analogy (flat Earth) that has nothing to do with what I said. I could care less what you think, and I'm not trying to persuade you of anything. Posts like this are why I think this thread is full of circular arguments and not much substance.
I know what Storm does because I play against it almost daily. Believe what you want. We're never going to have data at the detail level to know what decks win by what turn. Having that level of data isn't the barrier of entry for discussion on the deck. If that's that case, then just shut down the forum because no one can post any opinion whatsoever without the data police telling them to shut up or prove it mathematically. Ridiculous.
Just out of curiosity, what decks do you frequently use to play against Storm?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks
Modern: UWUW Control UBRGrixis Shadow URIzzet Phoenix
There's no way for us to believe the "objectively" statement without seeing data.
Quite frankly, I don't know what point you intend to prove by stating that you have the data to prove that Storm is doing amazing right now and you've decided to not present the data you used to come to that conclusion.
Like, "Hey guys, the Earth is flat. It looks flat and I've seen the data. Trust me."
Just because something seems like it could be true through anecdotes, that doesn't mean that we should just believe it without seeing compelling evidence.
You misquote me (I never said amazing) then make a stupid analogy (flat Earth) that has nothing to do with what I said. I could care less what you think, and I'm not trying to persuade you of anything. Posts like this are why I think this thread is full of circular arguments and not much substance.
I know what Storm does because I play against it almost daily. Believe what you want. We're never going to have data at the detail level to know what decks win by what turn. Having that level of data isn't the barrier of entry for discussion on the deck. If that's that case, then just shut down the forum because no one can post any opinion whatsoever without the data police telling them to shut up or prove it mathematically. Ridiculous.
There are many conversations we can have without posting data. But the significant allegation of "Storm violates the T4 rule by consistently winning on T3 or earlier" requires data. "Consistent" is an inherently data-driven term and it can't be proved without numbers. If you don't have the numbers, that's fine, but then don't state your claim with such certainty. No one would jump on a post that said something to the effect of "I play Storm daily and in my experience it feels like a T4 rule violator, but I don't have any stats to back that up so that's just my qualitative take on the deck." And if you do have the stats, then share them; no one benefits from secret data including the data collector.
The issue is not that we lack enough data to guarantee statistical certainty. The issue is that people make bold claims and then don't even try to justify them with #s. Even someone just going through their last 200 MTGO games and recording their Storm matchups and the win-turn would be a huge improvement over purely rhetorical claims. N=200 in a sample of personal games is way better than N=0 and we just talk about anecdotes.
Just out of curiosity, what decks do you frequently use to play against Storm?
I play ET pretty much exclusively, with a little Stompy at the LGS sometimes, and the occasional Skred match online. I'm not complaining about the matchup. It seems fairly even, although I think with their more recent sideboard tech it has shifted a bit. I have strong hate for the deck, but they are quite resilient at winning through hate in my experience.
Maybe it's just a temporary thing that will see a correction, but tend to I agree with Spsiegel1987, the deck is trending toward becoming a problem.
There's no way for us to believe the "objectively" statement without seeing data.
Quite frankly, I don't know what point you intend to prove by stating that you have the data to prove that Storm is doing amazing right now and you've decided to not present the data you used to come to that conclusion.
Like, "Hey guys, the Earth is flat. It looks flat and I've seen the data. Trust me."
Just because something seems like it could be true through anecdotes, that doesn't mean that we should just believe it without seeing compelling evidence.
You misquote me (I never said amazing) then make a stupid analogy (flat Earth) that has nothing to do with what I said. I could care less what you think, and I'm not trying to persuade you of anything. Posts like this are why I think this thread is full of circular arguments and not much substance.
I know what Storm does because I play against it almost daily. Believe what you want. We're never going to have data at the detail level to know what decks win by what turn. Having that level of data isn't the barrier of entry for discussion on the deck. If that's that case, then just shut down the forum because no one can post any opinion whatsoever without the data police telling them to shut up or prove it mathematically. Ridiculous.
There are many conversations we can have without posting data. But the significant allegation of "Storm violates the T4 rule by consistently winning on T3 or earlier" requires data. "Consistent" is an inherently data-driven term and it can't be proved without numbers. If you don't have the numbers, that's fine, but then don't state your claim with such certainty. No one would jump on a post that said something to the effect of "I play Storm daily and in my experience it feels like a T4 rule violator, but I don't have any stats to back that up so that's just my qualitative take on the deck." And if you do have the stats, then share them; no one benefits from secret data including the data collector.
The issue is not that we lack enough data to guarantee statistical certainty. The issue is that people make bold claims and then don't even try to justify them with #s. Even someone just going through their last 200 MTGO games and recording their Storm matchups and the win-turn would be a huge improvement over purely rhetorical claims. N=200 in a sample of personal games is way better than N=0 and we just talk about anecdotes.
I never even said it's a T4 rule violator. Please don't use me as a straw man for your points.
Could we get a 'Complain about Data Availability Thread' please? We get it, Wizards doesn't make data visible, but just page after page of people snipping at each other about it, and some of this gets truly ridiculous. Can there be another thread, like the Legacy 'complain about scarcity' one? Because we are well past the point where it is productive. Ask Wizards to make it available, I will sign the petition myself, but post after post with very limited mention of Modern decks or cards, even the banned ones doesn't seem like it belongs here.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Project Booster Fun makes it less fun to open a booster.
There's no way for us to believe the "objectively" statement without seeing data.
Quite frankly, I don't know what point you intend to prove by stating that you have the data to prove that Storm is doing amazing right now and you've decided to not present the data you used to come to that conclusion.
Like, "Hey guys, the Earth is flat. It looks flat and I've seen the data. Trust me."
Just because something seems like it could be true through anecdotes, that doesn't mean that we should just believe it without seeing compelling evidence.
You misquote me (I never said amazing) then make a stupid analogy (flat Earth) that has nothing to do with what I said. I could care less what you think, and I'm not trying to persuade you of anything. Posts like this are why I think this thread is full of circular arguments and not much substance.
I know what Storm does because I play against it almost daily. Believe what you want. We're never going to have data at the detail level to know what decks win by what turn. Having that level of data isn't the barrier of entry for discussion on the deck. If that's that case, then just shut down the forum because no one can post any opinion whatsoever without the data police telling them to shut up or prove it mathematically. Ridiculous.
There are many conversations we can have without posting data. But the significant allegation of "Storm violates the T4 rule by consistently winning on T3 or earlier" requires data. "Consistent" is an inherently data-driven term and it can't be proved without numbers. If you don't have the numbers, that's fine, but then don't state your claim with such certainty. No one would jump on a post that said something to the effect of "I play Storm daily and in my experience it feels like a T4 rule violator, but I don't have any stats to back that up so that's just my qualitative take on the deck." And if you do have the stats, then share them; no one benefits from secret data including the data collector.
The issue is not that we lack enough data to guarantee statistical certainty. The issue is that people make bold claims and then don't even try to justify them with #s. Even someone just going through their last 200 MTGO games and recording their Storm matchups and the win-turn would be a huge improvement over purely rhetorical claims. N=200 in a sample of personal games is way better than N=0 and we just talk about anecdotes.
I never even said it's a T4 rule violator. Please don't use me as a straw man for your points.
You claimed:
"The difference is that with Storm, you either draw into your hate, or you lose by turn 4 with ridiculous certainty."
I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were making a constructive accusation about Storm's violation of an established rule. But if you aren't doing that and are just generally complaining about Storm, then I don't see any reason to mention it in the ban thread. I also don't see why you would talk about the deck winning by T4 "with ridiculous certainty" unless as part of a ban argument.
If you don't want it banned, don't think it violates format rules, and were just venting about your experience with Storm, then I withdraw my previous posts and would only question why you are bringing up the deck here. But if you do want it banned or think it is bannable, articulate why and provide evidence about what rules it is violating.
I'm not venting or complaining. I was trying to participate in the discussion. Thanks for posting a great example about why no one wants to participate in this thread. Bye.
It really does seem to be a problem as of late that anecdotal evidence is still being shut down entirely in the absence of consistent objective data. I get that 1 person's experience is rarely representative of the whole meta, but by design, we don't to have a clear picture of the whole meta anymore. The best we could ever hope for is for someone to compile the paper data and maybe the Modern Challenge data to try and paint some sort of picture, but as far as I can tell everyone either can't, won't, or can but won't share.
Rather than just shut down anecdotal data, I would think it's way more productive to at least have a bunch of people talk about their experiences online and in their local metas. If we get a bunch of anecdotal evidence from multiple people using different decks, then at least that we might identify trends in terms of whether or not a deck is breaking the T4 rule or if there's been a general spike/decline in certain decks. It's woefully inferior to mass online data and probably won't paint an accurate picture, but we're seeing the result of the alternative where every conversation seems to end with someone demanding something they know basically doesn't exist.
And yes I know that the burden of proof is supposed to be on the person asserting a point, but it wouldn't kill people to at least refute anecdotal evidence with their own anecdotal evidence rather than shut down all conversation by demanding something that no one has or wants to leak.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks
Modern: UWUW Control UBRGrixis Shadow URIzzet Phoenix
It really does seem to be a problem as of late that anecdotal evidence is still being shut down entirely in the absence of consistent objective data. I get that 1 person's experience is rarely representative of the whole meta, but by design, we don't to have a clear picture of the whole meta anymore. The best we could ever hope for is for someone to compile the paper data and maybe the Modern Challenge data to try and paint some sort of picture, but as far as I can tell everyone either can't, won't, or can but won't share.
Rather than just shut down anecdotal data, I would think it's way more productive to at least have a bunch of people talk about their experiences online and in their local metas. If we get a bunch of anecdotal evidence from multiple people using different decks, then at least that we might identify trends in terms of whether or not a deck is breaking the T4 rule or if there's been a general spike/decline in certain decks. It's woefully inferior to mass online data and probably won't paint an accurate picture, but we're seeing the result of the alternative where every conversation seems to end with someone demanding something they know basically doesn't exist.
And yes I know that the burden of proof is supposed to be on the person asserting a point, but it wouldn't kill people to at least refute anecdotal evidence with their own anecdotal evidence rather than shut down all conversation by demanding something that no one has or wants to leak.
I have two issues with this. First, we've seen anecdotal arguments for years in this thread and they aren't predictive of anything. If our anecdotal conversations indicated bannability, Temple, Tron lands, DS, CoCo, Griselbrand, and others would have been banned long ago. We only break the anecdote loop with data.
My second issue is that this data still exists and no one chooses to analyze it and post results. There is ample Twitch coverage which one could rewatch and code to figure out a deck's pre-T4 win rate in a decent sample. Caleb Scherer's stream is a great place to start. But no one does this. I did these kinds of projects for years and readily shared the data. Nowadays, I'm not seeing that effort anymore from either side of a ban/format health debate, despite the resources being there. I just wish other players would put in that effort to help our understanding of Modern.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The difference is that with Storm, you either draw into your hate, or you lose by turn 4 with ridiculous certainty.
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
While I would love BBE to come off, I don't know how people can believe it actually with with the presence of death's shadow. Cascading into literally every spell in the deck (with only whiff being stubborn denial) would probably launch the deck into unsafe territory. I would think something would have to be banned from DS (not saying anything should) before BBE comes back. I don't think regular Jund is the problem; it's Death Shadow Variants
Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir Mono-U Control
Ob Nixilis of the Black Oath
Sen Triplets
Mizzix of the Izmagnus
Derevi Stax
VolThrun
Marchesa, The Black Rose
Olivia Voldaren, Vampire Tribal
Modern: Fish, JUND/Junk
--------
RIP Twin
This claim seems apocryphal. Do you or anyone else have numbers to suggest Storm is CONSISTENTLY winning on T4? Possible data sources would be logging Storm's win-turns on Twitch streams for MTGO streamers and paper events. Anecdotal complaints from personal experience don't cut it.
Jund DS hasn't really held a heavy presence in the meta for a while and it's doubtful that any variant of DS would want BBE. DS's top end is generally 3 mana and it already has plenty of options of outvaluing their opponent at a cheaper cost (Snapcaster, Tasigur, K-Command, both Lilianas, etc).
DS's main problem right now is that it sometimes struggles to establish a threat since it typically runs 8 in the deck—a problem that BBE does not fix.
You should know by now that Sheridan respects data over bold claims.
Based on personal anecdotes, I tend to agree with you though (on Storm being consistent), but obviously, my experience might not be representative of the greater picture when it comes to Storm, since it's a very small sample size.
I really don't think Death's Shadow wants to be playing dorky 4 drops like that though.
It's unfortunate that discussion quality has shifted to anecdotal, unverified claims (and sarcastic jabs) instead of citing actual data. I'm particularly surprised and disappointed given your past participation in a metagame analysis project. You of all people should know the importance of objective data analysis when making sweeping statements.
Some things are just obvious. I'm still doing my meta analysis, just doing it for myself and not sharing/discussing it. I will say though, Storm is doing well both objectively and anecdotally.
There's no way for us to believe the "objectively" statement without seeing data.
Quite frankly, I don't know what point you intend to prove by stating that you have the data to prove that Storm is doing amazing right now and you've decided to not present the data you used to come to that conclusion.
Like, "Hey guys, the Earth is flat. It looks flat and I've seen the data. Trust me."
Just because something seems like it could be true through anecdotes, that doesn't mean that we should just believe it without seeing compelling evidence.
I don't believe this is a very genuine response
Leyline can be gifted into echoing truth, or easily go the goblin route.
Counters are not a solution, just a small road bump against the deck
Cannonist is a bad card for the side, you have so many ways to deal with it
Spell tax...so, basically death and tax decks or humans?
Listen, I'm not a twin sympathizer, but you can't demand that ban and then unfairly say this deck is fine, and that people aren't playing enough hate
Your retort is reminding me of when dredge players said their deck was done, and that people needed to just play more hate
The deck isn't trending towards fine. I'm certain it'll begin to cannibalize combo meta shares. It's suffering from similar issues that bloom is, people are afraid to invest in a dangerous target ban
You misquote me (I never said amazing) then make a stupid analogy (flat Earth) that has nothing to do with what I said. I could care less what you think, and I'm not trying to persuade you of anything. Posts like this are why I think this thread is full of circular arguments and not much substance.
I know what Storm does because I play against it almost daily. Believe what you want. We're never going to have data at the detail level to know what decks win by what turn. Having that level of data isn't the barrier of entry for discussion on the deck. If that's that case, then just shut down the forum because no one can post any opinion whatsoever without the data police telling them to shut up or prove it mathematically. Ridiculous.
Modern:
UWUW Control
UBRGrixis Shadow
URIzzet Phoenix
There are many conversations we can have without posting data. But the significant allegation of "Storm violates the T4 rule by consistently winning on T3 or earlier" requires data. "Consistent" is an inherently data-driven term and it can't be proved without numbers. If you don't have the numbers, that's fine, but then don't state your claim with such certainty. No one would jump on a post that said something to the effect of "I play Storm daily and in my experience it feels like a T4 rule violator, but I don't have any stats to back that up so that's just my qualitative take on the deck." And if you do have the stats, then share them; no one benefits from secret data including the data collector.
The issue is not that we lack enough data to guarantee statistical certainty. The issue is that people make bold claims and then don't even try to justify them with #s. Even someone just going through their last 200 MTGO games and recording their Storm matchups and the win-turn would be a huge improvement over purely rhetorical claims. N=200 in a sample of personal games is way better than N=0 and we just talk about anecdotes.
I play ET pretty much exclusively, with a little Stompy at the LGS sometimes, and the occasional Skred match online. I'm not complaining about the matchup. It seems fairly even, although I think with their more recent sideboard tech it has shifted a bit. I have strong hate for the deck, but they are quite resilient at winning through hate in my experience.
Maybe it's just a temporary thing that will see a correction, but tend to I agree with Spsiegel1987, the deck is trending toward becoming a problem.
I never even said it's a T4 rule violator. Please don't use me as a straw man for your points.
You claimed:
"The difference is that with Storm, you either draw into your hate, or you lose by turn 4 with ridiculous certainty."
I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were making a constructive accusation about Storm's violation of an established rule. But if you aren't doing that and are just generally complaining about Storm, then I don't see any reason to mention it in the ban thread. I also don't see why you would talk about the deck winning by T4 "with ridiculous certainty" unless as part of a ban argument.
If you don't want it banned, don't think it violates format rules, and were just venting about your experience with Storm, then I withdraw my previous posts and would only question why you are bringing up the deck here. But if you do want it banned or think it is bannable, articulate why and provide evidence about what rules it is violating.
#kiddingnotkidding
Rather than just shut down anecdotal data, I would think it's way more productive to at least have a bunch of people talk about their experiences online and in their local metas. If we get a bunch of anecdotal evidence from multiple people using different decks, then at least that we might identify trends in terms of whether or not a deck is breaking the T4 rule or if there's been a general spike/decline in certain decks. It's woefully inferior to mass online data and probably won't paint an accurate picture, but we're seeing the result of the alternative where every conversation seems to end with someone demanding something they know basically doesn't exist.
And yes I know that the burden of proof is supposed to be on the person asserting a point, but it wouldn't kill people to at least refute anecdotal evidence with their own anecdotal evidence rather than shut down all conversation by demanding something that no one has or wants to leak.
Modern:
UWUW Control
UBRGrixis Shadow
URIzzet Phoenix
I have two issues with this. First, we've seen anecdotal arguments for years in this thread and they aren't predictive of anything. If our anecdotal conversations indicated bannability, Temple, Tron lands, DS, CoCo, Griselbrand, and others would have been banned long ago. We only break the anecdote loop with data.
My second issue is that this data still exists and no one chooses to analyze it and post results. There is ample Twitch coverage which one could rewatch and code to figure out a deck's pre-T4 win rate in a decent sample. Caleb Scherer's stream is a great place to start. But no one does this. I did these kinds of projects for years and readily shared the data. Nowadays, I'm not seeing that effort anymore from either side of a ban/format health debate, despite the resources being there. I just wish other players would put in that effort to help our understanding of Modern.