The challenge in the really grindy match-ups (e.g. Jeskai, UW Control, Mardu Reveler) is removal picking off your threats 1:1 and ignoring the pawns (Worker, Consruct) until it's easy to clean them up or outclass them. In the games I lose, I'm not getting to untap with more than one non-pawn. That makes Module hard to utilize, although maybe the strategy is to really slow down when you have it. Play threats out in ones and twos to get the servo token each time.
Throne of Geth is probably the most situational card in the deck. It can shine as a pseudo-Ravager late game to pump the team or a guarantee that Walker will get popped rather than exiled by Path. Other times it's pretty useless. Typically I'll play it last unless there's a specific reason not to. When sideboarding I consistently drop one or both that I play since it's the weakest card in the deck in most match-ups.
I feel you on Spellskite -- it further clogs the two drop spot and it misses a lot of what I want to protect against. More Welding Jar would be my choice if we're looking for additional protection, but I think we need a more repeatable 2 for 1 effect. Honestly, I'd love copies 5 & 6 of Walker if I could. But back in reality, maybe it's a planeswalker.
I'm not 100% my changes were for the better. Horizon Canopy can be a mixed bag in the grindier matches and the extra forests make Blood Moon a nonstarter; occasionally miss the extra draw though and probably should be playing the Pendelhaven.
I haven't felt short without the extra Sphere. Nissa is probably a good addition, although I've pondered new Karn in her place. Shapers' Sanctuary looks great in theory but it's just not helping enough against control or midrange. Maybe they should be additional copies of Nissa/Karn? Not sure. My first few lists ran Animation Module in the main but it was challenging to use because the deck runs so tight on mana for the first dozen turns. Perhaps it's the grindy SB card I'm looking for?
Although perhaps I'm looking for answers without really having a problem. 4-1, 2-3, and 5-0 today. No complaints here!
I'm looking only at decks that are running SV currently or could replace Opt with an unbanned Preordain. So this is the broadest possible definition of Preordain-compatible decks based on current deck constructions. This does not include decks that could change their current structure to run to Preordain (e.g. KCI ditching Stirrings and green to run Preordain). It just includes decks that are running Opt/SV right now. So like you said, it's actually a larger number than the number of decks that are truly running legitimate SV copies currently. That number is under 15%. This may "skew" the numbers, but if it does, it probably inflates the number of decks that would run Preordain. And that inflated number is still almost half of those running Stirrings.
Looks like I misunderstood your methodology -- that 17% includes all decks running any combination of SVs or Opts. Your population is all SCG and GP/PTs to date, right? Assuming so, that would seem to indicate a boom in Ancient Stirrings decks within the top 8 relative to potential Preordain decks. I'm not sure it immediately follows that the gap must be narrowed though. Someone would still need to make the argument that either it's healthier to stunt the Stirrings decks despite their diversity or that potential Preordain decks should compose a higher percentage of the top 8s. Quite possible, just not ground this thread has covered.
As for Twin, I 100% support people arguing the Twin ban in terms of its actual language. This is how cards are unbanned; Wizards looks at an old ban, sees if that ban accomplished its goals, and sees how the unban would affect the current Modern. See explanations for unbanning Nacatl, BB, AV, BBE, JTMS, etc. The Twin unban camp consistently fails to address one of these arguments: why would Wizards would unban Twin when the share of non-Twin blue decks is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than it was when Twin was legal? Total blue share has dropped, we know. But total share of decks not playing Twin, however, is more than double what it was at the GP/PT level. I am not saying this increase was CAUSED by the Twin ban. I have never said this. I am simply stating that this diversity is the current state of Modern.
I should probably clarify -- I don't have strong feelings about a Twin un/ban, but I followed the points made in this thread. I've always agreed with the way you kept others' arguments grounded in logic, like regarding the actual ban language instead of fruitless comparisons to Storm, etc. I think some of your comments on Ancient Stirrings vs Preordain (and many more of those from others) stray into "it must be this OR that, for consistency" when we KNOW WoTC doesn't really care that much about logical consistency as an un/ban criteria. Far too many comments are framing this as a false dilemma. By your own previous admission, WoTC's decisions on Ancient Stirrings legality has little to no direct impact on Preordain much the same way that arguments for Splinter Twin's unbanning aren't really bolstered by pointing out other turn 4 combo decks that are legal.
Framing this as either/or is a cheap hedge that ignores that, from all available evidence, WoTC's decisions on Ancient Stirrings and Preordain aren't linked. Sure, the same criteria of game consistency will be evaluated but the choice to un/ban one doesn't have a direct impact on the other (outside of causing a meta shift). A lot of words to say that we should stop the "ban Ancient Stirrings or unban Preordain nonsense" and start arguing for banning Ancient Stirrings or unbanning Preordain on their own grounds using WoTC criteria.
Having played both versions, I have to agree with Click5. Arcbound Worker (and Sparring Construct, much to my earlier chagrin) often make a full turn difference in when you can have lethal. There's an art to sequencing a turn 4 kill where you drop Ravager or Ballista and your tapped out opponent can only watch; usually it relies on a 1 drop to round your curve/add the last couple counters. Then you can leverage the threat of winning on the spot to edge ahead on value when needed.
I'm also not a big fan of Metallic Mimic because it's so susceptible to spot removal compared to the alternatives. In a nutshell it's a weaker choice because it's not an individual threat, further jams your 2 spot, and encourages you to take less threatening lines to maximize its value. I was introduced to this deck through Zyrnak's videos and tried Magic Aids' version with Mimics. Matt Nass and company have it right, or at least very close to it (see the 9th place finisher at GP Barca).
For what it's worth, I'm up to a 68.5% win rate through 111 matches and just put up my first 5-0. Net winnings are roughly 210 tickets.
The "Fair Magic" finals everyone wanted was a real snoozer.
Didn't see it and don't care. When fair, interactive decks do well at the top level, this proves those decks are viable in the format. Whether or not you like/dislike these play patterns, you should probably admit it's good that multiple decks are viable in the format at the highest levels. If you aren't admitting that, this would lead me to question your credibility as a format assessor. I do not judge the quality of tournament finishes based on whether or not the final games represent my ideal of an interesting, engaging viewing experience. I just care about the top tables showing diversity and wide viability of different options. GP Sao Paulo did that at the T8 level.
EDIT: Stirrings vs. SV tally for 2017 and 2018 as a percentage of total GP/PT T8 decks in the period -
The share of Stirrings decks at the GP/PT T8 level is up by 14%. The share of SV decks at that level is down by 1%. Of those blue-based decks, there is literally 1 deck in all of 2017-2018 (a single copy of Storm from 2017 GP Copenhagen) that is a blue-based combo deck that can violate the T4 rule. Everything else is Jeskai, GDS, UW Control, and random blue decks. Why does the broad swath of Colorless decks get Stirrings when blue is stuck with SV? This contradiction is glaring and increasingly inexplicable and one of those cards' legalities should change.
If I'm understanding how you're calculating those numbers, there's a counterpoint that's been tangentially mentioned above. UW Control decks aren't even playing Serum Visions at the moment, not because it's not powerful, but because Opt works better for the miracled Terminus that's en vogue. Opt became Modern legal in early 2018, meaning your YoY numbers are skewed by the introduction of and cannibalization from a "weaker" cantrip that's better because of synergy. Preordain doesn't necessarily even slot into those decks if unbanned.
I'm curious how you would square your advice to Splinter Twin unban advocates with your recent comments on Preordain. Something along the lines of "it's not enough to draw a parallel with currently legal cards, argue its own merits (e.g. the original ban didn't succeed)." I don't think arguing consistency of ban logic is any more helpful here. And I say that as someone just fine with Preordain coming off.
I've become a huge fan of this deck. Started with the Metallic Mimic version (no Vials) and then I started watching Matt Nass after Click5 turned me on to him (thanks again). At this point I've seen about 90% of his videos where he's playing Hardened/Scaled Affinity; still not an expert but I feel very comfortable with how his version runs and generally how he'd sideboard.
Quick rundown of my own stats, with more detail I can fill in later if there's interest:
86 matches played on MTGO, 54 in Competitive Leagues. Small sample size but enough to play most decks a couple times and get a feel.
Overall 66% win rate.
Match-ups with an even better win rate (great): Humans, GDS, Hollow One, Affinity, Elves, Ponza
Match-ups with a ~ 66% win rate (good): Tron, Burn, Counter Company
Match-ups with a much worse win rate (bad): Mardu Reveler, Jeskai/UW/UR/Grixis Control, Living End, Valuetown
Match-ups without enough games to get a feel: Titanshift, KCI, Bogles
Like Click5 says above, Gut Shot is for small creature decks especially those that side in Kataki. There may be room to improve the SB overall for those bad match-ups; I've been playing an extra Leap MB in place of a Throne, but I'm not sure that's the solution. A lot to be said on sequencing, when to push, etc. but this is a great deck that can turn 4 or 5 non-interactive decks while grinding against other creature decks and not getting completely stomped versus control.
Thanks for that. I recognize a decent number of the pros' handles, but apparently not Matt Nass. I suppose that gives the Construct idea more credibility! I'll have to give it a watch.
From personal experience, it's a really fun deck. Probably worth waiting until the next announcement though if you think there's even a small chance Ancient Stirrings sees the chop.
Not sure I'm sold on the 2x Sparring Construct; just doesn't do much unless you have a sac outlet. I've found I'm winning through one of two ways with this deck: (1) consistent (enough) goldfish kills on T4/5 against decks that don't want to interact much and (2) grinding with individual card value against more midrange-y decks. Don't think the Constructs help enough with (1) to hurt (2).
Re: the conversation above -- it hasn't felt like the deck is missing another sac outlet. There are probably 3-5 flex spots in my estimation and I think I want those to be some combination of value cards like Shapers' Sanctuary, Karn, Scion of Urza, Evolutionary Leap, etc.
All this Tron talk is exhausting. I'm not a fan by any means, but I can recognize that a large part of that comes from exclusively playing mid-range as my entry into Modern. If you are a player frustrated by Tron, try playing aggro or combo for a bit. You'll quickly find you don't give a damn about Tron anymore and there's a new archetype you find "un-fun" -- Control gets sweepers and Jund discard. That's the nature of a generally cyclical rock-paper-scissors format.
If you want to play mid-range, accept that Tron is not a great match-up (but can likely be hedged to 40-60 depending on your 75). Sure, some of your losses will feel lopsided and most of your wins will feel very close. But that's what you're signing up for when you play mid-range, and that's manageable when Tron is <5% of the metagame.
That's the MTG equivalent of "Won't someone please think of the CHILDREN?!". It's a change that would be easily explained with a clear, succinct definition. As long as that change is properly publicized with the release of this hypothetical MM4, I don't think modern players will suddenly start ante-ing their children and playing sorceries as lands & creatures as instants.
A direct-to-modern product is unlikely to usher in the end of times, or even moderate confusion.
This all presupposes that every form of interaction is always better than any un-interactive strategies.
No, no it does not. You can add your own biases to the conclusion as you please, but the method proposed by KTK does not attempt to measure "good", "bad", or "better". Just interaction.
Now certainly there are people who will strenuously argue that interactive is good and uninteractive is bad (and probably some vice versa) but that's a value judgment. If there were an objective classification such as KTK's scoring system, we could at least agree on the definition were using when discussing how a metagame sorts out across the spectrum of interaction.
What is the goal, then, of measuring interaction? I'm sorry if I missed it in the lat few pages.
To be fair, I don't think it's been actually stated. The goal of measuring interaction with a clearly defined model is an objective measurement for each deck. That can then be used to roughly compare decks, evaluate the overall mix of a metagame across time, etc. At this point we're stuck with "I know it when I see it" evaluations of interaction and that quickly bogs down in arguments over the trees rather than taking in the forest.
There are a lot of second order applications from there. For example, determining which type of metagames WoTC has historically found acceptable and then using it as a predictor for future bans/unbans. Or evaluating how metagames cycle (or don't) between interactivity and uninteractivity.
This all presupposes that every form of interaction is always better than any un-interactive strategies.
No, no it does not. You can add your own biases to the conclusion as you please, but the method proposed by KTK does not attempt to measure "good", "bad", or "better". Just interaction.
Now certainly there are people who will strenuously argue that interactive is good and uninteractive is bad (and probably some vice versa) but that's a value judgment. If there were an objective classification such as KTK's scoring system, we could at least agree on the definition were using when discussing how a metagame sorts out across the spectrum of interaction.
[quote from="genini2 »" url="/forums/the-game/modern/791992-the-state-of-modern-thread-b-r-16-04-2018?comment=83"]
Imagine that you have 2 cloudposts and 1 glimmerpost, and compare that to having 3 tron lands. In both cases the players have access to 7 mana. You shoot down one tron piece, the tron player goes back to 2 mana, you shoot down one post, the post player goes back to 3. In both cases for the particular decks, 2 and 3 are not that different. Now, if the post players finds another post, he goes back to 5, while the tron player goes back to 7. That is in the scenario where, of course, you manage to have multiple copies of cloudposts, with your opponent only disrupting you after that.
I'm far from an expert on 12-post, but I can tell you that the math is warped in your example. When a Tron player loses a land, s/he now needs 1/3 lands to recover to 7 mana. The 12-post player only needs 1 of 2 Cloudposts or 3 Glimmerposts or X Vesuva; s/he's somewhere between 2x to 3x more likely to find the needed land off the top.
They'll likely both run some way to find the needed land, but the above would mean that the 12-post player can replace some of their Sylvan Scrying/Expedition Maps/whatever with more interactive cards.
My mind was blown to see people defending 'Ghosting' or Stream Sniping. Its flat out cheating, indefensible.
I'll open this can of worms.
No it isn't. A person who streams live is willingly giving out free information to the public. If they are dumb enough or naive enough to think that it won't be used against them, then they deserve what they get. If I sit down and don't hold my hand back far enough to hide the cards and my opponent looks at my hand it isn't their fault, its mine because I was the idiot that didn't hide them well enough. Same difference. If they don't want their opponent to know, don't broadcast it (live stream) to the world. Delay it. End of story.
This is a terrible take and your corrected metaphor shows it. An opponent isn't glancing at your hand because you're carelessly holding it too far forward; they're actively logging on to twitch to find a stream. That's far more akin to your opponent leaning halfway across the table to see your hand to take advantage of your "carelessness".
Could you (and the streamer) have been more concerned about tipping your hand? Sure. But that doesn't excuse your opponent's behavior.
Sorry but you aren't even close. My "analogy" (not metaphor) is near dead on and exact. It is called individual accountability. You are responsible for your own actions, known ones and ones you may not be aware of. If your action is actively, knowingly and blatantly broadcasting your actions, the viewer isn't necessarily responsible for your actions. The streamer is. Just more of this snowflake, I'm not responsible for my own actions, entitlement bullcrap that is out there due to lack of correct upbringing and education. In fact I would take it a step farther that the individual who live streams an online game without the consent of the other player is actively harming that player by divulging information about their deck and play style. Now if both parties are in consent of the live stream, then yes the opponent looking at that stream is cheating. But if it is not announced or is clandestine, the burden of stupidity falls on the live streamer.
Leaning over is to view an unviewable hand is cheating. Looking at self televised/broadcast information is not, plain and simple. Why don't professional sports coaches like NFL coaches live stream their play calling and images of their playblook? Would the opponent be on the "honor system" not to view that broadcast. Hell no, they willingly and knowingly gave away that information. If I play with my hand showing on the table for all to see its my own damn fault. Then I would blame my opponent for looking at my hand because I was an idiot and say they were cheating. Please.
Individual accountability plain and simple.
I should know better -- definitely an analogy as opposed to a metaphor. As for the rest...I do know better than to dive any deeper into this with you given the unrelated Ayn Rand talking point bingo you're all too excited to rant about. Suffice it to say, that ghosting can be unethical while not being cheating; very similar to angle shooting in that way. While you can protect yourself from those actions (and in most cases should), that doesn't in any way excuse the behavior of an opponent. Turns out Magic, like life, is a little more complex than black and white.
Throne of Geth is probably the most situational card in the deck. It can shine as a pseudo-Ravager late game to pump the team or a guarantee that Walker will get popped rather than exiled by Path. Other times it's pretty useless. Typically I'll play it last unless there's a specific reason not to. When sideboarding I consistently drop one or both that I play since it's the weakest card in the deck in most match-ups.
I feel you on Spellskite -- it further clogs the two drop spot and it misses a lot of what I want to protect against. More Welding Jar would be my choice if we're looking for additional protection, but I think we need a more repeatable 2 for 1 effect. Honestly, I'd love copies 5 & 6 of Walker if I could. But back in reality, maybe it's a planeswalker.
Mainboard:
-1 Throne of Geth
-1 Pendelhaven
-2 Horizon Canopy
+1 Evolutionary Leap
+3 Forest
Sideboard:
-1 Evolutionary Leap
-1 Damping Sphere
-1 Nissa, Voice of Zendikar
+2 Shapers' Sanctuary
+1 Grafdigger's Cage
I'm not 100% my changes were for the better. Horizon Canopy can be a mixed bag in the grindier matches and the extra forests make Blood Moon a nonstarter; occasionally miss the extra draw though and probably should be playing the Pendelhaven.
I haven't felt short without the extra Sphere. Nissa is probably a good addition, although I've pondered new Karn in her place. Shapers' Sanctuary looks great in theory but it's just not helping enough against control or midrange. Maybe they should be additional copies of Nissa/Karn? Not sure. My first few lists ran Animation Module in the main but it was challenging to use because the deck runs so tight on mana for the first dozen turns. Perhaps it's the grindy SB card I'm looking for?
Although perhaps I'm looking for answers without really having a problem. 4-1, 2-3, and 5-0 today. No complaints here!
Looks like I misunderstood your methodology -- that 17% includes all decks running any combination of SVs or Opts. Your population is all SCG and GP/PTs to date, right? Assuming so, that would seem to indicate a boom in Ancient Stirrings decks within the top 8 relative to potential Preordain decks. I'm not sure it immediately follows that the gap must be narrowed though. Someone would still need to make the argument that either it's healthier to stunt the Stirrings decks despite their diversity or that potential Preordain decks should compose a higher percentage of the top 8s. Quite possible, just not ground this thread has covered.
I should probably clarify -- I don't have strong feelings about a Twin un/ban, but I followed the points made in this thread. I've always agreed with the way you kept others' arguments grounded in logic, like regarding the actual ban language instead of fruitless comparisons to Storm, etc. I think some of your comments on Ancient Stirrings vs Preordain (and many more of those from others) stray into "it must be this OR that, for consistency" when we KNOW WoTC doesn't really care that much about logical consistency as an un/ban criteria. Far too many comments are framing this as a false dilemma. By your own previous admission, WoTC's decisions on Ancient Stirrings legality has little to no direct impact on Preordain much the same way that arguments for Splinter Twin's unbanning aren't really bolstered by pointing out other turn 4 combo decks that are legal.
Framing this as either/or is a cheap hedge that ignores that, from all available evidence, WoTC's decisions on Ancient Stirrings and Preordain aren't linked. Sure, the same criteria of game consistency will be evaluated but the choice to un/ban one doesn't have a direct impact on the other (outside of causing a meta shift). A lot of words to say that we should stop the "ban Ancient Stirrings or unban Preordain nonsense" and start arguing for banning Ancient Stirrings or unbanning Preordain on their own grounds using WoTC criteria.
I'm also not a big fan of Metallic Mimic because it's so susceptible to spot removal compared to the alternatives. In a nutshell it's a weaker choice because it's not an individual threat, further jams your 2 spot, and encourages you to take less threatening lines to maximize its value. I was introduced to this deck through Zyrnak's videos and tried Magic Aids' version with Mimics. Matt Nass and company have it right, or at least very close to it (see the 9th place finisher at GP Barca).
For what it's worth, I'm up to a 68.5% win rate through 111 matches and just put up my first 5-0. Net winnings are roughly 210 tickets.
If I'm understanding how you're calculating those numbers, there's a counterpoint that's been tangentially mentioned above. UW Control decks aren't even playing Serum Visions at the moment, not because it's not powerful, but because Opt works better for the miracled Terminus that's en vogue. Opt became Modern legal in early 2018, meaning your YoY numbers are skewed by the introduction of and cannibalization from a "weaker" cantrip that's better because of synergy. Preordain doesn't necessarily even slot into those decks if unbanned.
I'm curious how you would square your advice to Splinter Twin unban advocates with your recent comments on Preordain. Something along the lines of "it's not enough to draw a parallel with currently legal cards, argue its own merits (e.g. the original ban didn't succeed)." I don't think arguing consistency of ban logic is any more helpful here. And I say that as someone just fine with Preordain coming off.
Quick rundown of my own stats, with more detail I can fill in later if there's interest:
Like Click5 says above, Gut Shot is for small creature decks especially those that side in Kataki. There may be room to improve the SB overall for those bad match-ups; I've been playing an extra Leap MB in place of a Throne, but I'm not sure that's the solution. A lot to be said on sequencing, when to push, etc. but this is a great deck that can turn 4 or 5 non-interactive decks while grinding against other creature decks and not getting completely stomped versus control.
From personal experience, it's a really fun deck. Probably worth waiting until the next announcement though if you think there's even a small chance Ancient Stirrings sees the chop.
Not sure I'm sold on the 2x Sparring Construct; just doesn't do much unless you have a sac outlet. I've found I'm winning through one of two ways with this deck: (1) consistent (enough) goldfish kills on T4/5 against decks that don't want to interact much and (2) grinding with individual card value against more midrange-y decks. Don't think the Constructs help enough with (1) to hurt (2).
Re: the conversation above -- it hasn't felt like the deck is missing another sac outlet. There are probably 3-5 flex spots in my estimation and I think I want those to be some combination of value cards like Shapers' Sanctuary, Karn, Scion of Urza, Evolutionary Leap, etc.
If you want to play mid-range, accept that Tron is not a great match-up (but can likely be hedged to 40-60 depending on your 75). Sure, some of your losses will feel lopsided and most of your wins will feel very close. But that's what you're signing up for when you play mid-range, and that's manageable when Tron is <5% of the metagame.
A direct-to-modern product is unlikely to usher in the end of times, or even moderate confusion.
To be fair, I don't think it's been actually stated. The goal of measuring interaction with a clearly defined model is an objective measurement for each deck. That can then be used to roughly compare decks, evaluate the overall mix of a metagame across time, etc. At this point we're stuck with "I know it when I see it" evaluations of interaction and that quickly bogs down in arguments over the trees rather than taking in the forest.
There are a lot of second order applications from there. For example, determining which type of metagames WoTC has historically found acceptable and then using it as a predictor for future bans/unbans. Or evaluating how metagames cycle (or don't) between interactivity and uninteractivity.
No, no it does not. You can add your own biases to the conclusion as you please, but the method proposed by KTK does not attempt to measure "good", "bad", or "better". Just interaction.
Now certainly there are people who will strenuously argue that interactive is good and uninteractive is bad (and probably some vice versa) but that's a value judgment. If there were an objective classification such as KTK's scoring system, we could at least agree on the definition were using when discussing how a metagame sorts out across the spectrum of interaction.
I'm far from an expert on 12-post, but I can tell you that the math is warped in your example. When a Tron player loses a land, s/he now needs 1/3 lands to recover to 7 mana. The 12-post player only needs 1 of 2 Cloudposts or 3 Glimmerposts or X Vesuva; s/he's somewhere between 2x to 3x more likely to find the needed land off the top.
They'll likely both run some way to find the needed land, but the above would mean that the 12-post player can replace some of their Sylvan Scrying/Expedition Maps/whatever with more interactive cards.
I should know better -- definitely an analogy as opposed to a metaphor. As for the rest...I do know better than to dive any deeper into this with you given the unrelated Ayn Rand talking point bingo you're all too excited to rant about. Suffice it to say, that ghosting can be unethical while not being cheating; very similar to angle shooting in that way. While you can protect yourself from those actions (and in most cases should), that doesn't in any way excuse the behavior of an opponent. Turns out Magic, like life, is a little more complex than black and white.