I mean if we are talking about overall performance, Burn is way over-represented and suffers from generally under performing with a win rate of around 45% in the most recent data.
I've recently had a renewed interest in Fury of the Horde versions. Something about having 8 fatties and 8 enablers is making more sense to me right now than the weird 4/8 and 4/4 split that puts us in between Sneak Attack and Reanimator. With the Shoal version, if you don't have a Griselbrand in your top 10-15 cards, you just lose. Adding Big Spaghetti back into the mix somewhat alleviates this issue. Does anyone have any Fury lists kicking around?
Either version might be very meta dependent, but maybe look up Caleb Durward's Griselbrand "control" list from the Eldrazi winter days? I use control very loosely, but it did run a lot more interaction than the typical lists. I haven't played that version in a long while, so I can't confidently advocate it's positioning at this time. It does run the full set of Gris and Emrakul for more targets and sacrifices some speed to control what the opponent was trying to do. I remember adding bolts to the list for some additional interaction (infect was a big factor then) and reach (cheesed some wins out with bolt + Emrakul after they played a shock land untapped).
Doesn't really discount my fundamental point. There are a lot of factors that the data Depian is presenting doesn't account for. Even with GGT being banned mid season, the "dredge era" was more popular according to the chart and I think that would be a hard position to support. Similarly Eldrazi winter was a more "popular" format than current.
Regardless, here is some potential issues with the data as presented from the outset:
2015-16 Modern GP #s: 8
2016-17 GPs: 9 *Team modern introduced: +1 if included
2017-18 GPs: 11 *Team modern: +2 **Team Modern Unified: +1 *** Team Trios Constructed: +4
2018-19 GPs: 11 to date with 4 more to go **Team Modern Unified: +1 to date
This excludes team events, but I'm not sure if team events should be excluded necessarily. More modern events could potentially mean lower avg numbers. There are many factors that go into attending a GP for the average player (travel, accommodations, cost to register, etc). More frequent events may not necessarily mean more attendance by the average player, but more events means they can be more selective of what GP they attend.
Total attendance (still excluding team events):
2015-16: 13,945
2016-17: 17,338
2017-18: 21,247
2018-19 td: 9,992 (4 events still to go)
Just comparing the "decline" shown in the avg numbers to total attendance paints a different picture of the format with rising popularity, possibly peaking last season (to be determined).
If people bring in arguments of how there are many players who have "completely been driven out of the format", then these people might as well come with some data to back this up, because just claiming it is not enough.
Again, for the people in THIS forum, the result is rather clear. Attendance in events has not dropped as well, so I am not sure where this narrative is coming from, but I guess personal experience is a strong feeling.
This is a metric we can objectively measure and is well documented. I just took the numbers from season 2014-2015 onwards, excluded team events and the results seem to indicate that the average attendance for Modern GPs is going down in the last seasons.
If we are going to use this data as an indicative of how much people enjoy the format, attendance numbers would reinforce the idea that people are being driven out of the format.
Doesn't this have a bit of a correlation doesn't equal causation problem? Changes in incentives, prize payouts, number of modern GPs, CFB getting a monopoly on event hosting, etc could all attribute to a decline in attendance.
To kind of reinforce my point, Golgari Grave Troll was banned January 9th 2017 and the "result" was an 18% drop in GP attendance from the previous year
You are calling for a mod to crack down on comments against Stirrings? Is that correct?
I'll just leave this here.
"Bear in mind that this is based on the current state of the metagame, and that Ancient Stirrings and Mox Opal are not being given a free pass in perpetuity."
Which means in the current meta game, the around 27% of Top 8 finishes for stirrings decks including KCI was deemed fine (working from memory, so +/- on %). While a mod crackdown request is a bit of an overreach, people SHOULD temper their critiques and contributions based on precedent from WotC (one can wish anyway). It was deemed not a problem at the moment, but it would be absolutely foolish to believe it is forever safe. Every ban decision depends on the metagame context the decision was made in, so perhaps the % goes up this year and becomes a problem... or maybe it goes down.
I'm of the opinion that Ancient Stirrings has got to go. Most people would say that the results of GP Oakland brought to our eyes the problem that is KCI. I would say that it brought to our eyes the problem that is Ancient Stirrings. That card has been overperforming at GPs all throughout the last year.
Four different Ancient Stirrings decks have won five separate GPs: RG Eldrazi at Lyon, KCI at Hartford and Las Vegas, Hardened Scales at Prague, Tron at Hong Kong. Amulet also came close, losing to (what else?) KCI in the finals of Hartford.
Wanna count PTs too? OK, then notch another win for Lantern at PT RIX.
Is there any other nonland card that's even come close to what Stirrings has done? I'm serious - I encourage anyone reading this to go dig through GP decklists for any Modern staple at all (Looting, Hierarch, Bolt, SV, Mox Opal, ...) and see how they stack up to our favorite green cantrip. The closest I found was Looting, with four GP wins (Dredge at Barcelona, Mardu Pyromancer at Sao Paulo, Grixis DS at Portland, UR Phoenix at Oakland). It's got nothing on Stirrings' T8 count though, and DS doesn't run it as a 4-of.
The numbers have been discussed a few times within this thread, but Serum Visions / Opt decks are the next highest in prevalence for T8 GP finishes
Speaking purely for GP T8 numbers and nothing else, Looting isn't nearly as prevalent as Stirrings throughout 2018. If we compare all Lootings decks throughout the entire year to all Stirrings decks over the same time period, we find Stirrings at 27.3% of the T8 decks and Looting at 14.8%. SV/Opt decks are 21%. If you exclude the Team and PT events and look just at individual GP, it's 29.8% Stirrings, 13.5% Looting, and 21.1% SV/Opt. There's just no annual perspective where Looting is dominant at this level.
Comparing Twin with KCI is like comparing Amulet Bloom with Eldrazie, two different decks, two different time frames, two different data set. However, both decks got a ban of some sort.
Greetings,
Kathal
Agreed for the most part. It will depend on what the stated reasons for banning KCI are, if it gets a ban. If WotC cites T8 numbers, then there will be some comparison to previous diversity bans though it would be quite lower in terms of % setting a new floor for diversity ban considerations. They could also use perhaps a combination of "battle of sideboards" and logistics (unproven at this point). This is all speculation until it gets the axe, but the Twin vs KCI comparison is potentially valid only if we consider T8 as the primary reason.
Most of the unbans carried risk at the time and have been proven fine after deck tuning adjustments.
To date, no unban has directly slotted into a tier 1 deck or rather, to date no "diversity" offender has come off the ban list. Wild Nacatl ban and eventual unban was probably the closest example, but the ban was targeting a specific archetype of decks (aggressive creature decks) in order to diversify the field OF aggressive decks. There was some aspect of this listed in the twin announcement (URx diversity), but that was only part of the "problem." Twin still has to overcome other stated reasons.
And I will respond to your post once again stating that twin set a new floor for a diversity ban. For all we know, 15% T8 appearances could be considered a diversity violator. Before twin it was largely thought to be 20+, but it still stands that since twin (exception being Eldrazi winter), NO deck has come close to the top 8 numbers twin put up in 2015.
You can feel free to dismiss what WotC wrote all you want as you have done for the last 3 years. Just recognize that by a fairly objective measure, twin was the best thing to be doing post Pod ban until it got axed prior to Eldrazi winter.
I already agreed with ktk, but to claim Twin got all these upgrades, ignores the reality of deck space. Its like when people claim Twin would run SFM too. Or SFM would slot right into Control.
Its a nice little sound byte, but it doesnt stand up to any kind of critical thinking.
UR Twin today, would function as it did before. There is no fundamental shift at all in what it does with 'new' cards, in fact Jace would do less to change Twin, than BBE did for Jund.
I built a hypothetical list myself, and struggled to find anything relevant to add that was new. The only things were 2 Abrade (1 main 1 side), a main Sweltering Suns, and swapping Jace AOT for Mind Sculptor. The added Opts came at a cost of cutting Spell Snare and main deck Dispel.
Another thing twin defenders continue to ignore (or not care about) is that outside of the Eldrazi debacle, no other deck since twin's banning has reached the T8 prevalence that Twin achieved in 2015. While I can't say with any confidence that it would or wouldn't achieve a similar T8 %, it is still something to reckon with. The same criticism can be leveled at cards like Birthing Pod or DRS (examples of diversity bans). Yes twin didn't have the raw metagame numbers that Pod or DRS BG/x had, but like KCI (or Eldrazi in a more extreme case), you can't force the player base to play the best deck. It still did a fairly exceptional job at placing pilots into the T8, enough so that WotC acted (even if there were other stated reasons).
I made a long post about this a while ago, in which a large number of the Twin decks that made Top 8 did so on tiebreakers and then lost their first quarterfinal round. Both of the winners snuck in on tiebreakers, and one of the winners was recently crucified for being a cheater. So... take that as you will.
I can't find the original post, but I have the text of the post saved:
PT Top 8
Antoni Del Moral Leon (38 pts, 5-1 Limited, 7-1-2 Modern, both draws intentional)
Jelger Wiegersma (38 pts, 6-0 Limited, 6-1-3 Modern, 1 draw unintentional)
(Top 8 cutoff was 36pts)
GP Vancouver
Dan Lithier (3rd, 37pts, in on tiebreakers, won)
(1 player with 37pts did not T8. All T8 players draw final round)
GP Charlotte
Samuel Pardee (3rd, 40pts, draw into T8)
Wesley See (6th, 39pts, in on tiebreakers, 2nd)
(4 players with 39pts did not T8)
GP Copenhagen
Arnaud Hocquemiller (3rd, 39pts, knocked out QF)
(T8 cutoff was 38pts)
GP Singapore
Yuta Takahashi (5th, 38pts, knocked out QF)
(T8 cutoff was 37pts)
GP Oklahoma City
Brian Braun-Duin (3rd, 39pts, 2nd)
(T8 cutoff was 37pts)
GP Porto Alegre
Gabriel Fehr (3rd, 38pts, knocked out QF)
(T8 cutoff was 36pts)
GP Pitts
Robert Long (4th, 40pts, draw into T8, knocked out QF)
Alex Bianchi (5th, 39 pts, in on tiebreakers, won)
Benjamin Nikolich (8th, 39 pts, in on tiebreakers, knocked out QF)
(6 players with 39pts did not T8)
Some conclusions from this data set:
PT results dictated by 6 rounds of Limited play and should be wholly irrelevant. Never mind the inbred next-next-leveling that usually happens at the PT meta.
10 total GP Top 8 appearances for Twin
4 of the 10 (40%) made Top 8 on tiebreakers
7 of the 10 (70%) were knocked out in first round of Top 8
BOTH winners made it to the Top 8 on tiebreakers
One winner was a verified cheater and has since been banned
So if an opponent here or there had changed the tiebreaker math, instead of "Utterly dominant, oppressive, boogyman Twin" taking 10 GP Top 8 slots (out of a possible 56 slots, 17.8%) and 2 winners (out of a possible 7 GPs, 28.5%), we could have had 6 Top 8s (10.7%) and no wins (0.0%).
This is also completely dismissing the absurdity of drawing conclusions over such a small number of events spread out over a massive amount of time, or the horrible decision to weigh the ProTour as anything remotely meaningful.
Until WotC indicates that they care about tie breakers for banning considerations, what ifs really don't matter. You have been quick to dismiss decks like UWx for being bad/garbage/any number of dismissive adjectives for narrowly missing T8s on breakers alone, but want to use it to somehow show that twin was just unlucky. The breakers were what they were and twin was objectively the best deck for making the T8 of a tournament in 2015. Like Pod, it was the only deck during its ban cycle with multiple GP wins. WotC cites T8 appearances, GP, and PT wins in quite a few B&R announcements (Jund, Pod, and Twin for example). Whether you like it or not, T8 numbers matter to WotC.
Yep, it did have a slightly better Top 8 representation, while having a much higher gross meta share than KCI.
I'd say twin was more than slightly better in top 8 representation, but KCI has a legitimate target on its back based on the metrics we have access to. Perhaps it is a more egregious example given the much smaller overall meta share and likely higher conversion rate to top 8. Matt Nass alone accounts for what? 3 or 4 GP top 8 placings
Another thing twin defenders continue to ignore (or not care about) is that outside of the Eldrazi debacle, no other deck since twin's banning has reached the T8 prevalence that Twin achieved in 2015. While I can't say with any confidence that it would or wouldn't achieve a similar T8 %, it is still something to reckon with. The same criticism can be leveled at cards like Birthing Pod or DRS (examples of diversity bans). Yes twin didn't have the raw metagame numbers that Pod or DRS BG/x had, but like KCI (or Eldrazi in a more extreme case), you can't force the player base to play the best deck. It still did a fairly exceptional job at placing pilots into the T8, enough so that WotC acted (even if there were other stated reasons).
edit:
I started playing the format after the Pod ban and played exclusively BGx THROUGH Eldrazi winter. Twin was an even matchup at best, and I certainly don't miss running cards like Slaughter Pact in the main so I could play a T3 LotV and not die. If it comes back, fine so be it, but it has a pretty large barrier to overcome in the fact that it was statistically the best deck.
UR Phoenix won though, so I think KCI is safe. I've heard from some people from my local store that Faithless Looting is more of a problem than Ancient Stirrings. I personally don't think so. Faithless Looting is at least somewhat hurt by grave hate while Ancient Stirrings is hurt by … super quick goldfish decks. I will say that Faithless Looting is definitely a hell of a card though!
Speaking purely for GP T8 numbers and nothing else, Looting isn't nearly as prevalent as Stirrings throughout 2018. If we compare all Lootings decks throughout the entire year to all Stirrings decks over the same time period, we find Stirrings at 27.3% of the T8 decks and Looting at 14.8%. SV/Opt decks are 21%. If you exclude the Team and PT events and look just at individual GP, it's 29.8% Stirrings, 13.5% Looting, and 21.1% SV/Opt. There's just no annual perspective where Looting is dominant at this level.
If we eliminate KCI from that data set, would it change drastically? The reason I ask is that if KCI/Trawler is banned and not Stirrings, then that might be a better outcome
If you chop KCI out of the data, Stirrings drops to 18.9% (individual GP /PT top 8, no team events) which is less than SV/Opt, but still more than looting. I still fundamentally believe people looking at Stirrings and looting are looking at the wrong cards. Yes they are enablers and good at what they do for the decks that can utilize those effects, but none of these decks are fundamentally a problem by any metric we can measure them against. KCI may be the exception to this, but I don't think we are looking at a Gitaxian Probe type of situation where 1 card was enabling a wide berth of turn 4 violators for example.
Deck N
Affinity 7
Grixis Control 2
UR Twin 9
Jeskai Twin 1
Titanshift 1
GW Aggro 1
Merfolk 3
Burn 6
Scapeshift 2
Lantern 1
Elves 2
Amulet Bloomn 1
Zoo 2
Gx Tron 1
Living End 1
Bogles 2
Jund 3
Abzan 6
Temur Twin 1
4C Company 1
Temur Delver 1
Grixis Twin 1
Grixis Delver 1
D&T 1
Abzan Company 1
Ad Naus 1
Grishoalbrand 1
Infect 1
Amulet Bloom 3
So 18.75% of top 8 slots went to Twin KCI still has a way to go, but I don't think we have a great indication of where that T8 floor is (12? 15? 17%??) and perhaps T8 performance for a KCI ban only becomes part of the rational. It's 2018 "dominance" combined with difficulty sideboarding against, and logistical issues (unknown / unproven at this point) could cause it to get axed (strictly as an example).
Yeah, I think there is a different issue all together in that while the finally tally is greater, the meta share, and likely (ktk?) day 2 numbers for Twin where almost certainly much much much higher than KCI can even come close to.
If there is a Modern segment of the Pro Tour, and KCI is not touched before then, you better believe KCI will be flooding that event, as Twin did before it was banned.
I mean using your link, UR Twin alone, had more metagame than KCI does now.
Just looking at the 15 vs 18% thing, I noticed you include GP Omaha which was pre birthing pod ban vs the modern nexus article which omits that GP in the 2015 numbers (includes it in the 2014 data though) likely because banning of pod represented a clean "reset" point with much of the year still to go (Jan 11 date for GP Omaha). In a similar vein, if KCI gets hit at the next B&R announcement, GP Oakland shouldn't count towards 2019.
Either version might be very meta dependent, but maybe look up Caleb Durward's Griselbrand "control" list from the Eldrazi winter days? I use control very loosely, but it did run a lot more interaction than the typical lists. I haven't played that version in a long while, so I can't confidently advocate it's positioning at this time. It does run the full set of Gris and Emrakul for more targets and sacrifices some speed to control what the opponent was trying to do. I remember adding bolts to the list for some additional interaction (infect was a big factor then) and reach (cheesed some wins out with bolt + Emrakul after they played a shock land untapped).
4 x Blackcleave Cliffs
4 x Bloodstained Mire
1 x Mountain
4 x Temple of Malice
1 x Blood Crypt
6 x Swamp
2 x Verdant Catacombs
4 x Griselbrand
4 x Emrakul, the Aeons Torn
4 x Simian Spirit Guide
1 x Inquisition of Kozilek
4 x Goryo’s Vengeance
4 x Through the Breach
2 x Damnation
2 x Blood Moon
4 x Faithless Looting
3 x Tormenting Voice
1 x Pentad Prism
1 x Quicksilver Amulet
2 x Darkblast
4 x Leyline of Sanctity
1 x Blood Moon
2 x Engineered Explosives
3 x Inquisition of Kozilek
2 x Liliana of the Veil
1 x Pyroclasm
Regardless, here is some potential issues with the data as presented from the outset:
2015-16 Modern GP #s: 8
2016-17 GPs: 9 *Team modern introduced: +1 if included
2017-18 GPs: 11 *Team modern: +2 **Team Modern Unified: +1 *** Team Trios Constructed: +4
2018-19 GPs: 11 to date with 4 more to go **Team Modern Unified: +1 to date
This excludes team events, but I'm not sure if team events should be excluded necessarily. More modern events could potentially mean lower avg numbers. There are many factors that go into attending a GP for the average player (travel, accommodations, cost to register, etc). More frequent events may not necessarily mean more attendance by the average player, but more events means they can be more selective of what GP they attend.
Total attendance (still excluding team events):
2015-16: 13,945
2016-17: 17,338
2017-18: 21,247
2018-19 td: 9,992 (4 events still to go)
Just comparing the "decline" shown in the avg numbers to total attendance paints a different picture of the format with rising popularity, possibly peaking last season (to be determined).
Doesn't this have a bit of a correlation doesn't equal causation problem? Changes in incentives, prize payouts, number of modern GPs, CFB getting a monopoly on event hosting, etc could all attribute to a decline in attendance.
To kind of reinforce my point, Golgari Grave Troll was banned January 9th 2017 and the "result" was an 18% drop in GP attendance from the previous year
Which means in the current meta game, the around 27% of Top 8 finishes for stirrings decks including KCI was deemed fine (working from memory, so +/- on %). While a mod crackdown request is a bit of an overreach, people SHOULD temper their critiques and contributions based on precedent from WotC (one can wish anyway). It was deemed not a problem at the moment, but it would be absolutely foolish to believe it is forever safe. Every ban decision depends on the metagame context the decision was made in, so perhaps the % goes up this year and becomes a problem... or maybe it goes down.
The numbers have been discussed a few times within this thread, but Serum Visions / Opt decks are the next highest in prevalence for T8 GP finishes
Agreed for the most part. It will depend on what the stated reasons for banning KCI are, if it gets a ban. If WotC cites T8 numbers, then there will be some comparison to previous diversity bans though it would be quite lower in terms of % setting a new floor for diversity ban considerations. They could also use perhaps a combination of "battle of sideboards" and logistics (unproven at this point). This is all speculation until it gets the axe, but the Twin vs KCI comparison is potentially valid only if we consider T8 as the primary reason.
To date, no unban has directly slotted into a tier 1 deck or rather, to date no "diversity" offender has come off the ban list. Wild Nacatl ban and eventual unban was probably the closest example, but the ban was targeting a specific archetype of decks (aggressive creature decks) in order to diversify the field OF aggressive decks. There was some aspect of this listed in the twin announcement (URx diversity), but that was only part of the "problem." Twin still has to overcome other stated reasons.
You can feel free to dismiss what WotC wrote all you want as you have done for the last 3 years. Just recognize that by a fairly objective measure, twin was the best thing to be doing post Pod ban until it got axed prior to Eldrazi winter.
Until WotC indicates that they care about tie breakers for banning considerations, what ifs really don't matter. You have been quick to dismiss decks like UWx for being bad/garbage/any number of dismissive adjectives for narrowly missing T8s on breakers alone, but want to use it to somehow show that twin was just unlucky. The breakers were what they were and twin was objectively the best deck for making the T8 of a tournament in 2015. Like Pod, it was the only deck during its ban cycle with multiple GP wins. WotC cites T8 appearances, GP, and PT wins in quite a few B&R announcements (Jund, Pod, and Twin for example). Whether you like it or not, T8 numbers matter to WotC.
I'd say twin was more than slightly better in top 8 representation, but KCI has a legitimate target on its back based on the metrics we have access to. Perhaps it is a more egregious example given the much smaller overall meta share and likely higher conversion rate to top 8. Matt Nass alone accounts for what? 3 or 4 GP top 8 placings
edit:
I started playing the format after the Pod ban and played exclusively BGx THROUGH Eldrazi winter. Twin was an even matchup at best, and I certainly don't miss running cards like Slaughter Pact in the main so I could play a T3 LotV and not die. If it comes back, fine so be it, but it has a pretty large barrier to overcome in the fact that it was statistically the best deck.
If you chop KCI out of the data, Stirrings drops to 18.9% (individual GP /PT top 8, no team events) which is less than SV/Opt, but still more than looting. I still fundamentally believe people looking at Stirrings and looting are looking at the wrong cards. Yes they are enablers and good at what they do for the decks that can utilize those effects, but none of these decks are fundamentally a problem by any metric we can measure them against. KCI may be the exception to this, but I don't think we are looking at a Gitaxian Probe type of situation where 1 card was enabling a wide berth of turn 4 violators for example.
So 18.75% of top 8 slots went to Twin
Just looking at the 15 vs 18% thing, I noticed you include GP Omaha which was pre birthing pod ban vs the modern nexus article which omits that GP in the 2015 numbers (includes it in the 2014 data though) likely because banning of pod represented a clean "reset" point with much of the year still to go (Jan 11 date for GP Omaha). In a similar vein, if KCI gets hit at the next B&R announcement, GP Oakland shouldn't count towards 2019.