Those 'free wins' are what determine are the best decks in the format however. 'Fair Magic' is not what most high end players look for in a deck. This was commonly being discussed on twitter months and months ago.
this is the core of my issue.
Modern needs to be less broken Imo. Otherwise it's a Game of who can play the more broken deck.
Is thoughtsieze broken? No
Is snappy broken? No
Is Bolt broken? No
Push? No
Is a turn 2-3 1 mana 8/8 broken? Yes
Is a turn 3 karn broken? Yes
Is dumping your entire affinity hand pretty much making it impossible for the opponent to catch up broken? Yes
Is a Turn 2 tks or reality smasher broken? Yes
Is a turn 4 grapeshot lethal broken? Hell yes
People will say: but it's a small percentage that happens.
But combined with all the decks it happens more than I feel is healthy. Not to mention highroll magic is not a test of skill but rather a test of luck in which you pretty much auto lose that game no matter how good the answers are.
Not sure where you're going with that list of what's broken and what's not. Of course a single Bolt in a vacuum isn't as broken as a combination of multiple cards that result in a T2-3 8/8 or a T3 Karn.
As for the "game of who can play the more broken deck" comment, what format in any TCG isn't a battle of broken versus broken? Competitive environments will always drive players to either play the most broken decks or create decks that break the broken decks, which either become broken themselves or get beat by a different slew of broken decks it can't deal with.
Standard continues to suck. Check out the horror of GP Portland and the Standard decks in the SCG Open and Cassic. What Modern-related implications do you think are in the pipeline? Is it a lack of strong answers? If so, better answers could filter into Modern after entering Standard. Is it a lack of color balance? Archetype diversity? I'm just curious how you think Wizards' R&D response to the *****show of Energy is going to play out for us. Thoughts?
I think one thing that isn't emphasized enough lately is that Standard shouldn't need bans. Rotation should remove unwanted elements quickly enough to where bans shouldn't be needed even in twisted metas, but the recent bans have led people to treat Standard like other non-rotating formats. I don't play standard, so my opinion shouldn't hold much weight, but I really think that they should hold out on bans until Dominaria for no other reason than to restore faith that Standard is reasonably safe to invest in so long as you don't buy cards that'll quickly rotate out. If the B&R committee spends too much time talking about Standard to talk about Modern until February, that's fine with me, but I'd like to see a return to normalcy in the sense that Standard ban talk is an oxymoron and the B&R List committee can more or less ignore Standard. If they do ban something in Standard, I have literally 0 investment, but I really hope that regardless of Standard's state and future bans that it will not reflect future standards of banning for Modern and Legacy
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.
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?
Have to agree that a card with both insane selection and card advantage at instant speed for (usually) very low mana is pretty ridiculous. I'm all for Blue reactive decks getting more tools, but to me that's just taking it a step too far in the opposite direction. I'd rather they reprint Fact or Fiction or come up with something similar to DtT but less powerful.
@Albegas, What do the numbers show? *Why* were those decks bad?
http://mtgtop8.com/format?f=MO&meta=118
All the decks from 2016 that made it to top 8s. You will notice on further inspection that the 3% Grixis holds isn't even held solely by Grixis Control, but rather by both Grixis Control and Grixis Delver.
As cfusionpm said, MTGTop8 is notorious for categorizing decks incorrectly, but in this case I believe the numbers are correct enough to show that URx decks after the Twin ban did not spike in popularity after the ban, implying that Splinter Twin being the best URx deck was not why those decks died out. Otherwise, we'd at least see something get somewhere close to Twin's metashares
Of course there isn't. No other deck can kill on Turn 3.5 with extreme consistency while still dedicating a large chunk of the (23-27 cards) protecting its combo kill. Doesn't mean the deck is good for the format.
I honestly don't miss Twin in the format if it means other styles of reactive Blue decks can safely receive new tools without WotC worrying about breaking the format, and Twin was my first Modern deck. What I hate is the low standard Twin represents when it comes to potential future bans. And when I say "low standard", I mean the explicit standards set by WotC in the ban announcement, i.e. excess cannibalizing of similar decks and too many top 8 wins despite a relatively low meta share compared to other decks that have eaten a ban due to high meta shares.
Unless there are other articles about Twin that WotC printed stating other reasons beyond the cannibalizing argument and the Top 8 argument that I'm not aware of (and if there are I really would like to see them), I really don't care to argue about conjectured reasons why Twin might have been banned.
@Albegas, What do the numbers show? *Why* were those decks bad?
http://mtgtop8.com/format?f=MO&meta=118
All the decks from 2016 that made it to top 8s. You will notice on further inspection that the 3% Grixis holds isn't even held solely by Grixis Control, but rather by both Grixis Control and Grixis Delver.
As cfusionpm said, MTGTop8 is notorious for categorizing decks incorrectly, but in this case I believe the numbers are correct enough to show that URx decks after the Twin ban did not spike in popularity after the ban, implying that Splinter Twin being the best URx deck was not why those decks died out. Otherwise, we'd at least see something get somewhere close to Twin's metashares
Are people actually trying to argue that the diversity reason was a good reason to ban Twin? The reason you saw fewer of those decks wasn't just because Twin was good. It was because those other decks were bad. Hence why there wasn't a resurgence in fair URx decks until Ancestral Vision came off the list, and even then Grixis Control was on the low end of T2. Nahiri was T1 for for what, a month? And then URx decks basically died until the last couple of months.
I don't believe that Wizards was trying to be deceptive when they wrote that Twin was stifling diversity, but they definitely misunderstood why it was happening.
On a side note, that diversity ban is a terrible precedence. Might as well ban Death's Shadow because it cannibalized the shares of just about every Grixis deck in the format.
Actually, why is Collected Company still around? I'm still scratching my head on how that isn't as bad as Birthing Pod as the more "good creatures" they make, the better that card is going to get. Fishing around the ban list and the reasons why things were banned to begin with is a bit eye opening. Also frustrating, but eye opening.
Pretty sure the biggest reason is because CoCo decks just aren't dominant enough. If CoCo decks started having showings as strong as Birthing Pod decks did prior to its banning, it probably would be banned for the same reason that Birthing Pod was banned, but until then, there's simply no reason to hit it
In january they have to/must ban something about storm.
Why?
is too strong, breake the rule of 4th turn too easily now and even with 1 card in hand u could win.
the right choice will be ban past in flame or gifts to slow down a bit. My personal choice will be ban grapeshot, but it's my dream.
I'm worry about the pro tour. I think the meta is not safe as everyone say. In future months storm will be more and more present in the top 8 and i'm sure that sooner or later something about storm will be banned
I'm curious as to whether or not you play Storm or simply against Storm. If it's the former, are you seeing a lot of the same decks, and if it's the latter, how often do you play against Storm and what do you normally use?
Not trying to make any attacks, just genuinely curious
While no bans and discussions of unbans in Modern are both welcomed, I have to wonder why they think that they should wait until the Pro Tour to unban anything. Are they just afraid of some random deck breaking out during the Pro Tour and want to make sure the Pro Tour meta looks just like the current one?
Just out of curiosity, how has MTGGoldfish adapted to the changes in what decklists are posted? They aren't using the randomly selected lists when generating the meta percentages, are they?
Can someone tell me what card(s) have ever been banned from Modern because they "create[d] unfun and unpopular play patterns"? I glanced over the list, and as far as I can tell, not a single card on the ban list falls into this category
Also, no love for SFM in the article :(?
It'd be easy to argue that Second Sunrise qualifies, what with Eggs and its 20-minute turns.
Maybe, though considering that it was explicitly banned for logistical reasons, the choice of wording was pretty poor if that's the case.
Can someone tell me what card(s) have ever been banned from Modern because they "create[d] unfun and unpopular play patterns"? I glanced over the list, and as far as I can tell, not a single card on the ban list falls into this category
As for the "game of who can play the more broken deck" comment, what format in any TCG isn't a battle of broken versus broken? Competitive environments will always drive players to either play the most broken decks or create decks that break the broken decks, which either become broken themselves or get beat by a different slew of broken decks it can't deal with.
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.
Unless there are other articles about Twin that WotC printed stating other reasons beyond the cannibalizing argument and the Top 8 argument that I'm not aware of (and if there are I really would like to see them), I really don't care to argue about conjectured reasons why Twin might have been banned.
All the decks from 2016 that made it to top 8s. You will notice on further inspection that the 3% Grixis holds isn't even held solely by Grixis Control, but rather by both Grixis Control and Grixis Delver.
A year later...
http://mtgtop8.com/archetype?a=477&meta=142&f=MO
...and nothing's breaking 2%.
As cfusionpm said, MTGTop8 is notorious for categorizing decks incorrectly, but in this case I believe the numbers are correct enough to show that URx decks after the Twin ban did not spike in popularity after the ban, implying that Splinter Twin being the best URx deck was not why those decks died out. Otherwise, we'd at least see something get somewhere close to Twin's metashares
I don't believe that Wizards was trying to be deceptive when they wrote that Twin was stifling diversity, but they definitely misunderstood why it was happening.
On a side note, that diversity ban is a terrible precedence. Might as well ban Death's Shadow because it cannibalized the shares of just about every Grixis deck in the format.
Not trying to make any attacks, just genuinely curious
The last B&R announcement said the 17th, so unless there's a more recent article stating otherwise, the announcement is tomorrow
Also, no love for SFM in the article :(?