How about a version of Castigate that can hit nonbasic lands as well? Or a version of Cabal Therapy that loses the flashback, but could also hit nonbasic lands?
Lumping entirely different deck archetypes together for the purpose of evaluating Ancient Stirrings for ban considerations isn't a good argument. Don't expect Wizards to risk format diversity, reprint equity, and player confidence with this as the only support.
...we are saying that (Ancient Stirrings decks) are breaking a different format rule, i.e. the so-called format diversity rule, and doing so in the collective, just like P&P&P were doing so in the collective (albeit with a different rule). That's why I focused on the TC case, because although TC is almost definitely more broken than Stirrings, it's a clearer example. The following TC ban quotes could readily apply to a Stirrings ban:
-"Decks playing the powerful card drawers have been winning a lot, and pushing a lot of other decks down in competitive play"
-"However, as these decks have occupied a large portion of the competitive metagame, the overall variety of successful decks has been suppressed."
Those quotes are exactly what many players are alleging about Stirrings decks: that these decks are suppressing other strategies. TC fell under the exact same premise and I believe Stirrings could find itself in similar crosshairs.
The italicized parts I added to the quotes above are my points of disagreement for the sake of comparing these patterns. First, although evidence does point to very good conversion rates on average for several of the Stirrings decks (though none individually are anywhere near troubling levels by representation percentage), comparing the way TC decks pushed other decks out of competitive viability to how the Stirrings decks seems loosely supported at best. UR Delver alone was oppressive enough in representation to likely warrant the TC ban, but the fact that Burn of all decks splashed blue just to play it...that's format warping. All of the decks that Wizards cited were very fast decks that got pushed over the top by the raw power of such an easily splashable card. Those decks definitely consolidated power into fewer decks and invalidated much of what the rest of the format was doing. Stirrings decks are diverse, don't directly cannibalize other strategies that would have been viable otherwise, and the card by design can't just slot into any deck to power it up to warp the format.
Second, Modern is extremely diverse at the moment, and major tournament results ebb and flow constantly (as they should be in a healthy format that can self-regulate). Again, the comparison between TC decks suppressing overall variety compared to what Stirrings decks are doing isn't a good one, and homogenizing archetypes makes much more sense for TC (UR decks that race) for this comparison than Stirrings (various flavors of combo, control, ramp, aggro, and midrange).
This brings me to my second issue with your post. Throughout your post, you claim statements such as "these decks [i.e. Stirrings decks] are not suppressing the rest of the format" and that "none of them are suppressing diversity to a significant degree." This is by no means a proven case. In fact, the opposite is likely true. There is currently no single card in Modern that sees play in 30% of GP T8 decks. I think the second closest is probably SV at 15%. If we were to take 15% as our single-card baseline for GP T8, we have to ask what non-Stirrings decks would be showing up in the T8 if colorless strategies only comprised 15% of the T8s (like SV decks) and not 30%. That 15% addition is almost necessarily taking share away from other decks. This might include BGx, Ux, Mardu, and other decks with documented weak matchups against various Stirrings decks.
Statistically, I cannot argue against your numbers here. If people are playing more of one thing, they are necessarily not playing something else instead. I also concede that concrete evidence on either side would be a good thing to work out before anything definitive should be assessed. My continuing point of contention is using Stirrings itself as a metric to judge by, as the card is not causing any individual deck (or even archetype) to over-represent. "Stirrings decks" are not "Treasure Cruise decks", nor are they "Splinter Twin decks". Twin represents a package combo threat, so decks that play it will play with very similar lines, and should therefore be lumped together when considering win rates as well as their representation. TC decks are more varied, but still boil down overwhelmingly to URx aggro, tempo, and combo (ie decks that try to win as quickly as possible), so combining them for the purpose of comparison still makes sense. Stirrings decks are similar in that they play colorless cards, but they represent a variety of diverse options for the format. And unlike each of the previous two cases, none of the Stirrings decks are individually over-performing. It is simply incorrect to batch them to ascertain ban considerations.
As I see it, the alleged benefit of banning Stirrings is that Wizards weakens a broad set of decks without making them unplayable, thereby freeing up top tables for decks that are underrepresented. The counter-argument for this would be that a Stirrings bans would outright kill those decks and that no new decks would fill the void. For instance, if we saw all the Stirrings decks plunge to 10% after a ban and the Ux decks spike to 30%, that might not be a net diversity gain. I'm not sure what the outcome would be, but I am sure it's not as closed as you make it with your quotes like "none of them are suppressing diversity to a significant degree." That statement needs to be analyzed on both sides of the issue.
I fully agree with your conclusion, save for the fact that once again, Ancient Stirrings as a card should not be used to determine homogenized percentages of functionally different deck archetypes (none of which individually over-represent) for ban assessment. I can only add the possible perspective of Wizards as a business entity looking to maximize two things: card equity (ie the ability to use reprints to sell product) and player confidence (how far can you push someone before they stop playing your game, and consequently buying your product). Banning Stirrings risks the value of a horde of colorless cards, and it's doubtful the decks that spring up will drive enough fresh equity to replace what could be lost. Think of GBx decks that would benefit, full of cards like LotV and Goyf with healthy equity stepping up; though those cards would gain a bit, it's difficult to imagine the diminishing returns of them going from good to great would be enough to offset what would be lost in Gx Tron alone. And any player who is invested in an affected deck would look at such a banning with "wait, my deck isn't doing anything broken, nor is anything else playing it, and isn't dominating...but it got banned anyway?" Sacrificing the diverse Stirrings decks for the chance for net greater diversity is already a risky proposition, but coupled with these other factors, I would be extremely surprised if Wizards feels it's in their best interest to entertain a Stirrings ban.
All of this said...it's great to actually be in a bit of a debate with you. Your post quality is top-notch, and I wish everyone would be so thorough in their research and consideration.
To compare and contrast the few bannings of blue consistency cards against Ancient Stirrings:
Ponder and Preordain were banned specifically to limit blue red combo decks, which were making the format less diverse. Stirrings enables two very different styles of ramp, a combo deck, a unique control deck, and several flavors of aggro. Even if you lumped the categories together (Amulet and Tron as one, or Scales, Affinity, and heck, RG Eldrazi as another), none of them are suppressing diversity to a significant degree.
Look at Storm, the quintessential blue red combo deck, which has redundancy in both its rituals and cantrips. It has weathered the numerous bannings largely because of the critical mass of these card types. Compare this to Tron, which plays exactly one spell that filters multiple cards. Banning such a card in a deck like this is a much greater risk. In other words, a Stirrings ban risks more diversity by adversely affecting more archetypes, and does so in a way that has a chance of taking a good number of those decks completely out of competitive viability due to a lack of redundancy for such an effect.
This brings us to Treasure Cruise (and DTT, but since it was banned on the potential for directly supplanting TC, let's consider it redundant here). Jeskai Ascendancy, blue-based burn decks, and tempo decks were clearly warping the format. When a card is good enough for decks to splash a color they never would otherwise for a single spell...yeah, that's ban worthy. No Stirrings deck does this, or likely ever will, since the colorless restriction makes it unable to slot into decks not dedicated to it. And again, despite some solid conversion rates, these decks are not suppressing the rest of the format.
Lastly, we'll consider Gitaxian Probe, a card now banned in Legacy as well as Modern. According to Wizards, it was banned for enabling numerous turn three kills, while giving pilots perfect information (and a card) to set up or dodge as necessary...and for basically free (or better, as with delve and Death's Shadow). It's also perfectly splashable. Stirrings enables better turn three plays, including some kills from very lucky draws, but every other comparison here goes out the window.
At least the Stirrings ban talk has been relatively reasonable, and some support, even if it's a bit thin, has been presented as well. Anyone clamoring for any other bans at this point simply isn't paying attention.
On the flip side...in a hypothetical Twin unban, what existing competitive decks might lose enough ground to not be viable? What archetypes would be most likely to be cannibalized into Twin's share instead? UR Twin packing Remand and Blood Moon would certainly stuff Valakut and Amulet decks, but GDS, UWx Control, and possibly GBx would welcome it back with open arms. It shouldn't surprise anyone at this point that I'm primarily a Tron player, but I'd personally be totally okay with Twin decks being back, especially over any bans.
Gx Tron does not survive an Ancient Stirrings ban as a competitive deck, as the card is instrumental in fixing mana early, and hitting payoffs later. Cards like Oath of Nissa are worse enough at this job that they wouldn't be able to keep this deck in the running.
On a related note...I get that many of you aren't huge fans of the decks running Ancient Stirrings, but it feels disingenuous to aggregate everything playing it to determine unhealthy percentages for ban criteria. KCI, Gx Tron, Scales, Amulet, Lantern, and RG Eldrazi all play differently to a significant enough degree that banning Stiirings would likely have an adverse effect on format diversity, and player (ie customer) confidence. Although several of these decks are top tier, none of them seem to be suppressing overall format diversity. You shouldn't hold your breath waiting for Wizards to ban it, or anything else as the format currently stands.
Perilous Vault works as fine with Thragtusk as Oblivion Stone, since Tusk's beast token triggers on leaving the battlefield (as opposed to dying, like Wurmcoil). Vault doesn't work well with Ulamog, World Breaker, Wurmcoil, and Chromatic Star (though Star should never really be an issue if you are playing properly). Ugin already covers the exile base well enough while not tripping up any of the aforementioned cards that Vault would.
I'm starting to think Warping Wail is looking a little better for sideboards, as more sorceries and valid exile targets are becoming relevant.
I liked seeing Tannon Grace's list running the fourth Thragtusk instead of the lone Crucible in the sideboard. Both have game against decks that are trying to replace your Tron lands with Forests (primarily GBx and UW Control), but Tusk does a lot to keep us alive against most of the top tier. Crucible is great against UW Control and the mirror, and merely okay or worse pretty much everywhere else.
I'm definitely in favor of 4 Thragtusk right now, but why the direct comparison between the 4th and Crucible of Worlds in particular?
Also while we're talking about his list, I continue to be perplexed by people running 4 Nature's Claims. The 4th copy is just so narrow I feel. Actually, RacerXen, you were on that plan too. What do you like about it?
Also, I just noticed Grace was on only 3 O-Stone. That's defensible I suppose.
I made the Crucible/Thragtusk comparison because I had done the same swap last week for wanting something solid against UW Control that plays better in other matches, and I thought Tannon might have come to the same conclusion.
I'm with you on not being sold on the fourth copy of Claim right now; it just feels like overkill at the moment. I'm running Scavenger Grounds in that slot instead to have a fourth piece of graveyard hate. Having the ability to fetch it is great, plus there are a few matches where it swaps easily with Ghost Quarter, or I just want one more land.
I liked seeing Tannon Grace's list running the fourth Thragtusk instead of the lone Crucible in the sideboard. Both have game against decks that are trying to replace your Tron lands with Forests (primarily GBx and UW Control), but Tusk does a lot to keep us alive against most of the top tier. Crucible is great against UW Control and the mirror, and merely okay or worse pretty much everywhere else.
-Great threat when Tron isn't online (either early, or later due to cards like Field of Ruin, especially since that and Assassin's Trophy fix our green mana)
-Makes racing combo and aggro more realistic
-Low mana cost makes it easier to cast multiple threats a turn (especially helpful versus UW Control)
All that said, most Gx Tron lists run around 16 bodies in the 75, and those seem to be better role-players for us than Goyf. TKS in particular is great against a lot of decks where we also want graveyard hate. Walking Ballista is everything else we need in a "cheap" creature due to its versatility. Goyf's solid, but I don't feel we need more bodies, and the graveyard liability is real.
Speaking of Ballista, it's better against Hollow One and UW Control than many give it credit for. Against the former, it's solid to block Hollow One and ping off a Bloodghast to help us survive early. Against UW, it triggers Sanctum through counters and Stony Silence, baits Paths, and shoots their threats (including JtMS and Teferi). I'm glad people are playing more of them, and that they are a mainstay component of the deck now.
I agree that Ghost Quarter is a better toolbox card than Field of Ruin. However, with UW, GBx, and who knows what else poised to be doing their best to keep us off Tron, I want to play the card that replaces itself as it disrupts, and that's Field of Ruin. So far it's been fine (the mana cost has yet to be an issue), but if Infect or either version of Affinity gets more popular post GRN, I don't mind switching back.
Purklefluff, how did you end up at the end of the day?
I don't think bringing in Spellskite against GBx decks is a winning strategy. Sure, it can be nice to protect a naturally drawn Tron, but casting it instead of Scrying or activating Map is costing us tempo anyway. Our post-board better midrange plan is very hard for them to deal with, so I'd sideboard assuming that getting Tron online is more of a bonus than anything.
I'm starting to feel that Field is going to be better for us than Ghost Quarter. With more basics in the main, a distinct lack of Crumble to Dust, and fewer copies of the mirror match looking likely, I want the card that fixes our mana and forces opponents to shuffle scryed cards away.
Similarly, the trends as they are make Loam look better than Crucible to me. There really isn't room to jam Horizon Canopy anymore, and with GBx and UW Control poised to be very popular, at least for awhile, Loam's resiliency really helps out, especially when those decks are fixing our green mana. Bonus points for feeding Emrakul TPE and even Tarmogoyfs out of the sideboard, and to dredge World Breaker into the yard on occasion. It's true that Crucible is easier to get in hand early, but Loam seems to do enough more at this point against UW and GB justify it instead, imho.
I don't know that Ego is terrible, but it definitely isn't putting any UBx decks into the top tier. Against us specifically, imagine how bad it would be to draw it the turn after a big threat has already stuck. Ego can be high impact, but it has to line up right, and no competitive shell really gets a huge upgrade from it. Oh sure, some Grixis Control player will roll some Gx Tron player at an FNM once and swear their deck is suddenly top tier...but it's not pushing us, or anything else, out of the format.
At least with Assassin's Trophy they can destroy the threat instead to stem the blood flow, barring the usually played Eldrazi titans.
Assassin's Trophy costs two mana, is maindeckable, and powers up at least one competitive shell against some of its worst matches.
Unmoored Ego costs three mana, isn't really maindeckable, and doesn't slot into anything doing remotely well in the format. Sure, Faeries or UBx Control could run it, but they still aren't gaining enough ground with it against most of the tier one decks to become contenders. The fact that Warping Wail gives us even more game against it is icing on the cake.
Don't get me wrong; I love the power and design of Ummoored Ego, even as a Tron player. I just don't see it as the nail in the coffin for us at all. Assassin's Trophy is much closer to such a thing, but even then we still have a good lower curve midrange game post-board.
I just hope at some point (probably the next colorless matters set in, say, eight years lol) we get some tools to bring the points back against midrange and control, or better yet, help us against aggro and combo decks. In the meantime, it looks like all the complaining about Tron has paid off, unfortunately. I'm hopeless though, so I'm not going anywhere
Second, Modern is extremely diverse at the moment, and major tournament results ebb and flow constantly (as they should be in a healthy format that can self-regulate). Again, the comparison between TC decks suppressing overall variety compared to what Stirrings decks are doing isn't a good one, and homogenizing archetypes makes much more sense for TC (UR decks that race) for this comparison than Stirrings (various flavors of combo, control, ramp, aggro, and midrange).
Statistically, I cannot argue against your numbers here. If people are playing more of one thing, they are necessarily not playing something else instead. I also concede that concrete evidence on either side would be a good thing to work out before anything definitive should be assessed. My continuing point of contention is using Stirrings itself as a metric to judge by, as the card is not causing any individual deck (or even archetype) to over-represent. "Stirrings decks" are not "Treasure Cruise decks", nor are they "Splinter Twin decks". Twin represents a package combo threat, so decks that play it will play with very similar lines, and should therefore be lumped together when considering win rates as well as their representation. TC decks are more varied, but still boil down overwhelmingly to URx aggro, tempo, and combo (ie decks that try to win as quickly as possible), so combining them for the purpose of comparison still makes sense. Stirrings decks are similar in that they play colorless cards, but they represent a variety of diverse options for the format. And unlike each of the previous two cases, none of the Stirrings decks are individually over-performing. It is simply incorrect to batch them to ascertain ban considerations.
I fully agree with your conclusion, save for the fact that once again, Ancient Stirrings as a card should not be used to determine homogenized percentages of functionally different deck archetypes (none of which individually over-represent) for ban assessment. I can only add the possible perspective of Wizards as a business entity looking to maximize two things: card equity (ie the ability to use reprints to sell product) and player confidence (how far can you push someone before they stop playing your game, and consequently buying your product). Banning Stirrings risks the value of a horde of colorless cards, and it's doubtful the decks that spring up will drive enough fresh equity to replace what could be lost. Think of GBx decks that would benefit, full of cards like LotV and Goyf with healthy equity stepping up; though those cards would gain a bit, it's difficult to imagine the diminishing returns of them going from good to great would be enough to offset what would be lost in Gx Tron alone. And any player who is invested in an affected deck would look at such a banning with "wait, my deck isn't doing anything broken, nor is anything else playing it, and isn't dominating...but it got banned anyway?" Sacrificing the diverse Stirrings decks for the chance for net greater diversity is already a risky proposition, but coupled with these other factors, I would be extremely surprised if Wizards feels it's in their best interest to entertain a Stirrings ban.
All of this said...it's great to actually be in a bit of a debate with you. Your post quality is top-notch, and I wish everyone would be so thorough in their research and consideration.
Ponder and Preordain were banned specifically to limit blue red combo decks, which were making the format less diverse. Stirrings enables two very different styles of ramp, a combo deck, a unique control deck, and several flavors of aggro. Even if you lumped the categories together (Amulet and Tron as one, or Scales, Affinity, and heck, RG Eldrazi as another), none of them are suppressing diversity to a significant degree.
Look at Storm, the quintessential blue red combo deck, which has redundancy in both its rituals and cantrips. It has weathered the numerous bannings largely because of the critical mass of these card types. Compare this to Tron, which plays exactly one spell that filters multiple cards. Banning such a card in a deck like this is a much greater risk. In other words, a Stirrings ban risks more diversity by adversely affecting more archetypes, and does so in a way that has a chance of taking a good number of those decks completely out of competitive viability due to a lack of redundancy for such an effect.
This brings us to Treasure Cruise (and DTT, but since it was banned on the potential for directly supplanting TC, let's consider it redundant here). Jeskai Ascendancy, blue-based burn decks, and tempo decks were clearly warping the format. When a card is good enough for decks to splash a color they never would otherwise for a single spell...yeah, that's ban worthy. No Stirrings deck does this, or likely ever will, since the colorless restriction makes it unable to slot into decks not dedicated to it. And again, despite some solid conversion rates, these decks are not suppressing the rest of the format.
Lastly, we'll consider Gitaxian Probe, a card now banned in Legacy as well as Modern. According to Wizards, it was banned for enabling numerous turn three kills, while giving pilots perfect information (and a card) to set up or dodge as necessary...and for basically free (or better, as with delve and Death's Shadow). It's also perfectly splashable. Stirrings enables better turn three plays, including some kills from very lucky draws, but every other comparison here goes out the window.
At least the Stirrings ban talk has been relatively reasonable, and some support, even if it's a bit thin, has been presented as well. Anyone clamoring for any other bans at this point simply isn't paying attention.
On the flip side...in a hypothetical Twin unban, what existing competitive decks might lose enough ground to not be viable? What archetypes would be most likely to be cannibalized into Twin's share instead? UR Twin packing Remand and Blood Moon would certainly stuff Valakut and Amulet decks, but GDS, UWx Control, and possibly GBx would welcome it back with open arms. It shouldn't surprise anyone at this point that I'm primarily a Tron player, but I'd personally be totally okay with Twin decks being back, especially over any bans.
On a related note...I get that many of you aren't huge fans of the decks running Ancient Stirrings, but it feels disingenuous to aggregate everything playing it to determine unhealthy percentages for ban criteria. KCI, Gx Tron, Scales, Amulet, Lantern, and RG Eldrazi all play differently to a significant enough degree that banning Stiirings would likely have an adverse effect on format diversity, and player (ie customer) confidence. Although several of these decks are top tier, none of them seem to be suppressing overall format diversity. You shouldn't hold your breath waiting for Wizards to ban it, or anything else as the format currently stands.
I'm starting to think Warping Wail is looking a little better for sideboards, as more sorceries and valid exile targets are becoming relevant.
Nice work, thanks!
Out of curiosity, what makes you prefer Wurmcoil Engine to Walking Ballista in the mirror match?
I made the Crucible/Thragtusk comparison because I had done the same swap last week for wanting something solid against UW Control that plays better in other matches, and I thought Tannon might have come to the same conclusion.
I'm with you on not being sold on the fourth copy of Claim right now; it just feels like overkill at the moment. I'm running Scavenger Grounds in that slot instead to have a fourth piece of graveyard hate. Having the ability to fetch it is great, plus there are a few matches where it swaps easily with Ghost Quarter, or I just want one more land.
-Great threat when Tron isn't online (either early, or later due to cards like Field of Ruin, especially since that and Assassin's Trophy fix our green mana)
-Makes racing combo and aggro more realistic
-Low mana cost makes it easier to cast multiple threats a turn (especially helpful versus UW Control)
All that said, most Gx Tron lists run around 16 bodies in the 75, and those seem to be better role-players for us than Goyf. TKS in particular is great against a lot of decks where we also want graveyard hate. Walking Ballista is everything else we need in a "cheap" creature due to its versatility. Goyf's solid, but I don't feel we need more bodies, and the graveyard liability is real.
Speaking of Ballista, it's better against Hollow One and UW Control than many give it credit for. Against the former, it's solid to block Hollow One and ping off a Bloodghast to help us survive early. Against UW, it triggers Sanctum through counters and Stony Silence, baits Paths, and shoots their threats (including JtMS and Teferi). I'm glad people are playing more of them, and that they are a mainstay component of the deck now.
Purklefluff, how did you end up at the end of the day?
I'm starting to feel that Field is going to be better for us than Ghost Quarter. With more basics in the main, a distinct lack of Crumble to Dust, and fewer copies of the mirror match looking likely, I want the card that fixes our mana and forces opponents to shuffle scryed cards away.
Similarly, the trends as they are make Loam look better than Crucible to me. There really isn't room to jam Horizon Canopy anymore, and with GBx and UW Control poised to be very popular, at least for awhile, Loam's resiliency really helps out, especially when those decks are fixing our green mana. Bonus points for feeding Emrakul TPE and even Tarmogoyfs out of the sideboard, and to dredge World Breaker into the yard on occasion. It's true that Crucible is easier to get in hand early, but Loam seems to do enough more at this point against UW and GB justify it instead, imho.
At least with Assassin's Trophy they can destroy the threat instead to stem the blood flow, barring the usually played Eldrazi titans.
Unmoored Ego costs three mana, isn't really maindeckable, and doesn't slot into anything doing remotely well in the format. Sure, Faeries or UBx Control could run it, but they still aren't gaining enough ground with it against most of the tier one decks to become contenders. The fact that Warping Wail gives us even more game against it is icing on the cake.
Don't get me wrong; I love the power and design of Ummoored Ego, even as a Tron player. I just don't see it as the nail in the coffin for us at all. Assassin's Trophy is much closer to such a thing, but even then we still have a good lower curve midrange game post-board.
I just hope at some point (probably the next colorless matters set in, say, eight years lol) we get some tools to bring the points back against midrange and control, or better yet, help us against aggro and combo decks. In the meantime, it looks like all the complaining about Tron has paid off, unfortunately. I'm hopeless though, so I'm not going anywhere