I reject such an analysis because I see no objective way of defining what 'type' of deck something is. If it were up to me, I would be working only with decklists, rather than names of decks because the simple division of decks into categories is not objective. Unfortunately, I have to work with the data available.
Then why not work with only decklists? You can measure diversity by how many different cards show up in a given time period. This would require the assumption that having 4 Forked Bolt, 4 Lightning Bolt, 4 Abrupt Decay, and 4 Path to Exile is a more diverse metagame than 16 Lightning Bolts.
...Seems reasonable to me, but if anyone sees a problem with them, please point it out. Now we can attempt to apply the function. Contained in the spoiler below is a sliding monthly window analysis of MTGO modern...
average = 8.395145357142857
standard deviation = 0.17493178126858758
1 std away from mean = 8.220213575874268
2 std away from mean = 8.045281794605682
Taking all this data together, we can conclude that October was an oddly low diversity month. Perhaps the meta at the time was unhealthy. ModernMTGO appears to have since bounced back and now appears reasonably healthy.
EDIT: oops, I accidently ran with the wrong DR function. The below analysis of mtgo is actually correct.
>2 std above mean :
2-1 std above mean : 8/1/2014-9/1/2014
within 1 std of mean : 5/1/2014-6/1/2014 5/15/2014-6/15/2014 6/1/2014-7/1/2014 6/15/2014-7/15/2014 7/1/2014-8/1/2014 7/15/2014-8/15/2014 8/15/2014-9/15/2014 9/1/2014-10/1/2014 10/15/2014-11/15/2014 11/1/2014-12/1/2014
2-1 std below mean : 9/15/2014-10/15/2014 10/1/2014-11/1/2014 11/15/2014-12/15/2014
>2 std below mean :
So, using the function discussed earlier, no monthly interval appears to be significantly low in diversity. The modern format appears healthy.
My only issue with this is a speculative one. What would a format that is decidedly NOT diverse look like in your function? That is, something like late 2012 with BBE Jund or late 2013 with DRS-powered BGx Midrange? We know that those periods were not diverse enough for Wizards so we would hope your formula also identifies them as not diverse. If it does not, then it becomes a lot less useful as a tool to predict format health because it produces a different result than that which Wizards sees. If it does, then that would validate the tool as a possible objective indicator of format diversity.
I think I have an MTGO dataset for the BGx Midrange period, but it isn't available on google sheets. Will have to check later.
My only issue with this is a speculative one. What would a format that is decidedly NOT diverse look like in your function? That is, something like late 2012 with BBE Jund or late 2013 with DRS-powered BGx Midrange? We know that those periods were not diverse enough for Wizards so we would hope your formula also identifies them as not diverse. If it does not, then it becomes a lot less useful as a tool to predict format health because it produces a different result than that which Wizards sees. If it does, then that would validate the tool as a possible objective indicator of format diversity.
I think I have an MTGO dataset for the BGx Midrange period, but it isn't available on google sheets. Will have to check later.
I agree with you. Although I think the biggest problem with my function is that it can easily be made to fit any data we give it. As mentioned earlier, there are infintely many different versions of my function, Here is a generalized version to consider..
DR = (ln(|meta|*A+B)+C)/ (varaince(meta)*D+E)
...There are at least 5 different constants (A-E) that could be massaged to modify the equation while still maintaining all of the requirements outlined. I'd imagine that, no matter how good the test data we through at it is, it will be possible to fit the data to my function. In other words, no matter how many test cases we throw at it in which we know what the right answer is such as the period in late 2013 which we know was unhealthy, by changing the constants, we can make the function work. This is essentially an over-fitting problem.
The other problem is that this function will merely end up spitting out numbers for given ranges. Deciding where the cutoff needs to be to call a meta 'Low Diversity' is difficult. I decided, mostly arbitrarily, to put the cut off at two standard deviations. Some other threshold may be more appropriate though.
All that said, I would very much like to test my algorithms with the BGx Data.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
- Manite
Then why not work with only decklists? You can measure diversity by how many different cards show up in a given time period. This would require the assumption that having 4 Forked Bolt, 4 Lightning Bolt, 4 Abrupt Decay, and 4 Path to Exile is a more diverse metagame than 16 Lightning Bolts.
I'd love to, "Unfortunately, I have to work with the data available." There are no simple data sets providing a large number (>1000) of decklists annotated with the date they won. Basically I need a big list of dates and the cards that saw play along with the number of them that were played on those days. If I had that data, I could perform a lot of different, more powerful analyses that I simply can't at the moment.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
- Manite
This is a follow up to my metagame analysis conducted on 12/15/2014. Given how distracted (at best) and wildly off topic (at worst) the conversation has become, I think it's time we look at some data.
Since 12/15, I have added about 30 events to the paper dataset. For reference, I am using the dataset in my signature, the top link in the list. Data is gathered from a variety of different websites and, to my knowledge, this is the "best" list of Modern events online (Both in comprehensiveness and accuracy). It includes any paper event with 15+ players, regardless of location. Although this doesn't capture the nuances of regional metagames, it does allow us to see a big picture that Wizards is undoubtedly looking at. Since the last update, the majority of additions have been Italian/Spanish PTQs, as well as some Japanese events. Finally, this dataset only accounts for T8 and T16 decks, not every deck played at an event.
With those limitations and qualifications in mind, here is the graph of the paper metagame since October, broken out in two week increments. A variety of tier 1 decks are not included to make the graph easier to read. This includes Scapeshift, UWR Midrange/Control, Merfolk, and UR/RUG Twin. Although these decks definitely saw fluctuations in the time period, they are not nearly as dramatic or (in my opinion) illustrative as the decks shown in this graph. Here's graph #1, which gives a broad paper Modern metagame picture:
(NOTE: There is a difference between this data and the data presented a few weeks ago. Junk Pod (i.e. comboless Pod) has really soared in popularity, so it is now included alongside Melira Pod in one category. This only accounted for an extra <1% share in all periods prior to 12/1-12/15. From that point on, Junk Pod added an additional 1.65% in 12/1-12/14 and 4.4% in 12/15-12/28).
And as with last time, here is a breakdown of the different Delver decks over the time periods. I break this out separately because TC is obviously a card that Wizards is giving a lot of scrutiny right now.
Looking at the overall metagame picture, there are three trends that really stand out to me. Remember that this just includes paper events so it might not apply to MTGO data.
1. Delver is dropping but not significantly
Delver is no longer the most played deck! But let's not celebrate yet... In this last period, the URx Delver share hit 15%. Although this is a noticeable decline from the previous two week period, it is no lower than it was back in early November. Because of that, it is too early to say if this is just a temporary dip or if Delver is actually falling to more reasonable levels. It is interesting to note, looking at the second graph, that most of Delver's drop came in straight UR Delver, not in RUG or UWR. This is a bit more interesting because the strict UR Delver prevalence is the lowest it has been since KTK arrived, which actually might indicate an overall decline in Delver that will continue into the new year. Of course, it could be replaced by RUG and UWR players picking up the slack.
2. Junk continues its climb to the top
Since KTK came to Modern, Junk has been the only consistent tier 1 deck that has grown its metagame share in every single two week increment. Even Pod, a deck that I will talk about in a moment, saw a sharp decline during the height of Delver and TC craze. Junk though? It just gets better and better from week to week. This is a testament both to the power of Rhino as a card, but also to Modern players who adapted the versatile BGx archetype to fit a new threat. With a current share of 11.5%, Junk is a solid tier 1 deck but not particularly dominant. We have seen a half dozen tier 1 decks enjoy a 10-12% metagame share at one point or another, so it's nice that the historically underplayed Junk is finally getting some time in the sun. As for Jund? ...what's Jund?
3. Pod is on a meteoric rise
Following its decline in October to only about 2% of the metagame, Pod has exploded to be the most-played archetype in the format. Currently, the combined share of Melira Pod (~12.5%) and Comboless Junk Pod (~4.5%) is just under 17%, which makes it both the most-played deck in the format, but also more played than even Delver. As I said earlier, Delver has been dethroned, and Pod was the deck to do it. Unfortunately, this is not exactly a healthy metagame share. 16-17% is definitely not DRS-era BGx numbers, but it's also not the healthy 10-12% that we saw in ban-free eras of Modern. It is also worth noting that some of the biggest Modern events in the past months have seen some equally big Pod performances. Should this be worrisome? Not necessarily; the metagame is clearly in flux, and we would expect to see big changes in such a metagame. But it is obviously not a place we would want the metagame to stay.
Overall, this is not a great place for Modern. URx Delver (15%), Junk (11.5%), and BGW Pod (~17%) make up about 43-44% of the format. Three decks making up just under half of the format isn't exactly a good thing, especially when two of those decks seem to be doing well in response to the first (e.g. Rhino as a response to TC-based aggro/tempo). Of course, the metagame is definitely in a changing state, so January 2015 might see some more shifts towards a stabler Modern. If it does, that would be healthy for the format. If not, Wizards will probably act to shake things up before the upcoming PT.
You know, I've been thinking. My understanding is that the way classification (Proven, Established, or New Decks) works is that if a deck fulfills enough of the requirements between two particular dates (e.g. Sept. 22 to January 19), it gets into the applicable forum.
My problem is that the two particular dates chosen are set releases (well, ban cycles, but they coincide now), which are when meta changes are most likely. Look at how different the meta after Khans of Tarkir is compared to what it was before. And who knows how different it could become with the next set's release and any bannings/unbannings that may happen?
This means that where decks are classified really aren't representative of where they are now but where they were in the previous meta. That doesn't give a very accurate reading of the current meta, especially because the biggest meta changes happen right after the cutoff date.
I think it would be better if instead of coinciding the cutoff dates with set releases, to instead put them between set releases. That gives the "new" meta time to figure itself out and actually figure out where the decks stand, making the arrangement of decks in the forums closer to where they are in whatever the current meta is, rather than where they were in the previous meta.
You know, I've been thinking. My understanding is that the way classification (Proven, Established, or New Decks) works is that if a deck fulfills enough of the requirements between two particular dates (e.g. Sept. 22 to January 19), it gets into the applicable forum.
My problem is that the two particular dates chosen are set releases (well, ban cycles, but they coincide now), which are when meta changes are most likely. Look at how different the meta after Khans of Tarkir is compared to what it was before. And who knows how different it could become with the next set's release and any bannings/unbannings that may happen?
This means that where decks are classified really aren't representative of where they are now but where they were in the previous meta. That doesn't give a very accurate reading of the current meta, especially because the biggest meta changes happen right after the cutoff date.
I think it would be better if instead of coinciding the cutoff dates with set releases, to instead put them between set releases. That gives the "new" meta time to figure itself out and actually figure out where the decks stand, making the arrangement of decks in the forums closer to where they are in whatever the current meta is, rather than where they were in the previous meta.
The big issue with this is that metas actually don't settle in that time frame. We need only look at the most recent 3-4 months to see that, although we could honestly look at almost any time frame instead. From 10/1 through 11/15, which is roughly the point of KTK legalization through the midpoint until the FRF release, Junk was ~1.5% of both the MTGO and paper metagames. If we had updated around 11/15, we still would have missed that obviously tier 1 deck because it didn't prove itself for a few more weeks. Sure, we could have waited a few more weeks, but now we are back to a semi-arbitrary "waiting period" around the midway point between two ban announcements. Sometimes the meta will keep changing, as in the Junk case that we see today. And other times, it might not. We just wouldn't know. Indeed, this might end up being worse than keeping it the current way because we would be saying that the Proven/Established breakdown is "current". But it actually isn't. At least in this current system, we tacitly acknowledge a delay, just like in the financial quarter reporting system.
The most glaring place where our current system breaks down is when a ban announcement fundamentally changes the format. Which, in some respects, isn't that much different from when a set release fundamentally changes the format. But no matter when we put the cutoff, something is going to get left out. The current system is best suited for a Modern that doesn't have a lot of changes. The system you propose is best suited for a Modern where big change is happening. But still, both systems will exclude decks at different times.
With the banlist update coming in 7 days, it's time for our semi-final tally of all that's happened in the MTGO and paper metagames since the last ban announcement. From 9/22 through 1/11, we have seen a topsy turvy Modern metagame that has been profoundly affected by cards from KTK. If any period of Modern is going to generate bans or unbans, it's a period like this one. Although we don't have access to all the data that Wizards does, we have access to quite a lot. Using that data, we can potentially get the same metagame picture that they are looking at, and maybe even draw the same conclusions from it. And if not, it's still some hard data for us to look over in the week leading up to the 1/19 update.
The data below reflects events compiled in the MTGS Modern metagame spreadsheet. You can find it and previous versions of it in my signature. Although other sites also track this data, I have found that all of them are very inconsistent/outright inaccurate in classifying decks, double count events, don't count all decks from an event, don't have all events in the time period, or some combination thereof. Even the best of them, mtgdecks.net, doesn't even do MTGO data, still misclassifies decks (e.g. UWR Midrange = UWR Delver), and is missing 30+ events from the 9/22 - 1/11 period. Because of these shortcomings, we use our own dataset for metagame analysis.
The two graphs below show the paper and MTGO metagames in this time period. For the sake of consistency, I showed the same decks in both graphs. Some decks were left out just to make the graphs more legible. For instance, Amulet Combo is a serious MTGO contender, but doesn't appear in the top 20 of most-played paper decks. Similarly, UR Twin sees about double the amount of paper play as it does on MTGO. So although some decks are missing (UWR Control, Merfolk, RG Tron, etc.), this comes with the benefit of doing a more consistent comparison between the two metagames. For classification purposes, Melira Pod includes Angel/Melira/Junk Pod, and URx Delver includes UR/UWR/RUG Delver.
First, here's the paper metagame. This is just a continuation of the graphs I made in previous weeks, with Scapeshift added to the list.
And now the MTGO graph; the data here has only been shown in table form so far, and it's nice to finally see it visually.
I was initially going to draw some conclusions from the data, but for now I think it's enough to just post it and let people look it over. In part this is because I am genuinely not sure what the most important takeaways are. But it's also because with data this expansive, I would rather present the numbers free of analysis so as not to bias any potential readers. There's plenty of time (7 days worth) to add in some analysis if it's needed, but I am more curious to hear what the community thinks than to just post my own conclusions.
Also, remember that all data disclaimers apply. No, not all MTGO events are shown. Just the ones that get posted to the mothership. No, the paper prevalences do not include all decks. Just the T8 and T16 ones. No, not every paper event in the world is included. Just those that get posted to one of about 15 websites that I check three times a week. The dataset has limitations and it's important to know that. That said, however, it is by far the best dataset that I know of that is available for public analysis. So although Wizards definitely has a private, more comprehensive dataset, this is as close as we are going to get to looking at it.
Because the ban list thread is wonky, I hope this place could be suitable for good discussion.
Pod is dead, Delver might be kicking, but that remains to be seen.
What will be the new decks to beat, Junk? UWR Control? People are saying that we are reverting to a pre-khans meta, but that meta had birthing pod, which arguably held down a lot of strategies that could maybe combat the Jund/Junk archetype. Plus burn is a much more powerful strategy (It still has gotten MS) that could combat the Junk/Jund decks, maybe opening a more rounded metagame?
Will we see new decks rise from the rubble left by the wake of the recent bans? Do control decks like Cruel/Esper Control become more viable now that they don't have to deal with the specter of the resilient pod? How about tempo decks like Faeries?
During December, AllPod was at about 15.5%, AllDelver was at roughly 16.5%, Burn was at 5.9%, and DTT decks were at roughly 15%. Wizards hit at least 40% of the modern with this ban announcement. I don't think any speculation on how modern Shakes out has any chance of being accurate. This is just such a huge vacuum in the modern Meta.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
- Manite
What about Blue Moon as the deck of choice now? Blood Moon seems incredibly viable in a meta where Tron is trying to prey on BGx while Affinity is trying to race everyone.
Someone can link me some pre-KTK metagame data?
The first thing to do is go back to pre-KTK and then see what top decks would benefit of a Pod ban.
Surely Twin and tron decks will be strong players, affinity is already good and Junk will return in great shape.
Maybe Fae will be a contender? Blood Moon? UWR?
- L
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The problem isn't when Scissors says Rock is overpowered, it's when Paper says it is."
-Mark Rosewater
I think Zoo has a shot, but otherwise, we're looking to go back to the preKtK meta, but with even less diversity. Huzzah.
The good news is that this is just a guess, and I will readily admit that any number of scenarios are possible. Zoo, Fae, Moon, even some delver builds, all have a possibility of staying relevant (Young Pyromancer + Gitaxian Probe is still very, very good). But those decks all seem to be solidly second tier.
Dredgevine is probably still a tier 2 deck, as GGT doesn't really solve any problem that deck had; grave hate is just so strong and force of will isn't modern legal. Dredgevine cannot be tier 1 without dread return or force of will. One of the many reasons why rest in piece was one of the worst cards wizards has ever printed; it's mere existence invalidates dozens of decks. Bad design.
What about Blue Moon as the deck of choice now? Blood Moon seems incredibly viable in a meta where Tron is trying to prey on BGx while Affinity is trying to race everyone.
Blue Moon has a miserable Tron matchup. Although does run T3 Blood Moon, it's essentially a control deck that eventually dies when Tron out-attritions them.
What about Blue Moon as the deck of choice now? Blood Moon seems incredibly viable in a meta where Tron is trying to prey on BGx while Affinity is trying to race everyone.
Blue Moon actually has a horrendous matchup against GR Tron. If they don't draw the Blood Moon, they just lose, and if they do draw the Blood Moon, Tron just shrugs, gets enough lands in play, then starts casting Oblivion Stone, Wurmcoil Engine, and Karn naturally because Blue Moon puts no real pressure on them in the meantime. Blue Moon might have counterspells to thwart those for a while, but they run out eventually and then Tron resolves something anyway.
What does everyone think of faeries in the new meta?
Tough to say.
I have played Faeries for a while since it's the type of deck that I enjoy and UB is my favorite color pair.
I just felt that the deck sometimes just doesn't come together. Sometimes I was running hot and sometimes I was just durdling until I was dead. It's hard to explain properly.
A thing that bugs me is just how worse the deck plays without an active Bitterblossom. It's a difference like night and day and I feel that the cards are not powerful enough on their own.
A Mistbind Clique is great until you find yourself with an empty board or even worse the opponent kills your other faerie in response. Spellstutter Sprite is also great but only with other faeries already on the battlefield .
Compare that to Tarmogoyf, Scavenging Ooze, Siege Rhino, etc.
They all don't help and are very powerful on their own.
BG also gives you best and most versatile removal with Abrupt Decay and Maelstrom Pulse. UB doesn't have that. Resolved enchantments and artifacts are just a pain.
What does everyone think of faeries in the new meta?
Faeries seems particularly poorly suited to a meta where BG/x is the top dog. Not only do you have to deal with the Abrupt Decays but their 4 Siege Rhinos laugh at Bitterblossom.
I sincerely believe a lot of Tier 2 decks will become Tier 1.5, all because all Tier 1 decks have glaring weaknesses. Glass cannons and linear strategies couldn't do ***** in a Pod meta because Pod had no real weaknesses other than "play more value faster" and "win on the spot despite Thoughtseize".
Look out for Time Warp, Reanimator, Breach/Shift, 8Rack, Cruel Control and Hatebears.
I'm not saying any will dominate btw, only that they will show up in brackets often. The decks to beat will be Tron, Scapeshift and Junk with Affinity/Burn alternating in success as deck alternate their aggro SB.
I sincerely believe a lot of Tier 2 decks will become Tier 1.5, all because all Tier 1 decks have glaring weaknesses. Glass cannons and linear strategies couldn't do ***** in a Pod meta because Pod had no real weaknesses other than "play more value faster" and "win on the spot despite Thoughtseize".
Look out for Time Warp, Reanimator, Breach/Shift, 8Rack, Cruel Control and Hatebears.
I'm not saying any will dominate btw, only that they will show up in brackets often. The decks to beat will be Tron, Scapeshift and Junk with Affinity/Burn alternating in success as deck alternate their aggro SB.
If subpar decks will show up it's because wotc ban like 30% of the meta and before Junk would takes over Modern some decks will show up in order to get crushed.
On fae topic unfortunately if tron rises Faeries don't have a chance.
- L
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The problem isn't when Scissors says Rock is overpowered, it's when Paper says it is."
-Mark Rosewater
Instead of Jund, Why not just play the good ole GBx Shell and Play Abzan instead? If I was a Pod player I would move to that. Granted Goyfs are costly.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Then why not work with only decklists? You can measure diversity by how many different cards show up in a given time period. This would require the assumption that having 4 Forked Bolt, 4 Lightning Bolt, 4 Abrupt Decay, and 4 Path to Exile is a more diverse metagame than 16 Lightning Bolts.
My only issue with this is a speculative one. What would a format that is decidedly NOT diverse look like in your function? That is, something like late 2012 with BBE Jund or late 2013 with DRS-powered BGx Midrange? We know that those periods were not diverse enough for Wizards so we would hope your formula also identifies them as not diverse. If it does not, then it becomes a lot less useful as a tool to predict format health because it produces a different result than that which Wizards sees. If it does, then that would validate the tool as a possible objective indicator of format diversity.
I think I have an MTGO dataset for the BGx Midrange period, but it isn't available on google sheets. Will have to check later.
DR = (ln(|meta|*A+B)+C)/ (varaince(meta)*D+E)
...There are at least 5 different constants (A-E) that could be massaged to modify the equation while still maintaining all of the requirements outlined. I'd imagine that, no matter how good the test data we through at it is, it will be possible to fit the data to my function. In other words, no matter how many test cases we throw at it in which we know what the right answer is such as the period in late 2013 which we know was unhealthy, by changing the constants, we can make the function work. This is essentially an over-fitting problem.
The other problem is that this function will merely end up spitting out numbers for given ranges. Deciding where the cutoff needs to be to call a meta 'Low Diversity' is difficult. I decided, mostly arbitrarily, to put the cut off at two standard deviations. Some other threshold may be more appropriate though.
All that said, I would very much like to test my algorithms with the BGx Data.
- Manite
- Manite
My problem is that the two particular dates chosen are set releases (well, ban cycles, but they coincide now), which are when meta changes are most likely. Look at how different the meta after Khans of Tarkir is compared to what it was before. And who knows how different it could become with the next set's release and any bannings/unbannings that may happen?
This means that where decks are classified really aren't representative of where they are now but where they were in the previous meta. That doesn't give a very accurate reading of the current meta, especially because the biggest meta changes happen right after the cutoff date.
I think it would be better if instead of coinciding the cutoff dates with set releases, to instead put them between set releases. That gives the "new" meta time to figure itself out and actually figure out where the decks stand, making the arrangement of decks in the forums closer to where they are in whatever the current meta is, rather than where they were in the previous meta.
The big issue with this is that metas actually don't settle in that time frame. We need only look at the most recent 3-4 months to see that, although we could honestly look at almost any time frame instead. From 10/1 through 11/15, which is roughly the point of KTK legalization through the midpoint until the FRF release, Junk was ~1.5% of both the MTGO and paper metagames. If we had updated around 11/15, we still would have missed that obviously tier 1 deck because it didn't prove itself for a few more weeks. Sure, we could have waited a few more weeks, but now we are back to a semi-arbitrary "waiting period" around the midway point between two ban announcements. Sometimes the meta will keep changing, as in the Junk case that we see today. And other times, it might not. We just wouldn't know. Indeed, this might end up being worse than keeping it the current way because we would be saying that the Proven/Established breakdown is "current". But it actually isn't. At least in this current system, we tacitly acknowledge a delay, just like in the financial quarter reporting system.
The most glaring place where our current system breaks down is when a ban announcement fundamentally changes the format. Which, in some respects, isn't that much different from when a set release fundamentally changes the format. But no matter when we put the cutoff, something is going to get left out. The current system is best suited for a Modern that doesn't have a lot of changes. The system you propose is best suited for a Modern where big change is happening. But still, both systems will exclude decks at different times.
Pod is dead, Delver might be kicking, but that remains to be seen.
What will be the new decks to beat, Junk? UWR Control? People are saying that we are reverting to a pre-khans meta, but that meta had birthing pod, which arguably held down a lot of strategies that could maybe combat the Jund/Junk archetype. Plus burn is a much more powerful strategy (It still has gotten MS) that could combat the Junk/Jund decks, maybe opening a more rounded metagame?
Will we see new decks rise from the rubble left by the wake of the recent bans? Do control decks like Cruel/Esper Control become more viable now that they don't have to deal with the specter of the resilient pod? How about tempo decks like Faeries?
Thoughts?
- Manite
The first thing to do is go back to pre-KTK and then see what top decks would benefit of a Pod ban.
Surely Twin and tron decks will be strong players, affinity is already good and Junk will return in great shape.
Maybe Fae will be a contender? Blood Moon? UWR?
- L
"The problem isn't when Scissors says Rock is overpowered, it's when Paper says it is."
-Mark Rosewater
Junk
Tron
Affinity
Twin
I think Zoo has a shot, but otherwise, we're looking to go back to the preKtK meta, but with even less diversity. Huzzah.
The good news is that this is just a guess, and I will readily admit that any number of scenarios are possible. Zoo, Fae, Moon, even some delver builds, all have a possibility of staying relevant (Young Pyromancer + Gitaxian Probe is still very, very good). But those decks all seem to be solidly second tier.
Dredgevine is probably still a tier 2 deck, as GGT doesn't really solve any problem that deck had; grave hate is just so strong and force of will isn't modern legal. Dredgevine cannot be tier 1 without dread return or force of will. One of the many reasons why rest in piece was one of the worst cards wizards has ever printed; it's mere existence invalidates dozens of decks. Bad design.
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
At least that is what I hope will happen.
Blue Moon has a miserable Tron matchup. Although does run T3 Blood Moon, it's essentially a control deck that eventually dies when Tron out-attritions them.
GX Tron XG
UR Phoenix RU
GG Freyalise High Tide GG
UR Parun Counterspells RU
BB Yawgmoth Token Storm BB
WB Pestilence BW
Tough to say.
I have played Faeries for a while since it's the type of deck that I enjoy and UB is my favorite color pair.
I just felt that the deck sometimes just doesn't come together. Sometimes I was running hot and sometimes I was just durdling until I was dead. It's hard to explain properly.
A thing that bugs me is just how worse the deck plays without an active Bitterblossom. It's a difference like night and day and I feel that the cards are not powerful enough on their own.
A Mistbind Clique is great until you find yourself with an empty board or even worse the opponent kills your other faerie in response. Spellstutter Sprite is also great but only with other faeries already on the battlefield .
Compare that to Tarmogoyf, Scavenging Ooze, Siege Rhino, etc.
They all don't help and are very powerful on their own.
BG also gives you best and most versatile removal with Abrupt Decay and Maelstrom Pulse. UB doesn't have that. Resolved enchantments and artifacts are just a pain.
Faeries should get better because Pod is gone...but UR Delver won't entirely die off, and if Zoo keeps rising, the Fae get crushed again.
Faeries seems particularly poorly suited to a meta where BG/x is the top dog. Not only do you have to deal with the Abrupt Decays but their 4 Siege Rhinos laugh at Bitterblossom.
Look out for Time Warp, Reanimator, Breach/Shift, 8Rack, Cruel Control and Hatebears.
I'm not saying any will dominate btw, only that they will show up in brackets often. The decks to beat will be Tron, Scapeshift and Junk with Affinity/Burn alternating in success as deck alternate their aggro SB.
If subpar decks will show up it's because wotc ban like 30% of the meta and before Junk would takes over Modern some decks will show up in order to get crushed.
On fae topic unfortunately if tron rises Faeries don't have a chance.
- L
"The problem isn't when Scissors says Rock is overpowered, it's when Paper says it is."
-Mark Rosewater