I'm not sure about xenagos, but Thassa has prior top-8 appearances in European Modern GP's in the fish lists. I'll go digging for some xenagos results, but I doubt I'll find them as on an absolute power scale, the dude is clearly worse than something like huntmaster of the fells, Garruck Wildspeaker, or Siege Rhino.
I don't know what card evaluations you reference on this site. I tend to frequent sites that have more intelligent discussion on power level of newly spoiled cards, like the storm boards, the source, or eternalcentral. Places that compare cards first to the standard of everything ever printed, then see where it ranks in absolute power level, then see where that fits in relation to cards that see play in formats under consideration. Certainly I don't come HERE for discussion on the power level of new card spoilers. I'd bet money I've played against more former pro-tour competitors at my local shop than frequent this site in total. Repeated and thorough testing of new cards to test how much their playability in a format matches their projected power level in comparison to every card ever printed leads to shops that produce things like first-weekend four-cruise four-swiftspear UR delver. Bob Huang played regularly at one of my locals until he moved down to Richmond.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Yes, I am a local area mod. WELP. GOOD LIFE CHANGES ALL HAPPEN AT ONCE AND SOME ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
Primary Decks:
Modern: Esper Draw-Go
Legacy: RUG Lands
EDH: Sidisi turn-3 storm
I'm not sure about xenagos, but Thassa has prior top-8 appearances in European Modern GP's in the fish lists. I'll go digging for some xenagos results, but I doubt I'll find them as on an absolute power scale, the dude is clearly worse than something like huntmaster of the fells, Garruck Wildspeaker, or Siege Rhino.
And it probably won't, yet using the scale described, it was thought powerful. The reason for this being due to such a system being pure speculation. It can be right, or wrong, quite easily.
I don't know what card evaluations you reference on this site. I tend to frequent sites that have more intelligent discussion on power level of newly spoiled cards, like the storm boards, the source, or eternalcentral. Places that compare cards first to the standard of everything ever printed, then see where it ranks in absolute power level, then see where that fits in relation to cards that see play in formats under consideration.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assert that it is quite impossible for any majority of people to be so deft in their evaluation skills. Though of the sites you listed, I only frequent one, and of such only for a specific purpose, I am unable to comment perfectly. I'm certain some or many predicted the power of TC or the power of Swiftspear, but certainly there were naysayers, and certainly there were disbelievers.
Repeated and thorough testing of new cards to test how much their playability in a format matches their projected power level in comparison to every card ever printed leads to shops that produce things like first-weekend four-cruise four-swiftspear UR delver. Bob Huang played regularly at one of my locals until he moved down to Richmond.
And all this does is motivate more testing, and possibly changing one's own list. If I were to be a naysayer in such a situation, how would you confront me? So far you've done nothing but speculate and put the card through a by default flawed gauntlet.
I'll elaborate a bit on the flawed gauntlet point, to preempt you. The gauntlet is necessarily designed by the brewer, or his team, this gauntlet is based off of however that team imagines the metagame. They are likely unable to anticipate perfectly what every deck will do, and the frequency of every deck.
STATISTICS.
All of these "Let's eliminate bad cards" crusades are simply ignorant. And when they start to devolve into "WotC is conspiring to give us crappy cards," they just become embarrassing. MATH is conspiring to give you crappy cards.
The metagame data you're using is made up of other people's specualtion. Every possible deck hasn't been tried in the metagame, so using metagame data is objectively wrong as well. Unless you play an infinite number of games with every possible deck (assuming you limit max deck size to a reasonable number, otherwise you'd have infinite possible decks too.) you'll never be able to remove personal bias. For example, what if everyone played Grizzly Bears because they thought Tarmogoyf was bad? We would have no data showing that tarmogoyf is better, but in reality it clearly is. While that's an unrealistic example it's entirely possible some other card that belongs in a top 5 list is not in the top 5 based on metagame data.
The metagame data you're using is made up of other people's specualtion. Every possible deck hasn't been tried in the metagame, so using metagame data is objectively wrong as well. Unless you play an infinite number of games with every possible deck (assuming you limit max deck size to a reasonable number, otherwise you'd have infinite possible decks too.) you'll never be able to remove personal bias. For example, what if everyone played Grizzly Bears because they thought Tarmogoyf was bad? We would have no data showing that tarmogoyf is better, but in reality it clearly is. While that's an unrealistic example it's entirely possible some other card that belongs in a top 5 list is not in the top 5 based on metagame data.
Yes, prevalence data isn't perfect. It is far above speculation, as while the former hasn't had infinite testing, the latter has had barely any.
STATISTICS.
All of these "Let's eliminate bad cards" crusades are simply ignorant. And when they start to devolve into "WotC is conspiring to give us crappy cards," they just become embarrassing. MATH is conspiring to give you crappy cards.
Yes, prevalence data isn't perfect. It is far above speculation, as while the former hasn't had infinite testing, the latter has had barely any.
But the prevalence data is made up of other players speculating, so it doesn't really have any more validity than an individual's opinion in terms of what the best cards are. So you're assuming that on average, multiple players will speculate more accurately than an individual.
Yes, prevalence data isn't perfect. It is far above speculation, as while the former hasn't had infinite testing, the latter has had barely any.
But the prevalence data is made up of other players speculating, so it doesn't really have any more validity than an individual's opinion in terms of what the best cards are. So you're assuming that on average, multiple players will speculate more accurately than an individual.
No, it isn't. Prevalence is caused by a great number of players speculating, and then those speculations being tested through the gauntlet. I mean to call it the gauntlet, for it is the ultimate meta.
STATISTICS.
All of these "Let's eliminate bad cards" crusades are simply ignorant. And when they start to devolve into "WotC is conspiring to give us crappy cards," they just become embarrassing. MATH is conspiring to give you crappy cards.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't know what card evaluations you reference on this site. I tend to frequent sites that have more intelligent discussion on power level of newly spoiled cards, like the storm boards, the source, or eternalcentral. Places that compare cards first to the standard of everything ever printed, then see where it ranks in absolute power level, then see where that fits in relation to cards that see play in formats under consideration. Certainly I don't come HERE for discussion on the power level of new card spoilers. I'd bet money I've played against more former pro-tour competitors at my local shop than frequent this site in total. Repeated and thorough testing of new cards to test how much their playability in a format matches their projected power level in comparison to every card ever printed leads to shops that produce things like first-weekend four-cruise four-swiftspear UR delver. Bob Huang played regularly at one of my locals until he moved down to Richmond.
Yes, I am a local area mod.WELP. GOOD LIFE CHANGES ALL HAPPEN AT ONCE AND SOME ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVEPrimary Decks:
Modern: Esper Draw-Go
Legacy: RUG Lands
EDH: Sidisi turn-3 storm
And it probably won't, yet using the scale described, it was thought powerful. The reason for this being due to such a system being pure speculation. It can be right, or wrong, quite easily.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assert that it is quite impossible for any majority of people to be so deft in their evaluation skills. Though of the sites you listed, I only frequent one, and of such only for a specific purpose, I am unable to comment perfectly. I'm certain some or many predicted the power of TC or the power of Swiftspear, but certainly there were naysayers, and certainly there were disbelievers.
And all this does is motivate more testing, and possibly changing one's own list. If I were to be a naysayer in such a situation, how would you confront me? So far you've done nothing but speculate and put the card through a by default flawed gauntlet.
I'll elaborate a bit on the flawed gauntlet point, to preempt you. The gauntlet is necessarily designed by the brewer, or his team, this gauntlet is based off of however that team imagines the metagame. They are likely unable to anticipate perfectly what every deck will do, and the frequency of every deck.
Speculation isn't perfect. To hail it is folly.
The metagame data you're using is made up of other people's specualtion. Every possible deck hasn't been tried in the metagame, so using metagame data is objectively wrong as well. Unless you play an infinite number of games with every possible deck (assuming you limit max deck size to a reasonable number, otherwise you'd have infinite possible decks too.) you'll never be able to remove personal bias. For example, what if everyone played Grizzly Bears because they thought Tarmogoyf was bad? We would have no data showing that tarmogoyf is better, but in reality it clearly is. While that's an unrealistic example it's entirely possible some other card that belongs in a top 5 list is not in the top 5 based on metagame data.
Yes, prevalence data isn't perfect. It is far above speculation, as while the former hasn't had infinite testing, the latter has had barely any.
But the prevalence data is made up of other players speculating, so it doesn't really have any more validity than an individual's opinion in terms of what the best cards are. So you're assuming that on average, multiple players will speculate more accurately than an individual.
White:
*Path to Exile
*Restoration Angel
*Wrath of God
*Linvala, Keeper of Silence
*Lingering Souls
Blue:
*Cryptic Command
*Snapcaster Mage
*Treasure Cruise
*Vendilion Clique
*Remand
Black:
*Thoughtseize
*Liliana of the Veil
*Dismember
*Dark Confidant
*Shriekmaw
Red:
*Lightning Bolt
*Young Pyromancer
*Goblin Guide
*Blood Moon
*Splinter Twin
Green:
*Birthing Pod
*Tarmogoyf
*Scapeshift
*Scavenging Ooze
*Primal Command
Multi:
*Abrupt Decay
*Voice of Resurgence
*Electrolyze
*Kitchen Finks
*Lightning Helix
Colorless:
*Relic of Progenitus
*Wurmcoil Engine
*Batterskull
*Cranial Plating
*Spellskite
No, it isn't. Prevalence is caused by a great number of players speculating, and then those speculations being tested through the gauntlet. I mean to call it the gauntlet, for it is the ultimate meta.