Barring a big change in either the overall metagame and/or at GP Omaha, I do not see TC surviving through the end of January. The key for me, and likely for Wizards, is that all of the decks that use TC (whether in this T8, the T8 at Madrid, or the TC-based Modern decks generally) still survive without TC! Delver and Burn have gained Swiftspear. UR Delver can replace TC with DTT (the UU will be harder for RUG/UWR to splash). JA Combo still has JA, but without TC to refuel a combo turn and recover from disruption. At this point, it doesn't even matter if a TC-based deck wins Milan. Its presence alone has more or less approached DRS levels, and the decks that use it have proven to be a bit too strong for this format.
Barring a big change in either the overall metagame and/or at GP Omaha, I do not see TC surviving through the end of January. The key for me, and likely for Wizards, is that all of the decks that use TC (whether in this T8, the T8 at Madrid, or the TC-based Modern decks generally) still survive without TC! Delver and Burn have gained Swiftspear. UR Delver can replace TC with DTT (the UU will be harder for RUG/UWR to splash). JA Combo still has JA, but without TC to refuel a combo turn and recover from disruption. At this point, it doesn't even matter if a TC-based deck wins Milan. Its presence alone has more or less approached DRS levels, and the decks that use it have proven to be a bit too strong for this format.
How are you seeing that in the Day 2 breakdown? It looks pretty fine to me. If we're talking about power level I think Cruise is too strong, but Wizards has said they didn't like that Modern had remained too similar to what it was from its inception and Khans has really changed it.
Why do you say that? The top 8 didn't see too many Treasure Cruise, with Jeskai Ascendancy and even Dig Through Time having either more or the same number. I realize that the video feed (at least when it worked for me) showed a lot of Treasure Cruise, but that is only a small sample of the overall GP. Now I won't argue with you on the power level of Treasure Cruise because it IS a busted busted Magic card, but I don't know if there is proof as of now that it is warping the format (changing, yes, but warping, no).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
T8
Glogowski: Bloom Titan
Parazzoli: Affinity with Contested War Zone
Lantto: Comboless Pod
Sajgalik: Jeskai Ascendancy "1.5" (green with Fatestitcher)
Deltour: Jeskai Ascendancy "2.0" (UWR, CFB version)
Salvidio: Burn with TC
Gatica: RUG Delver
Bellini: Angel Pod
11 TCs
Can't tell. Are you trying to use the existence of 11 Treasure Cruises as an argument against the card ("there's 11 whole copies!") or against ("11 copies isn't too much"). I mean, that's less Treasure Cruises than there were Birthing Pods in the last GP and there's no more Tresaure Cruises than there are Lightning Bolts in that Top 8. And there's a total of 16 Serum Visions...
Barring a big change in either the overall metagame and/or at GP Omaha, I do not see TC surviving through the end of January. The key for me, and likely for Wizards, is that all of the decks that use TC (whether in this T8, the T8 at Madrid, or the TC-based Modern decks generally) still survive without TC! Delver and Burn have gained Swiftspear. UR Delver can replace TC with DTT (the UU will be harder for RUG/UWR to splash). JA Combo still has JA, but without TC to refuel a combo turn and recover from disruption. At this point, it doesn't even matter if a TC-based deck wins Milan. Its presence alone has more or less approached DRS levels, and the decks that use it have proven to be a bit too strong for this format.
How are you seeing that in the Day 2 breakdown? It looks pretty fine to me. If we're talking about power level I think Cruise is too strong, but Wizards has said they didn't like that Modern had remained too similar to what it was from its inception and Khans has really changed it.
Here's the problem with the day 2 breakdown. We see Delver yet again at about 16% of the field. That was true in the last GP and will probably be true in the next GP as well. The last time a deck approached those values it was BGx Midrange, which is not exactly an indicator of a healthy format. We also see Delver as the most-played deck, with similar numbers, in most paper and online venues even at the local level. There's nothing wrong with Modern having a public enemy number 1 in the decks-to-beat department. The issue is that the prevalence as a % continues to be the same as the BGx Midrange prevalence at around this time last year.
I would really like to see the T16 lists though. Sometimes the decks that barely missed the T8 are a lot more interesting (and more indicative of a format) than those that just eked in.
Barring a big change in either the overall metagame and/or at GP Omaha, I do not see TC surviving through the end of January. The key for me, and likely for Wizards, is that all of the decks that use TC (whether in this T8, the T8 at Madrid, or the TC-based Modern decks generally) still survive without TC! Delver and Burn have gained Swiftspear. UR Delver can replace TC with DTT (the UU will be harder for RUG/UWR to splash). JA Combo still has JA, but without TC to refuel a combo turn and recover from disruption. At this point, it doesn't even matter if a TC-based deck wins Milan. Its presence alone has more or less approached DRS levels, and the decks that use it have proven to be a bit too strong for this format.
How are you seeing that in the Day 2 breakdown? It looks pretty fine to me. If we're talking about power level I think Cruise is too strong, but Wizards has said they didn't like that Modern had remained too similar to what it was from its inception and Khans has really changed it.
Here's the problem with the day 2 breakdown. We see Delver yet again at about 16% of the field. That was true in the last GP and will probably be true in the next GP as well. The last time a deck approached those values it was BGx Midrange, which is not exactly an indicator of a healthy format. We also see Delver as the most-played deck, with similar numbers, in most paper and online venues even at the local level. There's nothing wrong with Modern having a public enemy number 1 in the decks-to-beat department. The issue is that the prevalence as a % continues to be the same as the BGx Midrange prevalence at around this time last year.
I would really like to see the T16 lists though. Sometimes the decks that barely missed the T8 are a lot more interesting (and more indicative of a format) than those that just eked in.
But there was also a much larger gap between Delver and the next deck in the previous tournament. In GP Madrid, it was:
Delver: 16.8%
BGx: 10.5%
Scapeshift: 10%
Affinity: 10%
Birthing Pod: 9.1%
In GP Milan, we have:
Delver: 16.6%
Birthing Pod: 14.7%
Scapeshift: 13.3%
Junk: 11.4%
Affinity: 7.6%
t's worth noting the decks in second, third, and fourth place are all closer to Delver's numbers in this tournament than the deck in second place did in GP Madrid; in the case of Birthing Pod and Scapeshift in particular, much closer. In Madrid, Delver was 6.1% above the next deck, whereas in Milan it was just 1.9% above. I mean, if Delver at 16% is a problem, I don't see how Birthing Pod at almost those numbers isn't also an issue.
As a side note, I can't help but notice for Milan, it says "Abzan Midrange" for Junk. In Madrid, they put the various BGx decks together, but here they say only Abzan; no mention of Rock or Jund anywhere in that metagame wrap-up. Was it legitimately only Junk decks that made it to Day 2 or did they just sloppily throw all the decks together into "Abzan Midrange"?
It's worth noting the decks in second, third, and fourth place are all closer to Delver's numbers in this tournament than the deck in second place did in GP Madrid; in the case of Birthing Pod and Scapeshift in particular, much closer. In Madrid, Delver was 6.1% above the next deck, whereas in Milan it was just 1.9% above. I mean, if Delver at 16% is a problem, I don't see how Birthing Pod at almost those numbers isn't also an issue.
I don't think that Delver at 16% is a problem on its own. The problem is Delver at 16% at 2 GPs in a row and Delver at 19% of the MTGO metagame. That sort of consistency does not suggest format health to me. Moreover, it doesn't matter if I personally do or do not think that Delver's prevalence is unhealthy. It matters how Wizards assesses the numbers. My fear is that these current numbers are perilously close, or already the same as, the BGx numbers a year ago. It's not that there's anything absolutely unhealthy about 16%. It's that 16% Delver is very similar to 16-20% BGx Midrange, and it's hard to not draw parallels.
It's worth noting the decks in second, third, and fourth place are all closer to Delver's numbers in this tournament than the deck in second place did in GP Madrid; in the case of Birthing Pod and Scapeshift in particular, much closer. In Madrid, Delver was 6.1% above the next deck, whereas in Milan it was just 1.9% above. I mean, if Delver at 16% is a problem, I don't see how Birthing Pod at almost those numbers isn't also an issue.
I don't think that Delver at 16% is a problem on its own. The problem is Delver at 16% at 2 GPs in a row and Delver at 19% of the MTGO metagame. That sort of consistency does not suggest format health to me. Moreover, it doesn't matter if I personally do or do not think that Delver's prevalence is unhealthy. It matters how Wizards assesses the numbers. My fear is that these current numbers are perilously close, or already the same as, the BGx numbers a year ago. It's not that there's anything absolutely unhealthy about 16%. It's that 16% Delver is very similar to 16-20% BGx Midrange, and it's hard to not draw parallels.
To be fair, Wizards let BGx survive for multiple ban cycles with those numbers.
I don't think that Delver at 16% is a problem on its own. The problem is Delver at 16% at 2 GPs in a row and Delver at 19% of the MTGO metagame. That sort of consistency does not suggest format health to me.
Delver is just popular. It's not dominant.
We have the same number of pod decks.
With 2 in top8 (1 delver)
2 in top4 (0 delver)
2 in the final (0 delver)
What seems more dangerous to you?
Too much popularity can still be an indicator of an unhealthy format. Last year, GPs Detroit, Brisbane, Antwerp, and Prague saw Pod, Affinity, Twin, and UWR Midrange win the events. Those events also saw T8s and T16s packed with a variety of different decks (Pod, Tron, Affinity, Twin, etc.) and roughly similar levels of BGx Midrange to what we now see here with URx Delver. And yet, that was still enough of an issue for Wizards to deem it unhealthy. That's especially true when we add the MTGO numbers into the mix, which we know Wizards considers when assessing format health. Those numbers are decidedly unhealthy, which only adds further problematic context to the numbers we see at GPs.
I don't think that Delver at 16% is a problem on its own. The problem is Delver at 16% at 2 GPs in a row and Delver at 19% of the MTGO metagame. That sort of consistency does not suggest format health to me. Moreover, it doesn't matter if I personally do or do not think that Delver's prevalence is unhealthy. It matters how Wizards assesses the numbers. My fear is that these current numbers are perilously close, or already the same as, the BGx numbers a year ago. It's not that there's anything absolutely unhealthy about 16%. It's that 16% Delver is very similar to 16-20% BGx Midrange, and it's hard to not draw parallels.
the problem with this line of thought is that jund was constantly 50% of top 8s and top 16s. delver putting 1 or 2 copies into the top 8 isn't a big deal. metagame share doesn't mean too much if its not putting up good results. Jund was dominating shares and winning constantly. Storm had the second highest share on MTGO, was winning frequently, and was winning quickly.
I firmly believe this is again the result of the deck being easy to put together and easy to pilot.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I speak in sarcasm because calling people ******* ******** is not allowed.
I don't think that Delver at 16% is a problem on its own. The problem is Delver at 16% at 2 GPs in a row and Delver at 19% of the MTGO metagame. That sort of consistency does not suggest format health to me. Moreover, it doesn't matter if I personally do or do not think that Delver's prevalence is unhealthy. It matters how Wizards assesses the numbers. My fear is that these current numbers are perilously close, or already the same as, the BGx numbers a year ago. It's not that there's anything absolutely unhealthy about 16%. It's that 16% Delver is very similar to 16-20% BGx Midrange, and it's hard to not draw parallels.
the problem with this line of thought is that jund was constantly 50% of top 8s and top 16s. delver putting 1 or 2 copies into the top 8 isn't a big deal. metagame share doesn't mean too much if its not putting up good results. Jund was dominating shares and winning constantly. Storm had the second highest share on MTGO, was winning frequently, and was winning quickly.
I firmly believe this is again the result of the deck being easy to put together and easy to pilot.
I think people tend to massively overrate how "easy" a deck is to play, but the price is worth remembering. Something that was so striking about BGx or Jund's dominance was that it was such a large part of the field and putting up those numbers despite being one of the most expensive decks in the format. Meanwhile, UR Delver is a relatively cheap deck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Glogowski: Bloom Titan
Parazzoli: Affinity with Contested War Zone
Lantto: Comboless Pod
Sajgalik: Jeskai Ascendancy "1.5" (green with Fatestitcher)
Deltour: Jeskai Ascendancy "2.0" (UWR, CFB version)
Salvidio: Burn with TC
Gatica: RUG Delver
Bellini: Angel Pod
11 TCs
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
Anyone know what Dickmann's final record was?
http://magic.wizards.com/en/events/coverage/gpmil15/top-8-decks-2014-12-14
Affinity list really suprises me, it plays 4xFrogmite, 4xMyr Enforcer and 3x Scale of Chiss-Goria.
I'm not sure if it's correct though, because it's 64 cards.
How are you seeing that in the Day 2 breakdown? It looks pretty fine to me. If we're talking about power level I think Cruise is too strong, but Wizards has said they didn't like that Modern had remained too similar to what it was from its inception and Khans has really changed it.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)Here's the problem with the day 2 breakdown. We see Delver yet again at about 16% of the field. That was true in the last GP and will probably be true in the next GP as well. The last time a deck approached those values it was BGx Midrange, which is not exactly an indicator of a healthy format. We also see Delver as the most-played deck, with similar numbers, in most paper and online venues even at the local level. There's nothing wrong with Modern having a public enemy number 1 in the decks-to-beat department. The issue is that the prevalence as a % continues to be the same as the BGx Midrange prevalence at around this time last year.
I would really like to see the T16 lists though. Sometimes the decks that barely missed the T8 are a lot more interesting (and more indicative of a format) than those that just eked in.
Delver: 16.8%
BGx: 10.5%
Scapeshift: 10%
Affinity: 10%
Birthing Pod: 9.1%
In GP Milan, we have:
Delver: 16.6%
Birthing Pod: 14.7%
Scapeshift: 13.3%
Junk: 11.4%
Affinity: 7.6%
t's worth noting the decks in second, third, and fourth place are all closer to Delver's numbers in this tournament than the deck in second place did in GP Madrid; in the case of Birthing Pod and Scapeshift in particular, much closer. In Madrid, Delver was 6.1% above the next deck, whereas in Milan it was just 1.9% above. I mean, if Delver at 16% is a problem, I don't see how Birthing Pod at almost those numbers isn't also an issue.
As a side note, I can't help but notice for Milan, it says "Abzan Midrange" for Junk. In Madrid, they put the various BGx decks together, but here they say only Abzan; no mention of Rock or Jund anywhere in that metagame wrap-up. Was it legitimately only Junk decks that made it to Day 2 or did they just sloppily throw all the decks together into "Abzan Midrange"?
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Oh and it's basically colorless.
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
I don't think that Delver at 16% is a problem on its own. The problem is Delver at 16% at 2 GPs in a row and Delver at 19% of the MTGO metagame. That sort of consistency does not suggest format health to me. Moreover, it doesn't matter if I personally do or do not think that Delver's prevalence is unhealthy. It matters how Wizards assesses the numbers. My fear is that these current numbers are perilously close, or already the same as, the BGx numbers a year ago. It's not that there's anything absolutely unhealthy about 16%. It's that 16% Delver is very similar to 16-20% BGx Midrange, and it's hard to not draw parallels.
To be fair, Wizards let BGx survive for multiple ban cycles with those numbers.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
UR Delver
RUG Delver
RUG Delver
Blue Moon
Angel Pod
Domain Zoo
Junk
Junk
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
Landcronomicon
Too much popularity can still be an indicator of an unhealthy format. Last year, GPs Detroit, Brisbane, Antwerp, and Prague saw Pod, Affinity, Twin, and UWR Midrange win the events. Those events also saw T8s and T16s packed with a variety of different decks (Pod, Tron, Affinity, Twin, etc.) and roughly similar levels of BGx Midrange to what we now see here with URx Delver. And yet, that was still enough of an issue for Wizards to deem it unhealthy. That's especially true when we add the MTGO numbers into the mix, which we know Wizards considers when assessing format health. Those numbers are decidedly unhealthy, which only adds further problematic context to the numbers we see at GPs.
the problem with this line of thought is that jund was constantly 50% of top 8s and top 16s. delver putting 1 or 2 copies into the top 8 isn't a big deal. metagame share doesn't mean too much if its not putting up good results. Jund was dominating shares and winning constantly. Storm had the second highest share on MTGO, was winning frequently, and was winning quickly.
I firmly believe this is again the result of the deck being easy to put together and easy to pilot.