I am curious to what the data says, as I have not found it to win that much before T3. However, I don't know how (as a stache defender of Bloom) anyone could have watched the finals this weekend and think that it will survive the banlist update especially after the winner denounced the deck so vehemently afterward. Personally I still don't think it "deserves" a ban but their hand will be forced by the public and now they have on camera evidence to justify it.
Summer Bloom does not kill the deck, amulet can start playing 4 Asuza's, which is a big ramp card, but she can be interacted with, that's the huge key-word here
Comparing Titan to an infect creature is absurd. Infect has no card engine, no card advantage outside of Twisted Image, don't compare a creature than can tutor up to 4 lands into play in one turn, and a way to replace itself, that's serious grasping of straws
Infect THREATENS to kill you by turn 2 or turn 3, it doesn't mean it does. Things like RG Tron that sit there helplessly for 2 to 3 turns is what usually have super short games
No decent infect player is going to just plop his agent down turn 2 and hope to god you just don't have a bolt, infect is so fragile, and so are it's creatures--would you describe Titan as fragile and not a very resilient creature in this deck?
I already said I know Titan turn 2 isn't a normal play, but a turn 3 Titan isn't unusual.
People need to stop referring removal, the damn card can replace itself 3 times and has a fairly large body
Bloom players shyly kicking dirt and saying, "yeah, hivemind is unfair you guys" looks silly
WOTC has stated the turn 4 rules, and says if an upper tier deck violates this rule too often, something will be done about. It's performed fairly well in 2015, and Summer Bloom is literally Storm all over again
None of those decks would be banned under the turn four rule. Bloom doesn't need to be a Tier 1 format pillar to fall under that rule. It just needs to be "top-tier", and it is definitely top-tier based on its metagame shares throughout 2015 and its T8/T16 history (three T8s in GPs/PTs, three T16s, and three SCG T8s).
You're underemphasizing one aspect of the rule. Here's what Matt Lauer said during the Rite of Flame ban:
Before Pro Tour Philadelphia, the DCI’s stated guideline for the Modern format was to avoid having decks that consistently win the game on turn three. With the results of the Pro Tour in, we are tweaking that goal to not having top-tier decks that consistently win on turn three (or earlier). We also have the goal of maintaining a diverse format.
Here's his statement during the Seething Song ban:
The DCI’s other primary goal for Modern is to not have top tier decks that frequently win on turn three (or earlier).
Note the use of the terms "consistent" and "frequent". Please show me the data that indicates that Amulet Bloom consistently wins on any turn numbered less than four in actual tournament footage.
No, neither I nor others have missed that. In fact, I have a big set of hard data on Bloom's speed and am publishing it next week in my banlist article. Honestly, that data also shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone; there are way too many anecdotal stories about Bloom being too fast for the numbers to not align with the stories.
I'm a little annoyed that Bloom defenders keep moving the goal posts for the deck. For the longest time it was "Bloom isn't top-tier". Then it was "Bloom isn't consistently winning too fast" once the deck's tiering became indefensible. Then it was "Bloom isn't oppressive". I've played Modern since 2011 and I can't remember a time where so many players were so united against a combo deck and the combo deck survived a ban announcement. The last time the data aligned so well against a deck was Storm which, lo and behold, ate the 2013 ban.
If Modern wasn't a Pro Tour format, these defending of decks probably wouldn't happen. Because right now everyone roots against their pet deck to perform poorly so it won't eat a ban.
I think it all comes down to january 18th and only that.
Like Sheridans turn 4 article i think the only criteria that apllies to Amulet is the turn 4 rule. And like aaron says it doesnt count goldfish turn 3< kills if not real turn 3 kills (real means actual percentage based on online And paper games). As requested before none of us is actually aware of this data so we have to wait And see if DCI determines Amulet as an infractor of this rule.
Like i have said before, if it indeed breaks this rule, then it is prepared to leave our format,
If it doesnt then we have to coexist with it whether you hate losing to 20/18 titan or not.
PS: just to contextualize my post, i own the deck And i love playing it And dont
Bother losing against it even if it comes from turn 1 Hive mind Pact
i agree with ktk on this one summer bloom is the obvious ban target.
Contrary to what people are saying banning summer bloom will not "kill the deck". Bloom can play many other cards that allow additional lands per turn.
Having to switch to any of these other cards will indeed slow the deck down making it worse but the deck can continue to exist in its current for but be slowed down a turn or 2. Which is the only reason this deck would catch a ban in the first place. (top tier deck and a turn 4 violator that cannot be interacted with easily)
At that point you will be playing a 40% win rate deck, which means the deck is dead.
None of those decks would be banned under the turn four rule. Bloom doesn't need to be a Tier 1 format pillar to fall under that rule. It just needs to be "top-tier", and it is definitely top-tier based on its metagame shares throughout 2015 and its T8/T16 history (three T8s in GPs/PTs, three T16s, and three SCG T8s).
You're underemphasizing one aspect of the rule. Here's what Matt Lauer said during the Rite of Flame ban:
Before Pro Tour Philadelphia, the DCI’s stated guideline for the Modern format was to avoid having decks that consistently win the game on turn three. With the results of the Pro Tour in, we are tweaking that goal to not having top-tier decks that consistently win on turn three (or earlier). We also have the goal of maintaining a diverse format.
Here's his statement during the Seething Song ban:
The DCI’s other primary goal for Modern is to not have top tier decks that frequently win on turn three (or earlier).
Note the use of the terms "consistent" and "frequent". Please show me the data that indicates that Amulet Bloom consistently wins on any turn numbered less than four in actual tournament results, omitting all use of that one player who was banned for palming cards.
I feel like we're splitting hairs at this point - Wizards is looking at a deck that is INCREDIBLY unpopular in the format, and one that they know many pros who are skilled enough to pilot it will want to play in the next pro tour which will lead to either ill-will from pros who think the deck is busted (this DOES matter) and fans who hate watching the deck. From a PR standpoint alone I can't imagine the deck surviving, even though it doesn't exactly meet the turn 4 or oppressive meta share criteria.
i think the deck is cool and unique, and whoever came up with the idea is a brewing genius
therefore i would hate to see it go completely
removing amulet kills the deck for good.
removing summer bloom reduces explosiveness and makes early turn kills much harder
dealing with an artifact is generally much easier to do than dealing with sorceries, given how common artifact removal is.
therefore, given that we dont want to kill a deck completely but just prevent it from winning consistently before turn 4, i believe that wizards will ban Summer Bloom instead of Amulet.
this keeps the diversity that we currently see in modern, because the deck is still perfectly fine and can still have nut turns with multiple amulets, but it will be much slower on average and probably need to run either more azusas or more ways to grab amulet
not true if the deck was "dead" it would be pod. getting rid of the amulet kills the deck.
getting rid of bloom forces the deck to adapt. they would be forced to play azusa possibly expolre as well just to regain some of its old consistency. (this is a good thing because the main win condition remains the same but the secondary hive mind would be pushed out due to being the "spare combo") all the while slowing the deck down not killing it completely. a la accomplishing what they set out to do
None of those decks would be banned under the turn four rule. Bloom doesn't need to be a Tier 1 format pillar to fall under that rule. It just needs to be "top-tier", and it is definitely top-tier based on its metagame shares throughout 2015 and its T8/T16 history (three T8s in GPs/PTs, three T16s, and three SCG T8s).
You're underemphasizing one aspect of the rule. Here's what Matt Lauer said during the Rite of Flame ban:
Before Pro Tour Philadelphia, the DCI’s stated guideline for the Modern format was to avoid having decks that consistently win the game on turn three. With the results of the Pro Tour in, we are tweaking that goal to not having top-tier decks that consistently win on turn three (or earlier). We also have the goal of maintaining a diverse format.
Here's his statement during the Seething Song ban:
The DCI’s other primary goal for Modern is to not have top tier decks that frequently win on turn three (or earlier).
Note the use of the terms "consistent" and "frequent". Please show me the data that indicates that Amulet Bloom consistently wins on any turn numbered less than four in actual tournament results, omitting all use of that one player who was banned for palming cards.
I feel like we're splitting hairs at this point - Wizards is looking at a deck that is INCREDIBLY unpopular in the format, and one that they know many pros who are skilled enough to pilot it will want to play in the next pro tour which will lead to either ill-will from pros who think the deck is busted (this DOES matter) and fans who hate watching the deck. From a PR standpoint alone I can't imagine the deck surviving, even though it doesn't exactly meet the turn 4 or oppressive meta share criteria.
From a PR standpoint, last night made modern look bad. There will be players on the fence going into modern and see something like that and decide, "no, that's ok, I'll stick with limited and standard"
I can't believe people think the deck will be unplayable without Bloom, 4x Asuza and and 2x explorer or something can help it adapt
None of those decks would be banned under the turn four rule. Bloom doesn't need to be a Tier 1 format pillar to fall under that rule. It just needs to be "top-tier", and it is definitely top-tier based on its metagame shares throughout 2015 and its T8/T16 history (three T8s in GPs/PTs, three T16s, and three SCG T8s).
You're underemphasizing one aspect of the rule. Here's what Matt Lauer said during the Rite of Flame ban:
Before Pro Tour Philadelphia, the DCI’s stated guideline for the Modern format was to avoid having decks that consistently win the game on turn three. With the results of the Pro Tour in, we are tweaking that goal to not having top-tier decks that consistently win on turn three (or earlier). We also have the goal of maintaining a diverse format.
Here's his statement during the Seething Song ban:
The DCI’s other primary goal for Modern is to not have top tier decks that frequently win on turn three (or earlier).
Note the use of the terms "consistent" and "frequent". Please show me the data that indicates that Amulet Bloom consistently wins on any turn numbered less than four in actual tournament results, omitting all use of that one player who was banned for palming cards.
I feel like we're splitting hairs at this point - Wizards is looking at a deck that is INCREDIBLY unpopular in the format, and one that they know many pros who are skilled enough to pilot it will want to play in the next pro tour which will lead to either ill-will from pros who think the deck is busted (this DOES matter) and fans who hate watching the deck. From a PR standpoint alone I can't imagine the deck surviving, even though it doesn't exactly meet the turn 4 or oppressive meta share criteria.
From a PR standpoint, last night made modern look bad. There will be players on the fence going into modern and see something like that and decide, "no, that's ok, I'll stick with limited and standard"
I can't believe people think the deck will be unplayable without Bloom, 4x Asuza and and 2x explorer or something can help it adapt
Sure, it's 'playable' still, but decks are so strong in modern that being better or worse by only a few percentage points can separate a tier 1 deck from a tier 3 deck. The deck isn't going to sniff tier 1 without bloom and most people see that. So sure, you can play that pile of cards, but if you're a spike (the people the deck is most attracting) you're going to look somewhere else.
Guys, we need to stop talking about how Amulet Bloom "isn't oppressive" as some argument against its banning. The deck doesn't have to be "oppressive" to violate the turn four rule. It just has to be top-tier and too consistent. Bloom's performance over 2015 definitely solidifies it as a top-tier deck (especially compared to Storm), and its record in my own calculations and in the qualitative experience of most players probably puts it in the "too consistent" bracket. All of this strongly points to a ban in my view of the format's history.
As for the banning in question, it's either going to be Hive Mind (unlikely) or Summer Bloom (more likely). Bloom is effectively a ritual and we all know how Wizards has treated those spells in past announcements.
But Twin, Burn, Jund, and Affinity are all Tier 1 and more consistent (need fewer pieces to win). I honestly hope that if Wizards decides to ban something from the deck, the announcement is honest and says straight up, "people don't like playing against this deck."
Why is Simian Spirit Guide still allowed? It seems like it's slipped through the cracks of the initial wave of bannings when the format started. It's fast, free mana and does nothing but help people enact broken turns that end games before they even begin. It's basically Lotus Petal except it can't be countered and only does red mana. If rituals and Lotus Petal are not ok, surely this is also not ok
I actually agree with you on Simian Spirit Guide, as much as I love my Monkey friend. It is only meant for fast mana and to do basically turn 1 or turn 2 broken stuff. The main problem I see with banning it is that it does nothing against Bloom (some players play 1; I play none) and it kills a harmless deck in Ad Nauseam. As a Combo player, there are a lot of things that I know are broken - Simian Spirit Guide is basically a Red Lotus Petal that an be cast at any time, Griselbrand is not meant to do anything fair, Pact of Negation is basically a free counterspell when you're going off, and others which I won't get into. But these cards only get attention if they are part of a bigger picture that includes consistency.
*Just for anecdotal evidence - I have lost on turn 3 to Twin. Sure it was Living Twin with 2 Simian Spirit Guide and Faerie Macabre to stop my turn 2 Goryo's Vengeance on Griselbrand, but it was a turn 3 win. I have lost to Affinity a million times on turn 3. It has happened more consistently than Bloom, although I just started playing Stony Silence, the other answers just being too slow. I have been at 2-3 life on turn 3 against Burn, facing down at least 10 damage the following turn. And lastly, I have lost on turn 5 to Junk before. It takes their quickest hand and it is extremely rare, but I want to point out that it is entirely possible. The number of times my Affinity opponent has had 1 card in hand on my turn and I realize that artifact + Arcbound Ravager = lethal next turn AND then they had it seems a bit too consistent to me. Maybe I've had poor luck and Sam Black is just playing a bad deck?
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)
Affinity players can often vomit their whole hand t1 and attack for lethal t2 with the help of the fetch-shockland combo...
But affinity is fine, right?
top tier affinity decks do not play fetches or shocks and killing turn 2 with affinity is almost impossible.
Affinity players can often vomit their whole hand t1 and attack for lethal t2 with the help of the fetch-shockland combo...
But affinity is fine, right?
Until stony silence comes down turn 2 and you loose outright. Or shattering spree turn 2... or pyroclasm.
The thing is: there are several turn two cards that can beat (or at least nullify) even the best hand from affinity.
EDIT: Turn 2 lethal is impossible in affinity unless you are playing ensoul. Even if you are playing ensoul... the chances of that happening is roughly 1-2% (or less).
Affinity players can often vomit their whole hand t1 and attack for lethal t2 with the help of the fetch-shockland combo...
But affinity is fine, right?
top tier affinity decks do not play fetches or shocks and killing turn 2 with affinity is almost impossible.
I think they meant that it makes it easier for the affinity player to swing for lethal when the opponent has to fetch and shock for their mana? Either way though its a pretty silly argument.
Affinity players can often vomit their whole hand t1 and attack for lethal t2 with the help of the fetch-shockland combo...
But affinity is fine, right?
It does well, but it only sits at about 8% of the meta. Turn 2s (and 3s ESPECIALLY post board)are exceedingly rare AND the deck is checked pretty hard by twin.
Let's just ban all of the decks that accelerate mana in any way, can theoretically win before turn 4, 'seem' broken, are unfun (basically anything that beats MY deck ever), run counterspells, use lightning bolt, use the graveyard too much, or hate against the graveyard too much. That should cover pretty much everything. Only sorceries, creatures that cost more than 4 (Goyf and Snap cost too much $$$ anyway so screw them), and removal that politely removes creatures but gives you blockers back in response.
Guys, we need to stop talking about how Amulet Bloom "isn't oppressive" as some argument against its banning. The deck doesn't have to be "oppressive" to violate the turn four rule. It just has to be top-tier and too consistent. Bloom's performance over 2015 definitely solidifies it as a top-tier deck (especially compared to Storm), and its record in my own calculations and in the qualitative experience of most players probably puts it in the "too consistent" bracket. All of this strongly points to a ban in my view of the format's history.
As for the banning in question, it's either going to be Hive Mind (unlikely) or Summer Bloom (more likely). Bloom is effectively a ritual and we all know how Wizards has treated those spells in past announcements.
But Twin, Burn, Jund, and Affinity are all Tier 1 and more consistent (need fewer pieces to win). I honestly hope that if Wizards decides to ban something from the deck, the announcement is honest and says straight up, "people don't like playing against this deck."
Remember the turn four rule! Twin, Burn, Jund, and Affinity don't consistently win on turn three or earlier, so they don't qualify under the turn four rule. Amulet Bloom does, so it gets in trouble under a different set of criteria than would apply to those consistent, tier 1 decks.
We need to stop mixing and matching our rules. Since PT Philly, Modern cards have gotten banned for three reasons. They have either reduced format diversity, violated the turn four rule, or caused logistical issues. Amulet Bloom is in the turn four rule violation category. Those other tier 1 decks you listed are not, so we can't compare them to Bloom.
Affinity players can often vomit their whole hand t1 and attack for lethal t2 with the help of the fetch-shockland combo...
But affinity is fine, right?
Affinity has significantly less turn 2-3 wins than Amulet Bloom. By my analysis of MTGO data, it wins on turns 2-3 half as often as Bloom does. We can also confirm this anecdotally, where players report far more experiences of losing to Bloom in the 2-3 range but not to Affinity. When the numbers and the data align, that's always a good sign that we are on the right direction.
Affinity can consistently kill turn 4 or turn 5 if you don't interact with the deck whatsoever. Want to know the difference?
There are SO many hate cards against Affinity
Stony Silence, ancient grudge, shatter storm, K-Command, vandal-blast
Affinity can be interacted with outside of Etched Champion. Etched Champion is a 2/2 that typically relies on Plating, Ravager or Overseer, and while Ravager wants you to NOT interact with them, you can kill a target a creature in response to it trying to move it's counters on
Affinity is scary fast, but it never feels entirely impossible, I can blow up a plating, I can bolt an overseer or signal pest. I can interact with it.
Affinity topdecks horribly, if it's not ravager, champion or plating, it's usually a bust of a draw. Springleafs, mox opals, menmites, ornithopters---AWFUL draws unless I have an established board that I needed facilitated by those cards
Well, after last night's Amulet Bloom victory in SCGIN I think the consensus is that bloom or amulet will be banned.
The pilot mulled to 5 in the top 8, didn't play a land his first turn and still won on T4 with multiple titans on the board. The deck is absolutely explosive. In another game he had all 4 titans in play T3, giving 3 of them haste. That was in his match against Abzan Company.
The deck is too explosive and absolutely wins "out of nowhere" as Cedric Phillips stated.
i wouldnt mind seeing taken from affinity to slow it down, but i also wouldnt care otherwise. i hardly ever lose to the deck, and it can easily be interacted with via almost all removal spells
affinity, like infect, preys against decks with little to no removal
Commander GUR Maelstrom Wanderer BWU Sydri, Galvanic Genius BGB Meren of Clan Nel Toth WGW Nazahn, Revered Bladesmith RRR Feldon of the Third Path WWW Heliod, God of the Sun
In another game he had all 4 titans in play T3, giving 3 of them haste.
How does a player give 3 titans haste. Care to explain that? How is he untapping the Slayer's Stronghold for multiple activations?
He had 3 amulets in play. The Slayer's Stronghold was brought in off of the last Titan, along with a Boros Garrison. It untapped 3 times, so in response to each trigger, he tapped it to give one of the titans haste.
Feeling somewhat vindicated that people are finally coming around to the fact that Summer Bloom is the problem card.
When they eventually do the right thing two weeks from now I will be kind of sorry, not because I played the deck myself but because that will just about put the final nail in the coffin of my hopes that I will ever play Storm with Seething Song in Modern. You can either have none or both legal in the format, depending on stated goals, but not one or the other. I mean, why should A-Bloom players have all the fun of combo-ing out against helpless opponents?
That being said, the deck would probably still exist without Summer Bloom, kind of like Storm does without Seething Song. If they are gunning for the deck as such Amulet itself would probably be the ban but I can't see that happening since that card still has more fair play to it then meets the eye.
No matter how insistent Bloom supporters are at sidestepping the main issue the fact remains that we are talking about a top tier deck that consistently breaks the turn four rule and does so in a way that is just plain gross. Something's gotta give...
EDIT: While writing this it struck me how the Bloom deck has some very loose similarities to old Dredge decks. They both operate on what is more or less a unique game axis when compared to the rest of the format and just about every other deck needs dedicated hate maindeck and/or after sideboarding just to keep up. Probably gonna get flamed for this but there you go: A-Bloom is the True Dredge deck of Modern.
In my dream, the world had suffered a terrible disaster. A black haze shut out the sun, and the darkness was alive with the moans and screams of wounded people. Suddenly, a small light glowed. A candle flickered into life, symbol of hope for millions. A single tiny candle, shining in the ugly dark. I laughed and blew it out.
Many thanks to HotP Studios. Special thanks to DNC for this great sig.
In another game he had all 4 titans in play T3, giving 3 of them haste.
How does a player give 3 titans haste. Care to explain that? How is he untapping the Slayer's Stronghold for multiple activations?
He had 3 amulets in play. The Slayer's Stronghold was brought in off of the last Titan, along with a Boros Garrison. It untapped 3 times, so in response to each trigger, he tapped it to give one of the titans haste.
Exactly. It was absolutely insane.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Summer Bloom does not kill the deck, amulet can start playing 4 Asuza's, which is a big ramp card, but she can be interacted with, that's the huge key-word here
Comparing Titan to an infect creature is absurd. Infect has no card engine, no card advantage outside of Twisted Image, don't compare a creature than can tutor up to 4 lands into play in one turn, and a way to replace itself, that's serious grasping of straws
Infect THREATENS to kill you by turn 2 or turn 3, it doesn't mean it does. Things like RG Tron that sit there helplessly for 2 to 3 turns is what usually have super short games
No decent infect player is going to just plop his agent down turn 2 and hope to god you just don't have a bolt, infect is so fragile, and so are it's creatures--would you describe Titan as fragile and not a very resilient creature in this deck?
I already said I know Titan turn 2 isn't a normal play, but a turn 3 Titan isn't unusual.
People need to stop referring removal, the damn card can replace itself 3 times and has a fairly large body
Bloom players shyly kicking dirt and saying, "yeah, hivemind is unfair you guys" looks silly
WOTC has stated the turn 4 rules, and says if an upper tier deck violates this rule too often, something will be done about. It's performed fairly well in 2015, and Summer Bloom is literally Storm all over again
If Modern wasn't a Pro Tour format, these defending of decks probably wouldn't happen. Because right now everyone roots against their pet deck to perform poorly so it won't eat a ban.
Like Sheridans turn 4 article i think the only criteria that apllies to Amulet is the turn 4 rule. And like aaron says it doesnt count goldfish turn 3< kills if not real turn 3 kills (real means actual percentage based on online And paper games). As requested before none of us is actually aware of this data so we have to wait And see if DCI determines Amulet as an infractor of this rule.
Like i have said before, if it indeed breaks this rule, then it is prepared to leave our format,
If it doesnt then we have to coexist with it whether you hate losing to 20/18 titan or not.
PS: just to contextualize my post, i own the deck And i love playing it And dont
Bother losing against it even if it comes from turn 1 Hive mind Pact
At that point you will be playing a 40% win rate deck, which means the deck is dead.
I feel like we're splitting hairs at this point - Wizards is looking at a deck that is INCREDIBLY unpopular in the format, and one that they know many pros who are skilled enough to pilot it will want to play in the next pro tour which will lead to either ill-will from pros who think the deck is busted (this DOES matter) and fans who hate watching the deck. From a PR standpoint alone I can't imagine the deck surviving, even though it doesn't exactly meet the turn 4 or oppressive meta share criteria.
therefore i would hate to see it go completely
removing amulet kills the deck for good.
removing summer bloom reduces explosiveness and makes early turn kills much harder
dealing with an artifact is generally much easier to do than dealing with sorceries, given how common artifact removal is.
therefore, given that we dont want to kill a deck completely but just prevent it from winning consistently before turn 4, i believe that wizards will ban Summer Bloom instead of Amulet.
this keeps the diversity that we currently see in modern, because the deck is still perfectly fine and can still have nut turns with multiple amulets, but it will be much slower on average and probably need to run either more azusas or more ways to grab amulet
getting rid of bloom forces the deck to adapt. they would be forced to play azusa possibly expolre as well just to regain some of its old consistency. (this is a good thing because the main win condition remains the same but the secondary hive mind would be pushed out due to being the "spare combo") all the while slowing the deck down not killing it completely. a la accomplishing what they set out to do
From a PR standpoint, last night made modern look bad. There will be players on the fence going into modern and see something like that and decide, "no, that's ok, I'll stick with limited and standard"
I can't believe people think the deck will be unplayable without Bloom, 4x Asuza and and 2x explorer or something can help it adapt
Sure, it's 'playable' still, but decks are so strong in modern that being better or worse by only a few percentage points can separate a tier 1 deck from a tier 3 deck. The deck isn't going to sniff tier 1 without bloom and most people see that. So sure, you can play that pile of cards, but if you're a spike (the people the deck is most attracting) you're going to look somewhere else.
But Twin, Burn, Jund, and Affinity are all Tier 1 and more consistent (need fewer pieces to win). I honestly hope that if Wizards decides to ban something from the deck, the announcement is honest and says straight up, "people don't like playing against this deck."
I actually agree with you on Simian Spirit Guide, as much as I love my Monkey friend. It is only meant for fast mana and to do basically turn 1 or turn 2 broken stuff. The main problem I see with banning it is that it does nothing against Bloom (some players play 1; I play none) and it kills a harmless deck in Ad Nauseam. As a Combo player, there are a lot of things that I know are broken - Simian Spirit Guide is basically a Red Lotus Petal that an be cast at any time, Griselbrand is not meant to do anything fair, Pact of Negation is basically a free counterspell when you're going off, and others which I won't get into. But these cards only get attention if they are part of a bigger picture that includes consistency.
*Just for anecdotal evidence - I have lost on turn 3 to Twin. Sure it was Living Twin with 2 Simian Spirit Guide and Faerie Macabre to stop my turn 2 Goryo's Vengeance on Griselbrand, but it was a turn 3 win. I have lost to Affinity a million times on turn 3. It has happened more consistently than Bloom, although I just started playing Stony Silence, the other answers just being too slow. I have been at 2-3 life on turn 3 against Burn, facing down at least 10 damage the following turn. And lastly, I have lost on turn 5 to Junk before. It takes their quickest hand and it is extremely rare, but I want to point out that it is entirely possible. The number of times my Affinity opponent has had 1 card in hand on my turn and I realize that artifact + Arcbound Ravager = lethal next turn AND then they had it seems a bit too consistent to me. Maybe I've had poor luck and Sam Black is just playing a bad deck?
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)top tier affinity decks do not play fetches or shocks and killing turn 2 with affinity is almost impossible.
Until stony silence comes down turn 2 and you loose outright. Or shattering spree turn 2... or pyroclasm.
The thing is: there are several turn two cards that can beat (or at least nullify) even the best hand from affinity.
EDIT: Turn 2 lethal is impossible in affinity unless you are playing ensoul. Even if you are playing ensoul... the chances of that happening is roughly 1-2% (or less).
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
I think they meant that it makes it easier for the affinity player to swing for lethal when the opponent has to fetch and shock for their mana? Either way though its a pretty silly argument.
It does well, but it only sits at about 8% of the meta. Turn 2s (and 3s ESPECIALLY post board)are exceedingly rare AND the deck is checked pretty hard by twin.
Let's just ban all of the decks that accelerate mana in any way, can theoretically win before turn 4, 'seem' broken, are unfun (basically anything that beats MY deck ever), run counterspells, use lightning bolt, use the graveyard too much, or hate against the graveyard too much. That should cover pretty much everything. Only sorceries, creatures that cost more than 4 (Goyf and Snap cost too much $$$ anyway so screw them), and removal that politely removes creatures but gives you blockers back in response.
Remember the turn four rule! Twin, Burn, Jund, and Affinity don't consistently win on turn three or earlier, so they don't qualify under the turn four rule. Amulet Bloom does, so it gets in trouble under a different set of criteria than would apply to those consistent, tier 1 decks.
We need to stop mixing and matching our rules. Since PT Philly, Modern cards have gotten banned for three reasons. They have either reduced format diversity, violated the turn four rule, or caused logistical issues. Amulet Bloom is in the turn four rule violation category. Those other tier 1 decks you listed are not, so we can't compare them to Bloom.
Affinity has significantly less turn 2-3 wins than Amulet Bloom. By my analysis of MTGO data, it wins on turns 2-3 half as often as Bloom does. We can also confirm this anecdotally, where players report far more experiences of losing to Bloom in the 2-3 range but not to Affinity. When the numbers and the data align, that's always a good sign that we are on the right direction.
There are SO many hate cards against Affinity
Stony Silence, ancient grudge, shatter storm, K-Command, vandal-blast
Affinity can be interacted with outside of Etched Champion. Etched Champion is a 2/2 that typically relies on Plating, Ravager or Overseer, and while Ravager wants you to NOT interact with them, you can kill a target a creature in response to it trying to move it's counters on
Affinity is scary fast, but it never feels entirely impossible, I can blow up a plating, I can bolt an overseer or signal pest. I can interact with it.
Affinity topdecks horribly, if it's not ravager, champion or plating, it's usually a bust of a draw. Springleafs, mox opals, menmites, ornithopters---AWFUL draws unless I have an established board that I needed facilitated by those cards
The pilot mulled to 5 in the top 8, didn't play a land his first turn and still won on T4 with multiple titans on the board. The deck is absolutely explosive. In another game he had all 4 titans in play T3, giving 3 of them haste. That was in his match against Abzan Company.
The deck is too explosive and absolutely wins "out of nowhere" as Cedric Phillips stated.
RG Tron is becoming the premier fair combo deck for this format
i wouldnt mind seeing taken from affinity to slow it down, but i also wouldnt care otherwise. i hardly ever lose to the deck, and it can easily be interacted with via almost all removal spells
affinity, like infect, preys against decks with little to no removal
How does a player give 3 titans haste? Care to explain that? How is he untapping the Slayer's Stronghold for multiple activations?
Sounds to me like Stronghold is the offender here.
GURB Grixis/Jund Shadow
RBG Dredge
xUx U Ballista Tron
Commander
GUR Maelstrom Wanderer
BWU Sydri, Galvanic Genius
BGB Meren of Clan Nel Toth
WGW Nazahn, Revered Bladesmith
RRR Feldon of the Third Path
WWW Heliod, God of the Sun
When they eventually do the right thing two weeks from now I will be kind of sorry, not because I played the deck myself but because that will just about put the final nail in the coffin of my hopes that I will ever play Storm with Seething Song in Modern. You can either have none or both legal in the format, depending on stated goals, but not one or the other. I mean, why should A-Bloom players have all the fun of combo-ing out against helpless opponents?
That being said, the deck would probably still exist without Summer Bloom, kind of like Storm does without Seething Song. If they are gunning for the deck as such Amulet itself would probably be the ban but I can't see that happening since that card still has more fair play to it then meets the eye.
No matter how insistent Bloom supporters are at sidestepping the main issue the fact remains that we are talking about a top tier deck that consistently breaks the turn four rule and does so in a way that is just plain gross. Something's gotta give...
EDIT: While writing this it struck me how the Bloom deck has some very loose similarities to old Dredge decks. They both operate on what is more or less a unique game axis when compared to the rest of the format and just about every other deck needs dedicated hate maindeck and/or after sideboarding just to keep up. Probably gonna get flamed for this but there you go: A-Bloom is the True Dredge deck of Modern.
Many thanks to HotP Studios. Special thanks to DNC for this great sig.
You don't understand how bounce lands work?
Exactly. It was absolutely insane.