I really think there's some issues with legacy though
You're crippling yourself not playing blue in the format. Last year, we, and that includes me, complained about a lack of blue and white cards in the format---why on earth would we drown out diversity by requiring blue?
Yes, brainstorm and ponder are difficult and cards that test good decision making and prediction, and it also means consistency and seeing sideboard hate...So, while legacy has a deeper card pool blue really drowns out that format. Legacy is a great format, but it has it's issues, too. WOTC also is hands off with it because of the reserve list, they wouldn't allow legacy to be the way it is if they felt they could profit enough from it being the format to play for eternal.
FOW would find it's way into degenerate combo decks in modern, too, I'm certain of it, and it'd be brutal since there's no brainstorms, Jaces and ponders and Sylvan Library to find those sideboard pieces.
The format needs better land hate without resorting to stripe mine power levels
A good old 2 counter spell would be nice
I'm a proponent for SFM and BBE to come off the ban list and starting off rom there. I have no interest in seeing FOW spawning new combo decks and making Storm and Grixis better
Could you go 2 posts without being so toxic? Gk is one of the few posters on here who looks at detailed stats and objectivity (minus a few decks he played in the past).
That being said, I agree with you that I think Storm will get hit by Feb
The deck wasn't played to massive numbers at the regionals, but I think you guys are valuing that data too much. The bigger tournaments and Pro tour could really bust and expose this deck wide open
I am saying this only because I am watching a continuous trend by you. Some months ago, GDS was a really busted deck that had to go and eventually would go(your claims). There is nothing wrong with that, it was your opinion but it proved to be somewhat hasty.
This time around, I see that you are moving towards a Storm ban, based on (what? I didnt understant to be honest) very prematurely (again).
Maybe you are rushing some ban suggestions off again? We could give it a little time.
While I thought DSJ, GDS, E-Tron were going to be safe from a bannings standpoint, I think Storm is going to be a ban candidate this time around.
Reasons?
- Sheridan's data on turn 4 rule violations.
- The nature of the deck being supremely unfun to play against.
Well, in my opinion, it's a bit of everything. Though something like it being supremely unfun to play against is not a criteria that seems to matter much, is it? Like, how many decks in Modern are supremely unfun to play against? All of them?
But well, yes, it is a bit unfun to play against, a bit too good, a bit too resilient, a bit too fast... seems to me like it's a bit too everything. But I understand they might not be inclined to ban decks for being a bit too everything and would rather ban the ones that are way too something.
I was watching Caleb play it today vs Selfeisek's Mardu list (which has a buttload of discard spells and cheap removal), opp has a Leyline of the Void opener to go with discard spell into creature into Lingering Souls, start pressuring... and Caleb just killed them turn 5 without even needing to deal with the Leyline. Same the following game where opp had several disruptive spells into cast Leyline... into die.
A combo deck that is best attacked through gy hate, but can kill you even through hardcore gy hate cards, coupled with disruption and pressure, without even needing to get rid of the problematic card (meaning, those were kind of creative kills, but they can just Wipe Away the Leyline/RiP/Relic/Spellbomb and kill you normally) is simply too good at what it does.
One of the sneaky ways the newest lists basically laugh at gy hate and even removal is by playing 3 Grapeshots. You don't need your graveyard and you don't need a creature, you just need to spend several turns cantripping until you are in some sort of danger and then blow your whole hand worth of rituals and Morphoses, Grapeshot and Remand.
And then there's the early Empty kills, and then the normal creature+Gifts kill. So you need removal, you need discard, you need countermagic, you need gy hate, you need sweepers, you need so many things to be safe that the whole thing is a bit stupid in my opinion.
Yeah, obviously the deck has some bad matchups, but that has happened with every deck ever, even the busted ones, so pointing it out doesn't really mean much.
The data we do have strongly suggests that Storm does not take up an obscene (8%+) share of the metagame (most put it somewhere around 4%), and there's yet to be a card banned for not being "fun." So whether or not Storm is banned probably depends on whether or not it violates the Turn 4 Rule. Sheridan's analysis is a great starting point, but of course there's work to be done on this front. Holy, your post does none of that work and ignores the question at hand. Nothing here is an argument.
I have always believed that those clamoring for bans (or unbans, though the waters are murkier there) are the ones on whom the onus falls to provide evidence. If you want to make a case for Storm being banned, make a case, and not a long post listing a bunch of irrelevant reasons why Storm is "good" (protip: most successful Modern decks are "good").
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
I think we all know that wizards doesn't like strong combo in modern and storm decks are almost certainly the exemplar of strong combo. That alone is going to lend itself towards having one of it's cards banned. I kind of wish this wasn't the case, but given the kinds of cards they have banned before it just wouldn't surprise me at all even if the Gifts storm deck isn't a turn 4 violator.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
I think we all know that wizards doesn't like strong combo in modern and storm decks are almost certainly the exemplar of strong combo. That alone is going to lend itself towards having one of it's cards banned. I kind of wish this wasn't the case, but given the kinds of cards they have banned before it just wouldn't surprise me at all even if the Gifts storm deck isn't a turn 4 violator.
Non-combo players despise combo is what I'm seeing. Doesn't matter if you play Aggro, Control, or Midrange, you hate combo. Hence the majority of complaining. The EDH Forum gets 10-12 posts about combo every month.
Obviously this is a generalization, but it's where a lot of the hate is coming from.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
A lot of people hate decks like Storm. But I mean, a lot of people hate a lot of decks. So the question here, or maybe not the question, but a question, is how good is Storm in reality, and is that too good?
According to the compiled data Pizzap posted above, Storm is at 5.9% of the meta, which even under the largest doomsaying about Modern is not bannable.
The other question, which is perpetually unanswerable, is what amount does it win before Turn 4. Considering the difficulty (and risk) of that feat (needing to land Electromancer or Baral on 2 and have it stick for at least a turn), I don't think it wins on Turn 3 very often.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
Holy, I think you brought up a good point regarding asking about a meta% in response to every question ever about whether a deck is too good. But you have to admit that the world is driven by data; we go to school to attain grades that somehow indicate to future employers about our employability. A lot of us think or know or understand that its "wrong", but I wont go into detail here. What I'm trying to say is, the majority of people are conditioned to look at data and eschew anecdotes, which has some degree of validity to it especially in an academic context. Trying to fight this mentality is tough to say the least, and the response u are going to get most of the time are shrugged shoulders and a "but thats not what I see on paper".
One thing I didn't agree with was how you took Caleb's example and how he played through GY hate as an example of how strong the deck is. You're talking about arguably the best storm player alive, the one with his face on the SCG storm counter. He runs lists at the forefront, pioneering fetchless storm for instance. People look to not just his sideboard but his 75. I see top 8s with his exact list days after his blog is updated.
You noted very exactly how going all in on grapeshots reduces vulnerability to GY hate. However Collins showed us exactly what good players do - blow that sort of metagaming out of the water. Its a beautiful example of evolution - the meta evolves more GY hate to deal with storm - storm evolves GY resistance by eschewing the traditional secondary wincon - the meta evolves solutions that punish that kind of all-in strat. Will storm now backpedal? Or can it answer this new solution? TL;DR: The relationship storm has with the rest of the meta is still evolving. Answers can be found, contrary to popular belief, and storm will have to react or fall back into mediocrity.
Ultimately Storm is a stack of 56 cards with very little flex. Its incredibly linear. Where an effective solution is found it will be incredibly hard to storm to maneuvre around it. Just as your viable control deck now mains spreading seas to deal with this meta, it is not beyond reason to expect decks with maindeck meddling mage/nevermore/similar cards to eke out a meta share because they can crush storm while having game against the rest of the meta.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
I am saying this only because I am watching a continuous trend by you. Some months ago, GDS was a really busted deck that had to go and eventually would go(your claims). There is nothing wrong with that, it was your opinion but it proved to be somewhat hasty.
This time around, I see that you are moving towards a Storm ban, based on (what? I didnt understant to be honest) very prematurely (again).
Maybe you are rushing some ban suggestions off again? We could give it a little time.
While I thought DSJ, GDS, E-Tron were going to be safe from a bannings standpoint, I think Storm is going to be a ban candidate this time around.
Reasons?
- Sheridan's data on turn 4 rule violations.
- The nature of the deck being supremely unfun to play against.
Well, in my opinion, it's a bit of everything. Though something like it being supremely unfun to play against is not a criteria that seems to matter much, is it? Like, how many decks in Modern are supremely unfun to play against? All of them?
But well, yes, it is a bit unfun to play against, a bit too good, a bit too resilient, a bit too fast... seems to me like it's a bit too everything. But I understand they might not be inclined to ban decks for being a bit too everything and would rather ban the ones that are way too something.
I was watching Caleb play it today vs Selfeisek's Mardu list (which has a buttload of discard spells and cheap removal), opp has a Leyline of the Void opener to go with discard spell into creature into Lingering Souls, start pressuring... and Caleb just killed them turn 5 without even needing to deal with the Leyline. Same the following game where opp had several disruptive spells into cast Leyline... into die.
A combo deck that is best attacked through gy hate, but can kill you even through hardcore gy hate cards, coupled with disruption and pressure, without even needing to get rid of the problematic card (meaning, those were kind of creative kills, but they can just Wipe Away the Leyline/RiP/Relic/Spellbomb and kill you normally) is simply too good at what it does.
One of the sneaky ways the newest lists basically laugh at gy hate and even removal is by playing 3 Grapeshots. You don't need your graveyard and you don't need a creature, you just need to spend several turns cantripping until you are in some sort of danger and then blow your whole hand worth of rituals and Morphoses, Grapeshot and Remand.
And then there's the early Empty kills, and then the normal creature+Gifts kill. So you need removal, you need discard, you need countermagic, you need gy hate, you need sweepers, you need so many things to be safe that the whole thing is a bit stupid in my opinion.
Yeah, obviously the deck has some bad matchups, but that has happened with every deck ever, even the busted ones, so pointing it out doesn't really mean much.
The data we do have strongly suggests that Storm does not take up an obscene (8%+) share of the metagame (most put it somewhere around 4%), and there's yet to be a card banned for not being "fun." So whether or not Storm is banned probably depends on whether or not it violates the Turn 4 Rule. Sheridan's analysis is a great starting point, but of course there's work to be done on this front. Holy, your post does none of that work and ignores the question at hand. Nothing here is an argument.
I have always believed that those clamoring for bans (or unbans, though the waters are murkier there) are the ones on whom the onus falls to provide evidence. If you want to make a case for Storm being banned, make a case, and not a long post listing a bunch of irrelevant reasons why Storm is "good" (protip: most successful Modern decks are "good").
I don't really like that you're saying to post stats or to shut up. I feel like I've been pretty accurate about where the format is and where it's going for the past few years without ever researching too much data. I definitely was concerned about shadow decks at one point, but the format overcorrected that issue.
I'm not liking this, "WOTC will ban whats unfun" attitude, and it's definitely a dangerous mentality to have.
I do believe storm is on the edge of being dangerous, and I think regionals is a poor prediction for where this deck is going, I'll be shocked if we don't see this deck a ton at the pro tour
I already said it dozens of times, if this deck see's two players in the top 8 of the pro tour, the deck will be banned without hesitation
I was watching Caleb play it today vs Selfeisek's Mardu list (which has a buttload of discard spells and cheap removal), opp has a Leyline of the Void opener to go with discard spell into creature into Lingering Souls, start pressuring... and Caleb just killed them turn 5 without even needing to deal with the Leyline. Same the following game where opp had several disruptive spells into cast Leyline... into die.
A combo deck that is best attacked through gy hate, but can kill you even through hardcore gy hate cards, coupled with disruption and pressure, without even needing to get rid of the problematic card (meaning, those were kind of creative kills, but they can just Wipe Away the Leyline/RiP/Relic/Spellbomb and kill you normally) is simply too good at what it does.
The problem is, what you describe is true for decent decks in general. One can easily find games where Affinity won through a Stony Silence or Shatterstorm, or Tron beating Ghost Quarter+Surgical, or Living End beating Leyline of the Void. Decks that can't at least sometimes win through hate tend to not be effective decks.
So, sure, this was a case where they won through some hate and disruption. But like I said, you can find examples of that for decks that few would seriously advocate for a banning. You need to demonstrate that the deck can beat the sort of setup you describe on a more consistent basis than a sample size of two.
Re: T4 rule violator cutoff
We don't need to know the exact cutoff. We just need to know how Storm's likely T2-T3 win % compares to the likely T2-T3 win % of Amulet Bloom, a previous T4 rule violator. This gives us a good guess about Storm's fate. I will need to update the sample with Caleb's new videos on Twitch, but at our last check, the deck probably wins on T3 between 8% and 22% of games, averaging about 14.5% of games. There's about a 36% chance this lines up with Bloom's win percentage, which we know got Bloom banned.
Re: T4 rule violator cutoff
We don't need to know the exact cutoff. We just need to know how Storm's likely T2-T3 win % compares to the likely T2-T3 win % of Amulet Bloom, a previous T4 rule violator. This gives us a good guess about Storm's fate. I will need to update the sample with Caleb's new videos on Twitch, but at our last check, the deck probably wins on T3 between 8% and 22% of games, averaging about 14.5% of games. There's about a 36% chance this lines up with Bloom's win percentage, which we know got Bloom banned.
Are we counting the turn the game ends, or the turn the game is effectively over?
Don't like to bring that up again, but it is relevant when regarding Bloom and the difference between winning (Hive Mind + Pact) and "winning" (A turn 2 hasted Titan while both players are at 16-20 life).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
Re: T4 rule violator cutoff
We don't need to know the exact cutoff. We just need to know how Storm's likely T2-T3 win % compares to the likely T2-T3 win % of Amulet Bloom, a previous T4 rule violator. This gives us a good guess about Storm's fate. I will need to update the sample with Caleb's new videos on Twitch, but at our last check, the deck probably wins on T3 between 8% and 22% of games, averaging about 14.5% of games. There's about a 36% chance this lines up with Bloom's win percentage, which we know got Bloom banned.
Are we counting the turn the game ends, or the turn the game is effectively over?
Don't like to bring that up again, but it is relevant when regarding Bloom and the difference between winning (Hive Mind + Pact) and "winning" (A turn 2 hasted Titan while both players are at 16-20 life).
The turn the game ends on MTGO, which is where Wizards would get this kind of data and how they would track it. Most decks are well under 10%; people just don't concede on T2 or T3 very often. During the Bloom era, even a nut-draw deck like Affinity was only finishing the game via concession or outright win in 7% total of games. When Bloom was near 20% for T2/T3 wins and concessions in that same era, that was a problem.
Incidentally, almost all of Caleb's T3 wins are actual wins with a lethal Grapeshot. Only a few are concessions after an opponent has no Empty answer. Caleb also has 0 T2 and T1 wins by wins/concession. Bloom had both.
Re: T4 rule violator cutoff
We don't need to know the exact cutoff. We just need to know how Storm's likely T2-T3 win % compares to the likely T2-T3 win % of Amulet Bloom, a previous T4 rule violator. This gives us a good guess about Storm's fate. I will need to update the sample with Caleb's new videos on Twitch, but at our last check, the deck probably wins on T3 between 8% and 22% of games, averaging about 14.5% of games. There's about a 36% chance this lines up with Bloom's win percentage, which we know got Bloom banned.
Are we counting the turn the game ends, or the turn the game is effectively over?
Don't like to bring that up again, but it is relevant when regarding Bloom and the difference between winning (Hive Mind + Pact) and "winning" (A turn 2 hasted Titan while both players are at 16-20 life).
The turn the game ends on MTGO, which is where Wizards would get this kind of data and how they would track it. Most decks are well under 10%; people just don't concede on T2 or T3 very often. During the Bloom era, even a nut-draw deck like Affinity was only finishing the game via concession or outright win in 7% total of games. When Bloom was near 20% for T2/T3 wins and concessions in that same era, that was a problem.
Incidentally, almost all of Caleb's T3 wins are actual wins with a lethal Grapeshot. Only a few are concessions after an opponent has no Empty answer. Caleb also has 0 T2 and T1 wins by wins/concession. Bloom had both.
How on earth did Bloom ever manage a Turn 1 win? The only possibility I can think of requires:
Summer Bloom, G/X Bounceland, Amulet of Vigor, SSG, Hive Mind, and a Pact. The literal definition of a flawless extreme nut draw.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
How on earth did Bloom ever manage a Turn 1 win? The only possibility I can think of requires:
Summer Bloom, G/X Bounceland, Amulet of Vigor, SSG, Hive Mind, and a Pact. The literal definition of a flawless extreme nut draw.
If I remember the spreadsheet correctly, the T1 win was just a concession to T1 Titan. The T2 wins were both concessions to T2 Titan and actual wins off T2 Hive Mind. Interestingly, Storm has zero T1 or T2 wins in the dataset, and that includes concessions. Its % is also tracking lower than Bloom's, although I still have to add 2-3 new Leagues.
If I may, the words "good" and "better" are contextual when you're talking about decks.
Your argument seems to be that decks are "good" in a vacuum, and the metagame shares aren't related or part of this consideration.
In reality it's more complex. In order to be "good", a deck must have favourable conditions to succeed, and this depends entirely on the other decks present. Case in point; death's shadow has been falling down the rankings steadily as the conditions and metagame shifted around it. The deck hasn't changed, it isn't intrinsically any more or less "good" in a vacuum but now it's not a great choice to win large tournaments.
The point is that no deck is intrinsically brilliant. A hostile metagame can destroy anything, even the most consistent and tricky decks. The "too good" issue arises when a metagame won't correct itself. The reasons for this include:
1) too many people adopting the "good" deck because they feel it gives them the best chance to win (thereby causing a disproportionate metagame shift towards the deck)
2) people unwilling to modify their decks to 'hate out' the offending "good" deck.
3) people unwilling to swap out for a different deck in the face of a changing metagame.
Your example about rogue decks also requires attention. You are describing decks which have favourable conditions and low uptake from the community. There will always be decent outside options like this, that can attack a specific meta because it's unprepared. However, these rogue strategies are often weaker against a wide field or crumble completely when metas shift (and they always do, like clockwork).
What I haven't mentioned yet is those decks which are able to seemingly weather the storm of a changing metagame. Jund *was* one of these, affinity is still one. What should be evident immediately is that no deck is truly weatherproof to metagame changes. Affinity, the darling of modern, has all-but disappeared at certain times in the last few years, only to come back after a couple of months when the pendulum swings back again in favour of the deck.
I'm not bashing you dude, but I strongly suggest we (all) adopt a more nuanced stance when talking about whether a deck is "good" or not.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: G Tron, Vannifar, Jund, Druid/Vizier combo, Humans, Eldrazi Stompy (Serum Powder), Amulet, Grishoalbrand, Breach Titan, Turns, Eternal Command, As Foretold Living End, Elves, Cheerios, RUG Scapeshift
Re: unfun to play against
This is clearly not a primary criterion. Return was banned because it is a T4 rule violator. Wizards calls it a "turn three deck" in the opening sentence of its ban explanation. The explanation doesn't even mention the fun factor until it clearly states the deck was capable of T3 kills. Furthermore, Wizards leads into the fun factor by saying "on top of this," further showing it is not a primary reason.
As for GGT, the ban explanation never even mentions the word "fun" at all. It got banned because it created a "battle of sideboards." Incidentally, this also appears to be the explanation behind why Dread Return is not fun; it also created a "game of deciding" sideboard slots that was not "satisfying."
The fun factor is not real. No card has ever been banned in Modern because it was solely not fun. Return was banned because it was a T4 rule violator that also created a siseboard subgame that was not satisfying. GGT was banned solely for creating a battle of sideboards. If a deck is BOTH not fun AND violating a format rule, it would be in trouble. But if a deck's only strike is being allegedly "not fun" then it is fine.
Agreed, you're looking way too much into this fun criteria. Dredge was banned because it was unreasonably difficult to beat game 1 and postboard became purely about variance and sideboard cards to win.
Dredge also pretty much kicked every single graveyard deck out of the format, but WOTC didn't mention that.
"Battle of sidebooards" is something that's inherently creating unfun experience throughout the format. I find it so weird that you can't understand what most of the people had problem in here for so many weeks: It's super unfun to play against a "lose game 1, then draw your sideboard or lose" deck.
GGT was banned because it was giving a bad experience to a lot of modern players, thus it was making the format unhealthy by being a top-tier deck. Thus, GGT was banned because it was unfun for a fair player(maybe some of the unfair players as well) to play against it.
-> new criterion: "unfun to play against".
Sheridan, I once believed you were 100% right in your rules/criteria. This story proved to be somewhat wrong(even if it is wrong only in a small degree), when a certain card got banned(both in here and in Modern) even if it was ~10% of the meta, thus it was not stifling diversity and wasn't breaking the turn 4 rule. Not saying that your formal criteria are 100% wrong, just that they were 80% wrong and they needed a little bit of an update. This update is that when the format is unhealthy, Wizards will act for whatever reason that may come along the way. Again, it's looking unlikely to happen at the moment(only Storm is a ban candidate due to turn 4 rule violation).
For example, if Lantern receives a super powerful card and becomes tier 1 it will be banned for whatever reason. They may call it logistics(even if it won't be as Lantern's each turn don't take so much time but it's the fact that it's causing you to go to a large amount of rounds), they may call it something else. But it will just be that people hate playing against it as a top tier strategy that will lead into its banning.
So if I get enough players to complain about playing against Jund, I can get Jund banned?
Opponent's subjective opinion about a deck should NEVER be used as ban criteria. That's incredibly stupid.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
"Battle of sidebooards" is something that's inherently creating unfun experience throughout the format. I find it so weird that you can't understand what most of the people had problem in here for so many weeks: It's super unfun to play against a "lose game 1, then draw your sideboard or lose" deck.
GGT was banned because it was giving a bad experience to a lot of modern players, thus it was making the format unhealthy by being a top-tier deck. Thus, GGT was banned because it was unfun for a fair player(maybe some of the unfair players as well) to play against it.
-> new criterion: "unfun to play against".
Sheridan, I once believed you were 100% right in your rules/criteria. This story proved to be somewhat wrong(even if it is wrong only in a small degree), when a certain card got banned(both in here and in Modern) even if it was ~10% of the meta, thus it was not stifling diversity and wasn't breaking the turn 4 rule. Not saying that your formal criteria are 100% wrong, just that they were 80% wrong and they needed a little bit of an update. This update is that when the format is unhealthy, Wizards will act for whatever reason that may come along the way. Again, it's looking unlikely to happen at the moment(only Storm is a ban candidate due to turn 4 rule violation).
For example, if Lantern receives a super powerful card and becomes tier 1 it will be banned for whatever reason. They may call it logistics(even if it won't be as Lantern's each turn don't take so much time but it's the fact that it's causing you to go to a large amount of rounds), they may call it something else. But it will just be that people hate playing against it as a top tier strategy that will lead into its banning.
This kind of conspiracy theory isn't helpful. Every card banned in Modern was banned for the exact reasons Wizards stated. Fun is not one of those reasons and has never been one of those reasons. Return was banned for T4 rule violations and creating a sideboard slot game. GGT was banned for the battle of sideboards reason alone. I am sorry you personally don't trust Wizards' decisions and/or explanations, but every ban was made for clear reasons that they clearly articulated. "Fun" is not a reason.
The reasons for bans are:
-Diversity
-T4 rule
-Logistics
-Battle of sideboards
It is true that many decks violating these rules are ALSO not fun, so in that regard, the fun factor might be considered a proxy for those actual criteria. But it is not a criterion on its own.
This kind of conspiracy theory isn't helpful. Every card banned in Modern was banned for the exact reasons Wizards stated. Fun is not one of those reasons and has never been one of those reasons. Return was banned for T4 rule violations and creating a sideboard slot game. GGT was banned for the battle of sideboards reason alone. I am sorry you personally don't trust Wizards' decisions and/or explanations, but every ban was made for clear reasons that they clearly articulated. "Fun" is not a reason.
The reasons for bans are:
-Diversity
-T4 rule
-Logistics
-Battle of sideboards
It is true that many decks violating these rules are ALSO not fun, so in that regard, the fun factor might be considered a proxy for those actual criteria. But it is not a criterion on its own.
ktk:
1. Does the unban increase/decrease net diversity?
2. Does the unban create a potential T4 rule violator?
All of their ban/unban rationale relates to 1 and 2 above, even if poorly phrased. Twin ban? It's diversity. Probe ban? T4 rule. GGT? Diversity, but framed through sideboards. Sword and AV? Attempts to increase diversity too. "No changes" in the last bunch of updates? Diversity and T4 rule not jeopardized.
Once we realize these two criteria are the guiding stars of Modern, we can evaluate any unban or ban {..}
I see that during the last month, you added an extra banning criterion. The "Battle of sideboards". That's nice, considering that we disagree on the matter for two years now. I can always remember you saying there always the diversity, T4 rule and the logistics reason for bans. It's nice that you updated your criteria list, that's what I wanted to say you all along. Sure, it's battle of sideboards formally and I dont really care if you call it unfun or battle of sideboards or something else.
The greater point to take here, is that we just added(even you!) an extra ban reason on our lists!
The thing also is Wizards did what they should have done about Dredge. The deck was a negative experience overall since it was depleting your sideboard and made all the fair decks feel stupid. So, no, to be honest I disagree with cfusionpm. I do trust Wizards in their ban decisions. I know they are going to make the right move and ban Storm in the post-PT announcement(I will save this link and remind you then ). I just hated Dredge and I wanted them to invent a new criterion to fit Dredge into and ban the hell out of the deck, since the day 1 the card got spoiled..
Just remembet that you bashed me in the next page for seeing what was obvious to some posters: with the Reunion inclusion, the deck owed to be banned and I am still super happy. For me, the fact that I had to dedicate 5 sb slots for the deck was super "unfun".
My old post never stated those were the only reasons for unbans. Just thr primary ones (hence, "guiding stars"). Logistics, for instance, wasn't mentioned there even though we know that's a criterion. Same with battle of sideboards. Diversity and T4 rule are still the "guiding stars" and the most important. I don't know what you are arguing about anymore; the fun factor isn't a real criterion as we see in Wizards' quotes and I already agreed Storm is worrisome.
I disagreed with you, not bashed, because you dramatically oversold the fun factor and complained about Storm without evidence. Just because Storm may end up being a violator, that doesn't mean your initial anecdotal rationale for its ban was justified. See many previous T4 rule complaints in the past.
Ban decisions, in an ideal world, would be based on nothing but objective data. In such a world, the metric of "fun" wouldn't even factor into things, because "fun" is an inherently subjective concept.
We don't live in an ideal world, so I can't say that "fun" isn't a criteria. The closest I can think of an actual justification of a ban by the "fun" criteria was Second Sunrise, and even then it was tied into logistics - "Watching your opponent diddle himself for 20 minutes is boring, and makes tournaments take way too long."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Well, I can saw a woman in two, but you won't wanna look in the box when I'm through.
Fun definitely has to play in somewhere. How much or how little is unknown. Generally, people go to stores to play because they enjoy it for whatever different reasons. When you get decreasing attendance in events and a rise in a certain deck, there may not be analytics to show what that deck specifically is doing to damage the game, but it would appear that enough people don't like playing against it that they stop coming out for events, and that hurts WOTC and Magic whether directly or indirectly. It is the human factor.
Efficient answer with a drawback -> Prevalence -> Decks prey on drawback -> Metagame shaped by card.
vs.
Efficient answer with no drawback -> Prevalence -> Nothing to prey on -> Diverse metagame.
You're crippling yourself not playing blue in the format. Last year, we, and that includes me, complained about a lack of blue and white cards in the format---why on earth would we drown out diversity by requiring blue?
Yes, brainstorm and ponder are difficult and cards that test good decision making and prediction, and it also means consistency and seeing sideboard hate...So, while legacy has a deeper card pool blue really drowns out that format. Legacy is a great format, but it has it's issues, too. WOTC also is hands off with it because of the reserve list, they wouldn't allow legacy to be the way it is if they felt they could profit enough from it being the format to play for eternal.
FOW would find it's way into degenerate combo decks in modern, too, I'm certain of it, and it'd be brutal since there's no brainstorms, Jaces and ponders and Sylvan Library to find those sideboard pieces.
The format needs better land hate without resorting to stripe mine power levels
A good old 2 counter spell would be nice
I'm a proponent for SFM and BBE to come off the ban list and starting off rom there. I have no interest in seeing FOW spawning new combo decks and making Storm and Grixis better
That being said, I agree with you that I think Storm will get hit by Feb
The deck wasn't played to massive numbers at the regionals, but I think you guys are valuing that data too much. The bigger tournaments and Pro tour could really bust and expose this deck wide open
I have always believed that those clamoring for bans (or unbans, though the waters are murkier there) are the ones on whom the onus falls to provide evidence. If you want to make a case for Storm being banned, make a case, and not a long post listing a bunch of irrelevant reasons why Storm is "good" (protip: most successful Modern decks are "good").
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Non-combo players despise combo is what I'm seeing. Doesn't matter if you play Aggro, Control, or Midrange, you hate combo. Hence the majority of complaining. The EDH Forum gets 10-12 posts about combo every month.
Obviously this is a generalization, but it's where a lot of the hate is coming from.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
According to the compiled data Pizzap posted above, Storm is at 5.9% of the meta, which even under the largest doomsaying about Modern is not bannable.
The other question, which is perpetually unanswerable, is what amount does it win before Turn 4. Considering the difficulty (and risk) of that feat (needing to land Electromancer or Baral on 2 and have it stick for at least a turn), I don't think it wins on Turn 3 very often.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
One thing I didn't agree with was how you took Caleb's example and how he played through GY hate as an example of how strong the deck is. You're talking about arguably the best storm player alive, the one with his face on the SCG storm counter. He runs lists at the forefront, pioneering fetchless storm for instance. People look to not just his sideboard but his 75. I see top 8s with his exact list days after his blog is updated.
You noted very exactly how going all in on grapeshots reduces vulnerability to GY hate. However Collins showed us exactly what good players do - blow that sort of metagaming out of the water. Its a beautiful example of evolution - the meta evolves more GY hate to deal with storm - storm evolves GY resistance by eschewing the traditional secondary wincon - the meta evolves solutions that punish that kind of all-in strat. Will storm now backpedal? Or can it answer this new solution? TL;DR: The relationship storm has with the rest of the meta is still evolving. Answers can be found, contrary to popular belief, and storm will have to react or fall back into mediocrity.
Ultimately Storm is a stack of 56 cards with very little flex. Its incredibly linear. Where an effective solution is found it will be incredibly hard to storm to maneuvre around it. Just as your viable control deck now mains spreading seas to deal with this meta, it is not beyond reason to expect decks with maindeck meddling mage/nevermore/similar cards to eke out a meta share because they can crush storm while having game against the rest of the meta.
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
I don't really like that you're saying to post stats or to shut up. I feel like I've been pretty accurate about where the format is and where it's going for the past few years without ever researching too much data. I definitely was concerned about shadow decks at one point, but the format overcorrected that issue.
I'm not liking this, "WOTC will ban whats unfun" attitude, and it's definitely a dangerous mentality to have.
I do believe storm is on the edge of being dangerous, and I think regionals is a poor prediction for where this deck is going, I'll be shocked if we don't see this deck a ton at the pro tour
I already said it dozens of times, if this deck see's two players in the top 8 of the pro tour, the deck will be banned without hesitation
So, sure, this was a case where they won through some hate and disruption. But like I said, you can find examples of that for decks that few would seriously advocate for a banning. You need to demonstrate that the deck can beat the sort of setup you describe on a more consistent basis than a sample size of two.
We don't need to know the exact cutoff. We just need to know how Storm's likely T2-T3 win % compares to the likely T2-T3 win % of Amulet Bloom, a previous T4 rule violator. This gives us a good guess about Storm's fate. I will need to update the sample with Caleb's new videos on Twitch, but at our last check, the deck probably wins on T3 between 8% and 22% of games, averaging about 14.5% of games. There's about a 36% chance this lines up with Bloom's win percentage, which we know got Bloom banned.
Are we counting the turn the game ends, or the turn the game is effectively over?
Don't like to bring that up again, but it is relevant when regarding Bloom and the difference between winning (Hive Mind + Pact) and "winning" (A turn 2 hasted Titan while both players are at 16-20 life).
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
The turn the game ends on MTGO, which is where Wizards would get this kind of data and how they would track it. Most decks are well under 10%; people just don't concede on T2 or T3 very often. During the Bloom era, even a nut-draw deck like Affinity was only finishing the game via concession or outright win in 7% total of games. When Bloom was near 20% for T2/T3 wins and concessions in that same era, that was a problem.
Incidentally, almost all of Caleb's T3 wins are actual wins with a lethal Grapeshot. Only a few are concessions after an opponent has no Empty answer. Caleb also has 0 T2 and T1 wins by wins/concession. Bloom had both.
How on earth did Bloom ever manage a Turn 1 win? The only possibility I can think of requires:
Summer Bloom, G/X Bounceland, Amulet of Vigor, SSG, Hive Mind, and a Pact. The literal definition of a flawless extreme nut draw.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
If I remember the spreadsheet correctly, the T1 win was just a concession to T1 Titan. The T2 wins were both concessions to T2 Titan and actual wins off T2 Hive Mind. Interestingly, Storm has zero T1 or T2 wins in the dataset, and that includes concessions. Its % is also tracking lower than Bloom's, although I still have to add 2-3 new Leagues.
Your argument seems to be that decks are "good" in a vacuum, and the metagame shares aren't related or part of this consideration.
In reality it's more complex. In order to be "good", a deck must have favourable conditions to succeed, and this depends entirely on the other decks present. Case in point; death's shadow has been falling down the rankings steadily as the conditions and metagame shifted around it. The deck hasn't changed, it isn't intrinsically any more or less "good" in a vacuum but now it's not a great choice to win large tournaments.
The point is that no deck is intrinsically brilliant. A hostile metagame can destroy anything, even the most consistent and tricky decks. The "too good" issue arises when a metagame won't correct itself. The reasons for this include:
1) too many people adopting the "good" deck because they feel it gives them the best chance to win (thereby causing a disproportionate metagame shift towards the deck)
2) people unwilling to modify their decks to 'hate out' the offending "good" deck.
3) people unwilling to swap out for a different deck in the face of a changing metagame.
Your example about rogue decks also requires attention. You are describing decks which have favourable conditions and low uptake from the community. There will always be decent outside options like this, that can attack a specific meta because it's unprepared. However, these rogue strategies are often weaker against a wide field or crumble completely when metas shift (and they always do, like clockwork).
What I haven't mentioned yet is those decks which are able to seemingly weather the storm of a changing metagame. Jund *was* one of these, affinity is still one. What should be evident immediately is that no deck is truly weatherproof to metagame changes. Affinity, the darling of modern, has all-but disappeared at certain times in the last few years, only to come back after a couple of months when the pendulum swings back again in favour of the deck.
I'm not bashing you dude, but I strongly suggest we (all) adopt a more nuanced stance when talking about whether a deck is "good" or not.
This is clearly not a primary criterion. Return was banned because it is a T4 rule violator. Wizards calls it a "turn three deck" in the opening sentence of its ban explanation. The explanation doesn't even mention the fun factor until it clearly states the deck was capable of T3 kills. Furthermore, Wizards leads into the fun factor by saying "on top of this," further showing it is not a primary reason.
As for GGT, the ban explanation never even mentions the word "fun" at all. It got banned because it created a "battle of sideboards." Incidentally, this also appears to be the explanation behind why Dread Return is not fun; it also created a "game of deciding" sideboard slots that was not "satisfying."
The fun factor is not real. No card has ever been banned in Modern because it was solely not fun. Return was banned because it was a T4 rule violator that also created a siseboard subgame that was not satisfying. GGT was banned solely for creating a battle of sideboards. If a deck is BOTH not fun AND violating a format rule, it would be in trouble. But if a deck's only strike is being allegedly "not fun" then it is fine.
Dredge also pretty much kicked every single graveyard deck out of the format, but WOTC didn't mention that.
So if I get enough players to complain about playing against Jund, I can get Jund banned?
Opponent's subjective opinion about a deck should NEVER be used as ban criteria. That's incredibly stupid.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
This kind of conspiracy theory isn't helpful. Every card banned in Modern was banned for the exact reasons Wizards stated. Fun is not one of those reasons and has never been one of those reasons. Return was banned for T4 rule violations and creating a sideboard slot game. GGT was banned for the battle of sideboards reason alone. I am sorry you personally don't trust Wizards' decisions and/or explanations, but every ban was made for clear reasons that they clearly articulated. "Fun" is not a reason.
The reasons for bans are:
-Diversity
-T4 rule
-Logistics
-Battle of sideboards
It is true that many decks violating these rules are ALSO not fun, so in that regard, the fun factor might be considered a proxy for those actual criteria. But it is not a criterion on its own.
My old post never stated those were the only reasons for unbans. Just thr primary ones (hence, "guiding stars"). Logistics, for instance, wasn't mentioned there even though we know that's a criterion. Same with battle of sideboards. Diversity and T4 rule are still the "guiding stars" and the most important. I don't know what you are arguing about anymore; the fun factor isn't a real criterion as we see in Wizards' quotes and I already agreed Storm is worrisome.
I disagreed with you, not bashed, because you dramatically oversold the fun factor and complained about Storm without evidence. Just because Storm may end up being a violator, that doesn't mean your initial anecdotal rationale for its ban was justified. See many previous T4 rule complaints in the past.
We don't live in an ideal world, so I can't say that "fun" isn't a criteria. The closest I can think of an actual justification of a ban by the "fun" criteria was Second Sunrise, and even then it was tied into logistics - "Watching your opponent diddle himself for 20 minutes is boring, and makes tournaments take way too long."
BWTokens
GCollected Stompany
BWGUSeance Insanity
URUR Bloo