The card is banned, deservedly so, regardless of either argument.
That's not exactly true. It's banned in Modern for what it *might* do, not what it actually did.
Well, it's not like it was never legal. During its time, it slotted directly into Twin and Scapeshift, and pushing the latter definitely into Tier 1 status. The fact that it was overshadowed by a Tier 0 deck like UR Treasure Delver doesn't mean we haven't seen how powerful it was and how much more consistent were the combo decks that played it. Indeed the dataset we have is skewed because of Treasure Cruise, but saying we have no idea is also false.
Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE to be able to play DTT in my control decks, since I almost exclusively play control decks. But the impact it would have to control decks would be waaaay smaller that the impact it would have in the consistency of combo decks and this is not something we need to experience (even though we already have). This is just how the card works and what it does. It gives powerful selection digging very deep.
I do respect the stats, but one must also take into consideration the meta in which this is happening (the t3 kills). In 2015 the number of lightning bolts and snapcaster decks, along with classic jund and attrition style decks were very different from today. As many people in this very thread have pointed out, Modern has degenerated into "2 ships passing in the night". It is not a surprise then that the deck best equipped to sculpt and with the redundancy in enablers (Baral printing) would have a comparative advantage to do what is needed: win before the other uninteractive guy does.
I will rerun this for Affinity later this week and I can basically guarantee you that it will still be under Storm. I've played against a lot of Affinity and even anecdotally this doesn't seem true.
There are lots of ways to try and defend Storm, and I appreciate you are trying to do that. That said, saying that "if Storm is a T4 violator, so is Company/Affinity" is a losing line. I'll even give you the better line to take because the current pro-Storm arguments are so flimsy.
Storm defense: Storm's current T3 win rate is buoyed by an uninteractive metagame. That said, we have seen interactive decks do increasingly well in the last month or so as players realize it's a bad idea to try to out-goldfish Storm. As a result, control decks like Jeskai (most-played deck at SCG Regionals) and hate decks like Humans (super successful across major events and MTGO) are becoming more prevalent. Over the next few months, shifting metagame trends will favor interactive strategies, which will hurt Storm's T3 win rate. If that happens and we rerun the Storm win rate analysis by January, we should expect to see that number drop.
I have no idea if that will play out, but that is how I would go about defending Storm and then wait and see if the data plays out as that theory predicts. But the current pro-Storm arguments just do not cut it.
Isn't that what I've been saying though, seriously? I've been saying Storm has been doing what its doing now because of the uninteractive meta. It was even in my very last reply, where I said the number of attrition and snapcaster decks were very different in 2015.
The issue is that Storm is the only deck doing this right now. The other potential T4 violators are not, regardless of the metagame context. If Storm's T3 wins trend down in the next few months, then it might not remain a violator. But if the T3 wins trend up or stay flat, that's a problem. We don't know what will happen but the current data is troubling.
Re: DTT
GK, you are really overselling the Omnitell argument. Just look at Wizards' ban explanation and look at the Legacy metagame. Miracles was by far the most-played DTT deck at the time. Omnitell is number 4 in the meta, and the top 8 decks are all blue DTT strategies. Wizards said it was blue decks (Miracles, Delver, Blade) AND combo decks (Omnitell, ANT) that got the card banned, not just combo decks and not just Omnitell. This is exactly what the meta shows us. You're totally reframing the megagame to try and defend DTT and make it almost all about Omnitell, but that isn't at all in line with what actually happened. I get that you want to defend DTT, but twisting the Legacy meta stats isn't doing DTT any services.
Omnitell is never higher than 3rd in any metagame update, and is always almost 50%+ behind Miracles. Was Omnitell a factor in DTT's banning? Absolutely. Was it the only factor? Was it even the primary factor? The metagame shows very clearly it was neither the sole nor driving factor behind the ban. These updates also show that you are really off base in saying Omnitell being a "Tier 0" deck got DTT banned. That isn't remotely supported here. Rather, exactly as Wizards said in its update, it was the fact that tons of blue decks were collectively using DTT and making the format less diverse.
If DTT is somehow game-breakingly busted, but Collected Company (which casts its cards for free) is totally fine, why not just print us a good blue card with comparable power to CoCo?
If DTT is somehow game-breakingly busted, but Collected Company (which casts its cards for free) is totally fine, why not just print us a good blue card with comparable power to CoCo?
I am intrigued by this. I don't totally disagree with it. I wonder what restrictions you could put on DTT to make it acceptable in the same way that CoCo is acceptable.
Obviously, putting permanents directly onto the battlefield is a more powerful immediate effect than (shorthand) Scry 7 Draw 2. You have to take into consideration the fact that CoCo hits only creatures, and narrowly, CMC ≤ 3. CoCo is a card that you build around, whereas DTT does something you want it to do in any deck running blue.
What if it said, "Look at the top seven cards of your library. You may reveal up to two instant or sorcery cards from among them and put them into your hand. Put the rest on the bottom of your library in any order"?
If you knew and know Legacy, you would be very careful saying something like that.
With all that said, I am happy that Wizards thinks player feedback is more important than data. Because some times, data lie. They lied in Modern Dredge for example.
I stopped caring about this argument like 80 pages ago, but this intrigues me. Are Legacy players actual wizards who inflict curses upon anybody who defies them on Internet forums? As far as the second statement goes , I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. If so, nice work. If not, are you unfamiliar with the proverb, "Figures don't lie, liars figure"? Assuming the data is from a representative sample size & found to be statistically significant, how can you claim that numbers lie? Statistical data is statistical data. Player feedback is anecdotal data. If opinions always trumped stats, we'd all be praising Kyrie Irving for his genius flat Earth rhetoric.
Hard to have facts when Wizards uses broad and vague terminology while also purposely hiding and misrepresenting data.
That, and just about any form of data can be used to represent any stance if you control the framing. So it's a little more complex than just "facts" and "feelings."
Hard to have facts when Wizards uses broad and vague terminology while also purposely hiding and misrepresenting data.
That, and just about any form of data can be used to represent any stance if you control the framing. So it's a little more complex than just "facts" and "feelings."
Ehhh, not as hard as this thread can make it seem.
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'm not really sure why people are complaining about storm right now. My mind set is let wizards decide if the deck needs a card plucked from it's repertoire and in the meantime players have another relatively low cost deck to trade into. This isn't like they just banned Mox Opal and killed affinity forever. Though seriously, why haven't they banned Mox Opal? That's one extremely over powered card.
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!
Hard to have facts when Wizards uses broad and vague terminology while also purposely hiding and misrepresenting data.
That, and just about any form of data can be used to represent any stance if you control the framing. So it's a little more complex than just "facts" and "feelings."
Ehhh, not as hard as this thread can make it seem.
I guess that's why we have such a clear understanding of the meta and are skilled at making accurate ban/unban predictions.
Ultimately, we're a bunch of humans with different perspectives in a "room" speculating about what another group of humans in another room will do involving a subject matter that we are all passionate about.
Facts will figure, but I think everyone is aware that facts can be interpreted very differently, framed differently. If the humans in the other room so decide, subjectively, that they want something banned, by golly the facts they use are going to be framed to reflect that. For instance if you filter for last 2 months on mtgtop8, Storm is not amongst the top and second in the combo category, but last 2 weeks? Top deck across all categories.
The last few pages have been overwhelmingly filled with the following phrases, only with different wording:
"your anecdotes don't match the figures"
"your figures are misleading"
Well, guess what. The humans in the other room are going to shape the figures presented in the B&R announcement to match their narrative, especially when they want something gone. The more it tends to clash with "public opinion" or the more controversial it is, the longer the framing and wall of text will be. Choosing the data that best fits our narrative is going to be something all of us instinctively do, including the people in that room.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
Hard to have facts when Wizards uses broad and vague terminology while also purposely hiding and misrepresenting data.
That, and just about any form of data can be used to represent any stance if you control the framing. So it's a little more complex than just "facts" and "feelings."
Ehhh, not as hard as this thread can make it seem.
I guess that's why we have such a clear understanding of the meta and are skilled at making accurate ban/unban predictions.
We have made many of them correctly, including a dozen "No Changes" predictions when many in this thread (and in many pro articles) were clamoring for a pet peeve's banning. If you want to talk about the one notable miss that everyone made, take it to the PM thread and we can chat there.
Hard to have facts when Wizards uses broad and vague terminology while also purposely hiding and misrepresenting data.
That, and just about any form of data can be used to represent any stance if you control the framing. So it's a little more complex than just "facts" and "feelings."
Ehhh, not as hard as this thread can make it seem.
I guess that's why we have such a clear understanding of the meta and are skilled at making accurate ban/unban predictions.
We have made many of them correctly, including a dozen "No Changes" predictions when many in this thread (and in many pro articles) were clamoring for a pet peeve's banning. If you want to talk about the one notable miss that everyone made, take it to the PM thread and we can chat there.
Yeah but people, unfortunately, see no changes as "nothing happened". What I have come to understand is that "no changes" is something people in this thread hate. If we predict a "no changes" is like we predict nothing because it doesn't matter. We have to realize that a "no changes" decision is ALSO very impactful and it's not only bans/unbans we have to go after.
Have we predicted all the bans/unbans correctly? No. But hell, bitterblossom, ancestral visions, sword of the meek, and of course as you said, a ton of no changes. I think that this thread has done relatively well when there are facts and constructive comments.
I wonder if Probe was predictable using a similar method to the Bloom/Storm T4 rule method. As far as I know, no one actually tried to predict a T4 violation ban, so I'm wondering if the method would have caught it. I'll have to check at some point, perhaps after I check the Affinity T4 wins.
Re: no changes updates
Many authors and posters who predict "no changes" often do so as a way to hedge their bets after also predicting another ban. By contrast, many of the data-minded posters confidently predict "no changes" as the probable outcome for an update. For example, people really believed stuff like DS and Temple were heading to the chopping block this year when even our limited data pointed away from that. We've only legit missed in 2-3 cases in the last 2-3 years, and (see Probe above) I think that one of those cases was predictable if anyone had tried to predict it.
I do believe unban predictions are harder and I'm not sure what the best method is to predict either the cards or their timing.
Ultimately, we're a bunch of humans with different perspectives in a "room" speculating about what another group of humans in another room will do involving a subject matter that we are all passionate about.
Facts will figure, but I think everyone is aware that facts can be interpreted very differently, framed differently. If the humans in the other room so decide, subjectively, that they want something banned, by golly the facts they use are going to be framed to reflect that. For instance if you filter for last 2 months on mtgtop8, Storm is not amongst the top and second in the combo category, but last 2 weeks? Top deck across all categories.
The last few pages have been overwhelmingly filled with the following phrases, only with different wording:
"your anecdotes don't match the figures"
"your figures are misleading"
Well, guess what. The humans in the other room are going to shape the figures presented in the B&R announcement to match their narrative, especially when they want something gone. The more it tends to clash with "public opinion" or the more controversial it is, the longer the framing and wall of text will be. Choosing the data that best fits our narrative is going to be something all of us instinctively do, including the people in that room.
I don't think this was your intention, and I overall think you probably have decent motives, but this is one of those classic arguments for why people try to discount data. It's the standard "If anyone can warp data to fit a personal narrative, then data doesn't matter" argument, which thankfully doesn't withstand scrutiny if we look at most instances where data has correctly predicted a ban or a "no changes" outcome. There are obviously ways to torture the numbers enough to provide any desired conclusion, just as there are obviously best practices to analyze data and come to reasonable conclusions. Most people who actually use data in this thread and in articles aren't doing the former. Why? Because the vast majority of people who just have a personal axe to grind won't take the time to analyze data, come to a conclusion they don't like, and then warp the numbers again and again until they fit their narrative. That's a LOT of work. Instead, they will just post a personal anecdote and won't even try to support it with any reasonable level of analysis.
Also, it's fairly easy to differentiate between doctored/twisted analysis and honest/reasonable analysis. Most people that play Modern are fairly well-educated and can make that distinction.
I wonder if Probe was predictable using a similar method to the Bloom/Storm T4 rule method. As far as I know, no one actually tried to predict a T4 violation ban, so I'm wondering if the method would have caught it. I'll have to check at some point, perhaps after I check the Affinity T4 wins.
Re: no changes updates
Many authors and posters who predict "no changes" often do so as a way to hedge their bets after also predicting another ban. By contrast, many of the data-minded posters confidently predict "no changes" as the probable outcome for an update. For example, people really believed stuff like DS and Temple were heading to the chopping block this year when even our limited data pointed away from that. We've only legit missed in 2-3 cases in the last 2-3 years, and (see Probe above) I think that one of those cases was predictable if anyone had tried to predict it.
I do believe unban predictions are harder and I'm not sure what the best method is to predict either the cards or their timing.
I think we agree on everything except Probe. But let me just clarify what I mean with the Gitaxian Probe banning. I meant that if someone was to catch it, he would be pointing at Become Immense, no? I mean, I remember us both saying pre-announcement:
I also remember us saying Gitaxian Probe is 99% safe and it will create a negative confidence in the player base if it happens.
Post-announcement, I think we all can agree that they banned Gitaxian Probe because there were 3 creature based aggro decks winning too fast. Ad they banned it , because it was the only card those decks all shared with one another mainly.
Even if you run some Infect/DSZoo/UR Kiln Fiend numbers(please do so! It's important because of Storm) and even if you find that those decks were violating the turn 4 rule, how could you have proposed a Gitaxian Probe banning instead of BI? Maybe if that UR Kiln Fiend deck was breaking the turn 4 rule as well? Even then, it's so difficult. Wizards made the perfect movement. They literally found the best solution possible(this is coming from a past Infect player).
The only way we could have caught Probe instead of BI is if Bloo was also violating the T4 rule, as Bloo didn't run BI. I'm also totally comfortable if we can identify a deck that will be hit by a ban but can't identify the specific card. I don't even know of any data-driven, replicable methods to predict a specific card's banning, and although I think Wizards is much more data-driven in choosing broken decks than many believe, I also think they are much more qualitative when it comes to picking a specific card that will be banned. That doesn't mean we can't try to predict a specific card's banning using their qualitative metrics (e.g. we know they don't like nuking decks, we know they don't like banning win conditions instead of engines, etc.). But it does mean those predictions won't be data-driven like the methods we use to identify broken decks.
Also, it's fairly easy to differentiate between doctored/twisted analysis and honest/reasonable analysis. Most people that play Modern are fairly well-educated and can make that distinction.
A little off-topic but I would love to know where you got this information. Here in Boston the claim does check out, but I've played Modern regularly in many other cities and it seems like a 50/50 split or worse regarding how many of my opponents went to college (I am chatty).
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.
Also, it's fairly easy to differentiate between doctored/twisted analysis and honest/reasonable analysis. Most people that play Modern are fairly well-educated and can make that distinction.
A little off-topic but I would love to know where you got this information. Here in Boston the claim does check out, but I've played Modern regularly in many other cities and it seems like a 50/50 split or worse regarding how many of my opponents went to college (I am chatty).
Looking at my group of Moderners at the local level, I'd estimate 75% are in college or have graduated from college. Like you, I'm chatty. But I have no idea what the breakdown is at the regional, national, or international level.
Also, it's fairly easy to differentiate between doctored/twisted analysis and honest/reasonable analysis. Most people that play Modern are fairly well-educated and can make that distinction.
A little off-topic but I would love to know where you got this information. Here in Boston the claim does check out, but I've played Modern regularly in many other cities and it seems like a 50/50 split or worse regarding how many of my opponents went to college (I am chatty).
Looking at my group of Moderners at the local level, I'd estimate 75% are in college or have graduated from college. Like you, I'm chatty. But I have no idea what the breakdown is at the regional, national, or international level.
Very interesting, thanks. Would be great to have some real stats on this but I fear it's too niche to ever be picked up by REAL SCIENTISTS 👩🏽🔬👨🏻🔬 Even anecdotally though I find your analysis fascinating and would be interested in hearing the experience of other users here, too (shame we can't control for chattiness).
On another note, published a piece this morning that looks at Fatal Push's now 10-month history in Modern and at the metagame shifts that have taken place around it. Hopefully it dispels a couple myths I've seen in this thread, among them that Modern is solved or stagnant and that Push's presence reduces diversity among playable creatures. The article also explores the fair decks I think will do well in the format's near future, namely Jekskai, Mardu, and Jund. Read it here: http://modernnexus.com/fatal-push-retrospect-future-fair/
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.
Also, it's fairly easy to differentiate between doctored/twisted analysis and honest/reasonable analysis. Most people that play Modern are fairly well-educated and can make that distinction.
A little off-topic but I would love to know where you got this information. Here in Boston the claim does check out, but I've played Modern regularly in many other cities and it seems like a 50/50 split or worse regarding how many of my opponents went to college (I am chatty).
Same here, the players have tended to be educational and pretty intelligent. My store is also right by Penn University, though.
This is a hobby that attracts nerds, let's just call it what it is.
Are we allowed to ban or limit the number of comments a user is allowed to make? Please don't mark this as trolling but I truly believe that if the radicals and sh*t stirrer's weren't allowed to fill this thread with opinion>fact type mentality then we would be able to have much more real conversations or discussions on the banlist topic. It may not be intentional, but those types of people are just screaming "troll" to me and in other places that kind of attitude is not welcomed. It makes me not want to post or even read anything on this thread because I know that no matter what is being discussed there is going to be a small group of dissatisfied players (usually the usual suspects) who feed nonsense and misinformation in here. There is a big difference between using a specific data set vs opinion or anecdotal evidence and even when presented evidence from unbiased faces, they refute the evidence. Honestly, sounds a lot like Trump and his 'fake news' narrative.
My area has between 50-75% that is in the "past college" phase in their lives. I am located in Southern California, U.S.
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)
My area has between 50-75% that is in the "past college" phase in their lives. I am located in Southern California, U.S.
To put in my 2 cents regarding this topic, at least in regards to Modern FNM's, its honestly close to 80% "past college" folks. There are maybe 1 or 2 kids who recently graduated High School or turned 18 but the primary demographic at my store is men in their mid-late 20's to their late 40's. There are rarely ever any individuals younger than 18 playing. This is all in Central California, U.S.
My area has between 50-75% that is in the "past college" phase in their lives. I am located in Southern California, U.S.
To put in my 2 cents regarding this topic, at least in regards to Modern FNM's, its honestly close to 80% "past college" folks. There are maybe 1 or 2 kids who recently graduated High School or turned 18 but the primary demographic at my store is men in their mid-late 20's to their late 40's. There are rarely ever any individuals younger than 18 playing. This is all in Central California, U.S.
Just about everyone who plays in my area that is playing modern are out of college graduates or working folks. Standard and commander have more people in their teens and twenties, though. I think it's the natural progression of things with this game that as people get older and have less time to dedicate to playing they gravitate towards non-rotating formats like Commander and Modern, since it takes a lot of time to track down cards, rebuild decks, and trade out of old ones to keep up with formats like standard. That is with standard being on the old 12 month rotation instead of the prior 6 month one that wizards quickly backed out of.
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!
Are we allowed to ban or limit the number of comments a user is allowed to make? Please don't mark this as trolling but I truly believe that if the radicals and sh*t stirrer's weren't allowed to fill this thread with opinion>fact type mentality then we would be able to have much more real conversations or discussions on the banlist topic. It may not be intentional, but those types of people are just screaming "troll" to me and in other places that kind of attitude is not welcomed. It makes me not want to post or even read anything on this thread because I know that no matter what is being discussed there is going to be a small group of dissatisfied players (usually the usual suspects) who feed nonsense and misinformation in here. There is a big difference between using a specific data set vs opinion or anecdotal evidence and even when presented evidence from unbiased faces, they refute the evidence. Honestly, sounds a lot like Trump and his 'fake news' narrative.
This thread serves a very specific purpose on MTGS, and that's to keep other threads from derailing into banlist talk. It's not to artificially create a heavily moderated conversation that favors specific narratives over others (although the heated nature of debates held here frequently violate the board's rules, and the thread ends up heavily moderated for that reason). In light of that fact, this suggestion seems totally unreasonable---posters of all types must be allowed, or their ban talk risks escaping quarantine.
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.
Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE to be able to play DTT in my control decks, since I almost exclusively play control decks. But the impact it would have to control decks would be waaaay smaller that the impact it would have in the consistency of combo decks and this is not something we need to experience (even though we already have). This is just how the card works and what it does. It gives powerful selection digging very deep.
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
The issue is that Storm is the only deck doing this right now. The other potential T4 violators are not, regardless of the metagame context. If Storm's T3 wins trend down in the next few months, then it might not remain a violator. But if the T3 wins trend up or stay flat, that's a problem. We don't know what will happen but the current data is troubling.
Re: DTT
GK, you are really overselling the Omnitell argument. Just look at Wizards' ban explanation and look at the Legacy metagame. Miracles was by far the most-played DTT deck at the time. Omnitell is number 4 in the meta, and the top 8 decks are all blue DTT strategies. Wizards said it was blue decks (Miracles, Delver, Blade) AND combo decks (Omnitell, ANT) that got the card banned, not just combo decks and not just Omnitell. This is exactly what the meta shows us. You're totally reframing the megagame to try and defend DTT and make it almost all about Omnitell, but that isn't at all in line with what actually happened. I get that you want to defend DTT, but twisting the Legacy meta stats isn't doing DTT any services.
Just to further put to rest this myth about Omnitell being the card that broke DTT, here are four more metagame summaries from 2015.
May: https://www.channelfireball.com/articles/may-2015-legacy-metagame-analysis/
June: http://thegraymerchants.com/?p=659
July: http://thegraymerchants.com/?p=785
September: http://thegraymerchants.com/?p=1056
Omnitell is never higher than 3rd in any metagame update, and is always almost 50%+ behind Miracles. Was Omnitell a factor in DTT's banning? Absolutely. Was it the only factor? Was it even the primary factor? The metagame shows very clearly it was neither the sole nor driving factor behind the ban. These updates also show that you are really off base in saying Omnitell being a "Tier 0" deck got DTT banned. That isn't remotely supported here. Rather, exactly as Wizards said in its update, it was the fact that tons of blue decks were collectively using DTT and making the format less diverse.
EDIT: ugh nevermind.
I am intrigued by this. I don't totally disagree with it. I wonder what restrictions you could put on DTT to make it acceptable in the same way that CoCo is acceptable.
Obviously, putting permanents directly onto the battlefield is a more powerful immediate effect than (shorthand) Scry 7 Draw 2. You have to take into consideration the fact that CoCo hits only creatures, and narrowly, CMC ≤ 3. CoCo is a card that you build around, whereas DTT does something you want it to do in any deck running blue.
What if it said, "Look at the top seven cards of your library. You may reveal up to two instant or sorcery cards from among them and put them into your hand. Put the rest on the bottom of your library in any order"?
CG
I stopped caring about this argument like 80 pages ago, but this intrigues me. Are Legacy players actual wizards who inflict curses upon anybody who defies them on Internet forums? As far as the second statement goes , I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. If so, nice work. If not, are you unfamiliar with the proverb, "Figures don't lie, liars figure"? Assuming the data is from a representative sample size & found to be statistically significant, how can you claim that numbers lie? Statistical data is statistical data. Player feedback is anecdotal data. If opinions always trumped stats, we'd all be praising Kyrie Irving for his genius flat Earth rhetoric.
Link to Discord server where anybody from MTGS can keep up with thread topics while everything is being sorted out with the new site.
That, and just about any form of data can be used to represent any stance if you control the framing. So it's a little more complex than just "facts" and "feelings."
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
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!
I guess that's why we have such a clear understanding of the meta and are skilled at making accurate ban/unban predictions.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Facts will figure, but I think everyone is aware that facts can be interpreted very differently, framed differently. If the humans in the other room so decide, subjectively, that they want something banned, by golly the facts they use are going to be framed to reflect that. For instance if you filter for last 2 months on mtgtop8, Storm is not amongst the top and second in the combo category, but last 2 weeks? Top deck across all categories.
The last few pages have been overwhelmingly filled with the following phrases, only with different wording:
"your anecdotes don't match the figures"
"your figures are misleading"
Well, guess what. The humans in the other room are going to shape the figures presented in the B&R announcement to match their narrative, especially when they want something gone. The more it tends to clash with "public opinion" or the more controversial it is, the longer the framing and wall of text will be. Choosing the data that best fits our narrative is going to be something all of us instinctively do, including the people in that room.
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
We have made many of them correctly, including a dozen "No Changes" predictions when many in this thread (and in many pro articles) were clamoring for a pet peeve's banning. If you want to talk about the one notable miss that everyone made, take it to the PM thread and we can chat there.
Have we predicted all the bans/unbans correctly? No. But hell, bitterblossom, ancestral visions, sword of the meek, and of course as you said, a ton of no changes. I think that this thread has done relatively well when there are facts and constructive comments.
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
Re: no changes updates
Many authors and posters who predict "no changes" often do so as a way to hedge their bets after also predicting another ban. By contrast, many of the data-minded posters confidently predict "no changes" as the probable outcome for an update. For example, people really believed stuff like DS and Temple were heading to the chopping block this year when even our limited data pointed away from that. We've only legit missed in 2-3 cases in the last 2-3 years, and (see Probe above) I think that one of those cases was predictable if anyone had tried to predict it.
I do believe unban predictions are harder and I'm not sure what the best method is to predict either the cards or their timing.
I don't think this was your intention, and I overall think you probably have decent motives, but this is one of those classic arguments for why people try to discount data. It's the standard "If anyone can warp data to fit a personal narrative, then data doesn't matter" argument, which thankfully doesn't withstand scrutiny if we look at most instances where data has correctly predicted a ban or a "no changes" outcome. There are obviously ways to torture the numbers enough to provide any desired conclusion, just as there are obviously best practices to analyze data and come to reasonable conclusions. Most people who actually use data in this thread and in articles aren't doing the former. Why? Because the vast majority of people who just have a personal axe to grind won't take the time to analyze data, come to a conclusion they don't like, and then warp the numbers again and again until they fit their narrative. That's a LOT of work. Instead, they will just post a personal anecdote and won't even try to support it with any reasonable level of analysis.
Also, it's fairly easy to differentiate between doctored/twisted analysis and honest/reasonable analysis. Most people that play Modern are fairly well-educated and can make that distinction.
The only way we could have caught Probe instead of BI is if Bloo was also violating the T4 rule, as Bloo didn't run BI. I'm also totally comfortable if we can identify a deck that will be hit by a ban but can't identify the specific card. I don't even know of any data-driven, replicable methods to predict a specific card's banning, and although I think Wizards is much more data-driven in choosing broken decks than many believe, I also think they are much more qualitative when it comes to picking a specific card that will be banned. That doesn't mean we can't try to predict a specific card's banning using their qualitative metrics (e.g. we know they don't like nuking decks, we know they don't like banning win conditions instead of engines, etc.). But it does mean those predictions won't be data-driven like the methods we use to identify broken decks.
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
Looking at my group of Moderners at the local level, I'd estimate 75% are in college or have graduated from college. Like you, I'm chatty. But I have no idea what the breakdown is at the regional, national, or international level.
On another note, published a piece this morning that looks at Fatal Push's now 10-month history in Modern and at the metagame shifts that have taken place around it. Hopefully it dispels a couple myths I've seen in this thread, among them that Modern is solved or stagnant and that Push's presence reduces diversity among playable creatures. The article also explores the fair decks I think will do well in the format's near future, namely Jekskai, Mardu, and Jund. Read it here: http://modernnexus.com/fatal-push-retrospect-future-fair/
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
Same here, the players have tended to be educational and pretty intelligent. My store is also right by Penn University, though.
This is a hobby that attracts nerds, let's just call it what it is.
RG BBE Ponza
UX Eldrazi Tron
UR Jace Breach
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)To put in my 2 cents regarding this topic, at least in regards to Modern FNM's, its honestly close to 80% "past college" folks. There are maybe 1 or 2 kids who recently graduated High School or turned 18 but the primary demographic at my store is men in their mid-late 20's to their late 40's. There are rarely ever any individuals younger than 18 playing. This is all in Central California, U.S.
RG BBE Ponza
UX Eldrazi Tron
UR Jace Breach
Just about everyone who plays in my area that is playing modern are out of college graduates or working folks. Standard and commander have more people in their teens and twenties, though. I think it's the natural progression of things with this game that as people get older and have less time to dedicate to playing they gravitate towards non-rotating formats like Commander and Modern, since it takes a lot of time to track down cards, rebuild decks, and trade out of old ones to keep up with formats like standard. That is with standard being on the old 12 month rotation instead of the prior 6 month one that wizards quickly backed out of.
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!
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy