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.
I'd like to point out, that this is Wizards fault entirely, not a few select posters on this thread.
Splinter Twin is a highly debated ban, and it has good reason to be debated. The problem is that it's become symbiotic to every other relevant topic of or about the banned list, so that part of the discussion has been extremely moderated - which is also completely understandable.
Censorship is a serious issue, and based on my knowledge, most moderators are only volunteering for the cause of healthy discussion. They are consistently taxed for their time by us, and I feel we need to make the pathway better for them overall.
I know I am taking a rare stance personally saying the Artifact lands could be let loose in the Modern format, and the best response I get is "LoL They are busted" and I can link over 300 tournament results of PPTQ's with an average of 160 players in each previous Extended tournament, and show that Kird Ape and Wild Nacatl shows up in more numbers than Seat of the Synod and Great Furnace combined. That's also not justifying the fact that we got tremendous more hate against such decks in Today's Modern format with Stony Silence, and Kolaghan's Command as the most popular of the bunch.
Yet debate falls under further deteriorate talks such as "I played back in that Standard - and X,Y,Z!" Well so did I? I don't remember or even feel the way you claim, and we have even more evidence provided by Wizards themselves.
People won't change, this forum needs so much time to accept a notion. Look at Bitterblossom, Wild Nacatl, Valakut, The Molten Pinnacle, and Ancestral Vision, and Sword of the Meek. People claimed these cards were safe, and it took months and months of debate for people to come to the same notion that the minority had at one point, before it became an accepted norm. Only now are we actually mostly agreeing on Bloodbraid Elf, Stoneforge Mystic and possibly Jace, the Mind Sculptor to be set free in this format. We can look at the polls each banning announcement, and those cards are always the front-runners of the results.
The amount of effort it takes to persuade this public forum is no small investment.
TLDR; People are so emotionally invested, they don't bother looking at any data we can supply. The problem with all the talk about Twin, is that they might actually be hurting themselves. With such arrogant stances, it's hard to associate the card as innocent when the loudest voices never come to reason.
My area has between 50-75% that is in the "past college" phase in their lives. I am located in Southern California, U.S.
My LGS is located roughly 15 minutes from two division I schools and a stones throw away from some affluent neighborhoods, so the Modern demographic includes kids who are like 14 years old and older players with families and careers who play maybe once a month. However, the majority of players are definitely college students. Overall, I'd say that out of an average Modern tournament of 50 players, ~75% are either in college or graduated. I'm currently in my second year of pharmacy school and actually got a reference from a pharmacist who plays every other week or so; ya never know who you'll meet when you're chatty haha.
A few days ago, a user stated something to the effect of "If Storm is a T4 violator, so too are Counters Company and Affinity." That last time, we saw this was not true with either deck. Affinity averaged a 6% T3 win rate in an n=3000 2015 sample, and Counters Company averaged 3.6%. Accounting for possible sampling error, that means Company is likely to have a real T3 win% between 0% an 10.7%, which means there is only a 4% chance it matches the win % of the last known T4 rule violator of Amulet Bloom (which averaged 17%-18%).
One argument against this is that Affinity's 6% T3 win rate happened in the more interactive 2015 era, so perhaps Affinity would see an increase in the allegedly less interactive 2017 period of Modern. So I re-ran the analysis for Affinity in summer-fall 2017 and saw how things looked. In those approximately 60 games sampled from major paper events, I found Affinity averaged a 5.3% T3 win rate. Accounting for possible sampling error, that means the true Affinity T3 win rate is somewhere between 0% and 14%, meaning there is only a 3% chance it matches Bloom's 17%-18% T3 win rate from 2015. Statistically speaking, it is very unlikely Affinity is a real T4 violator, both looking at 2015 and 2017 data. In fact, given that my sample finds Affinity at a 5.3% T3 win rate, and the n=3000 sample had it at 6%, I'd say 6% is a very good estimation for Affinity's T3 win rate.
Also, some Storm update. I supplemented Caleb's Twitch data with data from recent major paper tournaments. This brings our N up to 175.
Storm avg T3 win rate: 12% Storm T3 win rate range: 7.2% - 16.8% Chance that Storm has same T3 win rate as Bloom: 19.3%
As we keep adding data to the Storm sample, the T3 win rate keeps falling. It has dropped from something like 14.5% down to 12% flat, which has also dropped its chances that it mirrors Bloom's win rate: 36% a few weeks ago to 19.3% now.
The next step will be figuring out Infect's/Bloo's/DSZ's T4 win rate. This could totally change our results; if those decks averaged a lower T3 win rate than Bloom, that would shift the bar lower and could dramatically increase the odds of a Storm banning. Or it could mirror the Bloom T3 win rate, in which case the odds won't shift much. Stated differently, maybe the T4 rule "cutoff" isn't 18% (Bloom) but is actually 14% (Infect/Bloo/DSZ), in which case the chances of Storm matching that 14% cutoff are much higher. Or Infect/Bloo/DSZ are all at 18% too, and nothing changes. Either way, I will be interested to see and report the results. No promises on an exact timeline.
A few days ago, a user stated something to the effect of "If Storm is a T4 violator, so too are Counters Company and Affinity." That last time, we saw this was not true with either deck. Affinity averaged a 6% T3 win rate in an n=3000 2015 sample, and Counters Company averaged 3.6%. Accounting for possible sampling error, that means Company is likely to have a real T3 win% between 0% an 10.7%, which means there is only a 4% chance it matches the win % of the last known T4 rule violator of Amulet Bloom (which averaged 17%-18%).
One argument against this is that Affinity's 6% T3 win rate happened in the more interactive 2015 era, so perhaps Affinity would see an increase in the allegedly less interactive 2017 period of Modern. So I re-ran the analysis for Affinity in summer-fall 2017 and saw how things looked. In those approximately 60 games sampled from major paper events, I found Affinity averaged a 5.3% T3 win rate. Accounting for possible sampling error, that means the true Affinity T3 win rate is somewhere between 0% and 14%, meaning there is only a 3% chance it matches Bloom's 17%-18% T3 win rate from 2015. Statistically speaking, it is very unlikely Affinity is a real T4 violator, both looking at 2015 and 2017 data. In fact, given that my sample finds Affinity at a 5.3% T3 win rate, and the n=3000 sample had it at 6%, I'd say 6% is a very good estimation for Affinity's T3 win rate.
Also, some Storm update. I supplemented Caleb's Twitch data with data from recent major paper tournaments. This brings our N up to 175.
Storm avg T3 win rate: 12% Storm T3 win rate range: 7.2% - 16.8% Chance that Storm has same T3 win rate as Bloom: 19.3%
As we keep adding data to the Storm sample, the T3 win rate keeps falling. It has dropped from something like 14.5% down to 12% flat, which has also dropped its chances that it mirrors Bloom's win rate: 36% a few weeks ago to 19.3% now.
The next step will be figuring out Infect's/Bloo's/DSZ's T4 win rate. This could totally change our results; if those decks averaged a lower T3 win rate than Bloom, that would shift the bar lower and could dramatically increase the odds of a Storm banning. Or it could mirror the Bloom T3 win rate, in which case the odds won't shift much. Stated differently, maybe the T4 rule "cutoff" isn't 18% (Bloom) but is actually 14% (Infect/Bloo/DSZ), in which case the chances of Storm matching that 14% cutoff are much higher. Or Infect/Bloo/DSZ are all at 18% too, and nothing changes. Either way, I will be interested to see and report the results. No promises on an exact timeline.
Very much looking forward to the results, and ty for the update! Anecdotally I've never had a problem facing off against Storm, but it's been interesting seeing how it does in major events and how other people view it. Extremely curious to see how the T3 percentages shape up.
On another note, I've been accumulating data from my LGS since the end of October regarding decks that are played and how well they do. We have 3 modern tournaments a week including FNM, and I thought it'd be neat to share my little corner of the meta here. Since you're pretty much the data guru here that I've seen, would you be willing to give my figures a look once November has ended? Via PM if that'd be easier/more appropriate.
New to the thread and more competitive modern in general, so I can only apply anecdotal evidence to the discussion. I did however greatly appreciate the above post by Shmanka, who managed to sum-up my thought that often things "feel" off, as opposed to actually being off statistically. Whilst I believe the format is indeed heading in a direction where unbannings are possible, I've also recently concluded that the statistics of Turn evidence rarely affects my judgement of a decks superiority, or feelings of it being unfair. Many of the decks that people complain about may not win T3/4 all the time, but can quite plausibly place you in a situation where their win is based off factors above the ability of either player. Even if a Burn/Affinity/Storm player does not represent lethal at Turn 3/4, you can be sat there waiting for the draw you know will give you an "out" to the decks inevitable win, that simply doesn't happen in other match-ups. I am sure we have all faced match-ups where our deck doesn't perform, or where our opponent draws into a win. But there is something different about those games when compared to decks that frequently make you look at your hand and know you have no way of preventing their win, unless you draw very specific things very quickly. These tend to be the decks you side-against, as they are beaten by cards not prevalent in more "general" tailored magic. I hope that makes sense. In my opinion this isn't a solution where bans are good for the format, but rather where Wizards need to print cards that interact better with the decks in the format as a whole. The choices laid out in something like Collective Brutality are a good example of this, for me.
You know, I predicted locally that Jund was finally going to be good again and maybe tick up---and then I proceeded to hear all about it after taking it to last weeks IQ
So, if this happens and Jund gets some decent results, does this mean WOTC is going to take BBE off the table?
That makes me nervous, especially now that people are writing articles all over the place about how jund may actually be a good deck to pick up again.
You know, I predicted locally that Jund was finally going to be good again and maybe tick up---and then I proceeded to hear all about it after taking it to last weeks IQ
So, if this happens and Jund gets some decent results, does this mean WOTC is going to take BBE off the table?
That makes me nervous, especially now that people are writing articles all over the place about how jund may actually be a good deck to pick up again.
Why? Jund was never bad to begin with. The way modern works most of the time is that it isn't about what deck is better than the rest, it's about what deck is everyone else playing and picking the right build to beat them. One year it will be GDS, next year it could be Affinity again, the following year 5 color humans might be top dog and the most played.
Also, I'm quite serious in saying that trying to predict what actions wizards will be taking over next 6 months may be difficult. They are trying to get more people back into the game right now so if they think unbanning a card for modern will help do it, they will do it.
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!
You know, I predicted locally that Jund was finally going to be good again and maybe tick up---and then I proceeded to hear all about it after taking it to last weeks IQ
So, if this happens and Jund gets some decent results, does this mean WOTC is going to take BBE off the table?
That makes me nervous, especially now that people are writing articles all over the place about how jund may actually be a good deck to pick up again.
Why does it make you nervous though? If your deck is relevant and good again why is that a bad thing? I get why one would be nervous for a ban (i.e. storm), but being nervous because you think there is an unban coming and thus hope for your deck to do poorly I don't think it is the right approach to the format. Yes it might be good for you, but I mean, I wouldn't want say, Jeskai control to do poorly so I can keep advocating for an SFM unban. Unban suggestions should be done on the basis of relevancy to the format. If Jund is good, then jund is good and you can play it BBE or no BBE
You know, I predicted locally that Jund was finally going to be good again and maybe tick up---and then I proceeded to hear all about it after taking it to last weeks IQ
So, if this happens and Jund gets some decent results, does this mean WOTC is going to take BBE off the table?
That makes me nervous, especially now that people are writing articles all over the place about how jund may actually be a good deck to pick up again.
Why does it make you nervous though? If your deck is relevant and good again why is that a bad thing? I get why one would be nervous for a ban (i.e. storm), but being nervous because you think there is an unban coming and thus hope for your deck to do poorly I don't think it is the right approach to the format. Yes it might be good for you, but I mean, I wouldn't want say, Jeskai control to do poorly so I can keep advocating for an SFM unban. Unban suggestions should be done on the basis of relevancy to the format. If Jund is good, then jund is good and you can play it BBE or no BBE
Oh, I'm not rooting against the deck
I think I just want to see BBE unbanned regardless and make the deck consistently good in the meta again; it was straight up replaced by Grixis Control and some 5 Color Death Shadow
You know, I predicted locally that Jund was finally going to be good again and maybe tick up---and then I proceeded to hear all about it after taking it to last weeks IQ
So, if this happens and Jund gets some decent results, does this mean WOTC is going to take BBE off the table?
That makes me nervous, especially now that people are writing articles all over the place about how jund may actually be a good deck to pick up again.
Why does it make you nervous though? If your deck is relevant and good again why is that a bad thing? I get why one would be nervous for a ban (i.e. storm), but being nervous because you think there is an unban coming and thus hope for your deck to do poorly I don't think it is the right approach to the format. Yes it might be good for you, but I mean, I wouldn't want say, Jeskai control to do poorly so I can keep advocating for an SFM unban. Unban suggestions should be done on the basis of relevancy to the format. If Jund is good, then jund is good and you can play it BBE or no BBE
Oh, I'm not rooting against the deck
I think I just want to see BBE unbanned regardless and make the deck consistently good in the meta again; it was straight up replaced by Grixis Control and some 5 Color Death Shadow
I don't mind seeing BBE getting out of the list, although I also don't really root for it. I think it will happen eventually. But I don't think Grixis control replaced Jund at any level. Grixis control atm is at best a T3 deck (unfortunately if you ask me). Jund and 5C Death's Shadow indeed replaced Jund for some time. I am sure though that Jund will eventually also find a place in the meta at some point. It is just way too good and consistent to be bad.
If any deck has replaced Jund as the "top dog" Midrange deck, it's EldraziTron, although the decks play very differently.
That doesn't mean that you can't win with Jund, just that you can't really sit on its 50/50 matchups and try to eke out wins due to having strong fundamentals in Magic like you used too - you need to devote the time to matchups a lot more than you used to be able too, which I think is why a lot of pros played Jund. They couldn't really devote much time to Modern because Standard is more lucrative for a pro, so they picked up a deck that rewarded their high levels of fundamental Magic knowledge and skill that didn't require much format specific knowledge.
Well, with the way the meta's gone, you can't do that any more.
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.
Somewhat directed at gkourou, outside of elves, glimpse of nature wouldn't be that big of a deal. Cheerios style decks are too inconsistent, even with the additions of hangarback walker and walking ballista. Beck//Call or whatever it is called has been around forever and hasn't been relevant. I personally wouldn't unban it, but it's not as strong as people are making it out to be.
I personally want stoneforge unbanned but it's possible it's one of those cards that isn't overpowering but would still be played everywhere, which gets annoying after a while. I can't explain it.
I know I am taking a rare stance personally saying the Artifact lands could be let loose in the Modern format, and the best response I get is "LoL They are busted" and I can link over 300 tournament results of PPTQ's with an average of 160 players in each previous Extended tournament, and show that Kird Ape and Wild Nacatl shows up in more numbers than Seat of the Synod and Great Furnace combined. That's also not justifying the fact that we got tremendous more hate against such decks in Today's Modern format with Stony Silence, and Kolaghan's Command as the most popular of the bunch.
Yet debate falls under further deteriorate talks such as "I played back in that Standard - and X,Y,Z!" Well so did I? I don't remember or even feel the way you claim, and we have even more evidence provided by Wizards themselves.
Except as I pointed out, Extended had several cards banned from Affinity, and Modern has access to a ton of amazing Affinity cards that were never legal in Extended while the original Mirrodin block was. Those Affinity decks in Extended didn't have Mox Opal, Blinkmoth Nexus, Vault Skirge, Etched Champion, or Memnite. The Extended Affinity decks, while having the artifact lands, were otherwise nerfed heavily compared to what they'd be in Modern with the artifact lands legal.
I don't see how that point boils down to anything about playing back in Standard. If we made Affinity more akin to its status in Extended by banning Disciple of the Vault and forbidding Affinity to play any cards from the Scars of Mirrodin block, then unbanned the artifact lands, of course Affinity would be totally fine in Modern (it'd probably be worse, in fact). But we're not talking about that, we're talking about unbanning the artifact lands and leaving Affinity with all of the powerups it's gotten in the meantime that it never had in Extended, and also including the banned-in-Extended Disciple of the Vault (which admittedly sees very little play in Affinity in Modern right now, but it synergizes so well with the artifact lands it'd likely come back if they were unbanned).
I play ZeroGlimpse in Legacy. That card is dumb as snake mittens, and would generate a million complaints about combo. The deck's nature makes Storm look as interactive as Humans.
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.
I know I am taking a rare stance personally saying the Artifact lands could be let loose in the Modern format, and the best response I get is "LoL They are busted" and I can link over 300 tournament results of PPTQ's with an average of 160 players in each previous Extended tournament, and show that Kird Ape and Wild Nacatl shows up in more numbers than Seat of the Synod and Great Furnace combined. That's also not justifying the fact that we got tremendous more hate against such decks in Today's Modern format with Stony Silence, and Kolaghan's Command as the most popular of the bunch.
Yet debate falls under further deteriorate talks such as "I played back in that Standard - and X,Y,Z!" Well so did I? I don't remember or even feel the way you claim, and we have even more evidence provided by Wizards themselves.
Except as I pointed out, Extended had several cards banned from Affinity, and Modern has access to a ton of amazing Affinity cards that were never legal in Extended while the original Mirrodin block was. Those Affinity decks in Extended didn't have Mox Opal, Blinkmoth Nexus, Vault Skirge, Etched Champion, or Memnite. The Extended Affinity decks, while having the artifact lands, were otherwise nerfed heavily compared to what they'd be in Modern with the artifact lands legal.
I don't see how that point boils down to anything about playing back in Standard. If we made Affinity more akin to its status in Extended by banning Disciple of the Vault and forbidding Affinity to play any cards from the Scars of Mirrodin block, then unbanned the artifact lands, of course Affinity would be totally fine in Modern (it'd probably be worse, in fact). But we're not talking about that, we're talking about unbanning the artifact lands and leaving Affinity with all of the powerups it's gotten in the meantime that it never had in Extended, and also including the banned-in-Extended Disciple of the Vault (which admittedly sees very little play in Affinity in Modern right now, but it synergizes so well with the artifact lands it'd likely come back if they were unbanned).
None of the cards you mentioned increase the value from the cards available from Scars block. Only Mox Opal benefits from Artifact lands. How does Vault Skirge, Memnite, or Etched Champion change anything or any play pattern from what current stock decks use?
There are two arguments when considering Affinity, 1st - It makes Myr Enforcer and Frogmite actual cards. Which I will conclude that no, they aren't based on previous formats. With hundreds of results.
The second Argument is the one you presented, and I feel it has no relevance whatsoever. Take a look at current Affinity decklists. What are they removing to make cards like Vault Skirge better with Artifact lands Legal? The answer is their own manlands if anything to buff Cranial Plating. So in order for these current decks to gain synergies, they remove the amount of threats their deck can endorse.
The real cards that get buffed out of Affinity if Artifact lands were legal, are Galvanic Blast and Thoughtcast. It would take some serious structural changes in order for this to be successful.
The deck would still be stalled by Lingering Souls, continuously be punished by Kolaghan's Command and Stony Silence, fight just as well against Burn, and have a bye just the same against Eldrazi Tron.
If you are afraid of KCI and friends, your deck was probably horrible to begin with.
Artifact lands are very overrated. You could pull out the 4 glimmervoids and 4 darksteel citadel to make room for 4 seat of synod and 4 great furnance. I wouldn't pull out the man lands. The deck gets a slightly higher artifact boost and thats about it. It's also weaker to hate. It doesnt even improve the overall mana fixing of the mana base as you'd have to pull out the glimmervoids or spire of industry.
I really don't think the artifact lands make the format better though.
I think we really need to focus on what the banned card contributes to modern
BBE=Jund, maybe a fairer meta
SFM=Boost to the entire meta with a fair plan
Jace=a boost in blue decks and fair decks presence
Artifact lands=? Maybe making Affinity just as good, maybe possibly better than you realize since it could take time to figure out and break
I'm massively against the lands, I truly don't see this breathing fresh life into the format, man. I have zero interest in possibly helping affinity, even if your observed testing says otherwise
At the very least, a major bomb like Opal, Ravager or Cranial plating would need to be banned for me to feel this unban is acceptable.
I personally think that the artifact lands are too powerful for Modern right now. I did not play during that era. I restarted Magic again coincidentally when the Standard Ravager deck got banned out of existence. The first deck I sleeved up after purchasing the parts during that time was Tooth and Nail and I've played ever since. I know I'm not an expert by any means, but I don't think there's any reason to make the deck more explosive, even if it comes at the expense of it being more prone to hate. I think cards like Disciple of the Vault, Atog, and Fling could possibly come into the mix if artifact lands were unbanned. And although I personally was not sure if they get played over the manlands, they absolutely do, especially over Blinkmoth Nexus. The No Ban List Affinity that won looked something like that.
Glimpse of Nature is completely out of the question. Do people want Modern to be like Extended when Luis Scott-Vargas and others CRUSHED with Glimpse Elves, featuring Grapeshot? I think not, although I personally love playing these types of decks.
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)
Looking at Beck // Call (unsure if I tagged this right), I'm actually surprised people haven't tried to break it. Though like the rise of Amulet Titan, which had all it's pieces in modern before people put the brew together, maybe the deck hasn't been built yet.
Still we can't talk bans on what might be, with no evidence. Glimpse at least has some evidence and if people are afraid of Treasure Cruise in the format, this has more potential.
Looking at Beck // Call (unsure if I tagged this right), I'm actually surprised people haven't tried to break it. Though like the rise of Amulet Titan, which had all it's pieces in modern before people put the brew together, maybe the deck hasn't been built yet.
Still we can't talk bans on what might be, with no evidence. Glimpse at least has some evidence and if people are afraid of Treasure Cruise in the format, this has more potential.
Beck didn't work because the real strength of Glimpse is to be able to get multiple Glimpses off in one turn, allowing you to nearly draw your deck with the amount of draw you get from it. Beck costing 2 means needing 4 mana for a double activation, which makes the combo too slow to be a truly strong deck.
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.
I know I am taking a rare stance personally saying the Artifact lands could be let loose in the Modern format, and the best response I get is "LoL They are busted" and I can link over 300 tournament results of PPTQ's with an average of 160 players in each previous Extended tournament, and show that Kird Ape and Wild Nacatl shows up in more numbers than Seat of the Synod and Great Furnace combined. That's also not justifying the fact that we got tremendous more hate against such decks in Today's Modern format with Stony Silence, and Kolaghan's Command as the most popular of the bunch.
Yet debate falls under further deteriorate talks such as "I played back in that Standard - and X,Y,Z!" Well so did I? I don't remember or even feel the way you claim, and we have even more evidence provided by Wizards themselves.
Except as I pointed out, Extended had several cards banned from Affinity, and Modern has access to a ton of amazing Affinity cards that were never legal in Extended while the original Mirrodin block was. Those Affinity decks in Extended didn't have Mox Opal, Blinkmoth Nexus, Vault Skirge, Etched Champion, or Memnite. The Extended Affinity decks, while having the artifact lands, were otherwise nerfed heavily compared to what they'd be in Modern with the artifact lands legal.
I don't see how that point boils down to anything about playing back in Standard. If we made Affinity more akin to its status in Extended by banning Disciple of the Vault and forbidding Affinity to play any cards from the Scars of Mirrodin block, then unbanned the artifact lands, of course Affinity would be totally fine in Modern (it'd probably be worse, in fact). But we're not talking about that, we're talking about unbanning the artifact lands and leaving Affinity with all of the powerups it's gotten in the meantime that it never had in Extended, and also including the banned-in-Extended Disciple of the Vault (which admittedly sees very little play in Affinity in Modern right now, but it synergizes so well with the artifact lands it'd likely come back if they were unbanned).
None of the cards you mentioned increase the value from the cards available from Scars block. Only Mox Opal benefits from Artifact lands. How does Vault Skirge, Memnite, or Etched Champion change anything or any play pattern from what current stock decks use?
I'm not sure what you're asking here? You say "none of the cards you mentioned increase the value from the cards available from Scars block." How do cards from Scars block that I mentioned not increase the value of the cards in Scars block? Seriously, I'm lost here. The statement makes no sense.
As to how Vault Skirge, Memnite, or Etched Champion change anything? Etched Champion gives you a threat that's really hard for most decks to deal with, Vault Skirge is a great way to gain life against aggro decks when combined with Cranial Plating or Arcbound Ravager, and Memnite is another 0-drop to supplement Ornithopter.
Or maybe you're asking how they get better with the artifact lands in particular. Easy answer: It makes Cranial Plating and Arcbound Ravager better, and those therefore make those cards better by the ability to either throw counters onto them or attach a Cranial Plating to them. Not quite as much with Memnite as the others, but it's still a factor.
These are things that Extended decks didn't have access to, and they're a pretty notable improvement from some of the cards they were running. So pointing to the fact Affinity wasn't dominant in Extended when it didn't have those cards (or the then-banned Disciple of the Vault) seems fallacious.
There are two arguments when considering Affinity, 1st - It makes Myr Enforcer and Frogmite actual cards. Which I will conclude that no, they aren't based on previous formats. With hundreds of results.
The second Argument is the one you presented, and I feel it has no relevance whatsoever. Take a look at current Affinity decklists. What are they removing to make cards like Vault Skirge better with Artifact lands Legal? The answer is their own manlands if anything to buff Cranial Plating. So in order for these current decks to gain synergies, they remove the amount of threats their deck can endorse.
The manlands are generally fairly weak threats, though, and you don't have to take them all out. Additionally, there's one card that works a heck of a lot better with the artifact lands than the manlands: Blood Moon. Blood Moon can backfire somewhat on the Affinity player due to it turning off their manlands, not even letting you animate them just for the purpose of having an artifact. In contrast, Blood Moon leaves the artifact lands as artifacts, removing the main drawback of the card in Affinity. It makes it a much better sideboard card for the deck.
If you are afraid of KCI and friends, your deck was probably horrible to begin with.
I'm not "afraid" of it but I do question the purpose of unbanning artifact lands when the decks they benefit are Affinity and KCI, the former of which is Tier 1 and in need of no help, and the latter of which could result in the same problems that Eggs did back in the day. There seems little practical benefit to unbanning the cards.
I'd like to point out, that this is Wizards fault entirely, not a few select posters on this thread.
Splinter Twin is a highly debated ban, and it has good reason to be debated. The problem is that it's become symbiotic to every other relevant topic of or about the banned list, so that part of the discussion has been extremely moderated - which is also completely understandable.
Censorship is a serious issue, and based on my knowledge, most moderators are only volunteering for the cause of healthy discussion. They are consistently taxed for their time by us, and I feel we need to make the pathway better for them overall.
I know I am taking a rare stance personally saying the Artifact lands could be let loose in the Modern format, and the best response I get is "LoL They are busted" and I can link over 300 tournament results of PPTQ's with an average of 160 players in each previous Extended tournament, and show that Kird Ape and Wild Nacatl shows up in more numbers than Seat of the Synod and Great Furnace combined. That's also not justifying the fact that we got tremendous more hate against such decks in Today's Modern format with Stony Silence, and Kolaghan's Command as the most popular of the bunch.
Yet debate falls under further deteriorate talks such as "I played back in that Standard - and X,Y,Z!" Well so did I? I don't remember or even feel the way you claim, and we have even more evidence provided by Wizards themselves.
People won't change, this forum needs so much time to accept a notion. Look at Bitterblossom, Wild Nacatl, Valakut, The Molten Pinnacle, and Ancestral Vision, and Sword of the Meek. People claimed these cards were safe, and it took months and months of debate for people to come to the same notion that the minority had at one point, before it became an accepted norm. Only now are we actually mostly agreeing on Bloodbraid Elf, Stoneforge Mystic and possibly Jace, the Mind Sculptor to be set free in this format. We can look at the polls each banning announcement, and those cards are always the front-runners of the results.
The amount of effort it takes to persuade this public forum is no small investment.
TLDR; People are so emotionally invested, they don't bother looking at any data we can supply. The problem with all the talk about Twin, is that they might actually be hurting themselves. With such arrogant stances, it's hard to associate the card as innocent when the loudest voices never come to reason.
My LGS is located roughly 15 minutes from two division I schools and a stones throw away from some affluent neighborhoods, so the Modern demographic includes kids who are like 14 years old and older players with families and careers who play maybe once a month. However, the majority of players are definitely college students. Overall, I'd say that out of an average Modern tournament of 50 players, ~75% are either in college or graduated. I'm currently in my second year of pharmacy school and actually got a reference from a pharmacist who plays every other week or so; ya never know who you'll meet when you're chatty haha.
Link to Discord server where anybody from MTGS can keep up with thread topics while everything is being sorted out with the new site.
One argument against this is that Affinity's 6% T3 win rate happened in the more interactive 2015 era, so perhaps Affinity would see an increase in the allegedly less interactive 2017 period of Modern. So I re-ran the analysis for Affinity in summer-fall 2017 and saw how things looked. In those approximately 60 games sampled from major paper events, I found Affinity averaged a 5.3% T3 win rate. Accounting for possible sampling error, that means the true Affinity T3 win rate is somewhere between 0% and 14%, meaning there is only a 3% chance it matches Bloom's 17%-18% T3 win rate from 2015. Statistically speaking, it is very unlikely Affinity is a real T4 violator, both looking at 2015 and 2017 data. In fact, given that my sample finds Affinity at a 5.3% T3 win rate, and the n=3000 sample had it at 6%, I'd say 6% is a very good estimation for Affinity's T3 win rate.
Also, some Storm update. I supplemented Caleb's Twitch data with data from recent major paper tournaments. This brings our N up to 175.
Storm avg T3 win rate: 12%
Storm T3 win rate range: 7.2% - 16.8%
Chance that Storm has same T3 win rate as Bloom: 19.3%
As we keep adding data to the Storm sample, the T3 win rate keeps falling. It has dropped from something like 14.5% down to 12% flat, which has also dropped its chances that it mirrors Bloom's win rate: 36% a few weeks ago to 19.3% now.
The next step will be figuring out Infect's/Bloo's/DSZ's T4 win rate. This could totally change our results; if those decks averaged a lower T3 win rate than Bloom, that would shift the bar lower and could dramatically increase the odds of a Storm banning. Or it could mirror the Bloom T3 win rate, in which case the odds won't shift much. Stated differently, maybe the T4 rule "cutoff" isn't 18% (Bloom) but is actually 14% (Infect/Bloo/DSZ), in which case the chances of Storm matching that 14% cutoff are much higher. Or Infect/Bloo/DSZ are all at 18% too, and nothing changes. Either way, I will be interested to see and report the results. No promises on an exact timeline.
Very much looking forward to the results, and ty for the update! Anecdotally I've never had a problem facing off against Storm, but it's been interesting seeing how it does in major events and how other people view it. Extremely curious to see how the T3 percentages shape up.
On another note, I've been accumulating data from my LGS since the end of October regarding decks that are played and how well they do. We have 3 modern tournaments a week including FNM, and I thought it'd be neat to share my little corner of the meta here. Since you're pretty much the data guru here that I've seen, would you be willing to give my figures a look once November has ended? Via PM if that'd be easier/more appropriate.
So, if this happens and Jund gets some decent results, does this mean WOTC is going to take BBE off the table?
That makes me nervous, especially now that people are writing articles all over the place about how jund may actually be a good deck to pick up again.
Why? Jund was never bad to begin with. The way modern works most of the time is that it isn't about what deck is better than the rest, it's about what deck is everyone else playing and picking the right build to beat them. One year it will be GDS, next year it could be Affinity again, the following year 5 color humans might be top dog and the most played.
Also, I'm quite serious in saying that trying to predict what actions wizards will be taking over next 6 months may be difficult. They are trying to get more people back into the game right now so if they think unbanning a card for modern will help do it, they will do it.
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!
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
Oh, I'm not rooting against the deck
I think I just want to see BBE unbanned regardless and make the deck consistently good in the meta again; it was straight up replaced by Grixis Control and some 5 Color Death Shadow
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
That doesn't mean that you can't win with Jund, just that you can't really sit on its 50/50 matchups and try to eke out wins due to having strong fundamentals in Magic like you used too - you need to devote the time to matchups a lot more than you used to be able too, which I think is why a lot of pros played Jund. They couldn't really devote much time to Modern because Standard is more lucrative for a pro, so they picked up a deck that rewarded their high levels of fundamental Magic knowledge and skill that didn't require much format specific knowledge.
Well, with the way the meta's gone, you can't do that any more.
I personally want stoneforge unbanned but it's possible it's one of those cards that isn't overpowering but would still be played everywhere, which gets annoying after a while. I can't explain it.
I don't see how that point boils down to anything about playing back in Standard. If we made Affinity more akin to its status in Extended by banning Disciple of the Vault and forbidding Affinity to play any cards from the Scars of Mirrodin block, then unbanned the artifact lands, of course Affinity would be totally fine in Modern (it'd probably be worse, in fact). But we're not talking about that, we're talking about unbanning the artifact lands and leaving Affinity with all of the powerups it's gotten in the meantime that it never had in Extended, and also including the banned-in-Extended Disciple of the Vault (which admittedly sees very little play in Affinity in Modern right now, but it synergizes so well with the artifact lands it'd likely come back if they were unbanned).
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
Grixis Control is pretty much a dead deck in modern
None of the cards you mentioned increase the value from the cards available from Scars block. Only Mox Opal benefits from Artifact lands. How does Vault Skirge, Memnite, or Etched Champion change anything or any play pattern from what current stock decks use?
There are two arguments when considering Affinity, 1st - It makes Myr Enforcer and Frogmite actual cards. Which I will conclude that no, they aren't based on previous formats. With hundreds of results.
The second Argument is the one you presented, and I feel it has no relevance whatsoever. Take a look at current Affinity decklists. What are they removing to make cards like Vault Skirge better with Artifact lands Legal? The answer is their own manlands if anything to buff Cranial Plating. So in order for these current decks to gain synergies, they remove the amount of threats their deck can endorse.
The real cards that get buffed out of Affinity if Artifact lands were legal, are Galvanic Blast and Thoughtcast. It would take some serious structural changes in order for this to be successful.
The deck would still be stalled by Lingering Souls, continuously be punished by Kolaghan's Command and Stony Silence, fight just as well against Burn, and have a bye just the same against Eldrazi Tron.
If you are afraid of KCI and friends, your deck was probably horrible to begin with.
And those zero glimpse style decks were never a problem, it's just elves that I would worry about
I think we really need to focus on what the banned card contributes to modern
BBE=Jund, maybe a fairer meta
SFM=Boost to the entire meta with a fair plan
Jace=a boost in blue decks and fair decks presence
Artifact lands=? Maybe making Affinity just as good, maybe possibly better than you realize since it could take time to figure out and break
I'm massively against the lands, I truly don't see this breathing fresh life into the format, man. I have zero interest in possibly helping affinity, even if your observed testing says otherwise
At the very least, a major bomb like Opal, Ravager or Cranial plating would need to be banned for me to feel this unban is acceptable.
Glimpse of Nature is completely out of the question. Do people want Modern to be like Extended when Luis Scott-Vargas and others CRUSHED with Glimpse Elves, featuring Grapeshot? I think not, although I personally love playing these types of decks.
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)Still we can't talk bans on what might be, with no evidence. Glimpse at least has some evidence and if people are afraid of Treasure Cruise in the format, this has more potential.
Thanks to Heroes of the Plane Studios for the sigpic.
Spider-Man Mafia 3 (Off-Site: NGA)
Metroid Mafia (Off-Site: Mafia Universe)
Beck didn't work because the real strength of Glimpse is to be able to get multiple Glimpses off in one turn, allowing you to nearly draw your deck with the amount of draw you get from it. Beck costing 2 means needing 4 mana for a double activation, which makes the combo too slow to be a truly strong deck.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
As to how Vault Skirge, Memnite, or Etched Champion change anything? Etched Champion gives you a threat that's really hard for most decks to deal with, Vault Skirge is a great way to gain life against aggro decks when combined with Cranial Plating or Arcbound Ravager, and Memnite is another 0-drop to supplement Ornithopter.
Or maybe you're asking how they get better with the artifact lands in particular. Easy answer: It makes Cranial Plating and Arcbound Ravager better, and those therefore make those cards better by the ability to either throw counters onto them or attach a Cranial Plating to them. Not quite as much with Memnite as the others, but it's still a factor.
These are things that Extended decks didn't have access to, and they're a pretty notable improvement from some of the cards they were running. So pointing to the fact Affinity wasn't dominant in Extended when it didn't have those cards (or the then-banned Disciple of the Vault) seems fallacious.
The manlands are generally fairly weak threats, though, and you don't have to take them all out. Additionally, there's one card that works a heck of a lot better with the artifact lands than the manlands: Blood Moon. Blood Moon can backfire somewhat on the Affinity player due to it turning off their manlands, not even letting you animate them just for the purpose of having an artifact. In contrast, Blood Moon leaves the artifact lands as artifacts, removing the main drawback of the card in Affinity. It makes it a much better sideboard card for the deck.
I'm not "afraid" of it but I do question the purpose of unbanning artifact lands when the decks they benefit are Affinity and KCI, the former of which is Tier 1 and in need of no help, and the latter of which could result in the same problems that Eggs did back in the day. There seems little practical benefit to unbanning the cards.