Out of curiousity, but do you think they may ban something like Fatal Push if small creature decks just vanish? I still think the card is a good thing for modern, but at the same time it's very good against aggro decks and I'm not sure there's much that decks relying on one and two drops can do against it. It's basically everywhere in my frontier meta at the moment and I can only imagine in a format like modern it's probably become a permanent fixture in at least every deck running black. I'm also not saying they'd ban it right now, but still.
Edit: Also, on the Aetherworks Marvel debacle in standard: The reason marvel was a pain to play against is that it could end games on turn 4 or it could do absolutely nothing. However, the effect of it going off successfully was so good that people would run it, so it created extremely stressful situations for competitive players where the game basically went down to loading a revolver and playing russian roulette. On the non-competitive side it wasn't nearly so bad since it was just another coin flip mechanic in disguise, only without such a bad fail state.
If a Fatal Push ban were ever taken seriously, I'd then have to say we can never complain about answers in modern again.
Out of curiousity, but do you think they may ban something like Fatal Push if small creature decks just vanish? I still think the card is a good thing for modern, but at the same time it's very good against aggro decks and I'm not sure there's much that decks relying on one and two drops can do against it.
Ignoring anything Frontier related, no, Fatal Push will never (and should never) be banned in modern. Since the print of Fatal Push, Affinity remained Tier 1, Burn is still Tier 1-2, 5C Humans is now almost Tier 1, Grixis Shadow is Tier 1. Fatal Push is a good thing for both Modern and Standard and they should be printing more generic answers like FP, not ban them. Hold me accountable to that statement if I ever change my mind, but Fatal Push will never be banned. We need more Push like spells.
Out of curiousity, but do you think they may ban something like Fatal Push if small creature decks just vanish? I still think the card is a good thing for modern, but at the same time it's very good against aggro decks and I'm not sure there's much that decks relying on one and two drops can do against it.
Ignoring anything Frontier related, no, Fatal Push will never (and should never) be banned in modern. Since the print of Fatal Push, Affinity remained Tier 1, Burn is still Tier 1-2, 5C Humans is now almost Tier 1, Grixis Shadow is Tier 1. Fatal Push is a good thing for both Modern and Standard and they should be printing more generic answers like FP, not ban them. Hold me accountable to that statement if I ever change my mind, but Fatal Push will never be banned. We need more Push like spells.
This sums up my thoughts on the matter quite well.
Btw, how did frontier get brought up into this? I thought that scheme of a "format" died once everybody realized it was only a scam being propped up by the talking heads on Youtube, who were shilling for the big boys in the secondary market, b/c they needed a way to dupe people into buying piles of Siege Rhinos.
Out of curiousity, but do you think they may ban something like Fatal Push if small creature decks just vanish? I still think the card is a good thing for modern, but at the same time it's very good against aggro decks and I'm not sure there's much that decks relying on one and two drops can do against it.
Ignoring anything Frontier related, no, Fatal Push will never (and should never) be banned in modern. Since the print of Fatal Push, Affinity remained Tier 1, Burn is still Tier 1-2, 5C Humans is now almost Tier 1, Grixis Shadow is Tier 1. Fatal Push is a good thing for both Modern and Standard and they should be printing more generic answers like FP, not ban them. Hold me accountable to that statement if I ever change my mind, but Fatal Push will never be banned. We need more Push like spells.
This sums up my thoughts on the matter quite well.
Btw, how did frontier get brought up into this? I thought that scheme of a "format" died once everybody realized it was only a scam being propped up by the talking heads on Youtube, who were shilling for the big boys in the secondary market, b/c they needed a way to dupe people into buying piles of Siege Rhinos.
Before this goes off subject, I just mentioned it when I was clarifying the Aetherworks Marvel stuff mentioned in an earlier posting. I think it just sort of blended into the conversation. The formats doing fine actually. I've been playing it for the last few months and won a few packs when the paper tourney fires. I tend to put modern and frontier as two peas in a pod since they both are non-rotating formats. Frontier is sort of like what modern would be like if we didn't have a lot of the narrow high powered cards from the early days, since Wizards started pushing for more multi-modal cards to make the game more skill based.
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!
Re: Frontier
Format was clearly invented by companies trying to sell excess stock and, thankfully, most players realize it. Comparing any data from Frontier to Modern is meaningless because the card pool is different and there's no incentive to solve or push the metagame.
Re: Push ban
Are we really back to this in a format full of small creatures and decks running small creatures? This is up there with the Thoughtseize ban suggestion: people run out of creative ways to address perceived Modern issues so they suggest zany, nonsensical bans. Wizards just said the format was healthy and nothing has changed since that update. If anything, it's more diverse now. People need to stop inventing problems that aren't part of the format.
If Eldrazi Temple were to be banned, would any of the small/medium eldrazi be playable anymore? Thought-Knot Seer can still be cast turn 3 with a mana dork or Mind Stone, but is that fast enough?
Just curious because I believe that was the #1 card we asked for a banning in the last poll, not that I necessarily agree with that poll
If Eldrazi Temple were to be banned, would any of the small/medium eldrazi be playable anymore? Thought-Knot Seer can still be cast turn 3 with a mana dork or Mind Stone, but is that fast enough?
Just curious because I believe that was the #1 card we asked for a banning in the last poll, not that I necessarily agree with that poll
Several small eldrazi are already playable (Eldrazi Displacer, Wasteland Strangler, Matter Reshaper, Eldrazi Skyspawner) and valid plays outside of T2. Granted that of course they are better if you have them on T2, I don't see why they wouldn't be played if the format allows for it.
TKS is already good in T4-6. Eldrazi&Taxes don't rely on casting TKS, Displacer or Strangler ahead of the curve. They are there to supplement the strategy. Maybe Eldrazi Tron would take the biggest hit, thus making normal Tron the best option for big mana Eldrazi, but I don't think that small Eldrazi will take such a huge hit. The big things (e.g. Endbringer would suffer more.
This would make an interesting analysis if I wasn't already invested in analyzing some other decks for this thread (T4 violations mostly), but has anyone else noticed a dramatic uptick in positive Modern coverage from the content mill? I'm struggling to find major articles that criticize Modern or suggest bans. Brendan DeCandio had a notable exception in the last few months, but Lax handily dispatched his argument shortly thereafter. Brendan also has a recent track record of leaning towards controversial positions, so I'm not sure how much I trust him as a barometer. Other historically negative authors have embraced Modern and most articles seem very positive.
Analysis idea: take a sample of major websites like SCG, CF, TCG, mintcard, etc. Count the number of Modern articles in a time period before a ban, and/or at different time periods in Modern's history. Then code the articles based on negative Modern press (e.g. comments like "Modern is not diverse" or ban suggestions) vs. positive Modern press (e.g. comments like "Modern is the best/most diverse ever" and the absence of ban suggestions). Then compare. I expect this is mostly a good indicator of a healthy format and will probably only have 1-2 periods where the general atmosphere does not reflect Wizards' stance on the format.
This would make an interesting analysis if I wasn't already invested in analyzing some other decks for this thread (T4 violations mostly), but has anyone else noticed a dramatic uptick in positive Modern coverage from the content mill? I'm struggling to find major articles that criticize Modern or suggest bans. Brendan DeCandio had a notable exception in the last few months, but Lax handily dispatched his argument shortly thereafter. Brendan also has a recent track record of leaning towards controversial positions, so I'm not sure how much I trust him as a barometer. Other historically negative authors have embraced Modern and most articles seem very positive.
I wish I had the time to do such a research (my PhD research unfortunately is all I can do atm). But I agree with the observation.
Some notable mentions:
-SCG casters claiming modern is the best of all 3 major formats
-SCG considers Modern to be the premiere format, hence most of their events are modern
-Jeff Hoogland, a guy who (unfortunately) is usually all over the place but (fortunately) very critical and a major Modern player tweeted that the format is at a good stage
-The aforementioned article by Ari Lax
-The return of the Modern Pro Tour with no complains by anyone
-Coverage of modern in CFB videos has seen a general uptick with a wide variety of decks and with a significant viewership (although I can't confirm on that in an absolute fashion atm)
These come just from the top of my head, I am sure if I need a bit of research I would find even more of these.
This would make an interesting analysis if I wasn't already invested in analyzing some other decks for this thread (T4 violations mostly), but has anyone else noticed a dramatic uptick in positive Modern coverage from the content mill? I'm struggling to find major articles that criticize Modern or suggest bans.
When we are blinded from meaningful data, purposely shown misleading data, our paper events are a random eclectic collection of people who have no idea what the metagame is or have specifically engineered hate decks for what they *think* the metagame is, it all combines into a roulette wheel of results for each event then of course the image is that the format is healthy and diverse.
Also remember that our GPs (best source for competitive stats) are months and months apart from each other, with multiples crammed into a single weekend. So even their results aren't free from being a product of chaos, confusion, and lucky guesses. This is what Wizards calls a "healthy" format. Blind us and confuse us, then call that chaos "diversity." Had I known the direction the format would go, I would have sold out of Modern in January of 2016.
This would make an interesting analysis if I wasn't already invested in analyzing some other decks for this thread (T4 violations mostly), but has anyone else noticed a dramatic uptick in positive Modern coverage from the content mill? I'm struggling to find major articles that criticize Modern or suggest bans.
When we are blinded from meaningful data, purposely shown misleading data, our paper events are a random eclectic collection of people who have no idea what the metagame is or have specifically engineered hate decks for what they *think* the metagame is, it all combines into a roulette wheel of results for each event then of course the image is that the format is healthy and diverse.
Also remember that our GPs (best source for competitive stats) are months and months apart from each other, with multiples crammed into a single weekend. So even their results aren't free from being a product of chaos, confusion, and lucky guesses. This is what Wizards calls a "healthy" format. Blind us and confuse us, then call that chaos "diversity." Had I known the direction the format would go, I would have sold out of Modern in January of 2016.
Are you waiting for us to beg you not to sell out of the format or something? Seems like we can't finish a few pages on this thread without a post by you making a claim along those lines.
This would make an interesting analysis if I wasn't already invested in analyzing some other decks for this thread (T4 violations mostly), but has anyone else noticed a dramatic uptick in positive Modern coverage from the content mill? I'm struggling to find major articles that criticize Modern or suggest bans.
When we are blinded from meaningful data, purposely shown misleading data, our paper events are a random eclectic collection of people who have no idea what the metagame is or have specifically engineered hate decks for what they *think* the metagame is, it all combines into a roulette wheel of results for each event then of course the image is that the format is healthy and diverse.
Also remember that our GPs (best source for competitive stats) are months and months apart from each other, with multiples crammed into a single weekend. So even their results aren't free from being a product of chaos, confusion, and lucky guesses. This is what Wizards calls a "healthy" format. Blind us and confuse us, then call that chaos "diversity." Had I known the direction the format would go, I would have sold out of Modern in January of 2016.
Are you waiting for us to beg you not to sell out of the format or something? Seems like we can't finish a few pages on this thread without a post by you making a claim along those lines.
I'm expressing the frustration, mostly about the reduction of data, which misrepresents what is going on in the format and causing purposely orchestrated chaos. Then that chaos is being branded as "health" and "diversity." If you think that is a good thing for the format, then you and I have vastly different goals and aspirations for this game.
If you have a problem with me personally, please use the Ignore button.
This would make an interesting analysis if I wasn't already invested in analyzing some other decks for this thread (T4 violations mostly), but has anyone else noticed a dramatic uptick in positive Modern coverage from the content mill? I'm struggling to find major articles that criticize Modern or suggest bans.
When we are blinded from meaningful data, purposely shown misleading data, our paper events are a random eclectic collection of people who have no idea what the metagame is or have specifically engineered hate decks for what they *think* the metagame is, it all combines into a roulette wheel of results for each event then of course the image is that the format is healthy and diverse.
Also remember that our GPs (best source for competitive stats) are months and months apart from each other, with multiples crammed into a single weekend. So even their results aren't free from being a product of chaos, confusion, and lucky guesses. This is what Wizards calls a "healthy" format. Blind us and confuse us, then call that chaos "diversity." Had I known the direction the format would go, I would have sold out of Modern in January of 2016.
This post is borderline flaming.
1) Blinded from meaningful data? So now 5-0s are meaningful data or not?
2) Shows misleading data? We have long before agreed that 5-0s should be excluded (and they are) by most analyses.
3) Paper events are a random eclectic collection of people? Modern events are the most attended events out of all formats. Several people have been consistently doing well in modern. This doesn't really show what you describe.
4) GPs are the best source for competitive stats? Sure, but what about the SCG events? Or are they worse than GPs for some reason, even though they have similar attendance? And for these we get full Day 2 metagame analysis and top 32 decklists
5) Confusion, chaos and lucky guesses? Who is confused? For over a month now none is complaining (except you of course). None is confused or chaotic. I see very well structured arguments and ideas regarding modern. People have found ways to tackle the metagame (see 5C humans) in innovative ways. Where is the confusion or chaos in that?
6) Wizards calls it healthy? Yeah they do. And so do a lot of people, so does SCG and other major tournament organizers, so (it seems to me at least) does the community of this forum.
7) Sold out in January 2016? I am pretty sure you can sell everything now and you will not have lost a single penny. On the contrary.
Come on, I know you hate the format for whatever reason, but you can do way better than this post. Using big words like chaos and confusion doesn't provide anything in the discussion besides polarization and flame.
Public Mod Note
(Ulka):
Infration for Trolling- Use the report function for any posts you feel are violating the forum rules
1) Blinded from meaningful data? So now 5-0s are meaningful data or not?
2) Shows misleading data? We have long before agreed that 5-0s should be excluded (and they are) by most analyses.
3) Paper events are a random eclectic collection of people? Modern events are the most attended events out of all formats. Several people have been consistently doing well in modern. This doesn't really show what you describe.
4) GPs are the best source for competitive stats? Sure, but what about the SCG events? Or are they worse than GPs for some reason, even though they have similar attendance? And for these we get full Day 2 metagame analysis and top 32 decklists
5) Confusion, chaos and lucky guesses? Who is confused? For over a month now none is complaining (except you of course). None is confused or chaotic. I see very well structured arguments and ideas regarding modern. People have found ways to tackle the metagame (see 5C humans) in innovative ways. Where is the confusion or chaos in that?
6) Wizards calls it healthy? Yeah they do. And so do a lot of people, so does SCG and other major tournament organizers, so (it seems to me at least) does the community of this forum.
7) Sold out in January 2016? I am pretty sure you can sell everything now and you will not have lost a single penny. On the contrary.
Come on, I know you hate the format for whatever reason, but you can do way better than this post. Using big words like chaos and confusion doesn't provide anything in the discussion besides polarization and flame.
1&2) Yes, 5-0s are mostly meaningless, mostly because it's not a swiss pairing system. Under the old 10-lists posting, through enough random samples, they used to somewhat be helpful. Now that they are actively misrepresenting proportions (a deck could be 90% of the format and only get 1 listing, while a deck could be 1 of hundreds and also get a listing), they don't just NOT represent the format, but they ACTIVELY misrepresent the format.
3) SCG events used to be made fun of as the little sibling of paper tournaments, whose results should be taken with a grain of salt due to their limited geographic locations, much smaller size, and overall influence by an incredibly small number of regulars playing alongside what is essentially an FNM crowd. We have propped them up because of the change in GP scheduling (2-3 events crammed in a single weekend, spaced several months apart) as well as the aforementioned reduction if meaningful data. SCG events are where groups of locals test our their weird brews to see if they do anything. If it does well, they take it to the real stage: a GP.
4)GPs are larger events with a more diverse playerbase which include players from all over the world joining, instead of seeing the same East Coast and Midwest SCG Regulars alongside their FNM-playing locals. There are also far more high end pros and top players with bigger stakes and more pressure to do well.
5) Well, considering we don't have any true representation of the format, since nearly every paper event is different from another, we can only guess what the next event will look like. We can choose to take a deck to hose one of the perceived top decks, we can play some random fast linear deck that doesn't care what the meta is, or we can try to play the perceived best deck and cross our fingers. Either way, without good data representations, choices that are affected by metagame data (deck choice, sideboard construction, etc) are HIGHLY susceptible to random chance of getting it right, getting it wrong, and hoping to be paired accordingly.
6) If "healthy" means "I have no idea what is good, so let's just play whatever and hope for the best" then I do not agree with that definition of "healthy." Especially when a format is so heavily influenced by lopsided matchups and silver bullet hate cards.
7) If I ever got to a point where I needed a couple thousand dollars, I would have. Luckily my wife and I have a good income and I haven't needed to. Many of those cards live in Commander decks these days (as well as some random URx Modern thing sleeved up and ready to go, if needed), but most just sit in binders and boxes in my safe.
Re: Frontier
Format was clearly invented by companies trying to sell excess stock and, thankfully, most players realize it. Comparing any data from Frontier to Modern is meaningless because the card pool is different and there's no incentive to solve or push the metagame.
Re: Push ban
Are we really back to this in a format full of small creatures and decks running small creatures? This is up there with the Thoughtseize ban suggestion: people run out of creative ways to address perceived Modern issues so they suggest zany, nonsensical bans. Wizards just said the format was healthy and nothing has changed since that update. If anything, it's more diverse now. People need to stop inventing problems that aren't part of the format.
Whoa now! I'm postulating based on feedback in some threads based on a lot of cards getting worse in things like burn. I'm not proposing or pushing for a ban on fatal push. When I make posts like this, I'm wanting discussion on what cards benefit from the card being in the format, what cards get worse, and how does this impact peoples choices in their decks. Not "we should never do this because it's going to make the format worse" out of some gut instinctual thing that doesn't have any kind of fact stapled to it. People here tend to look at what decks performed well, but don't really say much on what got better and what got worse from a card choice perspective. That is what changes a meta.
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!
1) Blinded from meaningful data? So now 5-0s are meaningful data or not?
2) Shows misleading data? We have long before agreed that 5-0s should be excluded (and they are) by most analyses.
3) Paper events are a random eclectic collection of people? Modern events are the most attended events out of all formats. Several people have been consistently doing well in modern. This doesn't really show what you describe.
4) GPs are the best source for competitive stats? Sure, but what about the SCG events? Or are they worse than GPs for some reason, even though they have similar attendance? And for these we get full Day 2 metagame analysis and top 32 decklists
5) Confusion, chaos and lucky guesses? Who is confused? For over a month now none is complaining (except you of course). None is confused or chaotic. I see very well structured arguments and ideas regarding modern. People have found ways to tackle the metagame (see 5C humans) in innovative ways. Where is the confusion or chaos in that?
6) Wizards calls it healthy? Yeah they do. And so do a lot of people, so does SCG and other major tournament organizers, so (it seems to me at least) does the community of this forum.
7) Sold out in January 2016? I am pretty sure you can sell everything now and you will not have lost a single penny. On the contrary.
Come on, I know you hate the format for whatever reason, but you can do way better than this post. Using big words like chaos and confusion doesn't provide anything in the discussion besides polarization and flame.
1&2) Yes, 5-0s are mostly meaningless, mostly because it's not a swiss pairing system. Under the old 10-lists posting, through enough random samples, they used to somewhat be helpful. Now that they are actively misrepresenting proportions (a deck could be 90% of the format and only get 1 listing, while a deck could be 1 of hundreds and also get a listing), they don't just NOT represent the format, but they ACTIVELY misrepresent the format.
3) SCG events used to be made fun of as the little sibling of paper tournaments, whose results should be taken with a grain of salt due to their limited geographic locations, much smaller size, and overall influence by an incredibly small number of regulars playing alongside what is essentially an FNM crowd. We have propped them up because of the change in GP scheduling (2-3 events crammed in a single weekend, spaced several months apart) as well as the aforementioned reduction if meaningful data. SCG events are where groups of locals test our their weird brews to see if they do anything. If it does well, they take it to the real stage: a GP.
4)GPs are larger events with a more diverse playerbase which include players from all over the world joining, instead of seeing the same East Coast and Midwest SCG Regulars alongside their FNM-playing locals. There are also far more high end pros and top players with bigger stakes and more pressure to do well.
5) Well, considering we don't have any true representation of the format, since nearly every paper event is different from another, we can only guess what the next event will look like. We can choose to take a deck to hose one of the perceived top decks, we can play some random fast linear deck that doesn't care what the meta is, or we can try to play the perceived best deck and cross our fingers. Either way, without good data representations, choices that are affected by metagame data (deck choice, sideboard construction, etc) are HIGHLY susceptible to random chance of getting it right, getting it wrong, and hoping to be paired accordingly.
6) If "healthy" means "I have no idea what is good, so let's just play whatever and hope for the best" then I do not agree with that definition of "healthy." Especially when a format is so heavily influenced by lopsided matchups and silver bullet hate cards.
7) If I ever got to a point where I needed a couple thousand dollars, I would have. Luckily my wife and I have a good income and I haven't needed to. Many of those cards live in Commander decks these days (as well as some random URx Modern thing sleeved up and ready to go, if needed), but most just sit in binders and boxes in my safe.
1&2) So, if they are meaningless, we don't care about them, cool. As I said, people actively DON'T take them into account in their analyses (except mtggoldfish stats). If we have all agreed on that, I don't see how our data are misrepresentations of the format. In addition, if you actually do have a look at them (e.g. mtggoldfish) you will see that the 7,19% of the Jeskai control (currently top at mtggoldfish) comes mostly from paper events or larger MTGO events where we have all the data. MTGO 5-0s have much less impact than what you describe. No matter what, again, people actively don't take them into account, so I consider this solved.
3) SCG events being laughed at. We are way past that point. World champions BBD and Huey would beg to differ. They are events taking place in the states, naturally they would mostly attract people from within the US. Their attendance numbers are also very high. Whether you like it or not, SCG events are good representations of a given meta game. If we had a similar event europe-wide we would have see the european metagame. At the moment, we have, for example, the Dutch opens in the NL.
4) I am not disputing the value of GPs. I am saying that we have other sources of data as well. Unless you consider GPs the ONLY data we should take into account. Then just say so.
5) That is clearly your perception. Again, people doing consistently well would beg to differ. Also, Jeskai being one of the best decks atm also doesn't show any tendency to linearity. Jund is in the uptick. GDS has stabilized. RG titanshift is almost nowhere to be seen. Eldrazi ton has taken a beating lately. People do care about the meta and, again, that's how 5C humans have done well, that's how Eldrazi Taxes are doing well, that's why Jund is doing better and that's why Jeskai is one of the best decks atm
6) As I said, the community and major stakeholders have a different opinion. Coverage has shown a very different picture.
I know it's not the safest dataset we have but, and correct me if I am wrong, for the first time in recent history, a control deck (Jeskai Tempo/control) has the highest representation in mtggoldfish with 7,19%! That is, based on the published MTGO leagues, challenges, SCG events, available online rptqs, Jeskai has the highest representation in top32-8s.
Right behind it is storm (6,99%), 5C humans (6,39%), GB Tron (5,59%)and Affinity (5,19%). That means that, based on recent available mtggoldfish data, the top5 decks of modern in terms of mostly online results are: a control deck, two aggro decks, a combo deck and big mana deck. This is a pretty healthy top 5. Judging by how no decks exceeds even 7,5% and how ETron is at 3,59% and Titanshift at 2,59% I am pretty sure the format can handle itself pretty well.
Take those data as you will, but it is one of the largest datasets we have available (and since I don't collect data myself I have to rely on other people's data). In my opinion, the format is great and I will stand behind SCGs opinion, modern is the best magic format at the moment.
Do you have a link for these numbers? I have not seen such numbers locally. I even know 2 players that have voiced their frustration with playing Jeskai Queller, although part of that may be due to their own play skill.
Is Jeskai Queller the closest to "Control" that we get? A deck with 3 Cryptic Command, 1 Spell Snare, and 2 Logic Knot. A deck with no sweepers and no card draw, outside of Cryptic Command and Electrolyze. This reminds me of a friend who asked to borrow "Esper Control" again. I told him that the deck I let him borrow is Esper Goryo Gifts, not Control. An Island in the deck list does not mean Control, although that could be very well what it comes down to some day, sadly enough. I realize that it's just semantics and Jeskai Control plays Aggro, Control, Midrange, and Tempo all pretty well, but I would say it plays Tempo the best of the bunch. 4 Bolts, 4 Lightning Helix, 2 Electrolyze, and nearly a handful of Snaps makes up a pretty burn worthy deck as well.
*I should point out that the Jeskai list with 1 Torrential Gearhulk and 2 Snapcaster Mage only as creatures qualifies to me as a "Control" deck, but I would be hard pressed to believe that even 1% of the meta plays that deck list or similar.
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)
I know it's not the safest dataset we have but, and correct me if I am wrong, for the first time in recent history, a control deck (Jeskai Tempo/control) has the highest representation in mtggoldfish with 7,19%! That is, based on the published MTGO leagues, challenges, SCG events, available online rptqs, Jeskai has the highest representation in top32-8s.
Right behind it is storm (6,99%), 5C humans (6,39%), GB Tron (5,59%)and Affinity (5,19%). That means that, based on recent available mtggoldfish data, the top5 decks of modern in terms of mostly online results are: a control deck, two aggro decks, a combo deck and big mana deck. This is a pretty healthy top 5. Judging by how no decks exceeds even 7,5% and how ETron is at 3,59% and Titanshift at 2,59% I am pretty sure the format can handle itself pretty well.
Take those data as you will, but it is one of the largest datasets we have available (and since I don't collect data myself I have to rely on other people's data). In my opinion, the format is great and I will stand behind SCGs opinion, modern is the best magic format at the moment.
Do you have a link for these numbers? I have not seen such numbers locally. I even know 2 players that have voiced their frustration with playing Jeskai Queller, although part of that may be due to their own play skill.
Is Jeskai Queller the closest to "Control" that we get? A deck with 3 Cryptic Command, 1 Spell Snare, and 2 Logic Knot. A deck with no sweepers and no card draw, outside of Cryptic Command and Electrolyze. This reminds me of a friend who asked to borrow "Esper Control" again. I told him that the deck I let him borrow is Esper Goryo Gifts, not Control. An Island in the deck list does not mean Control, although that could be very well what it comes down to some day, sadly enough. I realize that it's just semantics and Jeskai Control plays Aggro, Control, Midrange, and Tempo all pretty well, but I would say it plays Tempo the best of the bunch. 4 Bolts, 4 Lightning Helix, 2 Electrolyze, and nearly a handful of Snaps makes up a pretty burn worthy deck as well.
The closest to control we get is Tron. The closest to blue control we get is Jeskai queller/ UW control really.
Is Jeskai Queller the closest to "Control" that we get? A deck with 3 Cryptic Command, 1 Spell Snare, and 2 Logic Knot. A deck with no sweepers and no card draw, outside of Cryptic Command and Electrolyze. This reminds me of a friend who asked to borrow "Esper Control" again. I told him that the deck I let him borrow is Esper Goryo Gifts, not Control. An Island in the deck list does not mean Control, although that could be very well what it comes down to some day, sadly enough. I realize that it's just semantics and Jeskai Control plays Aggro, Control, Midrange, and Tempo all pretty well, but I would say it plays Tempo the best of the bunch. 4 Bolts, 4 Lightning Helix, 2 Electrolyze, and nearly a handful of Snaps makes up a pretty burn worthy deck as well.
Jeskai Queller is what I have sleeved up and ready for whenever I actually make time to play Modern. It is not anything remotely close to what you could call "Control." It's essentially "Big Delver," in that it wants to tap out for a threat and ride a combination of burn and tempo plays to victory. It can sort of play a control role, but that's not what it wants to be doing. It's a backup plan against slow grindy decks (something that doesn't really exist anymore). In fact, in a recent Great Nate video, he talked about seeing lists that cut Electrolyze for Jeskai Charm (something I think is pretty cool, as I have often been extremely underwhelmed by Electrolyze). It continues the trend of making the deck more explosive while still being able to disrupt the opponent (unlike Boros Charm, which can protect your stuff and deal big damage, but can't interact with opponent's board).
If I had to classify the deck, it's Jeskai Midrange, or just Jeskai Geist, which is an archetype that has been around in Modern forever. This is also the deck that initially drew me into Modern after discovering Great Nate's videos on Jeskai after Dromoka's Command made Jeskai Tokens essentially unplayable in Standard anymore. The main changes in the deck from then to now are the removal of Leak/Remand for Logic Knot, and the the removal of Young Pyromancer and Restoration Angel for Queller and more Cryptics. Otherwise, it's basically the same deck.
I know it's not the safest dataset we have but, and correct me if I am wrong, for the first time in recent history, a control deck (Jeskai Tempo/control) has the highest representation in mtggoldfish with 7,19%! That is, based on the published MTGO leagues, challenges, SCG events, available online rptqs, Jeskai has the highest representation in top32-8s.
Right behind it is storm (6,99%), 5C humans (6,39%), GB Tron (5,59%)and Affinity (5,19%). That means that, based on recent available mtggoldfish data, the top5 decks of modern in terms of mostly online results are: a control deck, two aggro decks, a combo deck and big mana deck. This is a pretty healthy top 5. Judging by how no decks exceeds even 7,5% and how ETron is at 3,59% and Titanshift at 2,59% I am pretty sure the format can handle itself pretty well.
Take those data as you will, but it is one of the largest datasets we have available (and since I don't collect data myself I have to rely on other people's data). In my opinion, the format is great and I will stand behind SCGs opinion, modern is the best magic format at the moment.
Do you have a link for these numbers? I have not seen such numbers locally. I even know 2 players that have voiced their frustration with playing Jeskai Queller, although part of that may be due to their own play skill.
Is Jeskai Queller the closest to "Control" that we get? A deck with 3 Cryptic Command, 1 Spell Snare, and 2 Logic Knot. A deck with no sweepers and no card draw, outside of Cryptic Command and Electrolyze. This reminds me of a friend who asked to borrow "Esper Control" again. I told him that the deck I let him borrow is Esper Goryo Gifts, not Control. An Island in the deck list does not mean Control, although that could be very well what it comes down to some day, sadly enough. I realize that it's just semantics and Jeskai Control plays Aggro, Control, Midrange, and Tempo all pretty well, but I would say it plays Tempo the best of the bunch. 4 Bolts, 4 Lightning Helix, 2 Electrolyze, and nearly a handful of Snaps makes up a pretty burn worthy deck as well.
*I should point out that the Jeskai list with 1 Torrential Gearhulk and 2 Snapcaster Mage only as creatures qualifies to me as a "Control" deck, but I would be hard pressed to believe that even 1% of the meta plays that deck list or similar.
Of course, don't take these data 100% at face value, they require some further investigation because they include all the known 5-0 league decks.
For me the current Jeskai tempo decks do qualify as control decks. With 10+ counters (I am counting quellers in that), snapcasters, and as win conditions only Snap-Bolt, Colonnade and Geist, I am fine with calling it a control. It can play several styles, and tempoing is indeed one of the best ways to approach it, but it usually plays out as a tempo control deck, rarely tapping on your own turn.
Of course, don't take these data 100% at face value, they require some further investigation because they include all the known 5-0 league decks.
Goldfish pulls their data from MTGO Leagues, meaning their data is 100% unreliable for anything. They even talked about it on a recent podcast how they would like to (and probably will soon) implement separate paper and online meta pages. It's not worth even acknowledging this site as long as their aggregate numbers include these artificially pushed League lists.
It can play several styles, and tempoing is indeed one of the best ways to approach it, but it usually plays out as a tempo control deck, rarely tapping on your own turn.
The absolute best plan of action for this deck 90% of the time is to Serum/Bolt/Path something turn 1, kill or counter something turn 2, and tap out to slam a Geist turn 3. If you have the ability to do that, it is almost always the correct play. Without a quick clock and early pressure, the deck is exposed for how weak and narrow it is at actually playing a control role.
Jeskai flash is how you play control in an open, aggressive format without FoW. Playing draw-go for ten straight turns as you prepare to drop a six mana finisher with counter backup doesn't happen in legacy, it won't happen in modern, hell WOTC is probably mad that it is happening in standard with UWx Approach.
Jeskai Queller is what I have sleeved up and ready for whenever I actually make time to play Modern. It is not anything remotely close to what you could call "Control." It's essentially "Big Delver," in that it wants to tap out for a threat and ride a combination of burn and tempo plays to victory. It can sort of play a control role, but that's not what it wants to be doing. It's a backup plan against slow grindy decks (something that doesn't really exist anymore). In fact, in a recent Great Nate video, he talked about seeing lists that cut Electrolyze for Jeskai Charm (something I think is pretty cool, as I have often been extremely underwhelmed by Electrolyze). It continues the trend of making the deck more explosive while still being able to disrupt the opponent (unlike Boros Charm, which can protect your stuff and deal big damage, but can't interact with opponent's board).
I like that - Jeskai Charm. It has to definitely be tested because of the mana requirements, but it seems to be a solid card. Four damage is something that Jeskai can't reliably do right now (other than if they want to play Psionic Blast or the Char), putting a creature back can occasionally be solid, and pumping a Geist of Saint Traft after blocks seems pretty solid too. I too have noticed Electrolyze seem pretty underwhelming in this meta.
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)
Of course, don't take these data 100% at face value, they require some further investigation because they include all the known 5-0 league decks.
Goldfish pulls their data from MTGO Leagues, meaning their data is 100% unreliable for anything. They even talked about it on a recent podcast how they would like to (and probably will soon) implement separate paper and online meta pages. It's not worth even acknowledging this site as long as their aggregate numbers include these artificially pushed League lists.
I have already said, multiple times, that one should be careful when looking at their data exactly because of the leagues. However, mtggoldfish doesn't pull data exclusively from MTGO leagues but they incorporate all big papers events, MTGO challenges and RPTQs. As you said, they are working on it as well. Their dataset has issues, but saying that it is not even worth acknowledging one of the biggest data collectors we have I think goes a bit too far.
It can play several styles, and tempoing is indeed one of the best ways to approach it, but it usually plays out as a tempo control deck, rarely tapping on your own turn.
The absolute best plan of action for this deck 90% of the time is to Serum/Bolt/Path something turn 1, kill or counter something turn 2, and tap out to slam a Geist turn 3. If you have the ability to do that, it is almost always the correct play. Without a quick clock and early pressure, the deck is exposed for how weak and narrow it is at actually playing a control role.
It is true that this is (almost) always the best plan on the play. Although against decks like storm, affinity, Ad Nauseum I don't think it is the correct line.
Most games however don't play out that way and you are not always on the play. In those games, which I argue are the vast majority, most of the time you never tap out on your turn unless it is to go for the win (collonade, geist).
Jeskai flash is how you play control in an open, aggressive format without FoW. Playing draw-go for ten straight turns as you prepare to drop a six mana finisher with counter backup doesn't happen in legacy,
Just saying, exactly this was happening until they banned Sensei's Divining Top. So I'm unsure about what card game you were playing at the time.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If a Fatal Push ban were ever taken seriously, I'd then have to say we can never complain about answers in modern again.
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
This sums up my thoughts on the matter quite well.
Btw, how did frontier get brought up into this? I thought that scheme of a "format" died once everybody realized it was only a scam being propped up by the talking heads on Youtube, who were shilling for the big boys in the secondary market, b/c they needed a way to dupe people into buying piles of Siege Rhinos.
Link to Discord server where anybody from MTGS can keep up with thread topics while everything is being sorted out with the new site.
Before this goes off subject, I just mentioned it when I was clarifying the Aetherworks Marvel stuff mentioned in an earlier posting. I think it just sort of blended into the conversation. The formats doing fine actually. I've been playing it for the last few months and won a few packs when the paper tourney fires. I tend to put modern and frontier as two peas in a pod since they both are non-rotating formats. Frontier is sort of like what modern would be like if we didn't have a lot of the narrow high powered cards from the early days, since Wizards started pushing for more multi-modal cards to make the game more skill based.
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!
Format was clearly invented by companies trying to sell excess stock and, thankfully, most players realize it. Comparing any data from Frontier to Modern is meaningless because the card pool is different and there's no incentive to solve or push the metagame.
Re: Push ban
Are we really back to this in a format full of small creatures and decks running small creatures? This is up there with the Thoughtseize ban suggestion: people run out of creative ways to address perceived Modern issues so they suggest zany, nonsensical bans. Wizards just said the format was healthy and nothing has changed since that update. If anything, it's more diverse now. People need to stop inventing problems that aren't part of the format.
Just curious because I believe that was the #1 card we asked for a banning in the last poll, not that I necessarily agree with that poll
TKS is already good in T4-6. Eldrazi&Taxes don't rely on casting TKS, Displacer or Strangler ahead of the curve. They are there to supplement the strategy. Maybe Eldrazi Tron would take the biggest hit, thus making normal Tron the best option for big mana Eldrazi, but I don't think that small Eldrazi will take such a huge hit. The big things (e.g. Endbringer would suffer more.
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
Analysis idea: take a sample of major websites like SCG, CF, TCG, mintcard, etc. Count the number of Modern articles in a time period before a ban, and/or at different time periods in Modern's history. Then code the articles based on negative Modern press (e.g. comments like "Modern is not diverse" or ban suggestions) vs. positive Modern press (e.g. comments like "Modern is the best/most diverse ever" and the absence of ban suggestions). Then compare. I expect this is mostly a good indicator of a healthy format and will probably only have 1-2 periods where the general atmosphere does not reflect Wizards' stance on the format.
Some notable mentions:
-SCG casters claiming modern is the best of all 3 major formats
-SCG considers Modern to be the premiere format, hence most of their events are modern
-Jeff Hoogland, a guy who (unfortunately) is usually all over the place but (fortunately) very critical and a major Modern player tweeted that the format is at a good stage
-The aforementioned article by Ari Lax
-The return of the Modern Pro Tour with no complains by anyone
-Coverage of modern in CFB videos has seen a general uptick with a wide variety of decks and with a significant viewership (although I can't confirm on that in an absolute fashion atm)
These come just from the top of my head, I am sure if I need a bit of research I would find even more of these.
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
When we are blinded from meaningful data, purposely shown misleading data, our paper events are a random eclectic collection of people who have no idea what the metagame is or have specifically engineered hate decks for what they *think* the metagame is, it all combines into a roulette wheel of results for each event then of course the image is that the format is healthy and diverse.
Also remember that our GPs (best source for competitive stats) are months and months apart from each other, with multiples crammed into a single weekend. So even their results aren't free from being a product of chaos, confusion, and lucky guesses. This is what Wizards calls a "healthy" format. Blind us and confuse us, then call that chaos "diversity." Had I known the direction the format would go, I would have sold out of Modern in January of 2016.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Are you waiting for us to beg you not to sell out of the format or something? Seems like we can't finish a few pages on this thread without a post by you making a claim along those lines.
I'm expressing the frustration, mostly about the reduction of data, which misrepresents what is going on in the format and causing purposely orchestrated chaos. Then that chaos is being branded as "health" and "diversity." If you think that is a good thing for the format, then you and I have vastly different goals and aspirations for this game.
If you have a problem with me personally, please use the Ignore button.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
1) Blinded from meaningful data? So now 5-0s are meaningful data or not?
2) Shows misleading data? We have long before agreed that 5-0s should be excluded (and they are) by most analyses.
3) Paper events are a random eclectic collection of people? Modern events are the most attended events out of all formats. Several people have been consistently doing well in modern. This doesn't really show what you describe.
4) GPs are the best source for competitive stats? Sure, but what about the SCG events? Or are they worse than GPs for some reason, even though they have similar attendance? And for these we get full Day 2 metagame analysis and top 32 decklists
5) Confusion, chaos and lucky guesses? Who is confused? For over a month now none is complaining (except you of course). None is confused or chaotic. I see very well structured arguments and ideas regarding modern. People have found ways to tackle the metagame (see 5C humans) in innovative ways. Where is the confusion or chaos in that?
6) Wizards calls it healthy? Yeah they do. And so do a lot of people, so does SCG and other major tournament organizers, so (it seems to me at least) does the community of this forum.
7) Sold out in January 2016? I am pretty sure you can sell everything now and you will not have lost a single penny. On the contrary.
Come on, I know you hate the format for whatever reason, but you can do way better than this post. Using big words like chaos and confusion doesn't provide anything in the discussion besides polarization and flame.
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
1&2) Yes, 5-0s are mostly meaningless, mostly because it's not a swiss pairing system. Under the old 10-lists posting, through enough random samples, they used to somewhat be helpful. Now that they are actively misrepresenting proportions (a deck could be 90% of the format and only get 1 listing, while a deck could be 1 of hundreds and also get a listing), they don't just NOT represent the format, but they ACTIVELY misrepresent the format.
3) SCG events used to be made fun of as the little sibling of paper tournaments, whose results should be taken with a grain of salt due to their limited geographic locations, much smaller size, and overall influence by an incredibly small number of regulars playing alongside what is essentially an FNM crowd. We have propped them up because of the change in GP scheduling (2-3 events crammed in a single weekend, spaced several months apart) as well as the aforementioned reduction if meaningful data. SCG events are where groups of locals test our their weird brews to see if they do anything. If it does well, they take it to the real stage: a GP.
4)GPs are larger events with a more diverse playerbase which include players from all over the world joining, instead of seeing the same East Coast and Midwest SCG Regulars alongside their FNM-playing locals. There are also far more high end pros and top players with bigger stakes and more pressure to do well.
5) Well, considering we don't have any true representation of the format, since nearly every paper event is different from another, we can only guess what the next event will look like. We can choose to take a deck to hose one of the perceived top decks, we can play some random fast linear deck that doesn't care what the meta is, or we can try to play the perceived best deck and cross our fingers. Either way, without good data representations, choices that are affected by metagame data (deck choice, sideboard construction, etc) are HIGHLY susceptible to random chance of getting it right, getting it wrong, and hoping to be paired accordingly.
6) If "healthy" means "I have no idea what is good, so let's just play whatever and hope for the best" then I do not agree with that definition of "healthy." Especially when a format is so heavily influenced by lopsided matchups and silver bullet hate cards.
7) If I ever got to a point where I needed a couple thousand dollars, I would have. Luckily my wife and I have a good income and I haven't needed to. Many of those cards live in Commander decks these days (as well as some random URx Modern thing sleeved up and ready to go, if needed), but most just sit in binders and boxes in my safe.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Whoa now! I'm postulating based on feedback in some threads based on a lot of cards getting worse in things like burn. I'm not proposing or pushing for a ban on fatal push. When I make posts like this, I'm wanting discussion on what cards benefit from the card being in the format, what cards get worse, and how does this impact peoples choices in their decks. Not "we should never do this because it's going to make the format worse" out of some gut instinctual thing that doesn't have any kind of fact stapled to it. People here tend to look at what decks performed well, but don't really say much on what got better and what got worse from a card choice perspective. That is what changes a meta.
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!
1&2) So, if they are meaningless, we don't care about them, cool. As I said, people actively DON'T take them into account in their analyses (except mtggoldfish stats). If we have all agreed on that, I don't see how our data are misrepresentations of the format. In addition, if you actually do have a look at them (e.g. mtggoldfish) you will see that the 7,19% of the Jeskai control (currently top at mtggoldfish) comes mostly from paper events or larger MTGO events where we have all the data. MTGO 5-0s have much less impact than what you describe. No matter what, again, people actively don't take them into account, so I consider this solved.
3) SCG events being laughed at. We are way past that point. World champions BBD and Huey would beg to differ. They are events taking place in the states, naturally they would mostly attract people from within the US. Their attendance numbers are also very high. Whether you like it or not, SCG events are good representations of a given meta game. If we had a similar event europe-wide we would have see the european metagame. At the moment, we have, for example, the Dutch opens in the NL.
4) I am not disputing the value of GPs. I am saying that we have other sources of data as well. Unless you consider GPs the ONLY data we should take into account. Then just say so.
5) That is clearly your perception. Again, people doing consistently well would beg to differ. Also, Jeskai being one of the best decks atm also doesn't show any tendency to linearity. Jund is in the uptick. GDS has stabilized. RG titanshift is almost nowhere to be seen. Eldrazi ton has taken a beating lately. People do care about the meta and, again, that's how 5C humans have done well, that's how Eldrazi Taxes are doing well, that's why Jund is doing better and that's why Jeskai is one of the best decks atm
6) As I said, the community and major stakeholders have a different opinion. Coverage has shown a very different picture.
7) Irrelevant at this point.
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
Do you have a link for these numbers? I have not seen such numbers locally. I even know 2 players that have voiced their frustration with playing Jeskai Queller, although part of that may be due to their own play skill.
Is Jeskai Queller the closest to "Control" that we get? A deck with 3 Cryptic Command, 1 Spell Snare, and 2 Logic Knot. A deck with no sweepers and no card draw, outside of Cryptic Command and Electrolyze. This reminds me of a friend who asked to borrow "Esper Control" again. I told him that the deck I let him borrow is Esper Goryo Gifts, not Control. An Island in the deck list does not mean Control, although that could be very well what it comes down to some day, sadly enough. I realize that it's just semantics and Jeskai Control plays Aggro, Control, Midrange, and Tempo all pretty well, but I would say it plays Tempo the best of the bunch. 4 Bolts, 4 Lightning Helix, 2 Electrolyze, and nearly a handful of Snaps makes up a pretty burn worthy deck as well.
*I should point out that the Jeskai list with 1 Torrential Gearhulk and 2 Snapcaster Mage only as creatures qualifies to me as a "Control" deck, but I would be hard pressed to believe that even 1% of the meta plays that deck list or similar.
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)The closest to control we get is Tron. The closest to blue control we get is Jeskai queller/ UW control really.
Jeskai Queller is what I have sleeved up and ready for whenever I actually make time to play Modern. It is not anything remotely close to what you could call "Control." It's essentially "Big Delver," in that it wants to tap out for a threat and ride a combination of burn and tempo plays to victory. It can sort of play a control role, but that's not what it wants to be doing. It's a backup plan against slow grindy decks (something that doesn't really exist anymore). In fact, in a recent Great Nate video, he talked about seeing lists that cut Electrolyze for Jeskai Charm (something I think is pretty cool, as I have often been extremely underwhelmed by Electrolyze). It continues the trend of making the deck more explosive while still being able to disrupt the opponent (unlike Boros Charm, which can protect your stuff and deal big damage, but can't interact with opponent's board).
If I had to classify the deck, it's Jeskai Midrange, or just Jeskai Geist, which is an archetype that has been around in Modern forever. This is also the deck that initially drew me into Modern after discovering Great Nate's videos on Jeskai after Dromoka's Command made Jeskai Tokens essentially unplayable in Standard anymore. The main changes in the deck from then to now are the removal of Leak/Remand for Logic Knot, and the the removal of Young Pyromancer and Restoration Angel for Queller and more Cryptics. Otherwise, it's basically the same deck.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Of course, don't take these data 100% at face value, they require some further investigation because they include all the known 5-0 league decks.
For me the current Jeskai tempo decks do qualify as control decks. With 10+ counters (I am counting quellers in that), snapcasters, and as win conditions only Snap-Bolt, Colonnade and Geist, I am fine with calling it a control. It can play several styles, and tempoing is indeed one of the best ways to approach it, but it usually plays out as a tempo control deck, rarely tapping on your own turn.
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
Goldfish pulls their data from MTGO Leagues, meaning their data is 100% unreliable for anything. They even talked about it on a recent podcast how they would like to (and probably will soon) implement separate paper and online meta pages. It's not worth even acknowledging this site as long as their aggregate numbers include these artificially pushed League lists.
The absolute best plan of action for this deck 90% of the time is to Serum/Bolt/Path something turn 1, kill or counter something turn 2, and tap out to slam a Geist turn 3. If you have the ability to do that, it is almost always the correct play. Without a quick clock and early pressure, the deck is exposed for how weak and narrow it is at actually playing a control role.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I like that - Jeskai Charm. It has to definitely be tested because of the mana requirements, but it seems to be a solid card. Four damage is something that Jeskai can't reliably do right now (other than if they want to play Psionic Blast or the Char), putting a creature back can occasionally be solid, and pumping a Geist of Saint Traft after blocks seems pretty solid too. I too have noticed Electrolyze seem pretty underwhelming in this meta.
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)I have already said, multiple times, that one should be careful when looking at their data exactly because of the leagues. However, mtggoldfish doesn't pull data exclusively from MTGO leagues but they incorporate all big papers events, MTGO challenges and RPTQs. As you said, they are working on it as well. Their dataset has issues, but saying that it is not even worth acknowledging one of the biggest data collectors we have I think goes a bit too far.
It is true that this is (almost) always the best plan on the play. Although against decks like storm, affinity, Ad Nauseum I don't think it is the correct line.
Most games however don't play out that way and you are not always on the play. In those games, which I argue are the vast majority, most of the time you never tap out on your turn unless it is to go for the win (collonade, geist).
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
Just saying, exactly this was happening until they banned Sensei's Divining Top. So I'm unsure about what card game you were playing at the time.