that abzan traverse list looks sweet. ive heard 1 mana tutors are pretty good. seems like a great direction for GBx decks since they have been struggling to keep up with the mardu lootings engine. hope the deck picks up.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
The "Fair Magic" finals everyone wanted was a real snoozer.
Didn't see it and don't care. When fair, interactive decks do well at the top level, this proves those decks are viable in the format. Whether or not you like/dislike these play patterns, you should probably admit it's good that multiple decks are viable in the format at the highest levels. If you aren't admitting that, this would lead me to question your credibility as a format assessor. I do not judge the quality of tournament finishes based on whether or not the final games represent my ideal of an interesting, engaging viewing experience. I just care about the top tables showing diversity and wide viability of different options. GP Sao Paulo did that at the T8 level.
EDIT: Stirrings vs. SV tally for 2017 and 2018 as a percentage of total GP/PT T8 decks in the period -
The share of Stirrings decks at the GP/PT T8 level is up by 14%. The share of SV decks at that level is down by 1%. Of those blue-based decks, there is literally 1 deck in all of 2017-2018 (a single copy of Storm from 2017 GP Copenhagen) that is a blue-based combo deck that can violate the T4 rule. Everything else is Jeskai, GDS, UW Control, and random blue decks. Why does the broad swath of Colorless decks get Stirrings when blue is stuck with SV? This contradiction is glaring and increasingly inexplicable and one of those cards' legalities should change.
I'd be okay with a KCI ban from a logistical stance. Anyone who has attended a tournament where ***** went off the rails because people went to turns and took an extra fifteen minutes in most rounds understands the suffering.
A swap ban with KCI for Second Sunrise could make sense.
I'd be okay with a KCI ban from a logistical stance. Anyone who has attended a tournament where ***** went off the rails because people went to turns and took an extra fifteen minutes in most rounds understands the suffering.
A swap ban with KCI for Second Sunrise could make sense.
I have yet to see information to suggest KCI causes logistical issues at tournaments. It might do that, but I just haven't seen it. Does anyone have a source to suggest it causes too many rounds to go to time and/or causes long rounds once you are in the post-game rounds?
I'd be okay with a KCI ban from a logistical stance. Anyone who has attended a tournament where ***** went off the rails because people went to turns and took an extra fifteen minutes in most rounds understands the suffering.
A swap ban with KCI for Second Sunrise could make sense.
How in the world would that make any sense? Eggs didn't even bother with Krark-Clan Ironworks until after Second Sunrise was banned. You do the swap ban and you just bring back the Eggs deck that was judged worthy of banning to begin with.
The "Fair Magic" finals everyone wanted was a real snoozer.
Didn't see it and don't care. When fair, interactive decks do well at the top level, this proves those decks are viable in the format. Whether or not you like/dislike these play patterns, you should probably admit it's good that multiple decks are viable in the format at the highest levels. If you aren't admitting that, this would lead me to question your credibility as a format assessor. I do not judge the quality of tournament finishes based on whether or not the final games represent my ideal of an interesting, engaging viewing experience. I just care about the top tables showing diversity and wide viability of different options. GP Sao Paulo did that at the T8 level.
EDIT: Stirrings vs. SV tally for 2017 and 2018 as a percentage of total GP/PT T8 decks in the period -
The share of Stirrings decks at the GP/PT T8 level is up by 14%. The share of SV decks at that level is down by 1%. Of those blue-based decks, there is literally 1 deck in all of 2017-2018 (a single copy of Storm from 2017 GP Copenhagen) that is a blue-based combo deck that can violate the T4 rule. Everything else is Jeskai, GDS, UW Control, and random blue decks. Why does the broad swath of Colorless decks get Stirrings when blue is stuck with SV? This contradiction is glaring and increasingly inexplicable and one of those cards' legalities should change.
If I'm understanding how you're calculating those numbers, there's a counterpoint that's been tangentially mentioned above. UW Control decks aren't even playing Serum Visions at the moment, not because it's not powerful, but because Opt works better for the miracled Terminus that's en vogue. Opt became Modern legal in early 2018, meaning your YoY numbers are skewed by the introduction of and cannibalization from a "weaker" cantrip that's better because of synergy. Preordain doesn't necessarily even slot into those decks if unbanned.
I'm curious how you would square your advice to Splinter Twin unban advocates with your recent comments on Preordain. Something along the lines of "it's not enough to draw a parallel with currently legal cards, argue its own merits (e.g. the original ban didn't succeed)." I don't think arguing consistency of ban logic is any more helpful here. And I say that as someone just fine with Preordain coming off.
If I'm understanding how you're calculating those numbers, there's a counterpoint that's been tangentially mentioned above. UW Control decks aren't even playing Serum Visions at the moment, not because it's not powerful, but because Opt works better for the miracled Terminus that's en vogue. Opt became Modern legal in early 2018, meaning your YoY numbers are skewed by the introduction of and cannibalization from a "weaker" cantrip that's better because of synergy. Preordain doesn't necessarily even slot into those decks if unbanned.
I'm looking only at decks that are running SV currently or could replace Opt with an unbanned Preordain. So this is the broadest possible definition of Preordain-compatible decks based on current deck constructions. This does not include decks that could change their current structure to run to Preordain (e.g. KCI ditching Stirrings and green to run Preordain). It just includes decks that are running Opt/SV right now. So like you said, it's actually a larger number than the number of decks that are truly running legitimate SV copies currently. That number is under 15%. This may "skew" the numbers, but if it does, it probably inflates the number of decks that would run Preordain. And that inflated number is still almost half of those running Stirrings.
As for Twin, I 100% support people arguing the Twin ban in terms of its actual language. This is how cards are unbanned; Wizards looks at an old ban, sees if that ban accomplished its goals, and sees how the unban would affect the current Modern. See explanations for unbanning Nacatl, BB, AV, BBE, JTMS, etc. The Twin unban camp consistently fails to address one of these arguments: why would Wizards would unban Twin when the share of non-Twin blue decks is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than it was when Twin was legal? Total blue share has dropped, we know. But total share of decks not playing Twin, however, is more than double what it was at the GP/PT level. I am not saying this increase was CAUSED by the Twin ban. I have never said this. I am simply stating that this diversity is the current state of Modern.
Why would Wizards jeopardize that with a card that is likely going to benefit from most of the new technology printed/unbanned for other blue decks? Why is the super conservative Wizards going to risk their diverse format with a card that, when last legal, saw non-Twin blue shares under 10% of the format and that they cited as a diversity violator? There is a small, vocal, persistent group of users who want this card unbanned and I am not trying to convince them. I don't think that group will be convinced by any argument I can make and maybe anyone can make. I am simply pointing out to anyone else who is evaluating the Twin unban debate that the unban Twin argument, as it is currently argued, has no traction given the current format and Wizards' current management style.
EDIT: If you just look strictly at decks running SV, it's 12.5% for 2018. If you include the decks not running SV that "could" run Preordain (i.e. blue-based combo and reactive decks), it's 17%. No matter how you cut it, Stirrings is 33%. That's a huge gap. One of those cards needs to be reevaluated and Wizards can figure out which one they want to focus on.
I'd be okay with a KCI ban from a logistical stance. Anyone who has attended a tournament where ***** went off the rails because people went to turns and took an extra fifteen minutes in most rounds understands the suffering.
A swap ban with KCI for Second Sunrise could make sense.
How in the world would that make any sense? Eggs didn't even bother with Krark-Clan Ironworks until after Second Sunrise was banned. You do the swap ban and you just bring back the Eggs deck that was judged worthy of banning to begin with.
I think he forgot that Eggs with Second Sunrise didn't even use Krark-Clan Ironworks.
As for those of you arguing for Ancient Stirrings, but stating that "you believe that Preordain should be unbanned," what are you really arguing about? No one is saying that only Ancient Stirrings should be unbanned. People are stating that Preordain is a joke while Stirrings is legal. If Wizards truly doesn't WANT to unban Preordain, then and only then, Stirrings should be considered for a banning. Hopefully, Wizards will do the right thing.
Also, sure it has limitations, but how far does it have to dig to be "okay" in your eyes? If a 1 mana tutor searched only for an enchantment 3 or less, but dug 20 cards deep, is that okay? Ancient Stirrings is a super powerful card, that does not need a ban, but is super powerful. I'd venture out to say that it hits around 99% of the time and when it doesn't hit, it digs you 5 cards deeper to the actual win. I often used to think that Affinity could use Ancient Stirrings many, many years ago, but people told me that Green was hard to come by and it slowed the deck down too much. I tended to agree with them at that point. I'm going to point this out again - there is a deck that won a Modern PTQ online called Turbo Vizier/Eternal Devote. This deck uses Ancient Stirrings to find Walking Ballista, land, or Mishra's Bauble. This is a 14 land deck. There are very few limitations on what Ancient Stirrings can do.
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)
Was it though? I haven't looked at a ton of lists from the event, but what kind of hate are people packing? Are we still in the nascent stages where people are still scrambling to find appropriate hate cards for the deck? If so, that's natural, and after a few more big events people should be getting good at packing the hate that's needed to keep KCI down. I think the deck is totally fine, and the hate exists to combat it. I've noticed there's been a lack of general artifact hate, and I'm kinda surprised Affinity hasn't sprung up more. KCI is just a result of that reality.
On paper, KCI looks vulnerable to the hate offered by a wide variety of Modern staples, but in practice the only true hoser that it struggles to easily answer is Stony Silence, namely due to the fact that it shuts off Engineered Explosives, which is an extremely powerful (and IMO generally underplayed) card, which KCI manages to leverage particularly well: EE represents blowout removal, anti-hate tech, and useful combo piece all in one.
In other words, to answer a Stony Silence they need to find a Nature’s Claim, and for just about any other commonly played form of hate they can find either Claim or EE, and they can dig quite efficiently to find those pieces. I am not a KCI player, so correct me where I’ve gone astray.
The ubiquity and power of Nature’s Claim in KCI, Tron, and other Stirrings decks plays into the Stirrings/Preordain discussion. If some of these decks adopted blue as their primary color over green following a hypothetical Stirrings ban and Preordain unban, their ability to answer hate cards changes for the worse. That sounds like a bad thing, reducing interaction—and maybe it is, I don’t know—but KCI in particular seems to shrug off hate way too easily for a deck that can so consistently assemble early kills. (I’m not speaking from bitter experience, by the way: three Stony Silence in my Abzan sideboard at the moment helps make the KCI matchup, among many others, quite good).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
GB Golgari Midrange GB YouTube Channel, with deck techs, gameplay, analysis, spoiler reviews, and more!
On paper, KCI looks vulnerable to the hate offered by a wide variety of Modern staples, but in practice the only true hoser that it struggles to easily answer is Stony Silence, namely due to the fact that it shuts off Engineered Explosives, which is an extremely powerful (and IMO generally underplayed) card, which KCI manages to leverage particularly well: EE represents blowout removal, anti-hate tech, and useful combo piece all in one.
In other words, to answer a Stony Silence they need to find a Nature’s Claim, and for just about any other commonly played form of hate they can find either Claim or EE, and they can dig quite efficiently to find those pieces. I am not a KCI player, so correct me where I’ve gone astray.
The ubiquity and power of Nature’s Claim in KCI, Tron, and other Stirrings decks plays into the Stirrings/Preordain discussion. If some of these decks adopted blue as their primary color over green following a hypothetical Stirrings ban and Preordain unban, their ability to answer hate cards changes for the worse. That sounds like a bad thing, reducing interaction—and maybe it is, I don’t know—but KCI in particular seems to shrug off hate way too easily for a deck that can so consistently assemble early kills. (I’m not speaking from bitter experience, by the way: three Stony Silence in my Abzan sideboard at the moment helps make the KCI matchup, among many others, quite good).
This isn't really a hypothetical that anyone has talked about or expects. All the discussion has centered around one or the other, not both.
@GK re: metagame stats
Thanks for sharing those! I had no idea those numbers were available. We definitely have enough to do a metagame breakdown, especially with MTGO PTQs and MOCS events. Dailies can be omitted. We also have at least two GP worth of conversion rate data, which is an even higher standard. Just at a cursory glance, KCI looks really, really scary good. Stirrings decks generally also look quite strong with no sign of slowing down.
I'm looking only at decks that are running SV currently or could replace Opt with an unbanned Preordain. So this is the broadest possible definition of Preordain-compatible decks based on current deck constructions. This does not include decks that could change their current structure to run to Preordain (e.g. KCI ditching Stirrings and green to run Preordain). It just includes decks that are running Opt/SV right now. So like you said, it's actually a larger number than the number of decks that are truly running legitimate SV copies currently. That number is under 15%. This may "skew" the numbers, but if it does, it probably inflates the number of decks that would run Preordain. And that inflated number is still almost half of those running Stirrings.
Looks like I misunderstood your methodology -- that 17% includes all decks running any combination of SVs or Opts. Your population is all SCG and GP/PTs to date, right? Assuming so, that would seem to indicate a boom in Ancient Stirrings decks within the top 8 relative to potential Preordain decks. I'm not sure it immediately follows that the gap must be narrowed though. Someone would still need to make the argument that either it's healthier to stunt the Stirrings decks despite their diversity or that potential Preordain decks should compose a higher percentage of the top 8s. Quite possible, just not ground this thread has covered.
As for Twin, I 100% support people arguing the Twin ban in terms of its actual language. This is how cards are unbanned; Wizards looks at an old ban, sees if that ban accomplished its goals, and sees how the unban would affect the current Modern. See explanations for unbanning Nacatl, BB, AV, BBE, JTMS, etc. The Twin unban camp consistently fails to address one of these arguments: why would Wizards would unban Twin when the share of non-Twin blue decks is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than it was when Twin was legal? Total blue share has dropped, we know. But total share of decks not playing Twin, however, is more than double what it was at the GP/PT level. I am not saying this increase was CAUSED by the Twin ban. I have never said this. I am simply stating that this diversity is the current state of Modern.
I should probably clarify -- I don't have strong feelings about a Twin un/ban, but I followed the points made in this thread. I've always agreed with the way you kept others' arguments grounded in logic, like regarding the actual ban language instead of fruitless comparisons to Storm, etc. I think some of your comments on Ancient Stirrings vs Preordain (and many more of those from others) stray into "it must be this OR that, for consistency" when we KNOW WoTC doesn't really care that much about logical consistency as an un/ban criteria. Far too many comments are framing this as a false dilemma. By your own previous admission, WoTC's decisions on Ancient Stirrings legality has little to no direct impact on Preordain much the same way that arguments for Splinter Twin's unbanning aren't really bolstered by pointing out other turn 4 combo decks that are legal.
Framing this as either/or is a cheap hedge that ignores that, from all available evidence, WoTC's decisions on Ancient Stirrings and Preordain aren't linked. Sure, the same criteria of game consistency will be evaluated but the choice to un/ban one doesn't have a direct impact on the other (outside of causing a meta shift). A lot of words to say that we should stop the "ban Ancient Stirrings or unban Preordain nonsense" and start arguing for banning Ancient Stirrings or unbanning Preordain on their own grounds using WoTC criteria.
I'd be okay with a KCI ban from a logistical stance. Anyone who has attended a tournament where ***** went off the rails because people went to turns and took an extra fifteen minutes in most rounds understands the suffering.
A swap ban with KCI for Second Sunrise could make sense.
I have yet to see information to suggest KCI causes logistical issues at tournaments. It might do that, but I just haven't seen it. Does anyone have a source to suggest it causes too many rounds to go to time and/or causes long rounds once you are in the post-game rounds?
Oh I am being totally proactive and pre-emptive about this. But remember with eggs and I'd say SDT in legacy miracles, the problem isn't there when a deck is just being played by a handful of individuals with tons of experience. The problem is when people pick it up who don't know 100% what to do in virtually every scenario and their dexterity isn't quite up to par. Experienced pilots of these sorts of decks can be very efficient, but once it is successful (and that ship has sailed at this point on KCI), people just start picking it up to go to their weekly modern events and GPs nearby.
Plus, WOTC has made their intentions very clear on trying to enter the space of e-sports. I think that's a bad joke, but the reality is if you want a product that can draw tens of thousands of viewers per event and keep them, a deck like that is absolute garbage.
A ban on KCI is not about fairness, I fully admit. It is primarily a business decision.
I'd be okay with a KCI ban from a logistical stance. Anyone who has attended a tournament where ***** went off the rails because people went to turns and took an extra fifteen minutes in most rounds understands the suffering.
A swap ban with KCI for Second Sunrise could make sense.
I have yet to see information to suggest KCI causes logistical issues at tournaments. It might do that, but I just haven't seen it. Does anyone have a source to suggest it causes too many rounds to go to time and/or causes long rounds once you are in the post-game rounds?
Oh I am being totally proactive and pre-emptive about this. But remember with eggs and I'd say SDT in legacy miracles, the problem isn't there when a deck is just being played by a handful of individuals with tons of experience. The problem is when people pick it up who don't know 100% what to do in virtually every scenario and their dexterity isn't quite up to par. Experienced pilots of these sorts of decks can be very efficient, but once it is successful (and that ship has sailed at this point on KCI), people just start picking it up to go to their weekly modern events and GPs nearby.
Plus, WOTC has made their intentions very clear on trying to enter the space of e-sports. I think that's a bad joke, but the reality is if you want a product that can draw tens of thousands of viewers per event and keep them, a deck like that is absolute garbage.
A ban on KCI is not about fairness, I fully admit. It is primarily a business decision.
This would be such a terrible decision. They let Lantern run its course, and that deck didn't even actually beat you. KCI actually kills its opponent in one turn, and the time that takes is shorter than a Lantern win takes, with more opportunity for interplay and responses, as opposed to Lantern, which by design removes half the players from effectively being in the game. Which of these two is worse for viewership? To try to call for a ban on KCI for "business reasons" is disingenuous when they have only ever acted reactively to actual tournament logistical issues. Miracles with Top was slowing down Legacy tournaments even when played by masters e.g. Joe Lossett. Eggs did not have a shortcut-able loop to win. What other deck has been killed off for logistical issues?
I already said that trying to turn Magic into an e sport is a bad idea. The game isn't designed at all to be watched by a large audience. But if you don't think this is the sort of thing WOTC is mulling, you're wrong. I'm just going to leave it at that, because further falling down this particular rabbit hole is better off on its own thread.
Hey, we got a full Metagame breakdown from GP Sao Paulo, and this includes both Day 1 and Day 2 results!
Did anyone know that Sim Chapman posted the full breakdowns on the last 2 events?
The page got updated, and that's why not so many people got to take a look into it!
Posting it right now. Link is here: https://magic.wizards.com/en/events/coverage/gpsao18/top-stories-2018-07-08
Jeskai Control and Humans probably had an atrocious conversion rate, as their high numbers did not even ensure one copy in the top 16 brackets!
Scapeshift had the best conversion rate, with 4 copies in the top 16!
Also, there seems to be some scary conversion rates on Hollow One and KCI from Day 1 to Day 2!
PS: @ktkenshinx @lejoon, Could a metagame breakdown for Modern be a thing in our days again? Plenty of data! Modern PTQs, SCG Events, Two Modern GP's with metagame breakdowns (the one from Day 2, the other both Day 1 and Day 2), plenty of Modern GP's overall, And those pesky Modern Challenges!
(One should probably leave Daily events outside though)!
Enjoy!
Archetype Day 1 Percentage Day 2 Percentage
Mardu Pyromancer 8.9% 6.1%
Tron 8.5% 7.9%
Jeskai 7.6% 5.7%
Humans 6.8% 7.0% <-- Good conversion rate from Day 1 to Day 2, bad conversion rate into T16
Burn 6.3% 7.0% <--Good conversion rate from Day 1 to Day 2, bad conversion rate into T16
Affinity 5.6% 6.1% <-- Good conversion rate from Day 1 to Day 2, bad conversion rate into T16
Collected Company 5.1% 3.5% <--Atrocious conversion rate from D1 to D2
Scapeshift 4.6% 5.3%
Death's Shadow 4.1% 4.4%
Storm 3.1% 2.6%
Hollow One 3.0% 5.7% <-- Good conversion rate from Day 1 to Day 2
Jund 3.0% 3.1%
White-Blue Control 2.8% 1.3% <-- bad cnversion rate overall Ironworks 2.7% 6.1% <-- WOW!!!!
Bogles 2.1% 2.6%
Elves 2.0% 1.8%
Infect 1.5% 1.3%
Red-Green Eldrazi 1.5% 2.6%
Eldrazi and Taxes 1.5% 1.3%
Merfolk 1.3% 1.3%
Living End 1.2% 1.3%
Red-Green Ponza 1.1% 2.2%
Mono-Red Prison 1.1% 0.9%
Eldrazi Tron 1.0% 1.3%
Abzan 1.0% 0.9%
Others 12.4% 10.7%
When broken down visually and sorted by over/under performance, the picture is fairly interesting. Not a single reactive deck had a positive conversion rate, and blue control decks are unsurprisingly at the bottom.
Eh, Death's Shadow and Jund both had positive conversion rates, but it was such a small bump from an already small number that it doesn't really mean much.
RG Eldrazi and Ponza are both in the "I guess they are kind of interactive?" tier, but you have to go all the way down to #10 before you see your first thoughtseize deck.
On paper, KCI looks vulnerable to the hate offered by a wide variety of Modern staples, but in practice the only true hoser that it struggles to easily answer is Stony Silence
It's not as good as Stony, but Gaddock Teeg shuts down both KCI and EE. It's a good choice for a GW creature toolbox deck or Humans.
When broken down visually and sorted by over/under performance, the picture is fairly interesting. Not a single reactive deck had a positive conversion rate, and blue control decks are unsurprisingly at the bottom.
What is unsurprising about blue control decks having a poor conversion rate at this tournament?
Any time we have seen UWR Conversion rates at GP/PT levels, they have been poor. Not to say someone cannot get through the gauntlet, but I believe it was the PT numbers we saw last time, and UWR was cruuuuuuuuuuuushed day 2.
That said, they sometimes put the Tempo version in with the Control (better) version...so maybe the numbers are tilted.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
UW Spirits
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Didn't see it and don't care. When fair, interactive decks do well at the top level, this proves those decks are viable in the format. Whether or not you like/dislike these play patterns, you should probably admit it's good that multiple decks are viable in the format at the highest levels. If you aren't admitting that, this would lead me to question your credibility as a format assessor. I do not judge the quality of tournament finishes based on whether or not the final games represent my ideal of an interesting, engaging viewing experience. I just care about the top tables showing diversity and wide viability of different options. GP Sao Paulo did that at the T8 level.
EDIT: Stirrings vs. SV tally for 2017 and 2018 as a percentage of total GP/PT T8 decks in the period -
Stirrings 2017: 19%
Stirrings 2018: 33%
SV 2017: 18%
SV 2018: 17%
The share of Stirrings decks at the GP/PT T8 level is up by 14%. The share of SV decks at that level is down by 1%. Of those blue-based decks, there is literally 1 deck in all of 2017-2018 (a single copy of Storm from 2017 GP Copenhagen) that is a blue-based combo deck that can violate the T4 rule. Everything else is Jeskai, GDS, UW Control, and random blue decks. Why does the broad swath of Colorless decks get Stirrings when blue is stuck with SV? This contradiction is glaring and increasingly inexplicable and one of those cards' legalities should change.
A swap ban with KCI for Second Sunrise could make sense.
I have yet to see information to suggest KCI causes logistical issues at tournaments. It might do that, but I just haven't seen it. Does anyone have a source to suggest it causes too many rounds to go to time and/or causes long rounds once you are in the post-game rounds?
If I'm understanding how you're calculating those numbers, there's a counterpoint that's been tangentially mentioned above. UW Control decks aren't even playing Serum Visions at the moment, not because it's not powerful, but because Opt works better for the miracled Terminus that's en vogue. Opt became Modern legal in early 2018, meaning your YoY numbers are skewed by the introduction of and cannibalization from a "weaker" cantrip that's better because of synergy. Preordain doesn't necessarily even slot into those decks if unbanned.
I'm curious how you would square your advice to Splinter Twin unban advocates with your recent comments on Preordain. Something along the lines of "it's not enough to draw a parallel with currently legal cards, argue its own merits (e.g. the original ban didn't succeed)." I don't think arguing consistency of ban logic is any more helpful here. And I say that as someone just fine with Preordain coming off.
I'm looking only at decks that are running SV currently or could replace Opt with an unbanned Preordain. So this is the broadest possible definition of Preordain-compatible decks based on current deck constructions. This does not include decks that could change their current structure to run to Preordain (e.g. KCI ditching Stirrings and green to run Preordain). It just includes decks that are running Opt/SV right now. So like you said, it's actually a larger number than the number of decks that are truly running legitimate SV copies currently. That number is under 15%. This may "skew" the numbers, but if it does, it probably inflates the number of decks that would run Preordain. And that inflated number is still almost half of those running Stirrings.
As for Twin, I 100% support people arguing the Twin ban in terms of its actual language. This is how cards are unbanned; Wizards looks at an old ban, sees if that ban accomplished its goals, and sees how the unban would affect the current Modern. See explanations for unbanning Nacatl, BB, AV, BBE, JTMS, etc. The Twin unban camp consistently fails to address one of these arguments: why would Wizards would unban Twin when the share of non-Twin blue decks is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than it was when Twin was legal? Total blue share has dropped, we know. But total share of decks not playing Twin, however, is more than double what it was at the GP/PT level. I am not saying this increase was CAUSED by the Twin ban. I have never said this. I am simply stating that this diversity is the current state of Modern.
Why would Wizards jeopardize that with a card that is likely going to benefit from most of the new technology printed/unbanned for other blue decks? Why is the super conservative Wizards going to risk their diverse format with a card that, when last legal, saw non-Twin blue shares under 10% of the format and that they cited as a diversity violator? There is a small, vocal, persistent group of users who want this card unbanned and I am not trying to convince them. I don't think that group will be convinced by any argument I can make and maybe anyone can make. I am simply pointing out to anyone else who is evaluating the Twin unban debate that the unban Twin argument, as it is currently argued, has no traction given the current format and Wizards' current management style.
EDIT: If you just look strictly at decks running SV, it's 12.5% for 2018. If you include the decks not running SV that "could" run Preordain (i.e. blue-based combo and reactive decks), it's 17%. No matter how you cut it, Stirrings is 33%. That's a huge gap. One of those cards needs to be reevaluated and Wizards can figure out which one they want to focus on.
I think he forgot that Eggs with Second Sunrise didn't even use Krark-Clan Ironworks.
The tournament that was the final nail, even after Stan Cifka won the Pro Tour with it - Nathan Holliday - https://www.channelfireball.com/home/feature-article-tournament-report-gp-san-diego-1st/
As for those of you arguing for Ancient Stirrings, but stating that "you believe that Preordain should be unbanned," what are you really arguing about? No one is saying that only Ancient Stirrings should be unbanned. People are stating that Preordain is a joke while Stirrings is legal. If Wizards truly doesn't WANT to unban Preordain, then and only then, Stirrings should be considered for a banning. Hopefully, Wizards will do the right thing.
Also, sure it has limitations, but how far does it have to dig to be "okay" in your eyes? If a 1 mana tutor searched only for an enchantment 3 or less, but dug 20 cards deep, is that okay? Ancient Stirrings is a super powerful card, that does not need a ban, but is super powerful. I'd venture out to say that it hits around 99% of the time and when it doesn't hit, it digs you 5 cards deeper to the actual win. I often used to think that Affinity could use Ancient Stirrings many, many years ago, but people told me that Green was hard to come by and it slowed the deck down too much. I tended to agree with them at that point. I'm going to point this out again - there is a deck that won a Modern PTQ online called Turbo Vizier/Eternal Devote. This deck uses Ancient Stirrings to find Walking Ballista, land, or Mishra's Bauble. This is a 14 land deck. There are very few limitations on what Ancient Stirrings can do.
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)Weren't 16 copies in the top 8? 4 in Amulet, 4 in KCI, 4 in Tron and 4 in RG Eldrazi...
Modern:
In other words, to answer a Stony Silence they need to find a Nature’s Claim, and for just about any other commonly played form of hate they can find either Claim or EE, and they can dig quite efficiently to find those pieces. I am not a KCI player, so correct me where I’ve gone astray.
The ubiquity and power of Nature’s Claim in KCI, Tron, and other Stirrings decks plays into the Stirrings/Preordain discussion. If some of these decks adopted blue as their primary color over green following a hypothetical Stirrings ban and Preordain unban, their ability to answer hate cards changes for the worse. That sounds like a bad thing, reducing interaction—and maybe it is, I don’t know—but KCI in particular seems to shrug off hate way too easily for a deck that can so consistently assemble early kills. (I’m not speaking from bitter experience, by the way: three Stony Silence in my Abzan sideboard at the moment helps make the KCI matchup, among many others, quite good).
YouTube Channel, with deck techs, gameplay, analysis, spoiler reviews, and more!
This isn't really a hypothetical that anyone has talked about or expects. All the discussion has centered around one or the other, not both.
Thanks for sharing those! I had no idea those numbers were available. We definitely have enough to do a metagame breakdown, especially with MTGO PTQs and MOCS events. Dailies can be omitted. We also have at least two GP worth of conversion rate data, which is an even higher standard. Just at a cursory glance, KCI looks really, really scary good. Stirrings decks generally also look quite strong with no sign of slowing down.
Spirits
Looks like I misunderstood your methodology -- that 17% includes all decks running any combination of SVs or Opts. Your population is all SCG and GP/PTs to date, right? Assuming so, that would seem to indicate a boom in Ancient Stirrings decks within the top 8 relative to potential Preordain decks. I'm not sure it immediately follows that the gap must be narrowed though. Someone would still need to make the argument that either it's healthier to stunt the Stirrings decks despite their diversity or that potential Preordain decks should compose a higher percentage of the top 8s. Quite possible, just not ground this thread has covered.
I should probably clarify -- I don't have strong feelings about a Twin un/ban, but I followed the points made in this thread. I've always agreed with the way you kept others' arguments grounded in logic, like regarding the actual ban language instead of fruitless comparisons to Storm, etc. I think some of your comments on Ancient Stirrings vs Preordain (and many more of those from others) stray into "it must be this OR that, for consistency" when we KNOW WoTC doesn't really care that much about logical consistency as an un/ban criteria. Far too many comments are framing this as a false dilemma. By your own previous admission, WoTC's decisions on Ancient Stirrings legality has little to no direct impact on Preordain much the same way that arguments for Splinter Twin's unbanning aren't really bolstered by pointing out other turn 4 combo decks that are legal.
Framing this as either/or is a cheap hedge that ignores that, from all available evidence, WoTC's decisions on Ancient Stirrings and Preordain aren't linked. Sure, the same criteria of game consistency will be evaluated but the choice to un/ban one doesn't have a direct impact on the other (outside of causing a meta shift). A lot of words to say that we should stop the "ban Ancient Stirrings or unban Preordain nonsense" and start arguing for banning Ancient Stirrings or unbanning Preordain on their own grounds using WoTC criteria.
Oh I am being totally proactive and pre-emptive about this. But remember with eggs and I'd say SDT in legacy miracles, the problem isn't there when a deck is just being played by a handful of individuals with tons of experience. The problem is when people pick it up who don't know 100% what to do in virtually every scenario and their dexterity isn't quite up to par. Experienced pilots of these sorts of decks can be very efficient, but once it is successful (and that ship has sailed at this point on KCI), people just start picking it up to go to their weekly modern events and GPs nearby.
Plus, WOTC has made their intentions very clear on trying to enter the space of e-sports. I think that's a bad joke, but the reality is if you want a product that can draw tens of thousands of viewers per event and keep them, a deck like that is absolute garbage.
A ban on KCI is not about fairness, I fully admit. It is primarily a business decision.
This would be such a terrible decision. They let Lantern run its course, and that deck didn't even actually beat you. KCI actually kills its opponent in one turn, and the time that takes is shorter than a Lantern win takes, with more opportunity for interplay and responses, as opposed to Lantern, which by design removes half the players from effectively being in the game. Which of these two is worse for viewership? To try to call for a ban on KCI for "business reasons" is disingenuous when they have only ever acted reactively to actual tournament logistical issues. Miracles with Top was slowing down Legacy tournaments even when played by masters e.g. Joe Lossett. Eggs did not have a shortcut-able loop to win. What other deck has been killed off for logistical issues?
When broken down visually and sorted by over/under performance, the picture is fairly interesting. Not a single reactive deck had a positive conversion rate, and blue control decks are unsurprisingly at the bottom.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
RG Eldrazi and Ponza are both in the "I guess they are kind of interactive?" tier, but you have to go all the way down to #10 before you see your first thoughtseize deck.
That said, they sometimes put the Tempo version in with the Control (better) version...so maybe the numbers are tilted.
Spirits