I don't think we need quite Swords or Daze or Planar Void. Counterspell is certainly in line with what we need, but I think we could get a 2 drop variation on swords (perhaps giving life based on CMC rather than power if they want to mix things up), something like void would also be fine at 2 cmc, just black's version of Rest in Peace that doesn't rely on leyline opening hands, and I think there are a variety of ways more useful than daze they could deal with the sort of early plays and emergencies that is made for. Heck, counterspell itself isn't neccesarily needed, something that counters cmc 3 or 4 or less would probably do the job as well (I don't think prohibit would be sufficient though). I really hope they do things properly for Horizons and get things like that though.
I don't think KCI is the best unban choice, seems a little too eggsy, but I suspect Stoneforge and Twin would be fine if the answers in the format were set up right in Horizons, and some more turn 4 combos besides twin would be nice as well. I'm not sure terminus needs to be banned so much as that there should be options good enough that control decks don't rely on luck, or things get banned until proper 4 cmc sweepers or some of the partial 3 cmc ones become sufficient.
As implied by others, combo should be the fastest type of deck in the format, if allowed to goldfish, but slightly unreliable in that speed, with the target win turn if slightly disrupted being turn 4, with pre-turn-4 wins being extremely unlikely and generally only possible if allowed to goldfish, but still unlikely even then, aggro should be slightly slower but more reliable, winning no earlier than turn 5, with turn 4 wins possible with average draws if allowed to goldfish, and pre-turn-4 wins basically impossible even with goldfishing, or at least far less likely than combo. Control decks should never be winning before turn 6, although most of the time if they are going to win is likely determined around turn 5 outside of control vs. control mirror matches and similar such situations, based on how much they've disrupted the opponent's gameplan and built up advantages. These turn points are only valid if Modern remains a 'turn 4 format' rather than wizards deciding to allow it to be a turn 3 or turn 2 format or something.
Still it should go something like this, combo is fastest, and defeats aggro more often than it loses to aggro, because aggro isn't quite as fast and doesn't have as much disruption to stop the combo from going off. Combo loses more often to control because it is weak to disruption, despite it's speed (control currently has trouble with this side of things due to insufficiently broad answers and relatively weird combo state in the meta). Control loses to aggro because aggro is more reliable and less vulnerable to disruption thanks to more redundant cards that basically do the same thing and don't rely on specific combinations, but still faster than control can handle even when disrupted.
Currently however, a lot of the wins are pre-turn-4, and a lot of the decks are some weird hybrid of combo, tempo, and midrange that are oddly redundant and reliable for any of those archetypes, and win in ways that more closely resemble aggro-strategies, but get their power from things closer resembling combo strategies, but too reliable and fast for them to be fair as combo strategies in the current format based on the 'turn 4' rule ideal.
Buffing answers could help control gain an edge, if the answers are properly set up and deal properly with the combo elements of the existing decks, and make real aggro needed to take down those control and have the space to invade the format without being overwhelmed by faster combo.
I'm not really sure about all this though, since I'm still a little fuzzy headed due to being sick.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe KCI was banned because it violated the T4 rule or because it had too much meta share. Wasn't it closer to the Eggs ban in some ways? If so I'd remove unban KCI from your list.
I'd also remove ban Terminus from your list. I understand that printing Swords, Daze, Counterspell could make control with Terminus very strong, but I'd rather give it time to be sure instead of preemptively banning Terminus. SFM was a preemptive format ban and people are still waiting for it to come off.
2cmc is simply too high for answers, and certainly too high for removal. Remember when Goyf died to Doomblade? It took Fatal Push to actually made the difference. A 2 mana Swords just would not cut it, when you have all these creatures coming back for literally nothing. Planar Void at 2, sure I guess, but then its very much a colour shifted RIP, and do we need to really have it cost 2? Heck, at this point I would buff it.
I want answers and hate to ANSWER and HATE. Not 'oh I turned your Urza's Tower into a rainbow land that turns on your Nature's Claim lol' but honest, brutal, savage hate.
I'd go so far as to say give us Back to Basics but people already cry about things like Blood Moon.
No. I want the pendulumn to swing back hard. I want efficient meaningful, and savage answers, so that your removal doesnt die to Goyf.
Nothing bores me more or feels more tedious than playing spells on my own turn, and it's sad to me that the best "Steam Vents" decks play almost exclusively on their own turn. It's definitely nice to have powerful steam vents deck again, and I definitely play both of them, but it would be nice to actually have like a Delver/Snap/Bolt/Remand deck again; at least while Exarch and Pestermite aren't being cast.
doesnt grixis delver and grixis DS both fit this description? granted delver isnt high on the tier list but DS certainly is.
GDS needs to cast it's threats after a bunch of digging, but cfusionpm does indeed play GDS.
I actually think Back to Basics is what Blood Moon should be. I just see a striking difference in how they affect the next few turns. With Moon there is next to zero chance to get the mana you need to recover, with BtB you can at least drop single lands untapped to do something in a few turns. Moon is just a non-game, BtB gives you a chance- however slim it may be. I would also say that Counterspell could bring a permission deck forward to actually reliably hold off a T3 Moon.
And to make a point that I'm not just arguing for Blue, I would be 100% okay if it were Red.
I do agree with most of what you (idSurge) laid out, but KCI does still stick out as an issue to me. Find a less resilient deck that combos like that and I have no issue, but KCI was beating Extirpate while it was on the stack as well as permanent based hate; I don't think Planar Void would close that loop, and I'm not sure what would close that loop.
Hey guys, wrote a piece about the possible banlist candidates from Phoenix, the implications of each card and reasons Wizards might hit it, and what it would take for an Izzet ban in the first place. Read it here: http://modernnexus.com/ashes-ashes-should-wizards-address-phoenix/
In a nutshell, I agree with most posters here that the deck won't be touched until May 20, and even then not unless it continues to put up results similar to those of GP LA and Bilbao. Manamorphose seems like the most elegant hit to me (sorry Storm!).
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
It would cripple Dredge and Phoenix. Banning Manamorphose is fine if Phoenix was the only problem deck abusing Looting right now.
Let them play goblin lore.
It would cripple Dredge and Phoenix. Banning Manamorphose is fine if Phoenix was the only problem deck abusing Looting right now.
Let them play goblin lore.
It would hit Phoenix (probably down to Tier 2) Dredge (probably fine) Hollow One, Mardu.
It would then leave a void for Stirrings to rise back up.
It doesn't end. If they ban looting I swear I will be here and thus time I don't say: stop it please to ban each time all cards... This time I will say : ban stirring... Ban them all... Because it's enough to me. You want bans? Yes me too. You don't stop it? OK, don't need it more, I am too on the banwagon now, it seems the only way people realize what they create for monsters if they loose soon the decks they own too
If Looting gets banned, I guarantee Ancient Stirrings is next. Taking this out will dismantle Tron, Amulet, Scales, Whir Prison, and possibly a few other decks. It's funny how I believed that Ancient Stirrings was close to getting banned when KCI was legal. With it banned, A Stirrings seems fine in comparison to other "evils."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
Yeah, that's what I am saying. So let us free Kci and ban stirring. As it was not banned, stirring was a bigger problem then looting. Take away Phoenix in this calculation and Noone will talk too about looting. If we go this route, we need ban looting. Stirring, mox opal. Then we can unban other stuff and this stream can be happy and maybe don't cry some months
12% is big news, by the way. Izzet Phoenix’s metagame share of 12.2% in Tampa is the highest a deck reached at any Grand Prix in recent memory. I won’t judge whether or not this qualifies as oppressive, but I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that once upon a time Splinter Twin was banned for threatening the format’s diversity.
Equally astonishing is the win rate Izzet maintained even in the face of growing numbers. Usually, a rise in popularity goes hand in wing with a drop-off in performance. Early adopters typically outperform the average player. I thought we’d seen this effect in action with Grand Prix Los Angeles, but no, that was just temporary turbulence. The win rate went back to 57% and a bit for Tampa Bay. Indeed it is higher now than it ever was before, if only by 0.02%.
As you will see, other archetypes managed to do better than Izzet Phoenix at one or two events, but nothing outperformed the deck with comparable consistency. Also, nothing could match Izzet Phoenix’s massive sample size.
Should be noted that when he says 12.2% metagame share, it is based on a sample of 57.5% of that tournament’s full field.
So IF this 12.2% is accurate, or as accurate as it can be based on the sample, then we now know that UR Phoenix:
Day 1: 12.2% (possibly more)
Day 2: 19.5%
Top 32: 31.25%
Over-performed.
Hopefully people can now stop claiming that the deck is overrated and not that good.
Guys please opinions on japanese cards. Lost a 3/3 creature against Japan celestial colonade. This guy played all creatures and spells in english cards, but some cards in his manabase was japanese. I dont registrated this really ( my brain say its all fine and all english to me lets attack his empty board)...and i am sure it is a Kind of legal cheating. It is not ok, but i know legal. I Hate such people. I never forget colonade normally, but with this Tricks it can happen one time in 3 years and such people take advantage of this
If I am a customer spending premium amount of dollars, I expect a premium service. Jund falls into the category of a premium deck costing more dollars than a majority of the rest of the format. I'm not getting the desired performance ratio per dollars spent out of the Jund deck because WOTC decided to make the format more diverse.
For all the Chicken Lickens decrying Modern as a broken, dead format, there are some more measured and thoughtful responses that seem to hold a lot more water. The highlight of these responses was Corbin Hosler’s Twitter thread, posted after a weekend working at MF Tampa Bay.
All this is true, but none of it, by any reasonable metric, makes it unfairly dominant. It’s powerful, sure, and it’s putting up worryingly high numbers, but how much of that is because of unanswerable dominance, and how much of it is because people haven’t properly figured out how to beat it?
To have a deck like Phoenix rule the roost for not even a month and decide Modern is doomed is a little presumptive at best and willfully disingenuous at worst. As Hosler points out, “If you want to beat it, your answers need to be just as flexible [as Izzet Phoenix].” He even goes to point out some of the new technology that is emerging to fight off the Phoenix menace. Already, Modern’s self-correcting nature is swinging into action.
{..}
“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
We’ve all been guilty of this capital mistake at one point or another. But you are definitely guilty of this if you are calling for the ban of Arclight Phoenix due to your theories about it being unfairly dominant. The simple fact of the matter is this: you don’t have sufficient data. No one does. With the release of Modern Horizons coming ever closer, Modern is preparing for the biggest shake-up the format has ever seen.
Arclight Phoenix may end up being an embarrassingly bad card once Modern Horizons is released. Anything from a reprint of Containment Priest to some new Rule of Law-esque card may render the archetype unplayable. Alternatively, so many new archetypes and strategies may be boosted or even spawned by this new set of cards that Izzet Phoenix ends up lost in the shuffle.
The sky isn’t falling in Modern. Even if it were, and even if Izzet Phoenix was an unacceptably dominant deck, we have such a huge unknown coming down the pipeline in Modern Horizons that it’s pretty short-sighted to be eulogizing Modern in the weeks before Horizons arrives. Instead, put your energy into contesting the format as it stands because after the 14th of June, all bets are off.
Great article, and I hugely agree to this points. Great read for anyone who has been calling for ban, directly or not.
I'm a little puzzled why we are still arguing about Phoenix's performance metrics. They unequivocally show overperformance. We can pose better questions (with possible answers) following from the previous weekend:
1. Why did IP overperform so much?
1a. A combination of better players gravitating towards it and the deck just being naturally powerful and consistent.
2. Will IP continue to overperform?
2a. Probably, for the reasons listed in 1a. Those reasons have already been tested and tried. IP may take a metagame % hit as more people pivot against it, but such a hit is unlikely to be sustained or significant.
3. Can the metagame adapt to keep Phoenix lower?
3a. At the local level, probably; individual players can readily adapt to an expected field of known opponents. At the regional/GP level, it's doubtful; if you want a standout "best deck" to audible on, IP is where you want to be. At the MC, almost certainly not; pros will flock to IP because it's the kind of deck they like, they have been so busy jamming Standard/Arena they have less time to prepare, and all quantitative/qualitative signs point to IP being the top Modern contender.
4. Will a card from IP eat a ban?
4a. DRS BGx, TC Delver, and Pod were all at similar +/- 20% Day2/T8 metagame numbers when respective cards got banned from those decks. Twin was lower, but there was a PT shakeup factor at play there that won't be at play with IP; the MC is actually before the May B&R update. But the DRS/TC/Pod precedent is pretty clear. TC is a particularly telling example because the card got banned over a roughly 3-4 month period of legality and dominance. IP is putting up similar #s in a similar time-frame. If those numbers are sustained, it's unrealistic to bet against a ban.
5. What card will be banned from IP, if any?
5a. It's tough to predict. The TC precedent might suggest Looting (as a draw engine) or Phoenix itself (as the new card that broke the old shell). If MH has Careful Study, Looting seems like a possible ban target with a clear replacement. That said, this undermines Wizards' goal of minimizing ban damage. A looting ban hits a ton of Modern decks, and although some vocal players dislike those decks, it seems unlikely that Wizards will take such a sweeping approach. Manamorphose is a "cuter" ban target, but Wizards has never pulled the trigger on these indirect kinds of ban targets in the past. I've seen those kinds of suggestions made for everything from Bloom through KCI, and they never happen. Phoenix itself is a very targeted ban, and we already know Wizards is willing to ban Standard-legal cards to promote a format's health: see all the Standard bans in the past few years for evidence of this. Based on this, I'd bet on a Phoenix ban itself if a ban happened, followed by Looting as a possible alternate target.
I don't understand why you are relating this current conversation about IP to the 2015 Twin case. I don't know of many players (i.e. the "people" you talk about in this post) who wanted Twin banned in 2015 (i.e. "who thought this in 2015"). Almost everyone I heard from or talked to were shocked, mad, puzzled, or indifferent. VERY few people wanted a Twin ban. And that's because we've already largely established that the Twin ban was heavily influenced by Wizards' desire to shakeup the upcoming PT. I get that you want the card unbanned; it's been something you and idSurge have tirelessly promoted for over 3 years now. But I don't know why you are bringing it up right now when we are discussing a specific and current issue with present significance to Modern's current state.
We didn't have any visibility into Day 1 stats before. And there have been some assertions (more reddit than here)because of that unknown that UR Phoenix being an immensely popular deck may have under-performed in conversions from Day 1 to Day 2.
Now that we know almost for sure (at least for Tampa) that it over-performed at every stage, that can be put to rest.
Guys please opinions on japanese cards. Lost a 3/3 creature against Japan celestial colonade. This guy played all creatures and spells in english cards, but some cards in his manabase was japanese. I dont registrated this really ( my brain say its all fine and all english to me lets attack his empty board)...and i am sure it is a Kind of legal cheating. It is not ok, but i know legal. I Hate such people. I never forget colonade normally, but with this Tricks it can happen one time in 3 years and such people take advantage of this
If I am a customer spending premium amount of dollars, I expect a premium service. Jund falls into the category of a premium deck costing more dollars than a majority of the rest of the format. I'm not getting the desired performance ratio per dollars spent out of the Jund deck because WOTC decided to make the format more diverse.
1. Why did IP overperform so much?
1a. A combination of better players gravitating towards it and the deck just being naturally powerful and consistent.
it's more than that.
I've been scouring podcasts, articles, expert opinions and lighting up discord chats for pro players and there's one consistent message coming through loud and clear from those players:
people haven't figured out how to beat phoenix. They are packing the wrong hate-cards and mis-evaluating the deck and the matchups.
this will change in time, people will figure it out. Right now though people are try to beat Phoenix decks incorrectly.
it was pretty eloquently put on the MTG Grindcast, the GAM podcast and a few other sources recently, where they went into specifics and discussed how you feel (from the Phoenix side of the table) when someone spends one of their early turns dropping a rest in peace that they've sideboarded in against you. the answer? amazing. As the phoenix player, you have just watched your opponent timewalk themselves, switch off their own snapcasters (if they are running them) and delay any sort of proactive gameplan, while you are free to hardcast phoenixes, TiTi and drakes. and surgical extraction? it's very much in vogue at the moment, but do you know how happy a phoenix player would be to trade an in-library resource (i'm imagining Phoenix itself) for a card in your hand? very happy. And then they'd drop a TiTi or a crackling drake and proceed to out-card you for the rest of the game because you wasted valuable slots in your deck on Surgical.
don't get me wrong, these cards have an effect. They do something but they aren't windmill-slam hate-cards like people are assuming, and taking a turn away from a proactive plan, or just using up slots in your deck to use these effects isn't going to win this matchup.
and finally, the (incorrect) rhetoric that Phoenix is a 'combo deck' seems to be the root of this misunderstanding. Combo decks usually fold to these hate cards and so we as a playerbase, by buying into this description of the deck are being led astray.
you know what works? proactive strategies. Jund, The Rock, Burn - hands from these decks that 'curve out' will beat most starts from a Phoenix deck, with discard, tarmogoyf, scavenging ooze, and redundant burn spells pulling a lot of weight here. Forcing a Phoenix player to use all their mana to try and catch up rather than enact a dominant position in the game is a good way to approach the matchup.
yes; Phoenix decks are showing a high percentage of success at the moment and as you say, many of the best players in a given room on tournament day will be making the switch to that deck. But! Genuinely, for whatever reason, the wider magic playerbase has taken a twitter-esque approach of decrying the deck as some sort of unbeatable combo, without ever quite understanding what the deck is trying to do on a fundamental level. People just aren't understanding the matchup and it really shows (even just last night I heard players in the LGS crudely dismissing the deck as a broken combo without really 'getting it' or how to beat it). the "who's the beatdown" mentality needs to be invoked here - everyone needs to be seeking out the knowledgeable players on this deck and enacting some more nuanced approaches instead of engaging in a complaint-driven circlejerk where we see very little adaptation from players to meet a new successful deck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: G Tron, Vannifar, Jund, Druid/Vizier combo, Humans, Eldrazi Stompy (Serum Powder), Amulet, Grishoalbrand, Breach Titan, Turns, Eternal Command, As Foretold Living End, Elves, Cheerios, RUG Scapeshift
Many good points k0no. I'm still quite comfortable with my own approach to both playing / beating the deck, but I'm concerned that what it would take to consistently beat it, just loses you the rest of your games against the field.
I'm just not sure there is a deck that fits into the winners meta that can be that targeted strike against Phoenix.
The card from Phoenix that should be banned is Arclight Phoenix itself. Izzet decks have existed forever in Modern, and they have embraced large variety of strategies; from close to aggressive decks with many 1-drop creatures and burn spells, to more in the middle with value creatures and more disruptive spells, to control decks with Blood Moon, Cryptic Command and/or planeswalkers, to combo decks, either dedicated ones like Storm, or slower decks like Through the Breach or Splinter Twin when it was legal. All those strategies are still available, but all will feel like weaker versions of Phoenix. Why would you play Delver of Secrets when Phoenix is easier to set up and harder to deal with for your opponent? Why would you play Thing in the Ice in that convoluted Pyromancer Ascension+Noxious Revival+Manamorphose+Lightning Bolt combo deck when Phoenix is easier to play? Or why would you use Thing in the Ice in a deck with counterspells and Blood Moon in which it takes two or three turns to flip when you could replace all those reactive spells for cantrips? Not to talk about a combo deck that requires you to reach 5 mana. To me this is a clear case of a card hurting diversity in the format, and in the past we even saw Wild Nacatl getting banned under the same pretext. The alternative of banning Looting hits too many decks, and banning Looting to reprint Careful Study would be the worst possible solution.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Who is truer: you who are, or you who are to be?
Currently sleeved: WUR Copycat ft. Stoneforge Mystic
Of ' all those strategies' very few have been good. That's not a reason to ban Phoenix.
Correct. I have been saying this since January of 2016: Other decks being bad is not a reason to ban a good deck, especially if the goal is to make those bad decks better somehow. Banning the good deck still leaves all those other decks as bad as they used to be, and we have years of evidence to support this.
If a ban does happen for "competitive diversity" based on GP performances, I would not like it, but it would be absolutely completely justified by past precedent. However, making up some nonsense like that is just as bad and unjust as Twin's ban was.
If banning a card means hitting many viable decks (many of them combo or unfair decks, but also something as innocuous as Mardu Pyromancer) and banning another means making worth of consideration three or four decks that currently feel suboptimal, I think the choice is clear in which card has to be banned.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Who is truer: you who are, or you who are to be?
Currently sleeved: WUR Copycat ft. Stoneforge Mystic
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't think we need quite Swords or Daze or Planar Void. Counterspell is certainly in line with what we need, but I think we could get a 2 drop variation on swords (perhaps giving life based on CMC rather than power if they want to mix things up), something like void would also be fine at 2 cmc, just black's version of Rest in Peace that doesn't rely on leyline opening hands, and I think there are a variety of ways more useful than daze they could deal with the sort of early plays and emergencies that is made for. Heck, counterspell itself isn't neccesarily needed, something that counters cmc 3 or 4 or less would probably do the job as well (I don't think prohibit would be sufficient though). I really hope they do things properly for Horizons and get things like that though.
I don't think KCI is the best unban choice, seems a little too eggsy, but I suspect Stoneforge and Twin would be fine if the answers in the format were set up right in Horizons, and some more turn 4 combos besides twin would be nice as well. I'm not sure terminus needs to be banned so much as that there should be options good enough that control decks don't rely on luck, or things get banned until proper 4 cmc sweepers or some of the partial 3 cmc ones become sufficient.
As implied by others, combo should be the fastest type of deck in the format, if allowed to goldfish, but slightly unreliable in that speed, with the target win turn if slightly disrupted being turn 4, with pre-turn-4 wins being extremely unlikely and generally only possible if allowed to goldfish, but still unlikely even then, aggro should be slightly slower but more reliable, winning no earlier than turn 5, with turn 4 wins possible with average draws if allowed to goldfish, and pre-turn-4 wins basically impossible even with goldfishing, or at least far less likely than combo. Control decks should never be winning before turn 6, although most of the time if they are going to win is likely determined around turn 5 outside of control vs. control mirror matches and similar such situations, based on how much they've disrupted the opponent's gameplan and built up advantages. These turn points are only valid if Modern remains a 'turn 4 format' rather than wizards deciding to allow it to be a turn 3 or turn 2 format or something.
Still it should go something like this, combo is fastest, and defeats aggro more often than it loses to aggro, because aggro isn't quite as fast and doesn't have as much disruption to stop the combo from going off. Combo loses more often to control because it is weak to disruption, despite it's speed (control currently has trouble with this side of things due to insufficiently broad answers and relatively weird combo state in the meta). Control loses to aggro because aggro is more reliable and less vulnerable to disruption thanks to more redundant cards that basically do the same thing and don't rely on specific combinations, but still faster than control can handle even when disrupted.
Currently however, a lot of the wins are pre-turn-4, and a lot of the decks are some weird hybrid of combo, tempo, and midrange that are oddly redundant and reliable for any of those archetypes, and win in ways that more closely resemble aggro-strategies, but get their power from things closer resembling combo strategies, but too reliable and fast for them to be fair as combo strategies in the current format based on the 'turn 4' rule ideal.
Buffing answers could help control gain an edge, if the answers are properly set up and deal properly with the combo elements of the existing decks, and make real aggro needed to take down those control and have the space to invade the format without being overwhelmed by faster combo.
I'm not really sure about all this though, since I'm still a little fuzzy headed due to being sick.
I'd also remove ban Terminus from your list. I understand that printing Swords, Daze, Counterspell could make control with Terminus very strong, but I'd rather give it time to be sure instead of preemptively banning Terminus. SFM was a preemptive format ban and people are still waiting for it to come off.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
I want answers and hate to ANSWER and HATE. Not 'oh I turned your Urza's Tower into a rainbow land that turns on your Nature's Claim lol' but honest, brutal, savage hate.
I'd go so far as to say give us Back to Basics but people already cry about things like Blood Moon.
No. I want the pendulumn to swing back hard. I want efficient meaningful, and savage answers, so that your removal doesnt die to Goyf.
Spirits
Yeah, basically every meaningful action is done at sorcery speed. Some because you have to, and some because your instants have to synergize with your sorcery speed stuff.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
And to make a point that I'm not just arguing for Blue, I would be 100% okay if it were Red.
I do agree with most of what you (idSurge) laid out, but KCI does still stick out as an issue to me. Find a less resilient deck that combos like that and I have no issue, but KCI was beating Extirpate while it was on the stack as well as permanent based hate; I don't think Planar Void would close that loop, and I'm not sure what would close that loop.
"Reveal a Dragon"
In a nutshell, I agree with most posters here that the deck won't be touched until May 20, and even then not unless it continues to put up results similar to those of GP LA and Bilbao. Manamorphose seems like the most elegant hit to me (sorry Storm!).
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
Please actually...consider that course of action, and what it would do.
Spirits
Let them play goblin lore.
It would hit Phoenix (probably down to Tier 2) Dredge (probably fine) Hollow One, Mardu.
It would then leave a void for Stirrings to rise back up.
Then what gets banned next? When does it end?
Spirits
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)Should be noted that when he says 12.2% metagame share, it is based on a sample of 57.5% of that tournament’s full field.
So IF this 12.2% is accurate, or as accurate as it can be based on the sample, then we now know that UR Phoenix:
Day 1: 12.2% (possibly more)
Day 2: 19.5%
Top 32: 31.25%
Over-performed.
Hopefully people can now stop claiming that the deck is overrated and not that good.
I wish people thought this in 2015.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
1. Why did IP overperform so much?
1a. A combination of better players gravitating towards it and the deck just being naturally powerful and consistent.
2. Will IP continue to overperform?
2a. Probably, for the reasons listed in 1a. Those reasons have already been tested and tried. IP may take a metagame % hit as more people pivot against it, but such a hit is unlikely to be sustained or significant.
3. Can the metagame adapt to keep Phoenix lower?
3a. At the local level, probably; individual players can readily adapt to an expected field of known opponents. At the regional/GP level, it's doubtful; if you want a standout "best deck" to audible on, IP is where you want to be. At the MC, almost certainly not; pros will flock to IP because it's the kind of deck they like, they have been so busy jamming Standard/Arena they have less time to prepare, and all quantitative/qualitative signs point to IP being the top Modern contender.
4. Will a card from IP eat a ban?
4a. DRS BGx, TC Delver, and Pod were all at similar +/- 20% Day2/T8 metagame numbers when respective cards got banned from those decks. Twin was lower, but there was a PT shakeup factor at play there that won't be at play with IP; the MC is actually before the May B&R update. But the DRS/TC/Pod precedent is pretty clear. TC is a particularly telling example because the card got banned over a roughly 3-4 month period of legality and dominance. IP is putting up similar #s in a similar time-frame. If those numbers are sustained, it's unrealistic to bet against a ban.
5. What card will be banned from IP, if any?
5a. It's tough to predict. The TC precedent might suggest Looting (as a draw engine) or Phoenix itself (as the new card that broke the old shell). If MH has Careful Study, Looting seems like a possible ban target with a clear replacement. That said, this undermines Wizards' goal of minimizing ban damage. A looting ban hits a ton of Modern decks, and although some vocal players dislike those decks, it seems unlikely that Wizards will take such a sweeping approach. Manamorphose is a "cuter" ban target, but Wizards has never pulled the trigger on these indirect kinds of ban targets in the past. I've seen those kinds of suggestions made for everything from Bloom through KCI, and they never happen. Phoenix itself is a very targeted ban, and we already know Wizards is willing to ban Standard-legal cards to promote a format's health: see all the Standard bans in the past few years for evidence of this. Based on this, I'd bet on a Phoenix ban itself if a ban happened, followed by Looting as a possible alternate target.
I don't understand why you are relating this current conversation about IP to the 2015 Twin case. I don't know of many players (i.e. the "people" you talk about in this post) who wanted Twin banned in 2015 (i.e. "who thought this in 2015"). Almost everyone I heard from or talked to were shocked, mad, puzzled, or indifferent. VERY few people wanted a Twin ban. And that's because we've already largely established that the Twin ban was heavily influenced by Wizards' desire to shakeup the upcoming PT. I get that you want the card unbanned; it's been something you and idSurge have tirelessly promoted for over 3 years now. But I don't know why you are bringing it up right now when we are discussing a specific and current issue with present significance to Modern's current state.
Now that we know almost for sure (at least for Tampa) that it over-performed at every stage, that can be put to rest.
it's more than that.
I've been scouring podcasts, articles, expert opinions and lighting up discord chats for pro players and there's one consistent message coming through loud and clear from those players:
people haven't figured out how to beat phoenix. They are packing the wrong hate-cards and mis-evaluating the deck and the matchups.
this will change in time, people will figure it out. Right now though people are try to beat Phoenix decks incorrectly.
it was pretty eloquently put on the MTG Grindcast, the GAM podcast and a few other sources recently, where they went into specifics and discussed how you feel (from the Phoenix side of the table) when someone spends one of their early turns dropping a rest in peace that they've sideboarded in against you. the answer? amazing. As the phoenix player, you have just watched your opponent timewalk themselves, switch off their own snapcasters (if they are running them) and delay any sort of proactive gameplan, while you are free to hardcast phoenixes, TiTi and drakes. and surgical extraction? it's very much in vogue at the moment, but do you know how happy a phoenix player would be to trade an in-library resource (i'm imagining Phoenix itself) for a card in your hand? very happy. And then they'd drop a TiTi or a crackling drake and proceed to out-card you for the rest of the game because you wasted valuable slots in your deck on Surgical.
don't get me wrong, these cards have an effect. They do something but they aren't windmill-slam hate-cards like people are assuming, and taking a turn away from a proactive plan, or just using up slots in your deck to use these effects isn't going to win this matchup.
and finally, the (incorrect) rhetoric that Phoenix is a 'combo deck' seems to be the root of this misunderstanding. Combo decks usually fold to these hate cards and so we as a playerbase, by buying into this description of the deck are being led astray.
you know what works? proactive strategies. Jund, The Rock, Burn - hands from these decks that 'curve out' will beat most starts from a Phoenix deck, with discard, tarmogoyf, scavenging ooze, and redundant burn spells pulling a lot of weight here. Forcing a Phoenix player to use all their mana to try and catch up rather than enact a dominant position in the game is a good way to approach the matchup.
yes; Phoenix decks are showing a high percentage of success at the moment and as you say, many of the best players in a given room on tournament day will be making the switch to that deck. But! Genuinely, for whatever reason, the wider magic playerbase has taken a twitter-esque approach of decrying the deck as some sort of unbeatable combo, without ever quite understanding what the deck is trying to do on a fundamental level. People just aren't understanding the matchup and it really shows (even just last night I heard players in the LGS crudely dismissing the deck as a broken combo without really 'getting it' or how to beat it). the "who's the beatdown" mentality needs to be invoked here - everyone needs to be seeking out the knowledgeable players on this deck and enacting some more nuanced approaches instead of engaging in a complaint-driven circlejerk where we see very little adaptation from players to meet a new successful deck.
I'm just not sure there is a deck that fits into the winners meta that can be that targeted strike against Phoenix.
Not sure if that makes sense.
Spirits
Currently sleeved:
WUR Copycat ft. Stoneforge Mystic
Spirits
Correct. I have been saying this since January of 2016: Other decks being bad is not a reason to ban a good deck, especially if the goal is to make those bad decks better somehow. Banning the good deck still leaves all those other decks as bad as they used to be, and we have years of evidence to support this.
If a ban does happen for "competitive diversity" based on GP performances, I would not like it, but it would be absolutely completely justified by past precedent. However, making up some nonsense like that is just as bad and unjust as Twin's ban was.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Currently sleeved:
WUR Copycat ft. Stoneforge Mystic