In a great article, LSV gives some deck-building and deck selection advice that speaks to many Modern players who feel their deck isn't viable. This certainly applies to those who are struggling to get Tier 2 and Tier 3 decks working against some of the better Tier 1 options.
Don’t get too clever. We played [Garbage Tog] despite having the Counterbalance/Top/Tarmogoyf/Bob deck, and it made no sense. The idea was that Tog + counters + removal + the Trinket Mage package could answer everything, but instead it answered nothing. It was the epitome of how we used to approach deck building, where we went to great lengths to avoid playing the best deck, and it’s an embarrassing reminder of how that goes wrong. If you take anything out of this article, it’s that you should just play great cards and good decks, and not try and one-up the competition the way we used to.
For me, this quote speaks directly to reactive blue decks. People who try to get Mana Leak and Cryptic Command working in a format with all the other Tier 1 staples (Ravager and Opal, Eidolon and Guide, Valakut and Titan, Temple and Smasher, Death's Shadow and TS/IoK, etc.) are on the back foot from the beginning. I believe Corey Burkhart is an exceptional Modern player, not because he wins by playing Grixis Control/Midrange, but because he wins despite playing Grixis Control/Midrange. Due to personal preference and experience (plus other factors I'm not aware of), Corey elects to play a worse deck without the powerful cards and wins in spite of that choice.
I fully acknowledge that in large non-rotating formats like Modern you can't answer everything, which is one reason the reactive blue decks struggle. But the reactive blue decks with proactive wins (Jeskai Nahiri, Ux Delver, Copy Cat, etc.) still struggle even though they have a reactive shell built around a proactive core. This gets back to LSV's quote, which suggests (correctly, I believe) that the combination of reactive and proactive options in these decks is just not very good. It comprises weak cards in a format of powerful cards, and that hamstrings the color.
Incidentally, this quote also explains why white decks are so bad in Modern too.
You really start running into some weird problems with classification in modern (which is actually pretty neat I think). Prison using non-creature permanents to control the game makes sense and aggro-control seems more apt for say death and taxes. The goal of the former is to deny you full access to your resources before you cannot do anything and then win with anything really. The latter seeks to deny you access to your resources similarly, but the effects are on the creatures you are using to win the game. Prison is seeking to stop you completely whereas aggro-control is seeking to delay your ability to use your resources.
Hey, I'm probably wrong here. But to me land-based land hate (such as Wasteland, or Arbiter + Quarter) is a prison staple. Hatebears such as Gaddock Teeg and Meddling Mage also deny you access proactively, and are usually hard locks against certain decks. Repeatedly blinking Thought-Knot Seer and other certain ETB creatures also does that against decks with no interaction (or instant speed interaction). There's also interactions like Venser + Karakas, mana taxing creatures like Thalia, Guardian of Thraben or Lodestone Golem, and stuff like Magus of the Moon, Magus of the Moat, Silent Arbiter, et al. Like I said, these cards may not be what an actual prison deck plays, but at least we can agree that prison elements certainly go beyond the non-creature permanents realm.
I would tend to agree with these ideas, but with an observation:
-Non-land permanent effects are being turned into creatures (and rarely lands)
-instant/sorcery effects are being turned into creatures (and sometimes lands)
-In the case of Wasteland, Crucible of Worlds and Life from the Loam are prison (especially weird seeing as Loam is a sorcery; a similar argument could be made for punishing fire), but wasteland is just an instant-speed stone rain on a land.
The dude-ification of instants/sorceries/enchantments/artifacts has turned many control decks into midrange decks, and prison decks into aggro decks, at some level. It's an interesting trend.
And of course, as always, virtually no deck is a single archetype.
For me, this quote speaks directly to reactive blue decks. People who try to get Mana Leak and Cryptic Command working in a format with all the other Tier 1 staples (Ravager and Opal, Eidolon and Guide, Valakut and Titan, Temple and Smasher, Death's Shadow and TS/IoK, etc.) are on the back foot from the beginning. I believe Corey Burkhart is an exceptional Modern player, not because he wins by playing Grixis Control/Midrange, but because he wins despite playing Grixis Control/Midrange. Due to personal preference and experience (plus other factors I'm not aware of), Corey elects to play a worse deck without the powerful cards and wins in spite of that choice.
I think you might be overstating the challenges facing blue. The new metagame numbers are out and at least grixis appears to be underplayed/overperforming - and is tier 2 despite this.
As I understand the presentation of the data, "paper meta %" refers to topX placements. If that is the case, conversion rates are saying blue is underplayed:
Grixis Control Tier 2 Paper % 3.30% Converted from Day2 1.20%.
Jeskai Control Tier 2 Paper % 2.60% Converted from Day2 1.50%.
Grixis Delver Tier 2 Paper % 2.70% Converted from Day2 2.10%.
Esper Control Tier 3 Paper % 1.20% Converted from Day2 1.10%.
Faeries Tier 3 Paper % 0.90% Converted from Day2 0.00%.
An alternative explanation might be that these decks have better tier 1 matchups than they do against the broader metagame.
I'm not trying to say blue is the best colour in modern, but rather that it's just not in the dire condition often described.
In a great article, LSV gives some deck-building and deck selection advice that speaks to many Modern players who feel their deck isn't viable. This certainly applies to those who are struggling to get Tier 2 and Tier 3 decks working against some of the better Tier 1 options.
Don’t get too clever. We played [Garbage Tog] despite having the Counterbalance/Top/Tarmogoyf/Bob deck, and it made no sense. The idea was that Tog + counters + removal + the Trinket Mage package could answer everything, but instead it answered nothing. It was the epitome of how we used to approach deck building, where we went to great lengths to avoid playing the best deck, and it’s an embarrassing reminder of how that goes wrong. If you take anything out of this article, it’s that you should just play great cards and good decks, and not try and one-up the competition the way we used to.
For me, this quote speaks directly to reactive blue decks. People who try to get Mana Leak and Cryptic Command working in a format with all the other Tier 1 staples (Ravager and Opal, Eidolon and Guide, Valakut and Titan, Temple and Smasher, Death's Shadow and TS/IoK, etc.) are on the back foot from the beginning. I believe Corey Burkhart is an exceptional Modern player, not because he wins by playing Grixis Control/Midrange, but because he wins despite playing Grixis Control/Midrange. Due to personal preference and experience (plus other factors I'm not aware of), Corey elects to play a worse deck without the powerful cards and wins in spite of that choice.
I fully acknowledge that in large non-rotating formats like Modern you can't answer everything, which is one reason the reactive blue decks struggle. But the reactive blue decks with proactive wins (Jeskai Nahiri, Ux Delver, Copy Cat, etc.) still struggle even though they have a reactive shell built around a proactive core. This gets back to LSV's quote, which suggests (correctly, I believe) that the combination of reactive and proactive options in these decks is just not very good. It comprises weak cards in a format of powerful cards, and that hamstrings the color.
Incidentally, this quote also explains why white decks are so bad in Modern too.
So basically RUG Scapeshift isn't a deck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern RGTron UGInfect URStorm WUBRAd Nauseam BRGrishoalbrand URGScapeshift WBGAbzan Company WUBRGAmulet Titan BRGLiving End WGBogles
In a great article, LSV gives some deck-building and deck selection advice that speaks to many Modern players who feel their deck isn't viable. This certainly applies to those who are struggling to get Tier 2 and Tier 3 decks working against some of the better Tier 1 options.
Don’t get too clever. We played [Garbage Tog] despite having the Counterbalance/Top/Tarmogoyf/Bob deck, and it made no sense. The idea was that Tog + counters + removal + the Trinket Mage package could answer everything, but instead it answered nothing. It was the epitome of how we used to approach deck building, where we went to great lengths to avoid playing the best deck, and it’s an embarrassing reminder of how that goes wrong. If you take anything out of this article, it’s that you should just play great cards and good decks, and not try and one-up the competition the way we used to.
For me, this quote speaks directly to reactive blue decks. People who try to get Mana Leak and Cryptic Command working in a format with all the other Tier 1 staples (Ravager and Opal, Eidolon and Guide, Valakut and Titan, Temple and Smasher, Death's Shadow and TS/IoK, etc.) are on the back foot from the beginning. I believe Corey Burkhart is an exceptional Modern player, not because he wins by playing Grixis Control/Midrange, but because he wins despite playing Grixis Control/Midrange. Due to personal preference and experience (plus other factors I'm not aware of), Corey elects to play a worse deck without the powerful cards and wins in spite of that choice.
I fully acknowledge that in large non-rotating formats like Modern you can't answer everything, which is one reason the reactive blue decks struggle. But the reactive blue decks with proactive wins (Jeskai Nahiri, Ux Delver, Copy Cat, etc.) still struggle even though they have a reactive shell built around a proactive core. This gets back to LSV's quote, which suggests (correctly, I believe) that the combination of reactive and proactive options in these decks is just not very good. It comprises weak cards in a format of powerful cards, and that hamstrings the color.
Incidentally, this quote also explains why white decks are so bad in Modern too.
So basically RUG Scapeshift isn't a deck.
It's been known for quite some time that Straight RG is much better, blue really doesn't give the deck much
Hey, I'm probably wrong here. But to me land-based land hate (such as Wasteland, or Arbiter + Quarter) is a prison staple. Hatebears such as Gaddock Teeg and Meddling Mage also deny you access proactively, and are usually hard locks against certain decks. Repeatedly blinking Thought-Knot Seer and other certain ETB creatures also does that against decks with no interaction (or instant speed interaction). There's also interactions like Venser + Karakas, mana taxing creatures like Thalia, Guardian of Thraben or Lodestone Golem, and stuff like Magus of the Moon, Magus of the Moat, Silent Arbiter, et al. Like I said, these cards may not be what an actual prison deck plays, but at least we can agree that prison elements certainly go beyond the non-creature permanents realm.
I would tend to agree with these ideas, but with an observation:
-Non-land permanent effects are being turned into creatures (and rarely lands)
-instant/sorcery effects are being turned into creatures (and sometimes lands)
-In the case of Wasteland, Crucible of Worlds and Life from the Loam are prison (especially weird seeing as Loam is a sorcery; a similar argument could be made for punishing fire), but wasteland is just an instant-speed stone rain on a land.
The dude-ification of instants/sorceries/enchantments/artifacts has turned many control decks into midrange decks, and prison decks into aggro decks, at some level. It's an interesting trend.
And of course, as always, virtually no deck is a single archetype.
Great post! And definitely, this "creaturification" trend is really interesting, showcasing the different ways they design value creatures. I would definitely like to make the distinction between aggro-control and aggro-prison, going by your 7 archetypes. In fact, I'll adopt this categorization from now on, thanks!
For me, this quote speaks directly to reactive blue decks. People who try to get Mana Leak and Cryptic Command working in a format with all the other Tier 1 staples (Ravager and Opal, Eidolon and Guide, Valakut and Titan, Temple and Smasher, Death's Shadow and TS/IoK, etc.) are on the back foot from the beginning. I believe Corey Burkhart is an exceptional Modern player, not because he wins by playing Grixis Control/Midrange, but because he wins despite playing Grixis Control/Midrange. Due to personal preference and experience (plus other factors I'm not aware of), Corey elects to play a worse deck without the powerful cards and wins in spite of that choice.
I think you might be overstating the challenges facing blue. The new metagame numbers are out and at least grixis appears to be underplayed/overperforming - and is tier 2 despite this.
As I understand the presentation of the data, "paper meta %" refers to topX placements. If that is the case, conversion rates are saying blue is underplayed:
Grixis Control Tier 2 Paper % 3.30% Converted from Day2 1.20%.
Jeskai Control Tier 2 Paper % 2.60% Converted from Day2 1.50%.
Grixis Delver Tier 2 Paper % 2.70% Converted from Day2 2.10%.
Esper Control Tier 3 Paper % 1.20% Converted from Day2 1.10%.
Faeries Tier 3 Paper % 0.90% Converted from Day2 0.00%.
An alternative explanation might be that these decks have better tier 1 matchups than they do against the broader metagame.
I'm not trying to say blue is the best colour in modern, but rather that it's just not in the dire condition often described.
To quote Sheridan himself: " If a deck is on the radar like Grixis (literally two appearances in a T8 in the past month) but doesn't show up elsewhere at the Day 2 or T32 level, it's not a good deck. It means those T8s were exceptions." Either the decks need more Day1 % so the Day2 % reflects more closely the Top8 % or the Day2 % is the real indicator and most Top8s are just flukes. You can see it both ways really, but I believe the answer actually lies in the win percentages, which we sadly don't have.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern:WU WU Control | WBG Abzan Company Frontier:UBR Grixis Control | BRG Jund Delirium
To quote Sheridan himself: " If a deck is on the radar like Grixis (literally two appearances in a T8 in the past month) but doesn't show up elsewhere at the Day 2 or T32 level, it's not a good deck. It means those T8s were exceptions." Either the decks need more Day1 % so the Day2 % reflects more closely the Top8 % or the Day2 % is the real indicator and most Top8s are just flukes. You can see it both ways really, but I believe the answer actually lies in the win percentages, which we sadly don't have.
Agreed, without win % we are relying on some weaker data. I'm not sure why we accept an explanation that tells you to ignore the data we do have, but that's what you've done. If conversion rates don't tell you anything, what data can we use? And even if true for grixis as at least partial explanation, why is the same positive conversion rate trend carried over to the other Uxx decks?
No, I don't see anything that would indicate that explanation as salient. "Cory Burkhart effect" is a very weak explanation imo.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
In a great article, LSV gives some deck-building and deck selection advice that speaks to many Modern players who feel their deck isn't viable. This certainly applies to those who are struggling to get Tier 2 and Tier 3 decks working against some of the better Tier 1 options.
Don’t get too clever. We played [Garbage Tog] despite having the Counterbalance/Top/Tarmogoyf/Bob deck, and it made no sense. The idea was that Tog + counters + removal + the Trinket Mage package could answer everything, but instead it answered nothing. It was the epitome of how we used to approach deck building, where we went to great lengths to avoid playing the best deck, and it’s an embarrassing reminder of how that goes wrong. If you take anything out of this article, it’s that you should just play great cards and good decks, and not try and one-up the competition the way we used to.
Hilarious, I feel like this article is a running monologue on my own thought process while I brew up TERRIBLE deck after TERRIBLE deck.
Its not relevant that I sometimes beat a Tier 1 deck with Werewolves, they still suck.
Its not relevant that I sometimes beat a Tier 1 deck with Dragons, they still suck.
My 'brainless' deck, I'm going to write a primer for it its so funny, probably (certainly) fits into this thinking as well.
I should also say someone (ashton?) posted something here, or on the nexus a long time ago, where we should justify why we are doing things.
If you are playing X cards from a Tier 1 deck, and then brew off in another direction...why are you not just playing that tier 1 deck? Something like that.
Either way, a funny and timely article for me, as a player of bad decks.
To quote Sheridan himself: " If a deck is on the radar like Grixis (literally two appearances in a T8 in the past month) but doesn't show up elsewhere at the Day 2 or T32 level, it's not a good deck. It means those T8s were exceptions." Either the decks need more Day1 % so the Day2 % reflects more closely the Top8 % or the Day2 % is the real indicator and most Top8s are just flukes. You can see it both ways really, but I believe the answer actually lies in the win percentages, which we sadly don't have.
Agreed, without win % we are relying on some weaker data. I'm not sure why we accept an explanation that tells you to ignore the data we do have, but that's what you've done. If conversion rates don't tell you anything, what data can we use? And even if true for grixis as at least partial explanation, why is the same positive conversion rate trend carried over to the other Uxx decks?
No, I don't see anything that would indicate that explanation as salient. "Cory Burkhart effect" is a very weak explanation imo.
To be clear, I actually agree with you. It just remind me of that one quote in Wraithpk's sig, and thought Sheridan would answer you with something along those lines. It feels wrong to dismiss actual Top8 results, and it's definitely wrong to ever dismiss them at the GP level given the weight they carry when it comes to diversity bans.
I just acknowledge that maybe the Top8s have outliers, because even when the GP Top8 data we have is the GP Top8 population rather than a sample, I am aware that GPs don't fully grasp the metagame evolutions, mostly because they are far between each other. I'd love monthly Modern GPs, mostly because more coverage is awesome and so is more data. Sadly, we don't have a daily source of competitive events from which to draw data for the successful decks metagame... oh wait!
Also, the "Corey Burkhart or bust" idea doesn't even hold for Grixis Control, it's mostly hyperbole sadly.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern:WU WU Control | WBG Abzan Company Frontier:UBR Grixis Control | BRG Jund Delirium
For me, this quote speaks directly to reactive blue decks. People who try to get Mana Leak and Cryptic Command working in a format with all the other Tier 1 staples (Ravager and Opal, Eidolon and Guide, Valakut and Titan, Temple and Smasher, Death's Shadow and TS/IoK, etc.) are on the back foot from the beginning. I believe Corey Burkhart is an exceptional Modern player, not because he wins by playing Grixis Control/Midrange, but because he wins despite playing Grixis Control/Midrange. Due to personal preference and experience (plus other factors I'm not aware of), Corey elects to play a worse deck without the powerful cards and wins in spite of that choice.
I think you might be overstating the challenges facing blue. The new metagame numbers are out and at least grixis appears to be underplayed/overperforming - and is tier 2 despite this.
As I understand the presentation of the data, "paper meta %" refers to topX placements. If that is the case, conversion rates are saying blue is underplayed:
Grixis Control Tier 2 Paper % 3.30% Converted from Day2 1.20%.
Jeskai Control Tier 2 Paper % 2.60% Converted from Day2 1.50%.
Grixis Delver Tier 2 Paper % 2.70% Converted from Day2 2.10%.
Esper Control Tier 3 Paper % 1.20% Converted from Day2 1.10%.
Faeries Tier 3 Paper % 0.90% Converted from Day2 0.00%.
An alternative explanation might be that these decks have better tier 1 matchups than they do against the broader metagame.
I'm not trying to say blue is the best colour in modern, but rather that it's just not in the dire condition often described.
It's tough to know without the actual MWP and matchup data. We only have Day 2 data for the two SCG Opens, so the sample is kind of small. Based on that, we see Grixis Delver only had 3 Day 2 appearances and Grixis Control had 2 appearances. But then an impressive 50% of the Grixis Control and 33% of the Grixis Delver pilots made it to T8. The only decks that performed better on that metric were GW Company and Ad Nauseam at 100% and 75% respectively. Next up were Bant Eldrazi (27%), DSJ (17.4%), and Burn (14.3%).
If we look at their T8 appearances relative to their Day 2 appearances, Grixis Control overperformed by 4.9% points and Grixis Delver overperformed by 4.3% points. The only decks that had higher overperformance rates in the T8 relative to the Day 2 were Bant Eldrazi (+11.5% points) and DSJ/Ad Nauseam (both +9.9% points). Burn was just below the Grixis decks at +3.3% points.
Unfortunately, this is complicated by the lack of Day 2s at the two GP, where we had 0 Grixis decks in the T8 and an unknown number on Day 2. We do know that Grixis Control had at least two pilots on Day 2 at Vancouver, both of which missed T16, so we can chalk that Day 2 to T8 conversion to a 0%. GP Brisbane had 0 in the Top 32, so we have no idea what the performance was. I suspect it was bad though relative to its Day 2 showing. Taken as a whole, these GP stats suggest to me that Grixis' true performance is actually lower than its SCG Open numbers, but not quite as bad as the GP numbers alone suggest. It's somewhere in the middle.
As for the other blue decks, they underperformed on all those metrics at all those events, so I'm leaving them out of the conversation for now.
Based on everything, I'd say Grixis is as viable as some of the better Tier 2 decks like Merfolk and Ad Nauseam, but not as viable as the Tier 1 decks. All the other reactive blue decks are Bad with a capital B. This is a pretty steep decline from 2015 Modern, and I doubt Wizards intended it.
Jeskai's 3rd place in an SCG classic doesn't get it out of the Bad with a capital B category?
I think we have different views on what constitutes a great deck, a good deck, and a bad deck. At least part of our disconnect is based on what achievements are required to no longer be "Bad". I'm sure there are lots of tier 2-3 decks that would qualify as "Bad" under your evaluation, which seems wrong on the face of it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
Jeskai's 3rd place in an SCG classic doesn't get it out of the Bad with a capital B category?
I think we have different views on what constitutes a great deck, a good deck, and a bad deck. At least part of our disconnect is based on what achievements are required to no longer be "Bad". I'm sure there are lots of tier 2-3 decks that would qualify as "Bad" under your evaluation, which seems wrong on the face of it.
Semantics are a big part of the problem for discussing these things, there are many on this forum that would categorize everything you can play in modern except for DSJ and maybe Eldrazitron as bad decks. I find it to be overly reductive and frustrating but there is legitimacy if you see everything other than the deck with the very best chance to win the tournament as being bad
Jeskai's 3rd place in an SCG classic doesn't get it out of the Bad with a capital B category?
I think we have different views on what constitutes a great deck, a good deck, and a bad deck. At least part of our disconnect is based on what achievements are required to no longer be "Bad". I'm sure there are lots of tier 2-3 decks that would qualify as "Bad" under your evaluation, which seems wrong on the face of it.
Classics aren't very impressive to me, and also have no Day 2 data. On top of that, Jeskai was awful at both the GP and Open level, so one Classic performance doesn't change that narrative.
The issue isn't with Tier 2 decks being bad or worse than Tier 1 options. That's inevitable and okay in any format, let alone Modern. The issue is that Wizards banned Twin (in part) to free up "supplant[ed]" decks doing similar things, and those decks did not pick up any of Twin's share and have a virtually identical performance to their performance before the ban. The issue gets worse when Wizards unbanned two cards to help controlling decks and those cards made very little impact (one sees some play, the other sees zero). The current state of blue seems to be at odds with the goals of those two banlist changes.
Now, let's say Wizards had been a little clearer with its Twin intentions. If they had said "our goal with this ban is to reduce the number of top-tier blue decks seeing play; right now, they make up 20% of the format and we want that number closer to 10%-15%" (or something to that effect), then we'd have a different discussion. In that case, the ban would have actually been a success and we'd be stuck arguing about if that was a good or bad goal in the first place. But as it stands, we don't really know the goal in the first place. All we know is that it was to remove Twin and, in all likelihood, to shake up the Pro Tour. Wizards mentions enough other motivations in that update for us to assume this wasn't the only goal, which leaves us in a scenario where we believe some goals were accomplished (PT shakeup, Twin dead) and others weren't (supplanted decks more viable).
Based on what we do know, I'd say the Twin ban had three goals:
1. Remove Twin from the format
2. Improve decks supplanted by Twin ("They can also reduce diversity by supplanting similar decks.")
3. Improve decks that had bad Twin matchups ("Decks that are this strong can hurt diversity by pushing the decks that it defeats out of competition.")
(4. Shakeup the PT (not explicitly stated but evidence strongly points to this being one of a few motives))
In those regards, #1 was successful but perhaps too successful; Exarch would have been a better ban. There's no way Wizards wanted to utterly kill Twin but were cool with not utterly killing Eldrazi. This was almost definitely a miscalculation on their end. #2 was probably successful, but many (not all) would argue that this has made a less interactive and enjoyable format. #3 was not successful at all. #4 was also successful in shaking up the PT, but now the PT is no longer a factor so it needs to be revisited.
I'm hoping AF's coming announcement clarifies this issue. Right now, the Twin ban reads to many as both distasteful (some people hated it, others loved it) and ineffective (other blue decks never improved or got more viable). If the Twin ban was just distasteful but ultimately effective (i.e. Wizards wanted to reduce blue's total share, not just blow up Twin), that would give us clearer direction about how to interpret the issue.
I guess if you're just looking at it through the prism of comparing the decks to Twin, I suppose all other decks would appear to be Bad with a capital B. This, in my mind, is similar to players who want Pod back because of how "bad" coco decks are.
I'm on board with a twin unban, but it is not the most safe card on the list and therefore should be relegated to discussion after other cards such as Preordain and SFM. Once those cards are back, I don't see a reason to keep cards like jace, bloodbraid and twin banned. The format would certainly be more fun and interactive with all those cards back.
But then I thought they would release preordain and/or sfm on the jan announcement, so I'm not sure WotC is really keen on any unbans at all. If that's the case, all the complaints of how much worse non-twin decks are than twin (in fact, twin was banned for being too good) isn't really serving a purpose.
I guess if you're just looking at it through the prism of comparing the decks to Twin, I suppose all other decks would appear to be Bad with a capital B. This, in my mind, is similar to players who want Pod back because of how "bad" coco decks are.
The difference is that Wizards didn't make any specific suggestions or promise about the post-Pod decks. There was no "supplanting similar decks" comment in that announcement. It was much more general: "Over time, this creates a growing gap between the strength of the Pod deck and other creature decks." Non-Pod creature decks definitely increased after Pod's banning, which means this goal was successful. So although I might sympathize with ex-Pod players who want Company to be Tier 1, that's just their personal preference. It's not a Wizards goal; Wizards wanted non-Pod creature decks to succeed after Pod's banning, and they did. By contrast, Wizards seemed to specifically believe that supplanted blue decks would come back to pick up some Twin share. That promise was not fulfilled, which is at least one problem and shortcoming of the ban.
But then I thought they would release preordain and/or sfm on the jan announcement, so I'm not sure WotC is really keen on any unbans at all. If that's the case, all the complaints of how much worse non-twin decks are than twin (in fact, twin was banned for being too good) isn't really serving a purpose.
I expected the unban would follow in April or July. Last year, we had two big bans in January, and then two great unbans (and a necessary ban) in April. This year, we had another pair of big bans in January, so I expect Wizards will consider unbans in this coming announcement, depending on their assessment of metagame health.
The most important aspect in my opnion from the April/July announcement is what road will they take. They can take the Twin road and leave all other blue cards with a grave in the banlist, or they can unban Preordain/DTT/SFM,etc and make sure Twin will never see the light again.
I'm betting on blue tools rather than 'Combo-Control' Tier 1 inserted back in. I think it's a good time to pick up some Digs and Preordains as they are very cheap. Jace and Mystic(which would be mind-blowing to see them in Modern) are more expensive and although their prices might sky rocket, they are not as safe bets as the other ones.
If they follow last few years pattern, i fully expect a Jace/Preordain/Dig unban by July.
Based on everything, I'd say Grixis is as viable as some of the better Tier 2 decks like Merfolk and Ad Nauseam, but not as viable as the Tier 1 decks. All the other reactive blue decks are Bad with a capital B. This is a pretty steep decline from 2015 Modern, and I doubt Wizards intended it.
I really don't understand how Ad Nauseam is one of the better decks while Jeskai Control is bad. Both are Tier 2 and both are currently 2.1% decks. The "tier 2 decks are bad decks" vibe I usually feel in this thread is annoying to be honest. I can understand that Tier 1 decks are better, I agree they are, but Tier 2 decks are by definition above average (isn't Nexus tier points system based on est. deviation?), yet many simply dismiss them altogether. I mean, some will even argue Eye of Ugin Eldrazi was the only good modern deck ever (not calling names here). Can we please have a serious conversation on this subject without derailing into Twin talk? This goes far beyond blue reactive decks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern:WU WU Control | WBG Abzan Company Frontier:UBR Grixis Control | BRG Jund Delirium
Based on everything, I'd say Grixis is as viable as some of the better Tier 2 decks like Merfolk and Ad Nauseam, but not as viable as the Tier 1 decks. All the other reactive blue decks are Bad with a capital B. This is a pretty steep decline from 2015 Modern, and I doubt Wizards intended it.
I really don't understand how Ad Nauseam is one of the better decks while Jeskai Control is bad. Both are Tier 2 and both are currently 2.1% decks. The "tier 2 decks are bad decks" vibe I usually feel in this thread is annoying to be honest. I can understand that Tier 1 decks are better, I agree they are, but Tier 2 decks are by definition above average (isn't Nexus tier points system based on est. deviation?), yet many simply dismiss them altogether. I mean, some will even argue Eye of Ugin Eldrazi was the only good modern deck ever (not calling names here). Can we please have a serious conversation on this subject without derailing into Twin talk? This goes far beyond blue reactive decks.
Review the numbers in that post. Ad Nauseam had a very respectable Open performance and some great Day 2 to T8 conversions. Not a single copy of Jeskai Control, Midrange, or Copy Cat even made T32, despite collectively sending 5 people to Day 2. Again, the GP picture complicates this because we don't have the Day 2 #s, but the data we do have shows that Ad Naus and Jeskai had the same numberof T32 appearances (Ad Naus at 27th for Vancouver, Copy Cat at 28th for Brisbane). With two equal GP performances and a massive disparity in Open performances, Ad Naus emerges here as the better deck by a considerable margin.
This is a serious conversation even if you disagree with elements of it. You also don't need to engage it if you don't want to; numerous other topics were discussed over many of the past pages.
Would it be then fair to say that, in your estimation, the "Overall metagame %" isn't indicative of a deck's strength/viabiliity? Even if it wasn't the only indicator, the fact that two decks can share the exact "Overall metagame %" and have such a wide disparity in how you characterize them, it follows that "Overall metagame %" is one of the less important indicators (in your estimation).
Agree/disagree? Just a feature of the dataset?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
Would it be then fair to say that, in your estimation, the "Overall metagame %" isn't indicative of a deck's strength/viabiliity? Even if it wasn't the only indicator, the fact that two decks can share the exact "Overall metagame %" and have such a wide disparity in how you characterize them, it follows that "Overall metagame %" is one of the less important indicators (in your estimation).
Agree/disagree? Just a feature of the dataset?
I wouldn't say "Overall metagame % is one of the less important indicators." It's still important. Many decks with similar shares are similarly viable. But there are exceptions, like Ad Naus vs. Jeskai.
Without MWP numbers, the best way to determine deck strength would be as follows. First, find the deck shares for overall, paper, MTGO, Day 2, and major event T8. Then rank those shares within each category. Then, find the conversion rate between Day 2 and T8 and rank those too. Finally, calculate an average (or weighted average) of those rankings. That average ranking would be the best proxy for their overall metagame strength.
Based on what we do know, I'd say the Twin ban had three goals:
1. Remove Twin from the format
2. Improve decks supplanted by Twin ("They can also reduce diversity by supplanting similar decks.")
3. Improve decks that had bad Twin matchups ("Decks that are this strong can hurt diversity by pushing the decks that it defeats out of competition.")
(4. Shakeup the PT (not explicitly stated but evidence strongly points to this being one of a few motives))
I'm pretty sure that while 1-3 were the stated goals, #4 was the one Wizards really cared about. I strongly doubt that right now people at Wizards are lamenting the Twin ban or are displeased with the state of blue decks in Modern. It wasn't mentioned at all in the last banlist update, in which they basically said Modern was in an excellent state.
I don't think Wizards believes having a blue deck in Tier 1 is necessary. It sucks for Twin players that had their deck banned, but I think it's finally time to move on. The format is otherwise healthy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Current Modern decks BGW Junk / URB Grixis Shadow / RGB Lantern Control / WUBCBant Eldrazi
Current Legacy decks BUG Shardless BUG / UWR Predict Miracles / RUG Canadian Thresh / WRBG 4c Loam UB Reanimator
I don't think Wizards believes having a blue deck in Tier 1 is necessary. It sucks for Twin players that had their deck banned, but I think it's finally time to move on. The format is otherwise healthy.
I did move on. I've been playing Delver now longer than I ever played Twin. I just wish Wizards would grow a backbone and tell us to our faces that they don't care. That, or they should stop jerking us around over and over, feeding us BS lines and false hope. Either give us the help or be clear that we wasted our money, we should liquidate our cards, and go buy BGx staples.
At this point it feels as though wizards wants to play it safe with the modern format and avoid making the situation any worse in standard, which is why they didn't do anything for the ban lists. "If it isn't broke, don't fix it" is probably the most fitting statement there is for the current situation with the formats. Even if Splinter Twin, Preordain, and possibly Jace the mind sculptor are safe unbans, it seems foolish to unban one of the them if the format is considered to be doing well.
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!
I know there's very little talk about unbanning SDT, and even the occasional talk about banning it in Legacy, but that's a card I want to talk about for a bit.
The original justification for banning SDT was due to tournament logistics, but we have far fewer modern GP's now, and it's not a tournament format. While Modern is still popular it's mainly at smaller events where logistics aren't as big an issue and the format fights durdling well.
Would we finally get a real control deck in the format if we unbanned SDT, and probably swap banned Counterbalance? It would open up a Miracles deck into the format, albeit a Miracles deck that lacks the CB lock, Council's Judgment, or the best counterspells in the game. It seems to me like it could bring a few new decks in, and likely slow the format by a couple of turns. It would also help to fix the sideboard problem by letting players see more of their deck.
It's definitely a powerful card, but I think it could do good things potentially. What am I missing?
Top is never coming off the banned list for modern, it was part of the initial banned list because of the problem it was in standard and more so in extended. It slows down everything even worse than fetchlands, allows players to intentionally slow play without penalty in most cases, and overall is not a good card to have in any format.
http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/the-5-worst-decks-ive-ever-played/
For me, this quote speaks directly to reactive blue decks. People who try to get Mana Leak and Cryptic Command working in a format with all the other Tier 1 staples (Ravager and Opal, Eidolon and Guide, Valakut and Titan, Temple and Smasher, Death's Shadow and TS/IoK, etc.) are on the back foot from the beginning. I believe Corey Burkhart is an exceptional Modern player, not because he wins by playing Grixis Control/Midrange, but because he wins despite playing Grixis Control/Midrange. Due to personal preference and experience (plus other factors I'm not aware of), Corey elects to play a worse deck without the powerful cards and wins in spite of that choice.
I fully acknowledge that in large non-rotating formats like Modern you can't answer everything, which is one reason the reactive blue decks struggle. But the reactive blue decks with proactive wins (Jeskai Nahiri, Ux Delver, Copy Cat, etc.) still struggle even though they have a reactive shell built around a proactive core. This gets back to LSV's quote, which suggests (correctly, I believe) that the combination of reactive and proactive options in these decks is just not very good. It comprises weak cards in a format of powerful cards, and that hamstrings the color.
Incidentally, this quote also explains why white decks are so bad in Modern too.
I would tend to agree with these ideas, but with an observation:
-Non-land permanent effects are being turned into creatures (and rarely lands)
-instant/sorcery effects are being turned into creatures (and sometimes lands)
-In the case of Wasteland, Crucible of Worlds and Life from the Loam are prison (especially weird seeing as Loam is a sorcery; a similar argument could be made for punishing fire), but wasteland is just an instant-speed stone rain on a land.
To demonstrate this point, the following creatures/lands are instants and sorceries:
Snapcaster Mage, Vendilion Clique, Eternal Witness, Venser, Shaper Savant, Restoration Angel, Spell Queller, Cursecatcher, Flickerwisp, Wasteland, Inventors' Fair, Buried Ruin, etc
The following creatures/lands are non-creature permanents:
Thalia, Guardian of Thraben, Lodestone Golem, Eldrazi Displacer, Phyrexian Revoker, Magus of the Moon, Magus of the Moat, Silent Arbiter, Meddling Mage, Gaddock Teeg, Maze of Ith, Karakas, The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale, etc
The dude-ification of instants/sorceries/enchantments/artifacts has turned many control decks into midrange decks, and prison decks into aggro decks, at some level. It's an interesting trend.
And of course, as always, virtually no deck is a single archetype.
As I understand the presentation of the data, "paper meta %" refers to topX placements. If that is the case, conversion rates are saying blue is underplayed:
Grixis Control Tier 2 Paper % 3.30% Converted from Day2 1.20%.
Jeskai Control Tier 2 Paper % 2.60% Converted from Day2 1.50%.
Grixis Delver Tier 2 Paper % 2.70% Converted from Day2 2.10%.
Esper Control Tier 3 Paper % 1.20% Converted from Day2 1.10%.
Faeries Tier 3 Paper % 0.90% Converted from Day2 0.00%.
An alternative explanation might be that these decks have better tier 1 matchups than they do against the broader metagame.
I'm not trying to say blue is the best colour in modern, but rather that it's just not in the dire condition often described.
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
So basically RUG Scapeshift isn't a deck.
RGTron
UGInfect
URStorm
WUBRAd Nauseam
BRGrishoalbrand
URGScapeshift
WBGAbzan Company
WUBRGAmulet Titan
BRGLiving End
WGBogles
It's been known for quite some time that Straight RG is much better, blue really doesn't give the deck much
UWRjeskai nahiri UWR
UBRgrixis titi UBR
UBRgrixis delverUBR
UR ur kikimite UR
EDH
RUG Riku of Two Reflections RUG
UBR Marchesa, the Black Rose UBR
UBRGYidris, Maelstrom Wielder UBRG
UBRJeleva, Nephalia's ScourgeUBR
To quote Sheridan himself: " If a deck is on the radar like Grixis (literally two appearances in a T8 in the past month) but doesn't show up elsewhere at the Day 2 or T32 level, it's not a good deck. It means those T8s were exceptions." Either the decks need more Day1 % so the Day2 % reflects more closely the Top8 % or the Day2 % is the real indicator and most Top8s are just flukes. You can see it both ways really, but I believe the answer actually lies in the win percentages, which we sadly don't have.
Frontier: UBR Grixis Control | BRG Jund Delirium
No, I don't see anything that would indicate that explanation as salient. "Cory Burkhart effect" is a very weak explanation imo.
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
Hilarious, I feel like this article is a running monologue on my own thought process while I brew up TERRIBLE deck after TERRIBLE deck.
Its not relevant that I sometimes beat a Tier 1 deck with Werewolves, they still suck.
Its not relevant that I sometimes beat a Tier 1 deck with Dragons, they still suck.
My 'brainless' deck, I'm going to write a primer for it its so funny, probably (certainly) fits into this thinking as well.
I should also say someone (ashton?) posted something here, or on the nexus a long time ago, where we should justify why we are doing things.
If you are playing X cards from a Tier 1 deck, and then brew off in another direction...why are you not just playing that tier 1 deck? Something like that.
Either way, a funny and timely article for me, as a player of bad decks.
Spirits
I just acknowledge that maybe the Top8s have outliers, because even when the GP Top8 data we have is the GP Top8 population rather than a sample, I am aware that GPs don't fully grasp the metagame evolutions, mostly because they are far between each other. I'd love monthly Modern GPs, mostly because more coverage is awesome and so is more data. Sadly, we don't have a daily source of competitive events from which to draw data for the successful decks metagame... oh wait!
Also, the "Corey Burkhart or bust" idea doesn't even hold for Grixis Control, it's mostly hyperbole sadly.
Frontier: UBR Grixis Control | BRG Jund Delirium
It's tough to know without the actual MWP and matchup data. We only have Day 2 data for the two SCG Opens, so the sample is kind of small. Based on that, we see Grixis Delver only had 3 Day 2 appearances and Grixis Control had 2 appearances. But then an impressive 50% of the Grixis Control and 33% of the Grixis Delver pilots made it to T8. The only decks that performed better on that metric were GW Company and Ad Nauseam at 100% and 75% respectively. Next up were Bant Eldrazi (27%), DSJ (17.4%), and Burn (14.3%).
If we look at their T8 appearances relative to their Day 2 appearances, Grixis Control overperformed by 4.9% points and Grixis Delver overperformed by 4.3% points. The only decks that had higher overperformance rates in the T8 relative to the Day 2 were Bant Eldrazi (+11.5% points) and DSJ/Ad Nauseam (both +9.9% points). Burn was just below the Grixis decks at +3.3% points.
Unfortunately, this is complicated by the lack of Day 2s at the two GP, where we had 0 Grixis decks in the T8 and an unknown number on Day 2. We do know that Grixis Control had at least two pilots on Day 2 at Vancouver, both of which missed T16, so we can chalk that Day 2 to T8 conversion to a 0%. GP Brisbane had 0 in the Top 32, so we have no idea what the performance was. I suspect it was bad though relative to its Day 2 showing. Taken as a whole, these GP stats suggest to me that Grixis' true performance is actually lower than its SCG Open numbers, but not quite as bad as the GP numbers alone suggest. It's somewhere in the middle.
As for the other blue decks, they underperformed on all those metrics at all those events, so I'm leaving them out of the conversation for now.
Based on everything, I'd say Grixis is as viable as some of the better Tier 2 decks like Merfolk and Ad Nauseam, but not as viable as the Tier 1 decks. All the other reactive blue decks are Bad with a capital B. This is a pretty steep decline from 2015 Modern, and I doubt Wizards intended it.
I think we have different views on what constitutes a great deck, a good deck, and a bad deck. At least part of our disconnect is based on what achievements are required to no longer be "Bad". I'm sure there are lots of tier 2-3 decks that would qualify as "Bad" under your evaluation, which seems wrong on the face of it.
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
Semantics are a big part of the problem for discussing these things, there are many on this forum that would categorize everything you can play in modern except for DSJ and maybe Eldrazitron as bad decks. I find it to be overly reductive and frustrating but there is legitimacy if you see everything other than the deck with the very best chance to win the tournament as being bad
U Merfolk
UB Tezzerator
UB Mill
Classics aren't very impressive to me, and also have no Day 2 data. On top of that, Jeskai was awful at both the GP and Open level, so one Classic performance doesn't change that narrative.
The issue isn't with Tier 2 decks being bad or worse than Tier 1 options. That's inevitable and okay in any format, let alone Modern. The issue is that Wizards banned Twin (in part) to free up "supplant[ed]" decks doing similar things, and those decks did not pick up any of Twin's share and have a virtually identical performance to their performance before the ban. The issue gets worse when Wizards unbanned two cards to help controlling decks and those cards made very little impact (one sees some play, the other sees zero). The current state of blue seems to be at odds with the goals of those two banlist changes.
Now, let's say Wizards had been a little clearer with its Twin intentions. If they had said "our goal with this ban is to reduce the number of top-tier blue decks seeing play; right now, they make up 20% of the format and we want that number closer to 10%-15%" (or something to that effect), then we'd have a different discussion. In that case, the ban would have actually been a success and we'd be stuck arguing about if that was a good or bad goal in the first place. But as it stands, we don't really know the goal in the first place. All we know is that it was to remove Twin and, in all likelihood, to shake up the Pro Tour. Wizards mentions enough other motivations in that update for us to assume this wasn't the only goal, which leaves us in a scenario where we believe some goals were accomplished (PT shakeup, Twin dead) and others weren't (supplanted decks more viable).
Based on what we do know, I'd say the Twin ban had three goals:
1. Remove Twin from the format
2. Improve decks supplanted by Twin ("They can also reduce diversity by supplanting similar decks.")
3. Improve decks that had bad Twin matchups ("Decks that are this strong can hurt diversity by pushing the decks that it defeats out of competition.")
(4. Shakeup the PT (not explicitly stated but evidence strongly points to this being one of a few motives))
In those regards, #1 was successful but perhaps too successful; Exarch would have been a better ban. There's no way Wizards wanted to utterly kill Twin but were cool with not utterly killing Eldrazi. This was almost definitely a miscalculation on their end. #2 was probably successful, but many (not all) would argue that this has made a less interactive and enjoyable format. #3 was not successful at all. #4 was also successful in shaking up the PT, but now the PT is no longer a factor so it needs to be revisited.
I'm hoping AF's coming announcement clarifies this issue. Right now, the Twin ban reads to many as both distasteful (some people hated it, others loved it) and ineffective (other blue decks never improved or got more viable). If the Twin ban was just distasteful but ultimately effective (i.e. Wizards wanted to reduce blue's total share, not just blow up Twin), that would give us clearer direction about how to interpret the issue.
I'm on board with a twin unban, but it is not the most safe card on the list and therefore should be relegated to discussion after other cards such as Preordain and SFM. Once those cards are back, I don't see a reason to keep cards like jace, bloodbraid and twin banned. The format would certainly be more fun and interactive with all those cards back.
But then I thought they would release preordain and/or sfm on the jan announcement, so I'm not sure WotC is really keen on any unbans at all. If that's the case, all the complaints of how much worse non-twin decks are than twin (in fact, twin was banned for being too good) isn't really serving a purpose.
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
The difference is that Wizards didn't make any specific suggestions or promise about the post-Pod decks. There was no "supplanting similar decks" comment in that announcement. It was much more general: "Over time, this creates a growing gap between the strength of the Pod deck and other creature decks." Non-Pod creature decks definitely increased after Pod's banning, which means this goal was successful. So although I might sympathize with ex-Pod players who want Company to be Tier 1, that's just their personal preference. It's not a Wizards goal; Wizards wanted non-Pod creature decks to succeed after Pod's banning, and they did. By contrast, Wizards seemed to specifically believe that supplanted blue decks would come back to pick up some Twin share. That promise was not fulfilled, which is at least one problem and shortcoming of the ban.
I expected the unban would follow in April or July. Last year, we had two big bans in January, and then two great unbans (and a necessary ban) in April. This year, we had another pair of big bans in January, so I expect Wizards will consider unbans in this coming announcement, depending on their assessment of metagame health.
I'm betting on blue tools rather than 'Combo-Control' Tier 1 inserted back in. I think it's a good time to pick up some Digs and Preordains as they are very cheap. Jace and Mystic(which would be mind-blowing to see them in Modern) are more expensive and although their prices might sky rocket, they are not as safe bets as the other ones.
If they follow last few years pattern, i fully expect a Jace/Preordain/Dig unban by July.
Frontier: UBR Grixis Control | BRG Jund Delirium
Review the numbers in that post. Ad Nauseam had a very respectable Open performance and some great Day 2 to T8 conversions. Not a single copy of Jeskai Control, Midrange, or Copy Cat even made T32, despite collectively sending 5 people to Day 2. Again, the GP picture complicates this because we don't have the Day 2 #s, but the data we do have shows that Ad Naus and Jeskai had the same numberof T32 appearances (Ad Naus at 27th for Vancouver, Copy Cat at 28th for Brisbane). With two equal GP performances and a massive disparity in Open performances, Ad Naus emerges here as the better deck by a considerable margin.
This is a serious conversation even if you disagree with elements of it. You also don't need to engage it if you don't want to; numerous other topics were discussed over many of the past pages.
Agree/disagree? Just a feature of the dataset?
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
I wouldn't say "Overall metagame % is one of the less important indicators." It's still important. Many decks with similar shares are similarly viable. But there are exceptions, like Ad Naus vs. Jeskai.
Without MWP numbers, the best way to determine deck strength would be as follows. First, find the deck shares for overall, paper, MTGO, Day 2, and major event T8. Then rank those shares within each category. Then, find the conversion rate between Day 2 and T8 and rank those too. Finally, calculate an average (or weighted average) of those rankings. That average ranking would be the best proxy for their overall metagame strength.
I'm pretty sure that while 1-3 were the stated goals, #4 was the one Wizards really cared about. I strongly doubt that right now people at Wizards are lamenting the Twin ban or are displeased with the state of blue decks in Modern. It wasn't mentioned at all in the last banlist update, in which they basically said Modern was in an excellent state.
I don't think Wizards believes having a blue deck in Tier 1 is necessary. It sucks for Twin players that had their deck banned, but I think it's finally time to move on. The format is otherwise healthy.
BGW Junk / URB Grixis Shadow / RGB Lantern Control / WUBCBant Eldrazi
Current Legacy decks
BUG Shardless BUG / UWR Predict Miracles / RUG Canadian Thresh / WRBG 4c Loam
UB Reanimator
I did move on. I've been playing Delver now longer than I ever played Twin. I just wish Wizards would grow a backbone and tell us to our faces that they don't care. That, or they should stop jerking us around over and over, feeding us BS lines and false hope. Either give us the help or be clear that we wasted our money, we should liquidate our cards, and go buy BGx staples.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
At this point it feels as though wizards wants to play it safe with the modern format and avoid making the situation any worse in standard, which is why they didn't do anything for the ban lists. "If it isn't broke, don't fix it" is probably the most fitting statement there is for the current situation with the formats. Even if Splinter Twin, Preordain, and possibly Jace the mind sculptor are safe unbans, it seems foolish to unban one of the them if the format is considered to be doing well.
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!
The original justification for banning SDT was due to tournament logistics, but we have far fewer modern GP's now, and it's not a tournament format. While Modern is still popular it's mainly at smaller events where logistics aren't as big an issue and the format fights durdling well.
Would we finally get a real control deck in the format if we unbanned SDT, and probably swap banned Counterbalance? It would open up a Miracles deck into the format, albeit a Miracles deck that lacks the CB lock, Council's Judgment, or the best counterspells in the game. It seems to me like it could bring a few new decks in, and likely slow the format by a couple of turns. It would also help to fix the sideboard problem by letting players see more of their deck.
It's definitely a powerful card, but I think it could do good things potentially. What am I missing?