Yeah, its too bad, i tweaked my decks a lot based on results; its all worthless now. Pretty much have to use those challenges and tournament results now.
Yeah, WotC cutting the data like they have is kind of like the Emperor's new clothes ending with the Emperor realizing he's naked and blinding his entire kingdom so they can't comment on it.
Yeah, the only thing that's good for now is seeing new deck lists if we're lucky enough to have one posted.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WoTC, thank you for finally announcing the Modern format, an eternal format where everyone can participate.
I generally do not mind them limiting access to data. MTGO allows a metagame to evolve so quickly I think Wizards is right that it'd reach steady state awfully fast with publicized info. I know I'm probably in the minority on that but I'm not super concerned and I suspect there's a silent majority that doesn't really care that much.
On the flipside, I did really appreciate all the myth dispelling from Karsten's (and others') data analysis back when Wizards allowed so much matchup data out. It's sad nowadays to hear all the ridiculous hyperbole people will make about matchups and such and not have a way to refute it. But if that's the cost of a slower evolving metagame I think I'm OK with it.
I generally do not mind them limiting access to data. MTGO allows a metagame to evolve so quickly I think Wizards is right that it'd reach steady state awfully fast with publicized info. I know I'm probably in the minority on that but I'm not super concerned and I suspect there's a silent majority that doesn't really care that much.
On the flipside, I did really appreciate all the myth dispelling from Karsten's (and others') data analysis back when Wizards allowed so much matchup data out. It's sad nowadays to hear all the ridiculous hyperbole people will make about matchups and such and not have a way to refute it. But if that's the cost of a slower evolving metagame I think I'm OK with it.
How does evolution happen when access to what is currently happening is not available? Evolution happens from seeing what is and then trying to beat it or improve it. Everything else is just a stab in the dark and a hope for the best. The MTG Goldfish article provides about another 5,000 words on why it's a really bad thing for evolution and growth of meta games.
First off, reducing the ban list does not automatically make the format better. The fact that there are cards virtually everyone agrees should stay banned is proof of this. The whole "keep the list as short as possible" really isn't grounded in any empirical data. It just is a feel-good thing.
That "Feel Good thing" you speak about, it has a name; Consumer Confidence. Without that, we don't play this game much at all.
And again, if modern is tossed up to an annual rotation as they attempt to ban/unban every single questionable card, consumer confidence suffers. These cards have been out of the meta for years, time has passed. Upheavels, ban or unban, do damage, so the attitude of "unban as much as possible" really does more harm than good, solely benefiting hte people who think very specific decks are entitled to be tier one or as some people here claim "70% or better against the entire meta."
Your asinine tone is also noted, rolled up into a ball, and tossed in the trash with the rest of your opinion.
Public Mod Note
(Xaricore):
Warning issued for trolling
How does evolution happen when access to what is currently happening is not available? Evolution happens from seeing what is and then trying to beat it or improve it. Everything else is just a stab in the dark and a hope for the best. The MTG Goldfish article provides about another 5,000 words on why it's a really bad thing for evolution and growth of meta games.
Obviously evolution still happens. It's just -
1) Slower
2) It encourages people to stick with their deck longer, since metagaming is harder
3) Happens in pockets, particularly regional
4) Works more on word of mouth and sentiment, which can be a bad thing (e.g. dude posts tons of articles and streams a deck and it gets popular)
And I'm sure lots more. I'm not 100% sure it's better of course but it doesn't offend me to try it this way.
My general thinking is that at a high level it does stifle innovation but it also allows innovation to be innovative for longer?
I think, in general it makes the game more of a personal and/or team-based experience - where individuals and teams through experience derive what works for them but others have to go through the same themselves (or wait).
Again, I really don't have a super strong opinion about it I just don't think it's as an absolute a negative as people are painting it.
I don't think it really makes the meta game evolve slower rather than the change hurts people who don't have the ability to test extensively. Your pros and hardcore grinders are still going to know what the best decks and what the best builds are just form the sheer volume of games they and their testing group plays. There are also decks that everyone knows can perform in most metas like affinity or burn that players can fall back on. I guess it's not changing the speed of how the format evolves but changing who sees it change first
First off, reducing the ban list does not automatically make the format better. The fact that there are cards virtually everyone agrees should stay banned is proof of this. The whole "keep the list as short as possible" really isn't grounded in any empirical data. It just is a feel-good thing.
That "Feel Good thing" you speak about, it has a name; Consumer Confidence. Without that, we don't play this game much at all.
And again, if modern is tossed up to an annual rotation as they attempt to ban/unban every single questionable card, consumer confidence suffers. These cards have been out of the meta for years, time has passed. Upheavels, ban or unban, do damage, so the attitude of "unban as much as possible" really does more harm than good, solely benefiting hte people who think very specific decks are entitled to be tier one or as some people here claim "70% or better against the entire meta."
Your asinine tone is also noted, rolled up into a ball, and tossed in the trash with the rest of your opinion.
seriously, unbans only benefit people who feel certain decks deserve to be t1? I want a solid third of this list unbanned
Pod
BBE
SFM
Dig
GSZ
Jace
Preordain
It that shall not be named
I wouldn't even play with half of these. which decks exactly do i believe deserve a certain ranking? I believe in unbanning cards that are at a similar power level to the rest of the format, or lower. several cards on the list did not do anything unreasonable, I want them treated fairly. let's say they ban Bolt, the Urza lands, and Goyf because they are 'warping'. does wanting them to be treated fairly and unbanned because they are not broken seem entitled to you?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Project Booster Fun makes it less fun to open a booster.
I generally do not mind them limiting access to data. MTGO allows a metagame to evolve so quickly I think Wizards is right that it'd reach steady state awfully fast with publicized info. I know I'm probably in the minority on that but I'm not super concerned and I suspect there's a silent majority that doesn't really care that much.
On the flipside, I did really appreciate all the myth dispelling from Karsten's (and others') data analysis back when Wizards allowed so much matchup data out. It's sad nowadays to hear all the ridiculous hyperbole people will make about matchups and such and not have a way to refute it. But if that's the cost of a slower evolving metagame I think I'm OK with it.
How does evolution happen when access to what is currently happening is not available? Evolution happens from seeing what is and then trying to beat it or improve it. Everything else is just a stab in the dark and a hope for the best. The MTG Goldfish article provides about another 5,000 words on why it's a really bad thing for evolution and growth of meta games.
Here is my question, what was it like 8 to 10 years ago when online gaming was not as prevalent and most people had to go with their own feelings and actually tried to brew their own decks and test them at the FNM level or with friends then take them to bigger tournaments? We got the data after said tournaments via websites or magazine articles and many people back then didn't net-deck or just go with the top Worlds deck as much. There was far more variance and people had to actually brew their own decks more providing more diversity a wide open field so to speak. I could be wrong in this thinking but then again we are entitled to our own opinion.
I generally do not mind them limiting access to data. MTGO allows a metagame to evolve so quickly I think Wizards is right that it'd reach steady state awfully fast with publicized info. I know I'm probably in the minority on that but I'm not super concerned and I suspect there's a silent majority that doesn't really care that much.
On the flipside, I did really appreciate all the myth dispelling from Karsten's (and others') data analysis back when Wizards allowed so much matchup data out. It's sad nowadays to hear all the ridiculous hyperbole people will make about matchups and such and not have a way to refute it. But if that's the cost of a slower evolving metagame I think I'm OK with it.
How does evolution happen when access to what is currently happening is not available? Evolution happens from seeing what is and then trying to beat it or improve it. Everything else is just a stab in the dark and a hope for the best. The MTG Goldfish article provides about another 5,000 words on why it's a really bad thing for evolution and growth of meta games.
Here is my question, what was it like 8 to 10 years ago when online gaming was not as prevalent and most people had to go with their own feelings and actually tried to brew their own decks and test them at the FNM level or with friends then take them to bigger tournaments? We got the data after said tournaments via websites or magazine articles and many people back then didn't net-deck or just go with the top Worlds deck as much. There was far more variance and people had to actually brew their own decks more providing more diversity a wide open field so to speak. I could be wrong in this thinking but then again we are entitled to our own opinion.
I will highlight a bit of text from that Goldfish article that seems to hit this exactly:
"So, what's the solution to the problem? Ideally, Wizards would release all of the Magic Online data. We've had extremely high-data Standard formats (back during Return to Ravnica and Khans of Tarkir) before that were amazing, which seems to work against Wizards' argument that having too much data hurts Standard. While I can understand Wizards' argument that too much data solves Standard too quickly, it's hard to agree, since the other side of the coin shows that having more (and better) data actually allows the metagame to develop and evolve, which in turn keeps the metagame from becoming solved. Rather than forcing players to play the best deck, in-depth matchup data actually allows players to figure out how to beat the best decks in the format."
I don't think it really makes the meta game evolve slower rather than the change hurts people who don't have the ability to test extensively. Your pros and hardcore grinders are still going to know what the best decks and what the best builds are just form the sheer volume of games they and their testing group plays. There are also decks that everyone knows can perform in most metas like affinity or burn that players can fall back on. I guess it's not changing the speed of how the format evolves but changing who sees it change first
Not really. The pro scene is still limited severely by sample size. Variance is huge in Magic, and the best deck doesn't always win. The best deck isn't even always identified and popular. Summer Bloom was a good example of that. Popularity based testing and metagaming is huge, but that's more about deck tuning than deck selection.
I briefly outlined two approaches in my previous post. Both should be independently capable of identifying the optimal deck choices in any given predicted metagame if the community were interested in either. Neither is capable of fine tuning lists though.
Whenever I read articles about how pros test decks they keep touting that the actual results don't matter since, as mentioned, the sample sizes simply are too small. It's all based on feeling.
In any case, I think the difference between 10 and 5 league results per day is completely minuscule. The only way to get a solid grasp on what the online metagame is is to play leagues yourself. Surprise surprise! Every player who is serious about brewing and "beating or improving what is" is already doing this. Now lets add on to that that the paper metagame is a different beast altogether, and these complaints truly lose their ground.
This just a sidenote and not an argument - The fact there's less data people can fall back to could be a good thing for online communities like mtgsalvation, where people engage in arguments that are mutually beneficial for all participants.
MTGO isn't some kind of a magical well that brings new decks out of nothingness. In any case someone has to have an idea about a deck and try it out. If the deck is good, people with catch on to it sooner or later.
With two BGx decks in the GP Birmingham T8 and BOTH straight BG Rock and Abzan making it into the T4, I'm not seeing a BBE unban in the future. We know that Wizards views the BGx decks as relatively intechangeable (see their language in the DRS ban), and we know they prefer diversity. Unbanning BBE to shift all the BGx players to Jund doesn't seem like something they are interested in, especially with two BGx decks in a GP T4.
As I said on an earlier page, my guess is that BGx is more viable than many people think. Maybe not Jund as a subset of BGx, but the general BGx core seems better than many give it credit.
This is also why I'm not optimistic about an SFM unban. We have stuff like D&T winning an earlier GP, we have Abzan and Bant Knightfall doing well this weekend, and we have UW Control doing well on MTGO. None of this makes me optimistic that Wizards wants to unban the white card.
What about this tournament gives the impression that control isn't viable? What do you mean by viable? I didn't get to watch much, and don't see a control deck in the top8 - is that the basis for this statement?
On related topic: does the presence of abzan in the top8 make SFM also unlikely? Seems that the logic of BBE might apply to BGx because they can splash any colour as desired.
That being said, I doubt we could ever see a top8 totally absent of decks that could splash SFM, so is that even a realistic metric to use to decide if a card could be unbanned? Or maybe that dynamic implies that it was never an option.
What about this tournament gives the impression that control isn't viable? What do you mean by viable? I didn't get to watch much, and don't see a control deck in the top8 - is that the basis for this statement?
I'm going to withhold judgment on that statement until we have T32s for all the events. Birmingham certainly didn't have a lot of control in the top tables, but I don't know about the other events.
On related topic: does the presence of abzan in the top8 make SFM also unlikely? Seems that the logic of BBE might apply to BGx because they can splash any colour as desired.
That being said, I doubt we could ever see a top8 totally absent of decks that could splash SFM, so is that even a realistic metric to use to decide if a card could be unbanned? Or maybe that dynamic implies that it was never an option.
When managing Modern, Wizards has never unbanned a card that goes into a top-tier deck. The closest was BB, which was unbanned when BGx decks were top-tier; those decks could theoretically have used BB. Obviously, Wizards focused on Faeries when thinking about BB, not BGx, so it's not a great example. Otherwise, all the other unbans were aimed at empowering lower-tier strategies.
Based on that, I don't think any of our preferred unbans are likely. Preordain goes into Storm and Grixis DS. BBE helps low-tier Jund, yes, but Wizards will probably think BGx as a whole is doing fine. SFM may improve a number of decks that are already making T8s; Jeskai and UW Control, D&T, Bant, Abzan, etc. My guess is that Wizards prefers to unban nothing and let new sets make an impact.
I'm going to withhold judgment on that statement until we have T32s for all the events. Birmingham certainly didn't have a lot of control in the top tables, but I don't know about the other events.
T32 from Birmingham is pretty gross. The only thing remotely considered "control" is Faeries, which placed near the bottom of the list. I guess some people consider Lantern a "control" deck.
Death's Shadow IIIII (1 Esper 4 Grixis, mostly the same)
Titanshift IIII
CoCo IIII
Abzan Midrange III
Affinity II
Dredge II
Storm II
Eldrazi Tron II
Bant CoCo Knightfall I
Lantern Control I
Burn I
GB Midrange I
Bant Eldrazi I
Ad Nauseam I
Living End I
Kiki-Chord I
Faeries I
I'm going to withhold judgment on that statement until we have T32s for all the events. Birmingham certainly didn't have a lot of control in the top tables, but I don't know about the other events.
T32 from Birmingham is pretty gross. The only thing remotely considered "control" is Faeries, which placed near the bottom of the list. I guess some people consider Lantern a "control" deck.
Death's Shadow IIIII (1 Esper 4 Grixis, mostly the same)
Titanshift IIII
CoCo IIII
Abzan Midrange III
Affinity II
Dredge II
Storm II
Eldrazi Tron II
Bant CoCo Knightfall I
Lantern Control I
Burn I
GB Midrange I
Bant Eldrazi I
Ad Nauseam I
Living End I
Kiki-Chord I
Faeries I
Like I said in the other thread, it's hardly "gross." The only thing absent from that list is control. Otherwise, it has aggro, ramp, combo, interaction. midrange, and color diversity. Just because a tournament doesn't have control, doesn't make it bad. That's especially true if all the other diversity metrics are fulfilled, which they are in this case.
Like I said in the other thread, it's hardly "gross." The only thing absent from that list is control. Otherwise, it has aggro, ramp, combo, interaction. midrange, and color diversity. Just because a tournament doesn't have control, doesn't make it bad. That's especially true if all the other diversity metrics are fulfilled, which they are in this case.
You brought up the comment of Control. This T32 has essentially a complete lack thereof. It's indicative of a trend that has existed in Modern for years, and is not getting any better as new cards are printed to create/support fast/broken/powerful strategies and nothing meaningful to support control/reactive/tempo strategies.
Like I said in the other thread, it's hardly "gross." The only thing absent from that list is control. Otherwise, it has aggro, ramp, combo, interaction. midrange, and color diversity. Just because a tournament doesn't have control, doesn't make it bad. That's especially true if all the other diversity metrics are fulfilled, which they are in this case.
You brought up the comment of Control. This T32 has essentially a complete lack thereof. It's indicative of a trend that has existed in Modern for years, and is not getting any better as new cards are printed to create/support fast/broken/powerful strategies and nothing meaningful to support control/reactive/tempo strategies.
I'd like to see all three events before making these kinds of proclamations. I also don't know what the solution is. Wizards certainly isn't banning anything in this metagame and none of the unbans help control without helping non-control decks, or help control without reducing overall diversity. If control really does continue to struggle, I expect the only solution Wizards will care about is new cards and reprints.
For goodness sake, we can't even have Opt because they think Anticipate is the highest echelon of instant speed draw? Green gets Collected Company, which puts two things into play for free, but we can't have Fact or Fiction, which can put as few as 1 card only into our hand?
"The waiting game" continues, nearly two years on.
For goodness sake, we can't even have Opt because they think Anticipate is the highest echelon of instant speed draw? Green gets Collected Company, which puts two things into play for free, but we can't have Fact or Fiction, which can put as few as 1 card only into our hand?
"The waiting game" continues, nearly two years on.
I'll address the portion that is underlined first and foremost, as you seem to be downplaying a few key differences between Fact or Fiction and Collected Company.
1) CoCo can fizzle: believe it or not, I've personally been a victim of those top six cards not having any creatures despite running 30 creatures in a 60 card list.
2) CoCo can sometimes grab bad things: the same could be said about FoF, but in both cases mana flood is an issue.
3) FoF will more often than not grab two good cards or three mediocre cards: the opponent divides and you choose, which means it's on you if you choose the pile of one to the pile of four in your suggested scenario.
Anyhow, efficient card selection/quality is a dangerous tool, not for control, but for tempo and combo strategies. Efficient card advantage might be a better avenue, but they'd have to emphasize aspects of playing that control wants to capitalize on, such as stabilization and threat neutralization.
For goodness sake, we can't even have Opt because they think Anticipate is the highest echelon of instant speed draw? Green gets Collected Company, which puts two things into play for free, but we can't have Fact or Fiction, which can put as few as 1 card only into our hand?
"The waiting game" continues, nearly two years on.
I'll address the portion that is underlined first and foremost, as you seem to be downplaying a few key differences between Fact or Fiction and Collected Company.
I understand that it's different and has disadvantages, but it does look pretty disgusting that the single best 4 cmc draw spell is green and cheats two creatures into play at instant speed.
Whether FoF or some other card, it's painful how bad blue blue is at what is supposed to be core of their identity: couterspells, cantrips, card draw, filtering. All of these range from barely passable to downright awful. All the while, creature decks get broken left and right with unbelievably powerful new cards nearly every set.
For goodness sake, we can't even have Opt because they think Anticipate is the highest echelon of instant speed draw? Green gets Collected Company, which puts two things into play for free, but we can't have Fact or Fiction, which can put as few as 1 card only into our hand?
"The waiting game" continues, nearly two years on.
I'll address the portion that is underlined first and foremost, as you seem to be downplaying a few key differences between Fact or Fiction and Collected Company.
1) CoCo can fizzle: believe it or not, I've personally been a victim of those top six cards not having any creatures despite running 30 creatures in a 60 card list.
2) CoCo can sometimes grab bad things: the same could be said about FoF, but in both cases mana flood is an issue.
3) FoF will more often than not grab two good cards or three mediocre cards: the opponent divides and you choose, which means it's on you if you choose the pile of one to the pile of four in your suggested scenario.
Anyhow, efficient card selection/quality is a dangerous tool, not for control, but for tempo and combo strategies. Efficient card advantage might be a better avenue, but they'd have to emphasize aspects of playing that control wants to capitalize on, such as stabilization and threat neutralization.
Honestly, FoF would be totally fine in Modern. It's just as powerful as everything else top-tier decks are doing. Sadly, FoF would probably not be fine in current Standard formats. It certainly would look risky in D&D playtesting, and that's the big barrier to getting it in Modern.
I'm going to withhold judgment on that statement until we have T32s for all the events. Birmingham certainly didn't have a lot of control in the top tables, but I don't know about the other events.
T32 from Birmingham is pretty gross. The only thing remotely considered "control" is Faeries, which placed near the bottom of the list. I guess some people consider Lantern a "control" deck.
I think pretty much any older player would probably identify Lantern as a Prison deck, which is a subset of control decks. Prison decks normally use permanents rather than stack based interaction, although they normally reduce mana/spell casting resources, but not always, and they may combo somewhere to deny you drawing a card ever or playing a spell or whatever. The thing that identifies a deck as a prison deck beyond their use of permanents to achieve a lock is that there are normally a large number of turns when you can't get back into it and you have lost the ability to influence the game regardless of your next few draws (or indeed all of them), without being dead yet. They also normally have a recursive element to them, unlike regular control decks. Loaks are normally achieved by reducing the ability to cast spells to zero, in the case of Lantern its reducing the ability to cast relevant spells. If anything these decks are more control than "control decks" as thought of by most modern/standard players.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
People with belligerent signatures are trying to compensate for something....
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yeah, the only thing that's good for now is seeing new deck lists if we're lucky enough to have one posted.
On the flipside, I did really appreciate all the myth dispelling from Karsten's (and others') data analysis back when Wizards allowed so much matchup data out. It's sad nowadays to hear all the ridiculous hyperbole people will make about matchups and such and not have a way to refute it. But if that's the cost of a slower evolving metagame I think I'm OK with it.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
How does evolution happen when access to what is currently happening is not available? Evolution happens from seeing what is and then trying to beat it or improve it. Everything else is just a stab in the dark and a hope for the best. The MTG Goldfish article provides about another 5,000 words on why it's a really bad thing for evolution and growth of meta games.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
And again, if modern is tossed up to an annual rotation as they attempt to ban/unban every single questionable card, consumer confidence suffers. These cards have been out of the meta for years, time has passed. Upheavels, ban or unban, do damage, so the attitude of "unban as much as possible" really does more harm than good, solely benefiting hte people who think very specific decks are entitled to be tier one or as some people here claim "70% or better against the entire meta."
Your asinine tone is also noted, rolled up into a ball, and tossed in the trash with the rest of your opinion.
Obviously evolution still happens. It's just -
1) Slower
2) It encourages people to stick with their deck longer, since metagaming is harder
3) Happens in pockets, particularly regional
4) Works more on word of mouth and sentiment, which can be a bad thing (e.g. dude posts tons of articles and streams a deck and it gets popular)
And I'm sure lots more. I'm not 100% sure it's better of course but it doesn't offend me to try it this way.
My general thinking is that at a high level it does stifle innovation but it also allows innovation to be innovative for longer?
I think, in general it makes the game more of a personal and/or team-based experience - where individuals and teams through experience derive what works for them but others have to go through the same themselves (or wait).
Again, I really don't have a super strong opinion about it I just don't think it's as an absolute a negative as people are painting it.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
seriously, unbans only benefit people who feel certain decks deserve to be t1? I want a solid third of this list unbanned
Pod
BBE
SFM
Dig
GSZ
Jace
Preordain
It that shall not be named
I wouldn't even play with half of these. which decks exactly do i believe deserve a certain ranking? I believe in unbanning cards that are at a similar power level to the rest of the format, or lower. several cards on the list did not do anything unreasonable, I want them treated fairly. let's say they ban Bolt, the Urza lands, and Goyf because they are 'warping'. does wanting them to be treated fairly and unbanned because they are not broken seem entitled to you?
Here is my question, what was it like 8 to 10 years ago when online gaming was not as prevalent and most people had to go with their own feelings and actually tried to brew their own decks and test them at the FNM level or with friends then take them to bigger tournaments? We got the data after said tournaments via websites or magazine articles and many people back then didn't net-deck or just go with the top Worlds deck as much. There was far more variance and people had to actually brew their own decks more providing more diversity a wide open field so to speak. I could be wrong in this thinking but then again we are entitled to our own opinion.
I will highlight a bit of text from that Goldfish article that seems to hit this exactly:
"So, what's the solution to the problem? Ideally, Wizards would release all of the Magic Online data. We've had extremely high-data Standard formats (back during Return to Ravnica and Khans of Tarkir) before that were amazing, which seems to work against Wizards' argument that having too much data hurts Standard. While I can understand Wizards' argument that too much data solves Standard too quickly, it's hard to agree, since the other side of the coin shows that having more (and better) data actually allows the metagame to develop and evolve, which in turn keeps the metagame from becoming solved. Rather than forcing players to play the best deck, in-depth matchup data actually allows players to figure out how to beat the best decks in the format."
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Not really. The pro scene is still limited severely by sample size. Variance is huge in Magic, and the best deck doesn't always win. The best deck isn't even always identified and popular. Summer Bloom was a good example of that. Popularity based testing and metagaming is huge, but that's more about deck tuning than deck selection.
I briefly outlined two approaches in my previous post. Both should be independently capable of identifying the optimal deck choices in any given predicted metagame if the community were interested in either. Neither is capable of fine tuning lists though.
In any case, I think the difference between 10 and 5 league results per day is completely minuscule. The only way to get a solid grasp on what the online metagame is is to play leagues yourself. Surprise surprise! Every player who is serious about brewing and "beating or improving what is" is already doing this. Now lets add on to that that the paper metagame is a different beast altogether, and these complaints truly lose their ground.
This just a sidenote and not an argument - The fact there's less data people can fall back to could be a good thing for online communities like mtgsalvation, where people engage in arguments that are mutually beneficial for all participants.
MTGO isn't some kind of a magical well that brings new decks out of nothingness. In any case someone has to have an idea about a deck and try it out. If the deck is good, people with catch on to it sooner or later.
Youtube Channel
As I said on an earlier page, my guess is that BGx is more viable than many people think. Maybe not Jund as a subset of BGx, but the general BGx core seems better than many give it credit.
This is also why I'm not optimistic about an SFM unban. We have stuff like D&T winning an earlier GP, we have Abzan and Bant Knightfall doing well this weekend, and we have UW Control doing well on MTGO. None of this makes me optimistic that Wizards wants to unban the white card.
On related topic: does the presence of abzan in the top8 make SFM also unlikely? Seems that the logic of BBE might apply to BGx because they can splash any colour as desired.
That being said, I doubt we could ever see a top8 totally absent of decks that could splash SFM, so is that even a realistic metric to use to decide if a card could be unbanned? Or maybe that dynamic implies that it was never an option.
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
I'm going to withhold judgment on that statement until we have T32s for all the events. Birmingham certainly didn't have a lot of control in the top tables, but I don't know about the other events.
When managing Modern, Wizards has never unbanned a card that goes into a top-tier deck. The closest was BB, which was unbanned when BGx decks were top-tier; those decks could theoretically have used BB. Obviously, Wizards focused on Faeries when thinking about BB, not BGx, so it's not a great example. Otherwise, all the other unbans were aimed at empowering lower-tier strategies.
Based on that, I don't think any of our preferred unbans are likely. Preordain goes into Storm and Grixis DS. BBE helps low-tier Jund, yes, but Wizards will probably think BGx as a whole is doing fine. SFM may improve a number of decks that are already making T8s; Jeskai and UW Control, D&T, Bant, Abzan, etc. My guess is that Wizards prefers to unban nothing and let new sets make an impact.
T32 from Birmingham is pretty gross. The only thing remotely considered "control" is Faeries, which placed near the bottom of the list. I guess some people consider Lantern a "control" deck.
Death's Shadow IIIII (1 Esper 4 Grixis, mostly the same)
Titanshift IIII
CoCo IIII
Abzan Midrange III
Affinity II
Dredge II
Storm II
Eldrazi Tron II
Bant CoCo Knightfall I
Lantern Control I
Burn I
GB Midrange I
Bant Eldrazi I
Ad Nauseam I
Living End I
Kiki-Chord I
Faeries I
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Like I said in the other thread, it's hardly "gross." The only thing absent from that list is control. Otherwise, it has aggro, ramp, combo, interaction. midrange, and color diversity. Just because a tournament doesn't have control, doesn't make it bad. That's especially true if all the other diversity metrics are fulfilled, which they are in this case.
You brought up the comment of Control. This T32 has essentially a complete lack thereof. It's indicative of a trend that has existed in Modern for years, and is not getting any better as new cards are printed to create/support fast/broken/powerful strategies and nothing meaningful to support control/reactive/tempo strategies.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I'd like to see all three events before making these kinds of proclamations. I also don't know what the solution is. Wizards certainly isn't banning anything in this metagame and none of the unbans help control without helping non-control decks, or help control without reducing overall diversity. If control really does continue to struggle, I expect the only solution Wizards will care about is new cards and reprints.
Which is a shame, because they think things like Disallow, Censor, and Nimble Obstructionist are super great cards.
For goodness sake, we can't even have Opt because they think Anticipate is the highest echelon of instant speed draw? Green gets Collected Company, which puts two things into play for free, but we can't have Fact or Fiction, which can put as few as 1 card only into our hand?
"The waiting game" continues, nearly two years on.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I'll address the portion that is underlined first and foremost, as you seem to be downplaying a few key differences between Fact or Fiction and Collected Company.
1) CoCo can fizzle: believe it or not, I've personally been a victim of those top six cards not having any creatures despite running 30 creatures in a 60 card list.
2) CoCo can sometimes grab bad things: the same could be said about FoF, but in both cases mana flood is an issue.
3) FoF will more often than not grab two good cards or three mediocre cards: the opponent divides and you choose, which means it's on you if you choose the pile of one to the pile of four in your suggested scenario.
Anyhow, efficient card selection/quality is a dangerous tool, not for control, but for tempo and combo strategies. Efficient card advantage might be a better avenue, but they'd have to emphasize aspects of playing that control wants to capitalize on, such as stabilization and threat neutralization.
Avatar and Signature by XenoNinja via Heroes of the Plane Studios
I understand that it's different and has disadvantages, but it does look pretty disgusting that the single best 4 cmc draw spell is green and cheats two creatures into play at instant speed.
Whether FoF or some other card, it's painful how bad blue blue is at what is supposed to be core of their identity: couterspells, cantrips, card draw, filtering. All of these range from barely passable to downright awful. All the while, creature decks get broken left and right with unbelievably powerful new cards nearly every set.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Honestly, FoF would be totally fine in Modern. It's just as powerful as everything else top-tier decks are doing. Sadly, FoF would probably not be fine in current Standard formats. It certainly would look risky in D&D playtesting, and that's the big barrier to getting it in Modern.
I think pretty much any older player would probably identify Lantern as a Prison deck, which is a subset of control decks. Prison decks normally use permanents rather than stack based interaction, although they normally reduce mana/spell casting resources, but not always, and they may combo somewhere to deny you drawing a card ever or playing a spell or whatever. The thing that identifies a deck as a prison deck beyond their use of permanents to achieve a lock is that there are normally a large number of turns when you can't get back into it and you have lost the ability to influence the game regardless of your next few draws (or indeed all of them), without being dead yet. They also normally have a recursive element to them, unlike regular control decks. Loaks are normally achieved by reducing the ability to cast spells to zero, in the case of Lantern its reducing the ability to cast relevant spells. If anything these decks are more control than "control decks" as thought of by most modern/standard players.