So, I read Ross Merriam's article. I had my hopes up that it would be interesting, but apparently he blames Twitter for the increasing disdain of Tron. At first I thought it was another joke (the Nickleback comparison was kinda funny), but he seems to be serious about it. Twitter, really? The discussion about Tron and Ancient Stirrings, specifically, has been all over the place. I read opinions about it in every MtG forum I frequent, I have seen the topic brought up in various streams that I watched. I have heard it discussed in voice chats and in real life. But now I have to rethink if all of this actually happened, because it might have been a giant Twitter conspiracy that I just happened to miss out on because I, like most people I know, don't give a flying chirp about Twitter.
So, I read Ross Merriam's article. I had my hopes up that it would be interesting, but apparently he blames Twitter for the increasing disdain of Tron. At first I thought it was another joke (the Nickleback comparison was kinda funny), but he seems to be serious about it. Twitter, really? The discussion about Tron and Ancient Stirrings, specifically, has been all over the place. I read opinions about it in every MtG forum I frequent, I have seen the topic brought up in various streams that I watched. I have heard it discussed in voice chats and in real life. But now I have to rethink if all of this actually happened, because it might have been a giant Twitter conspiracy that I just happened to miss out on because I, like most people I know, don't give a flying chirp about Twitter.
I don't have Twitter. I only see posts when I go to the Wizard's GP Coverage website or through a link here on MTGS. I have heard all of the disdain for Tron. So there, that's proof, I think, that it is not just through Twitter.
I'm not completely sure though if that was his message, but then I just skimmed the article.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
Let's remember that the current Modern is "quite healthy." So whatever metagame presence we have for various decks since the last B&R update is considered to be totally fine. This includes the Stirrings decks, even if I personally see a significant contradiction between that card being legal and Preordain being banned. I still expect one of those two things to change in the next 6-8 months. But until we see sizable shifts, I'm just going to assume Wizards treats the cards differently and I'm comfortable respecting that treatment.
They do. Cantrips in green are much different from cantrips in blue, just as Lightning Bolt in red is much different from Lightning Bolt in white.
Not only do you have the color pie distinction, but Ancient Stirrings is useful specifically only with cards that play to the board, there are very few spells you can grab with it. Preordain on the other hand is useful with any type of card, it's much less a build around and doesn't encourage committing to a board presence. It's this same reason why Oath of Nissa is ok. And remember that from a color pie standpoint, cantrips do make a lot of sense in green as in design philosophies of the last 10 years they're either #1 or tied for #1 in card draw, with the caveat that said draw revolves around creatures/permanents.
Stirrings is powerful, but until you see people playing Stirrings maindeck just to hit lands with a few random colorless cards as incidental hits I don't think the ban conversation is worth having.
So, I read Ross Merriam's article. I had my hopes up that it would be interesting, but apparently he blames Twitter for the increasing disdain of Tron.
I perceive a lot of the hate from Tron comes from the large number of non-games it produces. Either it faces a fast aggro deck and loses, or it faces a slow fair deck and crushes it. It takes a lot of variance luck on either side to altar those outcomes. Plus, games are almost never interesting to actually watch, and even worse to play against if you are one of those fair decks. "Do nothing, do nothing, do nothing, vastly overwhelm anything and everything you're doing." We can call it whatever we want, but these views about Tron didn't just come from nowhere.
Stirrings is powerful, but until you see people playing Stirrings maindeck just to hit lands with a few random colorless cards as incidental hits I don't think the ban conversation is worth having.
I think the fact that Affinity is now adopting it is raising the level of concern as well.
As far as color-pie breaking, blue could get U, Sorcery, Dig 5, take non-creature card. Or if that's too good, U, Sorcery, Dig 5, take Instant, Sorcery, or Land.
What makes Stirrings so amazing is that it hits lands in addition to whatever awesome colorless spells they can find. If it just said colorless non-land card, we'd be having a vastly different conversation.
So, I read Ross Merriam's article. I had my hopes up that it would be interesting, but apparently he blames Twitter for the increasing disdain of Tron. At first I thought it was another joke (the Nickleback comparison was kinda funny), but he seems to be serious about it. Twitter, really? The discussion about Tron and Ancient Stirrings, specifically, has been all over the place. I read opinions about it in every MtG forum I frequent, I have seen the topic brought up in various streams that I watched. I have heard it discussed in voice chats and in real life. But now I have to rethink if all of this actually happened, because it might have been a giant Twitter conspiracy that I just happened to miss out on because I, like most people I know, don't give a flying chirp about Twitter.
People complain about Tron here, Reddit and in person. Almost everytime I see anyone get matched against tron at my LGS, it's met with a massive groan. Even the burn or affinity players.
Twitter just allows players to instantly complain to known WotC people (mtgaaron is a common one) 2 minutes after losing to turn 3 Tron 2 games in a row.
So, I read Ross Merriam's article. I had my hopes up that it would be interesting, but apparently he blames Twitter for the increasing disdain of Tron. At first I thought it was another joke (the Nickleback comparison was kinda funny), but he seems to be serious about it. Twitter, really? The discussion about Tron and Ancient Stirrings, specifically, has been all over the place. I read opinions about it in every MtG forum I frequent, I have seen the topic brought up in various streams that I watched. I have heard it discussed in voice chats and in real life. But now I have to rethink if all of this actually happened, because it might have been a giant Twitter conspiracy that I just happened to miss out on because I, like most people I know, don't give a flying chirp about Twitter.
im not sure how thoroughly you read the article, but his thoughts on twitter was more of a piece of social commentary. he isnt directly blaming twitter for the dislike of tron, but rather that its a medium that promotes communication without substance; where the 'shallow disdain' as he calls it is easy, low effort, and can attract views/retweets. considering mostly negative reactions push people to express their opinion this way (because who is going to tweet 'hey tron is awesome'), it creates the perception that everyone must hate tron when in reality it might just be a vocal minority.
personally i hate twitter, but that isnt really a topic for this thread/forum.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
Nah, if there's "increasing disdain for Tron" the real meaning is that the same number of Tron haters are hating it even more. When prompted about a deck they don't want to face the answer it's either Lantern or Turns here. I haven't heard a player whining about Tron but there's a number of aggro players left salty after playing against Jeskai control who would instantly cheer for Tron in that match.
Are there Affinity experts here that could tell us whether Stirrings in Affinity is the fad of the month or the real deal? On the surface Affinity is a deck all about the speed and nut multiple permanent openings so it feels out of place and by the midgame it looks like Thoughtcast becomes better. There's three juicy targets in Inkmoth, Cranial Platinig and Ravager that could merit its place, though.
I haven't seen anyone taking green affinity seriously. Looks like an almost identical list to the gp 9th place played on mtgo, and a g/w one too. Affinity has gotten easier and easier to hate out, and the removal is starting to be played main deck with lots of sideboard EE and ratchet bombs. Hardened scales with stirrings plays high quality creatures (hangarback and ballista) that are better against removal and provide better value. People are definitely sleeping on it because there's no play this 58 decklist yet. The 2 lists that placed well at the GP aren't even playing metallic mimic, which is huge once I knew it existed. It's really just the power of easy +1/+1 counters.
You won't see stirrings in any other affinity. Getting close to 4 colored spells about maxes out how many you can play without compromising your opening hands. So it's stirrings OR galvanic blast. And what are you going to take. Affinity is a bunch of *****ty low costing creatures. Master dies to push, PtE, KC. Etched champion isn't going to win the game on the spot. If anything I'd play a list like https://mtgtop8.com/event?e=19544&d=325075&f=MO .
I've played affinity since 2004. The removal is just getting better and better. I'm looking for alternatives because the win % for all the other decks is creeping up. Look at mardu tokens. Mono removal + free tokens, exactly what affinity doesn't want to see.
im not sure how thoroughly you read the article, but his thoughts on twitter was more of a piece of social commentary.[..]
I got all of that. But Twitter has been around forever and has seen its biggest jumps in new user growth around the year 2011. Yet, somehow - according to Ross Merriam - "the hate [Tron] gets now is beyond anything it got years ago". That doesn't really make sense to me. I have read negative comments on Tron since the beginning of Modern. They increased when Tron gained more inevitability and became even more streamlined. In fact, the deck is so linear that playing against it feels like a shared experience at times.
I don't a see singular event like a "Twitter Storm" driving all this. Yet, Ross Merriam closes his posting with the following statement:
"That is, until they ban Ancient Stirrings so everyone can be happy for the week and a half before Twitter directs its unrelenting anger elsewhere. Those ten days will be great."
This is not "social commentary" anymore, it sounds more like a conspiracy theory. Ross Merriam wants to make it look as if an angry mob coming from Twitter is going after Tron and will move on to the next target once it gets what it wants, so it shouldn't get what it wants. It's an attempt to demonize people who have a different opinion than Ross Merriam, an attempt to invalidate whatever they might achieve by voicing their opinions different from his. The aim of his article is not to discuss the topic openly. He's firmly on one side of the argument and wants Wizards to ignore the other side.
So, I read Ross Merriam's article. I had my hopes up that it would be interesting, but apparently he blames Twitter for the increasing disdain of Tron. At first I thought it was another joke (the Nickleback comparison was kinda funny), but he seems to be serious about it. Twitter, really? The discussion about Tron and Ancient Stirrings, specifically, has been all over the place. I read opinions about it in every MtG forum I frequent, I have seen the topic brought up in various streams that I watched. I have heard it discussed in voice chats and in real life. But now I have to rethink if all of this actually happened, because it might have been a giant Twitter conspiracy that I just happened to miss out on because I, like most people I know, don't give a flying chirp about Twitter.
im not sure how thoroughly you read the article, but his thoughts on twitter was more of a piece of social commentary. he isnt directly blaming twitter for the dislike of tron, but rather that its a medium that promotes communication without substance; where the 'shallow disdain' as he calls it is easy, low effort, and can attract views/retweets. considering mostly negative reactions push people to express their opinion this way (because who is going to tweet 'hey tron is awesome'), it creates the perception that everyone must hate tron when in reality it might just be a vocal minority.
Yeah this. And as an active MTG Twitter follower, I can definitely vouch for the fact that the Tron hate meme is pervasive on that platform.
Stirrings is powerful, but until you see people playing Stirrings maindeck just to hit lands with a few random colorless cards as incidental hits I don't think the ban conversation is worth having.
Isn't this what Amulet decks are doing? They have lands and the 4 amulets to hit most of the time (and some times EE).
I am beginning to think that Mox Opal may be the ban target if the KCI deck ever begins to become problematic. We are not yet at this point, however.
Then we can do the easy and obvious swap of Mox Opal for the 5 banned artifact lands. To me, Opal being legal while the artifact lands are banned is a bigger inconsistency than Stirrings being legal while Preordain is banned
I am beginning to think that Mox Opal may be the ban target if the KCI deck ever begins to become problematic. We are not yet at this point, however.
Then we can do the easy and obvious swap of Mox Opal for the 5 banned artifact lands. To me, Opal being legal while the artifact lands are banned is a bigger inconsistency than Stirrings being legal while Preordain is banned
You have pushed for an Opal/SSG ban for a long time though have you not?
I'm against any ban that side swipes Affinity, and I don't even play it.
Stirrings is powerful, but until you see people playing Stirrings maindeck just to hit lands with a few random colorless cards as incidental hits I don't think the ban conversation is worth having.
I don't see the issue with Affinity playing Stirrings, it could be good in that deck even if it didn't hit lands. People are just now beginning to experiment with it though.
Your second link is a more interesting discussion because what they're doing is using Stirrings to hit land drops, using green cards to do green things. That's the strategy Delver decks use to keep Delver flips consistent in Legacy, but has been something traditionally kept out of Modern.
But again, if we look at mtgtop8's list of most played cards in the format, while Stirrings is the most consistent card, always being played as a 4 of, it's only around the 25th most played card excluding lands.
I am beginning to think that Mox Opal may be the ban target if the KCI deck ever begins to become problematic. We are not yet at this point, however.
Then we can do the easy and obvious swap of Mox Opal for the 5 banned artifact lands. To me, Opal being legal while the artifact lands are banned is a bigger inconsistency than Stirrings being legal while Preordain is banned
You have pushed for an Opal/SSG ban for a long time though have you not?
I'm against any ban that side swipes Affinity, and I don't even play it.
Opal yes, SSG no.
Opal is keeping the artifact lands banned which is ridiculous.
But again, if we look at mtgtop8's list of most played cards in the format, while Stirrings is the most consistent card, always being played as a 4 of, it's only around the 25th most played card excluding lands.
There is no way to know if this number is accurate because of the way data is represented. "Most Played" numbers almost exclusively pull from MTGO Leagues (and the proportionally small numbers from paper events don't shift values by much). Essentially, if 100 copies of the same deck play 5-0 a League, only 1 gets reported. If 5 different decks 5-0 a League, all 5 of them get reported. So the numbers do not in any way represent actual meta presence whatsoever. Rogue brews are disproportionately over-represented and big popular decks are overwhelmingly underrepresented.
But again, if we look at mtgtop8's list of most played cards in the format, while Stirrings is the most consistent card, always being played as a 4 of, it's only around the 25th most played card excluding lands.
There is no way to know if this number is accurate because of the way data is represented. "Most Played" numbers almost exclusively pull from MTGO Leagues (and the proportionally small numbers from paper events don't shift values by much). Essentially, if 100 copies of the same deck play 5-0 a League, only 1 gets reported. If 5 different decks 5-0 a League, all 5 of them get reported. So the numbers do not in any way represent actual meta presence whatsoever. Rogue brews are disproportionately over-represented and big popular decks are overwhelmingly underrepresented.
From what I've seen when browsing the Legacy metagame numbers, looking at decks where a card is present in only one deck, it seems to be accurate. For example, Phantasmal Image is reported in 8.4% of decks right now, so you can make a pretty strong inference that humans is at 8.4% of the metagame.
Stirrings is no longer a niche enabler. It is a major player in a huge group of colorless strategies including Gx Tron, RG Eldrazi, Amulet Titan, Lantern, and KCI. Either this kind of card is okay in Modern, and Preordain should be unbanned to help out the lagging SV/"Preordain" decks, or this kind of card is not okay in Modern and Stirrings should join Preordain on the banlist. At this point, there is only a single "unfair" combination deck that uses Preordain at the GP/PT level and that's Storm, which had literally a single showing in 2018 at the tracked levels. Ban Stirring or unban Preordain. The contradiction no longer makes sense.
I'm on the side that thinks Preordain should come off the ban list, or better yet Ponder (though with the anti shuffle push, I think Preordain is much more likely). Not out of any sense of fairness, but because I think the format can handle it.
I'm pretty sure this is inaccurate, because cards that only go in one specific deck look to be correct numbers wise.
But again, if we look at mtgtop8's list of most played cards in the format, while Stirrings is the most consistent card, always being played as a 4 of, it's only around the 25th most played card excluding lands.
There is no way to know if this number is accurate because of the way data is represented. "Most Played" numbers almost exclusively pull from MTGO Leagues (and the proportionally small numbers from paper events don't shift values by much). Essentially, if 100 copies of the same deck play 5-0 a League, only 1 gets reported. If 5 different decks 5-0 a League, all 5 of them get reported. So the numbers do not in any way represent actual meta presence whatsoever. Rogue brews are disproportionately over-represented and big popular decks are overwhelmingly underrepresented.
I'm pretty sure this is inaccurate, because cards that only go in one specific deck look to be correct numbers wise.
"In other words, we are attempting to show an example decklist of every single distinct archetype since the previous publication."
Their goal with data distribution is to show artificial diversity through showing us every different possible deck, but not telling us how many of each deck there are. So while those aggregate numbers show us something, they have absolutely nothing to do with actual meta share percentage or number of people playing. The only meaningful conclusions that can be drawn would be something like "of all the different deck archetypes, XX% different archetypes are playing this card."
This is the second big change of MTGO data reporting, after the huge backlash of the last data change about 6 months prior to that.
Essentially, we are getting numbers which artificially inflate diversity and downplay popular decks. Which is exactly what Wizards wants. Hide information while making formats look much healthier than they may actually be. Which in turn causes confusion and chaos when planning and preparing for events, which leads to random cyclical decks spiking events, which leads Wizards to say formats are healthy. They are creating artificial "health" through withholding information about the format.
From what I've seen when browsing the Legacy metagame numbers, looking at decks where a card is present in only one deck, it seems to be accurate. For example, Phantasmal Image is reported in 8.4% of decks right now, so you can make a pretty strong inference that humans is at 8.4% of the metagame.
A possible correlation does not guarantee a causal link. It's possible that they are connected. It's also possible that it is a complete coincidence, given the way things are reported. Based on the data we have available to us, there is no way to know for sure.
Stirrings is powerful, but until you see people playing Stirrings maindeck just to hit lands with a few random colorless cards as incidental hits I don't think the ban conversation is worth having.
For what it's worth, that deck also has 4 Mishra's Bauble and 1 Conjurer's Bauble as well, but yes, Ancient Stirrings is meant to churn through that deck quickly. The deck is essentially trying to win on turn 2 or 3 in my opinion (I played it this past Friday).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
Essentially, we are getting numbers which artificially inflate diversity and downplay popular decks. Which is exactly what Wizards wants. Hide information while making formats look much healthier than they may actually be. Which in turn causes confusion and chaos when planning and preparing for events, which leads to random cyclical decks spiking events, which leads Wizards to say formats are healthy. They are creating artificial "health" through withholding information about the format.
This is only true of MTGO, and even there, only to an extent. GP-level data is open enough to know what the good decks are. Also, it's relatively easy for grinders to figure out what other grinders are succeeding with and iterate from there. Just check the trophy count and check the League standings. I've read at least a few articles where pros cite this as a method for finding decks. If one player is having repeat 5-0 performances and showing up with the same deck in multiple League dumps, and on top of the trophy tally, that's probably something worth checking out. This was a major reason H1 started seeing success. Plus we got the Challenges and PTQs on MTGO. Not saying you aren't familiar with this method; just reminding everyone that people can easily figure out best decks between GP, existing MTGO data, and other tournaments.
That's not to say those events aren't a product of poor data, and create incredibly slow-evolving formats. Essentially, Wizards is achieving exactly what they want with this silly data restriction: nobody really knows what's going on, and the muddled picture is not convincingly solid by any means. Any growth or change is extremely slow, as people react to paper events and actual results. They likely love this (even if it can lead to feelbad moments for people who prepared for the "wrong" decks, or get blown out by someone "next-leveling" the field by guessing correctly) because it means the format isn't stale and nobody "knows" what the best decks are (though TONS of people THINK they do).
Honestly I think it would be worse if we did know. I believe with SCG/GP level events it is easy enough to see what decks are good, what decks are tier 2 'good' and what is really jank.
In combination with that Tron article, its not too far to claim we have a pretty good idea of what is going on in terms of the higher end meta.
If we KNEW the win rates of some decks, it would probably make for some uncomfortable realizations and feel bad bans.
I'm not sure if this is relevant, but you can't chain Ancient Stirrings into itself or similar effects like you can normal cantrips like Preordain. This may be part of the reason why Wizards wants to reduce the number and/or quality of regular cantrips.
That's not to say those events aren't a product of poor data, and create incredibly slow-evolving formats. Essentially, Wizards is achieving exactly what they want with this silly data restriction: nobody really knows what's going on, and the muddled picture is not convincingly solid by any means. Any growth or change is extremely slow, as people react to paper events and actual results. They likely love this (even if it can lead to feelbad moments for people who prepared for the "wrong" decks, or get blown out by someone "next-leveling" the field by guessing correctly) because it means the format isn't stale and nobody "knows" what the best decks are (though TONS of people THINK they do).
...To give an example, with full access to full data, we could easily know that KCI is busted and could have people up to 15% playing the deck. I don't know if this is true, but it could be Amulet Bloom all over again.
Just my opinion, but I don't think it is Amulet Bloom all over again. The deck's quickest goldfish win is turn 3, whereas Amulet Bloom can win (Hive Mind) or put it out of reach (Prime Time chains) by turn 2. Amulet is a quicker deck, and it also folds less to different types of hate. Blood Moon, no doubt, was pretty much lights out for Amulet, but any other kind of land interaction is only a speed bump for Amulet. A KCI player has to play around Stony Silence, Rest in Peace, Kataki, Gaddock Teeg, and many other types of cards (yes, mostly White) that decks can possibly play. Not to mention that Humans has a lot of different hate on creatures, whereas Bloom didn't play in this meta.
I played Amulet Bloom for a month and a half and owned it since Matthias Hunt top 8ed a GP with it. Although I've played Eggs a bit, I only played KCI at 2 weekly Modern tournaments, with Sanctum of Ugin as a 4-of and Emrakul as a finisher.
I realize it's only 1 opinion, but it's 1 opinion that you can put with many other 1 opinions and then form an opinion about KCI.
P.S. - After selling my Affinity deck a month ago, I just bought Affinity from a guy on FB. Once I receive it (mostly bought it for Opals), I am going to play KCI. My team is convinced that it is THE deck to win this PPTQ season with and I want to know for myself. I'll get back with more info after this.
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't have Twitter. I only see posts when I go to the Wizard's GP Coverage website or through a link here on MTGS. I have heard all of the disdain for Tron. So there, that's proof, I think, that it is not just through Twitter.
I'm not completely sure though if that was his message, but then I just skimmed the article.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)They do. Cantrips in green are much different from cantrips in blue, just as Lightning Bolt in red is much different from Lightning Bolt in white.
Not only do you have the color pie distinction, but Ancient Stirrings is useful specifically only with cards that play to the board, there are very few spells you can grab with it. Preordain on the other hand is useful with any type of card, it's much less a build around and doesn't encourage committing to a board presence. It's this same reason why Oath of Nissa is ok. And remember that from a color pie standpoint, cantrips do make a lot of sense in green as in design philosophies of the last 10 years they're either #1 or tied for #1 in card draw, with the caveat that said draw revolves around creatures/permanents.
Stirrings is powerful, but until you see people playing Stirrings maindeck just to hit lands with a few random colorless cards as incidental hits I don't think the ban conversation is worth having.
I perceive a lot of the hate from Tron comes from the large number of non-games it produces. Either it faces a fast aggro deck and loses, or it faces a slow fair deck and crushes it. It takes a lot of variance luck on either side to altar those outcomes. Plus, games are almost never interesting to actually watch, and even worse to play against if you are one of those fair decks. "Do nothing, do nothing, do nothing, vastly overwhelm anything and everything you're doing." We can call it whatever we want, but these views about Tron didn't just come from nowhere.
I think the fact that Affinity is now adopting it is raising the level of concern as well.
As far as color-pie breaking, blue could get U, Sorcery, Dig 5, take non-creature card. Or if that's too good, U, Sorcery, Dig 5, take Instant, Sorcery, or Land.
What makes Stirrings so amazing is that it hits lands in addition to whatever awesome colorless spells they can find. If it just said colorless non-land card, we'd be having a vastly different conversation.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
People complain about Tron here, Reddit and in person. Almost everytime I see anyone get matched against tron at my LGS, it's met with a massive groan. Even the burn or affinity players.
Twitter just allows players to instantly complain to known WotC people (mtgaaron is a common one) 2 minutes after losing to turn 3 Tron 2 games in a row.
im not sure how thoroughly you read the article, but his thoughts on twitter was more of a piece of social commentary. he isnt directly blaming twitter for the dislike of tron, but rather that its a medium that promotes communication without substance; where the 'shallow disdain' as he calls it is easy, low effort, and can attract views/retweets. considering mostly negative reactions push people to express their opinion this way (because who is going to tweet 'hey tron is awesome'), it creates the perception that everyone must hate tron when in reality it might just be a vocal minority.
personally i hate twitter, but that isnt really a topic for this thread/forum.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Are there Affinity experts here that could tell us whether Stirrings in Affinity is the fad of the month or the real deal? On the surface Affinity is a deck all about the speed and nut multiple permanent openings so it feels out of place and by the midgame it looks like Thoughtcast becomes better. There's three juicy targets in Inkmoth, Cranial Platinig and Ravager that could merit its place, though.
You won't see stirrings in any other affinity. Getting close to 4 colored spells about maxes out how many you can play without compromising your opening hands. So it's stirrings OR galvanic blast. And what are you going to take. Affinity is a bunch of *****ty low costing creatures. Master dies to push, PtE, KC. Etched champion isn't going to win the game on the spot. If anything I'd play a list like https://mtgtop8.com/event?e=19544&d=325075&f=MO .
I've played affinity since 2004. The removal is just getting better and better. I'm looking for alternatives because the win % for all the other decks is creeping up. Look at mardu tokens. Mono removal + free tokens, exactly what affinity doesn't want to see.
I don't a see singular event like a "Twitter Storm" driving all this. Yet, Ross Merriam closes his posting with the following statement:
"That is, until they ban Ancient Stirrings so everyone can be happy for the week and a half before Twitter directs its unrelenting anger elsewhere. Those ten days will be great."
This is not "social commentary" anymore, it sounds more like a conspiracy theory. Ross Merriam wants to make it look as if an angry mob coming from Twitter is going after Tron and will move on to the next target once it gets what it wants, so it shouldn't get what it wants. It's an attempt to demonize people who have a different opinion than Ross Merriam, an attempt to invalidate whatever they might achieve by voicing their opinions different from his. The aim of his article is not to discuss the topic openly. He's firmly on one side of the argument and wants Wizards to ignore the other side.
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
Then we can do the easy and obvious swap of Mox Opal for the 5 banned artifact lands. To me, Opal being legal while the artifact lands are banned is a bigger inconsistency than Stirrings being legal while Preordain is banned
Imagine if Tron, KCI, Lantern, Amulet, and others had to rely on Serum Visions instead of Ancient Stirrings...
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
You have pushed for an Opal/SSG ban for a long time though have you not?
I'm against any ban that side swipes Affinity, and I don't even play it.
Spirits
I don't see the issue with Affinity playing Stirrings, it could be good in that deck even if it didn't hit lands. People are just now beginning to experiment with it though.
Your second link is a more interesting discussion because what they're doing is using Stirrings to hit land drops, using green cards to do green things. That's the strategy Delver decks use to keep Delver flips consistent in Legacy, but has been something traditionally kept out of Modern.
But again, if we look at mtgtop8's list of most played cards in the format, while Stirrings is the most consistent card, always being played as a 4 of, it's only around the 25th most played card excluding lands.
Opal yes, SSG no.
Opal is keeping the artifact lands banned which is ridiculous.
There is no way to know if this number is accurate because of the way data is represented. "Most Played" numbers almost exclusively pull from MTGO Leagues (and the proportionally small numbers from paper events don't shift values by much). Essentially, if 100 copies of the same deck play 5-0 a League, only 1 gets reported. If 5 different decks 5-0 a League, all 5 of them get reported. So the numbers do not in any way represent actual meta presence whatsoever. Rogue brews are disproportionately over-represented and big popular decks are overwhelmingly underrepresented.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
From what I've seen when browsing the Legacy metagame numbers, looking at decks where a card is present in only one deck, it seems to be accurate. For example, Phantasmal Image is reported in 8.4% of decks right now, so you can make a pretty strong inference that humans is at 8.4% of the metagame.
I'm on the side that thinks Preordain should come off the ban list, or better yet Ponder (though with the anti shuffle push, I think Preordain is much more likely). Not out of any sense of fairness, but because I think the format can handle it.
I'm pretty sure this is inaccurate, because cards that only go in one specific deck look to be correct numbers wise.
From Wizards' own mothership: https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/magic-digital/improving-our-approach-magic-online-data-2018-02-12
"In other words, we are attempting to show an example decklist of every single distinct archetype since the previous publication."
Their goal with data distribution is to show artificial diversity through showing us every different possible deck, but not telling us how many of each deck there are. So while those aggregate numbers show us something, they have absolutely nothing to do with actual meta share percentage or number of people playing. The only meaningful conclusions that can be drawn would be something like "of all the different deck archetypes, XX% different archetypes are playing this card."
This is the second big change of MTGO data reporting, after the huge backlash of the last data change about 6 months prior to that.
Essentially, we are getting numbers which artificially inflate diversity and downplay popular decks. Which is exactly what Wizards wants. Hide information while making formats look much healthier than they may actually be. Which in turn causes confusion and chaos when planning and preparing for events, which leads to random cyclical decks spiking events, which leads Wizards to say formats are healthy. They are creating artificial "health" through withholding information about the format.
A possible correlation does not guarantee a causal link. It's possible that they are connected. It's also possible that it is a complete coincidence, given the way things are reported. Based on the data we have available to us, there is no way to know for sure.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
For what it's worth, that deck also has 4 Mishra's Bauble and 1 Conjurer's Bauble as well, but yes, Ancient Stirrings is meant to churn through that deck quickly. The deck is essentially trying to win on turn 2 or 3 in my opinion (I played it this past Friday).
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)This is only true of MTGO, and even there, only to an extent. GP-level data is open enough to know what the good decks are. Also, it's relatively easy for grinders to figure out what other grinders are succeeding with and iterate from there. Just check the trophy count and check the League standings. I've read at least a few articles where pros cite this as a method for finding decks. If one player is having repeat 5-0 performances and showing up with the same deck in multiple League dumps, and on top of the trophy tally, that's probably something worth checking out. This was a major reason H1 started seeing success. Plus we got the Challenges and PTQs on MTGO. Not saying you aren't familiar with this method; just reminding everyone that people can easily figure out best decks between GP, existing MTGO data, and other tournaments.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
In combination with that Tron article, its not too far to claim we have a pretty good idea of what is going on in terms of the higher end meta.
If we KNEW the win rates of some decks, it would probably make for some uncomfortable realizations and feel bad bans.
Spirits
Just my opinion, but I don't think it is Amulet Bloom all over again. The deck's quickest goldfish win is turn 3, whereas Amulet Bloom can win (Hive Mind) or put it out of reach (Prime Time chains) by turn 2. Amulet is a quicker deck, and it also folds less to different types of hate. Blood Moon, no doubt, was pretty much lights out for Amulet, but any other kind of land interaction is only a speed bump for Amulet. A KCI player has to play around Stony Silence, Rest in Peace, Kataki, Gaddock Teeg, and many other types of cards (yes, mostly White) that decks can possibly play. Not to mention that Humans has a lot of different hate on creatures, whereas Bloom didn't play in this meta.
I played Amulet Bloom for a month and a half and owned it since Matthias Hunt top 8ed a GP with it. Although I've played Eggs a bit, I only played KCI at 2 weekly Modern tournaments, with Sanctum of Ugin as a 4-of and Emrakul as a finisher.
I realize it's only 1 opinion, but it's 1 opinion that you can put with many other 1 opinions and then form an opinion about KCI.
P.S. - After selling my Affinity deck a month ago, I just bought Affinity from a guy on FB. Once I receive it (mostly bought it for Opals), I am going to play KCI. My team is convinced that it is THE deck to win this PPTQ season with and I want to know for myself. I'll get back with more info after this.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)