He's taking his data from this article. Amulet Bloom has a particularly high match win percentage, coupled with a relatively low chance that the results of the test are atypical.
From what Pizzap posted, it looks like both Bloom Titan and Junk Liege have high win percentages. His data showed Bloom Titan at 62.6% and Liege at 62.4%. Twin is only around 54%, probably because many people just pick up the deck, expecting to win, but don't play it optimally. Burn has a similar stigma of many people just picking up the decks. This doesn't happen too much with Bloom Titan, but I wouldn't take its stats too seriously, especially when one of the main pilots got to choose his starting 7 cards.
I wish I could link the data that Pizzap showed and I know some people know what I'm talking about, but I'm not quite that internet savvy. This article really had an impression on me and I personally just feel like playing the "big three" for the remainder of the season - Bloom Titan, Junk Liege, and UR Twin. (I've had enough fun; now it's time to play like a true Spike.)
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)
I don't mean to beat it to death but is bloom titan too good for modern? Based off of its win percentage it is the best deck in modern. is this fine?
Where are you getting the numbers from? It doesn't have oppressive representation numbers, and it doesn't break any of Modern's rules, so why would you want to ban it even if your data was correct?
He's taking his data from this article. Amulet Bloom has a particularly high match win percentage, coupled with a relatively low chance that the results of the test are atypical.
Added a few more dailies to the dataset. Now Amulet Bloom's MWP is WAY more statistically significant than before. Indeed, it's the only big deck with any kind of significant P value, and it just blows away the competition with that P=.03. I think there are still reasons to think it's not bannable or worth banning, but it's definitely an insanely strong deck in the right hands/context.
I know that the numbers on that article have variance because the number of matches is small, but there are a few that I vehemently disagree with.
Bloom Titan vs. UR Twin - This is a horrible matchup for Bloom Titan and worse after SB. Basically the only way they win is a quick game where Twin doesn't have the right answers (like Spell Snare for Summer Bloom or Dispel for Pact) and it gets worse after SB.
Bloom Titan vs. Junk Midrange - Sure, Junk Midrange disrupts them, but Bloom has the top of the deck, which has too many hits to usually lose. They lose if they blank after being disrupted, but Leyline of Sanctity helps after SB.
Grixis Delver vs. Junk Midrange - I think we can agree that this is not a 10% win rate for Delver. Enough said.
Junk Midrange vs. UR Twin - There is no way, and I mean no way, that Twin is favored in this matchup. If this was true, I would play more Twin and just win every event I go to after practicing the mirror like crazy. Sometimes you land Blood Moon after side and win; more often everything you do gets disrupted. I actually feel like Affinity is slightly favored in this matchup as well. I realize that it gets potentially tougher after side.
Jund - I feel like Jund has a slightly positive win rate vs. Affinity and definitely NOT a 70% win rate vs. Burn. Sorry, if Jund is winning that often vs. Burn, their whole SB is dedicated to Burn and they are playing some horrible Burn pilots.
I will state again that the numbers come from a small number of matches, but some people here and outside of here will look at these percentages, sleeve up Bloom Titan in a Twin-Heavy meta and wonder why they always lose. They will start to doubt themselves as a player and that is just not quite right.
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)
I will state again that the numbers come from a small number of matches, but some people here and outside of here will look at these percentages, sleeve up Bloom Titan in a Twin-Heavy meta and wonder why they always lose. They will start to doubt themselves as a player and that is just not quite right.
I don't want to be rude, but did you read the actual text or did you just read the numbers? I address 4 of your points directly (as in, explicitly address them), and the others are addressed indirectly through about 4 disclaimers made at various points. I ask this because you say this:
Quote from "you" »
Grixis Delver vs. Junk Midrange - I think we can agree that this is not a 10% win rate for Delver. Enough said.
But I said this:
Quote from "me" »
About the only saving grace for Abzan is its Grixis Delver matchup, which is exactly what we would expect of a BGx deck against a Delver deck. This number just has to be overrepresented, but even if it’s just a 60/40 or 70/30 matchup, that’s a big boost in Abzan’s favor.
And then you say this:
Quote from "you" »
Junk Midrange vs. UR Twin - There is no way, and I mean no way, that Twin is favored in this matchup.
But I said this:
Quote from "me" »
As for matchups, I am surprised the Abzan matchup is so heavily in Twin’s favor. To me, this suggests player inexperience more than any other result: Twin is by no means a “good” Abzan matchup, but it’s also not quite this bad.
These objections really come across like you didn't actually read the article. Maybe I'm wrong and you just misphrased them or I am misunderstanding what you are saying or how you are saying it, but my initial impression is that you didn't read the full thing.
Oh I definitely didn't read the whole thing. Also, writing something more about the matchups doesn't justify putting misleading numbers.
Imagine I came on here showing numbers from many different matchups that don't seem kosher. Then I write a few paragraphs to the contrary of my testing. Unfortunately, many Magic players don't have the time to read every word of an article.
Not to mention, the article stated that their "data" shows that some matchups are "not as bad as people think." It said this for Twin vs. Junk and Twin vs. Bloom Titan and I just don't agree with those. They are closer to 70/30 than 50/50 in my experience. If they're 50/50 for you, that's great.
Not everyone has time to know every matchup's numbers for themselves, so articles like this are used as a "shortcut" for many. I play Modern 1-2 times per week, so I can take others' data with a grain of salt. The same is not true for everyone, especially the average Standard player who wants to do well in a Modern tournament. You have to also remember that some people are very math oriented and tend to look at numbers and not very language oriented, so they don't read and analyze every word. I will state again that I did not read more than 50% of the article.
*EDIT> A closer look at the article shows how MTGO statistics and data can be misleading. I just hope that someone (like me) doesn't shortcut the article and gets an incorrect view from it.
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)
Oh I definitely didn't read the whole thing. Also, writing something more about the matchups doesn't justify putting misleading numbers.
I can't tell if you are being serious or just trying to back out of what you were saying earlier.
I'm putting up observed matchup numbers from a bunch of recorded MTGO dailies. Then I'm providing commentary on those numbers, agreeing, disagreeing, and qualifying where necessary. I'm not going to deliberately juke or change the observed numbers because they don't "feel right". I will definitely, however, present them and then question them in the text. That's like, data analysis 101. Or common sense 101. I'm legitimately surprised this even needs to be explained
Imagine I came on here showing numbers from many different matchups that don't seem kosher. Then I write a few paragraphs to the contrary of my testing. Unfortunately, many Magic players don't have the time to read every word of an article.
I guess I assume people won't just read the numbers while ignoring the mountains of disclaimers, qualifications, and context around them. This was probably a dangerous assumption in era where most people prefer clickbait to substance. But I'm also not going to intentionally reduce content quality because some people don't have the time, interest, or energy to read the entire article.
I realize that this is your site and you are focused toward someone who is going to read and analyze each part of the article. Modern Nexus seems like a very good site to me. I think that the article is good and I like what that particular author says in his other articles. I just personally didn't notice the point of the article when I clicked on your link and looked at it for 2 minutes. Perhaps something could be different in the title?
It's just that with the comments that I see on TwitchTV and here on MTGS, I doubt most people are going to put more time than myself looking at these articles. They usually just see the first word and already "know" the article.
EDIT> Did the article tell specifically which numbers jive and which don't?
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)
I realize that this is your site and you are focused toward someone who is going to read and analyze each part of the article. Modern Nexus seems like a very good site to me. I think that the article is good and I like what that particular author says in his other articles. I just personally didn't notice the point of the article when I clicked on your link and looked at it for 2 minutes. Perhaps something could be different in the title?
As far as MTG article goes, I'm trying to keep the stats stuff as un-click-baity as possible. That extends to titles. It doesn't get much more descriptive (even bland) than "Matchups and Win Rates: Top Tier Decks". I'm talking about matchups, I'm talking about win rates, and I'm doing so for top-tier decks. Some of the earlier stats articles had flashier titles, but I didn't like this and have moved away from it: I prefer data-driven content to have a more neutral lead-in that doesn't oversell what is going to be discussed.
As for article content, that's discussed pretty early in the first and second paragraphs. In fact, it's the closing sentences of the 1st paragraph and then the opening sentence (and really every sentence) in the 2nd paragraph. And then it gets discussed in pretty much every paragraph thereafter. Most everyone else I have talked to seems to have understood what was going on, so I'm really not sure what else can be done here.
I also realize that this is a little too site-oriented and not enough Modern/banlist-oriented, so I would rather get back to that. The point being that Amulet Bloom's overall MTGO MWP is really really high, which is just yet another datapoint that confirms a half dozen other datapoints about how good that deck really is.
I realize that this is your site and you are focused toward someone who is going to read and analyze each part of the article. Modern Nexus seems like a very good site to me. I think that the article is good and I like what that particular author says in his other articles. I just personally didn't notice the point of the article when I clicked on your link and looked at it for 2 minutes. Perhaps something could be different in the title?
It's just that with the comments that I see on TwitchTV and here on MTGS, I doubt most people are going to put more time than myself looking at these articles. They usually just see the first word and already "know" the article.
"Lol I didn't read so no one else will either" this pretty much exemplifies the worst of the board. Criticizing the article EVEN WHEN CALLED OUT AND ADMITTING TO NOT READING IT.
I realize that this is your site and you are focused toward someone who is going to read and analyze each part of the article. Modern Nexus seems like a very good site to me. I think that the article is good and I like what that particular author says in his other articles. I just personally didn't notice the point of the article when I clicked on your link and looked at it for 2 minutes. Perhaps something could be different in the title?
It's just that with the comments that I see on TwitchTV and here on MTGS, I doubt most people are going to put more time than myself looking at these articles. They usually just see the first word and already "know" the article.
"Lol I didn't read so no one else will either" this pretty much exemplifies the worst of the board. Criticizing the article EVEN WHEN CALLED OUT AND ADMITTING TO NOT READING IT.
You seem to know a lot about Modern. How specifically did the article help you?
Also if you think that making a comment about an article without understanding what the point is the worst thing on mtgs, you haven't been here too long.
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)
Oh I definitely didn't read the whole thing. Also, writing something more about the matchups doesn't justify putting misleading numbers.
Imagine I came on here showing numbers from many different matchups that don't seem kosher. Then I write a few paragraphs to the contrary of my testing. Unfortunately, many Magic players don't have the time to read every word of an article.
If you have the time to be arguing about the article, why don't you have the time to read it?
Honestly, I really hope no more decks get cards banned in the near future. I've had two cards banned out from under me (Deathrite Shaman, and Birthing pod), and it's a thoroughly unpleasant experience.
I'm not sure what would even warrant banning right now. Even Bloom Titan, which can be overpowered, also will just outright lose to itself. Most other decks can at least put up a fight, even with a bad hand, but I've had times when playing it where there was no possible way for me to win a game.
The turn 4 rule is dumb and should be abolished anyway. Ban decks because they're too good, not because they violate some arbitrary criteria that has never been used in any other format in history.
Heck, for all I know they have quietly abolished it and just never made an announcement about it.
I would agree with this except how do decks police turn 1 or turn 2 wins? We don't have force of will or daze.....
Honestly, I really hope no more decks get cards banned in the near future. I've had two cards banned out from under me (Deathrite Shaman, and Birthing pod), and it's a thoroughly unpleasant experience.
I'm not sure what would even warrant banning right now. Even Bloom Titan, which can be overpowered, also will just outright lose to itself. Most other decks can at least put up a fight, even with a bad hand, but I've had times when playing it where there was no possible way for me to win a game.
While I can understand how it feels to have your deck ruined, the bans were for the better. Though, the Dig Through Time ban was unwarranted, and because it was a speculative ban, it should be speculatively unbanned.
Twin can win on turn 3 if it plays mana dorks, should we ban mana dorks or cards from Twin on that basis?
I think you're trying to prove some point here, but I'll bite. If Twin hits a ban, which I hope it doesn't, it will have nothing to do with turn 4 rule but everything to do with prevalence in the metagame and top tables.
Honestly, I really hope no more decks get cards banned in the near future. I've had two cards banned out from under me (Deathrite Shaman, and Birthing pod), and it's a thoroughly unpleasant experience.
I'm not sure what would even warrant banning right now. Even Bloom Titan, which can be overpowered, also will just outright lose to itself. Most other decks can at least put up a fight, even with a bad hand, but I've had times when playing it where there was no possible way for me to win a game.
While I can understand how it feels to have your deck ruined, the bans were for the better. Though, the Dig Through Time ban was unwarranted, and because it was a speculative ban, it should be speculatively unbanned.
I'm not saying they weren't, though I might argue about pod (Though I won't retread that ground, since it's already been done to death). I'm just saying it's a feeling that sucks.
That would fall under "Ban decks because they're too good."
pre turn 4 decks are too good for modern if they are even somewhat consistent
Ah, yes, "too good." That's why Griselbrand Reanimator has done basically nothing, because it's "too good."
You really just throw this "they're too good" out of nowhere. In what way? If they're not oppressing the meta or anything, how are they "too good"? This feels like a claim you just pulled straight out of nowhere with no backup.
Hypergenesis got banned in Extended with no need of a turn 4 rule. It got banned because the deck was just too powerful. If any pre-turn 4 decks are too powerful, it'll show that in results (just like any deck that wins after turn 4!) with no need of any turn 4 rule.
That would fall under "Ban decks because they're too good."
pre turn 4 decks are too good for modern if they are even somewhat consistent
Ah, yes, "too good." That's why Griselbrand Reanimator has done basically nothing, because it's "too good."
You really just throw this "they're too good" out of nowhere. In what way? If they're not oppressing the meta or anything, how are they "too good"? This feels like a claim you just pulled straight out of nowhere with no backup.
Hypergenesis got banned in Extended with no need of a turn 4 rule. It got banned because the deck was just too powerful. If any pre-turn 4 decks are too powerful, it'll show that in results (just like any deck that wins after turn 4!) with no need of any turn 4 rule.
bloom has prevalence and can win before turn 4 there ya go.
That would fall under "Ban decks because they're too good."
pre turn 4 decks are too good for modern if they are even somewhat consistent
Ah, yes, "too good." That's why Griselbrand Reanimator has done basically nothing, because it's "too good."
You really just throw this "they're too good" out of nowhere. In what way? If they're not oppressing the meta or anything, how are they "too good"? This feels like a claim you just pulled straight out of nowhere with no backup.
Hypergenesis got banned in Extended with no need of a turn 4 rule. It got banned because the deck was just too powerful. If any pre-turn 4 decks are too powerful, it'll show that in results (just like any deck that wins after turn 4!) with no need of any turn 4 rule.
He did say if they are too consistent. A consistent turn 3 deck is too good for modern but a turn 3 deck is not. We do not have a lot of general good answers to early game plays as is we do not need to stretch our decks to beat something that consistently gives us only 2 or 3 turns to find an answer. Also such a deck would push aggro out of the format and even though a lot of players complain about linear aggro a lot of the player base like fast creature decks or burn decks especially new players according to wizards.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
From what Pizzap posted, it looks like both Bloom Titan and Junk Liege have high win percentages. His data showed Bloom Titan at 62.6% and Liege at 62.4%. Twin is only around 54%, probably because many people just pick up the deck, expecting to win, but don't play it optimally. Burn has a similar stigma of many people just picking up the decks. This doesn't happen too much with Bloom Titan, but I wouldn't take its stats too seriously, especially when one of the main pilots got to choose his starting 7 cards.
I wish I could link the data that Pizzap showed and I know some people know what I'm talking about, but I'm not quite that internet savvy. This article really had an impression on me and I personally just feel like playing the "big three" for the remainder of the season - Bloom Titan, Junk Liege, and UR Twin. (I've had enough fun; now it's time to play like a true Spike.)
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)Updated data is here:
http://modernnexus.com/matchups-and-win-rates-top-tier-decks-part-1/
Added a few more dailies to the dataset. Now Amulet Bloom's MWP is WAY more statistically significant than before. Indeed, it's the only big deck with any kind of significant P value, and it just blows away the competition with that P=.03. I think there are still reasons to think it's not bannable or worth banning, but it's definitely an insanely strong deck in the right hands/context.
Bloom Titan vs. UR Twin - This is a horrible matchup for Bloom Titan and worse after SB. Basically the only way they win is a quick game where Twin doesn't have the right answers (like Spell Snare for Summer Bloom or Dispel for Pact) and it gets worse after SB.
Bloom Titan vs. Junk Midrange - Sure, Junk Midrange disrupts them, but Bloom has the top of the deck, which has too many hits to usually lose. They lose if they blank after being disrupted, but Leyline of Sanctity helps after SB.
Grixis Delver vs. Junk Midrange - I think we can agree that this is not a 10% win rate for Delver. Enough said.
Junk Midrange vs. UR Twin - There is no way, and I mean no way, that Twin is favored in this matchup. If this was true, I would play more Twin and just win every event I go to after practicing the mirror like crazy. Sometimes you land Blood Moon after side and win; more often everything you do gets disrupted. I actually feel like Affinity is slightly favored in this matchup as well. I realize that it gets potentially tougher after side.
Jund - I feel like Jund has a slightly positive win rate vs. Affinity and definitely NOT a 70% win rate vs. Burn. Sorry, if Jund is winning that often vs. Burn, their whole SB is dedicated to Burn and they are playing some horrible Burn pilots.
I will state again that the numbers come from a small number of matches, but some people here and outside of here will look at these percentages, sleeve up Bloom Titan in a Twin-Heavy meta and wonder why they always lose. They will start to doubt themselves as a player and that is just not quite right.
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)I don't want to be rude, but did you read the actual text or did you just read the numbers? I address 4 of your points directly (as in, explicitly address them), and the others are addressed indirectly through about 4 disclaimers made at various points. I ask this because you say this:
But I said this:
And then you say this:
But I said this:
These objections really come across like you didn't actually read the article. Maybe I'm wrong and you just misphrased them or I am misunderstanding what you are saying or how you are saying it, but my initial impression is that you didn't read the full thing.
Imagine I came on here showing numbers from many different matchups that don't seem kosher. Then I write a few paragraphs to the contrary of my testing. Unfortunately, many Magic players don't have the time to read every word of an article.
Not to mention, the article stated that their "data" shows that some matchups are "not as bad as people think." It said this for Twin vs. Junk and Twin vs. Bloom Titan and I just don't agree with those. They are closer to 70/30 than 50/50 in my experience. If they're 50/50 for you, that's great.
Not everyone has time to know every matchup's numbers for themselves, so articles like this are used as a "shortcut" for many. I play Modern 1-2 times per week, so I can take others' data with a grain of salt. The same is not true for everyone, especially the average Standard player who wants to do well in a Modern tournament. You have to also remember that some people are very math oriented and tend to look at numbers and not very language oriented, so they don't read and analyze every word. I will state again that I did not read more than 50% of the article.
*EDIT> A closer look at the article shows how MTGO statistics and data can be misleading. I just hope that someone (like me) doesn't shortcut the article and gets an incorrect view from it.
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)"Justifying your misleading numbers doesn't justify putting misleading numbers."
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
I can't tell if you are being serious or just trying to back out of what you were saying earlier.
I'm putting up observed matchup numbers from a bunch of recorded MTGO dailies. Then I'm providing commentary on those numbers, agreeing, disagreeing, and qualifying where necessary. I'm not going to deliberately juke or change the observed numbers because they don't "feel right". I will definitely, however, present them and then question them in the text. That's like, data analysis 101. Or common sense 101. I'm legitimately surprised this even needs to be explained
I guess I assume people won't just read the numbers while ignoring the mountains of disclaimers, qualifications, and context around them. This was probably a dangerous assumption in era where most people prefer clickbait to substance. But I'm also not going to intentionally reduce content quality because some people don't have the time, interest, or energy to read the entire article.
It's just that with the comments that I see on TwitchTV and here on MTGS, I doubt most people are going to put more time than myself looking at these articles. They usually just see the first word and already "know" the article.
EDIT> Did the article tell specifically which numbers jive and which don't?
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)Jace - Safe already; he'd replace or compliment Keranos in a few sideboards and do little else, tapping 4 mana is just that dangerous.
Dread Return - Only possible if one of Narcomoeba and Bridge from Below is banned; maybe both.
SFM - Only possible if Batterskull is banned; even then it's still risky
Dark Depths - Just no.
As far as MTG article goes, I'm trying to keep the stats stuff as un-click-baity as possible. That extends to titles. It doesn't get much more descriptive (even bland) than "Matchups and Win Rates: Top Tier Decks". I'm talking about matchups, I'm talking about win rates, and I'm doing so for top-tier decks. Some of the earlier stats articles had flashier titles, but I didn't like this and have moved away from it: I prefer data-driven content to have a more neutral lead-in that doesn't oversell what is going to be discussed.
As for article content, that's discussed pretty early in the first and second paragraphs. In fact, it's the closing sentences of the 1st paragraph and then the opening sentence (and really every sentence) in the 2nd paragraph. And then it gets discussed in pretty much every paragraph thereafter. Most everyone else I have talked to seems to have understood what was going on, so I'm really not sure what else can be done here.
I also realize that this is a little too site-oriented and not enough Modern/banlist-oriented, so I would rather get back to that. The point being that Amulet Bloom's overall MTGO MWP is really really high, which is just yet another datapoint that confirms a half dozen other datapoints about how good that deck really is.
"Lol I didn't read so no one else will either" this pretty much exemplifies the worst of the board. Criticizing the article EVEN WHEN CALLED OUT AND ADMITTING TO NOT READING IT.
You seem to know a lot about Modern. How specifically did the article help you?
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)If you have the time to be arguing about the article, why don't you have the time to read it?
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
I'm not sure what would even warrant banning right now. Even Bloom Titan, which can be overpowered, also will just outright lose to itself. Most other decks can at least put up a fight, even with a bad hand, but I've had times when playing it where there was no possible way for me to win a game.
decks playing:
none
While I can understand how it feels to have your deck ruined, the bans were for the better. Though, the Dig Through Time ban was unwarranted, and because it was a speculative ban, it should be speculatively unbanned.
UWR Control
Legacy:
W D&T
decks playing:
none
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
I'm not saying they weren't, though I might argue about pod (Though I won't retread that ground, since it's already been done to death). I'm just saying it's a feeling that sucks.
You really just throw this "they're too good" out of nowhere. In what way? If they're not oppressing the meta or anything, how are they "too good"? This feels like a claim you just pulled straight out of nowhere with no backup.
Hypergenesis got banned in Extended with no need of a turn 4 rule. It got banned because the deck was just too powerful. If any pre-turn 4 decks are too powerful, it'll show that in results (just like any deck that wins after turn 4!) with no need of any turn 4 rule.
decks playing:
none
He did say if they are too consistent. A consistent turn 3 deck is too good for modern but a turn 3 deck is not. We do not have a lot of general good answers to early game plays as is we do not need to stretch our decks to beat something that consistently gives us only 2 or 3 turns to find an answer. Also such a deck would push aggro out of the format and even though a lot of players complain about linear aggro a lot of the player base like fast creature decks or burn decks especially new players according to wizards.