Here's an observation: the next ban update is Nov 26th. UMA drops Dec 7, with the spoilers coming a week prior. I wouldn't be surprised if stoneforge mystic gets unbanned in the next update. Obviously this is baseless speculation and i have no information supporting my claim but i dont think you need to be a psychic to see that move coming. Just like you didn't need to be one when jace was unbanned.
That would be both super dirty and extremely transparent.
Though I could totally see that, after the "oh THAT card is in here too?" comments from the stream.
Hell, I wonder if Splinter Twin is in there too...
Do you play online? Tron and dredge are literally a constant presence? I dont know that a day has gone by when I have not played multiples of Tron, Dredge or UW, at least 2 of those 3, daily. Throw in Storm and I would be shocked if thats not the most common decks online.
Heck, no way its not this.
Tron
Dredge
Hollow One
Storm
UW
Burn
Easily, those are the most common decks online.
How comes that mtggoldfish says something different?
I read somewhere that Wotc reduced the amount of online results they are giving out so that could be a part of it.
Still the list of goldfish comes close to the top decks of the GP day 2 which was Humans, Burn, Jund, UW Control, Bant Spirits, Tron,etc.
So you seeing Hollow One and Storm in big numbers but for some reason no Jund at all makes me question your list a bit. You could be just unlucky.
Obviously the timeframe is important. It's worth noting that the Goldfish stats are only pulled from the previous 1 month of results, in addition to the fact that the percentages are skewed higher for decks that see less play. As an example it currently shows Grixis Whir at over 2% of the metagame, which absolutely not the case if all the data was being represented.
Obviously the percentages ebb and flow from month to month, but over a longer timeframe, idSurge's list is pretty consistent with what I've seen in the ~2000 matches I've played in the last ~8 months:
Jund is at 2.96% and Dredge is at 2.43%. Both of these saw big upticks after GRN but weren't very popular before that. Affinity and Hollow One have pretty high long-term percentages still but both are in downtrends in recent months. Affinity has been decreasing for longer but Hollow One has seen its share drop more recently due to other decks operating along the same lines (Bridgevine, Dredge, Arclight Phoenix decks).
Here's an observation: the next ban update is Nov 26th. UMA drops Dec 7, with the spoilers coming a week prior. I wouldn't be surprised if stoneforge mystic gets unbanned in the next update. Obviously this is baseless speculation and i have no information supporting my claim but i dont think you need to be a psychic to see that move coming. Just like you didn't need to be one when jace was unbanned.
That would be both super dirty and extremely transparent.
Though I could totally see that, after the "oh THAT card is in here too?" comments from the stream.
Hell, I wonder if Splinter Twin is in there too...
transparent sure, but super dirty? i dont think anyone here is under the false pretense that wizards is operating out of the goodness of their hearts. however them making money coinciding with giving players what they want isnt necessarily wrong or bad.
if UMA shapes up to be what it looks like so far, its good for modern prices. high profile reprints, some that were sorely needed. they can also justify being more generous with their value reprints with a higher price coupled with it being 'the last hurrah of the masters line'. the masters naysayers also get what they want with confirmation that masters is going away indefinitely.
people want stoneforge unbanned, and its price is STILL inflated for the amount of play it sees in legacy these days. a reprint would be great with an unbanning. though it not being included in the box-topper promos leads me to believe that its not appearing at all; since it fits the qualifications perfectly.
basically not everything has to be zero-sum. every time wizards gains doesnt mean players lose.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
transparent sure, but super dirty? i dont think anyone here is under the false pretense that wizards is operating out of the goodness of their hearts. however them making money coinciding with giving players what they want isnt necessarily wrong or bad.
What I mean by that is if that is the case, they could have unbanned her at literally ANY TIME in the last several years, and chose not to, so they could take advantage of a hype reprint.
true, but its hard to argue that the format suffered in her absence.
thats the thing with bans versus unbans. letting a ban target stick around longer can be a serious detriment to the format, but unbans dont work that way. sure the format could be better, could be more diverse, could satisfy a certain players looking to play with the card. however if the format is doing well by observable metrics, there is no pressing need.
some, like yourself, might disagree like in the case of twin; but you have to admit that disagreement stems from something personal. the same goes for those who have a distorted memory of such cards (twin being oppressive, sfm in cawblade, etc), which can skew in the other direction. however if you step back and look at the format from the perspective of someone bringing none of that to the table, its doing just fine.
others, such as wraithpk or foodchain, believe the banlist/format is being curated incorrectly in general. but that is a difference in philosophies rather than an objective strike against the current state of the format; which, again, seems to be doing alright.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
Does anyone know why the Amulet Titan decks are playing Adventurous Impulse over Oath of Nissa? It just seems like the latter is strictly better, although in the context of this deck they function in the same way.
Does anyone know why the Amulet Titan decks are playing Adventurous Impulse over Oath of Nissa? It just seems like the latter is strictly better, although in the context of this deck they function in the same way.
Strictly speaking, it's mainly because the extra type can pump Tarmogoyfs. Otherwise, they're functionally the same in the deck, since it doesn't run any planeswalkers, at least in the stock lists.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Well, I can saw a woman in two, but you won't wanna look in the box when I'm through.
transparent sure, but super dirty? i dont think anyone here is under the false pretense that wizards is operating out of the goodness of their hearts. however them making money coinciding with giving players what they want isnt necessarily wrong or bad.
What I mean by that is if that is the case, they could have unbanned her at literally ANY TIME in the last several years, and chose not to, so they could take advantage of a hype reprint.
Personally, I'd much rather Stoneforge Mystic (or anything else) be unbanned around the same time as a reprint, so its price wouldn't be too terrible. If they hadn't unbanned Jace shortly before a reprint, he would've spiked even worse than he did and would probably be at around $150 right now.
transparent sure, but super dirty? i dont think anyone here is under the false pretense that wizards is operating out of the goodness of their hearts. however them making money coinciding with giving players what they want isnt necessarily wrong or bad.
What I mean by that is if that is the case, they could have unbanned her at literally ANY TIME in the last several years, and chose not to, so they could take advantage of a hype reprint.
Personally, I'd much rather Stoneforge Mystic (or anything else) be unbanned around the same time as a reprint, so its price wouldn't be too terrible. If they hadn't unbanned Jace shortly before a reprint, he would've spiked even worse than he did and would probably be at around $150 right now.
Probably true. Regardless SFM will be laughably bad, but whatever.
Oof that event...Stirrings or Looting which cantrip should get banned first?
As I posted earlier, Stirrings has a share that is way above that of Looting. In fact, SV's share is higher than Looting's share if we judge by GP T8 events. I would not make any allegations against Looting as of now; those decks seem to be mostly fine. Stirrings decks, however, continue to rear their heads as overperformers in the 2018 GP circuit.
Oof that event...Stirrings or Looting which cantrip should get banned first?
As I posted earlier, Stirrings has a share that is way above that of Looting. In fact, SV's share is higher than Looting's share if we judge by GP T8 events. I would not make any allegations against Looting as of now; those decks seem to be mostly fine. Stirrings decks, however, continue to rear their heads as overperformers in the 2018 GP circuit.
Fair enough but Looting does more for the decks its in then Serum Visions does for Blue Decks.
But I am fine leaving Looting for now and just seeing Stirrings go.
On the last page or so, Wraith talked about how the format would be "better" if "bad gameplay" cards like Moon were banned. I believe this was in reference to Hoogland's argument to the same effect. I find this argument to be incredibly subjective, biased, and out of alignment with everything Modern represents. That's why I was saying it was a bad ban suggestion.
Would you stop strawmanning so hard? Jesus f'ing Christ... First of all, if I'm biased, I'm biased in favor of Blood Moon. Blood Moon punishes fair multi-color decks that stumble on their mana or that don't realize you're a Blood Moon deck and fetch basics. The idea that Blood Moon only punishes greedy mana-bases is wrong. I've lost to Blood Moon with my two color mana base that runs 7 basics. But regardless, I don't want Blood Moon banned, I never suggested it should be. I like playing with the card. I want Blood Moon to stay legal despite realizing that it's probably a net negative to gameplay quality in the format.
What I said was merely a thought experiment. You could absolutely craft a better Modern format if you were heavy-handed with the ban list. You're a smart guy, Sheridan. Really read that sentence and think about it before you off-the-cuff call it subjective and biased. It's absolutely true. BUT... the Modern player base really hates bans. The format could be better, but none of us would be happy. In fact, to the contrary of how you're trying to paint me in your comment, I'm a banlist minimalist. I want as few cards banned as possible, only the truly broken stuff, but I recognize that this philosophy probably isn't what's best for format health. I would just rather play an 80% ideal format where we all happily get to play with our broken stuff than play a 100% ideal format where all our favorite cards are banned.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern UBR Grixis Shadow UBR UR Izzet Phoenix UR UW UW Control UW GB GB Rock GB
Commander BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
On the last page or so, Wraith talked about how the format would be "better" if "bad gameplay" cards like Moon were banned. I believe this was in reference to Hoogland's argument to the same effect. I find this argument to be incredibly subjective, biased, and out of alignment with everything Modern represents. That's why I was saying it was a bad ban suggestion.
Would you stop strawmanning so hard? Jesus f'ing Christ... First of all, if I'm biased, I'm biased in favor of Blood Moon. Blood Moon punishes fair multi-color decks that stumble on their mana or that don't realize you're a Blood Moon deck and fetch basics. The idea that Blood Moon only punishes greedy mana-bases is wrong. I've lost to Blood Moon with my two color mana base that runs 7 basics. But regardless, I don't want Blood Moon banned, I never suggested it should be. I like playing with the card. I want Blood Moon to stay legal despite realizing that it's probably a net negative to gameplay quality in the format.
What I said was merely a thought experiment. You could absolutely craft a better Modern format if you were heavy-handed with the ban list. You're a smart guy, Sheridan. Really read that sentence and think about it before you off-the-cuff call it subjective and biased. It's absolutely true. BUT... the Modern player base really hates bans. The format could be better, but none of us would be happy. In fact, to the contrary of how you're trying to paint me in your comment, I'm a banlist minimalist. I want as few cards banned as possible, only the truly broken stuff, but I recognize that this philosophy probably isn't what's best for format health. I would just rather play an 80% ideal format where we all happily get to play with our broken stuff than play a 100% ideal format where all our favorite cards are banned.
Calm down. This is not remotely close to strawmanning and I have no idea why you are alleging that. I'm literally quoting you because you literally call Moon "bad gameplay" three times over two separate posts. The most direct of those quotes is one where you explicitly cite Moon as an explicit example of "Bad gameplay" and then say the format would be "better" with it removed: (https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/799362-the-state-of-modern-thread-b-r-01-10-2018?page=34#c853).
When Blood Moon works, one person doesn't get to play Magic anymore. How can you say it's subjective whether or not that is bad gameplay? One player being locked out of playing the game is bad gameplay, objectively. And there are a ton of cards in Modern that do things like that. Does that mean they should all get banned? No, not necessarily. But you can't honestly tell me that the format wouldn't be objectively more fun if you removed all these cards that lock people out of playing the game. It would be better.
Given your post, I am totally puzzled why my quote is a strawman ("On the last page or so, Wraith talked about how the format would be "better" if "bad gameplay" cards like Moon were banned."). I'm just summarizing your exact words by using your exact words. The "straw man" allegation is often a red flag for me when I'm reading a rebuttal, and I just do not understand how you can reasonably claim this here.
And again, as both I and at least two other users have stated, there is nothing objectively "better" about a Modern format that was crafted with "heavy-handed" bans. You stating it's "absolutely true" does not make it true. It might be a better experience for a subset of players who enjoy a certain kind of Magic/gameplay experience, but there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that this is a plurality of players or that the pros would outweigh the cons. That is at the very least an open question that would need extensive debate to parse through. At most, it is a biased perspective based on a personal preference that is not shared by others.
if UMA shapes up to be what it looks like so far, its good for modern prices. high profile reprints, some that were sorely needed. they can also justify being more generous with their value reprints with a higher price coupled with it being 'the last hurrah of the masters line'. the masters naysayers also get what they want with confirmation that masters is going away indefinitely.
basically not everything has to be zero-sum. every time wizards gains doesnt mean players lose.
It has potential to be good for Modern prices, but I wouldn't chalk it up as a sure thing. IMO, one may be better off picking up soon-to-be reprints within the next couple weeks while folks are panic selling. If WotC's announcement is to be taken at face value, the set will be a "limited" run and that definition of limited will likely determine whether or not it ultimately impacts modern prices in any meaningful way. The Gaddock Teegs of the set, those which owe their value largely to scant printings, will likely see the most benefit, but any staple re-printed at mythic may actually end up with a net price increase once you factor in print run and the set being tagged as the last hurrah for Masters sets, insinuating the next printing may be a ways away. I'd be surprised to see any significant movement in the price of Caverns/Snaps if WotC's definition of 'limited' actually means limited, but again, I've learned to take everything this company says with a grain of salt, so we probably won't have a good idea until stores start receiving their product stock.
Maybe the meta slows down for a bit, people comment that the SFM naysayers were wrong, and then it speeds up hyper efficiently again.
I do think seeing Stirrings at that high of a percentage is problematic. I have Tron tucked away as it's a good deck to own so the ban would hurt me. I wonder if the deck could function at tier 1 without it?
Maybe the meta slows down for a bit, people comment that the SFM naysayers were wrong, and then it speeds up hyper efficiently again.
I do think seeing Stirrings at that high of a percentage is problematic. I have Tron tucked away as it's a good deck to own so the ban would hurt me. I wonder if the deck could function at tier 1 without it?
I’d say so. History has shown that Tron is simply here to stay, it seems, no matter what (within reason) pieces of anti-Tron technology are introduced into the format.
Taking away a core component of Tron is different than printing hate for the archetype, of course, but the salient point here is that the deck’s resilience seems to consistently outstrip the community’s expectations.
Besides, Oath of Nissa does a reasonable Stirrings impression, and one that could be argued is more in line with the power level of other Modern cantrips, whereas Stirrings is something of an outlier. In fact, Oath is a reasonable enough card that Tron may well be hurt less by a theoretical Stirrings ban than any other tiered Stirrings deck.
On another note, on the heels of this highly non-interactive GP Top 32 (and assuming for the sake of argument a relatively non-interactive meta game for the near future), does anyone think a deck like Cheeri0s is a good meta call right now? And are there any other under-the-radar combo decks, even if they’re janky or still in the brewing stages, which may fall apart to interaction but can otherwise successfully race the Dredges, Trons, and Storms of the format? I’m an all-in BGx main but wouldn’t mind exploring something in the vein of what I just outlined as a secondary deck, even if it means getting in on the ground floor of a sketchy brew, lol.
Banning Looting is totally wrong.
Banning Stirrings would kill 2 or 3 decks that are just good combo decks. Most stirrings decks are hard to piolt and are not opressive. Having Tron in the format is fine.
The format was totally fine before Guilds. What was the major change that happened post Guilds? Creeping Chill. Dredge is the deck that warps the meta, not Amulet, not KCI, not Tron, not Lantern, not Hallow One. All of these decks were easily tier 2 before dredge. None of them are a problem. Stop crying about combo existing.
The problem is dredge and dredge alone, it's a "better draw sideboard card or lose" deck more than any other. If you are going to ban a card, ban creeping chill and the format is fine again. You don't kill other decks, and you don't even kill dredge if creeping chill is banned.
Banning Looting is totally wrong.
Banning Stirrings would kill 2 or 3 decks that are just good combo decks. Most stirrings decks are hard to piolt and are not opressive. Having Tron in the format is fine.
The format was totally fine before Guilds. What was the major change that happened post Guilds? Creeping Chill. Dredge is the deck that warps the meta, not Amulet, not KCI, not Tron, not Lantern, not Hallow One. All of these decks were easily tier 2 before dredge. None of them are a problem. Stop crying about combo existing.
The problem is dredge and dredge alone, it's a "better draw sideboard card or lose" deck more than any other. If you are going to ban a card, ban creeping chill and the format is fine again. You don't kill other decks, and you don't even kill dredge if creeping chill is banned.
I don't have any issue with Dredge eating a Chill ban, but it's sort of a weird case to make with 0 Dredge in the T8 and Chill being a recent development. Looting is more obviously fine, if for no other reason than the stats I posted about Looting's GP share to date.
Stirrings, however, was approaching problematic levels even before this GP. It was already the single winningest card on the GP circuit. Atlanta just made that even more pronounced. That's why I have a proverbial orange flag on the card; it continues to define the format in a way no other card does and to an extent no other card shares.
My inclination is that Dredge is forcing a more linear meta because the the decks using Stirrings like Amulet Titan and KCI do really well vs the Dredge and anti-Dredge meta. It also pushed down Humans, which was a somewhat of a police deck. I could be wrong though, that's my theory.
My reasoning is what I said before: the format looked really healthy pre- Creeping Chill and Dredge is warping the format, even if it's not top 8ing
They would most likely play more serum visions because flint nest crane sucks. Lantern and KCI would take a giant hit, lantern becoming close to unplayable. Tron would take a huge hit as well. Amulet would probably survive but be forever stuck to tier 2
That would be both super dirty and extremely transparent.
Though I could totally see that, after the "oh THAT card is in here too?" comments from the stream.
Hell, I wonder if Splinter Twin is in there too...
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Obviously the percentages ebb and flow from month to month, but over a longer timeframe, idSurge's list is pretty consistent with what I've seen in the ~2000 matches I've played in the last ~8 months:
Humans: 6.5%
Tron: 5.71%
Burn: 5.49%
Hollow One: 5.23%
UW Control: 5.18%
Affinity: 3.91%
Storm: 3.8%
Jund is at 2.96% and Dredge is at 2.43%. Both of these saw big upticks after GRN but weren't very popular before that. Affinity and Hollow One have pretty high long-term percentages still but both are in downtrends in recent months. Affinity has been decreasing for longer but Hollow One has seen its share drop more recently due to other decks operating along the same lines (Bridgevine, Dredge, Arclight Phoenix decks).
transparent sure, but super dirty? i dont think anyone here is under the false pretense that wizards is operating out of the goodness of their hearts. however them making money coinciding with giving players what they want isnt necessarily wrong or bad.
if UMA shapes up to be what it looks like so far, its good for modern prices. high profile reprints, some that were sorely needed. they can also justify being more generous with their value reprints with a higher price coupled with it being 'the last hurrah of the masters line'. the masters naysayers also get what they want with confirmation that masters is going away indefinitely.
people want stoneforge unbanned, and its price is STILL inflated for the amount of play it sees in legacy these days. a reprint would be great with an unbanning. though it not being included in the box-topper promos leads me to believe that its not appearing at all; since it fits the qualifications perfectly.
basically not everything has to be zero-sum. every time wizards gains doesnt mean players lose.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)What I mean by that is if that is the case, they could have unbanned her at literally ANY TIME in the last several years, and chose not to, so they could take advantage of a hype reprint.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
thats the thing with bans versus unbans. letting a ban target stick around longer can be a serious detriment to the format, but unbans dont work that way. sure the format could be better, could be more diverse, could satisfy a certain players looking to play with the card. however if the format is doing well by observable metrics, there is no pressing need.
some, like yourself, might disagree like in the case of twin; but you have to admit that disagreement stems from something personal. the same goes for those who have a distorted memory of such cards (twin being oppressive, sfm in cawblade, etc), which can skew in the other direction. however if you step back and look at the format from the perspective of someone bringing none of that to the table, its doing just fine.
others, such as wraithpk or foodchain, believe the banlist/format is being curated incorrectly in general. but that is a difference in philosophies rather than an objective strike against the current state of the format; which, again, seems to be doing alright.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Strictly speaking, it's mainly because the extra type can pump Tarmogoyfs. Otherwise, they're functionally the same in the deck, since it doesn't run any planeswalkers, at least in the stock lists.
Looting isnt even on the same level, in fact its not even half...
Spirits
Personally, I'd much rather Stoneforge Mystic (or anything else) be unbanned around the same time as a reprint, so its price wouldn't be too terrible. If they hadn't unbanned Jace shortly before a reprint, he would've spiked even worse than he did and would probably be at around $150 right now.
Probably true. Regardless SFM will be laughably bad, but whatever.
Spirits
As I posted earlier, Stirrings has a share that is way above that of Looting. In fact, SV's share is higher than Looting's share if we judge by GP T8 events. I would not make any allegations against Looting as of now; those decks seem to be mostly fine. Stirrings decks, however, continue to rear their heads as overperformers in the 2018 GP circuit.
Fair enough but Looting does more for the decks its in then Serum Visions does for Blue Decks.
But I am fine leaving Looting for now and just seeing Stirrings go.
What I said was merely a thought experiment. You could absolutely craft a better Modern format if you were heavy-handed with the ban list. You're a smart guy, Sheridan. Really read that sentence and think about it before you off-the-cuff call it subjective and biased. It's absolutely true. BUT... the Modern player base really hates bans. The format could be better, but none of us would be happy. In fact, to the contrary of how you're trying to paint me in your comment, I'm a banlist minimalist. I want as few cards banned as possible, only the truly broken stuff, but I recognize that this philosophy probably isn't what's best for format health. I would just rather play an 80% ideal format where we all happily get to play with our broken stuff than play a 100% ideal format where all our favorite cards are banned.
UBR Grixis Shadow UBR
UR Izzet Phoenix UR
UW UW Control UW
GB GB Rock GB
Commander
BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG
BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
Calm down. This is not remotely close to strawmanning and I have no idea why you are alleging that. I'm literally quoting you because you literally call Moon "bad gameplay" three times over two separate posts. The most direct of those quotes is one where you explicitly cite Moon as an explicit example of "Bad gameplay" and then say the format would be "better" with it removed: (https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/799362-the-state-of-modern-thread-b-r-01-10-2018?page=34#c853).
Given your post, I am totally puzzled why my quote is a strawman ("On the last page or so, Wraith talked about how the format would be "better" if "bad gameplay" cards like Moon were banned."). I'm just summarizing your exact words by using your exact words. The "straw man" allegation is often a red flag for me when I'm reading a rebuttal, and I just do not understand how you can reasonably claim this here.
And again, as both I and at least two other users have stated, there is nothing objectively "better" about a Modern format that was crafted with "heavy-handed" bans. You stating it's "absolutely true" does not make it true. It might be a better experience for a subset of players who enjoy a certain kind of Magic/gameplay experience, but there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that this is a plurality of players or that the pros would outweigh the cons. That is at the very least an open question that would need extensive debate to parse through. At most, it is a biased perspective based on a personal preference that is not shared by others.
It has potential to be good for Modern prices, but I wouldn't chalk it up as a sure thing. IMO, one may be better off picking up soon-to-be reprints within the next couple weeks while folks are panic selling. If WotC's announcement is to be taken at face value, the set will be a "limited" run and that definition of limited will likely determine whether or not it ultimately impacts modern prices in any meaningful way. The Gaddock Teegs of the set, those which owe their value largely to scant printings, will likely see the most benefit, but any staple re-printed at mythic may actually end up with a net price increase once you factor in print run and the set being tagged as the last hurrah for Masters sets, insinuating the next printing may be a ways away. I'd be surprised to see any significant movement in the price of Caverns/Snaps if WotC's definition of 'limited' actually means limited, but again, I've learned to take everything this company says with a grain of salt, so we probably won't have a good idea until stores start receiving their product stock.
Link to Discord server where anybody from MTGS can keep up with thread topics while everything is being sorted out with the new site.
Maybe the meta slows down for a bit, people comment that the SFM naysayers were wrong, and then it speeds up hyper efficiently again.
I do think seeing Stirrings at that high of a percentage is problematic. I have Tron tucked away as it's a good deck to own so the ban would hurt me. I wonder if the deck could function at tier 1 without it?
I’d say so. History has shown that Tron is simply here to stay, it seems, no matter what (within reason) pieces of anti-Tron technology are introduced into the format.
Taking away a core component of Tron is different than printing hate for the archetype, of course, but the salient point here is that the deck’s resilience seems to consistently outstrip the community’s expectations.
Besides, Oath of Nissa does a reasonable Stirrings impression, and one that could be argued is more in line with the power level of other Modern cantrips, whereas Stirrings is something of an outlier. In fact, Oath is a reasonable enough card that Tron may well be hurt less by a theoretical Stirrings ban than any other tiered Stirrings deck.
On another note, on the heels of this highly non-interactive GP Top 32 (and assuming for the sake of argument a relatively non-interactive meta game for the near future), does anyone think a deck like Cheeri0s is a good meta call right now? And are there any other under-the-radar combo decks, even if they’re janky or still in the brewing stages, which may fall apart to interaction but can otherwise successfully race the Dredges, Trons, and Storms of the format? I’m an all-in BGx main but wouldn’t mind exploring something in the vein of what I just outlined as a secondary deck, even if it means getting in on the ground floor of a sketchy brew, lol.
YouTube Channel, with deck techs, gameplay, analysis, spoiler reviews, and more!
Banning Stirrings would kill 2 or 3 decks that are just good combo decks. Most stirrings decks are hard to piolt and are not opressive. Having Tron in the format is fine.
The format was totally fine before Guilds. What was the major change that happened post Guilds? Creeping Chill. Dredge is the deck that warps the meta, not Amulet, not KCI, not Tron, not Lantern, not Hallow One. All of these decks were easily tier 2 before dredge. None of them are a problem. Stop crying about combo existing.
The problem is dredge and dredge alone, it's a "better draw sideboard card or lose" deck more than any other. If you are going to ban a card, ban creeping chill and the format is fine again. You don't kill other decks, and you don't even kill dredge if creeping chill is banned.
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
I don't have any issue with Dredge eating a Chill ban, but it's sort of a weird case to make with 0 Dredge in the T8 and Chill being a recent development. Looting is more obviously fine, if for no other reason than the stats I posted about Looting's GP share to date.
Stirrings, however, was approaching problematic levels even before this GP. It was already the single winningest card on the GP circuit. Atlanta just made that even more pronounced. That's why I have a proverbial orange flag on the card; it continues to define the format in a way no other card does and to an extent no other card shares.
My reasoning is what I said before: the format looked really healthy pre- Creeping Chill and Dredge is warping the format, even if it's not top 8ing
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
Amulet / Eldrazi / Tron - all switch over to Adventurous Impulse or Oath of Nissa
Ironworks / Lantern - Glint-Nest Crane
Hardened Scales - no obvious swap here, probably just more copies of cards it currently plays (mishra's bauble, animation module, ect)
Obviously, these decks all get weaker - which is ok. They are already among the best in the whole format.
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.