There is a really big sample size used for the analysis and I think it clearly demonstrates what the best and worst decks are in modern right now.
So the takeaway is that Whir Prison has no bad matchups, but may need more data points. Interactive decks mostly have 0 good matchups (and multiple bad matchups) and proactive/fast/linear decks have large numbers of good matchups. Sounds about right.
There is a really big sample size used for the analysis and I think it clearly demonstrates what the best and worst decks are in modern right now.
So the takeaway is that Whir Prison has no bad matchups, but may need more data points. Interactive decks mostly have 0 good matchups (and multiple bad matchups) and proactive/fast/linear decks have large numbers of good matchups. Sounds about right.
At a high level, this is mostly correct. The U/W and Jeskai decks posted positive win rates at 52.0% and 50.8%, and are the only traditional interactive decks to have positive win rates. Overall, this data clearly suggests that playing deck with a strong proactive plan like whir prison, dredge, phoenix, or affinity is the correct choice. Folks who registered thoughtseize seemed to get beat up pretty badly.
So the takeaway is that Whir Prison has no bad matchups, but may need more data points. Interactive decks mostly have 0 good matchups (and multiple bad matchups) and proactive/fast/linear decks have large numbers of good matchups. Sounds about right.
One data point. Take a look at the two other GPs where he did it, different percentages. So the best thing will be, after this months worth of GPs, to combine all those to get an actually look, on how it looks like.
The London Mulligan goes into effect today on MTGO, correct? When do the first events using this rule get posted? Tomorrow? Let's keep an eye on what decks do well as a result of this rule.
The London Mulligan goes into effect today on MTGO, correct? When do the first events using this rule get posted? Tomorrow? Let's keep an eye on what decks do well as a result of this rule.
Hoogland had an interesting take on this yesterday: All it will do is reduce variance. And reduced variance means that mediocre decks which win due to that variance will be hurt. A lot of "almost there" decks get worse while established strong decks get considerably better.
I dunno how much I agree, but I can definitely say that even if I stacked my opening 7, there are many decks' nut draws that I simply have no meaningful counterplay to.
Hoogland had an interesting take on this yesterday: All it will do is reduce variance. And reduced variance means that mediocre decks which win due to that variance will be hurt. A lot of "almost there" decks get worse while established strong decks get considerably better.
I dunno how much I agree, but I can definitely say that even if I stacked my opening 7, there are many decks' nut draws that I simply have no meaningful counterplay to.
While it hurts a lot to agree with Hoogland, my view on this mulligan rule is exactly the same. I don't really buy into the Combo Winter that everyone is afraid of. I seriously think that decks that are good will still be good (or slightly better) because we're reducing the number of non-games that occur, and decks that are objectively bad will be worse because they won't have the free wins that boost their apparent win rate.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Playing: WUMiracles ControlUW RUBGrixis Death's ShadowBUR
The London Mulligan goes into effect today on MTGO, correct? When do the first events using this rule get posted? Tomorrow? Let's keep an eye on what decks do well as a result of this rule.
Hoogland had an interesting take on this yesterday: All it will do is reduce variance. And reduced variance means that mediocre decks which win due to that variance will be hurt. A lot of "almost there" decks get worse while established strong decks get considerably better.
I dunno how much I agree, but I can definitely say that even if I stacked my opening 7, there are many decks' nut draws that I simply have no meaningful counterplay to.
If Hoogland turns out to be right, it will shrink the overall meta to something comparable to where legacy or pauper currently is - the number of viable tournament decks is reduced significantly. This means that the fairer decks are able to better plan for answers, both specific and general ones. Thus the big question:
While it hurts a lot to agree with Hoogland, my view on this mulligan rule is exactly the same. I don't really buy into the Combo Winter that everyone is afraid of. I seriously think that decks that are good will still be good (or slightly better) because we're reducing the number of non-games that occur, and decks that are objectively bad will be worse because they won't have the free wins that boost their apparent win rate.
But isn't this logic chain a fallacy? Cause it basically says this:
- Bad draws from the good deck gets less likely which reduces the punishment what bad decks can do
However, bad decks tend to have worse bad draws than good decks (cause they usually do not lack in power, just in consistency). In my opinion, the exact opposite should happen: The absolute increase of consistency is way higher for bad decks than from good decks which in return gives the bad decks a better edge against the good decks, since their "do nothing draws" will happen way rarer than with the current ruling while little will change for the good decks.
Basically, I would argue the exact opposite is correct going forward. Bad decks will profit way more than the good decks.
Greetings,
Kathal
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What I play or have:
Modern/Legacy
either funpolice (Delver, Deathcloud, UW Control) or the fun decks (especially those ft. Griselbrand)
I actually think it'll do nothing maybe besides making a deck like Amulet better by a very few percentage points. Basically it increases all deck's consistency. So in turn, makes "almost there decks" jsut as good as they were before because the real decks will be better in turn to answer them. Both good and bad decks get better, no one really gets better.
Mediocre decks at their best are still mediocre. Good decks are their best can be unbeatable. This rule will disproportionately help the "already-good" decks and hurt "mediocre" to "bad" decks.
Blue Moon doesn't miraculously beat Dredge because I might be able to hope to dig for a Relic or Surgical. But them digging for a Faithless/Cathartic + Dredgers? One of these seems to have a MUCH better advantage gain than the other.
Many of the mediocre decks (like Blue Moon) are successful because they can capitalize on the stumbles of opponents. When you remove or reduce opponent stumbles, those decks get significantly worse.
Contrapoint:
- Griselbanned is a mediocre deck (due to the consistency), but can have a Turn 1 win.
- The Nutdraws of Counter-Cat/RUG Delver are freaking disgusting for 90% of the decks out there, but they do not happen that often
What does this show? It solely depends on the match-up and the ceiling a deck has and not what the average is. A nutdraw from UW Control still folds to an decent draw from Tron, just because the match-up is such lopsided.
Greetings,
Kathal
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What I play or have:
Modern/Legacy
either funpolice (Delver, Deathcloud, UW Control) or the fun decks (especially those ft. Griselbrand)
Contrapoint:
- Griselbanned is a mediocre deck (due to the consistency), but can have a Turn 1 win.
- The Nutdraws of Counter-Cat/RUG Delver are freaking disgusting for 90% of the decks out there, but they do not happen that often
What does this show? It solely depends on the match-up and the ceiling a deck has and not what the average is. A nutdraw from UW Control still folds to an decent draw from Tron, just because the match-up is such lopsided.
Greetings,
Kathal
Grisselbrand is a "mediocre deck" due to the number of games it loses to itself. It's best draws means it flat out kills you, as fast as Turn 1 or reliably Turn 2. The best draws for some wonky Temur deck is.... maybe a 3/2 flier with conditional counterspell backup? Maybe a Turn 2 4/4 Trampler?
You tell me which deck is gaining more from better opening hands.
I guess the better way to put it is: Good decks, fast decks, aggro decks, and combo decks which rely on a small, specific number of cards get exponentially better than value decks, fair decks, answer decks, or interactive decks as a whole.
im not sure which decks it will help the most, because i think that is a rather complex deckbuilding question. however we can be sure that it will be a net increase in consistency for all decks across the board, which is arguably better for the game as a whole.
if there is any flaw in modern that ends up seeing more light is the prevalence of the low probability highest powered draws (ie the nuts) that many modern decks seem to feature, yet that nothing is actually balanced around. though ill admit that i think people are overblowing the extent.
for example on the last scg coverage, the commentators mentioned one of the well known amulet titan players telling them that turn 2 'kills' happened roughly 10%. i havent done the math (maybe someone has), but just based on intuition i dont believe that number is going to jump up past 20% or anything thanks to the london mulligan. however in the context of 'how often can these decks do these explosive things its nearly impossible to deal with', it might be something where they increase in frequency by 20-30 percent - which amounts to only a few percentage points overall.
this is then offset by whatever improvements decks looking for responses see, as well as a general reduction in games where the disparity between an above average draw and a mediocre one create 'non-games'.
though if it is a bigger change than i believe and ends up shedding light on one of the crappier aspects of modern, to where some action by wizards is warranted, then you wont see me complaining.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
im not sure which decks it will help the most, because i think that is a rather complex deckbuilding question. however we can be sure that it will be a net increase in consistency for all decks across the board, which is arguably better for the game as a whole.
if there is any flaw in modern that ends up seeing more light is the prevalence of the low probability highest powered draws (ie the nuts) that many modern decks seem to feature, yet that nothing is actually balanced around. though ill admit that i think people are overblowing the extent.
for example on the last scg coverage, the commentators mentioned one of the well known amulet titan players telling them that turn 2 'kills' happened roughly 10%. i havent done the math (maybe someone has), but just based on intuition i dont believe that number is going to jump up past 20% or anything thanks to the london mulligan. however in the context of 'how often can these decks do these explosive things its nearly impossible to deal with', it might be something where they increase in frequency by 20-30 percent - which amounts to only a few percentage points overall.
this is then offset by whatever improvements decks looking for responses see, as well as a general reduction in games where the disparity between an above average draw and a mediocre one create 'non-games'.
though if it is a bigger change than i believe and ends up shedding light on one of the crappier aspects of modern, to where some action by wizards is warranted, then you wont see me complaining.
I think that turn 2 kill percentage comes from the pre ban deck, and the person who came up with the 10% number was later found to be cheating extensively.
No one has simply updated it since, because people are bad with percentages in general, and the number 10% translates more to meaning very uncommon, than 1 in 10 games.
I'm excited for the London Mulligan. It will reduce the amount of nongames you play for all decks regardless of powerlevel. I do think it will make good decks better and (most) weaker decks worse, but at worst it will bring to light whether a deck is actually too good for modern and we'll just see bans accordingly.
Have the visceral fear that this new mulligan rule will allow Amulet decks to pop up again in our lgs.
I hope the new rule, does not make Amulet decks too strong..
Have the visceral fear that this new mulligan rule will allow Amulet decks to pop up again in our lgs.
I hope the new rule, does not make Amulet decks too strong..
As an Amulet player, me too. I don't want my baby banned out from underneath me again.
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.
Due to the success of the Twitch decklist overlay, all opponents will now have access to each others' decklists before a game starts. I'm a huge fan of this in a format where knowing your opponent's strategy can only reduce variance and help interactive decks. How many times have interactive players kept seemingly strong opening 7s only to find that their answers line up poorly against an opponent's threats? That's one of the main reasons to not play interactive decks in Modern period, and this new rule is a great administrative way to address the issue.
The other part I hypothetically like about it is that it mitigates some of the scouting advantage players on teams get.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I can't say I'm pleased to see you and must warn you I may have to do something about it.
EDH: UGEdric
Pauper: URDelver
Modern: UGRDelver
Draft my cube: Eric's 390 Unpowered
I‘d say both changes play very well into each other and seem to greatly reward knowledge of how to fight meta decks. All in all some nice outlooks for control.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: Death&Taxes / U Tron / G Tron / Goblins
Legacy: Death&Taxes (almost there)
EDH: Squee, Goblin Nabob / Phelddagrif
Due to the success of the Twitch decklist overlay, all opponents will now have access to each others' decklists before a game starts. I'm a huge fan of this in a format where knowing your opponent's strategy can only reduce variance and help interactive decks. How many times have interactive players kept seemingly strong opening 7s only to find that their answers line up poorly against an opponent's threats? That's one of the main reasons to not play interactive decks in Modern period, and this new rule is a great administrative way to address the issue.
This is an absolutely awful idea. Some of the biggest skills in Magic, which can be used to hedge advantage over opponents, is the ability to make mulligan decisions in the dark (risk/benefit analysis), as well as identifying and sideboarding accordingly based on assumptions you make about what *could* be in your opponent's deck and sideboard.
This change also completely eliminates a lot of decks which can sneak under the radar, masquerading as another in order to specifically deceive your opponent into playing and sideboarding incorrectly. I have talked at length about that with regards to my playing Blue Moon during Phoenix Spring. It also discourages "spicy tech" that, if that information is given away, allows the opponent to play around (thus greatly reducing the effectiveness of that tech).
If this was information available for games 2 and 3... maybe. But Game 1, blind? I am not a fan of this whatsoever.
If this is something specifically for PT/MC, sure. But even at the GP level, I do not like it whatsoever. Maybe for Day 2 and on, but not in the second round.
I highly doubt the decklist rule is for anything other than the Mythic Championship? GPs? Too many players for something like this to work.
Can't wait to see the London Mulligan in action. My guess though is that it will make Tron/Dredge/Amulet too powerful and may necessitate further bans.
ability to make mulligan decisions in the dark (risk/benefit analysis)
'in the dark' implies there is no information to work with, meaning that any risk benefit breakdown becomes a rather simple binary: 'if i keep this risky hand and it pays off i get some advantage'. so basically just a gamble, and hardly anything to do with skill. if you gleaned some information prior then you are obviously no longer 'in the dark'; like seeing a card being flashed while shuffling or remembering what deck they are on because of some prior knowledge.
as well as identifying and sideboarding accordingly based on assumptions you make about what *could* be in your opponent's deck and sideboard.
i can agree this changes the sideboard sub game somewhat, but it wouldnt be gone entirely. even with decklists there is still 'next leveling' going on with any mind games associated (like siding out tech game 2 showed in game 2). what this really reduces is the amount of meta knowledge that can be leveraged, like keeping up with the most current trends in sideboard tech; which is probably a downside.
This change also completely eliminates a lot of decks which can sneak under the radar, masquerading as another in order to specifically deceive your opponent into playing and sideboarding incorrectly. I have talked at length about that with regards to my playing Blue Moon during Phoenix Spring. It also discourages "spicy tech" that, if that information is given away, allows the opponent to play around (thus greatly reducing the effectiveness of that tech).
If this was information available for games 2 and 3... maybe. But Game 1, blind? I am not a fan of this whatsoever.
If this is something specifically for PT/MC, sure. But even at the GP level, I do not like it whatsoever. Maybe for Day 2 and on, but not in the second round.
the thing is, seeing deck lists only gives you so much ability to actually adapt. a good rogue deck should still be exploiting some hole in the meta, where the cards or strategy are inherently advantaged against the opponent. this would only no longer be the case if decklists were available prior to a tournament (thus letting you change your deck) rather just seeing them game 1 - when you cant do anything unless you plan to cheat. as for surprising people with those 'gotcha' moments, like with your example playing a deck that looks very similar to another, i dunno if id rate that as very skill intensive. yeah it requires some forethought, but it basically amounts to some hope to punk people out of games; which im honestly surprised to see you voice complaint about considering ive seen you say having that happen in large tournament open field settings is one of worst things about modern at the moment.
as for the skill, i think one important skill being diminished by the change is how quickly you can identify what deck your opponent is on. because like with blue moon and ur phoenix, it could come down to some nuanced difference in opening plays. however in regards to tournaments, this skill naturally comes into play less the deeper into the tournament you are. the top tables will naturally get an idea of what their competition is playing, and of course its irrelevant in top 8s.
so yeah i can agree that the change isnt all upside. the real question is if it will be a net benefit for the format or game. ktkenshinx's points about interactive decks still stand, as cobbling together disparate tools in decks with more non-linear decision patterns eats into their ability to consistently respond to decks skewed focus one a few key plays.
maybe the format or game doesnt get noticeably better, but im finding it hard to see either getting noticeably worse.
As a fair player, this is nice. I can't tell you how many times we keep a really reasonable hand and now find like 4 dead cards in hand against combo.
A bunch of players in the past had grievances about not knowing if the UR deck they were playing would end the game by the end of turn 3 due to the Twin combo.
This definitely makes some spice less playable. These rules seem to benefit combo and midrange/control while hurting aggro or spice tech. I feel as though aggro may be the biggest loser from this.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
https://www.channelfireball.com/articles/bilbao-braggings-the-full-story-of-who-beats-whom-in-modern/
There is a really big sample size used for the analysis and I think it clearly demonstrates what the best and worst decks are in modern right now.
So the takeaway is that Whir Prison has no bad matchups, but may need more data points. Interactive decks mostly have 0 good matchups (and multiple bad matchups) and proactive/fast/linear decks have large numbers of good matchups. Sounds about right.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
At a high level, this is mostly correct. The U/W and Jeskai decks posted positive win rates at 52.0% and 50.8%, and are the only traditional interactive decks to have positive win rates. Overall, this data clearly suggests that playing deck with a strong proactive plan like whir prison, dredge, phoenix, or affinity is the correct choice. Folks who registered thoughtseize seemed to get beat up pretty badly.
Btw. something I stumbled across a few days ago: https://mtgmeta.io/metagame?f=modern
Greetings,
Kathal
Modern/Legacy
either funpolice (Delver, Deathcloud, UW Control) or the fun decks (especially those ft. Griselbrand)
Hoogland had an interesting take on this yesterday: All it will do is reduce variance. And reduced variance means that mediocre decks which win due to that variance will be hurt. A lot of "almost there" decks get worse while established strong decks get considerably better.
I dunno how much I agree, but I can definitely say that even if I stacked my opening 7, there are many decks' nut draws that I simply have no meaningful counterplay to.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
WUMiracles ControlUW
RUBGrixis Death's ShadowBUR
If Hoogland turns out to be right, it will shrink the overall meta to something comparable to where legacy or pauper currently is - the number of viable tournament decks is reduced significantly. This means that the fairer decks are able to better plan for answers, both specific and general ones. Thus the big question:
Would this narrower metagame be better?
- Bad draws from the good deck gets less likely which reduces the punishment what bad decks can do
However, bad decks tend to have worse bad draws than good decks (cause they usually do not lack in power, just in consistency). In my opinion, the exact opposite should happen: The absolute increase of consistency is way higher for bad decks than from good decks which in return gives the bad decks a better edge against the good decks, since their "do nothing draws" will happen way rarer than with the current ruling while little will change for the good decks.
Basically, I would argue the exact opposite is correct going forward. Bad decks will profit way more than the good decks.
Greetings,
Kathal
Modern/Legacy
either funpolice (Delver, Deathcloud, UW Control) or the fun decks (especially those ft. Griselbrand)
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
Blue Moon doesn't miraculously beat Dredge because I might be able to hope to dig for a Relic or Surgical. But them digging for a Faithless/Cathartic + Dredgers? One of these seems to have a MUCH better advantage gain than the other.
Many of the mediocre decks (like Blue Moon) are successful because they can capitalize on the stumbles of opponents. When you remove or reduce opponent stumbles, those decks get significantly worse.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
- Griselbanned is a mediocre deck (due to the consistency), but can have a Turn 1 win.
- The Nutdraws of Counter-Cat/RUG Delver are freaking disgusting for 90% of the decks out there, but they do not happen that often
What does this show? It solely depends on the match-up and the ceiling a deck has and not what the average is. A nutdraw from UW Control still folds to an decent draw from Tron, just because the match-up is such lopsided.
Greetings,
Kathal
Modern/Legacy
either funpolice (Delver, Deathcloud, UW Control) or the fun decks (especially those ft. Griselbrand)
Grisselbrand is a "mediocre deck" due to the number of games it loses to itself. It's best draws means it flat out kills you, as fast as Turn 1 or reliably Turn 2. The best draws for some wonky Temur deck is.... maybe a 3/2 flier with conditional counterspell backup? Maybe a Turn 2 4/4 Trampler?
You tell me which deck is gaining more from better opening hands.
I guess the better way to put it is: Good decks, fast decks, aggro decks, and combo decks which rely on a small, specific number of cards get exponentially better than value decks, fair decks, answer decks, or interactive decks as a whole.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
if there is any flaw in modern that ends up seeing more light is the prevalence of the low probability highest powered draws (ie the nuts) that many modern decks seem to feature, yet that nothing is actually balanced around. though ill admit that i think people are overblowing the extent.
for example on the last scg coverage, the commentators mentioned one of the well known amulet titan players telling them that turn 2 'kills' happened roughly 10%. i havent done the math (maybe someone has), but just based on intuition i dont believe that number is going to jump up past 20% or anything thanks to the london mulligan. however in the context of 'how often can these decks do these explosive things its nearly impossible to deal with', it might be something where they increase in frequency by 20-30 percent - which amounts to only a few percentage points overall.
this is then offset by whatever improvements decks looking for responses see, as well as a general reduction in games where the disparity between an above average draw and a mediocre one create 'non-games'.
though if it is a bigger change than i believe and ends up shedding light on one of the crappier aspects of modern, to where some action by wizards is warranted, then you wont see me complaining.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)I think that turn 2 kill percentage comes from the pre ban deck, and the person who came up with the 10% number was later found to be cheating extensively.
No one has simply updated it since, because people are bad with percentages in general, and the number 10% translates more to meaning very uncommon, than 1 in 10 games.
I hope the new rule, does not make Amulet decks too strong..
Nexus MTG News // Nexus - Magic Art Gallery // MTG Dual Land Color Ratios Analyzer // MTG Card Drawing Odds Calculator
Want to play a UW control deck in modern, but don't have jace or snaps?
Please come visit us at the Emeria Titan control thread
As an Amulet player, me too. I don't want my baby banned out from underneath me again.
https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/bbsqqu/mythic_championship_london_decklists_viewable_by/
Due to the success of the Twitch decklist overlay, all opponents will now have access to each others' decklists before a game starts. I'm a huge fan of this in a format where knowing your opponent's strategy can only reduce variance and help interactive decks. How many times have interactive players kept seemingly strong opening 7s only to find that their answers line up poorly against an opponent's threats? That's one of the main reasons to not play interactive decks in Modern period, and this new rule is a great administrative way to address the issue.
EDH: UGEdric
Pauper: UR Delver
Modern: UGR Delver
Draft my cube: Eric's 390 Unpowered
Legacy: Death&Taxes (almost there)
EDH: Squee, Goblin Nabob / Phelddagrif
This is an absolutely awful idea. Some of the biggest skills in Magic, which can be used to hedge advantage over opponents, is the ability to make mulligan decisions in the dark (risk/benefit analysis), as well as identifying and sideboarding accordingly based on assumptions you make about what *could* be in your opponent's deck and sideboard.
This change also completely eliminates a lot of decks which can sneak under the radar, masquerading as another in order to specifically deceive your opponent into playing and sideboarding incorrectly. I have talked at length about that with regards to my playing Blue Moon during Phoenix Spring. It also discourages "spicy tech" that, if that information is given away, allows the opponent to play around (thus greatly reducing the effectiveness of that tech).
If this was information available for games 2 and 3... maybe. But Game 1, blind? I am not a fan of this whatsoever.
If this is something specifically for PT/MC, sure. But even at the GP level, I do not like it whatsoever. Maybe for Day 2 and on, but not in the second round.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Can't wait to see the London Mulligan in action. My guess though is that it will make Tron/Dredge/Amulet too powerful and may necessitate further bans.
i can agree this changes the sideboard sub game somewhat, but it wouldnt be gone entirely. even with decklists there is still 'next leveling' going on with any mind games associated (like siding out tech game 2 showed in game 2). what this really reduces is the amount of meta knowledge that can be leveraged, like keeping up with the most current trends in sideboard tech; which is probably a downside. the thing is, seeing deck lists only gives you so much ability to actually adapt. a good rogue deck should still be exploiting some hole in the meta, where the cards or strategy are inherently advantaged against the opponent. this would only no longer be the case if decklists were available prior to a tournament (thus letting you change your deck) rather just seeing them game 1 - when you cant do anything unless you plan to cheat. as for surprising people with those 'gotcha' moments, like with your example playing a deck that looks very similar to another, i dunno if id rate that as very skill intensive. yeah it requires some forethought, but it basically amounts to some hope to punk people out of games; which im honestly surprised to see you voice complaint about considering ive seen you say having that happen in large tournament open field settings is one of worst things about modern at the moment.
as for the skill, i think one important skill being diminished by the change is how quickly you can identify what deck your opponent is on. because like with blue moon and ur phoenix, it could come down to some nuanced difference in opening plays. however in regards to tournaments, this skill naturally comes into play less the deeper into the tournament you are. the top tables will naturally get an idea of what their competition is playing, and of course its irrelevant in top 8s.
so yeah i can agree that the change isnt all upside. the real question is if it will be a net benefit for the format or game. ktkenshinx's points about interactive decks still stand, as cobbling together disparate tools in decks with more non-linear decision patterns eats into their ability to consistently respond to decks skewed focus one a few key plays.
maybe the format or game doesnt get noticeably better, but im finding it hard to see either getting noticeably worse.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)A bunch of players in the past had grievances about not knowing if the UR deck they were playing would end the game by the end of turn 3 due to the Twin combo.
This definitely makes some spice less playable. These rules seem to benefit combo and midrange/control while hurting aggro or spice tech. I feel as though aggro may be the biggest loser from this.