This thread was automatically marked as Locked.
Quote from SandmanNess »Is this really a conversation about the actual numbers of a deck in MODERN going off on turn 1? Is there any deck ever in modern that was even capable of winning on turn 1 at all, much less at a 10%? A deck that's winning 10% on turn 2 in modern has a fair shot of getting banned, and no, it was on MTGO, not paper. Not to mention it's a deck that can combo turn 1, that can dodge any way to stop it outside of a 1 or 0 mana blue answer even if you actually get a turn to play something. It's unaffected by graveyard hate, unaffected by a chalice on 1, only slightly affected by a chalice on 0. You do nothing and they either have it or they don't. And for a deck that wins on turn 3 that wouldn't be a problem but it isn't winning on turn 3, it's winning before I play my first land. And I'd love to see your <10% data, make sure it's post London Mulligan.
Quote from Cranial_extraction »Quote from SandmanNess »I didn't make a claim to the deck's overall win rate. You did. I shared personal experience only. Therefore since you introduced the stat the onus is on you to cite it or provide evidence that the number you stated is accurate. You didn't include a sample size, you didn't say if it was pre or post london mulligan rule, and you also didn't address the fact that any deck winning on turn 1 at anywhere near 10% (if that's even accurate) is still easily worthy of a ban in modern.
Here you go friend. A deck that's less than 2% of the meta, which posts a single 5-0 roughly every 2-3 days. As I said before, you are free to watch people who actually test the deck on twitch. No I will no do it for you. You ARE the one who made the claim that " Neobrand goes off on turn 1 at least once every match I play against it, and quite frequently twice." which is outlandish and supported by no evidence other than your word. You are now walking that back saying you didn't claim anything and shared personal experience, but expect WotC to ban the deck based on your personal experience. Multiple other people have refuted your outlandish claims.
Quote from SandmanNess »I didn't make a claim to the deck's overall win rate. You did. I shared personal experience only. Therefore since you introduced the stat the onus is on you to cite it or provide evidence that the number you stated is accurate. You didn't include a sample size, you didn't say if it was pre or post london mulligan rule, and you also didn't address the fact that any deck winning on turn 1 at anywhere near 10% (if that's even accurate) is still easily worthy of a ban in modern.
Quote from Cranial_extraction »So I say it wins on turn 1 less than 10% of the time, you show evidence it wins less than 10% of the time and I'm wrong? Goldfishing is not a representation of a deck irl. Half those games (statistically) would be the opponent goes first, and could disrupt. You can not brute force the number up that way and claim it as evidence.
Quote from Mikefon »The Pro seems to have chosen: Hogaak is at 21% of the meta. Neobrand is just at 1.1%. The truely broken deck seems to be the first. We'll see the results.
Quote from Albegas »Thread in general's been pretty slow since a lot of the regulars moved to MTGNexus. There's also a lot of data tables there from users sifting through the data and segregating the Limited portion from the Modern Portion as well as links to other people's analyses. Some highlights:
Hogaak over-performed. Despite a tournament where there were more copies of Leyline of the Void in people's 75 than any other card, it still had the highest MWR at about 56%Phoenix did all right, but it's MWR was only about 50%, which is about the same range as most of the other popular decksUrzaSword was surprisingly high, with a MWR at about 55.4%, almost the same as Hogaak
It's also nice to see a BGx deck so well-positioned after what seemed like an eternity of BGx decks struggling to remain relevant
Quote from Earthbound21 »
I will not be replying to rebuttals that are not at least as fleshed out as my assertion. If you're grown up enough to use the internet, you are grown up enough to understand that posturing, nit picking, and corner cases are not enough to constitute a rebuttal to an argument. You will attack my argument in full or you will not be getting a response from me.
Quote from ed06288 »Format looks bad. People are acting like just one hogaak deck in a top 8 is a good thing.
Quote from Worldsaverinc »I think Modern has changed significantly from even 2 years ago. For a lot of people, I think modern has finally become the pro-format that they prefer. Pros really like formats that are smaller in scopes to leverage deck decision and sideboards. Modern has finally shrunk what is good to be able to do that compared to before. There are a lot less random decks out there. You still see them on occasion, but I think the TIER 2 and 3 plethora of decks which defined Modern for years are essentially shoved down thanks to Humans, Phoenix, Hogaak, Jund, UW Control, and an artifact deck and some variations inbetween.
It is really tough to play a brew anymore or a tier 2 net deck and win more and having trouble competitng. The velocity of deck search, the power, and the amount of removal have drastically impacted what could be played, especially for decks with little interaction such as Merfolk, Elves, Mono-Green devotion, Ponza, and all the rest of the tier 2 and 3 decks that are played.
It is fine to modern to be this way for the pros. Professionals LIKE smaller fields of play. This way they can leverage game skill, deck building, and all the other tiny skills that make you have percentage win chances against the field. it is why standard is generally well liked by pros let alone the generally money and attention lavished on it.
Modern has finally become that pro-format that really competitive pros wanted it to be.
I just don't like it. I liked the more casual 60 decks a week modern. It really isn't that anymore I don't think. There might be non-games due to the deck style of modern, but there really is a tightening of what is good or bad or what works or doesn't. Winning a couple games here or there and spiking a tournament with a deck just doesn't work as much if you aren't playing the clear best decks. It is much much harder to take a wierd brew or a tier 3-4 deck and do well. There is a much smaller tier 2 and tier 3 list. Staples on that list are no longer as good. They can still win and occasionally spike, but I bet it is less before.