MTG Salvation

So I actually went back and ran the GP Top8 numbers. These are from the 8 Modern GPs this year (not taking into account Team Modern ones):

• Affinity - 9% (6/64)
• Dredge - 8% (5/64)
• Grixis Shadow - 8%
• RG Scapeshift - 8%
• 4C Shadow - 6% (4/64)
• Abzan Company - 6%

And the benchmark we're looking for is Twin's 19% from back then, so my prediction would be "No bans" for next announcement. However:

• Shadow decks - 14% (9/64)
• Tron decks - 11% (7/64)
• Company decks - 11%

Here we should remember that they will wait for PT Rivals to reevaluate. That means the previously mentioned 19% benchmark would translate to 14 Top8s, so in theory these decks could still get there. It's unlikely, but possible nonetheless. Getting there would be outrageous on its own though, just imagine Shadow getting 5 Top8 spots at the PT, or Tron (7) or Company (7).

Calling it now, after PT Rivals: no bans in Modern. And hopefully 1 or 2 unbans as well

Quote from Sabertooth »

i dont agree. i was at gp sao paolo, and all i saw was big mana decks vs decks trying to race with a combo finish or disruption (grixis shadow). Maybe im biased and i just thought that big mana decks were warping the meta at the gp, but The thing with these big mana decks is that there is no real answer to them

Except there are answers: all those decks have bad matchups like any other. ETron and RG Shift are just Tier 1 decks, maybe some don't like that, but they aren't a problem. Modern is really doing fine, I haven't crunched the numbers yet, but I highly doubt we'll get a competitive diversity ban next January, at least based off the information we have (deck with ~20% GP Top8s).

Quote from Drekavac »

Your own data shows a significant uptick for E-Tron in the past few months and when I say ET should be considered for banning you're telling me I'm trolling?

I wouldn't say you are trolling, but this is exactly why you and many others are wrong: the total ignorance or disregard for the format's known rules and guidelines while discussing the banlist. Eldrazi Tron going up in the overall metagame doesn't mean anything as long as it doesn't translate to GPs. Eldrazi Tron has what? 1 GP Top8? Not even close to getting banned. I'd suggest going back to the bans of BBE, DRS, Pod, Twin and Eye.

Like Ulamog here said, people should step back and really consider their posts and arguments. All of us. Else the thread devolves into bans to kill decks we dislike, improve our own decks, bring back our decks to the format and "mud-slinging"... I guess it always ends up happening, wonder why. The quality of the posts would increase if we just stop disregarding what we know, which isn't a lot to begin with.

Quote from Zorakkiller »

I just want to improve the average game of modern because it's always overshadowed by deck diversity

The thing is that healthy gameplay is a much more subjective topic to evaluate than deck diversity. Different players want different things out of the format, we shouldn't come and say fair > unfair, interactive > solitaire, etc. but a lot of posters here say or imply that regardless. That's their opinion and it's fine as long as they don't try to impose it to others, yet alone belittle them for thinking otherwise. This is also why "you come off as entitled" is thrown around so much in this thread, some just want to change (un)ban stuff without considering the format's metagame, rules and guidelines.

Another interesting topic is the archetype balance vs deck diversity, that we discussed a couple months ago. IMO, both are important for format health and luckily Wizards cares about both, so that's nice. However, true archetype balance is probably not achievable, no matter how you slice the pie (some posters here would argue that aggro will always dominate or that ramp and combo shouldn't be as prevalent as migdrange). At the end of the day, deck diversity is easier to measure and change. I think the real goal is to give players as many options as possible, while ensuring the metagame isn't grossly unbalanced (like a deck being too good or certain archetypes struggling as a whole).

Quote from StubbsMcAwesome »

Quote from acc95 »

Noob question here, since I'm an online player (never played on paper beyond kitchen table when young):

If I cast Esper Charm and say nothing, isn't it implied that there are no targets and thus the chosen mode is "I draw two"? If the opponent ask for targets, don't I just say "no targets"? Maybe it's scummy on their part, but I should know what my cards do. The situation really doesn't strike as some obscure rules technicality: it only requires targets for the enchantment and discard modes.

Correct, everything you say is accurate. The issue is that there isn't a need for the opponent to ask "target me or you" in any scenario. The person who casts esper charm would be declaring draw 2 (or discard 2) unless an opponent cuts them off and asks for a target before a mode is announced. The ONLY reason an opponent would do this is an attempt to trip the player up and make them discard on a technicality.

Gotcha. Is the opponent allowed to cut me off and ask for targets before the mode is even announced though? I don't think so. Judges should default in those situations to protect the player who cast the spell IMO.

Quote from Hiisio »

Quote from BlueTronFTW »

It's easy to pick apart things when you add qualifiers like "shadowless." Actually though the most successful "shadowless" URx deck runs no maindeck big mana hate cards and wins via grapeshot.

Calling storm a blue red deck is like calling infect "blue green stompy" or dredge a grixis aggro. Storm is another weirdo that only abuses one keyword 'storm', it doesn't care color identity almost at all.

Except it does care about color identity. A combo deck like storm greatly benefits from cheap cantrips (found in blue), mana rituals (in red), spell-matters enablers such as cost reduction (in blue and red), not to mention the finishers themselves (in red). Storm is undeniably a UR deck, and arguably the most successful URx deck not running Shadow.

This whole situation really sucks, online data is now mostly useless. I can already imagine all those months without GP action... Ughh.

This has been mentioned on Reddit, but haven't seen it here. I think we should start crowdsourcing lists with the help of players, grinders and streamers.

*Maybe this is not the thread to do that though. A new metagame thread perhaps? We can request evidence that easily checks out with the league's leaderboard, so that's a good start. Would the site get a C&D as well though?

Quote from genini2 »

The league reporting is so weird. They listed Kanister's Lantern Prison twice and I don't know if that's a mistake or if he won 2 leagues in one day. I wish they would just report all the results.

League trophy reporting is random and yes, Kanister has won 2 times. There's no way they just report all results remember the whole MtgGoldfish matchup winrates thing taken down? Or the whole "too much information breaks formats faster" discussion? Yeah, not happening.

If anyone missed it, I consider this line important for future banlist discussions:

Color balance alone isn’t a reason to alter a format, but lack of variety in play experience is. Our intention is to try and trim excess power from clearly dominant decks to open up space for a variety of decks to succeed, not to introduce churn by adjusting the ban list.

So, deck/archetype diversity is more important than color balance perhaps? Huh...

Quote from Ember_Twilight »

Quote from gkourou »

NO CHANGES IN MODERN is what we are getting.

Yep. I haven't seen anything in any tournament that would induce changes to Modern from WotC. No bans. No unbans.

I'd be inclined to agree, but it's too soon to tell. We gotta remember that GP Top8s are the most important datapoints and we still have a couple of those coming up.

24-27 points Modern Lists: https://magic.wizards.com/en/events/coverage/2019MC2/24-27-modern-match-point-decklists-2019-04-28

Out of 26 decks, Phoenix and Humans leading the pack at 5 and 4 copies respectively.

1 guy repping Jund, what a hero.

Quote from idSurge »

So, some questions from before the lock on the last page right after the weekend fireworks.

1.

@ktk: I tried to find you on Twitter, but I suck at searching. Has any deck, in a global sense, had such a weekend as this outside of Eldrazi (aka the most broken this format has ever been)? I struggle to think of any, that over a 'global' weekend in Europe, a GP in the US, AND SCG (which we know plays by a slightly different meta) all had the same trending pattern.

2.

Quote from MrTzoulis »

Phoenix's numbers shouldn't be that high, because it's not THAT good. It's not 20% good, it's 10% good. Dredge and other similar strategies keep its natural predators down, and I'm talking from much experience.

This was from a different thread, and it really needs to be understood because its 100% accurate. I've said since Phoenix became a thing, that it can be suppressed by 'fair' decks, specifically things like Rock/BGx, the issue is those decks lose to the rest of Modern! I mean I dont follow the Rock discussion, but does it beat Storm, Tron? Hollow Bois? Dredge? Terminus? Heck if I know.

The Rock was the only undefeated deck going into the top 8, I believe, at SCG Philly a few days ago. It would have taken the whole event down if not for a misplay against Phoenix in the finals. Yes, it can beat all those decks in the hands of a skilled pilot as Orr clearly demonstrated (pretty sure he even beat Amulet 2-0), so saying it loses to 'the rest of Modern' is simply not true.

Quote from gkourou »

TLDR2: I won't be hyperbolic saying this is Eldrazi winter, because people that are saying that probably want Twin back, so their agenda is to sell the format as horribly bad and scream for a Twin unban. They don't even believe this theirselves.

I'll flip that statement right back at you. Phoenix in less than half a year has put up better results and higher play-rate than Twin in the entire of 2015. You call it an agenda but they're justified to want twin back in the face of the weekend's results.

You say they have an agenda, but what about yourself.

Over 20% play rate over 2 GPs. 6 out of 16 top 8 spots in 2 GPs.

Twin's stats are rookie numbers compared to this and yet here you are defending it and deriding twin players.

Yeah they might be selling the format horribly, but that's no different from you sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling that this is the best Modern has ever been.

If you honestly believe this is the best Modern has ever been, than you're either deluded or a hypocrite.

Quote from cfusionpm »

Quote from AvalonAurora »

Twin might have similar problems if they are considering printing something similar to, but stronger than, Deceiver Exarch as a highly possible new card

Why is this remotely an issue when they can't even seem to go a Standard cycle without breaking Dredge multiple times? Clearly, breaking decks with new cards is not a concern whatsoever.

You know what, it's pointless. This thread is infuriating.

'what if a better bad blue creature is released!'

I'm ****in done. Do you folks HONESTLY play this format?

Hollow One
Tron
G Affinity
Any number of Divas Phoenix decks (and Kiln and Swiftspear and Thing...)
Humans
Dredge
Burn
Storm
KCI
Infect

I could go on and on, but all the above could simple have you dead on Turn 3, or close enough, and I'm supposed to worry if we get Pestermite v3 or some mythical equipment that doesn't exist?

Nah. I'm sick of the apologists for Wizards gross incompetence and clear ignorance of the format.

You don't want to have to respect Twin? It's just too unfun for your poor goldfish deck? Fine I guess. At least that is understandable, even if I have to play against a litany of lame decks, whatever.

SFM though? I wouldn't even play it. I'm done spending money on this garbage, but there is no meaningful presence of a fair grinding deck, and if SFM, like Jace, like AV is 'too good' while I sit across 2 or 3 turn 1 Hollow Ones?

Then people need to look at the top end of this format because that cards dead when it hits the table.

Quote from thnkr »

Hypothesis comes before experimentation, not theory. Theory is what happens when a hypothesis has been proven. And the tests by which a hypothesis must pass to become a theory are set up in such a way as to attempt to prove the hypothesis wrong. Stating an opinion and then justifying it with supporting hand-picked supporting arguments and data does not a theory make.

...by your standard a claim that skullclamp is safe to unban and a claim that sfm is safe to unban merit the same response in discussions.

EDIT: Yeah, pretty much. While one might get more agreement from the community, both are just opinions. One just might be more popular.

@LeoTzu, you may be correct, it is a high bar to set. The way I see it, if someone wants to have their opinion taken seriously, it might serve that they do more work than select specific examples to support their opinion. Anybody can state an opinion and then spin some small sample size or selective evidence to support it. Without doing any sort of real work to check our opinions for validity before spouting our opinions is only going to serve as a call for those who would have agreed with the opinion in the first place to do so, to have those who would disagree to do state their disagreements (often with just as valid arguments: i.e. - not), and convince those who are unable or unwilling to question what the truth actually is to pick a side. In other words, they don't bring us closer to truth, they just make for endless arguments loaded with bias and an unwillingness to work together to try and actually find what is true.

I am always a proponent for additional evidence and testing. That said, this actually does not seem to align with the unbanning process as we best understand it. I wrote a post on this a while ago after Stoddard did an AMA. GK actually has quoted this post recently and I am continually impressed with his ability to find these old posts when I seem to lose all of them. Maybe he can cite it again. In summary, Stoddard gave some insight into the unbanning process back in 2016. BatHickey asked how R&D concluded that AV and Sword were safe to unban. Here was Stoddard's reply:

https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/4ww95b/ama_with_sam_stoddard_lead_developer_of_eldritch/d6api9f/?context=3

Well, we weren't 100% sure. If we were, they would've come off a long time ago. The rest of the format gets stronger over time, and more and more cards can become okay to take off. We looked at the format, and saw how much control decks were struggled. We played some games on Magic Online with lists that we thought were good representations of those decks, just to make sure they weren't obviously over the line. In the end, we used our intuition, and decided to make a calculated risk. If you aren't doing anything that scares you a bit, you probably aren't taking enough risks.

He might have included other quotes about this topic, and I don't remember my original interpretation of the quote. From what I see here, however, some takeaways:

1. Unbans do not need to be 100% safe.
2. Unban testing involves some MTGO games with unrefined lists.
3. Unban assessment involves a general evaluation of what is doing well/struggling in the format.
4. Unbans involve intuition.
5. Unbans are "calculated risks."

Based on that, the bar is a lot lower than people make it out to be. SFM, a popular unban candidate, almost certainly meets this bar just from a cursory examination of online opinion. Even Twin could meet this test. Overall, we need to remember this standard of evidence when making arguments. It's not as high as many make it out to be.

Quote from LeoTzu »

I do, however, wish people would stop speaking with such certainty about banlist decisions. The reality is that all of us have opinions about the banlist, most of them based on intuition over any sort of conclusive evidence. I think that’s okay as long as we’re all willing to admit that our intuitions are subject to being wrong. My thoughts were certainly wrong about Jace, the Mind Sculptor when all the unbanning talk was happening.

Modern Nexus thought, with testing, Jace was too good.

I'm sorry, but the bar for quality testing and data is FAR higher than is reasonable to ask of any one group or team.

WIZARDS DOESN'T TEST IN MODERN.

That is stated fact. Given that, why is it at all reasonable when they hide data, to expect 5 friends to grind out 400 matches x 5 of the top decks, to get a reasonable data set?

The whole line of thought is insulting.

I've brought data to this thread, and it's been dismissed.

I've made accurate predictions and some inaccurate ones.

Over the year I have played literally hundreds of matches against the 'diversity' of Modern, but because I don't have a team testing, I'm not going to assume my results mean anything.

But because I've not followed the scientific method, and published a paper on how SFM would get laughed out of the room by every single good deck in the format I get to be dismissed?

'Noted'

Ah, another B&R update, another round of twin's jaded exes.

Quote from cfusionpm »

I'll just let the leader of Hooglandia speak for me.

I like the part where he uses results based thinking in the first post and then mutes/blocks people for not understanding results based thinking in the second post. Seems like someone whose opinion I should value.

Quote from cfusionpm »

As I said in the GP thread... A lot of things had to go perfectly right for that Fae deck to actually win. We saw it spin its tires, draw 3 cards a turn, and have a commanding "advantage," but still do essentially nothing and be on the brink of losing at nearly every point. This is what the "20" looks like in an 20/80 matchup.

First off, these matchups are almost never as bad as you claim. Plenty of competent and experienced control pilots navigate these matchups and Ux Control has remained totally viable for the last year despite alleged 20/80 matchups. This suggests they aren't truly 20/80 as you have claimed here and in the past. Moreover, as we have seen from the large GP/SCG sample, there really aren't a lot of 20/80 matchups in Modern. The worst top-tier matchup I have recorded appears to be Jeskai vs. Tron at around 32%. That puts it in the range of the old Affinity vs. Twin matchup which, as you have pointed out at least twice in this thread, did not prevent Affinity from being a good/played deck. Second, who cares if a powerful control deck has a sub-50/50 matchup against a top-tier deck? ALL top-tier decks have bad matchups. Even the current king of 50/50 matchups, Humans, has at least two bad matchups we've seen (Hardened Scales and Tron). Of course, both Tron and Hardened Scales have their own bad matchups.

The anti-Tron narrative is just tiresome and tired at this point. It's beatable, it's an established part of the top-tier metagame, and decks that Tron allegedly destroys are also part of the top-tier metagame. It's also a script at this point that if a control deck loses to Tron on Twitch, people go bananas and rage about Tron. If the Tron deck loses, we see posts/comments like yours that belittle/minimize the win as an anomaly.