Magic Market Index for Nov 2nd, 2018
 
Magic Market Index for October 26th, 2018
 
Magic Market Index for October 12th, 2018
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 01/10/2018)
    Quote from Mtgthewary »
    Quote from ktkenshinx »
    Quote from Mtgthewary »
    4 merfolk seems a mistake...it is tron

    It's not a "mistake." It just means that in the N=116 matchups reported by Merfolk players and opponents, it had a 55.17% MWP. If that N is insufficient or the results are potentially biased to you, two possibilities I literally addressed in the post, then feel free to refer to the higher N list below. I can say with confidence that Gx Tron does not have the 4th higehst MWP. In an N=1000+ sample, it's just over 51%. That's sufficiently large for us to be confident it's the "true" Gx Tron MWP.
    ok, i thinked really a mistake because i read on reddit, your link, merfolk is away. Seems i understand it wrong...thats good, i love my merfolk

    The Reddit post I linked to, as far as I can tell, only refers to GP ATL data. The data I'm posting is GP ATL plus four earlier GP plus five SCG Opens, all from 2018. Their N is smaller and from a more limited timeframe. Gx Tron isn't even 4th in their dataset either. It's solidly in the middle with an MWP of 50.5%.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 01/10/2018)
    Quote from Mtgthewary »
    4 merfolk seems a mistake...it is tron

    It's not a "mistake." It just means that in the N=116 matchups reported by Merfolk players and opponents, it had a 55.17% MWP. If that N is insufficient or the results are potentially biased to you, two possibilities I literally addressed in the post, then feel free to refer to the higher N list below. I can say with confidence that Gx Tron does not have the 4th higehst MWP. In an N=1000+ sample, it's just over 51%. That's sufficiently large for us to be confident it's the "true" Gx Tron MWP.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on [POLL] What cards do you want banned or unbanned in the November 26, 2018 announcement?
    Quote from purklefluff »
    Quote from ktkenshinx »
    Unban: SFM
    Ban: Stirrings

    SFM is a joke ban, nothing more to say about it. Stirrings represents an inconsistency with Preordain. I could easily switch that vote to a Preordain unban, but as I think Wizards has a ideological problem with blue cantrips, I think the Stirrings ban vote is more realistic.


    I'm disappointed that you became a proponent of the non-argument whereby the fact that preordain remains banned means that stirrings needs to be banned.

    There's no real link between the two cards which can be drawn to this effect. It's a false correlation.
    Preordain, as you well know was banned at a time when the critical mass of blue cantrips was an issue and blue combo was high profile. The fact that any of those cantrips remain on the banlist is more to do with how static the banlist is, than anything else. Cards rarely come off, and the presumption is that unbanning a card brings associated risks. Just because another card currently legal is (in your eyes) equal or better, (in another colour no less) doesn't affect those potential risks associated with unbanning something. One cannot say: "preordain is still banned, so this other card X should be banned along with it". It does not follow logically to make that statement.

    Conversely, stirrings itself is an engine for an entirely different kind of deck. The kind of deck that needs those sorts of consistency tools and doesn't have a reasonable alternative. We are not in a world of critical mass-driven problems relating to decks using stirrings, and stirrings itself, while good, isn't causing the downfall or destruction of modern. It isn't a problem; it's just another viable, potent card in a format of viable potent cards.

    I agree we could likely see preordain return and I doubt it would cause too much issue. That's for WotC to decide.
    Claiming that the decision on preordain has any bearing whatsoever on cards like stirrings though? That's false equivalency. It's pseudo-logic. It's a very commonly-used argument but regardless of how many people use it, it doesn't make sense.

    Preordain just sets a precedent that Wizards is willing to ban a consistency tool (e.g. Preordain or Stirrings) if the decks that use that card break a format rule (e.g. T4 rule or format diversity rule). But it's not just Preordain. A number of other cards have been banned because they collectively made a set of strategies too good. TC was actually the prime example I discussed in the other thread, and TC/Stirrings remains a good comparison when we compare the circumstances that led to a TC ban to those that could lead to a Stirrings ban. TC was banned because it reduced format diversity by empowering a range of decks that were individually distinct and not violating format rules but were collectively reducing format diversity by virtue of TC's power. Stirrings could be in a similar position.

    Again, as I said in the other thread, it's not a red flag issue for me yet. It's merely an orange flag issue if we review 2018 GP stats which shows Stirrings decks make up 30% of the GP/PT T8 metagame. There is no other single card commonality that approaches this plurality. Anyone who does not think this is an orange flag issue on Wizards' radar is in all likelihood willfully deceiving themselves, likely because they aren't looking at historical precedents, or they personally don't want the card banned. Another GP like ATL would push this to a red flag issue in my books.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 01/10/2018)
    A few Reddit users added some awesome MWP numbers to our Modern dataset by compiling results from GP ATL:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/ModernMagic/comments/9xkdzi/modern_the_modern_meta_after_gp_atlanta/

    You can view all of the results in their post for GP ATL on its own. Their additional data is particularly helpful for me, as I can add it to the master 2018 MWP sheet, which now includes data from five GP (including ATL), plus 610 matchups from pairings/coverage/T8s/T32s of five SCG Opens. This creates a massive dataset from the year. Based on that data, here are the MWPs of all Modern decks with >100 observed matches. MWP and matchup N is provided.

    1. KCI: 57.73% (n=582)
    2. Hardened Scales: 55.29% (n=340)
    3. Eldrazi Tron: 55.17% (n=116)
    4. Merfolk: 55.17% (n=116)
    5. Dredge: 54.15% (n=253)
    6. Bant Spirits: 53.7% (n=324)
    7. Counters Company: 53.7% (n=419)
    8. Humans: 52.13% (n=1452)
    9. Death and Taxes: 52.04% (n=196)
    10. Bogles: 51.72% (n=290)
    11. Abzan: 51.67% (n=120)
    12. UW Control: 51.6% (n=845)
    13. Gx Tron: 51.46% (n=1028)
    14. Hollow One: 50.81% (n=494)
    15. Storm: 50.12% (n=425)
    16. Grixis Death's Shadow: 50.1% (n=485)
    17. Infect: 49.55% (n=440)
    18. Burn: 49.19% (n=1055)
    19. Bridgevine: 48.39% (n=186)
    20. Jeskai Control: 48.26% (n=835)
    21. Titanshift: 47.02% (n=487)
    22. Elves: 46.95% (n=279)
    23. Amulet Titan: 46.51% (n=129)
    24. Mardu Pyromancer: 46.02% (n=678)
    25. Jund: 45.71% (n=676)
    26. Blue Moon: 45.39% (n=152)
    27. Affinity: 44.01% (n=609)
    28. Ad Nauseam: 42.99% (n=107)
    29. Ponza: 36.42% (n=151)

    And here's the list trimmed down to only include decks with >300 matches, which represented roughly one standard deviation over the average number of matches observed for all decks. We can think of this as the more reliable "big N" list:

    1. KCI: 57.73% (n=582)
    2. Hardened Scales: 55.29% (n=340)
    3. Bant Spirits: 53.7% (n=324)
    4. Counters Company: 53.7% (n=419)
    5. Humans: 52.13% (n=1452)
    6. UW Control: 51.6% (n=845)
    7. Gx Tron: 51.46% (n=1028)
    8. Hollow One: 50.81% (n=494)
    9. Storm: 50.12% (n=425)
    10. Grixis Death's Shadow: 50.1% (n=485)
    11. Infect: 49.55% (n=440)
    12. Burn: 49.19% (n=1055)
    13. Jeskai Control: 48.26% (n=835)
    14. Titanshift: 47.02% (n=487)
    15. Mardu Pyromancer: 46.02% (n=678)
    16. Jund: 45.71% (n=676)
    17. Affinity: 44.01% (n=609)

    I'll probably write most of this up in a blog post when I clean the data more and get some matchup data polished. The only major caveats to this analysis are: a) a lot of GP data relies on self-reported survey responses, which will probably shift the data towards winners/organized players who remembered/wanted to report their wins, and; b) decks changed over the last 6-8 months so an updated UW Control list with MD RIP and a slightly different configuration would get grouped together with an older UW Control list with older June 2018 card choices. I'm totally fine with that limitation given the data we're working with.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 01/10/2018)
    Quote from Spsiegel1987 »
    Wow, Tron at 8%? That's large. Surprised how much Phoenix is doing, too. I'm skeptical of that card in modern right now.

    That pie chart overall looks pretty solid.

    Tron at 8% shouldn't be remotely concerning. It's a top-tier deck and it's not even the most-played deck in the breakdown. We can't get into a mindset where decks aren't allowed to be 8% of a T8 metagame. That's basically arguing we can't have top-tier decks period. BGx is even higher than Tron and you still focused on Tron's share as "large," when 8% seems like exactly what a top-tier deck should be batting at that Regionals level.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on [POLL] What cards do you want banned or unbanned in the November 26, 2018 announcement?
    Quote from alanyuan0408 »
    Also ktkenshinx, you don;'t need a mana dork. Its literally top deck company. Cast Company at end of turn, grab stoneforge and any other creature in the deck (pretty much what the deck is designed to do) and then on your turn with 4 mana, put the sword into play and equip for 2 mana and swing. KCI and Tron would require alot of setup and is vulnerable to disruption, this would not.

    Yes I am aware you can go devoted druid into vizier, but the issue is that requires huge amounts of deck building constraints.

    I would also be careful about this, Bant spirits literally got one card in the form of Supreme Phantom and it became from a tier 3 deck all the way to tier 1.

    If this is Company's T4 and T5 plays, that's laughable compared to what most of the format is doing on or before T4 or T5. I added the dork consideration because I assumed you were trying to find the most limit-pushing SFM scenario, not something as tame as Company on curve into untap and equip a critter with Sword to swing. That's so unbelievably fair compared to many top decks. I'd argue that's even fairer than T5 Teferi, +1, go.

    Would SFM be a good card that sees play? Absolutely. I expect she'd see more play than JTMS. Would she do anything that remotely approached a yellow flag issue in Modern? No way. Just look at what top-tier decks are routinely doing and compare to SFM. She's absolutely an appropriate power level. Anyone who says otherwise is repeating the same doomsaying we saw with the JTMS unban evaluations.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on [POLL] What cards do you want banned or unbanned in the November 26, 2018 announcement?
    Quote from alanyuan0408 »
    My biggest concern about SFM isn't out of taxes or abzan style decks but more out of these abzan company/ bant company decks.

    My issue is something like End of turn Company, grab stoneforge. Use 2 mana to put something like Sword of Fire and Ice into play, then 2 mana to equip onto the other creature and swing.

    StoneForge and swords are fine cards on their own inside these company strategies.

    That's such a fair line of Magic compared to many (most?) top tier Modern decks. Even if this happened on T4 off a dork as you untap and you are on the play, this is so much fairer and so much less consistent than anything else the following decks are doing around T4: Tron, KCI, Dredge, Infect, Storm, Hardened Scales, and others. There's just no way this is broken in Modern. It's not even boundary-pushing and it may not even be good.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 01/10/2018)
    Quote from Thenarus »
    Lumping entirely different deck archetypes together for the purpose of evaluating Ancient Stirrings for ban considerations isn't a good argument. Don't expect Wizards to risk format diversity, reprint equity, and player confidence with this as the only support.

    I am still compiling evidence for a more substantive reply to this post and your earlier, thoughtful argument. In summary, I do not believe there is anything unprecedented about grouping Stirrings decks collectively. This has been done with a few bans in the past in Modern alone. More to come as I finish the 2014 and 2011 data analysis.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 01/10/2018)
    Quote from Galerion »
    Quote from gkourou »
    I just calculated all the results fro SCG Regionals(areas: Nashville, Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, Raleigh, New York, Minneapolis, Baltimore, Columbus, Columbia, Orlando, Michigan). This is the number of Top8's.

    Link: http://www.starcitygames.com/#content_decks_modern-tab

    No. of Top8
    Humans: 12
    BGx Midrange: 12 (6 Jund, 4 BG, 2 Abzan midrange)
    R(U) Phoenix/Runaway Red: 8
    Burn: 7
    Tron: 7(1 EldraTron)
    Sprits: 6
    Grixis Shadow: 6
    Dredge: 5
    Mardu Pyromancer: 4
    Scales Affinity: 3
    UW Control: 3
    Titanshift: 2
    Jeskai Control: 2
    Amulet Titan: 2
    Boggles: 2
    Hollow one: 2
    Blue Moon: 1
    Bridgevine: 1
    Merfolk: 1
    Elves: 1
    Infect: 1
    KCI: 1
    UR Storm: 1
    Cheeri0s: 1
    Mono Green Stompy: 1
    UR Kiln Fiend: 1
    Bant Time Warp: 1
    Living End: 1
    Grishoalbrand: 1


    Winners:
    Jund: 2
    Grixis Shadow: 2
    Dredge: 1
    Scales Affinity: 1
    Runaway Red/Phoenix: 1
    Abzan Midrange: 1
    Cheeri0s: 1
    Tron: 1
    UR Kiln Fiend: 1
    Mardu Pyromancer: 1


    Hmm what I find interesting here is that this clearly goes against all the people who seem to be down on BG midrange decks.

    I believe this is because many people who hold that opinion place undue weight on the results of GP, which are probably the least representative events possible for the vast majority of players. The unique GP dynamics play out in deck selection and metagame bias. For instance, control and midrange decks where you try to answer everything are tough sells at GP; there are so many unknown players and decks and answers aren't that good. This is true in Standard, let alone Modern. But at a more local event with no more than 150ish players, you might personally know at least half of the field, or even more if there are fewer players. This makes it easier to tune a control and/or midrange deck to line up against threats.

    This underscores the importance of not just using GP results, especially narrow American GP results, to determine global Modern metagame health. I'd also go so far as to say that GP ATL did not appear to adversely impact diversity at this circuit. People did not give those results as much weight as they could have. We'll see if that also happens at the RPTQ level in the coming weeks.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 01/10/2018)
    Quote from spawnofhastur »
    Please don't take away my Faithless Lootings. Frown

    From the GP/PT T8 perspective, Looting is actually a worse performer than SV. I wouldn't worry about it.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on Modern Cheeri0s - Puresteel Equipment Storm
    Quote from XboxGreg »
    Hello, Reilly here. I am very happy with the list as it currently is and would not change a thing at the moment. One last minute change that I made before the tournament was to add a second noxious instead of a 4th serum visions. Both are comparable, but Noxious is better in a more hostile meta and serum is better in a faster, more combo based meta. Even though the meta ended up being faster and more combo based I decided to play it safe with an extra noxious. Both are fine and they play similar roles. I would add a 4th serum before a 4th repeal, however.

    In addition, we want to be comboing off as fast as possible game one so I honestly believe that we should be on 20 equipment and no less, especially in the current meta. We can board down to 16-18 depending on the matchup but I think that game one we want a large number of equipment. I personally would make other cuts before eating away at our equipment count. I think it's a mistake to go to 19 equipment to add another serum visions, but you could test it.

    As far as the bird goes, I don't think it belongs in the deck at a competitive level. It has words on it that make it seem like it was designed for the deck but the deck already has all of the pieces that it needs. After testing both, I think Erayo and the bird are similar in that they synergize with the deck without actually adding anything to the deck's win percentage. If you're looking for another creature I would play Sai.

    EDIT: Notably, the best 9th engine card I've tested was Jeskai Ascendancy (By far) and then Riddlesmith. I would play either of those before Bird, Sai, or Mentor. However, as you can see from my list, I choose not to play a 9th engine at the moment.

    Congrats on the finish! I like the 2nd NR over SV 4 and the 4th SV over the next Repeal. I actually misread the list and thought you had 24 equipment, not 24 total artifacts, which was why I wanted to trim equipment. Agree that 20 is correct and I too wouldn't go lower.

    How did Claim work throughout the day? How did it affect the manabase? Also, more generally, what were your matchups?
    Posted in: Combo
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 01/10/2018)
    Quote from gkourou »
    So, Dredge wins Modern PTQ.
    UW Control with 3 maindeck Rest In Peace in 4th and 12th place....again.
    Link: https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/modern-ptq-2018-11-12

    MD GY hate is definitely a red flag if sustained under the "battle of sideboards" paradigm. I guess technically it's not a battle of SBs if it's in the main (lol)? Given that UW was totally successful without MD RIP, that Dredge is still successful even against MD RIP, and that we didn't start seeing MD RIP until Dredge got Chill, this further points to a return to 2016 GGT-style issues. Indeed, the PTQ-winning list beat the UW RIP list 2-1 in the semi-finals.
    Quote from Galerion »
    Quote from gkourou »
    So, Dredge wins Modern PTQ.
    UW Control with 3 maindeck Rest In Peace in 4th and 12th place....again.
    Link: https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/modern-ptq-2018-11-12


    This will probably spark an discussion again on what's fair and unfair but I count 27 fair decks here.
    Quote from idSurge »
    That's a lot of Spirits and UW.

    For reference in case people haven't tallied them:

    1. Bant Spirits: 6 (18.8%)
    2. UW Control: 5 (15.6%)
    3. Hardened Scales: 4 (12.5%)
    4. Humans: 4 (12.5%)
    5. Dredge: 2 (6.3%)
    6. UW Spirits: 2 (6.3%)
    7. BG Rock: 1 (3.1%)
    8. UR Wizards: 1 (3.1%)
    9. UR Arclight: 1 (3.1%)
    10. 4C Death's Shadow: 1 (3.1%)
    11. Grixis Death's Shadow: 1 (3.1%)
    12. Titanshift: 1 (3.1%)
    13. KCI: 1 (3.1%)
    14. Mill: 1 (3.1%)
    15. Storm: 1 (3.1%)

    PTQ T8s are weird to use as T8 indicators. Only the T6 decks clearly had more points (24+). The 7th and 8th place decks had 21 points, along with all the decks from 9th place to 29th place. So that means one of the T8 Hardened Scales and the T8 Bant Spirits really could have been anything else between 9th and 29th place if the breakers had swung a little differently.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on Modern Cheeri0s - Puresteel Equipment Storm
    Cheeri0s wins SCG Regionals Boston!
    http://www.starcitygames.com/decks/125033

    Reilly played a very generic list with 3 SV (for the tenth time; play these cantrips), 15 lands, 3 MD Repeal (again, more cantrip effects - PLAY THESE), and 0 Assistants. SB tech includes triple Claim // Fame with a bunch of usual suspects:


    Notably, this deck beat UW Control in the finals, which is a nice performance record against a top deck. The only thing I'd tweak would be -1 or -2 artifacts for either more utility (+1 Repeal/NR) and/or more dig (+1 SV). Maybe a singleton Assistant.
    Posted in: Combo
  • posted a message on [POLL] What cards do you want banned or unbanned in the November 26, 2018 announcement?
    Quote from idSurge »
    Quote from LEH »
    Quote from idSurge »
    I'd say item 5 on your list is the only really valid one.


    To be fair though, you're a biased viewpoint on the subject. All 5 are proven valid criticisms of Twin.


    Proven, is a strong word.

    1. Creates unfun play patterns
    2. Reduces overall blue diversity
    3. Reduces overall diversity, even if mostly among linear decks
    4. Suppresses lower tier decks
    5. High MWP/low variance deck would naturally become top choice of pros leading to artificial dominance

    1 - Irrelevant. If not, you better ban half of Modern, and all of its Tier 1.
    2 - Proven false based on actual review of the data.
    3 - Proven false based on actual review of the data.
    4 - Irrelevant. Every top tier level deck suppresses Tier 3/4 Jank, that is why its Tier 3/4 Jank.
    5 - For sure would happen.

    Some of those are proven, some of those are not.

    1. This is probably not provable one way or the other. It is worth noting, however, that the argument to ban something for unfun play patterns is distinct from the argument to keep something banned for unfun play patterns.
    2. This is proven true for GP/PT data. It has not yet been assessed on MTGO.
    3. This is neither proven true for GP/PT data nor MTGO. In fact, in the GP/PT arena, we saw a slight increase in non-Twin blue diversity from 2015 (4 URx Twin decks + 4 non-Twin Ux decks) to 2018 (6 non-Twin blue decks). MTGO is not assessed.
    4. I don't believe this has been assessed in any way. I've thought of some ways to assess it but haven't personally implemented them. Anyone else?
    5. It's not even clear this would happen, but if recent PT/GP showings are any indication, pros do increasingly gravitate towards these kinds of decks. MTGO iteration and testing has increased dramatically since 2015, as have theories about metagaming and deck selection. As such, I expect we would see this effect even if I can't be certain.

    Regarding the 4 arguments in favor of Twin's unbanning:

    1. Not proven but probably true; the 2015 to 2018 comparison is strongly suggestive that Twin's unbanning would merely reshuffle diversity.
    2. Subjective. Probably not provable one way or the other without lots of testing.
    3. This would probably happen, but it is not clear if it is a good or a bad thing. It's probably a good thing for vocal pros who prefer a certain style of Magic/Modern.
    4. This is largely proven, but an additional MTGO assessment would help cement the issue.

    I'll also add that we don't know the effect this would have on big-stage metagames vs. local ones. For instance, the SCG Regionals and IQs, along with the MTGO Challenges, generally look super diverse and healthy. GP are always more crystallized. Would Twin narrow all those metagames or just the big ones? Does it matter? These are the kinds of questions that Twin proponents and rejectors need to ask.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on [POLL] What cards do you want banned or unbanned in the November 26, 2018 announcement?
    Quote from Teysa_Karlov »
    Quote from idSurge »
    Twin wont ever see the light of day in modern again and I will not miss it. I never had an issue with the deck, I got tons of free wins as I was playing Abzan during Twin's reign, full sets of Path and Decay made the Twin players miserable. But it would undeniably skew the meta too much.


    I'd love to hear how.


    Because it's a linear combo deck that feeds on linear decks because its win condition is better than theirs and doesn't require very much deck space. I have zero doubt if unbanned, Twin would become 26-30% of the meta instantly. Why run literally any other combo or any control deck at all when you can run a control shell that happens to kill you if you ever tap out?

    I don't share your certainty that it would hit 25%-30% of the metagame. At the time of its banning, URx Twin collectively made up about 12.5% of the overall metagame and 18.5% of the 2015 GP T8 metagame. Since then, Twin has gained a few possible tools including JTMS, AV, Push (Grixis), Teferi (Jeskai), and a few other SB and MD tools. On the other hand, Twin must now contend with opposing Pushes, GDS (a natural replacement to the old unfavored Grixis Delver matchip), Humans (the kind of high-pressure disruptive deck Twin historically struggled against), and newly empowered Ux Control decks (also historically tougher matchups). Although I think the initial reaction would be an enormous uptick in Twin as everyone tried it out, it would probably stabilize right around the other top Modern decks. We'd see the top decks reshuffle with, likely, no net gain or loss in diversity (current GP T8 diversity is only slightly higher than it was in 2015). Unless you think there is something particularly potent that Twin gained since 2015, or that the metagame lost since then, I don't really know how you can believe it would be so dominant.

    As far as I have seen, reasonable arguments against unbanning Twin include, but are not limited to:
    1. Creates unfun play patterns
    2. Reduces overall blue diversity
    3. Reduces overall diversity, even if mostly among linear decks
    4. Suppresses lower tier decks
    5. High MWP/low variance deck would naturally become top choice of pros leading to artificial dominance

    Arguments in favor of Twin include, but are not limited to:
    1. Will not decrease overall diversity / actually increases diversity (especially among non-linear decks)
    2. Is an appropriate power level for Modern
    3. Reduces linear decks which many people do not enjoy
    4. Initial ban objectives not met

    Note that many of these arguments are not necessarily in line with the initial arguments for Twin's banning but could still be considered in making the case for or against.
    Posted in: Modern
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.