After the World Championship, what are your thoughts on Jeskai Ascendency now?
Modern forum
Posted on Dec. 4, 2014, 3:35 p.m. by iVampire
I think it will get the ban hammer. Even though the deck can be beat, it takes way too long to play. I was playing on cockatrice against it and the games regularly go over one hour. I just think it is too uninteractive.
What are your thoughts?
I think the meta was just over 25% delver, and 25% ascendancy. I think it should be noted that 24 players is a very small sample size.
December 4, 2014 3:45 p.m.
Oh it hasn't finished.
There's a lot of aggro in there. But there's a lot of different types of aggro, which is ok. There are definitely a ton of delver decks and ascendancy decks, but that could be poupularity. Notice also, a lot of storm, a smattering of pod, a bit of scapeshift, a junk deck, and a UWR control deck.
It's definitely worth paying attention to though, regardless. Things could be worse - but it's not looking fantastic. After GP Madrid, the format looked ok - pretty healthy. This looks somewhat skewed.
December 4, 2014 3:46 p.m.
The main change to the Jeskai Ascendancy deck we saw at the World championships is cutting green entirely and running Fatestitcher as the only creature. Here the deck plays a control role until it can combo off and kill you. But otherwise it seems fine. I won't be surprised if it gets banned, but I won't be holding my breath for it.
December 4, 2014 5:10 p.m.
GlistenerAgent says... #7
@ChiefBell It's a completely new deck. It only plays eight creatures (four Fatestitcher, four Faerie Conclave), as well as 5 delve draw spells to be able to play a more controlling role while it builds up lands to be able to combo kill whenever it wants.
December 4, 2014 6:35 p.m.
Thats the thing. It is so consistent now only being 3 colors.
December 4, 2014 7:20 p.m.
Yeh well. I don't take an event with 24 players to be at all representative of anything, ever.
December 4, 2014 7:38 p.m.
GlistenerAgent says... #10
It's still a new deck, and it's incredibly powerful regardless of how many players were in the event. Despite the odd metagame, it was the best-performing deck in the room and has great matchups against Delver and Pod.
December 4, 2014 7:42 p.m.
"It's still a new deck, and it's incredibly powerful"
Often those two things are directly correlated - unfortunately.
December 4, 2014 7:44 p.m.
JexInfinite says... #12
ChiefBell Because it IS Worlds, it's safe to assume that a lot of people are going to use those decks for themselves, as they were good enough for Pro players to trust for at worlds.
December 4, 2014 11:20 p.m.
CrazyLittleGuy says... #13
@ChiefBell How can you never take a sample size of 24 to mean anything ever? They're the pros. The best of the best. The best players in the world, at possibly the most prestigious event of the year, chose to pick those decks. That's got to mean something.
December 5, 2014 12:05 a.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #14
I'm with ChiefBell on this one. Worlds or not, pros or not, 24 decks is too small a sample size which to easily skew results.
December 5, 2014 12:37 a.m.
Actually world's really isn't seen to be as important as a lot of other events. It doesn't carry a whole ton of prestige.
24 is too few a sample size to monitor a format that contains more than 24 decks.
24 players who all know each other, test with each other, and spend a great deal of time sharing ideas with each other is not a valid independent sample.
It's possible their motivation in running these decks was for high level testing and not necessarily for a shot at winning. We don't know their motives in entering and that creates an important distinction in our understanding of the results.
The top 8 of an event containing 24 people is going to contain decks that have a greater number of losses and had to prove themselves far less than a top 8 of an event with thousands of players.
A single event is too small of a time sample to monitor a format that's many years old.
It's still too early to make a decision about a deck that's popped up a single time.
It's still too early to make a decision about a deck that's popular due to enthusiasm for a new thing, rather than enthusiasm for an old and highly prestigious design.
The top 16 still had something like 7 or 8 different deck types in it; which isn't that bad.
Pick some reasons.
December 5, 2014 1:42 a.m.
JexInfinite says... #16
ChiefBell You can argue that Ascendancy Combo's appearance means nothing, but they're playing a less greedy, and 'upgraded' version of the original deck idea. The fact that the deck has evolved means it has worth enough to stick with it and make changes.
December 5, 2014 5:22 a.m.
Oh certainly. The deck is certainly nothing to ignore. It's significant, but I don't think it's worth panicking yet. There's a difference between a deck that's potentially powerful and very good and a deck that's utterly broken and dominating. At this point in time, your guess is as good as mine - could be either.
December 5, 2014 6:33 a.m.
I do not think anyone is saying the deck is utterly broken and dominating, I think the main reason it has the potential to get banned is its resiliency and how long it actually takes to play. The fact that it is so consistent now makes it even more viable to get banned. The deck can be beaten, but it does not mean that it can't get banned
December 5, 2014 8:08 a.m.
They generally don't ban things that people aren't actually playing though. Blistercoil Weird + Paradise Mantle is another potential combo that could be really broken but it's not banned because no one actually plays it.
Also the ascendancy deck is now less consistent in terms of which turn it can go off because it's lost some tutoring ability when it got rid of Glittering Wish. It's more resilient to interference but less consistent in terms of when it goes off etc.
Generally they don't ban things that aren't that present and aren't doing too well. There are plenty of degenerate T2 wins in modern that prove this.
December 5, 2014 9:21 a.m.
CrazyLittleGuy says... #20
@ChiefBell I think you're mistaken that Worlds isn't seen as important. Several players up there actually consider a World Championship title more important than a Pro Tour.
Quote from Reid Duke; "World Champion is one of the most prestigious titles in Magic. It's something that I've dreamed of and worked toward for many, many years."
Quote from Willy Edel; ""This year, I want to win and I'm going to put a lot more time in."
Quote from Shahar Shenhar; ""I want to win again!" Shenhar describes winning the event last year as a "dream come true."
Quote from Josh Utter-Leyton; ""The World Championship is the best Magic tournament that could possibly exist and I'm so happy that I get to be a part of it."
Quote from Lee Shi Tian; ""The atmosphere for this tournament is much more pressure than I thought."
But yeah, it seems to be mostly just a testing event for them that they don't take seriously. Source
Also, they don't spend all their time together. There are a few distinct teams represented along with a couple of lone wolves. Channel Fireball even split up it's team into smaller splinter groups that didn't communicate with each other during testing leading up to the event.
You're very quick to disregard evidence when you don't agree with it. I'm not even saying that Ascendancy Storm is broken, but this is some evidence that it is. You have to take into account all the evidence when you make a conclusion, not just ignore some because of minor flaws.
December 5, 2014 10:03 a.m.
How you can call a tournament which you already described as something they don't take seriously as evidence?
A sample size of 24 isn't a small flaw! It's fucking huge! It's like the biggest possible flaw in any evidence. The fact that it's like the most microscopic piece of evidence you could look at haha.
December 5, 2014 10:20 a.m.
julianjmoss says... #22
It's still not a large enough group to justify banning something regardless of how good the deck is. These 24 players are highly competitive but an actuall banning won't happen unless it is oppressive at a GP level.
December 5, 2014 10:21 a.m.
I'm a scientist first and foremost. That's my career, my education, and my upbringing. I'm really, really good at looking at sources and saying 'ok this is good evidence' or 'no, this is flawed because......'. I'm highly critical, totally unforgiving and probably a dick, but I am not biased. I will take the evidence, deconstruct it and evaluate it based on its merits.
December 5, 2014 10:26 a.m.
CrazyLittleGuy says... #24
@ChiefBell 'But yeah, it seems to be mostly just a testing event for them that they don't take seriously.' This comment was sarcastic. I put up a bunch of quotes, actual evidence, that state the opposite; I was being a dick about it.
I mean, you can jump on the phrase "small flaw" if you want to base this argument on wordplay, but I would put some amount of credence to the opinion of 24 pros operating at their highest level. The fact that it isn't even more pros doesn't seem very relevant to this point. I would trust the opinion of even a few pros that had worked towards this end for months and months.
Regardless, 24 is not a microscopic sample size. I'm sure you could test the poison effects of cyanide by feeding it to 24 people, and when they all die, you could conclude that cyanide is deadly when ingested. Or in this case, when 25%+ of the participants die, you can conclude that the meta might have some health concerns.
And in case you want to attack the language again because you don't understand it, in that statement I mean Ascendancy Storm is a poison deck that is not fun to play against, contributes to unfavorable games, and is competitive enough to be represented 3 times in the top 8 of a World Championship.
December 5, 2014 10:30 a.m.
julianjmoss says... #25
Crazy guy considering the prestige and payout involved it isn't just testing. Still not a valid sample size to determine banning but the tournament shouldn't be inoted as far as how good the decks are
December 5, 2014 10:32 a.m.
Ok so, if you want to use quotes from those being paid to enter the tournament as evidence as to how highly they rate that tournament then be my guest.
If you want to use piss poor analogies then that's fine as well.
Your analogy is based on the premise that absolutely everyone lost against ascendancy decks - they didn't.
Stop.
December 5, 2014 10:35 a.m.
Also - if you want to attack one section of an argument then that's absolutely ok, but by no means does that negate the other glaring flaws that I laid out. There are multiple reasons why this tournament was problematic, and rebutting one of those reasons doesn't provide enough evidence to the contrary to support your point. By the way, you realise that burden of proof lies with the proposition, not the opposition right? Ie. Those in favour of some action being taken (like banning ascendancy) have to prove why their idea is valid, not those who don't want to do anything (ie. those that don't want to see it banned)...... that's like how debate and science works. Burden of proof is on the prosecution, not on the defence.
What I'm saying is, I'd be far more willing to listen if someone here could explain WHY they find those results disturbing enough to warrant action. Until then, I'm down with 'watchful waiting'.
December 5, 2014 10:43 a.m.
CrazyLittleGuy says... #28
@julianjmoss I AGREE with that statement. It's NOT just testing. That's been my whole argument; if you want to prove that to someone, try ChiefBell. He doesn't seem to believe it. Also, I didn't say that this tournament was enough evidence to ban Ascendancy, I stated the opposite; "I'm not even saying that Ascendancy Storm is broken, but this is some evidence that it is. You have to take into account all the evidence when you make a conclusion, not just ignore some because of minor flaws." You're trying to argue something I already believe.
@ChiefBell You can also, once again, just try to silence those that disagree with your sentiments. Or, other great idea, you can get noticeably angry when someone presents you with any type of resistance.
With that logic, we should never take any tournament results as evidence of anything. I mean, they're just competing for money, right? Pros play for money, so their opinions mean nothing. We should instead trust the opinion of the guy with no World Championship experience when talking about the point of the World Championship.
At this point, I'm assuming you're not even reading through the entirety of my posts. I didn't presume everyone lost against Ascendancy. That "piss-poor" analogy was qualified with an explanation specifically tailored for you. If you didn't read it, then I won't explain it again. If you didn't understand it, then I can't help you by stating it any more candidly than I already have; "Ascendancy Storm is a poison deck that is not fun to play against, contributes to unfavorable games, and is competitive enough to be represented 3 times in the top 8 of a World Championship."
December 5, 2014 10:53 a.m.
Ignoring the fact that worlds is the most competativ FNM ever. I really like the new Jeskai deck, its a lot better then the green version of it and has loads more potential. Its not ban worthy, but an actual combo deck that I think will be a competative option for the future.
December 5, 2014 10:58 a.m.
CrazyLittleGuy says... #30
@ChiefBell Once again, I'm not arguing for a ban on Ascendancy. I'm presenting evidence for that side of the argument and claiming it has to be acknowledged when coming to a conclusion.
December 5, 2014 10:58 a.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #31
"With that logic, we should never take any tournament results as evidence of anything. I mean, they're just competing for money, right? Pros play for money, so their opinions mean nothing. We should instead trust the opinion of the guy with no World Championship experience when talking about the point of the World Championship."
@ CrazyLittleGuy no, you've completely misrepresented the argument. A small tournament, regardless of skill level, should not be considered an adequate sample size. Especially because Modern is such a large format. In a larger tournament with a variety of match ups and players it would be a much better sample size because there is a far less likelihood of results being skewed.
December 5, 2014 11:30 a.m.
CrazyLittleGuy says... #32
@CanadianShinobi That was a direct reply to this statement; "Ok so, if you want to use quotes from those being paid to enter the tournament as evidence as to how highly they rate that tournament then be my guest." So no, I wasn't misrepresenting that argument. I realize his bigger point is that the sample size was too small. However, I'm also addressing that argument because it was relevant to the bigger picture.
December 5, 2014 11:36 a.m.
I'm not angry. I'm just pointing out that some of the claims you're making about the strength of this evidence need to be seriously questioned.
I'm questioning specifically whether the sample size is representative, and whether this truly is the absolute top tier of play. I can believe that it could be seen that this truly is the top tier of play. You gave an analogy about how the sample size was sufficient but I felt that was pretty weak, given that you were using it more as a metaphor than as an explanatory device.
You don't even seem to think it needs banning anyway so there's literally no point to this conversation.
December 5, 2014 12:26 p.m.
a big thing to dont forget and has been brought up on camera, they bring decks that are slow and sometimes to slow for actual tournaments because there is no time limit. this allows slower decks time to build a presence and not end up with draws or auto losses for going to time.
they bring decks specific to their groups, often 3 people on 1 deck bring it bc the whole team decided to play it, and they only have to compare to 3-4-5 other decks not a huge field of decks, so jeskai might be great against those 3 decks but against decks x-y-z that didnt even show up, it just folds to.
PT Fate Reforged would be a much better even with more pro players and more rounds of modern. Also with the new SCG open series layout and modern GPs will be a better showing of what decks constantly perform. 3 Rounds of modern in a very small sample size of decks specifically tuned for 1 match up are not good.
December 5, 2014 12:48 p.m.
That's exactly what I meant when I said I was dubious about it being /that/ serious.
December 5, 2014 1:08 p.m.
Well, OP, that's kind of the thing about storm decks. They aren't generally interactive, at least on the modern level of things. Cantrip after cantrip, it gets pretty boring honestly much like modern has over the past few months. I don't think it will get banned and after seeing it place so high in Worlds and people preparing for it I doubt it will. Is i fun to play against? No, but a lot of decks aren't and they remain unchanged.
Also, small play group or not, I'd still take this sample (Worlds) over something like a SCG open any day. There are tons of bad players at those events and just because you don't see them on their weekly streams or youtube uploads doesn't mean they aren't there. Anybody that has actually been to a 500+ player event can tell you this. It's about quality over quantity. You can argue saying with such a small player pool they have less of a chance to be seeded with a bad match up. Sure that's true, not arguing that, but like I said previously, it's about the quality of the player, not the sheer quantity.
ChiefBell says... #2
What was the final result? 3 ascendancy, 3 delver, 1 BG, 1 pod?
Can't remember.
It seems to be pretty bad from looking at this event but not as bad as it could be. Remember we've had lots of events go by so far where it hasn't come up a single time - and the world championship has fewer players than some other events. Worth considering.
December 4, 2014 3:43 p.m.