According to Wizards, Probe decks broke the rule of being BY FAR the best choice when someone wanted to WIN a major event. When a deck is the BEST BY FAR(with Dredge) choice to help you win a major event, this deck will get banned.
(Of course, with Dredge and with the pump decks, the fomrat did become uninteractive. So, the formal rule Sheridan posted is spot on)
In other words, when we have a deck that is a clear cut best deck, it will be banned.
I will quote h0lydiva here:
h0lydiva: It all comes down to the triangle we've talked about. From aggro, interactive and inevitability decks, aggro had the best combined matchups in my eyes
I am not sure if there is a clear cut best deck now or a deck that has that good combined matchups in this triangle now. But if one becomes this way, make no mistakes, it will be banned. That's the message they sent out with Pod, that's the message they sent out with Twin, or Eye Of Ugin Eldrazi(even if this was a true Tier 0 deck), that's the message they sent out now and with most of the other decks. I think that's fair.
Think about what they're saying with Cloudpost banning and Eye of Ugin. Ramp that strong shouldn't be there. So why is tron?
Asking "if Cloudpost is too strong, why isn't Tron too strong?" is akin to asking "if Deathrite Shaman is too strong, why isn't Noble Hierarch too strong?" In both cases, the answer is obvious: The latter is quite a bit weaker than the former. 12-Post is quite a bit stronger than Urzatron is. It ramps more effectively, it's thwarted less by land destruction, and it staves off aggro better thanks to Glimmerpost gaining life.
In regards to Eye of Ugin vs. Tron, you ignore the fact that Eye of Ugin starts the ramp (for Eldrazi) on turn 1, whereas Tron can't get any ramp until the third turn (well I guess with a crazy good hand you can get 3 mana off an Urza's Tower on the second turn if you're running Explore, but almost all Tron builds have dropped that card). There's a big difference between a card that instantly gives you 2 mana versus one that can't give you that ramp until the third turn and requires you to assemble two other specific lands.
Basically, Eye of Ugin and Cloudpost ramp way better than Tron. So wondering why Tron is okay but those aren't is like asking why Time Warp isn't banned when one considers how amazing Time Walk is.
You literally took what I said, quoted it, then changed the wording and meaning of the quote in your first sentence, and somehow missed the point at the same time. What I was saying with all of those examples is WotC has yet to clearly define what they want this format to look like. They do have a problem with Ramp in the Cloudpost form and the nuisance that Eldrazi was thanks to Eye of Ugin, yet the 'feel-bads' about Tron has been allowed to stay, albeit begrudgingly. Tron can still, even now, clean up in g1, then take g2 before the 3 and 4cc hate cards remove their primary strategy. Now, that's not to say that Tron should be banned, as a matter of fact I'm 100% opposed to banning based on words like 'feeling' and 'dislike' as opposed to 'format-warping', 'stifling', 'difficult to answer' or 'over-represented'.
I hope I clarified my position better, because that one line was not only taken out of context but you answered a question/argument I never asked.
But my post does answer your question. 12-Post gets banned because it's too powerful. Tron, which is not anywhere near as powerful, is spared. Trying to claim they have "yet to clearly define what they want this format to look like" (at least in regards to this specific case) is silly because 12-Post got banned because it was too good at what it did. Tron, which is not as powerful, is apparently at an acceptable power level.
As for the Eldrazi, comparing the single most dominant deck in the format's history with a deck that tends to be in the 3-5% area is just plain silly.
There are certainly a number of criticisms that one can aim at Wizards of the Coast in regards to their handling of the Modern banned list as well as alleged dissonances in what's banned or what isn't banned, but this is not one of them. There is no disconnect or dissonance or additional need to "define" things in regards to 12-Post and Eldrazi being banned but Tron not being banned. The first two are significantly more powerful than the latter, so it makes perfect sense for them to get bans while Tron doesn't.
I presented a laundry list of arguments, this was only one among them. So, no, it still doesn't. You disagree with this specific example, that's fine, but the point remains.
No, it does, because I was responding to that one particular point, not the idea in general. The example was silly and so I responded to it.
It should not be difficult to understand why 12-Post got banned out of existence (and Eldrazi got a hard nerfing) but Tron was never targeted with a ban (it suffered collateral damage, but it wasn't the reason Eye of Ugin was lost).
So you get these semi-contradictory statements like 'well, Tron isn't as bad, so that kind of ramp is okay', until something comes along that makes it not okay (like the collateral damage of the Eye banning because of another deck's ridiculousness). So, it's less about why one kind of ramp is okay and another isn't because of power level, because that is very subjective and highly subject to change.
12-Post being better than Tron is "subjective" in the same way that Ancestral Vision being better than Concentrate is "subjective." There's a few ways you can point to the latter being better than the former, but on the whole the first is clearly substantially better than the second.
There's no inconsistency or contradiction between Cloudpost and Eye of Ugin getting banned but the Urza lands remaining untouched. They on dramatically different power levels. You mention things can "change" (after all, Eye of Ugin was legal for quite a while) but that "change" was pretty objective in that it came from new cards getting printed that interacted unfavorably with the older cards.
If there is a best deck, expect something to be banned. Regardless of other metrics, format parameters, or any other justification. If there is a clear best deck, expect a ban.
Now, I'm more interested in what comes next. Will the format cycle through metagames now? Will we not have a clear 'best deck' and instead of a cyclical rock<paper<scissors matchup?
I dont know. I hope so, if only because I would like us to go through a few announcements without further bans. I'm not sure player confidence can handle many more with the poor communication we get from Wizards.
IMO, this is the mistake you are making more often than not, @KT. I hope you understood your mistake with the Splinter Twin banning, but IMO you did not. Don't get me wrong, I used to do the same mistake as you. You did have Splinter Twin ban during December 2015 but it was one of the last ones and it was reading:
Wizards clearly explained why the card got banned. Probe was banned because it "increased the number of third-turn kills in a few ways." That's it. Anything beyond that is conjecture and speculation on your side without any Wizards backing. I'm totally willing to consider alternate explanations, and if you have any formal Wizards citations you want to bring in I'd love to see them.
I don't know why you are saying I didn't learn from the Twin ban. It's off-base and not really on topic. Up until the Twin ban, most people (myself included) thought that cards really only got banned for being metagame diversity violators, T4 rule violators, or causing logistical problems. We were wrong and learned. After the Twin ban, and now after the GGT ban, we've added more criteria: Wizards' threshold for metagame diversity violators is different than we thought, decks shouldn't supplant similar decks, the format shouldn't become a sideboard battle, and decks that don't have bad matchups are problematic. This doesn't mean the system I was working from is wrong. It means it was incomplete and now it is more complete.
In the case of the Probe ban, Wizards gave a reason it was banned. Until Wizards says otherwise, or until we can find persuasive evidence to suggest they (un)intentionally omitted a reason for its banning, that is the explanation we must go with.
PS2: Maybe cfusion or somebody else will answer that "There is no harm in having a best deck. This is unavoidable." Maybe this is true, but this is not acceptable by WOTC's vision.
It's only unavoidable if Wizards refuses to print better cards than those already printed. These new cards can allow other decks to overtake whatever the current "best" deck is and allow a natural flow between different decks fighting for the top spot. But with that aside, simply banning the best deck will default people to the next best deck, and then the next, and then the next, until all powerful decks are banned. This is not healthy for a format that is supposed to be "eternal." Powerful decks should be allowed to fight each other, and weaker decks should be given the tools to fight them as well. Instead, the best decks are banned every cycle and the resulting chaos is seen as "keeping the metagame fresh" until the next powerful deck emerges and is banned.
I say that maybe their vision of "not having a best deck at ALL times" cuould be feasible. I mean, answer this: What's the best deck right now?
The only reason we don't know is because A) they make regular shake-up bans to remove the best deck(s), and B) Modern PT has been removed and the Modern GPs have less video coverage because they are spaced several months apart with multiple events on the same day (only one receives video coverage every 2-3 months). There is both less incentive to find a "best deck" and fewer avenues to showcase a "best deck." But rest assured, there will always be one and it will be banned. This is Wizard policy until they explain otherwise.
The problem I have with everyone listing "Here are the criteria" is that each and everytime we do this, Wizards releases something new and different. It's never been the same criteria, they just make new criteria with each and every ban. Not only does this compound the level of mass confusion, but it detriments me from suggesting Modern as a format to a player who is interested. I can't ever be confident in my explanation of the parameters.
The problem I have with everyone listing "Here are the criteria" is that each and everytime we do this, Wizards releases something new and different. It's never been the same criteria, they just make new criteria with each and every ban. Not only does this compound the level of mass confusion, but it detriments me from suggesting Modern as a format to a player who is interested. I can't ever be confident in my explanation of the parameters.
I don't agree. Probe and Bloom were banned for a known criterion. So was Eye. Twin was also banned for being a diversity violator; we just measured the metagame differently than Wizards did to determine bans. The only new criterion was GGT's "sideboard battle" rationale, which wasn't really new so much as it was a return to the pre-PT Philly criterion that got GGT banned in the first place.
The problem I have with everyone listing "Here are the criteria" is that each and everytime we do this, Wizards releases something new and different. It's never been the same criteria, they just make new criteria with each and every ban. Not only does this compound the level of mass confusion, but it detriments me from suggesting Modern as a format to a player who is interested. I can't ever be confident in my explanation of the parameters.
I can't think of a single ban that doesn't tie back to a listed criteria. Preordain, Ponder, Seething Song, Rite of Flame, Valakut, Nacatl, BBE, DRS, Pod, TC, DTT, Twin, Eye, GGT, Probe. They ALL tie back. The only issue is that we don't know their thresholds for each of those pieces of criteria and down the line we like to think that some of the reasons no longer apply to certain cards. But that doesn't mean they don't make sense.
If there is a best deck, expect something to be banned. Regardless of other metrics, format parameters, or any other justification. If there is a clear best deck, expect a ban.
Now, I'm more interested in what comes next. Will the format cycle through metagames now? Will we not have a clear 'best deck' and instead of a cyclical rock<paper<scissors matchup?
I dont know. I hope so, if only because I would like us to go through a few announcements without further bans. I'm not sure player confidence can handle many more with the poor communication we get from Wizards.
Then Jund/Junk will be getting a banning by that logic. It is the best deck by meta game share
If there is a best deck, expect something to be banned. Regardless of other metrics, format parameters, or any other justification. If there is a clear best deck, expect a ban.
Now, I'm more interested in what comes next. Will the format cycle through metagames now? Will we not have a clear 'best deck' and instead of a cyclical rock<paper<scissors matchup?
I dont know. I hope so, if only because I would like us to go through a few announcements without further bans. I'm not sure player confidence can handle many more with the poor communication we get from Wizards.
Then Jund/Junk will be getting a banning by that logic. It is the best deck by meta game share
A few major words of caution here.
First, we have no idea what the post-AER, post-banning metagame looks like. We are literally less than a week into the new format and not into the new format at all on MTGO. We can't analyze the possibility right now because Wizards doesn't even have relevant MTGO data. Or relevant paper event data!
Second, let's not mix our criteria here. Reviewing banlist decisions, there's a "best deck" criterion (see Reflector Mage) and there's a "metagame diversity" criterion (see Twin). In the Mage decision, Wizards said the deck wasn't at an oppressive share but did have an oppressive matchup spectrum. Hence, it was the best deck and hence, Mage got banned. In the Twin case, Wizards said the problem was with metagame diversity and cited major event Top 8 finishes. Those are two separate criteria. While BGx may fall prey to either or both, we need to be sure we are assessing its success on those criteria.
Third, although we do know more criteria today than we did a year ago, we don't know how Wizards determines when something crosses a line. I'm sure they don't use exact cutoffs (they shouldn't either; it's too inflexible), so we have to try and guess how they will process and understand deck performance in relation to their criteria.
All of that is to say no one should be talking about any one deck getting any ban right now. It's way, way too early and we have way, way too little information.
I honestly doubt Wizards will ban anything else this year unless it's absolutely necessary, like if something in Amonkhet is busted. I'm more curious if they'll unban anything. If Gitaxian Probe and Golgari Grave-Troll are deemed too powerful for Modern it doesn't bold well for any of the fairer cards on the list.
If there is a best deck, expect something to be banned. Regardless of other metrics, format parameters, or any other justification. If there is a clear best deck, expect a ban.
Now, I'm more interested in what comes next. Will the format cycle through metagames now? Will we not have a clear 'best deck' and instead of a cyclical rock<paper<scissors matchup?
I dont know. I hope so, if only because I would like us to go through a few announcements without further bans. I'm not sure player confidence can handle many more with the poor communication we get from Wizards.
Then Jund/Junk will be getting a banning by that logic. It is the best deck by meta game share
A few major words of caution here.
First, we have no idea what the post-AER, post-banning metagame looks like. We are literally less than a week into the new format and not into the new format at all on MTGO. We can't analyze the possibility right now because Wizards doesn't even have relevant MTGO data. Or relevant paper event data!
Second, let's not mix our criteria here. Reviewing banlist decisions, there's a "best deck" criterion (see Reflector Mage) and there's a "metagame diversity" criterion (see Twin). In the Mage decision, Wizards said the deck wasn't at an oppressive share but did have an oppressive matchup spectrum. Hence, it was the best deck and hence, Mage got banned. In the Twin case, Wizards said the problem was with metagame diversity and cited major event Top 8 finishes. Those are two separate criteria. While BGx may fall prey to either or both, we need to be sure we are assessing its success on those criteria.
Third, although we do know more criteria today than we did a year ago, we don't know how Wizards determines when something crosses a line. I'm sure they don't use exact cutoffs (they shouldn't either; it's too inflexible), so we have to try and guess how they will process and understand deck performance in relation to their criteria.
All of that is to say no one should be talking about any one deck getting any ban right now. It's way, way too early and we have way, way too little information.
I'm guessing that the tone of the forum has you tilted as i was engaging in a bit of hyperbole.
honestly I think that fatal push (and lets be real that is the card we are talking about when we say "post-AER" meta) is going to be a bit of a knock down for Jund/Junk decks. A big reason why the BGx decks have always been good is that their creatures don't generally die to bolt easily and path is terrible in attrition mirrors. Perhaps Junk over takes Jund for good.
I honestly doubt Wizards will ban anything else this year unless it's absolutely necessary, like if something in Amonkhet is busted. I'm more curious if they'll unban anything. If Gitaxian Probe and Golgari Grave-Troll are deemed too powerful for Modern it doesn't bold well for any of the fairer cards on the list.
Context though. Is GGT busted without Amalgam, and Hug? Not really no. Was Probe broken before they started pushing Prowess? I dont think so. It takes decks to break (most) cards.
I think I actually at this point have a VERY good idea of some of their ban criteria, at least for certain types of cases.
Background: I have a degree in mathematics with specialization in an area called "Operations Research". There's a lot of technical and mathematical jargon, but in essence, "OR" boils down to making mathematically informed decisions. Not statistically informed ones, mathematical ones--meaning we don't just consider raw numbers or probabilities, but also impacts of decisions. Describing what a format will look like after "tweaking it" (banning or unbanning cards) is almost exactly the kind of problem that the army asks us to solve, or give defensible solutions for.
Based on a combination of some of my own data, some of the data from the MTGO deep dive modern nexus did a couple of years ago, and my own intuition, I put together a model of bannings vs format health using some slightly modified metagame data surrounding the summer bloom, splinter twin, birthing pod, eye of ugin, and now the gitaxian probe bannings. I also took some data as far as diversity goes from standard events surrounding the emrakul/copter bans. Additionally, all of the comments Stoddard made about the 51-49 matchup for UW flash in standard informed some of the final tweaking on the model. When I adjusted some "minimal threshold" levels with that information about 51-49 matchups being a key part, the model went from 78% fidelity to 91% fidelity to the real world results (actual metagame conditions before a ban and resulting ban). I'm not ready to share the workings of exactly how this model operates yet, because I'm not sure at the present if confirmation bias is warping how I structured the logic. The next time they ban a card in modern, if it falls under any sort of diversity or turn 4 violator umbrella at all and is not a clearly egregious offender (like eye of ugin), I'll plug it into the model and see if it predicts the ban is reasonable. If at that time it does, I'll probably write up a whitepaper and send it to Sheridan/whoever at modern nexus.
General trends that I've noted, and that people maybe haven't quantified for themselves:
1. MTGO prevalence matters a lot to WOTC. All of the judges around for the second storm banning (seething song) attest that in general, the deck was just not very prevalent in the GP metagame, and it had a rather abnormally high conversion rate to day 2/top 8 because many of the "police" decks in the format at the time weren't running relevant interaction to seriously stop the combo, so dedicated pilots of the storm deck were good at going off through the mild and ineffective hate that players DID bring in. While this was going on in paper events, the deck was a monster on MODO--during some individual weeks, it was pushing 20% representation in terms of presence in daily events. As a single archetype. The deck was tiered in our forums based on its MTGO results, because the paper finishes just really weren't there, and the MODO finishes were reasonable in the light of its overall presence in the metagame online.
2. Actual factual matchup percentages are something WOTC monitors closely. We saw it very clearly with the noted 51/49 matchup for UW flash that Stoddard keeps mentioning, but we also saw it with Jund PRE DRS/BBE bans: the deck was very consistently going about 55-45 in large events based on day 2-top 16/top 8 conversions at the time, and it was STILL above 50% when the DRS ban came down later. More to the point, they don't care about what percentages the Pro's experience--they care about the actual format-wide win percentages. That's an important piece of data, because it means that some skill-capped decks likely won't see bans until prevalence knocks them out. The case in point here is Amulet Bloom--the deck, in its final forms, basically escaped two ban cycles. It wasn't until its metagame percentage started increasing as people actually sincerely tried to learn the deck that it ate a ban. Some of the best pilots were posting 65%+ winrates on MODO, and one of the active streamers of the re-built version with Azusa STILL has over a 60% win rate on MTGO with the deck. WOTC cares about the aggregate, not the outlier, which means fringe decks are more likely to escape as real offenders if they're easy to misplay with. Importantly, 50/50 vs 51-49 is clearly a tipping point for WOTC--UW flash ate a ban to prevent it preemptively from tipping past that mark, before the metagame even had a chance to settle. Also, note how badly WOTC reacted to the deep dive data collection--they REALLY didn't like players having access to that data on a wide scale, which means they value it very highly for something. My bet is that it's part of their trade secrets as far as developing and managing formats goes, from a player-experience perspective.
3. WOTC monitors clusters of archetypes, not single decks. Most people recognize that there is an argument for, say, diversity-among-graveyard decks and banning a dredge card, or diversity-among-agro-decks and banning (and unbanning!) wild nacatl. One of the keys to my model was to assign each "deck" classification to a number of different "group" clusters--so infect goes into the "agro" group as well as the "combo by redundancy" group and the "pump combo" group. Constraining the model to strongly flag "decks" (sets of overlapping cards) that push any of the format boundaries (kill turn, metagame percentage, archetype percentage, metagame dominance) across MORE THAN ONE of these "groups" at a time is what gave me the accuracy increase to 91% model fidelity.
I have a very strong suspicion that the biggest factor that came up in actual discussions when they were formulating the B&R changes is not actually what decks are overrepresented, or what cards are too strong, or what decks win too quickly. I believe (also based on the standard bannings) that it comes down to how often certain "groups" of kills occur. It's OK to get affinity plating-smashed, burn turn 4'd, and infect-killed with high frequency. It's not ok if that same slice of the metagame is instead pump spell kill + pump spell kill + pump spell kill, because both of these formats are largely the same to a competitive and enfranchised player, but are very different experiences for a less enfranchised player, and it is the less-hardcore playerbase that makes up the fluctuating band of tournament attendance: hardcore spikes will show up whether the format is good or bad. More casual players won't.
Yes, I am a local area mod. WELP. GOOD LIFE CHANGES ALL HAPPEN AT ONCE AND SOME ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
Primary Decks:
Modern: Esper Draw-Go
Legacy: RUG Lands
EDH: Sidisi turn-3 storm
Asking "if Cloudpost is too strong, why isn't Tron too strong?" is akin to asking "if Deathrite Shaman is too strong, why isn't Noble Hierarch too strong?" In both cases, the answer is obvious: The latter is quite a bit weaker than the former. 12-Post is quite a bit stronger than Urzatron is. It ramps more effectively, it's thwarted less by land destruction, and it staves off aggro better thanks to Glimmerpost gaining life.
In regards to Eye of Ugin vs. Tron, you ignore the fact that Eye of Ugin starts the ramp (for Eldrazi) on turn 1, whereas Tron can't get any ramp until the third turn (well I guess with a crazy good hand you can get 3 mana off an Urza's Tower on the second turn if you're running Explore, but almost all Tron builds have dropped that card). There's a big difference between a card that instantly gives you 2 mana versus one that can't give you that ramp until the third turn and requires you to assemble two other specific lands.
Basically, Eye of Ugin and Cloudpost ramp way better than Tron. So wondering why Tron is okay but those aren't is like asking why Time Warp isn't banned when one considers how amazing Time Walk is.
You literally took what I said, quoted it, then changed the wording and meaning of the quote in your first sentence, and somehow missed the point at the same time. What I was saying with all of those examples is WotC has yet to clearly define what they want this format to look like. They do have a problem with Ramp in the Cloudpost form and the nuisance that Eldrazi was thanks to Eye of Ugin, yet the 'feel-bads' about Tron has been allowed to stay, albeit begrudgingly. Tron can still, even now, clean up in g1, then take g2 before the 3 and 4cc hate cards remove their primary strategy. Now, that's not to say that Tron should be banned, as a matter of fact I'm 100% opposed to banning based on words like 'feeling' and 'dislike' as opposed to 'format-warping', 'stifling', 'difficult to answer' or 'over-represented'.
I hope I clarified my position better, because that one line was not only taken out of context but you answered a question/argument I never asked.
But my post does answer your question. 12-Post gets banned because it's too powerful. Tron, which is not anywhere near as powerful, is spared. Trying to claim they have "yet to clearly define what they want this format to look like" (at least in regards to this specific case) is silly because 12-Post got banned because it was too good at what it did. Tron, which is not as powerful, is apparently at an acceptable power level.
As for the Eldrazi, comparing the single most dominant deck in the format's history with a deck that tends to be in the 3-5% area is just plain silly.
There are certainly a number of criticisms that one can aim at Wizards of the Coast in regards to their handling of the Modern banned list as well as alleged dissonances in what's banned or what isn't banned, but this is not one of them. There is no disconnect or dissonance or additional need to "define" things in regards to 12-Post and Eldrazi being banned but Tron not being banned. The first two are significantly more powerful than the latter, so it makes perfect sense for them to get bans while Tron doesn't.
I presented a laundry list of arguments, this was only one among them. So, no, it still doesn't. You disagree with this specific example, that's fine, but the point remains.
No, it does, because I was responding to that one particular point, not the idea in general. The example was silly and so I responded to it.
It should not be difficult to understand why 12-Post got banned out of existence (and Eldrazi got a hard nerfing) but Tron was never targeted with a ban (it suffered collateral damage, but it wasn't the reason Eye of Ugin was lost).
So you get these semi-contradictory statements like 'well, Tron isn't as bad, so that kind of ramp is okay', until something comes along that makes it not okay (like the collateral damage of the Eye banning because of another deck's ridiculousness). So, it's less about why one kind of ramp is okay and another isn't because of power level, because that is very subjective and highly subject to change.
12-Post being better than Tron is "subjective" in the same way that Ancestral Vision being better than Concentrate is "subjective." There's a few ways you can point to the latter being better than the former, but on the whole the first is clearly substantially better than the second.
There's no inconsistency or contradiction between Cloudpost and Eye of Ugin getting banned but the Urza lands remaining untouched. They on dramatically different power levels. You mention things can "change" (after all, Eye of Ugin was legal for quite a while) but that "change" was pretty objective in that it came from new cards getting printed that interacted unfavorably with the older cards.
K, buddy, I've tried to wrangle the conversation back to my actual point like 3 times now and you're just not having it. Thank you for the lesson in understanding how 12-post is more egregious than Tron, still was never my point nor did I put them on the same level, but you managed to sit me down and explain it slowly like 3 times now. You win, just for the sake of not getting derailed any further.
Background: I have a degree in mathematics with specialization in an area called "Operations Research". There's a lot of technical and mathematical jargon, but in essence, "OR" boils down to making mathematically informed decisions. Not statistically informed ones, mathematical ones--meaning we don't just consider raw numbers or probabilities, but also impacts of decisions. Describing what a format will look like after "tweaking it" (banning or unbanning cards) is almost exactly the kind of problem that the army asks us to solve, or give defensible solutions for.
...
Imagining Wizards calling in the Military Intelligence Corps to moderate the Modern banlist 😂😂😭😭💀💀
Also, thanks for the best post I have read all year!
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
Background: I have a degree in mathematics with specialization in an area called "Operations Research". There's a lot of technical and mathematical jargon, but in essence, "OR" boils down to making mathematically informed decisions. Not statistically informed ones, mathematical ones--meaning we don't just consider raw numbers or probabilities, but also impacts of decisions. Describing what a format will look like after "tweaking it" (banning or unbanning cards) is almost exactly the kind of problem that the army asks us to solve, or give defensible solutions for.
...
Imagining Wizards calling in the Military Intelligence Corps to moderate the Modern banlist 😂😂😭😭💀💀
Also, thanks for the best post I have read all year!
not sure if sarcastic or well meaning Jordan. Regardless, I think that everyone else (INCLUDING SHERIDAN, although he's the best so far) who has written B&R articles has been taking a flawed premise. The reality is, players who *care* a lot about the B&R list are *NOT* the target audience for the format--they're already enfranchised. The actual fundamental real-world skill of operations research analysts is being able to identify WHY various other parties think their solution to a problem is correct, abstract and quantify those reasons, and assimilate all of the various resulting "viewpoints" of an issue, use them to give a mathematical result, and TRANSLATE that result back into language each party can understand.
The critical step here is being able to understand and quantify not only your own thinking, but also someone else's thinking about a problem, and hopefully using the mish-mash of viewpoints to construct an "objective" description of the situation. The flawed premise here is that WOTC wants a balanced modern format. They don't. They want a format that appears balanced and healthy to NEW PLAYERS TO THE FORMAT, because THAT is the demographic that applies to their bottom line--players transitioning from standard to modern with their rotating cards. If none of those cards are ever good in modern, the secondary market for standard collapses, which leads to booster pack sales decreasing. Even Sheridan's articles have been written from a viewpoint of trying to examine WOTC's decisions in the light of an OBJECTIVE view of the format, and the reality is that their view is actually quite objective, but from a very slightly different set of goals than that of the playerbase as a collective.
Oh, and one quick edit: I've noticed a trend in set design/development over the last five years that I first thought was very tinfoil-hat of me, but if Amonkhet and the next block bear out the way I think they will from a constructed standpoint, I think it's possible that the WOTC market research has realized this, and that data might actually have crept into the cycle of design and development in magic--Cycling blocks and staple/reprint types in a way that actually MAXIMIZES the reinvestment of enfranchised players. If my theory holds out over the next year, about specific design/development cycles and types of johnny/timmy/spike appeal in sets vs the vorthosian type characteristics, I'd say wotc actually has some VERY smart people researching how to cause enfranchised players to spend more money per year per person on sealed product, which is where their growth over the last few years has primarily come from.
Yes, I am a local area mod. WELP. GOOD LIFE CHANGES ALL HAPPEN AT ONCE AND SOME ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
Primary Decks:
Modern: Esper Draw-Go
Legacy: RUG Lands
EDH: Sidisi turn-3 storm
Was being serious 👽 So far we can draw links from each ban to literature Wizards has published in the past, but the links get weaker as Wizards adds novel lit or fails to explicitly list reasons we would think were obvious for certain bans. As of the Probe ban, I'm less skeptical of Wizards having agendas that have little to do with the kind of enfranchised player analysis (to use your terms) Sheridan (and those who subscribe to his school of thought, including me) engages in, and more to do with unstated goals like helping Standard players transition to Modern. (This is actually something I don't really understand even if it is happening, since Standard is apparently cannibalizing Modern; wouldn't Wizards want Modern to dip a little in popularity relative to their cash cow format?) I'd love to hear more about the last point you brought up regarding design/development cycles if you're up for discussing it, here or elsewhere.
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
As a player following along with understanding in the lines of thought explained here. Id like to read more of your thoughts if you would develop them here. I am actually curious of the metagame evaluations that come about through looking at modern through these processes
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks I have in my bag of tricks- Needless to say, someone who wants to play will probably have a deck UB/x Faeries UR Storm XURWB Affinity G Elves UW control
im really afraid of wizards criteria, growing more and more over time
- your deck cannot win "with consistency" before turn 4
- your deck should be interactive
- your deck should not be answered only with sideboard
- your deck should not cause logistical issues
- your deck should not have big metagame share
- your deck should not make a color less diverse
- your deck should not win a lot (the only format where you are cheering for your deck to lose, afraid of bannings)
basically, play abzan, jund or grixis, or a bad deck or a deck slaughtered by sideboards (like affinity and this deck its not even safe) or be afraid for the rest of your life as a modern player
im really afraid of wizards criteria, growing more and more over time
- your deck cannot win "with consistency" before turn 4
- your deck should be interactive
- your deck should not be answered only with sideboard
- your deck should not cause logistical issues
- your deck should not have big metagame share
- your deck should not make a color less diverse
- your deck should not win a lot (the only format where you are cheering for your deck to lose, afraid of bannings)
basically, play abzan, jund or grixis, or a bad deck or a deck slaughtered by sideboards (like affinity and this deck its not even safe) or be afraid for the rest of your life as a modern player
That's exactly how I felt after the Twin ban, and I'm beginning to feel that way again.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern RGTron UGInfect URStorm WUBRAd Nauseam BRGrishoalbrand URGScapeshift WBGAbzan Company WUBRGAmulet Titan BRGLiving End WGBogles
im really afraid of wizards criteria, growing more and more over time
- your deck cannot win "with consistency" before turn 4
- your deck should be interactive
- your deck should not be answered only with sideboard
- your deck should not cause logistical issues
- your deck should not have big metagame share
- your deck should not make a color less diverse
- your deck should not win a lot (the only format where you are cheering for your deck to lose, afraid of bannings)
basically, play abzan, jund or grixis, or a bad deck or a deck slaughtered by sideboards (like affinity and this deck its not even safe) or be afraid for the rest of your life as a modern player
That's exactly how I felt after the Twin ban, and I'm beginning to feel that way again.
As someone that despised the Twin deck, I still don't feel that banning was ever explained very well. It really didn't break any of the format rules, and the explanation they offered was plain weak. A better argument could have been that any blue unbanning would have to pass the 'is it degenerate in Twin?' litmus test, which both Storm and Twin did have a big say in back then. You could even make the argument that it's unlikely we'd have Ancestral Vision right now if it wasn't for the Twin banning, even if they may not have run it. Since JtMS and Preordain/Ponder remain on the list and we've never been given anything close to Opt or Counterspell, any hopes of pruning Twin to make room for control were dead on arrival. So we cycle back to why it was banned, and I still don't see the reason. It didn't do anything except kill a deck type from the format, flush the deck value down the drain, and tick off a lot of people. Sending a message like that to players and having no positive effect is dangerous. You can only do it so many times before people lose faith in the format, especially when these banning come with no warning at all and blindside us.
2) It unified all of the control decks to play the Splinter Twin package.
There was about equal diversity of blue decks then as there is now, but with better strength and presence in Delver and Control variants when Twin was legal than at any point in the past year since the ban.
im really afraid of wizards criteria, growing more and more over time
- your deck cannot win "with consistency" before turn 4
- your deck should be interactive
- your deck should not be answered only with sideboard
- your deck should not cause logistical issues
- your deck should not have big metagame share
- your deck should not make a color less diverse
- your deck should not win a lot (the only format where you are cheering for your deck to lose, afraid of bannings)
basically, play abzan, jund or grixis, or a bad deck or a deck slaughtered by sideboards (like affinity and this deck its not even safe) or be afraid for the rest of your life as a modern player
That's exactly how I felt after the Twin ban, and I'm beginning to feel that way again.
As someone that despised the Twin deck, I still don't feel that banning was ever explained very well. It really didn't break any of the format rules, and the explanation they offered was plain weak. A better argument could have been that any blue unbanning would have to pass the 'is it degenerate in Twin?' litmus test, which both Storm and Twin did have a big say in back then. You could even make the argument that it's unlikely we'd have Ancestral Vision right now if it wasn't for the Twin banning, even if they may not have run it. Since JtMS and Preordain/Ponder remain on the list and we've never been given anything close to Opt or Counterspell, any hopes of pruning Twin to make room for control were dead on arrival. So we cycle back to why it was banned, and I still don't see the reason. It didn't do anything except kill a deck type from the format, flush the deck value down the drain, and tick off a lot of people. Sending a message like that to players and having no positive effect is dangerous. You can only do it so many times before people lose faith in the format, especially when these banning come with no warning at all and blindside us.
Twin was banned for essentially the same reasoning as the Pod banning. Pod in validated all other creature based decks, Twin invalidated all other URx decks. I ran Twin because delver or any other strategy just lost to Twin. I could build it to be okay against jund and the rest of the field but lose to Twin every time, fix it to beat Twin lose to everything else so I just had to play Twin.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
They didn't ban Pod because it had no bad match ups, they banned it because it was and always would be the best creature based deck in the format. Banned to promote diversity in creature decks.http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/banned-and-restricted-announcement-2015-01-19
No, it does, because I was responding to that one particular point, not the idea in general. The example was silly and so I responded to it.
It should not be difficult to understand why 12-Post got banned out of existence (and Eldrazi got a hard nerfing) but Tron was never targeted with a ban (it suffered collateral damage, but it wasn't the reason Eye of Ugin was lost).
12-Post being better than Tron is "subjective" in the same way that Ancestral Vision being better than Concentrate is "subjective." There's a few ways you can point to the latter being better than the former, but on the whole the first is clearly substantially better than the second.
There's no inconsistency or contradiction between Cloudpost and Eye of Ugin getting banned but the Urza lands remaining untouched. They on dramatically different power levels. You mention things can "change" (after all, Eye of Ugin was legal for quite a while) but that "change" was pretty objective in that it came from new cards getting printed that interacted unfavorably with the older cards.
If there is a best deck, expect something to be banned. Regardless of other metrics, format parameters, or any other justification. If there is a clear best deck, expect a ban.
Now, I'm more interested in what comes next. Will the format cycle through metagames now? Will we not have a clear 'best deck' and instead of a cyclical rock<paper<scissors matchup?
I dont know. I hope so, if only because I would like us to go through a few announcements without further bans. I'm not sure player confidence can handle many more with the poor communication we get from Wizards.
Spirits
Wizards clearly explained why the card got banned. Probe was banned because it "increased the number of third-turn kills in a few ways." That's it. Anything beyond that is conjecture and speculation on your side without any Wizards backing. I'm totally willing to consider alternate explanations, and if you have any formal Wizards citations you want to bring in I'd love to see them.
I don't know why you are saying I didn't learn from the Twin ban. It's off-base and not really on topic. Up until the Twin ban, most people (myself included) thought that cards really only got banned for being metagame diversity violators, T4 rule violators, or causing logistical problems. We were wrong and learned. After the Twin ban, and now after the GGT ban, we've added more criteria: Wizards' threshold for metagame diversity violators is different than we thought, decks shouldn't supplant similar decks, the format shouldn't become a sideboard battle, and decks that don't have bad matchups are problematic. This doesn't mean the system I was working from is wrong. It means it was incomplete and now it is more complete.
In the case of the Probe ban, Wizards gave a reason it was banned. Until Wizards says otherwise, or until we can find persuasive evidence to suggest they (un)intentionally omitted a reason for its banning, that is the explanation we must go with.
It's only unavoidable if Wizards refuses to print better cards than those already printed. These new cards can allow other decks to overtake whatever the current "best" deck is and allow a natural flow between different decks fighting for the top spot. But with that aside, simply banning the best deck will default people to the next best deck, and then the next, and then the next, until all powerful decks are banned. This is not healthy for a format that is supposed to be "eternal." Powerful decks should be allowed to fight each other, and weaker decks should be given the tools to fight them as well. Instead, the best decks are banned every cycle and the resulting chaos is seen as "keeping the metagame fresh" until the next powerful deck emerges and is banned.
The only reason we don't know is because A) they make regular shake-up bans to remove the best deck(s), and B) Modern PT has been removed and the Modern GPs have less video coverage because they are spaced several months apart with multiple events on the same day (only one receives video coverage every 2-3 months). There is both less incentive to find a "best deck" and fewer avenues to showcase a "best deck." But rest assured, there will always be one and it will be banned. This is Wizard policy until they explain otherwise.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I don't agree. Probe and Bloom were banned for a known criterion. So was Eye. Twin was also banned for being a diversity violator; we just measured the metagame differently than Wizards did to determine bans. The only new criterion was GGT's "sideboard battle" rationale, which wasn't really new so much as it was a return to the pre-PT Philly criterion that got GGT banned in the first place.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
Then Jund/Junk will be getting a banning by that logic. It is the best deck by meta game share
Whats it going to be though Goyf? lol
Spirits
A few major words of caution here.
First, we have no idea what the post-AER, post-banning metagame looks like. We are literally less than a week into the new format and not into the new format at all on MTGO. We can't analyze the possibility right now because Wizards doesn't even have relevant MTGO data. Or relevant paper event data!
Second, let's not mix our criteria here. Reviewing banlist decisions, there's a "best deck" criterion (see Reflector Mage) and there's a "metagame diversity" criterion (see Twin). In the Mage decision, Wizards said the deck wasn't at an oppressive share but did have an oppressive matchup spectrum. Hence, it was the best deck and hence, Mage got banned. In the Twin case, Wizards said the problem was with metagame diversity and cited major event Top 8 finishes. Those are two separate criteria. While BGx may fall prey to either or both, we need to be sure we are assessing its success on those criteria.
Third, although we do know more criteria today than we did a year ago, we don't know how Wizards determines when something crosses a line. I'm sure they don't use exact cutoffs (they shouldn't either; it's too inflexible), so we have to try and guess how they will process and understand deck performance in relation to their criteria.
All of that is to say no one should be talking about any one deck getting any ban right now. It's way, way too early and we have way, way too little information.
I'm guessing that the tone of the forum has you tilted as i was engaging in a bit of hyperbole.
honestly I think that fatal push (and lets be real that is the card we are talking about when we say "post-AER" meta) is going to be a bit of a knock down for Jund/Junk decks. A big reason why the BGx decks have always been good is that their creatures don't generally die to bolt easily and path is terrible in attrition mirrors. Perhaps Junk over takes Jund for good.
Context though. Is GGT busted without Amalgam, and Hug? Not really no. Was Probe broken before they started pushing Prowess? I dont think so. It takes decks to break (most) cards.
Spirits
Background: I have a degree in mathematics with specialization in an area called "Operations Research". There's a lot of technical and mathematical jargon, but in essence, "OR" boils down to making mathematically informed decisions. Not statistically informed ones, mathematical ones--meaning we don't just consider raw numbers or probabilities, but also impacts of decisions. Describing what a format will look like after "tweaking it" (banning or unbanning cards) is almost exactly the kind of problem that the army asks us to solve, or give defensible solutions for.
Based on a combination of some of my own data, some of the data from the MTGO deep dive modern nexus did a couple of years ago, and my own intuition, I put together a model of bannings vs format health using some slightly modified metagame data surrounding the summer bloom, splinter twin, birthing pod, eye of ugin, and now the gitaxian probe bannings. I also took some data as far as diversity goes from standard events surrounding the emrakul/copter bans. Additionally, all of the comments Stoddard made about the 51-49 matchup for UW flash in standard informed some of the final tweaking on the model. When I adjusted some "minimal threshold" levels with that information about 51-49 matchups being a key part, the model went from 78% fidelity to 91% fidelity to the real world results (actual metagame conditions before a ban and resulting ban). I'm not ready to share the workings of exactly how this model operates yet, because I'm not sure at the present if confirmation bias is warping how I structured the logic. The next time they ban a card in modern, if it falls under any sort of diversity or turn 4 violator umbrella at all and is not a clearly egregious offender (like eye of ugin), I'll plug it into the model and see if it predicts the ban is reasonable. If at that time it does, I'll probably write up a whitepaper and send it to Sheridan/whoever at modern nexus.
General trends that I've noted, and that people maybe haven't quantified for themselves:
1. MTGO prevalence matters a lot to WOTC. All of the judges around for the second storm banning (seething song) attest that in general, the deck was just not very prevalent in the GP metagame, and it had a rather abnormally high conversion rate to day 2/top 8 because many of the "police" decks in the format at the time weren't running relevant interaction to seriously stop the combo, so dedicated pilots of the storm deck were good at going off through the mild and ineffective hate that players DID bring in. While this was going on in paper events, the deck was a monster on MODO--during some individual weeks, it was pushing 20% representation in terms of presence in daily events. As a single archetype. The deck was tiered in our forums based on its MTGO results, because the paper finishes just really weren't there, and the MODO finishes were reasonable in the light of its overall presence in the metagame online.
2. Actual factual matchup percentages are something WOTC monitors closely. We saw it very clearly with the noted 51/49 matchup for UW flash that Stoddard keeps mentioning, but we also saw it with Jund PRE DRS/BBE bans: the deck was very consistently going about 55-45 in large events based on day 2-top 16/top 8 conversions at the time, and it was STILL above 50% when the DRS ban came down later. More to the point, they don't care about what percentages the Pro's experience--they care about the actual format-wide win percentages. That's an important piece of data, because it means that some skill-capped decks likely won't see bans until prevalence knocks them out. The case in point here is Amulet Bloom--the deck, in its final forms, basically escaped two ban cycles. It wasn't until its metagame percentage started increasing as people actually sincerely tried to learn the deck that it ate a ban. Some of the best pilots were posting 65%+ winrates on MODO, and one of the active streamers of the re-built version with Azusa STILL has over a 60% win rate on MTGO with the deck. WOTC cares about the aggregate, not the outlier, which means fringe decks are more likely to escape as real offenders if they're easy to misplay with. Importantly, 50/50 vs 51-49 is clearly a tipping point for WOTC--UW flash ate a ban to prevent it preemptively from tipping past that mark, before the metagame even had a chance to settle. Also, note how badly WOTC reacted to the deep dive data collection--they REALLY didn't like players having access to that data on a wide scale, which means they value it very highly for something. My bet is that it's part of their trade secrets as far as developing and managing formats goes, from a player-experience perspective.
3. WOTC monitors clusters of archetypes, not single decks. Most people recognize that there is an argument for, say, diversity-among-graveyard decks and banning a dredge card, or diversity-among-agro-decks and banning (and unbanning!) wild nacatl. One of the keys to my model was to assign each "deck" classification to a number of different "group" clusters--so infect goes into the "agro" group as well as the "combo by redundancy" group and the "pump combo" group. Constraining the model to strongly flag "decks" (sets of overlapping cards) that push any of the format boundaries (kill turn, metagame percentage, archetype percentage, metagame dominance) across MORE THAN ONE of these "groups" at a time is what gave me the accuracy increase to 91% model fidelity.
I have a very strong suspicion that the biggest factor that came up in actual discussions when they were formulating the B&R changes is not actually what decks are overrepresented, or what cards are too strong, or what decks win too quickly. I believe (also based on the standard bannings) that it comes down to how often certain "groups" of kills occur. It's OK to get affinity plating-smashed, burn turn 4'd, and infect-killed with high frequency. It's not ok if that same slice of the metagame is instead pump spell kill + pump spell kill + pump spell kill, because both of these formats are largely the same to a competitive and enfranchised player, but are very different experiences for a less enfranchised player, and it is the less-hardcore playerbase that makes up the fluctuating band of tournament attendance: hardcore spikes will show up whether the format is good or bad. More casual players won't.
Yes, I am a local area mod.WELP. GOOD LIFE CHANGES ALL HAPPEN AT ONCE AND SOME ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVEPrimary Decks:
Modern: Esper Draw-Go
Legacy: RUG Lands
EDH: Sidisi turn-3 storm
K, buddy, I've tried to wrangle the conversation back to my actual point like 3 times now and you're just not having it. Thank you for the lesson in understanding how 12-post is more egregious than Tron, still was never my point nor did I put them on the same level, but you managed to sit me down and explain it slowly like 3 times now. You win, just for the sake of not getting derailed any further.
Also, thanks for the best post I have read all year!
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
not sure if sarcastic or well meaning Jordan. Regardless, I think that everyone else (INCLUDING SHERIDAN, although he's the best so far) who has written B&R articles has been taking a flawed premise. The reality is, players who *care* a lot about the B&R list are *NOT* the target audience for the format--they're already enfranchised. The actual fundamental real-world skill of operations research analysts is being able to identify WHY various other parties think their solution to a problem is correct, abstract and quantify those reasons, and assimilate all of the various resulting "viewpoints" of an issue, use them to give a mathematical result, and TRANSLATE that result back into language each party can understand.
The critical step here is being able to understand and quantify not only your own thinking, but also someone else's thinking about a problem, and hopefully using the mish-mash of viewpoints to construct an "objective" description of the situation. The flawed premise here is that WOTC wants a balanced modern format. They don't. They want a format that appears balanced and healthy to NEW PLAYERS TO THE FORMAT, because THAT is the demographic that applies to their bottom line--players transitioning from standard to modern with their rotating cards. If none of those cards are ever good in modern, the secondary market for standard collapses, which leads to booster pack sales decreasing. Even Sheridan's articles have been written from a viewpoint of trying to examine WOTC's decisions in the light of an OBJECTIVE view of the format, and the reality is that their view is actually quite objective, but from a very slightly different set of goals than that of the playerbase as a collective.
Oh, and one quick edit: I've noticed a trend in set design/development over the last five years that I first thought was very tinfoil-hat of me, but if Amonkhet and the next block bear out the way I think they will from a constructed standpoint, I think it's possible that the WOTC market research has realized this, and that data might actually have crept into the cycle of design and development in magic--Cycling blocks and staple/reprint types in a way that actually MAXIMIZES the reinvestment of enfranchised players. If my theory holds out over the next year, about specific design/development cycles and types of johnny/timmy/spike appeal in sets vs the vorthosian type characteristics, I'd say wotc actually has some VERY smart people researching how to cause enfranchised players to spend more money per year per person on sealed product, which is where their growth over the last few years has primarily come from.
Yes, I am a local area mod.WELP. GOOD LIFE CHANGES ALL HAPPEN AT ONCE AND SOME ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVEPrimary Decks:
Modern: Esper Draw-Go
Legacy: RUG Lands
EDH: Sidisi turn-3 storm
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
UB/x Faeries
UR Storm
XURWB Affinity
G Elves
UW control
- your deck cannot win "with consistency" before turn 4
- your deck should be interactive
- your deck should not be answered only with sideboard
- your deck should not cause logistical issues
- your deck should not have big metagame share
- your deck should not make a color less diverse
- your deck should not win a lot (the only format where you are cheering for your deck to lose, afraid of bannings)
basically, play abzan, jund or grixis, or a bad deck or a deck slaughtered by sideboards (like affinity and this deck its not even safe) or be afraid for the rest of your life as a modern player
That's exactly how I felt after the Twin ban, and I'm beginning to feel that way again.
RGTron
UGInfect
URStorm
WUBRAd Nauseam
BRGrishoalbrand
URGScapeshift
WBGAbzan Company
WUBRGAmulet Titan
BRGLiving End
WGBogles
As someone that despised the Twin deck, I still don't feel that banning was ever explained very well. It really didn't break any of the format rules, and the explanation they offered was plain weak. A better argument could have been that any blue unbanning would have to pass the 'is it degenerate in Twin?' litmus test, which both Storm and Twin did have a big say in back then. You could even make the argument that it's unlikely we'd have Ancestral Vision right now if it wasn't for the Twin banning, even if they may not have run it. Since JtMS and Preordain/Ponder remain on the list and we've never been given anything close to Opt or Counterspell, any hopes of pruning Twin to make room for control were dead on arrival. So we cycle back to why it was banned, and I still don't see the reason. It didn't do anything except kill a deck type from the format, flush the deck value down the drain, and tick off a lot of people. Sending a message like that to players and having no positive effect is dangerous. You can only do it so many times before people lose faith in the format, especially when these banning come with no warning at all and blindside us.
There was about equal diversity of blue decks then as there is now, but with better strength and presence in Delver and Control variants when Twin was legal than at any point in the past year since the ban.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Twin was banned for essentially the same reasoning as the Pod banning. Pod in validated all other creature based decks, Twin invalidated all other URx decks. I ran Twin because delver or any other strategy just lost to Twin. I could build it to be okay against jund and the rest of the field but lose to Twin every time, fix it to beat Twin lose to everything else so I just had to play Twin.