As much as I would love to see JTMS or SFM unbanned why would wizards unbanned anything?
Sure blue is some what weak but is it worth the risk for wizards To give up a Jace or Preordain?
What would wizards gain?
1. Does unban Jace, SFM, BBE, or Preordain sell more Standard products?
2. Does unban Jace, SFM, BBE, or Preordain sell more Modern Master 2017 packs?
3. Does unban Jace, SFM, BBE, or Preordain bring any direct cash to WOTC?
All the answers: NO.
Therefore, I do not expect these cards will be unbanned in a week, especially WOTC recently tries to de-emphasize Modern format.
100% right this is a game for us. But for them is money.
There is no gain inew a unbanned
By that logic, nothing should ever be unbanned because it doesn't effect their sales. Why does WotC keep track of the modern format at all then? That argument makes 0 sense to me.
In the past, WOTC uses this ban list (ban/unabn) to make Modern a format fun to most of players, in order to promote Modern. They use Modern to attract people buy/hold standard cards because some cards can be used in Modern.
Now, they do not want keep promoting Modern as hard as before, where we all know that. Therefore, there is no need to adjust ban list as frequently as before. The current Modern META shows a good diversity (if we forget about Blue based Control) and no rush for them to touch the ban list.
Besides, if they are going to unban a card in a week, they should put this card in the MMA2017 to promote the sale. Since there is no such card in MMA 2017 and Goyf is still in the set as a top star driving the sale, I assume that there is no unban in a week.
There has never been a tier 1 white deck and no one comes to cry "white need some love, pls wizards" ....
You want the modern to become like legacy ? meta of 80% of blue decks and boring battles of counterspells ?
+
Unban Preordain will help more combo decks (ad nauseam, storm, reanimator) than control decks.
Says there are tons of decks, posts one link, and ignores all the stats showing how blue is down throughout the metagame since the Twin ban.
Great post. You guys are really contributing towards the entire discussion.
~~~~~~~~~~
Back on Topic, after reading Chapin's Premium Article it highlights most of my similar thoughts you can find throughout my posts. I don't think Counterspell would be bad for Modern, but it would take away from the crafting of blue decks in the format. I want to see Absorb and Undermine. Prohibit is where I would lean to next, and I am still mad to this very day they had the original Zendikar block to put that card perfectly in, and never did.
If people are absolutely scared of the Preordain/Ponder possible unban, then you have one last option in the banned list - unban the artifact lands. Seat of the Synod will directly aid Thirst for Knowledge. For all those worried about how Artifact lands could help combo decks, that fear is a falsehood, in the old Extended PTQ seasons, Artifact lands helped control more than they did Damage on the Stack + Disciple of the Vault Affinity with the same card availability and nowhere near the same amount of hate. The fear of Artifact lands being these busted things is nothing more than Myth, the original banned list for Modern came from the stem that they wanted to change all the top decks of Extended. Remember, Pro Tour Philadelphia was originally an Extended Pro Tour, last second changed to Modern. They banned cards from all the top decks, along with their recent Standard bannings. That was it. This is what leads me to my ideology of the mixture of the old Extended with our new Modern.
I know my suggestion is extreme in the amount of changes, but I feel this is the best course Wizards could do in the next few announcements;
Just FYI, ban decisions are made relatively "live" as in, more or less at the time the decisions are announced.
Sets are designed years in advance. Mm17 would have been locked in maybe 2 or more years ago, barring a few minor tweaks.
So the argument about potential unbans being in the set is, at best, moot. At worst it's misleading.
Fair enough. You can drop the 3rd paragraph from my previous post.
But there is no information to tell us if MMA set is designed years in advance or not. Unlike Standard sets, MMA set has no interaction with other sets, and I doubt it will take years in advance for the design.
Just FYI, ban decisions are made relatively "live" as in, more or less at the time the decisions are announced.
Sets are designed years in advance. Mm17 would have been locked in maybe 2 or more years ago, barring a few minor tweaks.
So the argument about potential unbans being in the set is, at best, moot. At worst it's misleading.
Fair enough. You can drop the 3rd paragraph from my previous post.
But there is no information to tell us if MMA set is designed years in advance or not. Unlike Standard sets, MMA set has no interaction with other sets, and I doubt it will take years in advance for the design.
working on projects myself that are implemented maybe up to a year after planning, it would seem strange (and make things difficult) to pick one part of a whole future plan and (for some reason?) plan it way after everything else.
I don't know their working practices, but common sense says they most likely put together their future sets all around the same time schedule, rather than pick or choose.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: G Tron, Vannifar, Jund, Druid/Vizier combo, Humans, Eldrazi Stompy (Serum Powder), Amulet, Grishoalbrand, Breach Titan, Turns, Eternal Command, As Foretold Living End, Elves, Cheerios, RUG Scapeshift
There has never been a tier 1 white deck and no one comes to cry "white need some love, pls wizards" ....
You want the modern to become like legacy ? meta of 80% of blue decks and boring battles of counterspells ?
+
Unban Preordain will help more combo decks (ad nauseam, storm, reanimator) than control decks.
I've been playing legacy for a couple years now, and I don't think I've ever seen "battles of counterspells", Most of the time it's minusing yourself off a FOW to just not lose on the spot, or using countermagic as an attrition tool.
I highly doubt that unbanning one decent cantrip is going to turn the format into a blue hell.
There are also plenty of really strong decks that don't need to play countermagic, thanks to every color getting strong answers, you get tools to keep combo in check like wasteland.
Elves, 43 lands, Death and Taxes, Aggro Loam, the new sweet RB reanimator list, Eldrazi stompy(Which is terrifying to play against), are all really good decks. Sure, meta may be skewed blue, but the difference between a tier 1 and a tier 2, or even tier 3 deck in legacy is a lot smaller than it is in modern, and every color gets to do broken stuff.
And honestly, yeah, I do think that modern could do to be more like legacy. At the very least, you don't need to ban the best deck in legacy every 6 months.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy
Death and Taxes Pauper
UB Teachings
Tortured Existence
Murasa Tron Modern
Pod (RIP)
Bloom(RIP)
Merfolk
There has never been a tier 1 white deck and no one comes to cry "white need some love, pls wizards" ....
You want the modern to become like legacy ? meta of 80% of blue decks and boring battles of counterspells ?
+
Unban Preordain will help more combo decks (ad nauseam, storm, reanimator) than control decks.
Says there are tons of decks, posts one link, and ignores all the stats showing how blue is down throughout the metagame since the Twin ban.
Great post. You guys are really contributing towards the entire discussion.
~~~~~~~~~~
Back on Topic, after reading Chapin's Premium Article it highlights most of my similar thoughts you can find throughout my posts. I don't think Counterspell would be bad for Modern, but it would take away from the crafting of blue decks in the format. I want to see Absorb and Undermine. Prohibit is where I would lean to next, and I am still mad to this very day they had the original Zendikar block to put that card perfectly in, and never did.
If people are absolutely scared of the Preordain/Ponder possible unban, then you have one last option in the banned list - unban the artifact lands. Seat of the Synod will directly aid Thirst for Knowledge. For all those worried about how Artifact lands could help combo decks, that fear is a falsehood, in the old Extended PTQ seasons, Artifact lands helped control more than they did Damage on the Stack + Disciple of the Vault Affinity with the same card availability and nowhere near the same amount of hate. The fear of Artifact lands being these busted things is nothing more than Myth, the original banned list for Modern came from the stem that they wanted to change all the top decks of Extended. Remember, Pro Tour Philadelphia was originally an Extended Pro Tour, last second changed to Modern. They banned cards from all the top decks, along with their recent Standard bannings. That was it. This is what leads me to my ideology of the mixture of the old Extended with our new Modern.
I know my suggestion is extreme in the amount of changes, but I feel this is the best course Wizards could do in the next few announcements;
If you want to craft a format to have more control and midrange, by only using the banned list as your tool, this is exactly what I would do.
Large list of bans and unbans are frowned upon. Making one deck viable to have others out of the format isn't what most of the people here are looking for. Mox and SSG ban kills affinity and ad naus for the most part among decks like cheeri0's that there is no data to support them being out of the format imo.
Rule of thumb: when players whine about "control" in this thread, they are referring specifically to reactive permission strategies, or Weissman control decks. That's why trying to console them with reminders about existing rock, prison, or fish decks never works.
Cards are worth what people are willing to pay for them. Maintaining any adult hobby is going to be expensive. My buddy is looking at drones right now, and the good ones start at like $1200. Hell, think how much you spend on alcohol or weed, or whatever you're into. If you're not getting enough enjoyment per cost out of your cards, maybe the problem isn't the cost of the cards, but that you're not enjoying the game as much as you used to.
You can look at it that way if you want to. The main issue I have with people frequenting this thread is that they have allowed their own financial windfall in life to cloak the problem of high cost in MtG and have grown quietly complacent in the matter, writing off excuses that they have a high paying job to pay for it so all that cost doesn't matter. It does, but hey, I'm not going to argue with someone who wants to keep thinking he is talking to someone in a lower earnings bracket then they are. (not referring to you, but an earlier poster by the way.) Again, I'm probably bringing this matter to the wrong place on the web since the Modern forum (and specifically this thread) seems to attract the pinata whales that Wizards likes to subsidize off of. That tends to be a hard thing to tell someone to their face that they are basically someone else's exploitable money bag.
My belief is that for a meta to be healthy, it has to attract people from all walks in life and be affordable enough that players who aren't walking money bag pinata whales can buy in and expect to be competitive. Wizards succeeded at least somewhat with MM2017 to improve the number of players playing competitive modern decks with the fetchland reprint, but they need to keep going on the reprints to bring down the price wall or the format is looking like it will just suffer a slow heat death eventually. The very statement I've seen from another poster that "there are plenty of jaces on the market and you are wrong about availability" just makes the matter even more clear that people don't realize a 50 dollar card only benefits a very small group of people in magic and by price alone has become unavailable to many players. That is without even going into what happens when the card becomes modern legal.
I don't think you realize that it is a privilege to play MTG not a basic human right. Your sense of entitlement is actually just absurd. And honestly if you're not playing Modern because of price, it helps WOTC sell you on the idea of playing Standard, and if you don't want to play Standard, WOTC didn't view you as a good customer anyways.
Rule of thumb: when players whine about "control" in this thread, they are referring specifically to reactive permission strategies, or Weissman control decks. That's why trying to console them with reminders about existing rock, prison, or fish decks never works.
Cards are worth what people are willing to pay for them. Maintaining any adult hobby is going to be expensive. My buddy is looking at drones right now, and the good ones start at like $1200. Hell, think how much you spend on alcohol or weed, or whatever you're into. If you're not getting enough enjoyment per cost out of your cards, maybe the problem isn't the cost of the cards, but that you're not enjoying the game as much as you used to.
You can look at it that way if you want to. The main issue I have with people frequenting this thread is that they have allowed their own financial windfall in life to cloak the problem of high cost in MtG and have grown quietly complacent in the matter, writing off excuses that they have a high paying job to pay for it so all that cost doesn't matter. It does, but hey, I'm not going to argue with someone who wants to keep thinking he is talking to someone in a lower earnings bracket then they are. (not referring to you, but an earlier poster by the way.) Again, I'm probably bringing this matter to the wrong place on the web since the Modern forum (and specifically this thread) seems to attract the pinata whales that Wizards likes to subsidize off of. That tends to be a hard thing to tell someone to their face that they are basically someone else's exploitable money bag.
My belief is that for a meta to be healthy, it has to attract people from all walks in life and be affordable enough that players who aren't walking money bag pinata whales can buy in and expect to be competitive. Wizards succeeded at least somewhat with MM2017 to improve the number of players playing competitive modern decks with the fetchland reprint, but they need to keep going on the reprints to bring down the price wall or the format is looking like it will just suffer a slow heat death eventually. The very statement I've seen from another poster that "there are plenty of jaces on the market and you are wrong about availability" just makes the matter even more clear that people don't realize a 50 dollar card only benefits a very small group of people in magic and by price alone has become unavailable to many players. That is without even going into what happens when the card becomes modern legal.
I don't think you realize that it is a privilege to play MTG not a basic human right. Your sense of entitlement is actually just absurd. And honestly if you're not playing Modern because of price, it helps WOTC sell you on the idea of playing Standard, and if you don't want to play Standard, WOTC didn't view you as a good customer anyways.
While I agree with your overall assertion that Wizards doesn't owe it to anyone to make this format or any other available to budget minded players - and I would actually disagree that there are no budget options - there are plenty, you just can't expect to compete at the top levels (but that's literally the case in everything, ever, you have to invest to compete at the top tier, be it time or money) - there is no reason to go on about 'entitlements'.
Does anyone know when the next announcement will be after March 13's? Most of us are working on the assumption that the March 2017 announcement will stand in for the April 2016 if they want to go with last year's "Shakeup in January, evaluate safety, then unban" formula, but they may want to give a little more time and see how the meta settles before acting. Especially with the emergence of Death's Shadow Jund.
I get that we want the things that we want now and not a month or two down the line, but I'm suspicious of whether WotC wants to act exactly now, even if they have some cards or two they'd like to bring off the ban list.
I'd of course welcome an unban next week, but I'd also like people to keep in mind that it's not March 13 or Bust.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing UX Mana Denial until Modern gets the answers it needs.
WUBRG Humans BRW Mardu Pyromancer UW UW "Control" UR Blue Moon
I say there won't be a single unban mainly because WotC doesn't really care about the format.
The format is getting less and less coverage as time goes by, less and less relevance, it spend the entire year of 2016 in a downspiral with pretty much every all-time staple decreasing in value as the interest in the format decreased.
Modern Masters 2017 feels to me like them just cashing in all their chips before they announce their own version of "Frontier".
There won't even be a MM17 GP this year - unbanning cards would just spike more unnecessary interest to the format.
Im not sure what format you're talking about but modern seems just as alive as ever. It's the most watched/played format. There is no way wotc introduces frontier when it directly takes the highlights off of standard if they make it a competitive format. This doesn't even touch the fact that if they were to make it a real format 1/2 the cards in it that people like would be banned. Have you played frontier with no fetches/delve cards? Not a great format by any means imo.
Do you mean it's not a debate because data showed Twin won too much, or data that it's significantly putting less blue players in the top 32 and shrunk their numbers significantly in the past year?
That's the thing. We don't know. What we do know is that WotC had way more data than all of us combined have accumulated. They state the reason for the ban, and we can only take what they say as a description of the results they saw in the data. My issue is the number of people who are angry at WotC for doing something that, more than likely, an absolute crap ton of data supported - Especially when those same angry internet posters refuse to either acknowledge that data or attempt to replicate it.
Essentially, it's a gross display of cognitive bias and the Dunning-Kruger. I'm more disappointed than anything in those people. If they hate it so much, why not just leave?
That's the thing. We don't know. What we do know is that WotC had way more data than all of us combined have accumulated. They state the reason for the ban, and we can only take what they say as a description of the results they saw in the data. My issue is the number of people who are angry at WotC for doing something that, more than likely, an absolute crap ton of data supported - Especially when those same angry internet posters refuse to either acknowledge that data or attempt to replicate it.
Essentially, it's a gross display of cognitive bias and the Dunning-Kruger. I'm more disappointed than anything in those people. If they hate it so much, why not just leave?
If that's true, then they should have been more transparent about it, because the reasons they gave rang very false to a lot of people. You'll notice that nobody really complained about the Reflector Mage banning despite it seeming odd because they came right out and told us that their data showed UW Flash to be the best deck with only one 49% matchup, and they didn't want to ban the second and third best decks and leave the best untouched. That transparency made the ban make sense. If they had some data that justified the Twin ban, then they should have discussed it. As it is, the data we do have from when MTGGoldfish was parsing MTGO data showed that the deck wasn't an outlier.
I have no doubt that there were other reasons for the ban, like it constricting what they can do with blue in Modern or trying to artificially keep the power of the format down, but those aren't the reasons they gave. They would have been better off being honest with us than coming up with some BS explanations that basically everyone could tell were wrong.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern UBR Grixis Shadow UBR UR Izzet Phoenix UR UW UW Control UW GB GB Rock GB
Commander BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
That's the thing. We don't know. What we do know is that WotC had way more data than all of us combined have accumulated. They state the reason for the ban, and we can only take what they say as a description of the results they saw in the data. My issue is the number of people who are angry at WotC for doing something that, more than likely, an absolute crap ton of data supported - Especially when those same angry internet posters refuse to either acknowledge that data or attempt to replicate it.
Essentially, it's a gross display of cognitive bias and the Dunning-Kruger. I'm more disappointed than anything in those people. If they hate it so much, why not just leave?
If that's true, then they should have been more transparent about it, because the reasons they gave rang very false to a lot of people. You'll notice that nobody really complained about the Reflector Mage banning despite it seeming odd because they came right out and told us that their data showed UW Flash to be the best deck with only one 49% matchup, and they didn't want to ban the second and third best decks and leave the best untouched. That transparency made the ban make sense. If they had some data that justified the Twin ban, then they should have discussed it. As it is, the data we do have from when MTGGoldfish was parsing MTGO data showed that the deck wasn't an outlier.
I have no doubt that there were other reasons for the ban, like it constricting what they can do with blue in Modern or trying to artificially keep the power of the format down, but those aren't the reasons they gave. They would have been better off being honest with us than coming up with some BS explanations that basically everyone could tell were wrong.
It's funny that as time goes by, people seem to have forgotten what the obvious, if undeclared, reason to ban twin, which was to 'shake up' the format before a major official tournament.
That's the thing. We don't know. What we do know is that WotC had way more data than all of us combined have accumulated. They state the reason for the ban, and we can only take what they say as a description of the results they saw in the data. My issue is the number of people who are angry at WotC for doing something that, more than likely, an absolute crap ton of data supported - Especially when those same angry internet posters refuse to either acknowledge that data or attempt to replicate it.
Essentially, it's a gross display of cognitive bias and the Dunning-Kruger. I'm more disappointed than anything in those people. If they hate it so much, why not just leave?
If that's true, then they should have been more transparent about it, because the reasons they gave rang very false to a lot of people. You'll notice that nobody really complained about the Reflector Mage banning despite it seeming odd because they came right out and told us that their data showed UW Flash to be the best deck with only one 49% matchup, and they didn't want to ban the second and third best decks and leave the best untouched. That transparency made the ban make sense. If they had some data that justified the Twin ban, then they should have discussed it. As it is, the data we do have from when MTGGoldfish was parsing MTGO data showed that the deck wasn't an outlier.
I have no doubt that there were other reasons for the ban, like it constricting what they can do with blue in Modern or trying to artificially keep the power of the format down, but those aren't the reasons they gave. They would have been better off being honest with us than coming up with some BS explanations that basically everyone could tell were wrong.
It's funny that as time goes by, people seem to have forgotten what the obvious, if undeclared, reason to ban twin, which was to 'shake up' the format before a major official tournament.
Exactly this, everything else is a smoke screen. If you remember eldrazi taking over that pt helped them sell a lot of standard product as well.
Exactly this, everything else is a smoke screen. If you remember eldrazi taking over that pt helped them sell a lot of standard product as well.
On the one hand, there is considerable evidence to suggest the Twin ban was motivated by a desire to shakeup the PT. That is at least a defensible position, even if there are arguments on all sides.
On the other hand, we have the suggestion (and if this wasn't your intention, disregard this post) that Wizards allowed or enabled the Eldrazi to break Modern to sell Standard product. This is a wild accusation with, as far as I can tell, zero grounding in evidence. We need to move past these conspiracy theories. As many posters are fond of saying, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." I totally agree and the Eldrazi are a clear example of bad design and negligent testing leading to a bad outcome. They are not an example of a sinister plot by Wizards to somehow torpedo Modern to bolster Standard sales and popularity. Again, if this isn't your suggestion, then ignore this post. But if it is, and I've seen posts suggesting it before, it's implausible and uncritical.
Yeah. Let's not forget this is the team that legit missed Copy Cat during testing.
Was it a shake up ban? Yeah probably.
Was twin the best deck anyway? Yeah probably.
Did Wizards hope the last year would have gone better for Reactive Blue? Yeah probably.
Exactly this, everything else is a smoke screen. If you remember eldrazi taking over that pt helped them sell a lot of standard product as well.
On the one hand, there is considerable evidence to suggest the Twin ban was motivated by a desire to shakeup the PT. That is at least a defensible position, even if there are arguments on all sides.
On the other hand, we have the suggestion (and if this wasn't your intention, disregard this post) that Wizards allowed or enabled the Eldrazi to break Modern to sell Standard product. This is a wild accusation with, as far as I can tell, zero grounding in evidence. We need to move past these conspiracy theories. As many posters are fond of saying, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." I totally agree and the Eldrazi are a clear example of bad design and negligent testing leading to a bad outcome. They are not an example of a sinister plot by Wizards to somehow torpedo Modern to bolster Standard sales and popularity. Again, if this isn't your suggestion, then ignore this post. But if it is, and I've seen posts suggesting it before, it's implausible and uncritical.
Ian duke durring that pt even stated that yes they realized that with the two eldrazi lands and cheaper eldrazi it was possible that there might be something really powerful going on.
I'm saying that they will introduce their OWN version of "Frontier" (aka, a set between T2 and Modern) from which they will have control from second 0 - they won't take something already half-made.
That format will be the end of Modern, after that Modern will receive 0 official support until it completely fades out of relevance.
Also, "modern seems just as Alive as ever"... that's arguable... During 2016 everything the modern staples did was drop and drop and drop in price, that doesn't seem like a healthy pattern for a "most watched and most played format".
I don't think price reflects health at all. Legacy has gotten cheaper to and I don't think it's in any worse a spot than it was by any means. Ask streamers what the most popular format is for their viewers, ask scg what format over the last 6 months has brought the most viewers, look at the numerous polls of how bad standard has been... modern is fine as far as a format. There is no good place to start a new format currently and they have said multiple times that a new format won't include fetches so then they'll need to really look at where to start as far as mana bases can go and what strategies they deem ok for a new format. No new format will come without issues.
it was Twin's turn to eat a nerf on the altar of the Pro Tour.
Just how it was, Forsythe may not admit it that cleanly, but he made it clear enough that that was part of it.
If Splinter Twin got banned to shakeup the PT as you claim, and with that PT's format now being Standard and not Modern, there is no reason for Splinter Twin to be banned anymore. Now there is a big if here.
Holy single cause fallacy, Batman!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing UX Mana Denial until Modern gets the answers it needs.
WUBRG Humans BRW Mardu Pyromancer UW UW "Control" UR Blue Moon
1. Too many top 8s. Best deck or not (who defines that?) it won too often by Wizards definitions.
2. Considered a diversity offender, they thought (wrongly) that Blue would diversify without Twin.
3. Considered a safe 'Pro Choice' deck. With the PT coming up, they wanted to shake it up.
Thats all we need to know, those statements all have backing either in the official announcement or Tweets following the ban.
It was not JUST that one reason, but that was one of the reasons.
it was Twin's turn to eat a nerf on the altar of the Pro Tour.
Just how it was, Forsythe may not admit it that cleanly, but he made it clear enough that that was part of it.
If Splinter Twin got banned to shakeup the PT as you claim, and with that PT's format now being Standard and not Modern, there is no reason for Splinter Twin to be banned anymore. Now there is a big if here.
Holy single cause fallacy, Batman!
All I am saying is IF this the only reason. That's a big if.
That's not an if. The idea that shaking up PT was the only reason for the Splinter Twin ban is a falsehood. I shouldn't have to post this, but here's the banlist announcement, which mentions multiple reasons for that ban that are not "Because PT." I don't see how you can come away from that with even an inkling that there was no other reason for the ban than to shake up Pro Tour. Unless you think they're lying. That's another issue all together, and one that I don't really think there's much merit to discussing.
I should also mention, because this is the internet and all, that I'm not trying to be hostile. I'm just lining up the facts in as non-inflammatory a way as I can. Lack of eye contact and tone of voice is a pain.
That's not an if. The idea that shaking up PT was the only reason for the Splinter Twin ban is a falsehood. I shouldn't have to post this, but here's the banlist announcement, which mentions multiple reasons for that ban that are not "Because PT." I don't see how you can come away from that with even an inkling that there was no other reason for the ban than to shake up Pro Tour. Unless you think they're lying. That's another issue all together, and one that I don't really think there's much merit to discussing.
I should also mention, because this is the internet and all, that I'm not trying to be hostile. I'm just lining up the facts in as non-inflammatory a way as I can. Lack of eye contact and tone of voice is a pain.
It certainly wasn't the only reason, but most of the reasons they gave in the announcement were wrong. It's true that it was the most successful deck of 2015, but I really don't think it's a good idea to go down the slippery slope of banning the most successful deck every year, I think that's horrible precedent to make.
I had forgotten about that tweet from Aaron, and I think it sheds a little insight on it. They likely knew that Twin would eventually need to be banned at some point in the future because it was so much better than all the other blue decks. If they ever want to power up blue in general Twin becomes busted, which was the argument against unbanning cards like AV all along. So they decided to go for a preemptive ban before Twin was really a problem yet, with the added benefit of shaking up the PT. That, to me, seems very plausible.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern UBR Grixis Shadow UBR UR Izzet Phoenix UR UW UW Control UW GB GB Rock GB
Commander BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In the past, WOTC uses this ban list (ban/unabn) to make Modern a format fun to most of players, in order to promote Modern. They use Modern to attract people buy/hold standard cards because some cards can be used in Modern.
Now, they do not want keep promoting Modern as hard as before, where we all know that. Therefore, there is no need to adjust ban list as frequently as before. The current Modern META shows a good diversity (if we forget about Blue based Control) and no rush for them to touch the ban list.
Besides, if they are going to unban a card in a week, they should put this card in the MMA2017 to promote the sale. Since there is no such card in MMA 2017 and Goyf is still in the set as a top star driving the sale, I assume that there is no unban in a week.
Anything, but nothing at the moment...
Modern:
WUBRGAmulet Titan, WUBRGHuman
WUBRAd Nauseam, WBRGDeath Shadow, UBRGScapeshift, UBRGDredge
WURJeskai Nahiri, WURCheeri0s, WBGCounter Company, WRGBurn, UBRMadcap Moon, BRGJund Midrange
UBTurn,BRGriselbrand Reanimator, WGKnight Company, RGRG Tron, RGRG Ponza, XAffinity, XEldrazi Tron
Says there are tons of decks, posts one link, and ignores all the stats showing how blue is down throughout the metagame since the Twin ban.
Great post. You guys are really contributing towards the entire discussion.
~~~~~~~~~~
Back on Topic, after reading Chapin's Premium Article it highlights most of my similar thoughts you can find throughout my posts. I don't think Counterspell would be bad for Modern, but it would take away from the crafting of blue decks in the format. I want to see Absorb and Undermine. Prohibit is where I would lean to next, and I am still mad to this very day they had the original Zendikar block to put that card perfectly in, and never did.
If people are absolutely scared of the Preordain/Ponder possible unban, then you have one last option in the banned list - unban the artifact lands. Seat of the Synod will directly aid Thirst for Knowledge. For all those worried about how Artifact lands could help combo decks, that fear is a falsehood, in the old Extended PTQ seasons, Artifact lands helped control more than they did Damage on the Stack + Disciple of the Vault Affinity with the same card availability and nowhere near the same amount of hate. The fear of Artifact lands being these busted things is nothing more than Myth, the original banned list for Modern came from the stem that they wanted to change all the top decks of Extended. Remember, Pro Tour Philadelphia was originally an Extended Pro Tour, last second changed to Modern. They banned cards from all the top decks, along with their recent Standard bannings. That was it. This is what leads me to my ideology of the mixture of the old Extended with our new Modern.
I know my suggestion is extreme in the amount of changes, but I feel this is the best course Wizards could do in the next few announcements;
UNBAN
Ancient Den
Great Furnace
Seat of the Synod
Tree of Tales
Vault of Whispers
Bloodbraid Elf
Jace, the Mind Sculptor
Stoneforge Mystic
BAN
Mox Opal
Simian Spirit Guide
If you want to craft a format to have more control and midrange, by only using the banned list as your tool, this is exactly what I would do.
Sets are designed years in advance. Mm17 would have been locked in maybe 2 or more years ago, barring a few minor tweaks.
So the argument about potential unbans being in the set is, at best, moot. At worst it's misleading.
Fair enough. You can drop the 3rd paragraph from my previous post.
But there is no information to tell us if MMA set is designed years in advance or not. Unlike Standard sets, MMA set has no interaction with other sets, and I doubt it will take years in advance for the design.
Anything, but nothing at the moment...
Modern:
WUBRGAmulet Titan, WUBRGHuman
WUBRAd Nauseam, WBRGDeath Shadow, UBRGScapeshift, UBRGDredge
WURJeskai Nahiri, WURCheeri0s, WBGCounter Company, WRGBurn, UBRMadcap Moon, BRGJund Midrange
UBTurn,BRGriselbrand Reanimator, WGKnight Company, RGRG Tron, RGRG Ponza, XAffinity, XEldrazi Tron
working on projects myself that are implemented maybe up to a year after planning, it would seem strange (and make things difficult) to pick one part of a whole future plan and (for some reason?) plan it way after everything else.
I don't know their working practices, but common sense says they most likely put together their future sets all around the same time schedule, rather than pick or choose.
design a set
have it approved
contact artists for new arts
print it, and only this will take months
URW PillowFort Stasis (costruction)
modern:
U
pauper:
UB Servitor Control
xenob8 : you know you are going to have a bad time when opponent starts with snow covered island
Spirits
I've been playing legacy for a couple years now, and I don't think I've ever seen "battles of counterspells", Most of the time it's minusing yourself off a FOW to just not lose on the spot, or using countermagic as an attrition tool.
I highly doubt that unbanning one decent cantrip is going to turn the format into a blue hell.
There are also plenty of really strong decks that don't need to play countermagic, thanks to every color getting strong answers, you get tools to keep combo in check like wasteland.
Elves, 43 lands, Death and Taxes, Aggro Loam, the new sweet RB reanimator list, Eldrazi stompy(Which is terrifying to play against), are all really good decks. Sure, meta may be skewed blue, but the difference between a tier 1 and a tier 2, or even tier 3 deck in legacy is a lot smaller than it is in modern, and every color gets to do broken stuff.
And honestly, yeah, I do think that modern could do to be more like legacy. At the very least, you don't need to ban the best deck in legacy every 6 months.
Death and Taxes
Pauper
UB Teachings
Tortured Existence
Murasa Tron
Modern
Pod (RIP)
Bloom(RIP)
Merfolk
Large list of bans and unbans are frowned upon. Making one deck viable to have others out of the format isn't what most of the people here are looking for. Mox and SSG ban kills affinity and ad naus for the most part among decks like cheeri0's that there is no data to support them being out of the format imo.
I don't think you realize that it is a privilege to play MTG not a basic human right. Your sense of entitlement is actually just absurd. And honestly if you're not playing Modern because of price, it helps WOTC sell you on the idea of playing Standard, and if you don't want to play Standard, WOTC didn't view you as a good customer anyways.
While I agree with your overall assertion that Wizards doesn't owe it to anyone to make this format or any other available to budget minded players - and I would actually disagree that there are no budget options - there are plenty, you just can't expect to compete at the top levels (but that's literally the case in everything, ever, you have to invest to compete at the top tier, be it time or money) - there is no reason to go on about 'entitlements'.
I get that we want the things that we want now and not a month or two down the line, but I'm suspicious of whether WotC wants to act exactly now, even if they have some cards or two they'd like to bring off the ban list.
I'd of course welcome an unban next week, but I'd also like people to keep in mind that it's not March 13 or Bust.
WUBRG Humans
BRW Mardu Pyromancer
UW UW "Control"
UR Blue Moon
Im not sure what format you're talking about but modern seems just as alive as ever. It's the most watched/played format. There is no way wotc introduces frontier when it directly takes the highlights off of standard if they make it a competitive format. This doesn't even touch the fact that if they were to make it a real format 1/2 the cards in it that people like would be banned. Have you played frontier with no fetches/delve cards? Not a great format by any means imo.
That's the thing. We don't know. What we do know is that WotC had way more data than all of us combined have accumulated. They state the reason for the ban, and we can only take what they say as a description of the results they saw in the data. My issue is the number of people who are angry at WotC for doing something that, more than likely, an absolute crap ton of data supported - Especially when those same angry internet posters refuse to either acknowledge that data or attempt to replicate it.
Essentially, it's a gross display of cognitive bias and the Dunning-Kruger. I'm more disappointed than anything in those people. If they hate it so much, why not just leave?
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
If that's true, then they should have been more transparent about it, because the reasons they gave rang very false to a lot of people. You'll notice that nobody really complained about the Reflector Mage banning despite it seeming odd because they came right out and told us that their data showed UW Flash to be the best deck with only one 49% matchup, and they didn't want to ban the second and third best decks and leave the best untouched. That transparency made the ban make sense. If they had some data that justified the Twin ban, then they should have discussed it. As it is, the data we do have from when MTGGoldfish was parsing MTGO data showed that the deck wasn't an outlier.
I have no doubt that there were other reasons for the ban, like it constricting what they can do with blue in Modern or trying to artificially keep the power of the format down, but those aren't the reasons they gave. They would have been better off being honest with us than coming up with some BS explanations that basically everyone could tell were wrong.
UBR Grixis Shadow UBR
UR Izzet Phoenix UR
UW UW Control UW
GB GB Rock GB
Commander
BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG
BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
It's funny that as time goes by, people seem to have forgotten what the obvious, if undeclared, reason to ban twin, which was to 'shake up' the format before a major official tournament.
Exactly this, everything else is a smoke screen. If you remember eldrazi taking over that pt helped them sell a lot of standard product as well.
On the one hand, there is considerable evidence to suggest the Twin ban was motivated by a desire to shakeup the PT. That is at least a defensible position, even if there are arguments on all sides.
On the other hand, we have the suggestion (and if this wasn't your intention, disregard this post) that Wizards allowed or enabled the Eldrazi to break Modern to sell Standard product. This is a wild accusation with, as far as I can tell, zero grounding in evidence. We need to move past these conspiracy theories. As many posters are fond of saying, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." I totally agree and the Eldrazi are a clear example of bad design and negligent testing leading to a bad outcome. They are not an example of a sinister plot by Wizards to somehow torpedo Modern to bolster Standard sales and popularity. Again, if this isn't your suggestion, then ignore this post. But if it is, and I've seen posts suggesting it before, it's implausible and uncritical.
Was it a shake up ban? Yeah probably.
Was twin the best deck anyway? Yeah probably.
Did Wizards hope the last year would have gone better for Reactive Blue? Yeah probably.
Spirits
Just how it was, Forsythe may not admit it that cleanly, but he made it clear enough that that was part of it.
Spirits
Ian duke durring that pt even stated that yes they realized that with the two eldrazi lands and cheaper eldrazi it was possible that there might be something really powerful going on.
I don't think price reflects health at all. Legacy has gotten cheaper to and I don't think it's in any worse a spot than it was by any means. Ask streamers what the most popular format is for their viewers, ask scg what format over the last 6 months has brought the most viewers, look at the numerous polls of how bad standard has been... modern is fine as far as a format. There is no good place to start a new format currently and they have said multiple times that a new format won't include fetches so then they'll need to really look at where to start as far as mana bases can go and what strategies they deem ok for a new format. No new format will come without issues.
Holy single cause fallacy, Batman!
WUBRG Humans
BRW Mardu Pyromancer
UW UW "Control"
UR Blue Moon
Like this really shouldnt be questioned anymore.
1. Too many top 8s. Best deck or not (who defines that?) it won too often by Wizards definitions.
2. Considered a diversity offender, they thought (wrongly) that Blue would diversify without Twin.
3. Considered a safe 'Pro Choice' deck. With the PT coming up, they wanted to shake it up.
Thats all we need to know, those statements all have backing either in the official announcement or Tweets following the ban.
It was not JUST that one reason, but that was one of the reasons.
Spirits
That's not an if. The idea that shaking up PT was the only reason for the Splinter Twin ban is a falsehood. I shouldn't have to post this, but here's the banlist announcement, which mentions multiple reasons for that ban that are not "Because PT." I don't see how you can come away from that with even an inkling that there was no other reason for the ban than to shake up Pro Tour. Unless you think they're lying. That's another issue all together, and one that I don't really think there's much merit to discussing.
I should also mention, because this is the internet and all, that I'm not trying to be hostile. I'm just lining up the facts in as non-inflammatory a way as I can. Lack of eye contact and tone of voice is a pain.
Also, remember this tweet. Do with that as you will.
WUBRG Humans
BRW Mardu Pyromancer
UW UW "Control"
UR Blue Moon
It certainly wasn't the only reason, but most of the reasons they gave in the announcement were wrong. It's true that it was the most successful deck of 2015, but I really don't think it's a good idea to go down the slippery slope of banning the most successful deck every year, I think that's horrible precedent to make.
I had forgotten about that tweet from Aaron, and I think it sheds a little insight on it. They likely knew that Twin would eventually need to be banned at some point in the future because it was so much better than all the other blue decks. If they ever want to power up blue in general Twin becomes busted, which was the argument against unbanning cards like AV all along. So they decided to go for a preemptive ban before Twin was really a problem yet, with the added benefit of shaking up the PT. That, to me, seems very plausible.
UBR Grixis Shadow UBR
UR Izzet Phoenix UR
UW UW Control UW
GB GB Rock GB
Commander
BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG
BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW