If wotc unbans splinter twin is because they had given up on modern promoting modern as a format and probably creating a "new modern" format)
What kind of logic brings you to that conclusion?
The two main premises for banning twin were the was oppressive and the hurt diversity of the URx decks.
It was oppressive in many ways, you could lose at turn 4, you could lose if you tappedout and you could lose from 2 card combo from the top. on top of that the deck was too consistent doing all the above.
as for diversity, there was only one good URx deck, it was simple why would you play any other URx deck with bolts and snapcasters without splinter twin, when if you had splinter twin your deck becomes 2 times better.
So if this were the two main points for banning twin and wotc knows this is what will probably happen again to the format. why would they unban twin? there nothing to gain from unbanning it. so if they unban twin my conclusion is that they will no longer promote the modern format and it will became a more casual format.
If Twin was oppressive, it would be 20% or more. Instead, it's metagame share was ranging from 8% to 12%.
When WOTC unbans Twin, it will be because of Fatal Push printing that made the card more fragile, or because it's not as strong as other decks that have emerged over the past couple of years.
Also, we saw at the latest NBL Modern that cards like SFM, Twin, GSZ were nowhere to be found. That has to mean that Twin would be probably OK in today's meta.
Brokenness exists on a spectrum. Just because SFM, Twin, and GSZ are not as busted as eye of ugin, SDT and dark depths is not evidence that those cards would be good in the current modern format. They might be, but your post is only evidence that they are on a tier below the cards that dominated the NBL tournament.
please, for the love of god, lets not talk about 'twin was banned because of X...'. those discussions never go anywhere and have been beat to death continuously.
Pretty much this for me. I did some leg work, I looked at, and provided, real, actual numbers.
Twin was not 'oppressive' any more than Tron is oppressive to Control players. Twin was never better than Pod, its laughable to suggest. Twin was banned for the Pro Tour, because Wizards didnt realize they had just broken the format with Eldrazi anyway.
As tronix states, this wont go anywhere, and its a dead topic, but Twin was fine, would be fine, and no numbers anyone has access to can prove to me otherwise.
please, for the love of god, lets not talk about 'twin was banned because of X...'. those discussions never go anywhere and have been beat to death continuously.
Twin was not 'oppressive' any more than Tron is oppressive to Control players.
This is not supported by the numbers. Twin's share was both a) higher than Tron's at its peak and b) higher overall for a longer period of time.
Twin was never better than Pod, its laughable to suggest.
This is likely true. Twin's numbers never reached Pod levels even at their highest, which suggests the deck wasn't nearly as powerful.
Twin was banned for the Pro Tour, because Wizards didnt realize they had just broken the format with Eldrazi anyway.
Yes and no. Yes, because a PT shakeup was 100% one of the reasons Wizards banned Twin, even if they didn't fully/candidly admit that. No, because Wizards also had other reasons for banning Twin that sort of panned out after Twin was banned. As I have showed in a previous post, the total share of non-Twin blue decks did increase after Twin was banned. This was Wizards' goal. But the total share of blue-based controlling decks did definitely drop, as the post-ban share of blue decks never met the pre-ban share of Twin+blue decks together. Thus, the goal was not fully met.
I'm all for reasonable pro-Twin conversations, but the Twin proponents need to admit all sides of the argument. Comments comparing the oppression of Twin to Tron just don't hold water at any point of metagame shares that we have access to.
EDIT: I'll also emphasize that those who argue against Twin need to admit the areas where the ban fell short, one of its underlying motives, and possible areas where Twin could improve the format. Ultimately, it likely won't matter because neither side (Wizards included) is inclined to have this conversation rationally and with an open-mind. As I said before, there's too much ego, bad blood, entrenchedness, and closemindedness by many parties involved in the debate. This all but guarantees the card stays banned for a while.
My comparison to tron is one of the feels kind. When I'm on control can I beat tron? Yes. Does it still feel bad to play against? Yes.
The only deck with room to complain as we saw past time, was Affinity, but they didn't because they know how good the rest of their match ups can be.
Twin was not oppression. Period.
I won't admit to any 'side' argument. It was not oppressive, was worse than Pod, did not hold down UR decks (spoilers they didn't flood top8s after the ban) and those are facts.
My comparison to tron is one of the feels kind. When I'm on control can I beat tron? Yes. Does it still feel bad to play against? Yes.
The only deck with room to complain as we saw past time, was Affinity, but they didn't because they know how good the rest of their match ups can be.
Twin was not oppression. Period.
I won't admit to any 'side' argument. It was not oppressive, was worse than Pod, did not hold down UR decks (spoilers they didn't flood top8s after the ban) and those are facts.
Saying something is a fact does not make it a fact. Here are the actual facts around the non-Twin blue deck T8/Day 2 shares:
1. Definitely dropped. Today, you basically have Blue Moon and Jeskai. As opposed to Twin variants, Delver variants, UW/Grixis/Jeskai Midrange and Control variants, Blue Moon, and blue-based Scapeshift.
Although I believe this is true, this claim needs hard numbers to back it up, not just a few sentences. I would start by comparing the 2017-2018 share of blue decks in the following categories to the share of Twin and non-Twin blue decks in those categories throughout 2015. Incidentally, I have those 2015 numbers already from an unpublished analysis project. See the spoiler below for what constituted a non-Twin blue deck (tempo, midrange, control, control/combo hybrids only) in 2015:
4C Control
4C Gifts
Bant Control
Bant Midrange
Blue Moon
BUG Delver
BUG Midrange
Cruel Control
Esper Control
Esper Delve
Esper Delver
Esper Gifts
Esper Midrange
Eternal Command
Faeries
Grixis Control
Grixis Delver
Grixis Midrange
Grixis White
Jeskai Black
Miracles
Mono U Control
Mono U Tron
Polymorph
Possibility Storm
Pyromancer's Ascension
RUG Delver
RUG Midrange
Scapeshift
Sultai Control
Tezzerator
Time Walk
UB Control
UB Delver
UB Tezzeret
UG Midrange
UR Delver
UW Control
UW Delver
UW Midrange
UW Tempo
UW Tron
UWR Ascendancy
UWR Control
UWR Delver
UWR Gifts
UWR Midrange
This means the share of non-Twin blue decks has actually increased, but the TOTAL share of non-Twin blue decks PLUS Twin decks has decreased. For instance, non-Twin blue was only 8.6% of T8s in 2015 but is now up to 15.6% in 2018. But the total T8 blue share between Twin/non-Twin dropped from 23.8% in 2015 to 15.6% in 2018.
Again, I'm totally fine if Twin players want to make a case or account for these #s through some other arguments. But the numbers are still accurate. The share of non-Twin blue decks did increase after Twin got banned, especially at the T8 level.
please, for the love of god, lets not talk about 'twin was banned because of X...'. those discussions never go anywhere and have been beat to death continuously.
the only thing that is relevant is whether or not the card would be too powerful for the format right now, which is entirely different than it was 2 and a half years ago.
the same goes for pod. the reason it was axed was spelled out pretty explicitly. it was winning too much, limited diversity amongst creature decks, and was likely to improve at a faster rate than the rest of the format because a repeatable tutor removes a bunch of deck-building restrictions. if you believe those would still hold true right now, then clearly you dont think the card should be unbanned.
Pretty much this. I mean the only way to know for sure would be to test it out, but I think pod is fine and people are over-reacting. For some reason people are constantly thinking of combo, but near the end of it's time decks running it were pretty much finks -> Seige Rhino. It's a good card and unlike Stoneforge Mystic, would probably actually result in a deck of some sort.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
I mean, Pod is almost certainly fine for Modern, but what makes Felidar break it?
It can untap pod on 4 which allows Finks to Kiki felidar/resto in three activations all in one turn.
If you could pod Finks into exarch you can bet it would be busted.
People used to do this with Glen elendra / conscripts but it was much slower and the cards were worse. Finks - guardian blink pod, Finks resto blink guardian blink pod, then guardian into Kiki is much stronger. only have to play a single bad card (guardian ) too.
I mean, Pod is almost certainly fine for Modern, but what makes Felidar break it?
It can untap pod on 4 which allows Finks to Kiki felidar/resto in three activations all in one turn.
If you could pod Finks into exarch you can bet it would be busted.
People used to do this with Glen elendra / conscripts but it was much slower and the cards were worse. Finks - guardian blink pod, Finks resto blink guardian blink pod, then guardian into Kiki is much stronger. only have to play a single bad card (guardian ) too.
Sure. It's pretty good, but it's hardly busted. That's realistically only going to happen on turn 4-5 or later, at which point you'll have ample options and time to answer this line of play. If you can't win or answer that fragile a win con by turn 4 in Modern, that's on you and your draws.
Pods weakness at comboing was it required multiple activations or three cards, and Kiki pod was always medium. The ability to just untap on then 5 with a Finks, slam a pod and kill them dead is unprecedented.
pod tutoring combo pieces was only a part of its strength. no one knows what version of the deck would rise to the top, but we can be assured that it wouldnt be some deck going all in on a turn 4/5 kill. if a few pieces of disruption, namely removal, could have kept the deck in check; it would have.
so i agree with Pokken. maybe, even probably, not too good but certainly higher risk than other unban options.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
Pods weakness at comboing was it required multiple activations or three cards, and Kiki pod was always medium. The ability to just untap on then 5 with a Finks, slam a pod and kill them dead is unprecedented.
I maintain that gsz is much lower risk.
I disagree, actually. I'd rate them about the same level of risk: low. The thing about GSZ is that it's a reasonable card to cast whenever you draw it, thanks to Dryad Arbor, which I'd rate as the card that makes GSZ appear broken. It's also more flexible in usage than Pod, which you have to plan around to make work. GSZ goes in any deck with primarily green creatures and makes them a lot more consistent. Remember, it wasn't a dedicated combo deck that got Pod banned, it was Abzan Angelpod. Pod is at it's strongest when you've got creatures that are good on their own by providing a lot of value. I don't see how an answerable turn 4-5 win changes this, especially because Melira Pod was able to win on turn 4 reasonably consistently. With Kolaghan's and Abrade, there are good, main deckable answers to Pod itself, which were lacking when Pod was banned. The only answer to GSZ is to counter it or resolve a Teeg/Cage.
Still, both cards are perfectly fine for Vanilla Modern.
im not a fan of ban swaps, but dryad arbor for gsz seems more reasonable than most. the only two decks that play arbor right now that i can think of are bogles and infect. they would lose some percentages, but its hardly a crippling blow.
that alone would severely limit GSZs utility, maybe too much even.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
Question:
If WOTC were to ban a card out of humans what card would it be?
I am not calling for a ban at all but I own the humans deck and am a bit worried about it. I've been hit by to many bans to not be worried a bit. My thought is meddling mage or thalia's lieutenant, I really hope it is not noble, aether vial or cavern of souls.
a card that i dont like, which isnt enough reason to ban it, is horizon canopy. ive always found it off putting that GW randomly has access to land like that (this is coming from someone who runs 2 in elves).
future sight had some pretty wonky lands in general (grove, tolaria west, arbor, dakmor salvage), but canopy is just...value. its no surprise the card has ballooned in price over the years, even with reprints. humans just happens to be one of the best kinds of decks to take advantage of it (ie aggro with alternative mana sources).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
damn thats 3 GP top8s in a row. dude is playing 5D chess while everyone else is on checkers.
kci is playing on two of the most hated on axes in modern - artifacts and the GY. guess with enough skill and playing two of the most busted cards in the format (opal/stirrings) you can get around that. hard to argue the deck is too strong when its just one guy doing all the winning with it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
Brokenness exists on a spectrum. Just because SFM, Twin, and GSZ are not as busted as eye of ugin, SDT and dark depths is not evidence that those cards would be good in the current modern format. They might be, but your post is only evidence that they are on a tier below the cards that dominated the NBL tournament.
Pretty much this for me. I did some leg work, I looked at, and provided, real, actual numbers.
Twin was not 'oppressive' any more than Tron is oppressive to Control players. Twin was never better than Pod, its laughable to suggest. Twin was banned for the Pro Tour, because Wizards didnt realize they had just broken the format with Eldrazi anyway.
As tronix states, this wont go anywhere, and its a dead topic, but Twin was fine, would be fine, and no numbers anyone has access to can prove to me otherwise.
Spirits
This is not supported by the numbers. Twin's share was both a) higher than Tron's at its peak and b) higher overall for a longer period of time.
This is likely true. Twin's numbers never reached Pod levels even at their highest, which suggests the deck wasn't nearly as powerful.
Yes and no. Yes, because a PT shakeup was 100% one of the reasons Wizards banned Twin, even if they didn't fully/candidly admit that. No, because Wizards also had other reasons for banning Twin that sort of panned out after Twin was banned. As I have showed in a previous post, the total share of non-Twin blue decks did increase after Twin was banned. This was Wizards' goal. But the total share of blue-based controlling decks did definitely drop, as the post-ban share of blue decks never met the pre-ban share of Twin+blue decks together. Thus, the goal was not fully met.
I'm all for reasonable pro-Twin conversations, but the Twin proponents need to admit all sides of the argument. Comments comparing the oppression of Twin to Tron just don't hold water at any point of metagame shares that we have access to.
EDIT: I'll also emphasize that those who argue against Twin need to admit the areas where the ban fell short, one of its underlying motives, and possible areas where Twin could improve the format. Ultimately, it likely won't matter because neither side (Wizards included) is inclined to have this conversation rationally and with an open-mind. As I said before, there's too much ego, bad blood, entrenchedness, and closemindedness by many parties involved in the debate. This all but guarantees the card stays banned for a while.
The only deck with room to complain as we saw past time, was Affinity, but they didn't because they know how good the rest of their match ups can be.
Twin was not oppression. Period.
I won't admit to any 'side' argument. It was not oppressive, was worse than Pod, did not hold down UR decks (spoilers they didn't flood top8s after the ban) and those are facts.
Spirits
Saying something is a fact does not make it a fact. Here are the actual facts around the non-Twin blue deck T8/Day 2 shares:
Again, I'm totally fine if Twin players want to make a case or account for these #s through some other arguments. But the numbers are still accurate. The share of non-Twin blue decks did increase after Twin got banned, especially at the T8 level.
SCG tilts the numbers, we both know that.
Spirits
Or do GPs tilt the numbers?
Spirits
Pretty much this. I mean the only way to know for sure would be to test it out, but I think pod is fine and people are over-reacting. For some reason people are constantly thinking of combo, but near the end of it's time decks running it were pretty much finks -> Seige Rhino. It's a good card and unlike Stoneforge Mystic, would probably actually result in a deck of some sort.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
It can untap pod on 4 which allows Finks to Kiki felidar/resto in three activations all in one turn.
If you could pod Finks into exarch you can bet it would be busted.
People used to do this with Glen elendra / conscripts but it was much slower and the cards were worse. Finks - guardian blink pod, Finks resto blink guardian blink pod, then guardian into Kiki is much stronger. only have to play a single bad card (guardian ) too.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Sure. It's pretty good, but it's hardly busted. That's realistically only going to happen on turn 4-5 or later, at which point you'll have ample options and time to answer this line of play. If you can't win or answer that fragile a win con by turn 4 in Modern, that's on you and your draws.
I maintain that gsz is much lower risk.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
so i agree with Pokken. maybe, even probably, not too good but certainly higher risk than other unban options.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)I disagree, actually. I'd rate them about the same level of risk: low. The thing about GSZ is that it's a reasonable card to cast whenever you draw it, thanks to Dryad Arbor, which I'd rate as the card that makes GSZ appear broken. It's also more flexible in usage than Pod, which you have to plan around to make work. GSZ goes in any deck with primarily green creatures and makes them a lot more consistent. Remember, it wasn't a dedicated combo deck that got Pod banned, it was Abzan Angelpod. Pod is at it's strongest when you've got creatures that are good on their own by providing a lot of value. I don't see how an answerable turn 4-5 win changes this, especially because Melira Pod was able to win on turn 4 reasonably consistently. With Kolaghan's and Abrade, there are good, main deckable answers to Pod itself, which were lacking when Pod was banned. The only answer to GSZ is to counter it or resolve a Teeg/Cage.
Still, both cards are perfectly fine for Vanilla Modern.
that alone would severely limit GSZs utility, maybe too much even.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Spirits
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)If WOTC were to ban a card out of humans what card would it be?
I am not calling for a ban at all but I own the humans deck and am a bit worried about it. I've been hit by to many bans to not be worried a bit. My thought is meddling mage or thalia's lieutenant, I really hope it is not noble, aether vial or cavern of souls.
Spirits
future sight had some pretty wonky lands in general (grove, tolaria west, arbor, dakmor salvage), but canopy is just...value. its no surprise the card has ballooned in price over the years, even with reprints. humans just happens to be one of the best kinds of decks to take advantage of it (ie aggro with alternative mana sources).
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)GDS and Mardu are playing for one of the other slots, but I'm not sure what else is at the top tables.
Spirits
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Yeah on KCI, he was undefeated I think, maybe 1 loss?
If Humans is in too, then we have KCI, Tron, Humans, and GDS so far.
Spirits
kci is playing on two of the most hated on axes in modern - artifacts and the GY. guess with enough skill and playing two of the most busted cards in the format (opal/stirrings) you can get around that. hard to argue the deck is too strong when its just one guy doing all the winning with it.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Spirits