I dont believe at all that Modern has become so much more powerful that Pod would not instantly consume 15% of the meta.
Pod would be very popular when initially unbanned, but it also contains two different archetypes within itself with combo vs value, and each of those in turn break down into two different decks with kiki vs melira and rhino vs non rhino.
Worth keeping in mind, since Pod went away there has been a huge surge in cards that interact with it.
Also, something that routinely gets missed is that when Pod was a deck, it was a T1 deck by virtue of the fact that it beat every fringe strategy in the format. The other T1 decks all had 50/50 or better matchups against Pod, because Pod essentially acted as the gatekeeper. If you couldn't beat Pod you weren't a meta deck, so all the decks that did have success could beat it. Things really only went off the rails at the very end when Treasure Cruise pumped Delver to the point that it was able to wipe out all of Pod's competition. After the TC ban, Pod would have gone back to normal had it not been banned.
Re: Pod
Not going to happen. This was a demonstrable format diversity violator that lost no significant cards since its banning and has gained numerous cards since then. This is in contrast to BBE, which lost DRS from Jund. It is also in contrast to Nacatl, in that the effect of the Nacatl ban never materialized but the effect of the Pod ban absolutely did. Pod was banned for the following reason: "The high percentage of the field playing Pod suppresses decks, especially other creature decks, that have an unfavorable matchup. In the interest of supporting a diverse format, Birthing Pod is banned." Given that creature decks have extensive diversity right now, why would Wizards risk this with a demonstrated format diversity violator? This is just too improbable and too risky.
Turn three siege rhino really is a joke of a problem nowadays. Pod decks wouldn't touch a rhino with a ten foot pole nowadays. It'd be Kiki pod 100% and the deck would be superb.
Um. No? Siege Rhino is amazing against Humans, especially when you can flicker it with Restoration Angel. Why would you bother with Kiki-Jiki, when Archangel of Thune exists? It takes up fewer slots, wins nearly as quickly, and even if the combo is answered by removal, it leaves you in a winning position against decks that attack life total. You get to be a reasonable midrange deck with an awesome "I Win" button. Angel Pod is just better than Kikipod, when you've got the Pod tutor engine going. It's less good as a Chord strategy, since Kiki's haste is relevant there.
the part that I personally hate about pod is how consistently is able to tut for answers or difficult cards against the opponents deck. pod will always find voice of resurgence against control, kitchen finks against burn and there are too many cheap creature tool effects in modern, and there will be more every set, linvala, rhino, selfless spirit, eidolon of rectoric, melira, restoration angel... If Pod had a constriction effect like, only green creatures it would be different (only plus one mana is not a constriction at all), but this way I fond it difficult to unban. Maybe one day wizards prints a "magus of the pod" or something similar without phyrexian mana or "haste".
Yeah im not advocating a pod unban now or necessarily ever, its just plausible to me that the card could be fine in the format. Think about how delver was once a good modern card, or tec edge or dismember - or merfolk as a deck or bant eldrazi. Christ look at kitchen finks which is basically unplayable now?
If we're in an environment where mana dorks are bad or artifacts are bad is pod a broken deck? Its repeatable but the first shot costs four mana and a body. Thats a turn four tapout more often than not which could be too slow. Even stuff like hallowed moonlight can be used now to rein it in
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern
* Esper Draw-Go
* Tezzeret Whir
* Blue Tron
Ban: Ancient stirrings. It was fine when it was just tron that could use it effectively but now its basically fueling a million different decks of various archetypes a green impulse in this format is just too strong. This is the kind of glue card that doesn't straight kill the decks just knock down their consistency which is a sign of a good ban.
Unban: Stoneforge mystic. Last time it felt like an unbanning was on offer the format was still somewhat grindy and I didn't want to add a card this strong at gaining advantage but with the power of aggressive decks atm I think this would be just fine. Batterskull doesn't even beat a Hollow One. Even Humans can easily make a 5/5. Kolighan's command and abrade are commonly played and good.
Pod and Twin I would describe as the next level of cards but they just seem like better versions of decks that currently exist and are quite good. Pod and CoCo will not both exist together. Twin and well to be honest all of blue control wont exist together (but obviously the various UR decks that wish they still had twin). I don't know if I can be sure that UW or Jeskai control decks would exist if you could play combo control of Twin instead. You aren't increasing format diversity you are just replacing one deck (or many) with another.
i think many people assume this would be the case, but im not convinced this is true. pod doesnt look particularly well suited to the devoted druid combo, and CoCo does a lot for a wider range of decks (ie tribal/value decks).
it just kinda reinforces that we dont really have a good grasp of what a 'good' pod deck would look like right now. would it play chord? coco? kiki? melira/anafenza/vizier? devoted druid? thune/spikefeeder? path/fatal push? eldrazi? etc
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
Pod would not replace company. It would make already barely played eldritch evolution obsolete, big deal. company is instant speed card advantage and great with most tribal decks if they can support it. Is elves or spirits going to play pod? I doubt it.
I guess you could say company decks as a whole would be strictly worse than pod decks, but they're so different I find it hard to believe the strictly better thing. Pod might be more competitive but it doesn't mean company is unplayable anymore than green Tron makes blue Tron or gifts Tron unplayable. They're viable but less competitive.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern
* Esper Draw-Go
* Tezzeret Whir
* Blue Tron
I don't know if I can be sure that UW or Jeskai control decks would exist if you could play combo control of Twin instead.
Couple of things: Multiple other Uxx decks existed with Twin. Multiple Uxx decks had AMAZING matchups against Twin. Jeskai with Teferi and Azcanta is going to be a very different deck and probably isn't going to want Twin, it's also going to destroy Twin whenever paired. Blue Moon is not amazing, shuffles between multiple win cons (none of which are great or consistent), and would likely homogenize to Twin. UW is mostly irrelevant today anyway, regardless of Twin, but would likely beat up on Twin pretty hard between its mana denial, removal, and counterspells.
But basically, saying these decks wouldn't exist is completely ignoring the fact that multiple other Uxx decks DID coexist with Twin, often with better success than they are seeing today. The only deck that has actually seen an improvement is Jeskai, as a result of multiplenewprintings, and unbans that did either relativelylittle or literally nothing. Everything else has popped up for a week or two and then disappeared back to irrelevance, and NONE OF THEM have benefited directly from the removal of Twin.
...also, lots of decks that had a good mathcup against twin were indeed interactive Ux/x decks. Paradoxically (but just apparently), one legitimate way to increase the number of interactive decks in the format (and to limit the percentage of uninteractive ones) would be a twin unban, like it or not.
I don't know if I can be sure that UW or Jeskai control decks would exist if you could play combo control of Twin instead.
Couple of things: Multiple other Uxx decks existed with Twin. Multiple Uxx decks had AMAZING matchups against Twin. Jeskai with Teferi and Azcanta is going to be a very different deck and probably isn't going to want Twin, it's also going to destroy Twin whenever paired. Blue Moon is not amazing, shuffles between multiple win cons (none of which are great or consistent), and would likely homogenize to Twin. UW is mostly irrelevant today anyway, regardless of Twin, but would likely beat up on Twin pretty hard between its mana denial, removal, and counterspells.
But basically, saying these decks wouldn't exist is completely ignoring the fact that multiple other Uxx decks DID coexist with Twin, often with better success than they are seeing today. The only deck that has actually seen an improvement is Jeskai, as a result of multiplenewprintings, and unbans that did either relativelylittle or literally nothing. Everything else has popped up for a week or two and then disappeared back to irrelevance, and NONE OF THEM have benefited directly from the removal of Twin.
Again, I'm all for Twin unban talk. But these points are simply not true.
As previously posted, non-Twin blue decks made up only 9% o the PT/GP T8 decks in 2015. This consisted of four unique decks: Grixis Control, Scapeshift, Temur Delver, Grixis Delver. In the post-Twin period from 2017-2018, non-Twin blue decks made up 14% of those T8 listings with 9 unique decks: Esper Control, GDS, Jeskai Control, Taking Turns, Jeskai Breach, BtL Scapeshift, UR Pyromancer, UW COntrol, and Grixis Control. The share and diversity of competitive non-Twin blue decks increased at the level that we all agree matters most. There may still be good reasons to unban Twin, but this is not one of those reasons.
...also, lots of decks that had a good mathcup against twin were indeed interactive Ux/x decks. Paradoxically (but just apparently), one legitimate way to increase the number of interactive decks in the format (and to limit the percentage of uninteractive ones) would be a twin unban, like it or not.
I don't know if I can be sure that UW or Jeskai control decks would exist if you could play combo control of Twin instead.
Couple of things: Multiple other Uxx decks existed with Twin. Multiple Uxx decks had AMAZING matchups against Twin. Jeskai with Teferi and Azcanta is going to be a very different deck and probably isn't going to want Twin, it's also going to destroy Twin whenever paired. Blue Moon is not amazing, shuffles between multiple win cons (none of which are great or consistent), and would likely homogenize to Twin. UW is mostly irrelevant today anyway, regardless of Twin, but would likely beat up on Twin pretty hard between its mana denial, removal, and counterspells.
But basically, saying these decks wouldn't exist is completely ignoring the fact that multiple other Uxx decks DID coexist with Twin, often with better success than they are seeing today. The only deck that has actually seen an improvement is Jeskai, as a result of multiplenewprintings, and unbans that did either relativelylittle or literally nothing. Everything else has popped up for a week or two and then disappeared back to irrelevance, and NONE OF THEM have benefited directly from the removal of Twin.
Again, I'm all for Twin unban talk. But these points are simply not true.
As previously posted, non-Twin blue decks made up only 9% o the PT/GP T8 decks in 2015. This consisted of four unique decks: Grixis Control, Scapeshift, Temur Delver, Grixis Delver. In the post-Twin period from 2017-2018, non-Twin blue decks made up 14% of those T8 listings with 9 unique decks: Esper Control, GDS, Jeskai Control, Taking Turns, Jeskai Breach, BtL Scapeshift, UR Pyromancer, UW COntrol, and Grixis Control. The share and diversity of competitive non-Twin blue decks increased at the level that we all agree matters most. There may still be good reasons to unban Twin, but this is not one of those reasons.
It all depends on how you skew the data. You could frame it that way, mostly because ex-Twin players begrudgingly migrated to all of those other decks, which mostly represent a single-success, flash-in-the-pan appearance, and then a fade into obscurity. It's easy to inflate the "non-Twin blue decks" when Twin is no longer an option and those players are stuck with ~$1500 of otherwise-unplayable cards to either sell out for a competitive deck or just try to make it work with something mediocre in the meantime. But it's less impressive when it actually represents a huge loss of overall "blue decks," and a lack of any real success for any particular archetype within them. The only remotely successful deck post-Twin is Jeskai which again, is only where it is because of multiple new cards, and still gets crushed at GPs and PTs.
On a completely different subject, I'm kind of curious to see if the new cards coming out with core 2019 impact the competitive meta. They released a lot of rather specific hate cards and I know I'm happy that spirits are getting another lord, as well as a new tool for graveyard fun. Also, the new anti-energy card they released (seriously, this close to rotation people?!) looks to be a combo enabler. Albeit, I don't think all the Devoted Druid players figured out right away that it doesn't work with it. There's no way to pay the cost to untap the druid.
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!
It all depends on how you skew the data. You could frame it that way, mostly because ex-Twin players begrudgingly migrated to all of those other decks, which mostly represent a single-success, flash-in-the-pan appearance, and then a fade into obscurity. It's easy to inflate the "non-Twin blue decks" when Twin is no longer an option and those players are stuck with ~$1500 of otherwise-unplayable cards to either sell out for a competitive deck or just try to make it work with something mediocre in the meantime. But it's less impressive when it actually represents a huge loss of overall "blue decks," and a lack of any real success for any particular archetype within them. The only remotely successful deck post-Twin is Jeskai which again, is only where it is because of multiple new cards, and still gets crushed at GPs and PTs.
How is this skewing the data? I'm literally counting GP and PT T8 decks, which we have all agreed are the gold standard for bans and unbannings. I'm deliberately excluding SCG data because I know it has been rejected in the past. I think you are just so entrenched on this issue that no amount of argument on the other side will shift your position. That's fine. But I will still present these numbers to show others that the pro-Twin camp has a notable counter argument they have yet to address. As for the theory about ex-Twin players begrudgingly migrating to other decka, that was literally the point of the ban. And it was successful as shown here.
The legitimate counter to this, which you talked about, is that the total share of BLUE decks has definitely dropped. I've cited this in the past. It's down at least 10-15% since 2015. This doesn't necessarily justify a Twin urban alone, but it's at least an objective starting point from which we can debate whether or not this is good/bad and how to address it. But saying GP T8 data is skewed is a much less legitimate approach to that argument.
But saying GP T8 data is skewed is a much less legitimate approach to that argument.
For the record, I never once cited T8 GP data as the deciding factor at any point. Many random decks spike random GPs (as evidenced by some of the wacky or one-off decks you've listed) and what's lacking is the continued stay or repeated success and popularity (however we would like to define that). But if we're putting Turns, Bring To Light, and Esper Control in the same camp as Twin-era Grixis Control or Delver, I fundamentally disagree with the method of classifications. A handful of lucky <1% decks are not the same as multiple >3-5% decks.
grixis death shadow shouldnt be counted in that data set, because it is a deck that only came to light after twin was gone. it likely would have done just as well, if not better, because it is a deck that would prey on twin.
in fact that data is only loosely related to cfusionpm's point. in that there is little to no causal relationship between twin being gone and those decks having the success that they did. id sincerely hope that wizards doesnt analyze data this way.
i do think that a good number of blue players would move onto twin if it returned (as well as non-blue players), but that isnt the same as saying that i wouldnt be able to play jeskai control and expect results similar to what im getting right now. i believe this distinction is important.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
But saying GP T8 data is skewed is a much less legitimate approach to that argument.
For the record, I never once cited T8 GP data as the deciding factor at any point. Many random decks spike random GPs (as evidenced by some of the wacky or one-off decks you've listed) and what's lacking is the continued stay or repeated success and popularity (however we would like to define that). But if we're putting Turns, Bring To Light, and Esper Control in the same camp as Twin-era Grixis Control or Delver, I fundamentally disagree with the method of classifications. A handful of lucky <1% decks are not the same as multiple >3-5% decks.
Again, Wizards just said they banned Twin so more unique, non-Twin blue decks saw play. This has been accomplished by a GP metric. If someone has alternate data to show it has not been accomplished then I would love to see it. I agree that the total blue share is definitely down, but that's an open question as to how to fix that or even if it needs fixing.
But saying GP T8 data is skewed is a much less legitimate approach to that argument.
For the record, I never once cited T8 GP data as the deciding factor at any point. Many random decks spike random GPs (as evidenced by some of the wacky or one-off decks you've listed) and what's lacking is the continued stay or repeated success and popularity (however we would like to define that). But if we're putting Turns, Bring To Light, and Esper Control in the same camp as Twin-era Grixis Control or Delver, I fundamentally disagree with the method of classifications. A handful of lucky <1% decks are not the same as multiple >3-5% decks.
Again, Wizards just said they banned Twin so more unique, non-Twin blue decks saw play. This has been accomplished by a GP metric.
If you (or Wizards) considers a random brew spiking a single event and then disappearing entirely as as "seeing play" then this conversation will go nowhere.
But saying GP T8 data is skewed is a much less legitimate approach to that argument.
For the record, I never once cited T8 GP data as the deciding factor at any point. Many random decks spike random GPs (as evidenced by some of the wacky or one-off decks you've listed) and what's lacking is the continued stay or repeated success and popularity (however we would like to define that). But if we're putting Turns, Bring To Light, and Esper Control in the same camp as Twin-era Grixis Control or Delver, I fundamentally disagree with the method of classifications. A handful of lucky <1% decks are not the same as multiple >3-5% decks.
Again, Wizards just said they banned Twin so more unique, non-Twin blue decks saw play. This has been accomplished by a GP metric.
If you (or Wizards) considers a random brew spiking a single event and then disappearing entirely as as "seeing play" then this conversation will go nowhere.
I'm over the Twin discussion, but this is so completely nonsensical ktkenshinx. As I proved going over the entire life of 'Modern' at the GP level, there were one off 'blue decks' that took places in GP's while Twin was alive, and there are about the same number who have spiked a single event after.
If you think the ban accomplished the goal of providing more 'blue diversity' they would not have unbanned a number of cards up to and including JACE to power up blue.
There is no way the goal of blue diversity was met, or they simply would not have continued to unban cards to help the archetype.
I just don't understand what data you all want to use anymore to evaluate the format. We can't use SCG data because you view it as nonrepresntative and illegitimate. We can't use smaller events because GP/PT results are the ones that most matter for bans. But now we can't use GP/PT T8s because it includes random decks that spike events. What CAN we use that will have any credibility with this vocal pro-Twin camp? I feel like any data anyone presents that does not prove Twin should be unbanned will be dismissed for any number of new and old reasons.
Go ahead and use whatever you want, but if you are going to claim that the Twin ban instantly freed up all this 'Blue Diversity' especially at the GP level, I'm going to need reciepts.
It didnt. It took multiple unbans, multiple new magic sets, and several new cards that are fundamentally core to the new 'Uxx' Control decks, to make that happen.
The diversity of 'blue control' pre and post ban, is the same.
The success rate of 'blue control' is still lower, post ban.
I'm not saying you can unban Twin. I dont even care if its unbanned at this point because it will have the same impact as Jace, in terms of spiking interest in 'fair' decks, until people wake up and go back to Tron.
I'm simply saying the diversity goal, was unattained, ESPECIALLY by the ban.
I'm not saying it was the Twin ban alone. If that wasn't clear, sorry for not making it clearer. The Twin ban was one of many factors that accomplished it and GP data supports an overall increase (for a variety of factors) in blue diversity than we saw before the ban. Wizards is unlikely to risk that by bringing Twin back.
the main argument that I hear is a deck the puts in check combo and other dumb decks. so this argument suggests than we should have a oppressive (in terms of gameplay, not being able to tap mana because if you do you lose kind of oppressive), having bad decks doesn't justify having a worst deck, having 2 card infinite combo deck shouldn't be the answer to other combo decks. the twin combo is a oppressive for both unfair and fair deck.
compared to other cards in the ban list, twin players have at least 2 ways to build similar decks, are less consisted and less powerful choices, what in my opinion is what two card infinite combo should be.
In my experience too many games vs twin ended because my opponent add the exact number of remand and the combo in hand, but that exchange of spells made the game "interactive".
EDIT: In my opinion modern has nothing to win with twin unban
I just don't understand what data you all want to use anymore to evaluate the format. We can't use SCG data because you view it as nonrepresntative and illegitimate. We can't use smaller events because GP/PT results are the ones that most matter for bans. But now we can't use GP/PT T8s because it includes random decks that spike events. What CAN we use that will have any credibility with this vocal pro-Twin camp? I feel like any data anyone presents that does not prove Twin should be unbanned will be dismissed for any number of new and old reasons.
All the data is important for evaluating the meta. I may support wanting to see an unban of pod, but that doesn't mean it is a good idea. It's always very difficult to evaluate banned cards because the only thing to go off of is snap shots of metas from many years ago, and the best anyone can do is use some inductive logic to analyze the cards with what small windows are available.
Here is my reasoning why I don't think they will unban any major movers. There are 11,764 unique cards that are modern legal as of this moment in time. Of those cards, 3201 are rares and 648 are mythic rares. The set size of Dominaria is 269 cards + 10 unique planeswalker deck cards and 1 buy a box promo. Of that set, the break down as posted elsewhere is...
And how many of those cards are usually modern playable reprints? While only a subset of the total cards found in modern are played competitively in modern, the subset of cards that are modern playable in the form of new or returning cards is a fraction of the total cards printed in each set. On top of which the stubborness of the company to downshift cards that are high in cost stifles innovation in the format and forces many players to have to play the same decks simply due to the price of the components. The impact this has on the ability for the modern meta to evolve should not be disregarded.
Let me put it this way, one of the major reasons I don't think WoTC unbans cards that are potential movers is because of the impact that dredge and eldrazi had on the singles market. The major shift in focus from several archetypes to another invalidated potentially hundreds of dollars in players trade binders at a rate that the players simply couldn't react to. So hypothetically, in the case of twin, even if twin were safe to unban, they already shifted the meta away from the twin meta into a different meta. Unbanning it would shift the meta drastically back towards one that has to deal with twin and shake the entire format, which could cause that same kind of issue.
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 think of those that lose, this forum would lose the most. Even if it climbed and peaked at a 10% share (I think it would) the forums would be flame wars as far as the eye could see, and the salt would make someone wealthy, if only it could be monetized.
Adding a deck that is oppressive to aggro especially? No tears would be shed by me. :]
Should also be said that this 'oppressive' deck only had one truly oppressive match up, Affinity.
"...players have at least 2 ways..." 4 at least at my count, all bad. :]
Regardless, lets move on. Its a dead topic, it really is. We can all go around forever, and even numbers will not budge ANYONE on their current position.
I'm not saying it was the Twin ban alone. If that wasn't clear, sorry for not making it clearer. The Twin ban was one of many factors that accomplished it and GP data supports an overall increase (for a variety of factors) in blue diversity than we saw before the ban. Wizards is unlikely to risk that by bringing Twin back.
The problem is that there seems to be a distinct lack of proof that Twin ban actually was a factor at all. As far as I can tell, we didn't see an increase in diversity after the ban. The increase in diversity, again as far as I can tell, started considerably later, and seems to have been the result of new cards entering the format and powering up control. If there's proof to the contrary I'll listen but I certainly don't recall any, and I haven't seen people post it.
If X happened and diversity did not increase, then Y and Z happened and diversity did increase, there really is a lack of evidence that X (in this case the Splinter Twin ban) was an actual factor in increasing diversity. It's possible that without X, then Y and Z would not have accomplished what they did, but that unfortunately is a completely speculative argument.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Pod would be very popular when initially unbanned, but it also contains two different archetypes within itself with combo vs value, and each of those in turn break down into two different decks with kiki vs melira and rhino vs non rhino.
Worth keeping in mind, since Pod went away there has been a huge surge in cards that interact with it.
Also, something that routinely gets missed is that when Pod was a deck, it was a T1 deck by virtue of the fact that it beat every fringe strategy in the format. The other T1 decks all had 50/50 or better matchups against Pod, because Pod essentially acted as the gatekeeper. If you couldn't beat Pod you weren't a meta deck, so all the decks that did have success could beat it. Things really only went off the rails at the very end when Treasure Cruise pumped Delver to the point that it was able to wipe out all of Pod's competition. After the TC ban, Pod would have gone back to normal had it not been banned.
Not going to happen. This was a demonstrable format diversity violator that lost no significant cards since its banning and has gained numerous cards since then. This is in contrast to BBE, which lost DRS from Jund. It is also in contrast to Nacatl, in that the effect of the Nacatl ban never materialized but the effect of the Pod ban absolutely did. Pod was banned for the following reason: "The high percentage of the field playing Pod suppresses decks, especially other creature decks, that have an unfavorable matchup. In the interest of supporting a diverse format, Birthing Pod is banned." Given that creature decks have extensive diversity right now, why would Wizards risk this with a demonstrated format diversity violator? This is just too improbable and too risky.
Um. No? Siege Rhino is amazing against Humans, especially when you can flicker it with Restoration Angel. Why would you bother with Kiki-Jiki, when Archangel of Thune exists? It takes up fewer slots, wins nearly as quickly, and even if the combo is answered by removal, it leaves you in a winning position against decks that attack life total. You get to be a reasonable midrange deck with an awesome "I Win" button. Angel Pod is just better than Kikipod, when you've got the Pod tutor engine going. It's less good as a Chord strategy, since Kiki's haste is relevant there.
Also Pod lets you always play on or above curve
If we're in an environment where mana dorks are bad or artifacts are bad is pod a broken deck? Its repeatable but the first shot costs four mana and a body. Thats a turn four tapout more often than not which could be too slow. Even stuff like hallowed moonlight can be used now to rein it in
* Esper Draw-Go
* Tezzeret Whir
* Blue Tron
Ban: Ancient stirrings. It was fine when it was just tron that could use it effectively but now its basically fueling a million different decks of various archetypes a green impulse in this format is just too strong. This is the kind of glue card that doesn't straight kill the decks just knock down their consistency which is a sign of a good ban.
Unban: Stoneforge mystic. Last time it felt like an unbanning was on offer the format was still somewhat grindy and I didn't want to add a card this strong at gaining advantage but with the power of aggressive decks atm I think this would be just fine. Batterskull doesn't even beat a Hollow One. Even Humans can easily make a 5/5. Kolighan's command and abrade are commonly played and good.
Pod and Twin I would describe as the next level of cards but they just seem like better versions of decks that currently exist and are quite good. Pod and CoCo will not both exist together. Twin and well to be honest all of blue control wont exist together (but obviously the various UR decks that wish they still had twin). I don't know if I can be sure that UW or Jeskai control decks would exist if you could play combo control of Twin instead. You aren't increasing format diversity you are just replacing one deck (or many) with another.
Pioneer:UR Pheonix
Modern:U Mono U Tron
EDH
GB Glissa, the traitor: Army of Cans
UW Dragonlord Ojutai: Dragonlord NOjutai
UWGDerevi, Empyrial Tactician "you cannot fight the storm"
R Zirilan of the claw. The solution to every problem is dragons
UB Etrata, the Silencer Cloning assassination
Peasant cube: Cards I own
i think many people assume this would be the case, but im not convinced this is true. pod doesnt look particularly well suited to the devoted druid combo, and CoCo does a lot for a wider range of decks (ie tribal/value decks).
it just kinda reinforces that we dont really have a good grasp of what a 'good' pod deck would look like right now. would it play chord? coco? kiki? melira/anafenza/vizier? devoted druid? thune/spikefeeder? path/fatal push? eldrazi? etc
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)I guess you could say company decks as a whole would be strictly worse than pod decks, but they're so different I find it hard to believe the strictly better thing. Pod might be more competitive but it doesn't mean company is unplayable anymore than green Tron makes blue Tron or gifts Tron unplayable. They're viable but less competitive.
* Esper Draw-Go
* Tezzeret Whir
* Blue Tron
Couple of things: Multiple other Uxx decks existed with Twin. Multiple Uxx decks had AMAZING matchups against Twin. Jeskai with Teferi and Azcanta is going to be a very different deck and probably isn't going to want Twin, it's also going to destroy Twin whenever paired. Blue Moon is not amazing, shuffles between multiple win cons (none of which are great or consistent), and would likely homogenize to Twin. UW is mostly irrelevant today anyway, regardless of Twin, but would likely beat up on Twin pretty hard between its mana denial, removal, and counterspells.
But basically, saying these decks wouldn't exist is completely ignoring the fact that multiple other Uxx decks DID coexist with Twin, often with better success than they are seeing today. The only deck that has actually seen an improvement is Jeskai, as a result of multiple new printings, and unbans that did either relatively little or literally nothing. Everything else has popped up for a week or two and then disappeared back to irrelevance, and NONE OF THEM have benefited directly from the removal of Twin.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Again, I'm all for Twin unban talk. But these points are simply not true.
As previously posted, non-Twin blue decks made up only 9% o the PT/GP T8 decks in 2015. This consisted of four unique decks: Grixis Control, Scapeshift, Temur Delver, Grixis Delver. In the post-Twin period from 2017-2018, non-Twin blue decks made up 14% of those T8 listings with 9 unique decks: Esper Control, GDS, Jeskai Control, Taking Turns, Jeskai Breach, BtL Scapeshift, UR Pyromancer, UW COntrol, and Grixis Control. The share and diversity of competitive non-Twin blue decks increased at the level that we all agree matters most. There may still be good reasons to unban Twin, but this is not one of those reasons.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
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!
How is this skewing the data? I'm literally counting GP and PT T8 decks, which we have all agreed are the gold standard for bans and unbannings. I'm deliberately excluding SCG data because I know it has been rejected in the past. I think you are just so entrenched on this issue that no amount of argument on the other side will shift your position. That's fine. But I will still present these numbers to show others that the pro-Twin camp has a notable counter argument they have yet to address. As for the theory about ex-Twin players begrudgingly migrating to other decka, that was literally the point of the ban. And it was successful as shown here.
The legitimate counter to this, which you talked about, is that the total share of BLUE decks has definitely dropped. I've cited this in the past. It's down at least 10-15% since 2015. This doesn't necessarily justify a Twin urban alone, but it's at least an objective starting point from which we can debate whether or not this is good/bad and how to address it. But saying GP T8 data is skewed is a much less legitimate approach to that argument.
For the record, I never once cited T8 GP data as the deciding factor at any point. Many random decks spike random GPs (as evidenced by some of the wacky or one-off decks you've listed) and what's lacking is the continued stay or repeated success and popularity (however we would like to define that). But if we're putting Turns, Bring To Light, and Esper Control in the same camp as Twin-era Grixis Control or Delver, I fundamentally disagree with the method of classifications. A handful of lucky <1% decks are not the same as multiple >3-5% decks.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
in fact that data is only loosely related to cfusionpm's point. in that there is little to no causal relationship between twin being gone and those decks having the success that they did. id sincerely hope that wizards doesnt analyze data this way.
i do think that a good number of blue players would move onto twin if it returned (as well as non-blue players), but that isnt the same as saying that i wouldnt be able to play jeskai control and expect results similar to what im getting right now. i believe this distinction is important.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Again, Wizards just said they banned Twin so more unique, non-Twin blue decks saw play. This has been accomplished by a GP metric. If someone has alternate data to show it has not been accomplished then I would love to see it. I agree that the total blue share is definitely down, but that's an open question as to how to fix that or even if it needs fixing.
If you (or Wizards) considers a random brew spiking a single event and then disappearing entirely as as "seeing play" then this conversation will go nowhere.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I'm over the Twin discussion, but this is so completely nonsensical ktkenshinx. As I proved going over the entire life of 'Modern' at the GP level, there were one off 'blue decks' that took places in GP's while Twin was alive, and there are about the same number who have spiked a single event after.
If you think the ban accomplished the goal of providing more 'blue diversity' they would not have unbanned a number of cards up to and including JACE to power up blue.
There is no way the goal of blue diversity was met, or they simply would not have continued to unban cards to help the archetype.
Spirits
It didnt. It took multiple unbans, multiple new magic sets, and several new cards that are fundamentally core to the new 'Uxx' Control decks, to make that happen.
The diversity of 'blue control' pre and post ban, is the same.
The success rate of 'blue control' is still lower, post ban.
I'm not saying you can unban Twin. I dont even care if its unbanned at this point because it will have the same impact as Jace, in terms of spiking interest in 'fair' decks, until people wake up and go back to Tron.
I'm simply saying the diversity goal, was unattained, ESPECIALLY by the ban.
We can thank Search for Azcanta, Field of Ruin, and Teferi, Hero of Dominaria for the supposed 'blue control' diversity, and thats the truth.
Spirits
the main argument that I hear is a deck the puts in check combo and other dumb decks. so this argument suggests than we should have a oppressive (in terms of gameplay, not being able to tap mana because if you do you lose kind of oppressive), having bad decks doesn't justify having a worst deck, having 2 card infinite combo deck shouldn't be the answer to other combo decks. the twin combo is a oppressive for both unfair and fair deck.
compared to other cards in the ban list, twin players have at least 2 ways to build similar decks, are less consisted and less powerful choices, what in my opinion is what two card infinite combo should be.
In my experience too many games vs twin ended because my opponent add the exact number of remand and the combo in hand, but that exchange of spells made the game "interactive".
EDIT: In my opinion modern has nothing to win with twin unban
All the data is important for evaluating the meta. I may support wanting to see an unban of pod, but that doesn't mean it is a good idea. It's always very difficult to evaluate banned cards because the only thing to go off of is snap shots of metas from many years ago, and the best anyone can do is use some inductive logic to analyze the cards with what small windows are available.
Here is my reasoning why I don't think they will unban any major movers. There are 11,764 unique cards that are modern legal as of this moment in time. Of those cards, 3201 are rares and 648 are mythic rares. The set size of Dominaria is 269 cards + 10 unique planeswalker deck cards and 1 buy a box promo. Of that set, the break down as posted elsewhere is...
20/20 Basic Lands
101/101 Commons
80/80 Uncommons
53/53 Rares
15/15 Mythic Rares
And how many of those cards are usually modern playable reprints? While only a subset of the total cards found in modern are played competitively in modern, the subset of cards that are modern playable in the form of new or returning cards is a fraction of the total cards printed in each set. On top of which the stubborness of the company to downshift cards that are high in cost stifles innovation in the format and forces many players to have to play the same decks simply due to the price of the components. The impact this has on the ability for the modern meta to evolve should not be disregarded.
Let me put it this way, one of the major reasons I don't think WoTC unbans cards that are potential movers is because of the impact that dredge and eldrazi had on the singles market. The major shift in focus from several archetypes to another invalidated potentially hundreds of dollars in players trade binders at a rate that the players simply couldn't react to. So hypothetically, in the case of twin, even if twin were safe to unban, they already shifted the meta away from the twin meta into a different meta. Unbanning it would shift the meta drastically back towards one that has to deal with twin and shake the entire format, which could cause that same kind of issue.
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!
Adding a deck that is oppressive to aggro especially? No tears would be shed by me. :]
Should also be said that this 'oppressive' deck only had one truly oppressive match up, Affinity.
"...players have at least 2 ways..." 4 at least at my count, all bad. :]
Regardless, lets move on. Its a dead topic, it really is. We can all go around forever, and even numbers will not budge ANYONE on their current position.
Spirits
If X happened and diversity did not increase, then Y and Z happened and diversity did increase, there really is a lack of evidence that X (in this case the Splinter Twin ban) was an actual factor in increasing diversity. It's possible that without X, then Y and Z would not have accomplished what they did, but that unfortunately is a completely speculative argument.