The more I think on it, the more I feel there will simply never be a need for a new 'non-rotation' format in the line of Legacy or Modern. Things like Brawl? Sure. Go nuts, but as you you noted set your line in the sand at whatever block you want, its still going to be a warped format because Standard sucks.
'Modern Design cannot be slaved to the past' simply means they will continue down this line of pushing creatures, and based on the context of the 3 questions posed to Maro, those creatures will often be Humans. He completely missed the point that by them continuing to push Humans, they are pushing OUT decks like Merfolk.
Kind of interesting actually how bad he missed that.
Either way, Modern will remain the non-RL format of choice, for people who want to do more than cast creatures, and play 'normal' constructed Magic.
Harsh fact, most people who hate Twin, didnt even grind in that era.
Or were playing some linear deck that actively chose to ignore the opponent, and thus got wrecked by the combo (though statistically, probably not as often as they remember). Which, btw, I can't tell you how many times I got stomped by BGx and other non-Twin Uxx decks. Turns out that heavy interaction, or even basic interaction backed by a quick clock is good against it? Who knew?
Yeah especially since we now have a real Tempo deck (GDS)...I would be quite comfortable saying Twin would have a real predator in the meta against it.
Yeah especially since we now have a real Tempo deck (GDS)...I would be quite comfortable saying Twin would have a real predator in the meta against it.
'But but you could just put Twin in GDS!!'
Honestly, if Twin were legal, and even half as popular as people think it would be, I would happily re-sleeve my Death's Shadow build and rip them to pieces; likely alternating between the two week to week. Though, it might have to be the green splash version for Abrupt Decay (remember that card?) because people forget about how devastating of a blowout that was.
Harsh fact, most people who hate Twin, didnt even grind in that era.
Or were playing some linear deck that actively chose to ignore the opponent, and thus got wrecked by the combo (though statistically, probably not as often as they remember). Which, btw, I can't tell you how many times I got stomped by BGx and other non-Twin Uxx decks. Turns out that heavy interaction, or even basic interaction backed by a quick clock is good against it? Who knew?
I agree it's annoying when Twin revisionists misremember or misrepresent Twin's performance in 2015. But it's just as annoying when Twin defenders do the same. For instance, people need to stop pretending that BGx was a Twin predator. That matchup was proven to be 50/50. Similarly, let's not pretend Twin wasn't dominant at the PT and GP level. It had more T8s that year (18.75% off the top of my head) than any deck since then by 50% of the next highest deck's GP/PT T8 share (excluding the outrageous Eldrazi situation).
They threw a lure out there for Frontier out of curiosity, and it fell apart very quickly. Modern is THE flagship eternal format of WOTC. I mean, ffs they still treat pauper as online-only when people play it at Grand Prix.
Modern is what WOTC would like to be doing with legacy, take it for what you will, but without being hamstrung by the damned reserved list.
Harsh fact, most people who hate Twin, didnt even grind in that era.
Or were playing some linear deck that actively chose to ignore the opponent, and thus got wrecked by the combo (though statistically, probably not as often as they remember). Which, btw, I can't tell you how many times I got stomped by BGx and other non-Twin Uxx decks. Turns out that heavy interaction, or even basic interaction backed by a quick clock is good against it? Who knew?
I agree it's annoying when Twin revisionists misremember or misrepresent Twin's performance in 2015. But it's just as annoying when Twin defenders do the same. For instance, people need to stop pretending that BGx was a Twin predator. That matchup was proven to be 50/50. Similarly, let's not pretend Twin wasn't dominant at the PT and GP level. It had more T8s that year (18.75% off the top of my head) than any deck since then by 50% of the next highest deck's GP/PT T8 share (excluding the outrageous Eldrazi situation).
Correct me if I'm wrong KTK, but wasnt the only deck with a favourable % against Twin, UR Delver? GDS fills the same role.
They threw a lure out there for Frontier out of curiosity, and it fell apart very quickly. Modern is THE flagship eternal format of WOTC. I mean, ffs they still treat pauper as online-only when people play it at Grand Prix.
Modern is what WOTC would like to be doing with legacy, take it for what you will, but without being hamstrung by the damned reserved list.
Frontier was never a WOTC project. It was started by Japanese vendors who were sitting on piles of worthless bulk rares from recent Standard sets looking to capitalize on selling them since Modern staples in their native language were hard to come by and/or really expensive.
It had "about 1 or 2" copies on average per top 8, and nearly the same amount of top 8s as Affinity. It had one random spike of 3 copies, which were mostly a reaction to Summer Bloom and was likely the emotional tipping point that solidified the decision (rather than looking at the greater metagame context as a whole). Nobody is arguing that it wasn't good or popular. And the 50/50 argument is utter nonsense as long as Humans exists in the format (also not once mentioned in the banned announcement).
Harsh fact, most people who hate Twin, didnt even grind in that era.
Or were playing some linear deck that actively chose to ignore the opponent, and thus got wrecked by the combo (though statistically, probably not as often as they remember). Which, btw, I can't tell you how many times I got stomped by BGx and other non-Twin Uxx decks. Turns out that heavy interaction, or even basic interaction backed by a quick clock is good against it? Who knew?
I agree it's annoying when Twin revisionists misremember or misrepresent Twin's performance in 2015. But it's just as annoying when Twin defenders do the same. For instance, people need to stop pretending that BGx was a Twin predator. That matchup was proven to be 50/50. Similarly, let's not pretend Twin wasn't dominant at the PT and GP level. It had more T8s that year (18.75% off the top of my head) than any deck since then by 50% of the next highest deck's GP/PT T8 share (excluding the outrageous Eldrazi situation).
Correct me if I'm wrong KTK, but wasnt the only deck with a favourable % against Twin, UR Delver? GDS fills the same role.
Don't have the stats in front of me, but if I remember the stats, Grixis Driver was the only tempo deck with a large N, documented positive Twin matchup. Delver collectively (all types) was 52/48 vs Twin,l collectively, so barely positive.
Yeah thats how I remember it. Its also the deck type that stomps on my face now as Blue Moon. I have no reason to believe it wouldnt continue to do so against Twin.
They threw a lure out there for Frontier out of curiosity, and it fell apart very quickly. Modern is THE flagship eternal format of WOTC. I mean, ffs they still treat pauper as online-only when people play it at Grand Prix.
Modern is what WOTC would like to be doing with legacy, take it for what you will, but without being hamstrung by the damned reserved list.
Frontier was never a WOTC project. It was started by Japanese vendors who were sitting on piles of worthless bulk rares from recent Standard sets looking to capitalize on selling them since Modern staples in their native language were hard to come by and/or really expensive.
It had "about 1 or 2" copies on average per top 8, and nearly the same amount of top 8s as Affinity. It had one random spike of 3 copies, which were mostly a reaction to Summer Bloom and was likely the emotional tipping point that solidified the decision (rather than looking at the greater metagame context as a whole). Nobody is arguing that it wasn't good or popular. And the 50/50 argument is utter nonsense as long as Humans exists in the format (also not once mentioned in the banned announcement).
I am not making a 50/50 argument. I'm pointing out that you suggested BGx was a bad matchup for Twin when it wasn't. I also don't see any evidence that points to Wizards caring about the distribution of T8s all year. They just care about total, as cited in that announcement. That total was high. No other deck has since approached that total.
Splinter Twin could come back, to be honest, and it could be fine, but why do we care so much?
Because UR Blue Moon (even a Kiki Version or Breach Version) UWR Bolt/Helix Control, and UW Terminus or Mana Denial, are all different lines of play. The closest (Kiki) is simply a nerfed into the ground version of Twin, too expensive, too fragile, and too slow to really compete at the highest levels of play.
Now, I've played all 3 as you know, a very high number of times, and Twin is still called for because of the power it has and the ability it has to shape the meta and style of play.
I'm sure you have experienced this yourself. I know cfusionpm has. People are lost when facing a deck that can delay them, and then win (Breach). There have been a number of years now, many players are new, they have not actually experienced facing Twin.
I want it back because its no more degenerate than anything else going on in Modern.
"It's no surprise when I say Jund is Twin's worst matchup." Pascal Maynard in the first paragraph under Jund.
I came with an article this time. I'm sorry. I don't buy the 50/50 matchup here. Mana is a big part of the game. Twin's "I win" cards cost at least 4 mana. Jund's "I win" cards cost 2. Jund can win with 3 mana in this matchup, although it is tougher than with 4-5. Twin cannot win and has never won when stuck on 3 mana in this matchup. Discard can be pretty good in Twin, especially when backed up by a clock (Hmph, Goyf!), a constant discard source in Liliana (which admittedly could just die to Snap/Bolt, but otherwise is a terror), and removal like Abrupt Decay. I can say absolutely and unequivocally that Jund is not 50/50 for Twin. I mean, if it is for you, your Jund players are serious trash and I don't think the deck is particularly tough to play. I can imagine a Jund player looking at a Twin player's hand, seeing the combo, not taking it, and then tapping out on turn 3 on purpose. Yes, that type of Jund player has a 50/50 matchup with Twin. Nobody else does.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
I'm not saying Blue is unplayable, it took nearly 3 years of new cards, and a few targeted unbans, but yes, you can play UW, UWX, UR, and Cryptic, and see success.
They are still not the same, but yes they are fine options for most of us.
"It's no surprise when I say Jund is Twin's worst matchup." Pascal Maynard in the first paragraph under Jund.
I came with an article this time. I'm sorry. I don't buy the 50/50 matchup here. Mana is a big part of the game. Twin's "I win" cards cost at least 4 mana. Jund's "I win" cards cost 2. Jund can win with 3 mana in this matchup, although it is tougher than with 4-5. Twin cannot win and has never won when stuck on 3 mana in this matchup. Discard can be pretty good in Twin, especially when backed up by a clock (Hmph, Goyf!), a constant discard source in Liliana (which admittedly could just die to Snap/Bolt, but otherwise is a terror), and removal like Abrupt Decay. I can say absolutely and unequivocally that Jund is not 50/50 for Twin. I mean, if it is for you, your Jund players are serious trash and I don't think the deck is particularly tough to play. I can imagine a Jund player looking at a Twin player's hand, seeing the combo, not taking it, and then tapping out on turn 3 on purpose. Yes, that type of Jund player has a 50/50 matchup with Twin. Nobody else does.
Well then Maynard is wrong or he's describing an experience that is not applicable to the universal Modern matchup context. The MTGO data unequivocally found a 50/50 matchup in the Twin vs. BGx contest.
Fatal push in Jund would surely turn the matchup A LOT in jund's favour now. This could be a nice argument to bring Twin back.
Even then, I don't think blue mages should be losing sleep for it. There are the paths @idSurge mentioned that such a player can explore.
I don't really see the argument here considering the metashare and relevance of Jund at the moment.
The far more interesting question in my opinion would be the sort of policing twin would be able to do at the moment. I might very well be wrong with this since I never played twin seriously outside testing, but I don't see it having any game vs. humans. I don't see it do much vs Bridgevine or KCI. No clue about UW/Jeskai. But it might very well cannibalize the blue sector again and be yet another punisher for fair strategies. Why should that be risked? If "I hate Tron" is not a sufficient argument for banning Stirrings, "I want to play twin" can not be a sufficient argument for unbanning splinter twin.
Twin would beat the current KCI, and probably BridgeVine.
Twin would be a large enough part of the meta that Jund would have a decent match up that it could see play against.
It would be like the Jace/BBE bubble, but this time the blue deck would stick around at a solid meta %.
But, there is a substitute in the blue attrition territory. I loved Twin, and I do want it back, but there is U/W Control that covers that style a bit. I know, it does not share the same tempo feeling, it's not the same but don't forget what Wizards told us.
So rather than have added diversity of multiple choices, we should just settle on UW draw-go and not worry that the others are all bad? How is that any better? Never mind that the deck plays absolutely nothing like Twin, or any other URx build (not even Jeskai control, which can turn into a burn deck if needed). "You have X, even though it's nothing like Y, but I say it's close enough, so you should be happy" is not a good argument when the original was banned under the laughably bad pretense of "increasing diversity." It's still one good option and then a bunch of bad* options.
PS: Jace, the mind sculptor is finally proving what it's worth! It is an unban that is starting to see heavy Tier 1 play at last! This means it helped Blue do better, and it was not useless!
Jace is considerably worse than a 5-mana, standard-legal planeswalker. That says a lot about the "boogyman" of the format.
*Bad in the sense that they are far from top tier, have no meaningful or sustained results, and are only good situationally. They have many bad matchups and few (if any) good matchups.
as someone else pointed out Arena is rolling out, and no one is entirely sure how they will handle the problem of cards rotating. we know, and wizards knows, that it will eventually have to be addressed because it is what happened in hearthstone. whether they implement and test the entire modern card pool against their new rules engine with associated graphics (which is very resource intensive), or create an entirely psuedo-format is still in question. that format may one day translate to paper or stay insulated, which is a very real possibility considering they have already introduced some Arena specific cards.
as for Maro's statements, i think he is in the right of it. modern is a robust ecosystem that has proven to absorb and integrate far more powerful cards and interactions than those that break anything. they are better served focusing on innovation and change in standard and limited, then fixing any issues in modern and beyond after the fact (play design keeping watch is also a safeguard). so on one hand its like hes saying 'we are going to continue printing good humans, deal with it', and on the other hand hes saying 'we are going to keep doing our thing, and trust modern to self correct until it cant'.
personally id rather see less meddling not more, then our overlords can step in whenever some cascading effect in the meta skews something to the extreme.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- re:twin vs gbx, twin unbanning
as for twin vs. gbx. given equal skill, and equal quality of draws, i believe the gbx player will win a statistically significant portion of the time. i dont know what that range is, but whatever. i played twin and always felt comfortable in the matchup because it had a lot of play. i derive any possible misconceptions about the matchup from each deck not really having the tools to roll over one another, meaning games were longer; and frankly twin was better at playing the comeback game (imo).
i believe the following statements are true:
-the current modern could handle twin
-twin would not reach the levels of dominance it held before
-twin would not create any more tension in sideboards than literally any current or new deck entering the format (given the deck isnt busted as hell)
-twin will never be unbanned because wizards just wont bother
twin, pod, and a couple other cards on the ban list would only serve to create their associated 'deck', with possibly a few variations. there is little to no discovery or exploration involved, no acclimation or organic development. the novelty only goes so far as finding the best version, refining it, and then its either at or near the top of the food chain or a complete bust (as far as any tier 2 or 3 deck can be considered a bust). i just cant see wizards making the plunge to experiment with something potentially so high impact when their policy has usually always been about small nudges.
as for modern at the moment, im liking things. i like playing blue control decks, and have felt im able to do so with confidence; which hasnt always been the case. sure there are plenty of eyeroll inducing games where i just get nutted on by some lean aggro or combo, but my switching between jeskai and UW control (currently on UW) makes me feel as if they are genuinely top tier decks in the format. im actually having enough fun with things that im about to finish the transition to mtgo so i can get more occasional games in over the week.
so there is some griping and moaning about modern (as per usual), with varying levels of logic or debate; however when i stepped back and asked myself if i liked the format atm i could easily answer yes. definite room for improvement, but i looked at the 'list' of top decks on mtggoldfish and was just astonished by how many of them are new. like around a year-old new (or less). the fact that this is true while im also able to play decks ive had for a long while and compete is a testament to how good the format is at the moment. modern is a work in progress, which is what we are here to talk about, but with some perspective most any complaints are relatively trivial compared to when there were actual threats to the formats stability (ie eldrazi winter, pre-ban dredge, etc).
sorry for the rambling long post. im caffeine and sleep deprived at the moment.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
I'm not sure what "Legacy land" looks like today, but when I played there 5 yars ago.. skill intensive indeed.. it's mandatory to have 4 pieces grave remove for Dredge, and maybe a Null Rod or two in the sideboard for all the Storm Combo. I also had 3 Perish for the elves and zoo players. However, Legacy land is having a slow death because of the Reserved list. Modern has problems too, but it's in much better shape than legacy. Modern is alive with plenty of decks and a large community.
Lots has changed in Legacy in the last 5 years. SDT, TRS, Probe, new cards, etc... Legacy today is dominated by fair decks. Storm has been almost completely removed from the meta, it's one of the most fringe decks. Things are dominated by Grixis Control (usually without Delvers), Miracles, and Death and Taxes. New decks on the scene have been of the fair variety like UB Shadow. Dredge isn't really hated out specifically, but is rather sparse. Show and Tell is the dominant combo deck, and the only one that could be considered Tier 1 though Lands does put up a lot of good showings. Of the top 10 decks, only 6 are Force of Will decks and "only" 7 are Brainstorm decks.
Thanks for updating me on what Legacy looks like now. Woah... really surprised that TES and ANT are already fringe decks. I guess a lot can happen in 5-6 years.
___________________________________________________________________________
Back to Modern... about Bridgevine, KCI, and Hollow One. Slowly getting used to Bridgevine, and how to fight that deck... thank goodness they're still not very consistent in creating a zombie army. Hollow One is fine, just hoping Burning Inquiry does not dicard the lands I'm holding. Oh, and there's no KCI here, so can't complain about that.
It’s kinda sad/laughable that it took not just jace, teferi, search, and field but ALL of them to make control playable while not allowing it to really have a matchup it is heavily favored in.
I re-ran the numbers from the April 2015 - November 2015 dataset. In that time, the MTGO dataset tracked about 28,000 matches. This included 338 Twin vs. BGx matchups. Including ALL of the BGx variants, Twin was 186/338 or 55% MWP. If we only look at traditional Jund, we're either at 49% (42/86) or 68/128 (53%) depending on how many of the miscellaneous BRG decks were truly Jund and which were merely rogue. Either way, no matter how we cut the actual data, BGx vs. Twin was 50/50.
On a similar note, let's stop this myth that Affinity and Twin had a comparable number of 2015 GP/PT T8s. They didn't. URx Twin had 12 total representing 18.75% of the total GP/PT T8 dataset for the year. UR Twin alone had 9. Affinity had 7 finishes representing 10.9% of that field. In perspective, Affinity had only one more finish than both Burn and Abzan (they had 6 finishes apiece). Both KCI and Tron today have more 2018 finishes by percentage than Affinity did in 2015 (but still less than Twin individually).
I think everyone here is fine with Twin proponents arguing for a Twin unban based on current metagame evidence and context, but I really can't handle more Twin revisionism from either side.
I re-ran the numbers from the April 2015 - November 2015 dataset. In that time, the MTGO dataset tracked about 28,000 matches. This included 338 Twin vs. BGx matchups. Including ALL of the BGx variants, Twin was 186/338 or 55% MWP. If we only look at traditional Jund, we're either at 49% (42/86) or 68/128 (53%) depending on how many of the miscellaneous BRG decks were truly Jund and which were merely rogue. Either way, no matter how we cut the actual data, BGx vs. Twin was 50/50.
Did you happen to see vs Delver?
i looked at the 'list' of top decks on mtggoldfish and was just astonished by how many of them are new. like around a year-old new (or less). the fact that this is true while im also able to play decks ive had for a long while and compete is a testament to how good the format is at the moment. modern is a work in progress.
This would be interesting to break down as well I think.
Honestly, I think twin has a lot going against it at the moment as far as an unban due to there already being a lot of representation in the same section of the color pie. Maybe not the same deck type, but there are certain color combinations that feel like they need a bit of a push to start seeing some top level representation again.
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!
Are those numbers for all varieties of twin?
Maybe this seems like a reach, but its not surprising that grixis twin, or tarmotwin, would have better jund matchups than straight UR. In exchange, they give up percentage against other decks, but you can't build 1 twin deck that has the jund matchup of grixis twin, the affinity matchup of jeskai twin, the mirror percentage of tarmotwin and the burn matchup of UR twin, but when pulling numbers from broad archtypes, you'll get stuff like that.
I re-ran the numbers from the April 2015 - November 2015 dataset. In that time, the MTGO dataset tracked about 28,000 matches. This included 338 Twin vs. BGx matchups. Including ALL of the BGx variants, Twin was 186/338 or 55% MWP. If we only look at traditional Jund, we're either at 49% (42/86) or 68/128 (53%) depending on how many of the miscellaneous BRG decks were truly Jund and which were merely rogue. Either way, no matter how we cut the actual data, BGx vs. Twin was 50/50.
Did you happen to see vs Delver?
Twin vs. Grixis Delver: 56/118 (47.5%)
Twin vs. UR Delver: 10/28 (35.7%)
Twin vs. URx Delver: 66/146 (45%)
This is what I would characterize as a classic unfavorable 45/55 matchup.
Are those numbers for all varieties of twin?
Maybe this seems like a reach, but its not surprising that grixis twin, or tarmotwin, would have better jund matchups than straight UR. In exchange, they give up percentage against other decks, but you can't build 1 twin deck that has the jund matchup of grixis twin, the affinity matchup of jeskai twin, the mirror percentage of tarmotwin and the burn matchup of UR twin, but when pulling numbers from broad archtypes, you'll get stuff like that.
I broke it down for UR Twin specifically. N obviously shrinks but the stats don't change: 35/72 (48.6%). This is a 50/50 matchup no matter how you swing it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
'Modern Design cannot be slaved to the past' simply means they will continue down this line of pushing creatures, and based on the context of the 3 questions posed to Maro, those creatures will often be Humans. He completely missed the point that by them continuing to push Humans, they are pushing OUT decks like Merfolk.
Kind of interesting actually how bad he missed that.
Either way, Modern will remain the non-RL format of choice, for people who want to do more than cast creatures, and play 'normal' constructed Magic.
Spirits
Or were playing some linear deck that actively chose to ignore the opponent, and thus got wrecked by the combo (though statistically, probably not as often as they remember). Which, btw, I can't tell you how many times I got stomped by BGx and other non-Twin Uxx decks. Turns out that heavy interaction, or even basic interaction backed by a quick clock is good against it? Who knew?
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
'But but you could just put Twin in GDS!!'
Spirits
Honestly, if Twin were legal, and even half as popular as people think it would be, I would happily re-sleeve my Death's Shadow build and rip them to pieces; likely alternating between the two week to week. Though, it might have to be the green splash version for Abrupt Decay (remember that card?) because people forget about how devastating of a blowout that was.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I agree it's annoying when Twin revisionists misremember or misrepresent Twin's performance in 2015. But it's just as annoying when Twin defenders do the same. For instance, people need to stop pretending that BGx was a Twin predator. That matchup was proven to be 50/50. Similarly, let's not pretend Twin wasn't dominant at the PT and GP level. It had more T8s that year (18.75% off the top of my head) than any deck since then by 50% of the next highest deck's GP/PT T8 share (excluding the outrageous Eldrazi situation).
Modern is what WOTC would like to be doing with legacy, take it for what you will, but without being hamstrung by the damned reserved list.
Correct me if I'm wrong KTK, but wasnt the only deck with a favourable % against Twin, UR Delver? GDS fills the same role.
Spirits
It had "about 1 or 2" copies on average per top 8, and nearly the same amount of top 8s as Affinity. It had one random spike of 3 copies, which were mostly a reaction to Summer Bloom and was likely the emotional tipping point that solidified the decision (rather than looking at the greater metagame context as a whole). Nobody is arguing that it wasn't good or popular. And the 50/50 argument is utter nonsense as long as Humans exists in the format (also not once mentioned in the banned announcement).
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Don't have the stats in front of me, but if I remember the stats, Grixis Driver was the only tempo deck with a large N, documented positive Twin matchup. Delver collectively (all types) was 52/48 vs Twin,l collectively, so barely positive.
Spirits
I am not making a 50/50 argument. I'm pointing out that you suggested BGx was a bad matchup for Twin when it wasn't. I also don't see any evidence that points to Wizards caring about the distribution of T8s all year. They just care about total, as cited in that announcement. That total was high. No other deck has since approached that total.
Because UR Blue Moon (even a Kiki Version or Breach Version) UWR Bolt/Helix Control, and UW Terminus or Mana Denial, are all different lines of play. The closest (Kiki) is simply a nerfed into the ground version of Twin, too expensive, too fragile, and too slow to really compete at the highest levels of play.
Now, I've played all 3 as you know, a very high number of times, and Twin is still called for because of the power it has and the ability it has to shape the meta and style of play.
I'm sure you have experienced this yourself. I know cfusionpm has. People are lost when facing a deck that can delay them, and then win (Breach). There have been a number of years now, many players are new, they have not actually experienced facing Twin.
I want it back because its no more degenerate than anything else going on in Modern.
Spirits
"It's no surprise when I say Jund is Twin's worst matchup." Pascal Maynard in the first paragraph under Jund.
I came with an article this time. I'm sorry. I don't buy the 50/50 matchup here. Mana is a big part of the game. Twin's "I win" cards cost at least 4 mana. Jund's "I win" cards cost 2. Jund can win with 3 mana in this matchup, although it is tougher than with 4-5. Twin cannot win and has never won when stuck on 3 mana in this matchup. Discard can be pretty good in Twin, especially when backed up by a clock (Hmph, Goyf!), a constant discard source in Liliana (which admittedly could just die to Snap/Bolt, but otherwise is a terror), and removal like Abrupt Decay. I can say absolutely and unequivocally that Jund is not 50/50 for Twin. I mean, if it is for you, your Jund players are serious trash and I don't think the deck is particularly tough to play. I can imagine a Jund player looking at a Twin player's hand, seeing the combo, not taking it, and then tapping out on turn 3 on purpose. Yes, that type of Jund player has a 50/50 matchup with Twin. Nobody else does.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)They are still not the same, but yes they are fine options for most of us.
Spirits
Well then Maynard is wrong or he's describing an experience that is not applicable to the universal Modern matchup context. The MTGO data unequivocally found a 50/50 matchup in the Twin vs. BGx contest.
Twin would beat the current KCI, and probably BridgeVine.
Twin would be a large enough part of the meta that Jund would have a decent match up that it could see play against.
It would be like the Jace/BBE bubble, but this time the blue deck would stick around at a solid meta %.
Spirits
So rather than have added diversity of multiple choices, we should just settle on UW draw-go and not worry that the others are all bad? How is that any better? Never mind that the deck plays absolutely nothing like Twin, or any other URx build (not even Jeskai control, which can turn into a burn deck if needed). "You have X, even though it's nothing like Y, but I say it's close enough, so you should be happy" is not a good argument when the original was banned under the laughably bad pretense of "increasing diversity." It's still one good option and then a bunch of bad* options.
Jace is considerably worse than a 5-mana, standard-legal planeswalker. That says a lot about the "boogyman" of the format.
*Bad in the sense that they are far from top tier, have no meaningful or sustained results, and are only good situationally. They have many bad matchups and few (if any) good matchups.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
as someone else pointed out Arena is rolling out, and no one is entirely sure how they will handle the problem of cards rotating. we know, and wizards knows, that it will eventually have to be addressed because it is what happened in hearthstone. whether they implement and test the entire modern card pool against their new rules engine with associated graphics (which is very resource intensive), or create an entirely psuedo-format is still in question. that format may one day translate to paper or stay insulated, which is a very real possibility considering they have already introduced some Arena specific cards.
as for Maro's statements, i think he is in the right of it. modern is a robust ecosystem that has proven to absorb and integrate far more powerful cards and interactions than those that break anything. they are better served focusing on innovation and change in standard and limited, then fixing any issues in modern and beyond after the fact (play design keeping watch is also a safeguard). so on one hand its like hes saying 'we are going to continue printing good humans, deal with it', and on the other hand hes saying 'we are going to keep doing our thing, and trust modern to self correct until it cant'.
personally id rather see less meddling not more, then our overlords can step in whenever some cascading effect in the meta skews something to the extreme.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
re:twin vs gbx, twin unbanning
as for twin vs. gbx. given equal skill, and equal quality of draws, i believe the gbx player will win a statistically significant portion of the time. i dont know what that range is, but whatever. i played twin and always felt comfortable in the matchup because it had a lot of play. i derive any possible misconceptions about the matchup from each deck not really having the tools to roll over one another, meaning games were longer; and frankly twin was better at playing the comeback game (imo).
i believe the following statements are true:
-the current modern could handle twin
-twin would not reach the levels of dominance it held before
-twin would not create any more tension in sideboards than literally any current or new deck entering the format (given the deck isnt busted as hell)
-twin will never be unbanned because wizards just wont bother
twin, pod, and a couple other cards on the ban list would only serve to create their associated 'deck', with possibly a few variations. there is little to no discovery or exploration involved, no acclimation or organic development. the novelty only goes so far as finding the best version, refining it, and then its either at or near the top of the food chain or a complete bust (as far as any tier 2 or 3 deck can be considered a bust). i just cant see wizards making the plunge to experiment with something potentially so high impact when their policy has usually always been about small nudges.
----------------------------------------------------------------
as for modern at the moment, im liking things. i like playing blue control decks, and have felt im able to do so with confidence; which hasnt always been the case. sure there are plenty of eyeroll inducing games where i just get nutted on by some lean aggro or combo, but my switching between jeskai and UW control (currently on UW) makes me feel as if they are genuinely top tier decks in the format. im actually having enough fun with things that im about to finish the transition to mtgo so i can get more occasional games in over the week.
so there is some griping and moaning about modern (as per usual), with varying levels of logic or debate; however when i stepped back and asked myself if i liked the format atm i could easily answer yes. definite room for improvement, but i looked at the 'list' of top decks on mtggoldfish and was just astonished by how many of them are new. like around a year-old new (or less). the fact that this is true while im also able to play decks ive had for a long while and compete is a testament to how good the format is at the moment. modern is a work in progress, which is what we are here to talk about, but with some perspective most any complaints are relatively trivial compared to when there were actual threats to the formats stability (ie eldrazi winter, pre-ban dredge, etc).
sorry for the rambling long post. im caffeine and sleep deprived at the moment.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Thanks for updating me on what Legacy looks like now. Woah... really surprised that TES and ANT are already fringe decks. I guess a lot can happen in 5-6 years.
___________________________________________________________________________
Back to Modern... about Bridgevine, KCI, and Hollow One. Slowly getting used to Bridgevine, and how to fight that deck... thank goodness they're still not very consistent in creating a zombie army. Hollow One is fine, just hoping Burning Inquiry does not dicard the lands I'm holding. Oh, and there's no KCI here, so can't complain about that.
Nexus MTG News // Nexus - Magic Art Gallery // MTG Dual Land Color Ratios Analyzer // MTG Card Drawing Odds Calculator
Want to play a UW control deck in modern, but don't have jace or snaps?
Please come visit us at the Emeria Titan control thread
On a similar note, let's stop this myth that Affinity and Twin had a comparable number of 2015 GP/PT T8s. They didn't. URx Twin had 12 total representing 18.75% of the total GP/PT T8 dataset for the year. UR Twin alone had 9. Affinity had 7 finishes representing 10.9% of that field. In perspective, Affinity had only one more finish than both Burn and Abzan (they had 6 finishes apiece). Both KCI and Tron today have more 2018 finishes by percentage than Affinity did in 2015 (but still less than Twin individually).
I think everyone here is fine with Twin proponents arguing for a Twin unban based on current metagame evidence and context, but I really can't handle more Twin revisionism from either side.
Did you happen to see vs Delver?
This would be interesting to break down as well I think.
Spirits
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!
Maybe this seems like a reach, but its not surprising that grixis twin, or tarmotwin, would have better jund matchups than straight UR. In exchange, they give up percentage against other decks, but you can't build 1 twin deck that has the jund matchup of grixis twin, the affinity matchup of jeskai twin, the mirror percentage of tarmotwin and the burn matchup of UR twin, but when pulling numbers from broad archtypes, you'll get stuff like that.
Twin vs. Grixis Delver: 56/118 (47.5%)
Twin vs. UR Delver: 10/28 (35.7%)
Twin vs. URx Delver: 66/146 (45%)
This is what I would characterize as a classic unfavorable 45/55 matchup.
I broke it down for UR Twin specifically. N obviously shrinks but the stats don't change: 35/72 (48.6%). This is a 50/50 matchup no matter how you swing it.