The issue rcwraspy, is we are told 'prove it' whenever Twin is brought up. Nobody says 'prove it' when someone says the format is better off.
EDIT: So yes, there actually is a difference. And when KTK continues to say 'Twin defenders provide no arguments' its a lie. We've done this, he and I did this, and he looked at the data and AGREED WITH ME, weeks ago.
So I mean, we can continue to see this passive aggressive 'well its just the same old Twin Defenders' without naming names to bypass Moderation, or we can stop the lies, accept that there is no argument for Twin remaining banned other than it IS banned, accept that there is no 'proof' that could ever be offered because Modern's complexity is far beyond any handful of players ability to test, the results of which would be ignored, dismissed or argued over for eternity because the sample size will NEVER be large enough, and yet its only the faceless (done so as to avoid making a hard stance or personal statement) 'Twin Defenders' who get called out.
Fascinating.
The ban failed in its goals.
The ban did not create space for 'blue decks'.
Diversity in the format at the T8 GP level is nearly identical now, as when Twin was in the format.
Wizards does not test Modern.
Wizards felt Kiki was a viable replacement.
It took 3 years of new product and unbannings (!!!) for the goal of 'Blue Diversity' to be reached.
People dont want to talk about Twin? Ban it from the thread, but it's the ANTI-Twin people who have no position to defend, and that's been 'proven' to the extent that is possible.
Meanwhile, I'm just getting out of any financial investment in MTGO/Paper other than UR (keeping it in Paper) and Knightfall, and I'll play Arena and Mtgo 'for free' because its clear Wizards wont fix their mistake.
The issue rcwraspy, is we are told 'prove it' whenever Twin is brought up. Nobody says 'prove it' when someone says the format is better off.
EDIT: So yes, there actually is a difference. And when KTK continues to say 'Twin defenders provide no arguments' its a lie. We've done this, he and I did this, and he looked at the data and AGREED WITH ME, weeks ago.
This was not my allegation, but it only heightens my suspicions when you keep accusing me of stating things I did not state. This is similar to how you misrepresented my post about SFM/Preordain to make me sound like I was comparing their ban rationale to Twin when I was explicitly not doing that.
I know the Twin defenders have arguments and I have referred to a number of their arguments in my recent posts. The problem is not the lack of argument. The problem is that you and cfp (and potentially other Twin defenders that I can't as readily cite) continue to state those arguments for Twin's unbanning as if they are bulletproof gospel. Whenever someone challenges those arguments, we often see irate rebuttals about how the pro-Twin arguments are "facts" and the arguments against Twin are "false." Similarly, you accuse users, like myself, of being "biased" and "disingenuous" just because we are arguing against Twin, while simultaneously mischaracterizing and misquoting posts, as you did with my comments and rcw's. Add to this provocative comments like "'bUt nOBOdy lO0keD aTT thE DaTA'" and I am struggling to see how you want people to productively engage you in conversation. Which, in turn, circles back to my allegation that Twin discussion is one-sided with many of the Twin players, most recently you and CFP, not actually wanting to debate. Instead, it appears that you just want to repeat your theories as if they are facts.
To be clear, I agree the Twin ban was ineffective. I literally posted and ran those numbers you cited (https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/modern-archives/797415-the-state-of-modern-thread-b-r-20-08-2018?comment=216). But the ineffectiveness of a ban at accomplishing its stated goals is not sufficient to unban a card. In addition to this, the unban must also be a safe unban in the current format that will reasonably increase diversity. See literally every Modern unban for an example of this. By all measures, a Twin unban will probably keep diversity the same by just reshuffling top decks. It does not seem likely to increase diversity. I have never seen Wizards unban a card to reshuffle diversity, which means this unban is probably not happening. Moreover, there is still a risk that Twin would overall decrease diversity by making more decks less competitive than it made other decks more competitive. So if the best case scenario is reshuffling diversity and if the worst case scenario is decreasing diversity, that seems like a bad unban. I expect some Twin defenders will categorically ignore this possible risk, which will only underscore my point that the goal isn't debate. Maybe I'm proven wrong and we can have a substantive discussion about that risk, but it hasn't happened recently.
Who ignores the risk. Not some random's on reddit. Who is ignoring the risk, on this site, in this thread?
Of course there is a risk. It was a legit Tier 1 deck, for a very long period of time unlike the cyclical decks we have today.
All that I listed above, are facts. As you note, you came to the same results. Now is there a reason to unban on that basis alone? Of course not. Is there a reason a 'need' to unban the card?
Nope.
Is there a reason to keep it banned?
Nope.
Edit: what challenges to the arguments put forward by 'twin defenders' have even been made? My ignore list isn't that long, but I don't remember a single numbers driven argument that has not been debunked.
When I say my list is fact, prove me wrong. Put the shoe on the other foot. You and I looked at the same numbers. Cfusionpm showed that not for breakers we don't even see the offensive top 8 %.
What numbers has any anti twin argument ever provided?
The issue rcwraspy, is we are told 'prove it' whenever Twin is brought up. Nobody says 'prove it' when someone says the format is better off.
EDIT: So yes, there actually is a difference. And when KTK continues to say 'Twin defenders provide no arguments' its a lie. We've done this, he and I did this, and he looked at the data and AGREED WITH ME, weeks ago.
This was not my allegation, but it only heightens my suspicions when you keep accusing me of stating things I did not state. This is similar to how you misrepresented my post about SFM/Preordain to make me sound like I was comparing their ban rationale to Twin when I was explicitly not doing that.
I know the Twin defenders have arguments and I have referred to a number of their arguments in my recent posts. The problem is not the lack of argument. The problem is that you and cfp (and potentially other Twin defenders that I can't as readily cite) continue to state those arguments for Twin's unbanning as if they are bulletproof gospel. Whenever someone challenges those arguments, we often see irate rebuttals about how the pro-Twin arguments are "facts" and the arguments against Twin are "false." Similarly, you accuse users, like myself, of being "biased" and "disingenuous" just because we are arguing against Twin, while simultaneously mischaracterizing and misquoting posts, as you did with my comments and rcw's. Add to this provocative comments like "'bUt nOBOdy lO0keD aTT thE DaTA'" and I am struggling to see how you want people to productively engage you in conversation. Which, in turn, circles back to my allegation that Twin discussion is one-sided with many of the Twin players, most recently you and CFP, not actually wanting to debate. Instead, it appears that you just want to repeat your theories as if they are facts.
This Twin debate is like a reassembling skeleton that refuse to die. As a mere spectator, I've seen both sides present seemingly valid arguments. I think we need WoTC to at least unban Twin for a few months, let it loose in this environment. As the deck diversity of 2015 is clearly different from 2018 onwards. After those months they find Twin oppressive, then they can just ban it again like how they did with Golgari Grave Troll.
And probably I like to see SFM and Twin unbanned, so I could sell them at a decent price - ulterior motive $_$ -
When I say my list is fact, prove me wrong. Put the shoe on the other foot. You and I looked at the same numbers. Cfusionpm showed that not for breakers we don't even see the offensive top 8 %.
Also with Dan Lanthier recently outed as a cheater, we have one of the two Twin GP winners (who was pushed into the T8 on tiebreakers) called into question as well. Surely just an irrelevant coincidence that had no effect on history...
I'm tired of the whole conversation. Modern is 'fine' but I'm having a lot more fun just messing around in Arena (cast a Saga, its awesome!) than I am slogging through the absolute degeneracy that is MTGO Modern right now, so this thread can go to sleep for a few days till the SCG Open. Hopefully the paper world catches up to what is doing work.
On a completely unrelated note, I was secretly hoping for a Recoil reprint in Guilds. I've been playing MtG since 1998, and been almost exclusively a U/UB player from then til now. I dabbled in a few other things from time to time, but in recent history GDS has been my jam, while Faeries is my pet deck that I stubbornly cling to.
What I'm really afraid of is online magic, whether it be MTGO or Arena, slowly erasing paper magic. Modern has been some of the most fun, and frustration, I've had in Magic, and I'm lucky to have a robust LGS that I can play at regularly. It's very troubling to me that Wizards has made it clear that Modern won't be supported on Arena, and that Arena is the platform they want to ride into the future.
I'm sure Modern not being supported on Arena will change eventually regardless of what statement they put out. It's been established that Modern is the most popular format, it seems silly for them to keep it off Arena. It also seems like the easiest way to monetize the format if they put their heads to it. I say give it time, Modern Arena will happen.
I personally will never move to online magic, I'm sure many feel the same way for different reasons. I personally like sitting face to face with people, it's a big draw for me that goes beyond why the game pulls me in. Until they stop printing paper cards, I'll be a paper player. When that day comes, I will likely not play magic anymore.
On a completely unrelated note, I was secretly hoping for a Recoil reprint in Guilds. I've been playing MtG since 1998, and been almost exclusively a U/UB player from then til now. I dabbled in a few other things from time to time, but in recent history GDS has been my jam, while Faeries is my pet deck that I stubbornly cling to.
What I'm really afraid of is online magic, whether it be MTGO or Arena, slowly erasing paper magic. Modern has been some of the most fun, and frustration, I've had in Magic, and I'm lucky to have a robust LGS that I can play at regularly. It's very troubling to me that Wizards has made it clear that Modern won't be supported on Arena, and that Arena is the platform they want to ride into the future.
I cant speak to numbers, but Arena is just fun. I dont think it will ever cater to those who are playing hardcore paper/mtgo events though. Its framework is not 'crunch' its very loose, or seems to be intended to feel that way anyway.
On a completely unrelated note, I was secretly hoping for a Recoil reprint in Guilds. I've been playing MtG since 1998, and been almost exclusively a U/UB player from then til now. I dabbled in a few other things from time to time, but in recent history GDS has been my jam, while Faeries is my pet deck that I stubbornly cling to.
What I'm really afraid of is online magic, whether it be MTGO or Arena, slowly erasing paper magic. Modern has been some of the most fun, and frustration, I've had in Magic, and I'm lucky to have a robust LGS that I can play at regularly. It's very troubling to me that Wizards has made it clear that Modern won't be supported on Arena, and that Arena is the platform they want to ride into the future.
I cant speak to numbers, but Arena is just fun. I dont think it will ever cater to those who are playing hardcore paper/mtgo events though. Its framework is not 'crunch' its very loose, or seems to be intended to feel that way anyway.
I don't doubt it's fun, but I think you're onto something. It doesn't seem like Arena is meant for older and/or more competitive players. That is fine, but I'm worried about what happens to older cards and formats that Arena won't support. If it gets the success that WotC is looking for, and they keep the current party line of not putting older formats into it, then I'm afraid that will spell the end of those formats.
The most glaring example of this was when Twin defenders argued that no top tier blue deck existed. Now that there are top tier blue decks, the argument has shifted again to those decks not being top tier, not being close enough to Twin, not being tempo/snap/bolt, not arising because of Twin's absence, etc. This suggests to me that Twin defenders arent interested in assessing Twin's unban viability based on the format's state. Rather, they have assumed and believe Twin is a safr unban and will reshape any argument or format context to prove that belief.
That's really not a fair assessment. You ask for reasons why Twin should be unbanned, and we gave them. For a long time, blue decks were absent from Modern, so it was a good argument for unbanning Twin to say that it would make a competitive blue deck for the format. The meta changed with new printings and blue decks are good now, so that's no longer a reason to unban Twin, which is why we don't bring that up anymore. Literally no one argues that UW, Spirits, and Jeskai aren't top tier, that's a complete strawman on your part. As for your last sentence, of course we assume that Twin is a safe unban, or else we wouldn't be lobbying for it to be unbanned. Why would we argue to unban Twin if we thought it was going to dominate the format? Even if it was 12% of the format like it was when it got banned, it shouldn't be unbanned. I just think it's really ridiculous to think that Twin would still be that dominant in current Modern, considering how much more powerful the format is now than it was 3 years ago.
Compare to SFM and Preordain, two cards with frequent unban discussion, that people go back and forth on. Even SFM, a clear unban frontrunner, has seen shifts in popularity over time as new decka emerged. People have also questioned whether or not the card would be too strong for Humans, Company decks, Abzan, Jeskai, etc. We saw the same with Preordain following the resurgence of Storm and UWx decks. No such doubt or nuance exists for Twin defenders. They present as supremely confident that Twin would be a safe/justified unban with little acknowledgement of risks and pitfalls. No matter how much the format changes, they still present this confidence and have done so for 2.75 years. That's a huge red flag to me as it suggests they have already made up their mind and aren't interested in hearing any objections to their beliefs. It makes for poor unbanning arguments and one-sided discussion.
Because nothing really has changed with the Twin deck. All of the cards that have been printed and unbanned in the last three years, almost nothing goes into Twin. The only thing would be probably swapping Serum Visions for Opt, which is kind of a side-grade, and swapping the Jace Architect of Thoughts in the sideboard with Mind Sculptors, which is an upgrade, but only against a narrow portion of the field. If you unbanned Twin right now, its power level would be very close to what it was in 2015. Twin has gotten a tiny bit better, but Modern as a whole has gotten a lot stronger since 2015. The fact that Twin was a very borderline ban back then is evidence that it would most likely be fine now, when you take that into account. And of course there are always risks with any unban, that's implied with any unban talk. I think it's much easier to gauge those risks with Twin than with something like SFM, though, because Twin has actually been in this format before. It's a known quantity. Twin isn't going to get unbanned and suddenly be even better than it was in 2015. It will be worse, the question is if it's worse by an acceptable margin. If Twin is still 10% of the meta, should it be unbanned? Probably not. If it's 7 or 8%? Yeah, it probably should be. That's the real discussion, how much worse would Twin be right now than it was in 2015 compared to the rest of Modern as a whole? Has Modern yet reached a point where Twin would be just another good Modern deck?
i do agree with aazadan though that the difference between the amount of twin and pod talk is telling. id chalk that up to a relatively small number of active posters here, and a high percentage of them (including myself) happened to be twin players. meaning we are more willing and able to provide input on the subject. unfortunately that presents an ever skewed conversation that mimics a couple of old geezers reminiscing about the glory days of old.
I think it's two things. First, Pod was a more reasonable ban. It did surprise some people, but Pod was like 20% of the meta when it got banned, and had been arguably the best deck in Modern since the DRS banning. Second, there were similar archetypes to move to. Collected Company came out soon after the Pod ban, and basically replaced it as the value engine in creature decks. Twin has never really had a replacement. WotC thought Kiki-Jiki could be a replacement, but the deck wasn't playable with Kiki.
To play devil's advocate, there is an argument to be made that the play lines of Twin themselves, are unhealthy. Not an argument I would be able to make in any seriousness, but...it is one that exists.
And I think that's a ridiculous argument (I have heard that one before). People said the same thing about GDS when they wanted it banned. Turning life loss into a positive breaks the game, being discouraged from attacking your GDS opponent makes for unhealthy play lines, etc. But look at the rest of Modern. Tron forces you to blitz them, because if they assemble Tron you're just going to die. Decks like Dredge, Bridgevine, and Bogles make your removal worthless. Storm actually behaves in a similar way to how Twin used to: you have to hold up removal and put them under a clock, but Storm can actually still kill you through your removal, which Twin couldn't do. Arguing against the game play Twin generated is such a useless argument when you consider some of the truly rancid game play that other Modern decks generate.
The past page has only proven my point. I never said Twin was a monster. I never even addressed the arguments in favor of Twin's unbanning. Nor did I compare Twin's rationale to other cards. I simply said that Twin users tend to downplay all the arguments against their unban wishes and not consider alternate arguments, unlike those who debate other cards on the banlist. This is precisely the level of blind certainty and confidence we have seen from pro-Twin users in the past page.
That's not true, we've always addressed arguments we've seen, there are just never any arguments that are convincing and not easily torn down. The arguments from anti-Twin people basically always boil down to "it was too strong in 2015," which is debatable, and "I didn't like it." Those aren't good reasons to keep it banned in (almost) 2019. If you can produce a good argument for why it shouldn't be unbanned any time soon, we'd all love to hear it. In fact, I'll actually give you one myself: I think SFM should be unbanned first, and I don't think they should unban both SFM and Twin at the same time, so I think we should get SFM in January, and as long as nothing radically changes in Modern, Twin in 6 months to a year afterwards.
I know the Twin defenders have arguments and I have referred to a number of their arguments in my recent posts. The problem is not the lack of argument. The problem is that you and cfp (and potentially other Twin defenders that I can't as readily cite) continue to state those arguments for Twin's unbanning as if they are bulletproof gospel.
Because literally no one has ever been able to satisfactorily refute any of those points.
In addition to this, the unban must also be a safe unban in the current format that will reasonably increase diversity.
And I don't agree that this should be a prerequisite to unbanning something. Things shouldn't be banned if they are within the power level of the format. That is the only thing that matters to me. If Twin is unbanned and it becomes like 6% of the format and the format overall isn't more diverse than it was before, but isn't less diverse either, then that's a good unban to me.
Moreover, there is still a risk that Twin would overall decrease diversity by making more decks less competitive than it made other decks more competitive. So if the best case scenario is reshuffling diversity and if the worst case scenario is decreasing diversity, that seems like a bad unban. I expect some Twin defenders will categorically ignore this possible risk, which will only underscore my point that the goal isn't debate. Maybe I'm proven wrong and we can have a substantive discussion about that risk, but it hasn't happened recently.
And that would only happen if Twin became a sizeable portion of the meta when it got unbanned. If Twin is like 6% of the meta, it will have very little effect on the overall landscape of the format. If it was unbanned and it became 12% of the format, then it would have an impact. My argument is that it would almost certainly be less than 12%, because Modern's overall power level has risen much more than the power level of Twin, taking into account new cards Twin has gotten since its ban.
This Twin debate is like a reassembling skeleton that refuse to die. As a mere spectator, I've seen both sides present seemingly valid arguments. I think we need WoTC to at least unban Twin for a few months, let it loose in this environment. As the deck diversity of 2015 is clearly different from 2018 onwards. After those months they find Twin oppressive, then they can just ban it again like how they did with Golgari Grave Troll.
That's really all we've been asking for. We'll never really know for sure if Twin is ok yet until they try it. I personally would like to see them be much more fluid with the ban list, taking bigger risks with unbans, but also being transparent that they reserve the right to reban things soon after if they are obviously still not ok. Like, I personally see the Golgari Grave-Troll unban as a huge success. It got people excited about the Dredge archetype, which didn't exist in Modern before. Further cards forced it to be rebanned, but maybe nobody finds the Prized Amalgam and Cathartic Reunion build if GGT never gets unbanned because people aren't brewing with Dredge?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern UBR Grixis Shadow UBR UR Izzet Phoenix UR UW UW Control UW GB GB Rock GB
Commander BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
That's really all we've been asking for. We'll never really know for sure if Twin is ok yet until they try it. I personally would like to see them be much more fluid with the ban list, taking bigger risks with unbans, but also being transparent that they reserve the right to reban things soon after if they are obviously still not ok.
I don't have much more to say except maybe they're waiting for a time that the format becomes stale, that they need to unban strong cards like Twin or SFM.
Like, I personally see the Golgari Grave-Troll unban as a huge success. It got people excited about the Dredge archetype, which didn't exist in Modern before. Further cards forced it to be rebanned, but maybe nobody finds the Prized Amalgam and Cathartic Reunion build if GGT never gets unbanned because people aren't brewing with Dredge?
Agreed that it's a huge success. The unban stimulated interest in the deck, and after some brewing.. another competitive deck was added to the format. Then when the deck became too strong.. his WoTC overlords told the troll that his job in Modern is done.. pack his bags and go back to Legacy land. I guess that's a happy ending. ^__^
I was lurking around the Dredge thread during the troll ban. Some people were demoralized... but it was eventually discovered that the deck is still viable without GGT. Just like Summer Bloom ban did not stop Amulet Titan, the GGT ban also not enough to stop Dredge.
See: Wild Nacatl.
Today no one is afraid of a one mana 3/3 when we have one mana 5/5 and one mana 4/5 turn 2 or turn 3 from GDS, one or two free 4/4's at turn 1 from Hollow One, multiple free 2/2 and self-reanimating 4/3 with haste from Bridgevine.
Today no one is afraid of a one mana 3/3 when we have one mana 5/5 and one mana 4/5 turn 2 or turn 3 from GDS, one or two free 4/4's at turn 1 from Hollow One, multiple free 2/2 and self-reanimating 4/3 with haste from Bridgevine.
True, but my point is that Sheridan was saying that WotC has never unbanned something because their initial ban reasoning was borne out to be false, but Wild Nacatl is an example of exactly that. They claimed that Nacatl was stifling deck diversity of green creature decks, but that turned out to be false, as those decks disappeared from the meta without Nacatl. A couple years later they reversed the ban and Zoo returned. Nacatl was a perfectly fine card that never should have been banned.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern UBR Grixis Shadow UBR UR Izzet Phoenix UR UW UW Control UW GB GB Rock GB
Commander BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
Today no one is afraid of a one mana 3/3 when we have one mana 5/5 and one mana 4/5 turn 2 or turn 3 from GDS, one or two free 4/4's at turn 1 from Hollow One, multiple free 2/2 and self-reanimating 4/3 with haste from Bridgevine.
True, but my point is that Sheridan was saying that WotC has never unbanned something because their initial ban reasoning was borne out to be false, but Wild Nacatl is an example of exactly that. They claimed that Nacatl was stifling deck diversity of green creature decks, but that turned out to be false, as those decks disappeared from the meta without Nacatl. A couple years later they reversed the ban and Zoo returned. Nacatl was a perfectly fine card that never should have been banned.
Just because nacatl eventually became completely fine for the format doesn't mean it was always fine. It's entirely possible that at the time of its banning, those concerns were valid. Moreso, that the ban actually worked as intended. That's possible too.
Im as glad as anyone that we can have toys back as the format evolves. Personally I think birthing pod looks kinda silly these days on that list (despite being a genuine problem at the time of its banning). However, just because nacatl eventually came back doesn't allow you to carte blanche just say "see it was always fine". That's a logical fallacy.
And if my beloved birthing pod was ever to return in a similar manner, I certainly wouldn't say "see it was always fine" because we all know that at the time of its banning, it was a format warping card.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: G Tron, Vannifar, Jund, Druid/Vizier combo, Humans, Eldrazi Stompy (Serum Powder), Amulet, Grishoalbrand, Breach Titan, Turns, Eternal Command, As Foretold Living End, Elves, Cheerios, RUG Scapeshift
its been long enough to where twins passing is just another historical event for the format. its only worthwhile to refer to it as such, but that doesnt mean there isnt anything to be gained by discussing it. its qualities, the environment it dominated in, why it was popular, why it was unpopular, etc. we can juxtapose these things to the current state of affairs for more insight.
i do agree with aazadan though that the difference between the amount of twin and pod talk is telling. id chalk that up to a relatively small number of active posters here, and a high percentage of them (including myself) happened to be twin players. meaning we are more willing and able to provide input on the subject. unfortunately that presents an ever skewed conversation that mimics a couple of old geezers reminiscing about the glory days of old.
I played Pod, close to all of the different versions (be it Kiki-Pod (loved the deck), Angle Pod, Melira Pod, value Pod and so on) and I would never advocate an unban of the card given the current Metagame. I "know" (know in sense of: I played the deck a lot, played against it a lot, have experience so I make an educated guess) that Pod would break the meta apart, again. Hence, I do not "lobby" for a Pod unban, cause why should I if I feel, that Pod wouldn't be healthy for the metagame?
I got personally hit by a lot of bans, be it GSZ, Second Sunrise, Pod, DTT/TC, Seething Song (rip Increasing Vengeance Ritual Gifts), DRS and GGT. Did I play the "broken" incranation of the card? Only in the case of TC and Second Sunrise (GSZ = Counter Cat, Pod mainly Kiki Pod (but when I wanted to win a tournament), DTT Scapeshift, Seething Song = Ritual Gifts, DRS = BUG Midrange and GGT in Zombieloam). Am I sad, that I can no longer play those decks at all basically? Yes, but ***** happens to say it this way.
Would I advocate for an unban for any of those cards? Not on the current powerlevel, not with the decisions Wizard has taken in the past and also, not with the current approach to Modern.
Greetings,
Kathal
PS: Fun fact: So far I have a 100% hit rate on the unbanned cards, aka what influence they will have on the format ^^
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What I play or have:
Modern/Legacy
either funpolice (Delver, Deathcloud, UW Control) or the fun decks (especially those ft. Griselbrand)
And I don't agree that this should be a prerequisite to unbanning something. Things shouldn't be banned if they are within the power level of the format. That is the only thing that matters to me. If Twin is unbanned and it becomes like 6% of the format and the format overall isn't more diverse than it was before, but isn't less diverse either, then that's a good unban to me.
^This.
On Pod: I think Birthing pod is pretty high on the list of risky cards to unban, a lot higher than cards like GSZ, SFM, Punishing Fire, and Twin to name a few. As pointed out before (i think iSurge said it), the Twin archtype didnt get too much outside Opt and Jace for the side board. As for Pod, they got A LOT of things since its ban, so its super hard to even ball park its power level in current Modern
Today no one is afraid of a one mana 3/3 when we have one mana 5/5 and one mana 4/5 turn 2 or turn 3 from GDS, one or two free 4/4's at turn 1 from Hollow One, multiple free 2/2 and self-reanimating 4/3 with haste from Bridgevine.
True, but my point is that Sheridan was saying that WotC has never unbanned something because their initial ban reasoning was borne out to be false, but Wild Nacatl is an example of exactly that. They claimed that Nacatl was stifling deck diversity of green creature decks, but that turned out to be false, as those decks disappeared from the meta without Nacatl. A couple years later they reversed the ban and Zoo returned. Nacatl was a perfectly fine card that never should have been banned.
As I said in the quoted post, the ineffectiveness of a ban is not SUFFICIENT to justify an unban. I.e. the ineffectiveness cannot solely be the reason. The unban must ALSO increase diversity. Nacatl was unbanned BOTH because the initial ban was ineffective AND Wizarda believed an unban would increase format diversity. It was not unbanned just because the ban was ineffective. Twin is an ineffective ban but there is very little certainty it will increase diversity. The likeliest scenario based on GP #s is a flat diversity effect overall, with some unknown risk of decreased diversity and some unknown chance of increased diversity. Given this, it's not a safe unban for Wizards. Wizards has never unbanned a card to simply reshuffle top decks.
EDIT: As for the rest of your post, I'm not responding to ever point. There are so many mischaracterizations of my argument in there that it's not worth it. In fact, this quoted piece above is itself a mischaracterization of my argument because you literally separated the two stated reasons for Nacatl's unbanning and treated them as separate. You split up my two sentences, and then attempted to refute only the first sentence with the Nacatl example when it was very clear that both sentences were about Nacatl together. Another flagrant example of this frustrating Twin defender argumentation style is you accusing me of making a straw man argument (this is itself a good indicator that a post is mischaracterizing someone's argument) regarding top-tier blue decks. I clearly state this as a historical example, not a current one, of Twin players shifting their argument over time. Many Twin players in this thread belittled Jeskai's early 2018 success on the SCG circuit and then doubted UW's success in Summer 2018. It's just another historical example of the same small cohort of Twin players that has consistently posted in this thread since 2016 (idsurge, cfp, the late hellfire, recently yourself, etc.) and wanted this card unbanned regardless of what the format looked like.
I don't doubt it's fun, but I think you're onto something. It doesn't seem like Arena is meant for older and/or more competitive players. That is fine, but I'm worried about what happens to older cards and formats that Arena won't support. If it gets the success that WotC is looking for, and they keep the current party line of not putting older formats into it, then I'm afraid that will spell the end of those formats.
I dont think there is a 0% chance of interest in eternal formats falling off a bit. I'm an 'old' player, and this fit's my schedule, is just plain old kitchen table fun, and is free. You can just build up your deck/gold and then buy into a draft for free. It seems win/win right now.
Might just be my dissatisfaction with Modern speaking, and I dont play Legacy...but yeah.
Wizards has never unbanned a card to simply reshuffle top decks.
Wizards has never unbanned a card to simply reshuffle top decks.
Unban, no...
Unban, no. That's precisely what I said. The criteria for banning and unbanning are different. Making disappointed remarks at bans with the benefit of 2.75 years of hindsight does not indict the ban at the time. There are other reasons that ban was bad at the time which I literally wrote the longest article (that I know of) on the Internet about. But bans are not reversed because they were shady or unjust.
To be clear, Wizards did not ban Twin to reshuffle top decks. They banned it to increase diversity. This ban does not appear to have achieved its stated goals, so now the question is, should they reverse it? By all previous indicators, Wizards only reverses old bans if they think the reversal would also increase diversity, mot merely undo an ineffective ban. They don't solely do it to "right a wrong" or "do justice" or something like that, which is what I think you and other pro-Twin posters want.
Again, I cite the Nacatl case that I literally just posted about. Nacatl was banned to increase diversity. The ban did not achieve its stated goal. Wizards then unbanned Nacatl both because it failed and to increase diversity by reintroducing the card.
its been long enough to where twins passing is just another historical event for the format. its only worthwhile to refer to it as such, but that doesnt mean there isnt anything to be gained by discussing it. its qualities, the environment it dominated in, why it was popular, why it was unpopular, etc. we can juxtapose these things to the current state of affairs for more insight.
i do agree with aazadan though that the difference between the amount of twin and pod talk is telling. id chalk that up to a relatively small number of active posters here, and a high percentage of them (including myself) happened to be twin players. meaning we are more willing and able to provide input on the subject. unfortunately that presents an ever skewed conversation that mimics a couple of old geezers reminiscing about the glory days of old.
I played Pod, close to all of the different versions (be it Kiki-Pod (loved the deck), Angle Pod, Melira Pod, value Pod and so on) and I would never advocate an unban of the card given the current Metagame. I "know" (know in sense of: I played the deck a lot, played against it a lot, have experience so I make an educated guess) that Pod would break the meta apart, again. Hence, I do not "lobby" for a Pod unban, cause why should I if I feel, that Pod wouldn't be healthy for the metagame?
I got personally hit by a lot of bans, be it GSZ, Second Sunrise, Pod, DTT/TC, Seething Song (rip Increasing Vengeance Ritual Gifts), DRS and GGT. Did I play the "broken" incranation of the card? Only in the case of TC and Second Sunrise (GSZ = Counter Cat, Pod mainly Kiki Pod (but when I wanted to win a tournament), DTT Scapeshift, Seething Song = Ritual Gifts, DRS = BUG Midrange and GGT in Zombieloam). Am I sad, that I can no longer play those decks at all basically? Yes, but ***** happens to say it this way.
Would I advocate for an unban for any of those cards? Not on the current powerlevel, not with the decisions Wizard has taken in the past and also, not with the current approach to Modern.
Greetings,
Kathal
PS: Fun fact: So far I have a 100% hit rate on the unbanned cards, aka what influence they will have on the format ^^
Agree on what you said about Pod. BP has so many new toys to play with, it's power level would certainly be much higher if unbanned now.
Although it feels nostalgic in a nice way. Remembering those good old days when people are talking about what to put into their pod decks.
Oh, and sorry to hear you experienced a lot of bannings.
To be clear, Wizards did not ban Twin to reshuffle top decks. They banned it to increase diversity. This ban does not appear to have achieved its stated goals, so now the question is, should they reverse it?
I remain, unconvinced. I dont expect a reversal of the ban, not from the company that has people say 'Wouldnt Sword of the Meek make Lantern obnoxious?' they would simply say 'wouldnt UWR control just put the combo in?' they would be wrong, but thats what they would say.
Simply put, I do not believe the party line from Forsythe on this ban, at all.
On a completely unrelated note, I was secretly hoping for a Recoil reprint in Guilds. I've been playing MtG since 1998, and been almost exclusively a U/UB player from then til now. I dabbled in a few other things from time to time, but in recent history GDS has been my jam, while Faeries is my pet deck that I stubbornly cling to.
What I'm really afraid of is online magic, whether it be MTGO or Arena, slowly erasing paper magic. Modern has been some of the most fun, and frustration, I've had in Magic, and I'm lucky to have a robust LGS that I can play at regularly. It's very troubling to me that Wizards has made it clear that Modern won't be supported on Arena, and that Arena is the platform they want to ride into the future.
I cant speak to numbers, but Arena is just fun. I dont think it will ever cater to those who are playing hardcore paper/mtgo events though. Its framework is not 'crunch' its very loose, or seems to be intended to feel that way anyway.
I don't doubt it's fun, but I think you're onto something. It doesn't seem like Arena is meant for older and/or more competitive players. That is fine, but I'm worried about what happens to older cards and formats that Arena won't support. If it gets the success that WotC is looking for, and they keep the current party line of not putting older formats into it, then I'm afraid that will spell the end of those formats.
the nature of arena is pretty explicit. the design intent is to provide the mtg experience at a faster pace, and to be more in tune with player convenience. its a page right out of blizzards play book, and in line with one of their more well known design mottos "simple to play, difficult to master"
i wouldnt worry too much about older formats. could arena pull players away from modern? sure, but that is kind of the point.
we know a couple of things for certain. wizards has to solve how to handle card rotation in arena. whether that is modern, or some other format (meant specifically for arena or otherwise); is yet to be seen. next, we know that modern, if ever implemented, will not be any time soon. the game is still in open beta, and wizards is obligated to release a polished product as quickly as possible. implementing the modern card pool; including animations/art, rules engine updates, and subsequent testing is very resource intensive and wizards isnt primarily a video game producer (ie smaller team, less money to throw at the game, etc).
modern in paper form exists mostly by necessity. powerful standard cards need an outlet post-rotation. wizards could theoretically create some modern-modern format (ie something like frontier), but creating a good format isnt easy and modern is good by almost any metric you can think of. it would go beyond 'if it aint broke dont fix it' securely into 'its working great, lets bash it with a hammer' territory to do so.
legacy and vintage are niche formats. played exclusively by the old guard or established collectors/wealthy players. they wont die because the players wont let them.
mtgo similarly has a unique home as a digital tournament platform, and a home for modern, legacy, vintage, pauper, or whatever else (momir yooooo). again, it would take years and years for arena to be comprehensive enough to cover all of those bases. just look at hearthstone, it still has only barebones features to support tournament play; even after all these years and the resources at blizzards disposal.
edit: oh yeah, and if anything is strangling paper magic; its players and not wizards. sure they could be handling things better, but they are battling against a fast evolving social and commercial environment. arena is just a response.
for example consider, did netflix (or even stuff like redbox) truly kill blockbuster? partially, however the true culprit was broadband internet services becoming mainstream and the rise of e-commerce. services adapt to improvements to technology and subsequently sociological trends, or they get left behind.
Wizards has never unbanned a card to simply reshuffle top decks.
Unban, no...
Unban, no. That's precisely what I said. The criteria for banning and unbanning are different. Making disappointed remarks at bans with the benefit of 2.75 years of hindsight does not indict the ban at the time. There are other reasons that ban was bad at the time which I literally wrote the longest article (that I know of) on the Internet about. But bans are not reversed because they were shady or unjust.
To be clear, Wizards did not ban Twin to reshuffle top decks. They banned it to increase diversity. This ban does not appear to have achieved its stated goals, so now the question is, should they reverse it? By all previous indicators, Wizards only reverses old bans if they think the reversal would also increase diversity, mot merely undo an ineffective ban. They don't solely do it to "right a wrong" or "do justice" or something like that, which is what I think you and other pro-Twin posters want.
Again, I cite the Nacatl case that I literally just posted about. Nacatl was banned to increase diversity. The ban did not achieve its stated goal. Wizards then unbanned Nacatl both because it failed and to increase diversity by reintroducing the card.
By this metric, I think there's an argument that a Twin unban could increase top tier format diversity. Decks which are around but don't do much like Faeries, Delver, and Wizards would simply disappear while Twin takes their place, so the total number of decks in the format would decline, but the total number of top tier decks would likely increase. Assuming of course that the current top tier could remain competitive with Twin.
I'm sure Modern not being supported on Arena will change eventually regardless of what statement they put out. It's been established that Modern is the most popular format, it seems silly for them to keep it off Arena. It also seems like the easiest way to monetize the format if they put their heads to it. I say give it time, Modern Arena will happen.
I personally will never move to online magic, I'm sure many feel the same way for different reasons. I personally like sitting face to face with people, it's a big draw for me that goes beyond why the game pulls me in. Until they stop printing paper cards, I'll be a paper player. When that day comes, I will likely not play magic anymore.
I think modern is in a very difficult position in terms of online support in arena. The thing that butchered standard was not necessarily bad design, but a design that was about a player executing a game plan without concern for what the opponent was doing. Approach of the Second Sun, the negation of the ability to block with Ramunap red, indestructable creatures that were neigh unanswerable, energy having no way to be interacted with, and value creatures such as Phoenix and the scarab god were just brutal.
To a massive casual audience, is there even a way to play something in modern other than strait aggro without having a ton of cards backlogged? If not would the environment really be different from kaladesh standard?
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!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
EDIT: So yes, there actually is a difference. And when KTK continues to say 'Twin defenders provide no arguments' its a lie. We've done this, he and I did this, and he looked at the data and AGREED WITH ME, weeks ago.
So I mean, we can continue to see this passive aggressive 'well its just the same old Twin Defenders' without naming names to bypass Moderation, or we can stop the lies, accept that there is no argument for Twin remaining banned other than it IS banned, accept that there is no 'proof' that could ever be offered because Modern's complexity is far beyond any handful of players ability to test, the results of which would be ignored, dismissed or argued over for eternity because the sample size will NEVER be large enough, and yet its only the faceless (done so as to avoid making a hard stance or personal statement) 'Twin Defenders' who get called out.
Fascinating.
The above list is fact.
This has been shown, the Top 8 Data is there (https://mtgtop8.com/) and the GP lists are there (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Magic:_The_Gathering_Grand_Prix_events) and I've provided the outputs on this before before anyone decides to say 'bUt nOBOdy lO0keD aTT thE DaTA'.
People dont want to talk about Twin? Ban it from the thread, but it's the ANTI-Twin people who have no position to defend, and that's been 'proven' to the extent that is possible.
Meanwhile, I'm just getting out of any financial investment in MTGO/Paper other than UR (keeping it in Paper) and Knightfall, and I'll play Arena and Mtgo 'for free' because its clear Wizards wont fix their mistake.
Spirits
This was not my allegation, but it only heightens my suspicions when you keep accusing me of stating things I did not state. This is similar to how you misrepresented my post about SFM/Preordain to make me sound like I was comparing their ban rationale to Twin when I was explicitly not doing that.
I know the Twin defenders have arguments and I have referred to a number of their arguments in my recent posts. The problem is not the lack of argument. The problem is that you and cfp (and potentially other Twin defenders that I can't as readily cite) continue to state those arguments for Twin's unbanning as if they are bulletproof gospel. Whenever someone challenges those arguments, we often see irate rebuttals about how the pro-Twin arguments are "facts" and the arguments against Twin are "false." Similarly, you accuse users, like myself, of being "biased" and "disingenuous" just because we are arguing against Twin, while simultaneously mischaracterizing and misquoting posts, as you did with my comments and rcw's. Add to this provocative comments like "'bUt nOBOdy lO0keD aTT thE DaTA'" and I am struggling to see how you want people to productively engage you in conversation. Which, in turn, circles back to my allegation that Twin discussion is one-sided with many of the Twin players, most recently you and CFP, not actually wanting to debate. Instead, it appears that you just want to repeat your theories as if they are facts.
To be clear, I agree the Twin ban was ineffective. I literally posted and ran those numbers you cited (https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/modern-archives/797415-the-state-of-modern-thread-b-r-20-08-2018?comment=216). But the ineffectiveness of a ban at accomplishing its stated goals is not sufficient to unban a card. In addition to this, the unban must also be a safe unban in the current format that will reasonably increase diversity. See literally every Modern unban for an example of this. By all measures, a Twin unban will probably keep diversity the same by just reshuffling top decks. It does not seem likely to increase diversity. I have never seen Wizards unban a card to reshuffle diversity, which means this unban is probably not happening. Moreover, there is still a risk that Twin would overall decrease diversity by making more decks less competitive than it made other decks more competitive. So if the best case scenario is reshuffling diversity and if the worst case scenario is decreasing diversity, that seems like a bad unban. I expect some Twin defenders will categorically ignore this possible risk, which will only underscore my point that the goal isn't debate. Maybe I'm proven wrong and we can have a substantive discussion about that risk, but it hasn't happened recently.
Of course there is a risk. It was a legit Tier 1 deck, for a very long period of time unlike the cyclical decks we have today.
All that I listed above, are facts. As you note, you came to the same results. Now is there a reason to unban on that basis alone? Of course not. Is there a reason a 'need' to unban the card?
Nope.
Is there a reason to keep it banned?
Nope.
Edit: what challenges to the arguments put forward by 'twin defenders' have even been made? My ignore list isn't that long, but I don't remember a single numbers driven argument that has not been debunked.
When I say my list is fact, prove me wrong. Put the shoe on the other foot. You and I looked at the same numbers. Cfusionpm showed that not for breakers we don't even see the offensive top 8 %.
What numbers has any anti twin argument ever provided?
Spirits
This Twin debate is like a reassembling skeleton that refuse to die. As a mere spectator, I've seen both sides present seemingly valid arguments. I think we need WoTC to at least unban Twin for a few months, let it loose in this environment. As the deck diversity of 2015 is clearly different from 2018 onwards. After those months they find Twin oppressive, then they can just ban it again like how they did with Golgari Grave Troll.
And probably I like to see SFM and Twin unbanned, so I could sell them at a decent price - ulterior motive $_$ -
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
Also with Dan Lanthier recently outed as a cheater, we have one of the two Twin GP winners (who was pushed into the T8 on tiebreakers) called into question as well. Surely just an irrelevant coincidence that had no effect on history...
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I'm tired of the whole conversation. Modern is 'fine' but I'm having a lot more fun just messing around in Arena (cast a Saga, its awesome!) than I am slogging through the absolute degeneracy that is MTGO Modern right now, so this thread can go to sleep for a few days till the SCG Open. Hopefully the paper world catches up to what is doing work.
Spirits
What I'm really afraid of is online magic, whether it be MTGO or Arena, slowly erasing paper magic. Modern has been some of the most fun, and frustration, I've had in Magic, and I'm lucky to have a robust LGS that I can play at regularly. It's very troubling to me that Wizards has made it clear that Modern won't be supported on Arena, and that Arena is the platform they want to ride into the future.
I personally will never move to online magic, I'm sure many feel the same way for different reasons. I personally like sitting face to face with people, it's a big draw for me that goes beyond why the game pulls me in. Until they stop printing paper cards, I'll be a paper player. When that day comes, I will likely not play magic anymore.
"Reveal a Dragon"
I cant speak to numbers, but Arena is just fun. I dont think it will ever cater to those who are playing hardcore paper/mtgo events though. Its framework is not 'crunch' its very loose, or seems to be intended to feel that way anyway.
Spirits
I don't doubt it's fun, but I think you're onto something. It doesn't seem like Arena is meant for older and/or more competitive players. That is fine, but I'm worried about what happens to older cards and formats that Arena won't support. If it gets the success that WotC is looking for, and they keep the current party line of not putting older formats into it, then I'm afraid that will spell the end of those formats.
Yeah you know that 56 card deck that gave you free information wasn't busted at all.
Because nothing really has changed with the Twin deck. All of the cards that have been printed and unbanned in the last three years, almost nothing goes into Twin. The only thing would be probably swapping Serum Visions for Opt, which is kind of a side-grade, and swapping the Jace Architect of Thoughts in the sideboard with Mind Sculptors, which is an upgrade, but only against a narrow portion of the field. If you unbanned Twin right now, its power level would be very close to what it was in 2015. Twin has gotten a tiny bit better, but Modern as a whole has gotten a lot stronger since 2015. The fact that Twin was a very borderline ban back then is evidence that it would most likely be fine now, when you take that into account. And of course there are always risks with any unban, that's implied with any unban talk. I think it's much easier to gauge those risks with Twin than with something like SFM, though, because Twin has actually been in this format before. It's a known quantity. Twin isn't going to get unbanned and suddenly be even better than it was in 2015. It will be worse, the question is if it's worse by an acceptable margin. If Twin is still 10% of the meta, should it be unbanned? Probably not. If it's 7 or 8%? Yeah, it probably should be. That's the real discussion, how much worse would Twin be right now than it was in 2015 compared to the rest of Modern as a whole? Has Modern yet reached a point where Twin would be just another good Modern deck?
I think it's two things. First, Pod was a more reasonable ban. It did surprise some people, but Pod was like 20% of the meta when it got banned, and had been arguably the best deck in Modern since the DRS banning. Second, there were similar archetypes to move to. Collected Company came out soon after the Pod ban, and basically replaced it as the value engine in creature decks. Twin has never really had a replacement. WotC thought Kiki-Jiki could be a replacement, but the deck wasn't playable with Kiki.
And I think that's a ridiculous argument (I have heard that one before). People said the same thing about GDS when they wanted it banned. Turning life loss into a positive breaks the game, being discouraged from attacking your GDS opponent makes for unhealthy play lines, etc. But look at the rest of Modern. Tron forces you to blitz them, because if they assemble Tron you're just going to die. Decks like Dredge, Bridgevine, and Bogles make your removal worthless. Storm actually behaves in a similar way to how Twin used to: you have to hold up removal and put them under a clock, but Storm can actually still kill you through your removal, which Twin couldn't do. Arguing against the game play Twin generated is such a useless argument when you consider some of the truly rancid game play that other Modern decks generate.
That's not true, we've always addressed arguments we've seen, there are just never any arguments that are convincing and not easily torn down. The arguments from anti-Twin people basically always boil down to "it was too strong in 2015," which is debatable, and "I didn't like it." Those aren't good reasons to keep it banned in (almost) 2019. If you can produce a good argument for why it shouldn't be unbanned any time soon, we'd all love to hear it. In fact, I'll actually give you one myself: I think SFM should be unbanned first, and I don't think they should unban both SFM and Twin at the same time, so I think we should get SFM in January, and as long as nothing radically changes in Modern, Twin in 6 months to a year afterwards.
Because literally no one has ever been able to satisfactorily refute any of those points.
See: Wild Nacatl.
And I don't agree that this should be a prerequisite to unbanning something. Things shouldn't be banned if they are within the power level of the format. That is the only thing that matters to me. If Twin is unbanned and it becomes like 6% of the format and the format overall isn't more diverse than it was before, but isn't less diverse either, then that's a good unban to me.
And that would only happen if Twin became a sizeable portion of the meta when it got unbanned. If Twin is like 6% of the meta, it will have very little effect on the overall landscape of the format. If it was unbanned and it became 12% of the format, then it would have an impact. My argument is that it would almost certainly be less than 12%, because Modern's overall power level has risen much more than the power level of Twin, taking into account new cards Twin has gotten since its ban.
That's really all we've been asking for. We'll never really know for sure if Twin is ok yet until they try it. I personally would like to see them be much more fluid with the ban list, taking bigger risks with unbans, but also being transparent that they reserve the right to reban things soon after if they are obviously still not ok. Like, I personally see the Golgari Grave-Troll unban as a huge success. It got people excited about the Dredge archetype, which didn't exist in Modern before. Further cards forced it to be rebanned, but maybe nobody finds the Prized Amalgam and Cathartic Reunion build if GGT never gets unbanned because people aren't brewing with Dredge?
UBR Grixis Shadow UBR
UR Izzet Phoenix UR
UW UW Control UW
GB GB Rock GB
Commander
BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG
BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
I don't have much more to say except maybe they're waiting for a time that the format becomes stale, that they need to unban strong cards like Twin or SFM.
Agreed that it's a huge success. The unban stimulated interest in the deck, and after some brewing.. another competitive deck was added to the format. Then when the deck became too strong.. his WoTC overlords told the troll that his job in Modern is done.. pack his bags and go back to Legacy land. I guess that's a happy ending. ^__^
I was lurking around the Dredge thread during the troll ban. Some people were demoralized... but it was eventually discovered that the deck is still viable without GGT. Just like Summer Bloom ban did not stop Amulet Titan, the GGT ban also not enough to stop Dredge.
Today no one is afraid of a one mana 3/3 when we have one mana 5/5 and one mana 4/5 turn 2 or turn 3 from GDS, one or two free 4/4's at turn 1 from Hollow One, multiple free 2/2 and self-reanimating 4/3 with haste from Bridgevine.
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
UBR Grixis Shadow UBR
UR Izzet Phoenix UR
UW UW Control UW
GB GB Rock GB
Commander
BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG
BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
Just because nacatl eventually became completely fine for the format doesn't mean it was always fine. It's entirely possible that at the time of its banning, those concerns were valid. Moreso, that the ban actually worked as intended. That's possible too.
Im as glad as anyone that we can have toys back as the format evolves. Personally I think birthing pod looks kinda silly these days on that list (despite being a genuine problem at the time of its banning). However, just because nacatl eventually came back doesn't allow you to carte blanche just say "see it was always fine". That's a logical fallacy.
And if my beloved birthing pod was ever to return in a similar manner, I certainly wouldn't say "see it was always fine" because we all know that at the time of its banning, it was a format warping card.
I played Pod, close to all of the different versions (be it Kiki-Pod (loved the deck), Angle Pod, Melira Pod, value Pod and so on) and I would never advocate an unban of the card given the current Metagame. I "know" (know in sense of: I played the deck a lot, played against it a lot, have experience so I make an educated guess) that Pod would break the meta apart, again. Hence, I do not "lobby" for a Pod unban, cause why should I if I feel, that Pod wouldn't be healthy for the metagame?
I got personally hit by a lot of bans, be it GSZ, Second Sunrise, Pod, DTT/TC, Seething Song (rip Increasing Vengeance Ritual Gifts), DRS and GGT. Did I play the "broken" incranation of the card? Only in the case of TC and Second Sunrise (GSZ = Counter Cat, Pod mainly Kiki Pod (but when I wanted to win a tournament), DTT Scapeshift, Seething Song = Ritual Gifts, DRS = BUG Midrange and GGT in Zombieloam). Am I sad, that I can no longer play those decks at all basically? Yes, but ***** happens to say it this way.
Would I advocate for an unban for any of those cards? Not on the current powerlevel, not with the decisions Wizard has taken in the past and also, not with the current approach to Modern.
Greetings,
Kathal
PS: Fun fact: So far I have a 100% hit rate on the unbanned cards, aka what influence they will have on the format ^^
Modern/Legacy
either funpolice (Delver, Deathcloud, UW Control) or the fun decks (especially those ft. Griselbrand)
^This.
On Pod: I think Birthing pod is pretty high on the list of risky cards to unban, a lot higher than cards like GSZ, SFM, Punishing Fire, and Twin to name a few. As pointed out before (i think iSurge said it), the Twin archtype didnt get too much outside Opt and Jace for the side board. As for Pod, they got A LOT of things since its ban, so its super hard to even ball park its power level in current Modern
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
As I said in the quoted post, the ineffectiveness of a ban is not SUFFICIENT to justify an unban. I.e. the ineffectiveness cannot solely be the reason. The unban must ALSO increase diversity. Nacatl was unbanned BOTH because the initial ban was ineffective AND Wizarda believed an unban would increase format diversity. It was not unbanned just because the ban was ineffective. Twin is an ineffective ban but there is very little certainty it will increase diversity. The likeliest scenario based on GP #s is a flat diversity effect overall, with some unknown risk of decreased diversity and some unknown chance of increased diversity. Given this, it's not a safe unban for Wizards. Wizards has never unbanned a card to simply reshuffle top decks.
EDIT: As for the rest of your post, I'm not responding to ever point. There are so many mischaracterizations of my argument in there that it's not worth it. In fact, this quoted piece above is itself a mischaracterization of my argument because you literally separated the two stated reasons for Nacatl's unbanning and treated them as separate. You split up my two sentences, and then attempted to refute only the first sentence with the Nacatl example when it was very clear that both sentences were about Nacatl together. Another flagrant example of this frustrating Twin defender argumentation style is you accusing me of making a straw man argument (this is itself a good indicator that a post is mischaracterizing someone's argument) regarding top-tier blue decks. I clearly state this as a historical example, not a current one, of Twin players shifting their argument over time. Many Twin players in this thread belittled Jeskai's early 2018 success on the SCG circuit and then doubted UW's success in Summer 2018. It's just another historical example of the same small cohort of Twin players that has consistently posted in this thread since 2016 (idsurge, cfp, the late hellfire, recently yourself, etc.) and wanted this card unbanned regardless of what the format looked like.
I dont think there is a 0% chance of interest in eternal formats falling off a bit. I'm an 'old' player, and this fit's my schedule, is just plain old kitchen table fun, and is free. You can just build up your deck/gold and then buy into a draft for free. It seems win/win right now.
Might just be my dissatisfaction with Modern speaking, and I dont play Legacy...but yeah.
Unban, no...
Spirits
Unban, no. That's precisely what I said. The criteria for banning and unbanning are different. Making disappointed remarks at bans with the benefit of 2.75 years of hindsight does not indict the ban at the time. There are other reasons that ban was bad at the time which I literally wrote the longest article (that I know of) on the Internet about. But bans are not reversed because they were shady or unjust.
To be clear, Wizards did not ban Twin to reshuffle top decks. They banned it to increase diversity. This ban does not appear to have achieved its stated goals, so now the question is, should they reverse it? By all previous indicators, Wizards only reverses old bans if they think the reversal would also increase diversity, mot merely undo an ineffective ban. They don't solely do it to "right a wrong" or "do justice" or something like that, which is what I think you and other pro-Twin posters want.
Again, I cite the Nacatl case that I literally just posted about. Nacatl was banned to increase diversity. The ban did not achieve its stated goal. Wizards then unbanned Nacatl both because it failed and to increase diversity by reintroducing the card.
Agree on what you said about Pod. BP has so many new toys to play with, it's power level would certainly be much higher if unbanned now.
Although it feels nostalgic in a nice way. Remembering those good old days when people are talking about what to put into their pod decks.
Oh, and sorry to hear you experienced a lot of bannings.
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
I remain, unconvinced. I dont expect a reversal of the ban, not from the company that has people say 'Wouldnt Sword of the Meek make Lantern obnoxious?' they would simply say 'wouldnt UWR control just put the combo in?' they would be wrong, but thats what they would say.
Simply put, I do not believe the party line from Forsythe on this ban, at all.
Spirits
the nature of arena is pretty explicit. the design intent is to provide the mtg experience at a faster pace, and to be more in tune with player convenience. its a page right out of blizzards play book, and in line with one of their more well known design mottos "simple to play, difficult to master"
i wouldnt worry too much about older formats. could arena pull players away from modern? sure, but that is kind of the point.
we know a couple of things for certain. wizards has to solve how to handle card rotation in arena. whether that is modern, or some other format (meant specifically for arena or otherwise); is yet to be seen. next, we know that modern, if ever implemented, will not be any time soon. the game is still in open beta, and wizards is obligated to release a polished product as quickly as possible. implementing the modern card pool; including animations/art, rules engine updates, and subsequent testing is very resource intensive and wizards isnt primarily a video game producer (ie smaller team, less money to throw at the game, etc).
modern in paper form exists mostly by necessity. powerful standard cards need an outlet post-rotation. wizards could theoretically create some modern-modern format (ie something like frontier), but creating a good format isnt easy and modern is good by almost any metric you can think of. it would go beyond 'if it aint broke dont fix it' securely into 'its working great, lets bash it with a hammer' territory to do so.
legacy and vintage are niche formats. played exclusively by the old guard or established collectors/wealthy players. they wont die because the players wont let them.
mtgo similarly has a unique home as a digital tournament platform, and a home for modern, legacy, vintage, pauper, or whatever else (momir yooooo). again, it would take years and years for arena to be comprehensive enough to cover all of those bases. just look at hearthstone, it still has only barebones features to support tournament play; even after all these years and the resources at blizzards disposal.
edit: oh yeah, and if anything is strangling paper magic; its players and not wizards. sure they could be handling things better, but they are battling against a fast evolving social and commercial environment. arena is just a response.
for example consider, did netflix (or even stuff like redbox) truly kill blockbuster? partially, however the true culprit was broadband internet services becoming mainstream and the rise of e-commerce. services adapt to improvements to technology and subsequently sociological trends, or they get left behind.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)By this metric, I think there's an argument that a Twin unban could increase top tier format diversity. Decks which are around but don't do much like Faeries, Delver, and Wizards would simply disappear while Twin takes their place, so the total number of decks in the format would decline, but the total number of top tier decks would likely increase. Assuming of course that the current top tier could remain competitive with Twin.
I think modern is in a very difficult position in terms of online support in arena. The thing that butchered standard was not necessarily bad design, but a design that was about a player executing a game plan without concern for what the opponent was doing. Approach of the Second Sun, the negation of the ability to block with Ramunap red, indestructable creatures that were neigh unanswerable, energy having no way to be interacted with, and value creatures such as Phoenix and the scarab god were just brutal.
To a massive casual audience, is there even a way to play something in modern other than strait aggro without having a ton of cards backlogged? If not would the environment really be different from kaladesh standard?
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!