im skeptical of how 'self evident' the correct course of action is. its not like anyone here is in perfect agreement on how the format should be handled, so if we assume wizards are fools then they arent going to fair any better. likewise if we believe they are super genius game/format designers so they MUST see the 'obviously right' way to handle modern, then it wouldnt have gotten to this position in the first place.
honestly i hope they do unban twin, because at this point i dont think it would even make a dent in how modern operates and the direction its going. its just one more deck doing a powerful thing in a field full of decks doing powerful things caught in ebbing and flowing equilibrium because everyone is checking eachothers ability to influence the 'meta'.
oh ill play twin to beat up on these linear decks, nevermind ill play gds to beat up on twin, no wait ill play humans to beat up on gds players, no that wont work ill play spirits, ehhh make that phoenix, haha just kidding i meant amulet titan. so then you show up with twin because twin is life, then proceed to get dumpstered by hollow one, hardened scales, and some other random deck.
damn that sounds like fair decks really got a shot to play some slower games!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
I cannot look at the last 6+ months of Modern, and say 'yeah SFM should stay banned, and nothing needs to be tweaked'. I DO assume Wizards are either fools, or have ulterior motives with how they manage the ban list beyond 'format health' and the fact they can crow about 'no changes' while providing ZERO meaningful information over the year on the actual health of the format which they have intentionally hidden from us?
Puts me into a massive tailspin.
You are probably right, Twin wouldnt really help fair decks, as GDS would probably do the job Jund used to do. Its almost like more changes would be required to really make playing fair worth it.
I cannot look at the last 6+ months of Modern, and say 'yeah SFM should stay banned, and nothing needs to be tweaked'. I DO assume Wizards are either fools, or have ulterior motives with how they manage the ban list beyond 'format health' and the fact they can crow about 'no changes' while providing ZERO meaningful information over the year on the actual health of the format which they have intentionally hidden from us?
Puts me into a massive tailspin.
You are probably right, Twin wouldnt really help fair decks, as GDS would probably do the job Jund used to do. Its almost like more changes would be required to really make playing fair worth it.
the point i was trying to make is that the 'correct' path as you put it may not be as self evident as you make it out to be. design of any type, including games, can only be qualitatively assessed to a point because naturally people are different - including the designers themselves. so getting on the same page, let alone locating it in the first place, isnt always plausible. sometimes the best you can hope for is having the right book and chapter.
i pointed out users in this forum/thread precisely to showcase this. we think about modern alot, and care enough to post our thoughts, yet constantly disagree on some very fundamental points.
consider the following claims:
-'format health' being good for the game, improves its quality and thus its popularity
-caring about format health is profitable
-designers are employed and work for a living towards a better product that is profitable
-mtg and modern evolve over time
-constant evolution allows for iterative adjustments
-adjustments are a means of experimentation, and dont always work
-they dont always work because the game, and its formats, are too complex to see every outcome
-the objectives involved with and the definition of what is good or healthy aren't immutable
if you think those are true, then here is what i am getting at: yes its possible wizards is just flagrantly incompetent or has some ulterior motive that makes them choose the incorrect path. however, and its the option i left out on purpose, its equally likely, if not more, that they are just regular people trying to do right by the format and the game and are having difficulty because a lot of it isnt clear cut and might change over time. complete incompetence can be disproved by what they have gotten right, and ive yet to hear of any reasonable or likely ulterior motive that supercedes making the format/good because it makes them money.
i feel like im constantly playing the role of apologist because nobody wants to view things from another perspective. instead of speaking in absolutes and rhetoric, which i clearly do plenty, i also think there is value in understanding how they view modern and their objectives for the format to make some sense of it; even if i may not personally agree.
for example with the twin ban. many people label it as some indefensible mistake. it was a mistake but hardly indefensible. shake up the PT? why would you want to give a format and competitive players a kick in the ass? if the benefit is money and the motive greed, how does their decision translate to said money?
image, perception, visibility, interest, excitement for the new, purchasing the new, exploration, engagement, longevity. there i just summed it up.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
Splinter Twin has no upside, as Aaron Forsythe said in a previous tweet of him("A card needs to have an upside to be unbanned").
All it's going to do is slightly reduce the diversity, and Wizards certainly do not want this.
Now, do I want it to be unbanned? It does not even matter. Wizards does not.
Twin does have upside. The upside is that it's good against the linear non-interactive aggro/combo decks that are plaguing Modern right now, and it gets beat by interactive fair decks, so even if it didn't have a huge impact on the format, it would nudge it at least slightly towards being slower and more fair. That's exactly the effect most of us want right now.
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
I don’t really get how twin is “unfair” sure it combos off but never before t4. Also decks are currently already starting to run rending volley to deal with Titi so it’s starting to already have hate cards built into some decks (granted not common currently).
I don’t really get how twin is “unfair” sure it combos off but never before t4. Also decks are currently already starting to run rending volley to deal with Titi so it’s starting to already have hate cards built into some decks (granted not common currently).
I don't think the argument for Twin is that it's a fair deck. At least, I hope not. It's definitely not fair by any definition I've ever seen or tried to craft. The argument is that Twin, although an unfair deck, decreases overall format speed because it disincentivizes players from running all-in T2, T3, or T4 decks. These fast decks tend to lose to Bolt, Remand, and Exarch/Mite tapdown followed by a lethal T4 combo. Twin also slows down games with the tempo gain of threatening the combo. As such, players might be more likely to run a grindier, more interactive deck that doesn't flat out lose to Twin. Or play their fast deck slower (e.g. Spellskite in Infect or holding up removal). This is the old 2015 "Twin test." The Twin proponents will argue that this test/effect increases the format's fundamental turn, generating overall more interactive games of Modern.
One problem with this argument is that the format isn't overall significantly faster now than in 2015. Only about 2% more games end before T4 now than in 2015, and we have no clue what share of those 2% of games are due to Twin's absence vs. new cards. It's hard to sell a Twin unban on the stake of 2% of games.
A more defensible argument is that Twin has an "appropriate power level" for the current Modern. That was the BB unban justification, and it's a very good standard for SFM. Of course, especially with Twin, the problem there is that it's hard to prove appropriateness without thousands of test games.
An infinite damage combo that is 2 cards, that happens at instant speed while disrupting? Its not 'fair' magic.
Twin has flash now?
Bruh, come on.
Turn 3 EOT - Pesterminte/Exarch, tap you down, Untap, Twin.
Bruh it’s not an instant speed combo... misrepresenting what twin was is everything twin advocates hate. I personally don’t have a problem with twin at all. Every card in modern just changes the met, some will argue for good and some for bad change is change.
The fact you can play it at pseudo instant speed, turn 3, when mana is still tight, to protect the cast of twin, is what separates Twin, from Kiki.
I mean if we want to pretend that these minor edges ( 4 mana, RR vs RRR, starting turn 3 instead of 4) don't actually have a huge impact, well the proof is there, 3 years of it.
Free Wins matter, and Twin had it's fair share.
I don't think we even disagree really, but it's ability to attack instantly off the end step is also why Copy Cat is bad, in comparison to Twin.
I feel the focus should be which argument is best. Attacking consistency should have a specific metric, but once again I feel the need to address the larger problem Modern has. It's Speed. These types of bannings have happened in the past namely with Rite of Flame and Seething Song. Meanwhile consistency has been banned with cards like Ponder and Preordain.
From various cited sources, we can agree Wizards has a philosophy of consistency where Ponder is above what they want in a Cantrip and that Serum Visions fits the mold of the format. The same can be said about Red Rituals, where Desperate Ritual fits the mold but Seething Song does not. I feel attacking consistency is such a weird concept for Wizards to take a stance on. They incorporated Scry into recent design, and changed the color pie so that card selection is among more than just the notorious Blue of the past. They just printed a Sorcery Speed Impulse in Ravnica Allegiance and no one bats an eye.
Modern has no Free highly playable levels of counter Magic, and from that perspective of game design over the last 10+ years, we need to understand that cards which break the basic resource of the game (ie; Mana) are the cards we should definitely be under a closer scope than most other offenders.
This is why my stance is and always will be to ban both Mox Opal and Simian Spirit Guide. The cards would never pass current day design, and obviously break the mold of any possibility of interaction in the Modern format by simply "having it all". KCI can't loop effectively without Mox Opal. It also cannot combo faster, or have resilience and perfect mana. Simian Spirit Guide on the other hand, is nowhere near as prevalent as an offender, but it still feeds into tier 2 decks such as Grishoalbrand, Ad Nauseam, and Colorless Eldrazi along with Red Prison Decks denying any game experience whatsoever with a Turn 1 Blood Moon or Ensnaring Bridge.
I'd much rather live in a world where I know my opponent will do what their deck is designed to do on turns 3-4 than live in a world where we have the former, and a possibility included that these decks will win on turns 1-2 in addition.
If we go down this road of banning Ancient Stirrings, I feel it's just one of the weird Xerox options in Modern that define deck creation. Such as Street Wraith, Mishra's Bauble, Manamorphose, Faithless Looting and Serum Visions. Which in my opinion, makes deck creation in Modern a much more interesting and varied format.
I feel the focus should be which argument is best. Attacking consistency should have a specific metric, but once again I feel the need to address the larger problem Modern has. It's Speed. These types of bannings have happened in the past namely with Rite of Flame and Seething Song. Meanwhile consistency has been banned with cards like Ponder and Preordain.
From various cited sources, we can agree Wizards has a philosophy of consistency where Ponder is above what they want in a Cantrip and that Serum Visions fits the mold of the format. The same can be said about Red Rituals, where Desperate Ritual fits the mold but Seething Song does not. I feel attacking consistency is such a weird concept for Wizards to take a stance on. They incorporated Scry into recent design, and changed the color pie so that card selection is among more than just the notorious Blue of the past. They just printed a Sorcery Speed Impulse in Ravnica Allegiance and no one bats an eye.
Modern has no Free highly playable levels of counter Magic, and from that perspective of game design over the last 10+ years, we need to understand that cards which break the basic resource of the game (ie; Mana) are the cards we should definitely be under a closer scope than most other offenders.
This is why my stance is and always will be to ban both Mox Opal and Simian Spirit Guide. The cards would never pass current day design, and obviously break the mold of any possibility of interaction in the Modern format by simply "having it all". KCI can't loop effectively without Mox Opal. It also cannot combo faster, or have resilience and perfect mana. Simian Spirit Guide on the other hand, is nowhere near as prevalent as an offender, but it still feeds into tier 2 decks such as Grishoalbrand, Ad Nauseam, and Colorless Eldrazi along with Red Prison Decks denying any game experience whatsoever with a Turn 1 Blood Moon or Ensnaring Bridge.
I'd much rather live in a world where I know my opponent will do what their deck is designed to do on turns 3-4 than live in a world where we have the former, and a possibility included that these decks will win on turns 1-2 in addition.
If we go down this road of banning Ancient Stirrings, I feel it's just one of the weird Xerox options in Modern that define deck creation. Such as Street Wraith, Mishra's Bauble, Manamorphose, Faithless Looting and Serum Visions. Which in my opinion, makes deck creation in Modern a much more interesting and varied format.
Breaking rules is half of the fun of the game. Practically every modern deck abuses some aspect of the rules as much as it can and the difference between a Mox Opal in KCI and the way Dredge turns its graveyard into its hand to cast free things are not nearly as easy to separate as it seems.
I think that everything that isn't absolutely dominating high levels of play by a significant margin over the next best thing isn't usually banworthy. If we get the bantrain going on everything that abuses the rules, we would stop somewhere around a core set level of power.
Worse yet, we're doing exactly what I talked about earlier - making Magic boring. Almost all of the popular, legendary sets were the broken ones. It's by thinking out of the box and deliberately playing with power levels that the game grows, changes and becomes more interesting. If every set was Theros the game would die in a year.
The design philosophy has become a very oppressive thing, and some of the carefree designs of pre-modern magic would do us good. You can always ban things later anyway.
To be fair, As Foretold, Electrodominance, and Wilderness Reclamation are all pretty daring cards. Teferi, Search, Light Up the Stage...there are risks being taken.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
UW Spirits
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
honestly i hope they do unban twin, because at this point i dont think it would even make a dent in how modern operates and the direction its going. its just one more deck doing a powerful thing in a field full of decks doing powerful things caught in ebbing and flowing equilibrium because everyone is checking eachothers ability to influence the 'meta'.
oh ill play twin to beat up on these linear decks, nevermind ill play gds to beat up on twin, no wait ill play humans to beat up on gds players, no that wont work ill play spirits, ehhh make that phoenix, haha just kidding i meant amulet titan. so then you show up with twin because twin is life, then proceed to get dumpstered by hollow one, hardened scales, and some other random deck.
damn that sounds like fair decks really got a shot to play some slower games!
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Puts me into a massive tailspin.
You are probably right, Twin wouldnt really help fair decks, as GDS would probably do the job Jund used to do. Its almost like more changes would be required to really make playing fair worth it.
Spirits
the point i was trying to make is that the 'correct' path as you put it may not be as self evident as you make it out to be. design of any type, including games, can only be qualitatively assessed to a point because naturally people are different - including the designers themselves. so getting on the same page, let alone locating it in the first place, isnt always plausible. sometimes the best you can hope for is having the right book and chapter.
i pointed out users in this forum/thread precisely to showcase this. we think about modern alot, and care enough to post our thoughts, yet constantly disagree on some very fundamental points.
consider the following claims:
-'format health' being good for the game, improves its quality and thus its popularity
-caring about format health is profitable
-designers are employed and work for a living towards a better product that is profitable
-mtg and modern evolve over time
-constant evolution allows for iterative adjustments
-adjustments are a means of experimentation, and dont always work
-they dont always work because the game, and its formats, are too complex to see every outcome
-the objectives involved with and the definition of what is good or healthy aren't immutable
if you think those are true, then here is what i am getting at: yes its possible wizards is just flagrantly incompetent or has some ulterior motive that makes them choose the incorrect path. however, and its the option i left out on purpose, its equally likely, if not more, that they are just regular people trying to do right by the format and the game and are having difficulty because a lot of it isnt clear cut and might change over time. complete incompetence can be disproved by what they have gotten right, and ive yet to hear of any reasonable or likely ulterior motive that supercedes making the format/good because it makes them money.
i feel like im constantly playing the role of apologist because nobody wants to view things from another perspective. instead of speaking in absolutes and rhetoric, which i clearly do plenty, i also think there is value in understanding how they view modern and their objectives for the format to make some sense of it; even if i may not personally agree.
for example with the twin ban. many people label it as some indefensible mistake. it was a mistake but hardly indefensible. shake up the PT? why would you want to give a format and competitive players a kick in the ass? if the benefit is money and the motive greed, how does their decision translate to said money?
image, perception, visibility, interest, excitement for the new, purchasing the new, exploration, engagement, longevity. there i just summed it up.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)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
Spirits
Well the argument is if unfair x is fine, and kills on Turn 3, how is unfair y, which kills on turn 4, not fine?
Spirits
Twin has flash now?
I don't think the argument for Twin is that it's a fair deck. At least, I hope not. It's definitely not fair by any definition I've ever seen or tried to craft. The argument is that Twin, although an unfair deck, decreases overall format speed because it disincentivizes players from running all-in T2, T3, or T4 decks. These fast decks tend to lose to Bolt, Remand, and Exarch/Mite tapdown followed by a lethal T4 combo. Twin also slows down games with the tempo gain of threatening the combo. As such, players might be more likely to run a grindier, more interactive deck that doesn't flat out lose to Twin. Or play their fast deck slower (e.g. Spellskite in Infect or holding up removal). This is the old 2015 "Twin test." The Twin proponents will argue that this test/effect increases the format's fundamental turn, generating overall more interactive games of Modern.
One problem with this argument is that the format isn't overall significantly faster now than in 2015. Only about 2% more games end before T4 now than in 2015, and we have no clue what share of those 2% of games are due to Twin's absence vs. new cards. It's hard to sell a Twin unban on the stake of 2% of games.
A more defensible argument is that Twin has an "appropriate power level" for the current Modern. That was the BB unban justification, and it's a very good standard for SFM. Of course, especially with Twin, the problem there is that it's hard to prove appropriateness without thousands of test games.
Bruh, come on.
Turn 3 EOT - Pesterminte/Exarch, tap you down, Untap, Twin.
Spirits
Bruh it’s not an instant speed combo... misrepresenting what twin was is everything twin advocates hate. I personally don’t have a problem with twin at all. Every card in modern just changes the met, some will argue for good and some for bad change is change.
The fact you can play it at pseudo instant speed, turn 3, when mana is still tight, to protect the cast of twin, is what separates Twin, from Kiki.
I mean if we want to pretend that these minor edges ( 4 mana, RR vs RRR, starting turn 3 instead of 4) don't actually have a huge impact, well the proof is there, 3 years of it.
Free Wins matter, and Twin had it's fair share.
I don't think we even disagree really, but it's ability to attack instantly off the end step is also why Copy Cat is bad, in comparison to Twin.
Spirits
From various cited sources, we can agree Wizards has a philosophy of consistency where Ponder is above what they want in a Cantrip and that Serum Visions fits the mold of the format. The same can be said about Red Rituals, where Desperate Ritual fits the mold but Seething Song does not. I feel attacking consistency is such a weird concept for Wizards to take a stance on. They incorporated Scry into recent design, and changed the color pie so that card selection is among more than just the notorious Blue of the past. They just printed a Sorcery Speed Impulse in Ravnica Allegiance and no one bats an eye.
Modern has no Free highly playable levels of counter Magic, and from that perspective of game design over the last 10+ years, we need to understand that cards which break the basic resource of the game (ie; Mana) are the cards we should definitely be under a closer scope than most other offenders.
This is why my stance is and always will be to ban both Mox Opal and Simian Spirit Guide. The cards would never pass current day design, and obviously break the mold of any possibility of interaction in the Modern format by simply "having it all". KCI can't loop effectively without Mox Opal. It also cannot combo faster, or have resilience and perfect mana. Simian Spirit Guide on the other hand, is nowhere near as prevalent as an offender, but it still feeds into tier 2 decks such as Grishoalbrand, Ad Nauseam, and Colorless Eldrazi along with Red Prison Decks denying any game experience whatsoever with a Turn 1 Blood Moon or Ensnaring Bridge.
I'd much rather live in a world where I know my opponent will do what their deck is designed to do on turns 3-4 than live in a world where we have the former, and a possibility included that these decks will win on turns 1-2 in addition.
If we go down this road of banning Ancient Stirrings, I feel it's just one of the weird Xerox options in Modern that define deck creation. Such as Street Wraith, Mishra's Bauble, Manamorphose, Faithless Looting and Serum Visions. Which in my opinion, makes deck creation in Modern a much more interesting and varied format.
Probably not. I mean from the Twin players POV.
I'd rather they try a 2RR 2/1 Kiki.
Spirits
Since when was winning on turn 4 not allowed for the format? Don't they explicitly not want wins before turn 4, but 4+ is A-OK, regardless of type?
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
We all know that their 'rules' are not hard and fast.
Spirits
Curious, when did you start playing Modern?
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Breaking rules is half of the fun of the game. Practically every modern deck abuses some aspect of the rules as much as it can and the difference between a Mox Opal in KCI and the way Dredge turns its graveyard into its hand to cast free things are not nearly as easy to separate as it seems.
I think that everything that isn't absolutely dominating high levels of play by a significant margin over the next best thing isn't usually banworthy. If we get the bantrain going on everything that abuses the rules, we would stop somewhere around a core set level of power.
Worse yet, we're doing exactly what I talked about earlier - making Magic boring. Almost all of the popular, legendary sets were the broken ones. It's by thinking out of the box and deliberately playing with power levels that the game grows, changes and becomes more interesting. If every set was Theros the game would die in a year.
The design philosophy has become a very oppressive thing, and some of the carefree designs of pre-modern magic would do us good. You can always ban things later anyway.
Spirits