MTG Salvation

Quote from Lord Seth »

Then that's on you if you somehow find that troubling despite the date and its finish being that it placed in a random daily. Like how you said you didn't care about the meta breakdown or results, you're making a claim, then refusing to look at the things that that claim actually depends on.

Twin is lame...

I ignored nothing. You claimed the meta was somehow stale due to there being various builds of Twin. I pointed out how most of those builds were Tier 3/4 decks and thus not relevant to any level of staleness, and that two of the ones you mentioned were just the same deck with different splashes.

Oh look, twin in all colors of the rainbow, still lame....

I'm not creating anything at all to refute. Your argument, at least as presented, is that bad. If you think I'm attacking a "strawman" it's only because your argument is so built out of straw that any attack on it is inherently attacking a strawman.

I made a complaint and gave evidence, you created an argument to refute - which you have done quite narrowly and poorly.

I'm not trolling. I'm pointing out how your arguments that you started are nonsensical.

It makes no sense for me to have an opinion? Thank goodness you are here and not in congress....

So, basically, you're admitting you had no actual argument there? Because if there's nothing wrong with Rending Volley, then your entire mention of it was entirely irrelevant. The natural assumption of you complaining about the effects of Twin and saying "it justifies WOTC printing cards like Rending Volley" is that there's somehow something wrong with Rending Volley, because otherwise you shouldn't mention it at all.

Again, man you're really bad at this. Read my statement carefully, it doesn't imply that there's something wrong with Rending Volley, but rather something unfortunate that WOTC had to print it. Its a small part of the larger aspect of how Twin shapes alot of what gets printed or unbanned for Modern. You are completely out of touch if you don't see that.

I play against Twin atleast three times a day on mtgo, I've come across it multiple times at various Modern live events, etc and beat it consistently.
If I wanted something banned because I lost alot to it, I'd advocate to ban something from Tron.
My argument is that Twin in a larger part restricts the format, whether its in subtle things like random Shapeshift-Twin deck running it and placing in an "irrelevant" event, WOTC printing narrow cards to disrupt it, when people bring up unbanning cantrips like Ponder etc or even whether Counterspell would be good for the format, a strong comment is always "well how much stronger do we need Twin to get".

Now as a sidenote:
Personally, when someone cast Tasigur, Tarmogyf or cycle a Street Wraith then turns around and cast a Deceiver Exacrch I find it humorous at first, then sad.
If you want to attack that you can, you can provide all the statistics, "logic" and data you want, you can declare it "nonsensical" and lay out your declaration or say I don't like what you claim to be "diversity".
But to me, the fact will remain, it will always just be sad.

Why is it sad though? Not that that last example would be any good imo, but what is wrong with Grixis Twin, or RUG Twin, both of which play differently, and have different strengths and weaknesses and ALL of which (UR, Grixis, RUG) make up a combined % that while solid, is not overwhelming?

Just because you can put the pieces in other decks, doesnt mean anything, it doesnt automatically improve those decks, and people just do it for...who knows what reason.

Quote from streetMage »

Twin is lame...

Subjective, and not an argument.

I ignored nothing. You claimed the meta was somehow stale due to there being various builds of Twin. I pointed out how most of those builds were Tier 3/4 decks and thus not relevant to any level of staleness, and that two of the ones you mentioned were just the same deck with different splashes.

Oh look, twin in all colors of the rainbow, still lame....

Still not an actual argument, just a personal statement.

I made a complaint and gave evidence, you created an argument to refute - which you have done quite narrowly and poorly.

You gave a weak complaint with an attempt at evidence, and I pointed out how your complaint didn't make sense and your evidence was weak for it.

Your claim was that the format was "stale" and claimed that Twin being in a bunch of different kinds of decks was proof of that. Exactly how it is you didn't really explain, but based on previous posts you've made I think your complaint is that the combo goes into too many kinds of decks. I've pointed out how most of those different kinds of decks that try running Twin aren't very good (because stuffing the combo into them makes them weaker, perhaps?) and thus really shouldn't be counted. However, let's ignore that for now. Let's suppose that, sure, those decks are bona fide Twin decks. The problem is that the total sum of all decks with the combo isn't problematically high. Heck, all Twin variants put together aren't as big a force right now as Affinity or the BGx variants (heck, Jund by itself is at nearly the percentage of all the Twin decks put together, and if you combine Jund and Junk the percentage is significantly higher than Twin decks). If you want to complain about stale-ness, attacking BGx would make a lot more sense than Twin. Or the general URx shell, of which Twin is just one implementation.

I'm not trolling. I'm pointing out how your arguments that you started are nonsensical.

It makes no sense for me to have an opinion? Thank goodness you are here and not in congress....

When your "opinion" is based on highly questionable claims, then yes it makes no sense.

Again, man you're really bad at this. Read my statement carefully, it doesn't imply that there's something wrong with Rending Volley, but rather something unfortunate that WOTC had to print it. Its a small part of the larger aspect of how Twin shapes alot of what gets printed or unbanned for Modern. You are completely out of touch if you don't see that.

Are you aware that Rending Volley was part of a 5-card "enemy color hoser" cycle? They may have had Twin in mind with its specific implementation, but they would have printed it or at least something very similar even if Twin didn't exist as a deck. Unless you think that GW Hatebears caused them to print Self-Inflicted Wound? Or that ExarchTwin somehow shaped the printing of Combust (a very similar card to Rending Volley that was also part of a 5-card "enemy color hoser" cycle) even though the combo didn't exist until almost a year later? And you can't even claim Combust was done preemptively because WOTC straight up missed that combo in development, so they could hardly have been trying to preemptively stop a combo they didn't know about.

I play against Twin atleast three times a day on mtgo, I've come across it multiple times at various Modern live events, etc and beat it consistently.
If I wanted something banned because I lost alot to it, I'd advocate to ban something from Tron.

It's funny that you keep claiming I'm attacking a strawman and attacking things you didn't say, when I never once claimed that you were hard on Twin because you lost to it.

My argument is that Twin in a larger part restricts the format, whether its in subtle things like random Shapeshift-Twin deck running it and placing in an "irrelevant" event,

A single deck placing in a minor event 2 years ago has no bearing whatsoever on the current format.

In 2013, a UWR Midrange deck won a Grand Prix. That's a far bigger event than the one you cited. Want to know how relevant that UWR Midrange win is nowadays? Not at all.

WOTC printing narrow cards to disrupt it,

As already discussed, it was part of a larger cycle.

I'm guessing that the printing of the better version of Sowing Salt shows that GR Tron is a problem, because they're printing "narrow" cards to deal with it.

when people bring up unbanning cantrips like Ponder etc or even whether Counterspell would be good for the format, a strong comment is always "well how much stronger do we need Twin to get".

Or "how much stronger do we need Delver to get" or "how much stronger do we need Grixis Control to get" or "how much stronger do we need the Blue deck of the week, which is sometimes Twin, to get."

Now as a sidenote:
Personally, when someone cast Tasigur, Tarmogyf or cycle a Street Wraith then turns around and cast a Deceiver Exacrch I find it humorous at first, then sad.
If you want to attack that you can, you can provide all the statistics, "logic" and data you want, you can declare it "nonsensical" and lay out your declaration or say I don't like what you claim to be "diversity".

So again you're essentially admitting to making claims and ignoring when actual objective data says things other than what you're saying.

I wouldn't mind a Hive Mind ban, since the only way to interact with it is by playing blue.

It's not really necessary right now, though.

If they ban anything, i feel like it will be amulet of vigor. Personally, I hope they leave the format alone for a change. Nothing is too oppressive. All the good decks have bad matchup against other tier 1 decks. They have been too loose with the ban hammer in modern in my opinion. Give the format time to work itself out or print a fall set with some actual modern playables in it and less people will be crying about broken decks. Oh wait, not they wont....this is the internet.

Due to turn four rule only thing semi justifiable is Hive mind imo. Twin is fine, but banning anything after a top 8 with 8 different decks would be in poor taste

Spreading seas.

Then print a spreading seas without the cantrip.

Wizards pls!

Quote from Imborj »

Spreading seas.

Then print a spreading seas without the cantrip.

Wizards pls!

That is call Sea's Claim