with the ban essentially 8th and 9th will be almost out of the picture (only underdog decks will play it's hosers),indirectly eliminating it's 'toxic' influence in the format ( as unpopular this opinion may be, it is for the longterm good), something most people here considered an almost offensive idea... 8th and 9th never belonged in Modern and were only in due to card frames, La Pille has confirmed this, it's much like the elementary school excercise that pictures a dog a cat and a snake and asks you to find the odd one...
He never said they never belonged in Modern, unless he made that explicit comment somewhere I didn't see. And while it is true they were in it because they started with the new card frame, that's true about everything in the format. One can maybe make a case that everything Ravnica onward would have been in the format (Ravnica was apparently a set considered as the starting point), but then we might as well say Mirrodin and Kamigawa never belonged in Modern, as they were "only in due to card frames."
When they were coming up with Modern, they had trouble deciding on the starting point, with suggestions ranging from Mercadian Masques to Invasion to Ravnica. They ultimately went with the new look because while it was arbitrary like everything else, they figured it was the least arbitrary due to there being an obvious visual change.
One might as well say that Odyssey and Onslaught were meant to be in Modern, but were excluded due to the card frames. They picked an arbitrary point, that's all, no sets were specifically meant or not meant to be in the format based on it.
no la pille said they were chosen due to card frame,
Which is why it's completely stupid to claim they were "only included" due to card frame. If they had decided to go with Invasion (a suggestion floated) then they would've been included as well. There were several points they considered starting the format, most of them included 8th and 9th Edition, so saying it was "only" due to this that they were included is really silly.
i say they have nothing modern about them,
Rather irrelevant. The format may be called "Modern" but that's just to differentiate it from Legacy and has nothing to do with how well it fits with 'modern card design' (indeed, much of the point of a nonrotating format is you get to play with the cards they don't fit such an idea). If we want it to be true to its name, then it should be just the last few blocks.
most of the pros do too
Come off it already. BBD and maybe one or two other guys at most is not "most pros."
the latest bannings are indirectly tied with 8th and 9th: Moon was responsible for Twin hosing it's bad MUs, Bloom broke it's namesake deck while Tron coupled with Bloom prevented more interactive strategies from flourishing to combat Twin, the reason none plays them are definately not the predictable and easy to prepare for burn and affinity, but the fact that no matter what you do you lost to Tron and BLoom and you were simply better of playing Twin
This is assuming that the Splinter Twin ban was right to begin with when it was extremely tenuous, and you seem to be exaggerating the effect of Blood Moon considering it generally only played a few copies in the sideboard. One can argue that 8th/9th gave Amulet Bloom the Summer Bloom, but by that logic we might as well say Zendikar was the problem because it gave it Amulet of Vigor.
In fact, one can argue just as easily that the "real" problem block here is Zendikar block. It gave Twin its titular card, it gave Amulet Bloom the Amulet of Vigor, and it gave Tron Emrakul and Expedition Map/Ancient Stirrings (the latter of which also goes into Bloom).
sounds farfetched? i'm sure it does, time will tell, but the problems 8th and 9th caused to the meta are becoming more and more obvious, even lantern as described as obnoxious (an untiered deck with sub 1% popularity?) which to me is confirmation of what i always suspected, some archetypes are simly not welcome in modern eggs were among them too, even if they didn't cause logistical reasons they'd ahve been banned for something else, the T4 rule is also just an excuse to get rid of such decks without apologising
Lantern also has absolutely nothing to do with 8th/9th Edition so I'm not sure why you brought it up.
Truth is, judging by Aaron's words, thats probably not true. Without a PT dictating when bans occur it means both Twin & Bloom might have probably been banned even sooner since they wouldn't have had to wait up until the PT to do so.
Truth is, most Modern player do not think Twin deserves a ban.
They did the same thing for POD a year ago. We are convinced that POD has to go because it restrict the design space for the ETB creatures.
Now they did the same thing for Twin. I cannot see any good reason behind except for the PT preparation.
It might, it might not. If Tron and Affinity both dominate tournaments for the next year and dominate the pro tour this year, sure, we should probably expect it. If the meta is diverse and unpredictable, I don't think anything will change.
Yay for subjectivity!
It's possible for Tron and Affinity to dominate while the meta is diverse... Just like twin. We can expect a ban sometime next year. The question is not will anything be banned: it's what will be banned. It's been acknowledged as such that the PT forces bannings to take place.
You have an opinion on this. That's fine. But it's possible for other's to have a different opinion with a less pessimistic outlook.
Again... this is NOT MY OPINION. This is what Aaron himself has said. He tweeted that the PT facilitates such banning to encourage new decks/brews.
New sets are not enough (by themselves) to completely change the modern format. So they will ALWAYS ban/unban something before the PT. It's just business.
Again, that's how you're INTERPRETING what he said. It can easily be read that they felt the PT needed a ban prior to it because the top 8 would be largely predictable (a very probable statement!) and thusly boring for coverage. If no such dominate decks exist next year then the 'need' to shake things up might not be present.
Your statement is contradictory. If a format does not have a "dominant deck" that does not inherently mean the meta is not predictable.
Also... it depends on how you "define" dominate. There are current decks that actually have a higher dominance/showing than twin.
I would argue that "dominance" equates to popularity. And the numbers tend to support that inclination.
It was banned not because it was "dominating" in the sense that it was keeping other decks from winning. It was banned because it was too popular and showing up too much in top 8s (which is due to being played more, not necessarily its power level).
Truth is, judging by Aaron's words, thats probably not true. Without a PT dictating when bans occur it means both Twin & Bloom might have probably been banned even sooner since they wouldn't have had to wait up until the PT to do so.
Truth is, most Modern player do not think Twin deserves a ban.
An opinion indeed!
There are plenty of people happy that it's gone. Plenty.
Truth is, judging by Aaron's words, thats probably not true. Without a PT dictating when bans occur it means both Twin & Bloom might have probably been banned even sooner since they wouldn't have had to wait up until the PT to do so.
Truth is, most Modern player do not think Twin deserves a ban.
An opinion indeed!
There are plenty of people happy that it's gone. Plenty.
I can respect and understand the people angry at losing their deck, that's fair.
I also respect and can understand the people who's faith in the format has been shaken by the Twin ban for "shake-up" reasons, especially when the format was sold to us as "non-rotating" and it was a reasonable expectation a deck like Twin would be in the format forever.
Setting aside being angry about those things for a moment; I'm not saying the feelings above are wrong, but just to pose a different question.
Doesn't a Modern format, where they make 4 new sets of cards per year and gradually ban stuff that either violates the format guidelines or has proven to be the top deck seem pretty fun?
Some quick answers:
I agree, what I am describing is not a "non-rotating" format, its a very slow rotating format that ensures each new set has a chance to impact the format.
I agree, this format would mean Modern has an underlying cost; expensive cards will occasionally get banned and we Modern players will likely have to keep up on new sets more than we would otherwise. It makes Modern more expensive for sure.
Personally, I still would enjoy the format I described above a lot more than Standard and Legacy; it would likely be less expensive than Standard to keep up with and have a power level I enjoy.
A huge problem with this is that despite whether or not it might have its own flavor of fun, it is precisely not what wizards promised us Modern would be. There is already an incredibly well supported format for rotationally driven Magic, and that is standard. Many players stop playing Standard because 1) they find the power level of the format unfun 2) they can't afford to keep buying new decks every rotation, or 3) both and more. If the original demand for Modern was for a format for the players who wanted a true non rotating eternal format but were priced out of legacy for its notorious card availability issues, this returns Magic to the position it found itself in before they came up with the Modern Format to solve it to begin with.
Some thoughts -
Where did Wizards promise us exactly what modern would be? How did this ban break that promise (because nerfing a deck does *not* constitute a rotation in my eyes)?
Second - how are people now priced out of the format? If anything, this should encourage prices to go DOWN. An affordable modern is a MUCH MUCH better modern, and if there are decks that are considered untouchable for a long period, I don't think we can have that because they push the prices of staples up.
@Hukos - On scapeshift - it was one of those 'If you're going to play a combo in UR just play Twin' things. It both lost to twin and wasn't quite as efficient in it's combo. It's got a great matchup against Tron and Eldrazi, and it can be tuned to fight against faster linear decks because it's packing MANY of the same things that Twin was doing.
I want to quickly say that while it may seem reasonable in the long term for prices to go down if you know things are going to get banned every year, the converse is that the Modern card pool is then consequently filled with a lot of speculation and/or buyout opportunities. If I'm not mistaken Kiki Jiki was almost instantly bought out with the B&R update, for example. I also was referring to legacy with the "priced out of the format," but if even keeping up with standard costs is too much for many players, adding a rotational cost to maintaining your Modern legal options hurts the financial viability of players trying to invest in the format.
For the question of what Wizards said Modern was going to be, I was referring to this article by LaPille: "As I said, many of you have called for a non-rotating format that doesn't have the card availability problems of Legacy. We propose Modern as that format." If we are accepting that a yearly tier 1 shakeup ban makes it a rotational format to some degree, this does not fulfill the role Modern was intended or even proposed to at the outset. http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/144
EDIT: I realized I didn't answer part of your question. Is this ban a rotation? No, not if viewed in isolation. But what I've been trying to illustrate is that the twin banning significantly lowers the bar to what we thought was the threshold of a dominance ban, to the degree that it is entirely feasible Affinity takes a similar hit next year for all the reasons twin did this year simply because it has the track record and has been one of the winningest decks in modern since its inception. So, if we have reason to believe we will get a heavy shakeup ban next year, as we have in the past 4 years even though this year seemed like the meta was actually the healthiest and most diverse it had ever been, it's reasonable to call such ban cycles a forced rotation.
Again, that's how you're INTERPRETING what he said. It can easily be read that they felt the PT needed a ban prior to it because the top 8 would be largely predictable (a very probable statement!) and thusly boring for coverage. If no such dominate decks exist next year then the 'need' to shake things up might not be present.
Your statement is contradictory. If a format does not have a "dominant deck" that does not inherently mean the meta is not predictable.
Also... it depends on how you "define" dominate. There are current decks that actually have a higher dominance/showing than twin.
I would argue that "dominance" equates to popularity. And the numbers tend to support that inclination.
Ok.
I think Aaron and the pro-tour team didn't want the same top 8 as last year and nerfed these two decks because of it. We're both speculating, we all are.
I don't understand this desire to underplay Twin, the deck was as close to tier 0 as the format has had for a long long time. The meta changing in the last 2/3 months to reflect not having more than 15% twin showings doesn't change anything about what we've seen out of the deck in the past.
Doesn't a Modern format, where they make 4 new sets of cards per year and gradually ban stuff that either violates the format guidelines or has proven to be the top deck seem pretty fun?
A huge problem with this is that despite whether or not it might have its own flavor of fun, it is precisely not what wizards promised us Modern would be. There is already an incredibly well supported format for rotationally driven Magic, and that is standard. Many players stop playing Standard because 1) they find the power level of the format unfun 2) they can't afford to keep buying new decks every rotation, or 3) both and more. If the original demand for Modern was for a format for the players who wanted a true non rotating eternal format but were priced out of legacy for its notorious card availability issues, this returns Magic to the position it found itself in before they came up with the Modern Format to solve it to begin with.
Some thoughts -
Where did Wizards promise us exactly what modern would be? How did this ban break that promise (because nerfing a deck does *not* constitute a rotation in my eyes)?
Second - how are people now priced out of the format? If anything, this should encourage prices to go DOWN. An affordable modern is a MUCH MUCH better modern, and if there are decks that are considered untouchable for a long period, I don't think we can have that because they push the prices of staples up.
Themis I agree with you its not what at least the community perceives Modern is supposed to be.
I think Wizards is still aiming for the middle ground between Legacy (Eternal) and Standard (six month rotation), but I don't know that their goal really is to have Modern be the stand in for people that can't afford or have access to Legacy cards. I also think periodic banning isn't exactly rotation, but it may be a distinction without a difference. I do think a slowly evolving format where you can play most of the same cards for years but requires you maintain interest in (and buy some of) new sets that are created fits the bill for quite a few players and Wizards both.
Again, that's how you're INTERPRETING what he said. It can easily be read that they felt the PT needed a ban prior to it because the top 8 would be largely predictable (a very probable statement!) and thusly boring for coverage. If no such dominate decks exist next year then the 'need' to shake things up might not be present.
Your statement is contradictory. If a format does not have a "dominant deck" that does not inherently mean the meta is not predictable.
Also... it depends on how you "define" dominate. There are current decks that actually have a higher dominance/showing than twin.
I would argue that "dominance" equates to popularity. And the numbers tend to support that inclination.
Ok.
I think Aaron and the pro-tour team didn't want the same top 8 as last year and nerfed these two decks because of it. We're both speculating, we all are.
I don't understand this desire to underplay Twin, the deck was as close to tier 0 as the format has had for a long long time. The meta changing in the last 2/3 months to reflect not having more than 15% twin showings doesn't change anything about what we've seen out of the deck in the past.
lantern has everything to do with 8th and 9th, Ensnaring Bridge is the only way such a deck is viable
Okay, I overlooked that, my bad. That said, there's nothing problematic about the deck outside of it maybe being annoying to play against (though personally, I have enjoyed my games against it).
the rest we both said are just our speculation/ideas, not much to continue on really, you like 8th-9th i don't, that's all, the reason is mostly that the so called MU/SB lottery issue that most people complain about has it's roots in 8th/9th
Quite honestly, if you're going to blame Tron/Twin/Amulet Bloom on 8th and 9th Edition, I'd like to point out one can just as easily blame Zendikar block. Zendikar block had Amulet of Vigor, Splinter Twin, and Expedition Map/Ancient Stirrings. No bans for Twin or Amulet Bloom would have been necessary if those sets had not existed in the format, and it also would have let them avoid banning Jace and Stoneforge as they were not in the format. Heck, 12-Post wouldn't have needed a ban either, as without Emrakul, Eye of Ugin, or Expedition Map the deck probably wouldn't have even existed (might have become a thing after Battle for Zendikar but it wouldn't have been as powerful).
It's all about making money for wizards . Modern isn't very profitable for them remember wizard wanted to do away with modern pro tour completely. Standard pro tours make them serious cash vs Modern pro tours were they likely loose money doing events since wizards doesn't profit off out of print cards. Wizards is trying to frustrate people out of modern by tearing down the best deck every year and hope you run to limited formats or standard were they can make money off you.
Again, that's how you're INTERPRETING what he said. It can easily be read that they felt the PT needed a ban prior to it because the top 8 would be largely predictable (a very probable statement!) and thusly boring for coverage. If no such dominate decks exist next year then the 'need' to shake things up might not be present.
Your statement is contradictory. If a format does not have a "dominant deck" that does not inherently mean the meta is not predictable.
Also... it depends on how you "define" dominate. There are current decks that actually have a higher dominance/showing than twin.
I would argue that "dominance" equates to popularity. And the numbers tend to support that inclination.
Ok.
I think Aaron and the pro-tour team didn't want the same top 8 as last year and nerfed these two decks because of it. We're both speculating, we all are.
I don't understand this desire to underplay Twin, the deck was as close to tier 0 as the format has had for a long long time. The meta changing in the last 2/3 months to reflect not having more than 15% twin showings doesn't change anything about what we've seen out of the deck in the past.
The reason you feel that Twin is Tier 0 is because Jund were nerfed, and Pod was gone.
There are always few decks perform well in the META, which is so called Tier 1.
Among them, there will always be one or two decks perform better than others, so called Tier 0.5.
You cannot eliminate Tier 0.5 forever. It is impossible.
One Tier 0.5 deck is gone, another Tier 1 deck will become Tier 0.5. <- This is just happened all the time.
Eureka. I think I've solved the puzzle. Some of your guys' posts helped me out.
Here is a list of possible scenarios and what I'd recommend to do for each:
1) Modern moves forward with a diverse set of archetypes. The top 8 decks have a wide assortment of colors, cards and strategies. Continue to invest in modern if this happens. It's unlikely that Wizards will ban anything, because nothing is sticking its head out too far. If newly printed cards showed up in the top 8 this way, Wizards would definitely be happy as well as all the players. New players will have an easy time getting in. Veteran players will be happy to see new opponents and strats. Wizards sells new cards and makes money. Everybody wins.
2) Modern fails to evolve. The top 8 decks show repeated archetypes, cards and strategies. There's only 2-3 different decks in the top 8. It's too risky to continue investing in modern if this happens. Like many people have said here: Wizards will most likely ban the next top card and the format will cause players to be in constant fear- nobody's collection is safe. Repeated archetypes means the same old decks keep returning to the top 8, making it tough for new players to get in. We're looking for something like: 3/8 showings of the same deck in the top 8. We're looking for ~10% of the deck in the meta entirely. Those are clues of over-saturation and a highly probable ban.
3) Modern moves forward with one obvious problem. The top 8 decks show 5-6 slots with plenty of diversity, but there is one obvious deck that repeatedly stagnates the format. Do not invest in the stagnating deck if this happens. It is obviously going to receive the inevitable ban-hammer. This scenario is essentially a combination of the two above.
This is what I'll play by. Got a plan on how to play this game now.
Truth is, judging by Aaron's words, thats probably not true. Without a PT dictating when bans occur it means both Twin & Bloom might have probably been banned even sooner since they wouldn't have had to wait up until the PT to do so.
Truth is, most Modern player do not think Twin deserves a ban.
An opinion indeed!
There are plenty of people happy that it's gone. Plenty.
One website (the internet being a 'particularly' negative forum on average) does not constitute any sort of scientifically accurate data. If you poll players on the pod ban I think you'd see something like 70/30 in favor of the ban, but at the time of that ban ON THIS SITE if you ran the same poll you'd see what we have now with the Twin poll. Salty players are the most vocal, and understandably so. Players who weren't affected by the ban or their matchups improved aren't going to hop onto MTGS to start talking about twin, they're just going to tune their decks to a new meta, and move on.
Eureka. I think I've solved the puzzle. Some of your guys' posts helped me out.
Here is a list of possible scenarios and what I'd recommend to do for each:
1) Modern moves forward with a diverse set of archetypes. The top 8 decks have a wide assortment of colors, cards and strategies. Continue to invest in modern if this happens. It's unlikely that Wizards will ban anything, because nothing is sticking its head out too far. If newly printed cards showed up in the top 8 this way, Wizards would definitely be happy as well as all the players. New players will have an easy time getting in. Veteran players will be happy to see new opponents and strats. Wizards sells new cards and makes money. Everybody wins.
2) Modern fails to evolve. The top 8 decks show repeated archetypes, cards and strategies. It's too risky to continue investing in modern if this happens. Like many people have said here: Wizards will most likely ban the next top card and the format will cause players to be in constant fear- nobody's collection is safe. Repeated archetypes means the same old decks keep returning to the top 8, making it tough for new players to get in. We're looking for something like: 3/8 showings of the same deck in the top 8. We're looking for ~10% of the deck in the meta entirely. Those are clues of over-saturation and a highly probable ban.
3) Modern moves forward with one obvious problem. The top 8 decks show 5-6 slots with plenty of diversity, but there is one obvious deck that repeatedly stagnates the format. Do not invest in the stagnating deck if this happens. It is obviously going to receive the inevitable ban-hammer. This scenario is essentially a combination of the two above.
This is what I'll play by. Got a plan on how to play this game now.
To me, this sounds like absolutely the most likely scenario.
Truth is, judging by Aaron's words, thats probably not true. Without a PT dictating when bans occur it means both Twin & Bloom might have probably been banned even sooner since they wouldn't have had to wait up until the PT to do so.
Truth is, most Modern player do not think Twin deserves a ban.
An opinion indeed!
There are plenty of people happy that it's gone. Plenty.
One website (the internet being a 'particularly' negative forum on average) does not constitute any sort of scientifically accurate data. If you poll players on the pod ban I think you'd see something like 70/30 in favor of the ban, but at the time of that ban ON THIS SITE if you ran the same poll you'd see what we have now with the Twin poll. Salty players are the most vocal, and understandably so. Players who weren't affected by the ban or their matchups improved aren't going to hop onto MTGS to start talking about twin, they're just going to tune their decks to a new meta, and move on.
People who tune their decks to a new meta and move on do not mean that they think Twin deserve a ban.
They might just accept it because the game and the rule are not made by them.
I just cant afford modern anymore. First my Pod deck now my twin deck. I get that pod was OP but twin wasn't that bad, the meta is super diverse right now EXCEPT the prevalence of LINEAR STRATEGIES, which IMO are super boring to play with and against. I'm a control player at heart and love to have complex lines of play. Alas control is dead in modern. WIZARDS, CAN YOU TRY TO BALANCE AND SPICE UP THE META GAME BY UNBANNING CARDS FOR ONCE? Stop giving players a consistent middle finger please, and do some serious testing on the banned card list.
Let's say we have the normal board of Geist, cliques, angels, etc, with a huge suite of burn and counter
The sideboard has 3 Stony Silences, 2 Blood Moons, 2 Crumble to Dust, 3 Kor Firewalkers
Is this really not in good standings with a meta that we predict to be Burn, Affinity, RG Tron and Infect? Infect absolutely cannot handle that fast of a clock and all that removal, and burn gets hosed pretty bad between a geist clock, helix's, etc
I don't know, I feel we are dismissing Jeskai Geist decks, Stony Silence as a 3 of for the two best decks in the format isn't overkill
Problem is, Geist UWr still has a nearly impossible Tron matchup. It has to hit t2 Stony Silence in both post-board games to even have a remote chance at winning. Not to mention Eldrazi will just eat the deck alive.
Most of these Geist decks run remands/mana leaks/crypic/spell-snare/counter-flux combination, that doesn't seem unreasonable. Eldrazi can still be burned out quickly if they don't get things together. I don't think this deck is in as poor of standings as you all may think with the predicted meta. Creatures can be flashed in outside of Geist, so you have tempo or counters to hold up, or burn.
when I was testing UR Twin against Eldrazi, they were very pressured by bolt-snap-bolt.
This is still ignoring that Jeskai could have a 50/50 or even better matchup against the other predicted tier 1 decks come pro-tour time
Again, that's how you're INTERPRETING what he said. It can easily be read that they felt the PT needed a ban prior to it because the top 8 would be largely predictable (a very probable statement!) and thusly boring for coverage. If no such dominate decks exist next year then the 'need' to shake things up might not be present.
Your statement is contradictory. If a format does not have a "dominant deck" that does not inherently mean the meta is not predictable.
Also... it depends on how you "define" dominate. There are current decks that actually have a higher dominance/showing than twin.
I would argue that "dominance" equates to popularity. And the numbers tend to support that inclination.
Ok.
I think Aaron and the pro-tour team didn't want the same top 8 as last year and nerfed these two decks because of it. We're both speculating, we all are.
I don't understand this desire to underplay Twin, the deck was as close to tier 0 as the format has had for a long long time. The meta changing in the last 2/3 months to reflect not having more than 15% twin showings doesn't change anything about what we've seen out of the deck in the past.
The reason you feel that Twin is Tier 0 is because Jund were nerfed, and Pod was gone.
There are always few decks perform well in the META, which is so called Tier 1.
Among them, there will always be one or two decks perform better than others, so called Tier 0.5.
You cannot eliminate Tier 0.5 forever. It is impossible.
One Tier 0.5 deck is gone, another Tier 1 deck will become Tier 0.5. <- This is just happened all the time.
I did not say Twin was tier 0, I said it's as close as the format has had to a tier 0 for the entirety of the format. I don't need you to teach me how metas work, but thanks.
I know plenty of people on both sides of this ban, and I honestly would rather see a powered up format with less bans, but honestly the format isn't driven by our opinions, it's driven by wizards. The problem is they are not very transparent with their vision for the format. All this does is anger the player base. We more or less know what we are getting with standard and legacy(and vintage). Modern is a crap shoot, they seem to be figuring it out as they go. The format is very popular and is moving product, it is filling stores and venues for events, they need to do better.
So if I owned affinity I'm actually hoping that the Pro Tour next year is featuring an artifact centric block otherwise WOTC will kill my Affinity deck because it won't sell the new set. I seriously believe the Splinter Twin ban was just to make the Black Eldrazi deck better by eliminating a bad matchup and getting people to bust open more Oath of the Gatewatch to build the Eldrazi deck. WOTC has demonstrated that they will kill any deck that harms their bottom line in Modern for the purposes of selling the new set. If the block after Shadows of Innastrad does not feature anything that gets Tron or Affinity players to incinerate their wallet on the new set for next year's Modern Pro Tour, you can count on WOTC to kill those 2 decks.
Truth is, judging by Aaron's words, thats probably not true. Without a PT dictating when bans occur it means both Twin & Bloom might have probably been banned even sooner since they wouldn't have had to wait up until the PT to do so.
Truth is, most Modern player do not think Twin deserves a ban.
An opinion indeed!
There are plenty of people happy that it's gone. Plenty.
Twin is easily splashed for in nearly any deck, there was even such a thing as Twining End... I have even played Lantern Control with Twin as the wincon for the lols. When you have a majority of people slotting this combo into their decks and then the combo gets banned, yes, a majority will get angry. Luckily, majorities don't make ban decisions. And speaking of majorities, that poll only shows 55% disagree, the other 45% agree or don't care. Thats almost half and thats just some people on MTGSal.
Besides that, your argument does not refute the point that the PT only dicatates when these bans occur and not why.
Truth is, judging by Aaron's words, thats probably not true. Without a PT dictating when bans occur it means both Twin & Bloom might have probably been banned even sooner since they wouldn't have had to wait up until the PT to do so.
Truth is, most Modern player do not think Twin deserves a ban.
An opinion indeed!
There are plenty of people happy that it's gone. Plenty.
Twin is easily splashed for in nearly any deck, there was even such a thing as Twining End... I have even played Lantern Control with Twin as the wincon for the lols. When you have a majority of people slotting this combo into their decks and then the combo gets banned, yes, a majority will get angry. Luckily, majorities don't make ban decisions. And speaking of majorities, that poll only shows 55% disagree, the other 45% agree or don't care. Thats almost half and thats just some people on MTGSal.
Besides that, your argument does not refute the point that the PT only dicatates when these bans occur and not why.
It was implied <heavily> that the PT banning indicated both the when AND why. To shake up the format. It was even said that the PT causes these bannnings to be necessary.. and that being a PT format is not necessarily ideal to the health of the Modern format.
Twin is easily splashed for in nearly any deck, there was even such a thing as Twining End... I have even played Lantern Control with Twin as the wincon for the lols. When you have a majority of people slotting this combo into their decks and then the combo gets banned, yes, a majority will get angry. Luckily, majorities don't make ban decisions. And speaking of majorities, that poll only shows 55% disagree, the other 45% agree or don't care. Thats almost half and thats just some people on MTGSal.
Besides that, your argument does not refute the point that the PT only dicatates when these bans occur and not why.
It was implied <heavily> that the PT banning indicated both the when AND why. To shake up the format. It was even said that the PT causes these bannnings to be necessary.. and that being a PT format is not necessarily ideal to the health of the Modern format.
implied? or interpreted?
Had it been implied he would not have corrected it when he noticed people where misinterpretimng it.
Rather irrelevant. The format may be called "Modern" but that's just to differentiate it from Legacy and has nothing to do with how well it fits with 'modern card design' (indeed, much of the point of a nonrotating format is you get to play with the cards they don't fit such an idea). If we want it to be true to its name, then it should be just the last few blocks.
Come off it already. BBD and maybe one or two other guys at most is not "most pros."
This is assuming that the Splinter Twin ban was right to begin with when it was extremely tenuous, and you seem to be exaggerating the effect of Blood Moon considering it generally only played a few copies in the sideboard. One can argue that 8th/9th gave Amulet Bloom the Summer Bloom, but by that logic we might as well say Zendikar was the problem because it gave it Amulet of Vigor.
In fact, one can argue just as easily that the "real" problem block here is Zendikar block. It gave Twin its titular card, it gave Amulet Bloom the Amulet of Vigor, and it gave Tron Emrakul and Expedition Map/Ancient Stirrings (the latter of which also goes into Bloom).
Lantern also has absolutely nothing to do with 8th/9th Edition so I'm not sure why you brought it up.
Truth is, most Modern player do not think Twin deserves a ban.
They did the same thing for POD a year ago. We are convinced that POD has to go because it restrict the design space for the ETB creatures.
Now they did the same thing for Twin. I cannot see any good reason behind except for the PT preparation.
Anything, but nothing at the moment...
Modern:
WUBRGAmulet Titan, WUBRGHuman
WUBRAd Nauseam, WBRGDeath Shadow, UBRGScapeshift, UBRGDredge
WURJeskai Nahiri, WURCheeri0s, WBGCounter Company, WRGBurn, UBRMadcap Moon, BRGJund Midrange
UBTurn,BRGriselbrand Reanimator, WGKnight Company, RGRG Tron, RGRG Ponza, XAffinity, XEldrazi Tron
Your statement is contradictory. If a format does not have a "dominant deck" that does not inherently mean the meta is not predictable.
Also... it depends on how you "define" dominate. There are current decks that actually have a higher dominance/showing than twin.
I would argue that "dominance" equates to popularity. And the numbers tend to support that inclination.
It was banned not because it was "dominating" in the sense that it was keeping other decks from winning. It was banned because it was too popular and showing up too much in top 8s (which is due to being played more, not necessarily its power level).
An opinion indeed!
There are plenty of people happy that it's gone. Plenty.
How about we make a vote, and see the results?
Well, there is such a vote already...
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/662689-how-do-you-feel-about-the-banning-of-splinter-twin
Anything, but nothing at the moment...
Modern:
WUBRGAmulet Titan, WUBRGHuman
WUBRAd Nauseam, WBRGDeath Shadow, UBRGScapeshift, UBRGDredge
WURJeskai Nahiri, WURCheeri0s, WBGCounter Company, WRGBurn, UBRMadcap Moon, BRGJund Midrange
UBTurn,BRGriselbrand Reanimator, WGKnight Company, RGRG Tron, RGRG Ponza, XAffinity, XEldrazi Tron
I want to quickly say that while it may seem reasonable in the long term for prices to go down if you know things are going to get banned every year, the converse is that the Modern card pool is then consequently filled with a lot of speculation and/or buyout opportunities. If I'm not mistaken Kiki Jiki was almost instantly bought out with the B&R update, for example. I also was referring to legacy with the "priced out of the format," but if even keeping up with standard costs is too much for many players, adding a rotational cost to maintaining your Modern legal options hurts the financial viability of players trying to invest in the format.
For the question of what Wizards said Modern was going to be, I was referring to this article by LaPille: "As I said, many of you have called for a non-rotating format that doesn't have the card availability problems of Legacy. We propose Modern as that format." If we are accepting that a yearly tier 1 shakeup ban makes it a rotational format to some degree, this does not fulfill the role Modern was intended or even proposed to at the outset. http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/144
EDIT: I realized I didn't answer part of your question. Is this ban a rotation? No, not if viewed in isolation. But what I've been trying to illustrate is that the twin banning significantly lowers the bar to what we thought was the threshold of a dominance ban, to the degree that it is entirely feasible Affinity takes a similar hit next year for all the reasons twin did this year simply because it has the track record and has been one of the winningest decks in modern since its inception. So, if we have reason to believe we will get a heavy shakeup ban next year, as we have in the past 4 years even though this year seemed like the meta was actually the healthiest and most diverse it had ever been, it's reasonable to call such ban cycles a forced rotation.
Ok.
I think Aaron and the pro-tour team didn't want the same top 8 as last year and nerfed these two decks because of it. We're both speculating, we all are.
I don't understand this desire to underplay Twin, the deck was as close to tier 0 as the format has had for a long long time. The meta changing in the last 2/3 months to reflect not having more than 15% twin showings doesn't change anything about what we've seen out of the deck in the past.
Themis I agree with you its not what at least the community perceives Modern is supposed to be.
I think Wizards is still aiming for the middle ground between Legacy (Eternal) and Standard (six month rotation), but I don't know that their goal really is to have Modern be the stand in for people that can't afford or have access to Legacy cards. I also think periodic banning isn't exactly rotation, but it may be a distinction without a difference. I do think a slowly evolving format where you can play most of the same cards for years but requires you maintain interest in (and buy some of) new sets that are created fits the bill for quite a few players and Wizards both.
Actual numbers don't support that. They just don't.
http://modernnexus.com/matchups-and-win-rates-top-tier-decks-part-1/
And I agree with you. That's why Twin was banned. And that's why there will be a banning in one more year.
Quite honestly, if you're going to blame Tron/Twin/Amulet Bloom on 8th and 9th Edition, I'd like to point out one can just as easily blame Zendikar block. Zendikar block had Amulet of Vigor, Splinter Twin, and Expedition Map/Ancient Stirrings. No bans for Twin or Amulet Bloom would have been necessary if those sets had not existed in the format, and it also would have let them avoid banning Jace and Stoneforge as they were not in the format. Heck, 12-Post wouldn't have needed a ban either, as without Emrakul, Eye of Ugin, or Expedition Map the deck probably wouldn't have even existed (might have become a thing after Battle for Zendikar but it wouldn't have been as powerful).
The reason you feel that Twin is Tier 0 is because Jund were nerfed, and Pod was gone.
There are always few decks perform well in the META, which is so called Tier 1.
Among them, there will always be one or two decks perform better than others, so called Tier 0.5.
You cannot eliminate Tier 0.5 forever. It is impossible.
One Tier 0.5 deck is gone, another Tier 1 deck will become Tier 0.5. <- This is just happened all the time.
Anything, but nothing at the moment...
Modern:
WUBRGAmulet Titan, WUBRGHuman
WUBRAd Nauseam, WBRGDeath Shadow, UBRGScapeshift, UBRGDredge
WURJeskai Nahiri, WURCheeri0s, WBGCounter Company, WRGBurn, UBRMadcap Moon, BRGJund Midrange
UBTurn,BRGriselbrand Reanimator, WGKnight Company, RGRG Tron, RGRG Ponza, XAffinity, XEldrazi Tron
Here is a list of possible scenarios and what I'd recommend to do for each:
1) Modern moves forward with a diverse set of archetypes. The top 8 decks have a wide assortment of colors, cards and strategies. Continue to invest in modern if this happens. It's unlikely that Wizards will ban anything, because nothing is sticking its head out too far. If newly printed cards showed up in the top 8 this way, Wizards would definitely be happy as well as all the players. New players will have an easy time getting in. Veteran players will be happy to see new opponents and strats. Wizards sells new cards and makes money. Everybody wins.
2) Modern fails to evolve. The top 8 decks show repeated archetypes, cards and strategies. There's only 2-3 different decks in the top 8. It's too risky to continue investing in modern if this happens. Like many people have said here: Wizards will most likely ban the next top card and the format will cause players to be in constant fear- nobody's collection is safe. Repeated archetypes means the same old decks keep returning to the top 8, making it tough for new players to get in. We're looking for something like: 3/8 showings of the same deck in the top 8. We're looking for ~10% of the deck in the meta entirely. Those are clues of over-saturation and a highly probable ban.
3) Modern moves forward with one obvious problem. The top 8 decks show 5-6 slots with plenty of diversity, but there is one obvious deck that repeatedly stagnates the format. Do not invest in the stagnating deck if this happens. It is obviously going to receive the inevitable ban-hammer. This scenario is essentially a combination of the two above.
This is what I'll play by. Got a plan on how to play this game now.
One website (the internet being a 'particularly' negative forum on average) does not constitute any sort of scientifically accurate data. If you poll players on the pod ban I think you'd see something like 70/30 in favor of the ban, but at the time of that ban ON THIS SITE if you ran the same poll you'd see what we have now with the Twin poll. Salty players are the most vocal, and understandably so. Players who weren't affected by the ban or their matchups improved aren't going to hop onto MTGS to start talking about twin, they're just going to tune their decks to a new meta, and move on.
To me, this sounds like absolutely the most likely scenario.
People who tune their decks to a new meta and move on do not mean that they think Twin deserve a ban.
They might just accept it because the game and the rule are not made by them.
Anything, but nothing at the moment...
Modern:
WUBRGAmulet Titan, WUBRGHuman
WUBRAd Nauseam, WBRGDeath Shadow, UBRGScapeshift, UBRGDredge
WURJeskai Nahiri, WURCheeri0s, WBGCounter Company, WRGBurn, UBRMadcap Moon, BRGJund Midrange
UBTurn,BRGriselbrand Reanimator, WGKnight Company, RGRG Tron, RGRG Ponza, XAffinity, XEldrazi Tron
Most of these Geist decks run remands/mana leaks/crypic/spell-snare/counter-flux combination, that doesn't seem unreasonable. Eldrazi can still be burned out quickly if they don't get things together. I don't think this deck is in as poor of standings as you all may think with the predicted meta. Creatures can be flashed in outside of Geist, so you have tempo or counters to hold up, or burn.
when I was testing UR Twin against Eldrazi, they were very pressured by bolt-snap-bolt.
This is still ignoring that Jeskai could have a 50/50 or even better matchup against the other predicted tier 1 decks come pro-tour time
I did not say Twin was tier 0, I said it's as close as the format has had to a tier 0 for the entirety of the format. I don't need you to teach me how metas work, but thanks.
Twin is easily splashed for in nearly any deck, there was even such a thing as Twining End... I have even played Lantern Control with Twin as the wincon for the lols. When you have a majority of people slotting this combo into their decks and then the combo gets banned, yes, a majority will get angry. Luckily, majorities don't make ban decisions. And speaking of majorities, that poll only shows 55% disagree, the other 45% agree or don't care. Thats almost half and thats just some people on MTGSal.
Besides that, your argument does not refute the point that the PT only dicatates when these bans occur and not why.
"When you get your opponent down to 0 sanity, you win the game!"
It was implied <heavily> that the PT banning indicated both the when AND why. To shake up the format. It was even said that the PT causes these bannnings to be necessary.. and that being a PT format is not necessarily ideal to the health of the Modern format.
implied? or interpreted?
Had it been implied he would not have corrected it when he noticed people where misinterpretimng it.
"When you get your opponent down to 0 sanity, you win the game!"