Honestly sisicat, why are you still posting in here, we get it you hate modern. This is the banlist thread, we are here to talk about how to improve the format via bans and unbans, all your doing is complaining that you cant throw money at a wall and get free wins in modern and reguritating arguments you saw in some article, contributing nothing to the thread
I think the point being made is that the overly swingy matches are resulting in more feel-bads and less actual good games of Magic. Last night with Grixis Delver for example, I start off 2-0 against decks I probably should have lost against (Jund and Ad Nauseam). The Jund match was a disgusting beatdown of drawing exactly the right stuff at the right time and won 2-0. The AN match was very close first game, but should have lost the second. He fizzled the combo by Spoils-ing away two of his Pacts and a Simian Spirit Guide while I had Leak, Dispel, Remand in hand when trying to go off. The next round was a sub-5 minute 0-2 loss against back-to-back turn 2 Blood Moons. Final round was a grindy win, T3 Blood Moon loss, and Grindy loss against Grishoalbrand to finish 2-2. Like it or not, this is Modern. I took my $4 store credit and got a foil Blood Artist for my Tesya Commander deck. Then I caught a few more Pokemon on my way out while hoping one day my friends can come back. But at least the grindy games were mostly fun, and once I stopped caring about random losses since strict competition in the format is ridiculously unbalanced, I can go on with my life and not get worked up about it anymore.
I have been jamming games as grishoalbrand since GP Charlotte and from my experience (both paper and online), Delver is generally a rough match up, especially grixis delver. Maybe I have just been unlucky (like my game 2 loss at the WMCQ where I fizzled out mid combo against grixis delver), but I've played the match enough to be comfortable ruling out variance and accepting it. Sounds like you got unlucky, but I would hardly call the format unbalanced or a match up lottery.
Honestly sisicat, why are you still posting in here, we get it you hate modern. This is the banlist thread, we are here to talk about how to improve the format via bans and unbans, all your doing is complaining that you cant throw money at a wall and get free wins in modern and reguritating arguments you saw in some article, contributing nothing to the thread
I think the point being made is that the overly swingy matches are resulting in more feel-bads and less actual good games of Magic. Last night with Grixis Delver for example, I start off 2-0 against decks I probably should have lost against (Jund and Ad Nauseam). The Jund match was a disgusting beatdown of drawing exactly the right stuff at the right time and won 2-0. The AN match was very close first game, but should have lost the second. He fizzled the combo by Spoils-ing away two of his Pacts and a Simian Spirit Guide while I had Leak, Dispel, Remand in hand when trying to go off. The next round was a sub-5 minute 0-2 loss against back-to-back turn 2 Blood Moons. Final round was a grindy win, T3 Blood Moon loss, and Grindy loss against Grishoalbrand to finish 2-2. Like it or not, this is Modern. I took my $4 store credit and got a foil Blood Artist for my Tesya Commander deck. Then I caught a few more Pokemon on my way out while hoping one day my friends can come back. But at least the grindy games were mostly fun, and once I stopped caring about random losses since strict competition in the format is ridiculously unbalanced, I can go on with my life and not get worked up about it anymore.
I don't really see anything wrong with this, though. Set 1: wins where your deck worked. Set 2: a close game and a win where your opponent's deck did the thing keeping it in tier 2 status (but you seemed prepared anyway w/ counters in hand), set 3: losses against 2 nut draws (you can't really say T2 blood moon is the norm, let alone twice in a row). Set 4: a close set you happened to lose. You ended up at 2-2 while playing 2, arguably 3 bad MU's, and that seems more indicative of the format being ridiculously balanced rather than the other way around.
I was just showcasing an example night. Winning games I probably shouldn't have and losing games I probably shouldn't have. It is the epitome of the perception people have with Modern: super swingy matches that are decided on the backs of a few super key cards within the first couple turns. If the game actually gets past turn 5, games are generally pretty good (and enjoyable) win or lose. It's not necessarily "good" or "bad," it's just that as a competitive format, the huge amount of swingy variance across so many variables makes it pretty awful if you actually care about winning or competing in 9+ round events. And there's really no option or deck choice anyone can make to minimize or avoid that.
Honestly sisicat, why are you still posting in here, we get it you hate modern. This is the banlist thread, we are here to talk about how to improve the format via bans and unbans, all your doing is complaining that you cant throw money at a wall and get free wins in modern and reguritating arguments you saw in some article, contributing nothing to the thread
I think the point being made is that the overly swingy matches are resulting in more feel-bads and less actual good games of Magic. Last night with Grixis Delver for example, I start off 2-0 against decks I probably should have lost against (Jund and Ad Nauseam). The Jund match was a disgusting beatdown of drawing exactly the right stuff at the right time and won 2-0. The AN match was very close first game, but should have lost the second. He fizzled the combo by Spoils-ing away two of his Pacts and a Simian Spirit Guide while I had Leak, Dispel, Remand in hand when trying to go off. The next round was a sub-5 minute 0-2 loss against back-to-back turn 2 Blood Moons. Final round was a grindy win, T3 Blood Moon loss, and Grindy loss against Grishoalbrand to finish 2-2. Like it or not, this is Modern. I took my $4 store credit and got a foil Blood Artist for my Tesya Commander deck. Then I caught a few more Pokemon on my way out while hoping one day my friends can come back. But at least the grindy games were mostly fun, and once I stopped caring about random losses since strict competition in the format is ridiculously unbalanced, I can go on with my life and not get worked up about it anymore.
and thats what you need to do in this format, is just not care about how broken and luck/high variance based it is, and enjoy the few fun grindy matchups after all its just an fnm.
This discussion isn't for this threat but miracles has had consistent top 8 finishes since avacyn restored was in standard. It's difficult to find major tournaments (gps/pro tours) where miracles isn't in the top 8. It loses to very few decks. The deck clearly needs to go.
This is where I breathe a sigh of relief that Legacy is a different format than Modern. If Modern players had a say in Legacy bannings, then Show and Tell would have been banned long ago when Brad Nelson and company played it. Shardless BUG would have been banned when Gerry Thompson and everyone and their mom played it. Maybe Death and Taxes would have been banned when the Danish players played it?
There is more ebb and flow in Legacy and a deck that has had a lot of results may eventually not have as many results. Legacy players' lives don't revolve around bannings and unbannings. Simply put.
Considering that many pro players have called for miracles to be banned (many of whom play the deck itself). I find your attempt to flame me really funny.
Honestly sisicat, why are you still posting in here, we get it you hate modern. This is the banlist thread, we are here to talk about how to improve the format via bans and unbans, all your doing is complaining that you cant throw money at a wall and get free wins in modern and reguritating arguments you saw in some article, contributing nothing to the thread
I think the point being made is that the overly swingy matches are resulting in more feel-bads and less actual good games of Magic. Last night with Grixis Delver for example, I start off 2-0 against decks I probably should have lost against (Jund and Ad Nauseam). The Jund match was a disgusting beatdown of drawing exactly the right stuff at the right time and won 2-0. The AN match was very close first game, but should have lost the second. He fizzled the combo by Spoils-ing away two of his Pacts and a Simian Spirit Guide while I had Leak, Dispel, Remand in hand when trying to go off. The next round was a sub-5 minute 0-2 loss against back-to-back turn 2 Blood Moons. Final round was a grindy win, T3 Blood Moon loss, and Grindy loss against Grishoalbrand to finish 2-2. Like it or not, this is Modern. I took my $4 store credit and got a foil Blood Artist for my Tesya Commander deck. Then I caught a few more Pokemon on my way out while hoping one day my friends can come back. But at least the grindy games were mostly fun, and once I stopped caring about random losses since strict competition in the format is ridiculously unbalanced, I can go on with my life and not get worked up about it anymore.
I don't really see anything wrong with this, though. Set 1: wins where your deck worked. Set 2: a close game and a win where your opponent's deck did the thing keeping it in tier 2 status (but you seemed prepared anyway w/ counters in hand), set 3: losses against 2 nut draws (you can't really say T2 blood moon is the norm, let alone twice in a row). Set 4: a close set you happened to lose. You ended up at 2-2 while playing 2, arguably 3 bad MU's, and that seems more indicative of the format being ridiculously balanced rather than the other way around.
I was just showcasing an example night. Winning games I probably shouldn't have and losing games I probably shouldn't have. It is the epitome of the perception people have with Modern: super swingy matches that are decided on the backs of a few super key cards within the first couple turns. If the game actually gets past turn 5, games are generally pretty good (and enjoyable) win or lose. It's not necessarily "good" or "bad," it's just that as a competitive format, the huge amount of swingy variance across so many variables makes it pretty awful if you actually care about winning or competing in 9+ round events. And there's really no option or deck choice anyone can make to minimize or avoid that.
He basically sums up all the problems I have with the format. Modern is great playing against different decks, but if I'm playing for any sort of money or my livelihood, it is absolutely the worst format to play in. If I get nut drawn by someone and I happen to choose a deck that has no ability to fight back, I've basically lit money on fire not because I lacked the ability to use my cards to beat my opponent but the swingy nature of the format punishing me because of my deck selection before the games have even played out. I played alot of Modern, it's probably the format I've played most in the past 3 years. It's also the worst format in terms of input(time spent practicing) vs output (results that matter), in my experience anyways. I've played alot more Standard recently, and my results in Standard are much much better there than those of Modern. I've also spent less time playing it and have earned more store credit playing Standard PPTQs than Modern PPTQs. It's really hard to explain but I really have a hard time matching my win rate in other formats in Modern even though I invest a majority of my playtime playing the format, and the swingy nature of the format makes it that much harder for me to stick to a deck and master it.
This discussion isn't for this threat but miracles has had consistent top 8 finishes since avacyn restored was in standard. It's difficult to find major tournaments (gps/pro tours) where miracles isn't in the top 8. It loses to very few decks. The deck clearly needs to go.
This is where I breathe a sigh of relief that Legacy is a different format than Modern. If Modern players had a say in Legacy bannings, then Show and Tell would have been banned long ago when Brad Nelson and company played it. Shardless BUG would have been banned when Gerry Thompson and everyone and their mom played it. Maybe Death and Taxes would have been banned when the Danish players played it?
There is more ebb and flow in Legacy and a deck that has had a lot of results may eventually not have as many results. Legacy players' lives don't revolve around bannings and unbannings. Simply put.
Considering that many pro players have called for miracles to be banned (many of whom play the deck itself). I find your attempt to flame me really funny.
This is huge, i have to say.
Twin was banned for so much less than that.
Its just that legacy is more "loose" of a format.
which is what happens when it isnt a pro tour format.
And exactly why Miracles existing while Twin is banned feels incredibly hypocritical on their part, and exactly why I think Twin will come back eventually. In addition to being orders of magnitude more warping and oppressive from a competitive diversity standpoint, Miracles also suffers from going to time and turns... a LOT... which is a logistics element slowing down large events. If Miracles can exist in Legacy without a Pro Tour, I see absolutely no reason Twin can't exist in Modern without a Pro Tour, especially considering how robust and diverse and healthy the format was throughout 2015 (and it seems that only with hindsight bias do we convince ourselves Twin was such a oppressive boogyman). I do think there needs to be some kind of cool-off period though, so they don't look too stupid or admit that banning it might have been a mistake. I'm not expecting it back any time soon, but I'll be curious to see what happens next January announcement (or if anything happens to Miracles in the meantime). For the time being though, more Grixis Delver and Commander...
He basically sums up all the problems I have with the format. Modern is great playing against different decks, but if I'm playing for any sort of money or my livelihood, it is absolutely the worst format to play in. If I get nut drawn by someone and I happen to choose a deck that has no ability to fight back, I've basically lit money on fire not because I lacked the ability to use my cards to beat my opponent but the swingy nature of the format punishing me because of my deck selection before the games have even played out. I played alot of Modern, it's probably the format I've played most in the past 3 years. It's also the worst format in terms of input(time spent practicing) vs output (results that matter), in my experience anyways. I've played alot more Standard recently, and my results in Standard are much much better there than those of Modern. I've also spent less time playing it and have earned more store credit playing Standard PPTQs than Modern PPTQs. It's really hard to explain but I really have a hard time matching my win rate in other formats in Modern even though I invest a majority of my playtime playing the format, and the swingy nature of the format makes it that much harder for me to stick to a deck and master it.
That is just your experience. I play Modern a lot and haven't enjoyed Standard for quite a while, even when I did play it. I played Standard Abzan Midrange in the first 4 rounds of an SCG Invitational and went 1-3, despite it being "the best deck." My first loss was when my Esper Dragons opponent played 4 Counterspell by turn 6, then another Ojutai after the first was Abzan Charmed. Then he cast 3 straight Ojutai (first 2 met Self Inflicted Wound) in the last game after 3 consecutive Counterspell. Two of those losses were in game 3s when my Atarka Red opponents top decked the card they needed to win (in one of those, he had 6 cards as outs and the other 12 cards as outs). Then I proceeded to go 4-0 in Modern with (Modern) Bogles, a deck that I felt very comfortable playing. Maybe this was because the bracket was easier, but only 1 of my Standard opponents made Day 2.
Every format has some variance. I do slightly agree with you, because I do believe Modern has more of a "Roulette" than other formats. I struggled a bit a month ago, averaging 4-2 at FNMs due to some mistakes, but also some good play. I've cleaned it up the past 3 weeks and averaged 3-1-1, playing much better. Despite the Roulette, it is important to know matchups and make sure that you play well. Mistakes can be very punishing, maybe more so than if you're playing a format where you have the best deck. I don't know what else to say. Modern does have more variance. I've lost to turn 4 Ugin on the draw in games 1 and 3, playing a deck that simply can't beat that. Then again, I've made some good plays and good blocks that meant the game for me. And I've had some lucky draws as well, like last FNM where I had 4 lands in hand and drew Orzhov Pontiff into Chord of Calling for a 2nd Orzhov Pontiff into Chord of Calling to easily eliminate my Grixis Delver opponent in game 3 (killed ScM, Young Pyromancer, unflipped Delver, Thopters from P&K Nalaaar, and finally another Delver).
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
If Miracles can exist in Legacy without a Pro Tour, I see absolutely no reason Twin can't exist in Modern without a Pro Tour, especially considering how robust and diverse and healthy the format was throughout 2015 (and it seems that only with hindsight bias do we convince ourselves Twin was such a oppressive boogyman).
Both formats lacking a pro tour doesn't make WotC's vision for them equal.
Modern is diverse and healthy NOW. Given the latest ban announcement, Wizards agrees.
Who is calling Twin an 'oppressive boogyman'? Most people seem to agree that it had the best matchups against the majority of the field. I know you want Twin back but portraying people who disagree with you as having some kind of grudge against your pet deck is just bullcrap.
If Miracles can exist in Legacy without a Pro Tour, I see absolutely no reason Twin can't exist in Modern without a Pro Tour, especially considering how robust and diverse and healthy the format was throughout 2015 (and it seems that only with hindsight bias do we convince ourselves Twin was such a oppressive boogyman).
Both formats lacking a pro tour doesn't make WotC's vision for them equal.
Modern is diverse and healthy NOW. Given the latest ban announcement, Wizards agrees.
Who is calling Twin an 'oppressive boogyman'? Most people seem to agree that it had the best matchups against the majority of the field. I know you want Twin back but portraying people who disagree with you as having some kind of grudge against your pet deck is just bullcrap.
Well, the goals and rules expressed for the Modern format were basically to create an eternal format not bound by the restrictions of the reserved list, in which you couldn't consistently kill someone before turn 4. Twin was essentially the posterchild benchmark for what the format was and the bar for power. It didn't break turn 4 rules and never held an oppressive metashare. Maybe if it held percentages on par with Eldrazi, TC Delver, DRS Jund or Pod (or Miracles, lol), then maybe it's justified in banning. But at 10%? Maybe not. The deck had been around forever and saw very little change. If it was the oppressive powerhouse everyone makes it out to be, more people would have played it (like every other deck that was banned for competitive diversity), but instead it had been on steady decline through the back of the year before the announcement. Additionally, at no point in the ban announcement (or the following AF tweets) was the mirror discussed. Topics like that were only brought up after several months of hindsight bias and ex-post-facto justification. With the Pro Tour gone, there's really no reason for it to be there. And eventually it will come off, just like Wild Nacatl did.
Also, I'm not attacking anyone directly with that standpoint other than Wizards themselves. By allowing Miracles to continue as it has, it is acknowledging that "this is OK" for an eternal format not bound by the Pro Tour. It's hypocritical then, to assess that a deck which is substantially less "competitively oppressive" (and does not suffer logistics problems) remains banned now that the Pro Tour is no longer a binding obligation for the format to be "fresh" every year.
And yeah, it was a pet deck, one that I spent a lot of money foiling out as well. But I'm making due playing with the cards I have leftover. It might seem strange, but the perceived logical inconsistency of the banning itself bothers me a lot more than the actual deck being banned. It was an extremely questionable, borderline judgement call that was accelerated and pushed due to the demands of the PT. Now that the PT is gone, the justifications for it sort of fall apart. But I've said all this before, nothing really new. I've just laid low on it the past month or two while I built half a dozen Commander decks because competitive modern is no longer a primary focus.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you really are just known at this point as the posterchild for the salty twin player.
But as time goes on I honestly feel for you more and more.
I mean, I'd argue twin SHOULD have been on the radar for ban potential, but I don't feel it reeeeeally crossed any lines. At least not anymore.
As far as I can tell, wizards wanted their PTs to serve as a way to give their newest sets more FaceTime. But were unwilling to come out and say it. So they instead just axed a top deck before its time and then refused to emergency ban eldrazi to set up some bs line where the players "just had to choose" either proper bans or modern PTs.
Now we thankfully have a healthy format. If I were in charge, would I unban twin right now? Probably not, no need to rock the boat ATM. But try to tell me the format as it currently stands wouldn't be fantastic for coverage.
Sorry if this was too tin foil hatty, but that's just how I see it at this point. Twin is the unfortunate casualty of a marketing decision.
Are we sure PT removal means more loose rules about possible bannings/unbannings and does not change ONLY the timing of the bans?
In other words, if PT was removed two years ago would Twin banning only to be delayed for a few more months or it means that maybe twin would completely survive?
PS: I agree that at some point it would be fine to see a twin unban. Just not now.
If Legacy is any indication, it dramatically reduces bans. Miracles wouldn't have lasted half as long in PT-bound Modern as it did in Legacy.
Moreover, ban timing ends up being synonymous with ban quantity because Modern changes over time. Metagame shifts mean decks at the fringe of oppressive shares can ebb and flow over longer periods of non-intervention. Affinity is an excellent example of this, having risen and fallen numerous times over the past years. No more PT should mean all those Tier 1 decks are safe for a long time, instead of allowing Wizards to cherrypick a time period to show a deck is problematic. But we'll need to wait and see to know for sure. If we make it through April 2017 with no bans outside of a new Tier 0 problem, then it's a new day.
Are we sure PT removal means more loose rules about possible bannings/unbannings and does not change ONLY the timing of the bans?
In other words, if PT was removed two years ago would Twin banning only to be delayed for a few more months or it means that maybe twin would completely survive?
PS: I agree that at some point it would be fine to see a twin unban. Just not now.
If Legacy is any indication, it dramatically reduces bans. Miracles wouldn't have lasted half as long in PT-bound Modern as it did in Legacy.
Moreover, ban timing ends up being synonymous with ban quantity because Modern changes over time. Metagame shifts mean decks at the fringe of oppressive shares can ebb and flow over longer periods of non-intervention. Affinity is an excellent example of this, having risen and fallen numerous times over the past years. No more PT should mean all those Tier 1 decks are safe for a long time, instead of allowing Wizards to cherrypick a time period to show a deck is problematic. But we'll need to wait and see to know for sure. If we make it through April 2017 with no bans outside of a new Tier 0 problem, then it's a new day.
You may be falling into a bit of a correlation =/= causation type trap here. There are essentially 2 reasons why no bans would happen. One is, as you say, a looser grip on the format by WOTC. But the other is simply that a ban isn't necessary. I've never believed that WOTC felt the need to ban something prior to every PT just to shake things up. Yes, each year since Modern's been a format it's happened, but it's happened to decks that have violated known and quantifiable data points. At this point in the format we no longer have a PT but we also don't have any decks that are pushing at those data points. Who's to say that "no bans" is the result of one of the reasons over the other?
Only when a deck violates those data points and doesn't receive a ban will we actually know that WOTC has a looser grip on the format.
The deck had been around forever and saw very little change. If it was the oppressive powerhouse everyone makes it out to be, more people would have played it (like every other deck that was banned for competitive diversity), but instead it had been on steady decline through the back of the year before the announcement. Additionally, at no point in the ban announcement (or the following AF tweets) was the mirror discussed. Topics like that were only brought up after several months of hindsight bias and ex-post-facto justification. With the Pro Tour gone, there's really no reason for it to be there. And eventually it will come off, just like Wild Nacatl did.
ONE MAN
FORGOTTEN BY SOCIETY
HIS FRIENDS HAVE FORSAKEN HIM
DESPERATE AND ALONE
AGAINST A LEGION OF FOES, HE IS
THE LAST DEFENDER
Rated PG-13.
Coming this Summer.
Seriously, though, Splinter Twin is not Wild Nacatl. It is 1 piece of a 2-card game-winning combo. Modern is clearly not Legacy despite the fact that both lack a Pro Tour.
Several people in this thread alone have expressed the opinion that Twin could be unbanned in forseeable future. Many others who agreed with the ban have opined that it was a borderline case, far from something like the Eye of Ugin ban.
When I played a tiny WMCQ the other day I joked before hand that in Modern you just asked your opponent what they were playing, did the die roll and filled in the slips.
It was a jest, but there was an element of truth in the statement. A lot of people felt the same- the phrase "I can't beat X" was heard all day.
Another interesting thing was the make up of decks in the room. 50% of the field was one of Grishoalbrand, Infect, Affinity, Ad Nauseam, Suicide Zoo and Boggles- all frighteningly decks that ignore your opponent and generate a large number of free wins and 40% was basically 3/4 color good stuff with all the best spells. I went 5-2 on the day with a landkill-tax deck that ran full numbers of suppression field and some chalices too, a deck that punishes all the unfair decks horribly (its hard to combo when your second land drop fetch costs 2 to activate or your first land has been destroyed t2), because I figured that everybody will just want to play "free win" decks or "I can deal with everything" decks, which is basically all they did.
The most telling thing was the way in which people fetched lands early on- willy nilly, very different from Legacy where every fetch is meticulous and often combined in some form with Brainstorm maths. Matches were never decided on small play errors or strategic decisions like they seem to be in Legacy, it felt more like a "do you have it?" format.....
Most of the players there playing the free win decks used to play Twin.....
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
People with belligerent signatures are trying to compensate for something....
as long as we don't fall into the trap of folks trying to link every 'negative' development with Twin's ban
This is very true. The other side is also true: linking the "positive" development (such as other blue decks doing well) to the Twin ban. Jeskai Nahiri and Grixis Control/Delver only exist as they do because of additional cards either printed (Nahiri) or unbanned (AV). None of that has anything to do directly with Twin, which means their original assessment that Twin "reduce[s] diversity by supplanting similar decks" is completely bogus, as the decks were just objectively weak in the format, with or without Twin. It's bonus irony that these blue decks would have fantastic matchups against Twin. So the moral is that it's some kind of lateral gray area in between. And since a dozen other things have happened in the meantime, it's extremely hard to pinpoint any particular cause for the current state of Modern; good or bad.
As for the perceived jump in linear decks, while it may or may not be tied to Twin's absence, there definitely are a lot of them running around these days. And most of them are doing very well.
that said even if the metagame actually is more linear, i don't see how that leads us to the conclusion that Twin should be unbanned, Twin should be unbanned when it will no longer be the No 1 deck, i have no interest in choosing between two 'evils' (linear meta, or undisputed best deck), especially now that we're in such a good course
I understand what you're getting at, but you're also implying that it's correct to ban the best deck, even if the margin is minimal and did not hold oppressive metashares, simply for being the best deck. If Twin remains banned and another best deck emerges, should that be banned too? Why or why not? How much better than the next deck does one need to be in order to justify being banned?
that said even if the metagame actually is more linear, i don't see how that leads us to the conclusion that Twin should be unbanned, Twin should be unbanned when it will no longer be the No 1 deck, i have no interest in choosing between two 'evils' (linear meta, or undisputed best deck), especially now that we're in such a good course
I understand what you're getting at, but you're also implying that it's correct to ban the best deck, even if the margin is minimal and did not hold oppressive metashares, simply for being the best deck. If Twin remains banned and another best deck emerges, should that be banned too? Why or why not? How much better than the next deck does one need to be in order to justify being banned?
the margin was not minimal, like i've said before in regards to PT and GP Top8s within 2015, Twin's Top8s were slightly over 70% more than affinity's top8s which was the 2nd most successful decks at the time, it was just that Twin's popularity(aka meta share) was not that high, if it was the ban would be a no brainer and we could speak of total domination while Twin only dominated the competitive scene of modern in 2015
Is it that far off? Taking away PTs (which, besides being irrelevant for no longer being Modern format, should have always been irrelevant because 6 rounds of draft determine the Top 8), you have 10 Twin and 7 Affinity making Top 8 across 7 GPs in 2015 (or about 1.4 Twin per Top 8 and 1 Affinity per Top 8). So disregarding the extremely small sample size of events and taking the arbitrary condition of Top 8, you have a difference that boils down to 3 decks across 7 events. 3 decks separating what is OK and what should be banned in a game defined by its variance.
that said even if the metagame actually is more linear, i don't see how that leads us to the conclusion that Twin should be unbanned, Twin should be unbanned when it will no longer be the No 1 deck, i have no interest in choosing between two 'evils' (linear meta, or undisputed best deck), especially now that we're in such a good course
I understand what you're getting at, but you're also implying that it's correct to ban the best deck, even if the margin is minimal and did not hold oppressive metashares, simply for being the best deck. If Twin remains banned and another best deck emerges, should that be banned too? Why or why not? How much better than the next deck does one need to be in order to justify being banned?
the margin was not minimal, like i've said before in regards to PT and GP Top8s within 2015, Twin's Top8s were slightly over 70% more than affinity's top8s which was the 2nd most successful decks at the time, it was just that Twin's popularity(aka meta share) was not that high, if it was the ban would be a no brainer and we could speak of total domination while Twin only dominated the competitive scene of modern in 2015
Is it that far off? Taking away PTs (which, besides being irrelevant for no longer being Modern format, should have always been irrelevant because 6 rounds of draft determine the Top 8), you have 10 Twin and 7 Affinity making Top 8 across 7 GPs in 2015 (or about 1.4 Twin per Top 8 and 1 Affinity per Top 8). So disregarding the extremely small sample size of events and taking the arbitrary condition of Top 8, you have a difference that boils down to 3 decks across 7 events. 3 decks separating what is OK and what should be banned in a game defined by its variance.
not a big fan of simply axing a piece of data especially since it doesn't bode so well for your points (2 Twin 0 affinity in the PT Top8), but whatever let's say we overlook this, yes the difference is by no means minimal, to 7 top8s with 10 top8s is a difference of over 40%, you can't call it minimal, 5% is minimal, 10% may be minimal, 40+% is certainly not minimal
as for the rest of my post the point was to demonstrate how the current Modern is superior to 2015 Modern: we want to figure what's the best deck in Modern and we can't (if you think you can name it and i will point at it's flaws), instead by mid 2015 the answer was pretty obvious: Twin, only Twin, always Twin and that sucks, what motivation do i have as a competitive player to play something other than Twin? it's not like it's a deck that folds to hate and i'm afraid of a prepared field and obviously a great number of the pros were on Twin, many folks here were trying to find supernatural explanations about why pros are gravitate towards Twin while refusing to accept the simplest of explanations: because it pays more
after all if the difference was minimal we wouldn't be certain, in this case pretty much all comeptitive players knew Twin was the best deck and many big names have said or implied this in many occasions , it was a widely accepted truth, save some more casual/localised playgroups which do not matter, i know of a playgroup that thinks that Red is a 'hypercolor'! should we consult their opinion on ban related matters?
Modern must be in a great place if Wafo Tapa can play esper control and fo well with it online. Lesson is play what you like is the modern is now.
is gitaxian probe the most popular blue card yet? if it isn't.. it probably will be soon... and that's when you know the format has officially jumped the shark... we're pretty close to that point as it is...
for all you guys who wanted twin gone.. you got the format you deserved....
let's just say that online is showing a much different story.... and i'm sure the larger tournies will catch up to what's going on right now...
and you really have to ask yourself where the format would actually be if nahiri wasn't printed.... and i don't think the shell is strong enough to handle all the aggro decks that are out there now...
that said even if the metagame actually is more linear, i don't see how that leads us to the conclusion that Twin should be unbanned, Twin should be unbanned when it will no longer be the No 1 deck, i have no interest in choosing between two 'evils' (linear meta, or undisputed best deck), especially now that we're in such a good course
I understand what you're getting at, but you're also implying that it's correct to ban the best deck, even if the margin is minimal and did not hold oppressive metashares, simply for being the best deck. If Twin remains banned and another best deck emerges, should that be banned too? Why or why not? How much better than the next deck does one need to be in order to justify being banned?
the margin was not minimal, like i've said before in regards to PT and GP Top8s within 2015, Twin's Top8s were slightly over 70% more than affinity's top8s which was the 2nd most successful decks at the time, it was just that Twin's popularity(aka meta share) was not that high, if it was the ban would be a no brainer and we could speak of total domination while Twin only dominated the competitive scene of modern in 2015
Is it that far off? Taking away PTs (which, besides being irrelevant for no longer being Modern format, should have always been irrelevant because 6 rounds of draft determine the Top 8), you have 10 Twin and 7 Affinity making Top 8 across 7 GPs in 2015 (or about 1.4 Twin per Top 8 and 1 Affinity per Top 8). So disregarding the extremely small sample size of events and taking the arbitrary condition of Top 8, you have a difference that boils down to 3 decks across 7 events. 3 decks separating what is OK and what should be banned in a game defined by its variance.
not a big fan of simply axing a piece of data especially since it doesn't bode so well for your points (2 Twin 0 affinity in the PT Top8), but whatever
It's irrelevant because tie breakers and records are dependent on 6 rounds of drafting. Those records and breakers help determine the Top 8 and have nothing to do with the strength of any given constructed deck.
let's say we overlook this, yes the difference is by no means minimal, to 7 top8s with 10 top8s is a difference of over 40%, you can't call it minimal, 5% is minimal, 10% may be minimal, 40+% is certainly not minimal
It's from a statistically irrelevant sample size (56 decks over 7 events and a year's time). Which is why it's interesting that you defend a position based on the performances of literally three people in a game 20 million play.
I get it, you need to rationalize why the Twin ban makes sense and why it's for the betterment of the format. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I don't think it is, and reason probably it irks me so much is that none of the numbers actually line up. As a math teacher, I feel I should have a decent grasp on numbers; call it obsessive compulsive. I would love it if Wizards released the full data set for how they came to the conclusion that Twin was hurting competitive diversity, but they won't. Despite 30+ archetypes were represented in GP T8s, 6 of 7 GPs won by unique archetypes, and one of the two Twin wins was non-traditional Jeskai running Wall, Resto, Kiki, and Elspeth. They'll just continue to have have Sam Stoddard come out and say "What we did was right, don't worry about why. Things are good now. Don't think about it too much!"
It's OK to disagree, I'm just doing my best to explain why I believe what I do and I love a good discussion.
i'm speculating but from personal observations i imagine there'll be a sizable bump in aggro/linear decks... and just know we saw this story before last year and there was only one reason why it wasn't that big of a deal...
i'm speculating but from personal observations i imagine there'll be a sizable bump in aggro/linear decks... and just know we saw this story before last year and there was only one reason why it wasn't that big of a deal...
ok let's assume that there is a bump in the said linear decks, unless you actually want to ban them i'm not sure how is that related to the BL discussion
or do you actually mean that Twin would police them? because this has proven to be nonsense many times over, i'm fairly certain that we could ban whatever we want and it's bad MUs won't see any significant rise, remember that Jund has evolved into an agro-killing machine, CoCo is naturally favored vs aggro (which is absent for Modo due to ***** client not having a mechanic to handle infinite loops) and Jeskai is also a solid deck against most aggro
so maybe the reasons behind the said rise is that:
a) those decks are new and are being explored + pretty cheap to build
b)their worst MU is a non-factor on modo?
btw even if you actually do believe in 'policing decks' CoCo is much more capable to punish aggro than Twin ever was, so it's absence should be a way bigger factor than Twin getting banned
Cmon bill, you should know this by now. Modern is nothing but a sea of linearity and twin is our one and only savior!
For real though, the modo meta can hardly be trusted for anything, do you know how popular that utopia sprawl stone rain deck is on there? That deck you have never seen top 8 a real event? Yes, the extreme deaths shadow prevalence on there is worrisome but until it spills into paper and maintains those numbers (spoiler: it won't) it's not worth looking at. Even then, the solution there would be to just ban become immense, not unban twin
i'm speculating but from personal observations i imagine there'll be a sizable bump in aggro/linear decks... and just know we saw this story before last year and there was only one reason why it wasn't that big of a deal...
ok let's assume that there is a bump in the said linear decks, unless you actually want to ban them i'm not sure how is that related to the BL discussion
or do you actually mean that Twin would police them? because this has proven to be nonsense many times over, i'm fairly certain that we could ban whatever we want and it's bad MUs won't see any significant rise, remember that Jund has evolved into an agro-killing machine, CoCo is naturally favored vs aggro (which is absent for Modo due to ***** client not having a mechanic to handle infinite loops) and Jeskai is also a solid deck against most aggro
so maybe the reasons behind the said rise is that:
a) those decks are new and are being explored + pretty cheap to build
b)their worst MU is a non-factor on modo?
btw even if you actually do believe in 'policing decks' CoCo is much more capable to punish aggro than Twin ever was, so it's absence should be a way bigger factor than Twin getting banned
Cmon bill, you should know this by now. Modern is nothing but a sea of linearity and twin is our one and only savior!
For real though, the modo meta can hardly be trusted for anything, do you know how popular that utopia sprawl stone rain deck is on there? That deck you have never seen top 8 a real event? Yes, the extreme deaths shadow prevalence on there is worrisome but until it spills into paper and maintains those numbers (spoiler: it won't) it's not worth looking at. Even then, the solution there would be to just ban become immense, not unban twin
yep, i highly doubt that Death's Shadow is T1 material, in fact i doubt if it's even T2 (sorry Sam Black but it was your skill that gave the Top8 and not the deck being awsome)
but what's seriously messed up with Modo atm is a number of technical flaws:
a)there is no way to not play an infinite loop unless the opponent allows it, therefore if you want to combo out as Abzan CoCo you need to manually sacrifice a creature,scry 1, let persist trigger, have it ETB, trigger life gain, trigger bolster and repeat, doing this over 10 times takes a ridiculous amount of time, meaning that the opponent can draw you at will in many cases and making the would be infinite combo a glorified life gain spell, unless your opponent is kind enough to concede
b)wall of roots is bugged, often resulting in chording for 1 less than what you actually wanted to
those issues are often being brought up by Jeff Hoogland and cripple the deck in modo, which in turn means linear aggro deck are free of their would be bad MU and have at least a couple of extra SB slots that would be Grafdigger's Cage and unlike Twin which was a deck that was mostly 55-45 and 60-40 against those decks (which is not enough to get people to think twice before picking them, only to have Twin win tournaments) CoCo is an actual aggro predator, a quality that shined even in the Eldrazi meta
btw i really appreciate you being so objective despite your love of Twin and UR decks, unlike my dear cfusion which takes the Top8s of Twin in 2015, substracts the Top8s of affinity in 2015 and compares that number with the estimated total population of magic players of all formats in unspecified time to conclude that the number is small, right before proudly anouncing that he's a math teacher... mind=blown!, anyways, kudos!
PS: if blue is indeed struggling even after Nahiri and AV perhaps we could actually discuss JTMS or Preordain,which imo are both much more interesting unbans than Twin and help a much larger number of decks, but we need more results before the ground for that discussion is ready, it's too soon atm and we need a better picture of the meta
well right now the most accurate/up to date meta-game stats are mtg goldfish and they paint a different picture than what you speak. not to mention mtg top8 aswell.
There hasn't been a big modern event since the gp weekend, goldfish is basically 100% based off mtgo leagues at this point, and goldfish doesn't even have all of the 5-0 decks from leagues posted, only what wotc is willing to release. On August 26th we have a triple gp weekend, that is when we will have an accurate picture of what the competitive modern meta looks like. Yes, i agree the prevalence of suicide zoo on modo is worrisome, i posted as much a month ago in the old thread. However, we cannot judge the modern mega off mtgo leagues alone, the modo meta is incredibly fluid, with a deck getting 10 5-0's one week then disappearing forever the next. Decks that you never see succeed in a 15 round event are some of the most popular, and tons of people run budget decks through the competitive leagues giving "real" decks free wins
I have been jamming games as grishoalbrand since GP Charlotte and from my experience (both paper and online), Delver is generally a rough match up, especially grixis delver. Maybe I have just been unlucky (like my game 2 loss at the WMCQ where I fizzled out mid combo against grixis delver), but I've played the match enough to be comfortable ruling out variance and accepting it. Sounds like you got unlucky, but I would hardly call the format unbalanced or a match up lottery.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
decks playing:
none
decks playing:
none
He basically sums up all the problems I have with the format. Modern is great playing against different decks, but if I'm playing for any sort of money or my livelihood, it is absolutely the worst format to play in. If I get nut drawn by someone and I happen to choose a deck that has no ability to fight back, I've basically lit money on fire not because I lacked the ability to use my cards to beat my opponent but the swingy nature of the format punishing me because of my deck selection before the games have even played out. I played alot of Modern, it's probably the format I've played most in the past 3 years. It's also the worst format in terms of input(time spent practicing) vs output (results that matter), in my experience anyways. I've played alot more Standard recently, and my results in Standard are much much better there than those of Modern. I've also spent less time playing it and have earned more store credit playing Standard PPTQs than Modern PPTQs. It's really hard to explain but I really have a hard time matching my win rate in other formats in Modern even though I invest a majority of my playtime playing the format, and the swingy nature of the format makes it that much harder for me to stick to a deck and master it.
And exactly why Miracles existing while Twin is banned feels incredibly hypocritical on their part, and exactly why I think Twin will come back eventually. In addition to being orders of magnitude more warping and oppressive from a competitive diversity standpoint, Miracles also suffers from going to time and turns... a LOT... which is a logistics element slowing down large events. If Miracles can exist in Legacy without a Pro Tour, I see absolutely no reason Twin can't exist in Modern without a Pro Tour, especially considering how robust and diverse and healthy the format was throughout 2015 (and it seems that only with hindsight bias do we convince ourselves Twin was such a oppressive boogyman). I do think there needs to be some kind of cool-off period though, so they don't look too stupid or admit that banning it might have been a mistake. I'm not expecting it back any time soon, but I'll be curious to see what happens next January announcement (or if anything happens to Miracles in the meantime). For the time being though, more Grixis Delver and Commander...
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
That is just your experience. I play Modern a lot and haven't enjoyed Standard for quite a while, even when I did play it. I played Standard Abzan Midrange in the first 4 rounds of an SCG Invitational and went 1-3, despite it being "the best deck." My first loss was when my Esper Dragons opponent played 4 Counterspell by turn 6, then another Ojutai after the first was Abzan Charmed. Then he cast 3 straight Ojutai (first 2 met Self Inflicted Wound) in the last game after 3 consecutive Counterspell. Two of those losses were in game 3s when my Atarka Red opponents top decked the card they needed to win (in one of those, he had 6 cards as outs and the other 12 cards as outs). Then I proceeded to go 4-0 in Modern with (Modern) Bogles, a deck that I felt very comfortable playing. Maybe this was because the bracket was easier, but only 1 of my Standard opponents made Day 2.
Every format has some variance. I do slightly agree with you, because I do believe Modern has more of a "Roulette" than other formats. I struggled a bit a month ago, averaging 4-2 at FNMs due to some mistakes, but also some good play. I've cleaned it up the past 3 weeks and averaged 3-1-1, playing much better. Despite the Roulette, it is important to know matchups and make sure that you play well. Mistakes can be very punishing, maybe more so than if you're playing a format where you have the best deck. I don't know what else to say. Modern does have more variance. I've lost to turn 4 Ugin on the draw in games 1 and 3, playing a deck that simply can't beat that. Then again, I've made some good plays and good blocks that meant the game for me. And I've had some lucky draws as well, like last FNM where I had 4 lands in hand and drew Orzhov Pontiff into Chord of Calling for a 2nd Orzhov Pontiff into Chord of Calling to easily eliminate my Grixis Delver opponent in game 3 (killed ScM, Young Pyromancer, unflipped Delver, Thopters from P&K Nalaaar, and finally another Delver).
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)Both formats lacking a pro tour doesn't make WotC's vision for them equal.
Modern is diverse and healthy NOW. Given the latest ban announcement, Wizards agrees.
Who is calling Twin an 'oppressive boogyman'? Most people seem to agree that it had the best matchups against the majority of the field. I know you want Twin back but portraying people who disagree with you as having some kind of grudge against your pet deck is just bullcrap.
Well, the goals and rules expressed for the Modern format were basically to create an eternal format not bound by the restrictions of the reserved list, in which you couldn't consistently kill someone before turn 4. Twin was essentially the posterchild benchmark for what the format was and the bar for power. It didn't break turn 4 rules and never held an oppressive metashare. Maybe if it held percentages on par with Eldrazi, TC Delver, DRS Jund or Pod (or Miracles, lol), then maybe it's justified in banning. But at 10%? Maybe not. The deck had been around forever and saw very little change. If it was the oppressive powerhouse everyone makes it out to be, more people would have played it (like every other deck that was banned for competitive diversity), but instead it had been on steady decline through the back of the year before the announcement. Additionally, at no point in the ban announcement (or the following AF tweets) was the mirror discussed. Topics like that were only brought up after several months of hindsight bias and ex-post-facto justification. With the Pro Tour gone, there's really no reason for it to be there. And eventually it will come off, just like Wild Nacatl did.
Also, I'm not attacking anyone directly with that standpoint other than Wizards themselves. By allowing Miracles to continue as it has, it is acknowledging that "this is OK" for an eternal format not bound by the Pro Tour. It's hypocritical then, to assess that a deck which is substantially less "competitively oppressive" (and does not suffer logistics problems) remains banned now that the Pro Tour is no longer a binding obligation for the format to be "fresh" every year.
And yeah, it was a pet deck, one that I spent a lot of money foiling out as well. But I'm making due playing with the cards I have leftover. It might seem strange, but the perceived logical inconsistency of the banning itself bothers me a lot more than the actual deck being banned. It was an extremely questionable, borderline judgement call that was accelerated and pushed due to the demands of the PT. Now that the PT is gone, the justifications for it sort of fall apart. But I've said all this before, nothing really new. I've just laid low on it the past month or two while I built half a dozen Commander decks because competitive modern is no longer a primary focus.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
But as time goes on I honestly feel for you more and more.
I mean, I'd argue twin SHOULD have been on the radar for ban potential, but I don't feel it reeeeeally crossed any lines. At least not anymore.
As far as I can tell, wizards wanted their PTs to serve as a way to give their newest sets more FaceTime. But were unwilling to come out and say it. So they instead just axed a top deck before its time and then refused to emergency ban eldrazi to set up some bs line where the players "just had to choose" either proper bans or modern PTs.
Now we thankfully have a healthy format. If I were in charge, would I unban twin right now? Probably not, no need to rock the boat ATM. But try to tell me the format as it currently stands wouldn't be fantastic for coverage.
Sorry if this was too tin foil hatty, but that's just how I see it at this point. Twin is the unfortunate casualty of a marketing decision.
If Legacy is any indication, it dramatically reduces bans. Miracles wouldn't have lasted half as long in PT-bound Modern as it did in Legacy.
Moreover, ban timing ends up being synonymous with ban quantity because Modern changes over time. Metagame shifts mean decks at the fringe of oppressive shares can ebb and flow over longer periods of non-intervention. Affinity is an excellent example of this, having risen and fallen numerous times over the past years. No more PT should mean all those Tier 1 decks are safe for a long time, instead of allowing Wizards to cherrypick a time period to show a deck is problematic. But we'll need to wait and see to know for sure. If we make it through April 2017 with no bans outside of a new Tier 0 problem, then it's a new day.
Only when a deck violates those data points and doesn't receive a ban will we actually know that WOTC has a looser grip on the format.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
ONE MAN
FORGOTTEN BY SOCIETY
HIS FRIENDS HAVE FORSAKEN HIM
DESPERATE AND ALONE
AGAINST A LEGION OF FOES, HE IS
THE LAST DEFENDER
Rated PG-13.
Coming this Summer.
Seriously, though, Splinter Twin is not Wild Nacatl. It is 1 piece of a 2-card game-winning combo. Modern is clearly not Legacy despite the fact that both lack a Pro Tour.
Several people in this thread alone have expressed the opinion that Twin could be unbanned in forseeable future. Many others who agreed with the ban have opined that it was a borderline case, far from something like the Eye of Ugin ban.
Everyone is not against you.
It was a jest, but there was an element of truth in the statement. A lot of people felt the same- the phrase "I can't beat X" was heard all day.
Another interesting thing was the make up of decks in the room. 50% of the field was one of Grishoalbrand, Infect, Affinity, Ad Nauseam, Suicide Zoo and Boggles- all frighteningly decks that ignore your opponent and generate a large number of free wins and 40% was basically 3/4 color good stuff with all the best spells. I went 5-2 on the day with a landkill-tax deck that ran full numbers of suppression field and some chalices too, a deck that punishes all the unfair decks horribly (its hard to combo when your second land drop fetch costs 2 to activate or your first land has been destroyed t2), because I figured that everybody will just want to play "free win" decks or "I can deal with everything" decks, which is basically all they did.
The most telling thing was the way in which people fetched lands early on- willy nilly, very different from Legacy where every fetch is meticulous and often combined in some form with Brainstorm maths. Matches were never decided on small play errors or strategic decisions like they seem to be in Legacy, it felt more like a "do you have it?" format.....
Most of the players there playing the free win decks used to play Twin.....
This is very true. The other side is also true: linking the "positive" development (such as other blue decks doing well) to the Twin ban. Jeskai Nahiri and Grixis Control/Delver only exist as they do because of additional cards either printed (Nahiri) or unbanned (AV). None of that has anything to do directly with Twin, which means their original assessment that Twin "reduce[s] diversity by supplanting similar decks" is completely bogus, as the decks were just objectively weak in the format, with or without Twin. It's bonus irony that these blue decks would have fantastic matchups against Twin. So the moral is that it's some kind of lateral gray area in between. And since a dozen other things have happened in the meantime, it's extremely hard to pinpoint any particular cause for the current state of Modern; good or bad.
As for the perceived jump in linear decks, while it may or may not be tied to Twin's absence, there definitely are a lot of them running around these days. And most of them are doing very well.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Is it that far off? Taking away PTs (which, besides being irrelevant for no longer being Modern format, should have always been irrelevant because 6 rounds of draft determine the Top 8), you have 10 Twin and 7 Affinity making Top 8 across 7 GPs in 2015 (or about 1.4 Twin per Top 8 and 1 Affinity per Top 8). So disregarding the extremely small sample size of events and taking the arbitrary condition of Top 8, you have a difference that boils down to 3 decks across 7 events. 3 decks separating what is OK and what should be banned in a game defined by its variance.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Modern must be in a great place if Wafo Tapa can play esper control and fo well with it online. Lesson is play what you like is the modern is now.
for all you guys who wanted twin gone.. you got the format you deserved....
and you really have to ask yourself where the format would actually be if nahiri wasn't printed.... and i don't think the shell is strong enough to handle all the aggro decks that are out there now...
It's irrelevant because tie breakers and records are dependent on 6 rounds of drafting. Those records and breakers help determine the Top 8 and have nothing to do with the strength of any given constructed deck.
It's from a statistically irrelevant sample size (56 decks over 7 events and a year's time). Which is why it's interesting that you defend a position based on the performances of literally three people in a game 20 million play.
I get it, you need to rationalize why the Twin ban makes sense and why it's for the betterment of the format. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I don't think it is, and reason probably it irks me so much is that none of the numbers actually line up. As a math teacher, I feel I should have a decent grasp on numbers; call it obsessive compulsive.
It's OK to disagree, I'm just doing my best to explain why I believe what I do and I love a good discussion.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Cmon bill, you should know this by now. Modern is nothing but a sea of linearity and twin is our one and only savior!
For real though, the modo meta can hardly be trusted for anything, do you know how popular that utopia sprawl stone rain deck is on there? That deck you have never seen top 8 a real event? Yes, the extreme deaths shadow prevalence on there is worrisome but until it spills into paper and maintains those numbers (spoiler: it won't) it's not worth looking at. Even then, the solution there would be to just ban become immense, not unban twin
UWRjeskai nahiri UWR
UBRgrixis titi UBR
UBRgrixis delverUBR
UR ur kikimite UR
EDH
RUG Riku of Two Reflections RUG
UBR Marchesa, the Black Rose UBR
UBRGYidris, Maelstrom Wielder UBRG
UBRJeleva, Nephalia's ScourgeUBR
http://www.mtggoldfish.com/metagame/modern#online
http://mtgtop8.com/format?f=MO&meta=54
decks playing:
none
UWRjeskai nahiri UWR
UBRgrixis titi UBR
UBRgrixis delverUBR
UR ur kikimite UR
EDH
RUG Riku of Two Reflections RUG
UBR Marchesa, the Black Rose UBR
UBRGYidris, Maelstrom Wielder UBRG
UBRJeleva, Nephalia's ScourgeUBR