But you're wrong, I was playing Jeskai Nahiri in real life and on mtgo, and the whole deck flopped, so it's not like I haven't lost money or time on this. Blue is bad in general, this isn't because of Tron or Eldrazi surprising it. Why on earth would anyone play a blue deck before Jund and Junk as of now? First it was, "the formats too fast for blue!" now it's, "the ramp decks are killing blue!"
I'll say it again, your attitude towards banning is an awful and unhealthy mentality.
I've played nearly every major tier 1 deck outside of Bant Eldrazi/Eldrazi Tron/Death Shadow, and I've played plenty of tier 2 decks
Tron beats the holy hell out of Jund and Junk, and yet we saw a ton of Jund out there in the regionals in the top 8 and on mtgo.
So, uhh, what tournaments are Tron and Titanshift sweeping? Tron goes in and out of tier 1, and has spent at least 50% of the last two years in tier 2, so let's not leave that little fact out.
look at this
i dissagree, they would weaken anti fair decks and make the game more fun imo, the poeple it would upset are playing anti fair decks do i care?
There's no point just leave it. There's no reasoning with someone who thinks his own highly biased opinion of fun and balance is worth more than others. Just be glad that the people who matter actually make decisions based on objective data and numbers.
Guys please opinions on japanese cards. Lost a 3/3 creature against Japan celestial colonade. This guy played all creatures and spells in english cards, but some cards in his manabase was japanese. I dont registrated this really ( my brain say its all fine and all english to me lets attack his empty board)...and i am sure it is a Kind of legal cheating. It is not ok, but i know legal. I Hate such people. I never forget colonade normally, but with this Tricks it can happen one time in 3 years and such people take advantage of this
If I am a customer spending premium amount of dollars, I expect a premium service. Jund falls into the category of a premium deck costing more dollars than a majority of the rest of the format. I'm not getting the desired performance ratio per dollars spent out of the Jund deck because WOTC decided to make the format more diverse.
But you're wrong, I was playing Jeskai Nahiri in real life and on mtgo, and the whole deck flopped, so it's not like I haven't lost money or time on this. Blue is bad in general, this isn't because of Tron or Eldrazi surprising it. Why on earth would anyone play a blue deck before Jund and Junk as of now? First it was, "the formats too fast for blue!" now it's, "the ramp decks are killing blue!"
I'll say it again, your attitude towards banning is an awful and unhealthy mentality.
I've played nearly every major tier 1 deck outside of Bant Eldrazi/Eldrazi Tron/Death Shadow, and I've played plenty of tier 2 decks
Tron beats the holy hell out of Jund and Junk, and yet we saw a ton of Jund out there in the regionals in the top 8 and on mtgo.
So, uhh, what tournaments are Tron and Titanshift sweeping? Tron goes in and out of tier 1, and has spent at least 50% of the last two years in tier 2, so let's not leave that little fact out.
on:the blue is bad argument vs fast mana ramp are supressing it.
blue control is naturally reactive, what cards help blue control vs these 3 decks in a reactive way? what happens if we someday get a better counterspell and cantrip and the problem is still there? will you say blue control is still bad? will you say it needs to be more proactive to be good? then it wont be control anymore will it?
"I'll say it again, your attitude towards banning is an awful and unhealthy mentality."
bans are inevitable in eternal formats.
"Tron beats the holy hell out of Jund and Junk"
while this is mostly true they probably have the best fair game vs these decks( which is sad even with all the hate they bring in), also does valakut and eldrazi. which has a side effect of beating the living hell out of ALL fair decks. this is the part im not a fan of.
"So, uhh, what tournaments are Tron and Titanshift sweeping? Tron goes in and out of tier 1, and has spent at least 50% of the last two years in tier 2, so let's not leave that little fact out. "
and now the meta is different, now valakut, eldrazi and tron make up half of the top 8.
the problem is you want to accommodate these cancerous decks with rising the power level of ALL fair decks. how do we do this without also rising the power level of bgx?
and if your answer is: everything is fine leave it alone.
then maybe you are the one with the unhealthy mentality?
Do you think that this card should see more play? i mean, it's really good agains tron and eldrazi (i cant take into account cavern of souls cause it's a card crafted to be good against blue
But you're wrong, I was playing Jeskai Nahiri in real life and on mtgo, and the whole deck flopped, so it's not like I haven't lost money or time on this. Blue is bad in general, this isn't because of Tron or Eldrazi surprising it. Why on earth would anyone play a blue deck before Jund and Junk as of now? First it was, "the formats too fast for blue!" now it's, "the ramp decks are killing blue!"
I'll say it again, your attitude towards banning is an awful and unhealthy mentality.
I've played nearly every major tier 1 deck outside of Bant Eldrazi/Eldrazi Tron/Death Shadow, and I've played plenty of tier 2 decks
Tron beats the holy hell out of Jund and Junk, and yet we saw a ton of Jund out there in the regionals in the top 8 and on mtgo.
So, uhh, what tournaments are Tron and Titanshift sweeping? Tron goes in and out of tier 1, and has spent at least 50% of the last two years in tier 2, so let's not leave that little fact out.
look at this
i dissagree, they would weaken anti fair decks and make the game more fun imo, the poeple it would upset are playing anti fair decks do i care?
There's no point just leave it. There's no reasoning with someone who thinks his own highly biased opinion of fun and balance is worth more than others. Just be glad that the people who matter actually make decisions based on objective data and numbers.
control is currently 10% while aggro, mid, combo,and ramp archetypes are 15-20%
my idea of a more fun modern is a less linear one, as well as better archetype balance. if you disagree with that, im afraid statistically it is YOU who is being biased.
Fun fact, I would have gotten into Scapeshift after the Twin ban, if it didnt depend on a single card to be a deck, kind of like Twin. You take away the Scapeshift, if the deck ever got good enough, and you lose the deck.
Ban mania, or Wizards policy, kept me from playing that.
I cannot understand the Twin hate, I really cant. The deck was not sweeping the field, it was able to be competed against, it even had multiple hate cards printed, including in Colourless.
Colt: The MTGO meta, makes Twin relevant, and many of us play within it.
holydiva: Please explain how/why Twin is 'toxic'. As that word has little meaning in the modern online world.
It's entirely possible Wotc could print something that benefits blue or helps against non-linear style decks, a good example being Fatal Push.
Why is Twin the necessary answer? Also, if Twin were to be unban why is fair to have it paired alongside Ancestral Visions? Either mained or sided, we would have a deck that could not only combo kill but also out grind grindier decks.
control is currently 10% while aggro, mid, combo,and ramp archetypes are 15-20%
my idea of a more fun modern is a less linear one, as well as better archetype balance. if you disagree with that, im afraid statistically it is YOU who is being biased.
Did you know that a lot of people actually enjoy playing linear strategies that do cool things at their opponent? Did you know that many modern players actually hate long, grindy matchups involving decks with just "good stuff"?
You can't make everyone like what you like, and one person's "balanced format" may be another person's paradise. Modern is almost always diverse, even if it doesn't feel that way to you.
control is currently 10% while aggro, mid, combo,and ramp archetypes are 15-20%
my idea of a more fun modern is a less linear one, as well as better archetype balance. if you disagree with that, im afraid statistically it is YOU who is being biased.
Did you know that a lot of people actually enjoy playing linear strategies that do cool things at their opponent? Did you know that many modern players actually hate long, grindy matchups involving decks with just "good stuff"?
You can't make everyone like what you like, and one person's "balanced format" may be another person's paradise. Modern is almost always diverse, even if it doesn't feel that way to you.
"Did you know that a lot of people actually enjoy playing linear strategies that do cool things at their opponent?"
yea thats why dredge and bloom and storm got nerfed right?
"You can't make everyone like what you like"
your right I cant, and thats not what im arguing about
"and one person's "balanced format" may be another person's paradise"
regardless stats dont lie, and im arguing for a balance in the stats I mentioned above. which gives both parties you mentioned the games they want equally.
But you're wrong, I was playing Jeskai Nahiri in real life and on mtgo, and the whole deck flopped, so it's not like I haven't lost money or time on this. Blue is bad in general, this isn't because of Tron or Eldrazi surprising it. Why on earth would anyone play a blue deck before Jund and Junk as of now? First it was, "the formats too fast for blue!" now it's, "the ramp decks are killing blue!"
I'll say it again, your attitude towards banning is an awful and unhealthy mentality.
I've played nearly every major tier 1 deck outside of Bant Eldrazi/Eldrazi Tron/Death Shadow, and I've played plenty of tier 2 decks
Tron beats the holy hell out of Jund and Junk, and yet we saw a ton of Jund out there in the regionals in the top 8 and on mtgo.
So, uhh, what tournaments are Tron and Titanshift sweeping? Tron goes in and out of tier 1, and has spent at least 50% of the last two years in tier 2, so let's not leave that little fact out.
look at this
i dissagree, they would weaken anti fair decks and make the game more fun imo, the poeple it would upset are playing anti fair decks do i care?
There's no point just leave it. There's no reasoning with someone who thinks his own highly biased opinion of fun and balance is worth more than others. Just be glad that the people who matter actually make decisions based on objective data and numbers.
control is currently 10% while aggro, mid, combo,and ramp archetypes are 15-20%
my idea of a more fun modern is a less linear one, as well as better archetype balance. if you disagree with that, im afraid statistically it is YOU who is being biased.
Then you seem to be confusing linear and unfair. They are 2 different things that sometimes intersect.
But ok sure, the stats do show that more decks are interested in doing their own thing than bothering with their opponent, in that I agree with you. It is a point that the format can improve on.
But where on earth does that show that
valakut, eldrazi and tron make up half of the top 8.
Guys please opinions on japanese cards. Lost a 3/3 creature against Japan celestial colonade. This guy played all creatures and spells in english cards, but some cards in his manabase was japanese. I dont registrated this really ( my brain say its all fine and all english to me lets attack his empty board)...and i am sure it is a Kind of legal cheating. It is not ok, but i know legal. I Hate such people. I never forget colonade normally, but with this Tricks it can happen one time in 3 years and such people take advantage of this
If I am a customer spending premium amount of dollars, I expect a premium service. Jund falls into the category of a premium deck costing more dollars than a majority of the rest of the format. I'm not getting the desired performance ratio per dollars spent out of the Jund deck because WOTC decided to make the format more diverse.
In the end, I want less bans. You cannot tell me Bloo, or Infect, or even Dredge, are broken right now. I've beat them all with my janky Bant Humans for christs sake.
I, like holydiva and others, see Big Mana as problematic in the meta. MTGO does often predict the paper meta, so if Big Mana takes over, watch for it to come down the pipe to Paper.
Does Modern have the tools to fight against Big Mana when we have to also keep a check on the speed (Turn 4 blah blah) of the format through Bans?
Thats the root issue. Now if you have a controlling deck, that can keep a brake on the speed decks (Twin had great game against Burn, Affinity, and Infect) while also having the ability to beat the Big Mana decks, however IS interactive and a fair match against BGx (which Twin was) well.. how is that a negative for the format in general? Does that not accomplish what would take MULTIPLE bans with a single unban?
But you're wrong, I was playing Jeskai Nahiri in real life and on mtgo, and the whole deck flopped, so it's not like I haven't lost money or time on this. Blue is bad in general, this isn't because of Tron or Eldrazi surprising it. Why on earth would anyone play a blue deck before Jund and Junk as of now? First it was, "the formats too fast for blue!" now it's, "the ramp decks are killing blue!"
I'll say it again, your attitude towards banning is an awful and unhealthy mentality.
I've played nearly every major tier 1 deck outside of Bant Eldrazi/Eldrazi Tron/Death Shadow, and I've played plenty of tier 2 decks
Tron beats the holy hell out of Jund and Junk, and yet we saw a ton of Jund out there in the regionals in the top 8 and on mtgo.
So, uhh, what tournaments are Tron and Titanshift sweeping? Tron goes in and out of tier 1, and has spent at least 50% of the last two years in tier 2, so let's not leave that little fact out.
look at this
i dissagree, they would weaken anti fair decks and make the game more fun imo, the poeple it would upset are playing anti fair decks do i care?
There's no point just leave it. There's no reasoning with someone who thinks his own highly biased opinion of fun and balance is worth more than others. Just be glad that the people who matter actually make decisions based on objective data and numbers.
control is currently 10% while aggro, mid, combo,and ramp archetypes are 15-20%
my idea of a more fun modern is a less linear one, as well as better archetype balance. if you disagree with that, im afraid statistically it is YOU who is being biased.
Then you seem to be confusing linear and unfair. They are 2 different things that sometimes intersect.
But ok sure, the stats do show that more decks are interested in doing their own thing than bothering with their opponent, in that I agree with you. It is a point that the format can improve on.
But where on earth does that show that
valakut, eldrazi and tron make up half of the top 8.
?
"the stats do show that more decks are interested in doing their own thing than bothering with their opponent, in that I agree with you. It is a point that the format can improve on."
and this is something I too feel could be improved.
"But where on earth does that show that"
should have clarified I meant mtgo on the big mana argument. and to be honest I would like to wait until after the gp weekend to readdress this big/fast mana topic.
it is relavant to me because i play alot of mtgo and face ALOT of these decks, enough in fact that I have ceased playing anything but bg/x if I want to win the game fair interactive and non linear. this only worsens my concerns about the format however. and how valakut tron and eldrazi are quite possibly one of the largest uderlying issues to my above problem ( linearity dominates)
regardless stats dont lie, and im arguing for a balance in the stats I mentioned above. which gives both parties you mentioned the games they want equally.
As far as stats go, I see more than a dozen playable decks, with varied strategies, none of which breach the 10% mark. I see more than a dozen additional strategies that are playable and strong in the current metagame. This is a good thing; why ban anything and risk breaking this diversity?
Regarding dredge and bloom being nerfed, I thought the conversation was about Tron, Eldrazi and Valakut which, if I'm not mistaken, are known for being kinda slow relative to the general modern metagame. Somewhat linear, but slow. What exactly is the problem with them?
regardless stats dont lie, and im arguing for a balance in the stats I mentioned above. which gives both parties you mentioned the games they want equally.
As far as stats go, I see more than a dozen playable decks, with varied strategies, none of which breach the 10% mark. I see more than a dozen additional strategies that are playable and strong in the current metagame. This is a good thing; why ban anything and risk breaking this diversity?
Regarding dredge and bloom being nerfed, I thought the conversation was about Tron, Eldrazi and Valakut which, if I'm not mistaken, are known for being kinda slow relative to the general modern metagame. Somewhat linear, but slow. What exactly is the problem with them?
"As far as stats go, I see more than a dozen playable decks, with varied strategies, none of which breach the 10% mark. I see more than a dozen additional strategies that are playable and strong in the current metagame. This is a good thing; why ban anything and risk breaking this diversity?"
this argument ignores my linearity argument
"Regarding dredge and bloom being nerfed, I thought the conversation was about Tron, Eldrazi and Valakut "
it was in response to your post: Did you know that a lot of people actually enjoy playing linear strategies that do cool things at their opponent?"
"What exactly is the problem with them?"
valakut tron and eldrazi are quite possibly one of the largest uderlying issues to my above problem ( linearity dominates)
After months upon months of debating in this forum, I have found the perfect solution to everyone's issues.
Unban: Splinter Twin, Bloodbraid Elf.
Ban: Tron Lands, SSG, All Extra turn spells, Eldrazi Temple, Mox Opal, Puresteel Paladin, Grapeshot, Empty the Warrens, Goryo's Vengeance, Retreat to Coralheim, Primeval Titan, Inkmoth Nexus, Glistener Elf, Death's Shadow, Kiln Fiend, Valakut the Molten Pinnacle, Scapeshift.
That way the forum gets what it wants. A meta of 33% Jund, 33% Abzan, and 33% Twin. No other decks possible.
Makes the most sense to me.
All you have done, is lump everyone who has disagreed with you in a single camp. Congrats, you have beat Bocephus at extreme hyperbole.
Funny, because I always felt you were the one that spoke extreme hyperbole. You are the one that cant see Wotc vision for the format and have disagreed with everything Wotc has done. I understand what Wotc is doing, I have embraced what they seem to want to do and moved forward. All you have done is complain and fight for the past few years. So who is speaking in hyperbole? The one who sees the vision and direction of the format? or the one who has fought Wotc vision and direction for years?
"As far as stats go, I see more than a dozen playable decks, with varied strategies, none of which breach the 10% mark. I see more than a dozen additional strategies that are playable and strong in the current metagame. This is a good thing; why ban anything and risk breaking this diversity?"
this argument ignores my linearity argument
"Regarding dredge and bloom being nerfed, I thought the conversation was about Tron, Eldrazi and Valakut "
it was in response to your post: Did you know that a lot of people actually enjoy playing linear strategies that do cool things at their opponent?"
"What exactly is the problem with them?"
valakut tron and eldrazi are quite possibly one of the largest uderlying issues to my above problem ( linearity dominates)
Why is more linearity bad? Again, a lot of people like modern (believe it or not) because linearity dominates. This is, to many, a positive feature of the format. I'm not a huge fan personally, but meh. They would seem to be having fun (given the format's popularity).
Also, Eldrazi and Tron have never felt linear to me; I find myself interacting with my opponent and making carefully weighed decisions quite often with those decks. Eldrazi especially is surprisingly involved. Maybe they aren't the linear "problem decks" you actually despise, but they themselves are rarely ignore-your-opponent linear the way some of the faster decks have been.
Fun fact, I would have gotten into Scapeshift after the Twin ban, if it didnt depend on a single card to be a deck, kind of like Twin. You take away the Scapeshift, if the deck ever got good enough, and you lose the deck.
Ban mania, or Wizards policy, kept me from playing that.
I cannot understand the Twin hate, I really cant. The deck was not sweeping the field, it was able to be competed against, it even had multiple hate cards printed, including in Colourless.
Colt: The MTGO meta, makes Twin relevant, and many of us play within it.
holydiva: Please explain how/why Twin is 'toxic'. As that word has little meaning in the modern online world.
I have no bias against Twin.
From my understanding, the exist of Twin serves as a policy deck against linear (non-interactive) decks. If Twin is unbanned, the good news is there will be less amount of the T1 or T2 linear decks. But the bad news is there will be less amount of the T1 or T2 decks due to the "Twin check".
I have no idea which META is better, with or without Twin...
"As far as stats go, I see more than a dozen playable decks, with varied strategies, none of which breach the 10% mark. I see more than a dozen additional strategies that are playable and strong in the current metagame. This is a good thing; why ban anything and risk breaking this diversity?"
this argument ignores my linearity argument
"Regarding dredge and bloom being nerfed, I thought the conversation was about Tron, Eldrazi and Valakut "
it was in response to your post: Did you know that a lot of people actually enjoy playing linear strategies that do cool things at their opponent?"
"What exactly is the problem with them?"
valakut tron and eldrazi are quite possibly one of the largest uderlying issues to my above problem ( linearity dominates)
Why is more linearity bad? Again, a lot of people like modern (believe it or not) because linearity dominates. This is, to many, a positive feature of the format. I'm not a huge fan personally, but meh. They would seem to be having fun (given the format's popularity).
Also, Eldrazi and Tron have never felt linear to me; I find myself interacting with my opponent and making carefully weighed decisions quite often with those decks. Eldrazi especially is surprisingly involved. Maybe they aren't the linear "problem decks" you actually despise, but they themselves are rarely ignore-your-opponent linear the way some of the faster decks have been.
linearity isnt bad but its currently unbalanced.
it has been disputed before what is linear and what is not, some decks are in between some wheres. regardless, linearity is dominant in this metagame. and when looking at what decks are the prime culprits one cant help but look at the tier 1 decks., especially the ones that stifle less linear strategies.
Fun fact, I would have gotten into Scapeshift after the Twin ban, if it didnt depend on a single card to be a deck, kind of like Twin. You take away the Scapeshift, if the deck ever got good enough, and you lose the deck.
Ban mania, or Wizards policy, kept me from playing that.
I cannot understand the Twin hate, I really cant. The deck was not sweeping the field, it was able to be competed against, it even had multiple hate cards printed, including in Colourless.
Colt: The MTGO meta, makes Twin relevant, and many of us play within it.
holydiva: Please explain how/why Twin is 'toxic'. As that word has little meaning in the modern online world.
I have no bias against Twin.
From my understanding, the exist of Twin serves as a policy deck against linear (non-interactive) decks. If Twin is unbanned, the good news is there will be less amount of the T1 or T2 linear decks. But the bad news is there will be less amount of the T1 or T2 decks due to the "Twin check".
I have no idea which META is better, with or without Twin...
I agree with the notion that Twin is not necessarily the 'perfect world' and we will all be happy. It certainly puts a HARD restrain on brews and new ideas since, as you pointed out, you have to pass the 'Twin Check' and i as a guy who likes brewing always felt that if you didn't beat Twin or Tron back then you were doing everything wrong.
The problem is which world is healthier. Healthy metagame for me is one where most archetypes are represented and can be played at a competitive level(or at least can 5-0 FNMs with regular consistency). Also, some cornerstones of my healthy metagame are 'No High Tier SB roulette decks' and 'Interactive games Which MAY NOT pass Turn 3'.
I think Splinter Twin solves those problems without breaking the format and keeping many linear-sideboard dependant decks on check.
I won't be the ideal world for everybody, but you see that it is so bad for the "cameras" to see T3 after T3 kill with players completely 'goldfishing' themselves out of the game. If we want Modern to survive this period of tournament abscence we need to make it even more appealing for pros and encourage the players that their issues with the format will be heard and acted upon.
Again is say. Until no one comes with a better idea of how to make the format more interactive, less frustrating and less focused on banning everything into oblivion, i will say that Twin is the world I prefer to live on.
Fun fact, I would have gotten into Scapeshift after the Twin ban, if it didnt depend on a single card to be a deck, kind of like Twin. You take away the Scapeshift, if the deck ever got good enough, and you lose the deck.
Ban mania, or Wizards policy, kept me from playing that.
I cannot understand the Twin hate, I really cant. The deck was not sweeping the field, it was able to be competed against, it even had multiple hate cards printed, including in Colourless.
Colt: The MTGO meta, makes Twin relevant, and many of us play within it.
holydiva: Please explain how/why Twin is 'toxic'. As that word has little meaning in the modern online world.
I have no bias against Twin.
From my understanding, the exist of Twin serves as a policy deck against linear (non-interactive) decks. If Twin is unbanned, the good news is there will be less amount of the T1 or T2 linear decks. But the bad news is there will be less amount of the T1 or T2 decks due to the "Twin check".
I have no idea which META is better, with or without Twin...
I agree with the notion that Twin is not necessarily the 'perfect world' and we will all be happy. It certainly puts a HARD restrain on brews and new ideas since, as you pointed out, you have to pass the 'Twin Check' and i as a guy who likes brewing always felt that if you didn't beat Twin or Tron back then you were doing everything wrong.
The problem is which world is healthier. Healthy metagame for me is one where most archetypes are represented and can be played at a competitive level(or at least can 5-0 FNMs with regular consistency). Also, some cornerstones of my healthy metagame are 'No High Tier SB roulette decks' and 'Interactive games Which MAY NOT pass Turn 3'.
I think Splinter Twin solves those problems without breaking the format and keeping many linear-sideboard dependant decks on check.
I won't be the ideal world for everybody, but you see that it is so bad for the "cameras" to see T3 after T3 kill with players completely 'goldfishing' themselves out of the game. If we want Modern to survive this period of tournament abscence we need to make it even more appealing for pros and encourage the players that their issues with the format will be heard and acted upon.
Again is say. Until no one comes with a better idea of how to make the format more interactive, less frustrating and less focused on banning everything into oblivion, i will say that Twin is the world I prefer to live on.
while i agree with the twin unbanning at this point. i also feel it would be patching the blue problem in the wrong way. blue should have better tools to do well without a combo.
Yeah, fine, the more the merrier, I just don't see solutions that don't include wholesale bans which are bad for the format.
I'm happy enough brewing up Bant decks right now, but the reality of the situation may not hit us this weekend, but paper catches up to MTGO eventually. :/
Yeah, fine, the more the merrier, I just don't see solutions that don't include wholesale bans which are bad for the format.
I'm happy enough brewing up Bant decks right now, but the reality of the situation may not hit us this weekend, but paper catches up to MTGO eventually. :/
then we share the same concerns, as I play bant alot aswell
hopefully some unbans and reprints can do a little something here.... not sure if wizards is on the same page as us though.
look at this
There's no point just leave it. There's no reasoning with someone who thinks his own highly biased opinion of fun and balance is worth more than others. Just be glad that the people who matter actually make decisions based on objective data and numbers.
on:the blue is bad argument vs fast mana ramp are supressing it.
blue control is naturally reactive, what cards help blue control vs these 3 decks in a reactive way? what happens if we someday get a better counterspell and cantrip and the problem is still there? will you say blue control is still bad? will you say it needs to be more proactive to be good? then it wont be control anymore will it?
"I'll say it again, your attitude towards banning is an awful and unhealthy mentality."
bans are inevitable in eternal formats.
"Tron beats the holy hell out of Jund and Junk"
while this is mostly true they probably have the best fair game vs these decks( which is sad even with all the hate they bring in), also does valakut and eldrazi. which has a side effect of beating the living hell out of ALL fair decks. this is the part im not a fan of.
"So, uhh, what tournaments are Tron and Titanshift sweeping? Tron goes in and out of tier 1, and has spent at least 50% of the last two years in tier 2, so let's not leave that little fact out. "
and now the meta is different, now valakut, eldrazi and tron make up half of the top 8.
the problem is you want to accommodate these cancerous decks with rising the power level of ALL fair decks. how do we do this without also rising the power level of bgx?
and if your answer is: everything is fine leave it alone.
then maybe you are the one with the unhealthy mentality?
decks playing:
none
heres some objective stats for ya! http://modernnexus.com/topdecks/
3/4 of tier 1 is linear, 2/3 of t1,2,3 is linear
control is currently 10% while aggro, mid, combo,and ramp archetypes are 15-20%
my idea of a more fun modern is a less linear one, as well as better archetype balance. if you disagree with that, im afraid statistically it is YOU who is being biased.
decks playing:
none
Ban mania, or Wizards policy, kept me from playing that.
I cannot understand the Twin hate, I really cant. The deck was not sweeping the field, it was able to be competed against, it even had multiple hate cards printed, including in Colourless.
Colt: The MTGO meta, makes Twin relevant, and many of us play within it.
holydiva: Please explain how/why Twin is 'toxic'. As that word has little meaning in the modern online world.
Spirits
Why is Twin the necessary answer? Also, if Twin were to be unban why is fair to have it paired alongside Ancestral Visions? Either mained or sided, we would have a deck that could not only combo kill but also out grind grindier decks.
Did you know that a lot of people actually enjoy playing linear strategies that do cool things at their opponent? Did you know that many modern players actually hate long, grindy matchups involving decks with just "good stuff"?
You can't make everyone like what you like, and one person's "balanced format" may be another person's paradise. Modern is almost always diverse, even if it doesn't feel that way to you.
"Did you know that a lot of people actually enjoy playing linear strategies that do cool things at their opponent?"
yea thats why dredge and bloom and storm got nerfed right?
"You can't make everyone like what you like"
your right I cant, and thats not what im arguing about
"and one person's "balanced format" may be another person's paradise"
regardless stats dont lie, and im arguing for a balance in the stats I mentioned above. which gives both parties you mentioned the games they want equally.
decks playing:
none
Then you seem to be confusing linear and unfair. They are 2 different things that sometimes intersect.
But ok sure, the stats do show that more decks are interested in doing their own thing than bothering with their opponent, in that I agree with you. It is a point that the format can improve on.
But where on earth does that show that
?
I, like holydiva and others, see Big Mana as problematic in the meta. MTGO does often predict the paper meta, so if Big Mana takes over, watch for it to come down the pipe to Paper.
Does Modern have the tools to fight against Big Mana when we have to also keep a check on the speed (Turn 4 blah blah) of the format through Bans?
Thats the root issue. Now if you have a controlling deck, that can keep a brake on the speed decks (Twin had great game against Burn, Affinity, and Infect) while also having the ability to beat the Big Mana decks, however IS interactive and a fair match against BGx (which Twin was) well.. how is that a negative for the format in general? Does that not accomplish what would take MULTIPLE bans with a single unban?
Spirits
"the stats do show that more decks are interested in doing their own thing than bothering with their opponent, in that I agree with you. It is a point that the format can improve on."
and this is something I too feel could be improved.
"But where on earth does that show that"
should have clarified I meant mtgo on the big mana argument. and to be honest I would like to wait until after the gp weekend to readdress this big/fast mana topic.
it is relavant to me because i play alot of mtgo and face ALOT of these decks, enough in fact that I have ceased playing anything but bg/x if I want to win the game fair interactive and non linear. this only worsens my concerns about the format however. and how valakut tron and eldrazi are quite possibly one of the largest uderlying issues to my above problem ( linearity dominates)
decks playing:
none
As far as stats go, I see more than a dozen playable decks, with varied strategies, none of which breach the 10% mark. I see more than a dozen additional strategies that are playable and strong in the current metagame. This is a good thing; why ban anything and risk breaking this diversity?
Regarding dredge and bloom being nerfed, I thought the conversation was about Tron, Eldrazi and Valakut which, if I'm not mistaken, are known for being kinda slow relative to the general modern metagame. Somewhat linear, but slow. What exactly is the problem with them?
All you have done, is lump everyone who has disagreed with you in a single camp. Congrats, you have beat Bocephus at extreme hyperbole.
"As far as stats go, I see more than a dozen playable decks, with varied strategies, none of which breach the 10% mark. I see more than a dozen additional strategies that are playable and strong in the current metagame. This is a good thing; why ban anything and risk breaking this diversity?"
this argument ignores my linearity argument
"Regarding dredge and bloom being nerfed, I thought the conversation was about Tron, Eldrazi and Valakut "
it was in response to your post: Did you know that a lot of people actually enjoy playing linear strategies that do cool things at their opponent?"
"What exactly is the problem with them?"
valakut tron and eldrazi are quite possibly one of the largest uderlying issues to my above problem ( linearity dominates)
decks playing:
none
Funny, because I always felt you were the one that spoke extreme hyperbole. You are the one that cant see Wotc vision for the format and have disagreed with everything Wotc has done. I understand what Wotc is doing, I have embraced what they seem to want to do and moved forward. All you have done is complain and fight for the past few years. So who is speaking in hyperbole? The one who sees the vision and direction of the format? or the one who has fought Wotc vision and direction for years?
Why is more linearity bad? Again, a lot of people like modern (believe it or not) because linearity dominates. This is, to many, a positive feature of the format. I'm not a huge fan personally, but meh. They would seem to be having fun (given the format's popularity).
Also, Eldrazi and Tron have never felt linear to me; I find myself interacting with my opponent and making carefully weighed decisions quite often with those decks. Eldrazi especially is surprisingly involved. Maybe they aren't the linear "problem decks" you actually despise, but they themselves are rarely ignore-your-opponent linear the way some of the faster decks have been.
I have no bias against Twin.
From my understanding, the exist of Twin serves as a policy deck against linear (non-interactive) decks. If Twin is unbanned, the good news is there will be less amount of the T1 or T2 linear decks. But the bad news is there will be less amount of the T1 or T2 decks due to the "Twin check".
I have no idea which META is better, with or without 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
linearity isnt bad but its currently unbalanced.
it has been disputed before what is linear and what is not, some decks are in between some wheres. regardless, linearity is dominant in this metagame. and when looking at what decks are the prime culprits one cant help but look at the tier 1 decks., especially the ones that stifle less linear strategies.
decks playing:
none
I agree with the notion that Twin is not necessarily the 'perfect world' and we will all be happy. It certainly puts a HARD restrain on brews and new ideas since, as you pointed out, you have to pass the 'Twin Check' and i as a guy who likes brewing always felt that if you didn't beat Twin or Tron back then you were doing everything wrong.
The problem is which world is healthier. Healthy metagame for me is one where most archetypes are represented and can be played at a competitive level(or at least can 5-0 FNMs with regular consistency). Also, some cornerstones of my healthy metagame are 'No High Tier SB roulette decks' and 'Interactive games Which MAY NOT pass Turn 3'.
I think Splinter Twin solves those problems without breaking the format and keeping many linear-sideboard dependant decks on check.
I won't be the ideal world for everybody, but you see that it is so bad for the "cameras" to see T3 after T3 kill with players completely 'goldfishing' themselves out of the game. If we want Modern to survive this period of tournament abscence we need to make it even more appealing for pros and encourage the players that their issues with the format will be heard and acted upon.
Again is say. Until no one comes with a better idea of how to make the format more interactive, less frustrating and less focused on banning everything into oblivion, i will say that Twin is the world I prefer to live on.
while i agree with the twin unbanning at this point. i also feel it would be patching the blue problem in the wrong way. blue should have better tools to do well without a combo.
decks playing:
none
Blue folds to pressure. Twin makes pressure a risk.
Blue runs out of answers. Twin allowed us to control the match just long enough.
Blue applies no pressure. Bolt Snap Bolt.
Blue in Modern runs out of control if depending on cards like Leak, or expensive like Cryptic.
Please, someone describe how any card that exists would fix the issues blue decks (aka counters and Snap) face.
Like, Sphinx Rev isn't going to cut it these days guys.
Spirits
your not wrong, its just, non twin blue decks could use a boost ya know? itll take alot however.
decks playing:
none
I'm happy enough brewing up Bant decks right now, but the reality of the situation may not hit us this weekend, but paper catches up to MTGO eventually. :/
Spirits
then we share the same concerns, as I play bant alot aswell
hopefully some unbans and reprints can do a little something here.... not sure if wizards is on the same page as us though.
decks playing:
none
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver