If Wizards asks the top10 Modern MTGO grinders you can be 100% sure they are going to ban Death's Shadow because all of them would tell them deck it's busted beyond saving and don't even think about silly things like trying to weaken it by banning Wraith or some similar nonsense.
I've talked to some. Between MTGO grinders and pros, the consensus is basically absolute.
Which means nothing because they are not going to ask anyone.
IF they asked me for some fantasy reason though, I would tell them to do something like unban Preordain and SFM.
EDIT: I say this, because while I'm 100% sure the deck is busted and I believe busted decks should be banned, that's kind of mmmh misguided perhaps? Like, it's not that you have to ban a deck that is too good as some kind of higher goal. Supposedly, decks that are too good screw formats and that's what demands action. And yeah I don't think the format is in a bad spot to be honest, I agree with several people on that. And that's more important than some abstract notion of relative power between decks or balance justice or whatever. I think the format is quite fun, that's more important.
And if the perception remains that some archetypes like reactive blue need help (though I believe some reactive blue decks are extremely good right now) well, then give those help and see what happens.
The deck isn't broken. The decks that would pray on DS decks are just ***** and see little play (Control) in the format because WoTC refuses to give them the tools they need to become T1. Right now the stool is broken and fallen over. Without a relatively balanced meta where you have T1 decks/archetypes praying on other T1 deck/archetypes you're going to continue to see the idiocy of carousel banning. Banning DS will do nothing for the long term stability and health of the format. There's a reason Legacy is the most balanced format in magic by archetype. It has strong combo decks, strong control decks, strong mid-range decks, though admittedly the format could use some help on the aggro/ramp front since Burn/12-post/Nic-fit is kind of relatively weak, but it's still WAY way way better than Modern health.
Guarantee you, you give us a good 8-10% control deck and DS will be perfectly fine. Right now the best control deck is languishing at ~1.7ish. When the best deck to pray on DS decks clock in that low (and in total <5%) of course the deck is going to look busted. I'm tired of carousel bans. As long as WoTC continues to believe that control/combo being good is bad for Magic then this ban non-sense will never stop.
Every Tier 1 deck is 'warping' to an extent to think otherwise is ignorant of WHY we even discuss, or track Tiers at all. Is it not in large part so you can look and say 'hmm I need to account for X, Y, Z in my deck, or I will have a hard time'.
THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF WARPING THE META.
Twin did that no more than any other Tier 1 deck. The problem is it was the best deck that played counters, AND had the ability to kill you EOT 3 AND could deal 'infinite' damage, AND could tempo you out, AND people dont like being told they cannot tap out.
It was no more warping than any other deck right now. (if you cannot defend against Affinity, you lose!) but when you add in the rest of what it did, salt built up.
I dont expect it to come back.
Twin had a negative affect on the Meta-game it pushed people to either not play magic from turn 3-6 in face of the instant lost for having the audacity to tap out to attempt to play a 3 drop. Because of this it actually gives incentive to ignore the opponent and win as fast as possible with some type of combo of your own either that or play BGx decks.
It was a unfair combo that punished fair decks for attempting to play the game. Pod actually did more work regulating the meta-game against unfair decks than twin did the combination of needing to deal with the infinite life//damage combo backed up by the best creatures available was what suppressed those decks. As soon as Pod was banned Infect started getting better and better.
No it was fair. Interact or die.
yup I cast IoK you flash in your dude, nice splinter twin gg's. It actually punished you for attempting to interact with them, If you think that the format is good and healthy with a single deck that causes every other deck to do nothing and attempt to hold up multiple removal spells or else they lose instantly all I can say is that doesn't sound like a healthy format. At any rate WotC banned it and the format has gotten better and better outside of the Eldrazi Winter. I am glade that I am not forced to play Twin simply because it is nearly impossible to justify not playing the combo if your in the colors. Such a low investment for a broken instant win combo wasn't and still isn't healthy for the format.
Death's Shadow is the best deck. In no way should it have any card banned. In fact, a ban during this coming announcement would be more of a slap in the face than NOT having an unban.
I personally saw numerous cards on the banlist that supposedly, because someone said on here, couldn't be unbanned because of the Splinter Twin deck. Stoneforge Mystic would be played in UWR Twin (and Abzan). Jace, the Mind Sculptor would give Twin an amazing 2nd plan. Preordain helps find Twin too easily. Ancestral Vision would give it too much late game and it would beat BGx now. I even heard Sword of the Meek could be used as a secondary win-con in Twin.
I, for one, am glad to see that the ONE card is gone because 2 of those cards are now unbanned and we are looking at the other 3 for potential unbans. That is what they call a "five for one" in Magic terms. (yes, it will take a while because Wizards moves like that snail that is 10 feet from your home, but hopefully someday...)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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)
Why would you cast IOK into 3 mana instead of hold up for Abrupt Decay?
Let's not pretend that BGx was a total dog to Twin, the revisionist history of just how potent Twin was is comical enough.
don't put words in my mouth I never said anything about how it preformed against any specific deck. But your snarky remark only proves the point, don't even dare play a 1c.c. card less you lose on the spot.
Why would you cast IOK into 3 mana instead of hold up for Abrupt Decay?
Let's not pretend that BGx was a total dog to Twin, the revisionist history of just how potent Twin was is comical enough.
don't put words in my mouth I never said anything about how it preformed against any specific deck. But your snarky remark only proves the point, don't even dare play a 1c.c. card less you lose on the spot.
No, but knowing the matchup and playing cards at the correct time is key. Just because you can't slam IOK mindlessly doesn't mean twin is a busted card.
I'd rather see Twin back and Tron gone.
Twin was the most reliable combo-control deck and playing against it could go from exiting to completely demoralizing depending on what deck you were playing, but it didn't prevent a whole archetype from competing like Tron does.
Spend a couple weeks watching brewers and streamers play MODO and you'll notice how nothing that aims to play for more than 4 turns and isn't named Jund can beat Tron even when Tron draws poorly and plays even worse.
We can't have control or non-Jund midrange in Modern not because we don't have Counterspell, but because Tron will beat you 8 out of 10 and losing to Tron in a GP will ruin your tiebreaker as they later face the crucible of Burn and Affinity/Zoo they can't beat, dragging you out of day 2 with them.
For starters, I think you should watch more WU Control content. The WUx decks have always performed better against Tron than other control decks, but the Seas/Quarter/Edge versions are even better and some may even say the deck is doing well right now.
It was the best deck at the time, and was the 'pro choice'.
It had the best T8 numbers, these where quoted in the announcement.
Forsythe indicated via Twitter that the Pro Tour informed the 'timing of the ban'.
Frankly, WotC isnt going to give us the full truth, but the ban has NOT had their desired impact, Forsythe is on record saying that via twitter as well.
Its meta share was within OUR metrics of allowance, but it did appear following some further digging, and based on timing of other bans against the 'top deck' that Twin had a target on it.
Either way, its hardly relevant, Twin will not be freed, not because its too good, but because the backlash would be huge.
This is on point. PT/GP top8 numbers are the main drivers of diversity bans, regardless of the "overall" metagame and how each of us feels about these numbers being a good indicator. BBE, DRS, Pod, Twin, Eye... At this point, whoever ignores those Top8 numbers is, at best, doing themselves a disservice.
Death's Shadow is the best deck. In no way should it have any card banned. In fact, a ban during this coming announcement would be more of a slap in the face than NOT having an unban.
I personally saw numerous cards on the banlist that supposedly, because someone said on here, couldn't be unbanned because of the Splinter Twin deck. Stoneforge Mystic would be played in UWR Twin (and Abzan). Jace, the Mind Sculptor would give Twin an amazing 2nd plan. Preordain helps find Twin too easily. Ancestral Vision would give it too much late game and it would beat BGx now. I even heard Sword of the Meek could be used as a secondary win-con in Twin.
I, for one, am glad to see that the ONE card is gone because 2 of those cards are now unbanned and we are looking at the other 3 for potential unbans. That is what they call a "five for one" in Magic terms. (yes, it will take a while because Wizards moves like that snail that is 10 feet from your home, but hopefully someday...)
Unbans would be the best option IMO, but I won't get my hopes high. Not that I necessarily agree with the following, but keep in mind another of their goals for the Modern format is to allow recently printed cards (Standard) to impact the format. This does already happen, but it is reasonable to expect them to keep the power level at bay (bans to nerf) instead of increasing it (unbans to help), given this goal. I believe Jordan (ashtonkutcher) went deeper into this issue a while ago.
Yes. I agree. The DS decks are absolutely nor busted or broken decks. Lets not have any illusions. Those decks do have several bad matchups and they are totally fair decks. Are they the best decks? I dont know. Time will tell.
I too have heard a lot of strange things in here, like Collected Company is absolutely busted and it will be banned and other stuff. We dont have to always suggest that a tier 1 deck should be banned.
Instead, we should talk about the problems Modern is facing. Lack of tier 1 control decks. By talking unbans.
IMO, SFM would be totally fine in this metagame.
The metagame is already adapting. While I agree that Jund Shadow was the best deck, and probably still is, we know that both Dredge and Elves are "bad" matchups. Preliminary numbers seems to indicate both Dredge (+5%) and Elves (+3%) are having more success online, which would explain Jund Shadow's decline (-9%). Of course, these are rough, preliminary numbers with at least 4% sample error, but it's what we have.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern:WU WU Control | WBG Abzan Company Frontier:UBR Grixis Control | BRG Jund Delirium
Yes. I agree. The DS decks are absolutely nor busted or broken decks. Lets not have any illusions. Those decks do have several bad matchups and they are totally fair decks. Are they the best decks? I dont know. Time will tell.
I too have heard a lot of strange things in here, like Collected Company is absolutely busted and it will be banned and other stuff. We dont have to always suggest that a tier 1 deck should be banned.
Instead, we should talk about the problems Modern is facing. Lack of tier 1 control decks. By talking unbans.
IMO, SFM would be totally fine in this metagame.
looking at these stats:
If deaths shadow is needed to keep bg/x and urx relevant in this meta then so be it. however it is not in the way I personally would like it imo as it only worsens the fact that this format is dominated by aggro with big mana ramp behind it. If anything we need more midrange and control in this format atm which will never happen as long as eldrazi, tron, and valakut are as prevalent as they are, and I feel that they are a large contributing factor to this DS meta we are seeing now.
and as for combo: as long as we dont have better answers, I feel they are fine where they are in this format, as is.
Splinter Twin does not help reactive Blue decks in the long run. Printing better Blue cards helps reactive Blue decks in the long (and the short) run. I don't think the issues with Blue based reactive decks can be fixed by the banlist (Preordain would help a little) and I suspect we'll get some great stuff for Blue in Hour of Devastation. Prior to that, though, I suspect we'll get several dozen more posts by cfusionpm about how Twin should be unbanned and never should have been banned in the first place.
I am ALL FOR printing new cards! It's already been a year and a half. How long do we have to wait for these? Another year? Two? More? Why is it so awful to fix a wrong choice that didn't need to happen? Or should Wild Nacatl still be banned too? Maybe Hour brings us help, maybe it does not. We've been in the "wait and see" holding pattern for some time now and MaRo is notorious for actively misleading and misrepresenting players with his statements. I have very little confidence left in Wizards R&D capabilities.
Blah blah blah, I'm the enemy, I'm the easy target. Maybe if people were more concerned with arguing and supporting their own points instead of baselessly complaining about mine, we would have more productive discussions.
You're not the enemy. You're not a 'target'. You want Splinter Twin back in Modern. It should never have been banned in the first place. Everyone had to throw their Snapcasters and Tarns in the garbage after the ban. You've been reiterating your position ad nauseam for over a year now. I hardly think that I'm 'baselessly complaining' when I point this out.
And yet, counterarguments are mostly non-existent. People would rather just shoot down and complain about something they disagree with than actually come up with a counter-position and be able to defend it. The arguments being made in support of the ban are often extremely weak or thin and not backed up by any convincing evidence or data. Misrepresentations of my arguments aside, what do you contribute to the Twin discussion besides "I don't like your position and am sick of hearing it"? If you don't want to talk about history (Was the ban correct, should they have banned Exarch, etc), then talk about something meaningful in today's Modern. What specifically about the deck is bad for the current format? Why would bringing the deck back be negative? What effects would the deck have on the current Tier 1 and Tier 2 meta? Etc. Or if you don't want to engage in discussion about Twin at all, ignore it and don't respond.
Wild Nacatl wasn't part of a two-card, game-winning turn 3.5 infinite combo. Likening its (former) presence on the Modern banlist to Twin's is disingenuous.
Both were banned for diversity reasons because they supposedly supplanted or replaced similar decks. In both instances, the ban was a mistake. The decision was reversed in one of them, and should be reversed in the other. Opinions about combo are completely irrelevant to the ban decision, especially since it did not break the Turn 4 rule or cause logistics problems.
How long do we have to wait until we get a some good Blue cards? Obviously we don't know. But when HoD comes out it will have been a year and a half since the Twin ban. If they're listening to feedback from Modern players and decide to print something resembling a good Counterspell, doesn't it seem like this would be the set to do it in, given the amount of time it takes them to go from card design to release (and the Bolas-theme of the set)?
Wizards has displayed some pretty gross incompetence over the past year or two with regards to R&D. If we take MaRo's word seriously, then better help SHOULD be on its way, but you obviously have much more faith in his word than I do. I'd love new things to come our way and I would welcome them with open arms, but I'll believe it when I see it. Until then the "wait and see" BS continues. Since they've proven they are willing to re-ban something, I don't understand the harm in throwing Twin back into the format to at least see what happens in the meantime.
- I haven't misrepresented your argument. Since anyone who regularly reads this thread knows your argument, it would be foolish of me to do so.
- 'the Twin discussion'. Right. I think unbanning Splinter Twin is not a good solution to the perceived problems with Blue in Modern because it:
a) isn't Blue. This is obvious but it is still important. The power discrepancy between colors isn't fixed simply by slapping a deck with some Blue in it directly into Tier 1.
b) helps Twin players but doesn't do anything for decks that don't want to play the combo except increasing their metashare slightly because they can beat Twin decks. Non-Twin Blue Control decks will remain at their current power level and still have problems with the rest of the meta.
- I didn't say that I don't like your position. You've made your points and I can see where you're coming from. But after more than a year of it, yes, your incessant Twinposting has become quite tiresome.
- Was the ban correct? I think so, "In the interest of competitive diversity...". Although they did subsequently unban Ancestral Vision "To allow for an increase in the number of blue-based control or attrition decks", it obviously didn't help as much as they (or players) would have liked since it's not an answer nor a threat (as well as being a terrible topdeck). New prints will.
- Should they have banned (or swap-ban, as some have suggested) Deceiver Exarch instead of Twin? No. The enormous difference in power level between Exarch and the rest of the cards on the banlist alone makes the idea of a ban laughable (ha ha). It was Twin or nothing.
- I'm not sure what Twin would do in the current format, only that given its potential matchups against current competitive decks, it think it would start Tier 1 and continually get better as new cards are printed (given Blue's current power level). Has anyone tested Twin against current Tier 1/2 decks? If not, given your adamant position in favor Twin coming off the banlist, why don't you?
- I wouldn't necessarily say an unban would be 'dangerous', but it would make Wizards look stupid if they unbanned it now and even more stupid if Twin wrecked the format (not to say that it would) and they had to ban it again. I do think that it would be a mistake and a 'band-aid' for Blue Control.
- Thanks for telling me how to post. I'll take it under advisement. I humbly suggest that you do the same by cutting down on the Twin-related posts.
- Regarding Wild Nacatl, it's a 3/3 beatstick on turn 2 at the earliest. Splinter Twin is part of a two-card, game-winning turn 3.5 infinite combo. These are accurate descriptions of the capabilities of the cards, not my opinions. Likening the two cards is disingenuous, regardless of the similarities in their ban announcements. Conversely, your suggesting in the same paragraph that each ban was 'a mistake' is, in the case of Twin, your opinion and nothing else.
- I think that they'll print better Blue cards, not because of Maro's statements (although these help) but, as I've said, because of the theme of the upcoming set and the amount of time that has elapsed since Wizards may have noticed (and received tons of feedback about) the power discrepancy between Blue (and White) and the other colors in Modern. Then again, we may get something stupidly broken like Treasure Cruise and we'll be back to waiting and seeing.
- You talk about 'gross incompetence' on the part of R&D and then you suggest 'throwing Twin back into the format to at least see what happens'. Okay.
All of that being said, I don't see anything coming of the banlist next week except maaaaaaaaybe Preordain. But Wizards has made some unexpected changes in the past, so who the hell knows?
I think you're not classifying the decks right.
Death's Shadow Jund is much closer to a midrange deck than an aggro one. Grixis Shadow is closer to tempo or midrange depending on the list than aggro.
That would make midrange much more well represented than you are trying to claim.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Well, I can saw a woman in two, but you won't wanna look in the box when I'm through.
I think you're not classifying the decks right.
Death's Shadow Jund is much closer to a midrange deck than an aggro one. Grixis Shadow is closer to tempo or midrange depending on the list than aggro.
That would make midrange much more well represented than you are trying to claim.
grixis/jund shadows plan is to race your life total down, thus why its "suicidal" in nature, thus why i put it in aggro.
Yes. I agree. The DS decks are absolutely nor busted or broken decks. Lets not have any illusions. Those decks do have several bad matchups and they are totally fair decks. Are they the best decks? I dont know. Time will tell.
I too have heard a lot of strange things in here, like Collected Company is absolutely busted and it will be banned and other stuff. We dont have to always suggest that a tier 1 deck should be banned.
Instead, we should talk about the problems Modern is facing. Lack of tier 1 control decks. By talking unbans.
IMO, SFM would be totally fine in this metagame.
looking at these stats:
If deaths shadow is needed to keep bg/x and urx relevant in this meta then so be it. however it is not in the way I personally would like it imo as it only worsens the fact that this format is dominated by aggro with big mana ramp behind it. If anything we need more midrange and control in this format atm which will never happen as long as eldrazi, tron, and valakut are as prevalent as they are, and I feel that they are a large contributing factor to this DS meta we are seeing now.
and as for combo: as long as we dont have better answers, I feel they are fine where they are in this format, as is.
eldra tron 4.2
valakut 3.6
gr tron-3.5
bant eldrazi-5.8
Ds decks do not have a bye matchup versus the big mana decks as people say. Eldrazi Tron is favoured, but Tron is even. So you basically get to play a Jind deck that has an even matchup to those big mana decks, which is an upgrade.
That said, your stats are wrong. Ds Jund deck is not an aggro deck, but a midrange one. So, we have:
Aggro: 24.9
Combo: 6.3
Midrange: 18.5
Big mana: 17.1
Control/tempo: 5 . RW prison is not a control deck, but a prison one.
I think you just copy and pasted mtgtop8's stats, which is wrong. Also,grixis DS is a blue snapcaster deck that covers all my needs in playing one.
Another point, you want the big mana strategies banned. Thats not happening.
Instead, I can see only one problem: blue control and tempo decks do not have strong tools to compete in Modern. Thats where we should focus instead of talking about a tron or a valakut or a temple ban.
hmm thats strange its classified as death shadow aggro last time I checked. also I used modern nexus for stats.
I think you're not classifying the decks right.
Death's Shadow Jund is much closer to a midrange deck than an aggro one. Grixis Shadow is closer to tempo or midrange depending on the list than aggro.
That would make midrange much more well represented than you are trying to claim.
grixis/jund shadows plan is to race your life total down, thus why its "suicidal" in nature, thus why i put it in aggro.
Why is going to a low life to have an efficient beater "aggro" but playing Dark Confidant and trading life for card advantage is midrange?
Death's Shadow Jund is much more like actually Jund in terms of play - you use your discard suite to one-for-one your opponent and then you use your low life total to play cheap powerful threats.
The only reason the deck is still called "Death's Shadow Aggro" is due to a grandfather rule - the old Death's Shadow lists were aggro, and the name's stuck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Well, I can saw a woman in two, but you won't wanna look in the box when I'm through.
I always qualified SFM as unbannable but right now it seems like the best metagame for its unban. The reason to not unban it has always been to not make aggro useless, but seeing as the meta is all aggro and stupidbigguys, sfm's unban is a possibility.
I think you're not classifying the decks right.
Death's Shadow Jund is much closer to a midrange deck than an aggro one. Grixis Shadow is closer to tempo or midrange depending on the list than aggro.
That would make midrange much more well represented than you are trying to claim.
grixis/jund shadows plan is to race your life total down, thus why its "suicidal" in nature, thus why i put it in aggro.
Why is going to a low life to have an efficient beater "aggro" but playing Dark Confidant and trading life for card advantage is midrange?
Death's Shadow Jund is much more like actually Jund in terms of play - you use your discard suite to one-for-one your opponent and then you use your low life total to play cheap powerful threats.
The only reason the deck is still called "Death's Shadow Aggro" is due to a grandfather rule - the old Death's Shadow lists were aggro, and the name's stuck.
how quick can death shadow win vs confidant? in fact what is the average turn ds jund wins? looks pretty aggro to me.
DSJ has an "oops I win" on turn 3 with the nut draw, but it is most definitely not an aggro deck. It runs 8 main, hyperefficient threats that it can draw into or search for and the rest of the deck is discard or removal.
It's a very low to the ground midrange deck, not an aggro deck; you are very unlikely to ever see an aggro deck with as low a threat base as DSJ.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Well, I can saw a woman in two, but you won't wanna look in the box when I'm through.
Splinter Twin does not help reactive Blue decks in the long run. Printing better Blue cards helps reactive Blue decks in the long (and the short) run. I don't think the issues with Blue based reactive decks can be fixed by the banlist (Preordain would help a little) and I suspect we'll get some great stuff for Blue in Hour of Devastation. Prior to that, though, I suspect we'll get several dozen more posts by cfusionpm about how Twin should be unbanned and never should have been banned in the first place.
I am ALL FOR printing new cards! It's already been a year and a half. How long do we have to wait for these? Another year? Two? More? Why is it so awful to fix a wrong choice that didn't need to happen? Or should Wild Nacatl still be banned too? Maybe Hour brings us help, maybe it does not. We've been in the "wait and see" holding pattern for some time now and MaRo is notorious for actively misleading and misrepresenting players with his statements. I have very little confidence left in Wizards R&D capabilities.
Blah blah blah, I'm the enemy, I'm the easy target. Maybe if people were more concerned with arguing and supporting their own points instead of baselessly complaining about mine, we would have more productive discussions.
You're not the enemy. You're not a 'target'. You want Splinter Twin back in Modern. It should never have been banned in the first place. Everyone had to throw their Snapcasters and Tarns in the garbage after the ban. You've been reiterating your position ad nauseam for over a year now. I hardly think that I'm 'baselessly complaining' when I point this out.
And yet, counterarguments are mostly non-existent. People would rather just shoot down and complain about something they disagree with than actually come up with a counter-position and be able to defend it. The arguments being made in support of the ban are often extremely weak or thin and not backed up by any convincing evidence or data. Misrepresentations of my arguments aside, what do you contribute to the Twin discussion besides "I don't like your position and am sick of hearing it"? If you don't want to talk about history (Was the ban correct, should they have banned Exarch, etc), then talk about something meaningful in today's Modern. What specifically about the deck is bad for the current format? Why would bringing the deck back be negative? What effects would the deck have on the current Tier 1 and Tier 2 meta? Etc. Or if you don't want to engage in discussion about Twin at all, ignore it and don't respond.
Wild Nacatl wasn't part of a two-card, game-winning turn 3.5 infinite combo. Likening its (former) presence on the Modern banlist to Twin's is disingenuous.
Both were banned for diversity reasons because they supposedly supplanted or replaced similar decks. In both instances, the ban was a mistake. The decision was reversed in one of them, and should be reversed in the other. Opinions about combo are completely irrelevant to the ban decision, especially since it did not break the Turn 4 rule or cause logistics problems.
How long do we have to wait until we get a some good Blue cards? Obviously we don't know. But when HoD comes out it will have been a year and a half since the Twin ban. If they're listening to feedback from Modern players and decide to print something resembling a good Counterspell, doesn't it seem like this would be the set to do it in, given the amount of time it takes them to go from card design to release (and the Bolas-theme of the set)?
Wizards has displayed some pretty gross incompetence over the past year or two with regards to R&D. If we take MaRo's word seriously, then better help SHOULD be on its way, but you obviously have much more faith in his word than I do. I'd love new things to come our way and I would welcome them with open arms, but I'll believe it when I see it. Until then the "wait and see" BS continues. Since they've proven they are willing to re-ban something, I don't understand the harm in throwing Twin back into the format to at least see what happens in the meantime.
- I haven't misrepresented your argument. Since anyone who regularly reads this thread knows your argument, it would be foolish of me to do so.
- 'the Twin discussion'. Right. I think unbanning Splinter Twin is not a good solution to the perceived problems with Blue in Modern because it:
a) isn't Blue. This is obvious but it is still important. The power discrepancy between colors isn't fixed simply by slapping a deck with some Blue in it directly into Tier 1.
b) helps Twin players but doesn't do anything for decks that don't want to play the combo except increasing their metashare slightly because they can beat Twin decks. Non-Twin Blue Control decks will remain at their current power level and still have problems with the rest of the meta.
- I didn't say that I don't like your position. You've made your points and I can see where you're coming from. But after more than a year of it, yes, your incessant Twinposting has become quite tiresome.
- Was the ban correct? I think so, "In the interest of competitive diversity...". Although they did subsequently unban Ancestral Vision "To allow for an increase in the number of blue-based control or attrition decks", it obviously didn't help as much as they (or players) would have liked since it's not an answer nor a threat (as well as being a terrible topdeck). New prints will.
- Should they have banned (or swap-ban, as some have suggested) Deceiver Exarch instead of Twin? No. The enormous difference in power level between Exarch and the rest of the cards on the banlist alone makes the idea of a ban laughable (ha ha). It was Twin or nothing.
- I'm not sure what Twin would do in the current format, only that given its potential matchups against current competitive decks, it think it would start Tier 1 and continually get better as new cards are printed (given Blue's current power level). Has anyone tested Twin against current Tier 1/2 decks? If not, given your adamant position in favor Twin coming off the banlist, why don't you?
- I wouldn't necessarily say an unban would be 'dangerous', but it would make Wizards look stupid if they unbanned it now and even more stupid if Twin wrecked the format (not to say that it would) and they had to ban it again. I do think that it would be a mistake and a 'band-aid' for Blue Control.
- Thanks for telling me how to post. I'll take it under advisement. I humbly suggest that you do the same by cutting down on the Twin-related posts.
- Regarding Wild Nacatl, it's a 3/3 beatstick on turn 2 at the earliest. Splinter Twin is part of a two-card, game-winning turn 3.5 infinite combo. These are accurate descriptions of the capabilities of the cards, not my opinions. Likening the two cards is disingenuous, regardless of the similarities in their ban announcements. Conversely, your suggesting in the same paragraph that each ban was 'a mistake' is, in the case of Twin, your opinion and nothing else.
- I think that they'll print better Blue cards, not because of Maro's statements (although these help) but, as I've said, because of the theme of the upcoming set and the amount of time that has elapsed since Wizards may have noticed (and received tons of feedback about) the power discrepancy between Blue (and White) and the other colors in Modern. Then again, we may get something stupidly broken like Treasure Cruise and we'll be back to waiting and seeing.
- You talk about 'gross incompetence' on the part of R&D and then you suggest 'throwing Twin back into the format to at least see what happens'. Okay.
All of that being said, I don't see anything coming of the banlist next week except maaaaaaaaybe Preordain. But Wizards has made some unexpected changes in the past, so who the hell knows?
It appears the crux of your stance is predicated on the assumption that new cards are coming. It's hard to really argue with that, since it's a stance based on hypothetical cards that don't exist yet.
But a few things:
- Non-Twin blue decks had done better before the ban than after the ban, especially since last August. I believe KT is working on an article breaking down specific statistics about it. Dunno if it was/will be released.
- The relative "silliness" of how a card looks on a banned list is a completely meaningless. Deceiver Exarch is what should have been banned, because it would have weakened the deck without killing it. It does not matter whatsoever how "silly" it looks compared to other banned cards.
- A while ago, I shuffled up my old list against a friend's Bant Eldrazi and Death's Shadow. It wasn't pretty. I could probably do formal testing once summer starts.
- You can tell me all day how Wild Nacatl is different; it doesn't matter. They were banned under nearly identical reasoning and both can be considered failures based on those reasons.
- I think putting Twin back in the format would make the format better. That means it's worth the risk, especially since it can be undone later, just like GGT, if it actually IS a problem.
DSJ has an "oops I win" on turn 3 with the nut draw, but it is most definitely not an aggro deck. It runs 8 main, hyperefficient threats that it can draw into or search for and the rest of the deck is discard or removal.
It's a very low to the ground midrange deck, not an aggro deck; you are very unlikely to ever see an aggro deck with as low a threat base as DSJ.
Not to be contrary, but burn runs 12 creatures and any creatures above that are flex slots, meanwhile death's shadow runs 8 threats and 4 spells that find the threats, for an effective density of 12 (if you adjust for the cyclers in Death's shadow, it has more threats). Sometimes Death's Shadow also runs other threats like ranger of eos, lingering souls etc.
I'm not sure that death's shadow is an aggro deck (aggro-midrange?), but it certainly has a threat density and efficiency similar to burn.
DSJ has an "oops I win" on turn 3 with the nut draw, but it is most definitely not an aggro deck. It runs 8 main, hyperefficient threats that it can draw into or search for and the rest of the deck is discard or removal.
It's a very low to the ground midrange deck, not an aggro deck; you are very unlikely to ever see an aggro deck with as low a threat base as DSJ.
a deck that wins with a creature or 2 by turn 4 relatively consistently is classified as combo aggro deck, much like infect is.
calling ds jund/grixis, a midrange deck seems wrong to me. They are more like combo/aggro/tempo.
No they're definitely midrange decks. They're not dropping death's shadow until they're at 12 life or less. They're spending the first few turns discarding and blowing stuff up.
The old builds of gitax probe and become immense felt like infect decks though.
They feel more like legacy midrange decks, maybe even delver decks. Those decks ran nimble mongoose, deathrite, and delver, and could get away with low land counts and cut the manlands. Instead we're running death's shadow as the cheap threat. But they don't feel like traditional aggro.
Death's Shadow decks are tempo decks. I know it's weird to think of a deck without blue and with tempo-negative plays like Thoughtseize and IoK as a tempo deck, but it is. Cheap aggressive threats + cheap disruption = tempo.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Current Modern decks BGW Junk / URB Grixis Shadow / RGB Lantern Control / WUBCBant Eldrazi
Current Legacy decks BUG Shardless BUG / UWR Predict Miracles / RUG Canadian Thresh / WRBG 4c Loam UB Reanimator
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The deck isn't broken. The decks that would pray on DS decks are just ***** and see little play (Control) in the format because WoTC refuses to give them the tools they need to become T1. Right now the stool is broken and fallen over. Without a relatively balanced meta where you have T1 decks/archetypes praying on other T1 deck/archetypes you're going to continue to see the idiocy of carousel banning. Banning DS will do nothing for the long term stability and health of the format. There's a reason Legacy is the most balanced format in magic by archetype. It has strong combo decks, strong control decks, strong mid-range decks, though admittedly the format could use some help on the aggro/ramp front since Burn/12-post/Nic-fit is kind of relatively weak, but it's still WAY way way better than Modern health.
Guarantee you, you give us a good 8-10% control deck and DS will be perfectly fine. Right now the best control deck is languishing at ~1.7ish. When the best deck to pray on DS decks clock in that low (and in total <5%) of course the deck is going to look busted. I'm tired of carousel bans. As long as WoTC continues to believe that control/combo being good is bad for Magic then this ban non-sense will never stop.
yup I cast IoK you flash in your dude, nice splinter twin gg's. It actually punished you for attempting to interact with them, If you think that the format is good and healthy with a single deck that causes every other deck to do nothing and attempt to hold up multiple removal spells or else they lose instantly all I can say is that doesn't sound like a healthy format. At any rate WotC banned it and the format has gotten better and better outside of the Eldrazi Winter. I am glade that I am not forced to play Twin simply because it is nearly impossible to justify not playing the combo if your in the colors. Such a low investment for a broken instant win combo wasn't and still isn't healthy for the format.
Let's not pretend that BGx was a total dog to Twin, the revisionist history of just how potent Twin was is comical enough.
Spirits
I personally saw numerous cards on the banlist that supposedly, because someone said on here, couldn't be unbanned because of the Splinter Twin deck. Stoneforge Mystic would be played in UWR Twin (and Abzan). Jace, the Mind Sculptor would give Twin an amazing 2nd plan. Preordain helps find Twin too easily. Ancestral Vision would give it too much late game and it would beat BGx now. I even heard Sword of the Meek could be used as a secondary win-con in Twin.
I, for one, am glad to see that the ONE card is gone because 2 of those cards are now unbanned and we are looking at the other 3 for potential unbans. That is what they call a "five for one" in Magic terms. (yes, it will take a while because Wizards moves like that snail that is 10 feet from your home, but hopefully someday...)
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)don't put words in my mouth I never said anything about how it preformed against any specific deck. But your snarky remark only proves the point, don't even dare play a 1c.c. card less you lose on the spot.
No, but knowing the matchup and playing cards at the correct time is key. Just because you can't slam IOK mindlessly doesn't mean twin is a busted card.
Frontier: UBR Grixis Control | BRG Jund Delirium
looking at these stats:
If deaths shadow is needed to keep bg/x and urx relevant in this meta then so be it. however it is not in the way I personally would like it imo as it only worsens the fact that this format is dominated by aggro with big mana ramp behind it. If anything we need more midrange and control in this format atm which will never happen as long as eldrazi, tron, and valakut are as prevalent as they are, and I feel that they are a large contributing factor to this DS meta we are seeing now.
and as for combo: as long as we dont have better answers, I feel they are fine where they are in this format, as is.
aggro 32.9%
ds-8.9
burn-8
affinity-4.8
merfolk 3.2
busw zoo 3.2
grix shadow 2.9
elves1.9
combo- 6.3%
dredge 2.4
ad naus 2.3
infect-1.6
mid- 9.5%
abzan 4.8
jund 1.9
coco 2.8
control 3.6%
grix control 2.1
rw prison 1.5
big mana/ramp 17.1%
eldra tron 4.2
valakut 3.6
gr tron-3.5
bant eldrazi-5.8
decks playing:
none
- 'the Twin discussion'. Right. I think unbanning Splinter Twin is not a good solution to the perceived problems with Blue in Modern because it:
a) isn't Blue. This is obvious but it is still important. The power discrepancy between colors isn't fixed simply by slapping a deck with some Blue in it directly into Tier 1.
b) helps Twin players but doesn't do anything for decks that don't want to play the combo except increasing their metashare slightly because they can beat Twin decks. Non-Twin Blue Control decks will remain at their current power level and still have problems with the rest of the meta.
- I didn't say that I don't like your position. You've made your points and I can see where you're coming from. But after more than a year of it, yes, your incessant Twinposting has become quite tiresome.
- Was the ban correct? I think so, "In the interest of competitive diversity...". Although they did subsequently unban Ancestral Vision "To allow for an increase in the number of blue-based control or attrition decks", it obviously didn't help as much as they (or players) would have liked since it's not an answer nor a threat (as well as being a terrible topdeck). New prints will.
- Should they have banned (or swap-ban, as some have suggested) Deceiver Exarch instead of Twin? No. The enormous difference in power level between Exarch and the rest of the cards on the banlist alone makes the idea of a ban laughable (ha ha). It was Twin or nothing.
- I'm not sure what Twin would do in the current format, only that given its potential matchups against current competitive decks, it think it would start Tier 1 and continually get better as new cards are printed (given Blue's current power level). Has anyone tested Twin against current Tier 1/2 decks? If not, given your adamant position in favor Twin coming off the banlist, why don't you?
- I wouldn't necessarily say an unban would be 'dangerous', but it would make Wizards look stupid if they unbanned it now and even more stupid if Twin wrecked the format (not to say that it would) and they had to ban it again. I do think that it would be a mistake and a 'band-aid' for Blue Control.
- Thanks for telling me how to post. I'll take it under advisement. I humbly suggest that you do the same by cutting down on the Twin-related posts.
- Regarding Wild Nacatl, it's a 3/3 beatstick on turn 2 at the earliest. Splinter Twin is part of a two-card, game-winning turn 3.5 infinite combo. These are accurate descriptions of the capabilities of the cards, not my opinions. Likening the two cards is disingenuous, regardless of the similarities in their ban announcements. Conversely, your suggesting in the same paragraph that each ban was 'a mistake' is, in the case of Twin, your opinion and nothing else.
- I think that they'll print better Blue cards, not because of Maro's statements (although these help) but, as I've said, because of the theme of the upcoming set and the amount of time that has elapsed since Wizards may have noticed (and received tons of feedback about) the power discrepancy between Blue (and White) and the other colors in Modern. Then again, we may get something stupidly broken like Treasure Cruise and we'll be back to waiting and seeing.
- You talk about 'gross incompetence' on the part of R&D and then you suggest 'throwing Twin back into the format to at least see what happens'. Okay.
All of that being said, I don't see anything coming of the banlist next week except maaaaaaaaybe Preordain. But Wizards has made some unexpected changes in the past, so who the hell knows?
Death's Shadow Jund is much closer to a midrange deck than an aggro one. Grixis Shadow is closer to tempo or midrange depending on the list than aggro.
That would make midrange much more well represented than you are trying to claim.
grixis/jund shadows plan is to race your life total down, thus why its "suicidal" in nature, thus why i put it in aggro.
decks playing:
none
hmm thats strange its classified as death shadow aggro last time I checked. also I used modern nexus for stats.
decks playing:
none
Why is going to a low life to have an efficient beater "aggro" but playing Dark Confidant and trading life for card advantage is midrange?
Death's Shadow Jund is much more like actually Jund in terms of play - you use your discard suite to one-for-one your opponent and then you use your low life total to play cheap powerful threats.
The only reason the deck is still called "Death's Shadow Aggro" is due to a grandfather rule - the old Death's Shadow lists were aggro, and the name's stuck.
how quick can death shadow win vs confidant? in fact what is the average turn ds jund wins? looks pretty aggro to me.
decks playing:
none
It's a very low to the ground midrange deck, not an aggro deck; you are very unlikely to ever see an aggro deck with as low a threat base as DSJ.
It appears the crux of your stance is predicated on the assumption that new cards are coming. It's hard to really argue with that, since it's a stance based on hypothetical cards that don't exist yet.
But a few things:
- Non-Twin blue decks had done better before the ban than after the ban, especially since last August. I believe KT is working on an article breaking down specific statistics about it. Dunno if it was/will be released.
- The relative "silliness" of how a card looks on a banned list is a completely meaningless. Deceiver Exarch is what should have been banned, because it would have weakened the deck without killing it. It does not matter whatsoever how "silly" it looks compared to other banned cards.
- A while ago, I shuffled up my old list against a friend's Bant Eldrazi and Death's Shadow. It wasn't pretty. I could probably do formal testing once summer starts.
- You can tell me all day how Wild Nacatl is different; it doesn't matter. They were banned under nearly identical reasoning and both can be considered failures based on those reasons.
- I think putting Twin back in the format would make the format better. That means it's worth the risk, especially since it can be undone later, just like GGT, if it actually IS a problem.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
I'm not sure that death's shadow is an aggro deck (aggro-midrange?), but it certainly has a threat density and efficiency similar to burn.
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
a deck that wins with a creature or 2 by turn 4 relatively consistently is classified as combo aggro deck, much like infect is.
calling ds jund/grixis, a midrange deck seems wrong to me. They are more like combo/aggro/tempo.
decks playing:
none
The old builds of gitax probe and become immense felt like infect decks though.
BGW Junk / URB Grixis Shadow / RGB Lantern Control / WUBCBant Eldrazi
Current Legacy decks
BUG Shardless BUG / UWR Predict Miracles / RUG Canadian Thresh / WRBG 4c Loam
UB Reanimator