Twin would also destroy both Grixis Death's Shadow and Eldrazi Tron.
Whut? Seriously, I bet you never played with/againt Twin. Expecially the first will be a nightmare for any Twin variant.
I did. Both with and against. Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean they never experienced what it is they're talking about. I can just as easily say I bet you've never had a glass of water.
What makes you say this? Twin folds to discard spells, creature removal, counterspells, and fast clocks that don't die to Lightning Bolt. That is literally exactly what GDS is.
As much as I hate to give any ammunition to the pro-Twin camp, this is probably wrong. Grixis Delver was a very bad Twin matchup, and Grixis DS is a much better Grixis Delver for most intents and purposes. Twin would almost definitely have a horrible matchup here.
I'll just respond to all these at once.
First, a few items I'm basing my statement on:
1. Twin's matchup with Jund was much closer to 50/50 than people in this thread realize. There was a large data set that bore this out, but I forget where the link is. Others have referenced it. This suggests that discard did not affect the deck as much as people claim. That becomes clearer as you look at the cards the deck uses - many either replace themselves or can be flashed back with Snapcaster.
2. UR Twin was the "best" Twin version at the time of the ban but Grixis Twin was only a hair behind. I'm basing my comparison on Grixis Twin, not UR Twin. This gives Twin access to discard, K-Command, and Push - just like GDS.
Twin apologists can't have it both ways. They say that GDS would own the Twin matchup. And when complaining that no other deck feels like Twin, they discuss the feel of Bolt-Snap-Bolt and the tap effects and the counterspells. Yet these are the exact elements that would shred GDS. GDS is a deck that has few threats and thrives at or under 10 life. Twin always had the ability to dismantle decks with few threats and the bolt-Snap-bolt plan eats that last 9 life points down extremely quickly. On top of the cards simply matching up better for Twin, they can also win the game on the spot. Something GDS can't do and which will invariably account for X% of wins, easily pushing an otherwise even-ish matchup into Twin's favor.
The issue isn't Twin vs BGx, man (which, I agree, was overstated by many people, and the overrall mu was something like 50-50 between pre and post side). The main problem is Twin against Tempo strategies. And Classic Twin had a hard time fighting against Grixis Delver, Tarmo Twin, Esper/Grixis Delve exactly for this reason. And Grixis Shadow is a Grixis Delver three times more powerful, against whom you can't even Bolt their starter, and which plays a cc1 counterspell.
We all know about Twin pro and cons. But you seems the only one to believe Twin had the edge against everything. Which is clearly wrong.
I'm not focusing on the BGx matchup. I only mentioned it because one of the people I very clearly quoted brought it up. So I debunked it.
I don't believe Twin had the edge in every matchup. I agree with KTKen that Delver had a positive matchup against Twin. Delver just didn't like to live below 10 life points the way GDS does. U/x control also had a good matchup against Twin. Other decks as well. None of that means GDS would.
I agree, theorycrafting only gets you so far. You need skilled players who are experienced with each deck to put in some reps and record the results. It's a different time, different card pool, different meta. It needs to be tested.
Just out of curiosity, has anyone ever played around with the idea of a Grixis DS Twin deck if Twin ever came off the list? I know that no one ran it when Twin was legal, but then again when Twin was banned, literally every card that's now used in Grixis DS would have been legal except for Fatal Push, and back then you could have just dropped it for Lightning Bolt and it would have been fine. It lets you drop Thought Scour for Wraith, so it would have been about the same number of cantrips, plus then you'd have a good reason to run Thoughtseize and IoK. Of course I'm a terrible brewer, so I wouldn't be surprised if this turned out to be a terrible idea
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks
Modern: UWUW Control UBRGrixis Shadow URIzzet Phoenix
I agree, theorycrafting only gets you so far. You need skilled players who are experienced with each deck to put in some reps and record the results. It's a different time, different card pool, different meta. It needs to be tested.
I agree, though the theorycrafting isn't really that theoretical with this one. If Grixis Twin evolved with the meta the way we have to assume it would, it would basically be a mirror of Grixis DS but with Twin/Exarch/Pestermite instead of DS/Wraith/2 cards. The rest of the deck is basically the same, barring a few minor differences and lands (Twin wouldn't use as many shocks, for example). So the only thing left to ask is, what's better? DS/Wraith or a quasi instant speed 2 card infinite combo? I'll take the infinite combo all day every day.
But different is different. Wraith or DS doesn't become a dead card like Twin could if someone takes your combo piece. There are just too many decks, too many variables to say that.
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
Great article, thanks for sharing. In your opinion (if you don't mind me asking), what would happen to the Temple decks like Eldrazi Tron, Bant Eldrazi, Eldrazi Stompy and Eldrazi & Taxes if Temple was banned? Would any deck based around Matter Reshaper, TKS, and Reality Smasher still be tier 1/2?
Great article, thanks for sharing. In your opinion (if you don't mind me asking), what would happen to the Temple decks like Eldrazi Tron, Bant Eldrazi, Eldrazi Stompy and Eldrazi & Taxes if Temple was banned? Would any deck based around Matter Reshaper, TKS, and Reality Smasher still be tier 1/2?
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
"It doesn’t just stop at metagame positioning. Grixis Shadow (and Jund Shadow, for that matter) is simply a far better Modern deck than BGx Rock."
"Grixis Shadow’s rise to dominance has ravaged the once-diverse aggro-combo lineup"
"Aggro-combo devolving into only Burn, Affinity, and Dredge lowers format diversity."
"Shadow now controls not just the vast majority of the midrange shares but a good deal of the aggro-combo shares, simply by virtue of fulfilling the latter’s roles more effectively."
Remarks like these read like they are straight out of a ban announcement. In fact, they are striking similar to most of the exact words said about Twin: "We also look for decks that hold a large enough percentage of the competitive field to reduce the diversity of the format. ... Decks that are this strong can hurt diversity by pushing the decks that it defeats out of competition. They can also reduce diversity by supplanting similar decks."
One of three things has to be true:
1. Twin and Shadow both create extremely similar problems and both should be banned.
2. Twin and Shadow are both fine and should both be legal based on a reassessment of priorities.
3. Shadow is fine but Twin is not, despite having effectively the same impact on the meta.
One of these outcomes makes Wizards look like a wildly inconsistent hypocrite, either citing things that don't actually matter or totally reversing their stance(s). The other two, whether correct or incorrect, at least assert consistency in rationale. As someone who spent nearly a decade in management and is now a teacher, there is nothing more important to maintaining credibility than clear and consistent rules and enforcement.
"It doesn’t just stop at metagame positioning. Grixis Shadow (and Jund Shadow, for that matter) is simply a far better Modern deck than BGx Rock."
"Grixis Shadow’s rise to dominance has ravaged the once-diverse aggro-combo lineup"
"Aggro-combo devolving into only Burn, Affinity, and Dredge lowers format diversity."
"Shadow now controls not just the vast majority of the midrange shares but a good deal of the aggro-combo shares, simply by virtue of fulfilling the latter’s roles more effectively."
Remarks like these read like they are straight out of a ban announcement. In fact, they are striking similar to most of the exact words said about Twin: "We also look for decks that hold a large enough percentage of the competitive field to reduce the diversity of the format. ... Decks that are this strong can hurt diversity by pushing the decks that it defeats out of competition. They can also reduce diversity by supplanting similar decks."
One of three things has to be true:
1. Twin and Shadow both create extremely similar problems and both should be banned.
2. Twin and Shadow are both fine and should both be legal based on a reassessment of priorities.
3. Shadow is fine but Twin is not, despite having effectively the same impact on the meta.
One of these outcomes makes Wizards look like a wildly inconsistent hypocrite, either citing things that don't actually matter or totally reversing their stance(s). The other two, whether correct or incorrect, at least assert consistency in rationale. As someone who spent nearly a decade in management and is now a teacher, there is nothing more important to maintaining credibility than clear and consistent rules and enforcement.
I agree with your last sentence - the importance of consistency - but it's also important to make different choices when the situations are, in fact, different. They look similar the way you present them but nothing can take away the fact that Twin was an instant-win 2 card combo and DS is not.
"It doesn’t just stop at metagame positioning. Grixis Shadow (and Jund Shadow, for that matter) is simply a far better Modern deck than BGx Rock."
"Grixis Shadow’s rise to dominance has ravaged the once-diverse aggro-combo lineup"
"Aggro-combo devolving into only Burn, Affinity, and Dredge lowers format diversity."
"Shadow now controls not just the vast majority of the midrange shares but a good deal of the aggro-combo shares, simply by virtue of fulfilling the latter’s roles more effectively."
Remarks like these read like they are straight out of a ban announcement. In fact, they are striking similar to most of the exact words said about Twin: "We also look for decks that hold a large enough percentage of the competitive field to reduce the diversity of the format. ... Decks that are this strong can hurt diversity by pushing the decks that it defeats out of competition. They can also reduce diversity by supplanting similar decks."
One of three things has to be true:
1. Twin and Shadow both create extremely similar problems and both should be banned.
2. Twin and Shadow are both fine and should both be legal based on a reassessment of priorities.
3. Shadow is fine but Twin is not, despite having effectively the same impact on the meta.
One of these outcomes makes Wizards look like a wildly inconsistent hypocrite, either citing things that don't actually matter or totally reversing their stance(s). The other two, whether correct or incorrect, at least assert consistency in rationale. As someone who spent nearly a decade in management and is now a teacher, there is nothing more important to maintaining credibility than clear and consistent rules and enforcement.
You fail to point out that WotC gave Twin years and multiple direct hate cards printed with no headway made against the deck. If in 2-3 years XDS decks are still putting up the same kind of results then I think it would be worth considering it in the same way that they did Twin.
I personally doubt that DS will sit on top for as long as Twin given that it isn't a fundamentally broken instant win combo, it is far more fair and we will likely see other fair decks that can hinder it.
"It doesn’t just stop at metagame positioning. Grixis Shadow (and Jund Shadow, for that matter) is simply a far better Modern deck than BGx Rock."
"Grixis Shadow’s rise to dominance has ravaged the once-diverse aggro-combo lineup"
"Aggro-combo devolving into only Burn, Affinity, and Dredge lowers format diversity."
"Shadow now controls not just the vast majority of the midrange shares but a good deal of the aggro-combo shares, simply by virtue of fulfilling the latter’s roles more effectively."
Remarks like these read like they are straight out of a ban announcement. In fact, they are striking similar to most of the exact words said about Twin: "We also look for decks that hold a large enough percentage of the competitive field to reduce the diversity of the format. ... Decks that are this strong can hurt diversity by pushing the decks that it defeats out of competition. They can also reduce diversity by supplanting similar decks."
One of three things has to be true:
1. Twin and Shadow both create extremely similar problems and both should be banned.
2. Twin and Shadow are both fine and should both be legal based on a reassessment of priorities.
3. Shadow is fine but Twin is not, despite having effectively the same impact on the meta.
One of these outcomes makes Wizards look like a wildly inconsistent hypocrite, either citing things that don't actually matter or totally reversing their stance(s). The other two, whether correct or incorrect, at least assert consistency in rationale. As someone who spent nearly a decade in management and is now a teacher, there is nothing more important to maintaining credibility than clear and consistent rules and enforcement.
This post is in line with your others; cherry-picking examples, neglecting to cite sources, and omitting facts to suit your narrative. It's not just misleading to converse this way, it's downright offensive, especially when you try it with users who actually know the format and can see through your carefully-crafted "data points." There are no official rules against discussing in this way in the thread (and rightly so, as such rules might bar more casual users from participating in discussion), but consider this post a formal, personal request from me asking you to please not include me in this kind of conversation or direct posts at me when you're going to argue this way.
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
I don't know what's worse the people complaining about twin being banned or the people complaining about the people complaining. To touch on the eldrazitron issue, I do believe that eldrazitron is warping the format in a negative way. The best way to beat it is to just go under it with fast linear decks like affinity.
Only one of those two groups has been complaining for 19 months straight without stop.
Especially grievous considering we now have a deck that uses a lot of blue cards and is a control deck, but it "doesn't feel blue enough" for the Twin Defense Force.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
Considering that outside of double Simian Spirit Guide, the deck is physically incapable of winning before the combat step on its own fourth turn, this "defense" is highly dubious.
"It doesn’t just stop at metagame positioning. Grixis Shadow (and Jund Shadow, for that matter) is simply a far better Modern deck than BGx Rock."
"Grixis Shadow’s rise to dominance has ravaged the once-diverse aggro-combo lineup"
"Aggro-combo devolving into only Burn, Affinity, and Dredge lowers format diversity."
"Shadow now controls not just the vast majority of the midrange shares but a good deal of the aggro-combo shares, simply by virtue of fulfilling the latter’s roles more effectively."
Remarks like these read like they are straight out of a ban announcement. In fact, they are striking similar to most of the exact words said about Twin: "We also look for decks that hold a large enough percentage of the competitive field to reduce the diversity of the format. ... Decks that are this strong can hurt diversity by pushing the decks that it defeats out of competition. They can also reduce diversity by supplanting similar decks."
One of three things has to be true:
1. Twin and Shadow both create extremely similar problems and both should be banned.
2. Twin and Shadow are both fine and should both be legal based on a reassessment of priorities.
3. Shadow is fine but Twin is not, despite having effectively the same impact on the meta.
One of these outcomes makes Wizards look like a wildly inconsistent hypocrite, either citing things that don't actually matter or totally reversing their stance(s). The other two, whether correct or incorrect, at least assert consistency in rationale. As someone who spent nearly a decade in management and is now a teacher, there is nothing more important to maintaining credibility than clear and consistent rules and enforcement.
This post is in line with your others; cherry-picking examples, neglecting to cite sources, and omitting facts to suit your narrative. It's not just misleading to converse this way, it's downright offensive, especially when you try it with users who actually know the format and can see through your carefully-crafted "data points." There are no official rules against discussing in this way in the thread (and rightly so, as such rules might bar more casual users from participating in discussion), but consider this post a formal, personal request from me asking you to please not include me in this kind of conversation or direct posts at me when you're going to argue this way.
Exactly THIS
The major issue is that other issues with Modern get drowned out because the Twin Defense Force twists everything back into an argument regarding Twin. It has happened multiple times in the last 20 pages alone, and has been happening consistently since the day of the ban. Yet asking them to stop derailing the thread risks moderation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
Considering that outside of double Simian Spirit Guide, the deck is physically incapable of winning before the combat step on its own fourth turn, this "defense" is highly dubious.
</blockquote>
That's being deliberately obtuse. The game may have ended on Turn 4, but the game was won at the end of Turn 3. The same argument was used against Bloom Titan, and it is used here. The turn the game ends is not the turn that gets counted for the Turn 4 Rule. It is the turn the game was put out of reach.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
It would force Eldrazi Tron to play more Dismember or Warping Wail in the mainboard.
It would cause dredge to sacrifice some of its speed in order to interact with the combo.
Even affinity would need to run more removal, even if that means maxing out on Galvanic Blasts.
So basically, every deck would end up playing more interaction which is a great thing IMO
First off cards like Dismember essentially always sucked against Twin which runs peek and MD dispel to combat/play around any removal that isn't Abrupt Decay.
Second I don't think that the race to your death type decks like Affinty or Dredge would be inclined to play anymore interaction, more likely it would favor attempting to run the fastest possible MD configuration and hope to race the combo game one. When Pod was banned and Twin was still legal both Burn and Infect rose to T1 simply because they could easily race the combo and the actual deck that policed them was gone.
Twin wasn't a real police deck it was a instant win button for a deck that otherwise isn't able to actually compete, it was far better against other fair decks and simply provided means for beating non-interactive decks with the possibility of T4 instant win. When you play against decks that are looking to mindlessly race the best plan was to dig for the combo and kill them before they kill you, Remand, Cryptic and crew are just as bad now as they had been then in those types of match ups.
The issue isn't Twin vs BGx, man (which, I agree, was overstated by many people, and the overrall mu was something like 50-50 between pre and post side). The main problem is Twin against Tempo strategies. And Classic Twin had a hard time fighting against Grixis Delver, Tarmo Twin, Esper/Grixis Delve exactly for this reason. And Grixis Shadow is a Grixis Delver three times more powerful, against whom you can't even Bolt their starter, and which plays a cc1 counterspell.
We all know about Twin pro and cons. But you seems the only one to believe Twin had the edge against everything. Which is clearly wrong.
Its worth noting also that Grixis Delver, and most every other Blue deck really had to warp its main deck to either compete with Twin or compete with the remainder of the field. Every set that would come out with anything worthy of trying out I would and I like the majority of other modern blue mages would come to the conclusion that whatever new card x added, Tas, Kcommand etc... that it was simply better in Twin every time for the same reasons; you would have to build your deck to either beat Twin and lose to nearly everything else or have 50/50 match ups against nearly everything but Twin.
Considering that outside of double Simian Spirit Guide, the deck is physically incapable of winning before the combat step on its own fourth turn, this "defense" is highly dubious.
That was why he said abuser, because the deck hid behind the turn 4 rule to claim it was fair. His point is that control decks shouldn't have such a powerful and quick finisher. It wasn't that it actually broke the turn 4 rule. It's that it walked that line as thinly as possible while the rest of the deck was perfectly viable at a long game where other turn 4 decks are not.
Considering that outside of double Simian Spirit Guide, the deck is physically incapable of winning before the combat step on its own fourth turn, this "defense" is highly dubious.
That's being deliberately obtuse. The game may have ended on Turn 4, but the game was won at the end of Turn 3. The same argument was used against Bloom Titan, and it is used here. The turn the game ends is not the turn that gets counted for the Turn 4 Rule. It is the turn the game was put out of reach.
If you're open to suggestions, stop interacting with him. He even failed to address any of the other points I brought up in addition to misunderstanding (perhaps deliberately) my argument. The best defense against the "Twin Defense Force" is to not engage with them.
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
It would force Eldrazi Tron to play more Dismember or Warping Wail in the mainboard.
It would cause dredge to sacrifice some of its speed in order to interact with the combo.
Even affinity would need to run more removal, even if that means maxing out on Galvanic Blasts.
So basically, every deck would end up playing more interaction which is a great thing IMO
First off cards like Dismember essentially always sucked against Twin which runs peek and MD dispel to combat/play around any removal that isn't Abrupt Decay.
Second I don't think that the race to your death type decks like Affinty or Dredge would be inclined to play anymore interaction, more likely it would favor attempting to run the fastest possible MD configuration and hope to race the combo game one. When Pod was banned and Twin was still legal both Burn and Infect rose to T1 simply because they could easily race the combo and the actual deck that policed them was gone.
Twin wasn't a real police deck it was a instant win button for a deck that otherwise isn't able to actually compete, it was far better against other fair decks and simply provided means for beating non-interactive decks with the possibility of T4 instant win. When you play against decks that are looking to mindlessly race the best plan was to dig for the combo and kill them before they kill you, Remand, Cryptic and crew are just as bad now as they had been then in those types of match ups.
Well thought out post. I think what Twin sympathizers will argue with is that interaction (discard and creature removal) being necessary in the meta (or autolose/outrace Twin) are a positive. I remember when Burn ran 3 Dismember mainboard. Yes, those were the Twin days. Affinity did not need to bend its deck list. They ran 4 Galvanic Blast, which Frank Karsten at the Vegas GP told my friend is correct right now, like has been the usual "best" way for Affinity to run.
They will also say that the meta had become very noninteractive until the recent Shadow lists forced some interaction. I wish it could be somewhere in the middle personally, but it's certainly fine to me right now. I wish there could be some unbans, Blue countermagic got a bit better, along with some other Legacy legal cards to be ported to Modern (like Fact or Fiction).
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)
Re: the so-called Twin defense force
Although I agree Twin derailment can be frustrating, and admitting I'm not staff anymore, it's really easy to deal with. If you don't want to talk about Twin, then don't! Don't reply to Twin posts and don't mention it in your own posts.
For example, I have no interest in engaging Twin defenders right now, so I'm not going to address them and will instead talk about a different topic.
The MTGO metagame is super diverse right now from my own experience. There is a ton of interaction for the first time in a while, including UW Control, D&T, Jeskai Queller, Grixis DS, BW Pox, random Delver variants, Mardu, and others. It's really refreshing and I hope it lasts! That said, I have also noticed the marked decline in BGx decks. Although that's an unfortunate decrease, if all those other interactive strategies are doing well instead, I'm totally comfortable with the BGx drop. That's not to say I wouldn't be cool with a Temple ban if it ever happened. A Temple ban would likely increase diversity, especially BGx, even if the data doesn't support that ban.
All in all, Modern feels awesome going into the summer GP. Also, having played UW for a while now, starting before it hit Tier 1, I'm comfortable saying that many underestimated that deck and oversold the challenges of reactive decks. This leads me to believe many of those same players are misjudging the metagame again today.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Define good or bad, not sure what you are asking.
Gkourou: you have a Nahiri package in that Queller deck? It's worked well for my version.
Spirits
I'll just respond to all these at once.
First, a few items I'm basing my statement on:
1. Twin's matchup with Jund was much closer to 50/50 than people in this thread realize. There was a large data set that bore this out, but I forget where the link is. Others have referenced it. This suggests that discard did not affect the deck as much as people claim. That becomes clearer as you look at the cards the deck uses - many either replace themselves or can be flashed back with Snapcaster.
2. UR Twin was the "best" Twin version at the time of the ban but Grixis Twin was only a hair behind. I'm basing my comparison on Grixis Twin, not UR Twin. This gives Twin access to discard, K-Command, and Push - just like GDS.
Twin apologists can't have it both ways. They say that GDS would own the Twin matchup. And when complaining that no other deck feels like Twin, they discuss the feel of Bolt-Snap-Bolt and the tap effects and the counterspells. Yet these are the exact elements that would shred GDS. GDS is a deck that has few threats and thrives at or under 10 life. Twin always had the ability to dismantle decks with few threats and the bolt-Snap-bolt plan eats that last 9 life points down extremely quickly. On top of the cards simply matching up better for Twin, they can also win the game on the spot. Something GDS can't do and which will invariably account for X% of wins, easily pushing an otherwise even-ish matchup into Twin's favor.
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
I don't believe Twin had the edge in every matchup. I agree with KTKen that Delver had a positive matchup against Twin. Delver just didn't like to live below 10 life points the way GDS does. U/x control also had a good matchup against Twin. Other decks as well. None of that means GDS would.
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
Modern:
UWUW Control
UBRGrixis Shadow
URIzzet Phoenix
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
PROS
- provides a skill-testing, interactive option
- enables control
- opens the floodgates to innovation
- adds color diversity
CONS
- homogenizes midrange
- guts aggro-combo
Read the full text here:
http://modernnexus.com/deaths-shadow-hero-or-villain-metagame-impacts/
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
Great article, thanks for sharing. In your opinion (if you don't mind me asking), what would happen to the Temple decks like Eldrazi Tron, Bant Eldrazi, Eldrazi Stompy and Eldrazi & Taxes if Temple was banned? Would any deck based around Matter Reshaper, TKS, and Reality Smasher still be tier 1/2?
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
"Grixis Shadow’s rise to dominance has ravaged the once-diverse aggro-combo lineup"
"Aggro-combo devolving into only Burn, Affinity, and Dredge lowers format diversity."
"Shadow now controls not just the vast majority of the midrange shares but a good deal of the aggro-combo shares, simply by virtue of fulfilling the latter’s roles more effectively."
Remarks like these read like they are straight out of a ban announcement. In fact, they are striking similar to most of the exact words said about Twin: "We also look for decks that hold a large enough percentage of the competitive field to reduce the diversity of the format. ... Decks that are this strong can hurt diversity by pushing the decks that it defeats out of competition. They can also reduce diversity by supplanting similar decks."
One of three things has to be true:
1. Twin and Shadow both create extremely similar problems and both should be banned.
2. Twin and Shadow are both fine and should both be legal based on a reassessment of priorities.
3. Shadow is fine but Twin is not, despite having effectively the same impact on the meta.
One of these outcomes makes Wizards look like a wildly inconsistent hypocrite, either citing things that don't actually matter or totally reversing their stance(s). The other two, whether correct or incorrect, at least assert consistency in rationale. As someone who spent nearly a decade in management and is now a teacher, there is nothing more important to maintaining credibility than clear and consistent rules and enforcement.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
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
You fail to point out that WotC gave Twin years and multiple direct hate cards printed with no headway made against the deck. If in 2-3 years XDS decks are still putting up the same kind of results then I think it would be worth considering it in the same way that they did Twin.
I personally doubt that DS will sit on top for as long as Twin given that it isn't a fundamentally broken instant win combo, it is far more fair and we will likely see other fair decks that can hinder it.
This post is in line with your others; cherry-picking examples, neglecting to cite sources, and omitting facts to suit your narrative. It's not just misleading to converse this way, it's downright offensive, especially when you try it with users who actually know the format and can see through your carefully-crafted "data points." There are no official rules against discussing in this way in the thread (and rightly so, as such rules might bar more casual users from participating in discussion), but consider this post a formal, personal request from me asking you to please not include me in this kind of conversation or direct posts at me when you're going to argue this way.
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
Only one of those two groups has been complaining for 19 months straight without stop.
Especially grievous considering we now have a deck that uses a lot of blue cards and is a control deck, but it "doesn't feel blue enough" for the Twin Defense Force.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Exactly THIS
The major issue is that other issues with Modern get drowned out because the Twin Defense Force twists everything back into an argument regarding Twin. It has happened multiple times in the last 20 pages alone, and has been happening consistently since the day of the ban. Yet asking them to stop derailing the thread risks moderation.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
That's being deliberately obtuse. The game may have ended on Turn 4, but the game was won at the end of Turn 3. The same argument was used against Bloom Titan, and it is used here. The turn the game ends is not the turn that gets counted for the Turn 4 Rule. It is the turn the game was put out of reach.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
First off cards like Dismember essentially always sucked against Twin which runs peek and MD dispel to combat/play around any removal that isn't Abrupt Decay.
Second I don't think that the race to your death type decks like Affinty or Dredge would be inclined to play anymore interaction, more likely it would favor attempting to run the fastest possible MD configuration and hope to race the combo game one. When Pod was banned and Twin was still legal both Burn and Infect rose to T1 simply because they could easily race the combo and the actual deck that policed them was gone.
Twin wasn't a real police deck it was a instant win button for a deck that otherwise isn't able to actually compete, it was far better against other fair decks and simply provided means for beating non-interactive decks with the possibility of T4 instant win. When you play against decks that are looking to mindlessly race the best plan was to dig for the combo and kill them before they kill you, Remand, Cryptic and crew are just as bad now as they had been then in those types of match ups.
Its worth noting also that Grixis Delver, and most every other Blue deck really had to warp its main deck to either compete with Twin or compete with the remainder of the field. Every set that would come out with anything worthy of trying out I would and I like the majority of other modern blue mages would come to the conclusion that whatever new card x added, Tas, Kcommand etc... that it was simply better in Twin every time for the same reasons; you would have to build your deck to either beat Twin and lose to nearly everything else or have 50/50 match ups against nearly everything but Twin.
That was why he said abuser, because the deck hid behind the turn 4 rule to claim it was fair. His point is that control decks shouldn't have such a powerful and quick finisher. It wasn't that it actually broke the turn 4 rule. It's that it walked that line as thinly as possible while the rest of the deck was perfectly viable at a long game where other turn 4 decks are not.
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
Well thought out post. I think what Twin sympathizers will argue with is that interaction (discard and creature removal) being necessary in the meta (or autolose/outrace Twin) are a positive. I remember when Burn ran 3 Dismember mainboard. Yes, those were the Twin days. Affinity did not need to bend its deck list. They ran 4 Galvanic Blast, which Frank Karsten at the Vegas GP told my friend is correct right now, like has been the usual "best" way for Affinity to run.
They will also say that the meta had become very noninteractive until the recent Shadow lists forced some interaction. I wish it could be somewhere in the middle personally, but it's certainly fine to me right now. I wish there could be some unbans, Blue countermagic got a bit better, along with some other Legacy legal cards to be ported to Modern (like Fact or Fiction).
I came in here to see if anyone had seen this article by Brian Demars? I love the title, even if it didn't touch as much on Modern as I'd hoped it would. https://www.channelfireball.com/articles/was-blue-control-as-oppressive-as-we-remember/
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)Although I agree Twin derailment can be frustrating, and admitting I'm not staff anymore, it's really easy to deal with. If you don't want to talk about Twin, then don't! Don't reply to Twin posts and don't mention it in your own posts.
For example, I have no interest in engaging Twin defenders right now, so I'm not going to address them and will instead talk about a different topic.
The MTGO metagame is super diverse right now from my own experience. There is a ton of interaction for the first time in a while, including UW Control, D&T, Jeskai Queller, Grixis DS, BW Pox, random Delver variants, Mardu, and others. It's really refreshing and I hope it lasts! That said, I have also noticed the marked decline in BGx decks. Although that's an unfortunate decrease, if all those other interactive strategies are doing well instead, I'm totally comfortable with the BGx drop. That's not to say I wouldn't be cool with a Temple ban if it ever happened. A Temple ban would likely increase diversity, especially BGx, even if the data doesn't support that ban.
All in all, Modern feels awesome going into the summer GP. Also, having played UW for a while now, starting before it hit Tier 1, I'm comfortable saying that many underestimated that deck and oversold the challenges of reactive decks. This leads me to believe many of those same players are misjudging the metagame again today.