Nothing is going to happen in August unless someone comes up with some radical warping tech in the next month and a half. In fact, baring a new broken deck, I predict there will be no B/R changes for Modern for the rest of 2017. The Jace-SFM-Twin train is permanently stuck in the station, guys.
The problem I have here is...why? Why are these this 'nope' 'never'? These are not going to break the format, none of them.
I didnt call out twin, there are multiple cards on that list that should be off.
Here, just for you and anyone else that wants to jump down my throat.
Blue is currently fine in Modern, the Modern meta game has space for interactive, reactive, Blue decks, as well as nearly any other archetype which one would want to play, and is in the best place its been in years.
I didnt call out twin, there are multiple cards on that list that should be off.
Here, just for you and anyone else that wants to jump down my throat.
Blue is currently fine in Modern, the Modern meta game has space for interactive, reactive, Blue decks, as well as nearly any other archetype which one would want to play, and is in the best place its been in years.
Cool? Cool.
The problem is that we are asking "why?" to the wrong group of people. The people who need to answer that question are the people in charge of the ban list at Wizards because it seems pretty clear they need to backup their claims on a lot of the choices better. This is especially true if we are still going back and forth on this forum over these cards.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Goyf was a headache when bolt was the best removal
I knew push would be the best removal, I didn't foresee how much worse it'd make Goyf, because it seemed too much of the "dies to doom-blade" argument
Honestly I don't think it's push as much as its DS/Tas/Angler in Grixis all are always in case of DS or very often larger or as large but cheaper. A 5/5 for B makes a 4/5 for 1G bad. Add to it that Grixis' only big beater that dies to Push is DS itself leaving the other half untouched by the most common removal and you often can cast them on T2 while leaving up Denial just makes the deck way better in the mirror.
Its not like JundDS is "bad" so much as it isn't favored in the DS mirror. DS decks also just make traditional Jund bad as they are aggro decks that invalidate the traditional mid-range strategy of "mid-range creature > aggro creature" gofy was fantastic when the best 1c.c. creatures your opponent would be running were 2/2's and 3/3's but when your opponent is casting 6/6's, 5/5's and 4/5's for 1c.c. mid-range loses a crucial edge that traditionally made it a strong strategy. Add to this that DS decks are aggro-control decks and Control elements have always been strong against Jund type decks, so they essentially get the best of both worlds aggro creatures that trump Junds mid-range options and utilizes the same powerful control spells that Jund itself looks to employ.
DS isn't a mid-range deck, the mirrors often feel mid-rangish but that is actually very common for aggro v aggro matches.
Twin had a very linear win con and but was also a very interactive deck, but all the interaction was essentially a mirage a means to the same end the decks end game goal was to combo win.
He goes a lot into linear strategies both in their construction and how to beat them, but here's the quote where he defines linear strategies, which I think is the best description:
To employ a linear strategy means that you're entirely focused on one goal or theme. Every card contributes to that goal, and you have little interest in deviating from that plan. Worrying about what your opponent is doing is largely just a distraction. In short, linear strategies follow a "straight line" from point A to point B.
In the context of Twin, the line gets weird because the primary win con was indeed a combo that ignored the board state of the game, which would fall under the definition of a linear strategy, but the deck was able to devote a decent amount of resources to a back-up tempo plan, which was a non-linear strategy since tempo strategies rely on disrupting the opponent at precise plays.
So whether or not Twin was linear would likely depend heavily on how you viewed the deck. I'd say that a deck that was primarily a combo deck with a back-up tempo plan, that'd fall more under being linear than non-linear, but I'm sure there are those who'd disagree with me, and I don't believe there's a right answer.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks
Modern: UWUW Control UBRGrixis Shadow URIzzet Phoenix
He goes a lot into linear strategies both in their construction and how to beat them, but here's the quote where he defines linear strategies, which I think is the best description:
To employ a linear strategy means that you're entirely focused on one goal or theme. Every card contributes to that goal, and you have little interest in deviating from that plan. Worrying about what your opponent is doing is largely just a distraction. In short, linear strategies follow a "straight line" from point A to point B.
In the context of Twin, the line gets weird because the primary win con was indeed a combo that ignored the board state of the game, which would fall under the definition of a linear strategy, but the deck was able to devote a decent amount of resources to a back-up tempo plan, which was a non-linear strategy since tempo strategies rely on disrupting the opponent at precise plays.
So whether or not Twin was linear would likely depend heavily on how you viewed the deck. I'd say that a deck that was primarily a combo deck with a back-up tempo plan, that'd fall more under being linear than non-linear, but I'm sure there are those who'd disagree with me, and I don't believe there's a right answer.
I'd say that's a fair assessment. In my personal anecdotal experience, when I first got the deck, I just assumed it was "linear combo" and tried jamming the combo EOT3 and into Turn 4. I lost a LOT of those games doing exactly that. This may come as a shock, but things like creature removal exist and they totally wreck this creature-based combo. Same goes for discard spells taking away combo pieces and counterspells. Because of the frequency of massive blowouts trying to jam a Turn 4 combo (which didn't actually happen as often as people exaggerate) I personally viewed the deck as tempo plan A and combo plan B. I basically entered every game knowing I had a target on my head, knowing that certain cards totally shut down my combo or put me at a massive tempo loss, and focused my play style on head games, chip shot damage, and tempo. If I got the combo, awesome, but unless I was sure the coast was clear (or I was in immediate danger of losing), I would usually just hold and wait. Jamming the combo in a linear all-in fashion is the best way to consistently lose with Twin.
Edit: Although this really gets to the root of so many peoples' annoyances with the whole "Twin thing," and its when people who for whatever reason can't stand the deck make outlandish and wildly false claims (or even just a little incorrect), we feel the need to set the record straight and correct the piles of misinformation. Then we get yelled at for "bringing up Twin" when all we're doing is addressing someone else's (usually) incorrect or exaggerated statements that further exacerbate the myths and legends about Twin.
Edit: Although this really gets to the root of so many peoples' annoyances with the whole "Twin thing," and its when people who for whatever reason can't stand the deck make outlandish and wildly false claims (or even just a little incorrect), we feel the need to set the record straight and correct the piles of misinformation. Then we get yelled at for "bringing up Twin" when all we're doing is addressing someone else's (usually) incorrect or exaggerated statements that further exacerbate the myths and legends about Twin.
No. The annoyance has nothing to do with those points. It has everything to do with the fact that 3-4 people turn every single discussion in this thread into a Twin defense. It was tiring 8 months after the ban and it's downright exhausting 18 months after it. Move on.
On other topics, I've personally found that "linear" is regularly confused with "proactive" to the point where I've seen people literally call decks like Grixis Midrange linear, just because they win with Tasigur. This is similar to the arguments where people believe truly interactive Magic/Modern decks can't have a proactive Plan A or B without becoming "linear." It's a bizarre and antiquated definition that hasn't been true for a decade plus, if it was even true at all before that.
On a different note, how does one enjoy modern and I guess to a greater extent magic. I played modern extensively from 2012-2015 and stopped playing consistently after eldrazi winter but I did revisit modern a few times to try to get back into it only to find myself disappointed each time. I used to play big zoo/naya company but then switched to Abzan company after naya company become unplayable. None of the viable decks really thrill me and I really dislike the play patterns of some of the more popular decks.
Linear used to be a way to describe a deck that tried to do one thing and had little to no interaction with the opponent like Burn or Ad Nauseam. Now linear is a pejorative used to describe any deck that isn't the deck that a poster prefers. It's the same as when people bring up the color balance argument and immediately say that a deck without blue as its wincon is not blue.
No. The annoyance has nothing to do with those points. It has everything to do with the fact that 3-4 people turn every single discussion in this thread into a Twin defense. It was tiring 8 months after the ban and it's downright exhausting 18 months after it. Move on.
On other topics, I've personally found that "linear" is regularly confused with "proactive" to the point where I've seen people literally call decks like Grixis Midrange linear, just because they win with Tasigur. This is similar to the arguments where people believe truly interactive Magic/Modern decks can't have a proactive Plan A or B without becoming "linear." It's a bizarre and antiquated definition that hasn't been true for a decade plus, if it was even true at all before that.
In Splinter-Twin Group's defense, I am still upset about Bloodbraid Elf.
On a different note, how does one enjoy modern and I guess to a greater extent magic. I played modern extensively from 2012-2015 and stopped playing consistently after eldrazi winter but I did revisit modern a few times to try to get back into it only to find myself disappointed each time. I used to play big zoo/naya company but then switched to Abzan company after naya company become unplayable. None of the viable decks really thrill me and I really dislike the play patterns of some of the more popular decks.
What deck do you want to play? There are probably 25-30 viable decks I wouldn't be surprised to win a major tournament, running the entire archetype spectrum. I guess if you just want to play Naya Company and nothing else cuts it, that's probably an issue, but there are many similar big-creature decks which you might enjoy. GW Company comes to mind.
Edit: Although this really gets to the root of so many peoples' annoyances with the whole "Twin thing," and its when people who for whatever reason can't stand the deck make outlandish and wildly false claims (or even just a little incorrect), we feel the need to set the record straight and correct the piles of misinformation. Then we get yelled at for "bringing up Twin" when all we're doing is addressing someone else's (usually) incorrect or exaggerated statements that further exacerbate the myths and legends about Twin.
No. The annoyance has nothing to do with those points. It has everything to do with the fact that 3-4 people turn every single discussion in this thread into a Twin defense. It was tiring 8 months after the ban and it's downright exhausting 18 months after it. Move on.
It's be easier to do so if people stopped posting ridiculous and false statements about the deck that rub salt into wounds that are clearly still there for a deck that had no business being banned and whose shaky justification at the time is made even more ridiculous and incorrect with every passing month.
Never mind the fact that we are taunted day in and day out by a deck exponentially more toxic, damaging, and broken (Eldrazi) who has not just remained, but THRIVED in multiple T1 shells since it's ban, because Aaron Forsythe apperently has a soft spot for "not wanting to nuke decks from orbit," after SPECIFICALLY NUKING A DECK FROM ORBIT.
I don't really have any criteria for what I want to play. I do naturally gravitate to green creature decks but I'm tired of getting destroyed by tron. I guess that's the issue none the decks appeal to me much.
It's be easier to do so if people stopped posting ridiculous and false statements about the deck that rub salt into wounds that are clearly still there for a deck that had no business being banned and whose shaky justification at the time is made even more ridiculous and incorrect with every passing month.
Just ignore them and don't take it personally. Honestly, your arguments would be much more effective if you didn't bring them up all the time. If I hadn't heard about Twin in 12 months and someone brought it up at the end of 2017, hey, I bet a lot of people (myself included) would be interested in mulling that over. But when it's brought up on every page during every conversation on every non-Twin topic, it's irritating. Instead of being a serious discussion, it's become a meme. That's counter-productive for those who actually want the card unbanned and annoying for everyone else.
Edit: Although this really gets to the root of so many peoples' annoyances with the whole "Twin thing," and its when people who for whatever reason can't stand the deck make outlandish and wildly false claims (or even just a little incorrect), we feel the need to set the record straight and correct the piles of misinformation. Then we get yelled at for "bringing up Twin" when all we're doing is addressing someone else's (usually) incorrect or exaggerated statements that further exacerbate the myths and legends about Twin.
No. The annoyance has nothing to do with those points. It has everything to do with the fact that 3-4 people turn every single discussion in this thread into a Twin defense. It was tiring 8 months after the ban and it's downright exhausting 18 months after it. Move on.
On other topics, I've personally found that "linear" is regularly confused with "proactive" to the point where I've seen people literally call decks like Grixis Midrange linear, just because they win with Tasigur. This is similar to the arguments where people believe truly interactive Magic/Modern decks can't have a proactive Plan A or B without becoming "linear." It's a bizarre and antiquated definition that hasn't been true for a decade plus, if it was even true at all before that.
the point I was making earlier is that the majority of the top 10 decks in modern currently are quite linear in their game play. and that the days of twin pod and jund( before siege rhino) were more grindier and less linear. those days also had better archetype balance.
so I dont understand why wizards cant unban at this point to hopefully lower linearity in the top ranks a bit and make the format a bit grindier.
Edit: Although this really gets to the root of so many peoples' annoyances with the whole "Twin thing," and its when people who for whatever reason can't stand the deck make outlandish and wildly false claims (or even just a little incorrect), we feel the need to set the record straight and correct the piles of misinformation. Then we get yelled at for "bringing up Twin" when all we're doing is addressing someone else's (usually) incorrect or exaggerated statements that further exacerbate the myths and legends about Twin.
No. The annoyance has nothing to do with those points. It has everything to do with the fact that 3-4 people turn every single discussion in this thread into a Twin defense. It was tiring 8 months after the ban and it's downright exhausting 18 months after it. Move on.
It's be easier to do so if people stopped posting ridiculous and false statements about the deck that rub salt into wounds that are clearly still there for a deck that had no business being banned and whose shaky justification at the time is made even more ridiculous and incorrect with every passing month.
Never mind the fact that we are taunted day in and day out by a deck exponentially more toxic, damaging, and broken (Eldrazi) who has not just remained, but THRIVED in multiple T1 shells since it's ban, because Aaron Forsythe apperently has a soft spot for "not wanting to nuke decks from orbit," after SPECIFICALLY NUKING A DECK FROM ORBIT.
Im over the twin ban. but I have to agree with you here, the twin ban SHOULD never be let down, because it was the WORST ban in magic history imo.
and I personally think Aaron Forcythe should be "banned"
It's be easier to do so if people stopped posting ridiculous and false statements about the deck that rub salt into wounds that are clearly still there for a deck that had no business being banned and whose shaky justification at the time is made even more ridiculous and incorrect with every passing month.
Just ignore them and don't take it personally. Honestly, your arguments would be much more effective if you didn't bring them up all the time. If I hadn't heard about Twin in 12 months and someone brought it up at the end of 2017, hey, I bet a lot of people (myself included) would be interested in mulling that over. But when it's brought up on every page during every conversation on every non-Twin topic, it's irritating. Instead of being a serious discussion, it's become a meme. That's counter-productive for those who actually want the card unbanned and annoying for everyone else.
A lie repeated often enough becomes truth.
So here my fellow forum dwellers and Team Twin, lets make a deal.
Dont make up things or post lies about Twin, and you wont have to see posts contrary to whatever lie is being told about Twin.
Easy, and we can all move on, well except for Aaron, Maro, and Sam. They get to endure my daily reminders for the next 363 days!
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.
Teysa was far more angrier about her ban of Bloom, and she's still not bringing it up every page a year and a half later.
Also, Hellfire, you're sorta projecting YOUR vision on what modern should look like, citing POD, Twin and Jund and the interactive meta. I love those type of decks, but you have to keep in mind those decks also bore a lot of people, too, and all these diverse but linear decks may look healthy to them. Decks and archetypes come and go, just because it isn't an endless field of interactive decks doesn't mean it's wrong or broken
Outside of affinity and burn, i'd say aggro is probably at the weakest we've seen in a few years, 2016 was the year of aggro and fast decks, I'm sure there's sad aggro players, but things come and go
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The problem I have here is...why? Why are these this 'nope' 'never'? These are not going to break the format, none of them.
Spirits
I think the never on Twin is hasty to claim.
Who cares, can you seriously drop the Twin talk, it's coming off hypocritical and bitter.
Here, just for you and anyone else that wants to jump down my throat.
Blue is currently fine in Modern, the Modern meta game has space for interactive, reactive, Blue decks, as well as nearly any other archetype which one would want to play, and is in the best place its been in years.
Cool? Cool.
Spirits
The problem is that we are asking "why?" to the wrong group of people. The people who need to answer that question are the people in charge of the ban list at Wizards because it seems pretty clear they need to backup their claims on a lot of the choices better. This is especially true if we are still going back and forth on this forum over these cards.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Spirits
Just like Twin, very interactive and very linear.
Spirits
Honestly I don't think it's push as much as its DS/Tas/Angler in Grixis all are always in case of DS or very often larger or as large but cheaper. A 5/5 for B makes a 4/5 for 1G bad. Add to it that Grixis' only big beater that dies to Push is DS itself leaving the other half untouched by the most common removal and you often can cast them on T2 while leaving up Denial just makes the deck way better in the mirror.
Its not like JundDS is "bad" so much as it isn't favored in the DS mirror. DS decks also just make traditional Jund bad as they are aggro decks that invalidate the traditional mid-range strategy of "mid-range creature > aggro creature" gofy was fantastic when the best 1c.c. creatures your opponent would be running were 2/2's and 3/3's but when your opponent is casting 6/6's, 5/5's and 4/5's for 1c.c. mid-range loses a crucial edge that traditionally made it a strong strategy. Add to this that DS decks are aggro-control decks and Control elements have always been strong against Jund type decks, so they essentially get the best of both worlds aggro creatures that trump Junds mid-range options and utilizes the same powerful control spells that Jund itself looks to employ.
DS isn't a mid-range deck, the mirrors often feel mid-rangish but that is actually very common for aggro v aggro matches.
Twin had a very linear win con and but was also a very interactive deck, but all the interaction was essentially a mirage a means to the same end the decks end game goal was to combo win.
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/level-one/linear-strategies-2014-12-29
He goes a lot into linear strategies both in their construction and how to beat them, but here's the quote where he defines linear strategies, which I think is the best description:
In the context of Twin, the line gets weird because the primary win con was indeed a combo that ignored the board state of the game, which would fall under the definition of a linear strategy, but the deck was able to devote a decent amount of resources to a back-up tempo plan, which was a non-linear strategy since tempo strategies rely on disrupting the opponent at precise plays.
So whether or not Twin was linear would likely depend heavily on how you viewed the deck. I'd say that a deck that was primarily a combo deck with a back-up tempo plan, that'd fall more under being linear than non-linear, but I'm sure there are those who'd disagree with me, and I don't believe there's a right answer.
Modern:
UWUW Control
UBRGrixis Shadow
URIzzet Phoenix
I'd say that's a fair assessment. In my personal anecdotal experience, when I first got the deck, I just assumed it was "linear combo" and tried jamming the combo EOT3 and into Turn 4. I lost a LOT of those games doing exactly that. This may come as a shock, but things like creature removal exist and they totally wreck this creature-based combo. Same goes for discard spells taking away combo pieces and counterspells. Because of the frequency of massive blowouts trying to jam a Turn 4 combo (which didn't actually happen as often as people exaggerate) I personally viewed the deck as tempo plan A and combo plan B. I basically entered every game knowing I had a target on my head, knowing that certain cards totally shut down my combo or put me at a massive tempo loss, and focused my play style on head games, chip shot damage, and tempo. If I got the combo, awesome, but unless I was sure the coast was clear (or I was in immediate danger of losing), I would usually just hold and wait. Jamming the combo in a linear all-in fashion is the best way to consistently lose with Twin.
Edit: Although this really gets to the root of so many peoples' annoyances with the whole "Twin thing," and its when people who for whatever reason can't stand the deck make outlandish and wildly false claims (or even just a little incorrect), we feel the need to set the record straight and correct the piles of misinformation. Then we get yelled at for "bringing up Twin" when all we're doing is addressing someone else's (usually) incorrect or exaggerated statements that further exacerbate the myths and legends about Twin.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
No. The annoyance has nothing to do with those points. It has everything to do with the fact that 3-4 people turn every single discussion in this thread into a Twin defense. It was tiring 8 months after the ban and it's downright exhausting 18 months after it. Move on.
On other topics, I've personally found that "linear" is regularly confused with "proactive" to the point where I've seen people literally call decks like Grixis Midrange linear, just because they win with Tasigur. This is similar to the arguments where people believe truly interactive Magic/Modern decks can't have a proactive Plan A or B without becoming "linear." It's a bizarre and antiquated definition that hasn't been true for a decade plus, if it was even true at all before that.
In Splinter-Twin Group's defense, I am still upset about Bloodbraid Elf.
What deck do you want to play? There are probably 25-30 viable decks I wouldn't be surprised to win a major tournament, running the entire archetype spectrum. I guess if you just want to play Naya Company and nothing else cuts it, that's probably an issue, but there are many similar big-creature decks which you might enjoy. GW Company comes to mind.
You are significantly less vocal and persistent about it.
It's be easier to do so if people stopped posting ridiculous and false statements about the deck that rub salt into wounds that are clearly still there for a deck that had no business being banned and whose shaky justification at the time is made even more ridiculous and incorrect with every passing month.
Never mind the fact that we are taunted day in and day out by a deck exponentially more toxic, damaging, and broken (Eldrazi) who has not just remained, but THRIVED in multiple T1 shells since it's ban, because Aaron Forsythe apperently has a soft spot for "not wanting to nuke decks from orbit," after SPECIFICALLY NUKING A DECK FROM ORBIT.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Just ignore them and don't take it personally. Honestly, your arguments would be much more effective if you didn't bring them up all the time. If I hadn't heard about Twin in 12 months and someone brought it up at the end of 2017, hey, I bet a lot of people (myself included) would be interested in mulling that over. But when it's brought up on every page during every conversation on every non-Twin topic, it's irritating. Instead of being a serious discussion, it's become a meme. That's counter-productive for those who actually want the card unbanned and annoying for everyone else.
the point I was making earlier is that the majority of the top 10 decks in modern currently are quite linear in their game play. and that the days of twin pod and jund( before siege rhino) were more grindier and less linear. those days also had better archetype balance.
so I dont understand why wizards cant unban at this point to hopefully lower linearity in the top ranks a bit and make the format a bit grindier.
I know modern can be improved
and we all know how much people hate bans..
decks playing:
none
Im over the twin ban. but I have to agree with you here, the twin ban SHOULD never be let down, because it was the WORST ban in magic history imo.
and I personally think Aaron Forcythe should be "banned"
decks playing:
none
A lie repeated often enough becomes truth.
So here my fellow forum dwellers and Team Twin, lets make a deal.
Dont make up things or post lies about Twin, and you wont have to see posts contrary to whatever lie is being told about Twin.
Easy, and we can all move on, well except for Aaron, Maro, and Sam. They get to endure my daily reminders for the next 363 days!
Spirits
For every "misconception" about the deck that the TDF corrects, there are 20 "Rage at Wizards" posts about how unfair the ban was.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
Spirits
Also, Hellfire, you're sorta projecting YOUR vision on what modern should look like, citing POD, Twin and Jund and the interactive meta. I love those type of decks, but you have to keep in mind those decks also bore a lot of people, too, and all these diverse but linear decks may look healthy to them. Decks and archetypes come and go, just because it isn't an endless field of interactive decks doesn't mean it's wrong or broken
Outside of affinity and burn, i'd say aggro is probably at the weakest we've seen in a few years, 2016 was the year of aggro and fast decks, I'm sure there's sad aggro players, but things come and go