Well...I'm coming at that perspective from a UWR Control perspective. The 'best' control deck from an SCG angle, at least before the last I dont know, 2 or 3 weeks as I've stopped playing and paying attention.
With Path, Bolt, Spell Snare, there is 'play' in the first few turns.
Turn 3 is hopefully a Snap/Removal or a Counter.
Turn 4 is like I said "I play my 4th land, am I dead if they untap".
Most of the time, no. The issue is though, you can keep fighting over resources, keep casting removal/counters, keep digging....for what?
So you cast the mighty, the powerful, the immensely over hyped and expensive one, JACE HIMSELF. You draw 3...and you then what? Keep casting Removal/Counters?
Thats the issue with Control.
You have cleared the board, and you drop...Nahiri...wow. Much impressed. Many Loot 1.
In Modern, there is like you say enough resilience AND explosiveness, that if you stumble on that removal/counters...you just lose.
K so what do you need then better Cantrips? Better finishers? Better Board Wipes?
A Modern Level Appropriate finisher, on time, and less than 5 damn mana with half the finisher being a dead draw.
Like what? A 2UU 7/7 with Flash and U: Unblockable till end of turn and U: Gains Shroud until end of turn?
What finishers can "control" get that aggro or midrange can't use better? Even your precious deck wasn't a "control" deck. It was a combo deck that possessed control elements.
InB4 Cfusion claiming the deck mostly won with Snapcaster/bolts and Snapcaster beats.
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.
This brings up something interesting: what does a great control finisher look like? I'm not sure there's an answer that fits all control builds. Lantern Control is an outlier for instance, its not looking for one card to just close out the game (although Whir of Invention does help them quite a bit). Could a creature really be the answer? That's a hard sell, especially if you're trying to get something that a lot of control shells could use that aggro/mid-range couldn't just use better. My Faeries deck is more tempo than control, and Mistbind Clique often serves as both a way to finish games and give me time to just get damage in with other threats. That being said, it only works for Faerie decks; could a similar effect that had a more universal application work for Control? I have no idea. Honestly I think it'd be an enchantment or Planeswalker, but then we have to figure out what exactly this mystery card needs to be doing in order for it to be a great Control finisher.
I agree, I'm having a really hard time trying to think up a finisher that would benefit control more than it will benefit midrange. Also, THAT IS LITERALLY THE POINT OF A CONTROL DECK. You sacrifice ability to be proactive to have less dead draws and focus on answers rather than questions. Your finishers are not supposed to be coming down the same time an aggro deck is killing you, if you're playing such a high value finisher you are not a control deck, you are midrange, or combo or ramp, you're not control.
Twin was not a control deck, it was a combo-midrange/tempo deck.
I think a control finisher that is 'modern power' like 3 hollow ones on turn 3 level power, would be a pushed Walker, too expensive for mid-range, and colour intensive in U.
Gideon in his various forms can close out a game, so I don't think it's too far off from reality.
right now i think blue reactive decks could use better selection tools. it offsets spreading yourself so thin trying to answer stuff, while not entirely removing the inherent weakness like better/universal answer cards would.
in the same vein we dont really want a 'best' finisher, because the benefits gained by exploring different colors and options is supposed to be a good thing...i guess.
a bunch of other decks are seeing more cards per game, have better redundancy, or are using tutors. off the top of my head these are sort of the things im talking about.
ancient stirrings
gifts ungiven
summoners pact
eldritch evolution
chord of calling
expedition map
collected company
faithless looting
tolaria west
knight of the reliquary
primeval titan
whir of invention
spoils of the vault
inventors' fair
traverse the ulvenwald
phantasmal image
bring to light
more traditional blue decks have snapcaster to double up as spells youve already cast, and of course serum visions (opt is garbo, dont bother bringing it up).
consistency is still king in magic, and its clear that these types of cards and effects have a major impact on shaping the format. therefore if you DID want to buff blue id pick preordain over better answers/threats any day of the week.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
I agree that a Planeswalker would likely fit the bill, and just so we're not completely in rainbowland, let's try to remember that it'd have to get through Standard. That being said, came up with this off the top of my head.
Jhoira, Ghitu Chronologist
UUR1
4 Starting Loyalty
+2: The next instant or sorcery you cast this turn gains Scry 1.
0: Until your opponent's next end step, whenever an opponent's creature becomes tapped, it gains -X/-0 until the end of the turn, where X equals the number of Islands you control.
-1: Exile target non-creature permanent and put two time counters on it. It gains Suspend.
-9: You gain an emblem that says "Whenever you draw a card, deal up to three damage divided among any number of targets.
The wording is clumsy I know, but I think the basic gist of the ideas are there.
I don't think so, the problem I have with it, is that for a zoo-style deck it potentially invalidates creatures for the rest of the game for them, like a super boardwipe. Control decks aren't supposed to beat aggro decks and this card seems bonkers, absolutely bonkers, like it almost single handedly shuts down humans. I dunno it should be a negative ability I'm pretty sure.
If you want to play a UR deck now, you can certainly play the Kiki Exarch deck that top 8 'ed the SCG event, the various TTB decks that top 32'd the last GP, or one of the UR Platinum Emperion combos that placed well in the last PT. Or else, you can play Jeskai, UW, Grixis or other forms of control. Even UB is playable in our days.
There is diversity among blue decks at the moment.
and how exactly do you know that you wouldnt be able to play these decks to the same level of success even if twin was legal? each of them is actually favored against twin given historical evidence. those decks arent somehow more powerful against the current field because twin is gone, and post the smattering of results that they do based on their own merit and power.
Because most of those player would just jam Twin in their decks. If you wanted to win 10%+ win rate, you would do so.
yeah that is totally unrelated to my question. nice strawman though.
hey you can win more if you play a better deck. who knew.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
I understand your bias to the subject, but try to see the obvious point everyone is seeing and you are deliberatly eyeing away from.
Control players weren't trying and wouldn't try brewing weird decks like UB Control or try to play Jeskai, UW at a certain percentage.
Instead, they would just play a URx variation of Splinter Twin.
Thus, those decks didn't and wouldn't have this kind of success.
That's why Wizards mentioned the diversity reduction among similar decks.
That's the one out of two reasons why Splinter Twin isn't coming back.
We have UR Breach, UR Control, UR Kiki Exarch, Jeskai Control, UW Control, and other forms of control now.
yeah my obvious bias, even though ive made it clear multiple times that i dont believe twin is coming back any time soon.
you made a claim that certain decks are 'playable' with the implication that they only are because twin is gone. when in fact twin has no bearing in how well those decks would perform in their own right. it just means they are likely making concessions to play in a way that they enjoy; which is arguably what ALL blue control players are doing at the moment.
but please, feel free to keep talking in absolutes about stuff i never referenced.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
other than affinity dodging bans like neo in the matrix?
THIS MY FRIEND.
I honestly dont know how Affinity does it. They had 2 place in the Top 8 multiple times, there is at least one event with 3 in the top 8.
Like I said after my first review. If the Pro Tour 'shake up' still existed, Affinity was getting the axe.
EDIT: And I know you didnt make up those numbers, because its the same data set I looked at.
They aren't going to ban Mox Opal and by extension, affinity.
The reasons against banning out Affinity itself are pretty strait forward. It's one of those decks that once you actually build, it's very hard to even improve or upgrade. The deck literally has all the parts it needs so it can't get any better. The new Karn, Scion of Urza works in the deck, but it's sort of like going to the dinner table and shifting around chairs. The other factor is that the card that people want banned, Mox Opal, is actually a key card in an entire lot of artifact based strategies, so killing affinity by banning opal would also kill these decks as well. Not to mention any other future artifact decks that can make use of a mox to help bring things out fast enough.
The reasons for banning it are not without merit, however. For one, it's because of affinity and other competitive decks utilizing artifacts that people have to dedicate sideboard space to it. Since the hate for these decks don't really hit a lot of other things besides artifact decks, this helps promote the "paper meets rock" kind of situation that can happen in modern. The other is that there is an odd inconsistency in the ban list with modern that perplexes a number of people to this day. Wizards has banned fast mana in the past in the form of Rite of Flame and Chrome Mox. To the same extent, they also banned Summer bloom, but left Goryo's Vengeance in the format. Of course, this also can work in the reverse: Since mox opal and simian spirit guide are legal, why leave the other fast mana cards on the list?
At the end of the day, unless affinity really pushes a bunch of decks out of the format, they got no real reason to ban anything. That and I've seen way more ban worthy things in other games already: Banning anything in modern at the moment is just being petty. If people want to see something ban worthy, how about a counter spell that you can cast for free if more than one spell has been cast during a turn? Or a one mana hard counter that lets the opponent draw a card?
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!
If you want to play a UR deck now, you can certainly play the Kiki Exarch deck that top 8 'ed the SCG event, the various TTB decks that top 32'd the last GP, or one of the UR Platinum Emperion combos that placed well in the last PT. Or else, you can play Jeskai, UW, Grixis or other forms of control. Even UB is playable in our days.
There is diversity among blue decks at the moment.
and how exactly do you know that you wouldnt be able to play these decks to the same level of success even if twin was legal? each of them is actually favored against twin given historical evidence. those decks arent somehow more powerful against the current field because twin is gone, and post the smattering of results that they do based on their own merit and power.
Because most of those player would just jam Twin in their decks. If you wanted to win 10%+ win rate, you would do so.
yeah that is totally unrelated to my question. nice strawman though.
hey you can win more if you play a better deck. who knew.
I understand your bias to the subject, but try to see the obvious point everyone is seeing and you are deliberatly eyeing away from.
Control players weren't trying and wouldn't try brewing weird decks like UB Control or try to play Jeskai, UW at a certain percentage.
Instead, they would just play a URx variation of Splinter Twin.
Thus, those decks didn't and wouldn't have this kind of success.
That's why Wizards mentioned the diversity reduction among similar decks.
That's the one out of two reasons why Splinter Twin isn't coming back.
We have UR Breach, UR Control, UR Kiki Exarch, Jeskai Control, UW Control, and other forms of control now.
Kiki-Exarch is Splinter Twin, just without the titular card.
Aside from the extremely debatable list of blue-based decks that are somehow better without Twin in the format, the big question is this: What would you consider to be solid, falsifiable evidence that Splinter Twin would be just another good deck in the format? Obviously, we're not going to be able to test Twin directly in a competitive setting right now. What indirect data points would you consider to indicate that Twin is or isn't fine in the format? The fact that it's currently banned proves nothing: See Wild Nacatl.
For the record, I'm currently on UR Prison, which would almost certainly be unaffected by a Twin unban, other than shifting some sideboard cards around.
i mean i guess you could attempt to update a twin list and test it against the top decks. but that runs into the problem of assuming other decks wouldnt have made updates of their own in response to another powerful deck in the format.
it all just ties into how unlikely it is that the 'lets unban twin' proposal would come up in wotc meetings discussing that sort of thing. even if its deemed safe in a format that is much different, it falls into the same box as the other potential unbans while also having all this controversial baggage attached to it.
people will argue that before the banning twin was just 'another good deck', but that just brings the conversation full circle back to the justification on the banning in the first place. which is a dead end.
there is probably more to be gained right now by just continuing to watch what jace does to the format. they were pretty clear with their intent, so its not that difficult to see if that goal is being met. if blue decks are still playing crappy combos and jace barely passes as a fringe player then who knows.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
Out of curiosity, those that say that "blue reactive decks" aren't good enough, would you provide an example of what you would consider a "blue reactive deck"? I don't mean just a few cards, but an entire list for reference. Please note, I am not saying that I agree nor disagree, I'm only asking for a definition of terms to make sure that I understand exactly where you're coming from.
Edit:
Well...I'm coming at that perspective from a UWR Control perspective. The 'best' control deck from an SCG angle, at least before the last I dont know, 2 or 3 weeks as I've stopped playing and paying attention.
With Path, Bolt, Spell Snare, there is 'play' in the first few turns.
Turn 3 is hopefully a Snap/Removal or a Counter.
Turn 4 is like I said "I play my 4th land, am I dead if they untap".
Most of the time, no. The issue is though, you can keep fighting over resources, keep casting removal/counters, keep digging....for what?
So you cast the mighty, the powerful, the immensely over hyped and expensive one, JACE HIMSELF. You draw 3...and you then what? Keep casting Removal/Counters?
Thats the issue with Control.
You have cleared the board, and you drop...Nahiri...wow. Much impressed. Many Loot 1.
In Modern, there is like you say enough resilience AND explosiveness, that if you stumble on that removal/counters...you just lose.
I think this is why many people are having a hard time understanding Jace. I think that people are trying to do what you are talking about, and playing Jace in a reactive shell. As you describe above, that is most likely just wrong. Understanding how to build with Jace requires understanding what makes Jace good, in that if he is played on a stale boardstate, he excels as a powerful tool to gain control of the direction of the game, but if he is played on a dynamic boardstate, he's a target. That is why I think it's best to play him in a deck that uses proactive cards, like discard spells to slow the opponent's tempo to a halt, along with cards like Ensnaring Bridge. Hell, his +2 is perfect for controlling the direction of the game on a stale gamestate, so it blows my mind that people don't connect those dots.
Unfortunately, I've been saying this for long enough (since before his unban), and people are still shoehorning Jace into reactive control decks and somehow hoping that it'll just work. Sure, it's a powerful enough card that it just might sometimes, but it's not optimizing the deck to take advantage of the card's strengths.
Out of curiosity, those that say that "blue reactive decks" aren't good enough, would you provide an example of what you would consider a "blue reactive deck"? I don't mean just a few cards, but an entire list for reference. Please note, I am not saying that I agree nor disagree, I'm only asking for a definition of terms to make sure that I understand exactly where you're coming from.
Edit:
Well...I'm coming at that perspective from a UWR Control perspective. The 'best' control deck from an SCG angle, at least before the last I dont know, 2 or 3 weeks as I've stopped playing and paying attention.
With Path, Bolt, Spell Snare, there is 'play' in the first few turns.
Turn 3 is hopefully a Snap/Removal or a Counter.
Turn 4 is like I said "I play my 4th land, am I dead if they untap".
Most of the time, no. The issue is though, you can keep fighting over resources, keep casting removal/counters, keep digging....for what?
So you cast the mighty, the powerful, the immensely over hyped and expensive one, JACE HIMSELF. You draw 3...and you then what? Keep casting Removal/Counters?
Thats the issue with Control.
You have cleared the board, and you drop...Nahiri...wow. Much impressed. Many Loot 1.
In Modern, there is like you say enough resilience AND explosiveness, that if you stumble on that removal/counters...you just lose.
I think this is why many people are having a hard time understanding Jace. I think that people are trying to do what you are talking about, and playing Jace in a reactive shell. As you describe above, that is most likely just wrong. Understanding how to build with Jace requires understanding what makes Jace good, in that if he is played on a stale boardstate, he excels as a powerful tool to gain control of the direction of the game, but if he is played on a dynamic boardstate, he's a target. That is why I think it's best to play him in a deck that uses proactive cards, like discard spells to slow the opponent's tempo to a halt, along with cards like Ensnaring Bridge. Hell, his +2 is perfect for controlling the direction of the game on a stale gamestate, so it blows my mind that people don't connect those dots.
Unfortunately, I've been saying this for long enough (since before his unban), and people are still shoehorning Jace into reactive control decks and somehow hoping that it'll just work. Sure, it's a powerful enough card that it just might sometimes, but it's not optimizing the deck to take advantage of the card's strengths.
To be frank, the thing people seem to hint at wanting is something that will probably be forever out of reach. It comes down to either wanting to play a game, or playing a game because it leads to a reward if you win it. From years of playing MMOs, fighting games, and other titles that are competitive by nature, players who are competitive are the kind of people that bend towards the mindset of the end justifies the means. They don't care if something interacts with another player or not. The extent by which they care about interaction is if it helps them win the game. So when people are asking for better and more interactive decks, they are really asking to regulate and force people to have to interact whether they like it or not. All I got to say to people who want to push this entire interaction agenda is be careful what you wish for.
The real problem with modern is that the format can feel like it is so vast, yet the entire thing plays almost the same. The problem is that many of the decks with unique gameplay mechanics are under-represented in the metagame. Playing Lantern Control is a vastly different experience from Scapeshift, but how different is playing Affinity from any other flavor of the day aggro deck? How is playing a humans list different from playing a merfolk list or any other list that uses Aether Vial?
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!
i think you are grossly underselling how different decks, even within the same archetype, play. aggro decks have a reputation for having no depth, but that is very far from the truth. the same goes for other linear strategies.
for instance i believe affinity is one of the hardest decks to play well in the format, right next to the likes of lantern or amulet titan.
i think the point is that people want a format that offers diverse experiences while also having in-game decisions being meaningful on the outcome of the game. some may like the way things are right now, while others dont. either way it doesnt mean wotc shouldnt be trying to improve things. strive for perfection and all that.
also id love to see jace do well in a deck that is built "right". though people were saying the exact same thing 2 months ago, so im not gonna hold my breath.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
Many are already off Jace thnkr. He's simply not that good in Modern. If you told me 'one of these cards gets banned, Search for Azcanta, or Jace' I would pick Jace, every time.
other than affinity dodging bans like neo in the matrix?
THIS MY FRIEND.
I honestly dont know how Affinity does it. They had 2 place in the Top 8 multiple times, there is at least one event with 3 in the top 8.
Like I said after my first review. If the Pro Tour 'shake up' still existed, Affinity was getting the axe.
EDIT: And I know you didnt make up those numbers, because its the same data set I looked at.
I don't want to speculate on what would/wouldn't be banned if PT shakeups still existed the same way it used to. I will say that Affinity probably avoided bans because its T8/meta share did not suppress other decks. In all likelihood, no other aggro decks would have been more viable if Affinity was banned, and in all likelihood, no other non-aggro decks were being kept down by Affinity's presence. It never reached the truly ridiculous metagame shares like TC Delver, Pod, Eldrazi, and/or DRS BGx, so those precedents were never going to apply. Affinity also goes through more up-and-down cycles than most top-tier strategies, which further limits its danger to the format. This is of course a function of Affinity having unique weaknesses that render it terrible in some metagames. All of these things helped insulate Affinity from a ban in the past.
I'm totally backing out of the Twin discussion for now because it started to overpower every other topic in the thread. I tried to re-angle the Twin topic towards a less annoying iteration where we talked about new ground and new data-based ideas, but instead it became even more annoying than ever to many users.
In other news, SFM is still the card I most want to see unbanned in a subsequent update. Preordain is a close second. Regarding SFM, it's clear that no top-tier deck would use the card and SFM would largely serve to enhance lower-tier white strategies in combating higher-tier aggressive strategies. This would fit with previous unban targets Wizards has eyed in the past. Regarding Preordain, I think Modern has crystallized around a few cantrips for different decks: Stirrings for artifact/land-based strategies and Looting for aggressive/midrange (Mardu) ones. Meanwhile, blue is stuck with SV. Preordain goes into all those lower-tier blue decks and levels the playing field against the superior cantrips used by other strategies. I used to be more worried about Preordain improving combination decks, but blue-based combo isn't as successful anymore and Preordain would likely not significantly increase its odds against decks like Humans.
Many are already off Jace thnkr. He's simply not that good in Modern. If you told me 'one of these cards gets banned, Search for Azcanta, or Jace' I would pick Jace, every time.
I think there is some confusion about my post, based on this response.
I consider the Jace conversation to be seperate from the "reactive blue" conversation, and was not trying to link the two. I only included both subjects in the same post so as to avoid double-posting. To stress, I personally do not think that Jace belongs in a reactive blue deck. I think that I actually tried to specifically say this in my post that you are replying to. I would agree that he is not put to optimal use in a reactive blue deck.
However, that is very different than saying that the card isn't "that good in Modern". I see that you specifically linked decks that don't have Jace in it, but if you click on the "UR Control" link from the main list, you'll see that out of the 30 decks listed from the past two months, only four of them omitted Jace. So to imply that people aren't still trying to throw Jace into reactive Uxy decks would be a bit disingenuous (if that's what you were doing - I don't know). I think it is important to note that it seems that the most consistently successful JtMS decks rely on pro-active cards or combinations, like Blood Moon or combo finishes (though they are still trying to shoehorn the reactive cards in there anyways).
If the lists that you linked are to be considered reactive blue decks, then I think we have sufficient evidence that reactive blue decks do stand a chance in the metagame. They might not be as predominant as other decks in the metagame, but if our criteria for "viable" means that it has to be tier one, then I think that's a little much to ask. The metagame has been shifting for months, and I would expect it to continue to do so. But the point where we, as a community, demand that a specific type of deck must consistently be tier one, then I think we've arrived at a point where we have to seriously reconsider our personal bias'.
Edit: @ktkenshinx, I'm not saying I disagree with your opinion on Preordain, but I'm curious about your personal opinion about combo decks possibly being able to abuse it more effectively than control decks.
If the lists that you linked are to be considered reactive blue decks, then I think we have sufficient evidence that reactive blue decks do stand a chance in the metagame. They might not be as predominant as other decks in the metagame, but if our criteria for "viable" means that it has to be tier one, then I think that's a little much to ask. The metagame has been shifting for months, and I would expect it to continue to do so. But the point where we, as a community, demand that a specific type of deck must consistently be tier one, then I think we've arrived at a point where we have to seriously reconsider our personal bias'.
I think this is just where we subjectively disagree. I'm of the 'Pillars' mentality.
I dont want Affinity dead.
I dont want Jund dead, in fact that small blip of representation when Jace/BBE came off for both U reactive and Jund decks was about the most fun I've had in this format in years, I want Jund to beat up on the Aggro we have, the fact it seemingly CANNOT is an issue to me.
I DO want anything Eldrazi dead, but hey, I'm human, I can at least be self aware of my hate for those cards.
I simply want a Tier 1 URx deck that is not Storm, that is a reasonable choice in a GP setting for getting Top 8, and based on the data, its not. I'm not sure why the SCG meta is so fundamentally different, but its very difficult to not feel that it is.
Is it personal bias for me to want that play style to see representation at the top? Yes, it is. However I want it as simply part of the conversation. I want it as one of many. I want Jund up there. I want Burn, Tron, Affinity, Scapeshift, and even Lantern.
I simply want to add one more star to the constellation as a regular feature in GP Top 8, a reactive UR deck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
UW Spirits
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Like what? A 2UU 7/7 with Flash and U: Unblockable till end of turn and U: Gains Shroud until end of turn?
What finishers can "control" get that aggro or midrange can't use better? Even your precious deck wasn't a "control" deck. It was a combo deck that possessed control elements.
InB4 Cfusion claiming the deck mostly won with Snapcaster/bolts and Snapcaster beats.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
Now it has just devolved into "The State of Splinter Twin - Current Status: Still Banned"
Twin was not a control deck, it was a combo-midrange/tempo deck.
I think a control finisher that is 'modern power' like 3 hollow ones on turn 3 level power, would be a pushed Walker, too expensive for mid-range, and colour intensive in U.
Gideon in his various forms can close out a game, so I don't think it's too far off from reality.
Spirits
in the same vein we dont really want a 'best' finisher, because the benefits gained by exploring different colors and options is supposed to be a good thing...i guess.
a bunch of other decks are seeing more cards per game, have better redundancy, or are using tutors. off the top of my head these are sort of the things im talking about.
ancient stirrings
gifts ungiven
summoners pact
eldritch evolution
chord of calling
expedition map
collected company
faithless looting
tolaria west
knight of the reliquary
primeval titan
whir of invention
spoils of the vault
inventors' fair
traverse the ulvenwald
phantasmal image
bring to light
more traditional blue decks have snapcaster to double up as spells youve already cast, and of course serum visions (opt is garbo, dont bother bringing it up).
consistency is still king in magic, and its clear that these types of cards and effects have a major impact on shaping the format. therefore if you DID want to buff blue id pick preordain over better answers/threats any day of the week.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Spirits
Jhoira, Ghitu Chronologist
UUR1
4 Starting Loyalty
+2: The next instant or sorcery you cast this turn gains Scry 1.
0: Until your opponent's next end step, whenever an opponent's creature becomes tapped, it gains -X/-0 until the end of the turn, where X equals the number of Islands you control.
-1: Exile target non-creature permanent and put two time counters on it. It gains Suspend.
-9: You gain an emblem that says "Whenever you draw a card, deal up to three damage divided among any number of targets.
The wording is clumsy I know, but I think the basic gist of the ideas are there.
Hmm, what if it affected all creatures not just your opponent's? Would that be fair enough?
yeah that is totally unrelated to my question. nice strawman though.
hey you can win more if you play a better deck. who knew.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)a few more hate cards like damping sphere might work wonders.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)yeah my obvious bias, even though ive made it clear multiple times that i dont believe twin is coming back any time soon.
you made a claim that certain decks are 'playable' with the implication that they only are because twin is gone. when in fact twin has no bearing in how well those decks would perform in their own right. it just means they are likely making concessions to play in a way that they enjoy; which is arguably what ALL blue control players are doing at the moment.
but please, feel free to keep talking in absolutes about stuff i never referenced.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)They aren't going to ban Mox Opal and by extension, affinity.
The reasons against banning out Affinity itself are pretty strait forward. It's one of those decks that once you actually build, it's very hard to even improve or upgrade. The deck literally has all the parts it needs so it can't get any better. The new Karn, Scion of Urza works in the deck, but it's sort of like going to the dinner table and shifting around chairs. The other factor is that the card that people want banned, Mox Opal, is actually a key card in an entire lot of artifact based strategies, so killing affinity by banning opal would also kill these decks as well. Not to mention any other future artifact decks that can make use of a mox to help bring things out fast enough.
The reasons for banning it are not without merit, however. For one, it's because of affinity and other competitive decks utilizing artifacts that people have to dedicate sideboard space to it. Since the hate for these decks don't really hit a lot of other things besides artifact decks, this helps promote the "paper meets rock" kind of situation that can happen in modern. The other is that there is an odd inconsistency in the ban list with modern that perplexes a number of people to this day. Wizards has banned fast mana in the past in the form of Rite of Flame and Chrome Mox. To the same extent, they also banned Summer bloom, but left Goryo's Vengeance in the format. Of course, this also can work in the reverse: Since mox opal and simian spirit guide are legal, why leave the other fast mana cards on the list?
At the end of the day, unless affinity really pushes a bunch of decks out of the format, they got no real reason to ban anything. That and I've seen way more ban worthy things in other games already: Banning anything in modern at the moment is just being petty. If people want to see something ban worthy, how about a counter spell that you can cast for free if more than one spell has been cast during a turn? Or a one mana hard counter that lets the opponent draw a card?
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!
Kiki-Exarch is Splinter Twin, just without the titular card.
Aside from the extremely debatable list of blue-based decks that are somehow better without Twin in the format, the big question is this: What would you consider to be solid, falsifiable evidence that Splinter Twin would be just another good deck in the format? Obviously, we're not going to be able to test Twin directly in a competitive setting right now. What indirect data points would you consider to indicate that Twin is or isn't fine in the format? The fact that it's currently banned proves nothing: See Wild Nacatl.
For the record, I'm currently on UR Prison, which would almost certainly be unaffected by a Twin unban, other than shifting some sideboard cards around.
it all just ties into how unlikely it is that the 'lets unban twin' proposal would come up in wotc meetings discussing that sort of thing. even if its deemed safe in a format that is much different, it falls into the same box as the other potential unbans while also having all this controversial baggage attached to it.
people will argue that before the banning twin was just 'another good deck', but that just brings the conversation full circle back to the justification on the banning in the first place. which is a dead end.
there is probably more to be gained right now by just continuing to watch what jace does to the format. they were pretty clear with their intent, so its not that difficult to see if that goal is being met. if blue decks are still playing crappy combos and jace barely passes as a fringe player then who knows.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Edit:
I think this is why many people are having a hard time understanding Jace. I think that people are trying to do what you are talking about, and playing Jace in a reactive shell. As you describe above, that is most likely just wrong. Understanding how to build with Jace requires understanding what makes Jace good, in that if he is played on a stale boardstate, he excels as a powerful tool to gain control of the direction of the game, but if he is played on a dynamic boardstate, he's a target. That is why I think it's best to play him in a deck that uses proactive cards, like discard spells to slow the opponent's tempo to a halt, along with cards like Ensnaring Bridge. Hell, his +2 is perfect for controlling the direction of the game on a stale gamestate, so it blows my mind that people don't connect those dots.
Unfortunately, I've been saying this for long enough (since before his unban), and people are still shoehorning Jace into reactive control decks and somehow hoping that it'll just work. Sure, it's a powerful enough card that it just might sometimes, but it's not optimizing the deck to take advantage of the card's strengths.
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
To be frank, the thing people seem to hint at wanting is something that will probably be forever out of reach. It comes down to either wanting to play a game, or playing a game because it leads to a reward if you win it. From years of playing MMOs, fighting games, and other titles that are competitive by nature, players who are competitive are the kind of people that bend towards the mindset of the end justifies the means. They don't care if something interacts with another player or not. The extent by which they care about interaction is if it helps them win the game. So when people are asking for better and more interactive decks, they are really asking to regulate and force people to have to interact whether they like it or not. All I got to say to people who want to push this entire interaction agenda is be careful what you wish for.
The real problem with modern is that the format can feel like it is so vast, yet the entire thing plays almost the same. The problem is that many of the decks with unique gameplay mechanics are under-represented in the metagame. Playing Lantern Control is a vastly different experience from Scapeshift, but how different is playing Affinity from any other flavor of the day aggro deck? How is playing a humans list different from playing a merfolk list or any other list that uses Aether Vial?
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!
for instance i believe affinity is one of the hardest decks to play well in the format, right next to the likes of lantern or amulet titan.
i think the point is that people want a format that offers diverse experiences while also having in-game decisions being meaningful on the outcome of the game. some may like the way things are right now, while others dont. either way it doesnt mean wotc shouldnt be trying to improve things. strive for perfection and all that.
also id love to see jace do well in a deck that is built "right". though people were saying the exact same thing 2 months ago, so im not gonna hold my breath.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)As to the defintion of 'Reactive Blue'
UWR Control (Big Jeskai). - http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=18943&d=318913&f=MO Note he's off of Jace
UW Mana Denial Control.
Blue Moon (UR Kiki/Thing/Jace/Pyro as the Win Con) - http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=18943&d=318916&f=MO Note, the single Main Deck Jace
Spirits
I don't want to speculate on what would/wouldn't be banned if PT shakeups still existed the same way it used to. I will say that Affinity probably avoided bans because its T8/meta share did not suppress other decks. In all likelihood, no other aggro decks would have been more viable if Affinity was banned, and in all likelihood, no other non-aggro decks were being kept down by Affinity's presence. It never reached the truly ridiculous metagame shares like TC Delver, Pod, Eldrazi, and/or DRS BGx, so those precedents were never going to apply. Affinity also goes through more up-and-down cycles than most top-tier strategies, which further limits its danger to the format. This is of course a function of Affinity having unique weaknesses that render it terrible in some metagames. All of these things helped insulate Affinity from a ban in the past.
I'm totally backing out of the Twin discussion for now because it started to overpower every other topic in the thread. I tried to re-angle the Twin topic towards a less annoying iteration where we talked about new ground and new data-based ideas, but instead it became even more annoying than ever to many users.
In other news, SFM is still the card I most want to see unbanned in a subsequent update. Preordain is a close second. Regarding SFM, it's clear that no top-tier deck would use the card and SFM would largely serve to enhance lower-tier white strategies in combating higher-tier aggressive strategies. This would fit with previous unban targets Wizards has eyed in the past. Regarding Preordain, I think Modern has crystallized around a few cantrips for different decks: Stirrings for artifact/land-based strategies and Looting for aggressive/midrange (Mardu) ones. Meanwhile, blue is stuck with SV. Preordain goes into all those lower-tier blue decks and levels the playing field against the superior cantrips used by other strategies. I used to be more worried about Preordain improving combination decks, but blue-based combo isn't as successful anymore and Preordain would likely not significantly increase its odds against decks like Humans.
Spirits
I think there is some confusion about my post, based on this response.
I consider the Jace conversation to be seperate from the "reactive blue" conversation, and was not trying to link the two. I only included both subjects in the same post so as to avoid double-posting. To stress, I personally do not think that Jace belongs in a reactive blue deck. I think that I actually tried to specifically say this in my post that you are replying to. I would agree that he is not put to optimal use in a reactive blue deck.
However, that is very different than saying that the card isn't "that good in Modern". I see that you specifically linked decks that don't have Jace in it, but if you click on the "UR Control" link from the main list, you'll see that out of the 30 decks listed from the past two months, only four of them omitted Jace. So to imply that people aren't still trying to throw Jace into reactive Uxy decks would be a bit disingenuous (if that's what you were doing - I don't know). I think it is important to note that it seems that the most consistently successful JtMS decks rely on pro-active cards or combinations, like Blood Moon or combo finishes (though they are still trying to shoehorn the reactive cards in there anyways).
If the lists that you linked are to be considered reactive blue decks, then I think we have sufficient evidence that reactive blue decks do stand a chance in the metagame. They might not be as predominant as other decks in the metagame, but if our criteria for "viable" means that it has to be tier one, then I think that's a little much to ask. The metagame has been shifting for months, and I would expect it to continue to do so. But the point where we, as a community, demand that a specific type of deck must consistently be tier one, then I think we've arrived at a point where we have to seriously reconsider our personal bias'.
Edit: @ktkenshinx, I'm not saying I disagree with your opinion on Preordain, but I'm curious about your personal opinion about combo decks possibly being able to abuse it more effectively than control decks.
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
I think this is just where we subjectively disagree. I'm of the 'Pillars' mentality.
I dont want Affinity dead.
I dont want Jund dead, in fact that small blip of representation when Jace/BBE came off for both U reactive and Jund decks was about the most fun I've had in this format in years, I want Jund to beat up on the Aggro we have, the fact it seemingly CANNOT is an issue to me.
I DO want anything Eldrazi dead, but hey, I'm human, I can at least be self aware of my hate for those cards.
I simply want a Tier 1 URx deck that is not Storm, that is a reasonable choice in a GP setting for getting Top 8, and based on the data, its not. I'm not sure why the SCG meta is so fundamentally different, but its very difficult to not feel that it is.
Is it personal bias for me to want that play style to see representation at the top? Yes, it is. However I want it as simply part of the conversation. I want it as one of many. I want Jund up there. I want Burn, Tron, Affinity, Scapeshift, and even Lantern.
I simply want to add one more star to the constellation as a regular feature in GP Top 8, a reactive UR deck.
Spirits