Anyone who talks twin ban is totally ignorant about the game.
Sorry for being so harsh but its the truth.
And yes twin shares some common ground with fow. This comment was succesful in the terms of both keeping away fringe nonsense decks from the format and keeping a lot of those decks in check. (Mainly combo and aggro)
Sorry for being harsh, but a Twin ban would be perfectly in keeping with past ban decisions Wizards has made.
Yes, it doesn't put up results warranting a ban. Yes, it has a natural tier-one predator (Jund/BGx). No, I would never argue for a Twin ban in Modern ever, and I agree it's a healthy deck to have in the format. But when you take into account that WoTC bans not with the intention of "fixing" a problem with the format, but instead with the intent to create a "new and unexplored Modern" at every Pro Tour, Twin becomes the perfect contender for a ban. Think about it from the perspective of a Wizards employee. What could they ban to shake up the Modern format enough that the Pros will be forced to innovate in a completely new metagame? Twin suddenly goes from one of the least at-risk to then one of the most at-risk decks for a ban.
Also, the argument that you made for Twin being the "FoW of Modern" could also be interpreted to argue for a banning...you could argue these strategies should be part of Modern and Twin is pushing them out.
I think it's actually very possible we see an update that looks like this in January:
----
Modern: Splinter Twin is banned.
Explanation of B&R Changes:
Since Modern's inception as a format, various flavors of blue-red decks utilizing the Deciever Exarch/Splinter Twin combo have been staples of the metagame. Initially, these decks functioned as pure combo decks with few control elements, aiming to assemble a creature combo and protect it with minimal disruption. However, since the adoption of Snapcaster Mage into Splinter Twin strategies, the deck has functioned as a disruptive aggro-control strategy with a potential combo finish, at times adopting a midrange creature suite in order to strengthen that backup plan. The fact that this deck attacks the metagame from both of these angles has allowed it to rise to its position as best tempo, control, and combo deck in Modern. Although this deck is not over-represented in the metagame, it is the opinion of the DCI that these strategies have since become oppressive, as allowing this strategy to exist pushes pure control decks out of the format. As Modern currently stands, control decks would be better served by adopting the Twin combo and its suite of disruptive flash creatures. This is evidenced by the disappearance of Jeskai control strategies from Modern's top tier as Twin's prevalence has grown. Furthermore, this type of combo pushes certain otherwise viable creature-centric decks out of the metagame that are unable to interact with the combo on turn 4. For this reason, Splinter Twin is banned. The DCI hopes that the removal of Splinter Twin from the Modern format will allow blue control decks pushed out by this combo to return to prominence.
----
Sound like something WoTC would say? I think so.
Couldn't resist digging this one up...sorry Twin players (this was all the way back in November)
Seriously though I was actually pretty on the mark with my Spinter Twin ban announcement. Cited a lot of the same things WoTC did, including my comments on twin and Jeskai control (this was before Bianchi won I think so I couldn't cite that).
In a way I think my announcement actually is more convincing than WoTC's, they're not even trying thst hard to disguise the purpose of this ban.
Also Affinity is now amazing everyone. Go play that. (And I'll show myself out now, this announcement made me way too excited)
Also I hope this shatters any pretense that Wizards wants a healthy and balanced format. All they want is a shaken up format for the pro tour so people watch it. This ban proves it more so than any other.
Were you expecting that they wouldn't do that? Last year when they announced that there wouldn't be a modern pro tour everyone complained and complained. Wizards said they would bring it back but they would use the ban list to keep it interesting. I completely understand banning twin for that reason since we consistently see the deck show up in the top 8s, 4s, and 2s of big tournaments even though it doesn't seem to fit with any of the other reasons.
I finally feel vindicated. People understand now what Modern is really all about- shakeup bans.
Not to sound arrogant or anything, but I kind of called this months ago, and got shot down by a bunch of people.
I even wrote a rationale for a Twin banning that sounded like the rationale they gave.
Hopefully everyone gets it now. Wizards bans cards to shake up the Pro Tour. That is their first priority. DRS, Pod, Twin, next year it'll be whatever the best deck is again.
[quote from="bill_zagoudis »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/617663-current-modern-banlist-discussion-9-28-2015-update?comment=4396"]i didn't hear anything about cyclical unbans or radical changes before PTs either, infact the interviewer suggested something similar and while LaPille initially seemed to agree that saturation is a bad thing but later continued speaking about how costly each and every ban is and how it should avoided for many reasons
Agreed.
The important bit is later, when he discusses what the DCI would do if faced with a stale metagame come the next Pro Tour. His speculation was a Splinter Twin/Summer Bloom ban. He also said the DCI wouldn't like to do that, but faced with a stale pro tour would have no other recourse. I don't really see how that's vague or hard to understand. And when I said cyclical it was probably the wrong word. I meant that Wizards wants the banlist to be continuously evolving and changing before the Pro Tour. If someone has a better word let me know.
He and I say nothing about radical changes. Just that the intention behind each ban is different from what you think.
the quote is LaPille's but for me Legacy is exactly what Modern shouldn't look like (personal taste) for a variety of reasons, i don't want to get into them, as this will probably evolve into format bashing a page from now
btw i strongly aggree about the PT meta, they are always dissapointing and i can't help but wonder why players of such skill make such boarderline stupid calls which they often repeat on other tours, what on earth possesed Reid Duke (the most likeable and respected pro imo) to play Storm on Pittsburgh for isntance? when i saw him i was hoping for some Jund action from the master, but... no, did he even made it to day 2? because people of my local meta have a lot of day 2 stories and i assume Reid Duke is their better...
if they were winning i'd say ok, results prove them right, i am not one to question people who get results but the only recent succesfull pro meta call was affnity, which is ofc a T1 deck
I haven't caught up on all the coverage yet but Reid Duke did make day 2. He was 7-0 on Day 1. Storm is one of his pet decks. I have no idea how well he did day 2 though.
3. He never says they ban things just to accomplish this...my argument was that it's the primary reason (i.e. most important reason) Wizards bans cards, not the only one.
Thank you, and you're right. There are a million factors that make control nonviable in Modern, and Twin isn't one of them. But this is the kind of reasoning WoTC uses to justify their "shake-up" bans, which was the point I was trying to make. Banning Twin actually does make sense, for the exact same reason banning Pod made sense. The point I intended was that Pod wasn't banned based on power level concerns, but rather to shake up Modern before the Pro Tour. Had they just banned TC and DTT, the format would revert to (more or less) its pre-KTK state, which WoTC found unacceptable. Thus, Pod had to go.
Before TC and DTT Pod had something like a 2% meta share, there were even discussions going on about moving it out of the T1 forum if things continued how they had been. The whole problem with Pod was that TC destroyed all the decks that actually kept Pod in check. They probably could have just banned the delve spells and Pod would have been fine but that's an unanswerable debate since Siege Rhino is a thing and Pod had just barely jumped on the bandwagon of playing 4 of them at the time of the ban. Siege Rhino may have been too much in the end.
This also factors into the overall point I'm trying to get across- people have many different ideas about what's bannable and what isn't, but only WOTC's idea matters, and to understand WOTC's priorities is to understand the Modern format. For the record, no matter WOTC's intentions, I think it was past time for Pod to go. Of course, I still think the reason they banned it then rather than six months prior or six months later was because of Pro Tour: Fate Reforged.
all these arguements about radical changes before PT are nonsense imo, they sound more like conspiracy theories than actual arguements
if wizards wanted to 'shake things up' they could just print something unusually powerfull with no obvious T1 shells to fit in before the PT, that also sells boosters apart from making 1 interesting PT so extra profit, makes sense yes? why piss people of by banning their favorite cards instead of having them buy new shiny stuff from your shop?
one can only promote radical changes so many times after all, and a single 'shaken' PT is not worth the risk of damaging the format, if that was the case we'd have a ridiculous format by now in which Pod is banned and JTMS is legal, cause we 'had to shake things up'
after all, if you ban cards like Pod, Twin etc how are you going to unban anything? how can you possibly ban something and unban something even more powerful? wizards knows what they're doing, they are just playing it safe, this should be obvious by now, they might be slow, but one by one their goals are met
Twin is a great MU for any control shell, so it's definately NOT the reason control is not doing well, this has been mentioned dozens of times yet still people accuse Twin and BG (both naturally good MU for control decks) for control's failings, also it's questionable whether wizards wants a T1 draw-go deck out there, judging by what they print that hardly seems to be the case, if you think control has fallen out of favour due to Twin or that murderous,overpriced woman in black you need to do some serious research about how control/bg and Twin funcion and how control can outgrind both, while easily answering the combo (which is usually sided out g2-3)
lastly and most importantly: Twin is a natural predator of uninteractive/linear strategies, if you kill it, you are actively promoting a meta in which people just 'do their things' ignoring each other, magic deserves better than boggles mirrors
why is it so hard to react calmly to any news or any BL anouncement? nothing radical is going to happen, in fact nothing at all may happen, nothing is causing problems as to be banned and nothing from the BL brings anything exciting to the table to be worth the risk
I don't see how it sounds like a conspiracy when you have former WOTC employees (one of the original creators of the format, no less!) going on record to say that this is indeed how WOTC operates Modern.
As for printing new broken cards or unbanning even older and more broken ones, WOTC is too smart a business to do anything so unrestrained. They're far more subtle. Each ban they make begets another ban down the line. Each unban(s) they make is the most conservative unban possible. There's no reason for them to blatantly mess with Modern that overtly when all they have to do to is ban one card from one deck. Whether or not it actually shakes up the format enough is open for debate, but the point is that's what's WOTC is trying to do. Either way, bans and unbans always cause massive excitement in the Modern community, which is, again, in part, why WOTC does it right before the Pro Tour.
This isn't a conspiracy, it's really simple to understand. Again, I'm not saying WOTC has never banned a card from Modern for power level reasons. I'm saying they schedule their bans around the Modern Pro Tour because it gives them numerous advantages. This means they may delay bans until then, or ban prematurely.
Also, of course Twin isn't the reason control is doing poorly. I posted that in order to showcase how WOTC can come up with whatever justification they need to ban any deck they want from the format. The argument that Twin pushes out other blue strategies is one that resonates with many Modern players (see the debate around Ancestral Vision for info on this). Sorry if you misunderstood me, I definitely don't think that's the case at all.
Again, not arguing for a Twin ban...based on powerlevel etc., such an argument is unjustifiable. Twin is the fairest of Modern combo decks, and if WOTC thought like the people of MTGS do, it would never be banned. But WOTC has a Pro Tour they prioritize, and thus, people who scoff and say it could never happen need to do some research on how WOTC manages this format and what their priorities are. If they think a Twin ban will serve their ultimate purpose of a non-stagnant Modern Pro Tour, than Twin will be banned. I'm not saying they do think that- in fact, I would bet against a Twin ban- but if that's what WOTC has determined will create the best Pro Tour this year, then that's what will happen, metagame shares etc. notwithstanding.
Lastly, I am not fearmongering. I'm trying to raise awareness in this community about how Wizards operates. I'm sorry if this makes people upset.
and how does it operate? is there some sort of evil,shadowy group of old men, watching from a penthouse and deciding bans that have nothing to do with the actual game but factors out of it? like how will the next PT look like? and after an exciting PT what? they'd risk leaving us with a worse format or just proceed to contradicting bans/unbans that would make them look clueless? if Wizards was actually cycling through the BL i'd have quitted the format long ago, i doubt i'd be alone in this, why? because i'd feel treated like an idiot, insulting your customers is bad for buisiness
there's nothing cyclical about their bannings, in fact most cards in the BL are there to stay and if something is banned you can forget about it for a long long time, if not permanently
what is getting unbanned, are the cards that were banned as a precaution, while what's getting banned are cards that created extensive problems and limited diversity by a great deal
everything they've done so far was pretty consistent:
they began with a relatively large BL with the prospect of unbanning things after they see how the format plays out, most(all?) cards that were banned for no real reason are already free
they clrealy stated that certain cards will never be unbanned (JTMS/SFM etc)
they actively promoted diversity, while certain archetypes most people consider frustrating to play against/with were kept in a tier 2-3 status(never banned out of existence though) , for instance Storm will never be allowed to be top tier, why? because it sucks playing against it, we are uncertain of whether draw-go and decks like lantern control fit similar criteria, probably not, things are vague here, we have no info so we can only speculate, but apparently some archetypes are 'more welcome' than others
they generally gave the people sometime to see if they can fight back against opressive archetypes, while printing actual tools to combat them, if they remained oppresive only then the ban occured (pod hate was being printed all the time before it's ban)
only when things were going crazy (TC, DtT) they acted immediately, those cards got their chance in Legacy, which as a stronger format had better means to fight through the blue domination, but eventually they passed as mistakes that should have never been printed
they prefer to ban cards that weaken but do not kill archetypes, (pod was the exception, but what else to ban? Voice? FInks? Rhino?Chord? ridiculous options, therefore pod had to go)
everything wizards does can be interpeted entirely via looking at the game, there's no need to deploy outside factors that can trap people rather than help them understand what's going on, just communicating with the players apparently has never been their strong point and that's why all the confusion
It's fair to interpret WOTC's actions like that, in fact, if they hadn't straight-up said that this was how they dealt with the Modern format I might not defend my viewpoint so strongly. I almost laughed out loud at the idea of a group of shadowy old men playing fast and loose with the Modern format. No, of course they aren't just messing constantly with the ban list. They're way smarter than that. Like LaPille explains in the podcast linked above, they carefully choose which cards to ban to create just enough excitement around the Pro Tour, while at the same time being careful not to turn the format on its head constantly.
Yes, you can interpret everything Wizards does by just looking at the game, but when Wizards employees have gone on record stating that they ban cards from Modern with the express purpose of redefining Modern at each Pro Tour, I feel like we as players have to ask ourselves if they're being disingenuous by saying this, or if we simply don't want to believe WOTC has priorities different than ours (namely, the health of the format).
Of course WOTC isn't going to break the format by banning and unbanning cards constantly, that's just as bad for business as leaving the format alone before a Pro Tour. Say what you want about WOTC, they aren't stupid. They know what they're doing. So much about Modern and the pattern of bannings makes sense when you take into account that for the past few years their modus operandi has been to create a "new modern" at every PT.
I recommend you listen to the Masters of Modern podcast with Tom LaPille, aka one of the primary architects of the Modern format. This isn't a conspiracy, and it isn't nefarious in the slightest. It just means WOTC has a different way of looking at the format that is deeply at odds with the interpretations I see in this thread. I'll link the podcast again here: http://www.rocketjump.com/listen/the-problem-with-modern-pro-tours-with-tom-lapille
I'm quoting a lot of what the podcast says already though.
But that's what WOTC wants. Cyclical bans/unbans to shake up the Modern format, to keep it fresh for the Modern Pro Tour.
Either way, a Splinter Twin ban isn't likely. I kind of regret wording it this way, as I all I was trying to say is that a "convincing" rationale can be created to ban literally any deck that exists in Modern. Is it a HORRIBLE idea? Yes. Is it possible? I think so. Maybe not this coming cycle, but it's definitely possible. When you consider how WOTC thinks about Modern...any prominent Modern deck could be banned and a cheap justification that doesn't hold up given for its ban.
1. NO. That is NOT what WOTC wants. WOTC DESPISES cyclical bans/unbans. WOTC has NEVER acted this way.
2. Maybe WOTC needs to keep the format fresh for the Pro Tour, but hey, Jeskai Twin was the winner in the last GP. Before that, it was Lantern. Before that, Elves. Leaving the format nearly alone is the best action that WOTC can do for the format to be kept fresh. By itself.
3. WOTC has nothing to do with horrible bans. Even DTT was a right call. Look at legacy. So, wrong again. If a deck is broken they will act. Otherwise, they wont. Twin is not broken and it has extreme hate to play against it(Spellskite, Torpor Orb, Rending Volley), and some unfavourable matchups(Grixis AggroControl/Midrange-Jund/Junk-Burn) and it sometime loses because the player just cant assemble the combo because, erhm, he is unlucky.
1. Never in Standard or Legacy, but Modern is a different beast. I recommend you listen to LaPille's podcast (it's been linked in a bunch of my posts) and then question whether WOTC actually despises these kinds of bans.
2. I actually think that leaving the format alone is the right idea. It's what I would do if I were Wizards: No changes. WOTC disagrees. Again, the podcast with LaPille is particularly enlightening. Again, I suggest you listen to that...I think maybe then you may understand the points I'm trying to make.
3. WOTC almost always makes the right call on bans in Std/Legacy/Vintage. I have no quarrel with any of their Modern bans either. I'm simply suggesting their approach to the Modern format is different than it is with Std/Legacy/Vintage- an approach based on format shakeups. This is evidenced by the timing of their bans before the Pro Tour. Also, I was never arguing for a Twin ban. I'm saying that if you understand how WOTC approaches the Modern format, that any deck can be a potential victim if WOTC has decided that said deck leaving the format will make for an interesting Pro Tour. Again, in his podcast LaPille singles out Amulet and Twin. Make of it what you will.
Edit: I never said DTT ban was wrong. I never said any bans were wrong. Just that WOTC bans cards for a different primary reason than most here seem to think. And yes, Sheepz, I am suggesting every deck in Modern is at risk. Of course, the level of risk is dependent on many factors, the most important of which is: will banning this card make the next Pro Tour interesting?
all these arguements about radical changes before PT are nonsense imo, they sound more like conspiracy theories than actual arguements
if wizards wanted to 'shake things up' they could just print something unusually powerfull with no obvious T1 shells to fit in before the PT, that also sells boosters apart from making 1 interesting PT so extra profit, makes sense yes? why piss people of by banning their favorite cards instead of having them buy new shiny stuff from your shop?
one can only promote radical changes so many times after all, and a single 'shaken' PT is not worth the risk of damaging the format, if that was the case we'd have a ridiculous format by now in which Pod is banned and JTMS is legal, cause we 'had to shake things up'
after all, if you ban cards like Pod, Twin etc how are you going to unban anything? how can you possibly ban something and unban something even more powerful? wizards knows what they're doing, they are just playing it safe, this should be obvious by now, they might be slow, but one by one their goals are met
Twin is a great MU for any control shell, so it's definately NOT the reason control is not doing well, this has been mentioned dozens of times yet still people accuse Twin and BG (both naturally good MU for control decks) for control's failings, also it's questionable whether wizards wants a T1 draw-go deck out there, judging by what they print that hardly seems to be the case, if you think control has fallen out of favour due to Twin or that murderous,overpriced woman in black you need to do some serious research about how control/bg and Twin funcion and how control can outgrind both, while easily answering the combo (which is usually sided out g2-3)
lastly and most importantly: Twin is a natural predator of uninteractive/linear strategies, if you kill it, you are actively promoting a meta in which people just 'do their things' ignoring each other, magic deserves better than boggles mirrors
why is it so hard to react calmly to any news or any BL anouncement? nothing radical is going to happen, in fact nothing at all may happen, nothing is causing problems as to be banned and nothing from the BL brings anything exciting to the table to be worth the risk
I don't see how it sounds like a conspiracy when you have former WOTC employees (one of the original creators of the format, no less!) going on record to say that this is indeed how WOTC operates Modern.
As for printing new broken cards or unbanning even older and more broken ones, WOTC is too smart a business to do anything so unrestrained. They're far more subtle. Each ban they make begets another ban down the line. Each unban(s) they make is the most conservative unban possible. There's no reason for them to blatantly mess with Modern that overtly when all they have to do to is ban one card from one deck. Whether or not it actually shakes up the format enough is open for debate, but the point is that's what's WOTC is trying to do. Either way, bans and unbans always cause massive excitement in the Modern community, which is, again, in part, why WOTC does it right before the Pro Tour.
This isn't a conspiracy, it's really simple to understand. Again, I'm not saying WOTC has never banned a card from Modern for power level reasons. I'm saying they schedule their bans around the Modern Pro Tour because it gives them numerous advantages. This means they may delay bans until then, or ban prematurely.
Also, of course Twin isn't the reason control is doing poorly. I posted that in order to showcase how WOTC can come up with whatever justification they need to ban any deck they want from the format. The argument that Twin pushes out other blue strategies is one that resonates with many Modern players (see the debate around Ancestral Vision for info on this). Sorry if you misunderstood me, I definitely don't think that's the case at all.
Again, not arguing for a Twin ban...based on powerlevel etc., such an argument is unjustifiable. Twin is the fairest of Modern combo decks, and if WOTC thought like the people of MTGS do, it would never be banned. But WOTC has a Pro Tour they prioritize, and thus, people who scoff and say it could never happen need to do some research on how WOTC manages this format and what their priorities are. If they think a Twin ban will serve their ultimate purpose of a non-stagnant Modern Pro Tour, than Twin will be banned. I'm not saying they do think that- in fact, I would bet against a Twin ban- but if that's what WOTC has determined will create the best Pro Tour this year, then that's what will happen, metagame shares etc. notwithstanding.
Lastly, I am not fearmongering. I'm trying to raise awareness in this community about how Wizards operates. I'm sorry if this makes people upset.
Agreed. What LaPille said for me translates into this: The existence of a Pro Tour and the Wotc mentality to not present a Pro Tour that is solved, or boring, means that changes are bound to happen.
Edit: Not to even mention that unlike what some believe, many decisions seems to be made on arbitrary or extra-format considetations. i.e. The cardpool for Modern cut-off. It wasn't based on interactions or power level, as LaPille himself says it was based on the simple fact of the Card Frame.
I imagine that this argument can be extended, or similar arguments can be extended to cover other things in the format. LaPille himself has hinted to this: constistency and stability do not mean anything by themselves.Just because the numbers might not justify a ban by our standards, this doesn't mean that Wotc can't find an extra-format justification for a ban, i.e. stability, staleness, predictability.
This speaks volumes all and in itself.
This guy gets it.
Those are my thoughts exactly. I don't see where we disagree at all. I think everyone who posts in this thread should listen to this...I think it will change your mind even if you don't necessarily agree with every last thing I'm saying. I feel like once people on this forum understand WOTC's mentality in regards to Modern, they won't be so shocked when their deck gets banned out from under them. These bannings are inextricably part of the Modern format as long as there is a Pro Tour. To think that this isn't the first thing on every WOTC employee's mind when they decide what cards to ban before the upcoming PT is foolishness. All other concerns (power level etc.,) may be there, but they're secondary.
Edit: I think once we all understand how WOTC approaches the format in regards to bannings, a more substantive discussion over bans can take place. Right now so many people have different ideas of what WOTC wants for this format, when it shouldn't be such a mystery. LaPille demystifies it all for us in this podcast and the Pros also seem to understand. For better or for worse, more bans are inevitable.
That last sentence is what I have a problem with. These bans are NOT primarily to shake things up for the pro tour. Thinking this is the primary reason for the ban is just plain tin foil hat territory and leads that very thought that any top tier deck is at risk. The only remotely surprising ban so far has been dig. No other ban could be argued to have been done since moderns inception to shake up an otherwise healthy meta as the PRIMARY reason. Hence why I would be surprised to see decks like twin, affinity, burn or what have you eat a ban. I think you are looking at moderns ban decisions in the wrong way. It's not that I don't understand what you are saying, it's that I do not agree with it.
Since Modern's inception as a format, various flavors of blue-red decks utilizing the Deciever Exarch/Splinter Twin combo have been staples of the metagame. Initially, these decks functioned as pure combo decks with few control elements, aiming to assemble a creature combo and protect it with minimal disruption. However, since the adoption of Snapcaster Mage into Splinter Twin strategies, the deck has functioned as a disruptive aggro-control strategy with a potential combo finish, at times adopting a midrange creature suite in order to strengthen that backup plan. The fact that this deck attacks the metagame from both of these angles has allowed it to rise to its position as best tempo, control, and combo deck in Modern. Although this deck is not over-represented in the metagame, it is the opinion of the DCI that these strategies have since become oppressive, as allowing this strategy to exist pushes pure control decks out of the format. As Modern currently stands, control decks would be better served by adopting the Twin combo and its suite of disruptive flash creatures. This is evidenced by the disappearance of Jeskai control strategies from Modern's top tier as Twin's prevalence has grown. Furthermore, this type of combo pushes certain otherwise viable creature-centric decks out of the metagame that are unable to interact with the combo on turn 4. For this reason, Splinter Twin is banned. The DCI hopes that the removal of Splinter Twin from the Modern format will allow blue control decks pushed out by this combo to return to prominence.
----
This. Is. The. Worst. Comment. I. Have. Ever. Read. On. BanlistThread.
Actually yes. It reminds me of something.
This sounds like something a magic player that s got no clue about meta cycles and overall metagame would say.
Without Twin, the format will be swarmed with linear and aggro decks. Amulet will be tier 0.9 and there will be a need to ban this deck and Affinity as well, as it will be a deck that either everyone will try to hate out with multiple Shatterstorms/Stony Silencers, etc or just a piece from it will be banned. And then bigger shocks to the format awaits us all.
So no, this possible ban would DESTROY the format. Fortunately, this does not sound like something WoTC would say and it is not convincing as well.
There is some consistency issues with the deck as combo(very low though), there is Rending Volley, Abrupt Decay, disruption and two major bad matchups. Grixis Control/Midrange and Jund.
And some slightly unfavoured such as Burn, etc. And sometimes, you got to have the combo ready to win.
I'm glad I made you angry. That's kind of the point. As a former Twin player seeing this announcement would make me absurdly angry. I think it actually sounds very much in line with what WoTC would say in hypothetical, but if you think my writing is poor that's for you to judge.
The point of the post was not to argue for a Twin ban. I was trying to show how WoTC could choose to justify a Twin ban, if they wanted to ban it to shake up the Pro Tour.
I would NEVER argue in favor of a Twin ban.
Please re-read my answer and read what would be the outcome of a possible Twin ban. I was not angry. I do not play this deck(erhm, except for some times ). I just understand how devastating for the format a Twin ban would be.
WOTC knows that. And it will not ban Twin. Ever.
Because then 2-3 cyclical bans need to happen(Summer Bloom, Arcbound Ravager + some others I can not predict right now. Maybe another person could.)
But that's what WOTC wants. Cyclical bans/unbans to shake up the Modern format, to keep it fresh for the Modern Pro Tour.
Either way, a Splinter Twin ban isn't likely. I kind of regret wording it this way, as I all I was trying to say is that a "convincing" rationale can be created to ban literally any deck that exists in Modern. Is it a HORRIBLE idea? Yes. Is it possible? I think so. Maybe not this coming cycle, but it's definitely possible. When you consider how WOTC thinks about Modern...any prominent Modern deck could be banned and a cheap justification that doesn't hold up given for its ban.
I believe many of the assumptions of users in this forum, mine included, are hugely off.
That said, I don't agree with Vairath 100%, but at least according to LaPille, bannings are the way to go in Modern before PT. (Unlike many people stating here that Wotc has decided to limit the banlist or whatever).
Everyone who posts in this thread should listen to this podcast. Everyone. LaPille explains all the arguments I've made about why an Amulet ban is likely, and why even something as ridiculous as a Twin ban is possible.
Since Modern's inception as a format, various flavors of blue-red decks utilizing the Deciever Exarch/Splinter Twin combo have been staples of the metagame. Initially, these decks functioned as pure combo decks with few control elements, aiming to assemble a creature combo and protect it with minimal disruption. However, since the adoption of Snapcaster Mage into Splinter Twin strategies, the deck has functioned as a disruptive aggro-control strategy with a potential combo finish, at times adopting a midrange creature suite in order to strengthen that backup plan. The fact that this deck attacks the metagame from both of these angles has allowed it to rise to its position as best tempo, control, and combo deck in Modern. Although this deck is not over-represented in the metagame, it is the opinion of the DCI that these strategies have since become oppressive, as allowing this strategy to exist pushes pure control decks out of the format. As Modern currently stands, control decks would be better served by adopting the Twin combo and its suite of disruptive flash creatures. This is evidenced by the disappearance of Jeskai control strategies from Modern's top tier as Twin's prevalence has grown. Furthermore, this type of combo pushes certain otherwise viable creature-centric decks out of the metagame that are unable to interact with the combo on turn 4. For this reason, Splinter Twin is banned. The DCI hopes that the removal of Splinter Twin from the Modern format will allow blue control decks pushed out by this combo to return to prominence.
----
This. Is. The. Worst. Comment. I. Have. Ever. Read. On. BanlistThread.
Actually yes. It reminds me of something.
This sounds like something a magic player that s got no clue about meta cycles and overall metagame would say.
Without Twin, the format will be swarmed with linear and aggro decks. Amulet will be tier 0.9 and there will be a need to ban this deck and Affinity as well, as it will be a deck that either everyone will try to hate out with multiple Shatterstorms/Stony Silencers, etc or just a piece from it will be banned. And then bigger shocks to the format awaits us all.
So no, this possible ban would DESTROY the format. Fortunately, this does not sound like something WoTC would say and it is not convincing as well.
There is some consistency issues with the deck as combo(very low though), there is Rending Volley, Abrupt Decay, disruption and two major bad matchups. Grixis Control/Midrange and Jund.
And some slightly unfavoured such as Burn, etc. And sometimes, you got to have the combo ready to win.
I'm glad I made you angry. That's kind of the point. As a former Twin player seeing this announcement would make me absurdly angry. I think it actually sounds very much in line with what WoTC would say in hypothetical, but if you think my writing is poor that's for you to judge.
The point of the post was not to argue for a Twin ban. I was trying to show how WoTC could choose to justify a Twin ban, if they wanted to ban it to shake up the Pro Tour.
Second this. Pod was literally the best ban wizards has ever made. It was THOROUGHLY backed up by failed attempts of hate to control it, tournament finishes, meta share, and threat to future design. Twin doesn't really fit this category, especially since it can be hated out by the meta unlike pod that would just shift up its package and immediately adapt.
I again, personally don't disagree. As a Jund player I was happy to see Pod go. English isn't my first language so sorry if my point wasn't clear. I was trying to say just that it wasn't banned for power level concerns in mind first, but rather to shake up the metagame prior to the Pro Tour. I'm not saying that if WoTC's priorities were different, Pod wouldn't have been banned. I'm just saying that power level wasn't the main reason, because WoTC doesn't ban based on power level. They ban as a sort of psuedo-rotation, removing a top-tier or otherwise prominent Modern deck from the format to open it up to innovation.
I think I wasn't clear. It was, and deserved to be, banned on power reasons. It was not a random meta shake up.
Yes, it did deserve to be based on power level too. I'm just saying Wizards didn't make the decision made the decision based on power level. IOt was the furthest thing from random. They identified the most bannable card left in Modern after they decided to get rid of the Delve draw spells and got rid of it, with the aim of altering the meta before the pro tour. Its power level, and debates about it, are immaterial. I'm not interested in debating the merits of Pod in this thread. It's gone, and deserves to be gone. End of story.
The reason identifying why they banned it (to create a new metagame for PT FRF) matters, though, is because we can use it to attempt to understand what they might ban in the future, and why it's almost a certainty something will be banned before the next Modern PT. I do not think it will be Twin, for anyone else who misinterpreted my earlier post.
I also do not believe that had Treasure Cruise been released in Journey into Nyx, that they would have waited until the Pro Tour to ban it..
That's open for debate, but I'm not interested in arguing about the merits of cards WoTC bans. The point I'm trying to get across is that overall, the first thing Wizards considers when deciding what cards to ban is the Modern Pro Tour, and anecdotes from notable Pros and WoTC employees support this.
Likewise, I'm not arguing for or against a Splinter Twin or Bloom Titan ban, but rather for an understanding of WoTC's priorities.
Second this. Pod was literally the best ban wizards has ever made. It was THOROUGHLY backed up by failed attempts of hate to control it, tournament finishes, meta share, and threat to future design. Twin doesn't really fit this category, especially since it can be hated out by the meta unlike pod that would just shift up its package and immediately adapt.
I again, personally don't disagree. As a Jund player I was happy to see Pod go. English isn't my first language so sorry if my point wasn't clear. I was trying to say just that it wasn't banned for power level concerns in mind first, but rather to shake up the metagame prior to the Pro Tour. I'm not saying that if WoTC's priorities were different, Pod wouldn't have been banned. I'm just saying that power level wasn't the main reason, because WoTC doesn't ban based on power level. They ban as a sort of psuedo-rotation, removing a top-tier or otherwise prominent Modern deck from the format to open it up to innovation.
Deathrite Shaman. Just basically my favorite card ever, and the keystone of my favorite Modern and Legacy decks (Jund and Shardless BUG). Gonna miss it in Modern and holding out for an unban at some point in the future.
Couldn't resist digging this one up...sorry Twin players (this was all the way back in November)
Seriously though I was actually pretty on the mark with my Spinter Twin ban announcement. Cited a lot of the same things WoTC did, including my comments on twin and Jeskai control (this was before Bianchi won I think so I couldn't cite that).
In a way I think my announcement actually is more convincing than WoTC's, they're not even trying thst hard to disguise the purpose of this ban.
Also Affinity is now amazing everyone. Go play that. (And I'll show myself out now, this announcement made me way too excited)
I finally feel vindicated. People understand now what Modern is really all about- shakeup bans.
Now I can rest easy.
I even wrote a rationale for a Twin banning that sounded like the rationale they gave.
Hopefully everyone gets it now. Wizards bans cards to shake up the Pro Tour. That is their first priority. DRS, Pod, Twin, next year it'll be whatever the best deck is again.
The important bit is later, when he discusses what the DCI would do if faced with a stale metagame come the next Pro Tour. His speculation was a Splinter Twin/Summer Bloom ban. He also said the DCI wouldn't like to do that, but faced with a stale pro tour would have no other recourse. I don't really see how that's vague or hard to understand. And when I said cyclical it was probably the wrong word. I meant that Wizards wants the banlist to be continuously evolving and changing before the Pro Tour. If someone has a better word let me know.
He and I say nothing about radical changes. Just that the intention behind each ban is different from what you think.
I haven't caught up on all the coverage yet but Reid Duke did make day 2. He was 7-0 on Day 1. Storm is one of his pet decks. I have no idea how well he did day 2 though.
2. It's a tweet from LaPille. It's embedded here, but I'm sure you can find it too by digging through twitter. Yes, those are exact words: http://www.magicisruinedforever.com/2014/08/03/modern-banned-from-pro-tours/
3. He never says they ban things just to accomplish this...my argument was that it's the primary reason (i.e. most important reason) Wizards bans cards, not the only one.
This also factors into the overall point I'm trying to get across- people have many different ideas about what's bannable and what isn't, but only WOTC's idea matters, and to understand WOTC's priorities is to understand the Modern format. For the record, no matter WOTC's intentions, I think it was past time for Pod to go. Of course, I still think the reason they banned it then rather than six months prior or six months later was because of Pro Tour: Fate Reforged.
It's fair to interpret WOTC's actions like that, in fact, if they hadn't straight-up said that this was how they dealt with the Modern format I might not defend my viewpoint so strongly. I almost laughed out loud at the idea of a group of shadowy old men playing fast and loose with the Modern format. No, of course they aren't just messing constantly with the ban list. They're way smarter than that. Like LaPille explains in the podcast linked above, they carefully choose which cards to ban to create just enough excitement around the Pro Tour, while at the same time being careful not to turn the format on its head constantly.
Yes, you can interpret everything Wizards does by just looking at the game, but when Wizards employees have gone on record stating that they ban cards from Modern with the express purpose of redefining Modern at each Pro Tour, I feel like we as players have to ask ourselves if they're being disingenuous by saying this, or if we simply don't want to believe WOTC has priorities different than ours (namely, the health of the format).
Of course WOTC isn't going to break the format by banning and unbanning cards constantly, that's just as bad for business as leaving the format alone before a Pro Tour. Say what you want about WOTC, they aren't stupid. They know what they're doing. So much about Modern and the pattern of bannings makes sense when you take into account that for the past few years their modus operandi has been to create a "new modern" at every PT.
I recommend you listen to the Masters of Modern podcast with Tom LaPille, aka one of the primary architects of the Modern format. This isn't a conspiracy, and it isn't nefarious in the slightest. It just means WOTC has a different way of looking at the format that is deeply at odds with the interpretations I see in this thread. I'll link the podcast again here: http://www.rocketjump.com/listen/the-problem-with-modern-pro-tours-with-tom-lapille
I'm quoting a lot of what the podcast says already though.
1. Never in Standard or Legacy, but Modern is a different beast. I recommend you listen to LaPille's podcast (it's been linked in a bunch of my posts) and then question whether WOTC actually despises these kinds of bans.
2. I actually think that leaving the format alone is the right idea. It's what I would do if I were Wizards: No changes. WOTC disagrees. Again, the podcast with LaPille is particularly enlightening. Again, I suggest you listen to that...I think maybe then you may understand the points I'm trying to make.
3. WOTC almost always makes the right call on bans in Std/Legacy/Vintage. I have no quarrel with any of their Modern bans either. I'm simply suggesting their approach to the Modern format is different than it is with Std/Legacy/Vintage- an approach based on format shakeups. This is evidenced by the timing of their bans before the Pro Tour. Also, I was never arguing for a Twin ban. I'm saying that if you understand how WOTC approaches the Modern format, that any deck can be a potential victim if WOTC has decided that said deck leaving the format will make for an interesting Pro Tour. Again, in his podcast LaPille singles out Amulet and Twin. Make of it what you will.
Edit: I never said DTT ban was wrong. I never said any bans were wrong. Just that WOTC bans cards for a different primary reason than most here seem to think. And yes, Sheepz, I am suggesting every deck in Modern is at risk. Of course, the level of risk is dependent on many factors, the most important of which is: will banning this card make the next Pro Tour interesting?
I don't see how it sounds like a conspiracy when you have former WOTC employees (one of the original creators of the format, no less!) going on record to say that this is indeed how WOTC operates Modern.
As for printing new broken cards or unbanning even older and more broken ones, WOTC is too smart a business to do anything so unrestrained. They're far more subtle. Each ban they make begets another ban down the line. Each unban(s) they make is the most conservative unban possible. There's no reason for them to blatantly mess with Modern that overtly when all they have to do to is ban one card from one deck. Whether or not it actually shakes up the format enough is open for debate, but the point is that's what's WOTC is trying to do. Either way, bans and unbans always cause massive excitement in the Modern community, which is, again, in part, why WOTC does it right before the Pro Tour.
This isn't a conspiracy, it's really simple to understand. Again, I'm not saying WOTC has never banned a card from Modern for power level reasons. I'm saying they schedule their bans around the Modern Pro Tour because it gives them numerous advantages. This means they may delay bans until then, or ban prematurely.
Also, of course Twin isn't the reason control is doing poorly. I posted that in order to showcase how WOTC can come up with whatever justification they need to ban any deck they want from the format. The argument that Twin pushes out other blue strategies is one that resonates with many Modern players (see the debate around Ancestral Vision for info on this). Sorry if you misunderstood me, I definitely don't think that's the case at all.
Again, not arguing for a Twin ban...based on powerlevel etc., such an argument is unjustifiable. Twin is the fairest of Modern combo decks, and if WOTC thought like the people of MTGS do, it would never be banned. But WOTC has a Pro Tour they prioritize, and thus, people who scoff and say it could never happen need to do some research on how WOTC manages this format and what their priorities are. If they think a Twin ban will serve their ultimate purpose of a non-stagnant Modern Pro Tour, than Twin will be banned. I'm not saying they do think that- in fact, I would bet against a Twin ban- but if that's what WOTC has determined will create the best Pro Tour this year, then that's what will happen, metagame shares etc. notwithstanding.
Lastly, I am not fearmongering. I'm trying to raise awareness in this community about how Wizards operates. I'm sorry if this makes people upset.
This guy gets it.
Those are my thoughts exactly. I don't see where we disagree at all. I think everyone who posts in this thread should listen to this...I think it will change your mind even if you don't necessarily agree with every last thing I'm saying. I feel like once people on this forum understand WOTC's mentality in regards to Modern, they won't be so shocked when their deck gets banned out from under them. These bannings are inextricably part of the Modern format as long as there is a Pro Tour. To think that this isn't the first thing on every WOTC employee's mind when they decide what cards to ban before the upcoming PT is foolishness. All other concerns (power level etc.,) may be there, but they're secondary.
For whatever it's worth, Owen Turtenwald concurs: http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/owens-pick-of-the-week-modern-amulet-bloom/
Edit: I think once we all understand how WOTC approaches the format in regards to bannings, a more substantive discussion over bans can take place. Right now so many people have different ideas of what WOTC wants for this format, when it shouldn't be such a mystery. LaPille demystifies it all for us in this podcast and the Pros also seem to understand. For better or for worse, more bans are inevitable.
Okay, that's fine if you disagree with me. But LaPille disagrees with you (see here: http://www.rocketjump.com/listen/the-problem-with-modern-pro-tours-with-tom-lapille). I have to defer to one of the original architects of the format on this issue.
But that's what WOTC wants. Cyclical bans/unbans to shake up the Modern format, to keep it fresh for the Modern Pro Tour.
Either way, a Splinter Twin ban isn't likely. I kind of regret wording it this way, as I all I was trying to say is that a "convincing" rationale can be created to ban literally any deck that exists in Modern. Is it a HORRIBLE idea? Yes. Is it possible? I think so. Maybe not this coming cycle, but it's definitely possible. When you consider how WOTC thinks about Modern...any prominent Modern deck could be banned and a cheap justification that doesn't hold up given for its ban.
Everyone who posts in this thread should listen to this podcast. Everyone. LaPille explains all the arguments I've made about why an Amulet ban is likely, and why even something as ridiculous as a Twin ban is possible.
I'm glad I made you angry. That's kind of the point. As a former Twin player seeing this announcement would make me absurdly angry. I think it actually sounds very much in line with what WoTC would say in hypothetical, but if you think my writing is poor that's for you to judge.
The point of the post was not to argue for a Twin ban. I was trying to show how WoTC could choose to justify a Twin ban, if they wanted to ban it to shake up the Pro Tour.
I would NEVER argue in favor of a Twin ban.
Yes, it did deserve to be based on power level too. I'm just saying Wizards didn't make the decision made the decision based on power level. IOt was the furthest thing from random. They identified the most bannable card left in Modern after they decided to get rid of the Delve draw spells and got rid of it, with the aim of altering the meta before the pro tour. Its power level, and debates about it, are immaterial. I'm not interested in debating the merits of Pod in this thread. It's gone, and deserves to be gone. End of story.
The reason identifying why they banned it (to create a new metagame for PT FRF) matters, though, is because we can use it to attempt to understand what they might ban in the future, and why it's almost a certainty something will be banned before the next Modern PT. I do not think it will be Twin, for anyone else who misinterpreted my earlier post.
That's open for debate, but I'm not interested in arguing about the merits of cards WoTC bans. The point I'm trying to get across is that overall, the first thing Wizards considers when deciding what cards to ban is the Modern Pro Tour, and anecdotes from notable Pros and WoTC employees support this.
Likewise, I'm not arguing for or against a Splinter Twin or Bloom Titan ban, but rather for an understanding of WoTC's priorities.
I again, personally don't disagree. As a Jund player I was happy to see Pod go. English isn't my first language so sorry if my point wasn't clear. I was trying to say just that it wasn't banned for power level concerns in mind first, but rather to shake up the metagame prior to the Pro Tour. I'm not saying that if WoTC's priorities were different, Pod wouldn't have been banned. I'm just saying that power level wasn't the main reason, because WoTC doesn't ban based on power level. They ban as a sort of psuedo-rotation, removing a top-tier or otherwise prominent Modern deck from the format to open it up to innovation.