I'd argue "free wins" are different than god hand wins. Free wins are (to me) a byproduct of strategy and deck construction on both sides of the table. The easiest way for me to describe this is Grishoalbrand vs Elves or Tron (traditional G or GR). In either match, the Shoal player is highly favored AND the opponent can do very little to change that. They don't have enough disruption against the strategy and they aren't fast enough to meaningfully pressure their opponent. This is very different than a game against UW control where my opponent can answer what I'm doing, but doesn't sequence things right or falls to a "gotchya" moment which happens. These matches tend to be on the fringes though.
If I contrast that to when I play more fair decks, those style matches seem to be few and far between, but I gain percentage points in the other direction by being less susceptible to it in the first place / having more game across the spectrum. The matches become much more of a grind and sometimes the answers don't line up the way I need them to, but I still had an opportunity in the game. I know some in this camp will claim that they might as well have signed the match slip when facing tron, but I never felt like I was down and out as soon as I sat down across from my opponent. The only exception to this was Eldrazi Winter. That was a nightmare.
Not sure how you fall on the 'Thats not real Control' argument, but Twin was Control to me.
Fair enough.
But from playing a bunch of No banlist Modern events I wouldn't agree. Twin there is a combo deck that has just enough control to get to the combo. Frankly it's just like the UR Breach decks now only the combo is miles better.
As a combo player at heart who doesn't like control decks, I'd play Twin in a hot second if it was unbanned. But I don't think the environment is ready for it.
I don't think we should warp the meaning of "free win" just to try to fit control decks. Free win in usually describes a board state where one player is quasi locked out of the game or has no way to come back. It almost always has a requirement that it happens early in the game. Establishing control like a blue deck might should not be forced into that; we already have the perfectly adequate "in-control". I've never heard anyone describe a game where a control deck established dominance after 10 turns as free win. Nor a lantern deck on turn 8. There is always an implied early-turn side to it. It is also always about a concrete board state, not a grip of cards.
Not sure how you fall on the 'Thats not real Control' argument, but Twin was Control to me.
Fair enough.
But from playing a bunch of No banlist Modern events I wouldn't agree. Twin there is a combo deck that has just enough control to get to the combo. Frankly it's just like the UR Breach decks now only the combo is miles better.
As a combo player at heart who doesn't like control decks, I'd play Twin in a hot second if it was unbanned. But I don't think the environment is ready for it.
Its more of a tempo deck. Combination of a tempo deck and a combo/control deck
The difference between a 10 turn game with the UWR player having all the answers, and a Turn 4 Shape Anew into Blightsteel Colossus...is what I mean by 'free win'
The difference between a 10 turn game with the UWR player having all the answers, and a Turn 4 Shape Anew into Blightsteel Colossus...is what I mean by 'free win'
This is more of the way I would define a Free Win. It's when you play 1 or 2 cards that essentially just seal the deal, making further decisions in the game much less impactful. Whether it's a lock piece like Blood Moon or Chalice of the Void, or just a crazy board state, like T1 Burning Inquiry into 3 Hollow Ones, or a straight combo that ends the game like Devoted Druid combo. I'd also toss Affinity godhands into this even though it requires more cards.
A UWR player might have all the right answers in their hand, but it still requires them to heavily measure their resources and use the right answer at each stage to get the win
While I understand that it's human nature to frame things to support one's belief and that's it's always tempting to use rhetoric, it's still annoying to constantly read negatively framed positions.
What I'm tired of reading about is the tired "free wins".
Some cards are good against some matchups. That's the point of playing them, isn't it? When a deck has cards that are good against a given deck and that deck pilot fails to sideboard or play properly against said card, it's not a free win. It's just wise deck building. I've watched a match this week-end where a multi-colors deck pilot chose to fetch shock land instead of basics and got locked out of his colors due to a blood moon. His opponent was ponza. It was not the first game. Fetching non-basics was just a plain greedy error.
What people call free win fall into one of the categories:
1. Early powerful cards. (Cranial plating for example)
2. Good sideboard cards. (Blood moon for example)
3. God hands. (Turn 3 Karn for example)
4. High-variance decks that can get an early win. (Let's say charbelcher, even though it's not played to any extent. Or reanimator.)
All of these are actually balanced plays. Affinity can fold to hate. Blood moon is entirely dead in some matchups and can be dead if played around smartly. Karn is a dead card if they don't assemble tron.
You don't like these cards? Fine. Just say it.
You think a card is unfair and should be banned? Fine. Just say it.
Stop talking about "Free wins." A win is a win whatever the turn it was decided, some decks are just inherently designed to be fast.
While I do generally agree with this sentiment, you also have to understand that "free wins" are a thing in Modern. Going back to the whole Brainstorm discussion a few pages back, Modern is not a format that enables people to really work their way out of these match up crushing cards. So if Karn gets out on you before you can interact, the win% spikes dramatically.
This is just kind of the nature of the beast though. I think what frustrates people is that these kinds of games are so polarizing that they diminish the enjoyment of simply playing a game of Magic. Especially since cards like Brainstorm prove that mechanics can eliminate this to better the overall player experience by allowing players to have a means to correct unbalanced gameplay through card mechanics. It simultaneously encouraging players to utilize cards that create games where player experience and understanding of matchups is more important.
So I think it boils down to, should silver bullet cards exist? Absolutely. Does the format benefit from diminishing the reliant nature of Modern on silver bullets? Absolutely. Some people like Modern because some games are just "free wins" where you don't have to play a full game of Magic, you can play a game ender like Blood Moon and get a quick concession. Other people hate it. But dismissing how that impacts the player experience is a bit naive.
A good case study for this in the MTG world, is Standard. Development felt that the format was favoring removal more than creatures so they really put the breaks on the options players have to correct unbalanced scenarios within a game. The format eventually became overran by creatures with such disparity that the player experience went out the window and left the company trying to bait people into playing it.
There is a difference between something that is "good" and something that diminishes the gameplay experience. Tireless Tracker, Liliana of the Veil, Lightning Bolt - those are good cards. Tron lands, Blood Moon, Lantern Control, Splinter Twin.. those cards are cards that are real offenders in the format when it comes to creating bad player experiences.
Now, I don't think they should necessarily be banned, as they are all cards that can be addressed by simply designing new cards like Damping Sphere, and Navigator's Compass. If you deny that these cards are problematic for the format, I am curious why you think WOTC needed to print cards like Sphere and Compass in the first place. It is pretty evident that they are aware of how Modern is being impacted by the prevalence of Tron lands and Blood Moon. Time will tell if cards like those from Dominaria help alleviate those problems, but I suspect not. I think the issue here is that WOTC too often focuses on cards that target strategies and less on cards that allow players to work around the implementation of various cards that prove detrimental to the experience of playing Modern MTG.
DISCLAIMER - I am not saying Brainstorm needs to be in Modern or that Blood Moon, and Tron lands should be banned. I am simply stating that the cards are problematic and that WOTC is probably asking the wrong questions when trying to address these cards and how to solve the problem so that everyone can enjoy the format more evenly
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
STANDARD|UW Control MODERN| UBG Midrange PAUPER| UG Fog COMMANDER| UBG The Mimeoplasm
The difference between a 10 turn game with the UWR player having all the answers, and a Turn 4 Shape Anew into Blightsteel Colossus...is what I mean by 'free win'
The difference between a 10 turn game with the UWR player having all the answers, and a Turn 4 Shape Anew into Blightsteel Colossus...is what I mean by 'free win'
That's not a free win. That's a fast win.
Right, and even a Turn 1 Moon, is not a 'free win' but the intent is the same. Something that turns a 'fair' game into a non-fair one, quickly.
While I understand that it's human nature to frame things to support one's belief and that's it's always tempting to use rhetoric, it's still annoying to constantly read negatively framed positions.
What I'm tired of reading about is the tired "free wins".
Some cards are good against some matchups. That's the point of playing them, isn't it? When a deck has cards that are good against a given deck and that deck pilot fails to sideboard or play properly against said card, it's not a free win. It's just wise deck building. I've watched a match this week-end where a multi-colors deck pilot chose to fetch shock land instead of basics and got locked out of his colors due to a blood moon. His opponent was ponza. It was not the first game. Fetching non-basics was just a plain greedy error.
What people call free win fall into one of the categories:
1. Early powerful cards. (Cranial plating for example)
2. Good sideboard cards. (Blood moon for example)
3. God hands. (Turn 3 Karn for example)
4. High-variance decks that can get an early win. (Let's say charbelcher, even though it's not played to any extent. Or reanimator.)
All of these are actually balanced plays. Affinity can fold to hate. Blood moon is entirely dead in some matchups and can be dead if played around smartly. Karn is a dead card if they don't assemble tron.
You don't like these cards? Fine. Just say it.
You think a card is unfair and should be banned? Fine. Just say it.
Stop talking about "Free wins." A win is a win whatever the turn it was decided, some decks are just inherently designed to be fast.
While I do generally agree with this sentiment, you also have to understand that "free wins" are a thing in Modern. Going back to the whole Brainstorm discussion a few pages back, Modern is not a format that enables people to really work their way out of these match up crushing cards. So if Karn gets out on you before you can interact, the win% spikes dramatically.
Is that all that different from playing a creature deck and getting supreme verdicted after you've played out a bunch of elves on your past three turns? You've lost your entire board, your opponent has more cards in hand and more selection than you and the ability to generate further card advantage, why is it "gg ez" when Tron Karns you on turn 3, but when you're playing wraths against a deck that relies on playing out a bunch of creatures to win it's suddenly some brutally hard win that you had to eke out against all odds?
While I understand that it's human nature to frame things to support one's belief and that's it's always tempting to use rhetoric, it's still annoying to constantly read negatively framed positions.
What I'm tired of reading about is the tired "free wins".
Some cards are good against some matchups. That's the point of playing them, isn't it? When a deck has cards that are good against a given deck and that deck pilot fails to sideboard or play properly against said card, it's not a free win. It's just wise deck building. I've watched a match this week-end where a multi-colors deck pilot chose to fetch shock land instead of basics and got locked out of his colors due to a blood moon. His opponent was ponza. It was not the first game. Fetching non-basics was just a plain greedy error.
What people call free win fall into one of the categories:
1. Early powerful cards. (Cranial plating for example)
2. Good sideboard cards. (Blood moon for example)
3. God hands. (Turn 3 Karn for example)
4. High-variance decks that can get an early win. (Let's say charbelcher, even though it's not played to any extent. Or reanimator.)
All of these are actually balanced plays. Affinity can fold to hate. Blood moon is entirely dead in some matchups and can be dead if played around smartly. Karn is a dead card if they don't assemble tron.
You don't like these cards? Fine. Just say it.
You think a card is unfair and should be banned? Fine. Just say it.
Stop talking about "Free wins." A win is a win whatever the turn it was decided, some decks are just inherently designed to be fast.
While I do generally agree with this sentiment, you also have to understand that "free wins" are a thing in Modern. Going back to the whole Brainstorm discussion a few pages back, Modern is not a format that enables people to really work their way out of these match up crushing cards. So if Karn gets out on you before you can interact, the win% spikes dramatically.
Is that all that different from playing a creature deck and getting supreme verdicted after you've played out a bunch of elves on your past three turns? You've lost your entire board, your opponent has more cards in hand and more selection than you and the ability to generate further card advantage, why is it "gg ez" when Tron Karns you on turn 3, but when you're playing wraths against a deck that relies on playing out a bunch of creatures to win it's suddenly some brutally hard win that you had to eke out against all odds?
Because Wrath effects are something you can play around much more than t3 Tron or Blood Moon without having to completely redefine card slots. Player skill can close the gap between winning and losing from a wrath effect. Player skill has nothing to do with Tron lands or Blood Moon in the vast majority of situations where they are giving out "free wins". In 22 years of MTG, I have won more games around wrath effects than I have lost.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
STANDARD|UW Control MODERN| UBG Midrange PAUPER| UG Fog COMMANDER| UBG The Mimeoplasm
I'm getting confused about the exact nature of the "Draw-Go Control decks have no free wins" argument (I'm assuming Draw-Go since no one's alluded to 8Rack or Prison decks). Are people arguing that Draw-Go Control should have a T3-T4 god play or sequence of plays that destroys the opponent or locks them out of it?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks
Modern: UWUW Control UBRGrixis Shadow URIzzet Phoenix
Yikes. We’re truly just splicing semantics at this point.
Free Win is just a term slung around to indicate that a deck can produce a game-state (generally early on) that makes their opponent’s decisions almost negligible for the remainder of the game. Control decks generally don’t have this, or have to match resource for resource until they can present a win condition.
Land drop-->pass turn, wait to kill/counter/stop what your opponent is doing doesn’t really fit that bill.
Yikes. We’re truly just splicing semantics at this point.
Free Win is just a term slung around to indicate that a deck can produce a game-state (generally early on) that makes their opponent’s decisions almost negligible for the remainder of the game. Control decks generally don’t have this, or have to match resource for resource until they can present a win condition.
Land drop-->pass turn, wait to kill/counter/stop what your opponent is doing doesn’t really fit that bill.
This is probably one of the better ways to describe a "free win". Alternatively, it's sitting down in a matchup knowing the chances of winning the matchup are exceedingly high, almost entirely irrespective of the cards drawn.
Though, I would say Control does have a readily identified free win in Skred. Skred typically casts 1 spell per turn. Control can lock Skred out of almost any actions from the time Skred is able to take any worthwhile action to the very end. Is it free in the sense that Control will end the game very quickly and just dominate the life totals? No. However, it is free in the sense that both players know the Skred player is unlikely to make any form of meaningful action to advance their game plan, meaning the Control player has exercised near total control over the entire match, which is how Control is able to win.
Okay, question: why is through the breach/scapeshift bad combos, but splinter twin is a good one? I mean, fundamentally I get why twin is good, but why are the two that are available entirely unacceptable.
Okay, question: why is through the breach/scapeshift bad combos, but splinter twin is a good one? I mean, fundamentally I get why twin is good, but why are the two that are available entirely unacceptable.
Is this a serious question? Twin wins the game that turn in combat, as early as turn four. Breach requires at least a turn more to win, usually a lot more, if you're Breaching in a Titan. If it's Emmy, you aren't guaranteed the win unless your opponent is at 15 life/6 permanents, because she doesn't leave you with any more board state. Scapeshift is the most similar to Twin, but it is dependent on you having a certain number of lands, at least seven, possibly more. In a format where you die between turns 3 and 5, that often is just not good enough.
Twin is just the quickest, most surefire way to end the game, avoiding combat enders and removal.
Okay, question: why is through the breach/scapeshift bad combos, but splinter twin is a good one? I mean, fundamentally I get why twin is good, but why are the two that are available entirely unacceptable.
Splinter Twin’s other half of its combo could be used to execute a tempo gameplan, slowing your opponent down while you tried to last to your combo (or just get them with Pestermite beats). Breach/Emrakul are basically useless unless you have both in hand.
Scapeshift needs to devote a lot of deckbuilding space to getting lands out, since the deck wins by comboing with the lands you have in play. Twin required little deckbuilding space for the actual combo, allowing it to use that space for cards that helped dig for the combo, or helped it survive until the combo could be executed.
…but, Twin was banned. It was too good to NOT run in that color combination.
Okay, question: why is through the breach/scapeshift bad combos, but splinter twin is a good one? I mean, fundamentally I get why twin is good, but why are the two that are available entirely unacceptable.
Twin is a "good" combo because it doesn't really have many deck building requirements, once assembled it wins on the spot, some of the pieces are alright on their own, and it's easy to side out for most of the decks it can go in. Breach+Fatty is a "Bad" combo because it doesn't win on the spot consistently, the pieces don't work on their own, and it's kind of telegraphed. Scapeshift is an "okay" combo because it attacks from an angle most decks can't interact with, it really only needs a single specific card to win, it wins on the spot, but it's got very stringent deck building requirements, and it's about 2 turns too slow for modern.
All of this "free win" nonsense is giving me a headache. Are we really debating what constitutes a "free win"? And why are people conflating a combo deck with "free wins"?
All of this "free win" nonsense is giving me a headache. Are we really debating what constitutes a "free win"? And why are people conflating a combo deck with "free wins"?
Only Combo decks have free wins. If you Thoughtseize your opponent who mulled to 4, that is a hard worked win.
Or better yet, an opponent who did 3 Thoughtseize and 3 Inquisition of Kozilek against me on the play when I mulled to 5. I literally played 0 spells this game. But it certainly wasn't a "free win." He still had to cast those discard spells (to get his 1/1 Elementals off Young Peezy). Lots of thought and smart play in this game. (For what it's worth, he was my only loss in the Swiss that day.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
Okay, question: why is through the breach/scapeshift bad combos, but splinter twin is a good one? I mean, fundamentally I get why twin is good, but why are the two that are available entirely unacceptable.
I can provide my own reasoning if you like, but the reasons are many.
All of this "free win" nonsense is giving me a headache. Are we really debating what constitutes a "free win"? And why are people conflating a combo deck with "free wins"?
Only Combo decks have free wins. If you Thoughtseize your opponent who mulled to 4, that is a hard worked win.
Or better yet, an opponent who did 3 Thoughtseize and 3 Inquisition of Kozilek against me on the play when I mulled to 5. I literally played 0 spells this game. But it certainly wasn't a "free win." He still had to cast those discard spells (to get his 1/1 Elementals off Young Peezy). Lots of thought and smart play in this game. (For what it's worth, he was my only loss in the Swiss that day.)
How could I have been so blind? Thank you for enlightening this poor sufferer, oh great FoodChainGoblins-sensei.
Okay, question: why is through the breach/scapeshift bad combos, but splinter twin is a good one? I mean, fundamentally I get why twin is good, but why are the two that are available entirely unacceptable.
Because Scapeshift and Breach have terrible, awful, slow, or non-existent backup plans. The combopieces in Twin allowed for you to actually play a tempo plan; tapping things, chipping in for damage, and finishing in a flurry of Bolts and Snaps (something Delver decks used to do very well). And the (relatively weak) tempo plan actually worked because people both knew and feared the combo. Rather than vomiting their hands and ignoring the opponents, players would have to slow their own gameplan or risk losing to a combo. Basically, the tempo plan without the combo finish is weak and beatable, and the combo plan without the tempo backup is susceptible to doing nothing/losing to itself. I guess these decks are only "acceptable" if they are awful outside of their combo, which is a shame.
Delver was a great tempo alternative until Probe got banned. And Queller/Geist was another great alternative until it became mostly irrelevant. Breach/Emrakul is a decent combo alternative, but again, has inconistent/slow/non-existent tempo backup plan.
Okay, question: why is through the breach/scapeshift bad combos, but splinter twin is a good one? I mean, fundamentally I get why twin is good, but why are the two that are available entirely unacceptable.
Because Scapeshift and Breach have terrible, awful, slow, or non-existent backup plans. The combopieces in Twin allowed for you to actually play a tempo plan; tapping things, chipping in for damage, and finishing in a flurry of Bolts and Snaps (something Delver decks used to do very well). And the (relatively weak) tempo plan actually worked because people both knew and feared the combo. Rather than vomiting their hands and ignoring the opponents, players would have to slow their own gameplan or risk losing to a combo. Basically, the tempo plan without the combo finish is weak and beatable, and the combo plan without the tempo backup is susceptible to doing nothing/losing to itself. I guess these decks are only "acceptable" if they are awful outside of their combo, which is a shame.
Delver was a great tempo alternative until Probe got banned. And Queller/Geist was another great alternative until it became mostly irrelevant. Breach/Emrakul is a decent combo alternative, but again, has inconistent/slow/non-existent tempo backup plan.
If only some blue card has been on the modern banlist since hte format was conceived that we could unban and test it as a backup wincon...well it's not like that exists to begin with and has already helped those types of decks make strong finishes at GPs or similar events.
Okay, question: why is through the breach/scapeshift bad combos, but splinter twin is a good one? I mean, fundamentally I get why twin is good, but why are the two that are available entirely unacceptable.
Because Scapeshift and Breach have terrible, awful, slow, or non-existent backup plans. The combopieces in Twin allowed for you to actually play a tempo plan; tapping things, chipping in for damage, and finishing in a flurry of Bolts and Snaps (something Delver decks used to do very well). And the (relatively weak) tempo plan actually worked because people both knew and feared the combo. Rather than vomiting their hands and ignoring the opponents, players would have to slow their own gameplan or risk losing to a combo. Basically, the tempo plan without the combo finish is weak and beatable, and the combo plan without the tempo backup is susceptible to doing nothing/losing to itself. I guess these decks are only "acceptable" if they are awful outside of their combo, which is a shame.
Delver was a great tempo alternative until Probe got banned. And Queller/Geist was another great alternative until it became mostly irrelevant. Breach/Emrakul is a decent combo alternative, but again, has inconistent/slow/non-existent tempo backup plan.
If only some blue card has been on the modern banlist since hte format was conceived that we could unban and test it as a backup wincon...well it's not like that exists to begin with and has already helped those types of decks make strong finishes at GPs or similar events.
Having cast the card (and spending the last 2 years saying how mediocre he would be in Modern), he is hardly a savior for the color or the archetype. Just another good card. Nothing broken, nothing spectacular, and most results match this. By contrast, BBE has been great in just about everything it's being played in.
If I contrast that to when I play more fair decks, those style matches seem to be few and far between, but I gain percentage points in the other direction by being less susceptible to it in the first place / having more game across the spectrum. The matches become much more of a grind and sometimes the answers don't line up the way I need them to, but I still had an opportunity in the game. I know some in this camp will claim that they might as well have signed the match slip when facing tron, but I never felt like I was down and out as soon as I sat down across from my opponent. The only exception to this was Eldrazi Winter. That was a nightmare.
Fair enough.
But from playing a bunch of No banlist Modern events I wouldn't agree. Twin there is a combo deck that has just enough control to get to the combo. Frankly it's just like the UR Breach decks now only the combo is miles better.
As a combo player at heart who doesn't like control decks, I'd play Twin in a hot second if it was unbanned. But I don't think the environment is ready for it.
Modern: Storm
Legacy: ANT
Its more of a tempo deck. Combination of a tempo deck and a combo/control deck
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
Spirits
This is more of the way I would define a Free Win. It's when you play 1 or 2 cards that essentially just seal the deal, making further decisions in the game much less impactful. Whether it's a lock piece like Blood Moon or Chalice of the Void, or just a crazy board state, like T1 Burning Inquiry into 3 Hollow Ones, or a straight combo that ends the game like Devoted Druid combo. I'd also toss Affinity godhands into this even though it requires more cards.
A UWR player might have all the right answers in their hand, but it still requires them to heavily measure their resources and use the right answer at each stage to get the win
While I do generally agree with this sentiment, you also have to understand that "free wins" are a thing in Modern. Going back to the whole Brainstorm discussion a few pages back, Modern is not a format that enables people to really work their way out of these match up crushing cards. So if Karn gets out on you before you can interact, the win% spikes dramatically.
This is just kind of the nature of the beast though. I think what frustrates people is that these kinds of games are so polarizing that they diminish the enjoyment of simply playing a game of Magic. Especially since cards like Brainstorm prove that mechanics can eliminate this to better the overall player experience by allowing players to have a means to correct unbalanced gameplay through card mechanics. It simultaneously encouraging players to utilize cards that create games where player experience and understanding of matchups is more important.
So I think it boils down to, should silver bullet cards exist? Absolutely. Does the format benefit from diminishing the reliant nature of Modern on silver bullets? Absolutely. Some people like Modern because some games are just "free wins" where you don't have to play a full game of Magic, you can play a game ender like Blood Moon and get a quick concession. Other people hate it. But dismissing how that impacts the player experience is a bit naive.
A good case study for this in the MTG world, is Standard. Development felt that the format was favoring removal more than creatures so they really put the breaks on the options players have to correct unbalanced scenarios within a game. The format eventually became overran by creatures with such disparity that the player experience went out the window and left the company trying to bait people into playing it.
There is a difference between something that is "good" and something that diminishes the gameplay experience. Tireless Tracker, Liliana of the Veil, Lightning Bolt - those are good cards. Tron lands, Blood Moon, Lantern Control, Splinter Twin.. those cards are cards that are real offenders in the format when it comes to creating bad player experiences.
Now, I don't think they should necessarily be banned, as they are all cards that can be addressed by simply designing new cards like Damping Sphere, and Navigator's Compass. If you deny that these cards are problematic for the format, I am curious why you think WOTC needed to print cards like Sphere and Compass in the first place. It is pretty evident that they are aware of how Modern is being impacted by the prevalence of Tron lands and Blood Moon. Time will tell if cards like those from Dominaria help alleviate those problems, but I suspect not. I think the issue here is that WOTC too often focuses on cards that target strategies and less on cards that allow players to work around the implementation of various cards that prove detrimental to the experience of playing Modern MTG.
DISCLAIMER - I am not saying Brainstorm needs to be in Modern or that Blood Moon, and Tron lands should be banned. I am simply stating that the cards are problematic and that WOTC is probably asking the wrong questions when trying to address these cards and how to solve the problem so that everyone can enjoy the format more evenly
STANDARD|UW Control MODERN| UBG Midrange PAUPER| UG Fog COMMANDER| UBG The Mimeoplasm
That's not a free win. That's a fast win.
Right, and even a Turn 1 Moon, is not a 'free win' but the intent is the same. Something that turns a 'fair' game into a non-fair one, quickly.
Spirits
Is that all that different from playing a creature deck and getting supreme verdicted after you've played out a bunch of elves on your past three turns? You've lost your entire board, your opponent has more cards in hand and more selection than you and the ability to generate further card advantage, why is it "gg ez" when Tron Karns you on turn 3, but when you're playing wraths against a deck that relies on playing out a bunch of creatures to win it's suddenly some brutally hard win that you had to eke out against all odds?
Because Wrath effects are something you can play around much more than t3 Tron or Blood Moon without having to completely redefine card slots. Player skill can close the gap between winning and losing from a wrath effect. Player skill has nothing to do with Tron lands or Blood Moon in the vast majority of situations where they are giving out "free wins". In 22 years of MTG, I have won more games around wrath effects than I have lost.
STANDARD|UW Control MODERN| UBG Midrange PAUPER| UG Fog COMMANDER| UBG The Mimeoplasm
Modern:
UWUW Control
UBRGrixis Shadow
URIzzet Phoenix
Spirits
Free Win is just a term slung around to indicate that a deck can produce a game-state (generally early on) that makes their opponent’s decisions almost negligible for the remainder of the game. Control decks generally don’t have this, or have to match resource for resource until they can present a win condition.
Land drop-->pass turn, wait to kill/counter/stop what your opponent is doing doesn’t really fit that bill.
This is probably one of the better ways to describe a "free win". Alternatively, it's sitting down in a matchup knowing the chances of winning the matchup are exceedingly high, almost entirely irrespective of the cards drawn.
Though, I would say Control does have a readily identified free win in Skred. Skred typically casts 1 spell per turn. Control can lock Skred out of almost any actions from the time Skred is able to take any worthwhile action to the very end. Is it free in the sense that Control will end the game very quickly and just dominate the life totals? No. However, it is free in the sense that both players know the Skred player is unlikely to make any form of meaningful action to advance their game plan, meaning the Control player has exercised near total control over the entire match, which is how Control is able to win.
Is this a serious question? Twin wins the game that turn in combat, as early as turn four. Breach requires at least a turn more to win, usually a lot more, if you're Breaching in a Titan. If it's Emmy, you aren't guaranteed the win unless your opponent is at 15 life/6 permanents, because she doesn't leave you with any more board state. Scapeshift is the most similar to Twin, but it is dependent on you having a certain number of lands, at least seven, possibly more. In a format where you die between turns 3 and 5, that often is just not good enough.
Twin is just the quickest, most surefire way to end the game, avoiding combat enders and removal.
Splinter Twin’s other half of its combo could be used to execute a tempo gameplan, slowing your opponent down while you tried to last to your combo (or just get them with Pestermite beats). Breach/Emrakul are basically useless unless you have both in hand.
Scapeshift needs to devote a lot of deckbuilding space to getting lands out, since the deck wins by comboing with the lands you have in play. Twin required little deckbuilding space for the actual combo, allowing it to use that space for cards that helped dig for the combo, or helped it survive until the combo could be executed.
…but, Twin was banned. It was too good to NOT run in that color combination.
Twin is a "good" combo because it doesn't really have many deck building requirements, once assembled it wins on the spot, some of the pieces are alright on their own, and it's easy to side out for most of the decks it can go in. Breach+Fatty is a "Bad" combo because it doesn't win on the spot consistently, the pieces don't work on their own, and it's kind of telegraphed. Scapeshift is an "okay" combo because it attacks from an angle most decks can't interact with, it really only needs a single specific card to win, it wins on the spot, but it's got very stringent deck building requirements, and it's about 2 turns too slow for modern.
All of this "free win" nonsense is giving me a headache. Are we really debating what constitutes a "free win"? And why are people conflating a combo deck with "free wins"?
Only Combo decks have free wins. If you Thoughtseize your opponent who mulled to 4, that is a hard worked win.
Or better yet, an opponent who did 3 Thoughtseize and 3 Inquisition of Kozilek against me on the play when I mulled to 5. I literally played 0 spells this game. But it certainly wasn't a "free win." He still had to cast those discard spells (to get his 1/1 Elementals off Young Peezy). Lots of thought and smart play in this game. (For what it's worth, he was my only loss in the Swiss that day.)
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)I can provide my own reasoning if you like, but the reasons are many.
Spirits
How could I have been so blind? Thank you for enlightening this poor sufferer, oh great FoodChainGoblins-sensei.
Because Scapeshift and Breach have terrible, awful, slow, or non-existent backup plans. The combo pieces in Twin allowed for you to actually play a tempo plan; tapping things, chipping in for damage, and finishing in a flurry of Bolts and Snaps (something Delver decks used to do very well). And the (relatively weak) tempo plan actually worked because people both knew and feared the combo. Rather than vomiting their hands and ignoring the opponents, players would have to slow their own gameplan or risk losing to a combo. Basically, the tempo plan without the combo finish is weak and beatable, and the combo plan without the tempo backup is susceptible to doing nothing/losing to itself. I guess these decks are only "acceptable" if they are awful outside of their combo, which is a shame.
Delver was a great tempo alternative until Probe got banned. And Queller/Geist was another great alternative until it became mostly irrelevant.
Breach/Emrakul is a decent combo alternative, but again, has inconistent/slow/non-existent tempo backup plan.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
If only some blue card has been on the modern banlist since hte format was conceived that we could unban and test it as a backup wincon...well it's not like that exists to begin with and has already helped those types of decks make strong finishes at GPs or similar events.
Having cast the card (and spending the last 2 years saying how mediocre he would be in Modern), he is hardly a savior for the color or the archetype. Just another good card. Nothing broken, nothing spectacular, and most results match this. By contrast, BBE has been great in just about everything it's being played in.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate