discussing historical accuracy is good and all, but it its sorta irrelevant to the situation at hand. the same goes for dredging up old data, or even gathering new data on twin. at no point has wizards been swayed by something the community has posted (afaik). you could do a phd thesis on twin and the modern format and send it to them and i doubt you would even get an automated response.
data is only useful for us here as a means of predicting what wizards actions might be based on previous information.
the point is that twin is banned. that is the reality. for it to be unbanned they need to be in a situation where they come to the conclusion that the reintroduction of such a notorious deck makes the format better to play, watch, and ultimately more engaging. i dont think this is impossible, but i also dont believe anything about the current state of the format points to them even making that choice any time soon.
the only plausible situation i can think of for twin to be unbanned within the year is a series of events occurring where wizards is seriously worried that the next modern pro tour is a flop because pros are all gravitating to a very small subset (like 2 or 3) of decks, each of which isnt banworthy (by whatever arbitrary standards). the levels of irony would be apocalyptic, but its a known quantity which cant be said for other unban candidates.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
Hasnt modern nexus gone a long way in demonstrating proof is impossible? David tested the ***** out of bbe and jtms and concluded both were too good for modern. Yet here we are. The biggest problem with trying to impose some kind of testing measure is that the metagame will change with a card unbanning. Spellskite comes back if twin comes back, then bogles isnt as good and maybe burn goes down a tick, meanwhile decks with bad twin matches drop or get slower and now abrupt decay decks look real good - except your twin testing gauntlet was humans and hollow one which are now tier two anyways so did it matter? You just cant predict the future meta that twin would exist in, and testing in the current meta is pretty much masturbatory since thats not the environment we would see with a twin unban.
Now, you can certainly look at whether the twin ban acheived its desired objectives - you just cant prove twin is a safe unban or predict what will happen in general with an unban.
I know as an esper control player the twin ban actually sucked. It took away a good match and decreased another (jund) while importing a bunch of linear uninteractive nonsense that a control deck struggles to contain.
Overall I do enjoy being able to tap out turn three and not always needing to show open mana - but yeah telling people to "prove its safe" is dumb. "Prove the ban wasnt effective at meeting its objectives" seems fine. I think what you end up with there is yes there is more diversity, no blue control isnt more playable.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern
* Esper Draw-Go
* Tezzeret Whir
* Blue Tron
I'm always hesitant to bring custom card creation into this thread, but I've been testing a lot lately and I honestly feel like giving Control some teeth is as simple as stapling a Bolt-A-Creature mode onto Negate. (Like this.)
Probably wouldn't put anything to Perma-Tier-1-Format-Pillar status, but it would make fair UR decks a lot less *****ty.
That sort of card with an entwine cost would be outstanding and possibly more the kind of thing modern needs. Flexible maindeckable cards! Nice idea
Still can't get on board with burn being combo.
The way I like to think about the difference is would I rather have selection or card draw and burn is definitely card draw. Obviously I'm not going to go pick a fight with Chapin though
Here's what Chapin says in the book
Like Storm Combo, the Lava Spike deck is about chaining together many cards towards a specific point (generally the opponent's life total) — and as you know, the Lava Spike deck simply looks like a Red Deck.
The Lava Spike deck closes the loop, bringing us all the way back around to Red Aggro — an archetype it shares many cards with. While its mother may be Red Aggro, its father is definitely Storm Combo, an archetype that it shares much functionality with. The Lava Spike deck rides much more closely to The Philosophy of Fire than Red Aggro. While its burn spells can technically interact with the opponent's cards (specifically creatures), meaningful interaction is generally costly and painful.
THE LAVA SPIKE DECK VS. RED AGGRO SPECIFICALLY
The Lava Spike deck is not a particularly important archetype, and it’s certainly less influential than its close neighbor Red Aggro.
In fact, it is — more than maybe any other macro archetype, except opposite neighbor Storm Combo — reliant on specific card availabilities and redundancies to exist, let alone thrive. As such, while Red Aggro can be found in almost every format, the Lava Spike deck is most commonly found in Extended, Modern, and Legacy formats, where red mages can exploit a critical mass of cheap burn spells (and, subtly, their opponents' mana bases) for free damage and free wins.
I might regret this, but I'm hoping someone can give an answer without turning this into a dumpster fire:
1) As simply as you can, why do we need Splinter Twin back in the format?
2) Do you believe that the format will significantly benefit from having Twin off the banlist?
3) In your eyes, if Twin did get unbanned, would it become a Modern 'pillar' again, or just another good deck?
This isn't directed at anyone specifically, just for anyone who cares to answer. I personally dont have a dog in the fight, so to speak, I'm just curious.
I might regret this, but I'm hoping someone can give an answer without turning this into a dumpster fire:
1) As simply as you can, why do we need Splinter Twin back in the format?
2) Do you believe that the format will significantly benefit from having Twin off the banlist?
3) In your eyes, if Twin did get unbanned, would it become a Modern 'pillar' again, or just another good deck?
This isn't directed at anyone specifically, just for anyone who cares to answer. I personally dont have a dog in the fight, so to speak, I'm just curious.
I am posted this as someone who never played Twin, and never plans on playing Twin.
1) Because I believe the problem with the deck in fact was not the card Splinter Twin. Instead I believe the issue was that one of the combo creatures for the deck, Deceiver Exarch was a difficult creature to remove since at the time Lightning Bolt was essentially the premier removal spell of the format.
2) Honestly, I think the format would benefit, however the issue becomes in how it benefits.
3) It would definitely become a Modern pillar again, however the existence of new cards like Fatal Push could definitely help to keep it in check better than it was before.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks: UBG Lantern Control GBU BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
I might regret this, but I'm hoping someone can give an answer without turning this into a dumpster fire:
1) As simply as you can, why do we need Splinter Twin back in the format?
2) Do you believe that the format will significantly benefit from having Twin off the banlist?
3) In your eyes, if Twin did get unbanned, would it become a Modern 'pillar' again, or just another good deck?
This isn't directed at anyone specifically, just for anyone who cares to answer. I personally dont have a dog in the fight, so to speak, I'm just curious.
I am posted this as someone who never played Twin, and never plans on playing Twin.
1) Because I believe the problem with the deck in fact was not the card Splinter Twin. Instead I believe the issue was that one of the combo creatures for the deck, Deceiver Exarch was a difficult creature to remove since at the time Lightning Bolt was essentially the premier removal spell of the format.
2) Honestly, I think the format would benefit, however the issue becomes in how it benefits.
3) It would definitely become a Modern pillar again, however the existence of new cards like Fatal Push could definitely help to keep it in check better than it was before.
1) That doesn't tell me why you think we need Twin back, only that you think it was the wrong choice of ban at the time.
2) How so?
3) I'm not completely sold on Fatal Push keeping Twin back, simply because making sure you can trigger revolt at any time so Push works on Exarch seems a bit daunting for some decks. It helps, certainly, but it's not a huge detractor.
My main problem with Twin is that it's a more oppressive form of storm. There is just no reason to play storm outside of a love for the deck over twin. Meanwhile, twin doesn't need to devote as many cards to its combo. Storm has the advantage, from the POV of the rest of the meta, that it needs to devote every slots it can to achieve its combo. This limits how well-rounded it can be. Often, sideboarding means weakening the deck. Twin combo is so simple that it can and did devote many slots to fight other decks. It could afford to play bolt and counter main because it had more flex slots. It could afford to add a third color. In short, it's just a leaner, more efficient combo. When people say twin was more interactive, what they really mean is that it could have answers in addition to the combo. In short, that it's a combo deck with pre-boarded answers. It also mean twin could be incorporated in other decks.
All these reasons are why twin would reduce diversity, be immediately a tier-1 deck and would force every one else to adapt. It's a deck that's much easier to make sturdier than most other combos.
Also, it's unlike tarmogoyf. (And other similar cards.) Tarmo has been brought up as an hypothetical what-if-it-had-been-banned. The difference is that you don't win by playing Tarmo. You get a strong board presence, a clock. You land twin uncontested, you win. There is no comparison.
I'd like to also put a word on Chapin's categorization. The main thing I dislike it's its suspicious perfection. Four categories, each having exactly four sub? That looks too made-up to be symmetric to be the true result of analysis. Hd there been 5 categories with varying numbers of subs, it would be more credible.
1) That doesn't tell me why you think we need Twin back, only that you think it was the wrong choice of ban at the time.
2) How so?
3) I'm not completely sold on Fatal Push keeping Twin back, simply because making sure you can trigger revolt at any time so Push works on Exarch seems a bit daunting for some decks. It helps, certainly, but it's not a huge detractor.
1) My reasoning for wanting Twin back was that it was the wrong card to ban. It's the same reason for years I wanted Bloodbraid Elf unbanned. When BBE was put on the banned list, Deathrite Shaman was the actual broken card that needed to go, not BBE. My argument is that Twin should be allowed back in the format because Exarch was the ban that should have been made, as opposed to banning Twin all together. By banning Exarch and not Twin, you cripple the deck a little bit, but you don't completely delete it from the Modern deck roster.
2) I remember when Twin was legal. There were plenty of decks I wanted to play in Modern, but honestly I discounted most of them because they couldn't pass the 'Twin Test'. One complaint that people have about Modern is just how wide open the field is. You could play 15 rounds at a GP and not see the same deck twice. Now a lot of people call this a benefit, since it means Modern is a format where people can play whatever deck they would like to be playing. When Twin was around the deck diversity was a lot more narrow. This was mainly due to the fact that if your deck couldn't beat Twin, you normally wouldn't play that deck, since Twin was one of the most played decks in the format (despite being I think like only 15% of the meta). Personally I enjoy the diversity of the meta when it comes to playing Modern casually. I get to experience more decks, and have more interesting interactions. However competitively, I'd prefer if the field was narrowed down just a little bit. And I'm not talking Standard levels of there being maybe 5 or so playable decks. But if the numbers of different decks I could be expected to play against at a GP were to go from say 75 down to 60, I would not be complaining.
3) Pointing back to my answer #1, my solution to unbanning Twin is to ban Exarch. And while holding up a way to trigger revolt for Push is something people would have to keep in mind, getting rid of Exarch would also help make cards like Bolt an actual answer to the combo.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks: UBG Lantern Control GBU BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
I've never played Twin, never played Kiki-combo, but why is the difference of R that huge of a difference? I can understand the difference between T4 and T5, I get the creature vs aura, but was that enough to really pigeon hole the deck? I'm sure the answer is "Yes, that really screwed the deck", but is Kiki-combo being basically nonexistent not a sign that Twin would also not be an overbearing deck?
Again... Pretty neutral about Twin, never played it, never played kiki.
I remember someone years ago saying that one theory on why Twin was banned.. is to give the new Eldrazi decks a chance to enter Modern. Wotc wants people to open more packs of Battle for Zendikar. Then Eldrazi went into a rampage, so they had to ban something from that too.
3) Pointing back to my answer #1, my solution to unbanning Twin is to ban Exarch. And while holding up a way to trigger revolt for Push is something people would have to keep in mind, getting rid of Exarch would also help make cards like Bolt an actual answer to the combo.
I'd be okay to unban twin if you ban the exarch *and* the faerie. Remove the flash element, make the combo entirely sorcery speed, and it would be fine. Having a two-cards combos with one-half being instant-speed, EOT, makes it a bit too good. I don't think there is another combo deck that is so lean and has one half be EOT in the top two tiers of modern.
15% of the format is still probably double what the #1 deck, Humans, is right now. If a deck must pass the "Twin Test" then that is the very definition of format warping. That is why Pod and Twin were banned. I agree very much so with pierrebai when he says Twin is just a more oppressive Storm. Most non tiered decks can't beat Storm. However, Storm has so much easier hate cards to play so that "new" decks can have game against it. Twin does not have this problem at all.
3) Pointing back to my answer #1, my solution to unbanning Twin is to ban Exarch. And while holding up a way to trigger revolt for Push is something people would have to keep in mind, getting rid of Exarch would also help make cards like Bolt an actual answer to the combo.
I'd be okay to unban twin if you ban the exarch *and* the faerie. Remove the flash element, make the combo entirely sorcery speed, and it would be fine. Having a two-cards combos with one-half being instant-speed, EOT, makes it a bit too good. I don't think there is another combo deck that is so lean and has one half be EOT in the top two tiers of modern.
If we would remove the flash element, then Bounding Krasis needs to be banned too.
3) Pointing back to my answer #1, my solution to unbanning Twin is to ban Exarch. And while holding up a way to trigger revolt for Push is something people would have to keep in mind, getting rid of Exarch would also help make cards like Bolt an actual answer to the combo.
I'd be okay to unban twin if you ban the exarch *and* the faerie. Remove the flash element, make the combo entirely sorcery speed, and it would be fine. Having a two-cards combos with one-half being instant-speed, EOT, makes it a bit too good. I don't think there is another combo deck that is so lean and has one half be EOT in the top two tiers of modern.
If you got rid of the flash element it would kill the deck and defeat the purpose of unbanning twin though. The strength of Twin is that because it can EOT flash in half the combo then win on t4 you cannot ever tap out which basically gives them a free Stone Rain starting as early as t3. That's why Kiki-Jiki didn't work despite all the people saying Twin is really a control deck that wins with creature beat down 70% of the time, because when people get to play until t4 without worrying about the combo they can set up enough to win with what they have.
i dont think twin ever hit 15%. regardless this discussion is moot. no one can say for sure what the deck would do to the format. there are, however, two things we can assume to be true. twin would be good, and the format has increased in power level since its banning. take from that what you will.
we can sit here till the end of time identifying ourselves as those who support twin, oppose it, or arent sure; but what is the point. what matters is what wizards thinks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
As much as I hate to feed the Twin conversations, something no one has mentioned yet as far as I've seen is that Twin was capping the power of new Blue cards WotC was willing to let enter the Modern cardpool.
Pre-banning, reactive Blue was a fundamentally terrible archetype in Modern. This is covered over by the Twin combo being so good, and some Blue decks (Grixis Control, for example) being good against Twin.*
Banning Twin exposed how garbage the archetype was, which put AV, SotM, and eventually Jace on the table. This was explicitly confirmed between the Twin ban and the AV/SotM unban.
Now, with all those unbans, reactive Blue is still a terrible archetype in Modern, and it lacks Twin to sweep that deficiency under the rug.
But, the present weak Blue has the potential to be further improved by new cards entering its pool. This includes further unbans (still some really good targets on the list), Standard printings (weak so far, but it's a real possibility), and even bypassing Standard to add cards directly to the format.
Maybe an Exarch ban would have brought it down to the level where Blue would get the attention it needs and deserves. I don't know. But even leaving aside the other reasons for the ban (many of which were well-founded), I prefer the world we have now where reactive Blue as an entire archetype is incrementally improved over time (even with the high rate of misfires) over the one where it's a fundamentally underpowered archetype whose power is left forever crippled by the existence of Twin. Even with the painfully slow rate of improvement, we're at least at a place where WotC is making numerous high-profile, deeply controversial unbannings for the purpose of raising the Blue waters, and where WotC doesn't have to s*** themselves over every last U/R Standard printing, unban, or possible direct-to-Modern port.
*It seems like we're mostly on the same page by now as to what we mean when we use terms like "reactive Blue." I.e. please no "But Infect!"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing UX Mana Denial until Modern gets the answers it needs.
WUBRG Humans BRW Mardu Pyromancer UW UW "Control" UR Blue Moon
I've never played Twin, never played Kiki-combo, but why is the difference of R that huge of a difference? I can understand the difference between T4 and T5, I get the creature vs aura, but was that enough to really pigeon hole the deck? I'm sure the answer is "Yes, that really screwed the deck", but is Kiki-combo being basically nonexistent not a sign that Twin would also not be an overbearing deck?
Again... Pretty neutral about Twin, never played it, never played kiki.
The difference is more than just the addition of a red mana. Kiki-Jiki is also a creature, making him susceptible to more removal that Twin would be open to. Additionally, the 5th mana does make a huge difference as there are a lot of ways to stop the combo, and progress your own board when you have 4 mana. For example you could play a Taromogoyf and hold up Abrupt Decay, however you could not do that on 3 mana, so you would effectively have to play your third land and pass, basically letting your opponent make your turn 3 useless just from the sheer threat of having the Twin combo.
I'd be okay to unban twin if you ban the exarch *and* the faerie. Remove the flash element, make the combo entirely sorcery speed, and it would be fine. Having a two-cards combos with one-half being instant-speed, EOT, makes it a bit too good. I don't think there is another combo deck that is so lean and has one half be EOT in the top two tiers of modern.
Well, technically even if you ban Exarch and Pestermite the combo can still be done with an instant speed creature on turn 3 in the form of Village Bell-Ringer or Bounding Krasis. However I think the important thing about these two creatures is they don't let you tap your opponents lands, meaning you can't cut your opponent off of the removal spell they were holding up.
15% of the format is still probably double what the #1 deck, Humans, is right now. If a deck must pass the "Twin Test" then that is the very definition of format warping. That is why Pod and Twin were banned. I agree very much so with pierrebai when he says Twin is just a more oppressive Storm. Most non tiered decks can't beat Storm. However, Storm has so much easier hate cards to play so that "new" decks can have game against it. Twin does not have this problem at all.
I think Pod was banned not for format warping reasons, but because it's mere existence limited what kind of creatures WotC could print in the future. It's kind of like how if Stoneforge was unbanned WotC would have to be mindful of any potentially powerful Equipment they may want to print in the future. Yet creatures are a lot more prevalent and pushed than Equipment, so Pod had to get the axe.
As for the format warping bit, while I do agree that the "Twin Test" is 100% the definition of format warping, I do not necessarily believe that is a bad thing. Not in a broad sense anyway. If the way Twin would warp the format would be that of the 75 most played decks, 15 of them are now worse because they have a new really bad match-up, well how is that any different from a new archtype emerging from a new set and pushing a deck out of the meta? Not everything should be allowed to exist for high competitive play. If however the warping of Twin's existence pushed out say, all but 15 decks, well yeah that is definitely too much and Twin is a mistake that needs to be fixed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks: UBG Lantern Control GBU BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
I guess you have a point there, being able to tap lands is a strong effect. Speaking of versions of Twin with W.. from vague memories, I remember a RW version of twin was also tested somewhere .. whether it had a thread of it's own or it's buried somewhere in the twin thread I can't remember exactly. In addition to the Bellringer, the RW version used a second white creature that can untap, don't know the name but it looks like a human holding a torch at night.
I've never played Twin, never played Kiki-combo, but why is the difference of R that huge of a difference? I can understand the difference between T4 and T5, I get the creature vs aura, but was that enough to really pigeon hole the deck? I'm sure the answer is "Yes, that really screwed the deck", but is Kiki-combo being basically nonexistent not a sign that Twin would also not be an overbearing deck?
Again... Pretty neutral about Twin, never played it, never played kiki.
The difference is more than just the addition of a red mana. Kiki-Jiki is also a creature, making him susceptible to more removal that Twin would be open to. Additionally, the 5th mana does make a huge difference as there are a lot of ways to stop the combo, and progress your own board when you have 4 mana. For example you could play a Taromogoyf and hold up Abrupt Decay, however you could not do that on 3 mana, so you would effectively have to play your third land and pass, basically letting your opponent make your turn 3 useless just from the sheer threat of having the Twin combo.
I'd be okay to unban twin if you ban the exarch *and* the faerie. Remove the flash element, make the combo entirely sorcery speed, and it would be fine. Having a two-cards combos with one-half being instant-speed, EOT, makes it a bit too good. I don't think there is another combo deck that is so lean and has one half be EOT in the top two tiers of modern.
Well, technically even if you ban Exarch and Pestermite the combo can still be done with an instant speed creature on turn 3 in the form of Village Bell-Ringer or Bounding Krasis. However I think the important thing about these two creatures is they don't let you tap your opponents lands, meaning you can't cut your opponent off of the removal spell they were holding up.
15% of the format is still probably double what the #1 deck, Humans, is right now. If a deck must pass the "Twin Test" then that is the very definition of format warping. That is why Pod and Twin were banned. I agree very much so with pierrebai when he says Twin is just a more oppressive Storm. Most non tiered decks can't beat Storm. However, Storm has so much easier hate cards to play so that "new" decks can have game against it. Twin does not have this problem at all.
I think Pod was banned not for format warping reasons, but because it's mere existence limited what kind of creatures WotC could print in the future. It's kind of like how if Stoneforge was unbanned WotC would have to be mindful of any potentially powerful Equipment they may want to print in the future. Yet creatures are a lot more prevalent and pushed than Equipment, so Pod had to get the axe.
As for the format warping bit, while I do agree that the "Twin Test" is 100% the definition of format warping, I do not necessarily believe that is a bad thing. Not in a broad sense anyway. If the way Twin would warp the format would be that of the 75 most played decks, 15 of them are now worse because they have a new really bad match-up, well how is that any different from a new archtype emerging from a new set and pushing a deck out of the meta? Not everything should be allowed to exist for high competitive play. If however the warping of Twin's existence pushed out say, all but 15 decks, well yeah that is definitely too much and Twin is a mistake that needs to be fixed.
I don't really care about fringe decks being pushed out of the meta due to Twin. My main problem is of the question "Why play any other deck than Twin?" Coming from a spike perspective, its not fun when theres other interesting decks around but when a deck can have such a good machup spread then its hard to justify not playing Twin.
I guess you have a point there, being able to tap lands is a strong effect. Speaking of versions of Twin with W.. from vague memories, I remember a RW version of twin was also tested somewhere .. whether it had a thread of it's own or it's buried somewhere in the twin thread I can't remember exactly. In addition to the Bellringer, the RW version used a second white creature that can untap, don't know the name but it looks like a human holding a torch at night.
The White splash was played but never really did that well. The only version other than the UR version that did really good was the G version with Tarmo that played much ore of a tempo gameplan with good beatdown .
Being able to tap down lands is big because you cannot hold up 2 mana for a counter spell, or you must just counter a Pestermite or Exarch. If bolt is your only option, then you gotta hope its a Pestermite or you lose. Pathing a 1/4 feels pretty bed especially since they untap with that extra land, and hope you have a fetch land that turn to enable Fatal Push
With Twin in the format, it will push out Control decks even more than right now.
Would Twin as an overall strategy be more palatable to people if the deck no longer had the ability to tap your lands at the end of turn with Pestermite or Deceiver Exarch? Is the problem, not so much the Twin combo, but the fact that the two main creatures for it have the ability to cut you off of any way to respond to it?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks: UBG Lantern Control GBU BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
First of all, I disagree heavily with unbanning of Twin needing any burden of proof. This is not taking to account the fact that you can't prove it in any sensible form. It hasn't been convicted of anything real in the first place.
Wizards made three claims against Twin in the banning article and now Twin is banned based on those claims. If one wants Twin unbanned, one must show that those claims were false to begin with (e.g. Twin was not reducing diversity) and/or that the expected results of a Twin ban did not materialize (e.g. non-Twin blue decks did not increase in diversity). The former is much harder to do because the reasons were sufficient to ban Twin. The latter is easier because we are essentially re-examining Twin in light of a new format.
As for the presumption of innocence, Twin was presumed innocent before the ban. Yes, perhaps it was convicted on wrongful criteria. But now we don't return to the presumption of innocence and re-prove the Twin ban anew. It's up to the unban camp to show that a wrongful conviction was made. This has always been true of all unbans in Modern, and we could cite any number of logical principles that show this is the proper approach to similar cases.
One of the reasons I really hate the Twin discussion is that many people seem to assume that anyone who is in any way anti-Twin unban was also in favor of the ban to begin with. I wrote numerous articles denouncing the ban at the time it was announced, notably this one that showed all the serious problems with the ban: http://modernnexus.com/last-word-splinter-twin-banning/
But that's all in the past now and people who want Twin unbanned need to make their case. And between the different ways to build that case, it's probably much more effective to show that the Twin ban did not accomplish its stated aims than it is to show the Twin ban was wrongful in the first place. People have tried to argue the latter to death and it's not effective. See the last few years of non-stop Twin memes and vitriol across the Modern community. It's time for a new approach, and I think that approach needs to be showing that the ban did not accomplish its stated aims.
Incidentally, this is exactly what got Nacatl unbanned after its initial rebanning. It is also how BBE was unbanned. Those cards were not unbanned because Wizards revisited their initial rationale and identified flaws in that rationale which exonerated the cards. Rather, they checked to see if the cards would be okay in the current Modern state and if they accomplished their initial objectives. This method looks at the format AFTER the ban, not the format at the time of the ban. This is where Twin proponents need to start with their own case.
Would Twin as an overall strategy be more palatable to people if the deck no longer had the ability to tap your lands at the end of turn with Pestermite or Deceiver Exarch? Is the problem, not so much the Twin combo, but the fact that the two main creatures for it have the ability to cut you off of any way to respond to it?
I'm going to use Grixis Twin deck as the example. The issue with the Twin deck was the deck had a "strong" game plan against the entire field. The twin deck could reliably combo turn 4 and kill non-interactive decks (i.e. boggles) and use the tempo approach to fight interactive decks (i.e. Jund).
The deck posed several problems to the meta game:
1) The twin combo was extremely powerful, pretty much every blue based control decks (i.e. Grixis/ jeskai etc) would pretty much be required to play the twin combo. The only major advantage Grixis Control had over Grixis Twin was that Grixis Control was favored against Grixis twin.
Similarly, there really isn't a reason to play a deck that isn't twin; its like Miracles prior to Top banning, Miracles was the best deck and all the pros were dumping all their time tuning and practicing miracles instead of coming up with new decks.
I would go as far as to say that if Twin was never banned, people would most likely never invested all that time tuning Grixis Shadow into a tier 1 strategy.
2) Wizards couldn't really unban or print new blue based control cards or cards to help combo decks because these cards would automatically be added to twin.
However, I will include that the banning did come with some issue:
1) The Twin deck was favored against all the non-interactive decks and prior to the banning, non-interactive decks would struggle against either Jund/ Twin and the two decks together were effective at policing the linear modern format. The banning did completely break the format and eventually wizards needed to weaken both Infect and Dredge.
However, I will include that the banning did come with some issue:
1) The Twin deck was favored against all the non-interactive decks and prior to the banning, non-interactive decks would struggle against either Jund/ Twin and the two decks together were effective at policing the linear modern format. The banning did completely break the format and eventually wizards needed to weaken both Infect and Dredge.
I honestly think this is my biggest issue with the Twin ban, and not because I dislike non-interactive decks (I play KCI Combo). With banning Twin one of the two decks that helped keep Modern interesting was removed from the format, and as such the format kind of devolved into who a contest of who can do the most unfair thing while pretending your opponent doesn't exist. It because less a format of matching powerful decks against each other, and more a format of who is better at playing solitaire the fastest.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks: UBG Lantern Control GBU BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
data is only useful for us here as a means of predicting what wizards actions might be based on previous information.
the point is that twin is banned. that is the reality. for it to be unbanned they need to be in a situation where they come to the conclusion that the reintroduction of such a notorious deck makes the format better to play, watch, and ultimately more engaging. i dont think this is impossible, but i also dont believe anything about the current state of the format points to them even making that choice any time soon.
the only plausible situation i can think of for twin to be unbanned within the year is a series of events occurring where wizards is seriously worried that the next modern pro tour is a flop because pros are all gravitating to a very small subset (like 2 or 3) of decks, each of which isnt banworthy (by whatever arbitrary standards). the levels of irony would be apocalyptic, but its a known quantity which cant be said for other unban candidates.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Now, you can certainly look at whether the twin ban acheived its desired objectives - you just cant prove twin is a safe unban or predict what will happen in general with an unban.
I know as an esper control player the twin ban actually sucked. It took away a good match and decreased another (jund) while importing a bunch of linear uninteractive nonsense that a control deck struggles to contain.
Overall I do enjoy being able to tap out turn three and not always needing to show open mana - but yeah telling people to "prove its safe" is dumb. "Prove the ban wasnt effective at meeting its objectives" seems fine. I think what you end up with there is yes there is more diversity, no blue control isnt more playable.
* Esper Draw-Go
* Tezzeret Whir
* Blue Tron
Here's what Chapin says in the book
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
1) As simply as you can, why do we need Splinter Twin back in the format?
2) Do you believe that the format will significantly benefit from having Twin off the banlist?
3) In your eyes, if Twin did get unbanned, would it become a Modern 'pillar' again, or just another good deck?
This isn't directed at anyone specifically, just for anyone who cares to answer. I personally dont have a dog in the fight, so to speak, I'm just curious.
I am posted this as someone who never played Twin, and never plans on playing Twin.
1) Because I believe the problem with the deck in fact was not the card Splinter Twin. Instead I believe the issue was that one of the combo creatures for the deck, Deceiver Exarch was a difficult creature to remove since at the time Lightning Bolt was essentially the premier removal spell of the format.
2) Honestly, I think the format would benefit, however the issue becomes in how it benefits.
3) It would definitely become a Modern pillar again, however the existence of new cards like Fatal Push could definitely help to keep it in check better than it was before.
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
1) That doesn't tell me why you think we need Twin back, only that you think it was the wrong choice of ban at the time.
2) How so?
3) I'm not completely sold on Fatal Push keeping Twin back, simply because making sure you can trigger revolt at any time so Push works on Exarch seems a bit daunting for some decks. It helps, certainly, but it's not a huge detractor.
All these reasons are why twin would reduce diversity, be immediately a tier-1 deck and would force every one else to adapt. It's a deck that's much easier to make sturdier than most other combos.
Also, it's unlike tarmogoyf. (And other similar cards.) Tarmo has been brought up as an hypothetical what-if-it-had-been-banned. The difference is that you don't win by playing Tarmo. You get a strong board presence, a clock. You land twin uncontested, you win. There is no comparison.
I'd like to also put a word on Chapin's categorization. The main thing I dislike it's its suspicious perfection. Four categories, each having exactly four sub? That looks too made-up to be symmetric to be the true result of analysis. Hd there been 5 categories with varying numbers of subs, it would be more credible.
1) My reasoning for wanting Twin back was that it was the wrong card to ban. It's the same reason for years I wanted Bloodbraid Elf unbanned. When BBE was put on the banned list, Deathrite Shaman was the actual broken card that needed to go, not BBE. My argument is that Twin should be allowed back in the format because Exarch was the ban that should have been made, as opposed to banning Twin all together. By banning Exarch and not Twin, you cripple the deck a little bit, but you don't completely delete it from the Modern deck roster.
2) I remember when Twin was legal. There were plenty of decks I wanted to play in Modern, but honestly I discounted most of them because they couldn't pass the 'Twin Test'. One complaint that people have about Modern is just how wide open the field is. You could play 15 rounds at a GP and not see the same deck twice. Now a lot of people call this a benefit, since it means Modern is a format where people can play whatever deck they would like to be playing. When Twin was around the deck diversity was a lot more narrow. This was mainly due to the fact that if your deck couldn't beat Twin, you normally wouldn't play that deck, since Twin was one of the most played decks in the format (despite being I think like only 15% of the meta). Personally I enjoy the diversity of the meta when it comes to playing Modern casually. I get to experience more decks, and have more interesting interactions. However competitively, I'd prefer if the field was narrowed down just a little bit. And I'm not talking Standard levels of there being maybe 5 or so playable decks. But if the numbers of different decks I could be expected to play against at a GP were to go from say 75 down to 60, I would not be complaining.
3) Pointing back to my answer #1, my solution to unbanning Twin is to ban Exarch. And while holding up a way to trigger revolt for Push is something people would have to keep in mind, getting rid of Exarch would also help make cards like Bolt an actual answer to the combo.
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
Again... Pretty neutral about Twin, never played it, never played kiki.
"Reveal a Dragon"
Nexus MTG News // Nexus - Magic Art Gallery // MTG Dual Land Color Ratios Analyzer // MTG Card Drawing Odds Calculator
Want to play a UW control deck in modern, but don't have jace or snaps?
Please come visit us at the Emeria Titan control thread
I'd be okay to unban twin if you ban the exarch *and* the faerie. Remove the flash element, make the combo entirely sorcery speed, and it would be fine. Having a two-cards combos with one-half being instant-speed, EOT, makes it a bit too good. I don't think there is another combo deck that is so lean and has one half be EOT in the top two tiers of modern.
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
If we would remove the flash element, then Bounding Krasis needs to be banned too.
Nexus MTG News // Nexus - Magic Art Gallery // MTG Dual Land Color Ratios Analyzer // MTG Card Drawing Odds Calculator
Want to play a UW control deck in modern, but don't have jace or snaps?
Please come visit us at the Emeria Titan control thread
There is still Bounding Krasis Village Bell-ringer.
If you got rid of the flash element it would kill the deck and defeat the purpose of unbanning twin though. The strength of Twin is that because it can EOT flash in half the combo then win on t4 you cannot ever tap out which basically gives them a free Stone Rain starting as early as t3. That's why Kiki-Jiki didn't work despite all the people saying Twin is really a control deck that wins with creature beat down 70% of the time, because when people get to play until t4 without worrying about the combo they can set up enough to win with what they have.
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
we can sit here till the end of time identifying ourselves as those who support twin, oppose it, or arent sure; but what is the point. what matters is what wizards thinks.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)*It seems like we're mostly on the same page by now as to what we mean when we use terms like "reactive Blue." I.e. please no "But Infect!"
WUBRG Humans
BRW Mardu Pyromancer
UW UW "Control"
UR Blue Moon
The difference is more than just the addition of a red mana. Kiki-Jiki is also a creature, making him susceptible to more removal that Twin would be open to. Additionally, the 5th mana does make a huge difference as there are a lot of ways to stop the combo, and progress your own board when you have 4 mana. For example you could play a Taromogoyf and hold up Abrupt Decay, however you could not do that on 3 mana, so you would effectively have to play your third land and pass, basically letting your opponent make your turn 3 useless just from the sheer threat of having the Twin combo.
Well, technically even if you ban Exarch and Pestermite the combo can still be done with an instant speed creature on turn 3 in the form of Village Bell-Ringer or Bounding Krasis. However I think the important thing about these two creatures is they don't let you tap your opponents lands, meaning you can't cut your opponent off of the removal spell they were holding up.
I think Pod was banned not for format warping reasons, but because it's mere existence limited what kind of creatures WotC could print in the future. It's kind of like how if Stoneforge was unbanned WotC would have to be mindful of any potentially powerful Equipment they may want to print in the future. Yet creatures are a lot more prevalent and pushed than Equipment, so Pod had to get the axe.
As for the format warping bit, while I do agree that the "Twin Test" is 100% the definition of format warping, I do not necessarily believe that is a bad thing. Not in a broad sense anyway. If the way Twin would warp the format would be that of the 75 most played decks, 15 of them are now worse because they have a new really bad match-up, well how is that any different from a new archtype emerging from a new set and pushing a deck out of the meta? Not everything should be allowed to exist for high competitive play. If however the warping of Twin's existence pushed out say, all but 15 decks, well yeah that is definitely too much and Twin is a mistake that needs to be fixed.
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
I guess you have a point there, being able to tap lands is a strong effect. Speaking of versions of Twin with W.. from vague memories, I remember a RW version of twin was also tested somewhere .. whether it had a thread of it's own or it's buried somewhere in the twin thread I can't remember exactly. In addition to the Bellringer, the RW version used a second white creature that can untap, don't know the name but it looks like a human holding a torch at night.
EDIT: remembered, it's Midnight Guard
Nexus MTG News // Nexus - Magic Art Gallery // MTG Dual Land Color Ratios Analyzer // MTG Card Drawing Odds Calculator
Want to play a UW control deck in modern, but don't have jace or snaps?
Please come visit us at the Emeria Titan control thread
I don't really care about fringe decks being pushed out of the meta due to Twin. My main problem is of the question "Why play any other deck than Twin?" Coming from a spike perspective, its not fun when theres other interesting decks around but when a deck can have such a good machup spread then its hard to justify not playing Twin.
The White splash was played but never really did that well. The only version other than the UR version that did really good was the G version with Tarmo that played much ore of a tempo gameplan with good beatdown .
Being able to tap down lands is big because you cannot hold up 2 mana for a counter spell, or you must just counter a Pestermite or Exarch. If bolt is your only option, then you gotta hope its a Pestermite or you lose. Pathing a 1/4 feels pretty bed especially since they untap with that extra land, and hope you have a fetch land that turn to enable Fatal Push
With Twin in the format, it will push out Control decks even more than right now.
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
Would Twin as an overall strategy be more palatable to people if the deck no longer had the ability to tap your lands at the end of turn with Pestermite or Deceiver Exarch? Is the problem, not so much the Twin combo, but the fact that the two main creatures for it have the ability to cut you off of any way to respond to it?
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
Wizards made three claims against Twin in the banning article and now Twin is banned based on those claims. If one wants Twin unbanned, one must show that those claims were false to begin with (e.g. Twin was not reducing diversity) and/or that the expected results of a Twin ban did not materialize (e.g. non-Twin blue decks did not increase in diversity). The former is much harder to do because the reasons were sufficient to ban Twin. The latter is easier because we are essentially re-examining Twin in light of a new format.
As for the presumption of innocence, Twin was presumed innocent before the ban. Yes, perhaps it was convicted on wrongful criteria. But now we don't return to the presumption of innocence and re-prove the Twin ban anew. It's up to the unban camp to show that a wrongful conviction was made. This has always been true of all unbans in Modern, and we could cite any number of logical principles that show this is the proper approach to similar cases.
One of the reasons I really hate the Twin discussion is that many people seem to assume that anyone who is in any way anti-Twin unban was also in favor of the ban to begin with. I wrote numerous articles denouncing the ban at the time it was announced, notably this one that showed all the serious problems with the ban:
http://modernnexus.com/last-word-splinter-twin-banning/
But that's all in the past now and people who want Twin unbanned need to make their case. And between the different ways to build that case, it's probably much more effective to show that the Twin ban did not accomplish its stated aims than it is to show the Twin ban was wrongful in the first place. People have tried to argue the latter to death and it's not effective. See the last few years of non-stop Twin memes and vitriol across the Modern community. It's time for a new approach, and I think that approach needs to be showing that the ban did not accomplish its stated aims.
Incidentally, this is exactly what got Nacatl unbanned after its initial rebanning. It is also how BBE was unbanned. Those cards were not unbanned because Wizards revisited their initial rationale and identified flaws in that rationale which exonerated the cards. Rather, they checked to see if the cards would be okay in the current Modern state and if they accomplished their initial objectives. This method looks at the format AFTER the ban, not the format at the time of the ban. This is where Twin proponents need to start with their own case.
I'm going to use Grixis Twin deck as the example. The issue with the Twin deck was the deck had a "strong" game plan against the entire field. The twin deck could reliably combo turn 4 and kill non-interactive decks (i.e. boggles) and use the tempo approach to fight interactive decks (i.e. Jund).
The deck posed several problems to the meta game:
1) The twin combo was extremely powerful, pretty much every blue based control decks (i.e. Grixis/ jeskai etc) would pretty much be required to play the twin combo. The only major advantage Grixis Control had over Grixis Twin was that Grixis Control was favored against Grixis twin.
Similarly, there really isn't a reason to play a deck that isn't twin; its like Miracles prior to Top banning, Miracles was the best deck and all the pros were dumping all their time tuning and practicing miracles instead of coming up with new decks.
I would go as far as to say that if Twin was never banned, people would most likely never invested all that time tuning Grixis Shadow into a tier 1 strategy.
2) Wizards couldn't really unban or print new blue based control cards or cards to help combo decks because these cards would automatically be added to twin.
However, I will include that the banning did come with some issue:
1) The Twin deck was favored against all the non-interactive decks and prior to the banning, non-interactive decks would struggle against either Jund/ Twin and the two decks together were effective at policing the linear modern format. The banning did completely break the format and eventually wizards needed to weaken both Infect and Dredge.
I honestly think this is my biggest issue with the Twin ban, and not because I dislike non-interactive decks (I play KCI Combo). With banning Twin one of the two decks that helped keep Modern interesting was removed from the format, and as such the format kind of devolved into who a contest of who can do the most unfair thing while pretending your opponent doesn't exist. It because less a format of matching powerful decks against each other, and more a format of who is better at playing solitaire the fastest.
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]