every good deck is supplanting decks similar to it. regardless its pointless to go on and on about whether the ban was justified. it really doesnt matter. twin was banned under circumstances that differed significantly to previous ones. that is just a fact.
the format is completely different now, and we should be framing everything under the current state of things and stop looking at the past.
eldrazi decks, dredge, fatal push, death shadow, storm, kci, mardu, humans , hollow one, etc. stop looking at what twin was doing 2 years ago because that format no longer exists.
Several good points here.
1. Twin would replace decks. No argument can be made that it wouldnt. UR Kiki and UR Breach for example would 100% disappear.
2. It really doesnt matter. I agree. This T8 exercise was something I just wanted to do to confirm to myself that Twin was not over represented. It wasnt OR OTHER DECKS ARE.
3. The format is completely different now. 100% Its very interesting to see the format take shape, and to remember some of these events. Tarmo Affinity anyone?
Either way, we can all move the goal posts over and over, cite any numbers we have access to, waste time to write up justifications, but in the end it doesnt matter.
Nothing this forum says, will get Twin unbanned.
Nothing.
Besides the outside chance pro players or Wotc employees looking at this site, yeah it probably wont ever influence anything. However, thats not point. I think that if a good enough argument to ban or unban a certain card is presented, then it could do some things. It can firstly, help people predict unbannings and get ahead of the meta and/or price boom of a certain card (I have recently bought a playset of Stoneforge and Twin due to these discussions alone). Secondly, it can slowly spread to other outlets like Reddit and Twitter and eventually influence the greater general "thought" of the people playing Modern, which can influence Wotc.
At the end of the day, thats not he reason we discuss things like unbannings on this sub. Its mainly for fun
This is not a good attitude towards unbannings and format-wide changes in general. Let's assume Wizards does not read these forums, which they very well might do and we simply don't know about it. Let's assume instead that Wizards reads Reddit (we know they do due to their community accounts) and articles on major content sites, plus articles circulated on Reddit that receive lots of press (we know they read these sources because they are selected for their mothership). Given this, players are capable of influencing Wizards as long as they present cases that make it into Wizards' eye.
If Twin proponents were to make a relatively unified case using objective information without the same kind of bitter frustration we see in most Twin posts, I am confident both the community at large and Wizards would at least consider it. Act on it? Maybe. At least read it? Probably. We've seen examples of this throughout Modern's history, whether Forsythe responding to general sentiments on his Twitter (e.g. his knowledge that the community was doomsaying about BBE/JTMS), the #FreeJace "movement," the outrage at the return of the PT potentially bringing more bans, or a general outcry (that I contributed to with Nexus articles) about terrible communication from Wizards. All of these were addressed and/or considered in some way. A Twin unban movement could be included here. Unfortunately, I am also confident that Wizards tunes out most Twin content because it doesn't have the substantive, unified foundation they would want to see before seriously considering something like they seriously considered the other issues listed above.
Twin proponents need to address whether or not the ban accomplished its two stated aims of increasing diversity among other decks and increasing diversity among blue decks. They need to stop attacking the underlying ban rationale because it doesn't matter and that isn't how cards were unbanned in the past. I'd also wager this bitter, frustrated attitude of attacking the underlying rationale adds to the general "Twin meme noise" factor that makes it easy to tune out Twin discussion and dismiss it. If Twin diehards are unwilling to do this in a serious way, they should probably just not do it at all. This means no case-building and definitely no bitter venting. To be clear, not all Twin supporters engage in this behavior, and there have been standout examples of strong Twin cases in the past. But the majority of the pro-Twin dialogue is not like this and falls into the meme/bitter venting variety that is easy to ignore.
1. Will it impact diversity? Yes. It will 100% take meta share from or completely supplant Blue Moon, will hit a % of UW Control, and certainly a segment of UWR Control.
2. Did it increase diversity in blue decks? I actually think not. At least not at the GP Top 8 level. Throughout the life of Twin, since 'Modern' was the formats name (I did not go back to Extended) we had Faeries, RUG Delver, UR Storm, UW Midrange, UWR Midrange, Esper Gifts, Scapeshift, UW Control, UWR Control, UR Delver, UWR Kiki Resto, Grixis Control, Grixis Delver and Twin.
Blue Moon is the linear heir of Twin, and would be supplanted because Twin is doing Blue Moon, better.
Lets look at what Blue came after the Twin ban.
Scapeshift - Coexisted
GDS - New Tech, but just a continuation of DS evolution.
UWR - Coexisted
Merfolk - Coexisted
Grixis Control - Coexisted
Grixis Delver - Coexisted
UWR Queller - New Tech, but UWR Midrange was a thing already and coexisted
Blue Moon Decks - Simply the left overs after the ban.
I mean simply going by T8's, pre vs post ban, Blue had more diversity while Twin was alive, because Blue decks were not getting absolutely ***** on by a tide of aggro decks.
I mean make it plain for me. What do you want to see? If Top 8 percentage is meaningless, how can I a solitary MTGO player, get the numbers or facts, that you would actually think are legit?
Did Top 8's become more diverse following the ban? I mean considering the number of cards added to the format? Kind of hard not dont you think? Should I exclude every deck that didnt exist before Twin was banned because the CARDS didnt exist? Is this diverse?
Diversity of Other Decks - GP Top 8's POST BAN
This is a list of all deck's that have Top 8, to reflect the 'diversity' post ban. Organized on if they existed with Twin, or could make some claims to coming about after. I have bolded decks which COULD NOT HAVE EXISTED before the addition of new cards post Twin. AKA: These decks could not exist when Twin was legal.
Existed With Twin
GWx Combo (Podless Pod/Company)
Storm
Affinity
Living End
Merfolk
Jund
Junk
Tron
Grixis Control
Ad Naus
Zoo
Scapeshift
Grixis Delver
Burn
BG Rock
Grishoabrand
Valakut Breach
GW Taxes
UW Control
Infect
Dredge
UWR Midrange (Queller)
Esper Midrange
UWR Control (Gearhulk, Nahiri, Search)
Elves
Bogles
Amulet Titan
New Deck Eldrazi Aggro
Eldrazi Bant
Bant Company (precursor to humans?
Zombie Infestation/Dredge (Rogue, 1 Event)
Skred DS Zoo (Sam Black, first of the DS->JDS->GDS-4C DS line)
Knightfall
UWR Pyro (Rogue, 1 Event) Lantern
Eldrazi Tron
Turns
UWR Breach (Dec, 2017) RG Eldrazi
Humans
KCI
Hollow One
Yeah. Almost every deck which was not present in a top 8 during Twin's life, only exists on the backs of new cards.
Every other Blue deck that has since pulled in a Top 8, also did while Twin was legal, while any 'new deck' is either a rogue deck that spiked an event, or is a new deck, that only exists on the back of new cards which either powered up, or created, a new archetype.
i wasnt really trying to say that the talk is meaningless. its a subject plenty of people are interested in, some hate, and others dont really care about.
my point was that all of this twin discussion is centered around a format that is dead and gone. power has shifted around, new decks and combos have emerged, and plenty of decks have gotten new tools from standard sets.
however there is this prevailing assumption that if twin did return that things would go back to the way they were, which is something that i think can be challenged at this point.
@gkourou - what you are saying just emphasizes my point. its conjecture based on information that is no longer relevant. the argument also cant be applied to other cards that were banned for entirely different reasons (such as breaking the turn 4 rule).
basically if people wanna discuss twin at all its better to do it in the context of now rather than endlessly circle what people believed twin was doing in the past.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
Oh I dont take any offense. I think its unreasonable to believe anyone cares what I say through all this, but the research is interesting to me. I mean clearly, as clear as we can actually determine with our limited data sets, we can see that banning Twin did not do anything for the format, but take the top off a bit.
You ban Twin, linear decks become stronger, as linear decks become stronger, they push out Midrange, and Control further. Its a simple circle. They removed the only deck that could legitimately stand up to the decks going under, and so you instead of decks like Affinity just trying to do it better.
Lets not forget here that Twin had a 70% win rate against Affinity, and Affinity STILL PLACED MANY DECKS IN TOP 8's. If that doesnt say 'Twin wasnt suppressing the format' I dont know how else to articulate it.
A deck which was an absolute, unarguable DOG to Twin, was still putting in some cases MULTIPLES in the Top 8.
How bout a dedicated Twin Debate thread where the twin people can talk to each other about how right they are and how twin is gonna save modern.
The anti-twin posters like the ever-pompous gkourou (seriously who quotes themselves in their sig? That's like kissing your reflection in the mirror) who absolutely MUST engage with the topic can do that there while the rest of the forum can move on from the topic.
Guys please opinions on japanese cards. Lost a 3/3 creature against Japan celestial colonade. This guy played all creatures and spells in english cards, but some cards in his manabase was japanese. I dont registrated this really ( my brain say its all fine and all english to me lets attack his empty board)...and i am sure it is a Kind of legal cheating. It is not ok, but i know legal. I Hate such people. I never forget colonade normally, but with this Tricks it can happen one time in 3 years and such people take advantage of this
If I am a customer spending premium amount of dollars, I expect a premium service. Jund falls into the category of a premium deck costing more dollars than a majority of the rest of the format. I'm not getting the desired performance ratio per dollars spent out of the Jund deck because WOTC decided to make the format more diverse.
I think one factor we need to consider is that at the time of the twin banning, I would argue that we haven't seen the strongest version of the twin deck; The Grixis twin lists considerably differ from each other, some lists mainboard taisgur, some don't. other archetypes at the time generally differ by 4-5 card flex slots, while some Grixis Twin lists mainboard inquisition, some play Keranos, some play blood moon, some play 3 splinter twins etc..
i would compare this to banning Death's Shadow at the time when both Jund and Grixis shadow were re-developing after GP Vancouver.
(In summary, I feel the matchup numbers for Twin could be 3-5% more in twin's favor after another 3-4 months of tuning when the Grixis twin lists settle to near similar lists like Grixis delver or Grixis shadow)
Its not biased at all, its right out of the Top 8 data for GP's from the life of Modern.
You are on ignore from this point forward until you go ahead and review the data as I have. Its there, just look it up yourself.
His point is that its selective data
....
Give me another source then? Twin was banned on the back of its T8 performances, and the Pro Tour (questionable since PT's are not 'pure' events...) so give me another one?
This is the frustration I and other 'twin supporters' face. You all can call us biased, say we dont provide numbers to back up our arguments, and when I then spend a non-insignificant amount of time going over actual.factual.numbers both PRE AND POST Ban, I'm flippantly told that I 'reek of bias'.
All data is selective. I've given the source, I've given the Post Ban numbers, including Top 8 counts.
UR Twin was better than Grixis Twin, at least that was the general consensus at the time, just saying.
I was thinking of making my own thread on this Renegade Rallier, I probably will if someone gives me a reason to continue looking at new data.
i guess it depends on what you consider to be 'viable' within the format. some think that only a few decks are worthy of true competitive play, others more, while some believe its basically any deck that can post at a GP or SCG event.
for instance if you believe, given access to every possible deck and being able to play them with equal skill, that playing a blue control deck is just handicapping yourself at a high level competitive event; then blue diversity is nonexistent.
likewise if you consider any deck that can feasibly post a result given enough format knowledge and practice then idSurge's data means something completely different.
its a topic that is often hinted at, but never really gone into with any depth because it can bring up some ugly implications. how diverse is the format right now? are a smattering of decks that show up in results alongside more consistent contenders really competitive? or what does it mean when a single deck has a larger representation than an entire archetype?
this is mostly what sets the pro-tour apart from GPs or other regular events since access to decks for pros and grinders is pretty trivial.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
Its not biased at all, its right out of the Top 8 data for GP's from the life of Modern.
You are on ignore from this point forward until you go ahead and review the data as I have. Its there, just look it up yourself.
His point is that its selective data
....
Give me another source then? Twin was banned on the back of its T8 performances, and the Pro Tour (questionable since PT's are not 'pure' events...) so give me another one?
This is the frustration I and other 'twin supporters' face. You all can call us biased, say we dont provide numbers to back up our arguments, and when I then spend a non-insignificant amount of time going over actual.factual.numbers both PRE AND POST Ban, I'm flippantly told that I 'reek of bias'.
All data is selective. I've given the source, I've given the Post Ban numbers, including Top 8 counts.
UR Twin was better than Grixis Twin, at least that was the general consensus at the time, just saying.
I was thinking of making my own thread on this Renegade Rallier, I probably will if someone gives me a reason to continue looking at new data.
You selected a few tournaments that fit your narrative about linear decks. Here's mine:
SCG Columbus Open 2018
Jeskai Control
Jeskai Control
U/R Gifts Storm
Grixis Death's Shadow
G/W Company
U/R Kiki Moon
Humans
SCG Indianapolis Open 2018
Grixis Death's Shadow
Eldrazi Tron
Jeskai Control
Death and Taxes
Elves
Eldrazi Tron
Grixis Death's Shadow
U/W Control
SCG Louisville Open 2017
Jeskai Control
Jeskai Control
Jund
8-Rack
U/R Gifts Storm
5-Color Death's Shadow
W/B Eldrazi Taxes
Grixis Death's Shadow
Can you expect a decent chance at a top 8? Can the archetype support a 12% of getting Top 8? It doesnt work that way.
Turns is not a 'top tier' deck. Yet it has a Top 8. Affinity has a hilarious number of Top 8s. However people like to believe its fine, because of Hate cards.
Is UWR Control viable? Its numbers are hilariously bad at GP's. Why? Maybe its not so 'viable' after all?
If someone wants to tell me that UWR/UW Control, minus the new cards, became 'more viable' after Twin's banning, I'd love to see the proof for that.
Its not biased at all, its right out of the Top 8 data for GP's from the life of Modern.
You are on ignore from this point forward until you go ahead and review the data as I have. Its there, just look it up yourself.
His point is that its selective data
....
Give me another source then? Twin was banned on the back of its T8 performances, and the Pro Tour (questionable since PT's are not 'pure' events...) so give me another one?
This is the frustration I and other 'twin supporters' face. You all can call us biased, say we dont provide numbers to back up our arguments, and when I then spend a non-insignificant amount of time going over actual.factual.numbers both PRE AND POST Ban, I'm flippantly told that I 'reek of bias'.
All data is selective. I've given the source, I've given the Post Ban numbers, including Top 8 counts.
UR Twin was better than Grixis Twin, at least that was the general consensus at the time, just saying.
I was thinking of making my own thread on this Renegade Rallier, I probably will if someone gives me a reason to continue looking at new data.
You selected a few tournaments that fit your narrative about linear decks. Here's mine:
SCG Columbus Open 2018
Jeskai Control
Jeskai Control
U/R Gifts Storm
Grixis Death's Shadow
G/W Company
U/R Kiki Moon
Humans
SCG Indianapolis Open 2018
Grixis Death's Shadow
Eldrazi Tron
Jeskai Control
Death and Taxes
Elves
Eldrazi Tron
Grixis Death's Shadow
U/W Control
SCG Louisville Open 2017
Jeskai Control
Jeskai Control
Jund
8-Rack
U/R Gifts Storm
5-Color Death's Shadow
W/B Eldrazi Taxes
Grixis Death's Shadow
I've gone over the entire span of Modern, at the level in which Twin was measured (GP's) excluding Team, or Pro Tour events because they are not actually 'modern'.
SCG certainly does reflect a different story, as we all have noted several times in this threads history.
I have a crazy idea. Let's shelf the discussion on Twin to talk about viability. If we had a more agreed upon definition of 'viable' then we can more easily discuss Twin, if not come to a conclusion, because I don't think there is one.
Has a reasonable chance to Top 8 a GP. Whats 'reasonable'?
A viable deck is one in which it is not fundamentally disadvantaged, going into an open field GP.
I dont know how we put numbers around what is or is not viable unless we talk about conversion rates and win rates, which we are not privileged to have for GP's to the best of my knowledge.
So that would be a definition of viability in terms of GPs. Is that the only kind of viability that exists? Would there be viability definitions for other levels of play? For someone who attends mostly FNM to PPTQ level events, the pool of decks you come against might differ. Would the same kind of viability serve you well there?
Has a reasonable chance to Top 8 a GP. Whats 'reasonable'?
A viable deck is one in which it is not fundamentally disadvantaged, going into an open field GP.
I dont know how we put numbers around what is or is not viable unless we talk about conversion rates and win rates, which we are not privileged to have for GP's to the best of my knowledge.
Well also you cannot predict how its going to change the format if it comes back and how current decks might change to account for it.
I mean I suppose the basic way is to check how it match up against the most feared current decks in the format and the classics.
So line it up against Hollow Ones, Humans, Bogles. Affinity, Tron and Burn and assuming they don't change determine how effective it be against them via testing? If a deck cannot handle aggro decks swinging in hard in the first say 3 turns then I wouldn't take it to a GP expecting to Top 8 that is for sure.
So that would be a definition of viability in terms of GPs. Is that the only kind of viability that exists? Would there be viability definitions for other levels of play? For someone who attends mostly FNM to PPTQ level events, the pool of decks you come against might differ. Would the same kind of viability serve you well there?
I think honestly yes, depending on the level of competitiveness of your local, FNM viable differs quite a bit from SCG viable, and based on the performance numbers we have seen, there is a difference between SCG Viable, and GP Viable.
When considering the ban list, the only 'viable' that seems to matter is GP/PT level, and probably MTGO competitive leagues.
Blue decks have continued to be given cards (ThopterSword and Jace) because they are not performing at a 'viable' GP level, in the eyes of Wizards.
I dont think thats an unfair statement, but please folks, do keep me honest.
JTMS was good in theory, the problem is Blue aint going to make it to turn 4 to be able to cast and keep Jace alive long enough to do anything.
Modern doesn't want you to win before Turn 4 sure but you can easily be in a position to close out on Turn 4.
Blue needs help getting past Turns 1-3. White just needs help period. Two weak colors together does not make a viable control deck.
JTMS was good in theory, the problem is Blue aint going to make it to turn 4 to be able to cast and keep Jace alive long enough to do anything.
Modern doesn't want you to win before Turn 4 sure but you can easily be in a position to close out on Turn 4.
Blue needs help getting past Turns 1-3. White just needs help period. Two weak colors together does not make a viable control deck.
This is a misunderstanding of what Blue Control struggles with. We make it to Turn 4 all the time. Turn 8, whatever.
JTMS was good in theory, the problem is Blue aint going to make it to turn 4 to be able to cast and keep Jace alive long enough to do anything.
Modern doesn't want you to win before Turn 4 sure but you can easily be in a position to close out on Turn 4.
Blue needs help getting past Turns 1-3. White just needs help period. Two weak colors together does not make a viable control deck.
This is a misunderstanding of what Blue Control struggles with. We make it to Turn 4 all the time. Turn 8, whatever.
The issue is, Jace...kind of does nothing.
What is your definition of making it to Turn 4?
But I will defer to you. I am a bigger fan of aggro personally most of the time.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Besides the outside chance pro players or Wotc employees looking at this site, yeah it probably wont ever influence anything. However, thats not point. I think that if a good enough argument to ban or unban a certain card is presented, then it could do some things. It can firstly, help people predict unbannings and get ahead of the meta and/or price boom of a certain card (I have recently bought a playset of Stoneforge and Twin due to these discussions alone). Secondly, it can slowly spread to other outlets like Reddit and Twitter and eventually influence the greater general "thought" of the people playing Modern, which can influence Wotc.
At the end of the day, thats not he reason we discuss things like unbannings on this sub. Its mainly for fun
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
This is not a good attitude towards unbannings and format-wide changes in general. Let's assume Wizards does not read these forums, which they very well might do and we simply don't know about it. Let's assume instead that Wizards reads Reddit (we know they do due to their community accounts) and articles on major content sites, plus articles circulated on Reddit that receive lots of press (we know they read these sources because they are selected for their mothership). Given this, players are capable of influencing Wizards as long as they present cases that make it into Wizards' eye.
If Twin proponents were to make a relatively unified case using objective information without the same kind of bitter frustration we see in most Twin posts, I am confident both the community at large and Wizards would at least consider it. Act on it? Maybe. At least read it? Probably. We've seen examples of this throughout Modern's history, whether Forsythe responding to general sentiments on his Twitter (e.g. his knowledge that the community was doomsaying about BBE/JTMS), the #FreeJace "movement," the outrage at the return of the PT potentially bringing more bans, or a general outcry (that I contributed to with Nexus articles) about terrible communication from Wizards. All of these were addressed and/or considered in some way. A Twin unban movement could be included here. Unfortunately, I am also confident that Wizards tunes out most Twin content because it doesn't have the substantive, unified foundation they would want to see before seriously considering something like they seriously considered the other issues listed above.
Twin proponents need to address whether or not the ban accomplished its two stated aims of increasing diversity among other decks and increasing diversity among blue decks. They need to stop attacking the underlying ban rationale because it doesn't matter and that isn't how cards were unbanned in the past. I'd also wager this bitter, frustrated attitude of attacking the underlying rationale adds to the general "Twin meme noise" factor that makes it easy to tune out Twin discussion and dismiss it. If Twin diehards are unwilling to do this in a serious way, they should probably just not do it at all. This means no case-building and definitely no bitter venting. To be clear, not all Twin supporters engage in this behavior, and there have been standout examples of strong Twin cases in the past. But the majority of the pro-Twin dialogue is not like this and falls into the meme/bitter venting variety that is easy to ignore.
1. Will it impact diversity? Yes. It will 100% take meta share from or completely supplant Blue Moon, will hit a % of UW Control, and certainly a segment of UWR Control.
2. Did it increase diversity in blue decks? I actually think not. At least not at the GP Top 8 level. Throughout the life of Twin, since 'Modern' was the formats name (I did not go back to Extended) we had Faeries, RUG Delver, UR Storm, UW Midrange, UWR Midrange, Esper Gifts, Scapeshift, UW Control, UWR Control, UR Delver, UWR Kiki Resto, Grixis Control, Grixis Delver and Twin.
Blue Moon is the linear heir of Twin, and would be supplanted because Twin is doing Blue Moon, better.
Lets look at what Blue came after the Twin ban.
Scapeshift - Coexisted
GDS - New Tech, but just a continuation of DS evolution.
UWR - Coexisted
Merfolk - Coexisted
Grixis Control - Coexisted
Grixis Delver - Coexisted
UWR Queller - New Tech, but UWR Midrange was a thing already and coexisted
Blue Moon Decks - Simply the left overs after the ban.
I mean simply going by T8's, pre vs post ban, Blue had more diversity while Twin was alive, because Blue decks were not getting absolutely ***** on by a tide of aggro decks.
EDIT: Scapeshift...missed the F.
Spirits
Did Top 8's become more diverse following the ban? I mean considering the number of cards added to the format? Kind of hard not dont you think? Should I exclude every deck that didnt exist before Twin was banned because the CARDS didnt exist? Is this diverse?
GP Lyon 2018 (http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=18485&f=MO)
RG Eldrazi
Junk
Tron
Tron
Junk
UWR Control
Tron
Tron
Maybe this one?
GP Oklahoma City 2017 (http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=17816&f=MO)
Scapeshift
Scapeshift
Tron
Dredge
UWR Breach
Living End
Tron
Tron
Here's a nice example of diversity.
GP Vegas 2017 (http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=15927&f=MO)
Affinity
Hatebears
Affinity
Affinity
Burn
ETron
Hatebears
TURNS
GP Vancouver 2017 (http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=14763&f=MO)
JDS
Merfolk
JDS
JDS
Abzan Company
Affinity
Burn
D&T
Another
GP Dallas 2016 (http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=13917&f=MO)
Skred Red
Grixis Control
Infect
UWR Control
Dredge
Infect
Infect
Titanshift
As to your second point, Blue has sucked since Twin was banned SO MUCH they unbanned JACE for the love of god.
Spirits
This is a list of all deck's that have Top 8, to reflect the 'diversity' post ban. Organized on if they existed with Twin, or could make some claims to coming about after. I have bolded decks which COULD NOT HAVE EXISTED before the addition of new cards post Twin. AKA: These decks could not exist when Twin was legal.
Existed With Twin
GWx Combo (Podless Pod/Company)
Storm
Affinity
Living End
Merfolk
Jund
Junk
Tron
Grixis Control
Ad Naus
Zoo
Scapeshift
Grixis Delver
Burn
BG Rock
Grishoabrand
Valakut Breach
GW Taxes
UW Control
Infect
Dredge
UWR Midrange (Queller)
Esper Midrange
UWR Control (Gearhulk, Nahiri, Search)
Elves
Bogles
Amulet Titan
New Deck
Eldrazi Aggro
Eldrazi Bant
Bant Company (precursor to humans?
Zombie Infestation/Dredge (Rogue, 1 Event)
Skred
DS Zoo (Sam Black, first of the DS->JDS->GDS-4C DS line)
Knightfall
UWR Pyro (Rogue, 1 Event)
Lantern
Eldrazi Tron
Turns
UWR Breach (Dec, 2017)
RG Eldrazi
Humans
KCI
Hollow One
Yeah. Almost every deck which was not present in a top 8 during Twin's life, only exists on the backs of new cards.
As to the 'blue diversity' only UWR Breach, from an event in Dec, 2017, could make any claim's at not simply being a pre-existing (with Twin) deck, that was simply given new cards such as Spell Queller, Search for Azcanta, Nahiri, the Harbinger, Opt, or Torrential Gearhulk.
Every other Blue deck that has since pulled in a Top 8, also did while Twin was legal, while any 'new deck' is either a rogue deck that spiked an event, or is a new deck, that only exists on the back of new cards which either powered up, or created, a new archetype.
What else do you want me to say ktkenshinx?
Spirits
my point was that all of this twin discussion is centered around a format that is dead and gone. power has shifted around, new decks and combos have emerged, and plenty of decks have gotten new tools from standard sets.
however there is this prevailing assumption that if twin did return that things would go back to the way they were, which is something that i think can be challenged at this point.
@gkourou - what you are saying just emphasizes my point. its conjecture based on information that is no longer relevant. the argument also cant be applied to other cards that were banned for entirely different reasons (such as breaking the turn 4 rule).
basically if people wanna discuss twin at all its better to do it in the context of now rather than endlessly circle what people believed twin was doing in the past.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)You ban Twin, linear decks become stronger, as linear decks become stronger, they push out Midrange, and Control further. Its a simple circle. They removed the only deck that could legitimately stand up to the decks going under, and so you instead of decks like Affinity just trying to do it better.
Lets not forget here that Twin had a 70% win rate against Affinity, and Affinity STILL PLACED MANY DECKS IN TOP 8's. If that doesnt say 'Twin wasnt suppressing the format' I dont know how else to articulate it.
A deck which was an absolute, unarguable DOG to Twin, was still putting in some cases MULTIPLES in the Top 8.
Spirits
You are on ignore from this point forward until you go ahead and review the data as I have. Its there, just look it up yourself.
Spirits
His point is that its selective data
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
The anti-twin posters like the ever-pompous gkourou (seriously who quotes themselves in their sig? That's like kissing your reflection in the mirror) who absolutely MUST engage with the topic can do that there while the rest of the forum can move on from the topic.
Every reason for banning twin-discussion for that period of time has happened again https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/modern-archives/780164-temporary-state-of-the-meta-thread-rules-update-7?comment=2
i would compare this to banning Death's Shadow at the time when both Jund and Grixis shadow were re-developing after GP Vancouver.
(In summary, I feel the matchup numbers for Twin could be 3-5% more in twin's favor after another 3-4 months of tuning when the Grixis twin lists settle to near similar lists like Grixis delver or Grixis shadow)
....
Give me another source then? Twin was banned on the back of its T8 performances, and the Pro Tour (questionable since PT's are not 'pure' events...) so give me another one?
This is the frustration I and other 'twin supporters' face. You all can call us biased, say we dont provide numbers to back up our arguments, and when I then spend a non-insignificant amount of time going over actual.factual.numbers both PRE AND POST Ban, I'm flippantly told that I 'reek of bias'.
All data is selective. I've given the source, I've given the Post Ban numbers, including Top 8 counts.
UR Twin was better than Grixis Twin, at least that was the general consensus at the time, just saying.
I was thinking of making my own thread on this Renegade Rallier, I probably will if someone gives me a reason to continue looking at new data.
Spirits
for instance if you believe, given access to every possible deck and being able to play them with equal skill, that playing a blue control deck is just handicapping yourself at a high level competitive event; then blue diversity is nonexistent.
likewise if you consider any deck that can feasibly post a result given enough format knowledge and practice then idSurge's data means something completely different.
its a topic that is often hinted at, but never really gone into with any depth because it can bring up some ugly implications. how diverse is the format right now? are a smattering of decks that show up in results alongside more consistent contenders really competitive? or what does it mean when a single deck has a larger representation than an entire archetype?
this is mostly what sets the pro-tour apart from GPs or other regular events since access to decks for pros and grinders is pretty trivial.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)You selected a few tournaments that fit your narrative about linear decks. Here's mine:
SCG Columbus Open 2018
Jeskai Control
Jeskai Control
U/R Gifts Storm
Grixis Death's Shadow
G/W Company
U/R Kiki Moon
Humans
SCG Indianapolis Open 2018
Grixis Death's Shadow
Eldrazi Tron
Jeskai Control
Death and Taxes
Elves
Eldrazi Tron
Grixis Death's Shadow
U/W Control
SCG Louisville Open 2017
Jeskai Control
Jeskai Control
Jund
8-Rack
U/R Gifts Storm
5-Color Death's Shadow
W/B Eldrazi Taxes
Grixis Death's Shadow
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
Can you expect a decent chance at a top 8? Can the archetype support a 12% of getting Top 8? It doesnt work that way.
Turns is not a 'top tier' deck. Yet it has a Top 8. Affinity has a hilarious number of Top 8s. However people like to believe its fine, because of Hate cards.
Is UWR Control viable? Its numbers are hilariously bad at GP's. Why? Maybe its not so 'viable' after all?
If someone wants to tell me that UWR/UW Control, minus the new cards, became 'more viable' after Twin's banning, I'd love to see the proof for that.
Spirits
I've gone over the entire span of Modern, at the level in which Twin was measured (GP's) excluding Team, or Pro Tour events because they are not actually 'modern'.
SCG certainly does reflect a different story, as we all have noted several times in this threads history.
Spirits
A viable deck is one in which it is not fundamentally disadvantaged, going into an open field GP.
I dont know how we put numbers around what is or is not viable unless we talk about conversion rates and win rates, which we are not privileged to have for GP's to the best of my knowledge.
Spirits
1) State of Modern Thread
2) Twin Unban/Ban Argument forum?
Well also you cannot predict how its going to change the format if it comes back and how current decks might change to account for it.
I mean I suppose the basic way is to check how it match up against the most feared current decks in the format and the classics.
So line it up against Hollow Ones, Humans, Bogles. Affinity, Tron and Burn and assuming they don't change determine how effective it be against them via testing? If a deck cannot handle aggro decks swinging in hard in the first say 3 turns then I wouldn't take it to a GP expecting to Top 8 that is for sure.
I think honestly yes, depending on the level of competitiveness of your local, FNM viable differs quite a bit from SCG viable, and based on the performance numbers we have seen, there is a difference between SCG Viable, and GP Viable.
When considering the ban list, the only 'viable' that seems to matter is GP/PT level, and probably MTGO competitive leagues.
Blue decks have continued to be given cards (ThopterSword and Jace) because they are not performing at a 'viable' GP level, in the eyes of Wizards.
I dont think thats an unfair statement, but please folks, do keep me honest.
Spirits
Modern doesn't want you to win before Turn 4 sure but you can easily be in a position to close out on Turn 4.
Blue needs help getting past Turns 1-3. White just needs help period. Two weak colors together does not make a viable control deck.
This is a misunderstanding of what Blue Control struggles with. We make it to Turn 4 all the time. Turn 8, whatever.
The issue is, Jace...kind of does nothing.
Spirits
What is your definition of making it to Turn 4?
But I will defer to you. I am a bigger fan of aggro personally most of the time.