Played often against and it never happened...sometimes my Hand was better after inquiry. P.S twin bla, twin ban failed bla bla, need to say 537 again twin ban failed bla bla...why you guys not stop this SH..?! WHY you repeat again and again?
Because its still banned. Any other questions?
yeah, i have a question: Please explain us why banning twin failed
Well its more because manlands come up more rarely ie they are primarly a Zendikar thing...nothing limits the printing of counterspells at all. So WOTC has far more chances to print some good Counterspells and they refuse to all the time.
Raises the question though would a Fatal Counter be too overpowered for Modern.
U: Counter Target Spell CMC 2 or Less
Revolt: Permanent leaves counter spell CMC 4 or less instead...
1 mana hard counter? yeah that seems way too strong. remember push is only killing a creature. 1 mana counterspells are dangerous. just look at stubborn denial and all the hoops people jump through to turn that thing on.
is it out of bounds by a wide margin though? probably not. however you would be asking people to fight it by playing 4+ cmc spells. normally youd think that would equate to the format slowing down, but it would just incentivize cheating on mana costs more.
on another note we have 3 major modern events going on this weekend (gp hong kong, gp stockholmn, scg syracuse). interested to see what shakes out.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
On a Twin unbanning, the bottom line is this: if we think that Twin would still be 12% of the meta if it were unbanned right now, then don't unban it. If Twin could be unbanned and settle out around 5 or 6% of the meta, there is no reason why it should be banned. All of the people talking about how Twin used to "warp Modern," your perceptions of the deck are from when it was 12% of the meta. If Twin was 6%, it would be just another Modern deck. In a 15 round Swiss tournament, you'll face a deck that's 6% of the meta a little less than once on average.
This leads into my next point, how does Twin look compared to current Modern? Modern as a whole has increased in power rather substantially in the nearly 3 years that Twin has been banned. The Twin deck, though, hasn't really gotten a lot of upgrades. It's pretty much just Opt instead of some number of Serum Visions, and a couple JTMS in the board replacing Jace, Architect of Thought. SCG just finished their series running Twin through the current Modern gauntlet, so let's go over it.
Twin vs. Humans: Twin won 2 to 1. If anyone's confused right now, yes, Humans actually won game 2. Both Todds thought the Meddling Mage was a 3/3, but it was actually a 4/4, so Anderson was actually dead, but they had recorded the life totals incorrectly. Game 1 was a long grindy game where Stevens got Anderson down to 7 life and had a Vial on 3 with a Reflector Mage in hand, but Anderson upkeep flashed in a third Exarch to tap the Vial, then played Twin on his main phase, which was a pretty sick line. Game 2 was also a long game that Stevens actually won. Game 3 was a game where Blood Moon actually just won the game on turn 3, because Stevens didn't have a Vial. On my impressions of the matchup, I think it's hard to say because Stevens really didn't draw many of his disruptive creatures like Freebooter or Thalia. He also was not playing a list with big Thalia, which shuts down the Twin combo. Blood Moon is really good against Humans if they don't have a Vial, so that probably steals some games, and Humans doesn't play much instant speed interaction outside of Vial shenanigans, which might change if Twin were unbanned. My feeling is that Twin would be slightly favored, but it feels pretty close to 50/50.
Twin vs. Hardened Scales: Hardened Scales won 2 to 1. Here's the matchup where we got the one and only turn 4 Twin kill that people in this thread and on reddit like to pretend happened every other game with Twin. In games 2 and 3 he didn't find the combo fast enough and got run over. My impressions of the matchup: Twin used to be pretty heavily favored against Affinity, but Hardened Scales I think has some better tools for the matchup. A 4/4 Walking Ballista on the battlefield is on-board combo protection, and they don't have much problem getting a Ballista to a 4/4. Twin would probably have to turn 4 them to win, and if they took much longer than that to find the combo, they'd have a rough time. My feeling is that Twin would probably be favored, but it's definitely better for Hardened Scales than it used to be for Affinity.
Twin vs. UW Control: Twin won 2 to 1. All three games were long and grindy affairs with tons of interaction, and could have gone either way. Stevens boarded out Terminus, which I feel is wrong. He ended up dying to tempo beats in the second game, and then in the third game he had to use both of his D Spheres to clear the board of Anderson's Snapcasters, and then had no answer for Anderson's Jace. The games were a lot of fun to watch, though. My impressions of the matchup: UW would be favored. I don't think you board out all your Terminus against Twin, and Stevens was also running a list with Telling Time, which is just awful. UW and Jeskai were always favored against Twin back in the day, and those decks are both a lot better now than they used to be, so they should be pretty solid favorites in the matchup.
Twin vs. G Tron: Twin technically won 2 to 1. Stevens punted away game 3 when he was like 99% to win the game. He had an O Stone on board, Tron online, Warping Wail and Nature's Claim in hand, and he tapped out to put himself dead to the combo to play and crack a Relic and then cast a Karn that didn't really do anything when he could have waited a turn to play Karn with Warping Wail backup. That's not a mistake I would expect a good player like Stevens to make if he were actually playing in a tournament. As for the matchup: Twin historically was favored against green versions of Tron, but it became a lot closer right before the ban. Tron's gotten some new tools for the matchup, like Warping Wail, Thought-knot Seer, and Walking Ballista. I think it would be pretty close to a 50/50, or maybe even Tron being slightly favored these days.
Twin vs. Mardu Pyromancer: Mardu won 2 to 1. And here we see the kind of deck that is good against Twin in action. The Mardu deck just picked Twin apart. Anderson was able to squeak out game 3 when Stevens drew pretty poorly and he topdecked a Twin off a Cryptic tap draw, and then untapped and drew a Negate to back it up. The first two games were pretty much bloodbaths, though. Stevens just stripped Anderson's hand with discard spells in both games, and beat him down before Anderson could recover. Pretty easy to guess how this matchup would go, Mardu would be heavily favored. They have the interaction of Jund from back in the day, but they also have deck velocity that Jund never had. I also expect that Mardu would play more Terminates if Twin were around.
So overall, we have two matchups that felt like Twin was slightly favored, one that felt pretty close to 50/50, and two that felt like it was unfavored. Honestly, nothing I saw in those videos made me think that Twin was too powerful still (if it even was back in 2016). The vaunted turn 4 kill that people in here pretend used to happen all the time happened once in 15 games. That's pretty in line with our previous estimate that it happened around 5% of the time. When something is broken, you can see it. Caleb Durward did a banned list series a few years back where he tested things like Chrome Mox and Hypergenesis, and several things on the banned list were very clearly broken. Twin is not broken. I strongly feel like if it were unbanned, it would be just another good Modern deck to go along with the 20 other good decks in the format. Its power level never felt like an outlier at any point in the SCG videos.
[quote from="ktkenshinx »" url="/forums/the-game/modern/797415-the-state-of-modern-thread-b-r-20-08-2018?comment=987"]
THERE ISNT ONE. Just like there wasnt one for Grave Troll, because Dredge is just one more stupid deck out of all of the stupid decks of which Twin was once a part but for some god forsaken reason Wizards decided that Dredge got to live on, while Twin had to die. Amulet lives on, while Twin had to die.
If ban's actually killed other decks, those people would probably care too!
I've tried to avoid all this Twin talk, but I think Twin proponents are just living in this fantasy world where the "injustices" done to them are somehow greater than those of other decks' pilots whose decks were also hit with bans.
You brought up Amulet, saying it "lives on." The deck has been much less powerful than it was with Summer Bloom. It was not a widely-used deck at the time of its banning, though, so people ignore that. In Dredge's case, GGT's initial ban was warranted, I think everyone agrees. When it was unbanned, it was because the archetype had suffered, and the meta was in a spot where the archetype could use a booster shot, and it wasn't until after new Dredge pieces were printed that the card was, again, rightfully banned. There weren't mistakes, the Modern pool of available cards is just always shifting, and bans need to be fluid to allow for that.
Now, onto Twin. Everyone keeps saying Twin is "dead". When anyone dares to mention that Kiki-Exarch is a deck, the Twin supporters vehemently say it's not the same deck, that a 5 mana creature is not the same as a 4 mana enchantment that does the same thing, that it isn't close to as effective as Twin was. Guess what? You're right. In the same way that Amulet Titan is "not the same" as Bloom Titan, decks that use some form of Exarch/Kiki combo to win are "not the same" as Twin. Twin was ultra efficient and minimally deck-constraining. To expect something that powerful is foolish.
Do you really think that Eggs is the same deck as KCI? Because it isn't. People had to get by with their sub-par version of Eggs before Scrap Trawler's printing, but I'm sure if any Eggs players were to voice complaints in this time, Twin players would adamantly claim their loss was bigger.
TLDR; Twin has its parallels in the Modern pantheon of decks today, and Twin proponents for some reason think they are owed more than other deck pilots who have similarly lost decks.
so i was watching the gp stockholm coverage, and they showed a slide with the '3 bye metagame'. it was as follows:
10 UW control
4 jeskai control
4 bant spirits
4 humans
2 GDS
1 burn
1 abzan (probably duke)
1 counters company
1 hardened scales
1 kci
1 martyr proc
1 storm
1 ur ascension
personally i thought hardened scales would have been higher. the euro pro scene has a lot of control players, or so ive heard. couple that with the decks nice looking matchup spread and it isnt surprising to see so much UW.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
[quote from="ktkenshinx »" url="/forums/the-game/modern/797415-the-state-of-modern-thread-b-r-20-08-2018?comment=987"]
THERE ISNT ONE. Just like there wasnt one for Grave Troll, because Dredge is just one more stupid deck out of all of the stupid decks of which Twin was once a part but for some god forsaken reason Wizards decided that Dredge got to live on, while Twin had to die. Amulet lives on, while Twin had to die.
If ban's actually killed other decks, those people would probably care too!
I've tried to avoid all this Twin talk, but I think Twin proponents are just living in this fantasy world where the "injustices" done to them are somehow greater than those of other decks' pilots whose decks were also hit with bans.
You brought up Amulet, saying it "lives on." The deck has been much less powerful than it was with Summer Bloom. It was not a widely-used deck at the time of its banning, though, so people ignore that. In Dredge's case, GGT's initial ban was warranted, I think everyone agrees. When it was unbanned, it was because the archetype had suffered, and the meta was in a spot where the archetype could use a booster shot, and it wasn't until after new Dredge pieces were printed that the card was, again, rightfully banned. There weren't mistakes, the Modern pool of available cards is just always shifting, and bans need to be fluid to allow for that.
Now, onto Twin. Everyone keeps saying Twin is "dead". When anyone dares to mention that Kiki-Exarch is a deck, the Twin supporters vehemently say it's not the same deck, that a 5 mana creature is not the same as a 4 mana enchantment that does the same thing, that it isn't close to as effective as Twin was. Guess what? You're right. In the same way that Amulet Titan is "not the same" as Bloom Titan, decks that use some form of Exarch/Kiki combo to win are "not the same" as Twin. Twin was ultra efficient and minimally deck-constraining. To expect something that powerful is foolish.
Do you really think that Eggs is the same deck as KCI? Because it isn't. People had to get by with their sub-par version of Eggs before Scrap Trawler's printing, but I'm sure if any Eggs players were to voice complaints in this time, Twin players would adamantly claim their loss was bigger.
TLDR; Twin has its parallels in the Modern pantheon of decks today, and Twin proponents for some reason think they are owed more than other deck pilots who have similarly lost decks.
KCI now is better than Eggs was previously.
Amulet Titan going from a "turn 2 deck" to a turn 3-4ish deck is still pretty good.
Twin going from a "turn 4 deck" to a turn 5-6ish deck, with clunky mana, and much more fragile is really, really bad.
I say that last line from months and months of trial and experimentation, as well as returning to try every couple months over the past year. If the stars align, it's great. But often, it's just not good enough, and the lack of results over the past 3 years mirror that.
Which leads me into a CFB article I saw this morning about UW/Jeskai:
"Modern is a tricky format, because of the “matchup lottery.” Whether your deck choice ends up being perfect or awful hinges largely upon the random pairings you receive, an aspect of the game a player has no control over. If you are paired against a handful of good matchups on the day, you feel like a genius. When the pairings go against you, not so much. All we can do is choose decks we believe will give us the strongest chance of winning the most matches, search for exploitable edges, refine our lists, and practice finding the best plays." https://www.channelfireball.com/articles/is-u-w-based-control-the-best-deck-in-modern/
so i was watching the gp stockholm coverage, and they showed a slide with the '3 bye metagame'. it was as follows:
10 UW control
4 jeskai control
4 bant spirits
4 humans
2 GDS
1 burn
1 abzan (probably duke)
1 counters company
1 hardened scales
1 kci
1 martyr proc
1 storm
1 ur ascension
personally i thought hardened scales would have been higher. the euro pro scene has a lot of control players, or so ive heard. couple that with the decks nice looking matchup spread and it isnt surprising to see so much UW.
I think we could actually see the game break down to this.
10 UW control
4 jeskai control
4 bant spirits
4 humans
I've seen a lot of talk about how Spirits is a better Humans, and we know UW is great, while I linked UW+R in an article in the UWR thread.
On a Twin unbanning, the bottom line is this: if we think that Twin would still be 12% of the meta if it were unbanned right now, then don't unban it. If Twin could be unbanned and settle out around 5 or 6% of the meta, there is no reason why it should be banned. All of the people talking about how Twin used to "warp Modern," your perceptions of the deck are from when it was 12% of the meta. If Twin was 6%, it would be just another Modern deck. In a 15 round Swiss tournament, you'll face a deck that's 6% of the meta a little less than once on average.
I fully agree with this. If Twin could be a 5%-6% deck like basically all the other Tier 2 (by prevalence) strategies in Modern, that would be great and more people would probably support an unban. Unfortunately, there is no good reason to think this would happen. Twin was 18.75% of GP/PT T8s when it was banned. The net BGx share was equal to the share of UR Twin alone. This deck was very dominant at that particular level which we know Wizards most cares about and cites in B&R updates (except perhaps MTGO, which is more of a black box now). If we are happy using the example of deck diversity that I posted earlier (i.e. 28 unique decks in both 2015 and 2018, 12 surviving from 2015 and 16 going extinct since then), we should also be using the prevalence precedent. This is not favorable to Twin. And before people cite the inevitable BBE comparison (banned at an absurd percentage, unbanned and fine), this is not usable due to the competing presence of DRS in that deck when BBE was legal.
So overall, we have two matchups that felt like Twin was slightly favored, one that felt pretty close to 50/50, and two that felt like it was unfavored. Honestly, nothing I saw in those videos made me think that Twin was too powerful still (if it even was back in 2016). The vaunted turn 4 kill that people in here pretend used to happen all the time happened once in 15 games. That's pretty in line with our previous estimate that it happened around 5% of the time. When something is broken, you can see it. Caleb Durward did a banned list series a few years back where he tested things like Chrome Mox and Hypergenesis, and several things on the banned list were very clearly broken. Twin is not broken. I strongly feel like if it were unbanned, it would be just another good Modern deck to go along with the 20 other good decks in the format. Its power level never felt like an outlier at any point in the SCG videos.
I'm okay trying to bootstap our samples as much as possible to compensate for small Ns. I'm also okay extrapolating from smaller N samples to estimate possible MWPs. But N=1 matches? I'm still dealing with flak from N=20 MWP estimates. I would have been downvoted to oblivion on Reddit with my recent MWP post if I had posted N=1 matchup data. So I think we can all agree there is no meaningful information we can draw from the SCG Vs. Series example.
I don't think these are particularly predictive of T8/T32 standings, but they do tend to list viable decks which do indicate Modern metagame standings.
And as I pointed out previously, this number was decided (as well as BOTH GP wins) on the backs of four tiebreakers over the span of a year. Twin was banned because of four tiebreakers, and then a bunch of infuriatingly wrong and ultimately meaningless nonsense.
so i was watching the gp stockholm coverage, and they showed a slide with the '3 bye metagame'. it was as follows:
10 UW control
4 jeskai control
4 bant spirits
4 humans
2 GDS
1 burn
1 abzan (probably duke)
1 counters company
1 hardened scales
1 kci
1 martyr proc
1 storm
1 ur ascension
personally i thought hardened scales would have been higher. the euro pro scene has a lot of control players, or so ive heard. couple that with the decks nice looking matchup spread and it isnt surprising to see so much UW.
I think we could actually see the game break down to this.
10 UW control
4 jeskai control
4 bant spirits
4 humans
I've seen a lot of talk about how Spirits is a better Humans, and we know UW is great, while I linked UW+R in an article in the UWR thread.
Is Teferi/Search/Jace/FoR/Terminus all too much?
in germany control is everywhere, so i even play eldrazi stompy with 4 relic Main instead chalice. This is since i can remember, only difference is they win now with UW, lol
Murderous cut saw play as a 1 of in deaths shadow, jund, and abzan when it was released. As did heroes downfall for a short time.
Also playable in modern means powerful. (Playable as in can compete not “oh thats cute”)
As for the 50 most played cards thats sideboard included. Do you really want ceremonious rejection to be the recent premium counter spell in recent memory? Is that comparable to anything else? Sadly it is not.
The point is the best counterspell wotc has given us in recent sets is strictly only sideboard playable. Yet the best removal has been jammed by the playset.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern RUAffinityUR GMono Green StompyG CEldrazi TronC URWJeskai GeistWRU WRBoros BurnRW BRWMardu PyromancerWRB
Finally back to ‚The State of Twin in Modern Thread‘ again.
It‘s banned, just in case anyone missed that.
And just to avoid the warning: Modern deck diversity feels good right now and will probably change for the better with the addition of Assassin‘s Trophy, which in turn might justify some long overdue unbans as more unconditional removal is being printed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: Death&Taxes / U Tron / G Tron / Goblins
Legacy: Death&Taxes (almost there)
EDH: Squee, Goblin Nabob / Phelddagrif
And as I pointed out previously, this number was decided (as well as BOTH GP wins) on the backs of four tiebreakers over the span of a year. Twin was banned because of four tiebreakers, and then a bunch of infuriatingly wrong and ultimately meaningless nonsense.
First, few of the Twin defenders seemed to care about tiebreakers when I have posted about them earlier this year. There were lots of notable T8 misses due to tiebreakers with UW Control (Dagen at Lyon, Rockenbach at Phoenix, Mechin at Barcelona, Sasso at Sao Paulo, Seegelken at Prague) and Blue Moon (Paglia at Phoenix, Sabia at Hartford), and yet I saw blue and Twin players belittle those finishes throughout 2018 as a way to justify the narrative that blue decks weren't performing. I've seen the "blue sucks" camp takes T8s as total gospel throughout 2018 to prove their narrative that various decks weren't viable. I'm not digging through post histories to find the quotes but I do remember them, so I'm not super enthused to see this flipped when it suits yours purposes.
More importantly, Wizards doesn't care about tiebreakers in B&R updates. Let's not invent goalposts just to justify narratives. I've deliberately stopped citing things like SCG events when assessing the B&R/metagame picture, because I know Wizards has never cited them. They cite GP/PT T8s and MTGO. I'm sticking to that until proven otherwise. Also, stop trying to prove that the ban was unjust. THIS IS NOT HOW CARDS GET UNBANNED. Find me a single Modern B&R update where Wizards admits a previous unban was "unjust" or "wrong" or something similar and reverses it on those grounds. This does not happen. They primarily care about a card's impact on current metagme diversity and they assess its rationale in light of the current format. Your crusade against the old Twin ban rationale does not align with this unban approach and earns your camp far more enemies and annoyed bystanders than allies.
Man, BE HAPPY about Bad counter! Imagine you become gold ones, they had not give jace, teferi, opt, search, field....why focus so on this counter? Be happy they made control so Strong...but i hear only greedyness.
None of that is relevant to the point that a deck was BANNED BECAUSE OF THOSE NUMBERS. Numbers I have argued for YEARS were unnecessarily inflated (especially when combined with the absolutely WORTHLESS Pro Tour data).
You can paint a rosy picture with all the mediocre T2 decks you want, and shove a deck which is nothing like it and whose existence is completely unrelated to the banning down our throats. Nothing will undo the insulting injustice of this ban other than releasing it or functionally reprinting it.
As far as fixing an unjust ban, Wild Nacatl had EXACTLY THAT HAPPEN. Because that ban was ALSO A FAILURE.
None of that is relevant to the point that a deck was BANNED BECAUSE OF THOSE NUMBERS. Numbers I have argued for YEARS were unnecessarily inflated (especially when combined with the absolutely WORTHLESS Pro Tour data).
You can paint a rosy picture with all the mediocre T2 decks you want, and shove a deck which is nothing like it and whose existence is completely unrelated to the banning down our throats. Nothing will undo the insulting injustice of this ban other than releasing it or functionally reprinting it.
I don't understand why you are arguing this to me in such an aggressive manner. I am on record with probably the longest and most-researched article online about why the Twin ban was done under false pretenses to shakeup a PT. I still believe that. But the ban being unjust is not a justification to reverse it. You, ids, and a few others frame this like it's a wrongful conviction of a human being for a crime they did not commit. The justice and exoneration bars are different. The only thing that matters for unbannings is if it would positively impact metagame diversity. Twin defenders have yet to make this case in any objective or convincing way (but again, if I have missed this case-making, I apologize for missing it and please point me in the right direction). Instead, they tirelessly hammer that the ban was unjust. This doesn't matter.
As far as fixing an unjust ban, Wild Nacatl had EXACTLY THAT HAPPEN. Because that ban was ALSO A FAILURE.
I'm glad you cite this example because it's the perfect example to illustrate why Twin is not getting unbanned. Here's the specific rationale for its unbanning:
"At the time Wild Nacatl was banned, we hoped that this would allow room for other aggressive decks to shine. Artifact-based aggressive strategies have remained popular and a few other aggressive decks have emerged, but the Zoo decks eventually disappeared as a result of the ban and nothing else emerged as a viable traditional aggressive deck. We expect that with the return of Wild Nacatl, those decks will return as a viable option."
Wizards wanted "other aggressive decks to shine." But then, "the Zoo decks eventually disappeared..." AND "...nothing else emerged as a viable traditional aggressive decks." They wanted to undo this with the unban, hoping "these decks will return as a viable option." Notice that they never say the ban was wrong at the time. They simply say it didn't work out.
Given that the field is currently diverse (one of the reasons for the Twin ban was the allegation that it was holding back diversity) and given that "similar decks" are very viable (the other reason for the Twin ban was the allegation that it was holding back "similar decks"), why would Wizards unban Twin under the Nacatl precedent? Remember, they won't admit the ban was wrong under the Nacatl precedent. They will simply see if the unban will address a format need. As the format is currently diverse and as there are viable similar decks, I just don't see a future where Twin is unbanned. No amount of your arguing about the ban's injustice will change that, because for the dozenth time, Wizards doesn't care if a ban was unjust when they revisit it. They only care about the card's effect on the current metagame.
Given that the field is currently diverse (one of the reasons for the Twin ban was the allegation that it was holding back diversity) and given that "similar decks" are very viable (the other reason for the Twin ban was the allegation that it was holding back "similar decks"), why would Wizards unban Twin under the Nacatl precedent? Remember, they won't admit the ban was wrong under the Nacatl precedent. They will simply see if the unban will address a format need. As the format is currently diverse and as there are viable similar decks, I just don't see a future where Twin is unbanned. No amount of your arguing about the ban's injustice will change that, because for the dozenth time, Wizards doesn't care if a ban was unjust when they revisit it. They only care about the card's effect on the current metagame.
I'm too tilted that you feel the Twin ban accomplished diversity in today's meta to address these directly without devolving into frustration.
I have repeated hundreds of arguments hundreds of times and been banned for these repetitions twice. I have previously addressed every single thing you have said and I would simply be repeating myself yet again here. If I address this, it will be after I sit on it to avoid possibly getting banned again. But I grossly disagree with your analysis on several levels.
Where does it say they failed? They listed the intended effect of the ban being "allow room for other aggressive decks to shine." They then state that Artifact-aggro decks remained popular and a few other aggressive decks emerged. That sounds like they succeeded. Zoo suffered (as expected) but to a larger degree than they anticipated, so it was unbanned. Nowhere in the unban announcement do they state any failures.
But please feel free to respond with a bunch of capital words again.
I dont want to speak for ktk, but I dont believe that is what is being argued.
Is the meta diverse? Arguably yes. It is so due to 3 additional years of printing new powerful cards, but it is (based on Wizards comments) arguably diverse.
Are there blue decks seeing play? Yes. If they are 'similar decks' is up for debate. You and I know they are not similar, but thats not particularly relevant to a company that is on record as NOT TESTING MODERN.
Twin will not be unbanned, but I'll still tell people why they are wrong (not you or ktk in this case) about why it was banned, the impact it DID NOT HAVE in being banned, and so on.
If people want to see less Twin talk, then they need to stop making ignorant and false comments about the deck.
so i was watching the gp stockholm coverage, and they showed a slide with the '3 bye metagame'. it was as follows:
10 UW control
4 jeskai control
4 bant spirits
4 humans
2 GDS
1 burn
1 abzan (probably duke)
1 counters company
1 hardened scales
1 kci
1 martyr proc
1 storm
1 ur ascension
personally i thought hardened scales would have been higher. the euro pro scene has a lot of control players, or so ive heard. couple that with the decks nice looking matchup spread and it isnt surprising to see so much UW.
Nice to see Abzan and Hardened Scales there. Also, it looks like GDS is still strong.
Surprised not to see any Hollow One or Bridgevine decks.
Where does it say they failed? They listed the intended effect of the ban being "allow room for other aggressive decks to shine." They then state that Artifact-aggro decks remained popular and a few other aggressive decks emerged. That sounds like they succeeded. Zoo suffered (as expected) but to a larger degree than they anticipated, so it was unbanned. Nowhere in the unban announcement do they state any failures.
But please feel free to respond with a bunch of capital words again.
Yeah, when people use caps it's like shouting and the topic becomes tense.
I do agree the things they did with Nacatl is the right thing.
But please feel free to respond with a bunch of capital words again.
Looking at your signature, just imagine if Slippery Bogle and Simian Spirit Guide were banned because they were supplanting all these similar decks that don't exist (and still didn't exist after the ban). Your decks technically still exist, but are more or less unplayable trash with no meaningful notoriety for 2+ years. Then some other random cards get printed to build up other completely different decks that use less than 10% crossover cards, and everyone tells you that you should like that and shut up about losing your old deck because it's not coming back.
Given that the field is currently diverse (one of the reasons for the Twin ban was the allegation that it was holding back diversity) and given that "similar decks" are very viable (the other reason for the Twin ban was the allegation that it was holding back "similar decks"), why would Wizards unban Twin under the Nacatl precedent? Remember, they won't admit the ban was wrong under the Nacatl precedent. They will simply see if the unban will address a format need. As the format is currently diverse and as there are viable similar decks, I just don't see a future where Twin is unbanned. No amount of your arguing about the ban's injustice will change that, because for the dozenth time, Wizards doesn't care if a ban was unjust when they revisit it. They only care about the card's effect on the current metagame.
I'm too tilted that you feel the Twin ban accomplished diversity in today's meta to address these directly without devolving into frustration.
I have repeated hundreds of arguments hundreds of times and been banned for these repetitions twice. I have previously addressed every single thing you have said and I would simply be repeating myself yet again here. If I address this, it will be after I sit on it to avoid possibly getting banned again. But I grossly disagree with your analysis on several levels.
I never said the Twin ban accomplished that diversity. You assumed this or misinterpreted this, potentially because you are, by your own admission, tilted and devolving into frustration. I simply said the format is diverse. That is simply a description of Modern's state, not an evaluation. In fact, in the past, I have been on record in saying that it is currently diverse for numerous reasons and we have no idea to what extent the Twin ban did or did not contribute to that. We only know that it is currently diverse.
Similarly, we know there are non-Twin blue decks that are currently viable. Again, we don't know why that is specifically and we don't know how the Twin ban did or did not contributed to this. I also made no attempt to explain why. I am simply saying they are viable.
So we know the format is diverse and we know other blue decks are viable by unspecified means. We also know that Twin was banned because it allegedly made the format less diverse and made other blue decks less viable. We further know that Nacatl was unbanned because its stated ban aims were never achieved by any means and that Nacatl was never unbanned because the initial ban was unjust/unfair/etc. Given this, it is at best a stretch and at worst a deliberate warping to say that the Nacatl precedent suggests a Twin unban is possible.
The only way to effectively argue for a Twin unban is to somehow make the case that Twin would increase format diversity in this current metagame. Repeating the alleged injustice of the ban does not do this.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1 mana hard counter? yeah that seems way too strong. remember push is only killing a creature. 1 mana counterspells are dangerous. just look at stubborn denial and all the hoops people jump through to turn that thing on.
is it out of bounds by a wide margin though? probably not. however you would be asking people to fight it by playing 4+ cmc spells. normally youd think that would equate to the format slowing down, but it would just incentivize cheating on mana costs more.
on another note we have 3 major modern events going on this weekend (gp hong kong, gp stockholmn, scg syracuse). interested to see what shakes out.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)This leads into my next point, how does Twin look compared to current Modern? Modern as a whole has increased in power rather substantially in the nearly 3 years that Twin has been banned. The Twin deck, though, hasn't really gotten a lot of upgrades. It's pretty much just Opt instead of some number of Serum Visions, and a couple JTMS in the board replacing Jace, Architect of Thought. SCG just finished their series running Twin through the current Modern gauntlet, so let's go over it.
Twin vs. Humans: Twin won 2 to 1. If anyone's confused right now, yes, Humans actually won game 2. Both Todds thought the Meddling Mage was a 3/3, but it was actually a 4/4, so Anderson was actually dead, but they had recorded the life totals incorrectly. Game 1 was a long grindy game where Stevens got Anderson down to 7 life and had a Vial on 3 with a Reflector Mage in hand, but Anderson upkeep flashed in a third Exarch to tap the Vial, then played Twin on his main phase, which was a pretty sick line. Game 2 was also a long game that Stevens actually won. Game 3 was a game where Blood Moon actually just won the game on turn 3, because Stevens didn't have a Vial. On my impressions of the matchup, I think it's hard to say because Stevens really didn't draw many of his disruptive creatures like Freebooter or Thalia. He also was not playing a list with big Thalia, which shuts down the Twin combo. Blood Moon is really good against Humans if they don't have a Vial, so that probably steals some games, and Humans doesn't play much instant speed interaction outside of Vial shenanigans, which might change if Twin were unbanned. My feeling is that Twin would be slightly favored, but it feels pretty close to 50/50.
Twin vs. Hardened Scales: Hardened Scales won 2 to 1. Here's the matchup where we got the one and only turn 4 Twin kill that people in this thread and on reddit like to pretend happened every other game with Twin. In games 2 and 3 he didn't find the combo fast enough and got run over. My impressions of the matchup: Twin used to be pretty heavily favored against Affinity, but Hardened Scales I think has some better tools for the matchup. A 4/4 Walking Ballista on the battlefield is on-board combo protection, and they don't have much problem getting a Ballista to a 4/4. Twin would probably have to turn 4 them to win, and if they took much longer than that to find the combo, they'd have a rough time. My feeling is that Twin would probably be favored, but it's definitely better for Hardened Scales than it used to be for Affinity.
Twin vs. UW Control: Twin won 2 to 1. All three games were long and grindy affairs with tons of interaction, and could have gone either way. Stevens boarded out Terminus, which I feel is wrong. He ended up dying to tempo beats in the second game, and then in the third game he had to use both of his D Spheres to clear the board of Anderson's Snapcasters, and then had no answer for Anderson's Jace. The games were a lot of fun to watch, though. My impressions of the matchup: UW would be favored. I don't think you board out all your Terminus against Twin, and Stevens was also running a list with Telling Time, which is just awful. UW and Jeskai were always favored against Twin back in the day, and those decks are both a lot better now than they used to be, so they should be pretty solid favorites in the matchup.
Twin vs. G Tron: Twin technically won 2 to 1. Stevens punted away game 3 when he was like 99% to win the game. He had an O Stone on board, Tron online, Warping Wail and Nature's Claim in hand, and he tapped out to put himself dead to the combo to play and crack a Relic and then cast a Karn that didn't really do anything when he could have waited a turn to play Karn with Warping Wail backup. That's not a mistake I would expect a good player like Stevens to make if he were actually playing in a tournament. As for the matchup: Twin historically was favored against green versions of Tron, but it became a lot closer right before the ban. Tron's gotten some new tools for the matchup, like Warping Wail, Thought-knot Seer, and Walking Ballista. I think it would be pretty close to a 50/50, or maybe even Tron being slightly favored these days.
Twin vs. Mardu Pyromancer: Mardu won 2 to 1. And here we see the kind of deck that is good against Twin in action. The Mardu deck just picked Twin apart. Anderson was able to squeak out game 3 when Stevens drew pretty poorly and he topdecked a Twin off a Cryptic tap draw, and then untapped and drew a Negate to back it up. The first two games were pretty much bloodbaths, though. Stevens just stripped Anderson's hand with discard spells in both games, and beat him down before Anderson could recover. Pretty easy to guess how this matchup would go, Mardu would be heavily favored. They have the interaction of Jund from back in the day, but they also have deck velocity that Jund never had. I also expect that Mardu would play more Terminates if Twin were around.
So overall, we have two matchups that felt like Twin was slightly favored, one that felt pretty close to 50/50, and two that felt like it was unfavored. Honestly, nothing I saw in those videos made me think that Twin was too powerful still (if it even was back in 2016). The vaunted turn 4 kill that people in here pretend used to happen all the time happened once in 15 games. That's pretty in line with our previous estimate that it happened around 5% of the time. When something is broken, you can see it. Caleb Durward did a banned list series a few years back where he tested things like Chrome Mox and Hypergenesis, and several things on the banned list were very clearly broken. Twin is not broken. I strongly feel like if it were unbanned, it would be just another good Modern deck to go along with the 20 other good decks in the format. Its power level never felt like an outlier at any point in the SCG videos.
UBR Grixis Shadow UBR
UR Izzet Phoenix UR
UW UW Control UW
GB GB Rock GB
Commander
BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG
BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
I've tried to avoid all this Twin talk, but I think Twin proponents are just living in this fantasy world where the "injustices" done to them are somehow greater than those of other decks' pilots whose decks were also hit with bans.
You brought up Amulet, saying it "lives on." The deck has been much less powerful than it was with Summer Bloom. It was not a widely-used deck at the time of its banning, though, so people ignore that. In Dredge's case, GGT's initial ban was warranted, I think everyone agrees. When it was unbanned, it was because the archetype had suffered, and the meta was in a spot where the archetype could use a booster shot, and it wasn't until after new Dredge pieces were printed that the card was, again, rightfully banned. There weren't mistakes, the Modern pool of available cards is just always shifting, and bans need to be fluid to allow for that.
Now, onto Twin. Everyone keeps saying Twin is "dead". When anyone dares to mention that Kiki-Exarch is a deck, the Twin supporters vehemently say it's not the same deck, that a 5 mana creature is not the same as a 4 mana enchantment that does the same thing, that it isn't close to as effective as Twin was. Guess what? You're right. In the same way that Amulet Titan is "not the same" as Bloom Titan, decks that use some form of Exarch/Kiki combo to win are "not the same" as Twin. Twin was ultra efficient and minimally deck-constraining. To expect something that powerful is foolish.
Do you really think that Eggs is the same deck as KCI? Because it isn't. People had to get by with their sub-par version of Eggs before Scrap Trawler's printing, but I'm sure if any Eggs players were to voice complaints in this time, Twin players would adamantly claim their loss was bigger.
TLDR; Twin has its parallels in the Modern pantheon of decks today, and Twin proponents for some reason think they are owed more than other deck pilots who have similarly lost decks.
10 UW control
4 jeskai control
4 bant spirits
4 humans
2 GDS
1 burn
1 abzan (probably duke)
1 counters company
1 hardened scales
1 kci
1 martyr proc
1 storm
1 ur ascension
personally i thought hardened scales would have been higher. the euro pro scene has a lot of control players, or so ive heard. couple that with the decks nice looking matchup spread and it isnt surprising to see so much UW.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)KCI now is better than Eggs was previously.
Amulet Titan going from a "turn 2 deck" to a turn 3-4ish deck is still pretty good.
Twin going from a "turn 4 deck" to a turn 5-6ish deck, with clunky mana, and much more fragile is really, really bad.
I say that last line from months and months of trial and experimentation, as well as returning to try every couple months over the past year. If the stars align, it's great. But often, it's just not good enough, and the lack of results over the past 3 years mirror that.
Which leads me into a CFB article I saw this morning about UW/Jeskai:
"Modern is a tricky format, because of the “matchup lottery.” Whether your deck choice ends up being perfect or awful hinges largely upon the random pairings you receive, an aspect of the game a player has no control over. If you are paired against a handful of good matchups on the day, you feel like a genius. When the pairings go against you, not so much. All we can do is choose decks we believe will give us the strongest chance of winning the most matches, search for exploitable edges, refine our lists, and practice finding the best plays."
https://www.channelfireball.com/articles/is-u-w-based-control-the-best-deck-in-modern/
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I think we could actually see the game break down to this.
10 UW control
4 jeskai control
4 bant spirits
4 humans
I've seen a lot of talk about how Spirits is a better Humans, and we know UW is great, while I linked UW+R in an article in the UWR thread.
Is Teferi/Search/Jace/FoR/Terminus all too much?
Spirits
I fully agree with this. If Twin could be a 5%-6% deck like basically all the other Tier 2 (by prevalence) strategies in Modern, that would be great and more people would probably support an unban. Unfortunately, there is no good reason to think this would happen. Twin was 18.75% of GP/PT T8s when it was banned. The net BGx share was equal to the share of UR Twin alone. This deck was very dominant at that particular level which we know Wizards most cares about and cites in B&R updates (except perhaps MTGO, which is more of a black box now). If we are happy using the example of deck diversity that I posted earlier (i.e. 28 unique decks in both 2015 and 2018, 12 surviving from 2015 and 16 going extinct since then), we should also be using the prevalence precedent. This is not favorable to Twin. And before people cite the inevitable BBE comparison (banned at an absurd percentage, unbanned and fine), this is not usable due to the competing presence of DRS in that deck when BBE was legal.
I'm okay trying to bootstap our samples as much as possible to compensate for small Ns. I'm also okay extrapolating from smaller N samples to estimate possible MWPs. But N=1 matches? I'm still dealing with flak from N=20 MWP estimates. I would have been downvoted to oblivion on Reddit with my recent MWP post if I had posted N=1 matchup data. So I think we can all agree there is no meaningful information we can draw from the SCG Vs. Series example.
Unrelated: interesting decks in the GP Trial lists -
https://magic.wizards.com/en/events/coverage/gpsto18/trial-winning-decklists-grand-prix-stockholm-2018-2018-09-15
https://magic.wizards.com/en/events/coverage/gphk18/trial-winning-decklists-2018-09-14
I don't think these are particularly predictive of T8/T32 standings, but they do tend to list viable decks which do indicate Modern metagame standings.
Spirits
And as I pointed out previously, this number was decided (as well as BOTH GP wins) on the backs of four tiebreakers over the span of a year. Twin was banned because of four tiebreakers, and then a bunch of infuriatingly wrong and ultimately meaningless nonsense.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Also playable in modern means powerful. (Playable as in can compete not “oh thats cute”)
As for the 50 most played cards thats sideboard included. Do you really want ceremonious rejection to be the recent premium counter spell in recent memory? Is that comparable to anything else? Sadly it is not.
The point is the best counterspell wotc has given us in recent sets is strictly only sideboard playable. Yet the best removal has been jammed by the playset.
RUAffinityUR
GMono Green StompyG
CEldrazi TronC
URWJeskai GeistWRU
WRBoros BurnRW
BRWMardu PyromancerWRB
It‘s banned, just in case anyone missed that.
And just to avoid the warning: Modern deck diversity feels good right now and will probably change for the better with the addition of Assassin‘s Trophy, which in turn might justify some long overdue unbans as more unconditional removal is being printed.
Legacy: Death&Taxes (almost there)
EDH: Squee, Goblin Nabob / Phelddagrif
First, few of the Twin defenders seemed to care about tiebreakers when I have posted about them earlier this year. There were lots of notable T8 misses due to tiebreakers with UW Control (Dagen at Lyon, Rockenbach at Phoenix, Mechin at Barcelona, Sasso at Sao Paulo, Seegelken at Prague) and Blue Moon (Paglia at Phoenix, Sabia at Hartford), and yet I saw blue and Twin players belittle those finishes throughout 2018 as a way to justify the narrative that blue decks weren't performing. I've seen the "blue sucks" camp takes T8s as total gospel throughout 2018 to prove their narrative that various decks weren't viable. I'm not digging through post histories to find the quotes but I do remember them, so I'm not super enthused to see this flipped when it suits yours purposes.
More importantly, Wizards doesn't care about tiebreakers in B&R updates. Let's not invent goalposts just to justify narratives. I've deliberately stopped citing things like SCG events when assessing the B&R/metagame picture, because I know Wizards has never cited them. They cite GP/PT T8s and MTGO. I'm sticking to that until proven otherwise. Also, stop trying to prove that the ban was unjust. THIS IS NOT HOW CARDS GET UNBANNED. Find me a single Modern B&R update where Wizards admits a previous unban was "unjust" or "wrong" or something similar and reverses it on those grounds. This does not happen. They primarily care about a card's impact on current metagme diversity and they assess its rationale in light of the current format. Your crusade against the old Twin ban rationale does not align with this unban approach and earns your camp far more enemies and annoyed bystanders than allies.
None of that is relevant to the point that a deck was BANNED BECAUSE OF THOSE NUMBERS. Numbers I have argued for YEARS were unnecessarily inflated (especially when combined with the absolutely WORTHLESS Pro Tour data).
You can paint a rosy picture with all the mediocre T2 decks you want, and shove a deck which is nothing like it and whose existence is completely unrelated to the banning down our throats. Nothing will undo the insulting injustice of this ban other than releasing it or functionally reprinting it.
As far as fixing an unjust ban, Wild Nacatl had EXACTLY THAT HAPPEN. Because that ban was ALSO A FAILURE.
Which is both frustrating and depressing.
Meanwhile, Eldrazi creatures mock me every day with their very existence.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I don't understand why you are arguing this to me in such an aggressive manner. I am on record with probably the longest and most-researched article online about why the Twin ban was done under false pretenses to shakeup a PT. I still believe that. But the ban being unjust is not a justification to reverse it. You, ids, and a few others frame this like it's a wrongful conviction of a human being for a crime they did not commit. The justice and exoneration bars are different. The only thing that matters for unbannings is if it would positively impact metagame diversity. Twin defenders have yet to make this case in any objective or convincing way (but again, if I have missed this case-making, I apologize for missing it and please point me in the right direction). Instead, they tirelessly hammer that the ban was unjust. This doesn't matter.
I'm glad you cite this example because it's the perfect example to illustrate why Twin is not getting unbanned. Here's the specific rationale for its unbanning:
"At the time Wild Nacatl was banned, we hoped that this would allow room for other aggressive decks to shine. Artifact-based aggressive strategies have remained popular and a few other aggressive decks have emerged, but the Zoo decks eventually disappeared as a result of the ban and nothing else emerged as a viable traditional aggressive deck. We expect that with the return of Wild Nacatl, those decks will return as a viable option."
Wizards wanted "other aggressive decks to shine." But then, "the Zoo decks eventually disappeared..." AND "...nothing else emerged as a viable traditional aggressive decks." They wanted to undo this with the unban, hoping "these decks will return as a viable option." Notice that they never say the ban was wrong at the time. They simply say it didn't work out.
Given that the field is currently diverse (one of the reasons for the Twin ban was the allegation that it was holding back diversity) and given that "similar decks" are very viable (the other reason for the Twin ban was the allegation that it was holding back "similar decks"), why would Wizards unban Twin under the Nacatl precedent? Remember, they won't admit the ban was wrong under the Nacatl precedent. They will simply see if the unban will address a format need. As the format is currently diverse and as there are viable similar decks, I just don't see a future where Twin is unbanned. No amount of your arguing about the ban's injustice will change that, because for the dozenth time, Wizards doesn't care if a ban was unjust when they revisit it. They only care about the card's effect on the current metagame.
I'm too tilted that you feel the Twin ban accomplished diversity in today's meta to address these directly without devolving into frustration.
I have repeated hundreds of arguments hundreds of times and been banned for these repetitions twice. I have previously addressed every single thing you have said and I would simply be repeating myself yet again here. If I address this, it will be after I sit on it to avoid possibly getting banned again. But I grossly disagree with your analysis on several levels.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Sorry, do we get extra internet points for typing in all caps or something?
At the time Wild Nacatl was banned, we hoped that this would allow room for other aggressive decks to shine. Artifact-based aggressive strategies have remained popular and a few other aggressive decks have emerged, but the Zoo decks eventually disappeared as a result of the ban and nothing else emerged as a viable traditional aggressive deck. We expect that with the return of Wild Nacatl, those decks will return as a viable option.
Where does it say they failed? They listed the intended effect of the ban being "allow room for other aggressive decks to shine." They then state that Artifact-aggro decks remained popular and a few other aggressive decks emerged. That sounds like they succeeded. Zoo suffered (as expected) but to a larger degree than they anticipated, so it was unbanned. Nowhere in the unban announcement do they state any failures.
But please feel free to respond with a bunch of capital words again.
Is the meta diverse? Arguably yes. It is so due to 3 additional years of printing new powerful cards, but it is (based on Wizards comments) arguably diverse.
Are there blue decks seeing play? Yes. If they are 'similar decks' is up for debate. You and I know they are not similar, but thats not particularly relevant to a company that is on record as NOT TESTING MODERN.
Twin will not be unbanned, but I'll still tell people why they are wrong (not you or ktk in this case) about why it was banned, the impact it DID NOT HAVE in being banned, and so on.
If people want to see less Twin talk, then they need to stop making ignorant and false comments about the deck.
Spirits
Nice to see Abzan and Hardened Scales there. Also, it looks like GDS is still strong.
Surprised not to see any Hollow One or Bridgevine decks.
Yeah, when people use caps it's like shouting and the topic becomes tense.
I do agree the things they did with Nacatl is the right thing.
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
Looking at your signature, just imagine if Slippery Bogle and Simian Spirit Guide were banned because they were supplanting all these similar decks that don't exist (and still didn't exist after the ban). Your decks technically still exist, but are more or less unplayable trash with no meaningful notoriety for 2+ years. Then some other random cards get printed to build up other completely different decks that use less than 10% crossover cards, and everyone tells you that you should like that and shut up about losing your old deck because it's not coming back.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I never said the Twin ban accomplished that diversity. You assumed this or misinterpreted this, potentially because you are, by your own admission, tilted and devolving into frustration. I simply said the format is diverse. That is simply a description of Modern's state, not an evaluation. In fact, in the past, I have been on record in saying that it is currently diverse for numerous reasons and we have no idea to what extent the Twin ban did or did not contribute to that. We only know that it is currently diverse.
Similarly, we know there are non-Twin blue decks that are currently viable. Again, we don't know why that is specifically and we don't know how the Twin ban did or did not contributed to this. I also made no attempt to explain why. I am simply saying they are viable.
So we know the format is diverse and we know other blue decks are viable by unspecified means. We also know that Twin was banned because it allegedly made the format less diverse and made other blue decks less viable. We further know that Nacatl was unbanned because its stated ban aims were never achieved by any means and that Nacatl was never unbanned because the initial ban was unjust/unfair/etc. Given this, it is at best a stretch and at worst a deliberate warping to say that the Nacatl precedent suggests a Twin unban is possible.
The only way to effectively argue for a Twin unban is to somehow make the case that Twin would increase format diversity in this current metagame. Repeating the alleged injustice of the ban does not do this.