I didn't say that every ban was related to this. First of all, in the initial banlist they basically banned all the best decks from Extended. After the first Modern Pro Tour, they banned a bunch of cards from all the best performing decks. About a year later, the two best decks were Jund and Storm, so BBE and Seething Song got banned. A year after that, Jund was still the best deck, so DRS got banned. A year after that, putting aside the obviously broken Treasure Cruise, the best deck was Pod, so that got banned. The next year, Twin was the best deck, so it was banned. I'm not saying that all of these bans weren't justified, but WotC was obviously actively pruning the power of the format to keep it more modest. It wasn't really until Pod when people were grumbling about this, and until Twin when there was a sizeable backlash. The backlash of the Twin ban caused them to back off being so aggressive with their bans, and I would say that everything that's been banned since has been justified.
This is a more interesting discussion point. For reference, here's the original quote that Wraith appears to be clarifying:
Let's not kid ourselves here, Twin got banned because WotC was in the habit of banning the best deck every year to keep Modern's power level in check, and Twin just happened to be the best deck of 2015. The community outrage over the Twin banning is precisely why WotC has let up on their bans. I have no doubt that GDS would have been banned last year, and probably Humans and KCI this year, under their old way of doing things. And under their current more conservative approach, Twin probably wouldn't have been banned.
Emphasis added. This bolded statement is sort-of, kind-of true, but not in any meaningful sense. It's true in the sense that the real ban criteria of "T4 rule violation" and "metagame diversity violation" tend to also be associated with best decks. That is, if your deck is strong enough to be 25% of the metagame, it's probably the best at the time. But it's not true in the sense that a best deck at any time is in danger of a ban, with the sole exception of Twin. You can't use "best deck" and "metagame diversity violator"/"T4 rule violator" as synonymous.
Up until Twin, all of the metagame diversity violators were pretty stark and extreme. BBE Jund exceeded 25% of the metagame. DRS BGx was 20%-25% depending on what stats you looked at. Pod and TC were in the 20% range. Comparing prevalence exceeding 20% to deck prevalence in normal, healthy Modern (where nothing sustains >15% for longer than a few months), and it's clear this is a few deviations over the norm. Twin was obviously questionable from a metagame share perspective, and I've already argued multiple times with extensive evidence, whether or not one agrees with it, that the true reason to ban Twin was to shake up the PT. But as you said, since then, Wizards has stopped this practice.
If we are going to talk about historical ban context, we need to use the known methods, quotes, metrics, and standards that Wizards used at the time. This means we should not infer that a "best deck" was banned when Wizards literally offered explanations for each ban that cited a series of reasons that did not include that deck being the best. The exception to this was Twin, when I and others did some intensive digging to build extensive cases for ulterior motives. But that case-building cannot be done with a single paragraph.
Yeah I remember, and I think a lot of people around here at least hung on your website and words at the time, its why it was such a body blow when the hammer came down.
Yeah I remember, and I think a lot of people around here at least hung on your website and words at the time, its why it was such a body blow when the hammer came down.
One of the issues is that I placed too much emphasis on overall metagame share to predict bans, when GP/PT T8s were a better predictor. I've adjusted since then, which is one reason I and others in this thread have successfully and confidently defended a "No changes/No bans" standpoint when it comes to metagame/format diversity violators since Eldrazi Winter. This, despite crap like people calling for bans on Humans, GDS, Gx Tron, and other decks that appeared to be the "best" but were unequivocally not violating the best ban indicators we had. T4 rule violators are harder to assess because it requires access to data we don't have. Other ban criteria, e.g. battle of sideboards, are also more opaque.
To be real, WotC can always ban whatever they want and just come up with an excuse afterwards. Like with the Dredge ban, we all knew that Dredge was a problem, but it couldn't kill before turn 4, and it was only like 6 to 8% of the meta. It was having a bad effect on the format, though, because the slower fair decks didn't have the tools to fight it. That made it the best choice to instead just play something that beat Dredge, which were the super fast turn 2/3 aggro/combo decks like Infect, Suicide Zoo, and Bloo. So WotC probably knew something in Dredge had to go before they even knew what their justification for the ban would be, lol
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern 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
it always baffles me that wotc left behind its most ellegant sollution to this problem, which is restricting cards
this game has never been about 4 copies or bust; hell, one of its beauties is that flexibilization. restricting says "hey, we printed this awesomely powerful card, but we all agree playing 4 of these ****s it all up, so lets keep it down but keep on playing." its a classy way to fix a mistake.
whats more, i believe that modern could have a semi restricted category, which allows two copies. twin, for example, which a gazillion people still whine about for some reason, would still be a powerful deck with this restriction.
banning would be only for truly broken stuff.
such a system retains partial card value, doesnt anger players (only ***** thats clearly op would get a ban, resulting in no bitter surprises) and keeps decks alive.
why does wotc work with this black and white system is confusing. it is literarlly opposed to the idea of "ballancing." maybe cause it requires thorough research/testing?
edit: can also add that restriction would be a safe and easy way to remove cards from the banlist when seeming appropriate.
it always baffles me that wotc left behind its most ellegant sollution to this problem, which is restricting cards
this game has never been about 4 copies or bust; hell, one of its beauties is that flexibilization. restricting says "hey, we printed this awesomely powerful card, but we all agree playing 4 of these ****s it all up, so lets keep it down but keep on playing." its a classy way to fix a mistake.
whats more, i believe that modern could have a semi restricted category, which allows two copies. twin, for example, which a gazillion people still whine about for some reason, would still be a powerful deck with this restriction.
banning would be only for truly broken stuff.
such a system retains partial card value, doesnt anger players (only ***** thats clearly op would get a ban, resulting in no bitter surprises) and keeps decks alive.
why does wotc work with this black and white system is confusing. it is literarlly opposed to the idea of "ballancing." maybe cause it requires thorough research/testing?
edit: can also add that restriction would be a safe and easy way to remove cards from the banlist when seeming appropriate.
they could also expand sideboard size. i cant say for sure why wizards hasnt turned to restricting cards outside of vintage, and nothing readily popped up when searching. i can only surmise that they want to maintain a level of similarity or standardization of constructed formats, and opening that door of tailored differences for each format might have implications they dont want to consider or cant foresee.
we even see it on arena and how unsettled many players are to this shift towards best-of-1. sure they can take steps to make it work, especially in digital form, but it may have some deeper ramifications for the game as a whole. the stats show it is the most played by far on the arena platform, but emphasizing it in competitive play would be jarring for many players to say the least. even i was perturbed that the player of the year match between salvatto and manfield was bo1.
vintage having restricted cards doesnt ruffle any feathers because the format is mostly an oddity played by a very exclusive crowd.
i mean should they implement a full restricted list right off the bat? for every format? start with an empty list and add cards one at a time?
its just easier to see it as a system with a set of rules or constraints, then solve problems within them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
I honestly think Restricted cards exist in Vintage solely because it is technically the only format where every single card can be played (except for Ante and dexterity cards). Banning cards is antithetical to the entire purpose of the format. I'm not sure there really is much to be gained by implementing a Restricted list in other formats; it adds a level of difficulty to managing events where you need to be able to show you only have 1/2 of a card instead of 4 (sure, that's already a thing, but it would be more tempting for people to sneak in copies 3-4 of Twin than a fifth KCI), and if you're restricting a card, isn't it already on its way to being ban-worthy?
The Duelists' Convocation International (DCI) announces the
elimination of the official Standard (Type II) Restricted List,
effective January 1, 1997. Henceforth, only the Banned List will
affect Standard tournament-deck construction (in addition to the
existing DCI Standard Floor Rules). Cards that currently appear on the
Standard Restricted List and that remain in the tournament environment
after the departure of Fallen Empires and Ice Age on January 1, 1997,
will be moved to the Standard (Type II) Banned List.
Therefore, on January 1, 1997, the official Banned List for sanctioned
Standard (Type II) tournaments will appear as follows:
2.3.2 The Banned List for Standard (Type II) tournaments:
?Any card not specifically permitted by rule 2.3
?Any ante card contained in any newly released card set
?Balance
?Black Vise
?Bronze Tablet
?Channel
?Ivory Tower
?Jeweled Bird
?Land Tax
?Mind Twist
?Rebirth
?Strip Mine
?Tempest Efreet
?Timmerian Fiends (HM)
The DCI realizes that this change will significantly alter deck
construction and playing strategies in the Standard tournament
environment. However, we believe there are sufficiently compelling
reasons to support this decision.
The 1995 - 96 tournament season demonstrated that restricted cards,
despite being limited to one per deck by card title, frequently
decided the outcome of duels and matches. The ability to swing a duel
or match by drawing or otherwise playing a restricted card introduces
a much higher element of chance into the tournament environment than
is appropriate for an intellectual sport. Eliminating the Restricted
List reduces the randomness factor.
Moreover, the restriction of powerful cards creates a significant
problem in ongoing card design. By way of example, consider the Tutors
in Mirage : Their effectiveness is greatly enhanced by their ability
to retrieve restricted cards from a player's library. Eliminating the
Restricted List creates fewer card design limitations.
While banning or restricting cards is never taken lightly, the absence
of a Restricted List clearly means that DCI must exercise even greater
care when making future decisions.
The DCI hopes you understand the need for this alteration to the
Standard tournament environment.
Sincerely,
Jason Carl
Director, DCI
From way back, but still relevant for the bolded portion added for emphasis above. There will never be another restricted list for competitive formats (outside of Vintage), and for good reason.
To be real, WotC can always ban whatever they want and just come up with an excuse afterwards. Like with the Dredge ban, we all knew that Dredge was a problem, but it couldn't kill before turn 4, and it was only like 6 to 8% of the meta. It was having a bad effect on the format, though, because the slower fair decks didn't have the tools to fight it. That made it the best choice to instead just play something that beat Dredge, which were the super fast turn 2/3 aggro/combo decks like Infect, Suicide Zoo, and Bloo. So WotC probably knew something in Dredge had to go before they even knew what their justification for the ban would be, lol
I've been saying this for years. Chasing and trying to predict what they will or will not do is exceedingly difficult when they have shown that A) they do not need to align with previous actions and B) they can make up new ones at any time for any reason.
Many of the decisions, specifics (and even inactions) across multiple formats the past few years have left many players scratching their heads.
Its sad times, I loved the first half (maybe quarter?) of 2018, blowing up Humans and GW Combo/Value players, but...it wasnt meant to last. It just cannot handle the busted starts anymore. I still think its a fine enough deck, but its not top tier. I dont care what SCG events show time after time.
I do not want to delve to much into this discussion (cause it doesn't belong in here), but as stupid as it may sound, the only reason Eldrazies is a decent deck is because of turn 1 Chalice potential. Otherwise it has real problems in that format.
(and I hated those results, cause they are garbage and do not represent the "format" at all. It would be the same, if you would have suddenly 5 Kiki Twin decks in the top 8 in Modern...)
Some very interesting data (some very weird though, as is that KCI is 72% favoured vs GDS, which is wrong), but the N is small on some matchups.
Let's see if this can change the Twin biased talk from some users into something more meaningful.
Some interesting things, sadly he didn't add the most important one: What was the average MVP of the recorded decks? THAT would be super interesting, since you already have a relative decent data set.
Greetings,
Kathal
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What I play or have:
Modern/Legacy
either funpolice (Delver, Deathcloud, UW Control) or the fun decks (especially those ft. Griselbrand)
Some interesting things, sadly he didn't add the most important one: What was the average MVP of the recorded decks? THAT would be super interesting, since you already have a relative decent data set.
I like his mix of main deck spells, but I don't really like the main deck Spellskites. It's not good against enough of the top decks to warrant the main deck spots. I don't really love the Forked Bolt either
I like this build well enough. I would make changes in my first build because I want an all in combo version.
I LOVE THE 2 MAIN DECK SPELLSKITES!
I was saved by my spellskites many times before the ban. Resolving two removal spells in a turn is way harder for your opponent than one.
This is not as good I'm sure, but this is what I would be trying out. This is an all in combo version. Side board needs anger of the gods and all kinds of things since my version is less flexible.
Ya I won't post any more deck lists. I hope I didn't actually bother anybody to much with that. I just wanted to show not everybody is trying to be ultra competitive and use twin like a crutch. I had a lot of fun with a build close to that before and I would so enjoy playing it again. With it being an all in combo deck it won't win as much as the tempo builds, but it was so fun.
if you didnt care about being competitive you could play kiki jiki. thats the whole point, having the deck AND having it be good enough to win. what is implicit in 'good enough' is that the power or strength would be there, and part of twins power/strength was that it provided some number of free wins. no 'sculpting' or anything going on, just good old fashion variance that comes with an insta-win 2 card combo.
if the deck was truly close to even with jund, that is the most likely place where it got its percentage points. 'hey your deck wrecks mine on paper, but i can always just topdeck!'. i speak from experience because twin was my first modern deck, and i clearly remember cheesing wins even though i was a mediocre/poor player. it even took me a while to come to terms boarding out the combo against the heavy interaction decks, cause just killing out of nowhere kept winning me so many games.
edit: note im not saying any, including you metalmusic_4, wants twin back to use as a crutch. i just believe that it is disengenuous to expound upon the virtues of twin, and how it might help reign in modern, without pointing out that it was in fact not a fair deck. it had an easier axis to interact with, but the deck could end games by 'getting lucky' much like many of decks people criticize. you cant force people to pay attention and care about what you are doing purely with interaction.
yeah it aint an all bad thing, and i do think it would probably do more good than harm. its why i also think that gsz is an acceptable unban candidate. even if it enables some combo shennanigans, it will likely be creature based and care about removal. if it powers up some fair midrange toolbox deck or whatever, all the better.
i honestly dont think many people want to reinvent the format or just have it become something else (or something it was). just tip the scales.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is a more interesting discussion point. For reference, here's the original quote that Wraith appears to be clarifying:
Emphasis added. This bolded statement is sort-of, kind-of true, but not in any meaningful sense. It's true in the sense that the real ban criteria of "T4 rule violation" and "metagame diversity violation" tend to also be associated with best decks. That is, if your deck is strong enough to be 25% of the metagame, it's probably the best at the time. But it's not true in the sense that a best deck at any time is in danger of a ban, with the sole exception of Twin. You can't use "best deck" and "metagame diversity violator"/"T4 rule violator" as synonymous.
Up until Twin, all of the metagame diversity violators were pretty stark and extreme. BBE Jund exceeded 25% of the metagame. DRS BGx was 20%-25% depending on what stats you looked at. Pod and TC were in the 20% range. Comparing prevalence exceeding 20% to deck prevalence in normal, healthy Modern (where nothing sustains >15% for longer than a few months), and it's clear this is a few deviations over the norm. Twin was obviously questionable from a metagame share perspective, and I've already argued multiple times with extensive evidence, whether or not one agrees with it, that the true reason to ban Twin was to shake up the PT. But as you said, since then, Wizards has stopped this practice.
If we are going to talk about historical ban context, we need to use the known methods, quotes, metrics, and standards that Wizards used at the time. This means we should not infer that a "best deck" was banned when Wizards literally offered explanations for each ban that cited a series of reasons that did not include that deck being the best. The exception to this was Twin, when I and others did some intensive digging to build extensive cases for ulterior motives. But that case-building cannot be done with a single paragraph.
Spirits
One of the issues is that I placed too much emphasis on overall metagame share to predict bans, when GP/PT T8s were a better predictor. I've adjusted since then, which is one reason I and others in this thread have successfully and confidently defended a "No changes/No bans" standpoint when it comes to metagame/format diversity violators since Eldrazi Winter. This, despite crap like people calling for bans on Humans, GDS, Gx Tron, and other decks that appeared to be the "best" but were unequivocally not violating the best ban indicators we had. T4 rule violators are harder to assess because it requires access to data we don't have. Other ban criteria, e.g. battle of sideboards, are also more opaque.
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
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)this game has never been about 4 copies or bust; hell, one of its beauties is that flexibilization. restricting says "hey, we printed this awesomely powerful card, but we all agree playing 4 of these ****s it all up, so lets keep it down but keep on playing." its a classy way to fix a mistake.
whats more, i believe that modern could have a semi restricted category, which allows two copies. twin, for example, which a gazillion people still whine about for some reason, would still be a powerful deck with this restriction.
banning would be only for truly broken stuff.
such a system retains partial card value, doesnt anger players (only ***** thats clearly op would get a ban, resulting in no bitter surprises) and keeps decks alive.
why does wotc work with this black and white system is confusing. it is literarlly opposed to the idea of "ballancing." maybe cause it requires thorough research/testing?
edit: can also add that restriction would be a safe and easy way to remove cards from the banlist when seeming appropriate.
they could also expand sideboard size. i cant say for sure why wizards hasnt turned to restricting cards outside of vintage, and nothing readily popped up when searching. i can only surmise that they want to maintain a level of similarity or standardization of constructed formats, and opening that door of tailored differences for each format might have implications they dont want to consider or cant foresee.
we even see it on arena and how unsettled many players are to this shift towards best-of-1. sure they can take steps to make it work, especially in digital form, but it may have some deeper ramifications for the game as a whole. the stats show it is the most played by far on the arena platform, but emphasizing it in competitive play would be jarring for many players to say the least. even i was perturbed that the player of the year match between salvatto and manfield was bo1.
vintage having restricted cards doesnt ruffle any feathers because the format is mostly an oddity played by a very exclusive crowd.
i mean should they implement a full restricted list right off the bat? for every format? start with an empty list and add cards one at a time?
its just easier to see it as a system with a set of rules or constraints, then solve problems within them.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)From way back, but still relevant for the bolded portion added for emphasis above. There will never be another restricted list for competitive formats (outside of Vintage), and for good reason.
http://227rsi2stdr53e3wto2skssd7xe-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/ghostsofportland_infographic.png
Spirits
I've been saying this for years. Chasing and trying to predict what they will or will not do is exceedingly difficult when they have shown that A) they do not need to align with previous actions and B) they can make up new ones at any time for any reason.
Many of the decisions, specifics (and even inactions) across multiple formats the past few years have left many players scratching their heads.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Poor Jeskai. Not beating anything
But then Im personally not a fan of sacrificing late-game power and the best sweeper in the format for a bunch of burn spells.
I love infographics though. :]
Spirits
UW didn't fare much better? In the data set, it was 22-23, for a MWP of 48.9%. Woof.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I do not want to delve to much into this discussion (cause it doesn't belong in here), but as stupid as it may sound, the only reason Eldrazies is a decent deck is because of turn 1 Chalice potential. Otherwise it has real problems in that format.
(and I hated those results, cause they are garbage and do not represent the "format" at all. It would be the same, if you would have suddenly 5 Kiki Twin decks in the top 8 in Modern...)
Some interesting things, sadly he didn't add the most important one: What was the average MVP of the recorded decks? THAT would be super interesting, since you already have a relative decent data set.
Greetings,
Kathal
Modern/Legacy
either funpolice (Delver, Deathcloud, UW Control) or the fun decks (especially those ft. Griselbrand)
Deck Wins Losses MWP
Dredge 36 25 59.02%
Burn 44 37 54.32%
HS Affinity 65 55 54.17%
Jund 31 27 53.45%
Tron 114 101 53.02%
UR Phoenix 65 59 52.42%
KCI 58 55 51.33%
Infect 35 35 50.00%
UW Control 22 23 48.89%
Spirits 167 176 48.69%
GDS 33 43 43.42%
Humans 30 40 42.86%
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1emdErSjqy6Ct5Qi5CWXXcusiLD2jAl2bU13qjHITOsA/edit?usp=sharing
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Spirits
I like this build well enough. I would make changes in my first build because I want an all in combo version.
I LOVE THE 2 MAIN DECK SPELLSKITES!
I was saved by my spellskites many times before the ban. Resolving two removal spells in a turn is way harder for your opponent than one.
This is not as good I'm sure, but this is what I would be trying out. This is an all in combo version. Side board needs anger of the gods and all kinds of things since my version is less flexible.
2 Spellskite
4 Deceiver Exarch
3 Pestermite
2 kiki-jiki mirror breaker
4 Island
1 Mountain
1 Cascade Bluffs
1 Desolate Lighthouse
4 Flooded Strand
4 Scalding Tarn
3 Spirebluff Canal
3 Steam Vents
2 Sulfur Falls
3 blood moon
2 JTMS
2 Dispel
4 Lightning Bolt
3 Opt
4 Remand
4 Serum Visions
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Spirits
if the deck was truly close to even with jund, that is the most likely place where it got its percentage points. 'hey your deck wrecks mine on paper, but i can always just topdeck!'. i speak from experience because twin was my first modern deck, and i clearly remember cheesing wins even though i was a mediocre/poor player. it even took me a while to come to terms boarding out the combo against the heavy interaction decks, cause just killing out of nowhere kept winning me so many games.
edit: note im not saying any, including you metalmusic_4, wants twin back to use as a crutch. i just believe that it is disengenuous to expound upon the virtues of twin, and how it might help reign in modern, without pointing out that it was in fact not a fair deck. it had an easier axis to interact with, but the deck could end games by 'getting lucky' much like many of decks people criticize. you cant force people to pay attention and care about what you are doing purely with interaction.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Spirits
i honestly dont think many people want to reinvent the format or just have it become something else (or something it was). just tip the scales.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)