I guess the obvious sarcastic hyperbolic tone to illustrate the double standard wasn't as clear as it was in my head when typing. We have long since passed any serious discussion about Twin and nobody on either side is changing their minds.
emphasis mine again. no, it's not obvious, especially when basically every comment I see you make is along the same sort of lines. You've painted yourself in a corner here, I only see this biased negativity from you, so that's what I assume is your natural mode of discussion.
and: don't hijack a genuine space for discussion by continually adding to it with, in your words, sarcastic hyperbole. That's the 'lack of good faith' thing I was talking about in terms of adding to the discussion. If your only contribution is meant to just pointlessly rile people up (by being, according to you, purposefully false -sarcastic- and exaggerated -hyperbolic-) then that's basically just dragging everyone down around you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: G Tron, Vannifar, Jund, Druid/Vizier combo, Humans, Eldrazi Stompy (Serum Powder), Amulet, Grishoalbrand, Breach Titan, Turns, Eternal Command, As Foretold Living End, Elves, Cheerios, RUG Scapeshift
Some times, I wonder, what would people call Modern if we were to watch Bant Company vs Abzan Company vs Jund vs Abzan vs Eldrazi mirrors all day long...
There was a short time of this, after the Eldrazie ban (Abzan vs Melira CoCo vs Midrange Eldrazie vs Bant CoCo with some sprinkels of Burn and Affinity) and people called it boring.
Than again, been a while since than.
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)
It's just a part of the life cycle of thread. Discussions flow smoothly for days or a few weeks, then twin would be revisited one way or the other. Although I'm surprised it came back with a lot of intensity today.
Not to mention Green gets hexproof and uncounterable stuff often and Gruul gets anti Settle Tech and no counters allowed. Now you think that come with actual good counters but nope the counters are what they have been for years while the counters to counters are better then ever.
What is this "anti settle" tech that Gruul has. A card in Standard that is effective against Settle the Wreckage? I'm just curious to know.
It's just a part of the life cycle of thread. Discussions flow smoothly for days or a few weeks, then twin would be revisited one way or the other. Although I'm surprised it came back with a lot of intensity today.
in fairness it wasnt out of the blue. that whole bit in the TCC + Blake Rassmusen + Steve Sunu 'fact/fiction' interview about twin was a ****-up. the fact that it was a user/player submitted question, the way it was phrased, it being selected as something worth talking about, and the subsequent almost dismissive and unrelated response.
it just highlights how naive the community has and continues to be, and goes to show why wizards employees are often better served not saying anything at all lest it be blown out of proportion after being put under a microscope. 2 guys who likely have minimal to no say in ban/unban decisions, one of which openly said he wasnt even there when the twin ban decision was made (Steve), giving an unrelated and opinionated answer to a loaded question isnt some special insight to be used as proof/evidence of anything.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
So, does this GP result solidify for anyone else that GB Rock is the best build of the GBx Midrange decks? I know people have been trying to force Jund for the past year, but the consistency and power you get from the two color manabase seems to be where it's at.
In my opinion, Golgari has been better positioned than Jund overall since the printing of Trophy, and this GP result sure doesn’t hurt the case!
Conversations along these lines happens with great frequency:
- What are the advantages to playing straight BG over Jund (or Abzan/Sultai)?
- A relatively painless, more consistent, and utility-rich mana base, mostly.
- Well yeah, but is a better mana base really worth giving up Bolt/BBE/K-Command/Ravine/Path/Souls/Stony Silence?
- Yep, it sure is!
The beneficial ripple effects of such a mana base are legion, especially in the context of a midrange deck. Being just two colors saves a significant number of life points against aggro decks. 3-4 Fields of Ruin grants all kinds of edges against big mana decks, manlands, 3c goodstuff decks, and decks which play few basics (and the printing of Trophy has made Field even better). You’re very unlikely to lose to your own mana base via color screw. You get to play Treetop Village, which is a game-winning card. You’ve got a higher density of G sources for Scavenging Ooze relative to other BGx decks. You’re quite resilient to Blood Moon relative to other BGx decks.
I could go on, but woe to those who underestimate the importance of a clean and powerful mana base in a midrange deck.
BG was already better then the other gbx decks way before trophy was printed. Field of Ruin was the turning point imo,2 color decks can play it and dont suffer from it.
I personally agree with you—Field was a massive, massive boost, and enough to put Golgari over the top, following the spate of great prints in 2016–but I think Trophy is what firmly cemented Golgari at the peak of the BGx hierarchy. Or, at least, it’s the printing that gave Rock the public perception of being there or thereabouts relative to Jund’s power level.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
GB Golgari Midrange GB YouTube Channel, with deck techs, gameplay, analysis, spoiler reviews, and more!
It's just a part of the life cycle of thread. Discussions flow smoothly for days or a few weeks, then twin would be revisited one way or the other. Although I'm surprised it came back with a lot of intensity today.
in fairness it wasnt out of the blue. that whole bit in the TCC + Blake Rassmusen + Steve Sunu 'fact/fiction' interview about twin was a ****-up. the fact that it was a user/player submitted question, the way it was phrased, it being selected as something worth talking about, and the subsequent almost dismissive and unrelated response.
it just highlights how naive the community has and continues to be, and goes to show why wizards employees are often better served not saying anything at all lest it be blown out of proportion after being put under a microscope. 2 guys who likely have minimal to no say in ban/unban decisions, one of which openly said he wasnt even there when the twin ban decision was made (Steve), giving an unrelated and opinionated answer to a loaded question isnt some special insight to be used as proof/evidence of anything.
I'm not taking part in the discussion around that deck, but man I'm glad I missed this. Sounds like something I would tilt over for at LEAST a week. :]
Nexus is banned in Bo1 Arena. Instant Speed 'I Win' is no bueno, I'm not shocked.
It's just a part of the life cycle of thread. Discussions flow smoothly for days or a few weeks, then twin would be revisited one way or the other. Although I'm surprised it came back with a lot of intensity today.
in fairness it wasnt out of the blue. that whole bit in the TCC + Blake Rassmusen + Steve Sunu 'fact/fiction' interview about twin was a ****-up. the fact that it was a user/player submitted question, the way it was phrased, it being selected as something worth talking about, and the subsequent almost dismissive and unrelated response.
it just highlights how naive the community has and continues to be, and goes to show why wizards employees are often better served not saying anything at all lest it be blown out of proportion after being put under a microscope. 2 guys who likely have minimal to no say in ban/unban decisions, one of which openly said he wasnt even there when the twin ban decision was made (Steve), giving an unrelated and opinionated answer to a loaded question isnt some special insight to be used as proof/evidence of anything.
Bingo. WOTC staff parroting the same old exaggerated horror stories is fairly tilting. It means that not only do people hold these opinions at WOTC, but it's simply accepted fact in their bubble. What a shame that we, in the community, ever believed they would be capable of thinking otherwise. Time and time again, WOTC staff show their utter incompetence in grasping even the basic fundamentals of Modern. I guess I shouldn't be surprised in the least bit?
It's just a part of the life cycle of thread. Discussions flow smoothly for days or a few weeks, then twin would be revisited one way or the other. Although I'm surprised it came back with a lot of intensity today.
in fairness it wasnt out of the blue. that whole bit in the TCC + Blake Rassmusen + Steve Sunu 'fact/fiction' interview about twin was a ****-up. the fact that it was a user/player submitted question, the way it was phrased, it being selected as something worth talking about, and the subsequent almost dismissive and unrelated response.
it just highlights how naive the community has and continues to be, and goes to show why wizards employees are often better served not saying anything at all lest it be blown out of proportion after being put under a microscope. 2 guys who likely have minimal to no say in ban/unban decisions, one of which openly said he wasnt even there when the twin ban decision was made (Steve), giving an unrelated and opinionated answer to a loaded question isnt some special insight to be used as proof/evidence of anything.
Truth. I was tired of the Twin pouting shortly after it happened, which was what almost 4 years ago now? However, that interview resurrected the topic and made it a relevant topic of discussion again (well, in other sectors of the community anyhow. We know the discussion here is always looming). I'm still wondering why WotC even chose to open that can of worms willingly; the questions were screen and approved beforehand, so they must've thought that two tool bags *****ting on Twin would get some laughs or they're just tone deaf. Either way, that interview actually made me somewhat grateful that WotC is terrible at communicating with players; if those two bone jobs are representative of the PR department as a whole, I'll gladly accept silence over the snarky remarks of those smug jagoffs.
It's just a part of the life cycle of thread. Discussions flow smoothly for days or a few weeks, then twin would be revisited one way or the other. Although I'm surprised it came back with a lot of intensity today.
in fairness it wasnt out of the blue. that whole bit in the TCC + Blake Rassmusen + Steve Sunu 'fact/fiction' interview about twin was a ****-up. the fact that it was a user/player submitted question, the way it was phrased, it being selected as something worth talking about, and the subsequent almost dismissive and unrelated response.
it just highlights how naive the community has and continues to be, and goes to show why wizards employees are often better served not saying anything at all lest it be blown out of proportion after being put under a microscope. 2 guys who likely have minimal to no say in ban/unban decisions, one of which openly said he wasnt even there when the twin ban decision was made (Steve), giving an unrelated and opinionated answer to a loaded question isnt some special insight to be used as proof/evidence of anything.
Bingo. WOTC staff parroting the same old exaggerated horror stories is fairly tilting. It means that not only do people hold these opinions at WOTC, but it's simply accepted fact in their bubble. What a shame that we, in the community, ever believed they would be capable of thinking otherwise. Time and time again, WOTC staff show their utter incompetence in grasping even the basic fundamentals of Modern. I guess I shouldn't be surprised in the least bit?
You keep harping on for the "supposed" incompetence of WotC's (and have been harping on for LITERAL YEARS) and yet, every ******* set you're being proven wrong. Especially the last 4 sets. New cards have been entering Modern and have been making an impact, a year ago 2 cards were unbanned, a month ago a problematic deck was banned.
I fail to see that "incompetence" and "failure to understand Modern". Have they said stupid things? Of course they have. If that's the only thing that, in your eyes, is worth tunnel visioning to, then we can't help you. The rest of us will enjoy the format in it's best state that it's ever been for years. We might disagree on where we want Modern to go or what we want from the format, but we're not laser focusing on a single issue that's been repeatedly shut down, both by the community and WotC themselves. Twin isn't coming back any time soon. Suck it up and deal with it.
How is it that Teysa's OBVIOUSLY sarcastic response is infracted as trolling but CFP's "obviously sarcastic isn't?
Sword of the Meek would break Lantern, Jace too good for Modern. UW miracles best deck in Modern. Stoneforge too good. Etc, etc. etc. Those are just off the top of my head (and avoid the litany of Twin-related statements). Many of their gaffes have been listed and discussed here numerous times.
I remember that I have a debate with @KTK over this 1 or 2 years ago. I was saying that the "unfun to play against" is not a criterion. This quote could mean that it could be. Now, I am not certain, it's just a legitimate thing that's been going through my head for years, and it's a nice subject to break this "FREE TWIN OMG" vicious circle.
It's a shame to lump these together, because most of the people claiming the deck was "unfun" to play against were, themselves, playing a deck that many find "unfun" to play against (something linear, difficult to interact with, folded to decks that require interaction if not racing, etc). Many playing interactive decks, to this day, will still say they were some of the most fun and engaging games they've had in Modern.
Personally, I think it's unfun to have my hand shredded by Burning Inquiry, to die to unblockable infect, to get turn 3 Karned or turn 4 Ugin/Ulamog, to get locked out of being able to draw or play anything, dying from an empty board after someone dredges/birds 15 power into play, dying from an empty board after someone end-step Breaches a Titan and gets Valakuts, dying from an empty board after someone Pacts for a Titan and gives it haste and double strike, dying from an empty board to anything Storm does, and so on and so on. How many of those situations kill me after I should be "safe to tap out on my turn"?
If this idea is actually applied to Modern fairly, then nearly half of all current decks should be banned. So either this is just a silly arbitrary justification for them to nuke a deck they don't like, or they are wild hypocrites, choosing when and when not to enforce any of their publicly-undefined, but-sort-of-acknowledged ban criteria.
Those are comments concerning ban-list items. I think others are saying that, when it comes to designing new and interesting cards for Modern, they've been pretty in-tune with the format. Arclight Phoenix spawned an entire archetype. Hollow One, same thing. Spectacle has a few interesting cards that are being toyed with. Azcanta is clearly a strong card, and don't even start on how Teferi powered up control decks.
They've been actively creating things for Modern for years now, with a pretty good record. To tunnel-vision on the banlist is disingenuous. Yes, it is a defining aspect of our format, but there is a much greater amount of change that comes from each new set they release.
In the case someone says that the "disruption of normal play" is the criterion and the "unfun to play against" clause is just the symptom of the first, which was also @KTK's answer back then, (and I took it), I have to say that Aetherworks Marvel is also being quoted in their text. Marvel did not cause logistical reasons, did not take aeons to play against. It was just unfun to play against, because it was causing "turn 4 scoop it up" moments.
I personally dont think much of their ban list 'logic'. In other words, I think they just do what they want.
If we are to take this as precedent however, then no deck that operates outside the very basic framework of Aggro/Control/Midrange, is fully acceptable, and if you have a deck doing things that are outside the realm of 'normal play', you could EASILY just eat a ban.
Any combo, anything abusing the GY, anything that can be done at instant speed. Take note.
Anyone sell a collection to shops like SCG, or Card Kingdom before?
In the case someone says that the "disruption of normal play" is the criterion and the "unfun to play against" clause is just the symptom of the first, which was also @KTK's answer back then, (and I took it), I have to say that Aetherworks Marvel is also being quoted in their text. Marvel did not cause logistical reasons, did not take aeons to play against. It was just unfun to play against, because it was causing "turn 4 scoop it up" moments.
I personally dont think much of their ban list 'logic'. In other words, I think they just do what they want.
that is what i was trying to get across in my post yesterday. there has never been a world where they havent done what they want. they have been making judgement calls based on opinion and perception because they have to. there is rarely black and white scenarios, and you have to bridge the gap with rationalizations. we here in this thread are proof positive that people 'tuned in' to modern can have wildly different perspectives on any number of topics and can hardly agree; yet when we see glimpses that this is also the case for a bunch of regular people trying design something as nebulous as an attractive entertainment/game experience we default to believing they just dont know what the hell they are doing or are incompetent.
also i get that it is easy to tunnel vision on modern, but modern is just one facet of MtG. a facet that will have objectives and purposes built in specifically to set it apart from others.
for example is it implausible or unreasonable to believe that at one point in the past that wizards worried about modern presenting itself as 'solved'? that the twins and junds and pods were just 'it', and how it might stunt the growth of the format long term?
like what is the value of diversity in the first place? why place an importance on having card choices being dynamic or situational? how might this impact the perceived room to experiment and explore? why could this be important in modern, but less so in other environments?
in the end it has to be a lot of 'i thinks' and 'maybes' with plenty of mistakes and wishes for 'do-overs', and what is true at one point may not be true at another. if players cant grasp that, then that naivety is going to set you up for disappointment.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
Yes, I do believe there was a point where Modern was 'solved'. I feel that shake up ban's were a thing, even if people want to point to metrics, and patterns. Its part of what makes us human.
The issue is, Modern is not solved now, and I believe we passed an 'event horizon' in that regard a long time ago. It would take an Eldrazi Winter to undo it, and I doubt that happens again.
So...free SFM. Why has it not happened? Thats the sticking point for some of us.
If you do not simply unban things that should be (based on power) then...the problem becomes 'what are we waiting for'? Just play what we can and accept the ban list is just whatever Wizards wants to add or remove from the format on their own subjective whims?
Thats the answer, but its a hard one to stomach for some of us.
Me? I've got Phoenix sleeved up again, and I'm literally looking at spreadsheeting everything else I have, and shipping it off to card kingdom, because a game that can see bans for 'disruptive gameplay' that is defined by the whims of 'feelings' is not one I am willing to invest in further, at all.
In the case someone says that the "disruption of normal play" is the criterion and the "unfun to play against" clause is just the symptom of the first, which was also @KTK's answer back then, (and I took it), I have to say that Aetherworks Marvel is also being quoted in their text. Marvel did not cause logistical reasons, did not take aeons to play against. It was just unfun to play against, because it was causing "turn 4 scoop it up" moments.
I personally dont think much of their ban list 'logic'. In other words, I think they just do what they want.
that is what i was trying to get across in my post yesterday. there has never been a world where they havent done what they want. they have been making judgement calls based on opinion and perception because they have to. there is rarely black and white scenarios, and you have to bridge the gap with rationalizations. we here in this thread are proof positive that people 'tuned in' to modern can have wildly different perspectives on any number of topics and can hardly agree; yet when we see glimpses that this is also the case for a bunch of regular people trying design something as nebulous as an attractive entertainment/game experience we default to believing they just dont know what the hell they are doing or are incompetent.
also i get that it is easy to tunnel vision on modern, but modern is just one facet of MtG. a facet that will have objectives and purposes built in specifically to set it apart from others.
for example is it implausible or unreasonable to believe that at one point in the past that wizards worried about modern presenting itself as 'solved'? that the twins and junds and pods were just 'it', and how it might stunt the growth of the format long term?
like what is the value of diversity in the first place? why place an importance on having card choices being dynamic or situational? how might this impact the perceived room to experiment and explore? why could this be important in modern, but less so in other environments?
in the end it has to be a lot of 'i thinks' and 'maybes' with plenty of mistakes and wishes for 'do-overs', and what is true at one point may not be true at another. if players cant grasp that, then that naivety is going to set you up for disappointment.
I think it's not a matter of misunderstanding what or why WOTC does something, but of understanding and disagreeing with a number of their seemingly arbitrary choices. It's especially worrisome given their multiple misguided statements and beliefs of the past and present, regarding Modern.
As far as other specific previous statements, I forgot to include this gem from their April 2016 B&R: "When Battle for Zendikar and Oath of the Gatewatch were in development, the development team knew that all the Eldrazi creatures in the block would be more powerful in Modern because of these two-mana lands. While there was some risk that Eldrazi decks could be too strong, there was also the possibility that a fun new competitive deck would emerge."
And boy did they make sure to take the steps necessary so the "fun new competitive deck" had a place to shine at the Pro Tour.
Me? I've got Phoenix sleeved up again, and I'm literally looking at spreadsheeting everything else I have, and shipping it off to card kingdom, because a game that can see bans for 'disruptive gameplay' that is defined by the whims of 'feelings' is not one I am willing to invest in further, at all.
I'm not in any dire need to liquidate my cards, but I have lived in constant ban fear for more than 3 years, after seeing multiple decks destroyed because WOTC doesn't want me to play that way. I still begrudgingly play GDS and Phoenix, because at least those are better than the other trash piles I have tried to use to scratch the itch over the years, but they're far from what I want to be doing (bluffing and mind games with opponent, which is ironically word for word several of the questions on WOTC's quarterly player surveys). The last thing I want is to play my thing, then you play your thing, and we see who can top deck better in paint-by-numbers Battlecruiser Magic.
Well thats just it. I swear to god, if you are not playing something that fits in the Aggro/Control/Midrange paradigm, you have a target on your head, just in case.
If I lived in Seattle, I would walk my collection over to Card Kingdom right now. Or after the snow melts.
On an entirely divergent note, there's so much Burn floating around I've had to add White to my Storm deck. Timely Reinforcements is a heck of a card to buy you a couple turns to combo.
On an entirely divergent note, there's so much Burn floating around I've had to add White to my Storm deck. Timely Reinforcements is a heck of a card to buy you a couple turns to combo.
So. Much. Burn.
Doesn't matter whether it's in paper or online.
Yeah it went crazy for sure. I'm surprised at how cheap it still is.
On an entirely divergent note, there's so much Burn floating around I've had to add White to my Storm deck. Timely Reinforcements is a heck of a card to buy you a couple turns to combo.
So. Much. Burn.
Doesn't matter whether it's in paper or online.
My LGS went from an average of 0-1 Burn players each week, to almost guaranteed 3-5 players each week. Even I (of all people!) sleeved up Goblin Guides and Lava Spikes a few weeks ago (and ran into multiple main deck Thalia and Knight of Autumn, DOH!). I still don't entirely understand why, but I'll happily warp my main decks to deal with it.
I think they should have been more cautious printing Skewer the Critics. It's definitely upped Burn's power significantly. I'm unsure what the correct costing should have been, however. Instant with nonspectacle cost of 3R? Burn thread says it's cast for R about 80% of the time, and with that rate, 2R is fine to pay for it every once in a while. Another issue is that I'm unsure what to ban from Burn if it runs out of control. Probably Eidolon?
I think they should have been more cautious printing Skewer the Critics. It's definitely upped Burn's power significantly. I'm unsure what the correct costing should have been, however. Instant with nonspectacle cost of 3R? Burn thread says it's cast for R about 80% of the time, and with that rate, 2R is fine to pay for it every once in a while. Another issue is that I'm unsure what to ban from Burn if it runs out of control. Probably Eidolon?
As hinted at by my previous post, there are decks and cards that simply dumpster all over Burn, and make it unplayably awful. It's also a totally fair check on greedy fetch/shock manabases, and turns powerful life-resource decks like GDS into a delicate dance. It's a totally fair and defeatable deck that has no business being banned.
I think they should have been more cautious printing Skewer the Critics. It's definitely upped Burn's power significantly. I'm unsure what the correct costing should have been, however. Instant with nonspectacle cost of 3R? Burn thread says it's cast for R about 80% of the time, and with that rate, 2R is fine to pay for it every once in a while. Another issue is that I'm unsure what to ban from Burn if it runs out of control. Probably Eidolon?
It couldn't have been an instant, most likely because Wizards didn't want players using opposing shocklands to enable spectacle in standard. Actually, your proposed change would be a buff if the spectacle cost remained unchanged, since there would be no safe time to crack fetchlands even in the absence of enablers.
Burn definitely doesn't need a ban at this point. In addition to it definitely being too early for ban mania, I mean, c'mon, it's burn. Every deck in every format should be prepared to face it at some point or another, and sideboarding isn't nearly as binary as it is for graveyard, artifact, and combo decks. RDW is the closest thing MTG has to a universal constant.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
emphasis mine again. no, it's not obvious, especially when basically every comment I see you make is along the same sort of lines. You've painted yourself in a corner here, I only see this biased negativity from you, so that's what I assume is your natural mode of discussion.
and: don't hijack a genuine space for discussion by continually adding to it with, in your words, sarcastic hyperbole. That's the 'lack of good faith' thing I was talking about in terms of adding to the discussion. If your only contribution is meant to just pointlessly rile people up (by being, according to you, purposefully false -sarcastic- and exaggerated -hyperbolic-) then that's basically just dragging everyone down around you.
There was a short time of this, after the Eldrazie ban (Abzan vs Melira CoCo vs Midrange Eldrazie vs Bant CoCo with some sprinkels of Burn and Affinity) and people called it boring.
Than again, been a while since than.
Greetings,
Kathal
Modern/Legacy
either funpolice (Delver, Deathcloud, UW Control) or the fun decks (especially those ft. Griselbrand)
Get down off the cross, use the wood to build a bridge, and get over it.
What is this "anti settle" tech that Gruul has. A card in Standard that is effective against Settle the Wreckage? I'm just curious to know.
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
Gruul Spellbreaker, which has seen some porting into Modern.
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
in fairness it wasnt out of the blue. that whole bit in the TCC + Blake Rassmusen + Steve Sunu 'fact/fiction' interview about twin was a ****-up. the fact that it was a user/player submitted question, the way it was phrased, it being selected as something worth talking about, and the subsequent almost dismissive and unrelated response.
it just highlights how naive the community has and continues to be, and goes to show why wizards employees are often better served not saying anything at all lest it be blown out of proportion after being put under a microscope. 2 guys who likely have minimal to no say in ban/unban decisions, one of which openly said he wasnt even there when the twin ban decision was made (Steve), giving an unrelated and opinionated answer to a loaded question isnt some special insight to be used as proof/evidence of anything.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)I personally agree with you—Field was a massive, massive boost, and enough to put Golgari over the top, following the spate of great prints in 2016–but I think Trophy is what firmly cemented Golgari at the peak of the BGx hierarchy. Or, at least, it’s the printing that gave Rock the public perception of being there or thereabouts relative to Jund’s power level.
YouTube Channel, with deck techs, gameplay, analysis, spoiler reviews, and more!
I'm not taking part in the discussion around that deck, but man I'm glad I missed this. Sounds like something I would tilt over for at LEAST a week. :]
Nexus is banned in Bo1 Arena. Instant Speed 'I Win' is no bueno, I'm not shocked.
Spirits
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Truth. I was tired of the Twin pouting shortly after it happened, which was what almost 4 years ago now? However, that interview resurrected the topic and made it a relevant topic of discussion again (well, in other sectors of the community anyhow. We know the discussion here is always looming). I'm still wondering why WotC even chose to open that can of worms willingly; the questions were screen and approved beforehand, so they must've thought that two tool bags *****ting on Twin would get some laughs or they're just tone deaf. Either way, that interview actually made me somewhat grateful that WotC is terrible at communicating with players; if those two bone jobs are representative of the PR department as a whole, I'll gladly accept silence over the snarky remarks of those smug jagoffs.
Link to Discord server where anybody from MTGS can keep up with thread topics while everything is being sorted out with the new site.
You keep harping on for the "supposed" incompetence of WotC's (and have been harping on for LITERAL YEARS) and yet, every ******* set you're being proven wrong. Especially the last 4 sets. New cards have been entering Modern and have been making an impact, a year ago 2 cards were unbanned, a month ago a problematic deck was banned.
I fail to see that "incompetence" and "failure to understand Modern". Have they said stupid things? Of course they have. If that's the only thing that, in your eyes, is worth tunnel visioning to, then we can't help you. The rest of us will enjoy the format in it's best state that it's ever been for years. We might disagree on where we want Modern to go or what we want from the format, but we're not laser focusing on a single issue that's been repeatedly shut down, both by the community and WotC themselves. Twin isn't coming back any time soon. Suck it up and deal with it.
Edit:
It's a shame to lump these together, because most of the people claiming the deck was "unfun" to play against were, themselves, playing a deck that many find "unfun" to play against (something linear, difficult to interact with, folded to decks that require interaction if not racing, etc). Many playing interactive decks, to this day, will still say they were some of the most fun and engaging games they've had in Modern.
Personally, I think it's unfun to have my hand shredded by Burning Inquiry, to die to unblockable infect, to get turn 3 Karned or turn 4 Ugin/Ulamog, to get locked out of being able to draw or play anything, dying from an empty board after someone dredges/birds 15 power into play, dying from an empty board after someone end-step Breaches a Titan and gets Valakuts, dying from an empty board after someone Pacts for a Titan and gives it haste and double strike, dying from an empty board to anything Storm does, and so on and so on. How many of those situations kill me after I should be "safe to tap out on my turn"?
If this idea is actually applied to Modern fairly, then nearly half of all current decks should be banned. So either this is just a silly arbitrary justification for them to nuke a deck they don't like, or they are wild hypocrites, choosing when and when not to enforce any of their publicly-undefined, but-sort-of-acknowledged ban criteria.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
They've been actively creating things for Modern for years now, with a pretty good record. To tunnel-vision on the banlist is disingenuous. Yes, it is a defining aspect of our format, but there is a much greater amount of change that comes from each new set they release.
I personally dont think much of their ban list 'logic'. In other words, I think they just do what they want.
If we are to take this as precedent however, then no deck that operates outside the very basic framework of Aggro/Control/Midrange, is fully acceptable, and if you have a deck doing things that are outside the realm of 'normal play', you could EASILY just eat a ban.
Any combo, anything abusing the GY, anything that can be done at instant speed. Take note.
Anyone sell a collection to shops like SCG, or Card Kingdom before?
Spirits
that is what i was trying to get across in my post yesterday. there has never been a world where they havent done what they want. they have been making judgement calls based on opinion and perception because they have to. there is rarely black and white scenarios, and you have to bridge the gap with rationalizations. we here in this thread are proof positive that people 'tuned in' to modern can have wildly different perspectives on any number of topics and can hardly agree; yet when we see glimpses that this is also the case for a bunch of regular people trying design something as nebulous as an attractive entertainment/game experience we default to believing they just dont know what the hell they are doing or are incompetent.
also i get that it is easy to tunnel vision on modern, but modern is just one facet of MtG. a facet that will have objectives and purposes built in specifically to set it apart from others.
for example is it implausible or unreasonable to believe that at one point in the past that wizards worried about modern presenting itself as 'solved'? that the twins and junds and pods were just 'it', and how it might stunt the growth of the format long term?
like what is the value of diversity in the first place? why place an importance on having card choices being dynamic or situational? how might this impact the perceived room to experiment and explore? why could this be important in modern, but less so in other environments?
in the end it has to be a lot of 'i thinks' and 'maybes' with plenty of mistakes and wishes for 'do-overs', and what is true at one point may not be true at another. if players cant grasp that, then that naivety is going to set you up for disappointment.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Yes, I do believe there was a point where Modern was 'solved'. I feel that shake up ban's were a thing, even if people want to point to metrics, and patterns. Its part of what makes us human.
The issue is, Modern is not solved now, and I believe we passed an 'event horizon' in that regard a long time ago. It would take an Eldrazi Winter to undo it, and I doubt that happens again.
So...free SFM. Why has it not happened? Thats the sticking point for some of us.
If you do not simply unban things that should be (based on power) then...the problem becomes 'what are we waiting for'? Just play what we can and accept the ban list is just whatever Wizards wants to add or remove from the format on their own subjective whims?
Thats the answer, but its a hard one to stomach for some of us.
Me? I've got Phoenix sleeved up again, and I'm literally looking at spreadsheeting everything else I have, and shipping it off to card kingdom, because a game that can see bans for 'disruptive gameplay' that is defined by the whims of 'feelings' is not one I am willing to invest in further, at all.
Spirits
I think it's not a matter of misunderstanding what or why WOTC does something, but of understanding and disagreeing with a number of their seemingly arbitrary choices. It's especially worrisome given their multiple misguided statements and beliefs of the past and present, regarding Modern.
As far as other specific previous statements, I forgot to include this gem from their April 2016 B&R:
"When Battle for Zendikar and Oath of the Gatewatch were in development, the development team knew that all the Eldrazi creatures in the block would be more powerful in Modern because of these two-mana lands. While there was some risk that Eldrazi decks could be too strong, there was also the possibility that a fun new competitive deck would emerge."
And boy did they make sure to take the steps necessary so the "fun new competitive deck" had a place to shine at the Pro Tour.
I'm not in any dire need to liquidate my cards, but I have lived in constant ban fear for more than 3 years, after seeing multiple decks destroyed because WOTC doesn't want me to play that way. I still begrudgingly play GDS and Phoenix, because at least those are better than the other trash piles I have tried to use to scratch the itch over the years, but they're far from what I want to be doing (bluffing and mind games with opponent, which is ironically word for word several of the questions on WOTC's quarterly player surveys). The last thing I want is to play my thing, then you play your thing, and we see who can top deck better in paint-by-numbers Battlecruiser Magic.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
If I lived in Seattle, I would walk my collection over to Card Kingdom right now. Or after the snow melts.
Spirits
So. Much. Burn.
Doesn't matter whether it's in paper or online.
Modern: Storm
Legacy: ANT
Yeah it went crazy for sure. I'm surprised at how cheap it still is.
Spirits
My LGS went from an average of 0-1 Burn players each week, to almost guaranteed 3-5 players each week. Even I (of all people!) sleeved up Goblin Guides and Lava Spikes a few weeks ago (and ran into multiple main deck Thalia and Knight of Autumn, DOH!). I still don't entirely understand why, but I'll happily warp my main decks to deal with it.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
As hinted at by my previous post, there are decks and cards that simply dumpster all over Burn, and make it unplayably awful. It's also a totally fair check on greedy fetch/shock manabases, and turns powerful life-resource decks like GDS into a delicate dance. It's a totally fair and defeatable deck that has no business being banned.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
It couldn't have been an instant, most likely because Wizards didn't want players using opposing shocklands to enable spectacle in standard. Actually, your proposed change would be a buff if the spectacle cost remained unchanged, since there would be no safe time to crack fetchlands even in the absence of enablers.
Burn definitely doesn't need a ban at this point. In addition to it definitely being too early for ban mania, I mean, c'mon, it's burn. Every deck in every format should be prepared to face it at some point or another, and sideboarding isn't nearly as binary as it is for graveyard, artifact, and combo decks. RDW is the closest thing MTG has to a universal constant.