I was thinking more about black discard,abrupt decay and combust/volley. White,blue and green are pretty much out of luck. The keyword was efficient.
Twin is quite efficient. It dodges Lightning Bolt (their main removal spell) while also preventing them from comboing off. They can't even cast the Splinter Twin on one target to make you waste a kill spell and then cast another on another target, because you'll just snare the Twin and then your Spellskite becomes essentially unkillable as you can just tap it to make another and redirect any removal spell to it.
Also, White has Path to Exile, Blue has counterspells, and Green has enchantment removal.
Reign in Twin? It's like at 11% of the field, including all variants of the deck - seems pretty healthy. You're being completely dishonest about your argument. People are shocked because this ban goes against all the data/rules/etc WoTC has established when it comes to bans. Aaron literally admitted on Twitter that this ban was mostly for PT 'shake up' reasons. This alone invalidates your entire argument about the ban being balance related.
Now, as to whether or not this ban opens up potential unbans in the future, one can hope. I can see more powerful blue spells being unbanned as a result of Twin being banned since there is no longer the fear of potentially boosting Twin too much.
Thats 11% we know of. I have always said Wotc sees much more data, many more events especially paper wise. Adding up all versions, Twin is probably more then the 11% we see when looking at all events. Wotc has to be just as worried about local metas as they do about the higher level metas.
Now I have not read where AF said this move was a PT shake up. All I have seen from him was now AV will be looked at in a Twinless meta and SotM is not coming off. All I have read about these bans is what Wotc put on the mothership.
At the end of the day does it really matter? You have the same choice you had last week. You can sleeve up a deck and play or play another format or quit and find something else to do. Of course some are not going to be happy about the move. Wotc can not please everyone.
Whats done is done, make your choice. I know what mine is.
So, Ponder and Preordain are bad for blue, but Ancient Stirrings and Oath of Nissa are fair for green? A few years from now Magic players won't even know what the blue color symbol looks like, let alone play blue in their decks.
Boycott PT OGW.
It's almost like grabbing any card and grabbing a colorless card/creature card are totally different effects....
For all intents and purposes, the green cantrips can or will be able, in case of Oath of Nissa, to pick nearly any card from their respective decks. How often does Ancient Stirrings fizzle in Tron for example? Sure the decks are crafted in such a way to maximize the effectiveness of those cards but that still doesn't explain why green has better card selection then blue in a "non-rotating" format.
Boycott PT OGW.
You mean to tell me that building around cards by only using what they power up is good?!?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oath of the Gatewatch; the set that caused the competitive community to freak out over Basic Lands.
Wotc has been pretty consistent with bans. Some may not like it, but Wotc cannot please everyone, so they stick to the criteria they set forth in the inception of the format.
I don't agree with that statement at all. See the following:
"Splinter Twin was the quintessential Modern deck. Not too powerful, not overly successful, wins on turn 4 on its best day, and highly interactive. Its banning is based on typical tier 1 success levels, and on the fact that Twin made it difficult to justify playing any other blue deck. Both of these reasonings seem artificial. ... Twin has been around since Modern's birth, and it really hasn't changed much. It hasn't been getting many new tools to make it better. It's still roughly the same deck as it was years ago. ... Twin is even directly in line with what Wizards has stated that they want for the format. They've said they want the combo decks to be interactive and not win before turn 4. Twin practically defines those constraints. ... Twin's metagame percentage had been unchanged. It's sat at around 10% for the longest time. It didn't suddenly get more popular and push out blue decks. ... Finally, Twin isn't holding anything out of the format. The reason that Twin is the only way to play blue in Modern is because blue kind of sucks in Modern. We don't have any truly good counter spells, and there's almost no playable card advantage. Cryptic Command is about all we've got. If we had real counter magic, I'm sure control would take its place in the format."
The same thing was said about Jund when it was hit twice. The same thing was said about Pod when it was hit last year.
All formats have ban lists, even Legacy. Its still a non rotating format, just part of the player base feels entitled to dictate how the format should be run.
Now I have not read where AF said this move was a PT shake up. All I have seen from him was now AV will be looked at in a Twinless meta and SotM is not coming off. All I have read about these bans is what Wotc put on the mothership.
Reign in Twin? It's like at 11% of the field, including all variants of the deck - seems pretty healthy. You're being completely dishonest about your argument. People are shocked because this ban goes against all the data/rules/etc WoTC has established when it comes to bans. Aaron literally admitted on Twitter that this ban was mostly for PT 'shake up' reasons. This alone invalidates your entire argument about the ban being balance related.
Now, as to whether or not this ban opens up potential unbans in the future, one can hope. I can see more powerful blue spells being unbanned as a result of Twin being banned since there is no longer the fear of potentially boosting Twin too much.
Thats 11% we know of. I have always said Wotc sees much more data, many more events especially paper wise. Adding up all versions, Twin is probably more then the 11% we see when looking at all events. Wotc has to be just as worried about local metas as they do about the higher level metas.
Now I have not read where AF said this move was a PT shake up. All I have seen from him was now AV will be looked at in a Twinless meta and SotM is not coming off. All I have read about these bans is what Wotc put on the mothership.
At the end of the day does it really matter? You have the same choice you had last week. You can sleeve up a deck and play or play another format or quit and find something else to do. Of course some are not going to be happy about the move. Wotc can not please everyone.
Whats done is done, make your choice. I know what mine is.
I know I have choices as a consumer. I'm still debating what to do right now. I just wanted to make sure we're all being honest about our arguments and perspectives here. Nothing you have said in relation to the banning is accurate. Also, considering Modern Nexus gathers data from SCG, GPs, PTs, MTGO and other sources - I don't believe the field size is much bigger than 11%. Basic statistics teaches you that after a certain sample size, a sufficient N, sample size becomes largely irrelevant to your analysis.
Now I have not read where AF said this move was a PT shake up. All I have seen from him was now AV will be looked at in a Twinless meta and SotM is not coming off. All I have read about these bans is what Wotc put on the mothership.
Now I have not read where AF said this move was a PT shake up. All I have seen from him was now AV will be looked at in a Twinless meta and SotM is not coming off. All I have read about these bans is what Wotc put on the mothership.
Splinter Twin: A two card infinite combo? Its days were numbered the moment it was discovered. You can't tell me you didn't see this coming. Aside from the tournament results a two card instant win isn't the glowing endorsement for fun or fair play. It's about time it's gone, now those pros have to hijack/borrow another idea.
Summer Bloom: Having played since Visions this ban is hilarious to me. The card really isn't that good, at least in a vacuum. They took a cog out of a well oiled machine. Amulet Bloom is slightly slower, but still potent. It will put up results again once people realize that.
Overall, I think these bans are a good thing. don't listen to the Chicken Littles in the thread saying the sky is falling with the bans.
In my dream, the world had suffered a terrible disaster. A black haze shut out the sun, and the darkness was alive with the moans and screams of wounded people. Suddenly, a small light glowed. A candle flickered into life, symbol of hope for millions. A single tiny candle, shining in the ugly dark. I laughed and blew it out.
Many thanks to HotP Studios. Special thanks to DNC for this great sig.
Reign in Twin? It's like at 11% of the field, including all variants of the deck - seems pretty healthy. You're being completely dishonest about your argument. People are shocked because this ban goes against all the data/rules/etc WoTC has established when it comes to bans. Aaron literally admitted on Twitter that this ban was mostly for PT 'shake up' reasons. This alone invalidates your entire argument about the ban being balance related.
Now, as to whether or not this ban opens up potential unbans in the future, one can hope. I can see more powerful blue spells being unbanned as a result of Twin being banned since there is no longer the fear of potentially boosting Twin too much.
Thats 11% we know of. I have always said Wotc sees much more data, many more events especially paper wise. Adding up all versions, Twin is probably more then the 11% we see when looking at all events. Wotc has to be just as worried about local metas as they do about the higher level metas.
Now I have not read where AF said this move was a PT shake up. All I have seen from him was now AV will be looked at in a Twinless meta and SotM is not coming off. All I have read about these bans is what Wotc put on the mothership.
At the end of the day does it really matter? You have the same choice you had last week. You can sleeve up a deck and play or play another format or quit and find something else to do. Of course some are not going to be happy about the move. Wotc can not please everyone.
Whats done is done, make your choice. I know what mine is.
I know I have choices as a consumer. I'm still debating what to do right now. I just wanted to make sure we're all being honest about our arguments and perspectives here. Nothing you have said in relation to the banning is accurate. Also, considering Modern Nexus gathers data from SCG, GPs, PTs, MTGO and other sources - I don't believe the field size is much bigger than 11%. Basic statistics teaches you that after a certain sample size, a sufficient N, sample size becomes largely irrelevant to your analysis.
I will just agree to disagree. Metas change drastically in areas. I can play in a Twin void meta in one area and in a twin dominated meta in another. I am pretty sure I am not the only one. I have never agreed fully with Nexus numbers and never been shy to say it. He gets the high level stuff and a certain amount of MTGO data but only what Wotc publishes for other lower level paper metas. Ignoring all of that, Wotc has never told us what percentage of the meta was not acceptable. 11% may be the number. Hell 9% may be the number. Maybe it was too many wins of higher level events. The fact is, they used the same reasoning for Jund twice and Pod, and the bellyaching after the move then is exactly the same as it is now.
I have no problem with the bans or the reasons for the bannings. A lot of people had been saying the PT season means a shake up, well they got their shake up and are now upset with it. Cant have it both ways.
@ Oopssorryy, that still doesnt say the main reason was a shake up.
So I don't know which thread it was on but the twitter link has someone mention this as well. The list of decks that Twin kept in check was a huge percentage of the Tier 1-4 lists. Even without the design space argument which does apply that seems to be a valid reason to look at it for banning. When a single deck has a near guaranteed game 1 win and favorable post SB games as well against a large majority of the format that's the definition of limiting design space. Can't print anything that would make it better because then it goes from very good to oppressive. It's not exactly the same but look at Caw Blade in standard. Was already top of the format, they print Batterskull and it becomes the entire format. I'd think people would be excited to think that blue might finally stop losing every good card it gets to bans because of one or two decks.
It's a bunch of people who spent $500 because they wanted the "best" deck who are upset. Who cares if it is boring to play with and against.
This is absolutely laughable. I've never played Twin in my career as a Magic player, but it was always fun to play against. The games against Twin were always interactive, and if you played smart, Twin was an easy win. Unless you think slamming creatures on the board and turning them sideways turn after turn is "fun". I guess if you prefer non-interactive and super linear Magic, you've gotten your wish.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks WUBEsper ControlBUW URStormRU RGForest BelcherGR
To-Do List WModern Death and TaxesW WLegacy Death and TaxesW
So I don't know which thread it was on but the twitter link has someone mention this as well. The list of decks that Twin kept in check was a huge percentage of the Tier 1-4 lists.
Citation needed.
Even without the design space argument which does apply
Which applies to Twin in what way? Every good deck could theoretically get put over the top by some new card. Wouldn't the logical thing be to ban a card out of the deck if that happens rather than banning something due to a hypothetical?
Tron being a good deck sure didn't stop them from exploring the design space of powerful colorless cards in the two most recent sets.
that seems to be a valid reason to look at it for banning. When a single deck has a near guaranteed game 1 win and favorable post SB games as well against a large majority of the format that's the definition of limiting design space.
True. Good thing that wasn't true about Twin!
Can't print anything that would make it better because then it goes from very good to oppressive. It's not exactly the same but look at Caw Blade in standard. Was already top of the format, they print Batterskull and it becomes the entire format. I'd think people would be excited to think that blue might finally stop losing every good card it gets to bans because of one or two decks.
This argument might make more sense if they were to unban some of those cards that allegedly got banned due to Splinter Twin.
Now I have not read where AF said this move was a PT shake up. All I have seen from him was now AV will be looked at in a Twinless meta and SotM is not coming off. All I have read about these bans is what Wotc put on the mothership.
No where does that say the bans were a PT shake up. Not even close. He states the truth, all formats have ban lists.
You are being willfully obstinate and just arguing semantics. Come on man. Go read Forsythe's twitter feed. They have annual bannings because of the pro tour. Whether you think the Twin banning was good or not doesn't matter. Forsythe admitted that Modern being a PT format will result in more bans.
Now I have not read where AF said this move was a PT shake up. All I have seen from him was now AV will be looked at in a Twinless meta and SotM is not coming off. All I have read about these bans is what Wotc put on the mothership.
"That is not why the ban is happening. It is dictating when, not why."
I think a lot of people missunderstod what he said about the PT dictating bans. What he meant, it seems, is that the PT dictates when major bans occur, but the PT does not induce WHICH cards get banned. Twin was probably selected for a ban even before previous ban announcements during the year, they just waited before the PT to announce it. So it seems what he means by all of those tweets is that PT season is when the banhammer comes down, the rest of the announcements during the year they just use it for emergency bans like TC/DTT.
It's a bunch of people who spent $500 because they wanted the "best" deck who are upset. Who cares if it is boring to play with and against.
What? Are you in the right thread? I don't know what deck you are talking about but Twin was more than $500 and it was actually pretty fun to play against. I guess if you are playing 'MonoGreenControl' it wouldn't be very fun. Kalonian Tuskers not getting the job done?
Reign in Twin? It's like at 11% of the field, including all variants of the deck - seems pretty healthy. You're being completely dishonest about your argument. People are shocked because this ban goes against all the data/rules/etc WoTC has established when it comes to bans. Aaron literally admitted on Twitter that this ban was mostly for PT 'shake up' reasons. This alone invalidates your entire argument about the ban being balance related.
Now, as to whether or not this ban opens up potential unbans in the future, one can hope. I can see more powerful blue spells being unbanned as a result of Twin being banned since there is no longer the fear of potentially boosting Twin too much.
Thats 11% we know of. I have always said Wotc sees much more data, many more events especially paper wise. Adding up all versions, Twin is probably more then the 11% we see when looking at all events. Wotc has to be just as worried about local metas as they do about the higher level metas.
Now I have not read where AF said this move was a PT shake up. All I have seen from him was now AV will be looked at in a Twinless meta and SotM is not coming off. All I have read about these bans is what Wotc put on the mothership.
At the end of the day does it really matter? You have the same choice you had last week. You can sleeve up a deck and play or play another format or quit and find something else to do. Of course some are not going to be happy about the move. Wotc can not please everyone.
Whats done is done, make your choice. I know what mine is.
I know I have choices as a consumer. I'm still debating what to do right now. I just wanted to make sure we're all being honest about our arguments and perspectives here. Nothing you have said in relation to the banning is accurate. Also, considering Modern Nexus gathers data from SCG, GPs, PTs, MTGO and other sources - I don't believe the field size is much bigger than 11%. Basic statistics teaches you that after a certain sample size, a sufficient N, sample size becomes largely irrelevant to your analysis.
I will just agree to disagree. Metas change drastically in areas. I can play in a Twin void meta in one area and in a twin dominated meta in another. I am pretty sure I am not the only one. I have never agreed fully with Nexus numbers and never been shy to say it. He gets the high level stuff and a certain amount of MTGO data but only what Wotc publishes for other lower level paper metas. Ignoring all of that, Wotc has never told us what percentage of the meta was not acceptable. 11% may be the number. Hell 9% may be the number. Maybe it was too many wins of higher level events. The fact is, they used the same reasoning for Jund twice and Pod, and the bellyaching after the move then is exactly the same as it is now.
I have no problem with the bans or the reasons for the bannings. A lot of people had been saying the PT season means a shake up, well they got their shake up and are now upset with it. Cant have it both ways.
@ Oopssorryy, that still doesnt say the main reason was a shake up.
I wasn't going to reply because you said 'agree to disagree' and I was going to leave it at that ... But I just needed to say that you don't get to disagree with basic, proven, statistical theory just 'because'. But I will concede to you that metas vary from area to area so maybe Twin can be tiresome and frustrating for some players.
Sure. The usual suspects in this thread, acting like they usually do.
At the end of the day, its ban that is not in line with what the wider community has come to expect and understand are the 'rules' for bans. I maintain that that lack of communication, and understanding, is a mistake.
Now did I put $500 into Twin? I dont think so, I think due to when I bought it it was likely half that, and most of those cards can go to other decks, so...fine.
The issue here is that it will be something next, and that 'something' will be whatever is good at this time next year and thats a really ***** way to run a format.
It's a bunch of people who spent $500 because they wanted the "best" deck who are upset.
You know, statements like the one you just made are generally a good indication that the person making them shouldn't be taken seriously. I do wonder how you explain all of the non-Twin players who think the banning was dumb, though.
Who cares if it is boring to play with and against.
There are decks that are far more boring to "play with and against" than Twin.
The problem is WotC originally wanted to discontinue the Modern PT and were more than ready to just do 4 standard PTs a year (I assume they would have cut block constructed eventually anyways). The player base was obviously disheartened about that and cried against it asking for a Modern PT. People wanted to see their favorite format played at the highest level by some of the worlds best players. Which at it's core is still very interesting, provides valuable information and data, and occasionally can help break out brews take off in the format. WotC reconsidered and decided to "listen" to the playerbase but instead of just giving us the Modern PT we wanted to see, they decided to make it a "Monkey's Paw" kind of a deal. They decided to start banning to "shake up the format". They decided that they would take a format that many people adored and enjoyed, and turn it into their own "vision" and wanted to do the PT their way. Regardless of the impact it had on the actual playerbase. I know you remember the pod banning threads and those times. But many people were pissed. They banned pod for the exact same reason they are banning Twin now. They wanted to "shake up" the meta specifically for the PT because they thought it would make it more interesting and try to get more viewers to see how this new meta turned out because not only was a new set hot off the shelves with new shiny cards, but they banned a pillar deck. It's also just a terrible publicity stint and way to punish the playerbase for wanting something they felt strongly about and then looking down after everything and saying. This is what YOU asked for this is what we HAVE to do to support a modern PT.
It really feels like they are stabbing the playerbase in the back. I'm sure a lot of people out there, Pod Players, Twin Players, GBx players, etc... Would much prefer their deck to not have been banned, skip the forced rotation for the modern PT, and simply be content with more Modern GPs, and now that SCG has taken up the modern mantle a little more heavily (unfortunately at the expense of Legacy but that's a completely different discussion) there are more than enough events to both play and watch. At this point I would rather them not butcher the format every year and just go back to have their Standard Promotional Tours to sell the pro dream and packs.
As much as I don't want to sound entitled and whiny or a wearer of a tinfoil hat. It really feels like WotC is punishing the modern playerbase every step of the way. Not reprinting staples when it makes sense to do so, letting the secondary market be completely haywire, gutting and banning established pillar decks for a PT that they don't even want. Not to mention the banning of an archetype that they just supported in their biggest Modern supplemental set (a set that contained Cryptic Command, Remand, Bolt, Clique, Electrolyze, even the namesake card Splinter Twin FFS). It just feels like a complete stab in the back because we just want them to support something that we wholeheartedly enjoyed. It really feels like they regret making modern and supporting it as much as they have.
Butthurt city here man. I agree with last poster, twin has been on the chopping block since blazeing shoal was still legal. How this is a surprise to anyone is beyond me. Summer bloom is also not a surprise, turn 2 or 3 wins belong to legacy period. Yeah sure it shakes up things for the pro tour but these bans were inevitable regardless of when they happened. I wouldn't trade off my collection for tron or affinity either, high chance of future bannings. I do have good advice for players looking for a place to start going forward! Real Estate and format staples. Buying into just one architype especially a top teir architype will always carry a risk of one day being useeless. Getting a full set of fetches and shocks will let you build most architypes with specific purchases down the road. I also highly doubt cards like tarmogoyf, snapcaster mage, dark confidant, or Liliana of the vail are going anywhere soon so these should be safe purchases as well. Bans happen sorry for anyone who lost on this one. I don't think the future of the format is so cut and dry, I'm interested to see where this leads. Looking forward to the PT.
Bocephus, honest question: have you ever seen a criticism of WOTC that you agreed with? You've been playing Magic since the 1990s; in the past two decades, has Wizards ever done something that made you think, "This is a wrong move. They should have done [alternative course of action] instead" ?
I'm beginning to suspect that you have what amounts to a philosophical objection to people lodging complaints at the behavior of a company with which they are engaged in business. Do you also oppose people's criticism of elected officials ("We chose them, after all..."), people's neighbors ("You chose to live next to them..."), people's friends and loved ones ("You chose to be friends..."). Does voluntary choice eliminate the grounds for criticism? Is the use of force the only thing worth complaining about?
It would be too easy and cheap to say that you're a WOTC employee, and I don't believe it besides. What I think is that you're in the grip of just world theory. Just world theory can take many forms, but two of them are, "You chose voluntarily to interact with Person/Organization, so because you made that choice, any criticism of the subsequent behavior of that Person/Organization is invalid" and "Person/Organization knows better than we do—they must, because they are in power, after all". Just replace "Person/Organization" with "Wizards". Here is more information on this relatively well-known cognitive bias: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
Maybe you're just a extraordinarily optimistic person, or maybe you really do happen to authentically agree with every single action that WOTC takes. Maybe. But it is a bit... suspicious.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Also, White has Path to Exile, Blue has counterspells, and Green has enchantment removal.
Thats 11% we know of. I have always said Wotc sees much more data, many more events especially paper wise. Adding up all versions, Twin is probably more then the 11% we see when looking at all events. Wotc has to be just as worried about local metas as they do about the higher level metas.
Now I have not read where AF said this move was a PT shake up. All I have seen from him was now AV will be looked at in a Twinless meta and SotM is not coming off. All I have read about these bans is what Wotc put on the mothership.
At the end of the day does it really matter? You have the same choice you had last week. You can sleeve up a deck and play or play another format or quit and find something else to do. Of course some are not going to be happy about the move. Wotc can not please everyone.
Whats done is done, make your choice. I know what mine is.
You mean to tell me that building around cards by only using what they power up is good?!?
The same thing was said about Jund when it was hit twice. The same thing was said about Pod when it was hit last year.
All formats have ban lists, even Legacy. Its still a non rotating format, just part of the player base feels entitled to dictate how the format should be run.
You have a choice.
https://twitter.com/mtgaaron/status/688454987668557824
I know I have choices as a consumer. I'm still debating what to do right now. I just wanted to make sure we're all being honest about our arguments and perspectives here. Nothing you have said in relation to the banning is accurate. Also, considering Modern Nexus gathers data from SCG, GPs, PTs, MTGO and other sources - I don't believe the field size is much bigger than 11%. Basic statistics teaches you that after a certain sample size, a sufficient N, sample size becomes largely irrelevant to your analysis.
No where does that say the bans were a PT shake up. Not even close. He states the truth, all formats have ban lists.
https://twitter.com/mtgaaron/status/688247164045103104
Cheeri0sXWU
Reid Duke's Level One
Who's the Beatdown
Alt+0198=Æ
Summer Bloom: Having played since Visions this ban is hilarious to me. The card really isn't that good, at least in a vacuum. They took a cog out of a well oiled machine. Amulet Bloom is slightly slower, but still potent. It will put up results again once people realize that.
Overall, I think these bans are a good thing. don't listen to the Chicken Littles in the thread saying the sky is falling with the bans.
Affinity, with Cranial Plating, Arcbound Ravager and Etched Champion, seems like a fine example of this, yes?
Boycott PT OGW.
Many thanks to HotP Studios. Special thanks to DNC for this great sig.
I will just agree to disagree. Metas change drastically in areas. I can play in a Twin void meta in one area and in a twin dominated meta in another. I am pretty sure I am not the only one. I have never agreed fully with Nexus numbers and never been shy to say it. He gets the high level stuff and a certain amount of MTGO data but only what Wotc publishes for other lower level paper metas. Ignoring all of that, Wotc has never told us what percentage of the meta was not acceptable. 11% may be the number. Hell 9% may be the number. Maybe it was too many wins of higher level events. The fact is, they used the same reasoning for Jund twice and Pod, and the bellyaching after the move then is exactly the same as it is now.
I have no problem with the bans or the reasons for the bannings. A lot of people had been saying the PT season means a shake up, well they got their shake up and are now upset with it. Cant have it both ways.
@ Oopssorryy, that still doesnt say the main reason was a shake up.
This is absolutely laughable. I've never played Twin in my career as a Magic player, but it was always fun to play against. The games against Twin were always interactive, and if you played smart, Twin was an easy win. Unless you think slamming creatures on the board and turning them sideways turn after turn is "fun". I guess if you prefer non-interactive and super linear Magic, you've gotten your wish.
WUBEsper ControlBUW
URStormRU
RGForest BelcherGR
To-Do List
WModern Death and TaxesW
WLegacy Death and TaxesW
Which applies to Twin in what way? Every good deck could theoretically get put over the top by some new card. Wouldn't the logical thing be to ban a card out of the deck if that happens rather than banning something due to a hypothetical?
Tron being a good deck sure didn't stop them from exploring the design space of powerful colorless cards in the two most recent sets.
True. Good thing that wasn't true about Twin!
This argument might make more sense if they were to unban some of those cards that allegedly got banned due to Splinter Twin.
You are being willfully obstinate and just arguing semantics. Come on man. Go read Forsythe's twitter feed. They have annual bannings because of the pro tour. Whether you think the Twin banning was good or not doesn't matter. Forsythe admitted that Modern being a PT format will result in more bans.
https://twitter.com/mtgaaron/status/688457411724587008
"That is not why the ban is happening. It is dictating when, not why."
I think a lot of people missunderstod what he said about the PT dictating bans. What he meant, it seems, is that the PT dictates when major bans occur, but the PT does not induce WHICH cards get banned. Twin was probably selected for a ban even before previous ban announcements during the year, they just waited before the PT to announce it. So it seems what he means by all of those tweets is that PT season is when the banhammer comes down, the rest of the announcements during the year they just use it for emergency bans like TC/DTT.
"When you get your opponent down to 0 sanity, you win the game!"
What? Are you in the right thread? I don't know what deck you are talking about but Twin was more than $500 and it was actually pretty fun to play against. I guess if you are playing 'MonoGreenControl' it wouldn't be very fun. Kalonian Tuskers not getting the job done?
I wasn't going to reply because you said 'agree to disagree' and I was going to leave it at that ... But I just needed to say that you don't get to disagree with basic, proven, statistical theory just 'because'. But I will concede to you that metas vary from area to area so maybe Twin can be tiresome and frustrating for some players.
At the end of the day, its ban that is not in line with what the wider community has come to expect and understand are the 'rules' for bans. I maintain that that lack of communication, and understanding, is a mistake.
Now did I put $500 into Twin? I dont think so, I think due to when I bought it it was likely half that, and most of those cards can go to other decks, so...fine.
The issue here is that it will be something next, and that 'something' will be whatever is good at this time next year and thats a really ***** way to run a format.
Spirits
There are decks that are far more boring to "play with and against" than Twin.
As are Ancient Stirrings and Oath of Nissa.
It really feels like they are stabbing the playerbase in the back. I'm sure a lot of people out there, Pod Players, Twin Players, GBx players, etc... Would much prefer their deck to not have been banned, skip the forced rotation for the modern PT, and simply be content with more Modern GPs, and now that SCG has taken up the modern mantle a little more heavily (unfortunately at the expense of Legacy but that's a completely different discussion) there are more than enough events to both play and watch. At this point I would rather them not butcher the format every year and just go back to have their Standard Promotional Tours to sell the pro dream and packs.
As much as I don't want to sound entitled and whiny or a wearer of a tinfoil hat. It really feels like WotC is punishing the modern playerbase every step of the way. Not reprinting staples when it makes sense to do so, letting the secondary market be completely haywire, gutting and banning established pillar decks for a PT that they don't even want. Not to mention the banning of an archetype that they just supported in their biggest Modern supplemental set (a set that contained Cryptic Command, Remand, Bolt, Clique, Electrolyze, even the namesake card Splinter Twin FFS). It just feels like a complete stab in the back because we just want them to support something that we wholeheartedly enjoyed. It really feels like they regret making modern and supporting it as much as they have.
I'm beginning to suspect that you have what amounts to a philosophical objection to people lodging complaints at the behavior of a company with which they are engaged in business. Do you also oppose people's criticism of elected officials ("We chose them, after all..."), people's neighbors ("You chose to live next to them..."), people's friends and loved ones ("You chose to be friends..."). Does voluntary choice eliminate the grounds for criticism? Is the use of force the only thing worth complaining about?
It would be too easy and cheap to say that you're a WOTC employee, and I don't believe it besides. What I think is that you're in the grip of just world theory. Just world theory can take many forms, but two of them are, "You chose voluntarily to interact with Person/Organization, so because you made that choice, any criticism of the subsequent behavior of that Person/Organization is invalid" and "Person/Organization knows better than we do—they must, because they are in power, after all". Just replace "Person/Organization" with "Wizards". Here is more information on this relatively well-known cognitive bias: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
Maybe you're just a extraordinarily optimistic person, or maybe you really do happen to authentically agree with every single action that WOTC takes. Maybe. But it is a bit... suspicious.