Ok, so? It's still tier 1. Don't suggest it is not tier 1, because that is false. It might be 'on its way' to tier 2, which is a reasonble thing to say. That doesn't change that it is tier 1 in present data.
I'll gladly agree that on paper, based on arbitrary decisions and placements of cutoff points, it can technically be labeled as Tier 1. But in practice, it is nowhere near what would be considered the "top decks" or the "decks to beat." Many people continue to play it regardless of its massive drawbacks, likely out of pure stubbornness since there are simply so few competitive options left for URx players (you know, since Uxx decks are worse off and less diverse now than before the Twin ban). The remaining players that haven't moved on to better and stronger decks begrudgingly play bottom-of-tier-2 Delver and solidly-tier-3 Grixis Control.
What a load of hogwash (I think this word is the closest I can get without breaking etiquette rules). A deck near the bottom of tier 1 can't be honestly described as "nowhere near what would be considered the "top decks" or the "decks to beat." I mean, being in tier 1 or tier 2, by definition, means that it is exactly 'near what would be considered the 'top decks' or the 'decks to beat'.
More useless and disingenuous driving of a clearly false narrative to support your constant whining about Twin. Stop beating the twin horse - it's been dead for a while with no chance of resurrection anytime soon.
Or you know, maybe that cut-off was made just to prove a point since whoever creates this data can skew the numbers just to win the internet argument. Honestly, it's just clear that this forum is just a bunch of pansies that refuse to listen to anything negative about their format. That's why having an argument over numbers is actually pointless, anyone can take a snapshot in time just make themselves look more "CORRECT". I'm labeled a black sheep on this forum because I point out the flaws in this format that people refuse to believe.
Public Mod Note
(Lantern):
Infraction for Flaming ~Lantern
The StoneForge Mystic Unban testing had good data, but the only deck that suffered hard from Stoneforge was Burn, and per the analysis, the Burn player didn't know what to take out. Taking out Eidolon of the Great Revel against Abzan Stoneblade, which has literally only 6 spells above 3 CMC. He didn't side out Eidolon against Stock Abzan, which has the exact same number of spells >3CMC. The Burn player also oddly left in the Grim Lavamancers, which is all kinds of weird.
The data is all strong, but I think the conclusions reached are a bit of a stretch.
What a load of hogwash (I think this word is the closest I can get without breaking etiquette rules). A deck near the bottom of tier 1 can't be honestly described as "nowhere near what would be considered the "top decks" or the "decks to beat." I mean, being in tier 1 or tier 2, by definition, means that it is exactly 'near what would be considered the 'top decks' or the 'decks to beat'.
There's a difference between a deck's metagame share and its power level. Granted, these things usually do correlate to each other, but not always exactly. Jeskai Nahiri is the consensus best blue deck, so it gets a bump in its meta share as most blue players will gravitate towards it. It had Tier 1 representation in the number of people playing it in August, but that's not necessarily indicative of it being on an even playing field with the highest power level decks in the format. The meta shares for the deck have been slipping for months. It's down to 2.7% on MtgGoldfish right now, which is probably a more representative indication of the deck's strength.
Stop beating the twin horse - it's been dead for a while with no chance of resurrection anytime soon.
As you know, I still believe Twin was a good ban. But, whenever the conversation comes down to unbanning SFM or JTMS, it seems just right to me to say that Splinter Twin ban would be the less bad(not the best) ban we could do. If we are to say that Blue based Control/attrition decks need help, I genuinely think Splinter Twin unban would be the preferable solution and the one that would be the best to:
hit linear decks without killing them
re-introduce a card that promotes interaction into the meta
re-introduce a card that will not make players run even more towards unfair solutions.
SFM & JTMS would just make the people want to play Tron, Ad Nauseam, Infect, Affinity. Twin would have a great matchup vs all of them without it being an insta-loss for all those decks(although a hard one, I will admit)
PS: I still dont think Splinter Twin unban would be the ideal solution. All bans/unbans sound bad. It's just thar this is is the least bad of 'em all.
You actually make the exact argument for why I say the Twin ban was bad when they did it. Unbanning Twin right now would solve a lot of the format's problems, I think most of us can agree on that. Of course, you would have the looming problem of Twin becoming busted in the future with the printing or unbanning of powerful blue cards, so it would probably have to be banned again in the future anyway, which I think precludes it from ever being unbanned. Twin would have eventually needed to be banned, but they did it too early. Now we have the problem with the format being too aggressive without one of the police decks that prevented this, and we also have the problem of the blue decks struggling because WotC was gun-shy about blue due to Twin.
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
What would we lose via shelving Batterskull? Serious question- Does it even show up on a list of the 500 most played cards in modern? I know it's not in the top 100, by a long shot. I mean, I'd wager odd corner case tier 3 cards likely sneak in more than it does. I'd almost bet Nivmagus Elemental sees more play. For Pete's sakes, I wouldn't be surprised if Devastating Summons was seeing more use. And pointing to that research, Batterskull was the sole reason Mystic made linear decks even stronger- The lifegain impeded fair decks a lot more than it did Infect. If she's instead playing with any other equipment, you get an interesting roleplayer with nothing "broken" who gives White a much needed bump in the format. It might even create some sort of new archetype, which would open up a lot of interesting options. (Heck, just off the top of my head, Sigarda's Aid, Stoneforge, Argentum Armor seems like a really spicy way to close out a game fast in a control deck)(I'm also kinda intrigued by the option of cheating in an Elbrus, since in the right deck, it basically gives you a 13/13 out of the blue- Could lead to a mini-Harbinger style deck)
Basically, for me it comes down to "What does Batterskull enable?" vs "What does Stoneforge enable?"
Without Batterskull, it's really hard to justify her being on the ban list at all, whereas with it, she's *JUST* potent enough that cautious people have doubts about her. I don't think unbanning her would hurt the format too badly, but it does move it in a negative direction unless we do something to balance things.
As for Twin/Exarch, correct me if I'm wrong, but when Twin got banned, there actually was a substantial number of twin players (IIRC, somewhere between 10 and 20%) who actually were of the sentiment that Exarch should have been banned instead, since it would keep the deck intact but depower it a bit. That's been my personal sentiment the whole time. It's a lot better to have Twin be a thing (and by its nature, an interactive combo deck) than having no twin at all. I think it would actually create a deck that's right in that perfect sweet spot where it doesn't force sideboard slots (as opposed to Affinity/Burn/Dredge, which do), but still has sufficient oomph to act as a police force.
Serious question, what does our metagame gain from having Exarch/Batterskull legal without Mystic/Splinter Twin? Because I don't think I've seen either in serious use in any shell out there (Though I suppose Exarch could be interesting in some flavors of control)
This topic will be closed for a few days. Its gotten heated in here, and litterally every post here is either spam talking about things that arent ban list, or even modern, Flaming against other users, or trolling others to flame. Hopefully the new thread that will open in a few days will have some harsher rules and moderation so that people can have a clean discussion.
Or you know, maybe that cut-off was made just to prove a point since whoever creates this data can skew the numbers just to win the internet argument. Honestly, it's just clear that this forum is just a bunch of pansies that refuse to listen to anything negative about their format. That's why having an argument over numbers is actually pointless, anyone can take a snapshot in time just make themselves look more "CORRECT". I'm labeled a black sheep on this forum because I point out the flaws in this format that people refuse to believe.
The data is all strong, but I think the conclusions reached are a bit of a stretch.
There's a difference between a deck's metagame share and its power level. Granted, these things usually do correlate to each other, but not always exactly. Jeskai Nahiri is the consensus best blue deck, so it gets a bump in its meta share as most blue players will gravitate towards it. It had Tier 1 representation in the number of people playing it in August, but that's not necessarily indicative of it being on an even playing field with the highest power level decks in the format. The meta shares for the deck have been slipping for months. It's down to 2.7% on MtgGoldfish right now, which is probably a more representative indication of the deck's strength.
You actually make the exact argument for why I say the Twin ban was bad when they did it. Unbanning Twin right now would solve a lot of the format's problems, I think most of us can agree on that. Of course, you would have the looming problem of Twin becoming busted in the future with the printing or unbanning of powerful blue cards, so it would probably have to be banned again in the future anyway, which I think precludes it from ever being unbanned. Twin would have eventually needed to be banned, but they did it too early. Now we have the problem with the format being too aggressive without one of the police decks that prevented this, and we also have the problem of the blue decks struggling because WotC was gun-shy about blue due to Twin.
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
Basically, for me it comes down to "What does Batterskull enable?" vs "What does Stoneforge enable?"
Without Batterskull, it's really hard to justify her being on the ban list at all, whereas with it, she's *JUST* potent enough that cautious people have doubts about her. I don't think unbanning her would hurt the format too badly, but it does move it in a negative direction unless we do something to balance things.
As for Twin/Exarch, correct me if I'm wrong, but when Twin got banned, there actually was a substantial number of twin players (IIRC, somewhere between 10 and 20%) who actually were of the sentiment that Exarch should have been banned instead, since it would keep the deck intact but depower it a bit. That's been my personal sentiment the whole time. It's a lot better to have Twin be a thing (and by its nature, an interactive combo deck) than having no twin at all. I think it would actually create a deck that's right in that perfect sweet spot where it doesn't force sideboard slots (as opposed to Affinity/Burn/Dredge, which do), but still has sufficient oomph to act as a police force.
Serious question, what does our metagame gain from having Exarch/Batterskull legal without Mystic/Splinter Twin? Because I don't think I've seen either in serious use in any shell out there (Though I suppose Exarch could be interesting in some flavors of control)