I personally want to see a Trump vs. Sanders general. That would not only be hilarious, but it would also make Sanders win easily.
Sanders is a socialist. Between those two, the loser would be America.
If Sanders won and could deliver on his campaign promises (which admittedly is hard for any president without control of congress), America would be far better off. Raised minimum wage. Equal pay for men and women. Improved infrastructure. Single-payer healthcare. Free public college for 4 years. More support for veterans. Reduced income-inequality. No more losing jobs overseas. This is what America needs. It's just a matter of him getting ellected and getting an agreeable congress.
Wow. This is making me sad. You are literally just explaining socialism. Socialism sounds great, but it doesn't work. I think if Trump can get his act together he would be a strong leader that could get America out of the mess Obama put us in.
In my opinion, it's pathetic that this whole eldrazi issue exists. If the banhammer of Wizards can take away every combo deck and a deck as iconic as splinter twin, it better take away the eldrazi deck. But, I have a feeling it won't. This is my reason:
-They banned bloom because of the fact they think good combo decks shouldn't exist.
-They banned twin so they could make money. New sets only usually have 1 or 2 modern viable cards in them, so if they banned twin eldrazi could be an actual modern deck. So, because of this, we found a bunch of commons from oath mainboard in the winning deck.
-And the WORST THING is that the January bans "would increase diversity in the modern format". 6 OUT OF 8 of the top 8 decks were eldrazi themed.
In conclusion, I don't think an emergency ban is necessary but when April rolls around those dang eldrazi better be POUNDED by the banhammer.
What do you guys think?
-Tim
Although I am adamantly opposed to the Twin banning, I can't follow this line of thought. First, Bloom was banned for blatent and demonstratable turn-4 rule breaking. Nothing more nothing less. The deck spit in the fact of that rule as it easily won through Paths, Remands, and Ghost Quarters.
But the bigger point is that Hanlon's Razor states we should never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. I think the Twin ban was stupid, but not malicious. I think the Eldrazi problem is also stupid, but not malicious. These are two different things but both highlight something extremely clear: Wizards does no testing for eternal formats. None. They banned Twin, not because of strict criteria, analytical data, clear and well-communicated reasoning, or because it broke any rules, it was banned because it shows up in Top 8 lists and on camera a lot, and they don't like seeing the same deck do well (despite 2015 being one of the most diverse metas in Modern history). KT has demonstrated a much deeper understanding of and ability to critically analyze the Modern meta than Wizards has ever shown; and Wizards' actions showcase this lack of insight of the format.
As far as Eldrazi, they probably knew about several interactions and that it might be a strong deck, but the design push is directly for standard. In the standard environment (without Sol lands) they're totally fair, and actually difficult to play nearly as effectively. The fact that they totally broke the format is a consequence of the perfect storm. Removing Twin removed any need for interaction. The meta shifted towards removing interaction and replacing it with more threats and a faster killing speed. This was abundantly clear with the 81% aggro/combo field at the PT. This race encouraged decks to count to 20 the fastest, and Eldrazi does this the best with the fastest, beefiest, most resilient, and most value packed, cost-efficient threats in the game. It's no wonder it crushed so well.
I don't think they intended to artificially push the Eldrazi deck with the Twin ban because that would give them too much credit for being able to predict the sh*tstorm meta that resulted. I think it was a shortsighted failure on the part of a format-management team that DOES NOT TEST FOR THE FORMAT THEY CONTROL.
I agree with you. However, you have to understand that Wotc is a company that is trying to sell stuff. I'm sure the ban was not intended to start the (literal) rise of the eldrazi, but the collective knowledge of their so called "playtesters" mus have alluded to the fact that if twin was banned, there would be nothing to keep the eldrazi in check. It's a simple marketing trick. Banning the deck would indirectly lead to profit. I'm totally biased towards bloom, so I'd recommend completely disregarding that statements I made about that deck, but with twin it was some sort of sales trick from wizards. Remember, they make no money in modern when cards from old sets sell on the secondary market. They would most certainly seize the opportunity to make more money off sealed product because modern players are buying into it.
Therefore, the bans were not out of malice, but they included a direct correlation to this eldrazi scandal and more money for Wotc
I agree with your argument concerning bloom. However, if they're goal of the ban was to increase the diversity of the format, why kill amulet bloom? Also, splinter twin kept decks similar to the eldrazi in check. It put a turn four clock on them so they'd have to play less of a midrange strategy. And you obviously don't understand Wotc is a company. They want to sell their own modern staples, not have people buy old modern cards from the secondary market. They want people to buy their current sets and expect viable modern cards. If twin was such a problem, why reprint it in MM15? They want people to buy into decks and when it's too good (wins more than one major tournament)ban it so people will buy more cards.
This is why the eldrazi deck will most likely remain unbanned until wizards stops selling Oath of the Gatewatch.
Bloom broke all the rules you could break in the format. The deck was simply too abusive. It had to go. It's the same lines of reasonings with this new Aggrodrazi variant (but to a larger meta share due to it not being extremely complicated to play like Bloom).
Splinter Twin would NOT have kept any of these decks down. They kill you too quickly and disrupt your hand in the process. I firmly believe that decks were being kept down by Splinter Twin and it needed to go for diversity sake.
Ofcourse Wizards pushed Eldrazi. I don't blame them for wanting to make another interesting archetype (though they pushed too hard in my opinion). Their goal with the bans wasn't to force people to buy it, their goal was because every time a URx variant popped up, Twin would get jammed into it because it was better. We are already seeing the results with Temur Delver, Tempo Jeskai, and some Control variants cropping up more and more because people can't just default to Twin. The ban was a healthy move for the format as a whole but it's being covered by another "whoops". You think this happens rarely? Just look at past blocks. Khans had DTT and TC. Theros was a weak block overall and chastised for it. RTR had DRS which needed to be axed and that is just over the last 3 blocks. They are intentionally pushing cards. Sometimes a card gets pushed too much and breaks the format. This time it was less the cards they printed and more that they underestimated how good it would have worked with the landbase that was already in Modern. This another good reason to have the sets at a more consistent release period. It lets them address busted cards/combinations after they get data to support it being busted.
Yes you're completely right. However, I personally feel that twin could easily beat these eldrazi decks, but that's my opinion. Good to know there are some people on here that know what they're talking about.
I agree with your argument concerning bloom. However, if they're goal of the ban was to increase the diversity of the format, why kill amulet bloom? Also, splinter twin kept decks similar to the eldrazi in check. It put a turn four clock on them so they'd have to play less of a midrange strategy. And you obviously don't understand Wotc is a company. They want to sell their own modern staples, not have people buy old modern cards from the secondary market. They want people to buy their current sets and expect viable modern cards. If twin was such a problem, why reprint it in MM15? They want people to buy into decks and when it's too good (wins more than one major tournament)ban it so people will buy more cards.
This is why the eldrazi deck will most likely remain unbanned until wizards stops selling Oath of the Gatewatch.
In my opinion, it's pathetic that this whole eldrazi issue exists. If the banhammer of Wizards can take away every combo deck and a deck as iconic as splinter twin, it better take away the eldrazi deck. But, I have a feeling it won't. This is my reason:
-They banned bloom because of the fact they think good combo decks shouldn't exist.
-They banned twin so they could make money. New sets only usually have 1 or 2 modern viable cards in them, so if they banned twin eldrazi could be an actual modern deck. So, because of this, we found a bunch of commons from oath mainboard in the winning deck.
-And the WORST THING is that the January bans "would increase diversity in the modern format". 6 OUT OF 8 of the top 8 decks were eldrazi themed.
In conclusion, I don't think an emergency ban is necessary but when April rolls around those dang eldrazi better be POUNDED by the banhammer.
As an amulet bloom player, I'm hoping for the deck to stay unbanned. It wouldn't make sense to ban it. It is less than 5 percent of the meta, and it only gets a turn 1 or 2 win when the stars align. This is also true with storm and infect, and there's no talk about that getting unbanned.
Storm makes up about 1% of the metagame. Maybe 2% on a good day. It's not top-tier and thus doesn't fall victim to the turn four rule. Remember that the turn four explicitly refers only to "top-tier decks".
Infect is a more open question. That deck is certainly top-tier, but I don't have a lot of good data on its win-turn.
I also have been playing infect before I made bloom. There isn't many answers at the local level just because people don't like buying expensive sideboard options (engineered explosives, etc.). Also, bloom rewards players who have experience with the deck, a trend that isn't very true in modern (aside from affinity).
As an amulet bloom player, I'm hoping for the deck to stay unbanned. It wouldn't make sense to ban it. It is less than 5 percent of the meta, and it only gets a turn 1 or 2 win when the stars align. This is also true with storm and infect, and there's no talk about that getting unbanned.
Wow. This is making me sad. You are literally just explaining socialism. Socialism sounds great, but it doesn't work. I think if Trump can get his act together he would be a strong leader that could get America out of the mess Obama put us in.
I agree with you. However, you have to understand that Wotc is a company that is trying to sell stuff. I'm sure the ban was not intended to start the (literal) rise of the eldrazi, but the collective knowledge of their so called "playtesters" mus have alluded to the fact that if twin was banned, there would be nothing to keep the eldrazi in check. It's a simple marketing trick. Banning the deck would indirectly lead to profit. I'm totally biased towards bloom, so I'd recommend completely disregarding that statements I made about that deck, but with twin it was some sort of sales trick from wizards. Remember, they make no money in modern when cards from old sets sell on the secondary market. They would most certainly seize the opportunity to make more money off sealed product because modern players are buying into it.
Therefore, the bans were not out of malice, but they included a direct correlation to this eldrazi scandal and more money for Wotc
Yes you're completely right. However, I personally feel that twin could easily beat these eldrazi decks, but that's my opinion. Good to know there are some people on here that know what they're talking about.
I agree with your argument concerning bloom. However, if they're goal of the ban was to increase the diversity of the format, why kill amulet bloom? Also, splinter twin kept decks similar to the eldrazi in check. It put a turn four clock on them so they'd have to play less of a midrange strategy. And you obviously don't understand Wotc is a company. They want to sell their own modern staples, not have people buy old modern cards from the secondary market. They want people to buy their current sets and expect viable modern cards. If twin was such a problem, why reprint it in MM15? They want people to buy into decks and when it's too good (wins more than one major tournament)ban it so people will buy more cards.
This is why the eldrazi deck will most likely remain unbanned until wizards stops selling Oath of the Gatewatch.
-They banned bloom because of the fact they think good combo decks shouldn't exist.
-They banned twin so they could make money. New sets only usually have 1 or 2 modern viable cards in them, so if they banned twin eldrazi could be an actual modern deck. So, because of this, we found a bunch of commons from oath mainboard in the winning deck.
-And the WORST THING is that the January bans "would increase diversity in the modern format". 6 OUT OF 8 of the top 8 decks were eldrazi themed.
In conclusion, I don't think an emergency ban is necessary but when April rolls around those dang eldrazi better be POUNDED by the banhammer.
What do you guys think?
-Tim
I also have been playing infect before I made bloom. There isn't many answers at the local level just because people don't like buying expensive sideboard options (engineered explosives, etc.). Also, bloom rewards players who have experience with the deck, a trend that isn't very true in modern (aside from affinity).