MTG Salvation

Quote from solidscheme »

Quote from GoST- »

I disagree. None of the elves, goblins, merfolk, robots and whatever are playable on their own as singular cards. Their power comes from a reliant on tribal synergy and the way the cards work with each other. Eldrazi requires no such thing. Their power comes from being overly efficient, value creatures being played for less than their casting cost.

Matter Reshaper, Eldrazi Displacer, TKS, Smasher and drowner are all perfectly fine and balanced cards even without Eldrazi temple.

You must be having a really hard time with Eldrazi. Eldrazi Temple is only a 4-of in a 60 card deck. It doesn't guarantee anything. Without the temple, the Eldrazi spells would be useless. It is nowhere near ban-worthy.

Quote from cfusionpm »

Quote from rcwraspy »

Twin is not the solution. Assuming it's correct to say that the format is too linear (which is still debatable), cards like Twin and SFM simply sweep that inherent format problem under the rug by presenting a more efficient question rather than actually providing an answer. If the problem is that there are no good, generic answers, then Twin does nothing to help that. Nothing in the Twin deck was a better answer than what we have now. It was just a more efficient question that every deck had to be ready for.

Now, I suppose we can argue about whether actually addressing the fundamental issues of the format and "sweeping them under the rug" both amount to the same thing in the end, but I'd much rather see playable generic answers enter the format than more oppressive questions.

So until we get to this magical Christmas land of "better generic answers," which may or may not ever come based on MaRo's attitude towards answers cards (and Wizards' push in general to creature combat and proactive strategies), we just deal with this state of Modern until people leave? I fail to see the harm in bringing back a deck which represented an archetype that is currently non-existent, a color pair that is woefully unrepresented, a style of play unable to replicate in any other deck, and a pillar which has been a top staple to the format without warping, oppressing, or destroying it for the entirety of Modern.

Unbanning it doesn't fix all of Modern's problems, but it takes a step in the right direction in trying to balance archetypes and playstyles. So far this year, we've gone from Eldrazi Winter to Chaos Spring to Linear Summer, and is one of the most complained-about years in quite a while. And the only decks getting better and better are fast, linear, aggressive strategies. There is absolutely no benefit to playing a blue reactive deck in Modern, unless you are a glutton for punishment.

Again, I am not saying Twin fixes everything, but banning it didn't fix anything.

Quote from wpgstevo »

Quote from MrM0nd4y »

Quote from wpgstevo »

@ MrM0nd4y Agree to disagree friend. I don't see how you could say diagram 1 is more accurate than diagram 2, but I guess that is why we disagree.

I'm curious, why would you say that it's closer to the Jund end of the scale? The vast majority of its interaction is removing a blocker of some sort, which decks like Burn and Zoo also do. TKS can take a card from their hand, but that's the only other type of disruption in the average Eldrazi deck.

Whereas Jund has hand disruption, kill spells, graveyard interaction through Kalitas and Scooze. Grixis has all of those along with counterspells. Grixis, Abzan and Jund all have waaaaaaaaaay more disruption than Eldrazi does.

Removing blockers isn't interaction? Then I guess jund's interaction is limited to hand disruption? I don't really understand how you can say that most of the interaction is removing blockers when they can just as easily remove attackers. Between displacer, TKS, Path, Drowner, Elder deep-fiend and dismember Eldrazi is packing plenty of interaction. If you think that list makes it closer to Infect than Jund, we'll have to disagree.