[Official] State of Modern Thread (B&R 07/13/2020)

User avatar
Wraithpk
Posts: 181
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Connecticut, USA

Post by Wraithpk » 2 years ago

drmarkb wrote:
2 years ago
My worry with Twin is Force of Negation, and the fact that one cc renoval that kills the combo with a 1/4 is limited to Path, Dismember and Push.l plus the rather poor black Force of Despair.
Force doesn't protect the combo on our turn. It only can be used proactively like that if you try to kill the creature on your turn, which admittedly is pretty good if the opponent tapped down to one land and we play the combo creature to tap it. As a former Twin player, I'm mostly playing Force as a defensive card, though.
drmarkb wrote:
2 years ago
There is currently a range of UR decks, I am not sure there would be with Twin at large.
What UR decks? Izzet Phoenix is the only good UR deck right now, and that would continue to exist alongside Twin. Remember that UR Storm always existed alongside Twin. Twin would almost certainly supplant Blue Moon, but that deck has never been good. So instead of having 1 good UR deck, we would have 2.
drmarkb wrote:
2 years ago
Perhaps if more one cc stuff existed to nerf the combo I would be fine, but going second means I have a narrow window to land a card to stop the combo, and with Force it becomes hard.
I'd like to remind you that Twin only had the turn 4 combo ready 20% of the time, so you probably had a bigger window to find removal than you thought you did. Also, there's Slaughter Pact, Force of Vigor, Nature's Claim, Gut Shot (for Pestermite), Rending Volley, Murderous Cut, Magmatic Sinkhole, etc. There are also a ton of great 2 mana answers, and a ton of great permanent-based answers, like Spellskite, Meddling Mage, and Torpor Orb. There are tons of good answers to the Splinter Twin combo for any deck to play.
drmarkb wrote:
2 years ago
I would like to see more free effects in the game, and a bit more uncounterable stuff - via the mechanic of cannot be countered, Split Second or Leylines etc.
This is literally the last thing we need. Free spells are almost always broken, and mechanics that say, "You can't play fair Magic," lead to uninteractive games, and when a format is filled with such effects it leads to an uninteractive format. Like, I'm playing UW Control now, and I'm obviously playing Dovin's Veto, but I wasn't happy when I saw the card because it's not something they should be printing. Counter battles are some of the most fun moments in Magic for me. Dovin's Veto just stops those moments from happening, and that sucks.
drmarkb wrote:
2 years ago
that is easier to do when you have not got game ending combos running about t4 though.
You do realize that almost every one of the unfair decks in Modern kill pretty regularly even earlier than that, right? Just because most of them aren't killing you with an infinite combo doesn't make the game any less over. Twin only won on turn 4 like 5 to 10% of the time, Sheridan knows the exact number, he had the data from when he was at Modern Nexus. These aggro/combo decks, they only get banned for T4 rule violations when they have turn 3 or sooner kills in the 20 to 25% range, and they're popular enough to be a decent chunk of the meta. That means that decks like Neoform and Grishoalbrand very well might have <T4 kills above 20%, but they're allowed to exist because they aren't popular. It also means that there are probably a bunch of decks that kill on T2 or T3 more often than Twin killed on T4. And let's not forget that Twin helped keep these other fast unfair decks in check when it was legal.
Modern
ubr Grixis Shadow ubr
uwg Bant Stoneblade uwg
gbr Jund gbr

Pioneer
urIzzet Phoenixur
rMono-Red Aggror
uwAzorius Controluw

Commander
bg Meren of Clan Nel Toth bg

True-Name Nemesis
Posts: 156
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by True-Name Nemesis » 2 years ago

Twin stifling diversity has been debunked so many times by now I'm surprised there are still people who think that.

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1179
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 2 years ago

True-Name Nemesis wrote:
2 years ago
Twin stifling diversity has been debunked so many times by now I'm surprised there are still people who think that.
There are people who believe a whole lot of things. If you have enough people repeating things enough times, you can get them to believe anything. In the age of social media bubbles, truth and reality simply don't exist as concrete facts anymore. Just look at everything from global politics over the last several years to our silly little card game. People believe what they want to believe, facts be damned.

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 2 years ago

Bah, not even 25%, do you even know how to be broken Hogaak?

UR Control UR

User avatar
Wraithpk
Posts: 181
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Connecticut, USA

Post by Wraithpk » 2 years ago

True-Name Nemesis wrote:
2 years ago
Twin stifling diversity has been debunked so many times by now I'm surprised there are still people who think that.
Because people don't understand what it means, but they've heard other people say it, so they parrot it back.

Decks can stifle diversity in two ways:

1) When a deck becomes a disproportionately large chunk of the meta. This one is obvious, if a single deck becomes like 20 to 30% of the meta, there are fewer people playing other decks. This happened with DRS Jund and obviously Eldrazi.

2) When a deck has such polarizing matchups that it pushes out entire strategies that can't beat it. This is basically what happened with GGT Dredge, and also Eldrazi.

The common argument about diversity that's fallacious is when people say that a card/deck would homogenize, and therefore reduce diversity, within a larger super-archetype. That *can* happen, but only when a deck is a power outlier and probably needs to be banned for power level reasons (TC Delver), which is a totally different issue. Decks that are strong enough to stand on their own wouldn't be supplanted by something else.

For the example of Twin, since that's the commonly talked about deck for this issue, it wasn't that Twin was so much better than all the other blue decks that it homogenized them. It was that all the other blue decks were not strong, and Twin was the only deck in the super-archetype that actually was competitive. We can tell this is true directly from what happened after the ban. If the other blue decks were actually strong enough to stand on their own, but were being supplanted by the even stronger Twin, we would have seen those decks return to play with Twin gone. For reference, this is what happened when Treasure Cruise got banned. Twin had been suppressed and saw almost no play when TC Delver was legal, but returned as soon as it was gone.

On the other hand, if Twin is the only popular blue deck because the other blue decks were just bad, and not because Twin was supplanting them, banning Twin wouldn't suddenly make them see play. This is, of course, exactly what happened.

Even though I used Twin as the example here, I've heard similar things said about SFM, how it would homogenized all white fair decks, but those decks don't see any play, so there's nothing to even homogenize.
Modern
ubr Grixis Shadow ubr
uwg Bant Stoneblade uwg
gbr Jund gbr

Pioneer
urIzzet Phoenixur
rMono-Red Aggror
uwAzorius Controluw

Commander
bg Meren of Clan Nel Toth bg

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 2 years ago

Why is this being discussed?

Tier 1 decks, limit Diversity by putting a 'do you fold to this' check in the game

ALL TIER ONE DECKS ASK THIS.

Twin did not limit diversity in any unique way compared to other Tier decks.

Anyone stating otherwise has the burden of proof. MtgTop8 awaits, go look up the diversity and prove Twin limited it.
UR Control UR

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 2 years ago

lol, I didnt get my 6 of 8, but we got to 62% of the Top 8.

13% - 23% - 62%

GG

UR Control UR

User avatar
tronix
Posts: 32
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by tronix » 2 years ago

nice. hogaak did some unpleasant things to modern, but let it be said it didnt fail to fulfill its duty at the end. making the whole situation as awkward as possible for wizards.
bant iceblade
GDS

User avatar
motleyslayer
Posts: 931
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Contact:

Post by motleyslayer » 2 years ago

if this top 8doesn't show what WotC needs to do on Monday I don't know what will, that is disgusting

User avatar
ktkenshinx
Posts: 571
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: West Coast
Contact:

Post by ktkenshinx » 2 years ago

K well, I don't remember the last time there was this close to a 100% chance of a ban on Monday, but we're there right now. The only question right now is: what will Wizards do alongside the Hogaak ban? They've %$#% up the design/development of this card, miscalculated the first ban, and then obliterated an entire summer of Modern by letting this monstrosity run rampant for weeks when the ban was inevitable. Hopefully, they identify this compounding failure and do some kind of Eldrazi Winter-style "apology unban" to try and keep format excitement going after this awful summer.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

ElectricEye
Posts: 4
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by ElectricEye » 2 years ago

Stoneforge Mystic and Green Sun's Zenith would be wonderful to see come back into modern.

If it's simply a Hogaak ban and nothing unbanned, I would be less than interested to keep playing this format.

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1179
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 2 years ago

I patiently await our apology unbans on Monday. :party:

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 2 years ago

tronix wrote:
2 years ago
nice. hogaak did some unpleasant things to modern, but let it be said it didnt fail to fulfill its duty at the end. making the whole situation as awkward as possible for wizards.
Yeah, I'm glad people did their part, and played the hell out of it, to send it out the door.
UR Control UR

User avatar
Wraithpk
Posts: 181
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Connecticut, USA

Post by Wraithpk » 2 years ago

gkourou wrote:
2 years ago
Come on man, wraith, you know i highly respect your opinion.
Nobody said for sure twin would stifle diversity for sure today.
We mostly said its a possibility and wizards is afraid of that, otherwise they would have unban it.
That wasn't directed at you because I know you're kinda playing devil's advocate and trying to say what you think Wizards is thinking, but there are people who still believe that Twin suppressed other blue decks despite that idea being proven false.

As for you, I think it's important to remember that we know what WotC thought at specific moments in time, but just like any individual, it's very possible that they were wrong and have realized that, or that their opinions have changed over time. We know what they thought in January 2016. We also know that they were wrong with their reasoning in their article, time bore that out. Let's be honest, those guys tend to lag behind us in understanding of the format because we all sit here and ruminate on Modern ad nauseam, but they tend to eventually reach the same conclusions we've reached. There's a good chance they've already realized that their argument to ban it was wrong, if they ever actually believed what they printed, lol.
Modern
ubr Grixis Shadow ubr
uwg Bant Stoneblade uwg
gbr Jund gbr

Pioneer
urIzzet Phoenixur
rMono-Red Aggror
uwAzorius Controluw

Commander
bg Meren of Clan Nel Toth bg

True-Name Nemesis
Posts: 156
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by True-Name Nemesis » 2 years ago

What's the point in playing devil's advocate for WOTC for a statistical improbability based on a false premise.

Yeah sure there's a non-zero chance twin could possibly stifle diversity (lol), there's also a non-zero chance that WoTC decides to ban Stitcher's Supplier instead of Hogaak but but we're not worrying about that now are we.

True-Name Nemesis
Posts: 156
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by True-Name Nemesis » 2 years ago

gkourou wrote:
2 years ago

There is not a non zero chance, but a serious chance that it would. The point is that if you want to be realistic, you do want to understand the reasons why they are so concerned.
What evidence is this 'serious chance' based on? Twin did no such thing in the past, the numbers have been provided by ktkenshin on here and MTGS, and there is no reason to believe that it would now.
gkourou wrote:
2 years ago
Again, blake Rasmussen in a twitch stream recently said twin's play patterns were obnoxious and when it comes to twin players he does not sympathize with them having their deck nuked out of orbit(I could find the link if you want to)
They just see twin as a monster that does not let you play 4 drops and 5 drops.
Realize that and you will know its not happening.
Do you have any argument that is not "some wotc-affiliated person said this" therefore we should take it as fact?

Hard to take their statements about twin's obnoxious play patterns seriously when their mismanagement of the format has led to 2.5 months of the most degenerate play patterns that we have seen in the 3 years since Eldrazi Winter.

Twin being some monster that does not let 4-drops and 5-drops be played is a myth. BBE, Huntmaster, Restoration Angel and Siege Rhino were some of the more popular ones to do so. The bar for 4-drops and above to see play has always been high, nothing to do with twin.

Without twin in the format, the 4-drops that see play now are: Jace, Urza, Karn, BBE, TKS. And i guess we can count Vengevine and Arclight phoenix as well on the rare occasions those are actually cast as 4-drops..

Hardly any different.

True-Name Nemesis
Posts: 156
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by True-Name Nemesis » 2 years ago

gkourou wrote:
2 years ago
We dont need any proof, because I am not saying twin will warp modern or it will stifle diversity for sure.
So you basically have no points to make other than being a retweet bot for what WOTC wrongfully thinks and says. Got it.
gkourou wrote:
2 years ago
You saying infinite times i said so is worrying.
Show me where I said this, go on. It's a joke that you keep trying to martyr yourself.
gkourou wrote:
2 years ago
All I am saying is that wizards are afraid of it stifling diversity.
The evidence of them being afraid is right in front of you: They dont unban the card.
If they unban it, that means they no longer think it would stifle diversity.
And their fear is misplaced. Evidence of them being afraid is different from evidence that twin would stifle diversity.
gkourou wrote:
2 years ago
Remember, the burden of proof for proving twin would be fine falls upon you. Instead of making endless hypothetical statements of it being fine, just playtest and post an article. I am sure ktk could use the stats or wizards might see the article. Wizards dont see you writing in here, so whatever you say (or me) is not that important.
I don't need to prove anything. Plenty of evidence has been provided that the twin ban was wrong based on the rationale given at the time. And if they were just custodians of the format, they would undo their wrongdoing.
gkourou wrote:
2 years ago
We dont have any need of saying it would or would not be fine. We just dont care. Its banned and we don't either care about discussing about it. If you ask me, i wouldnt mind it coming out that much, but whatever.
Don't start getting involved in twin talk if you don't care to discuss it then. What a joke.
Warning for trolling
-ktkenshinx-
Last edited by True-Name Nemesis 2 years ago, edited 1 time in total.

True-Name Nemesis
Posts: 156
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by True-Name Nemesis » 2 years ago

Sure feel free to talk about whatever you want, you have the right. It's very hypocritical to talk about something and then say you don't care to discuss it afterwards when debates rise up in response to what you say.

True-Name Nemesis
Posts: 156
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by True-Name Nemesis » 2 years ago

True-Name Nemesis wrote:
2 years ago
gkourou wrote:
2 years ago
Its banned and we don't either care about discussing about it.
Don't start getting involved in twin talk if you don't care to discuss it then. What a joke.
gkourou wrote:
2 years ago
Also, i did not say i dont want to talk about it at all, I just said i am fine if we dont talk it about all that much, whatever.
You yourself said you don't care to discuss it. So do you care to discuss it or do you not? Why don't you clarify your position instead of flip-flopping on ambiguous statements.
gkourou wrote:
2 years ago
Ps: please dont twist my words.
True-Name Nemesis wrote:
2 years ago
gkourou wrote:
2 years ago
You saying infinite times i said so is worrying.
Show me where I said this, go on. It's a joke that you keep trying to martyr yourself.
Still waiting for this by the way. You haven't yet been able to show me where I misrepresented you. So go on, show me where I twisted your words.

You like doing his huh, accuse people of misrepresenting you but unable to actually show where.
gkourou wrote:
2 years ago
I am however taking about how wizards sees twin and the chances of it getting unbanned. Those are two different subjects and the last one is more interesting, because its something we have not discussed all that much at least.
How are they 2 different subjects? How WOTC sees Twin and its chances of coming off is intrinsically entwined with the actual numbers debunking the banlist rationale of why it is even on the ban list. How should we discuss one without the involving the other. Any topic regarding twin's place on the ban list will always come down to this.

Otherwise, it seems like you're just making a statement, and not actually looking for a discussion.

Lest you forget. YOU are the one who engaged with me citing WOTC's reasons for concern.
gkourou wrote:
2 years ago
There is not a non zero chance, but a serious chance that it would. The point is that if you want to be realistic, you do want to understand the reasons why they are so concerned. Again, blake Rasmussen in a twitch stream recently said twin's play patterns were obnoxious and when it comes to twin players he does not sympathize with them having their deck nuked out of orbit(I could find the link if you want to)
They just see twin as a monster that does not let you play 4 drops and 5 drops.
Realize that and you will know its not happening.
Yes, we know what their reasons are, we also know those reasons are, for the most part invalid based on past evidence and studies.

How else would you expect your 'discussion' of how WOTC sees twin is going to go?

We realise what WOTC's flawed reasoning and concerns are. That's simply not going to stop people from pointing out how wrong those are.

metalmusic_4
Posts: 260
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by metalmusic_4 » 2 years ago

My prediction for tomorrow: hogaak is banned, no unbans.

I'll be very happy with any unbans(particularly twin and SFM), but I don't expect they will do it tomorrow. Hopefully they dont decide to ban 3, 4, or more cards trying to lower the overall power level.

User avatar
The Fluff
is this so?
Posts: 2123
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Gradius Home World
Contact:

Post by The Fluff » 2 years ago

one of the worst possible surprises tomorrow would be Hogaak is still not banned, but they banned several other older cards instead to "weaken" Hogaak. Although it's probably almost impossible for them to do something like this.

Hogaak for sure will join the ranks of banned modern cards.
Image
AnimEVO 2020 - EFZ Tournament (english commentary) // OE 2016 // POF 2018
want to play a uw control deck in modern, but don't have Jace or snapcaster? please come visit us at the Emeria thread

metalmusic_4
Posts: 260
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by metalmusic_4 » 2 years ago

I have a fear they may try something like ban faithless looting, stirrings, SSG, grisselbrand, mox opal, aether vial and hogaak or some other list of cards to lower the power level. I don't think they would do that, but I do fear that.

User avatar
tronix
Posts: 32
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by tronix » 2 years ago

for twin its really simple, in order to get beyond endless conjecture and wild speculation that is unreliable at best thanks to complexity of the game/format system; you either put in hundreds or man hours (and whatever else) conducting experiments/tests inevitably wide open to dismissal due to not being comprehensive enough, or you jump the step by establishing assumptions about the card you believe to be true (or at least highly likely to be).

consider that to this day many still cannot agree on what twin did or did not do back when it was legal. modern has changed drastically in how the meta ecosystem operates, the card pool, and even in how players engage with it. its to the point it isnt a stretch to call it a different format entirely. this isnt to say that we are clueless or have nothing to work with, but its yet more assumptions being made; for example given the relationship between jund and twin in the past and given we know the combo components have not changed its more likely the jund of today and hypothetical twin decks interact similarly. makes some sense i guess, but far removed from a surety.

its in this regard that there isnt much merit to dwell upon specifics like what X or Y card may or may not do. twin with force of negation or t3feri being scary? based on what? some non existent twin shell playing those cards swimming among an unknown mixture of current decks presumably just as strong if not moreso, all of which having the adaptability required in the quickly churning meta.

the primary assumption all of us decide upon is whether twin falls into the realm of 'too good' in all that phrase entails in regards to becoming a problem requiring action. in other words we either think its a viable candidate or it isnt. if not, keep walking, nothing to be said because unbanning a something you already assume to be ban worthy is nonsense. any discussion to be had therefore exists for those who believe twin and the decks it spawns fall within the scope of what's okay defined by existing decks.

similar to gkourou's reasoning, but differs because i do not believe a card becoming 'okay' as a candidate would be verified by wizards unbanning it. likewise i disagree that any reticence they may have about unbanning twin being attributed to genuine fear the card would get out of hand; nor do i think offhand comments from the likes of rassmusen a reliable indicator of what wizards believes given he is only speaking for himself and his job expertise adding pretty much no credibility, putting his thoughts holding weight at or below even those here. rather it seems more likely to be avoidance on wizards part. why deal with the hassle when they have the convenient. already in process, alternative of just designing more and different cards.
bant iceblade
GDS

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1179
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 2 years ago

gkourou wrote:
2 years ago
Again, if you really believe it would be fine, and i understand if you do, you should playtest with it against the gauntlet post gaak, and post some data, try to publish an article.
Why does this burden of proof not apply to your own views?

True-Name Nemesis
Posts: 156
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by True-Name Nemesis » 2 years ago

Because he's echoing WoTC's views. And WoTC has all the data, they're just not sharing it. And as we all know WoTC are great custodians of the Modern format as proven by their amazing track record in managing Modern. Therefore, what they say can be 100% taken in good faith. No proof required when backing up WoTC.

Only plebs like us who challenge WoTC's decisions need to provide evidence.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Modern”