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

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

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
TheAnnihilator wrote:
1 year ago
cards like Twin, Zenith, and, to a lesser extent, Pod are still banned, you lose access to people who would play a more interactive
None of these promoted interaction.
With a straight face you are going to claim Twin did not promote interaction?
UR Control UR

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1177
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
TheAnnihilator wrote:
1 year ago
cards like Twin, Zenith, and, to a lesser extent, Pod are still banned, you lose access to people who would play a more interactive
None of these promoted interaction.
With a straight face you are going to claim Twin did not promote interaction?
With this particular user's stance on Twin and it's toxic, awful, terrible destruction of a format, because its prevalence was considerably less than Urza, or Oko, or Phoenix, and it was simply impossible to deal with a fragile creature or sorcery speed enchantment, and the stance that it was just a mindless linear combo that destroyed the format, yes, I could believe they are saying this with a straight face. Add them to the ignore list and move on.

Never mind takes like this, written just a month before it was banned, during the supposed peak of dominance.
Warning for trolling.
-ktkenshinx-

Tomatotime
Posts: 197
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Tomatotime » 1 year ago

Aazadan wrote:
1 year ago
This is something I've been noticing in Magic for a while now. My cards are becoming considerably less liquid over time. Over the past couple years I've gotten myself a good job and have been shifting much of my collection over to promos because I like them and now have the disposable income to buy them. The thing is though, I'm having a hell of time actually selling my previous non promo versions of cards. I can do so through eBay or tcgplayer I suppose, but I can't find anyone in person or any local shops that would be interested in buying them at reasonable prices (aka, something above buy list but below market price).

And I'm not talking about crap, I'm talking about things like Mox Opals, Fetches, Goyfs,Snapcasters, Liliana of the Veils, Raging Ravines, Celestial Colonnades, Cryptic Commands, and more. And I just can't find people interested in buying them that doesn't involve me spending absurd amounts of time dealing with shipping BS.
Just an FYI I do a lot of online MTG transactions and I would say the best method I have found to sell cards online (as a Canadian) is via private facebook groups, its literally the only reason I even opened a facebook account since it is poison to use recreationally. Depending on who you want to sell to, you can usually get as high as 80% retail for smaller lots, or about 60 % retail for full lots, which depending on your margins might be fine especially if your like me and you don't want to manage multiple packages with multiple labels etc. Just my 2 cents.

ThatStoryTeller
Posts: 55
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by ThatStoryTeller » 1 year ago

[mention]gkourou[/mention] Faeries player here, and I had to ask...Do you have foil Mystical Disputes ready for all the decks that will have to fight you on the stack? Is dispel enough? :P Joking, but I honestly got really excited looking at that list, cause interaction is what I loved about earlier modern (Even when it came to decks like storm). Hybrid-Combo decks that trounce the linear stuff are always a pleasure to see. Hope you get to play it at an event real soon.

User avatar
Tzoulis
Posts: 314
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Tzoulis » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
With this particular user's stance on Twin and it's toxic, awful, terrible destruction of a format, because its prevalence was considerably less than Urza, or Oko, or Phoenix, and it was simply impossible to deal with a fragile creature or sorcery speed enchantment, and the stance that it was just a mindless linear combo that destroyed the format, yes, I could believe they are saying this with a straight face. Add them to the ignore list and move on.

Never mind takes like this, written just a month before it was banned, during the supposed peak of dominance.
At least have the courage to quote me if you're talking about me.

[mention]gkourou[/mention], [mention]idSurge[/mention] I really stuck a nerve there didn't I?

I never hid my feelings about Twin, but I've said it plenty of times: Unban Twin.

That doesn't mean that it promoted interaction. If it did, then logic dictates that interactive decks would rise to defeat it because they had positive matchups against it, correct?

But they didn't. In fact, BGx was at best a 50-50 and of the Delver variants only Grixis had any real chance of a positive match up. Control wasn't even a factor back then.

Twin may have been interactive, but in no way did it make other decks more interactive. They either tried to race it or ignore it and use some pieces of hate, like they do with every other combo based deck.

Also, to the lot of you, instead of misrepresenting my arguments and devolving them to "lol Urza/Opal player", how about start discussing. I've laid out my arguments plenty of times and yet you're ignoring them refusing to engage.

[mention]gkourou[/mention] Nice layout of your proposed deck. Now can you explain how Simic Urza - a Twin on steroids as you said - doesn't promote interaction, because based on VTCLA's MOC's list, the numbers on interactive spells are pretty similar to your list.

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

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

But it did make other decks more interactive, you had to or you lost. Further, it DID promote interaction at the meta level. It's no wonder that it was susceptible to BGx interaction, and in the last data set, it was Delver (very interactive) with a positive match up.

Yes, you hit a nerve, because you either lied, or just made an incorrect statement about a decks impact that many people ignorantly would believe, if they had not played the deck.

Twin is not only interactive, but it promoted interaction.
UR Control UR

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

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

Oh, and I've not dismissed you in the past that I can remember. If so, I apologize.

My only horse in this race is that people not misrepresent Twin, because it's loss is why Modern sucks. :p
UR Control UR

User avatar
Tzoulis
Posts: 314
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Tzoulis » 1 year ago

idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
But it did make other decks more interactive, you had to or you lost. Further, it DID promote interaction at the meta level. It's no wonder that it was susceptible to BGx interaction, and in the last data set, it was Delver (very interactive) with a positive match up.

Yes, you hit a nerve, because you either lied, or just made an incorrect statement about a decks impact that many people ignorantly would believe, if they had not played the deck.

Twin is not only interactive, but it promoted interaction.
Forcing other decks to play Rending Volley and/or Spellskite and/or Nature's Claim as narrow answers to Twin is not promoting interaction. It's just sideboarding.

It'd promote interaction if it was weak to it. The premier interactive deck had at best a 50/50 match up against Twin. If you're a spike why play BGx and lose 50% of your matches against Twin when you're supposedly play all the hate mainboard? Twin only lost to Grixis Delver (and for a time Control) because Delver decks are the antithesis to everything combo. The tempo + disruption was important. Delver promoted interaction because it was weak to it, it folded to BGx (and Control), whereas Twin didn't.

As I said, it was interactive and as much as I despised the deck, it wouldn't be more than another strong deck now (with a small chance of being as strong as it was), but it didn't really promote interaction. It won despite that and lost only to decks designed to beat it (Delver/Control).

Now, how would you push the format toward a more interaction focused direction is the million dollar question. I'd start with doing away Oko and Veil, after that evaluate Urza decks for a few weeks or couple of months and take action if need be, and print cards that help decks like 5 color Niv, UWx midrange/Control (Counterspell please?) and Taxes and others like it.

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

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

We can agree to disagree then.

Oko and Veil absolutely need to go within a few weeks, Modern cannot remain in this state for 3-6 Months.
UR Control UR

User avatar
Ed06288
Posts: 168
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Ed06288 » 1 year ago

I think the twin and pod bans were good bans but I do miss the decks and wish they were back. I remember the decks being around 12 to 13% of the metagame. They definitely had a leg up on the competition. Grixis control, abzan, and jund also had large metagame shares too. Then you had the linear decks like burn, affinity, infect, tron, amulet, which all pretty much tried to race you and maybe cheese you out with a rending volley. Maybe the best metagame we ever had was when jund shadow first arrived in 2017-ish. I don't want to be legacy where we have the brainstorm problem so I could go either way on twin. Players of no-ban list modern say birthing pod is okay to bring back.

Some of you sound like you have buyers remorse with modern. I love modern but I'm ready to move on if the format is declared extinct. There were plenty of opportunities to sell out.

Aazadan
Posts: 547
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Aazadan » 1 year ago

Tomatotime wrote:
1 year ago
Just an FYI I do a lot of online MTG transactions and I would say the best method I have found to sell cards online (as a Canadian) is via private facebook groups, its literally the only reason I even opened a facebook account since it is poison to use recreationally. Depending on who you want to sell to, you can usually get as high as 80% retail for smaller lots, or about 60 % retail for full lots, which depending on your margins might be fine especially if your like me and you don't want to manage multiple packages with multiple labels etc. Just my 2 cents.
That would be one way to move them, but I have ethical issues with doing anything that contributes to people wanting to use Facebook so I won't be using that as a way to move them. And this is before I even get into trying to move bulk like some of the smaller dollar value cards that I really don't need anymore.

Cards are just a lot less liquid overall right now, while trying to get anywhere near a decent percentage of retail value.

iTaLenTZ
Posts: 224
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by iTaLenTZ » 1 year ago

gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
Ox of Agonas will be HUGE on Dredge. They lost looting sure, but that card is a potential dredge 15. Potential problem detected.
This was literally my first thought when I saw the card

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1177
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
Twin may have been interactive, but in no way did it make other decks more interactive. They either tried to race it or ignore it and use some pieces of hate, like they do with every other combo based deck.
This, like most of your views of Twin, continue to be fundamentally untrue and wildly skewed. Besides the incidental damage done by any deck choosing to play any number of discard spells, creature removal, or counterspells, decks could choose to run any number of additional targeted things. While there were super narrow things like Rending Volley, many were available to any color and had broader applications, like Dismember and Spellskite and Torpor Orb.

The decks that beat up on Twin were the ones that chose to attack its fragile combo and fight through its weak counterspell suite and horrid backup win conditions. Going under/faster was just one option, but pretending like that was the only way to defeat Twin extremely disingenuous. And pretending like it prevented you from playing the game is even worse. I don't even want to talk about this anymore, but Jesus Christ, these kinds of comments are simply relentless. Can we just ban talking about it again?
Ed06288 wrote:
1 year ago
Some of you sound like you have buyers remorse with modern. I love modern but I'm ready to move on if the format is declared extinct. There were plenty of opportunities to sell out.
I spent several thousand dollars buying and then foiling out a deck I loved with a playstyle I have been seeking to replicate for 4 years. I have actually been trying to sell out of Modern for a while, and it is exceedingly difficult because you either stand to lose TONS of money (from the process, as well as a bunch of cards just diminishing considerably in value), or you need to list, sell, and move everything yourself individually. It's a massive pain/cost no matter which way you go, making selling just not worth it most of the time. So we hold on and hold out hope that "some day" we can actually play something we enjoy again.

User avatar
The Fluff
is this so?
Posts: 2115
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Gradius Home World
Contact:

Post by The Fluff » 1 year ago

Ed06288 wrote:
1 year ago
Some of you sound like you have buyers remorse with modern. I love modern but I'm ready to move on if the format is declared extinct. There were plenty of opportunities to sell out.
in case I'm one of those targetted with this statement. No, not at all. Break even status is what I managed to get. Large profits from mox opal, scalding tarn, and sfm sales offset by losses on tarmogoyf, celestial colonnade, and that one parcel of cards sadly lost in transit. Smaller profits from manamorphose. worldly tutor, and several others helped cover actual card costs and shipping costs. So at worst, I'm basically playing the game for free. Have a real job, mtg is just a hobby, I don't depend on selling cards for a living.

now that pioneer tournaments would start in 2020. I'm hoping some cards I have in storage might get some higher value, so I could sell them to the pioneer people. :)
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

User avatar
Tzoulis
Posts: 314
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Tzoulis » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
This, like most of your views of Twin, continue to be fundamentally untrue and wildly skewed. Besides the incidental damage done by any deck choosing to play any number of discard spells, creature removal, or counterspells, decks could choose to run any number of additional targeted things. While there were super narrow things like Rending Volley, many were available to any color and had broader applications, like Dismember and Spellskite and Torpor Orb.

The decks that beat up on Twin were the ones that chose to attack its fragile combo and fight through its weak counterspell suite and horrid backup win conditions. Going under/faster was just one option, but pretending like that was the only way to defeat Twin extremely disingenuous. And pretending like it prevented you from playing the game is even worse. I don't even want to talk about this anymore, but Jesus Christ, these kinds of comments are simply relentless. Can we just ban talking about it again?
Yeah great. And out of all the decks that employed those tools only 1 or 2 had a positive match-up. Them being Grixis Delver and Grixis Control. All the others, mainly BGx, were %$#% out of luck. Unless you're making the point that BGx didn't try to target Twin and fail miserably.

You were moaning that cards like Needles and Explosives were extremely narrow answers for Paradoxical Urza, but somehow Torpor Orb and Spellskite "were available to any color and had broader applications"...

Your 2nd paragraph only illustrates what I'm saying. Either you focus on beating Twin (Delver/Control) and worsen your other match ups or pack as much general disruption, make it at best a 50-50 match-up with some better other match-ups (BGx) or put some sideboard cards specifically for Twin in case you play it, but in generally ignore it (almost every non-Delver aggro and combo).

That's not creating an interactive environment or requiring interaction to be beaten.

iTaLenTZ
Posts: 224
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by iTaLenTZ » 1 year ago

Historically 2 card combo's have always proven to be problematic. Its like saying Dark Depths should be unbanned because it promotes interactivity because you want to play bounce and needle effects.

I really wish it became forbidden to further 'discuss' Twin because the advocates all sound like broken records repeating the same thing over and over for 4 years already without adding anything new to the discussion. All has been said.

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1177
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
This, like most of your views of Twin, continue to be fundamentally untrue and wildly skewed. Besides the incidental damage done by any deck choosing to play any number of discard spells, creature removal, or counterspells, decks could choose to run any number of additional targeted things. While there were super narrow things like Rending Volley, many were available to any color and had broader applications, like Dismember and Spellskite and Torpor Orb.

The decks that beat up on Twin were the ones that chose to attack its fragile combo and fight through its weak counterspell suite and horrid backup win conditions. Going under/faster was just one option, but pretending like that was the only way to defeat Twin extremely disingenuous. And pretending like it prevented you from playing the game is even worse. I don't even want to talk about this anymore, but Jesus Christ, these kinds of comments are simply relentless. Can we just ban talking about it again?
Yeah great. And out of all the decks that employed those tools only 1 or 2 had a positive match-up. Them being Grixis Delver and Grixis Control. All the others, mainly BGx, were %$#% out of luck. Unless you're making the point that BGx didn't try to target Twin and fail miserably.

You were moaning that cards like Needles and Explosives were extremely narrow answers for Paradoxical Urza, but somehow Torpor Orb and Spellskite "were available to any color and had broader applications"...

Your 2nd paragraph only illustrates what I'm saying. Either you focus on beating Twin (Delver/Control) and worsen your other match ups or pack as much general disruption, make it at best a 50-50 match-up with some better other match-ups (BGx) or put some sideboard cards specifically for Twin in case you play it, but in generally ignore it (almost every non-Delver aggro and combo).

That's not creating an interactive environment or requiring interaction to be beaten.
Please explain how Urza is defeated by standard, non-exile, creature removal. Or why regular old, non-exile creature removal is somehow this insurmountable obstacle.

Urza is not defeated by creature removal, not defeated by discard, not defeated by counters, not defeated by sweepers, not defeated by targeted artifact removal, and has unbelievable amounts of mana accessible to it. Its backup plans on backup plans on backup plans also include various levels of extremely resilient or difficult-to-deal-with value creatures, planeswalkers, tutors, recursion engines, and/or combos.

Twin's backup plan was to smash with a vanilla 2/1 and hope that Remand is a playable card. Oh and sometimes you hope to live long enough that Keranos, God of Storms might stay in your hand long enough to be cast, resolve, and eventually kill them.

Stop this.
iTaLenTZ wrote:
1 year ago
I really wish it became forbidden to further 'discuss' Twin because the advocates all sound like broken records repeating the same thing over and over for 4 years already without adding anything new to the discussion. All has been said.
This happens because there is literally no defensible justification for its ban. Literally every reason WOTC gave has been wrong, every goal has failed, and there is absolutely nothing of substance to defend its continued ban other than "WAH I DON'T LIKE IT!" coupled with a bunch of revisionist history and made up nonsense.

I wish we could stop discussing it too. But people keep saying things that are so egregiously misrepresentative, it bears addressing. It garners undue support for its continued ban from people who have literally never played with or against the deck, as has been pointed out by users on Reddit.

Mtgthewary
Posts: 220
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Mtgthewary » 1 year ago

They repeat it because you don't stop talking about. Do you think it changes opinion of them if you repeat your repeats again and again so they can repeat their repeats again and again? It's just useless boring. You can go out here, look 3 years later and see still same sentences again each day... People using them 548 times as they never sayed it since years over and over again. We all get it. It's not important if you argue good or bad, it's only another opinion. I started magic with a homebrew as example on my first tournament. I get into a shop, I played very good, faced twin first time with (and pod) , had 83 life's and opponent was dying... And then boom, Splinter twin (and pod). Was my most bad experience in 18 years of magic, most of them casual, even I played 3:2 (loosing pod and twin) . What you want do now? Explain how fair and interactive this deck is again? How less answers I played with PS path and bolt? How bad I was or inexperienced? Man get it, it doesnt change if you repeat this all again and again like last years. Accept opinion and experience of other people. Start respecting it!
Last edited by Mtgthewary 1 year ago, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
drmarkb
Posts: 591
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by drmarkb » 1 year ago

Right now I am interested in the process of bans/unbans as much as anything. Get that correct- the communication, the scheduling, the ability to remove a card temporarily in the first instance, and then the format becomes better, regardless of the game play. People getting bummed by bans sucks. People getting bummed because the deck they sold 3 years ago is unbanned sucks. People getting bummed by grave troll doing the okey-cokey in and out sucks.

I can't really engage on the specifics of the bans, my own experience is limited by the now patchy scene locally. I mean I can recount my hilarity at scything through phoenix players last summer by dprswl/elf ramping into primal command and hiding behind Ghostly Prison whilst blowing lands up with acidic slime, but it is all sadly irrelevant in the face if the current meta and invasion by the Pioneer sized AT-ATs trampling over all and sundry.


As for sales, there are some very solid cards not moving. They can be liquid, but you need to not have bought at the height to avoid a loss and actually suck up the new reality of Modern prices.
Snappy, Bob, Goyf, obviously and I will add Surgical, Force of Negation. They all move but their price point needs to be lower than what many are willing to sell at. In gbp, for clarity, but it translates into dollars for example surgical is going nowhere at market rate, 20 is lower than it was, and a loss for many sellers, but it simply needs cutting to 15 and it moves very quickly. Bob is chugging along, I have seen him go cheaply quickly. If it makes people happier shocks and other pioneer cards are still of value and come harmonised ban schedules, a fair few Pioneer cards like them will make up for your losses. It is a bit zero sum, really, moving value out if Modern but to Pioneer. Personally I am fed up seeing the same listings for cards like Force of Negation. It is a one/two of in Legacy, and a player in a shrinking Modern. People try and sell at 25 gbp because last summer it was 33. The card is a 15-7 gbp card, max. They aren't moving and you can see it all over. It is going nowhere. Stubborness-'I won't make a loss' is really hurting these. A lot of people bought at the zenith. I would like another one or two for a Delver deck, but honestly, one was going to be in the board and I can use a pyroblast to similar effect often. It is not the sort if card one 'must have' like a Tabernacle in Lands or a Thespian Stage in Depths.

Duals I find are plenty liquid. Admittedly people are more prepared to accept lower prices than in Modern, there are some significant reductions out there, and they probably acquired the card below peak price, but overall they are moving here, both on groups and Ebay.

Pioneer cards like Pithing Needle and their ilk have sold well for me. Commander stuff as ever. So it is not all doom and gloom. If you sell now in Dec you have to be prepared for lower prices. Dec is the month of softness.

I do think it is worth splitting playset of cards down the middle. Sell now at small losses for some, small gains for others, and insure against entire playsets of fifteen to twenty dollar staples you may have paid a lot more for. Edh crew will still take a lot off your hands, as well as people still thinking Legacy will be the one to go.
Last edited by drmarkb 1 year ago, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Tzoulis
Posts: 314
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Tzoulis » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
This, like most of your views of Twin, continue to be fundamentally untrue and wildly skewed. Besides the incidental damage done by any deck choosing to play any number of discard spells, creature removal, or counterspells, decks could choose to run any number of additional targeted things. While there were super narrow things like Rending Volley, many were available to any color and had broader applications, like Dismember and Spellskite and Torpor Orb.

The decks that beat up on Twin were the ones that chose to attack its fragile combo and fight through its weak counterspell suite and horrid backup win conditions. Going under/faster was just one option, but pretending like that was the only way to defeat Twin extremely disingenuous. And pretending like it prevented you from playing the game is even worse. I don't even want to talk about this anymore, but Jesus Christ, these kinds of comments are simply relentless. Can we just ban talking about it again?
Yeah great. And out of all the decks that employed those tools only 1 or 2 had a positive match-up. Them being Grixis Delver and Grixis Control. All the others, mainly BGx, were %$#% out of luck. Unless you're making the point that BGx didn't try to target Twin and fail miserably.

You were moaning that cards like Needles and Explosives were extremely narrow answers for Paradoxical Urza, but somehow Torpor Orb and Spellskite "were available to any color and had broader applications"...

Your 2nd paragraph only illustrates what I'm saying. Either you focus on beating Twin (Delver/Control) and worsen your other match ups or pack as much general disruption, make it at best a 50-50 match-up with some better other match-ups (BGx) or put some sideboard cards specifically for Twin in case you play it, but in generally ignore it (almost every non-Delver aggro and combo).

That's not creating an interactive environment or requiring interaction to be beaten.
Please explain how Urza is defeated by standard, non-exile, creature removal. Or why regular old, non-exile creature removal is somehow this insurmountable obstacle.

Urza is not defeated by creature removal, not defeated by discard, not defeated by counters, not defeated by sweepers, not defeated by targeted artifact removal, and has unbelievable amounts of mana accessible to it. Its backup plans on backup plans on backup plans also include various levels of extremely resilient or difficult-to-deal-with value creatures, planeswalkers, tutors, recursion engines, and/or combos.

Twin's backup plan was to smash with a vanilla 2/1 and hope that Remand is a playable card. Oh and sometimes you hope to live long enough that Keranos, God of Storms might stay in your hand long enough to be cast, resolve, and eventually kill them.

Stop this.
Yeah, cool. Moving the goalposts doesn't make for a great argument.

You mention Rending Volley, Spellskite and freaking Torpor Orb as generic answers. Yet when I suggested using Explosives and Needles (far more generally applicable than all of them, especially freaking Torpor Orb) you cried that they were very narrow. If you can;t see the hypocrisy in that I can't help you any further.

Paradoxical (as I said many times then) has some very horrible match-ups, one of them being DS decks. You not liking the deck in general doesn't make those match-ups go away and certainly doesn't make the deck ban worthy. It never was a problem (it was the cool thing to hate though). Could it be? Possibly. That doesn't mean YOU get to call me out on "disingenuous" arguments when yourself is making a host of them.

You're also demeaning the back up plan and it doesn't help your point at all. Especially if it is as effective as history has shown.

And to reiterate, Twin DIDN"T die to the interaction you mentioned either. It died to the Delver decks, the spiritual predecessor's of Shadow decks. However, in contrast (Paradoxical) Urza decks have extremely bad match-ups with Tron, Burn or other Aggro and Combo decks. Archetypes that Twin thrived against.

Go figure.
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
iTaLenTZ wrote:
1 year ago
I really wish it became forbidden to further 'discuss' Twin because the advocates all sound like broken records repeating the same thing over and over for 4 years already without adding anything new to the discussion. All has been said.
This happens because there is literally no defensible justification for its ban. Literally every reason WOTC gave has been wrong, every goal has failed, and there is absolutely nothing of substance to defend its continued ban other than "WAH I DON'T LIKE IT!" coupled with a bunch of revisionist history and made up nonsense.

I wish we could stop discussing it too. But people keep saying things that are so egregiously misrepresentative, it bears addressing. It garners undue support for its continued ban from people who have literally never played with or against the deck, as has been pointed out by users on Reddit.
I'm not justifying the ban, I'm just not buying into the "Twin promoted interaction" defense. It didn't, 'cause if it did ALL interactive decks would've had positive match-ups against it -especially the ones playing Decay- not just the ones built to fight it specifically.

If anything you're sugar coating history. Twin may have not been as big a problem that Wizards claimed to be, but you certainly haven't come around to the effects it had on the metagame or its weaknesses.

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1177
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

drmarkb wrote:
1 year ago
Right now I am interested in the process of bans/unbans as much as anything.
There is no process. There is no precedent, there is no need to have consistency with previous bans, there is no meaningful data, and there is no substantive communication. The entire 'process' is a circus of opinions that come from people stuck in a circular feedback loop behind closed doors and aren't allowed to talk with anyone outside. That and a spreadsheet of MTGO lists and GP attendance numbers that say nothing qualitatively about the health, actual diversity, or enjoyment of the format.

I have long since stopped trying to make sense of bannings and unbannings. WOTC does what they want, when they want, for whatever reasons they feel like, and will make up any reasons to justify it (whether they makes sense or not).

They don't want us to know what's going on. They don't want us to predict bans and unbans. They don't want us to have data. They don't want us to have a true picture of things. This is the way.
Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
If anything you're sugar coating history. Twin may have not been as big a problem that Wizards claimed to be, but you certainly haven't come around to the effects it had on the metagame or its weaknesses.
Its removal only ushered in arguably the worst period in Modern's history, and the complete death of reactive/control decks, even after Eldrazi was banned. But I guess that's just a wacky coincidence.
Last edited by cfusionpm 1 year ago, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
drmarkb
Posts: 591
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by drmarkb » 1 year ago

They have a reason- selling packs, normally. Beyond that.they need a process that is clear and transparent, which is my point.

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

Post by metalmusic_4 » 1 year ago

All, it looks like the twin arguement is getting hot again. Let's all step back a minute and remember that there are points we can all agree on.

1) twin was/is polarizing. I've seen shouting matches start after the combo hits the table turn 4. But some people loved it then and now. There is room for different opions.
2) twin is the #1 card on the unban poll right now and it has 31% of all the votes cast. For comparison GSZ is in the #2 spot with 21% of all votes cast. That doesn't mean twin will be unbanned, but I do think that means we should take it seriously. IMO this means if you want twin back it may be a good idea to start brewing or buying your pieces, if you don't like twin it is probably worth a few bucks to start picking up some of the newer hate cards before they spike or at least considering it.

Lots of the old opinions just won't change on either side, but there are reasonable, and much more current, things to discuss about twin without recycling old talking points again and again which make people on both sides angry.

I still have my twin deck and I'm looking forward to updating it, but I am also picking up the hate cards because twin will not be my only deck. I'm going to assume twin would be EVERYWHERE for a few weeks after an unban and then return to under 10% of the meta.

What dedicated twin hate cards are you considering in different colors or do you intend to use more general disruption cards like thoughtsieze, fatal push and the like?

Mtgthewary
Posts: 220
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Mtgthewary » 1 year ago

Last part I like a lot. Which hatecards are good? I like it because I am a very small little investor, owning 10 Splinter twin and 24 green sun's zenith. It's time buying some hatecards too because I think in the future they will free twin. Rest of twin discussion is not important to me, only repeat after repeat about same sentences for years. Waste of time

User avatar
Tzoulis
Posts: 314
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Tzoulis » 1 year ago

gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
So, you weren't playing on 2013, 2014, but you are certain it wasn't promoting interaction, that's right?
So, I gather because I wasn't playing back then, I have no clue how the cards and/or decks work? Is that your argument?
gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
Overall: 28/64 cards = 43% interactive cards.

So, Twin was playing 75% interactive cards and Urza decks are playing 43% interactive cards.
(Your list isn't VTCLA's list)

Your numbers are off... 64/75 spells? 24 lands in your original Twin calculations?
Surgical is interaction, but Ashiok and Cage aren't? If you count them, as you should, it's 32/54 or 59.4% and it's not a combo deck. The difference is mana spells (8 ramp vs 2 lands). So yeah, it's plenty interactive and when a spell is around 2% of your allotted space, they're similar and have differed before, same as Twin.

But still, none of that matters, because being chock full of interaction doesn't mean you're weak to opposing interaction. See Twin's MWP vs them, you keep ignoring that. Also, Simic Urza is not a combo deck, Twin is, did I mention that? Combo's supposed to have problems with interaction.
gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
win was promoting interaction the same way any control deck is. Every deck that is playing 75%, meaning 3/4 interactive cards, aims to interact with the opponent, leading to interactive, fun games. It's combo also was a reason to pick up a fight with.
Technically, you don't win a control deck with interaction. You're either faster than it or go (way) above it, you don't fight something to its strengths and expect to win. So, your example works against you.
gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
Usually the Twin played could not pick up a fight for the combo, as it must taps 4 mana to go off at sorcery speed, meaning if the opponent had a dismember or a path or a counter, it was difficult for him.
It could not be bolted back then, so it was difficult to be disrupted.
Twin leveraged the tempo hit of the opponent respecting the combo. A couple of 2 for 1 didn't matter when you've denied him casting spells for turns upon turns or going EOT Exarch/Mite into top deck Twin after you've all exhausted resources.

As you said in that quote "it was difficult to be disrupted" and that's why specifically tuned decks had positive match-ups and not generally interactive decks.
metalmusic_4 wrote:
1 year ago
What dedicated twin hate cards are you considering in different colors or do you intend to use more general disruption cards like Thoughtsieze, fatal push and the like?
Torpor Orb topkek.

In all seriousness, if it comes out in a format without Veil and/or Oko I'd go with Miracles, it has enough going for it that it should be favored. That or plain GDS. It's not specific cards that you should play against it (ie Celestial Purge, Nature's Claim, Rending Volley/Fry etc), but rather strategies.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Modern”