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

Aazadan
Posts: 516
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Aazadan » 1 year ago

drmarkb wrote:
1 year ago
If exarch or mite did not have flash wotc would not have banned it for sure. Many people view it, including wotc, as instant speed in the same way crop rotation eot into the depths combo is considered to be instant speed and storm is considered to be sorcery speed.
That or if they didn't tap lands. I suspect that one more creature like the UG 3/3 they made (the name escapes me at the moment) that's in some combination of blue, red, and green for colors would be enough to make a good case on a swap ban on Twin for Exarch + Pestermite.

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

Aazadan wrote:
1 year ago
drmarkb wrote:
1 year ago
If exarch or mite did not have flash wotc would not have banned it for sure. Many people view it, including wotc, as instant speed in the same way crop rotation eot into the depths combo is considered to be instant speed and storm is considered to be sorcery speed.
That or if they didn't tap lands. I suspect that one more creature like the UG 3/3 they made (the name escapes me at the moment) that's in some combination of blue, red, and green for colors would be enough to make a good case on a swap ban on Twin for Exarch + Pestermite.
Bounding Krasis, I think.
UR Control UR

User avatar
FoodChainGoblins
Level 47
Posts: 816
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Riverside

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 1 year ago

idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
Never said I wasnt biased. I am biased. I think if you dont see Blue as the pinnacle of Magic you dont know what makes Magic great.

That said, cfusionpm continues to believe he can reason, with people who are not willing to be reasonable regarding the position of Twin. People who actually believe Remand is playable in 2020. People who think Snapcaster is a card that matters.

People have bias. Every.single.one.of.us. To even attempt after all this time, after Wizards has proven COMPLETELY ignorant regarding actual design/development (ref: 2019) and can only blindly stumble into a successful meta (Dom/Guilds) by chance....just why?

Why persist in trying to argue for something that was (outside those who played it) completely hated? It just wont happen. Amulet ate its first ban because of some meme's coming out of some twitch clips! LSV alone gifted us with the London Mulligan! Its is not logic that drives this game, it is not reason.

Long ago, we used to make fun of Games Workshop, because it was a game designed by Art's Majors, played by Science Majors. Magic now, is a game governed by Social Media, guided by sales metrics.
I wish I could give this post two thumbs up. :)

Yes, there are definitely a lot of biases within the game and design. I think or at least feel like it is an attempt at higher revenue, which you can't blame a company for that. Some of it seems to affect revenue in an adverse way, which is baffling to me (and others).

I still strongly urge that some players go out of their comfort zone and try new strategies. The color Green was a meme for so many years. I've played the game off and on (on for the past 12 years) since 1994. No one nowadays will believe me because Green has been super pushed, especially super recently.

I used to literally play nothing but Control for many years in a row. I occasionally played Tempo when it was the best deck, but I literally refused to play Standard Jund with Bloodbraid Elf when it was the clear winner. I kept pushing Blue. My idols were Gabriel Nassif, Guillaume Wafo-Tapa, and Luis Scott-Vargas. I didn't really care much for other Pros, even to the point of thinking of them as inferior players. But when Control stopped being good and I wanted to still win, I was forced to try other things. It ended up being pretty fun. I have now become a dedicated Combo player, but I can play most archetypes pretty well if I focus. I still loathe playing Midrange the most and don't usually enjoy pure Aggro, but I can at least play them and have fun. I am starting to become more dedicated to just playing Combo, which sucks because I don't enjoy Standard and Pioneer as much because of that. But people should push themselves to get better at other archetypes. I understand if you're doing this purely for the fun of the game, then perhaps that is not the goal though.
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
I would take "I have to play sub-optimally in order to stall the game out and be able to play more and have my decisions matter" over "I'm going to dump my hand as fast as possible, my opponent is going to dump their hand as fast as possible, we see who is faster, and who wins the rock-paper-scissors draw of hate cards!" every time.
This is how Pioneer feels to me. It's changing a bit, but it still has this feel to me.
Aazadan wrote:
1 year ago
That or if they didn't tap lands. I suspect that one more creature like the UG 3/3 they made (the name escapes me at the moment) that's in some combination of blue, red, and green for colors would be enough to make a good case on a swap ban on Twin for Exarch + Pestermite.
idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
Bounding Krasis, I think.
Yes, Bounding Krasis.

I feel some people get too caught up on the Bolt test. What about the Dismember test, which any of those creatures fail at? Any deck can play Dismember. Sure, you open yourself up more to Bolt, Snap, Bolt, but remember, the opponent just lost 2 cards if you did that in response to Twin and didn't get Dispelled. I do realize that it's quite a bit worse if they don't end up having the combo and you have to Dismember a Snappy to stem the bleeding, but that was never that good a plan. I have come to the conclusion that I am much more biased toward the combo because that is how I died, but I never was all that scared of much else. (maybe the Cryptic Command chain into the combo, but still THE COMBO)
Standard - Will pick up what's good when paper starts
Pre Modern - Do not own anymore
Pioneer - MBA, UB Inverter
Modern - Amulet Titan, Elementals, Yawmoth Chord, Uroza
Legacy - No more cards, will rebuy Sneak Show when I can
Limited - Will start when paper starts
Commander - Nope

User avatar
drmarkb
Posts: 553
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by drmarkb » 1 year ago

To be fair, I won a small Pioneer event by baiting out enemy removal, on what I did not play and kept back. Mostly Pioneer is not meant to be that way though. I was playing a near critterless deck, something they don't like. I
do feel they like players to drop their hand out and compare board states in general, and they won't print stuff that stops the game play pattern they think people like.
Mind you, they won't print good white cards either, and that is tied to it as white's sole raison d' etre is to do things they don't like.

User avatar
The Fluff
is this so?
Posts: 1945
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Gradius Home World
Contact:

Post by The Fluff » 1 year ago

Albegas wrote:
1 year ago
If you're running a CoCo build, you should probably just run 1 Ballista and max out Heliod and Spike Feeder. Feeder + Heliod jives better with CoCo and infinite life should make most decks scoop.
thanks, I didn't know Heliod also comboed with the feeder. hmm.. another reason to buy. But must wait for awhile..
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
I'm not going to waste my time debunking claims anymore today. It's frankly exhausting. I'll just say that the interpretations today do not reflect history or views of the time, every justification made for the ban was laughably wrong or failed. And that in today's meta, a number of decks are better, more robust, more powerful, and harder to interact with than Twin ever was, even at its peak.

As for Heliod/Ballista, because there is no meaningful color restriction, it will probably take a while to find the best shell. But I assume something with mana dorks to accelerate it out (as well as draw removal away from combo pieces). Blue may or may not even be needed, and it doesn't even really need to be a primary win con. And while we don't have any real or meaningful data, I'm sure a bunch of piles of cards will manage to 5-0 a non-swiss League and get thrown in with the list dumps. I imagine old CoCi lists or Devoted Vizier lists could easily slot this in.
the Twin discussion itself is exhausting. Has been going on for more than 3+ years.
I do remember the fun days when the combo was legal in Standard, that's how I got my Twin deck. Then made improvements to it when ported to modern. Still remember having electrostatic bolt in my sideboard to kill opposing spelskites. Those were the days. :grin:

the devoted vizier lists do look like a natural home for Heliod and his ballista that walks. Just need a few tweaks. Two combos make a deck stronger.
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
pierreb
Posts: 266
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Up North

Post by pierreb » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
I would take "Other decks have to play sub-optimally in order to respond and be able to play more and have my decisions matter" . That tempo advantage was literally the absolute best thing for twin. The format that has since been defined by other fast, powerful, degenerate nonsense, where there is no instant-speed tempo at a competitive level.
That is what you are really saying. People expect combos to either present something that can be responded to (like a non hasty druid), cost enough mana to not combo out during the first four turns, or be inconsistent (like Wizards has tried to shape storm into).

You claim to like interactive decks, but twin was a " 'nope' until I try to combo, do you have an answer?" deck. What you call interaction was simply trying to repeatedly say no until you can try to combo out. You interact, but other deck have to sit it out until you decide to go off. If they dare playing their non-instant game plan, it's light-out. (Or not! If you happen to not have your combo in hand. But they can't know that so it's a flip of a coin every time. So fun!) Tempo control is inherently asymmetric. It's fine when its game plan is slow. When control-tempo is put into an half-instant-speed turn-four combo, it's no longer fine.

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
TLDR: People who want Twin unbanned now(and rightly so, it deserved to be tested, but without Veil, with Veil it would be again too good), must realize it was too good back then and was rightly banned.
Neither of these are true statements. Veil however certainly cannot exist with Twin legal. That would be an abomination.
UR Control UR

Aazadan
Posts: 516
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Aazadan » 1 year ago

idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
TLDR: People who want Twin unbanned now(and rightly so, it deserved to be tested, but without Veil, with Veil it would be again too good), must realize it was too good back then and was rightly banned.
Neither of these are true statements. Veil however certainly cannot exist with Twin legal. That would be an abomination.
Given the existence of Rending Volley, I'm not sure how much Veil would impact Twin.

User avatar
Arkmer
Opinionated and Wrong
Posts: 287
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Minnesota

Post by Arkmer » 1 year ago

[mention]idSurge[/mention]
You and cf really need to consolidate that information from awhile back into a copy/paste response to these things, it would likely save some headache and either prove people refuse to read or help people understand the context better.

Most of the following are links to ktk's past posts on both Salvation and here regarding the Twin debate.

Link #1
Link #2

I don't remember if that's all of the relevant stuff, but it's what I had saved from Salvation.

This was what I saved from some past discussion here on nexus about it.
viewtopic.php?p=7260#p7260
viewtopic.php?p=7291#p7291
viewtopic.php?p=7322#p7322
viewtopic.php?p=7336#p7336
viewtopic.php?p=9234#p9234

I think much of it overlaps, but I certainly didn't read it before I posted these links as I read those posts as they went up originally. I had them labeled "Twin debate" in my saved folders.
I've boxed my cards up for long term storage.

Maybe I will return... Maybe not.

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

Appreciate it, but its not effort I feel needs to be expended. People dont want to understand, they have made up their mind's, and because of the ability to appeal to authority (Wizards, you know, the people who ruined all of 2019 Magic) they wont dig deeper.

EDIT: The last 2 posts on this page, ktk and I, are really all one needs. viewtopic.php?p=7260#p7260
UR Control UR

User avatar
Tzoulis
Posts: 279
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Tzoulis » 1 year ago

idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
Appreciate it, but its not effort I feel needs to be expended. People dont want to understand, they have made up their mind's, and because of the ability to appeal to authority (Wizards, you know, the people who ruined all of 2019 Magic) they wont dig deeper.

EDIT: The last 2 posts on this page, ktk and I, are really all one needs. viewtopic.php?p=7260#p7260
Or we see Cfp (and others) claiming that having double red on T4, having a blue card for FoN are somehow difficult enough to be a restriction or that Exarch's and Mite's flash didn't matter or saying that interaction mattered when the 2 of the most heavily interactive decks with the most deadly interaction against it only managed a 50-50 match up.

I've read those posts and I was playing in an LGS that were 3-6 Twin decks in a given night. Even after I built my control deck the matchup was annoying. The matchup vs BGx was far more enjoyable.

So, no, take your generalizations elsewhere. I've played against Twin enough to know how it played and what it did to the meta. So maybe start seeing beyond your rose tinted glasses and discuss Twin objectively.

If you're gonna call out bad arguments against Twin that doesn't mean that I won't call out your (royal "you") arguments for Twin or that I'm somehow making fallacious statements because I'm calling you out.

It wasn't a healthy deck and as much as I loved its banning it didn't deserve to be and it should be unbanned.

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
or saying that interaction mattered when the 2 of the most heavily interactive decks with the most deadly interaction against it only managed a 50-50 match up.

I've read those posts and I was playing in an LGS that were 3-6 Twin decks in a given night. Even after I built my control deck the matchup was annoying. The matchup vs BGx was far more enjoyable.
1. So interactive decks had a 50-50. Consider that a promotion of interactivity within the format.
2. You found BGx (as I assume UWx) more enjoyable. Thats fine. I preferred to play against BGx as well. This is not a statement of what is bannable though. I find all of Modern distasteful, should we ban it?
Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
So, no, take your generalizations elsewhere. I've played against Twin enough to know how it played and what it did to the meta. So maybe start seeing beyond your rose tinted glasses and discuss Twin objectively.

If you're gonna call out bad arguments against Twin that doesn't mean that I won't call out your (royal "you") arguments for Twin or that I'm somehow making fallacious statements because I'm calling you out.
What generalizations? What exactly do you think it did to the meta? Noting of course that every top deck will leave a weight on the meta that must be borne by the lesser decks (Tier 2) what exactly did Twin do?

We know it made people slow down. We know it made even goldfish decks have to include cards they otherwise have not had to, just to respect the fact they too could be blown out. Are these negatives in your view?

Call me out all you like. My arguments have all been made ad nauseam, but nobody has what it takes to refute them.

1. Blue Diversity was not being impacted.
2. It did not win too much, in relation to other decks.
3. It did not 'suppress' other decks.

Thats it. The data is out there, I've provided it before and you can look it up all you like.

You dont have to personally like Twin, but it appears you understand the logical reality.
Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
It wasn't a healthy deck and as much as I loved its banning it didn't deserve to be and it should be unbanned.
That's all I've been saying (minus the healthy part, that is subjective) for years.

TLDR: No public data supports the premise of why it was banned. It was banned to shake up the Pro Tour.
UR Control UR

User avatar
The Fluff
is this so?
Posts: 1945
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Gradius Home World
Contact:

Post by The Fluff » 1 year ago

twin and summer bloom were banned as new eldrazi were being printed. It's not the only reason, but probably one of the reasons for the ban is to allow Reality Smasher and friends a chance to enter modern. Sell packs.
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: 279
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Tzoulis » 1 year ago

idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
1. So interactive decks had a 50-50. Consider that a promotion of interactivity within the format.
idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
We know it made people slow down. We know it made even goldfish decks have to include cards they otherwise have not had to, just to respect the fact they too could be blown out. Are these negatives in your view?
This is what I mean. These statements are wrong at best and misleading at worst.

Saying it promoted interaction, while the best interactive decks (at the time) had 50-50 match ups is wrong. If the worst kind of interaction made your deck have a 50-50 match up, then you don't care about it. Caring about it would mean you had a bad one.

The archetype makeup is mostly the same as it was then, largely aggressive and degenerate -just different flavors- with BGx and UWx trying to compete.

We know for a fact that format speed is virtually unchanged, so it didn't slow anything down. Decks caring for other decks isn't promoting interaction, especially for linear decks. It's just pre-empting their SB plan. Tron siding in Nature's Claim isn't interaction -it's interaction only in the broadest meaning, it's anticipating the opponent's hate.
idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
Thats it. The data is out there, I've provided it before and you can look it up all you like.
Your data disagrees on some fundamental pro-Twin arguments.

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

They are not wrong.

What was the appeal to BGx for all those years? 'Its a fair 50/50 deck'. That was a hallmark feature of a central pillar to the format for literally years.

The archetype make up is so far removed from what it was, that the format is unrecognizable if you put them side by side.

Win Speed is mostly unchanged, but if that were true...then how was it that people claim Twin was a limiter on the development of ones game plan? How is it that Twin had access to so much mana, and opponents had to wait and hold up mana for interaction (theres that word) and yet, the games ended at virtually the same speed?

One of these things seems off.

Twin was targettable by main deck Discard, Removal, and Stack based interaction. It was not a DOG to those things, especially since as we all know Blue based decks DID NOT MEANINGFULLY EXIST with or without Twin in the format...but having one of your top decks be managable via main deck interaction, absolutely is the promotion of interaction.

KCI, does not promote interaction. It promoted super narrow answers.
Dredge, does not promote interaction. It promotes GY Hate or bust.
Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
Your data disagrees on some fundamental pro-Twin arguments.
1. Blue based decks where not suppressed.
2. Win rates where not too high.
3. Other decks where not suppressed.

What data disproves those statements?
The Fluff wrote:
1 year ago
twin and summer bloom were banned as new eldrazi were being printed. It's not the only reason, but probably one of the reasons for the ban is to allow Reality Smasher and friends a chance to enter modern. Sell packs.
Bloom was banned because of some twitch clip memes. I distinctly remember the forum (MTGS) laughing at some of the insane lines of play we saw before it was banned.

Though someone said that combo cannot exist from a state of 'nothing' to 'I win'. Bloom did in fact allow for that.
UR Control UR

User avatar
The Fluff
is this so?
Posts: 1945
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Gradius Home World
Contact:

Post by The Fluff » 1 year ago

When people are back to twin debates, it sort of means there's not much else to debate about. So the format is fine right now? :pensive:
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
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

The Fluff wrote:
1 year ago
When people are back to twin debates, it sort of means there's not much else to debate about. So the format is fine right now? :pensive:
Actually if all you care about is archetype diversity, its not the worst its ever been. :p
UR Control UR

User avatar
Tzoulis
Posts: 279
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Tzoulis » 1 year ago

idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
They are not wrong.

What was the appeal to BGx for all those years? 'Its a fair 50/50 deck'. That was a hallmark feature of a central pillar to the format for literally years.

The archetype make up is so far removed from what it was, that the format is unrecognizable if you put them side by side.

Win Speed is mostly unchanged, but if that were true...then how was it that people claim Twin was a limiter on the development of ones game plan? How is it that Twin had access to so much mana, and opponents had to wait and hold up mana for interaction (theres that word) and yet, the games ended at virtually the same speed?

One of these things seems off.

Twin was targettable by main deck Discard, Removal, and Stack based interaction. It was not a DOG to those things, especially since as we all know Blue based decks DID NOT MEANINGFULLY EXIST with or without Twin in the format...but having one of your top decks be managable via main deck interaction, absolutely is the promotion of interaction.
We agree on that Twin hid blue's weaknesses, however BGx being "the 50-50" deck doesn't mean that it doesn't have good or bad match-ups. Interaction being good against you means you have a bad match-up, not a 50-50 one. Look at Infect/Affinity vs Jund, UW vs Tron etc. All of them have good to great match ups, so if the deck that had:
idSurge wrote:
1 year ago
main deck Discard, Removal
, which were the best one could do against Twin, had at best a 50-50 match up then it didn't care for them, because the best shell with the best answers couldn't reach a positive match up. So, why even try to interact and not force them to race or just plainly ignore the match up and have better chances against the field?

Something that was reflected in the metagame breakdown, which is almost the same, but with different decks.

Twin was a damned if you do, damned if you don't deck. Tap out on T3-T4 and risk losing on the spot or play the cat and mouse game and play into its equally strong tempo plan but still risk outright losing to an "oh %$#%" button. It limited non BGx game plan fair(er) decks, not fast linear decks, because those decks had to risk it either way or they'd almost certainly lose post T5. Since the format was mostly linear aggressive/combo decks (and still is) the loss of Twin it didn't impact the overall format speed significantly.

Decks that promote interaction are decks like BGx and other creature (company) decks - Knightfall etc. - and hyper aggressive decks like infect or Affinity since there's nothing faster than them, not Twin or Control for that matter.

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
So, why even try to interact and not force them to race or just plainly ignore the match up and have better chances against the field?
Because, that was a losing proposition. You didnt race Twin, if you tried, you often lost. At least that was my personal experience, and would match the Affinity match up numbers.

This may just be the crux of our disagreement. You think Twin had a non-relevant impact on Infect/Affinity type hyper aggro, and that the relationship was BGx was not meaningful. I think Twin had a downward pressure on Hyper Aggro, and the toss up nature of the BGx match up meant that both were viable options that circled eachother.
UR Control UR

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1109
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

Tzoulis wrote:
1 year ago
Twin was a damned if you do, damned if you don't deck. Tap out on T3-T4 and risk losing on the spot or play the cat and mouse game and play into its equally strong tempo plan but still risk outright losing to an "oh %$#%" button.
Since when was attacking with a vanilla 2/1 a "strong tempo plan"? Why hasn't that same tempo plan ever been successful in anything since?
Last edited by cfusionpm 1 year ago, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

The tempo plan is only relevant with the threat of Twin. We saw this same thing happen during the peak of the Phoenix period.

Remove Twin (or Phoenix) from UR, and it is an absolute nothing color pair, held up by Storm, or meme Kiln/Thing decks.
UR Control UR

User avatar
ktkenshinx
Posts: 571
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: West Coast
Contact:

Post by ktkenshinx » 1 year ago

Yikes. Twin talk everywhere. I'm just going to re-emphasize that Modern has much more dire problems than Splinter Twin and try to redirect the conversation from there.

In that spirit, I'm ready to re-launch the Fixing Modern article. I made some updates to consider the January 13th changes and general edits. Let me know what you all think. As usual, this is a soft launch not for full release. Please refrain from sharing elsewhere until it's finalized and then I'll make the big Reddit push.

https://mtgmodernmetrics.wordpress.com/ ... t-mission/

I made some significant revisions to the GP attendance and Reddit traffic sections. I think I'll also add some images in a few spot, but I'm still figuring it out. @me with any comments, criticisms, suggestions, and general feedback.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

User avatar
drmarkb
Posts: 553
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by drmarkb » 1 year ago

I have the image of a lot of Twin players finally getting an unban in a couple of years, heading enthusiastically to the LGS, only to discover the only people signed up to the event, because nobody plays Modern.

User avatar
drmarkb
Posts: 553
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by drmarkb » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
Yikes. Twin talk everywhere. I'm just going to re-emphasize that Modern has much more dire problems than Splinter Twin and try to redirect the conversation from there.

In that spirit, I'm ready to re-launch the Fixing Modern article. I made some updates to consider the January 13th changes and general edits. Let me know what you all think. As usual, this is a soft launch not for full release. Please refrain from sharing elsewhere until it's finalized and then I'll make the big Reddit push.

https://mtgmodernmetrics.wordpress.com/ ... t-mission/

I made some significant revisions to the GP attendance and Reddit traffic sections. I think I'll also add some images in a few spot, but I'm still figuring it out. @me with any comments, criticisms, suggestions, and general feedback.
I think the fringe bannings that are referred to are the type of bans that often really upset people. Some people want bans specifically not around the margins, but square and central, and fiddling around fringes, for example taking out a tron sideboard card whilst still allowing 7 mana on t3 actually fuels resentment. Lots of small bans to get a deck to the right power level can act as a drain on energy and drive people away. If you find there are lots of people wanting Tron or Amulet to be hit, you can bet your bottom dollar that a fair chunk want the archetype to get the Twin treatment. In fact I'd wager that given a choice between ten small bans over a year and two huge bans, a majority of Modern players would choose the latter, regardless of the decks involved. Perhaps a poll on this would be informative? I would be far less likely to play a format where small tools get the banhammer to pay for the sins of key parts.

I'd also suggest that Modern as an outlet for Spike might run into the issue that in general they are not catering for Spike at any level. The MPL is not a carot they are dangling to appeal to Spike, it is window dressing, a chance to showcase a diverse and amiable group of players to the world, not a pinnacle to be aimed for by grinders.

You don't mention Legacy in the article- the role of Modern as you have defined it is the same as that for Legacy, bar the reprints.
Last edited by drmarkb 1 year ago, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Bearscape
Posts: 213
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Bearscape » 1 year ago

https://t.co/v4kxu8Qcmp?amp=1

The usual questionnaire is here again

Still filling in Modern as my favourite format, if only to show support

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Modern”