hi! you've got to be kidding right? blue has 2 decent cards that do not participate in combos Snapcaster Mage and Cryptic Command and you want to ban one of them? what will be left of blue other than cantrips to help you find combo pieces?
also remember that there are 2 colors to fight combo, blue and black, you are practically suggesting to remove on of them from the format so you can fight blue based combo
Yeah understood. I was commenting based on what I have been watching the last while while getting into the format (where I have not seen much of Snapcaster Mage except to great effect in Splinter Twin decks), not the best data pool to work from.
More data is required for sure. Maybe now that people see 50% ST decks at Vancouver (T16) we will see some real hate in the SB's come next weekend in the SCG Baltimore Modern Tourney and it will balance out?!?
Will some of you guys stop parroting wrong numbers?
Twin wasn't 50% of top16. There was a single Twin in the top8 (the winner). Between the 9th and 15th deck, there were five Twins. The 16th deck is unknown.
That means Twin was 37.5% of top16. That actually shows it was mostly beat by the decks in the top8. It's really not that relevant that the one that got away won it all.
7/16 is 43.75% if we're talking accurate numbers and all.
I hate banning cards, However this is where i stand on the current meta.
Although I dnt agree with banning anything from Twin I do see it becoming a problem. I compare Twin to pod, pod got banned because it kept getting new toys like Siege Rhino,so I understand why WoTC would be worried about cards like TC,DTT,AV, they make Twin To consistent. However if you had to ban anything from twin I think Deceiver Exarch should be the card. Twin isnt OP by any means but Its oppressing other blue decks, Blue needs a draw spell to make other decks more playable.I think Twin is the reason blue isnt getting any help. Here are my suggestions.
I hate Junk and Jund but those decks keep Twin in line, aslo having two viable midrange decks will keep either one from being too big. Like I said Twin isnt OP but having Jund being more playable helps.
Blue needs a draw spell, soo i would try....Note:I honestly think banning DTT was dumb.
This is the tricky part, unbanning a blue draw spell. I think the safest move would be unbanning DTT. Yes, i know it would help Twin but im pretty sure when TC & DTT where around Delver was also fairly good against Twin. I think unbanning DTT helps delver and control, unlike AV where I think it only helps control decks.
Regarding Bloom, I think the deck is to fragile and T1&T2 kills percents are soo low, I wouldnt Ban anything yet. But if they do ban something from bloom they have to ban something from infect also. Infect has a higher percentage of turn 3 kills than any deck in the meta. So banning a card from only bloom wouldnt be fair. Hopefully WoTC doesnt do that because that would be a slippery slope.
In conclusion, If BBE and DTT or AV where to be unban and Twin continues to win it would need to be hit a little. Only for the sake of making other decks more playable.
I could be wrong with everything im saying so please dnt attack me lol just sharing my thoughts. I dnt really like getting involved with all the Ban/Unban nonsense but yelling out ban twin just because its wins is stupid.
Would AV see play in Twin though, what would be cut for it?
It would help out Fae and UWx control a lot more then Twin. You might see more controlling twin lists pop up though, sort of like the old control decks that used to run ThopterSword as their win con.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In play: Jund Death Shadow, Grixis Control, Eldrazi Stompy, Ponza
In the yard: RUG Delver, Kiki-Chord, Grixis Twin, Mardu Control, Smallpox, Jeskai Control, Jeskai Delver, Assault Loam, Elves, Deathcloud, Eggs, Storm
Although I dnt agree with banning anything from Twin I do see it becoming a problem. I compare Twin to pod, pod got banned because it kept getting new toys like Siege Rhino,so I understand why WoTC would be worried about cards like TC,DTT,AV, they make Twin To consistent. However if you had to ban anything from twin I think Deceiver Exarch should be the card. Twin isnt OP by any means but Its oppressing other blue decks, Blue needs a draw spell to make other decks more playable.I think Twin is the reason blue isnt getting any help. Here are my suggestions.
The meta has answers to Twin and it wasn't all that long ago that the deck was nearly non existent. I think it's unfair to the deck to call for a ban on it right now just because it has had a good run. There are a lot of answers to the deck in the format, lets see if those can reign the deck in first. Even a Magic Origins banlist update is too early for Twin in my opinion short of some very format warping finishes between then and now.
This is the tricky part, unbanning a blue draw spell. I think the safest move would be unbanning DTT. Yes, i know it would help Twin but im pretty sure when TC & DTT where around Delver was also fairly good against Twin. I think unbanning DTT helps delver and control, unlike AV where I think it only helps control decks.
I would rather see Visions because I think Dig is more likely to get an unban in the future and I don't think it would be a bad world where we have both. Both were speculative bans but it's too soon for Dig and I think we can avoid powering up Twin/Scapeshift for now.
Regarding Bloom, I think the deck is to fragile and T1&T2 kills percents are soo low, I wouldnt Ban anything yet. But if they do ban something from bloom they have to ban something from infect also. Infect has a higher percentage of turn 3 kills than any deck in the meta. So banning a card from only bloom wouldnt be fair. Hopefully WoTC doesnt do that because that would be a slippery slope.
I identified Bloom a while ago so I'm pretty biased here (when Mathias Hunt first showed it off). Even in the Delver/Pod meta Bloom was the best deck. I don't want to call for bans based on a fast on camera match, but I think there's enough evidence aside from that, that the deck needs to go. It's turn 3 win rate is no worse than Eggs so I don't think it's a speed issue. Rather it's one of resiliency, the deck can slug through almost any hate thrown at it. It is not fragile. I also think that if Pod's tutoring is too dangerous, a deck that can tutor 6+ cards in a turn is even more dangerous.
This deck is unreal, it has had a very high day 2 GP conversion rate for the past year. The only thing saving it at this point is that it was obscure, ask yourself... if this deck had 15% of the meta with it's 74% win rate would you still be ok with it? It's time for this deck in it's current form to go. I was originally leaning towards Amulet but I'm actually fine with inconsistent pre T4 wins on a low meta share deck. Summer Bloom is the card that needs to be hit as that's the one that makes it more resilient.
Will some of you guys stop parroting wrong numbers?
Twin wasn't 50% of top16. There was a single Twin in the top8 (the winner). Between the 9th and 15th deck, there were five Twins. The 16th deck is unknown.
That means Twin was 37.5% of top16. That actually shows it was mostly beat by the decks in the top8. It's really not that relevant that the one that got away won it all.
7/16 is 43.75% if we're talking accurate numbers and all.
Wait.. I thought there were 6/16 twin decks. Was the 16th deck twin as well?
Will some of you guys stop parroting wrong numbers?
Twin wasn't 50% of top16. There was a single Twin in the top8 (the winner). Between the 9th and 15th deck, there were five Twins. The 16th deck is unknown.
That means Twin was 37.5% of top16. That actually shows it was mostly beat by the decks in the top8. It's really not that relevant that the one that got away won it all.
7/16 is 43.75% if we're talking accurate numbers and all.
Wait.. I thought there were 6/16 twin decks. Was the 16th deck twin as well?
Hmm, you seem to be right. I thought there were 2 Twin in the top 8. 6/16 is a lot different from 8/16.
Luckily, almost all of the players were mentioned in coverage articles.
9) Egashira: Twin
10) Whitsitt: Burn
11) Cheon: Twin
12) Farnung: Abzan
13) Maynard: Twin
14) Pardee: Twin
15) Hwang: Twin
16) Watson: ? (Googling his name turns up UWR midrange, so maybe he played that here too)
That's my fault, it was late when I responding to 9th-16 and thought there were 2 Twin decks in the top 8 as well when I said "near 50%". Still as izzetmage pointed out..
IIRC, the only other times a deck took 6+ T16 slots were:
GP Bilbao (6 Jund). BBE got banned immediately after.
GP Detroit (5 Jund, 3 Rock, 1 Junk, 1 A-jund-i)
GP Prague (2 Jund, 2 A-jund-i, 1 Junk, 1 Rock). DRS got banned immediately after.
That's my fault, it was late when I responding to 9th-16 and thought there were 2 Twin decks in the top 8 as well when I said "near 50%". Still as izzetmage pointed out..
IIRC, the only other times a deck took 6+ T16 slots were:
GP Bilbao (6 Jund). BBE got banned immediately after.
GP Detroit (5 Jund, 3 Rock, 1 Junk, 1 A-jund-i)
GP Prague (2 Jund, 2 A-jund-i, 1 Junk, 1 Rock). DRS got banned immediately after.
Jund and its variants aren't really a good comparison. Twin hasn't been dominating for a long time like BGx did, it's been dominating for two tournaments. Also, the fact that the players who did well with Twin had all put up results in the past indicates that another deck you know well is usually a better choice than Twin if you're inexperienced with Twin, which wasn't always the case with BGx.
This may not be a well received solution, but a solution I had thought about while watching the coverage this weekend none the less.
For Splinter Twin, wouldn't the easier banning be Snapcaster?
Let the combo be, as it still fits within the 4-turn rule, but limit the power the deck has to control the early game. Every time I saw the deck this card was the all-star in the early turns until they got the combo off (or just grinded out the game with critters backed w/ control).
It's essentially 4 extra Bolts, Visions, Remands, etc., a couple extra Cryptic's. And it flashes in as a blocker + spell most times (depending on whats in the gy) to mess up combat math.
I may be completely wrong (just going by observations from the last couple Modern tourneys), but it seems like without Snapcaster the ability for Splinter Twin to control the early game is a little less consistent (easy). I also didn't see Snapcaster in a lot of decks, so it's not a major loss for the format (I'm still learning the format so please let me know if I'm wrong here).
I know the best option is never a ban, but IMO if there needs to be one, go with the smaller change (and see what happens - as I said I could be completely wrong and Snapcaster is a minor bit of help at best) vs. removing the deck entirely.
Just a thought.
If Wizards believes Twin is a problem and that action needs to be taken against the deck, Splinter Twin itself will be the card that gets banned. Just like with Birthing Pod, Wizards prefers to ban engine cards and enablers of a deck instead of weakening a deck's power or consistency. Not to mention, it gives R&D an excuse to get rid of a card that they never intended to be the engine of a multi-format tier 1 combo deck.
Im done modern if they ban twin. Ive lost my pod deck my jund deck was nerfed to ***** and now my twin decks gonna die.....Its not wizards faults there trying to balance modern but when you spend 500-2000 bucks on a deck and it constantly get axed....modern will die if the best deck gets banned every year. Twin is the most fair combo deck in modern if it get axed id expect an affinity nerf and a junk nerf for it to be fair hell why not ban all the decks over 600 bucks
This "ban everything" mentality drives me nuts. You interact with Splinter Twin by playing creature removal! Its matchup against Junk tends to be very miserable and all Junk has to do to achieve this is run some kill spells and threats that can close a game- i.e., by playing a very conventionally fair game. Twin excels when people are not playing fair, since it's in many ways an anti-combo combo deck. I think people who are calling wildly for the deck to take a ban would be surprised at how much less fair the format would be without having Twin to police the stuff they enjoy playing against even less (Amulet, Storm, Infect, assorted other minimally interactive linear decks). Take a moment to step back from whatever perceptions you have of Twin specifically and think about how the deck functions in the abstract - "largely interactive deck with access to a turn 4 kill, but which is incapable of winning before turn 4, and is primarily interacted with via any combination of counterspells, discard, and creature removal" - and I'm not sure I see something here that sounds problematic.
I have not yet had a chance to watch the coverage of the GP myself, but I can't help but wonder whether it was done in an awkward way that helps encourage this kind of attitude. They have a habit of featuring the same deck over and over again during a tournament rather than making an attempt to feature different matchups, which skews perceptions. They also have a tendency to completely fail to understand what is going on in a game and deliver commentary that plays down how interesting the gameplay actually is. I don't want to rip on the coverage team because I understand how difficult their job is, but they have almost nobody who plays Modern more than once in a blue moon and it really hurts the quality of the product and, subsequently, is damaging to the average person's sense of what the format is like.
Id gladly see twin meet the ax. It's not fun to play against or watch. If a sacrifice must be made.
With apologies for picking out this post in particular, Twin is a deck that makes a lot of decisions and which is pretty interactive (Bolt, Remand, Cryptic Command, Snapcaster, etc. are all cards intended to let you just play Magic against the other player). I love getting the opportunity to watch people play Twin because outside of the occasional games where the opponent taps out and the Twin player gets to cast Deceiver into Twin early, it involves a lot of options and rewards people for getting it right. I don't see how any serious Modern player would consider it anything but a treat to see someone like Patrick Dickmann play the deck on camera. I had the opportunity to play against it quite a lot at the GP and I was excited to do so, since I felt like I could use my skill in Modern to get an advantage over my opponents. I understand that it feels bad when they just "have it" and you've got nothing, but it doesn't feel any worse to me than Thoughtseize into Tarmogoyf free wins or turn 1 Cranial Plating free wins or getting Infected out turn 3.
Twin spends the majority of its game playing skill-intensive interactive Magic. I can't argue that your opinion is invalid, but I seriously would like to know what kind of decks you do like to watch or play against if Twin doesn't manage to meet your approval on either count.
question... If Twin polices Amulet and infect etc, why then at an even that is so heavily twin, did the two amulet decks starting day 2 convert to top 8? Just doing some mickey mouse math here, there were 6 twin decks in the top 16 and yet both amulet decks (and an infect deck no less) hit top 8. I'm not necessarily clamoring for bans to twin (though the deck might be more toned down if it had to rely on kiki instead of actual splinter twin), but your assertions that twin polices these unfair decks by being half in and half out of the unfair camp itself don't seem to jive with the results.
As for this event, it was painful to watch. Over the years that I've been invested in modern my stance has evolved to desiring more fair decks and less linear strategies, and this event seemed to really put a spot light on the imbalance of that particular matrix. Watching amulet literally steal two wins before the opponent had 2 lands in the same match up didn't do amulet defenders any favors, and a top 8 that had 6 linear decks was painful.
It's an odd day for me when I'm rooting for the Goyfs in the room just because it's the only fair deck left.
question... If Twin polices Amulet and infect etc, why then at an even that is so heavily twin, did the two amulet decks starting day 2 convert to top 8? Just doing some mickey mouse math here, there were 6 twin decks in the top 16 and yet both amulet decks (and an infect deck no less) hit top 8. I'm not necessarily clamoring for bans to twin (though the deck might be more toned down if it had to rely on kiki instead of actual splinter twin), but your assertions that twin polices these unfair decks by being half in and half out of the unfair camp itself don't seem to jive with the results.
As for this event, it was painful to watch. Over the years that I've been invested in modern my stance has evolved to desiring more fair decks and less linear strategies, and this event seemed to really put a spot light on the imbalance of that particular matrix. Watching amulet literally steal two wins before the opponent had 2 lands in the same match up didn't do amulet defenders any favors, and a top 8 that had 6 linear decks was painful.
It's an odd day for me when I'm rooting for the Goyfs in the room just because it's the only fair deck left.
I counted only 5.
1 Infect, 2 Amulet, 1 Affinity and 1 Bogles.
UUU Merfolk UUU "Above the waves you may be mighty indeed, but down here you belong to me."
-Empress Galina
UBR Cruel Control UBR "The essence of every world, every spell, and every thought is power. Nothing else matters, because nothing else exists."
-Nicol Bolas
question... If Twin polices Amulet and infect etc, why then at an even that is so heavily twin, did the two amulet decks starting day 2 convert to top 8? Just doing some mickey mouse math here, there were 6 twin decks in the top 16 and yet both amulet decks (and an infect deck no less) hit top 8. I'm not necessarily clamoring for bans to twin (though the deck might be more toned down if it had to rely on kiki instead of actual splinter twin), but your assertions that twin polices these unfair decks by being half in and half out of the unfair camp itself don't seem to jive with the results.
1) Luck
Twin is a known bad MU for Amulet. But even in a 20-80 MU the unfavored deck will come out on top 20% of the time.
2) Skill
Hayne is a PT champion and 2011-12 Rookie of the Year.
Speck T8ed GP Omaha and won a 160-player SCG event.
If you doubt Twin is favored against Amulet, remember, it beat Amulet in the finals of PT FRF. And this has Twin's record against Amulet at 3-0 (4-1 if you count Grixis Twin)
question... If Twin polices Amulet and infect etc, why then at an even that is so heavily twin, did the two amulet decks starting day 2 convert to top 8? Just doing some mickey mouse math here, there were 6 twin decks in the top 16 and yet both amulet decks (and an infect deck no less) hit top 8. I'm not necessarily clamoring for bans to twin (though the deck might be more toned down if it had to rely on kiki instead of actual splinter twin), but your assertions that twin polices these unfair decks by being half in and half out of the unfair camp itself don't seem to jive with the results.
As for this event, it was painful to watch. Over the years that I've been invested in modern my stance has evolved to desiring more fair decks and less linear strategies, and this event seemed to really put a spot light on the imbalance of that particular matrix. Watching amulet literally steal two wins before the opponent had 2 lands in the same match up didn't do amulet defenders any favors, and a top 8 that had 6 linear decks was painful.
It's an odd day for me when I'm rooting for the Goyfs in the room just because it's the only fair deck left.
bingo. stop taking minuscule sample sizes to mean so much guys.
This whole notion of "small sample sizes don't matter" is really misplaced. I think this is because people are so accustomed to criticizing data-driven conclusions with the "N too small" argument, but it's actually a lot more nuanced than that. Small sample sized observations are important, even critical, ways to confirm or challenge conclusions drawn from larger sample sizes. This is the classic qualitative vs. quantitative data analysis struggle you see in a variety of fields. Big sample size analyses have a lot of statistical power, but they tend to miss out on a lot of smaller details and dynamics that are highly important. Small sample size analyses can really unpack those details and tell the story, but they tend to be hard to extrapolate from in any meaningful way. That's why it's important to combine both and see how they interact. There are other ways to account for small sample sizes and manage them, but one of the best is just to use small n qualitative and big n quantitative data together.
Note that this is particularly important with matchup data because Wizards doesn't regularly give it to us. We really only get it at the PT. At other events, they don't give us day 1 to day 2 conversion rates, or matchup results that we can unpack in such depth. So the appropriate reaction is not to say "lawl, small N". It's to figure out how we can use that valuable data and make it meaningful.
Amulet represents a great example of that in action. Our bigger N analysis shows that this deck has made T8 at the last 4 major events. Our smaller N analysis shows that it had great win percentages at one of those events, which makes sense given its performance at the other 3. And our smallest N analysis shows that, on camera, Amulet does some broken things. All of those datapoints alone are probably less meaningful, but taken together they tell a fairly convincing story.
So by comparison how popular was Twin during these 4 major events in showing? I know it took down the PT, but i'm just curious how many were in day 2. The assertion that twin is needed to hate out these linear strategies like "amulet" just seems exaggerated considering twin has pretty much always been present as far as i know.
If it is such a beating for amulet then this would be the most accurate reasoning for it.
Either way it just seems odd to claim that we have to lean on one combo deck to hate out another when it doesn't seem to be effectively doing that as it is.
So by comparison how popular was Twin during these 4 major events in showing? I know it took down the PT, but i'm just curious how many were in day 2. The assertion that twin is needed to hate out these linear strategies like "amulet" just seems exaggerated considering twin has pretty much always been present as far as i know.
Twin did not see that much play at the PT. I'm only going to look at UR Twin because that's the only tier 1 version of the deck.
TWIN Day 1: 16 (3.9%) Day 2: 13 (5%) 18+ Points: 5 (4.3%) Day 1 --> Day 2 conversion rate: 81% Day 2 --> 18+ conversation rate: 38% Day 1 --> 18+ conversion rate: 31% Twin win rate: 54%
Here's an Amulet comparison, although I'm not sure this really matters too much.
AMULET Day 1: 8 (2%) Day 2: 5 (1.9%) 18+ Points: 5 (4.3%) Day 1 --> Day 2 conversion rate: 63% Day 2 --> 18+ conversation rate: 100% Day 1 --> 18+ conversion rate: 63% Twin win rate: 71%
Again, not sure if this comparison is important to make, but here it is anyway.
bingo. stop taking minuscule sample sizes to mean so much guys.
This whole notion of "small sample sizes don't matter" is really misplaced. I think this is because people are so accustomed to criticizing data-driven conclusions with the "N too small" argument, but it's actually a lot more nuanced than that. Small sample sized observations are important, even critical, ways to confirm or challenge conclusions drawn from larger sample sizes. This is the classic qualitative vs. quantitative data analysis struggle you see in a variety of fields. Big sample size analyses have a lot of statistical power, but they tend to miss out on a lot of smaller details and dynamics that are highly important. Small sample size analyses can really unpack those details and tell the story, but they tend to be hard to extrapolate from in any meaningful way. That's why it's important to combine both and see how they interact. There are other ways to account for small sample sizes and manage them, but one of the best is just to use small n qualitative and big n quantitative data together.
Note that this is particularly important with matchup data because Wizards doesn't regularly give it to us. We really only get it at the PT. At other events, they don't give us day 1 to day 2 conversion rates, or matchup results that we can unpack in such depth. So the appropriate reaction is not to say "lawl, small N". It's to figure out how we can use that valuable data and make it meaningful.
Amulet represents a great example of that in action. Our bigger N analysis shows that this deck has made T8 at the last 4 major events. Our smaller N analysis shows that it had great win percentages at one of those events, which makes sense given its performance at the other 3. And our smallest N analysis shows that, on camera, Amulet does some broken things. All of those datapoints alone are probably less meaningful, but taken together they tell a fairly convincing story.
Yeah the N from the PT is also not horribly small, 40-16 would likely come up highly statistically significant if you were to use a binomial test.
I personally prefer more data as a mathematical theorist in a primarily empirical research area, but I get your point. I think a good way to apply it here would be to say statistically, amulet did ridiculously well in the PT, but we can use our specific knowledge that it was a somewhat new deck to suggest that in future events people may come more prepared and it might not do as well. The recent GP does suggest otherwise though - people there were probably prepared for it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: GW Taxes/Mono W Taxes Legacy: Maverick
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yeah understood. I was commenting based on what I have been watching the last while while getting into the format (where I have not seen much of Snapcaster Mage except to great effect in Splinter Twin decks), not the best data pool to work from.
More data is required for sure. Maybe now that people see 50% ST decks at Vancouver (T16) we will see some real hate in the SB's come next weekend in the SCG Baltimore Modern Tourney and it will balance out?!?
http://www.cubetutor.com/visualspoiler/20765
7/16 is 43.75% if we're talking accurate numbers and all.
Although I dnt agree with banning anything from Twin I do see it becoming a problem. I compare Twin to pod, pod got banned because it kept getting new toys like Siege Rhino,so I understand why WoTC would be worried about cards like TC,DTT,AV, they make Twin To consistent. However if you had to ban anything from twin I think Deceiver Exarch should be the card. Twin isnt OP by any means but Its oppressing other blue decks, Blue needs a draw spell to make other decks more playable.I think Twin is the reason blue isnt getting any help. Here are my suggestions.
UNBAN:
Bloodbraid Elf
I hate Junk and Jund but those decks keep Twin in line, aslo having two viable midrange decks will keep either one from being too big. Like I said Twin isnt OP but having Jund being more playable helps.
Blue needs a draw spell, soo i would try....Note:I honestly think banning DTT was dumb.
UNBAN:
Ancestral Visions Or Dig Through Time
This is the tricky part, unbanning a blue draw spell. I think the safest move would be unbanning DTT. Yes, i know it would help Twin but im pretty sure when TC & DTT where around Delver was also fairly good against Twin. I think unbanning DTT helps delver and control, unlike AV where I think it only helps control decks.
Regarding Bloom, I think the deck is to fragile and T1&T2 kills percents are soo low, I wouldnt Ban anything yet. But if they do ban something from bloom they have to ban something from infect also. Infect has a higher percentage of turn 3 kills than any deck in the meta. So banning a card from only bloom wouldnt be fair. Hopefully WoTC doesnt do that because that would be a slippery slope.
In conclusion, If BBE and DTT or AV where to be unban and Twin continues to win it would need to be hit a little. Only for the sake of making other decks more playable.
I could be wrong with everything im saying so please dnt attack me lol just sharing my thoughts. I dnt really like getting involved with all the Ban/Unban nonsense but yelling out ban twin just because its wins is stupid.
Modern Only
Currently Running:
BG Midrange
It would help out Fae and UWx control a lot more then Twin. You might see more controlling twin lists pop up though, sort of like the old control decks that used to run ThopterSword as their win con.
In the yard: RUG Delver, Kiki-Chord, Grixis Twin, Mardu Control, Smallpox, Jeskai Control, Jeskai Delver, Assault Loam, Elves, Deathcloud, Eggs, Storm
The meta has answers to Twin and it wasn't all that long ago that the deck was nearly non existent. I think it's unfair to the deck to call for a ban on it right now just because it has had a good run. There are a lot of answers to the deck in the format, lets see if those can reign the deck in first. Even a Magic Origins banlist update is too early for Twin in my opinion short of some very format warping finishes between then and now.
I would rather see Visions because I think Dig is more likely to get an unban in the future and I don't think it would be a bad world where we have both. Both were speculative bans but it's too soon for Dig and I think we can avoid powering up Twin/Scapeshift for now.
I identified Bloom a while ago so I'm pretty biased here (when Mathias Hunt first showed it off). Even in the Delver/Pod meta Bloom was the best deck. I don't want to call for bans based on a fast on camera match, but I think there's enough evidence aside from that, that the deck needs to go. It's turn 3 win rate is no worse than Eggs so I don't think it's a speed issue. Rather it's one of resiliency, the deck can slug through almost any hate thrown at it. It is not fragile. I also think that if Pod's tutoring is too dangerous, a deck that can tutor 6+ cards in a turn is even more dangerous.
This deck is unreal, it has had a very high day 2 GP conversion rate for the past year. The only thing saving it at this point is that it was obscure, ask yourself... if this deck had 15% of the meta with it's 74% win rate would you still be ok with it? It's time for this deck in it's current form to go. I was originally leaning towards Amulet but I'm actually fine with inconsistent pre T4 wins on a low meta share deck. Summer Bloom is the card that needs to be hit as that's the one that makes it more resilient.
Wait.. I thought there were 6/16 twin decks. Was the 16th deck twin as well?
Hmm, you seem to be right. I thought there were 2 Twin in the top 8. 6/16 is a lot different from 8/16.
5 plus the one in top8 = 6. 6/16, not 7/16...
The 16th deck is unknown, AFAIK?
Jund and its variants aren't really a good comparison. Twin hasn't been dominating for a long time like BGx did, it's been dominating for two tournaments. Also, the fact that the players who did well with Twin had all put up results in the past indicates that another deck you know well is usually a better choice than Twin if you're inexperienced with Twin, which wasn't always the case with BGx.
Im done modern if they ban twin. Ive lost my pod deck my jund deck was nerfed to ***** and now my twin decks gonna die.....Its not wizards faults there trying to balance modern but when you spend 500-2000 bucks on a deck and it constantly get axed....modern will die if the best deck gets banned every year. Twin is the most fair combo deck in modern if it get axed id expect an affinity nerf and a junk nerf for it to be fair hell why not ban all the decks over 600 bucks
decks playing:
none
4 Arid Mesa
4 Windswept Heath
1 Forest
1 Plains
1 Swamp
1 Mountain
1 Blood Crypt
1 Godless Shrine
1 Stomping Ground
4 Life from the Loam
4 Stinkweed Imp
4 Golgari Grave-Troll
1 Raven's Crime
3 Unburial Rites
2 Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite
2 Iona, Shield of Emeria
4 Tormenting Voice
4 Wild Guess
4 Vengeful Pharaoh
3 Simian Spirit Guide
2 Gnaw to the Bone
3 Terastodon
3 Conflagrate
3 Ray of Revelation
3 Ancient Grudge
1 Simian Spirit Guide
1 Raven's Crime
1 Forest
2 people played it, 6-2-1 and 2-3
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
Spirits
I have not yet had a chance to watch the coverage of the GP myself, but I can't help but wonder whether it was done in an awkward way that helps encourage this kind of attitude. They have a habit of featuring the same deck over and over again during a tournament rather than making an attempt to feature different matchups, which skews perceptions. They also have a tendency to completely fail to understand what is going on in a game and deliver commentary that plays down how interesting the gameplay actually is. I don't want to rip on the coverage team because I understand how difficult their job is, but they have almost nobody who plays Modern more than once in a blue moon and it really hurts the quality of the product and, subsequently, is damaging to the average person's sense of what the format is like.
With apologies for picking out this post in particular, Twin is a deck that makes a lot of decisions and which is pretty interactive (Bolt, Remand, Cryptic Command, Snapcaster, etc. are all cards intended to let you just play Magic against the other player). I love getting the opportunity to watch people play Twin because outside of the occasional games where the opponent taps out and the Twin player gets to cast Deceiver into Twin early, it involves a lot of options and rewards people for getting it right. I don't see how any serious Modern player would consider it anything but a treat to see someone like Patrick Dickmann play the deck on camera. I had the opportunity to play against it quite a lot at the GP and I was excited to do so, since I felt like I could use my skill in Modern to get an advantage over my opponents. I understand that it feels bad when they just "have it" and you've got nothing, but it doesn't feel any worse to me than Thoughtseize into Tarmogoyf free wins or turn 1 Cranial Plating free wins or getting Infected out turn 3.
Twin spends the majority of its game playing skill-intensive interactive Magic. I can't argue that your opinion is invalid, but I seriously would like to know what kind of decks you do like to watch or play against if Twin doesn't manage to meet your approval on either count.
As for this event, it was painful to watch. Over the years that I've been invested in modern my stance has evolved to desiring more fair decks and less linear strategies, and this event seemed to really put a spot light on the imbalance of that particular matrix. Watching amulet literally steal two wins before the opponent had 2 lands in the same match up didn't do amulet defenders any favors, and a top 8 that had 6 linear decks was painful.
It's an odd day for me when I'm rooting for the Goyfs in the room just because it's the only fair deck left.
I counted only 5.
1 Infect, 2 Amulet, 1 Affinity and 1 Bogles.
Level 2 in progress...
UUU Merfolk UUU
"Above the waves you may be mighty indeed, but down here you belong to me."
-Empress Galina
UBR Cruel Control UBR
"The essence of every world, every spell, and every thought is power. Nothing else matters, because nothing else exists."
-Nicol Bolas
Twin is a known bad MU for Amulet. But even in a 20-80 MU the unfavored deck will come out on top 20% of the time.
2) Skill
Hayne is a PT champion and 2011-12 Rookie of the Year.
Speck T8ed GP Omaha and won a 160-player SCG event.
If you doubt Twin is favored against Amulet, remember, it beat Amulet in the finals of PT FRF. And this has Twin's record against Amulet at 3-0 (4-1 if you count Grixis Twin)
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
The PT data pretty strongly suggests Amulet loses to other combo, those are the only things it doesn't beat
http://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/2wb69w/pt_fate_reforged_results_by_archetype_xpost/
This whole notion of "small sample sizes don't matter" is really misplaced. I think this is because people are so accustomed to criticizing data-driven conclusions with the "N too small" argument, but it's actually a lot more nuanced than that. Small sample sized observations are important, even critical, ways to confirm or challenge conclusions drawn from larger sample sizes. This is the classic qualitative vs. quantitative data analysis struggle you see in a variety of fields. Big sample size analyses have a lot of statistical power, but they tend to miss out on a lot of smaller details and dynamics that are highly important. Small sample size analyses can really unpack those details and tell the story, but they tend to be hard to extrapolate from in any meaningful way. That's why it's important to combine both and see how they interact. There are other ways to account for small sample sizes and manage them, but one of the best is just to use small n qualitative and big n quantitative data together.
Note that this is particularly important with matchup data because Wizards doesn't regularly give it to us. We really only get it at the PT. At other events, they don't give us day 1 to day 2 conversion rates, or matchup results that we can unpack in such depth. So the appropriate reaction is not to say "lawl, small N". It's to figure out how we can use that valuable data and make it meaningful.
Amulet represents a great example of that in action. Our bigger N analysis shows that this deck has made T8 at the last 4 major events. Our smaller N analysis shows that it had great win percentages at one of those events, which makes sense given its performance at the other 3. And our smallest N analysis shows that, on camera, Amulet does some broken things. All of those datapoints alone are probably less meaningful, but taken together they tell a fairly convincing story.
So by comparison how popular was Twin during these 4 major events in showing? I know it took down the PT, but i'm just curious how many were in day 2. The assertion that twin is needed to hate out these linear strategies like "amulet" just seems exaggerated considering twin has pretty much always been present as far as i know.
If it is such a beating for amulet then this would be the most accurate reasoning for it.
Either way it just seems odd to claim that we have to lean on one combo deck to hate out another when it doesn't seem to be effectively doing that as it is.
Twin did not see that much play at the PT. I'm only going to look at UR Twin because that's the only tier 1 version of the deck.
TWIN
Day 1: 16 (3.9%)
Day 2: 13 (5%)
18+ Points: 5 (4.3%)
Day 1 --> Day 2 conversion rate: 81%
Day 2 --> 18+ conversation rate: 38%
Day 1 --> 18+ conversion rate: 31%
Twin win rate: 54%
Here's an Amulet comparison, although I'm not sure this really matters too much.
AMULET
Day 1: 8 (2%)
Day 2: 5 (1.9%)
18+ Points: 5 (4.3%)
Day 1 --> Day 2 conversion rate: 63%
Day 2 --> 18+ conversation rate: 100%
Day 1 --> 18+ conversion rate: 63%
Twin win rate: 71%
Again, not sure if this comparison is important to make, but here it is anyway.
Yeah the N from the PT is also not horribly small, 40-16 would likely come up highly statistically significant if you were to use a binomial test.
I personally prefer more data as a mathematical theorist in a primarily empirical research area, but I get your point. I think a good way to apply it here would be to say statistically, amulet did ridiculously well in the PT, but we can use our specific knowledge that it was a somewhat new deck to suggest that in future events people may come more prepared and it might not do as well. The recent GP does suggest otherwise though - people there were probably prepared for it.
Legacy: Maverick