I'm failing to see what redundant combo pieces you're referring to? Thoughtsieze routinely wrecked Twin decks. Also, Abrupt Decay is a card people seem to have forgotten about...
Again, I'm all for measured Twin unban arguments. But please stop stating/suggesting that TS/Decay was a significant issue for Twin. Twin was 50/50 against both Jund and Abzan in 2015.
Is 50% not a fair target? I mean...what was GW's % against Twin? A touch worse than 50% I would say.
There's nothing wrong with 50/50! That's totally fine. I take issue with this notion that BGx was a bad matchup for Twin or that TS "routinely wrecked Twin decks." Let's just admit the matchup was 50/50 and accept that as an okay thing. That would only be an issue if Twin had no bad matchups if unbanned and anyone claimed that BGx would police Twin based on an erroneous historical precedent.
OK thats fair, it was not a bad match up, at all. I do believe GDS would be, but (!!!) we will likely never know.
At this point, I am willing to accept that the Twin users won't accept that UR Twin did get so many meaningful and impactful upgrades, only to downgrade the deck, in order for it to get unbanned. Really, there is no point at this conversation anymore, Sheridan. Even if we present evidences.
What is 'so many'? A few sideboard cards? Opt? Great.
I'm failing to see what redundant combo pieces you're referring to? Thoughtsieze routinely wrecked Twin decks. Also, Abrupt Decay is a card people seem to have forgotten about...
Again, I'm all for measured Twin unban arguments. But please stop stating/suggesting that TS/Decay was a significant issue for Twin. Twin was 50/50 against both Jund and Abzan in 2015.
Is 50% not a fair target? I mean...what was GW's % against Twin? A touch worse than 50% I would say.
Not really when those were supposed to be your "bad" matchups.
who knows, maybe wizards will take the plunge and axe opal while they have the chance and just hope artifact decks recover one day.
i think we all know deep down it is really what puts the deck over the top but avoid considering it because of the daunting implications of removing a card that has been so integral in shaping the format since its inception.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
who knows, maybe wizards will take the plunge and axe opal while they have the chance and just hope artifact decks recover one day.
i think we all know deep down it is really what puts the deck over the top but avoid considering it because of the daunting implications of removing a card that has been so integral in shaping the format since its inception.
I just hate the opal suggestion, because Affinity doesnt deserve that.
Would a Trawler ban really not throw KCI back to the dark ages? It is an engine piece, not just a hyper-accelerant, like Summer Bloom was to Amulet Bloom. Without Trawler, you're running the same shell with Faith's Reward and I guess Open the Vaults, and just doing what old T2-3 Eggs did? That seems excessive, but I guess technically it keeps the deck existing. An Ichor Wellspring ban would, I feel, do a good job of removing a chunk of the deck's consistency while still allowing it to be the deck that it currently is. So many wins from KCI start out with a gamble (albeit a safe gamble) that you'll keep digging into fuel that lets you keep digging, until you get some sort of recursion going. Wellspring does an above-average job as the best piece of digging for the deck, in that it allows you not only to draw 2 cards for net 0 mana, but also allows you to rebuy an Egg per Trawler you have out, turning that single artifact into 2 or 3 cards for +0 or +1 mana. The only other 2-cost in the deck (appart from Myr Retriever, which wins you the game) is Mind Stone, which nets more mana, but does not draw you any cards for free while recurring your Eggs, or costs you 3 mana to draw a single card and recur an Egg (per Trawler). There might be other "acceptable" 2 mana Artifacts that cantrip that the deck would run in place of Wellspring, but I really think Wellspring is the unsung hero of the deck as it is right now. It adds a lot of invisible consistency to the deck.
Yeah, the more I think about it the more I'll be annoyed if KCI/Trawler get the axe instead of Wellspring. It feels very similar to the Golgari Grave Troll re-ban - They recognized that newer tools gave Dredge too much power, so they cut back on the best source of Dredging in the format. They didn't outright kill the deck, and as I recall there wasn't even a "valley" event where people totally abandoned the deck until they remembered it still functioned. That, in my opinion, was one of the best handled bans in Modern's history. This could be similar - they hopefully want to keep as many unique strategies in the format (and let's face it, KCI/Eggs is extremely unique) and so they actually do some testing before they just decide to axe the whole deck.
Nobody actually knows that and there is good chance nobody ever will.
Anyone with any experience with either deck could likely draw that conclusion. As I mentioned before, it attacks on every weakness of Twin: discard, counters, removal, and a quick clock backed by things that don't die to Lightning Bolt. It's both faster and more robust than 2018 Jund, which itself is considerably more powerful than 2015 Jund.
The fear about Twin is perpetuated by myths and misinformation, as well as comparisons to decks that are orders of magnitude weaker than the current metagame. Or assumptions made by people who have never played with or against the deck (not saying you, but many on facebook, twitter, and reddit have demonstrated as much, such as "How does Spellskite even stop the combo!" and "Sudden Shock is the only way to beat a Pestermite with Twin on it!").
who knows, maybe wizards will take the plunge and axe opal while they have the chance and just hope artifact decks recover one day.
i think we all know deep down it is really what puts the deck over the top but avoid considering it because of the daunting implications of removing a card that has been so integral in shaping the format since its inception.
I just hate the opal suggestion, because Affinity doesnt deserve that.
oh i agree. the collateral damage would be devastating. so its unlikely, and im not advocating it.
that being said though, opal perfectly fits the bill as a card wizards has to be extremely wary of. or as wizards puts it 'does too much for too little cost'. such cards shouldnt be hit because they could potentially create a problem, but in the event that it does happen it affords them an opportunity to act. you know, some reason to rip the bandaid off quickly and get it over with.
its why i was against a stirrings ban suggestion the many times it came up last year. if there is no one deck you can point to violating something, no deck that can in any way be categorized as 'too good', then its solving a problem that doesnt exist.
according to what you guys are saying; kci is too good, too fast, too resilient, wins too much. its the infect of the probe ban. the probe of kci is opal.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
Given twin lost to grixis delver I think the upgrade to shadow would only improve the matchup.
That is indeed fact. Delver (pre-treasure cruise!) was the only negative match up Twin had from the final MTGO Dataset I believe. I really should have bookmarked that...
Given twin lost to grixis delver I think the upgrade to shadow would only improve the matchup.
That is indeed fact. Delver (pre-treasure cruise!) was the only negative match up Twin had from the final MTGO Dataset I believe. I really should have bookmarked that...
And GDS is basically just a better, faster Delver that plays Thoughtsieze.... Weird!
Nobody actually knows that and there is good chance nobody ever will.
Anyone with any experience with either deck could likely draw that conclusion. As I mentioned before, it attacks on every weakness of Twin: discard, counters, removal, and a quick clock backed by things that don't die to Lightning Bolt. It's both faster and more robust than 2018 Jund, which itself is considerably more powerful than 2015 Jund.
The fear about Twin is perpetuated by myths and misinformation, as well as comparisons to decks that are orders of magnitude weaker than the current metagame. Or assumptions made by people who have never played with or against the deck (not saying you, but many on facebook, twitter, and reddit have demonstrated as much, such as "How does Spellskite even stop the combo!" and "Sudden Shock is the only way to beat a Pestermite with Twin on it!").
Look you don't have to convince me. Unban it or let it rot forever on the banlist. I honestly don't care and can live with either.
But I personally value facts and data over assumptions and guesses which brings us the point about you complaining about myths and misinformation. You actually do the same thing and as ktkenshinx pointed out the Thoughtseize/Abrupt Decay deck only had a 50/50 matchup against Twin. Something that you claimed as a bad matchup.
People like you should stop underselling the deck. It only hurts your credibility. People are not stupid and it's easy see through an obvious agenda.
If you are too biased to do that then you will never have an actual discussion on here or anywhere else that leads to anything.
Remanding your delve creature, Bolt-Snap-Bolt, and Push are great against DS. Delver played Pyro, Delver AND the delve creatures, along with some hand disruption and some counters, that's why it had a good matchup. T1/T2 threat into disruption is what made Grixis Delver good against Twin. Hell, that's why I played Jeskai Delver/Midrange back then in our store filled with Twin and Delver, just because path could take care of their delve fatties and Helix and Geist were a mirror breaker.
GDS is lacking the T1/T2 threat density and if it wants to race, it's getting itself into low life totals, and the many twin players here know that the counterburn aspect of twin was one of the three potent gameplans it had. Blood Moon ins't half bad against GDS as well. I don't see GDS being as bad as Grixis Delver was for Twin, simply because of the requirements of playing Death's Shadow.
I already agreed with ktk, but to claim Twin got all these upgrades, ignores the reality of deck space. Its like when people claim Twin would run SFM too. Or SFM would slot right into Control.
Its a nice little sound byte, but it doesnt stand up to any kind of critical thinking.
UR Twin today, would function as it did before. There is no fundamental shift at all in what it does with 'new' cards, in fact Jace would do less to change Twin, than BBE did for Jund.
Another thing twin defenders continue to ignore (or not care about) is that outside of the Eldrazi debacle, no other deck since twin's banning has reached the T8 prevalence that Twin achieved in 2015. While I can't say with any confidence that it would or wouldn't achieve a similar T8 %, it is still something to reckon with. The same criticism can be leveled at cards like Birthing Pod or DRS (examples of diversity bans). Yes twin didn't have the raw metagame numbers that Pod or DRS BG/x had, but like KCI (or Eldrazi in a more extreme case), you can't force the player base to play the best deck. It still did a fairly exceptional job at placing pilots into the T8, enough so that WotC acted (even if there were other stated reasons).
edit:
I started playing the format after the Pod ban and played exclusively BGx THROUGH Eldrazi winter. Twin was an even matchup at best, and I certainly don't miss running cards like Slaughter Pact in the main so I could play a T3 LotV and not die. If it comes back, fine so be it, but it has a pretty large barrier to overcome in the fact that it was statistically the best deck.
Yep, it did have a slightly better Top 8 representation, while having a much higher gross meta share than KCI.
I'd say twin was more than slightly better in top 8 representation, but KCI has a legitimate target on its back based on the metrics we have access to. Perhaps it is a more egregious example given the much smaller overall meta share and likely higher conversion rate to top 8. Matt Nass alone accounts for what? 3 or 4 GP top 8 placings
Remanding your delve creature, Bolt-Snap-Bolt, and Push are great against DS. Delver played Pyro, Delver AND the delve creatures, along with some hand disruption and some counters, that's why it had a good matchup. T1/T2 threat into disruption is what made Grixis Delver good against Twin. Hell, that's why I played Jeskai Delver/Midrange back then in our store filled with Twin and Delver, just because path could take care of their delve fatties and Helix and Geist were a mirror breaker.
GDS is lacking the T1/T2 threat density and if it wants to race, it's getting itself into low life totals, and the many twin players here know that the counterburn aspect of twin was one of the three potent gameplans it had. Blood Moon ins't half bad against GDS as well. I don't see GDS being as bad as Grixis Delver was for Twin, simply because of the requirements of playing Death's Shadow.
GDS's Turn 1 "threat" is a discard spell. Gurmag comes down on 2-3 frequently, and Shadow comes down reliably on 3-4, often with counterspell backup. I think the deck is fantastic, which is why I play it. I also think it would be fantastic against Twin. Depending on how many locals pick up the deck in a hypothetical unban, I would have a genuinely difficult time deciding which to play. If that means putting in some Young Pyros (which I have run out of the side in the past, to pretty good success), then awesome. I have foils of that to and love that card.
I already agreed with ktk, but to claim Twin got all these upgrades, ignores the reality of deck space. Its like when people claim Twin would run SFM too. Or SFM would slot right into Control.
Its a nice little sound byte, but it doesnt stand up to any kind of critical thinking.
UR Twin today, would function as it did before. There is no fundamental shift at all in what it does with 'new' cards, in fact Jace would do less to change Twin, than BBE did for Jund.
I built a hypothetical list myself, and struggled to find anything relevant to add that was new. The only things were 2 Abrade (1 main 1 side), a main Sweltering Suns, and swapping Jace AOT for Mind Sculptor. The added Opts came at a cost of cutting Spell Snare and main deck Dispel.
Another thing twin defenders continue to ignore (or not care about) is that outside of the Eldrazi debacle, no other deck since twin's banning has reached the T8 prevalence that Twin achieved in 2015. While I can't say with any confidence that it would or wouldn't achieve a similar T8 %, it is still something to reckon with. The same criticism can be leveled at cards like Birthing Pod or DRS (examples of diversity bans). Yes twin didn't have the raw metagame numbers that Pod or DRS BG/x had, but like KCI (or Eldrazi in a more extreme case), you can't force the player base to play the best deck. It still did a fairly exceptional job at placing pilots into the T8, enough so that WotC acted (even if there were other stated reasons).
I made a long post about this a while ago, in which a large number of the Twin decks that made Top 8 did so on tiebreakers and then lost their first quarterfinal round. Both of the winners snuck in on tiebreakers, and one of the winners was recently crucified for being a cheater. So... take that as you will.
I can't find the original post, but I have the text of the post saved:
PT Top 8
Antoni Del Moral Leon (38 pts, 5-1 Limited, 7-1-2 Modern, both draws intentional)
Jelger Wiegersma (38 pts, 6-0 Limited, 6-1-3 Modern, 1 draw unintentional)
(Top 8 cutoff was 36pts)
GP Vancouver
Dan Lithier (3rd, 37pts, in on tiebreakers, won)
(1 player with 37pts did not T8. All T8 players draw final round)
GP Charlotte
Samuel Pardee (3rd, 40pts, draw into T8)
Wesley See (6th, 39pts, in on tiebreakers, 2nd)
(4 players with 39pts did not T8)
GP Copenhagen
Arnaud Hocquemiller (3rd, 39pts, knocked out QF)
(T8 cutoff was 38pts)
GP Singapore
Yuta Takahashi (5th, 38pts, knocked out QF)
(T8 cutoff was 37pts)
GP Oklahoma City
Brian Braun-Duin (3rd, 39pts, 2nd)
(T8 cutoff was 37pts)
GP Porto Alegre
Gabriel Fehr (3rd, 38pts, knocked out QF)
(T8 cutoff was 36pts)
GP Pitts
Robert Long (4th, 40pts, draw into T8, knocked out QF)
Alex Bianchi (5th, 39 pts, in on tiebreakers, won)
Benjamin Nikolich (8th, 39 pts, in on tiebreakers, knocked out QF)
(6 players with 39pts did not T8)
Some conclusions from this data set:
PT results dictated by 6 rounds of Limited play and should be wholly irrelevant. Never mind the inbred next-next-leveling that usually happens at the PT meta.
10 total GP Top 8 appearances for Twin
4 of the 10 (40%) made Top 8 on tiebreakers
7 of the 10 (70%) were knocked out in first round of Top 8
BOTH winners made it to the Top 8 on tiebreakers
One winner was a verified cheater and has since been banned
So if an opponent here or there had changed the tiebreaker math, instead of "Utterly dominant, oppressive, boogyman Twin" taking 10 GP Top 8 slots (out of a possible 56 slots, 17.8%) and 2 winners (out of a possible 7 GPs, 28.5%), we could have had 6 Top 8s (10.7%) and no wins (0.0%).
This is also completely dismissing the absurdity of drawing conclusions over such a small number of events spread out over a massive amount of time, or the horrible decision to weigh the ProTour as anything remotely meaningful.
BGx also has that T1 threat and we know the numbers on that matchup as being even.
Delver typically dedicated fewer cards to it's xerox plan compared to GDS and used those slots for interaction or threats instead. Remanding a Delver or a Pyro is w/e, remanding an Angler is backbreaking. GDS also runs headfirst into Twin's second, if not first, most potent gameplan: CounterBurn, which Delver wasn't as susceptible.
BGx also has that T1 threat and we know the numbers on that matchup as being even.
2015 Jund is both considerably less powerful than either 2018 Jund or 2018 GDS. No version of Jund plays a 1 mana Negate or a 1 mana bolt-proof threat. I will not address these differences again.
I already agreed with ktk, but to claim Twin got all these upgrades, ignores the reality of deck space. Its like when people claim Twin would run SFM too. Or SFM would slot right into Control.
Its a nice little sound byte, but it doesnt stand up to any kind of critical thinking.
UR Twin today, would function as it did before. There is no fundamental shift at all in what it does with 'new' cards, in fact Jace would do less to change Twin, than BBE did for Jund.
I built a hypothetical list myself, and struggled to find anything relevant to add that was new. The only things were 2 Abrade (1 main 1 side), a main Sweltering Suns, and swapping Jace AOT for Mind Sculptor. The added Opts came at a cost of cutting Spell Snare and main deck Dispel.
Another thing twin defenders continue to ignore (or not care about) is that outside of the Eldrazi debacle, no other deck since twin's banning has reached the T8 prevalence that Twin achieved in 2015. While I can't say with any confidence that it would or wouldn't achieve a similar T8 %, it is still something to reckon with. The same criticism can be leveled at cards like Birthing Pod or DRS (examples of diversity bans). Yes twin didn't have the raw metagame numbers that Pod or DRS BG/x had, but like KCI (or Eldrazi in a more extreme case), you can't force the player base to play the best deck. It still did a fairly exceptional job at placing pilots into the T8, enough so that WotC acted (even if there were other stated reasons).
I made a long post about this a while ago, in which a large number of the Twin decks that made Top 8 did so on tiebreakers and then lost their first quarterfinal round. Both of the winners snuck in on tiebreakers, and one of the winners was recently crucified for being a cheater. So... take that as you will.
I can't find the original post, but I have the text of the post saved:
PT Top 8
Antoni Del Moral Leon (38 pts, 5-1 Limited, 7-1-2 Modern, both draws intentional)
Jelger Wiegersma (38 pts, 6-0 Limited, 6-1-3 Modern, 1 draw unintentional)
(Top 8 cutoff was 36pts)
GP Vancouver
Dan Lithier (3rd, 37pts, in on tiebreakers, won)
(1 player with 37pts did not T8. All T8 players draw final round)
GP Charlotte
Samuel Pardee (3rd, 40pts, draw into T8)
Wesley See (6th, 39pts, in on tiebreakers, 2nd)
(4 players with 39pts did not T8)
GP Copenhagen
Arnaud Hocquemiller (3rd, 39pts, knocked out QF)
(T8 cutoff was 38pts)
GP Singapore
Yuta Takahashi (5th, 38pts, knocked out QF)
(T8 cutoff was 37pts)
GP Oklahoma City
Brian Braun-Duin (3rd, 39pts, 2nd)
(T8 cutoff was 37pts)
GP Porto Alegre
Gabriel Fehr (3rd, 38pts, knocked out QF)
(T8 cutoff was 36pts)
GP Pitts
Robert Long (4th, 40pts, draw into T8, knocked out QF)
Alex Bianchi (5th, 39 pts, in on tiebreakers, won)
Benjamin Nikolich (8th, 39 pts, in on tiebreakers, knocked out QF)
(6 players with 39pts did not T8)
Some conclusions from this data set:
PT results dictated by 6 rounds of Limited play and should be wholly irrelevant. Never mind the inbred next-next-leveling that usually happens at the PT meta.
10 total GP Top 8 appearances for Twin
4 of the 10 (40%) made Top 8 on tiebreakers
7 of the 10 (70%) were knocked out in first round of Top 8
BOTH winners made it to the Top 8 on tiebreakers
One winner was a verified cheater and has since been banned
So if an opponent here or there had changed the tiebreaker math, instead of "Utterly dominant, oppressive, boogyman Twin" taking 10 GP Top 8 slots (out of a possible 56 slots, 17.8%) and 2 winners (out of a possible 7 GPs, 28.5%), we could have had 6 Top 8s (10.7%) and no wins (0.0%).
This is also completely dismissing the absurdity of drawing conclusions over such a small number of events spread out over a massive amount of time, or the horrible decision to weigh the ProTour as anything remotely meaningful.
Until WotC indicates that they care about tie breakers for banning considerations, what ifs really don't matter. You have been quick to dismiss decks like UWx for being bad/garbage/any number of dismissive adjectives for narrowly missing T8s on breakers alone, but want to use it to somehow show that twin was just unlucky. The breakers were what they were and twin was objectively the best deck for making the T8 of a tournament in 2015. Like Pod, it was the only deck during its ban cycle with multiple GP wins. WotC cites T8 appearances, GP, and PT wins in quite a few B&R announcements (Jund, Pod, and Twin for example). Whether you like it or not, T8 numbers matter to WotC.
I already agreed with ktk, but to claim Twin got all these upgrades, ignores the reality of deck space. Its like when people claim Twin would run SFM too. Or SFM would slot right into Control.
Its a nice little sound byte, but it doesnt stand up to any kind of critical thinking.
UR Twin today, would function as it did before. There is no fundamental shift at all in what it does with 'new' cards, in fact Jace would do less to change Twin, than BBE did for Jund.
I built a hypothetical list myself, and struggled to find anything relevant to add that was new. The only things were 2 Abrade (1 main 1 side), a main Sweltering Suns, and swapping Jace AOT for Mind Sculptor. The added Opts came at a cost of cutting Spell Snare and main deck Dispel.
Another thing twin defenders continue to ignore (or not care about) is that outside of the Eldrazi debacle, no other deck since twin's banning has reached the T8 prevalence that Twin achieved in 2015. While I can't say with any confidence that it would or wouldn't achieve a similar T8 %, it is still something to reckon with. The same criticism can be leveled at cards like Birthing Pod or DRS (examples of diversity bans). Yes twin didn't have the raw metagame numbers that Pod or DRS BG/x had, but like KCI (or Eldrazi in a more extreme case), you can't force the player base to play the best deck. It still did a fairly exceptional job at placing pilots into the T8, enough so that WotC acted (even if there were other stated reasons).
I made a long post about this a while ago, in which a large number of the Twin decks that made Top 8 did so on tiebreakers and then lost their first quarterfinal round. Both of the winners snuck in on tiebreakers, and one of the winners was recently crucified for being a cheater. So... take that as you will.
I can't find the original post, but I have the text of the post saved:
PT Top 8
Antoni Del Moral Leon (38 pts, 5-1 Limited, 7-1-2 Modern, both draws intentional)
Jelger Wiegersma (38 pts, 6-0 Limited, 6-1-3 Modern, 1 draw unintentional)
(Top 8 cutoff was 36pts)
GP Vancouver
Dan Lithier (3rd, 37pts, in on tiebreakers, won)
(1 player with 37pts did not T8. All T8 players draw final round)
GP Charlotte
Samuel Pardee (3rd, 40pts, draw into T8)
Wesley See (6th, 39pts, in on tiebreakers, 2nd)
(4 players with 39pts did not T8)
GP Copenhagen
Arnaud Hocquemiller (3rd, 39pts, knocked out QF)
(T8 cutoff was 38pts)
GP Singapore
Yuta Takahashi (5th, 38pts, knocked out QF)
(T8 cutoff was 37pts)
GP Oklahoma City
Brian Braun-Duin (3rd, 39pts, 2nd)
(T8 cutoff was 37pts)
GP Porto Alegre
Gabriel Fehr (3rd, 38pts, knocked out QF)
(T8 cutoff was 36pts)
GP Pitts
Robert Long (4th, 40pts, draw into T8, knocked out QF)
Alex Bianchi (5th, 39 pts, in on tiebreakers, won)
Benjamin Nikolich (8th, 39 pts, in on tiebreakers, knocked out QF)
(6 players with 39pts did not T8)
Some conclusions from this data set:
PT results dictated by 6 rounds of Limited play and should be wholly irrelevant. Never mind the inbred next-next-leveling that usually happens at the PT meta.
10 total GP Top 8 appearances for Twin
4 of the 10 (40%) made Top 8 on tiebreakers
7 of the 10 (70%) were knocked out in first round of Top 8
BOTH winners made it to the Top 8 on tiebreakers
One winner was a verified cheater and has since been banned
So if an opponent here or there had changed the tiebreaker math, instead of "Utterly dominant, oppressive, boogyman Twin" taking 10 GP Top 8 slots (out of a possible 56 slots, 17.8%) and 2 winners (out of a possible 7 GPs, 28.5%), we could have had 6 Top 8s (10.7%) and no wins (0.0%).
This is also completely dismissing the absurdity of drawing conclusions over such a small number of events spread out over a massive amount of time, or the horrible decision to weigh the ProTour as anything remotely meaningful.
Until WotC indicates that they care about tie breakers for banning considerations, what ifs really don't matter. You have been quick to dismiss decks like UWx for being bad/garbage/any number of dismissive adjectives for narrowly missing T8s on breakers alone, but want to use it to somehow show that twin was just unlucky. The breakers were what they were and twin was objectively the best deck for making the T8 of a tournament in 2015. Like Pod, it was the only deck during its ban cycle with multiple GP wins. WotC cites T8 appearances, GP, and PT wins in quite a few B&R announcements. Whether you like it or not, T8 numbers matter to WotC.
OK thats fair, it was not a bad match up, at all. I do believe GDS would be, but (!!!) we will likely never know.
What is 'so many'? A few sideboard cards? Opt? Great.
Spirits
The biggest difference is that Stubborn Denial hits Twin, but does not hit Kiki Jiki.
Also, small, irrelevant sample size, with wonky deck nobody prepares for, etc etc.
GDS would be an awful matchup.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
i think we all know deep down it is really what puts the deck over the top but avoid considering it because of the daunting implications of removing a card that has been so integral in shaping the format since its inception.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)I just hate the opal suggestion, because Affinity doesnt deserve that.
Spirits
Spirits
Nobody actually knows that and there is good chance nobody ever will.
Anyone with any experience with either deck could likely draw that conclusion. As I mentioned before, it attacks on every weakness of Twin: discard, counters, removal, and a quick clock backed by things that don't die to Lightning Bolt. It's both faster and more robust than 2018 Jund, which itself is considerably more powerful than 2015 Jund.
The fear about Twin is perpetuated by myths and misinformation, as well as comparisons to decks that are orders of magnitude weaker than the current metagame. Or assumptions made by people who have never played with or against the deck (not saying you, but many on facebook, twitter, and reddit have demonstrated as much, such as "How does Spellskite even stop the combo!" and "Sudden Shock is the only way to beat a Pestermite with Twin on it!").
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I'm not sure how access to AV changes things tho.
I don't think I want to find out personally. Not before sfm and gsz come back anyway
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
oh i agree. the collateral damage would be devastating. so its unlikely, and im not advocating it.
that being said though, opal perfectly fits the bill as a card wizards has to be extremely wary of. or as wizards puts it 'does too much for too little cost'. such cards shouldnt be hit because they could potentially create a problem, but in the event that it does happen it affords them an opportunity to act. you know, some reason to rip the bandaid off quickly and get it over with.
its why i was against a stirrings ban suggestion the many times it came up last year. if there is no one deck you can point to violating something, no deck that can in any way be categorized as 'too good', then its solving a problem that doesnt exist.
according to what you guys are saying; kci is too good, too fast, too resilient, wins too much. its the infect of the probe ban. the probe of kci is opal.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)That is indeed fact. Delver (pre-treasure cruise!) was the only negative match up Twin had from the final MTGO Dataset I believe. I really should have bookmarked that...
Spirits
And GDS is basically just a better, faster Delver that plays Thoughtsieze.... Weird!
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Look you don't have to convince me. Unban it or let it rot forever on the banlist. I honestly don't care and can live with either.
But I personally value facts and data over assumptions and guesses which brings us the point about you complaining about myths and misinformation. You actually do the same thing and as ktkenshinx pointed out the Thoughtseize/Abrupt Decay deck only had a 50/50 matchup against Twin. Something that you claimed as a bad matchup.
People like you should stop underselling the deck. It only hurts your credibility. People are not stupid and it's easy see through an obvious agenda.
If you are too biased to do that then you will never have an actual discussion on here or anywhere else that leads to anything.
Just my 2 cents.
GDS is lacking the T1/T2 threat density and if it wants to race, it's getting itself into low life totals, and the many twin players here know that the counterburn aspect of twin was one of the three potent gameplans it had. Blood Moon ins't half bad against GDS as well. I don't see GDS being as bad as Grixis Delver was for Twin, simply because of the requirements of playing Death's Shadow.
I already agreed with ktk, but to claim Twin got all these upgrades, ignores the reality of deck space. Its like when people claim Twin would run SFM too. Or SFM would slot right into Control.
Its a nice little sound byte, but it doesnt stand up to any kind of critical thinking.
UR Twin today, would function as it did before. There is no fundamental shift at all in what it does with 'new' cards, in fact Jace would do less to change Twin, than BBE did for Jund.
Spirits
edit:
I started playing the format after the Pod ban and played exclusively BGx THROUGH Eldrazi winter. Twin was an even matchup at best, and I certainly don't miss running cards like Slaughter Pact in the main so I could play a T3 LotV and not die. If it comes back, fine so be it, but it has a pretty large barrier to overcome in the fact that it was statistically the best deck.
Spirits
I'd say twin was more than slightly better in top 8 representation, but KCI has a legitimate target on its back based on the metrics we have access to. Perhaps it is a more egregious example given the much smaller overall meta share and likely higher conversion rate to top 8. Matt Nass alone accounts for what? 3 or 4 GP top 8 placings
GDS's Turn 1 "threat" is a discard spell. Gurmag comes down on 2-3 frequently, and Shadow comes down reliably on 3-4, often with counterspell backup. I think the deck is fantastic, which is why I play it. I also think it would be fantastic against Twin. Depending on how many locals pick up the deck in a hypothetical unban, I would have a genuinely difficult time deciding which to play. If that means putting in some Young Pyros (which I have run out of the side in the past, to pretty good success), then awesome. I have foils of that to and love that card.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I built a hypothetical list myself, and struggled to find anything relevant to add that was new. The only things were 2 Abrade (1 main 1 side), a main Sweltering Suns, and swapping Jace AOT for Mind Sculptor. The added Opts came at a cost of cutting Spell Snare and main deck Dispel.
I made a long post about this a while ago, in which a large number of the Twin decks that made Top 8 did so on tiebreakers and then lost their first quarterfinal round. Both of the winners snuck in on tiebreakers, and one of the winners was recently crucified for being a cheater. So... take that as you will.
I can't find the original post, but I have the text of the post saved:
Antoni Del Moral Leon (38 pts, 5-1 Limited, 7-1-2 Modern, both draws intentional)
Jelger Wiegersma (38 pts, 6-0 Limited, 6-1-3 Modern, 1 draw unintentional)
(Top 8 cutoff was 36pts)
GP Vancouver
Dan Lithier (3rd, 37pts, in on tiebreakers, won)
(1 player with 37pts did not T8. All T8 players draw final round)
GP Charlotte
Samuel Pardee (3rd, 40pts, draw into T8)
Wesley See (6th, 39pts, in on tiebreakers, 2nd)
(4 players with 39pts did not T8)
GP Copenhagen
Arnaud Hocquemiller (3rd, 39pts, knocked out QF)
(T8 cutoff was 38pts)
GP Singapore
Yuta Takahashi (5th, 38pts, knocked out QF)
(T8 cutoff was 37pts)
GP Oklahoma City
Brian Braun-Duin (3rd, 39pts, 2nd)
(T8 cutoff was 37pts)
GP Porto Alegre
Gabriel Fehr (3rd, 38pts, knocked out QF)
(T8 cutoff was 36pts)
GP Pitts
Robert Long (4th, 40pts, draw into T8, knocked out QF)
Alex Bianchi (5th, 39 pts, in on tiebreakers, won)
Benjamin Nikolich (8th, 39 pts, in on tiebreakers, knocked out QF)
(6 players with 39pts did not T8)
Some conclusions from this data set:
So if an opponent here or there had changed the tiebreaker math, instead of "Utterly dominant, oppressive, boogyman Twin" taking 10 GP Top 8 slots (out of a possible 56 slots, 17.8%) and 2 winners (out of a possible 7 GPs, 28.5%), we could have had 6 Top 8s (10.7%) and no wins (0.0%).
This is also completely dismissing the absurdity of drawing conclusions over such a small number of events spread out over a massive amount of time, or the horrible decision to weigh the ProTour as anything remotely meaningful.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Delver typically dedicated fewer cards to it's xerox plan compared to GDS and used those slots for interaction or threats instead. Remanding a Delver or a Pyro is w/e, remanding an Angler is backbreaking. GDS also runs headfirst into Twin's second, if not first, most potent gameplan: CounterBurn, which Delver wasn't as susceptible.
2015 Jund is both considerably less powerful than either 2018 Jund or 2018 GDS. No version of Jund plays a 1 mana Negate or a 1 mana bolt-proof threat. I will not address these differences again.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Until WotC indicates that they care about tie breakers for banning considerations, what ifs really don't matter. You have been quick to dismiss decks like UWx for being bad/garbage/any number of dismissive adjectives for narrowly missing T8s on breakers alone, but want to use it to somehow show that twin was just unlucky. The breakers were what they were and twin was objectively the best deck for making the T8 of a tournament in 2015. Like Pod, it was the only deck during its ban cycle with multiple GP wins. WotC cites T8 appearances, GP, and PT wins in quite a few B&R announcements (Jund, Pod, and Twin for example). Whether you like it or not, T8 numbers matter to WotC.
I'll simply respond to that by linking to my previous response on the subject.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate