MTG Salvation

No, they cannot. Disney is literally releasing their own own CCG around the same time with princesses in it, they would never cut out their own properties like that. Also this is the first time I have heard this as being a rumor as opposed to just some fanboy wish.

So again, no.

Obligatory skirk prospector mention, because I am sure that it breaks this.

It is getting to the point with legacy goblins where you basically every gobo combos off with every gobo you could include.

Sailors' Bane seems much better than we are probably giving it credit for? Like how much better is Murktide in Legacy over this when this does not destroy your graveyard while doing it's thing? Ward 4 may as well be Hexproof.

Required card alter please:

SHE IS WEARING A FEDORA

Some sort of "contract" mechanic that represents the deals people are entering into with the gangsters. I'm thinking it may be something similar to a quest, where you have to do X and then you get Y once you complete it.

Here's my wild speculation, the contract/quest mechanic works like companions in that it starts out of your deck and can be initialized from the board, or maybe a variant on dungeons from AFR.

My prediction on this set is that it plays out just like the original story, and then we get like a fractured timeline thing where the modern day phyrexians and praetors show up instead of the original one. Or maybe it is not an alternate storyline at all but rather it shows that all of this was caused by the Phyrexians in the first place.

This way it advances the storyline we have in place with Vorinclex showing up in Kaldheim and we figure out more of what is undoubtably going to be the big final story arc, and maybe it can include the mainline walkers we have in the story modern day.

Does that textbox font not look entirely off? I cannot be alone in thinking this.

Quote from Creedmoor »

Interesting that they went with the Stranger Things version of the Demogorgon, at least in the face. I think the Demogorgon I knew from my D&D days had like... Two Baboon heads and tentacles and stuff.

I think they drew the art in such as way that you can see 2 heads, or you can see the flower head of the Stranger Things version. I think it is very intentional that the flavor text mentions "will" over and over again in that you can kinda read it like:

The good Will was corrupted
The kind Will was devoured

Since this kinda plays into what happens to will after the first season of being in the upside down. And the abyss is of course the upside down.

People who are not excited by this obviously do not play pauper.

Personally all of my most broken games involve a SSG so id never play less than 4. I’d also prefer Fulminator to Shriekmaw because of TitanShift and tron

Quote from Ashiok »

Quote from Lord Seth »

Quote from Ashiok »

I do agree that random artificial constraints are stupid, a.k.a. banning decks because they can consistently win before turn 4 (but after that it is fine). That makes no sense. I do agree with bannings that regulate the health of a game, in the sense that you ban a card to take care of a real problematic deck (as they will likely do with eldrazi). Bloom never was a problem in my opinion, it could win on turn 2... so what? It wasn't even big on the metagame. It shouldn't have been banned. From a deckbuilding standpoint, I agree with the banning of Splinter Twin. I think it was just too unimaginative of a combo that was making its place in every deck and deck combination in a disgusting way. As a problem for the metagame I think it didn't deserve a banning.

Yep, Twin was making its place in every deck and deck combination. That's why we were seeing Tron decks running Twin, and Infect decks running Twin, and... oh, wait, none of that happened.

I've seen this claim made before, but it doesn't make sense. Even accepting some level of hyperbole, what decks were it inserted into that had legitimate success with it? (going 4-0 once on MTGO a few years ago is not legitimate success) There was Living End, and... that's kind of it. And note that Twinning End is generally regarded as a weaker version of Living End anyway. It's true there were different varieties of Twin, like UR Twin, Grixis Twin, and RUG Twin, but that's not Twin getting put into different decks, that's just Twin splashing for different colors. So I have no idea where this argument is coming from.

I will just give you a quick answer: for starters, if you were playing UR in modern, you probably should be playing twin. You could go without it, like america or grixis control, but everyone would know you're playing weaker versions of your deck, since you lack the 'turn 4 combo' potential. Twin showed up in different flavors: temur, jeskai, grixis, etc.

This is a dramatically different argument than the one you actually made. You said that Twin was put into all these different decks. But that's not what you described, you just described why Twin was allegedly the best URx deck. That's a very different matter.

Now, the argument that Twin was just better than everything else than URx does make more sense in that it's at least not obviously false like your original claim was. But it's still not very good. For starters, that's the same argument as used for Wild Nacatl, that it was so good it was forcing other aggro decks out. What happened after the ban? New aggro decks didn't leap up. It turned out that the reason s those decks weren't seeing play wasn't because Zoo was so overbearing, but because they just weren't good enough. That is essentially the same thing that's going on here.

The problem for URx is that it lacks any good catch-all answers. The only such card in the format is really Thoughtseize. It's why the nonlinear fair decks in the format are overwhelmingly Black, because they get that card. But if you're not in Grixis, then you lack that, and there's a lot of different decks you could potentially be facing that require different answers. If you don't want to play Sideboard Roulette and just hope you pack the answers for the right deck, then your best option is the Twin combo because that sort of is a catch-all answer in that an infinite combo can beat just about anyone. The problem is not Twin, it's the lack of good catch-all answers that force people to play Twin. Banning Splinter Twin does not solve this problem and just leaves the other URx decks unviable because they lack the answer. Again, it's the faulty Wild Nacatl logic.

The funny thing is, the other URx decks basically always had a good matchup against Twin. Because while the combo cards together are powerful, apart they're pretty mediocre. A three-mana 1/4? Looks a lot worse than a 1-mana 3/2. And since the other URx decks are hard to combo off against, the combo isn't very good so the Twin player is using much less efficient cards than the opponents. One can see this by how far Twin fell when Grixis "Control" or Delver were the decks to beat. Those decks were great against Twin, so Twin wasn't that competitive anymore. Banning Splinter Twin actually took out a positive matchup for the decks that supposedly were being held down by Twin. They actually seem worse off right now than they were with it, though we'll have to wait until the Eldrazi get banned to be sure.

If Twin being better than the other decks was a problem, you don't solve it by just banning Splinter Twin (which is again Wild Nacatl logic), you do it by empowering those other decks. A good catch-all answer like Counterspell would actually do a lot to empower those decks and shrink Twin's power. That may seem counterinuitive as there's strong possibility Twin would play Counterspell itself, but even if Twin did (which I do wonder about, considering the cantrip on Remand is very valuable to the deck), Counterspell does two major things that hurt it:
1) It solves the problem those other URx decks have in giving them a good catch-all answer, thereby making the combo less required.
2) It powers up a lot of decks that are good against Twin, weakening it.

Ultimately, banning Splinter Twin is not actually addressing the problem of the other URx decks not being that great. It's just getting rid of a one of the actually good URx decks and leaving nothing in its stead. Again, it's the same "logic" that went into the Wild Nacatl ban.

It mixed with other decks: Living end + Twin, Scapeshift + Twin, Faerie + Twin, come on!!

And those are your citations? Living End+Twin is a deck, but as noted it's generally not considered as good as regular Living End. But let's concede that it is a thing that's actually okay. The other two? Have put up results about as strong as Owling Mine. They're not relevant.

The combo was everywhere. Combos that slot in (almost) every place are bad for the game (a reason why painter's servant + grindstone is a banned combo in commander), they are uninmaginative and restrain deckbuilding. If you can't see that, I am deeply sorry.

Because Painter's Servant+Grindstone literally can go in every single deck as it's colorless, not to mention it takes up a much smaller percentage of your deck? Whereas Twin requires a hefty amount of your deck and is significantly limited in what decks it can go into (a minority of decks were playing the combo). You claim you are "deeply sorry" if I can't see how combos that slot everywhere are bad for the game, but I am deeply sorry if you can't see the gigantic differences between Twin and the combo you just cited.

Quote from cfusionpm »

Quote from twicky_kid »

Quote from ktkenshinx »

I just don't understand how people can think the Eldrazi are just beatable and people are too lazy or uncreative to do so. Just look at these metagame stats from SCG Louisville until today! This doesn't even include the Pro Tour and its immediate aftermath: it's 2/14 through present with N=29 events and 227 decks.

1. Eldrazi: (28.9%)
2. Affinity: (9.2%)
3. Abzan Company: (6.6%)
4. Burn: (4.4%)
5. RG Tron: (4.4%)
6. Merfolk: (4.4%)
7. Infect: (3.9%)
8. Jund: (2.6%)
9. Elves: (2.6%)
10. Mardu Midrange: (2.2%)

Whaaaaaaat??

Anyone who thinks that's not indicative of a SERIOUS metagame problem is either being dishonest with themselves or with the community.

The question is why is eldrazi making up so much of the metagame? The deck is strong but I think it is because of other factors. The deck is cheaper than any other competative modern deck as of right now. Not to mention the people that bought in before all the prices spiked. Majority of the cards can be pulled from the most recent set in print. The other cards are also from sets less than 5 years old.

It is just a perfect storm of cheap deck to build, easy cards to get, the deck is strong, and a brand new deck. Innovate and beat it. It is doable.

Did you miss the story where my Eldrazi opponent mulliganed to 2, I Spreading Seas his turn 1 Eldrazi Temple, and STILL lost? The deck is absurd. You think you can beat a deck of undercosted 2-for-1s that play under your curve and out value EVERYTHING you play? Geist of Saint Traft looks downright pedestrian compared to a turn 3 Reality Smasher.

No offense, but if you lost to a player who mulliganed to 2, you might want to look at building a new deck. If you played spreading seas on his temple and he top decked an eye, that means he had one card in hand with 3 available mana for eldrazi. That's not even enough for a thought knot. You said he also used a gut shot which is another turn's draw wasted. IMO that speaks way more to the inefficiency of your deck than it does to the power of eldrazi.

Quote from Tipsygiggle »

Quote from Magicalrabbit »

They should create a Restricted List for Modern and add Eye of Ugin. It'll make the deck less consistent and slow things down without completely killing the deck. Plus, losing Eye completely hurts Tron.

The problem is a restricted list doesn't stop anything from being broken, it just makes it less likely to happen. They can still get the dream draws.

Which I must emphasize hardly ever happens. This has been proven by the thread's mathematician. We hardly ever go Eye - mimic - mimic, that's just people using anecdotal evidence to wrongly advocate the banning of a perfectly fair, non-format-warping deck, that simply needs more time for people to get used to losing to adapt to.

Why is nobody talking about the day 2 percentage stats and focusing on the metagame share? We have an new really powerful deck that everybody wants to try that we amplified by the results at the pro tour. I would expect that eldrazi to have a high percentage of the "metagame" for six more months or so until the other decks can figure out to handle a twin-less meta.

When is the last time modern had a tier 1 deck introduced basically overnight? Does this deck even break the turn 4 rule consistently? The current thing the eldrazi deck is doing is preying upon an new meta where people usually play aggressive decks.

so...

eldrazi continues to see less success in events, with top 8s featuring a healthy 6 different decks at recent PTQs and other large-ish tournaments.

it still has a huge presence, of course, (Thanks, KTK for the breakdown) but looking at the chronological spread, i think we can probably all agree now that the hype is dwindling and the deck will hopefully recede to acceptable levels over the coming weeks/months.

i'd just like to add that the reactionary attitudes and insta-ban crowd aren't helpful and will be an extremely tough piece of community feedback for Wizards to understand. do they trawl through online resources and find the few people who are presenting sensible arguments? or are they forced to take the whole lot at face value, including the pitchforks-and-torches mob who aren't really understanding the wider context but are very good at making their voices heard? the implications of this mindless community backlash are extremely worrying. an emergency ban (seriously not needed at this stage) would shake modern to the core, simply opening up the void to yet another scapegoat for the mob to call bans on.

I worry (and you should too) that Wizards may well look at this thread, after some initial knee-jerk social media backlash from the ProTour. If they do, they'll get an unfair perspective on community opinion, centred around reactionary anger and banmania, with only a couple of rational and sensible voices buried under the torrent of vitriol.

i urge you, members of the community, to wait. build some hate, switch up your decks, innovate. give it three months. then we'll see in all honesty if any action needs to be taken. if people are just assuming-as-fact that bans will happen during the breakout first-ever tournament of a deck that nobody was prepared for; you have to admit that those vocal individuals in the community have lost their ability to be rational about this sort of issue. it's textbook herd-mentality panic and it does nothing but hurt the format and community, by bullying Wizards into a corner so that they'll be more and more cautious with every subsequent new set and the fanbase will become more and more disappointed in the poor constructed value being designed in the future.

for the sake of not just Modern but Magic as a whole, please curb the knee-jerk assume-bans-are-incoming mentality. let's be rational as a group, and talk about this in a sensible way.

"On the other hand Legacy has steadily become more and more gaveyard-centric. Decks either revolve around the yard (goyf, Kotr, Dredge, Zombie recursion) or can actually maindeck hate and expect it to not be a dead card in most matchups. New 2 card win combos emerge every set, and there is a short but prominent list of cards people think probably should be restricted if we had a restricted list. Decks are even becoming more and more uniform because they only want to run the most efficient of cards (goyf, delver, bolt.)"

Maybe he did use the term graveyard centric in the wrong way but if you actually read and comprehend his post instead of nit picking his one poor word choice, you would see that he is implying that most decks do use their graveyard in some sort of fashion, but do not rely on it to actually win the game. It seems you are basically trolling him for grammatical errors. Bad troll is bad.