I think the best way to address this imbalance, which I also see from day to day, is to give less weight to MTGO numbers. We could probably figure out a good weighting based on relative attendances, but I’d have to crunch the numbers to figure it out.

With the recent changes to prizes/entry fees and now the appearance of a Modern league, the number of people that participate in the Modern Daily on MTGO has dwindled. It’s essentially a daily 4-round tournament whose participation rate and structure compares to that of a decent FNM tournament. The one that’s currently running sports a mere 20 people compared to the usual 80+ that would attend before the changes.

With this development it seems bizarre that these events are given points on equal grounds to that of GP/PT Day 2s, GP/PT top8s or even the sum of all(!) published top8 paper events. I realize there’s sound reasons to keep dailies in their own category. It’s a different meta altogether with budget and linear decks running rampant while simultaneously being the only source of information for MTGO where a sizable portion of people play and deck development take place, but nevertheless equating what’s essentially the publishing of daily FNMs to categories that are either more populated or from more competitive environments skews the data which is problematic.

In your opinion, Is this something that can be addressed in a meaningful and practical way?

Grixis twin runs very light on counters and heavier on disruption. It plays more proactive and less reactive. It’s more of a midrange deck.

Is there any chance that if no one version of the Twin archtype makes teir 1 status that you could aggregate grixis and straight UR into one super-type?

The strategies and countermeasures are largely the same for their main gameplan- and I feel like it does a disservice to your analysis to not group it in the tier 1 (expect to play against this) breakdown

Is there any chance that if no one version of the Twin archtype makes teir 1 status that you could aggregate grixis and straight UR into one super-type?

The stratigies and countermeasures are largely the same for their main gameplan- and I feel like it does a disservice to your analysis to not group it in the tier 1 (expect to play against this) breakdown

I just don’t see how any of that is different from an affinity deck running day’s undoing, an affinity deck running master of etherium, an affinity deck running 4 thoughtcasts, or an affinity deck running frogmite. Of course every card you change has some impact on what the deck can do and what its good/bad against. But at its core what is the deck doing?

Do you know what all variants of twin are doing? Playing a humdrum midrange fair game backed up by a viciously unfair 2 card combo half of which has flash.

What defines a twin game? Your inability to tap out ever unless you want to risk losing on the spot irrespective of board state, hand state, or life total. Blood moon and less pain is the UR twin advantage – just like an abzan list with voice of resurgence has an advantage against counterspells and flash creatures…

I have also seen the Twin to Grixis shift. I think it’s because a lot of Twin players are secretly control players, and they’d rather play Grixis Control than just URx Twin. Of course, it’s also possible they are just attracted to shiny new decks, but I think both forces are at play. As you also suggest, off-seasons are great times to try out brews, although I think we’ll start to see more Twin as players return to the deck following disappointing Grixis performances. This should lead to a downturn in Affinity by November, although BFZ block might result in a parallel rise in Tron, Scapeshift, and similar decks (they haven’t gotten big cards yet but that might change).

Thanks for the props! If there’s any other content you want to see, or general feedback, definitely let us know!

On the bright side, especially after the Jared Allen trade for draft picks, there’s nowhere to go from here but up. At least until we lose Forte. But after THAT, we’ll have nowhere to go but up!

I personally love Allies, but I see two issues with the deck as far as metagame share goes. For one, Modern is a hype-driven format where many players are unwilling to strike out on their own with innovative lists. Grixis Delver was the most grassroots-driven deck evolution I’ve seen, and that was based on an existing shell (Delver) with clear new synergies (Grixis following Tasigur’s rise). Allies doesn’t have that kind of momentum, at least not yet. We would need to see Allies get T8 at a major event and, even then, it would still require a lot of buzz to take off.

The second issue with Allies is the lack of consensus around builds. We have Company Naya Allies, Jeskai Allies, 5-Color Allies, and probably a half dozen other Allies brews floating around we can all name or have seen. This means it’s hard to identify a best core, and harder for players to get excited about the deck. If I love Allies and test out a version that proves to be bad, I’m unlikely to keep trying out other versions. I’ll just go back to Naya Company or Merfolk. But if I love Allies and try out a T8/T16 list from a GP and it’s at least decent, I might stick around. Allies needs this consistency to be good and we’re not there yet.

Grixis Twin can be pretty different from the other Twins, especially in its sideboard. Just having Terminate as hard removal opens up options that you don’t see in the red-based removal in regular UR Twin (Bolt, Electrolyze, maybe Roast). Add to that a Kolaghan’s/Snapcaster value loop, a Tasigur plan B, a more painful manabase, inability to maindeck Blood Moon, and different sideboard options and you have yourself a surprisingly different deck.

UR Twin and Temur Twin have more similarities, especially when UR Twin splashes Breeding Pool for sideboard Grudge. Even there, however, the inability to maindeck Moon and the presence of Goyf plan B really change how the deck plays out. All of this matters both as Twin players deciding which deck to use, and then (more importantly) the impact of that choice on the metagame.

In the future, I’ll try and incorporate a way of tracking both the URx Twin supertype and the individual Twin variants that captures both without misleading readers. For example, maybe we report on URx Twin and then highlight which particular Twin variant is the current Twin-to-beat for the month.

As far as magic is related, what are your thoughts on where allies have to potential to reach by the end of October? I have been playing bant allies (running 4 battlesingers because of CoS and Ally Encampment) and I have to say it might possibly be better than my delver deck. I think they have huge potential to blow up

Am I wrong or is the only difference between UR and Temur twin tarmogoyf + ancient grudge? I am not aware of other green cards being played in twin decks.

And grixis twin plays what black cards? tasigur/angler (goyfs), and inquisition/kolagans command? Maybe replace roast with murderous cut?

Myself I find calling these 3 different decks really silly. It’s like considering affinity decks with master of etherium totally different decks from ones with ensoul artifact. Switching 2-4 cards in a deck that still executes a virtually identical gameplan…

Twin should be back soon. Until then, you’ll still want to prepare for them as a whole, even if there’s no one Twin deck that’s getting all the attention.

Having played against a lot of Twin in my time, I appreciate the important differences between these lists and how that can affect a game. For instance, UR Twin is the best Blood Moon deck in the format. If I’m an Amulet Bloom pilot and UR Twin is tier 1, I might want to expect some game 1 Blood Moons if I go to an event. If Grixis and Temur are in charge, there’s no way I’m seeing that tech in game 1 and will probably only see 1-2 in games 2/3. Perhaps this granularity is less important than collectively considering URx Twin as a whole, but I think we can do both. The key is just to acknowledge where collective deck shares push a supertype into tier 1, which is a disclaimer I made in my August update and have now pasted into this one (you can see the update in the middle of the article).

Of course, if this keeps happening and keeps leading to misinterpretations, we might have to change the classification system. Any system is going to have upsides and downsides, however, and we’ll continue weighing them as we process more data.

I agree with everything you say here, and realize that this didn’t come through in the article above. I made a disclaimer to this effect in my August article, and I’ve just repasted it in this article her as some added clarity. Overall, it’s important for Modern players to know that no specific Twin deck is tier 1, but the collective URx Twin supertype is still seeing a lot of play. That said, it’s still fascinating to me that no single Twin deck is cutting it, with all the decks languishing at fairly low shares. Both of these observations are important and we should be mindful of them when preparing for events.

Those seem like solid predictions, although I will say that Twin as a supertype (URx Twin) is still very much in the spotlight. Collectively, the deck has an 8%-10% metagame share, so you would be wise to still expect some kind of Twin deck at a tournament. That said, there’s no individual Twin list you should prepare for: you just need to be ready for the general URx Twin synergies and gameplans. Hopefully we’ll see a Twin deck back in tier 1 soon!

Glad you enjoyed it! We’ll keep trying to provide content like this, and let us know if there’s anything else you want to see.