Comments on: A Defense of the Splinter Twin Ban https://www.quietspeculation.com/2016/01/a-defense-of-the-splinter-twin-ban/ Play More, Win More, Pay Less Thu, 28 Jan 2016 02:47:48 +0000 hourly 1 By: Anonymous https://www.quietspeculation.com/2016/01/a-defense-of-the-splinter-twin-ban/#comment-2123789 Thu, 28 Jan 2016 02:47:48 +0000 http://34.200.137.49/?p=6722#comment-2123789 In reply to Jordan Boisvert.

Pretty sure we do mate – have you been hiding under a rock and/or a Wizards shill?

]]>
By: Anonymous https://www.quietspeculation.com/2016/01/a-defense-of-the-splinter-twin-ban/#comment-2123788 Thu, 28 Jan 2016 02:47:00 +0000 http://34.200.137.49/?p=6722#comment-2123788 In reply to Jordan Boisvert.

Why – they were best when Twin was in the format due to the great matchup they had – the idea that RUG delver is now somehow good is fanciful. Sure ppl will play the deck and may even have some success at IQ level but they cant compete in any decent event as they are too inconsistent (delver flipping, removal heavy decks shit in this deck )

]]>
By: Anonymous https://www.quietspeculation.com/2016/01/a-defense-of-the-splinter-twin-ban/#comment-2123787 Thu, 28 Jan 2016 02:44:00 +0000 http://34.200.137.49/?p=6722#comment-2123787 In reply to Tim Estes.

Its an IQ with one of the best mtg players playing the deck – even mediocre
decks with good pilots can get there on occassion – highly unlikely to be repeated

]]>
By: Mike Kelly https://www.quietspeculation.com/2016/01/a-defense-of-the-splinter-twin-ban/#comment-2123786 Wed, 27 Jan 2016 08:36:02 +0000 http://34.200.137.49/?p=6722#comment-2123786 I know that I’m late to the party but I really enjoyed this article. I feel as though every player who has taken up arms about the ban should read this because you are the well spoken voice of reason.
I agree that the ban of twin might lead to the unbanning or modern-legal printing of some of mtg’s more powerful blue spells like Preordain or Counterspell. I truly hope that Wizards is considering doing this because I feel as though it would greatly improve the format.

]]>
By: Jack https://www.quietspeculation.com/2016/01/a-defense-of-the-splinter-twin-ban/#comment-2123785 Wed, 27 Jan 2016 01:06:50 +0000 http://34.200.137.49/?p=6722#comment-2123785 In reply to Peter.

Yeah… This. Player confidence in the format has taken a huge hit, one that would take a long time without arbitrary banning to be restored. Simply put, the deck that wins the most will be banned, and that means modern is effectively a rotating format.
Beyond that, one argument that I seldom see addressed is that the modern metagame is much worse without twin in it now. Look at that act classic top 8… 2 tempo decks, 1 midrange, 12 aggro decks. Barely any interaction. This is not what a healthy metagame looks like, and barring some incredible tech at the pro tour, that’s what we’re left with for at least three months, and likely an entire year with a completely linear metagame. Sounds fun.

]]>
By: Tim Estes https://www.quietspeculation.com/2016/01/a-defense-of-the-splinter-twin-ban/#comment-2123784 Tue, 26 Jan 2016 23:10:44 +0000 http://34.200.137.49/?p=6722#comment-2123784 In reply to Anonymous.

http://www.mtggoldfish.com/tournament/scg-modern-classic-atlanta#online

2 Temur Delver in the top 16? The tournament won by Temur Delver? Temur looks reaaall bad right now lol

]]>
By: Tim Estes https://www.quietspeculation.com/2016/01/a-defense-of-the-splinter-twin-ban/#comment-2123783 Tue, 26 Jan 2016 23:08:59 +0000 http://34.200.137.49/?p=6722#comment-2123783 In reply to Anonymous.

http://www.mtggoldfish.com/tournament/scg-modern-classic-atlanta#online

]]>
By: Anonymous https://www.quietspeculation.com/2016/01/a-defense-of-the-splinter-twin-ban/#comment-2123782 Tue, 26 Jan 2016 00:15:26 +0000 http://34.200.137.49/?p=6722#comment-2123782 In reply to Jordan Boisvert.

That’s just it, though: as far as I can see, Grixis Control started life as a classic URx deck built around Snapcaster and playing primarily at instant speed, but with the increasing prevalence of Jace has evolved into something much more like Jund – a board control deck playing mostly at sorcery speed.

]]>
By: David https://www.quietspeculation.com/2016/01/a-defense-of-the-splinter-twin-ban/#comment-2123781 Mon, 25 Jan 2016 23:01:05 +0000 http://34.200.137.49/?p=6722#comment-2123781 Without twin i suppose aggro decks are going to show more, as the only real control deck is basically gone. They also printed eldrazi with cast effs (Remand, laughing at you). This means a less complicated metagame, more like a vanilla-only beaters decks.
Also, Kiki-jiki can’t be used ad replacement of twin: one more red mana, creature, 2/2. Either you have protection, and combo off turn 6 at least, or kiki get killed. Everyone knows that, but saying to new players who bought Into twin that their deck is gone and they have spent money on something that won’t see play anymore sounds bad.
Wizards is really thinking only about money: they printed twin in mm2, let people buy Into a deck. Then banned it. What they call a more diverse format, is an excuse for lowering the play level so that less competitve decks can see play. Decks which are going to use newer cards. See the new ur creature with prowess: twin ban with the immediate release of this mage, intended for ur aggro lists. Twin players players that cannot buy Into something else are going to play ur delver lists. Coincidence? I don’t think. Wizards is caring only about money? It seems.

]]>
By: Kim Josefsen https://www.quietspeculation.com/2016/01/a-defense-of-the-splinter-twin-ban/#comment-2123780 Sun, 24 Jan 2016 20:09:28 +0000 http://34.200.137.49/?p=6722#comment-2123780 When Wizards puts the utmost consideration into top8s at large tournaments, hen looking the Modern Nexus metagame doesn’t give a lot of insight into whether a deck deserves to be banned. So while Twin may not have had the largest share in the metagame as a whole(and nowhere near pod/delver/jund shares of metas past) using the Nexus method of measuring metashare, this metric as a whole is largely irrelevant when talking about whether a deck is getting too large a piece of the metagame pie.

As for Splinter Twin suppressing diversity within URx strategies, unless some URx decks surfaces in the post-ban metagame, then Splinter Twin was if anything the reason that URx saw some amount of play. At which point the card wasn’t hindering in-colors diversity but actually what made it competitive.

]]>
By: Anonymous https://www.quietspeculation.com/2016/01/a-defense-of-the-splinter-twin-ban/#comment-2123779 Sun, 24 Jan 2016 18:40:40 +0000 http://34.200.137.49/?p=6722#comment-2123779 So you are fine with all of moderns top tier decks becoming non-existent or just weaker versions of their former self. That is sad.

The results of a deck getting top 8 vs top 16 are what? 1-2 wins or losses? What a crazy difference that is. Top 8’s alone are a terrible metric to base a banning off of.

Read Tom LaPille’s explanation’s on reddit or listen to the podcast he was on. Look for yourself on mtgtop8.com and look at the % of players playing each deck. Those numbers right there tell you twin isn’t oppressive. Jund and Junk decks have consistently held more meta % than any other deck.

Look at the stats for last years pro-tour fate reforged. PVR so kindly put those on one of his articles. Look at the “diversity” there and and in any of the previous sites I mention and tell me that diversity is an issue. It isn’t. Saying anything else is just a stubborn denial of the truth.

Point is, the pro-tour is killing modern as a fun format to play. It is and will continue to ruin the game for the casual players, the people who just want to play at their local game stores, fnm, and if everything aligns maybe a grand prix or some side events when they can attend.

I will continue to fight for the health of modern as I see it as nice format to play once one is done with standard, or needs a break of standard or whatever their reason is. If you are under the false assumption that banning cards every year from a top tier deck is good for format diversity, then you will be very dissapointed in the format in 4 years.

]]>
By: Jordan Boisvert https://www.quietspeculation.com/2016/01/a-defense-of-the-splinter-twin-ban/#comment-2123778 Sun, 24 Jan 2016 17:35:39 +0000 http://34.200.137.49/?p=6722#comment-2123778 In reply to JEB.

I think if those decks are putting up numbers that resemble those of cards that have already been banned, there’s no reason for us to be surprised at a banning, at the very least. Wizards thinks banning in this way increases format diversity, and so far, they’ve been correct.

Banning cards probably has something to do with the Pro Tour, but we don’t have any hard evidence that this ban was based mostly on the Pro Tour. In fact, we have evidence that this ban was based mostly on other factors.

Wizards constantly bans cards from Modern “in the interest of format diversity.” It’s plainly obvious to me that “format diversity” is not something that’s tremendously important to Wizards in Legacy, otherwise they would ban Brainstorm.

]]>
By: JEB https://www.quietspeculation.com/2016/01/a-defense-of-the-splinter-twin-ban/#comment-2123777 Sun, 24 Jan 2016 15:34:25 +0000 http://34.200.137.49/?p=6722#comment-2123777 So you agree that we should just be happy with 1-2 main cards from tier 1 decks getting banned each year?
You agree with the statement that the pro-tour has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that cards get banned?
It’s posts like yours that make me wonder if you look further into the equation or if you just blindly accept everything wizards tells you as gospel truth.

So why hasn’t wizards banned sensie’s top or counterbalance from miracles? Or in fact why hasn’t brainstorm been banned? Based on numbers and event wins and top 8’s that deck has been the most successful. Brainstorm makes its way into 70% minimum of all top 8 decks being a 4 of.

It hasn’t been banned because A. It doesn’t need to be and B. because legacy has no PRO-TOUR. If legacy had a pro-tour, do you think that brainstorm or miracles would be banned ?

]]>
By: Anonymous https://www.quietspeculation.com/2016/01/a-defense-of-the-splinter-twin-ban/#comment-2123776 Sun, 24 Jan 2016 15:33:04 +0000 http://34.200.137.49/?p=6722#comment-2123776 So Jordan, you agree that we should just be happy with 1-2 main cards from tier 1 decks getting banned each year?
You agree with the statement that the pro-tour has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that cards get banned?
It’s posts like yours that make me wonder if you look further into the equation or if you just blindly accept everything wizards tells you as gospel truth.

So why hasn’t wizards banned sensie’s top or counterbalance from miracles? Or in fact why hasn’t brainstorm been banned? Based on numbers and event wins and top 8’s that deck has been the most successful. Brainstorm makes its way into 70% minimum of all top 8 decks being a 4 of.

It hasn’t been banned because A. It doesn’t need to be and B. BECAUSE LEGACY HAS NO PRO-TOUR. If legacy had a pro-tour, do you think that brainstorm or miracles would be banned ?

]]>
By: Jordan Boisvert https://www.quietspeculation.com/2016/01/a-defense-of-the-splinter-twin-ban/#comment-2123775 Sun, 24 Jan 2016 06:20:11 +0000 http://34.200.137.49/?p=6722#comment-2123775 In reply to Tim Estes.

Thanks! Agree about the upset/subjective articles. If you have friends who are really upset about the Twin ban, show them this. I think it will do the community a lot of good if we can have a level-headed discussion about the implications of Modern bannings without letting emotions muddle our logic.

]]>
By: Jordan Boisvert https://www.quietspeculation.com/2016/01/a-defense-of-the-splinter-twin-ban/#comment-2123774 Sun, 24 Jan 2016 06:09:35 +0000 http://34.200.137.49/?p=6722#comment-2123774 In reply to Gino Killiko.

For one, people would definitely pack LESS Affinity hate if the deck took a banlist hit. That alone might keep it viable. But we won’t know until it happens!

]]>
By: Jordan Boisvert https://www.quietspeculation.com/2016/01/a-defense-of-the-splinter-twin-ban/#comment-2123773 Sun, 24 Jan 2016 06:05:59 +0000 http://34.200.137.49/?p=6722#comment-2123773 In reply to Ricardo Takeda.

We’ll see! If URx is as bad as you guys think, I’m sure Wizards will throw it a bone.

]]>
By: Jordan Boisvert https://www.quietspeculation.com/2016/01/a-defense-of-the-splinter-twin-ban/#comment-2123772 Sun, 24 Jan 2016 06:04:38 +0000 http://34.200.137.49/?p=6722#comment-2123772 In reply to Adam Juarez.

I’m also very excited for Delver decks in the coming metagame! Thanks for the kind words. I think it’s very important to consider the actual data for issues like these, or else people let their emotions get the best of them and say really embarrassing things.

]]>
By: Jordan Boisvert https://www.quietspeculation.com/2016/01/a-defense-of-the-splinter-twin-ban/#comment-2123771 Sun, 24 Jan 2016 06:00:18 +0000 http://34.200.137.49/?p=6722#comment-2123771 In reply to Anonymous.

Well, we don’t have hard proof that Twin was banned because of the Pro Tour. We do have an official explanation from Wizards that actually makes a lot of sense if you check out the numbers. I’ve laid them out above if you want to give them a look!

]]>
By: Jordan Boisvert https://www.quietspeculation.com/2016/01/a-defense-of-the-splinter-twin-ban/#comment-2123770 Sun, 24 Jan 2016 05:59:09 +0000 http://34.200.137.49/?p=6722#comment-2123770 In reply to Anonymous.

Wizards has said in the past, and on this banlist announcement, that they look to GP Top 8 slots as an indicator of format diversity. Whether you agree with them or not, that’s just what they do. It would be short-sighted of us not to consider, then, Twin’s GP Top 8 appearances this season – which are higher than any other deck’s. Posts like these make me wonder if people even read Wizards’ banlists announcements.

]]>