To be fair. A lot of the information is spread every where across social media.

And it was difficult for me to piece together. That Pod cast essentially tied everything together.

Perhaps you should be more informed before writing articles that are so woefully inaccurate. Have you not heard the comments by Aaron Forsycthe etc. Have you not read articles by Frank Karsten, Dickmann etc

Games Workshop

Well the article changed my mind. And I value that very highly. Not a lot of Magic articles have actually changed my mind about something over the years.

I was also surprised and upset Twin was banned. It really is unprecedented. I understand people are still upset. I can see it in the language and the tone of the reactions above. It is understandable. And if you don’t agree, if you are still outraged, you will not like it. That’s fine too. The decision is very controversial and may remain so for a long time to come.

Wilted abzan

You absolutely dont – article is garbage – is Ke Douche bag your mom?

Yeah mate – all that fallen empires dribble makes you sound somuch more convincing – top 10 articles – please

As a URx player but not a twin player im indifferent to it being gone. It was generally bad given the amount permission and removal non-twin URx decks run. Actually I will miss it as it was one of my best match ups.

Im more reponding to your saying ban bolt? While it is one of the top 5 removal spells in modern I’m of the opinion that it has slightly diminished in prominence given the rise of XTron and Eldrazi decks. I only play online but the paper players do observe the online meta and it does influence the paper metas. That said bolt is rather terrible in both match up in any deck other than burn. I board them out consistently in both match ups you need to be doing something to impact the board and disrupt their mana development in the early turns and bolt is bad against anything they have resolved.

I think XTron and Eldrazi decks will likely dominate the next pro tour slaming 6 & 7 drops on turn three seems to be the best thing you can be doing if your not on burn atm.

Ke Doendra,

That’s high praise and while I’m not sure I deserve it, I appreciate the support! Thanks for reading and I’m glad you like the content!

We need some form of “like” system ASAP.

I’m not sure they need to mention the Pro Tour for us to realize that it’s a contributing factor to recent events. Not the sole reason, but definitely part of the process. Its frustrating to continually see Wizards make PR errors with their official statements, but that’s my only real issue here.

I think that timid approaches to formats that need to be solved is more dangerous for the game than bans. As Magic players we can accept bans if we know it’s bettering the game. Obviously, our opinions on whether bans makes things “better” or not are different, usually dependent on whether we have an investment in the matter.

I would love to see what Wizards could do with a “chopping block” Modern, where top decks get taken out for 6 months and then brought back in on a cycle to mix things up. If we knew what was coming it would make for an exciting, fresh powerful format that doesn’t get stale, where we’re looking at more than just new set releases as factors that can mix things up. I think players could get on board with that, if we can work to change the culture that places wallets before the “good of the game”.

Copying this from my comment on Reddit:

Obviously we all care a great deal about our collections, what we spent on them, the time we spent cultivating and going to battle with them. My point is that I believe we should check that at the door when discussing bannings that are enacted with the intention of bettering the format and the game at large, because players’ unique opinions regarding the value of their collections is polarizing and never moves the discussion in any meaningful direction. Because one player lost some money on Twin/can’t play Twin is almost always paired with another player who just gained value on Through the Breach and can now play (insert deck that folds to Twin) now that’s its gone. I just don’t think it contributes much to the discussion, that’s all. Obviously Twin players with an emotional and financial investment into this topic will disagree, but my goal with my article was to hopefully inspire readers to set aside those biases and think about the situation analytically.

Philip,

I have not listened to that yet, but have heard it referenced multiple times and have read snippets out of context. Thanks for the link, I’ll check it out!

Burn, zoo, uw mid range, grixis, delver, etc… Im not a twin or pod player but while pod was around it functionally invalidated all other creature decks; why play mono green stompy, gwx anything, etc.. When you can just play pod? Pod was the card that allowed what would otherwise be a competitive mid-range value creature deck to be the best creature deck while also being one of the best combo decks. While i dont think Twin was as oppressive given that it filled weaker part of the meta counter based control; they are similar in that if you wanted to play either value based creature or counter control decks it was very hard to justify not playing either pod or twin. While pods banning did open up space for the wave of creature based decks we see now to flourish, I dont think the same will be true of the banning of twin. If only because creature spells are inherently more powerful than the reactionary control spells available in the modern card pool. Twin only made these cards seem better than they actually are because of the game ending combo; you cannot rely on remand or mana leak to control the game in the classic draw go style there potency is simply to quickly eclipsed by the cheap and efficient creature spells in the format.

The second line of your reply demonstrated your lack of understanding of the format. Thank you for being direct like that- some people write blocks and blocks of text before coming out and explaining that they’re out of touch with the format, so it was polite of you to be upfront about it.

How many thousands of dollars is it reasonable to expect to invest in order to be secure in your knowledge that you can continue to play a non-rotating format in Magic: the Gathering?

You talk about having a “portfolio of decks.” What about people who are on a limited budget?

I get it. You don’t agree. That’s ok. That doesn’t make it a bad article. There are more opinions in this world than just yours. You may want to read the second line of the article again: “As always, my opinion is my own, and I present it to you not in an attempt to argue or sway others to my side, but rather to inform, as best I can, regarding the process that leads me to my opinions.”

I agree with the examples given. You don’t. It is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. I think the Playstation example is spot on. Think about what value means. And if you paid alot of money for your collection, you did not pay it to Wizards. Cards you buy from Wizards cost the price of a booster pack. They have no obligation to maintaining prices on a secondary market, that is your own responsibility. If tomorrow the whole world decides to quit Magic, your collection will be worthless. But that is not in the interest of Wizards at all. This is exactly the point Trevor makes. It is sacrificing the needs of a few for the needs of the many an the long term health of the format. Wizards is not in the business of pissing people of. They want to continue the succes of Modern just as much as you do. They just have a different opinion on how to achieve this.

I value this article highly because it is well written and voiced in a factual, mature -and to me- convincing manner. It is a breath of fresh air from all the emotional overreactions in which, just like you do above, the writers present their opinions as facts.

Everyone knows that there are reasons to have Twin bannad. But we also need to work through the implications without someone telling us what we already know but don’t want to think about before we decide it’s ok!

Let us grieve in peace.

With that said it’s still a good article. But atm I just get annoyed at people trying to explain how we’re basically idiots for having emotional reactions to something we’re invested in. I won’t even bother to argue with how we shouldn’t complain if our collection loses value because of bans though. You’re an idiot if you don’t realise that Magic is a CCG and if the value of cards would become too unpredictable, this game would go to an early grave. Comparing it with video games would make sense if that game has any second hand value to speak of and you lost that because they stopped supporting it.

Honestly how can this be considered a good article? Nearly all examples given are off, all assumptions are wrong and the conclusions therefore also miss the point.
Examples?
Here you go: “PT coverage is for new players”
Oh really? So the succession is: Buy a starter, then watch pro tour?
Wrong!!

Or the retarded Playstation example. How would you feel if thex banned the system 3 month after launch because they want to sell the next gen?

Or what should constitute a ban. What is important to the game.
There is just one important thing: that the game is fun. And fun comes from meaningful, game deciding interaction.
All reasons given in the article are irrelevant to the banworthyness.

So if that’s the best you read since 1994, then I really don’t want to know what sites you visit.