What other combo deck in modern gets away with only needing to run 10 cards that do the instantly win you the game?
Knightfall is only 6 pieces. Bottom line: the number of slots taken up by a combo in a deck does not necessarily equate to how good the deck is. You're wrong.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern UBR Grixis Shadow UBR UR Izzet Phoenix UR UW UW Control UW GB GB Rock GB
Commander BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
I rather a format made healthier by printing new cards rather than by bannings/unbannings.
Whenever they ban something people lose money, and I'm not talking about people that treat this game as an investment, but rather players that pay hard earned money for the expensive cards required to play this format.
I like "no changes", even if some people believe that their preferred playstyle should be better positioned in the meta (AKA control, AKA blue), I would much rather see progress in that regard by adding new elements to the game.
Right now there are decks that are really strong against Death Shadow but doesn't show up due to decks like Tron being present. Does that mean that tron should get banned instead? but then tron is strong because the decks that predate on tron are being predated by other decks, and so on, and so on. In that regard, percentages mean little. Just add new cards and let the meta shift, and unless something is just so clearly broken that you can't print anything to beat it without destroying the depth of the game, then use the bannings.
If twin was a victim of a different mentality when regulating the format, or truly deserved it's ban, it's already done, R&D is allowed to change their opinion and to learn from their experiences, celebrate that they're being more cautious, and don't ask blood for blood when you see they are not butchering another deck because they killed the one you liked.
you could run 4 Deceivers and 3 Splinter Twins which was the minimal package, the more focused combo versions would run 4/2 split on creatures and 4 of Twin
The only versions that were ever down to 4 combo creatures and 3 Twins were oddly built Temur Twin lists. The default UR build was 6 creatures and 4 Twins, and the default Grixis build was 5-6 creatures and 3-4 Twins. Stop lying dude, just because a few people placed in events with 7 combo pieces doesn't mean it was a common choice. The vast majority of lists were 5-6 creatures and 3-4 Twins.
but you would have known that if you actually played the deck
I'm aware that a few people did that, but to try and make it out like that was a common thing in service to your argument is deceitful. The most common configuration was 10 combo pieces, and the second most common was 8, anything other than that was extremely fringe, and if you were being honest in your discussions here you would have said 10 for the combo pieces. It's just another thing in a long line of you lying on these threads, and I'm going to call you out for it every time because I'm not going to just sit around while people spread misinformation.
and RUG Scapeshift takes along time to pull off which is why it isn't as good, for some one claims to play magic you don't seem to know much about it
I'm well aware of why RUG Scapeshift was never as successful as Twin, but your claim was that Twin was the best combo deck because its combo pieces only took up "10" (which isn't what you said, but is the correct number) slots in the deck, so the rest could be a control shell. Well, Scapeshift's combo took up even fewer slots than Twin's, so clearly your claim is incorrect.
you have to 5 mountains in play before valakut does anything
*6 Mountains
Your talk of the difference of the blue Scapeshift and Titanshift decks is all irrelevant. The bottom line is that Scapeshift is a combo that requires the card Scapeshift and 7 lands in play. If you want to argue that the ramp spells are combo pieces, I'd be willing to give that to you, though. But then I can bring up Saheeli combo, which is another combo with even fewer pieces than Twin. My point is that Twin wasn't the best combo deck just because its combo took up the fewest slots in the deck. It wasn't even a dedicated combo deck in the first place. It was primarily an aggro-control deck that had a combo finish if it needed it. But we've had this discussion many times before and I don't feel like going over it with you again.
I intentionally picked the count used by the versions of the deck that had a lesser focus on the combo because after all your claiming that the Combo wasn't even a major part of the deck so it seemed actually more fair to use the less combo focused version as the example. What your claiming is that it was deceptive of me to present a count from a list that wasn't so focused on the combo while you try to claim that the deck wasn't focused on the combo....
What scapehift deck doesn't run Tribe elders, search for tomorrow, explore, farseek, etc.. those are all part of the Combo because a combo deck that cannot win until turn 8 would just suck. No other combo in the format has such a low deck building requirement as Twin.
Really Splinter Twin was a control deck first? the first modern pro tour won by twin had 4 Deceivers 2 pestermite 2 kiki-jiki and 4 splinter twins; if anything it started off more focused on the combo it even ran pact of negation and disrupting shoal. It would evolve into a more tempo-combo deck only later when we the players realized that you didn't have to be so all in on the combo to a-draw into the combo since you are running visions and other random cantriping spells and b-once the combo was a known factor people had to play as though you had it even if you didn't. The focus on more counters and tempo plays was also a result of the prevalence of the mirror and Jund. It was always a combo deck from day one, I have no problem saying I played a combo deck for years because in all honesty Modern was a format defined by combos for years mostly the Twin and Pod combo decks.
I intentionally picked the count used by the versions of the deck that had a lesser focus on the combo because after all your claiming that the Combo wasn't even a major part of the deck so it seemed actually more fair to use the less combo focused version as the example. What your claiming is that it was deceptive of me to present a count from a list that wasn't so focused on the combo while you try to claim that the deck wasn't focused on the combo....
I never made any of those claims. I said that your plan A was not to win by the combo, and probably ~60-70% of the deck's wins were from creature beatdown and bolt-snap-bolt. The combo plan became the go-to plan when the opponent wasn't interacting or when they were putting more pressure on us than we could deal with by the fair game plan.
What scapehift deck doesn't run Tribe elders, search for tomorrow, explore, farseek, etc.. those are all part of the Combo because a combo deck that cannot win until turn 8 would just suck. No other combo in the format has such a low deck building requirement as Twin.
Ok, that's fine if you want to count the ramp spells as part of the Scapeshift combo, I'll concede that one to you. So how about Saheeli combo or Knightfall, then? Both of those are instant win combos that take up less space in the deck than the Twin combo did. If space taken up in the deck was what made Twin the best combo deck, as you claim, these decks would be even better than Twin. The fact that they are not proves that your premise is flawed.
Really Splinter Twin was a control deck first? the first modern pro tour won by twin had 4 Deceivers 2 pestermite 2 kiki-jiki and 4 splinter twins; if anything it started off more focused on the combo it even ran pact of negation and disrupting shoal. It would evolve into a more tempo-combo deck only later when we the players realized that you didn't have to be so all in on the combo to a-draw into the combo since you are running visions and other random cantriping spells and b-once the combo was a known factor people had to play as though you had it even if you didn't. The focus on more counters and tempo plays was also a result of the prevalence of the mirror and Jund. It was always a combo deck from day one, I have no problem saying I played a combo deck for years because in all honesty Modern was a format defined by combos for years mostly the Twin and Pod combo decks.
Yes, this is all true, Twin did start out as a much more all-in combo deck, but nobody played that list in the last couple years of its existence. Of course it was still partially a combo deck, but it evolved to the point where it was moreso a tempo deck with a combo secondary plan. Twin was more fair than it was unfair in its last year.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern UBR Grixis Shadow UBR UR Izzet Phoenix UR UW UW Control UW GB GB Rock GB
Commander BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
Calling Knightfall an instant win combo is flat out wrong. There are a lot of situations where assembling the 2 cards you still can't go off. It is a 2-card combo if you wish to discount the land requirement, but even then it is still a finite combo. If you opponent has too much life, sufficient blockers, or you have too little life, you can't go off and win.
Guys please opinions on japanese cards. Lost a 3/3 creature against Japan celestial colonade. This guy played all creatures and spells in english cards, but some cards in his manabase was japanese. I dont registrated this really ( my brain say its all fine and all english to me lets attack his empty board)...and i am sure it is a Kind of legal cheating. It is not ok, but i know legal. I Hate such people. I never forget colonade normally, but with this Tricks it can happen one time in 3 years and such people take advantage of this
If I am a customer spending premium amount of dollars, I expect a premium service. Jund falls into the category of a premium deck costing more dollars than a majority of the rest of the format. I'm not getting the desired performance ratio per dollars spent out of the Jund deck because WOTC decided to make the format more diverse.
What's funny is standard basically has a deck that similar to twin (Both win on turn 4). What makes it worse than dealing with modern twin is the answers in standard suck, and drum roll they didn't ban it in standard. Wizards you make no sense.
Really, they should have un-banned something.
They're scared to. Standard is in a seriously bad place, and they think banning will put it in an even worse place. What used to be the largest Standard FNM in the world, 200+ players routinely now gets 30. Our local shop has fallen from 20 for Standard to 4. Modern is the only thing people are playing locally.
True standard attendce has been down locally for me. Modern has been picking up. People are evening looking potentially getting into legacy.
1. Saheeli is weaker because the combo (1) needs 3 colors (2) dies to bolt/shock/any 1 dmg effect/spell (3) is 100% sorcery speed and needs 6+ Mana to do in your turn
You're 100% correct. Note that the reason is not the number of slots the combo takes up in the deck, which is what bizzycola is arguing.
2. If Twin-decks weren't primarily combo decks, then why:
(1) Is the deck ALWAYS called Twin, not U/R Tempo or U/R control or RUG Tempo?
Well, naming conventions are generally subjective, but the Twin combo being in a deck certainly differentiated something like Grixis Twin from Grixis Delver. It was a good naming convention because it better explained what the deck was doing/could do. That doesn't mean that both decks don't have a plan A of playing a turn 2 Tasigur and riding him to victory. The difference is that they had different plan Bs, one being the Twin combo, the other playing a more grindy control game.
The Grixis version wasn't, it just became Grixis Delver and Control again. As for the UR version, a UR tempo deck hasn't been successful without Twin because it relied on the tempo gain of your opponent being scared to tap out. UR 1/4 beats and bolt-snap-bolt can get there if your opponent is forced into playing inefficiently with their mana, but it can't if your opponent is spending their mana efficiently.
In my opinion, the twin deck had other plans (tempo, control), but they were only possible because of the threat of the combo. So it was a combo deck that had a reasonable plan B and C, but a combo deck nonetheless!
Your first statement is definitely correct. Where I disagree, as an ex-Twin player, is that the combo was not plan A going into a match. Plan A was winning through beatdown and Bolts. Plan B was trying to resolve the combo, which I would switch to if my opponent was playing an uninteractive deck, if I was in danger of imminent death, or if they tapped out and I had the combo in hand.
Also, with the unbanning of ancestral vision, I have a hard time imagining a bad matchup for twin (especially postboard) other than deathshadow decks?! ramp/big mana decks were always good matchups, midrange decks struggle to beat AV/Keranos, aggressive decks were always good matchups, other combo decks were always good matchups...maybe reactive blue-based control that hopes to get paired against twin/deatshadow all day because it looses to the rest?
Game 1s wouldn't change because Twin wouldn't play AV maindeck. Your main deck in Twin was optimized around being able to find the combo asap, because some matchups relied on you comboing as soon as you could. AV doesn't further that gameplan, it's too slow. We've had this discussion on these threads in the past, and the general consensus among ex-Twin players is that we would probably play like 2 AVs in the board, but doing so means we would have to cut other cards like Jace AoT or a second Keranos, or lose ground in other matchups to make the grindy ones better. The Twin 75 was very very tight. And yeah, the DS decks would be a nightmare for Twin, along with UW Control. Personally, I think that's enough to make Twin not only safe in this metagame, but I'm not even 100% sure it would be tier 1. I think it would still, but I remember Twin falling to almost unplayability during hostile metas not that long before its golden age in 2015.
I think a deathshadow ban is inevitable...maybe not in the next update, but sooner or later it will warp the metagame in an unhealthy matter. The Strategy around Shadow supplants other archetypes, is played by all decks that can incorporate it and has a more warping effect on the metagame than any other deck.
But maybe I am completely wrong, the upcoming tournaments will tell...
Well, the DS decks have been steadily declining for a few weeks now, so it looks like the meta is adapting. At the moment, Jund and Grixis DS combine for about 12.6%, which is not too extreme. Twin decks and GBx Midrange in the past have been at this same level or higher. Of course, Twin did eventually get banned, but that was because of GP Top 8 performance. The only successful DS decks right now are Jund and Grixis, though. Yes, they did kind of supplant Jund Midrange and Grixis Delver/Control, but is it really a problem if we basically just traded one version for another? As for the warping, all tier 1 decks warp the format to a certain extent. The key point here, though, is how they warp the format. Dredge, for example, warps the format in an unhealthy way. It pushes the format towards being fast and uninteractive, because that's the best way to beat Dredge. DS decks push the format towards being interactive, because that's the best way to fight them. UW Control is a legit good deck right now because of DS. This is why DS decks will have a longer leash than decks like Dredge before eating a ban. I agree, though, the telling point will be the upcoming GPs, which I believe are in May. If DS decks dominate again, something will get banned.
Calling Knightfall an instant win combo is flat out wrong. There are a lot of situations where assembling the 2 cards you still can't go off. It is a 2-card combo if you wish to discount the land requirement, but even then it is still a finite combo. If you opponent has too much life, sufficient blockers, or you have too little life, you can't go off and win.
A far cry from a 2-card infinite combo.
I mean, ok, but that's kinda splitting hairs. I would wager that the vast majority of the time, assembling the Knight + Retreat combo is game winning, and usually on that same turn. My point against bizzy, though, is that space taken up in a deck for a combo doesn't necessarily equate to strength of the deck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern UBR Grixis Shadow UBR UR Izzet Phoenix UR UW UW Control UW GB GB Rock GB
Commander BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
I intentionally picked the count used by the versions of the deck that had a lesser focus on the combo because after all your claiming that the Combo wasn't even a major part of the deck so it seemed actually more fair to use the less combo focused version as the example. What your claiming is that it was deceptive of me to present a count from a list that wasn't so focused on the combo while you try to claim that the deck wasn't focused on the combo....
I never made any of those claims. I said that your plan A was not to win by the combo, and probably ~60-70% of the deck's wins were from creature beatdown and bolt-snap-bolt. The combo plan became the go-to plan when the opponent wasn't interacting or when they were putting more pressure on us than we could deal with by the fair game plan.
What scapehift deck doesn't run Tribe elders, search for tomorrow, explore, farseek, etc.. those are all part of the Combo because a combo deck that cannot win until turn 8 would just suck. No other combo in the format has such a low deck building requirement as Twin.
Ok, that's fine if you want to count the ramp spells as part of the Scapeshift combo, I'll concede that one to you. So how about Saheeli combo or Knightfall, then? Both of those are instant win combos that take up less space in the deck than the Twin combo did. If space taken up in the deck was what made Twin the best combo deck, as you claim, these decks would be even better than Twin. The fact that they are not proves that your premise is flawed.
Really Splinter Twin was a control deck first? the first modern pro tour won by twin had 4 Deceivers 2 pestermite 2 kiki-jiki and 4 splinter twins; if anything it started off more focused on the combo it even ran pact of negation and disrupting shoal. It would evolve into a more tempo-combo deck only later when we the players realized that you didn't have to be so all in on the combo to a-draw into the combo since you are running visions and other random cantriping spells and b-once the combo was a known factor people had to play as though you had it even if you didn't. The focus on more counters and tempo plays was also a result of the prevalence of the mirror and Jund. It was always a combo deck from day one, I have no problem saying I played a combo deck for years because in all honesty Modern was a format defined by combos for years mostly the Twin and Pod combo decks.
Yes, this is all true, Twin did start out as a much more all-in combo deck, but nobody played that list in the last couple years of its existence. Of course it was still partially a combo deck, but it evolved to the point where it was moreso a tempo deck with a combo secondary plan. Twin was more fair than it was unfair in its last year.
I said it was a combo deck, you said no it was a control deck first and combo deck second which would mean that a less focused combo element would be the fair comparison. You literally said in the same post I responded to that It started out as a more control oriented deck which no it didn't and again all of the snapcaster beats that we got in with the deck was only possible because of the combo. Do you really think that your opponent with like 5 cards in hand can't handle a snapcaster? of course they can, its the risk of losing the game because you attempted to interact with the opponent that bought you the time that those types of wins needed, so even when you didn't stick the combo the esoteric nature of combo still winning you the game. The deck actually stifled interaction because whatever spell you might be casting probably doesn't win you the game on the spot which the Twin player might do in response to anything you attempt to do from T3 onward. I had a poster telling me that essentially only a stupid person would dare tap for a IoK on T3 because the Twin player had 3 open mana, and this is probably true but also why the deck was toxic. A player cannot even play a 1.c.c. interactive spell without the risk of just losing the game on the spot for nearly the entire mid-range of the game T3-T6 that is not a healthy affect for a deck to have on the format.
No body played that list of Twin because first the deck is one of its own worse match ups to attempt to stick the combo, making the deck one of the best decks against the deck. Second with the rise of Jund and the printing of Abrupt decay you couldn't be as all in when a very common match up gets to run main deck hate against it( I would also contend that Jund Mid-range built its status on the back of its twin match up primarily as it had a good G1 against Twin and close enough against everything else something that other decks really couldn't have because they lack tools like decay that are good against it and main deck worthy). Yes the deck evolved but it was always first and foremost a combo deck, sticking 3 snapcasters and 2 cliques dosn't suddenly mean that the other 10 cards your running are plan b in fact it was the opposite snap and clique are plan b and the combo gets you more wins. The low deck construction requirements also lent to its oppressive power because post board you might no longer be playing a
Twin deck at all, this is a very powerful quality for any deck to possess let alone a instant win combo deck that demands dedicated SB hate for a combo that might or might not be even in the deck post board.
I wont argue about the 60-70 percent creature beatdown win you are claiming as that seems like a number you are pulling out of the aether and I'm rather sure that it is a unknowable number to all but perhaps WotC. I know in my experience I won more frequently with the combo and often in the Mirror or against Jund/Junk decks would use flash tappers to bait removal until i could stick a clique or snaps and try to win that way but that match up was often 1-2 losing the first and winning the SB match ups against BGx.
The Twin combo is fundamentally unfair, it is why it was so good for so long in format with so many unfair decks it was the best for the longest period of time. Trying to say that it got more fair over time is actually why the combo was busted you get a Ad Naus Storm level combo win condition with out the investment that those decks normally require. Instead I get to play Tas while keeping up 3 to threaten the combo and beat your face for 3-4 turns if you hit your land drops while you have to sit back and accept that your time for playing magic is on hiatus until you draw enough lands and enough turns go by that you can attempt to stick a threat and assuming it doesn't get remanded back to your hand still hold up removal for the combo. If I draw 1 terminate I cannot use it on tas in the face of 3 open mana because I might just lose but I am currently losing a slower more "fair" beatdown battle because I cannot actually afford to interact with you or your board state because It might just be game over on the spot.
Copy-cat in Modern and Knightfall are not instant win, they both have a entire turn in which a key component is exposed to removal. Copy-cat unless you are waiting until you have 7+ lands in play you cannot combo out in a single turn, Knight has summoning sickness. Both are strong but far easier to interact with while not risking losing the game instantly. If my opponent untaps with Knight out that is fair I had a whole turn in which it did nothing to attempt to deal with it, same with Copy-cat 1 1/2 most likely was on the board doing nothing for a entire turn and afforded you a chance to deal with it. This is what I mean by it was a unfair combo deck wrapped in a fair decks skins. Whats the best Grixis build the one with Twin combo jammed in, Whats the best RUG build the one with Twin combo jammed in, etc....
I would also add that Copy-cat in standard and also modern is only as good as it is because of the low requirement for playing the combo. The deck wins in Standard much like it Twin would in Modern, threatening to win from T3 with a 8 card investment while surrounding itself with the best "fair" deck option available so while you try to hold back and react to the combo they kill you with guy who makes 1/1's every once in a while.
In Modern it is only semi competitive because of the low investment regarding deck construction, the 3 colors of the deck are of little to no consequence as fetch lands and shock lands make for a very reliable mana base. The reason that this combo deck isn't having the success that Twin had is because it is 100% sorcery speed. Unless you wait for 6-7 lands you cannot combo off in one turn and hence would risk exposing your walker or creature to removal and risk not drawing the other piece before its to late.
so your snarky attempt to "prove me wrong" actually only shows how correct I am as that deck wouldn't see play if it required you to play 12-16 other cards on top of the 8 for the combo, its an okay deck because it gets to be a watered down version of the Twin combo and is again 100% sorcery speed.
I mean, ok, but that's kinda splitting hairs. I would wager that the vast majority of the time, assembling the Knight + Retreat combo is game winning, and usually on that same turn. My point against bizzy, though, is that space taken up in a deck for a combo doesn't necessarily equate to strength of the deck.
In the right condition yes assembling the 2 cards is game winning. These conditions are still heavily reliant on the actual game state and whether the player is proficient enough to pull it off within the limitations of the deck. Variables include your own life, your opponent's life, the number of creatures your opponent has, the number of fetch lands left in your deck, the number of fetchable lands left in your deck, whether or not you have an active hierarch/bird in play.
It's nowhere near as straightforward as you say barring ridiculous scenarios like t1 dork, t2 knight, t3 retreat with your opponent not playing anything relevant.
You are right though, space taken up for a combo packge doesn't equate to the strength of the deck. But what would that point serve to prove ? That Twin is the best combo deck by far even though it's not a 'dedicated' combo deck ?
Guys please opinions on japanese cards. Lost a 3/3 creature against Japan celestial colonade. This guy played all creatures and spells in english cards, but some cards in his manabase was japanese. I dont registrated this really ( my brain say its all fine and all english to me lets attack his empty board)...and i am sure it is a Kind of legal cheating. It is not ok, but i know legal. I Hate such people. I never forget colonade normally, but with this Tricks it can happen one time in 3 years and such people take advantage of this
If I am a customer spending premium amount of dollars, I expect a premium service. Jund falls into the category of a premium deck costing more dollars than a majority of the rest of the format. I'm not getting the desired performance ratio per dollars spent out of the Jund deck because WOTC decided to make the format more diverse.
Still disagree with twin being a control deck. That is where WotC screwed up royally. Thinking that taking a hybridized Tempo/Combo deck out of the format with the stated intention of helping control. Its nonsense. The twin deck had to control the game for like the first three turns, that's it. From then on the combo threat controlled the game. In that sense, sure there was control, but it was control based on the fact that one card will win the game (I know its a two card combo but be real, how often have you watched a twin match and DE or the Fae guy isn't on the board?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern GB Rock U Flooding Merfolk RUG Delver Midrange WU Monks UW Tempo Geist GW Bogle GW Liege UR Tron B Vampires
Affinity Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity EDH W Akroma GBW Ghave BRU Thrax GR Ruric I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
I mean, ok, but that's kinda splitting hairs. I would wager that the vast majority of the time, assembling the Knight + Retreat combo is game winning, and usually on that same turn. My point against bizzy, though, is that space taken up in a deck for a combo doesn't necessarily equate to strength of the deck.
In the right condition yes assembling the 2 cards is game winning. These conditions are still heavily reliant on the actual game state and whether the player is proficient enough to pull it off within the limitations of the deck. Variables include your own life, your opponent's life, the number of creatures your opponent has, the number of fetch lands left in your deck, the number of fetchable lands left in your deck, whether or not you have an active hierarch/bird in play.
It's nowhere near as straightforward as you say barring ridiculous scenarios like t1 dork, t2 knight, t3 retreat with your opponent not playing anything relevant.
You are right though, space taken up for a combo packge doesn't equate to the strength of the deck. But what would that point serve to prove ? That Twin is the best combo deck by far even though it's not a 'dedicated' combo deck ?
In all fairness I never said that combo size is equivalent to its power, I simply stated that it is a strength of the Twin Deck. I said it is similar to the Channel+Fireball combo in that it really has no impact on the deck construction and if you just happen to draw the combo you win. There are plenty of Two card combo decks and they more often than not require far more deck construction considerations to make including it even worth while. I pointed to multiple factors that made twin the best combo deck besides size of combo, the instant speed interaction of the combo, the deck not needing to devote multiple resources to assembling the combo, etc...
A person could run the UB turbo-mill combo in any UB deck, the problem is that outside of the combo those cards are not that good. This is not true of the Twin combo cards, Exarchs and Mites come down and pressure the life total of the opponent and draw out removal to stick the combo in the following turns, Twin itself sticks to Snapcaster doubling every spell in your deck. No risk of just drawing a dead card with either and if you happen to draw both gg's.
exactly what I said a couple Months ago. It was obvious then. But now it's super obvious they don't care about blue and white. They could have easily taken action and Probably been fine. But they are too busy with standard. Modern is going the way of the dodo bird, it may take 10 years but mark my words it will be the next legacy. These eternal formats just aren't a big priority. And that's not something I want to invest several grand into.
exactly what I said a couple Months ago. It was obvious then. But now it's super obvious they don't care about blue and white. They could have easily taken action and Probably been fine. But they are too busy with standard. Modern is going the way of the dodo bird, it may take 10 years but mark my words it will be the next legacy. These eternal formats just aren't a big priority. And that's not something I want to invest several grand into.
Honestly, I'd feel the same way if I didn't move my Delver list into Grixis Shadow. It's still not really what I want to be doing in the format, but at least I can rack up store credit playing a "good" deck again. Glad it wasn't banned, even though something probably should have been.
So, how much satisfied are you from Aaron Forsythe promise to address the issues that Blue Control decks are facing in Modern by saying:
While deck diversity is good, we're keeping an eye on color balance. If there's an easy change to the banned list that could open up more decks in the future, we will examine it when other formats have less pressing needs.
(?)
Wishy-washy and meaningless answer that tells us nothing. Talk is cheap and their actions will speak louder than their words. AF and MaRo are notorious for deliberately vague or misleading statements made to players.
So, how much satisfied are you from Aaron Forsythe promise to address the issues that Blue Control decks are facing in Modern by saying:
While deck diversity is good, we're keeping an eye on color balance. If there's an easy change to the banned list that could open up more decks in the future, we will examine it when other formats have less pressing needs.
(?)
Not at all. We've heard similar statements before, and it is a purposefully meaningless comment that doesn't require any actual follow-through or thought. Additionally, they admittedly don't have the resources to test and monitor the format. They straight up said they didn't have time to focus on modern during either of the last two banned announcements, and the recent ones they did pull the trigger on had opposite effects than intended (banning twin opening up control, banning probe hurting linear decks, thopter/sword helping control).
All I've heard out of them is that they have no idea what to do with the format, nor the care or ability to figure it out. They want modern hurt to make their terrible standard not look so bad, but they need modern to succeed for their long term health as a company.
I actually appreciate the powered up proactive threats coming out (look back on theros block and see how boring that set was because of lack of power, regardless of the format), I just wish the answers would match. Wizards is at a huge crossroads right now. They are severely trying to catch up in the e-sport realm while trying to hang on to what made the game popular in the first place. I understand they are trying to push it more toward hearthstone because that game is doing very well in the e-sport world; I've never played hearthstone because I enjoy magic and didn't feel the need, but if wizards is going to continue to move magic closer to hearthstone I may as well just sell out my collection and play hearhstone instead because I trust Blizzard to run a game way more than I do Wizards.
exactly what I said a couple Months ago. It was obvious then. But now it's super obvious they don't care about blue and white. They could have easily taken action and Probably been fine. But they are too busy with standard. Modern is going the way of the dodo bird, it may take 10 years but mark my words it will be the next legacy. These eternal formats just aren't a big priority. And that's not something I want to invest several grand into.
Can I have your cards?
But seriously, I dont understand how people can act so entitled. The format is fine. Its working. People are having fun. I understand people like you are grumpy, but dont make it seem like you're quitting because the format sucks.
There are objective ways to determine if Modern is healthy. The fact that your archetype is not 10%+ of the meta does not make it objectively *****ty.
What are the objective measures you are using? And is the causality you are attributing to those measures valid? Crime raises in the summer but that doesn't mean heat makes people commit crimes. There are a lot of things going on and I would be cautious to say the format is in a good spot because of some x and y. Even if those are true and valid, is that reason to not demand better?
I refuse to accept that Snaps is a valid reason to limit what blue gets.
Is Snapcaster the vest creature in Legacy where even better counters exist?
Snap Counterspell is the exact cost as Cryptic, but has vulnerability to GY hate, is counterable twice, and has a forced mode of 'counter target spell, create a 2/1 Blue Wizard'
There are objective ways to determine if Modern is healthy. The fact that your archetype is not 10%+ of the meta does not make it objectively *****ty.
But there is an archetype that's 10% of the current meta (2 DS decks combined), and more broadly aggro-midrange is overwhelmingly dominant in meta. Where you stand on those two entirely depends on what you perceive as healthy.
Why does it have to be 33% across the board? Who says that is balanced? Card availability is what determines a lot of these numbers. If the mechanic or card does not exist to boost the amount of Control decks (for example), then control will be hard to get up to 33%.
There is no rule that says all archetypes need to be represented equally for the format to be healthy. In fact, history shows the opposite is usually better so long as one particular deck does not become too oppressive.
I refuse to accept that Snaps is a valid reason to limit what blue gets.
Is Snapcaster the vest creature in Legacy where even better counters exist?
Snap Counterspell is the exact cost as Cryptic, but has vulnerability to GY hate, is counterable twice, and has a forced mode of 'counter target spell, create a 2/1 Blue Wizard'
That's supposed to be scary?
Also the presence of goyf didn't stop them from printing grim flayer and goyf is a much better card than snapcaster in just about any setting you can give. Snapcaster is barely even played at the moment and a 2 CMC hard counter doesn't even sound that good in this meta. I can't imagine adding the two of them would break anything, or even be tier 1 unless it was also jammed into a DS variant. But that says more about DS decks than it does a counterspell.
There is no rule that says all archetypes need to be represented equally for the format to be healthy. In fact, history shows the opposite is usually better so long as one particular deck does not become too oppressive.
I find this claim interesting and am interested in hearing more on the topic. What historical evidence do you draw on to come to the conclusion that "the opposite [of the idea that "all archetypes need to be represented equally for the format to be healthy"] is usually better so long as one particular deck does not become too oppressive"?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
There are objective ways to determine if Modern is healthy. The fact that your archetype is not 10%+ of the meta does not make it objectively *****ty.
What are the objective measures you are using? And is the causality you are attributing to those measures valid? Crime raises in the summer but that doesn't mean heat makes people commit crimes. There are a lot of things going on and I would be cautious to say the format is in a good spot because of some x and y. Even if those are true and valid, is that reason to not demand better?
The format has healthy attendance numbers overall, does not have an overly oppressive deck present (though DS is on the watch list), and most tier 1-2 have a good amount of decks present. Tier 3 is also pretty plentiful.
The fact that deck X is not playable, means nothing overall. If Burn, a mainstay of Modern, becomes unplayable tomorrow, it does not mean Modern is now unhealthy.
There is no rule that says all archetypes need to be represented equally for the format to be healthy. In fact, history shows the opposite is usually better so long as one particular deck does not become too oppressive.
I find this claim interesting and am interested in hearing more on the topic. What historical evidence do you draw on to come to the conclusion that "the opposite [of the idea that "all archetypes need to be represented equally for the format to be healthy"] is usually better so long as one particular deck does not become too oppressive"?
Easy, everyone here agrees that at some point in time, the format seemed healthy to them. Aggro has almost consistently been 45%+ of the meta since 2011. So we never had true 50/50/50 balance. Yet people seem to be complaining now (mostly Twin players), about how the format is so unhealthy, toxic, and unbalanced.
Control has almost always been sub 26% of the meta, save for one year (and Twin did not contribute to that anomaly).
There are objective ways to determine if Modern is healthy. The fact that your archetype is not 10%+ of the meta does not make it objectively *****ty.
What are the objective measures you are using? And is the causality you are attributing to those measures valid? Crime raises in the summer but that doesn't mean heat makes people commit crimes. There are a lot of things going on and I would be cautious to say the format is in a good spot because of some x and y. Even if those are true and valid, is that reason to not demand better?
The format has healthy attendance numbers overall, does not have an overly oppressive deck present (though DS is on the watch list), and most tier 1-2 have a good amount of decks present. Tier 3 is also pretty plentiful.
The fact that deck X is not playable, means nothing overall. If Burn, a mainstay of Modern, becomes unplayable tomorrow, it does not mean Modern is now unhealthy.
This is not deck X being unplayable, this is 2/3 ways of playing the game that are, all things considered, subpar.
So Combo AND Control are not playable in Modern? Really? lol. Ok.
Knightfall is only 6 pieces. Bottom line: the number of slots taken up by a combo in a deck does not necessarily equate to how good the deck is. You're wrong.
UBR Grixis Shadow UBR
UR Izzet Phoenix UR
UW UW Control UW
GB GB Rock GB
Commander
BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG
BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
Whenever they ban something people lose money, and I'm not talking about people that treat this game as an investment, but rather players that pay hard earned money for the expensive cards required to play this format.
I like "no changes", even if some people believe that their preferred playstyle should be better positioned in the meta (AKA control, AKA blue), I would much rather see progress in that regard by adding new elements to the game.
Right now there are decks that are really strong against Death Shadow but doesn't show up due to decks like Tron being present. Does that mean that tron should get banned instead? but then tron is strong because the decks that predate on tron are being predated by other decks, and so on, and so on. In that regard, percentages mean little. Just add new cards and let the meta shift, and unless something is just so clearly broken that you can't print anything to beat it without destroying the depth of the game, then use the bannings.
If twin was a victim of a different mentality when regulating the format, or truly deserved it's ban, it's already done, R&D is allowed to change their opinion and to learn from their experiences, celebrate that they're being more cautious, and don't ask blood for blood when you see they are not butchering another deck because they killed the one you liked.
I intentionally picked the count used by the versions of the deck that had a lesser focus on the combo because after all your claiming that the Combo wasn't even a major part of the deck so it seemed actually more fair to use the less combo focused version as the example. What your claiming is that it was deceptive of me to present a count from a list that wasn't so focused on the combo while you try to claim that the deck wasn't focused on the combo....
What scapehift deck doesn't run Tribe elders, search for tomorrow, explore, farseek, etc.. those are all part of the Combo because a combo deck that cannot win until turn 8 would just suck. No other combo in the format has such a low deck building requirement as Twin.
Really Splinter Twin was a control deck first? the first modern pro tour won by twin had 4 Deceivers 2 pestermite 2 kiki-jiki and 4 splinter twins; if anything it started off more focused on the combo it even ran pact of negation and disrupting shoal. It would evolve into a more tempo-combo deck only later when we the players realized that you didn't have to be so all in on the combo to a-draw into the combo since you are running visions and other random cantriping spells and b-once the combo was a known factor people had to play as though you had it even if you didn't. The focus on more counters and tempo plays was also a result of the prevalence of the mirror and Jund. It was always a combo deck from day one, I have no problem saying I played a combo deck for years because in all honesty Modern was a format defined by combos for years mostly the Twin and Pod combo decks.
I never made any of those claims. I said that your plan A was not to win by the combo, and probably ~60-70% of the deck's wins were from creature beatdown and bolt-snap-bolt. The combo plan became the go-to plan when the opponent wasn't interacting or when they were putting more pressure on us than we could deal with by the fair game plan.
Ok, that's fine if you want to count the ramp spells as part of the Scapeshift combo, I'll concede that one to you. So how about Saheeli combo or Knightfall, then? Both of those are instant win combos that take up less space in the deck than the Twin combo did. If space taken up in the deck was what made Twin the best combo deck, as you claim, these decks would be even better than Twin. The fact that they are not proves that your premise is flawed.
Yes, this is all true, Twin did start out as a much more all-in combo deck, but nobody played that list in the last couple years of its existence. Of course it was still partially a combo deck, but it evolved to the point where it was moreso a tempo deck with a combo secondary plan. Twin was more fair than it was unfair in its last year.
UBR Grixis Shadow UBR
UR Izzet Phoenix UR
UW UW Control UW
GB GB Rock GB
Commander
BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG
BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
A far cry from a 2-card infinite combo.
True standard attendce has been down locally for me. Modern has been picking up. People are evening looking potentially getting into legacy.
I loathe creatures! Praise Prison and Land Destruction!
My Peasant Cube (looking for feedback)
You're 100% correct. Note that the reason is not the number of slots the combo takes up in the deck, which is what bizzycola is arguing.
Well, naming conventions are generally subjective, but the Twin combo being in a deck certainly differentiated something like Grixis Twin from Grixis Delver. It was a good naming convention because it better explained what the deck was doing/could do. That doesn't mean that both decks don't have a plan A of playing a turn 2 Tasigur and riding him to victory. The difference is that they had different plan Bs, one being the Twin combo, the other playing a more grindy control game.
The Grixis version wasn't, it just became Grixis Delver and Control again. As for the UR version, a UR tempo deck hasn't been successful without Twin because it relied on the tempo gain of your opponent being scared to tap out. UR 1/4 beats and bolt-snap-bolt can get there if your opponent is forced into playing inefficiently with their mana, but it can't if your opponent is spending their mana efficiently.
Your first statement is definitely correct. Where I disagree, as an ex-Twin player, is that the combo was not plan A going into a match. Plan A was winning through beatdown and Bolts. Plan B was trying to resolve the combo, which I would switch to if my opponent was playing an uninteractive deck, if I was in danger of imminent death, or if they tapped out and I had the combo in hand.
Game 1s wouldn't change because Twin wouldn't play AV maindeck. Your main deck in Twin was optimized around being able to find the combo asap, because some matchups relied on you comboing as soon as you could. AV doesn't further that gameplan, it's too slow. We've had this discussion on these threads in the past, and the general consensus among ex-Twin players is that we would probably play like 2 AVs in the board, but doing so means we would have to cut other cards like Jace AoT or a second Keranos, or lose ground in other matchups to make the grindy ones better. The Twin 75 was very very tight. And yeah, the DS decks would be a nightmare for Twin, along with UW Control. Personally, I think that's enough to make Twin not only safe in this metagame, but I'm not even 100% sure it would be tier 1. I think it would still, but I remember Twin falling to almost unplayability during hostile metas not that long before its golden age in 2015.
Well, the DS decks have been steadily declining for a few weeks now, so it looks like the meta is adapting. At the moment, Jund and Grixis DS combine for about 12.6%, which is not too extreme. Twin decks and GBx Midrange in the past have been at this same level or higher. Of course, Twin did eventually get banned, but that was because of GP Top 8 performance. The only successful DS decks right now are Jund and Grixis, though. Yes, they did kind of supplant Jund Midrange and Grixis Delver/Control, but is it really a problem if we basically just traded one version for another? As for the warping, all tier 1 decks warp the format to a certain extent. The key point here, though, is how they warp the format. Dredge, for example, warps the format in an unhealthy way. It pushes the format towards being fast and uninteractive, because that's the best way to beat Dredge. DS decks push the format towards being interactive, because that's the best way to fight them. UW Control is a legit good deck right now because of DS. This is why DS decks will have a longer leash than decks like Dredge before eating a ban. I agree, though, the telling point will be the upcoming GPs, which I believe are in May. If DS decks dominate again, something will get banned.
I mean, ok, but that's kinda splitting hairs. I would wager that the vast majority of the time, assembling the Knight + Retreat combo is game winning, and usually on that same turn. My point against bizzy, though, is that space taken up in a deck for a combo doesn't necessarily equate to strength of the deck.
UBR Grixis Shadow UBR
UR Izzet Phoenix UR
UW UW Control UW
GB GB Rock GB
Commander
BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG
BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
I said it was a combo deck, you said no it was a control deck first and combo deck second which would mean that a less focused combo element would be the fair comparison. You literally said in the same post I responded to that It started out as a more control oriented deck which no it didn't and again all of the snapcaster beats that we got in with the deck was only possible because of the combo. Do you really think that your opponent with like 5 cards in hand can't handle a snapcaster? of course they can, its the risk of losing the game because you attempted to interact with the opponent that bought you the time that those types of wins needed, so even when you didn't stick the combo the esoteric nature of combo still winning you the game. The deck actually stifled interaction because whatever spell you might be casting probably doesn't win you the game on the spot which the Twin player might do in response to anything you attempt to do from T3 onward. I had a poster telling me that essentially only a stupid person would dare tap for a IoK on T3 because the Twin player had 3 open mana, and this is probably true but also why the deck was toxic. A player cannot even play a 1.c.c. interactive spell without the risk of just losing the game on the spot for nearly the entire mid-range of the game T3-T6 that is not a healthy affect for a deck to have on the format.
No body played that list of Twin because first the deck is one of its own worse match ups to attempt to stick the combo, making the deck one of the best decks against the deck. Second with the rise of Jund and the printing of Abrupt decay you couldn't be as all in when a very common match up gets to run main deck hate against it( I would also contend that Jund Mid-range built its status on the back of its twin match up primarily as it had a good G1 against Twin and close enough against everything else something that other decks really couldn't have because they lack tools like decay that are good against it and main deck worthy). Yes the deck evolved but it was always first and foremost a combo deck, sticking 3 snapcasters and 2 cliques dosn't suddenly mean that the other 10 cards your running are plan b in fact it was the opposite snap and clique are plan b and the combo gets you more wins. The low deck construction requirements also lent to its oppressive power because post board you might no longer be playing a
Twin deck at all, this is a very powerful quality for any deck to possess let alone a instant win combo deck that demands dedicated SB hate for a combo that might or might not be even in the deck post board.
I wont argue about the 60-70 percent creature beatdown win you are claiming as that seems like a number you are pulling out of the aether and I'm rather sure that it is a unknowable number to all but perhaps WotC. I know in my experience I won more frequently with the combo and often in the Mirror or against Jund/Junk decks would use flash tappers to bait removal until i could stick a clique or snaps and try to win that way but that match up was often 1-2 losing the first and winning the SB match ups against BGx.
The Twin combo is fundamentally unfair, it is why it was so good for so long in format with so many unfair decks it was the best for the longest period of time. Trying to say that it got more fair over time is actually why the combo was busted you get a Ad Naus Storm level combo win condition with out the investment that those decks normally require. Instead I get to play Tas while keeping up 3 to threaten the combo and beat your face for 3-4 turns if you hit your land drops while you have to sit back and accept that your time for playing magic is on hiatus until you draw enough lands and enough turns go by that you can attempt to stick a threat and assuming it doesn't get remanded back to your hand still hold up removal for the combo. If I draw 1 terminate I cannot use it on tas in the face of 3 open mana because I might just lose but I am currently losing a slower more "fair" beatdown battle because I cannot actually afford to interact with you or your board state because It might just be game over on the spot.
Copy-cat in Modern and Knightfall are not instant win, they both have a entire turn in which a key component is exposed to removal. Copy-cat unless you are waiting until you have 7+ lands in play you cannot combo out in a single turn, Knight has summoning sickness. Both are strong but far easier to interact with while not risking losing the game instantly. If my opponent untaps with Knight out that is fair I had a whole turn in which it did nothing to attempt to deal with it, same with Copy-cat 1 1/2 most likely was on the board doing nothing for a entire turn and afforded you a chance to deal with it. This is what I mean by it was a unfair combo deck wrapped in a fair decks skins. Whats the best Grixis build the one with Twin combo jammed in, Whats the best RUG build the one with Twin combo jammed in, etc....
I would also add that Copy-cat in standard and also modern is only as good as it is because of the low requirement for playing the combo. The deck wins in Standard much like it Twin would in Modern, threatening to win from T3 with a 8 card investment while surrounding itself with the best "fair" deck option available so while you try to hold back and react to the combo they kill you with guy who makes 1/1's every once in a while.
In Modern it is only semi competitive because of the low investment regarding deck construction, the 3 colors of the deck are of little to no consequence as fetch lands and shock lands make for a very reliable mana base. The reason that this combo deck isn't having the success that Twin had is because it is 100% sorcery speed. Unless you wait for 6-7 lands you cannot combo off in one turn and hence would risk exposing your walker or creature to removal and risk not drawing the other piece before its to late.
so your snarky attempt to "prove me wrong" actually only shows how correct I am as that deck wouldn't see play if it required you to play 12-16 other cards on top of the 8 for the combo, its an okay deck because it gets to be a watered down version of the Twin combo and is again 100% sorcery speed.
quick edit: https://www.channelfireball.com/articles/updating-ur-splinter-twin/ here is a article about twin printed just before the banning in which he says that the snap+bolt beatdown strategy is firmly plan B. https://www.channelfireball.com/articles/teamcfb-deck-guide-modern-bluered-twin/ again a solid plan 1 combo plan 2 snap/clique bolt beats. These are just a few randoms I have in my bookmarked sights list but Twin was very solidly a Combo deck first and foremost.
In the right condition yes assembling the 2 cards is game winning. These conditions are still heavily reliant on the actual game state and whether the player is proficient enough to pull it off within the limitations of the deck. Variables include your own life, your opponent's life, the number of creatures your opponent has, the number of fetch lands left in your deck, the number of fetchable lands left in your deck, whether or not you have an active hierarch/bird in play.
It's nowhere near as straightforward as you say barring ridiculous scenarios like t1 dork, t2 knight, t3 retreat with your opponent not playing anything relevant.
You are right though, space taken up for a combo packge doesn't equate to the strength of the deck. But what would that point serve to prove ? That Twin is the best combo deck by far even though it's not a 'dedicated' combo deck ?
GB Rock
U Flooding Merfolk
RUG Delver Midrange
WU Monks
UW Tempo Geist
GW Bogle
GW Liege
UR Tron
B Vampires
Affinity
Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity
EDH
W Akroma
GBW Ghave
BRU Thrax
GR Ruric
I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
In all fairness I never said that combo size is equivalent to its power, I simply stated that it is a strength of the Twin Deck. I said it is similar to the Channel+Fireball combo in that it really has no impact on the deck construction and if you just happen to draw the combo you win. There are plenty of Two card combo decks and they more often than not require far more deck construction considerations to make including it even worth while. I pointed to multiple factors that made twin the best combo deck besides size of combo, the instant speed interaction of the combo, the deck not needing to devote multiple resources to assembling the combo, etc...
A person could run the UB turbo-mill combo in any UB deck, the problem is that outside of the combo those cards are not that good. This is not true of the Twin combo cards, Exarchs and Mites come down and pressure the life total of the opponent and draw out removal to stick the combo in the following turns, Twin itself sticks to Snapcaster doubling every spell in your deck. No risk of just drawing a dead card with either and if you happen to draw both gg's.
decks playing:
none
Honestly, I'd feel the same way if I didn't move my Delver list into Grixis Shadow. It's still not really what I want to be doing in the format, but at least I can rack up store credit playing a "good" deck again. Glad it wasn't banned, even though something probably should have been.
Wishy-washy and meaningless answer that tells us nothing. Talk is cheap and their actions will speak louder than their words. AF and MaRo are notorious for deliberately vague or misleading statements made to players.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Not sure how you all do, but its gotta be more interesting than the continued misinformation tour about Twin from people who didnt play it.
Spirits
Not at all. We've heard similar statements before, and it is a purposefully meaningless comment that doesn't require any actual follow-through or thought. Additionally, they admittedly don't have the resources to test and monitor the format. They straight up said they didn't have time to focus on modern during either of the last two banned announcements, and the recent ones they did pull the trigger on had opposite effects than intended (banning twin opening up control, banning probe hurting linear decks, thopter/sword helping control).
All I've heard out of them is that they have no idea what to do with the format, nor the care or ability to figure it out. They want modern hurt to make their terrible standard not look so bad, but they need modern to succeed for their long term health as a company.
I actually appreciate the powered up proactive threats coming out (look back on theros block and see how boring that set was because of lack of power, regardless of the format), I just wish the answers would match. Wizards is at a huge crossroads right now. They are severely trying to catch up in the e-sport realm while trying to hang on to what made the game popular in the first place. I understand they are trying to push it more toward hearthstone because that game is doing very well in the e-sport world; I've never played hearthstone because I enjoy magic and didn't feel the need, but if wizards is going to continue to move magic closer to hearthstone I may as well just sell out my collection and play hearhstone instead because I trust Blizzard to run a game way more than I do Wizards.
Can I have your cards?
But seriously, I dont understand how people can act so entitled. The format is fine. Its working. People are having fun. I understand people like you are grumpy, but dont make it seem like you're quitting because the format sucks.
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver
What are the objective measures you are using? And is the causality you are attributing to those measures valid? Crime raises in the summer but that doesn't mean heat makes people commit crimes. There are a lot of things going on and I would be cautious to say the format is in a good spot because of some x and y. Even if those are true and valid, is that reason to not demand better?
Is Snapcaster the vest creature in Legacy where even better counters exist?
Snap Counterspell is the exact cost as Cryptic, but has vulnerability to GY hate, is counterable twice, and has a forced mode of 'counter target spell, create a 2/1 Blue Wizard'
That's supposed to be scary?
Spirits
Why does it have to be 33% across the board? Who says that is balanced? Card availability is what determines a lot of these numbers. If the mechanic or card does not exist to boost the amount of Control decks (for example), then control will be hard to get up to 33%.
There is no rule that says all archetypes need to be represented equally for the format to be healthy. In fact, history shows the opposite is usually better so long as one particular deck does not become too oppressive.
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver
Also the presence of goyf didn't stop them from printing grim flayer and goyf is a much better card than snapcaster in just about any setting you can give. Snapcaster is barely even played at the moment and a 2 CMC hard counter doesn't even sound that good in this meta. I can't imagine adding the two of them would break anything, or even be tier 1 unless it was also jammed into a DS variant. But that says more about DS decks than it does a counterspell.
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
The format has healthy attendance numbers overall, does not have an overly oppressive deck present (though DS is on the watch list), and most tier 1-2 have a good amount of decks present. Tier 3 is also pretty plentiful.
The fact that deck X is not playable, means nothing overall. If Burn, a mainstay of Modern, becomes unplayable tomorrow, it does not mean Modern is now unhealthy.
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver
Easy, everyone here agrees that at some point in time, the format seemed healthy to them. Aggro has almost consistently been 45%+ of the meta since 2011. So we never had true 50/50/50 balance. Yet people seem to be complaining now (mostly Twin players), about how the format is so unhealthy, toxic, and unbalanced.
Control has almost always been sub 26% of the meta, save for one year (and Twin did not contribute to that anomaly).
Interestingly, Control ticked-up 5% in 2016.
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver
So Combo AND Control are not playable in Modern? Really? lol. Ok.
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver