Twin was strong yes but very very few people felt it was actually in need of a ban from the format. The best watered-down-twin can do is be worse than twin, which nobody was that worried about before the ban (although we may mostly feel in retrospect that it was in fact a good move to get rid of it).

I also think that the temptation to just throw a couple thopters and swords into whatever shell will be limited as both pieces are embarassingly bad on their own, unlike an exarch that could do work or a twin that could be dropped onto a snapcaster or wall of omens as a worst case.

I play a lot of esper control and few people think its a good idea to change your win con of colonnade/elspeth/white suns zenith over to a bunch of thopters and swords. Control without thopter/sword will continue to be a thing (whether its even tier 2 is another question). So far this looks mostly like a new gifts ungiven toy to add to their iona/norn mix – imo it remains to be seen whether thopter sword and its setup cost of academy ruins or noxious revival wins enough games that norn or iona wouldn’t have won just as easily.

I say all this without having had a single opponent assemble the combo against me yet though. I may feel very differently if all the theory on how easy it is to stop or how you would have lost to a ham sandwich anyways turns to sand and I find myself constantly losing to the combo if I don’t have the answer right now (i.e. effectively the same thing as twin but with the illusion that you actually have time to draw out of it)

Bloom was pretty clearly unfair. Insane mana generation, single turn wins and using cards in ways not intended? Pretty clearly unfair. It had fair components and could potentially play fair games but it was set up to be unfair. This is doesn’t mean it was “broken” by any means, just that it wasn’t playing by the rules.

Oh man even better, fair, “fair” and unfair. I didn’t even realize the quotes. I like this even more now.

As for eldrazi, you get to be all professional in the article, and I appreciate that. I get to profess my undying hate of eldrazi in the comments by making hyperbolic statements.

Tho in all seriousness, eye-powered eldrazi I truly believe was teetering on full blown unfair. I think one can compare it to Amulet Bloom, another ultimately “fair” deck that was bordering unfair. Did you think that was an unfair or a “fair” deck?

You’re probably right, though remember that Twin was really good so a watered down version should still be good. I agree that it is unlikely to be a free win by itself but it could end up being a way to simply buy the time needed to set up an actual free win. It’s going to depend not so much on the combo itself but what the rest of the deck is doing, and that fact may mean that in context it is very broken.

I would just say that Jund and UWx are simply fair, opposed to “fair” or unfair. They’re close to the definition really.

My thinking is that what Eldrazi did was a fair plan, play undercosted aggressive creatures on a curve, that was made unfair thanks to Eye and Eldrazi Temple. Doing something fair unfairly puts in the same “fair” category as Affinity. I admit it was much, much better at it than anyone and its explosiveness was ridiculous but since the game plan itself is fair I stand by my evaluation.

Imo this is watered down splinter twin. Two cards that when put together will usually win the game, but on their own are bad (of note single exarch or mite is far better than half the thopter combo). This combo can’t be pathed or dismembered but can be k-commanded or scavenging oozed, and takes incidental hate from a lot of existing cards.

If the combo is actually super strong it will be because you don’t need 8 deck slots for it. Gifts lists are going down to 3 total or even just a 1/1 split. That’s very low opportunity cost and makes sideboarding in stony silence look pretty lame (although gy hate will stop gifts and this combo both cold).

I’d like to think there are so many answers to it that it won’t be a free win that often, but I suppose time will tell.

Two types of fair decks woops

Also, I will have to disagree, eldrazi was straight unfair with eye. Eye itself isn’t unfair, tho in context, it became broken by cards printed to yield a truly unfair deck. While it may be comparable to affinity in its “puke my hand out” way, affinity at least has to pay for that (fairly) by playing trash cards (on their own). Eldrazi was unfair specifically because it paid no price on the broken things it was doing with eye. At least temple can only be used once a turn, which moves it back to the unfairly doing fair things (yes it’s unfair that a land produces 2 mana, but it fairly uses it within the game’s rules).

As long as it’s home is in fair decks I completely agree, Roland. However if an already unfair deck wants this combo then it might be a problem. Whether its because it goes infinite with Krark-Clan Ironworks or is used as an alternative win condition that is unaffected by the hate for the rest of the deck there is definitely potential for abuse, which is why I’ll be putting Rest in Peace in all of my decks until the format settles more.

You are correct, which is why I noted that there is a very big difference between being behind with Thopter combo vs being ahead. For the reasons you describe I expect that the combo will be paired, at least initially, with Ancestral Visions in control decks whether or not it is actually appropriate to do so. That said it could easily be broken in the right deck, it’s just too early to tell.

Nice theory on fair vs. unfair. Modern is full of decks cheating on Mana. I’d argue that’s how almost every deck in Modern wins. If decks aren’t outright cheating (Storm, Ad Nauseam, Tron), they’re casting spells that are way more powerful than their mana cost suggests (Bolt, Goyf, Thoughtseize). It’s important not to confuse “cheating” with “raw efficiency,” but they line can be blurry at times, as is the case with Thopter/Sword.