Careful with your pace . Always regulate it before you feel overwhelmed and just drop the ball . Good luck . <| sep |> Thank you for that detailed answer . Of course not but we can make educated guesses . Eldrazi would absolutely still have wreaked havoc with Splinter Twin legal . IT would have looked a bit different but it still would have crushed . I would doubt that the guess is educated , as with Splinter Twin as the obvious GoTo Deck and processor Eldrazi not really crushing it during Twin times , you could make the case that the current Eldrazi List might have not been found , as there might have been no reason to develop the UR Eldrazi that took the PT , as well as to create a Deck that can go over the Top of it , which was UW that became the current BANT Eldrazi . The guess is not educated because you don ' t know for sure if Twin could have suppressed the Eldrazi Deck , so there is no fact to base that guess upon . Also , with Twin determined to have a favorable Eldrazi Matchup by testing at Channelfireball and SCG , Eldrazi might not have exploded the way it did . That is only a very limited lense . We were also seeing cards like Huntmaster or Olivia often in Jund lists . Twin lists always had Keranos or Jace AoT or something else in that direction in the board . Read the part again . To quote myselfTo me , the Primary concern about Splinter Twin was , that 3 CMC spells at sorcery speed were unplayable . annotation Some disapprove this sentence because it is stated like a fact , i am aware of exceptions , but these imply that a general rule exists and creates a very high bar for a 3 CMC sorcery speed card to be viable Of course there were cards that saw play . They passed the bar to be viable . All i stated is , that it was speculated that the absence of Twin could lower the bar for cards to be viable , which was proven wrong . I would dispute that there are more viable decks right now . There are different decks though . We have seen archetypes rise and vanish . We have Dredge and Bant Eldrazi now but we see little to none Abzan or Naya Company . We see a lot less Grixis Control . To quote myself againNot all decks are equally viable and they never will be If you were to unban splinter Twin , other decks would loose power and others would gain some due to the changed metagame . I guess this dispute is that we have a different definitition of viable . You make your case for Tier 1 Decks , but i do include Tier 3 Decks that can do decent if piloted well . Also if you were looking to play some sort of blue deck you pretty much only had Twin to go to That contradicts your example of seeing less Grixis . Which I think makes for a better format , when matchup loterry overall is reduced . Because having more decks like Jund or Twin with even matchups across the board also makes the entire format signficantly less matchup dependent . That is an opinion . As stated , Jund still is Matchup depended , less than other decks , but a lot more than Twin was . As i see it , it is not fair for one deck to have this advantage and for the rest to don ' t have it . I would say for equalizing this , the format has become better . However , i would have preferred equalizing it the other way around but this would mean creating a state of perfect balance between all cards that are and will be printed thus it is not achievable . For me the crux is that there was no sound reasoning for banning Twin in the first place or at least none was given because quite frankly the arguments Wizards put out read like they were made by someone that doesn ' t play Modern extensively himself . We also have seen what I would describe as adversary effects in the matchup dependence increasing and signficantly decreased strategic variance . This is an uneducated guess . You don ' t know who made this decision and neither the thought process behind it . You do know the official statement , which you interpret as not sound reasoning . It also may be that the Announcement was cut to keep it short and the communication was bad . There is a lot of leeway to speculate . We also have seen what I would describe as adversary effects in the matchup dependence increasing and signficantly decreased strategic variance . I agree on that . But strategic Variance is hard to achieve , having different control decks is next to impossible , since success is linked directly to the quality of answers , while having multiple linear decks is easier to achieve , as success is linked to the angle of attack .