Happened about 13% of the time, and was a bad idea most of the time it did happen.
Um, boo hoo? Float mana and kill the Exarch while Twin is tapped out. In today's meta, if they have Force of Negation, AND another blue card, AND a fourth land, AND second red source, AND Twin itself for a turn 4 kill, well, welcome to Modern and decks killing you fast with good draws.Twin spending 10 mana in 4 turns. The opponent would only have a maximum of 6 mana at that point, and 5 if Exarch locked them out. And with the need to represent removal, any non white removal at the time cost 2.
Is there some underlying Tron criticism here? :laugh:Meaning the opponent could only spend a maximum of 4 mana over 4 turns to develop their plan, and more likely 3 mana over 4 turns, while Twin spent 10.
Either way, slowing down opponents in order to promote (or bluff!) interaction was one of the best things it did for the format.
Under ideal conditions, Heliod is considerably more difficult to interact with. Heliod is indestructible and Ballista can combo in response to removal.The mana costs, and non flash nature of both halves of the Heliod/Ballista combo, create far easier to identify windows for interaction, and short of the opponent having 4 mana open when Ballista comes down (and Ballista having at least 3 counters), there's going to be an easy to disrupt window, unless there's also other cards to protect.
But Twin can't because....? Just trying to understand the consistency of stances people hold.
I'm really getting exhausted with this double standard that Twin is somehow MORE degenerate and MORE difficult to interact with than multiple things that exist today. Literally the only thing you need to interact with it is regular old creature removal. But it's also susceptible to discard and counterspells in addition to numerous targeted and broad hate.
This blind hate over a deck, being inflated by myths, legends, and exaggerations is why we cannot have honest conversations about it. And honestly should be banned from discussion.