My first modern deck was UWR delver but as soon as I built it, Abrupt Decay was printed and I had to abandon it. That sucked. But it shows that Gxx has plenty of tools to fight so-called "oppressive" strategies in the format: It has an uncounterable Vindicate, uncounterable Disenchant, and the hands-down best offensive and defensive creature in the game.
to be fair, this deck was borderline oppressive. if it had time to gain a foothold in the meta (e.g. the modern season didn't end), it would have seen jund like numbers. but (un)fortunately, rtr came at the end of the standard season and made GBx absurd. being a tempo deck, it had the tools to hold almost every deck at bay while enacting its own game plan. but was nipped at the bud before it could happen.
though personally, i would have preferred tempo mirrors all day rather than midrange mirrors. better player wins
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I speak in sarcasm because calling people ******* ******** is not allowed.
It bears noting that this hypothetical removal spell that's hitting DC before he can draw you a card is also hitting SFM before she's dropping your Batterskull early.
True, but at the end of that interaction the SFM player has a Batterskull in hand, while the Confidant player has nothing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You can't always win, and just because you lose doesn't mean you played badly.
Even if you lose, it is important to remain confident in your ability to make good plays and decisions. Lose that and you are truly lost.
Testing is great, and the better the testing is, the better off you'll be.
It is impossible to tilt and play well.
It is possible to make no mistakes and still lose.
It is a bit long. SFM is at 2:40 of the tape. Its a good watch and gives a lot of insight to the thinking of Wotc.
I watched the video, and while I disagree with Forsythe, I do realize that it would be really hard to convince Wizards to unban SFM. However, the video confirms what I was saying about Ancestral Vision. It was banned because they were worried about control being too powerful and because it was played in control decks in Legacy. Forsythe said that he though that control would come together after it got used to the metagame. As far as I can see, it hasn't. Unbanning Ancestral Vision would not make control decks overpowered, but it might make them relevant.
The SFM player has a Batterskull stranded in hand for 3 turns, mind you. Still not that scary or disadvantageous.
Right, thanks to the opponent's removal spell you merely got a 2-for-1 for 1W. You're still up a card, now you don't have to spend a draw step on that Skull, and when that turn 5 comes you will be guaranteed to have a strong play. I feel that consistency is a very powerful thing in this game, and tutors have always pushed their power by making decks more consistent.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You can't always win, and just because you lose doesn't mean you played badly.
Even if you lose, it is important to remain confident in your ability to make good plays and decisions. Lose that and you are truly lost.
Testing is great, and the better the testing is, the better off you'll be.
It is impossible to tilt and play well.
It is possible to make no mistakes and still lose.
I watched the video, and while I disagree with Forsythe, I do realize that it would be really hard to convince Wizards to unban SFM. However, the video confirms what I was saying about Ancestral Vision. It was banned because they were worried about control being too powerful and because it was played in control decks in Legacy. Forsythe said that he though that control would come together after it got used to the metagame. As far as I can see, it hasn't. Unbanning Ancestral Vision would not make control decks overpowered, but it might make them relevant.
I don't see how people think having a T4 ancestral recall is fair when a T4 attacking batterskull isn't.
Or how Goyf/Bob are perfectly fine power-level-wise for Modern when SFM and AV are not. (The same could be said for several cards on the Ban-list. Like Chrome Mox.)
Personally, i just want the same power-level Extended had in Modern. Lower than Legacy (with an arguably equivalent skill-cap) but, significantly higher than Standard. But, more likely, I just want a ban-list that is consistent.
SFM isn't stronger than Goyf or Bob or Liliana.
I think once we see several more sets with more DRS/VoR power-level cards being added to the pool, we're more likely to see more things come off the list like 'Kut did.
At this point i think they're afraid to skew things. For example, i think the Nacatl ban was to keep the format un-skewed. It wasn't a power-level ban; it couldn't have been with Goyf available. Same with GSZ.
There's really no reason otherwise. (This of course, doesn't apply to things like Clamp and Jitte, which i think are well beyond the power-level of what you could call a Modern card)
Right, thanks to the opponent's removal spell you merely got a 2-for-1 for 1W. You're still up a card, now you don't have to spend a draw step on that Skull, and when that turn 5 comes you will be guaranteed to have a strong play. I feel that consistency is a very powerful thing in this game, and tutors have always pushed their power by making decks more consistent.
Lots of cards are 2 for 1s doesn't mean they should be banned. Modern doesn't have many tutors let alone good ones that's why SFM is likely to stay banned. Don't really think we need more cards that just fit right into greedy midrange decks anyway. If you are going to unban cards you need to unban cards that exclusively help aggro or control not cards that you can just jam into jund or pod. Sword of the meek Jace Bitterblossom AV Preordain Nacatyl. Are types of cards that you cant just jam into midrange decks. There are others I just don't want to list them all right now.
I don't see how people think having a T4 ancestral recall is fair when a T4 attacking batterskull isn't.
Ancestral Vision resolves on turn 5, if suspended on turn 1
Or how Goyf/Bob are perfectly fine power-level-wise for Modern when SFM and AV are not. (The same could be said for several cards on the Ban-list. Like Chrome Mox.)
This is a lot of people's problem with the banned list; some of the bans seems arbitrary, since some of the banned cards aren't better than some legal ones.
Personally, i just want the same power-level Extended had in Modern. Lower than Legacy (with an arguably equivalent skill-cap) but, significantly higher than Standard. But, more likely, I just want a ban-list that is consistent.
SFM isn't stronger than Goyf or Bob or Liliana.
Probably a little better than Goyf, but I get your point
I think once we see several more sets with more DRS/VoR power-level cards being added to the pool, we're more likely to see more things come off the list like 'Kut did.
At this point i think they're afraid to skew things. For example, i think the Nacatl ban was to keep the format un-skewed. It wasn't a power-level ban; it couldn't have been with Goyf available. Same with GSZ.
There's really no reason otherwise. (This of course, doesn't apply to things like Clamp and Jitte, which i think are well beyond the power-level of what you could call a Modern card)
Again, the Goyf and Nacatl comparison is not quite accurate. Nacatl was banned because it forces you to play some variation of Naya Zoo, which was such an efficient aggro deck that it was pushing out other aggro archetypes from the format. To quote the banning article itself, "This creature is so efficient it is keeping too many other creature decks from being competitive. So, in the interest of diversity, the DCI is banning Wild Nacatl." Emphasis added to the key word. Nacatl was basically, on its own, reducing metagame diversity by demanding that aggro be RGWx.
Goyf, on the other hand, goes into a huge range of decks. He reduces card diversity, true, but he doesn't reduce deck diversity. I don't think Wizards cares too much about card diversity; some cards are allowed to be better than other cards, so long as it doesn't warp the format. Nonrotating formats will always have cards that are superior to other cards - no one wants to see Lightning Bolt banned because poor Shock or Searing Spear doesn't get enough table time. Goyf, even though he is the best at what he does, goes into so many decks that he will likely not ever be banned. And he does that without warping the metagame towards Goyf-based decks!
A better argument could be made that it wasn't Wild Nacatl that kept the other aggro decks back. The blame for that falls squarely on Punishing Fire's shoulders.
In certain respects, Wild Nacatl was so good and popular precisely because it evaded Punishing Fire. That card, all by itself, pushed a lot of one drops out of the format and you had to have a darn good explanation for playing a two-toughness creature against a deck that packed Punishing Fire, which saw play across the board (I even recall some UR combo decks playing it at PT Philadelphia).
If the goal was to help push aggro decks, all that was needed was the Punishing Fire ban. As it is, with the additional ban of Wild Nacatl, aggro has been so pushed that it has been pushed out of the format.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In my dream, the world had suffered a terrible disaster. A black haze shut out the sun, and the darkness was alive with the moans and screams of wounded people. Suddenly, a small light glowed. A candle flickered into life, symbol of hope for millions. A single tiny candle, shining in the ugly dark. I laughed and blew it out.
Many thanks to HotP Studios. Special thanks to DNC for this great sig.
Again, the Goyf and Nacatl comparison is not quite accurate. Nacatl was banned because it forces you to play some variation of Naya Zoo, which was such an efficient aggro deck that it was pushing out other aggro archetypes from the format. To quote the banning article itself, "This creature is so efficient it is keeping too many other creature decks from being competitive. So, in the interest of diversity, the DCI is banning Wild Nacatl." Emphasis added to the key word. Nacatl was basically, on its own, reducing metagame diversity by demanding that aggro be RGWx.
Goyf, on the other hand, goes into a huge range of decks. He reduces card diversity, true, but he doesn't reduce deck diversity. I don't think Wizards cares too much about card diversity; some cards are allowed to be better than other cards, so long as it doesn't warp the format. Nonrotating formats will always have cards that are superior to other cards - no one wants to see Lightning Bolt banned because poor Shock or Searing Spear doesn't get enough table time. Goyf, even though he is the best at what he does, goes into so many decks that he will likely not ever be banned. And he does that without warping the metagame towards Goyf-based decks!
That wasn't his point. His point was "Goyf is a vanilla creature, so it won't get banned"
Regarding the Wild Nacatl ban, sure, they did it to increase deck diversity. I believe the article used Treefolk Harbringer as an exampleof cards Nacatl was pushing out of the format. How's that working out? Before, there was Zoo and Affinity as the 'good' aggro decks. Now there's neutered Zoo and Affinity as the aggro decks. The ban failed; the least they can do is unban Nacatl to put some faith in the banned list and make Zoo tier 1 again.
eh, aggro is doing pretty well right now. gruul and naya are both placing well. what the format needs more tempo than anything else (especially if they don't want hard control in it).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I speak in sarcasm because calling people ******* ******** is not allowed.
eh, aggro is doing pretty well right now. gruul and naya are both placing well. what the format needs more tempo than anything else (especially if they don't want hard control in it).
I thought Tempo classically predates on Control?
You can't have wolves without rabbits.
Ancestral Vision resolves on turn 5, if suspended on turn 1
Pardon, i was thinking Draw 3 and Suspend 3. I get numbers screwed up pretty consistently on tests and such. I'll read more carefully.
So, that point doesn't have much of a leg to stand on.
As for SFM > Lili and Goyf; (albeit slightly, in your opinion)
I dont' mean to be matter of fact but, Lili and Goyf are played in a higher capacity in Legacy. And even though in a limited environment like Cube things that need other cards to function well (ie SFM, Squee, etc) tend to be lower picks than things that are powerhouses on their own (ie Goyf and Lili); even when i already have a Jitte in my pile (or Batterskull for that matter), i'd still pick Goyf and Lili over SFM.
There are some other factors that go along with this such as: I have the Jitte, no one else does, so SFM is a dead pick for them as well, and the fact that drawing the Jitte nets my opponent V-CA if i also draw into SFM.
But, in a format dominated by DRS and decks that are explosive through their Dorks and tiny creatures (ie Pod); cheap removal is common. I play against a Twin deck locally that MD's Flame Slash, for instance. It's not going to be uncommon for an SFM to be easily answered, I'd say your opponent is incredibly likely to have the removal spell, and if they DON'T have the removal spell (or rather have a high % chance to) they're likely on a deck like Pod or Twin that's just going to look at your Batterskull or Sword and Combo out instead, or Affinity, which has the Infect or Flying route to get by the Batterskull and even has sacrifice shenanigans to make sure you never deal damage with it.
If a consistent T5 Batterskull or T4 active sword were so strong why aren't more decks playing them?
If SFM is so format warping to warrant a ban, why is Steelshaper's Gift allowed in the format or not played in a higher capacity?
What decks does a T3/T5 Batterskull honestly stop dead in its tracks?
Let's look at some popular archetypes:
UW Tron: Batterskull? Too slow Wurmcoil/Eldrazi laugh at your swords your T4 active sword (which you're spending half your potential mana to do) isn't going to race a Gifts-> Unburial Rites
U Tron: Again Wurmcoil outclasses your Batterskull and your Sword and outraces both.
Karn Tron: Read above; with the addition of Karn which, shrugs off even a SoFaI connecting to him (the sword won't proc when aimed at a 'walker)
Jun(d/k): Basically 40% of their deck answers the Mystic between Thoughtseize, Paths, Bolts, Decay, etc. I think they're fine with you getting one 2-1; they're packing cards that are 4-1's.
Affinity: They aren't DEAD to an active Batterskull; but they certainly will need to engage in some shenanigans to push damage through and prevent you from gaining life (i don't believe they'd just fold immediately, which is what i personally believe it would take to keep a card banned)
Zoo(Domain/Naya/Gruul): Yeah, they don't like Batterskull, in the least. But, most already play artifact hate for Affinity/Tron. And not a lot outclasses Batterskull on T3. But there are MD'able answers; and they do play a huge suite of cheap spot-removal that is entirely active on T2-3 (to answer the mystic); and forcing the Batterskull to appear on T5 gives you plenty of time to find reach; again, i don't believe you can simply drop an SFM->Batterskull and call it a day.
If you'd really like me to, i don't mind you throwing me a good Stoneblade (BW or WUb or WU) to test a gauntlet against; in fact, i've been itching to do some play-testing lately. But, i really don't think SFM is banned on power-level reasons. I think it's the stigma of her being part of Caw-blades undeniable dominance; especially considering the fact that Modern is supposed to be transitioned to from standard. I think that down the road, when the card-pool is bigger, we'll see her come off. No popular deck is absolutely dominated by her (she's a powerful play, for sure). But, i believe she would dominate the 2-drop spot in all white decks, which is something the bigger card-pool would help avoid.
TL;DR:
Turning the swords into 2cc equipment makes them a hell of a lot more playable in Modern; and being able to run 3x of them (3 one-of's) + Batterskull is a hell of a package. But, that's assuming no answer in a meta that's filled with answers (very strong answers; Modern's removal is just as strong as Legacy's, just thinner). I think that makes SFM 'fair' albeit powerful. Powerful enough to make it into every white deck. Which means she's ready to come off when she has competition.
------
As an aside, i'd just like to say that this thread is much more bearable now. I'd like to thank the Mods for instating stricter rules and for the time it will take in the future to keeps those rules followed. And everyone for engaging in discourse rather than throwing mud at one another.
Its funny because no one has even brought up how much better restoration angel is if you unban stoneforge mystic. Imagine playing a turn 2 Stoneforge getting a Feast and Famine, Untapping saying go, cheating it into play EOT turn 3, turn 4 play 4th land equip (mana leak the removal spell) attack untap your 4 lands say go, blink Stoneforge mystic via Restoration angel,get batterskull...Options now include
A. Equipping angel with Feast and Famine and cheating batterskull in to play before getting to untap your lands after combat damage.
B. Play completely terrible and lose because you failed to do anything smart.
Stoneforge is never getting unbanned. Get over it.
People seem to think you can "answer" SFM with cards like lightning bolt. Even if you bolt the mystic, you're already down a card since they've grabbed the best equipment against your deck that they can possibly play.
Look at it in another way - if Steelshaper's Gift was turned into "Search your library for an equipment card, target opponent then discards a spell" that would be equivalent to this scenario, and it would be busted. That doesn't even account for the case where you don't have the removal spell and subsequently die to jitte eating your creatures, or sword of fire and ice 2 for 1'ing you.
As it's been said, SFM breaks midrange and control strategies in half, and gives whoever opens a hand with her has a huge advantage. Dark Confidant and Tarmogoyf can be traded for 1 for 1 with removal. The only way to trade with a mystic evenly is to spell snare it, or mana leak it on the play.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find me online - I'm on Cockatrice * Tag - Badd B - Or on MTGO - Tag - Cbus05
People seem to think you can "answer" SFM with cards like lightning bolt. Even if you bolt the mystic, you're already down a card since they've grabbed the best equipment against your deck that they can possibly play.
Look at it in another way - if Steelshaper's Gift was turned into "Search your library for an equipment card, target opponent then discards a spell" that would be equivalent to this scenario, and it would be busted. That doesn't even account for the case where you don't have the removal spell and subsequently die to jitte eating your creatures, or sword of fire and ice 2 for 1'ing you.
As it's been said, SFM breaks midrange and control strategies in half, and gives whoever opens a hand with her has a huge advantage. Dark Confidant and Tarmogoyf can be traded for 1 for 1 with removal. The only way to trade with a mystic evenly is to spell snare it, or mana leak it on the play.
"Dark Confidant and Tarmogoyf can be traded 1 for 1 with removal. The only way to trade with a (Planeswalker, Kitchen Finks, Lingering Souls, Snapcaster Mage, Thragtusk, Huntmaster of the Fells, Grave Titan, etc) is to (counter it) on the play."
Okay, so we've established that spell-creatures are powerful. In raw card advantage, she's no worse than what I've listed. If anything, she'll punish decks that run removal and not counterspells, which could be a good thing seeing as the counterspells in this format are incredibly fair compared to the removal in the format.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGO: Stillenacht288
Modern:
Footsteps Hulk
Ascendency Combo
Restore Balance
Ad Nauseam
EDH:
Ghave Lands
Narset Combo
If a card like Bloodbraid Elf is too powerful for the format, there is absolutely no way that Stoneforge Mystic is acceptable. There are a bunch of cards that are inoffensive enough to potentially come of in the near future and SFM is not one of them. Something drastic would have to change in the format for her to be acceptable and I do not see that happening based on Wizards track record with the format.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
On Mono Black in Commander:
Quote from BlackJack68 »
But whomever your commander is, Cabal Coffers is really in charge.
If a card like Bloodbraid Elf is too powerful for the format, there is absolutely no way that Stoneforge Mystic is acceptable. There are a bunch of cards that are inoffensive enough to potentially come of in the near future and SFM is not one of them. Something drastic would have to change in the format for her to be acceptable and I do not see that happening based on Wizards track record with the format.
Bloodbraid Elf: 3/2 Haste creature that plays a second random spell without even resolving in decks full of back-breaking spells.
Stoneforge Mystic: 1/2 Creature that "casts" one specific spell when it resolves and enters the battlefield. It then has the ability to "cast" a second spell the next turn if it survives.
To recap: One is stopped by Trickbind, Mindbreak Trap, and Counterflux and/or multiple counterspells/removal and who's second effect is a total wildcard, while the other is stopped by a single counterspell, or heavily slowed down (i.e. made fair) by a removal spell. You can't compare the two.
"Dark Confidant and Tarmogoyf can be traded 1 for 1 with removal. The only way to trade with a (Planeswalker, Kitchen Finks, Lingering Souls, Snapcaster Mage, Thragtusk, Huntmaster of the Fells, Grave Titan, etc) is to (counter it) on the play."
Okay, so we've established that spell-creatures are powerful. In raw card advantage, she's no worse than what I've listed. If anything, she'll punish decks that run removal and not counterspells, which could be a good thing seeing as the counterspells in this format are incredibly fair compared to the removal in the format.
Planeswalkers in general cost more than SFM, as does finks (which can be profitably interacted with), souls, snappy into flashback (and is terrible without the mana to flashback a spell), tusk (which doesn't even see play), huntmaster, Grave titan (comparing a 2cc card to a 6cc is not fair).
Not only is she giving you +1 card if you don't counter her (barring something like electrolyze), the card is not randomly selected from the deck. The card is from her powerful toolbox, how does junk deal with a sword of light and shadow? Or control deal with Feast and famine/skull? Combo is the only deck that doesn't mind too much, but the SFM player does not have to immediately throw something out, they can wait hold counterspells and throw it out when it is safe to do.
I feel like Stoneforge is a deceptively powerful card, there is really no comparable card that does as much as her and provides her level of options. That comes down as early as her (someone laying a t2 SFM against you on the play is horrible to view in modern what can you do? Spell snare it?), and that doesn't require much deck design around.
Yes I'm aware t2 Lil is scary (but you need a deck built with dorks and ways to take advantage of Lil's discard like bob or souls), as is t3 karn (in a deck designed to maximize its chance of playing t3 Karn). But those decks are built around such interactions (ok maybe Lil not so much), which provides a good sideboard a chance to attack. What do you side in against a SFM deck?
Ancient grudge? For its 3-5 artifact cards?
I think there are many other safer cards to come off than SFM as of right now.
Planeswalkers in general cost more than SFM, as does finks (which can be profitably interacted with), souls, snappy into flashback (and is terrible without the mana to flashback a spell), tusk (which doesn't even see play), huntmaster, Grave titan (comparing a 2cc card to a 6cc is not fair).
Stoneforge Mystic costs 2. Sure. It also costs 2 to activate. "But it's over 2 turns!" So is the advantage granted by Finks, and Lingering Souls.
Not only is she giving you +1 card if you don't counter her (barring something like electrolyze), the card is not randomly selected from the deck. The card is from her powerful toolbox, how does junk deal with a sword of light and shadow? Or control deal with Feast and famine/skull?
"Her powerful toolbox" is a set or artifacts, barring Batterskull, that do NOTHING on their own. They are effective useless without the creatures holding them. A "toolbox" is a set of cards that deal with things. (Non-Living weapon) Equipment inherently do nothing until equipped. Even ignoring that fact, what exactly does a SoFeast and Famine do against Jund/Junk? How does it save you? Give you a blocker? That's very weak. Give you a way to attack through their blockers? Sure, but that's assuming both players have established threats and neither hold answers (ie, a late game standstill), in which case that power level is perfectly acceptable. Sure, you can fetch up a Batterskull against an aggro deck, but every aggro deck in the format is running removal. They'll clear a path through you SFM regardless of what creature it was, in which case your batterskull is hitting turn 5, 1 turn after the fundamental turn in the format.
Combo is the only deck that doesn't mind too much, but the SFM player does not have to immediately throw something out, they can wait hold counterspells and throw it out when it is safe to do.
So, combo doesn't care what you're doing, and Stoneforge Mystic is just another finisher in this matchup? Welcome to non-rotating formats!
I feel like Stoneforge is a deceptively powerful card, there is really no comparable card that does as much as her and provides her level of options. That comes down as early as her (someone laying a t2 SFM against you on the play is horrible to view in modern what can you do? Spell snare it?), and that doesn't require much deck design around.
Stoneforge Mystic is a powerful card, no question. The closest analogy I can think of for her is Goblin Matron (effect wise). However, seeing her across from you, on any turn, is really not that scary. She is a SLOW clock (minimum 4 turns), she comes down on turn 2 unprotected (win on turn 6) or turn 3 protected (win on turn 7), and she can't grab the one card that could actually qualify as a toolbox card: Umezawa's Jitte. Swords aren't that scary in a format this fast, this grindy, and this Jund/Junk heavy (funny how Abrupt Decay could keep many of the permanents on the banned list in check, right?).
Yes I'm aware t2 Lil is scary (but you need a deck built with dorks and ways to take advantage of Lil's discard like bob or souls), as is t3 karn (in a deck designed to maximize its chance of playing t3 Karn). But those decks are built around such interactions (ok maybe Lil not so much), which provides a good sideboard a chance to attack. What do you side in against a SFM deck? Ancient grudge? For its 3-5 artifact cards?
The argument that "You need setup and to be running certain cards to get the scary turn 2 Liliana, turn 3 Karn, turn 3 Wurmcoil Engine, turn 3 Infect win" is flat out wrong because that's exactly what the deck is designed to do! That's like saying that Splinter Twin shouldn't be considered scary because it's built to be a Splinter Twin deck. A Deceiver Exarch at the end of my third turn almost certainly means I lose. That's the extreme. To argue that it's not a scary play because it needs setup is illogical. Siding against SFM, I probably wouldnt'. If my deck folds to a single resolved sword, I need to rethink my deck. It's as simple as that. I need to either go bigger, or hit harder, or deal with it effeciently. This contrived dribble of "I don't know how to deal with this, keep it out of my format!" coming from the same people who say "Dies to removal is not an argument" is getting really old.
I think there are many other safer cards to come off than SFM as of right now.
I'm not going argue safer or less safe. A card is or it isn't.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGO: Stillenacht288
Modern:
Footsteps Hulk
Ascendency Combo
Restore Balance
Ad Nauseam
EDH:
Ghave Lands
Narset Combo
I am going to send an email to Forsythe asking for the unbanning of some cards. I'm only asking for cards that I think they would be willing to unban, so even though I feel that SFM and Preordain would be safe to unban, they don't, so me asking would probably just detract from my other arguements. If anyone has any objections to the following or thinks that it could be phrased better, please let me know.
Dear Aaron Forsythe,
I love Modern. It is my favorite format. But I would like to object to the placement of some cards on the banned list, since they seem like they would help Modern if they came off.
The first card that I think should be unbanned is Ancestral Vision. Ancestral Vision, if you get it in your opening hand, goes off on turn 5. If you draw one later in the game, it is a dead draw. While it is powerful, it is certainly not broken. Without Shardless Agent in Modern, I highly doubt that it would be a broken card in cascade decks, meaning that the only way to use it effectively would be in blue control decks, which are something that Modern currently does not have. If Ancestral Vision was unbanned, it would not warp the metagame. When it was banned in the second Modern banned list, Tom LaPille said that it was because “we chose to take our cues from legacy” and “While not every Jace, the Mind Sculptor deck in Legacy plays Ancestral Vision, a great many of them do.” Modern is not Legacy. This is the same mistake that was made when Legacy was created, assuming that all cards that were restricted in Vintage should be banned in Legacy. Time has shown that that was a bad idea, and that Legacy is different than Vintage. This is even truer for Modern, which doesn't have the same powerful control spells that Legacy has. Modern does not have Force of Will or Jace, the Mind Sculptor. If Modern is supposed to be different from Legacy, which most players think, then cards should not be banned just because they are good in Legacy or because they work well in Legacy with cards that aren’t even legal in Modern. Ancestral Vision will not be abused, and its placement on the banned list is strange.
The second card that should be unbanned is Golgari Grave-Troll. When Tom LaPille explained why it was banned, he said, "If we banned Bridge From Below, players could still use Narcomoeba and Bloodghast to Dread Return enormous creatures. If we banned Narcomoeba, Bloodghast would be a bit slower, but Dread Return would still bring back enormous creatures and Bridge From Below would still make Zombies, and any future creature that comes back from the graveyard cheaply would have the potential to re-break the deck." Both of those scenarios involve the use of Dread Return, which is currently banned. Unbanning Golgari Grave-Troll would not warp the format. Graveyard-hate is common, and cards like Tarmogoyf and Deathrite Shaman are played in many decks. Unbanning Golgari Grave-Troll might create a new dredge deck, but that dredge deck would make the metagame more diverse. Without Dread Return and with graveyard-hate being played in abundance, dredge would not be broken and Golgari Grave-Troll's inclusion on the banned list is unneeded.
The third card that I think should be unbanned is Wild Nacatl. As Erik Lauer said, "Wild Nacatl is a card that just attacks and blocks. It is very unusual to ban such a card." Yes, it is. It can be countered, discarded if your opponent goes first, removed by most removal spells that are run in modern, and quickly is blocked and killed. It is nearly matched by many cards, so unbanning it would not be format warping. Nobody ever got to see whether Zoo would still be the dominant deck without Punishing Fire, maybe it wouldn't. If Zoo still was the best aggro deck, then it should be banned. But it should at least be given a chance. I think that a good comparison to Wild Nacatl would be Tarmogoyf. They are both viewed as the most powerful combat creatures at their respective mana costs. If Tarmogoyf is not deserving of a ban, despite it being better than all of the cards like it at its mana cost, then why should Wild Nacatl be banned for the same reasons?
I hope that you will consider my suggestions and continue to improve the Modern format.
I am going to send an email to Forsythe asking for the unbanning of some cards. I'm only asking for cards that I think they would be willing to unban, so even though I feel that SFM and Preordain would be safe to unban, they don't, so me asking would probably just detract from my other arguements. If anyone has any objections to the following or thinks that it could be phrased better, please let me know.
Although I appreciate your efforts and initiative, I strongly suggest that you write a much shorter and more succinct letter. Forsythe and the rest of the Wizards' employees probably receive hundreds of contacts per day in some form. In that sense, they are very similar to politicians. As anyone who has worked in public policy can attest, the best way to deliver a policy point is in a quick, to-the-point memo. Ideally, you'd want all of your main points in the first paragraph, just in case that's all your audience reads.
You make good points and arguments. Just tighten them up before sending them off.
to be fair, this deck was borderline oppressive. if it had time to gain a foothold in the meta (e.g. the modern season didn't end), it would have seen jund like numbers. but (un)fortunately, rtr came at the end of the standard season and made GBx absurd. being a tempo deck, it had the tools to hold almost every deck at bay while enacting its own game plan. but was nipped at the bud before it could happen.
though personally, i would have preferred tempo mirrors all day rather than midrange mirrors. better player wins
True, but at the end of that interaction the SFM player has a Batterskull in hand, while the Confidant player has nothing.
~ Brian DeMars
The SFM player has a Batterskull stranded in hand for 3 turns, mind you. Still not that scary or disadvantageous.
Footsteps Hulk
Ascendency Combo
Restore Balance
Ad Nauseam
EDH:
Ghave Lands
Narset Combo
I watched the video, and while I disagree with Forsythe, I do realize that it would be really hard to convince Wizards to unban SFM. However, the video confirms what I was saying about Ancestral Vision. It was banned because they were worried about control being too powerful and because it was played in control decks in Legacy. Forsythe said that he though that control would come together after it got used to the metagame. As far as I can see, it hasn't. Unbanning Ancestral Vision would not make control decks overpowered, but it might make them relevant.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Right, thanks to the opponent's removal spell you merely got a 2-for-1 for 1W. You're still up a card, now you don't have to spend a draw step on that Skull, and when that turn 5 comes you will be guaranteed to have a strong play. I feel that consistency is a very powerful thing in this game, and tutors have always pushed their power by making decks more consistent.
~ Brian DeMars
I don't see how people think having a T4 ancestral recall is fair when a T4 attacking batterskull isn't.
Or how Goyf/Bob are perfectly fine power-level-wise for Modern when SFM and AV are not. (The same could be said for several cards on the Ban-list. Like Chrome Mox.)
Personally, i just want the same power-level Extended had in Modern. Lower than Legacy (with an arguably equivalent skill-cap) but, significantly higher than Standard. But, more likely, I just want a ban-list that is consistent.
SFM isn't stronger than Goyf or Bob or Liliana.
I think once we see several more sets with more DRS/VoR power-level cards being added to the pool, we're more likely to see more things come off the list like 'Kut did.
At this point i think they're afraid to skew things. For example, i think the Nacatl ban was to keep the format un-skewed. It wasn't a power-level ban; it couldn't have been with Goyf available. Same with GSZ.
There's really no reason otherwise. (This of course, doesn't apply to things like Clamp and Jitte, which i think are well beyond the power-level of what you could call a Modern card)
Sig courtesy of DOLZero
[82/360] Custom Cube
Blog about the Custom Cube
Lots of cards are 2 for 1s doesn't mean they should be banned. Modern doesn't have many tutors let alone good ones that's why SFM is likely to stay banned. Don't really think we need more cards that just fit right into greedy midrange decks anyway. If you are going to unban cards you need to unban cards that exclusively help aggro or control not cards that you can just jam into jund or pod. Sword of the meek Jace Bitterblossom AV Preordain Nacatyl. Are types of cards that you cant just jam into midrange decks. There are others I just don't want to list them all right now.
Might I direct your attention to Wild Nacatl
.
Again, the Goyf and Nacatl comparison is not quite accurate. Nacatl was banned because it forces you to play some variation of Naya Zoo, which was such an efficient aggro deck that it was pushing out other aggro archetypes from the format. To quote the banning article itself, "This creature is so efficient it is keeping too many other creature decks from being competitive. So, in the interest of diversity, the DCI is banning Wild Nacatl." Emphasis added to the key word. Nacatl was basically, on its own, reducing metagame diversity by demanding that aggro be RGWx.
Goyf, on the other hand, goes into a huge range of decks. He reduces card diversity, true, but he doesn't reduce deck diversity. I don't think Wizards cares too much about card diversity; some cards are allowed to be better than other cards, so long as it doesn't warp the format. Nonrotating formats will always have cards that are superior to other cards - no one wants to see Lightning Bolt banned because poor Shock or Searing Spear doesn't get enough table time. Goyf, even though he is the best at what he does, goes into so many decks that he will likely not ever be banned. And he does that without warping the metagame towards Goyf-based decks!
In certain respects, Wild Nacatl was so good and popular precisely because it evaded Punishing Fire. That card, all by itself, pushed a lot of one drops out of the format and you had to have a darn good explanation for playing a two-toughness creature against a deck that packed Punishing Fire, which saw play across the board (I even recall some UR combo decks playing it at PT Philadelphia).
If the goal was to help push aggro decks, all that was needed was the Punishing Fire ban. As it is, with the additional ban of Wild Nacatl, aggro has been so pushed that it has been pushed out of the format.
Many thanks to HotP Studios. Special thanks to DNC for this great sig.
That wasn't his point. His point was "Goyf is a vanilla creature, so it won't get banned"
Regarding the Wild Nacatl ban, sure, they did it to increase deck diversity. I believe the article used Treefolk Harbringer as an exampleof cards Nacatl was pushing out of the format. How's that working out? Before, there was Zoo and Affinity as the 'good' aggro decks. Now there's neutered Zoo and Affinity as the aggro decks. The ban failed; the least they can do is unban Nacatl to put some faith in the banned list and make Zoo tier 1 again.
I thought Tempo classically predates on Control?
You can't have wolves without rabbits.
Pardon, i was thinking Draw 3 and Suspend 3. I get numbers screwed up pretty consistently on tests and such. I'll read more carefully.
So, that point doesn't have much of a leg to stand on.
As for SFM > Lili and Goyf; (albeit slightly, in your opinion)
I dont' mean to be matter of fact but, Lili and Goyf are played in a higher capacity in Legacy. And even though in a limited environment like Cube things that need other cards to function well (ie SFM, Squee, etc) tend to be lower picks than things that are powerhouses on their own (ie Goyf and Lili); even when i already have a Jitte in my pile (or Batterskull for that matter), i'd still pick Goyf and Lili over SFM.
There are some other factors that go along with this such as: I have the Jitte, no one else does, so SFM is a dead pick for them as well, and the fact that drawing the Jitte nets my opponent V-CA if i also draw into SFM.
But, in a format dominated by DRS and decks that are explosive through their Dorks and tiny creatures (ie Pod); cheap removal is common. I play against a Twin deck locally that MD's Flame Slash, for instance. It's not going to be uncommon for an SFM to be easily answered, I'd say your opponent is incredibly likely to have the removal spell, and if they DON'T have the removal spell (or rather have a high % chance to) they're likely on a deck like Pod or Twin that's just going to look at your Batterskull or Sword and Combo out instead, or Affinity, which has the Infect or Flying route to get by the Batterskull and even has sacrifice shenanigans to make sure you never deal damage with it.
If a consistent T5 Batterskull or T4 active sword were so strong why aren't more decks playing them?
If SFM is so format warping to warrant a ban, why is Steelshaper's Gift allowed in the format or not played in a higher capacity?
What decks does a T3/T5 Batterskull honestly stop dead in its tracks?
Let's look at some popular archetypes:
UW Tron: Batterskull? Too slow Wurmcoil/Eldrazi laugh at your swords your T4 active sword (which you're spending half your potential mana to do) isn't going to race a Gifts-> Unburial Rites
U Tron: Again Wurmcoil outclasses your Batterskull and your Sword and outraces both.
Karn Tron: Read above; with the addition of Karn which, shrugs off even a SoFaI connecting to him (the sword won't proc when aimed at a 'walker)
Jun(d/k): Basically 40% of their deck answers the Mystic between Thoughtseize, Paths, Bolts, Decay, etc. I think they're fine with you getting one 2-1; they're packing cards that are 4-1's.
Affinity: They aren't DEAD to an active Batterskull; but they certainly will need to engage in some shenanigans to push damage through and prevent you from gaining life (i don't believe they'd just fold immediately, which is what i personally believe it would take to keep a card banned)
Zoo(Domain/Naya/Gruul): Yeah, they don't like Batterskull, in the least. But, most already play artifact hate for Affinity/Tron. And not a lot outclasses Batterskull on T3. But there are MD'able answers; and they do play a huge suite of cheap spot-removal that is entirely active on T2-3 (to answer the mystic); and forcing the Batterskull to appear on T5 gives you plenty of time to find reach; again, i don't believe you can simply drop an SFM->Batterskull and call it a day.
If you'd really like me to, i don't mind you throwing me a good Stoneblade (BW or WUb or WU) to test a gauntlet against; in fact, i've been itching to do some play-testing lately. But, i really don't think SFM is banned on power-level reasons. I think it's the stigma of her being part of Caw-blades undeniable dominance; especially considering the fact that Modern is supposed to be transitioned to from standard. I think that down the road, when the card-pool is bigger, we'll see her come off. No popular deck is absolutely dominated by her (she's a powerful play, for sure). But, i believe she would dominate the 2-drop spot in all white decks, which is something the bigger card-pool would help avoid.
TL;DR:
Turning the swords into 2cc equipment makes them a hell of a lot more playable in Modern; and being able to run 3x of them (3 one-of's) + Batterskull is a hell of a package. But, that's assuming no answer in a meta that's filled with answers (very strong answers; Modern's removal is just as strong as Legacy's, just thinner). I think that makes SFM 'fair' albeit powerful. Powerful enough to make it into every white deck. Which means she's ready to come off when she has competition.
------
As an aside, i'd just like to say that this thread is much more bearable now. I'd like to thank the Mods for instating stricter rules and for the time it will take in the future to keeps those rules followed. And everyone for engaging in discourse rather than throwing mud at one another.
Sig courtesy of DOLZero
[82/360] Custom Cube
Blog about the Custom Cube
A. Equipping angel with Feast and Famine and cheating batterskull in to play before getting to untap your lands after combat damage.
B. Play completely terrible and lose because you failed to do anything smart.
Stoneforge is never getting unbanned. Get over it.
Look at it in another way - if Steelshaper's Gift was turned into "Search your library for an equipment card, target opponent then discards a spell" that would be equivalent to this scenario, and it would be busted. That doesn't even account for the case where you don't have the removal spell and subsequently die to jitte eating your creatures, or sword of fire and ice 2 for 1'ing you.
As it's been said, SFM breaks midrange and control strategies in half, and gives whoever opens a hand with her has a huge advantage. Dark Confidant and Tarmogoyf can be traded for 1 for 1 with removal. The only way to trade with a mystic evenly is to spell snare it, or mana leak it on the play.
"Dark Confidant and Tarmogoyf can be traded 1 for 1 with removal. The only way to trade with a (Planeswalker, Kitchen Finks, Lingering Souls, Snapcaster Mage, Thragtusk, Huntmaster of the Fells, Grave Titan, etc) is to (counter it) on the play."
Okay, so we've established that spell-creatures are powerful. In raw card advantage, she's no worse than what I've listed. If anything, she'll punish decks that run removal and not counterspells, which could be a good thing seeing as the counterspells in this format are incredibly fair compared to the removal in the format.
Footsteps Hulk
Ascendency Combo
Restore Balance
Ad Nauseam
EDH:
Ghave Lands
Narset Combo
Bloodbraid Elf: 3/2 Haste creature that plays a second random spell without even resolving in decks full of back-breaking spells.
Stoneforge Mystic: 1/2 Creature that "casts" one specific spell when it resolves and enters the battlefield. It then has the ability to "cast" a second spell the next turn if it survives.
To recap: One is stopped by Trickbind, Mindbreak Trap, and Counterflux and/or multiple counterspells/removal and who's second effect is a total wildcard, while the other is stopped by a single counterspell, or heavily slowed down (i.e. made fair) by a removal spell. You can't compare the two.
EDIT: Not to mention, of course, that we ALREADY HAVE a 4/4 uncounterable creature in the format.
Footsteps Hulk
Ascendency Combo
Restore Balance
Ad Nauseam
EDH:
Ghave Lands
Narset Combo
Planeswalkers in general cost more than SFM, as does finks (which can be profitably interacted with), souls, snappy into flashback (and is terrible without the mana to flashback a spell), tusk (which doesn't even see play), huntmaster, Grave titan (comparing a 2cc card to a 6cc is not fair).
Not only is she giving you +1 card if you don't counter her (barring something like electrolyze), the card is not randomly selected from the deck. The card is from her powerful toolbox, how does junk deal with a sword of light and shadow? Or control deal with Feast and famine/skull? Combo is the only deck that doesn't mind too much, but the SFM player does not have to immediately throw something out, they can wait hold counterspells and throw it out when it is safe to do.
I feel like Stoneforge is a deceptively powerful card, there is really no comparable card that does as much as her and provides her level of options. That comes down as early as her (someone laying a t2 SFM against you on the play is horrible to view in modern what can you do? Spell snare it?), and that doesn't require much deck design around.
Yes I'm aware t2 Lil is scary (but you need a deck built with dorks and ways to take advantage of Lil's discard like bob or souls), as is t3 karn (in a deck designed to maximize its chance of playing t3 Karn). But those decks are built around such interactions (ok maybe Lil not so much), which provides a good sideboard a chance to attack. What do you side in against a SFM deck?
Ancient grudge? For its 3-5 artifact cards?
I think there are many other safer cards to come off than SFM as of right now.
Stoneforge Mystic costs 2. Sure. It also costs 2 to activate. "But it's over 2 turns!" So is the advantage granted by Finks, and Lingering Souls.
"Her powerful toolbox" is a set or artifacts, barring Batterskull, that do NOTHING on their own. They are effective useless without the creatures holding them. A "toolbox" is a set of cards that deal with things. (Non-Living weapon) Equipment inherently do nothing until equipped. Even ignoring that fact, what exactly does a SoFeast and Famine do against Jund/Junk? How does it save you? Give you a blocker? That's very weak. Give you a way to attack through their blockers? Sure, but that's assuming both players have established threats and neither hold answers (ie, a late game standstill), in which case that power level is perfectly acceptable. Sure, you can fetch up a Batterskull against an aggro deck, but every aggro deck in the format is running removal. They'll clear a path through you SFM regardless of what creature it was, in which case your batterskull is hitting turn 5, 1 turn after the fundamental turn in the format.
So, combo doesn't care what you're doing, and Stoneforge Mystic is just another finisher in this matchup? Welcome to non-rotating formats!
Stoneforge Mystic is a powerful card, no question. The closest analogy I can think of for her is Goblin Matron (effect wise). However, seeing her across from you, on any turn, is really not that scary. She is a SLOW clock (minimum 4 turns), she comes down on turn 2 unprotected (win on turn 6) or turn 3 protected (win on turn 7), and she can't grab the one card that could actually qualify as a toolbox card: Umezawa's Jitte. Swords aren't that scary in a format this fast, this grindy, and this Jund/Junk heavy (funny how Abrupt Decay could keep many of the permanents on the banned list in check, right?).
The argument that "You need setup and to be running certain cards to get the scary turn 2 Liliana, turn 3 Karn, turn 3 Wurmcoil Engine, turn 3 Infect win" is flat out wrong because that's exactly what the deck is designed to do! That's like saying that Splinter Twin shouldn't be considered scary because it's built to be a Splinter Twin deck. A Deceiver Exarch at the end of my third turn almost certainly means I lose. That's the extreme. To argue that it's not a scary play because it needs setup is illogical. Siding against SFM, I probably wouldnt'. If my deck folds to a single resolved sword, I need to rethink my deck. It's as simple as that. I need to either go bigger, or hit harder, or deal with it effeciently. This contrived dribble of "I don't know how to deal with this, keep it out of my format!" coming from the same people who say "Dies to removal is not an argument" is getting really old.
I'm not going argue safer or less safe. A card is or it isn't.
Footsteps Hulk
Ascendency Combo
Restore Balance
Ad Nauseam
EDH:
Ghave Lands
Narset Combo
Dear Aaron Forsythe,
I love Modern. It is my favorite format. But I would like to object to the placement of some cards on the banned list, since they seem like they would help Modern if they came off.
The first card that I think should be unbanned is Ancestral Vision. Ancestral Vision, if you get it in your opening hand, goes off on turn 5. If you draw one later in the game, it is a dead draw. While it is powerful, it is certainly not broken. Without Shardless Agent in Modern, I highly doubt that it would be a broken card in cascade decks, meaning that the only way to use it effectively would be in blue control decks, which are something that Modern currently does not have. If Ancestral Vision was unbanned, it would not warp the metagame. When it was banned in the second Modern banned list, Tom LaPille said that it was because “we chose to take our cues from legacy” and “While not every Jace, the Mind Sculptor deck in Legacy plays Ancestral Vision, a great many of them do.” Modern is not Legacy. This is the same mistake that was made when Legacy was created, assuming that all cards that were restricted in Vintage should be banned in Legacy. Time has shown that that was a bad idea, and that Legacy is different than Vintage. This is even truer for Modern, which doesn't have the same powerful control spells that Legacy has. Modern does not have Force of Will or Jace, the Mind Sculptor. If Modern is supposed to be different from Legacy, which most players think, then cards should not be banned just because they are good in Legacy or because they work well in Legacy with cards that aren’t even legal in Modern. Ancestral Vision will not be abused, and its placement on the banned list is strange.
The second card that should be unbanned is Golgari Grave-Troll. When Tom LaPille explained why it was banned, he said, "If we banned Bridge From Below, players could still use Narcomoeba and Bloodghast to Dread Return enormous creatures. If we banned Narcomoeba, Bloodghast would be a bit slower, but Dread Return would still bring back enormous creatures and Bridge From Below would still make Zombies, and any future creature that comes back from the graveyard cheaply would have the potential to re-break the deck." Both of those scenarios involve the use of Dread Return, which is currently banned. Unbanning Golgari Grave-Troll would not warp the format. Graveyard-hate is common, and cards like Tarmogoyf and Deathrite Shaman are played in many decks. Unbanning Golgari Grave-Troll might create a new dredge deck, but that dredge deck would make the metagame more diverse. Without Dread Return and with graveyard-hate being played in abundance, dredge would not be broken and Golgari Grave-Troll's inclusion on the banned list is unneeded.
The third card that I think should be unbanned is Wild Nacatl. As Erik Lauer said, "Wild Nacatl is a card that just attacks and blocks. It is very unusual to ban such a card." Yes, it is. It can be countered, discarded if your opponent goes first, removed by most removal spells that are run in modern, and quickly is blocked and killed. It is nearly matched by many cards, so unbanning it would not be format warping. Nobody ever got to see whether Zoo would still be the dominant deck without Punishing Fire, maybe it wouldn't. If Zoo still was the best aggro deck, then it should be banned. But it should at least be given a chance. I think that a good comparison to Wild Nacatl would be Tarmogoyf. They are both viewed as the most powerful combat creatures at their respective mana costs. If Tarmogoyf is not deserving of a ban, despite it being better than all of the cards like it at its mana cost, then why should Wild Nacatl be banned for the same reasons?
I hope that you will consider my suggestions and continue to improve the Modern format.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Although I appreciate your efforts and initiative, I strongly suggest that you write a much shorter and more succinct letter. Forsythe and the rest of the Wizards' employees probably receive hundreds of contacts per day in some form. In that sense, they are very similar to politicians. As anyone who has worked in public policy can attest, the best way to deliver a policy point is in a quick, to-the-point memo. Ideally, you'd want all of your main points in the first paragraph, just in case that's all your audience reads.
You make good points and arguments. Just tighten them up before sending them off.