This thread was automatically marked as Locked.
Quote from RitaCornyMichaelMy 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.
Quote from Fargsby
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.
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.
Quote from HorseshoeCrabTrue, but at the end of that interaction the SFM player has a Batterskull in hand, while the Confidant player has nothing.
Quote from bocephusIts a couple years old, but its how AF sees SFM.
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.
Quote from JaceTheWalletShredder
Ehrmagersh, a new deck is doing well. Breakz out de banhammerz!
Quote from MusicismyvoiceThe SFM player has a Batterskull stranded in hand for 3 turns, mind you. Still not that scary or disadvantageous.
Quote from ValanarchI 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.
Quote from HorseshoeCrabRight, 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.
Quote from BaconCatBugAgreed, Goyf will never be banned, mainly because it's not banworthy. It's a very good Vanilla creature and that's all it is.
Quote from bocephusCost one less then tinker and has legs (I wont even go into the extra cost for tinker)... To me thats better.
Quote from FargsbyI 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)
Quote from honestabeMight I direct your attention to Wild Nacatl
Quote from ktkenshinxAgain, 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!
Quote from germanturkeyeh, 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).
Ancestral Vision resolves on turn 5, if suspended on turn 1
Quote from Badd BusinessPeople 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.
Quote from BlackJack68 »But whomever your commander is, Cabal Coffers is really in charge.
Quote from FeaorIf 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.
Quote from Musicismyvoice"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.
Quote from NixernatorPlaneswalkers 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.
Quote from ValanarchI 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.